Stephen Fry SLAMS the entertainment Industry over filesharing

[ogicabp4u]

'YOU WOULD'NT DOWNLOAD A CAR!'

'YOU WOULD'NT COMMIT HOMICIDE VIA EMAIL!'

'YOU WOULD'NT EAT SOMEONE'S TWITTER ACCOUNT!'

'YOU WOULD'NT HAVE UNDERAGE SEX WITH AN iPAD!'

'YOU WOULD'NT SELL SOMEONE'S YOU TUBE COMMENT!'

[ogicabp4u]

YOU WOULDN'T STEAL AN AIRPLANE AND FLY IT INTO A BUILDING!

[Chigokai1080]

The moving mouth creeps me out!.

[HUOSmusic]

shut up

[shaboier]

beautiful truth

[superhamzah85]

The people with the most integrity in music are the musicians who play on the street, and take whatever one wishes to give.

[manwilliamsell]

@superhamzah85 they're also the shittest musicians

[stevolution666]

YOU WOULDN'T SHOOT A POLICEMAN !!!

[tudortoomey]

@stevolution666 YOU WOULDN'T TAKE A SHIT IN HIS HELMET

!

[MegaSexytimes]

Clearly people on this page have no idea how much artists actually make from each CD sale.. almost fuck all.

Also, plenty of them WANT their music to be given out free. It's the people that come to the gigs and support the band that matter, not CD sales.

[ogicabp4u]

@MegaSexytimes Cost of an on the shelf Music CD 26 pence. Average cost of CD 15 GBP. Artists get less than a 3rd of the revenue they generate for media companies through this method of distribution. By the new free media model funded by mainly by 'fandom' rather than 'possession of content' means artists make slightly more but the media companies make almost nothing because their restiricted media business model is obsolete.

[chrisofnottingham]

The Music Industry. Something that has been around for less than a hundred years and now needs to die out as soon as possible. The words "music" and "industry" should never be joined together again.

[hippertydog]

What Stephen Fry says here is idiotic, and as someone who does not rely on internet media sales to earn his living, he is no position to be saying this.

[aNdYmAtTeR]

One more:

As much as I love Stephen Fry, this is about the dumbest thing he's ever said!

[aNdYmAtTeR]

Well, the thing is that a majority of young people grow up who has never heard of "paying for music" so they have no clue that you could or should. When they get older ... they just rationalize and never pay anyway.

What about the studios and software makers and instrument builders ... should they also work for free?

[Fizzypop1211]

@aNdYmAtTeR

YAY common sense guy has joined the room!! HA HA HA.

At last.

[whowantsabighug]

Sure, companies like Sony won't suffer a great deal if you steal a 79p single or something, but what really makes me angry is when somebody says 'I REALLY like this band; does anybody know where i can download them for free?', especially when it's a small-time musician, because you like them, but you don't want to support them and fund further works they would produce that you would enjoy?

[MarkLemonds]

Hear Hear

[MrZardoz777]

When a theif steals your handbag, you no longer have a handbag. If you still have your handbag, it wasn't stolen.

[LogicalStatements1]

He is right , saying that people who do that are criminals , makes you lose a possible artist , scares people into not being able to express them self.

[Nashy119]

If I could make instant magic copies of handbags I would go ahead and do that.

[JoeyPsych]

@Nashy119 actualy, you will be soon, there is a 3d copymachine in the making that is aimed at normal people, it will be on the market for a decent price, and all you know about the modern market will be history.

You will be able to make copies of any handbag you like :)

[UnholyMessiah555]

Just... wow. Holy shit. I don't think I've ever found a video that's made me agree with more statements than this

[Donal277]

Brillant human being

[Fizzypop1211]

Its about paying people for their work.

The handbag thing is used because that is obvious to people, it is physical. Downloads are intangible, thus Mr Fry has a problem seeing it as theft. The excuses are grand clever and ongoing, but it is theft. Copying a whistled tune at a bus stop isnt theft. Copying a whistled tune that has been recorded and marketed (costs IN) IS theft. Maybe students should be able to nick food cos they will pay for it when they are older and have a job. D'uh.

[MrCliffybiro]

@Fizzypop1211 The food comparison is completely different, if someone steals food from a shop, the shop has less food than it had before, therefore it loses money. When you download a song from Pirate Bay or something, you make a copy, there is still the same infinite amount of copies, so no one is losing money.

Another thing, it's right what he says that it's the record companies that complain about filesharing, the current music industry is a corrupt institution in which the large faceless...

[MrCliffybiro]

@MrCliffybiro ...record companies are the ones making almost all of the money from record sales leaving the band with, at the absolute most, around 10% of the money from sales. Also, to answer the idea written below that only established artists don't mind illegal downloading is a complete fallacy, the internet and sites like BitTorrent are the best things that have happened for new artists in a long time, it increases exposure, makes people more likely to go to gigs and helps in so many ways.

