PDA

View Full Version : "Home Taping is killing music"



DannyL
18-03-2010, 08:56 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3jkUhG68wY&feature=player_embedded

Quite amusing 80s parody video comissioned by TalkTalk (the ISP, not the band) to publicise it's campaigh against the draconian Digital Economy Bill. The comments are worth reading - I had no idea that this backwards step was so close to becoming law.

Can't imagine it will really go through - wil it?

mistersloane
18-03-2010, 09:31 AM
It's been passed already, just some of the dodgier bits have been held back :

Critics have pointed to the fact that the bill also grants Peter Mandelson, First Secretary of State, unlimited power to enforce copyright by bringing into law any measure relating to file-sharing on the Internet, without the consent of Parliament.

Eek. Best be nice to Mandy if you see him on the Heath.

Richard Carnage
18-03-2010, 12:47 PM
This video sort of misses the point though. What about all the struggling young artists trying to fund additional equipment and software, never mind supporting themselves on an income from music.

crackerjack
18-03-2010, 01:15 PM
The home taping analogy is utter fraud and anyone who offers it up in any seriousness should be marched from the building, bound and gagged until the argument is over.

muser
18-03-2010, 04:50 PM
This video sort of misses the point though. What about all the struggling young artists trying to fund additional equipment and software, never mind supporting themselves on an income from music.

software is as pirated as music, and who needs equipment when you've got software. :D

From what it sounds like the law will basically mean that if your ISP discovers you have been downloading a song without rights (I think it will only work with "water marked" mp3s) then they will send you a warning letter. If you get something like 5 letters you may have you're bandwidth limited or be taken off the internet, thats after a court trial to proove you've been illegally downloading. ISPs obviously aren't happy about this and probably will make it as rare as possible anyway, aswell as the EU law that's been passed saying having an internet connection is now part of our fundamental human rights..

Whole things a bit of a desperate farce by the music industry. Even if they had a more comprehensive strategy to stopping illegal downloading there technology is only as good as the next hackers ability to find a way to get passed it.

massrock
18-03-2010, 04:53 PM
Even if they had a more comprehensive strategy to stopping illegal downloading there technology for stopping it is only as good as the next hackers ability to find a way to get passed it.
If what you say there is correct then I think even something like an encrypted .zip file would suffice.

massrock
18-03-2010, 04:55 PM
Critics have pointed to the fact that the bill also grants Peter Mandelson, First Secretary of State, unlimited power to enforce copyright by bringing into law any measure relating to file-sharing on the Internet, without the consent of Parliament.
It's this sort of provision for unlimited alteration to legislation without oversight that you've really got to keep an eye on.

muser
18-03-2010, 04:59 PM
If what you say there is correct then I think even something like an encrypted .zip file would suffice.

Yes I think so, its probably possible to look in these when they have been uploaded but since no-one really is interested in co-operating with the music industry they are going to have a hard time getting the laws to make the file sharing sites do it, and as I say if they did people would still get past it. This generation of music consumers (anyone up to their early 20's) have been brought up on free music, the industry really doesn't have a hope.

massrock
18-03-2010, 05:04 PM
What do you mean crackerjack?

I thought the analogy was simply that the 'music industry' has always periodically shat its pants wrt new music distribution technologies and that the best policy has always turned out to be working with the new technology and its consequences rather than desperately trying to control things, wind back the clock and tell people what to do / threaten customers. No?

See iTunes dropping DRM for example.

massrock
18-03-2010, 05:13 PM
Taping Home Killing is Music

cobretti
18-03-2010, 05:21 PM
If what you say there is correct then I think even something like an encrypted .zip file would suffice.

There are already lots of private torrent trackers and no doubt newsgroups that insist every release/download is encrypted in to tens of small rar files which combine to make the whole once you've downloaded the torrent/folder/zip file, if folk are already that paranoid about copyright groups and the like, it's very unlikely that anything provided by the slow moving legal system will ever catch up to the pace at which piracy and technology evolves.

Sectionfive
18-03-2010, 05:28 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=up863eQKGUI

owengriffiths
18-03-2010, 06:17 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=up863eQKGUI

kid looks like a younger version of mighty mo

crackerjack
18-03-2010, 10:57 PM
What do you mean crackerjack?

I thought the analogy was simply that the 'music industry' has always periodically shat its pants wrt new music distribution technologies and that the best policy has always turned out to be working with the new technology and its consequences rather than desperately trying to control things, wind back the clock and tell people what to do / threaten customers. No?

See iTunes dropping DRM for example.

That's precisely how I understand the analogy and precisely why I think it's bollocks. Do I really have to explain why?

