Stars back money for web downloads

[John]

The aim of the Connected to British Film and TV campaign is to show people how the money they spend on cinema tickets, downloads and DVDs helps pay for new shows and films to be made.

Among its supporters are actors Nick Moran, Noel Clarke and Tamzin Outhwaite.

Its launch comes as new research shows less than half of 18-to-30-year olds (39%) think they should pay for films and television programmes downloaded from the internet, even though almost three quarters (74%) happily pay for cinema tickets and DVDs.

Moran, who starred in Lock Stock & Two Smoking Barrels, endorsed the campaign.

He said: "Every time you pay for a cinema ticket, a DVD or Blue-ray, or a legal download, it makes great British films happen and highlights the immense wealth of constantly emerging talent we have in this country.

"So you're the real stars of British Film and that's what the Connected to British Film and TV campaign is celebrating."

Matt di Angelo, who stars in BBC1's Hustle, said: "The Brits love film and TV and this campaign is a great way of celebrating a proud national passion.

"But we also need to realise that it's only by buying official DVDs, downloads and cinema tickets that we can enjoy the TV dramas and blockbuster films that we watch on a regular basis.

"We all have to recognise our responsibility to buy and download legally."

[Rage & Love]

Exactly, even though I don't know any of those actors by name but if I saw Lock Stock And Two Smoking Barrels again, I'd probably recognise the other guy.
Physical copies of video games are better so why can't the same thing be applied to music and movies as well.
I don't really see why musicians should spend years creating albums when their finished product is going to be downloaded, the least people can do is pay that $20 to get it.

[LaineySonnen]

Exactly, even though I don't know any of those actors by name but if I saw Lock Stock And Two Smoking Barrels again, I'd probably recognise the other guy.
Physical copies of video games are better so why can't the same thing be applied to music and movies as well.
I don't really see why musicians should spend years creating albums when their finished product is going to be downloaded, the least people can do is pay that $20 to get it.

because some albums only have 2-3 songs you want to listen to, so spenidng $20 on an album is a bit steep when we arent rich like you

[Wolf]

because some albums only have 2-3 songs you want to listen to, so spenidng $20 on an album is a bit steep when we arent rich like you

than earn money if you want to listen to good music. I have to admit that I downloaded Overkill illegally, but I could not found it anywhere else.

[Rage & Love]

because some albums only have 2-3 songs you want to listen to, so spenidng $20 on an album is a bit steep when we arent rich like you

Well you're not going to know if you only like two or three songs unless you buy the album, if the album was paid for, you never know, you could end up liking the whole album.
Same thing happened to me when I got Bruce Springsteen's latest album 'Working On A Dream', I only got it for the title track but after hearing the rest of it, I like pretty much the whole album minus a couple of songs.
Music should be considered like a luxury of sorts, if you can't afford it then go without it.

[The_Mike]

Well you're not going to know if you only like two or three songs unless you buy the album, if the album was paid for, you never know, you could end up liking the whole album.
Same thing happened to me when I got Bruce Springsteen's latest album 'Working On A Dream', I only got it for the title track but after hearing the rest of it, I like pretty much the whole album minus a couple of songs.
Music should be considered like a luxury of sorts, if you can't afford it then go without it.

And what if you don't like it? Then you've wasted your money, and the sale still counts, the artist still gets their money (as if they need it) and believes that they have another satisfied customer. If you pay for a movie and it turns out to suck and have been put together in a sloppy, lazy fashion, you can't get your money back just because you didn't like the job the director or actors did. How is that fair? If a joiner comes and fits a door in your house and totally screws it up, you don't have to pay them, you can refuse based on the poor job they did. Why can't we ever get our money back when not satisfied with a film or CD?

Besides, when the studio executives stop collecting huge bonuses and the shareholders stop collecting huge profits and pump their money into helping make more movies and produce more talent rather than more profit, then I'll be happy to join in and contribute. Until otherwise, why should the relatively poor keep paying to make the rich richer?