[Fizzypop1211]

@MrCliffybiro

You are just rationalising to take the benefit of someone elses work / investment / time (all things they would have less of after producing a work of art) for free. By your reasoning, dont pay Poles to pick strawberries, just take a pannet and go. Plenty more Poles and the fruit comes back next year. Besides, when I'm rich, I'll pay for them in the city. Double D'uh!

Evil record companies, measly paying restaurant owners, tax evading farmers all smokescreen to excuse your theft.

[blackbook668]

@Fizzypop1211 Do you know that copying a single you've bought on a CD onto various ipods you own is illegal? It's because it's sharing. Do you know giving your friends a CD and them copying the content on a computer is also illegal? And these acts, are, by the adverts, the same as mugging an elderly lady of her handbag or stealing from a shop. Don't you think the comparison is a little absurd?

[Fizzypop1211]

@blackbook668

I do know that is technically true, and at the time I made enquiries to PRS whatever they were regarding copying my purchased LPs to tapes for my car or as safety copies - and their view was blind eye to private use of your purchased copy via safety copy. HOWEVER, could not distribute it or buy copied stuff.

This is the point you lot all miss with this argument.

File sharing is just one person stealing on behalf of everyone, this isn't a personal use copy onto CD or Stick etc.

[blackbook668]

@Fizzypop1211 I'm not exactly seeing it that way. Private use, as far as I'm aware, is separate from Public use by how many view said piece of entertainment and whether it is charged. Since I won't play anything I've got to a crowd or charge them for it, I see no reason for the long arm of the law to pound me down.

[Fizzypop1211]

@blackbook668 I dont understand how you miss it. If you put a copy - even your purchased copy -on line to be "file shared", that is the same as you buying a cassette in the old days, copying it and flogging it in the market. The fact that you might not make anything is irrelevant to the point that you are preventing the artist, whatever, from getting their whack as you are facilitating circumventing the payment system and acting as a dealer. Poor one maybe, but who knows what deals on the side?

[Fizzypop1211]

@blackbook668 and (cont'd) if you read my other comments, you will note that private use does not prevent you having your mates over to share your media - for no fee. You can't - or shouldn't - lend it, which is a bit mean but lets face it, people just run off their own copy and then - no purchase required, copyright infringement. If you lent a hard copy DVD whcih was viewed given back no copy, I might agree, as they might go and buy their own. But people "download" or copy (Steal) it instead.

[lezzabo]

i love stephen fry but cant agree with him here. i think you'll generally find that the stars of the entertainment industry (radiohead being another) who endorse filesharing are established acts; its easy to look cool and support the filesharers when you've been charging £15 for a cd or dvd/vhs for 20 years! i do agree though that the fault lies with the entertainment industry for not coming up with a solution, and prosecuting people is not it!

[Fizzypop1211]

@lezzabo

You trying to walk the line of trying to say you only disagree with the Steven because of someone else! Cmon. They are protecting their position in the only way open to them.

Would Fry say it was stupid if he didnt get paid, cos QI couldnt get any money, cos everyone had downloaded it and file shared it? Would he say GREAT how creative? No. He'd say, hang on, thats my job, give me my fuckn money.. Luxury of people with money to talk shit.

[lezzabo]

@Fizzypop1211 how are you disagreeing with me here?

[Fizzypop1211]

@lezzabo

Cos you start off bravely disagreeing with Fry, then step by step back up, reverse and agree with everything he said. You probably a liberal democrat.

[lezzabo]

@Fizzypop1211 no i didnt! you cant blame fry or any other individual entertainer for the problems with filesharing, but you can blame them for endorsing it. which is what i said.

[Fizzypop1211]

@lezzabo

Wow, thats an achievement, to go from making "less sense" to "no sense". Are you on the blob?

[lezzabo]

@Fizzypop1211 your just not up for a conversation are you? im not going to get pissed off at someone who cant understand the most simple of statements. ill continue with my life, you can go and use your 'biting political satire' and 'idiotic comment... unrelated insult followed by question mark' formula on someone who's going to get stressed over a youtube video.

[Fizzypop1211]

@lezzabo

OK. OK you're making me feel bad now. I'll even chuck in a sorry. Don't get any balloons out though, that's it. Look, we all know file stealing is wrong (not paid for, aint sharing, its permanent "take") But we dont like that reality. The Industry is currently prosecuting, that is the only door open at the moment but you can bet your bottom dollar we wont be having this conversation in 10 years, the window of "file sharing opportunity" will have been closed.

[lezzabo]

@Fizzypop1211 Ha! I agree, i think that when the movie business starts to feel it, and i mean really feel it, things will change. a film might have a budget of a few hundred million pounds and if they're making no return on that, drastic action will be taken. i can't stand the idiots who think filesharing is a positive thing, because somewhere down the line someone is still making a lot of money (eg pirate bay), it's just that instead of going to the artist it goes to a crook behind a computer.

[Sidowse]

@lezzabo "...instead of going to the artist it goes to a crook behind a computer...." Clearly you have no idea how file-sharing works. Also you don't account for all of the people that download something to see what it is like and then go and buy the Blu-ray IF and only IF they like the film.

[lezzabo]

@Sidowse how does it work then? and surely you can admit that those people are the minority?

