Why should you always download content from a genuine site?

I see you have been given a “thumbs down ” malcolm probably from vested interests .I know exactly where you are coming from , never illegally downloaded any thing in my life (apart from political information /secret information ) but I believe in the principle of freedom of choice and not being ripped off by some closed shop legislation that makes the general public pay through the nose for any type of free produce just because they see a lack of profit . As I said in a previous post ,at this moment in the US they are trying to bring out legislation that would apply worldwide to stop you viewing – You Tube videos of singers /songs . I give you a thumbs up malcolm .

Hi Duncan, maybe I’ve misunderstood your comment but are you saying music and movies are free produce? Because that couldn’t be farther from the truth. If I have misunderstood you I think its still worth me making the point that from writers and directors, engineers and producers, actors, backing singers, session musicians, extras, set designers, location scouts, to pressing plant staff, warehouse distribution staff, drivers, salespeople, marketers, retailers, landlords, or in a digital world ISPs, data warehouses, coders, and on an on. All these people are trying to make a living. The product they bring to the consumer has to cover their time and effort. I understand it’s hard not to think of it as free when so much content is readily accessible on YouTube for free. But it’s really no different to real produce like Oranges and Apples. You could say they should be free because the literally grow on trees! But we kind of accept that a lot of people have to work to get it from the tree into our hand.

John have you read William,s post below ? It seems to have attracted some approval . Like William I also see where you are coming from but most of the public feel if they have payed for something they should be able to share it with others like the many uploads to Youtube . I remember the days of 45,s and LP,s where many at a party listened to them , then you could record them onto open-reel tape which was popular in the 50,s I dont remember any controversy about it. Then when CC came out it was – CC is “killing music ” . With more and more media giants buying up the opposition , they then start charging large amounts of money for films/music/ etc that previously was available free on the TV for instance till its now reached the stage that freeview , IMO- has endless repeats of old films the American public wouldnt pay a dime to watch , I can turn down the sound and still know what they are saying and yet they think they are doing all right because young people havent seen some of the old stuff and dont realise its been paid for many times over . Thats disingenuous why should we be subject to rubbish media just because we arent paying for it . Even knowledge is now a for profit enterprise , what about the poor who cant afford to pay for it ?

Hi Duncan, I get it, I do. When you buy something once you should have the expectation that you can do what you will with it, including sharing it or reselling it. I must admit open reel is a few years before my time. 🙂 but I do remember being at school in the 70s/80s at the peak of cassette. I had school friends that were doing a roaring trade in selling concert bootlegs. I bought quite a few from my favourite bands. Though we all knew what we were doing was wrong, we got a bit of a thrill out of it. Someone initially paid for a concert ticket to record that gig, was that sufficient money to make the bootlegs legitimate? Certainly a transaction the artists weren’t signing up to! I expect you’ll remind me that we’re talking sharing not selling. But people are making money from the sharing. Illegitimate content may seem like it does no one harm but there is evidence that it diverts income to organised crime. I’d also say that we’ve never watched a free TV show in our lives. We pay subscriptions, license fees, or we consent to having our program interupted every 15mins with advertising. There’s always a cost, and there’s always a revenue for content makers. As for the quality of freeview programming, you got me. 😉

I agree region specific DVDs are a real rip-off in the UK. When we bought our DVD player from Panasonic a few years ago now, we paid an extra £40 to have it region free.

Hi William, I think you’re making a common mistake on your point 3 about DVDs costing a fraction of a penny. Yes, the 90 grams of plastic in a DVD and its case cost next to nothing as a raw material. However, once you’ve processed it, shipped it to a pressing plant, then to a distribution center, then driven it across the continent to a retailer its much more expensive, because none of these businesses in the supply chain are going to do their part for free. On top of that, there’s everyone else involved in making the content on that disc that needs to be paid from directors, actors, writers, to carpenters, stylists, designers, to accountants, lawyers, and managers. Then there’s retailers, their landlords, their staff, and all the other expenses from lightbulbs and carpets to till systems and and security.

You asked “havent the film companies made enough from the cinema?” The answer is no. Sure, some films are incredibly lucrative: Suicide Squad cost $175million to make, and probably another $150m to market but it has taken $745million globally so the studio is in the money. But for every global success there can be 8-10 failures. The same studio released Our Brand Is Crisis: it cost $28million to make and took $7million at the global box office. They tried to reboot Point Break and spent $105million on production to make $134million; after marketing they lost money. And some of their films never even managed to get a cinema release. If studio income was derived solely from the cinema, then studios would stop taking risks altogether, because they couldn’t afford the failures. And we’d all end up with the most boring, bland, safe films in the world.