I don't know how seriously people took the 'threat' of home-taping at the time, but I guess the answer is 'not very' and it was a short-term preemptive strike in defence of the copyright principle. It benefited - or at least, didn't harm - the industry because it required at least one of your close-ish friends to own a copy and for you to buy a cassette (decent quality: approx 1-2) go round to tape it (or give them the tape and trust them to deliver). All for something that would regularly wear out or snap after a few dozen listens.

Compare with now, where your friend is the whole world and his collection is everything ever made, delivered in decent quality in a few minutes. And if you can't see the difference, then Guy Hands has a company he'd like to sell you.

By the way, as I understand, it's not the 'music industry' that's appealing for this legislation, it's the record industry. One has a future; the other, as things stand, doesn't.

Ory
19-03-2010, 01:42 AM
There are already lots of private torrent trackers and no doubt newsgroups that insist every release/download is encrypted in to tens of small rar files which combine to make the whole once you've downloaded the torrent/folder/zip file, if folk are already that paranoid about copyright groups and the like, it's very unlikely that anything provided by the slow moving legal system will ever catch up to the pace at which piracy and technology evolves.

just want to point out that the reason for split RAR/ZIP archives is not security (RAR-splitting by itself does nothing to mask the contents of a file), but rather (primarily) to keep the filesize manageable.

say you wanted to transfer a 1GB file over FTP. the nature of FTP dictates that if something were to fuck up during the transfer, you'd have to redownload the entire file. if it's split into pieces, you're fine with redownloading the individual chunk(s) that failed. (with the bittorrent protocol, this isn't a problem, since the whole point of torrents is to "small-chunk" data so you can download from multiple sources simultaneously)

anyway... as a standard, music releases aren't split-RARed (or RARed at all even), since mp3s are tiny to begin with.

massrock
19-03-2010, 09:15 AM
That's precisely how I understand the analogy and precisely why I think it's bollocks. Do I really have to explain why?
No, you don't have to explain what you meant, it's up to you. I asked because I didn't think it was clear, sorry if that's offensive in some way. For one thing you didn't say that the 'analogy' was 'bollocks' , you called it 'utter fraud' ('and anyone...'), which would seem to imply something else. You also referred to 'the argument', but which argument exactly? There are a number of issues and 'sides' involved.


I don't know how seriously people took the 'threat' of home-taping at the time, but I guess the answer is 'not very' and it was a short-term preemptive strike in defence of the copyright principle. It benefited - or at least, didn't harm - the industry because it required at least one of your close-ish friends to own a copy and for you to buy a cassette (decent quality: approx 1-2) go round to tape it (or give them the tape and trust them to deliver). All for something that would regularly wear out or snap after a few dozen listens.

Compare with now, where your friend is the whole world and his collection is everything ever made, delivered in decent quality in a few minutes. And if you can't see the difference, then Guy Hands has a company he'd like to sell you.

By the way, as I understand, it's not the 'music industry' that's appealing for this legislation, it's the record industry. One has a future; the other, as things stand, doesn't.
Yes of course there are differences in the situations, there always are. But home taping didn't kill music, nor did sampling, drum machines or the gramophone, and neither, presumably, will the internet. So while that 'analogy' (really I think it's just being used because it's a convenient pre-existing meme) may not be an especially close one, I can agree with that basic similarity.

By the way, debt repayments aside, isn't EMI operating at a profit? i.e. despite everything they are still selling music.

crackerjack
19-03-2010, 10:33 AM
No, you don't have to explain what you meant, it's up to you. I asked because I didn't think it was clear, sorry if that's offensive in some way. For one thing you didn't say that the 'analogy' was 'bollocks' , you called it 'utter fraud' ('and anyone...'), which would seem to imply something else. You also referred to 'the argument', but which argument exactly? There are a number of issues and 'sides' involved.

The argument that because the 'home taping is killing music' campaign was a silly farce the current record industry scare campaign can be similarly disregarded. I don't find it 'offensive', just impossible to believe that anyone could advance it in good faith.


Yes of course there are differences in the situations, there always are. But home taping didn't kill music, nor did sampling, drum machines or the gramophone, and neither, presumably, will the internet.


Nothing will kill music, it's the record industry that's under threat. If you have good reasons (other than these rather weak analogies, or pre-existing memes, if you prefer) why this isn't the case, I know scores of people who'd love to hear them.


By the way, debt repayments aside, isn't EMI operating at a profit?