[Rage & Love]

And what if you don't like it? Then you've wasted your money, and the sale still counts, the artist still gets their money (as if they need it) and believes that they have another satisfied customer. If you pay for a movie and it turns out to suck and have been put together in a sloppy, lazy fashion, you can't get your money back just because you didn't like the job the director or actors did. How is that fair? If a joiner comes and fits a door in your house and totally screws it up, you don't have to pay them, you can refuse based on the poor job they did. Why can't we ever get our money back when not satisfied with a film or CD?

Besides, when the studio executives stop collecting huge bonuses and the shareholders stop collecting huge profits and pump their money into helping make more movies and produce more talent rather than more profit, then I'll be happy to join in and contribute. Until otherwise, why should the relatively poor keep paying to make the rich richer?

Its basically a risk you have to take, I got the new Nickelback album because of the song 'Something In Your Mouth', I hadn't heard the other songs before, some I didn't like anyways but thats the risk you take when buying an album.
Same with movies, it all comes back to the risk factor, theres movies I've watched based on the trailer that turned out bad, Vantage Point, 88 Minutes etc.
As for the getting your money back question, the answer is simple, copyright laws

The artists are the ones who are spending months in the studios, writing, recording etc, compared to the little time it takes to walk into a Walmart or JB Hi Fi or whatever, to buy an album.
Like I said, if you can't afford it, go without.

[The_Mike]

Its basically a risk you have to take, I got the new Nickelback album because of the song 'Something In Your Mouth', I hadn't heard the other songs before, some I didn't like anyways but thats the risk you take when buying an album.
Same with movies, it all comes back to the risk factor, theres movies I've watched based on the trailer that turned out bad, Vantage Point, 88 Minutes etc.
As for the getting your money back question, the answer is simple, copyright laws

Why is it a risk factor that we should accept? As I pointed out, it is not accepted anywhere else. If you go to a restaurant, expecting a good meal, and get served tripe, you are well within your rights to refuse to pay. Why should movie studios and record companies be exempt from the rules that everyone else has to follow?

The artists are the ones who are spending months in the studios, writing, recording etc, compared to the little time it takes to walk into a Walmart or JB Hi Fi or whatever, to buy an album.
Like I said, if you can't afford it, go without.

It has nothing to do with convenience, though I do think record labels and studios should do more to make their content accessible in a convenient manner online. None of this DRM nonsense that blocks you from using the stuff you paid for on an MP3 player you paid for. But anyway, a chef can spend a long time preparing your meal. Doesn't mean he can't screw up, and doesn't mean you can't refuse to pay. If artists expect people to play by the rules, they have to come join us in the real world, where quality counts.

[Rage & Love]

Why is it a risk factor that we should accept? As I pointed out, it is not accepted anywhere else. If you go to a restaurant, expecting a good meal, and get served tripe, you are well within your rights to refuse to pay. Why should movie studios and record companies be exempt from the rules that everyone else has to follow?

Yes you do have the right to refuse to pay, but that doesn't mean you're going to get a free meal though. Its no different with albums that should be bought.
Like I said, it all comes down to the copyright laws stopping you from returning an album cause you didn't like it, someone could easily copy the album onto iTunes and return it and get their money back, saying they didn't like it.

It has nothing to do with convenience, though I do think record labels and studios should do more to make their content accessible in a convenient manner online. None of this DRM nonsense that blocks you from using the stuff you paid for on an MP3 player you paid for. But anyway, a chef can spend a long time preparing your meal. Doesn't mean he can't screw up, and doesn't mean you can't refuse to pay. If artists expect people to play by the rules, they have to come join us in the real world, where quality counts.

Some bands are beginning to make bonus songs on iTunes available, or the bonus stuff off albums when you put it into a computer, you get the extras etc.
The chef thing again, there are going to be people that don't like the album for whatever means, songs, production etc.
Death Magnetic was criticised for the production aspect, no one knew it would be like that, that comes back to the risk factor when buying albums, you don't know what to expect minus the single or two that are released on the radio before the release.

