bigsteve Posted July 26, 2008 Report Share Posted July 26, 2008 I'm sure everyone has heard about the ISPs writing to illegal downloaders and I was wondering how this would affect downloading mixes, from, say, this site. Also, would this make downloading radio shows (originally broadcast from the internet or otherwise) that have been uploaded to Megaupload, Rapidshare, etc liable to a warning from your ISP? Somehow downloading a mix doesn't seem the same as downloading a track in its entirety. It seems to me the thing has been done for publicity than anything else. After all, if an ISP was to warn someone 3 times, would they ever terminate someone's use of the internet? They would be losing customers. And what's to stop you going to another ISP? Would you go on a blacklist? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7486743.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Posted July 26, 2008 Report Share Posted July 26, 2008 OMG..............ur alive m8!! hows it goin man? u goin to armin on 19th sept? i ve got ma ticket!! cant wait!! to answer ur question...nah, its all threats hehe! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chrissie Brown Posted July 26, 2008 Report Share Posted July 26, 2008 Great to see you on here again Steve, you've been missed. I've just been reading about this and also have the same concerns. I use Newmixes for any shows/sets l've missed and sometimes l download them onto my computer. I paid a "one off fee"in order to download music so l'm wondering how this will work in future. Also the mixes we download on this site. :confused: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spin Doctor Posted July 26, 2008 Report Share Posted July 26, 2008 In my view, we shouldn't have too much to worry about here. Firstly, a good 95% (at a conservative estimate!) of the music on offer here is ripped from radio broadcasts which we could have quite easily recorded at home for our own use. Most of these are from the BBC. Most of these are old. Most of us have already paid our licence fee so have injected money back into the music industry through broadcast licences. My point is, BBC Judge Jules sets from the late-90's to mid 2000's doesn't equate to a dent in Universal Music/EMI/Virgin's bank balances because we're not sharing the latest bands or CD rips. Secondly, the main focus of this site is archival, not file sharing. It's stated aims are to document and record. Most of the content of the site is track listings and discussion, not freebie music. And once again, we're not file sharing willy nilly. It's done with purpose to a specific aim. While I suppose it is technically illegal in the fullest understanding of the relevant laws, I highly doubt it would be prosecuted, and if it was I doubt it would be successful given the stated aims and nature of the rest of the site. Radio sets, while illegal, essentially aren't what these companies are after. It's chart material getting shared. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonB Posted July 27, 2008 Report Share Posted July 27, 2008 I'm surprised its taken this long from the bpi and cronies to push forward on threats made seemingly 2 or 3 years ago. I still have a bone (or quite abloodey few) to pick with certain labels especially warner when it comes to downloads, simply ,example, all Linkin parks stuff available to download on 7 Digtalis 256 quality not 320, er why not? if EMI can offer everything at 320 why Can't Warner? TThey still havent got it right yet so I for one will shun anything Warner on the download from andbuy it on cd instead, unless thats just 256 quality burnt to cd Its itunes fault for so much downloadablemusic still not being as high a bit rate as it should be, hell they arew the one s who popularised 128 quality for79p, teenagers buy thekost music, porbably havent got a clue anddownload regardlesss. Yes I am talking about pop music, rock etc.. why cant we legally download this stuff as 320 quality? Evenafew dancebuits andbobs arent 320 either,example, thenew Annie release isnt available as 320, annoyingly some good remixes, but will have to buy on cd,which is fair dos but missing the point downloads wise?! Illegal downloading wise via p2p soulseek etc... well for dancemusic, youre very rarely going to find stuff of 320 quality on there its all below that! pop music wise same quality as itunes Last bit,a friend never buys anything, he downloads album after album for free he doesnt feel bad about doing so, he is unemployed, hes been doing it for years, be interestintg to see if his isp contacts him. My main gripe with downloadsis still this: make everything available at 320 quality yeseven pop rock classical the bloodey lot! retarded heads of big labels idiiots! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quadrant Posted July 27, 2008 Report Share Posted July 27, 2008 In my view, we shouldn't have too much to worry about here.Radio sets, while illegal, essentially aren't what these companies are after. It's chart material getting shared. I totally agree sir! It's the latest tracks and chart stuff - all the new tunes from all genres that they want to stop people sharing on day 1 of its release on p2p file sharing platforms surely, ie standalone programs you install to lift music from other people. Having said that, this is all very well but they havent said how they plan to do this - I mean, what have they asked the ISPs to watch? What programs are covered, how long for, up to what limit.... it all seems a bit vague to me. And slightly big brother-ish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigsteve Posted July 27, 2008 Author Report Share Posted July 27, 2008 The responses above are pretty much was I expecting / hoping for. I never have and never will use file sharing programs. I quite often download Armin's ASOT to keep me entertained during the week on the bus and train. This has the effect of introducing me to new tunes that I might go and purchase. Therefore, this is a sale for the music industry that might not otherwise happen. The sets on here are an amazing archive and testament to Jules's R1 era and whilst I haven't downloaded many, I know they are here for whenever I get round to downloading them. This is all very much Big Brother, and, presumably this means an ISP can monitor any site you visit. Surely they'd be better going for paedophiles and terrorists? Also, isn't copying a file illegal? Therefore, shouldn't it be the person that has made the file iavailable to other the users, the person that is carrying out an illegal action? And what about transferring a file via MSN? Will that be monitorred too? Its all been introduced very quickly with no clear guidance being given. Its certainly going to be something to keep an eye on how it develops. Craig - didn't even know Armin was playing here!! Where is it going to be? I was thinking about going to Newcastle on 22nd Aug to see him, but can't really afford it at the moment. Chrissie - good to come on here! Its always good to be debate issues like this on here, as there's always a good balanced amount of responses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Posted July 28, 2008 Report Share Posted July 28, 2008 hes playin at byblos ngt club in glasgow, 19th sept! be quick 2 get ur ticket tho..near sellout. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Judge Mental Posted July 31, 2008 Report Share Posted July 31, 2008 Is anyone actually worried? Haven't had any letters from Virgin yet, just think how many people actually download stuff illegaly. There's not enough policemen in Britain to make an impact on it unless you are really taking the p***. I know there may be a few producers on here, but I'm giving a stern middle finger to the record industry in general. I've spent thousands on records in the past, and to be perfectly honest its an absolute ripoff. The way I see it is, I can't really afford to buy loads of new tunes every week, even though I have a job. So what harm am I doing downloading music that I wouldn't be paying for or letting people hear, when I DO pay for tunes I really like. You have to look at record companies charging £15 for an album to see who is really stealing, and shooting theirselves in the foot as a consequence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Posted August 1, 2008 Report Share Posted August 1, 2008 im still payin for all the vinyl i bought ages ago.... i was ripped off big-time!!! grrr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.