[Sidowse]

@lezzabo Well I am a minority then as I buy the films that I like on DVD/Blu-ray.

File-sharing: There is a person with a file on their computer that they want to share. They create a very small file called a bit-torrent which points to the address(es) of the files to be shared. This bit-torrent is then stored on a website such as "The Pirate bay". The only money "The Pirate Bay" makes is from advertising which only occurs due the website being popular and is in no way connected to the content.

[Sidowse]

@lezzabo ..Continued. Once someone has downloaded the bit-torrent, they load it into a "download-manager" (a piece of software that can be obtained for free from other websites that also advertise.) The file transfer happens from the host of the file, directly to the recipient's computer through the use of the software and NOT from the website. As the shared-file is downloaded, the number of instances of that file increase. The new addresses of the locations of that file are updated via trackers

[Sidowse]

@lezzabo Continued some more. This means that after a while the original sharer could delete the file, but the file would still be distributed perfectly (provided a complete upload had occured) due to all of the new locations on peoples machines where that file now exists. Also each file is split up into lots of separate chunks so that someone can download it from multiple locations simultaneously. This gets round the limited upload-bandwidth on domestic internet-packages.

[Regenmacher175]

9 people want others to be pirates for life.

[xXpimpleXx]

Filesharing basically is just sharing. I was told that was a good thing.

Sharing and stealing are more like opposites. That's where the the industry fails in such an epic way. "You wouldn't steal a handbag"... no, but if I met someone who could clone handbags and offered me one, the last thing I'd think of would be to call him/her a criminal.

[Fizzypop1211]

@xXpimpleXx

wot a load of bollox.

"file sharing" should be called illegal duplicating - which is stealing. "sharing" is a "nice" way of old tramps like napster giving theft a cool soft hospitable visage to dummassess (like you) too dum to tell the difference.

The handbag knockoffs you refer to is a crime, because it is imitation - it pretends to be something it is not, it trades on somebody elses reputation, work, investment without costs, like tax, otherwise you wouldn't buy it.

[Sidowse]

Although some of the people watching that film may indeed steal handbags. There may even be cases where people have stolen hand bags and then paid to see a film due to not owning a computer.

[WalterLiddy]

I like Fry but his argument doesn't make sense. If you steal a handbag that also doesn't irrevocably make you an enemy of society. Stealing is a crime, and even petty crime should be dissuaded. Pretending that stealing isn't criminal only encourages a degeneration of any sense of what is wrong. Look at you people and his audience. You think stealing is okay if it isn't large-scale. That's moral degeneracy.

[Sidowse]

@WalterLiddy NO! You miss the whole point of the argument. Stealing someone's handbag causes financial-loss to the victim, as well as emotional-grief and in some circumstances physical-harm/death.

File sharing on the other hand is completely different. If you provide your own electricity you can copy information. If I offered you a DVD for free would you take it? Why not? If I offered the same DVD but said I wanted £12 for it would you ever buy it? Is it really worth £12?

[Fizzypop1211]

@Sidowse

No, you miss the argument. Its not yours to offer out as a service for others to copy and keep for themselves. Sure, you can sell it, on the media you have it, like DVD - that is a one off secondhand transaction. However, if you provide a service (at whatever cost for whatever reason) to many people to have access to their own copy, you are an accessory to theft, as good as a middleman. "Ididnt steal it guv" no, you facilitated its theft. God, Fry attracts dummassess.

[Sidowse]

@Fizzypop1211 No, you fail to understand the argument. Downloading films and watching them doesn't hurt anyone. You and the film companies make the mistake of assuming that everyone would pay to see the films if that was the only way to see them. The truth is that a lot of people wouldn't bother and would rather go without, preferring to still have that £10 in their pocket. Also, the term "Illegal downloads" is so stupid! Its the uploader committing the offence if anyone is.

[Sidowse]

@WalterLiddy Legally you don't get to see films before you PAY to see them. This means that you often spend quite a bit of money to see something that could be utter shite. Isn't that stealing on behalf of the film maker?

An Actor in a big film earns more money for that film than most of the people that watch it will earn in their entire life. Yet the student is supposed to feel guilt about getting to see the film for free?

[Fizzypop1211]

@Sidowse

No, a student can go round his mates house who has the film and watch it for free with him.

Or, he can club together with a merry band 20p each and rent it between them, or he can wait till its not current and his old man has it and watch it on telly one Christmas.

What he cant do, is purloin a FREE COPY for himself.

Helloooo Hellooooooo

[Sidowse]

@Fizzypop1211 Clearly its a while since you were a student.

All of your points are seriously flawed. They all rely on people having identical tastes in films. In addition to that, the film company doesn't make any money from a student who watches either a friends copy, or from watching it on the TV. The film company doesn't lose anything by having people watch it for free if those people would have never paid for it had paying for it had been the only option in order to see it.

[Fizzypop1211]

@Sidowse

why dont you do an online IQ test. That'll be entertaining.

[Sidowse]

@Fizzypop1211 "why dont you do an online IQ test. That'll be entertaining."