[The_Mike]

Yes you do have the right to refuse to pay, but that doesn't mean you're going to get a free meal though.

Yes it does. That's precisely what it means. You may choose not to finish the meal because you dislike it but the meal has been made and served and then you do not pay for it because its quality was poor. That's a free meal.

Its no different with albums that should be bought.
Like I said, it all comes down to the copyright laws stopping you from returning an album cause you didn't like it, someone could easily copy the album onto iTunes and return it and get their money back, saying they didn't like it.

Well of course copyright laws stop you from returning an album because you didn't like it. That's what I was complaining about. It is the opposite to how it works for everything else. Somehow media content providers like record labels and movie studios have managed to insulate themselves from any responsibility to provide quality products. You can just as easily eat most of your meal then complain about it and you're likely to get away with it, but we don't have laws that shield restaurants from this, we have laws that protect the consumer. In every walk of life, the consumer is protected because they have such little relative power. In media content, the balance is totally tipped in the favour of record labels and movie studios.

Some bands are beginning to make bonus songs on iTunes available, or the bonus stuff off albums when you put it into a computer, you get the extras etc.
The chef thing again, there are going to be people that don't like the album for whatever means, songs, production etc.
Death Magnetic was criticised for the production aspect, no one knew it would be like that, that comes back to the risk factor when buying albums, you don't know what to expect minus the single or two that are released on the radio before the release.

You are totally missing the point. I know you don't know what to expect. That's why if a product is not the standard you expect, you should be able to return it for a refund. By law you are on everything else.

[Rage & Love]

Yes it does. That's precisely what it means. You may choose not to finish the meal because you dislike it but the meal has been made and served and then you do not pay for it because its quality was poor. That's a free meal.

Doesn't mean the restaurant will oblige

Well of course copyright laws stop you from returning an album because you didn't like it. That's what I was complaining about. It is the opposite to how it works for everything else. Somehow media content providers like record labels and movie studios have managed to insulate themselves from any responsibility to provide quality products. You can just as easily eat most of your meal then complain about it and you're likely to get away with it, but we don't have laws that shield restaurants from this, we have laws that protect the consumer. In every walk of life, the consumer is protected because they have such little relative power. In media content, the balance is totally tipped in the favour of record labels and movie studios.

And once again, it all comes back to the risk factor.
Just because you don't like an album, that doesn't stop you from getting your money back, you can easily sell it online.
Not exactly the same media but I done that with Smackdown vs Raw 2009.

[The_Mike]

Doesn't mean the restaurant will oblige

They can argue with you, certainly, but they cannot prove that you enjoyed your meal. You are not going to go to jail for refusing to pay for a meal you do not find satisfactory.

And once again, it all comes back to the risk factor.
Just because you don't like an album, that doesn't stop you from getting your money back, you can easily sell it online.
Not exactly the same media but I done that with Smackdown vs Raw 2009.

Actually you're legally prohibited from selling on your CDs by the licensing agreement that is printed on most of them. Not sure if video games are covered, though of course people resell both all the time. Regardless, it is unlikely you will get the same amount for them, and that doesn't negate the fact that you just gave money to a record company for a product that turned out to be poor quality. They get to keep the money? How is that fair?

Plus no matter how many times you say 'risk factor', it doesn't make it true. CDs are not special. Again, I ask, why should they be different from any other consumer product or service that you can refuse to pay for or get a refund if you are unsatisfied?

[Rage & Love]

I've bought albums online a few times, go onto the likes of E-Bay and you'll see plenty of CDs on there, so I doubt the license agreement thingy you mentioned has anything to do with it.

