Spotify Page 24

  • Page

    of 28 First / Last

  • ecu 25 Apr 2011 12:11:06 77,237 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    I've bought far more DVD's due to pirated TV shows than I ever would have watching them on TV. I wouldn't even have watched Lost if I had to sit through it with adverts.
  • Deleted user 25 April 2011 12:12:03
    An artist cannot always go and make another album. An actor/cameraman can find another TV show.

    For music you're buying the artist, for TV you're buying the show and as such the impact on the individual can be far greater for music.
  • ecu 25 Apr 2011 12:12:58 77,237 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Chopsen wrote:
    ecureuil wrote:
    Also, overseas ratings don't really make a whole lot of difference to US TV shows. Kiefer Sutherland says UK TV ratings kept 24 on the air in the early days, but I don't really believe that.
    Why would he lie? What would he stand to benefit from it.

    It was on an interview on a British chat show (Jonathan Ross, possibly). I think he was just saying it to be nice, I really doubt that FOX saw value in 24 just because it got a few hundred thousand viewers over here.
  • THFourteen 25 Apr 2011 12:13:14 34,275 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Flightrisker wrote:
    Not sure why people get indignant about people downloading albums/films but it seems a given that downloading TV shows is ok. I mean more or less all people in the US Pace tv threads are breaking the law every week but it seems kinda accepted that we don't really mind that.

    Not sure I see the difference.

    For the record I use Spotify for music, download the shit outta US TV, occasionally download a film but usually go to the cinema.

    From my point of view, i pay for sky HD, and all the shows i download are on sky hd. It just so happens i only have 1 feed in my flat so cannot record / watch at the same time, plus i prefer to watch some shows on the ipad because the mrs is not interested in them (eg battlestar galactica). Sometimes i like to DL match of the day, and watch it on the tube to and from work, as i'm out on Saturday nights.

    i realise what i'm doing is illegal, but i dont feel morally wrong for doing it. Taking an album or film that you otherwise have no access to, and have not paid for at all feels more wrong to me.
  • chopsen 25 Apr 2011 12:13:30 16,232 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    CosmicFuzz wrote:
    Chopsen wrote:
    Aargh. wrote:
    If a TV show stops because too many are downloading it then those people can find a job making another TV show/film. Musicians have nowhere else they can go.

    Do you really believe this? Musicians can "go and make another album" by the same logic. Or form another band.

    We're used to not paying up front for TV so we tend to think it's ok to obtain it illegally. It isn't really. The people who made it still need to be paid, and part of the way they get paid is from dvd sales and licensing the rights to show it to networks. The money they can expect to get from either of these would be less with piracy, as piracy would reduce the potential audience size. If more people already have it, fewer people are going to buy it, and viewing figures are going to be less.

    But you imply that people should buy boxsets of all the shows they watch. If I download Fringe or wait and watch it on Sky1, what's the difference?

    I don't imply that. I say that downloading could reduce the overall audience size, reducing the profitability of the franchise. *You* personally d/l so you can see it 1st, then watch it on telly, and then even buy the special edition box set. But that doesn't mean everybody does. It's the same defence as the "I download music and if I like it I'll buy it." May be true on an individual basis, but for the market as a whole it is potentially harmful.
  • chopsen 25 Apr 2011 12:16:06 16,232 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Aargh. wrote:
    An artist cannot always go and make another album. An actor/cameraman can find another TV show.

    For music you're buying the artist, for TV you're buying the show and as such the impact on the individual can be far greater for music.

    :D

    They can work as session musicians.

    Or are writers for TV less creatively valid that people who write pop music?
  • ecu 25 Apr 2011 12:17:13 77,237 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Chopsen wrote:
    CosmicFuzz wrote:
    Chopsen wrote:
    Aargh. wrote:
    If a TV show stops because too many are downloading it then those people can find a job making another TV show/film. Musicians have nowhere else they can go.

    Do you really believe this? Musicians can "go and make another album" by the same logic. Or form another band.

    We're used to not paying up front for TV so we tend to think it's ok to obtain it illegally. It isn't really. The people who made it still need to be paid, and part of the way they get paid is from dvd sales and licensing the rights to show it to networks. The money they can expect to get from either of these would be less with piracy, as piracy would reduce the potential audience size. If more people already have it, fewer people are going to buy it, and viewing figures are going to be less.

    But you imply that people should buy boxsets of all the shows they watch. If I download Fringe or wait and watch it on Sky1, what's the difference?

