Mandy gets tough

[dujas]

The mainstream film and music industry is only interested in one thing - profit. If anyone was interested in it as art, they would embrace whatever means they could to put their art into the hands of as many people as they could. But they aren't - they just want to get rich.

And this is wrong? I imagine the vast majority of people on this planet want to better themselves by increasing their wealth. Creativity has a value because it can be sold and traded (when protected by copyright laws). Publishers pay upfront, gambling potentially millions of pounds for a longer term gain via royalties.

[gizmo71]

And this is wrong? I imagine the vast majority of people on this planet want to better themselves by increasing their wealth. Creativity has a value because it can be sold and traded (when protected by copyright laws).

Creativity had value long before copyright.

Can we honestly say that the vast majority mainstream media has any real artistic value?

[dujas]

Artistic value is largely irrelevant as that is in the "eye of the beholder". In the modern age consumerism is the most important factor, what people will deem worthy of parting with their hard earned cash to obtain. Internet piracy undermines that process but at the same time opens up a debate on a whole load of intangibles.

Copyright creates a legal framework in order to guarantee the potential financial return (thereby encouraging investment), because as the rights holder I know I'm protected from anyone using any part of my 'creative output' without first paying for it.

[axisofevil]

There's a lot of things I'd try free of charge - but wouldn't like to feel short-changed if I have to pay for it.

I used to go to the cinema quite a lot.
But present day prices make the whole thing a gamble.
When I see all the hype surrounding most films, it makes you wonder why a film can't manage to sell itself on it's merits.

Just a money making exercise.
I wait until they appear on TV.

Can't tell the difference between the "spin-off" game and the film in some cases - there's so much bad CGI around.

Nothing wrong then in downloading and burning to DVD, then watching on TV is there?
I would never have paid for it anyway.

Some of these people would have a tough time justifying the claim that their product was "creative".
Derivative more like.

I hear there's going to be a remake of the "Wizard of Oz".
I rest my case.

[Rik]

I know what you mean about bad CGI, I spend most of my time in some films just watching the mistakes and don't really take the film in at all.

[sobranie]

Can't help wondering about the site 'The Box' where you can d/l ancient tv series and more up to date too.  No software and no films there ... just the content of bbc and itv thro. the years. Is this really pirating??    I'm fully aware that millions of people copy current bbc/itv progs to vhs,dvd etc so, will this count as illegal d/loading too according to the great Mandleson?  If so 90% of the great british population will have their internet removed  in due course thus forcing the majority of ISP's to the wall.
A final question, I can't remember electing Mandleson to UK premier ... otoh .. can't remember voting for Brown either. (I digress of course, one shouldn't question what's good for us).

[Rik]

I believe the rule, though it's never applied, Niall, is that you should delete material recorded for personal use after 28 days. It's one of those things which could never be enforced, so no-one's ever tried to.

As to Mandy, he left Parliament in disgrace, he's appointed via the backdoor by Brown, meets a studio head while accepting hospitality from the Rothschilds, and then wants to change policy. Why do I smell a rat?

[Dopamine]

Ignoring the fact that's it's almost impossible to implement successfully, if and when pirates are cut off, what will the music and film industry do when they look at their year's end accounts and discover that it has made virtually no difference to their sales volume?

Most people download only because the stuff is available free, just as I would gorge on chocolate if Thorntons gave it away free. I don't because they don't, and I don't buy an alternative. I just go without. Every illegal download is not a lost sale. It's virtual activity that won't transfer to the real world if the virtual source is cut off.

[john]

 

I think the record companies are in denial that even if it wasn't available for free there are many more things now that people want to spend their money on and they can't expect people to pay as much for their product as people used to do. Since the 60's the singles chart has lost a lot of its attraction for instance.

[Simon]

Ignoring the fact that's it's almost impossible to implement successfully, if and when pirates are cut off, what will the music and film industry do when they look at their year's end accounts and discover that it has made virtually no difference to their sales volume?

Most people download only because the stuff is available free, just as I would gorge on chocolate if Thorntons gave it away free. I don't because they don't, and I don't buy an alternative. I just go without. Every illegal download is not a lost sale. It's virtual activity that won't transfer to the real world if the virtual source is cut off.

I actually wonder if music sales might fall?  I do download stuff occasionally, but then, if I like it, I buy it, as I prefer a complete product, with all the packaging, and best possible sound quality.  I have lots, and lots of CDs that I have purchased, after hearing downloaded tracks, and I probably wouldn't have bought those CDs, had I not heard the material first.  It's a bit like Dopamine's chocolate analogy.  If it's not there, and I don't taste it, I simply go without.

[axisofevil]

Anyone remember when record shops had little booths where you cold ask to listen to a couple of the latest tracks?
If you liked the single or LP you probably bought it.