Yep, it's called downsizing - 2,000 lay-offs to return to profit after a huge loss the previous year. Here (http://www.ifpi.org/content/library/Recorded-Music-Sales-2008.pdf) are the most recent revenue figures the IFPI have posted, 8% down on the previous year, which was 8% down on the year before that, which was 5% down on etc etc. (Bear in mind the increasing market share of amazon and supermarkets in the UK means you now have to sell more to make less - no idea how that applies to iTunes, or other markets, but I'd be surprised if it was significantly different).

massrock
19-03-2010, 10:41 AM
So it's the continued survival in unaltered form of large bloated record companies that concerns you?

massrock
19-03-2010, 10:42 AM
The argument that because the 'home taping is killing music' campaign was a silly farce the current record industry scare campaign can be similarly disregarded. I don't find it 'offensive', just impossible to believe that anyone could advance it in good faith.
I didn't advance any analogy, I just asked you a question what you meant. Is it my analogy?

But even so I do think it's similar from say TalkTalk's (and consumers, and most artists tbh) point of view, i.e. it's not and never was MUSIC that's under threat, which I guess we agree on.

massrock
19-03-2010, 10:46 AM
The 'record industry' that has always given artists and consumers such a good deal.

massrock
19-03-2010, 10:46 AM
Either way, trying to hold back the flow of information, bullying 'consumers' and introducing dangerous legislation is not the way to ensure survival.

wascal
19-03-2010, 10:54 AM
Taping Home Killing is Music

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/0/01/Charles_Manson_-_Lie-_The_Love_%26_Terror_Cult.jpg/200px-Charles_Manson_-_Lie-_The_Love_%26_Terror_Cult.jpg ?

crackerjack
19-03-2010, 11:29 AM
I didn't advance any analogy, I just asked you a question what you meant. Is it my analogy?

Did I say it was? I used the word before you even entered the thread - it was aimed at Talk Talk specifically and the myriad people down the years who've advanced it on blogs, in columns and conversation.


So it's the continued survival in unaltered form of large bloated record companies that concerns you?


Yes, of course, that and the continued survival of the support industries - purveyors of "champagne and flowers", stretch limos, that kind of gubbins. I believe it's traditional for those on the "freetard" side of the fence to mention U2 at this point....:rolleyes:

massrock
19-03-2010, 11:40 AM
(Bear in mind the increasing market share of amazon and supermarkets in the UK means you now have to sell more to make less - no idea how that applies to iTunes, or other markets, but I'd be surprised if it was significantly different).
Isn't that further indication that music is still being purchased?

massrock
19-03-2010, 11:41 AM
Yes, of course
Seriously, in unaltered form?

massrock
19-03-2010, 11:42 AM
What is the 'record industry' being discussed here though? A small number of large slow moving old firms run by greedy fuckers who've exploited artists and consumers for too long and have in their hubris failed to adapt to new conditions.

The majority of artists have nothing to do with that and would most likely be better off if it didn't exist at all. Music certainly doesn't need it.

massrock
19-03-2010, 11:45 AM
Did I say it was?
When I wondered if my asking you to clarify your post had been 'offensive' you said 'I don't find it 'offensive', just impossible to believe that anyone could advance it in good faith.'. Maybe a misunderstanding then.

I believe it's traditional for those on the "freetard" side of the fence to mention U2 at this point....:rolleyes:
Presumably this isn't aimed at me either.

What is that supposed to mean though? Again, another insinuation, and I have no idea what you're talking about.

crackerjack
19-03-2010, 11:54 AM
Seriously, in unaltered form?

No.


What is the 'record industry' being discussed here though? A small number of large slow moving old firms run by greedy fuckers who've exploited artists and consumers for too long and have in their hubris failed to adapt to new conditions.

The majority of artists have nothing to do with that and would most likely be better off if it didn't exist at all. Music certainly doesn't need it.

This is a cartoon version of the music industry, a reflection of it at its worst. I realise this is a deeply unfashionable thing to say in places like this, but the majority of people staffing the industry are every bit as passionate about their music as people here. The further down the ladder you go, the truer this becomes. These people are hurting far more than those you describe, but rarely get a look-in in this debate.

massrock
19-03-2010, 11:55 AM
One fact is you CANNOT stop information being freely available, that horse bolted long ago. I also happen personally to believe that even were it possible it would not be desirable to do so for some quite wide ranging reasons.

