File sharers are good customers: 2 studies

[GhostShip]

And we all want those fat record companies to get rich don't we Pri, well actually I don't, I would rather more of the money went to the artist than some recording industry shylock.

Another issue that Pri hasn't mentioned is the way record companies steal from consumers by forever barraging politicians to increase the term of copyright, thus works which would normally fall into the public domain are hijacked by fat lazy recording industry execs and their accountants and cash demanded, thieves by any other name.

Its your opinion that no one needs to download a sample but lets be honest all of the suggested methods you claim for accessing a sample are of recent vintage and are there because p2p forced them to compete and provide something they had previously refused to.

Many artists have in the past benefitted from my support and even the recording industry scum have gleaned  many thousands of my pounds,  I pay for what I like and currently I,m not listening to their output because I will not purchase them out of conscience, why put money in the hands of desperado's and fraudsters.

On the point of your apps being stolen when you provide a free version with ads then you have my sympathy, that is really a low trick when you have done your best to be inclusive of all pockets.

[Pri]

I've not bought any Music for well since at-least 2001 I think. I just don't think Music is worth paying for. That's me though. I also don't agree with the extension of copyright that some like Paul McCartney have fought to receive.

And I know that things like Youtube are new for sampling but MTV has been around since what 1980's and everyone has a Radio which pumps out tunes 24.7 that predates the internet. I mean there are lots of ways to listen to new artists without downloading their stuff first. I don't support the music industries crusade against file sharers and I do agree that the only reason they are losing money is due to their own stagnation. I also believe that iTunes allowing consumers to buy only the songs they want and not an entire album has hurt revenue and profit even though individual unit sales has more than doubled in the same time period.

Basically what I'm saying is this, the Music Industry has only themselves to blame for any losses they perceive. But do any of you truly believe you need to download an entire album of 14 complete songs in LAME (1:1 CD quality) to 'Sample' it? or that once you have that penultimate copy that you will then buy a 128 KB/ps AAC encode from iTunes or a Physical CD from a shop? -- I find it hard to believe that any of you would bother. And as I've already said I've not bought any music since 2001.

I don't buy many Movies or TV Shows either. In-fact I've not bought any DVDs since about 2003 and I've bought only a single Bluray. I just don't like physical media and I certainly don't like supporting this industry that is hell bent on taking away all our rights online just to quell a little piracy.

Hopefully things like the Digital Economy Bill in the UK will be a thing of the past in the years to come if we keep petitioning our governments for real tangible freedom and not just this falsehood we currently have.

[GhostShip]

I like to think if folks are enjoying music from an artist they will support that artist by purchasing media or going to concerts etc, its not fair to simply say I want everything for nothing if you truly feel a specific piece of music "moves" you in some way. We have all given back to the artists by making such purchases as we enjoy, digital downloads on the other hand alone are a poor substitute for a great package with some images and blurb about the group, I know I have purchased many recordings and remixes just to obtain such material, packaging is an important part of the industry and paying over the odds for a simple digital download tune that has no packaging and a limited lifespan in a lot of cases is money poured down the drain, a better model would be those who purchase downloads over the internet should be offered the physical media at a very small extra cost  if they purchase the whole album, as currently the cost of obtaining one single after the other adds up to much more than purchasing the physical media does in the first place, and whatever anyone says there's no substitute for "owning" something as opposed to nothing. 

[beerslayer]

But do any of you truly believe you need to download an entire album of 14 complete songs in LAME (1:1 CD quality) to 'Sample' it? or that once you have that penultimate copy that you will then buy a 128 KB/ps AAC encode from iTunes or a Physical CD from a shop? -- I find it hard to believe that any of you would bother.

What I wouldn't bother doing is taking the time to download anything in 1:1 quality.  If I'm checking out something new, 128bit mp3 is more than sufficient, and downloads much quicker.  And I will buy, and have often bought, "legitimate" physical CDs based upon something I downloaded and liked.  Again, that's income the RIAA and the agents would not have had had I not "pirated" the item first.

As for YouTube, why should I view a video when all I care about is the music?

[DaBees-Knees]

Piracy started due to high retail pricing and exploitation of it's customers by the entertainment industry. Now piracy has become ingrained in some people. Who do I blame? The industry itself.

We all know the over charging that came about with the advent of CD's. This hyped pricing didn't benefit the creative artists in the vast majority of cases, just the distribution industry. People will always look for alternatives if they feel exploited and in this case technology came along and provided that alternative. Where do we go from here? To be honest I have no idea, but trying to make criminals out of customers certainly won't help.

Probably giving the public something that is perceived as value for money is the way to go.

A bit off topic ...... sorry.