Same thing on the internet - you might hear last years music and buy the forthcoming album on the strength of it.

[Simon]

Anyone remember when record shops had little booths where you cold ask to listen to a couple of the latest tracks?
If you liked the single or LP you probably bought it.

Yup, I remember hearing Queen Live Killers in a little booth (at about aged 14), and was blown away by the fast version of We Will Rock You!  Dashed home, raided the piggy bank, and went back to buy it. 

[talos]

I did'nt think singles were still produced, I never seem to hear about them these days, what happened to the top 20 charts list?
                  I still remember waiting for Pick of the pops with fluff Freeman on a Sunday to hear, who had made the No 1 spot,  but I guess I'm showing my age

[dujas]

File-sharers' TV tastes revealed.

[Rik]

It takes all sorts.

[Dangerjunkie]

I find it interesting that one of my gay friends has a particular hatred of Peter Mandelson. He considers Mandy deeply unpleasant, manipulative and dishonest (he's actually met him) and that he gives nice, honest gay people a bad name!

The problem with this new proposal is bigger than it first appears IMHO. It gives Peter Mandelson the right to specify and change the measures ISPs must take against the accused (note "accused" and not "convicted via due process" - That would be far too expensive) without the matter being referred to Parliament. He must receive advice from OfCom on what the best thing is to do but he does not have to listen to it. Presumedly it also confers this right to whoever holds his job in the future too. Not that this really matters as the Tories have signalled their desire to stop unlawful copying of media too so if this is passed we will be stuck with it forever.

If this does kick in everyone who likes doing this kind of thing will just switch over to encrypted VPNs. How long before Mandy's measures include compulsory bans on VPNs or encrypted protocols? When all these people establish encrypted VPN systems the perfect infrastructure for kiddie fiddlers, criminals and terrorists will also be created and the resulting increase in the use of encryption will make it harder for the security services to detect crime.

Cheers,
Paul.

[Rik]

Commerce beats common sense, eh Paul? 

[john]

If this does kick in everyone who likes doing this kind of thing will just switch over to encrypted VPNs. How long before Mandy's measures include compulsory bans on VPNs or encrypted protocols? When all these people establish encrypted VPN systems the perfect infrastructure for kiddie fiddlers, criminals and terrorists will also be created and the resulting increase in the use of encryption will make it harder for the security services to detect crime.

Another example of this inept Government not looking far enough ahead and being unable to understand the implications of their decisions. But never mind they can always blame everyone else for the consequences.

[Rik]

Can? CAN?? They always do, John. 

[axisofevil]

As I understand it, the government can order the VPN to reveal your ip-address and the encryption used.
Probably, the only secure - but slower route - is via something like TOR which uses several connection paths,
all encrypted and all continually changing.

[Tacitus]

.......The problem with this new proposal is bigger than it first appears IMHO. It gives Peter Mandelson the right to specify and change the measures ISPs must take against the accused......

This sort of thing is nothing new.  The idea of enabling legislation, with the details to be filled in by Ministerial Order has been around for years - certainly since the 1960s, when it was the exception rather than the rule.

Since the 1980s an awful lot of legislation is in that form; a very broad, vague even, enabling Act, which allows a Minister to make an Order (after due consultation of course), to do pretty much anything within the terms of the Act, that he, or the ruling Party of the day wishes.

Frankly, in almost all cases it's wrong and, an insult to democracy.  But then we don't really have democracy in this Country do we....

[Rik]

We don't, after all, we have an unelected First Secretary.

[vitriol]

I think that the Movie industry simply need to move with the times and come up with a workable business model.  As someone has already stated, going to the cinema these days is expensive and you take a gamble on the film.  It may be the best thing ever, it could also be terrible.  It's just to expensive.

Now if they offered a lower cost "at home" alternative, I personally would make use of that and ultimately end up giving them MORE of my money.

It's the same with DVD's.  I tend to only buy around 10 DVD's per year. For what they are (2 hours or so entertainment) they're expensive.  Now if there was a legal download alterative. i.e you get the film to burn to a disk / keep on your computer, all of the covers etc.  Then surely they can offer it at a lower cost.  There's no manufacturing / distibution and associated costs.

I realise that there are potential copyright problems with this model, but I feel this is a direction that maybe they should explore.

[Rik]

I appreciate your arguments, Vit, and agree with most of them, but the actual production costs of a CD or DVD are tiny compared to retail prices, and the production cost is clearly not a factor in the pricing decisions, just look at the disparity between countries. What I'd suggest is a legal, but not cheap - say £5, download cost. If you like the film and go on to buy it, that charge is refunded. That way, if a film is no good, or something to only watch once, you've paid a reasonable price, but if you want to revisit, then the higher price becomes acceptable.

[vitriol]

I think that's what I was getting at Rik, it just didn't come out as I expected.