Patrick , as a knowledgeable person are you defending TTIP ?? The mind boggles ! it is secretive , evil trade deal that allows American BB to CONTROL British democratic voted on legislation by the British public , in regional and local shires , in everyday life , its abominable !! are you for this country to really be a satrap of the USA ? try doing that to the US there would be uproar – those dam limey,s telling US what to do ? If this goes through England = Costa Rica . No wonder years were spent in highly guarded world conferences by BB and governments deciding to be owned by the US , body + soul . As far as I know Donald is putting the blocks on TTP and even Congress agrees , sorry Patrick I am completely against this evil trade deal , full stop .

Alfa I have just posted on the money convo if you have WOT app on your browser remove it now , they are definitely guilty of malicious intent -all your data sent to third parties – read my post there.

I don’t have WOT installed Duncan. Funny how you can’t trust most things that have the word trust somewhere in their title.

Anthony , you might or might not know that 6 major entertainment conglomerates own 96 % of the world media , I wont name the owners as it might get me in trouble but its so bad now even Business Insider has published basic details on its website . I got the deeper info years ago on “non- approved ” websites. Yes its a stitch up. In reality there is a serious “political” side to it .

I’m not sure about 96% of the world’s media being owned by 6 major entertainment conglomerates. I wonder how that was measured. Off the top of my head, in the UK, the BBC and Channel 4 are government-owned, ITV is independent and owned by several licensees, there are several independent publishing groups owning newspapers and magazines, and there are several independent film production companies. There are numerous book publishers even though many of the well-known names are part of larger corporations. I accept that Sky [21st Century Fox] and Times Newspapers [News UK] are both part of Rupert Murdoch’s empire, and that Channel 5 is owned by Viacom, but the overall picture is quite diverse and no one organisation has a dominant position. Globally, music, film, games, and digital content are more consolidated but still competitive. Social media are technically independent even though the main players have very large numbers of users but new platforms keep popping up.

The important question is whether this situation is harmful and whether choice is restricted or powerful individuals have undue influence. This depends on one’s assessment of the intelligence and mentality of the general population. At least it is all out in the open and people can talk about it freely, and also avoid what they don’t like.

Its the truth John and while I got the original compilations years ago along with the owners ( at the very top ) Its very easy to obtain the figures of what I said , if Business Insider , a German owned , American based business/stock market /business celebrity/ etc -right wing -pro BB prints it as well thats saying something . But as luck would have it I have a full archived vastly detailed ( taking up a webpage ) of fine print proving my point , I will ,if you or others doubt me ,and as I have been told many times here -prove it ! – well I can but it wont look too good for the owners as they all belong to one section of the community . I originally got it from radical websites but found out from “normal ones ” it was the truth , they just dont like admitting it as they use their power for propagandistic politico ( world politics ) use constantly . Many Americans already know the facts and complain about it vigorously. Do you want me to post it ?

I agree with much of what AnthonyMitchell says.

You start watching a TV series, wait patiently for the next series then find it is only available on providers like Amazon who avoid their taxes and can then afford to hold the rest of us to ransom.

BT have invested heavily in BT Sport holding football fans to ransom. They have made their money from telecoms customers and should have put that money back into improving the telecoms network.

Neither Amazon or BT will get any money out of us for their TV viewing. We already pay more than enough to Sky. Another series will get our attention at some point and if we really, really want that series, we will buy it all on one DVD.

Although we are not avid TV viewers and have abstained from signing up to any of the packaged content providers like Sky and BT, I can see that the power of certain companies has seriously restricted choice and diversity. If I were a sports fan I would be extremely annoyed that a powerful combination of sports promoters and media moguls is having such a controlling effect on access to sport, its presentation, and its timing to the detriment both of the many supporters whose loyalty is being taken for granted and of casual home viewers who can no longer watch the sports they want to in the way they want to without paying a high price and having to take a package that includes stuff they don’t want. It also means that public service broadcasting has been excluded from the coverage of many sports except at exorbitant cost and under restrictive conditions. I appreciate that there are counter-arguments around investment in the sports but, in my opinion, that is a thinly disguised apology for corruption, the spoilage of natural talent, and the exploitation of supporters.