So those with sense have realised that you have to engage with other ways of operating a music business. That can mean other ways of supporting artistic endeavours, and it can mean working with audiences in different ways to help them want to pay for music and related products. I'm certainly not talking about U2, or Radiohead or even Nine Inch Nails. Maybe Marillion or Neubauten are worth paying to attention to though... But even then of course those are established names. The 'music industry' as you talk about has done fuck all and means fuck all to the majority of producers and performers and those are the people who are pioneering new ways of working. It's not easy but there's really no choice, and of course smaller operation are in a better position to do that.

massrock
19-03-2010, 11:56 AM
This is a cartoon version of the music industry, a reflection of it at its worst. I realise this is a deeply unfashionable thing to say in places like this, but the majority of people staffing the industry are every bit as passionate about their music as people here. The further down the ladder you go, the truer this becomes. These people are hurting far more than those you describe, but rarely get a look-in in this debate.
It's not their fault though. Neither mismanagement nor the march of time and change.

massrock
19-03-2010, 12:08 PM
Things would look quite different now if the big entertainment companies had been quicker to embrace digital distribution instead of faffing around fuming about Napster or whatever. MP3.com was around way before P2P took off anyway so that future was certainly visible to some. Of course with their track record no-one would seriously expect those companies to have done this and they didn't. So Apple stepped in, for one thing.

I do think subscription services might have a future, but again it seems it's hard for the majors to swallow.

Slothrop
19-03-2010, 12:19 PM
One fact is you CANNOT stop information being freely available, that horse bolted long ago.
I basically agree with this, but it has nothing to do with the home taping analogy, which is facile and stupid. It seems pretty obvious that unless something ludicrously heavy-handed is done to stem the free flow of information around the net, there are going to be some pretty fundamental changes to how and when people get paid for their music and hence to the structure of the industry. This could be a good thing in the long run, but it is something that's really happening and not just industry alarmism.

crackerjack
19-03-2010, 12:25 PM
Things would look quite different now if the big entertainment companies had been quicker to embrace digital distribution instead of faffing around fuming about Napster or whatever. MP3.com was around way before P2P took off anyway so that future was certainly visible to some. Of course with their track record no-one would seriously expect those companies to have done this and they didn't. So Apple stepped in, for one thing.

I do think subscription services might have a future, but again it seems it's hard for the majors to swallow.

Sure, I'm certainly not here to deny that the industry as a whole has dropped several massive bollocks in their (mis)handling of the internet. The track record of Spotify so far is that people won't pay for what they can get for free and the money record companies (and therefore artists) make from it is less than peanuts. The industry quite likes it, cos it is at least some money (something like .01p per play, I was told) and some have shares in it, though Warners are already talking of pulling their stuff.

The bottom line still hasn't changed - you cannot compete with free. Again, if you know of these new models you allude to I'd love to know what they are (unless it's simply touring more or selling more t-shirts).

massrock
19-03-2010, 12:45 PM
I basically agree with this, but it has nothing to do with the home taping analogy, which is facile and stupid. It seems pretty obvious that unless something ludicrously heavy-handed is done to stem the free flow of information around the net, there are going to be some pretty fundamental changes to how and when people get paid for their music and hence to the structure of the industry. This could be a good thing in the long run, but it is something that's really happening and not just industry alarmism.
Yes it's happening, things are changing, have changed, but it's not killing music.

And actually music is still selling, and indeed people are still getting paid. Maybe some of the ways in which people have traditionally expected to be paid are no longer realistic, if they ever were. At the ground level of production for a long time now many artists have accepted that they are not going to get any meaningful support from the 'industry'. This has probably saved a lot of people from getting caught up in restrictive contracts and advance debts. You might have to do other jobs, for the vast majority that was always the case anyway, but the costs of music production and distribution are much lower now, for one thing.

massrock
19-03-2010, 01:02 PM
Sure, I'm certainly not here to deny that the industry as a whole has dropped several massive bollocks in their (mis)handling of the internet.
Even long before that though the good will of music listeners was abused for over a decade by the artificially high prices of CDs. Heck even the introduction of the unnecessary new format in the first place, which was presumably considered a good idea partly because it meant that people would buy the music in their collections again! What a wheeze.

And how about the effect of the marketing dominance of the major companies and broadcast networks obscuring music that had it had more exposure could have found a larger engaged audience? Maybe that's another argument but if audiences have been ripped off and sold short then music has been devalued and it's not surprising it's got to a point where many growing up now don't see the point in paying for it.

massrock
19-03-2010, 01:08 PM
And I think you can compete with free. Offer people something they actually want and help them feel a connection to it and they'll see a reason to pay for it. Or rather, I don't think it's simply that music is theoretically available for 'free' that people don't see why they should pay for it.

Sectionfive
21-05-2010, 12:41 PM
98,000 albums were released in 2009, with only 2 per cent selling over 5,000 copies. (http://www.prefixmag.com/news/narm-conference-numbers-2-of-albums-released-last-/40547/)

Sectionfive
25-08-2010, 01:16 AM
Couldn't find the right thread for this stuff but interesting none the less.

The 10 Most Disastrous Music Industry Deals... (http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/081710toptendeals)