    I don't imply that. I say that downloading could reduce the overall audience size, reducing the profitability of the franchise. *You* personally d/l so you can see it 1st, then watch it on telly, and then even buy the special edition box set. But that doesn't mean everybody does. It's the same defence as the "I download music and if I like it I'll buy it." May be true on an individual basis, but for the market as a whole it is potentially harmful.

    But you could say that downloading helps spread the popularity of the series. People will download it, and tell their friends, who tell their friends, talk about it on Facebook, twitter, etc. which will result in higher sales overall.
  • chopsen 25 Apr 2011 12:18:41 16,232 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    ecureuil wrote:
    I've bought far more DVD's due to pirated TV shows than I ever would have watching them on TV. I wouldn't even have watched Lost if I had to sit through it with adverts.

    Like I said, same defence as music piracy of saying "but I buy loads of albums because I download music."

    You could have, for example, rented the box sets before committing to buy them
  • CosmicFuzz 25 Apr 2011 12:19:15 25,321 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Yeah I see your point. I really don't know about the impact that foreign viewing figures have on US shows, to be fair.

    How patches are ruining the future of gaming My thoughts.

  • chopsen 25 Apr 2011 12:20:27 16,232 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    ecureuil wrote:
    But you could say that downloading helps spread the popularity of the series. People will download it, and tell their friends, who tell their friends, talk about it on Facebook, twitter, etc. which will result in higher sales overall.

    Same argument is made in defence of piracy generally, inc music, games. etc. TV is not a special case. If people could make more money by allowing the free distribution of their product, why don't they? Do you think they want to make less money?
  • ecu 25 Apr 2011 12:23:36 77,237 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Chopsen wrote:
    ecureuil wrote:
    I've bought far more DVD's due to pirated TV shows than I ever would have watching them on TV. I wouldn't even have watched Lost if I had to sit through it with adverts.

    Like I said, same defence as music piracy of saying "but I buy loads of albums because I download music."

    You could have, for example, rented the box sets before committing to buy them

    I've never rented anything in my entire life, and I'm not about to start now. I gave up watching 24 when it moved to Sky, I watched the first couple of episodes with adverts and couldn't stand it, I gave up on the show simply because of this. It was only due to being able to download the episodes, that I got back in to the show, and subsequently bought every box set of the series. It's a legitimate reason anyway, being able to download shows really helps spread their popularity. There are positive aspects to piracy, the industry are fighting it the wrong way.
  • CosmicFuzz 25 Apr 2011 12:26:38 25,321 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    I suppose if they changed to total free broadcasting then they lose lots of money, with the piracy as it is now, they lose less but gain word of mouth?

    How patches are ruining the future of gaming My thoughts.

  • ecu 25 Apr 2011 12:35:01 77,237 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Chopsen wrote:
    ecureuil wrote:
    But you could say that downloading helps spread the popularity of the series. People will download it, and tell their friends, who tell their friends, talk about it on Facebook, twitter, etc. which will result in higher sales overall.

    Same argument is made in defence of piracy generally, inc music, games. etc. TV is not a special case. If people could make more money by allowing the free distribution of their product, why don't they? Do you think they want to make less money?

    The same argument is made because it exists. When piracy of music rises, so do record sales. There have been record breaking sales in movies, cinema, and music, all while we're being told piracy is killing these industries. It's not killing anything. I think there are positives to piracy. I don't advocate it, but I do believe they should be looking to use the positive sides to benefit the consumer - such as the Spotify free pass.

    There has to be some level of trust between supplier and consumer. They tell us the record industry is dying because of piracy and IT'S OUR FAULT. Then we read news articles about record music sales. It just doesn't work for me. The only thing stopping me from pirating everything is my own moral judgement. They have done a horrible job fighting it.
  • Flightrisker 25 Apr 2011 12:52:04 18,138 posts
    Seen 3 months ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    I see a lot of good arguments as to why it's ok to download TV shows but the majority can be applied equally to music. Subscribing the SkyHD and therefore feeling its ok to download tv series is the same as me paying for Spotify and then downloading (illegally not through Spotify) the songs to listen to in a different way.

    And the argument of "actors can go do other shows etc" is really missing the point. A lot of money is spent making the show which you enjoy and contribute nothing to. And while the story of ecu buying the 24 dvds is nice and all it's absolutely the exception and also helps after the fact (as in if ratings were an issue then it would have been already cancelled by then and that's really where the impact is).

    Anyway, not trying to preach, I'm as bad as everyone else on this.