Why the hell would it be entertaining? Do you really think it would be a reliable test? The whole concept of IQ tests are flawed. For instance, nationality/language SHOULD be irrelevant but it isn't and some require the use of memorised data such as geographical locations/names etc.

In any case it is you that creates flawed and discriminating arguments.

[Fizzypop1211]

@Sidowse

"Why the hell would it be entertaining"

LOL

You're quite right. No need to go that far, this is entertaining enough.

[Sidowse]

@Fizzypop1211 ...Continued. "What he cant do, is purloin a FREE COPY for himself." Again another flawed statement. For that is exactly what anyone with a computer and internet access CAN do. Also, downloading stuff is no different from borrowing a friends copy, all be it on a much larger scale. After all, the music/films etc had to originate from somewhere.

You should try not to mention a specific gender unless the topic that you are discussing is gender specific.

[Fizzypop1211]

@Sidowse "You should try not to mention a specific gender unless "

you complete ass. Should it be in neuter? German perhaps? re read my points. you wont do well in your studies if you dont understand the premise presented. They already are arguing this in US with plenty getting heavy fines.

[Sidowse]

@Fizzypop1211 "No, a student can go round his* mates house...." *should be 'their' mates.

"Or, he** can club together...." **should be 'they' can club together.

The way you have worded it implies that it is only males that download illegally, which isn't the case. Do you understand?

[Fizzypop1211]

@Sidowse

manhole chairman milkman......what bloody difference does it make unless you are an insecure petty minded fuckwit?

[Sidowse]

@Fizzypop1211 There is no such thing as "Illegal downloads" and I would love to argue the case in court, because essentially if I gave you a free compressed-copy of a DVD that I own and you accepted it, you would be the one "Illegally downloading". The only difference is the medium and method upon which its distributed.

[Fizzypop1211]

@Sidowse

"you would be the one "Illegally downloading"

you dick head, I would be in possession of stolen property - intellectual property - infringing copy right and having a banana in a public place, but not illegally downloading cos that is wot you woulda dun.

[Sidowse]

@Fizzypop1211 "but not illegally downloading cos that is wot you woulda dun." I said a compressed copy of a DVD that I own, a legal copy. I would be the one at fault for distributing free copies of it, not you the distributee. However, when that same scenario is applied to the internet you would be at fault for "illegally-downloading" which doesn't make any sense. There could be as little as one original distributer, but they try and prosecute 1of a million+ distributee..

[Fizzypop1211]

@Sidowse You know what? I'd love you to be in court arguing it too. Cos they would have your ass then. You'd BOTH be wrong and the owners of the intellectual property would go for whoever they felt they had the strongest easiest case against first. THe point is, you couldn't guarantee getting off with your clever gob, which is part of the deterrent. So therer you have it. roll the dice and take your chance BECAUSE IT IS ILLEGAL.

[Sidowse]

@Fizzypop1211It depends how stupid the court-system is. However,if the court-system is said to be fair, then all must be treated equally. So if an illegal-downloader is to be prosecuted, then EVERYONE that downloaded that same file must also be prosecuted. Then of course there is the fact that it is difficult to prove what and from whom was downloaded.If 5 or more people distributed part of the file in question, with each part on its own being useless, how is the recipient of all 5 parts guilty?

[Fizzypop1211]

@Sidowse

aaaaaah, I get you....you're a romantic.....you think life is good, courts are fair.....people are treated equally - - and that all we need to do is make an impassioned plea to common sense and reasonableness and all will come out in the wash.

But then you morph into "if that doesnt work I'll try a technicality" - eh? so which is it? fair, or, technicality?

Me and my neighbours all nicked a bit of a car and gave it to the same person. We didnt steal a car or make a profit. See? DICK.

[Sidowse]

@Fizzypop1211 Once again you still don't understand, It is the "theft" of copyright being discussed. Neither of the 5 parts of a file on their own are a breech of copyright. Your analogy with the car is completely different. Although to humour you, as long as the recipient of the car-parts was unaware of the the fact that they were stolen they wouldn't be guitly of anything. However, if the car-parts could be cloned for free, there would be no theft to the owners of the car. It would be the..

[Sidowse]

...Continued It would be the car manufacture suing for copyright infringement. However, that Copyright doesn't stop someone making their own part for their own use. For instance, if I measured the dimensions of a car part and happened to know its material compersition, I could make my own part legally as long as I didn't try and sell it.

[Fizzypop1211]

@Sidowse

WRONG WRONG WRONG!!! LOL

I used a tangible physical product analogy to give you brain a fighting chance to recognize theft...but it just refuses to start up !!

Maybe you should nick - buy -or - "share" a car battery and hook up your head up to it to see if your brain is interested in joining the discussion.

"If the car parts could be cloned for free "- can you even hear yourself???" I could make my own part legally as long as I didn't try and sell it." - - or pass it on for free.