When buying an album, you base whether or not you're going to buy it off the single that that band has released, unless of course you're a die hard fan of that band and you'll buy anything they put out, like me and AC/DC.
9 times out of 10, theres going to be a song that you're not going to like, it happened on AC/DC's album Black Ice when I heard the song Decibel.
Thats where the risk factor comes into play, you can't guarantee you'll like the whole album if you've only listened to the song or two thats been released for radio.
CDs are different to other items that can be returned, they're one of the few things that can be returned and still used at the same time, which does make them special

[The_Mike]

I've bought albums online a few times, go onto the likes of E-Bay and you'll see plenty of CDs on there, so I doubt the license agreement thingy you mentioned has anything to do with it.

Just because it's available online doesn't mean it's legal. Technically it is against the copyright notice printed onto most CDs. Unauthorised lending, copying, public broadcast or resale is prohibited. Try doing some research.

When buying an album, you base whether or not you're going to buy it off the single that that band has released, unless of course you're a die hard fan of that band and you'll buy anything they put out, like me and AC/DC.

So when buying a meal, do you only get to have the appetizer then if the main course and dessert suck, too bad? I don't think so. If you like the single, buy the single, the album's overall quality has nothing to do with it.

9 times out of 10, theres going to be a song that you're not going to like, it happened on AC/DC's album Black Ice when I heard the song Decibel.
Thats where the risk factor comes into play, you can't guarantee you'll like the whole album if you've only listened to the song or two thats been released for radio.

A song or two that you do not like is an entirely different proposition from an overall album failing to satisfy, which is what we are talking about. How many times are you going to talk about the risk factor and how many times am I going to have to refute that it is acceptable?

CDs are different to other items that can be returned, they're one of the few things that can be returned and still used at the same time, which does make them special

No, it doesn't. As with my example, you cannot return food after you've eaten it (well you could, but I don't think they would like that). If the restaurant screws up and fails to satisfy the customer, they accept the loss. A joiner's time cannot be returned to him, whether he has done a good job or not, you have used his time up. If he failed to install your door correctly, that's his fault, he accepts the loss. You can't prove definitively that these people actually failed to do their job, but everyone who provides a product or service carries that risk on their backs. It is only in the consumable media world that they get away with transferring the risk to the consumer. Again, I ask, what makes them special?

[Rage & Love]

Just because it's available online doesn't mean it's legal. Technically it is against the copyright notice printed onto most CDs. Unauthorised lending, copying, public broadcast or resale is prohibited. Try doing some research.

Same thing goes for illegal downloads that you're trying to defend.

So when buying a meal, do you only get to have the appetizer then if the main course and dessert suck, too bad? I don't think so. If you like the single, buy the single, the album's overall quality has nothing to do with it.

Singles are barely released in physical copies anymore, iTunes is used for that and not everyone has an iTunes account and/or prefer the physical copy.
If you like the single then chances are that you'll like a few more songs on the album, not all of which are released as singles.

A song or two that you do not like is an entirely different proposition from an overall album failing to satisfy, which is what we are talking about. How many times are you going to talk about the risk factor and how many times am I going to have to refute that it is acceptable?

Then like I said, sell it online like many other people do.

No, it doesn't. As with my example, you cannot return food after you've eaten it (well you could, but I don't think they would like that). If the restaurant screws up and fails to satisfy the customer, they accept the loss. A joiner's time cannot be returned to him, whether he has done a good job or not, you have used his time up. If he failed to install your door correctly, that's his fault, he accepts the loss. You can't prove definitively that these people actually failed to do their job, but everyone who provides a product or service carries that risk on their backs. It is only in the consumable media world that they get away with transferring the risk to the consumer. Again, I ask, what makes them special?

Why bother returning food after you've eaten it, all it takes is a couple of tastes to determine whether or not you like it. Besides, food and time are different to items such as CDs, DVDs etc.
If someone buys an album, likes it, copies it onto iTunes then returns it saying they didn't like it and gets their money back, what do the artists get out of it?
Ripped off like they are now, its fair enough and common sense that they shouldn't be able to be returned, They only difference between selling it online and returning it to the store is that if its sold online, you get your money back and the artists get their money for the album they made, it goes both ways.