    Re: Spotify I still cannot get over how they don't have a permanently tracking history feature yet. It's bizarre to me that in this day and age of data tracking and user customising that they are not doing this. Spotify should know by now what I like and recommending me music that is similar, new songs I might like, making playlists of what I listen to at different times of the day, days of the week. It's very odd. It would make Spotify go from being a nice music player to an essential part of my music playing.
  • Kosmoz 25 Apr 2011 12:57:08 7,740 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Flightrisker wrote:
    Re: Spotify I still cannot get over how they don't have a permanently tracking history feature yet. It's bizarre to me that in this day and age of data tracking and user customising that they are not doing this. Spotify should know by now what I like and recommending me music that is similar, new songs I might like, making playlists of what I listen to at different times of the day, days of the week. It's very odd. It would make Spotify go from being a nice music player to an essential part of my music playing.
    Do you have last.fm? That pretty much does everything you want.

    Every girl I ever kissed I was thinking of a pro footballer.

  • ecu 25 Apr 2011 12:57:36 77,237 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    I do believe it will all be free eventually. We're moving towards that.
  • LionheartDJH 25 Apr 2011 14:12:18 19,526 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    Boristhespie wrote:

    Sky makea fuk all

    Sky makea a shitlod of muni.

    She dives for cheese pasties

  • L0cky 25 Apr 2011 14:25:07 1,552 posts
    Seen 44 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Haven't read the whole thread but I'll throw my 2 cents in anyway.

    I'm waiting for the media industries to realise that since the birth of broadband, regionilisation has become completely arbitrary and all they're doing is artificially holding content back from some people via some channels. There's no technical reason to do it.

    Although the world has changed; the industries are still very much based on out of date business models. Producers have deals with distributors; and as long as media is still also sold on a plastic disc wrapped in more plastic, those distributors have leverage against the producers to stop them getting with the times.

    What would be great (and is entirely possible) is if everything was released globally, at the same time, and available via the same delivery channels. Even movies; they could release to cinema and to everyone else at the same time. Anything that isn't a 3D cartoon usually gets a very limited release anyway.

    It will happen eventually. The music industry is far further along than games and movies, although they still have ridiculous policies in place; which is why a service like Spotify is still only available in 7 countries.
  • Flightrisker 25 Apr 2011 14:30:57 18,138 posts
    Seen 3 months ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    But until then stealing is ok right?
  • ecu 25 Apr 2011 14:34:32 77,237 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Flightrisker wrote:
    But until then stealing is ok right?

    Who said that? It doesn't really help push this issue forward when you have people frothing at the mouth over every stupid little illegal mp3. Piracy is a grey area, and it is in no way as simple as "piracy is wrong".
  • LionheartDJH 25 Apr 2011 14:35:07 19,526 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    BUT YOU WOULDN'T STEAL A TELEVISION

    She dives for cheese pasties

  • Flightrisker 25 Apr 2011 14:38:23 18,138 posts
    Seen 3 months ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    ecureuil wrote:
    Flightrisker wrote:
    But until then stealing is ok right?

    Who said that? It doesn't really help push this issue forward when you have people frothing at the mouth over every stupid little illegal mp3. Piracy is a grey area, and it is in no way as simple as "piracy is wrong".

    But it's not really a grey area. It's taking someone that you're suppose to pay for without paying for it! It is illegal. It's an actual crime to do it. The argument is really "ah we all do it" and "distributors, antiquated delivery methods etc " but they aren't really good enough. Just cos it's easy to do it doesn't hid the fact that there's not moral or legal argument that can be made to defend it.
  • ecu 25 Apr 2011 15:01:11 77,237 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Flightrisker wrote:
    ecureuil wrote:
    Flightrisker wrote:
    But until then stealing is ok right?

    Who said that? It doesn't really help push this issue forward when you have people frothing at the mouth over every stupid little illegal mp3. Piracy is a grey area, and it is in no way as simple as "piracy is wrong".

    But it's not really a grey area. It's taking someone that you're suppose to pay for without paying for it! It is illegal. It's an actual crime to do it. The argument is really "ah we all do it" and "distributors, antiquated delivery methods etc " but they aren't really good enough. Just cos it's easy to do it doesn't hid the fact that there's not moral or legal argument that can be made to defend it.

    It being a crime doesn't really mean anything. Anything can be a crime if you have the laws in place, it doesn't mean they're right. You know there was a time where they tried to make libraries illegal.