[Sidowse]

@Fizzypop1211 LOL. You're too stupid to know you are stupid. A physical product isn't a tangible analogy to digital media. You still don't understand what is being discussed, It is copyright infringement BTW. Car parts cost money to make and to copy, car parts also have a use.Films cost money to make, but it costs less money to copy them than it does to watch them.Films and music have no intrinsic value, or use, if someone doesn't like a film or song then it can be said to be worthless....

[Fizzypop1211]

@Sidowse

FOol

I am calling you stupid. mis applying it back to me is like D'UH. Mind you it is consistent with you being an idiot.

OK. you dont get physical analogy. Thats cos you are a DICK and DONT UNDERSTAND THEFT because it SUITS YOU TO STEAL and make EXCUSES.

[Sidowse]

@Fizzypop1211 Your analogy was just stupid! a film doesn't have to be physical in nature and it can be copied at no cost. Despite this you decide to use car-parts as an analogy. Can you not see the difference, are you too blind (metaphorically speaking) to see?

[Fizzypop1211]

@Sidowse COpyright infringement is theft regardless of how much it costs, how much profit was made, what the colour of the rainbow is. Why am I wasting my breath on you? you are a dick who just doesnt want to pay, parasite, live off the back of other people.

Bet you are the first to open the pub door and last to the bar....just on time to say what you want to drink to someone else who is paying....You Are A P O N C E . Scrounging, Freeloading, non contributing PONCE

[Sidowse]

@Fizzypop1211 Cont.With ur car-part analogy someone has a car and needs parts for it.The car-parts therefore have both a worth and a use.In contrast, a film has no use other than to entertain. if it doesn't entertain then it can be said to be worthless. Yet "legally" the only way to find out if you like a film is to pay for it. Would you buy a car without ever seeing it? Probably not, and a car has a use! This is all off-topic though,the issue is copyright-infringement and a downloader doesn't.

[Fizzypop1211]

@Sidowse YEP...DICK......

[Sidowse]

@Fizzypop1211 Also the theft of car-parts always leaves someone out of pocket. The theft of digital media doesn't necessarily do the same. You and and the film industry automatically assume that people would pay for it should paying for it be the only method in order to view it. Yet it was you that mentioned watching a friends copy, or watching it on TV only. The so called "Illegal distribution" doesn't actually leave anyone out of pocket in the cases that you mentioned.

[Fizzypop1211]

@Sidowse And the coup de gras in stupidity....doesnt get the reasonable allowance granted by the industry to copy your own stuff for your yourself, and enjoy a bought copy with your friends, no additional "licenses" required per person or viewings, just, if you bought it, watch it when you like with whoever you like. BUT YOU CANT DISTRIBUTE IT OR BENEFIT FROM A FREE PERSONAL COPY RECEIVED BY SUCH DISTRIBUTION - or bought from bootleggers. It really isnt hard, you just dont like it , crook.

[Sidowse]

@Fizzypop1211 You have a pre-conceived idea of what "software-pirates" are like. You assume that EVERYONE who downloads illegaly will never pay for ANY content that they have downloaded. Your level of ignorance and narrow-mindedness is so great that you shouldn't be entitled to a fucking opinion. Yes I download lots of films, but I bet it would suprise you to learn that I also own over 40 (Legal) DVD/Blu-rays which is probably more than you do.The concept of individualism too fucking difficult?

[Sidowse]

@Fizzypop1211 Also I love how you are too stupid to create a retorte to any of my arguments and just keep changing the subject.It isn't illegal to download, or at least it shouldn't be, but there are probably stupid American-Lawyers that can't work out why it is an impossibility to make downloading-illeagal. It is the upload that committs the offence. LOL thats why practically all of the cases against the Pirate-Bay were dropped because the Lawyers were too fucking dumb tounderstand theprocess.

[Fizzypop1211]

@Sidowse ".It isn't illegal to download, or at least it shouldn't be"

HA HA HA You fuckwit.

"You assume that EVERYONE who downloads illegaly will never pay for ANY content"

HA HA HA Fuckwit.

"I also own over 40 (Legal) DVD/Blu-rays which is probably more than you do"

HA HA HA Dick.

"The concept of individualism too fucking difficult?"

HA "Theft" too difficult for you? STOP! SHARER! LOL

"you probably own less than 20 DVDs and yet choose to give me a hard time"

HA HA HA well fuck off then.

[Sidowse]

@Fizzypop1211 LOL the irony is that you probably own less than 20 DVDs and yet choose to give me a hard time about downloading "illegally". You need to learn that people are individuals.

[madampeach]

@WalterLiddy He is explaining that there is unarguably a moral grey area in which the difference between 'crime/stealing' and acts like p2p file sharing need to be acknowledged. He isn't pretending that stealing isn't criminal but saying that downloading is not and should not be considered theft. Consider that p2p file sharing is no different than if I were to hear a stranger on the bus sing a song I'd never heard. I did not pay for it, but now I can sing it anytime, anywhere. Is that criminal?

[Fizzypop1211]

@madampeach

You are an idiot.

[mellbluemerle1]

He is god!



[arronarronarron]

I get dial-up speed whatever I pay for.

[inivonwini]

This is great!

