Oh yeh fair point. Although I would like to think I didnt mean to appear criminalize the generation. Mostly it is an education problem coupled with the huge availabilty of the material.
That needs to be worked on too.
EDIT: according to the BBC reports last week Cinema attendance is at a record low so I think the data is not 100% cut and dried on your example. Also not convinced piracy would impact on cinema too much - based on the face that Cinema offers an extra experience that DVD's / Pirated copies dont.
> I'm glad the material is available. If only the music, movie and other industries didn't spend so much time fighting it, and instead learned to profit from it.
Spotify. Last.fm. Itunes. All legit ways to get the exact same music :) (at various cose).
Movies: well yeh still a bit laggy there. But things are improving. Though frankly I am not one to blame the industry for trying to get rid of the pirates (even if it is fruitless) before opening up their catalogues.
IMO these are different issues that quickly get confused by people :)
not really. Student Editions are usually cheaper to encourage students to purchase the product. Thse that are free handouts are, yes, to encourage later sales. But I dont think you can draw a comparison. A piece of software is usually adaptable and reusable in the future. A lot of film and music is just dropped (tastes change etc.).
I doubt the number of youngsters who pay for music once they have the means is huge. Would you pay for the Spice Girls song you downloaded 4 or 5 years ago and havent listened to for the last 2 yrs. No, probably not - but you might have had 2-3yrs enjoyment out of it... where do you draw the line?
I dont see any justification for downloading music you cant afford when there are free sites to listen to it on.... it's not as if that lack of funds is depriving said person of the ability ot hear and enjoy the song. It perhaps does inhibit how and in what context they can listen to the song (i.e. no ipods etc.).
While I might not completely agree with Raphael_Amiard he does raise the interesting point that the burden must be on the record industry to prove that they incur a cost (including an opportunity cost) if piracy is legal.
Having said that, I think both of us need to be aware of identity bias here. I don't necessarily support TPB but I do have strong views on liberty and on those who exploit the creative work of others. Similarly, I get the feeling that you have an emotional distate for TPB (based on their attitude) and identify yourself as belonging to the record industry so take the attacks personally.
I think I should make it clear that everyone here who opposes the "record industry" isn't talking about the people who do creative work, the engineers etc. but rather the people who previously had a monopoly on distribution and used this to exploit the creators and sound engineers. These people have lost their monopoly and can now be replaced by technology and so have taken to attacking the new competition. This doesn't just include TPB. It's like Kodak suing digital camera companies because the new medium allows reprints.
I am going to have to take you up on the point of downloading something to try and not liking it.
If it were up to the recording companies, would they refund me my money if I didn't like a CD I legally bought? Currently, the answer is no. That is on the same level of unfairness as pirating in my mind. Most of other retail stores allow you to return a purchased item, so why should music be any different?
As for the question of do I delete something I downloaded and didn't like, the answer would be yes. It's a yes, because that material takes up space on my hard disk that would be better served otherwise. And since I'm an unofficial tech support person for many people in my family, all of them being non-tech-savvy, I can attest that they do the same.
> If it were up to the recording companies, would they refund me my money if I didn't like a CD I legally bought? Currently, the answer is no.
Is it? I have previously returned music to a store within my stautory rights period.
Besides even if you do make a fair point lets reverse the situation: is it right to nick a CD from the store if you go back later to either put it on the shelf if you dont like it or pay for it if you do?
Anyway; Im not so much talking music you dont like actually (sorry, my fault). My point was focused on music you find acceptable and still would listen to occasionally but dont think is worth £9.99 or however much an album purchase is near you. I know several people with HUGE illegal music collections that would cost them thousands of pounds to purchase - how do they choose what to pay for, what to keep and what they should delete. Answer (for all of them) is they pay nothing and delete nothing....
I have had returns refused, since the CD was opened. How would I know if it's good or not, if I had not listened to it? And I'm not the only one.
I do agree that there are people who keep crap around when they don't need it. But, stealing a CD is not the same as downloading music from a torrent. Stealing implies that the owner of the CD is left permanently without it. A torrent is a copy of the original content. It's a fair distinction, and the point is that music store rules do not apply to the net.
> I have previously returned music to a store within my stautory rights period.
Well, if it's still got the anti-tamper strips and such on it, I guess. I've never tried to return an unopened CD, so I dunno about that (and how would I know I didn't like it, then?), but back when I bought CDs, I never had any success trying to return one that was opened. The stores have a policy against this because they assume you copied it first (to tape, originally).