    Not saying I agree with piracy, but they're looking at it totally wrong. We have a whole new method of distribution here, and instead of working to the advantages of this, they're still trying to block it and force us back on to the high street. These tactics don't work, they don't address the problem and they don't take in to account the reasons why people pirate, beyond not having to pay.

    iTunes has been a massive success, it moved people away from piracy and gave people an easy, legal option for obtaining music as and when they want it. That's the world we live in now. Everything is global now, we know about TV shows in the US and those with the know-how don't want to wait. It's not an excuse but it is a reason, and the way to deal with it is to work towards releasing simultaneously, globally, online. We'll get there eventually, we have to. It'll be a great day when all money goes to the artist and not the record label, and I truly believe this day will come. My point is, fighting piracy with aggressive lawsuits will never solve the problem. Progressive solutions such as iTunes and Spotify are the tools to combat piracy.
  • Lexx87 25 Apr 2011 15:05:03 20,863 posts
    Seen 3 months ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    It's due to the record labels' fear of not being needed any more that makes them so aggressive in keeping with the old ways.

    Sure this point has already been made but, it's all i've got :p

    Speak the truth hussy!

  • Flightrisker 25 Apr 2011 15:32:01 18,138 posts
    Seen 3 months ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    ecureuil wrote:
    Flightrisker wrote:
    ecureuil wrote:
    Flightrisker wrote:
    But until then stealing is ok right?

    Who said that? It doesn't really help push this issue forward when you have people frothing at the mouth over every stupid little illegal mp3. Piracy is a grey area, and it is in no way as simple as "piracy is wrong".

    But it's not really a grey area. It's taking someone that you're suppose to pay for without paying for it! It is illegal. It's an actual crime to do it. The argument is really "ah we all do it" and "distributors, antiquated delivery methods etc " but they aren't really good enough. Just cos it's easy to do it doesn't hid the fact that there's not moral or legal argument that can be made to defend it.

    It being a crime doesn't really mean anything. Anything can be a crime if you have the laws in place, it doesn't mean they're right. You know there was a time where they tried to make libraries illegal.

    Not saying I agree with piracy, but they're looking at it totally wrong. We have a whole new method of distribution here, and instead of working to the advantages of this, they're still trying to block it and force us back on to the high street. These tactics don't work, they don't address the problem and they don't take in to account the reasons why people pirate, beyond not having to pay.

    iTunes has been a massive success, it moved people away from piracy and gave people an easy, legal option for obtaining music as and when they want it. That's the world we live in now. Everything is global now, we know about TV shows in the US and those with the know-how don't want to wait. It's not an excuse but it is a reason, and the way to deal with it is to work towards releasing simultaneously, globally, online. We'll get there eventually, we have to. It'll be a great day when all money goes to the artist and not the record label, and I truly believe this day will come. My point is, fighting piracy with aggressive lawsuits will never solve the problem. Progressive solutions such as iTunes and Spotify are the tools to combat piracy.

    It's a bit much to just brush aside the fact that it's against the law with "there was a time they wanted to make libraries illegal". I think it's a very big deal that it is illegal when arguing over whether it should or shouldn't be done. And while I get your point about iTunes and Spotify I really doubt that most people who use them don't also illegally download. I use iTunes (begrudgingly) but have never aid for any downloads through it.

    And your argument seems to be that until they figure a way to give you what you want when you want it it's ok to steal it.

    I'm playing devil's advocate to a degree here so don't wanna go into trolling territory. I'm aware it's a very complex issue but I still think there's no defence of it. It's just that what we are stealing is "invisible" so it seems not that bad. If you had spent loads of money and your artistic talent into something and then had people ust take it for free and then you made less money or lost a renewal of contract to continue it then it'd feel more like stealing.


  • Deleted user 25 April 2011 15:41:57
    Chopsen wrote:
    Aargh. wrote:
    An artist cannot always go and make another album. An actor/cameraman can find another TV show.

    For music you're buying the artist, for TV you're buying the show and as such the impact on the individual can be far greater for music.

    :D

    They can work as session musicians.

    Or are writers for TV less creatively valid that people who write pop music?

    Taking a ridiculously extreme and black and white view is unhelpful. Your example is silly and not the point that was being made anyway.

    Revenue streams for music and TV are different and pretending otherwise is foolhardy.
  • Flightrisker 25 Apr 2011 15:53:22 18,138 posts
    Seen 3 months ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    How they are compensated is not the issue. If a car is nicked from a car shop the owner of the car shop is likely to be ok, insurance will cover the theft and he's not gonna be on the streets in the morning looking for work. However stealing the car is still not right.
  • Deleted user 25 April 2011 15:55:03
    No one said they were.

    Good job comparing downloading with stealing a car though. The adverts weren't a complete waste.
  • Page

    of 28 First / Last

Log in or register to reply