[DjAlanBarratt]

i run my own online record label .... i write dance music and i use samples

who the fuck am i to try and stop people sharing my music... the other point is

there's nothing i can do to stop it.... i use to release vinyl years ago and made a bit of money, sales digitally are not that good, but i have to accept it and work harder i guess... people who want to buy will buy and those that do not wont... you have to understand that with torrents comes virus' also... a chance we all take :)

[Jyagos1]

@DjAlanBarratt Why aren't you still selling the vinyl? Why not add more value to the music by putting on your website "vinyls also available!" I would say there's a lot of avenues to take, you just have to look for them. :)

[DjAlanBarratt]

@Jyagos1 because its not cost effective and not good for the enviroment either, i would be making a loss everytime and i havent used vinyl now for over 8 years to dj, it's heavy and takes up too much space in my house..... i like techno to... and vinyl was the techno of last century, i like to keep moving forwards, not stay in one place, i dont even use cds anymore, im completely digital, all i need now when i go djing is a usb key and the new pioneers reed from one key... job done and i love it

[TheOneX32]

I'd buy music if the money actually went to the artist I am buying. The fact that the artists only get around 2-5% of revenue actually seems like I am wasting my money. I'd like to support my favorite bands, not their record labels.

[Fizzypop1211]

@TheOneX32

Your argument fails if you read posts by DjAlanBarratt on this page - - all the money goes to him, but its piss all because there IS NO RECORD COMPANY promoting, investing, advertising - and yes, taking a big slice in return.

So what do you want. 100% of bugger all or 10% of a bloody lot? It aint rocket science.

[dibaterman]

Very true, when it's convenient I get what I want and if it's not convenient to do it that way I do it from home. I'm fair game as long as I don't have to use a credit card for example.

[Killjeser]

We pirated with the cassette and VCR and will continue to do so digitally. The media still lives on and will continue to do so as well.

[SiliconBong]

Wasn't the cassette going to be the death of the vinyl record? Killjeser

[spinycrayfish]

I think filesharing should be the way for music distribution. If a band isn't good enough to make it on the live scene with full concerts then they dont deserve to be rich and famous anyway. It would do away with all the wannabe celebrities and manufactured crap, and stop the parasites (managers, agents, lawyers and record company execs) from leaching off the real stars...

[MsJonasBrosFan69]

@spinycrayfish That's not the way it works. In stead, the talentless people who agree to do lots of commercials and cells out completly, while the people who actually work on their music loses.

[spinycrayfish]

@MsJonasBrosFan69

That's what I'm saying, if you take the money out of that scene by replacing CDs with free downloads there will be nothing to sell out on. If poptarts couldn't sell 50 million records of autotuned rubbish there would be no incentive for such a person to exist, and the people behind them would realign to the musicians who can actually make music.

[MsJonasBrosFan69]

@spinycrayfish But because they wouldn't be able to sell out on music, they would have to sell out on OTHER things, like commercials for hair products and you name it.

[spinycrayfish]

@MsJonasBrosFan69

But you can't use your name as a promotional tool if you don't have one. A celebrity endorsement from someone who isn't a celebrity won't succeed for the wannabe famous hack or the company using them for marketing.

[MsJonasBrosFan69]

@spinycrayfish There'll be people who have like... one big hit, and after that, they can just do everything to stay famous, and they'll end up being famous for being famous. That's what I think. We can agree on disagreeing.

[TheReilly8]

im gonna show this vid to my dad as he thinks that stealing music is criminal and is equvilent to stealing money of people

[josepheuan09]

When I go to buy music CD's I tend to go with artists I already know.

I dont like taking the chance in spending money on something I might not like.

Downloading allows you to discover new artists.

If you like the music then you’re more likely to go to gigs or buy future CD's from them.

Don’t like it, then you can delete it and you've saved money and time.

A lot of artists know this and thats why more are giving away music to allow people to find them.

It's the gigs they make the money on..

[RODDERS790]

HELLO ANDREW CROSSLEY ......PAYBACK IS A BITCH! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[CCPlaetean]

google ACTA

[ProfesserMoriarty]

You wouldnt steal a car. True but that doesnt mean I wouldn't copy it exactly and give a copy of it to everyone for free.

[MrDarkbloom]

Well-said, Mr Fry. Well-said.

[bigfatpig85]

I see downloading movies and music like renting a book from the Library that I will one day return years down the road.

[Fizzypop1211]

@bigfatpig85

yep, thats why you're an idiot.

[hifhif123]

Somebody make him a God!!!

[YanlingSentinel]

@hifhif123 he is a god. we just need him in power.

[tdurran]

@hifhif123 I think he's already done that himself.

[doddsalfa]

little monotonic.Sfry has a lot of money.

[TheSpudroll]

Would Tay Zonday have ever gotten as famous as he did, or as rich, if he hadn't allowed his music to be downloaded for free? I doubt it.

[KwantumPsyentisd]

i love the "we're not nouns!"