The movement of popular drama and serials across different media platforms is also causing a lot of concern and is leaving the mainstream channels dependent on low-grade programmes and formats, repeats, and third-rate sensational tripe. Now that big organisations like Amazon are creating their own content rather than just marketing existing material, the eclipse of traditional but simple and accessible broadcasting is taking place before our very eyes.

As to what we can do about this, I haven’t a clue.

I appreciate your comments, Duncan, but I still don’t understand how, when so many of the world’s media organisations are either under some form of government ownership [and direct state control in some countries], and when there are so many independent media organisations, how 96% of global media can be owned by just six corporations. However, I am not going to challenge the ‘truth’ of what you say because the facts are hidden from view and I don’t think naming names will get us any closer to the real issue. This is, in my opinion: Why is it a problem? What harm is it doing? and What should we do about it? You have not answered any of those questions and rather than continuing to allude to mysterious sources and a protected element of society it would be helpful if you would explain why, as UK consumers, we should take these undercover reports more seriously.

It is an interesting statistic. The first point is “owned” which may be a distinction from who is showing it.

Bertelsmann are very big and own ” With the acquisition of Random House in 1998, Bertelsmann already became the largest book publisher in the English-speaking world.[171] 250 publishing houses on five continents are part of the company, including Random House and Penguin Books, but also Doubleday, Knopf and Viking.[172] The German Verlagsgruppe Random House (Goldmann, Heyne and others), based in Munich, is not part of Penguin Random House,[173] yet it does belong to the same division at Bertelsmann”

Berlusconi controlled major chunks of the Italian media, Murdoch’s media empire is legendary so whilst I may not get a figure of 6 and 96% I could make a very good case that media control is a serious problem for Western democracies. Where the state controls the media that is a different case IMO.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_21st_Century_Fox
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_News_Corp
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Geographic_Society

I 100% agree. The industry wilfully restricts consumers’ choice on access, and creates the demand for a black market. Much like prohibition in the 1920’s. Ultimately you have to go back to de-criminalising consumption, and creating legitimate routes to access that give consumers choice.

Wavechange= look no further I have it –its government funded so that makes me a bit suspicious that BB is behind it although from the websites you looked at it looks as if its pure gold . The bottom line is increased profits for all the media not just the seemingly “underdogs ” who have been given prominence to make it look more “charitable ” and so engender more public sympathy . Maybe I am too cynical but its real life I look at not flashy adverts . You want the info- prsformusic.com/aboutus/press/latestpressreleases/Pages/get-it-right-safeguarding-the-uks-creative-industries.aspx. I look forward to John- malcolm-Ian -Derek-etc proving my cynical attitude wrong ?

That was my concern, Duncan. 🙂 As I’ve said earlier, I’m opposed to copyright infringement but you are not the only one who is suspicious about the commercial motivation of this campaign. Thanks for the link.

Blew it apart Wavechange , although it says founded in the UK -2015- its AMERICAN — PRS -USA- linked to ASCAP – founded in 1914- +BMI+SESAC MCPS etc — as I said Wavechange BB -USA and we are backing it -taxpayers .

Hmmm. Any worthwhile campaign should provide detailed information about funding and the main organisations promoting and supporting it. Hopefully we will get some feedback.

Never fear I am here. All the necessary detail.

http://www.bbfc.co.uk/education-resources/education-news/get-it-right-genuine-site

How about they reduce the length of copyright which has been expanding since it was invented in the 1700’s when AFAIR it was twenty years. Sort of like a patent.

I could not see any reference to direct government funding [which I would be against] although it rightly has government backing. The PRS for Music [the Performing Rights Society as was and incorporating the Mechanical Copyright Protection Society] makes its money from licence fees from users of copyright material and in my opinion is an entirely worthy organisation. It is basically a trade protection organisation but it represents the artistes and performers, not the producers and distributors, so is not an agent of big business but of the hundreds of thousands of creative people who depend on royalties for the performance, via any media, of their music, lyrics, and other content. They are under threat from the illegal reproduction of their work which deprives them of their deserved earnings. The “Get it Right from a Genuine Site” campaign appears to be an initiative designed and promoted entirely by the PRS for Music. If the media industries also benefit from its endeavours that is a bonus and is separate from the issues we have discussed earlier in this Conversation to do with the suppression of competition through commercial consolidation. Performers are arguably the losers in such developments and this campaign is one way of counteracting those challenges and protecting their incomes.

Duncan – I have no desire to prove your “cynical attitude” wrong even though you look forward to me doing so.