Downloading media from the net

Post Reply New Topic

Your opinions please!

I buy most things. I only download the stuff I wouldn't normally buy. I very recently had the chance to d/l 24-Series1-4 but I bought the DVD box-sets instead.

Bland-I personally never download things without paying. If I know something is wrong, I will most likely not do it.

As far as tv + films go, the future is to place subtle advertisements in the corner of the screen (where the watermark often is anyway)

That way, everyones happy.

The viewer get everything for free, the advertisers get a massive global audience, the producers spend their massive advertising revenue on making popular shows, then hand all the distribution costs over to the filesharers who work for free.

The only people who lose out are the retailers & distributors/manufacturers (who are unnecessary and bad for the environment anyway)

As far as music goes, hopefully one day the only people left making music will be doing it out of love, and we'll see an end to manufactured commercial rubbish.

i have dial up anyhow, so its too slow.

well, I'd pick the last option but I'm not sure about the pancake toppings.


what about Royalty Free music?

(pelted by rotten vegetables)

I don't buy much media. I have 6 hard drives and share 1.1 terabytes (or about 1130 gigabytes) on my PC.

I agree, this manufactured stuff has to go away. It's why I haven't bought a CD in a long time.

I don't download anymore, especially since the RIAA started suing users over it. Alot of what I was downloading was stuff that was no longer commercially available, or some stuff that has never been released on CD and probably won't be.

For a while, I was downloading Star Trek: Enterprise from the net because at the time, I couldn't pick up a TV station showing it. That's the kind of stuff I downloaded, stuff I simply couldn't find.

I used to be a member of delirium-vault (now folded) who specialised in rare and obscure stuff - this time last year, when loads of sites were being intinidated into shutting down, DV closed down temporarily then reappeared with a new rule - we could share anything we liked as long as it wasnt owned or distributed by one of the 'dreaded companies' which make up the RIAA.

So all you americans who are scared of being sued, i think you might actually be safe so long as you follow that rule. It probably eliminates most of the stuff your after, as even obscure foriegn films can be distributed by major companies, but theres also plenty of exceptions.

Yeah - I often download the hard to find stuff, purely because I don't have a VHS player and don't wanna have to convert to digital.

I voted for the 2nd option. Would simultaneously vote for: "Artists and film companies make too much money from consumers. Make it cheaper, I would pay"

if I could.

I voted for 'make it cheaper' because I think people would consume a lot more music if it were cheaper and not necessarily result in lower record revenues. I personally download a lot of music but I also purchase music that I might not be able to find online, but being able to listen to a lot of music for cheap has probably increased my interest in music such that I buy about as much music as before but am exposed to a lot more interesting stuff. If music were cheaper to buy I would definitely buy a lot more. I think a lot of the music industry's woes have most to do with unrealistic pricing and restrictions, and the "every download corresponds to a lost sale" notion flies in the face of fundamental microeconomic principles.

I download a lot of stuff off the internet, however, a sizable portion of the stuff that I download is stuff that I've owned previously, in Non-Digital Formats.

For Example, I owned Husker Du's Zen Arcade Album in LP Format. I also owned it twice on CD. -Sold off once, stolen the second time.

I had a hard time connecting with the question, so i've decided to vote "Can I have pancakes for din dins mummy?".

Last edited by pad on 11 Jan 2006, 5:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.