[b4gm4n]

The film industry and music industry after the big 'hoo-har' over pirate bay (maybe just before) not sure, setup so called 'honey-traps' fake torrents of the latest films and tunes for suspecting people to download which then were tracked & traced to the person who downloaded it just to make an example of them.

[conradleviston]

I have a lot of sympathy with Stephen Fry's argument, and in fact most of his points I agree with. My view on pirating used to be exactly what he was saying, but I am afraid that I have met one too many people who proudly proclaim "I don't buy music."

Certainly the record industry hasn't been too smart about this, but I can't deny that there are many people out there who can afford to pay for the music that they listen to but don't.

[JoolsCaesar]

@conradleviston

You also need to show that they would have paid for it had they not been able to download it.

I also think film issue is quite different from the music issue. I feel that downloading music is worse in some cases because the person almost always knows that they like and want the song because they've already heard it. With movies, it is very often the case that you have no idea what you are getting. Is it fair that Transformers 2 took so many people's money, when so few like it?

[robertmcmullan]

I'm not sure how the introduction of the VCR can be compared to downloading. Obviously it's still a product that people can purchase, whereas downloading is about people being able to steal music, and basically take a step towards professional musicians, having to work day jobs and make music in their spare time.

Obviously the public don't care if they get their music for free, and smaller muso's have to mortgage their house and work double normal hours for months, just to get an album out.

[robertmcmullan]

It's up to musicians to make a stand for their rights, which they are doing, which I support.

Muso's have to love what they're doing so the music is still good, but working through the night when you'd rather be at home with your family, going on tour and missing everyone, thousands of dollars spent on gear, recordings, promotion, that's not fun, its hard work. And people should be fairly paid for hard work.

[acsflaw1]

@robertmcmullan I TOTALLY agree with you, the suspicion is that ACS LAW will NOT go to court as they have NO real evidence and should a muso make money from a legal process because the music he is making is crap and noone would buy it? See my point? The games industry thrived on the Apogee model of giving away the first part of a game so people could play it and then would go out and buy the whole game. The BIG corporations are not with ACS LAW as they sell GOOD stuff.

[acsflaw1]

@acsflaw1 I think good music will always sell, and dont forget you cant pirate a LIVE CONCERT, well the Grateful Dead used to actually encourage that with recording booths at their live gigs, but you get my point, they GREW big by looking after the fans, not suing people who would never buy their crap in the first place. A REAL fan would never copy your music/game/film, so their is no worries, only people who would not buy in the first place copy stuff IMHO unless they are selling it

[Piisuke]

@acsflaw1 On top of that, everything spread on the Internet. Arctic Monkeys is a prime example of the power of the Internet. Radiohead's last album was released for free to download.

On top of that, copying a file ain't stealing. It is duplicating a file. If I were to see someone's bike and make a replica of that bike, I am not stealing it. If I were to take his bike instead then yeah... I did steal it, but I made a copy of it instead.

Record labels are idiots. They know nothing.

[ourben]

@Piisuke And that Lily Allen cunt. She'd be nobody, well she'd have been nobody all along, were it not for file sharing.

[JoolsCaesar]

@robertmcmullan

It's a perfect comparison. A VCR is not the same as a VHS remember. VCRs are the recorders that allow people to tape movies and TV shows. As predicted, they brought the television industry to it's knees. OK that prediction didn't pan out.

[robertmcmullan]

Yeah well fuck you Stephen Fry,

It might be ok for artists that are so big they can still make good money out of a small percentage of what their product sales would be if people didn't steal their records.

But what about if your a smaller band??

You've just outlaid thousands of your own dollars to make a record, years of blood sweat and tears, and at the finish line you face hordes of fuckwits with your attitude, who say that love the music and listen to it non stop,

[robertmcmullan]

BUT.... dont understand what the big deal is when they tell you to your face that they didn't buy it, they just burnt their mates' copy.

The music biz already rips artists bling with major companies having the whole industry tied up.

Can't get on commercial radio unless your with a Major label, can't get with a major label, unless you r happy making $1 off your own CD, among countless other pitfalls.

[robertmcmullan]

And NO! 95% of people can afford a CD, just like everyone can afford a bottle of wine or a 6 pack. but what is happening is that it doesn't even occur to people that they should buy it.

It might not matter to Metallica or Madonna, but 95% of the musos in the world are not rich.

It's not about loving music, dont gimme that crap. CD's are generally 15 or bucks these days. If you love it, pay for it to keep the artists surviving to keep making music.

[robertmcmullan]

and even if it is true that creativity is enhanced... are we talking about busking in the park with my crap guitar amatuers being creative? or proper, professional world class acts producing product?

Is free music better for the 'I recorded my album in my bedroom' weekend warriors? Or the people who 'love' music so much that that they commit their lives to making it at the highest level? Like I said, living from music is already SO hard, let alone dealing with a new generation who think that

[robertmcmullan]

And even when people think its FREE, thats a myth. It costs money to learn, buy gear, record, distribute. Every single thing that contributed to the music that the punter loves, cost a shit load. So its not free music, it pay to play, which is a fucked idea, and will kill the industry if it goes too far.

