MP3 Downloads: When is it OK?

Anybody with the smallest wit is aware that all current screamed fears over mp3 downloads have a point of origin at record companies, not artists. That's not to say that some artists aren't worried, but the real fear is from record companies, clinging on to a tired old model, hoping to keep getting money for old rope and scared that artists could, quite easily, pass music directly to their fans, and miss the record execs out entirely. And without their profiteering, music could be cheaper whilst still giving higher revenue to its creator than they currently receive, so both fan and artist benefit. Although that depends on the price, of course; see terrific article by anaglyph.

But, apparently, illegal downloads are already costing the industry a bazillion quid. Based upon the entirely bogus idea that each download represents a lost sale, naturally.

And now a 3-strikes rule is going to be law, because of lobbying pressure from record companies. If found to be downloading music, your internet connection, on the third occasion, could be reduced to the speed of dial-up. That's for everybody in the household that uses the connection, not just the offender. And it means, potentially, 3 song downloads is all it would take. By someone parked outside piggy-backing your wireless.

This is such an idiot law; the really bad offenders will dodge being found out, so none of its supposed intent will really succeed. And, sadly, the Featured Artists Coalition support this. I agree with almost all of what they say, but not this. And sadly, that means I'll be buying no albums by the signatories (nor illegally downloading them).

Which leads to the point: is it ever OK to download mp3s? Well, I think it is. Obviously, willy-nilly downloading of mp3s isn't the greatest idea in the world if you really care about music and want artists to be able to feed themselves long enough to produce another tune, but sometimes, surely? I mean, who are these hypocritical signatories in the FAC? Do they expect me to believe they never loaned a mate a CD, or made a compilation for a friend? It's not really different.

So here are three occasions that will end up with me losing broadband:

1. I own the album but I'm a lazy bugger. I have a lot of vinyl and a gadget to copy albums to mp3s, but of course it has to do this at normal speed and then I have to chop up the files produced. It's not hard, but it's time-consuming. So if someone has effectively already done the conversion, and I bought the album originally, why not use their files? Loss to Artist: nil. Albums that I really love, I've re-purchased on CD for the quality. If I can't do this, then I'll listen to the vinyl rather than get another copy.
   
2. The album doesn't exist, dammit! This would be the case with Boing! by Airhead - it's not produced anymore. I found this on CD eventually but I'd tried to download it before that; no-one was seeding. The point is, where is the issue with downloading this if the record company is stopping me buying it anyway by ceasing production? Loss to Artist: nil. Ironically, the copy I obtained is second-hand, so the artist gets zero of that purchase anyway.
   
3. Testing, testing, is this shit? Downloading songs to see if they're any good. I liked the Mummers mps3, so I bought the CD. I didn't like the Walkmen, so didn't buy that CD. Is there a problem there? Loss to Artist: nil. Long gone are the days when I'd buy albums randomly - if I can't listen to these songs first, I'm not making a purchase just to find out. If I don't download, there is zero chance of the artist getting any revenue. 

Surprise PCC Result!

Well, not really.

The complaint against Jan Moir and the Daily Mail wasn't upheld which I can't imagine is a surprise from a self-regulating body such as the PCC. In essence, papers can say what the fuck they want, and everybody else will just have to take it.

This would be OK if papers had any sense of moral centre or were utterly neutral but, of course, they're not. "Freedom of speech" has always been a banner to hide behind, rather than a truth to defend, for newspapers (should they, in fact, be allowed to be called newspapers?). Sell, sell, sell is the root drive; "no news is bad news" is only true for papers. There is no useful right to reply or complain; no meaningful apology or punishment when even a blatant untruth is published. And ironically, with journalists hating more and more the social networking communitites that call them out, no work beyond googling sat on one's arse and spouting opinion over it. 

I would reckon these days that journalists are viewed with the same degree of respect as MPs. Which is sad, in both cases, for the valuable ones.

Excellent proper comment here

Meet the New Boss, Same as the Old Boss

What happened to Google? For years everyone hated Microsoft either because of jealousy, poor products or bullying tactics. When Google came along, it was a breath of fresh air - clean webpage and simple search functionality, just when every other page was becoming a cluttered "portal".

I'm starting to think that those first 5 or 6 years of Google were the Golden Age of the Internet: it was expanding at pace but it was still exciting and new. Granted, there was an awful lot you couldn't do and some of the design was eye-watering but it still seemed, to me, driven by excitement. It was harder to search out obscure data but rewarding when you found it.

Now there is considerably more business input and a snobbery or elitism (those who know and those who don't); there's capability for more design but just as much glare; practically any search leads you to Wikipedia but rarely do people double-check data; everyone's on a social network so the networks start to reflect life with all its petty bigotries and vile commentary.

And through all that, Google has grown to usurp Microsoft as Emperor. But is it Animal Farm? Have Google, finally reaching a money-making model, given up on doing no evil? With Google Buzz's lack of user-centric thought and the blatant stitching up of writers by Google Books recently, I have to wonder.

This is no longer a benign ruler.  

Testing, testing...

Test post to clear the flim-flammery.

Appearance: needs borders back? Or edit the html?