[robertmcmullan]

Hahaa, imagine that, 'yeah man, i've outlaid millions into this studio, so I charge a thousand a day. "oh no man fuck that, dont you loooooove music man? spread that looooove dont be such a corprate hater!,

dude, i still need to pay my mortage and send my kids to school...

Oh no man you just dont Loooooove music enough....... !!!

What a joke!

Like I said it might not matter to metallica, but it matters to the other 95% of musicians in the world

MUSIC CAN BE FREE, WHEN LIFE IS FREE!!!!!!!!!!

[acsflaw1]

Depends what you create music for I guess, I would wager that if it is to purely make money you are not a real musician, but that is only my view.  But listen I have NO argument people protecting their WORK, my argument is what ACS LAW seem to be doing, using the law to bolster money lost on games and music that were so crap that people didnt buy them in the first place. AVATAR was the most pirated film yet done best at Box Office, go figure. If something is good people will copy and then BUY

[acsflaw1]

I would agree with you though that IF a film or game is copied then SOLD that would be morally wrong. I have done neither though, I always buy what I want, never copy or download, SO ACS LAW are wrong.

We all have different ideas but dont forget that when records first came out the music industry tried to stop it as it feared it would destroy them, of course they adapted and one could argue that records became the industry. Same as Videos and Cinema. I am serious, google, jack velenti

[acsflaw1]

"'I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone.' Jack Valenti said this in 1982 in testimony regarding why VCR should be banned!!!! Adapt and overcome, we are at the trheshold of new technology

[robertmcmullan]

And i don't believe that people's current opinion is that they should buy it, I dont think it occurs to them to buy it because people consider downloading it so harmless. Which as I said, takes profit away from countless, hardworking smaller independant musicians.

[vikeyev1]

@acsflaw1 Yes but pirating doesn't in any way make you bad, many people pirate things because they haven't the money to buy it at first. The best possible example is I could give you is the game Amnesia The Dark Descent, I find it an intriguing and excellent game, when I first heard about it from a friend I jumped online and pirated it straight away, after playing it for awhile I decided I to pay for the game to help support the company, who I later learned

continued......

[vikeyev1]

@acsflaw1 Had to take a 50% pay cut just to release the game, although the thing that truly hurt the company money wise, was the 0 day piracy. In which I mean, just before a release developers will send their games to journals and publications to play and review the games, one of the staff from one of the publications hacked the game and posted a copy online 1 day before the release of the actual release of the game. The developers were worried people would beat the game and forget about it

con

[vikeyev1]

@acsflaw1 before the actual release date and not actually pay for the game. Frictional games (the developers) don't actually hate pirates, but they weren't happy about people being able to get their hands on it before they started to sell it.

[robertmcmullan]

Well my view, is that making good music takes a life time of dedication and sacrifice. If you don't take it seriously, it may seem like a past-time, but that's why I made the difference between a bedroom amateur, and a world class professional player. I think both reasonable financial return and love of your art are needed in equal measure.

[cookieyeah1]

The entertainment industry needs to see filesharing as a form of promotion. Making money off filesharing is a different matter though.

[Ramshobraja]

Fry made the wrong argument. Larry Lessig makes a better point on how copyright laws stop creativity.

[mythinktube]

If you're prepared to wait about 6months after a DVD release then it rarely will cost you more than £5-7

That coupled with £10/month for Spotify.. I really don't think you can argue the industry is too expensive

Blu Rays on the other hand.... now they are f'ing expensive and though I own a player I can't see myself building a collection for at least another year! £18 on average per disc?? Don't think so!!!

[mythinktube]

Stephen Fry inspiring as always however for once I disagree with him. The majority of people I've ever met who illegally download files could probably afford to buy them (although obviously not as much) they just don't want to. None of them are young/poor/students

My money now goes on a Spotify subscription and cheap DVDs which totals per month about the same as a cable tv package which a great many people somehow do afford

[Domzdream]

I say exactly the same thing to all my friends who download.

I used to buy pirated games, copy music etc. But now that I have a decent paying job, I go out and buy all my music, all my dvd and games. I do this because I feel like these artists have worked their arses off just for me, and I'm contributing my money for their effort that I appreciate. I turn down offers from friends all the time with great compunction, then say no thanks, I like to collect the originals.

[acsflaw1]

@Domzdream I take yur point, although of course they work for themselves at the end of the day, and a download is NOT a lost sale per se, for instance I am sure many people will download stuff to see what it is like but would not buy the product regardless, for instance I know of many friends who went to the Cinema to watch a Film AFTER watching a copy, a film they would never have thought of seeing. Same goes for games IMHO, but that is NOT what ACS LAW are doing, they are targetting innocents

[bartonim]

He has some great points--if the industry, that is, entertainment--would bring down their prices or make it available worldwide (region codes on DVDs are fucking ridiculous), they wouldn't be fighting this.

[acsflaw1]

We have a huge problem in the UK with ACS LAW sending out 15,000+ letters in their speculative invoicing scheme. Many many of these will be innocent people. I believe it is a scandal that needs to be redressed