P2P how many of us do?

[Bob A Job]

So be honest, how many of us actually do use P2P software on a regular basis. and do you feel guilty?

[Bob A Job]

I do, but only for movies.

If i didnt live on an island without an english speaking cinema i probably wouldnt download them. and i wouldnt begrudge paying a couple of squids for the movie if i could (just not the �7 a ticket �8 for popcorn and a drink i paid last time i went to the flicks in the UK)

[Sligachan14]

Don't use it - ever.

Illegal, Spyware, Viruses, Porn, Child Porn.

Doesn't look good, does it?

[rinkytink]

 

Sligachan14:

Illegal ? Yes

Spyware, Viruses ? Never in five years

Porn ? You'll only find this if you actively want to

Do I feel Guilty ? Hell NO ! Looks great to me.

[OBonio]

Having been ripped off by record companies since before I was born, the people have a right, if not a duty, to exact their revenge. How most to hurt a huge corporation? Hit their wallets. Though I don't think that much of a dent has been made in their profits due to file sharing. They're just afraid of something they don't understand. I laugh at them and their bully boy tactics.

[twiglet4frog]

used it for about 6 songs and thats it, but unless i am doing something wrong i find it hard work to just get what i want to download!

[Mattk]

i use and it know its illegal but justify it in my mind as i only dl things i wouldnt normally buy ie music,movies,games etc etc

i know im getting something for nothing but im not costing the entertainment industry any money as they wouldnt have got it anyway !

if i really want to see/hear/play something i pay money for them.

[stevie21]

I've downloaded a fair amount of music - obviously all are of the "available for free : unsigned bands" type.

With a few bands (most recently McClusky and The Subways) I've heard their music online first and then went out to buy the album.

[brooklyn77]

I use it. I think that legal downloads are a con.
Why?
Buy a single at shop for �1.99 to �2.99. Costs go to shop, distributor, record label, pop star, song writer etc
When you download a single for 70p to �1 what are you paying for? There are no artwork costs, production costs, distributor, record shop, they dont have to reproduce the song. Like if people download a song from you, are you having to reproduce the song? No. So what are you paying for? Just the record company and pop star.
Surely the cost should be no more than say 20p to 50p? Its greed to charge more, and we accept it !
So maybe Napster, virgin, Itunes etc have to make a profit. But If the record companies are serious about file sharing, why not produce their own site at next to no cost? Then they can charge a more fair amount.
That aside, I dont buy singles and have not done so for years because I think they are a waste of money. I want to buy albums. For example the other week I heard a song by James blunt, downloaded 2 more of his songs and liked them. I then purchased the album.
Surely as I would not have purchased the singles anyway, the company have profited from me hearing those free downloads and then purchased the album, which I may not otherwise have done. That to me seems ok.
Itunes actually have the idea, they will let you listen to some of the song for free. But I still would not buy the single. Only the album, so where is the harm in me downloading the singles for free. Half of the stuff I download is old deleted stuff anyway. Is it fair I would get prosecuted. Maybe, if a song was 20p I would buy it.

[brooklyn77]

Continued from last�..

So there are people who may never buy the albums, they download album after album, song after song, they should target them. But only if they are found to have actually never bought an album. Each case should be judged on its merits, not a blanket ban, its detramental. So if they ever charged me with it, I could prove half my content is deleted anyway, so would never have been purchased and the other half, I have the albums as proof of purchase for. Why should I be prosecuted?

[brooklyn77]

Tip: Kazza and bearshare are being targeted like nobodies business' move to another.

It begins with S ...and as an affiliate of the anti "mickey taking by global corporate companies" hard core elite I refuse to divulge the full name. (Although they are probably on to us anyway) Anyone caught printing the full name will be reported to the answer-bank authorities as that would constitute helping people to commit a criminal offence by revealing this file share utility.

Lest you be put behind bars for such atrocities against our people..uhhmmm sorry

[WoWo]

I used to use Kazaa but found it to be so much of a pain I stopped.

I now use Napster which gives me unlimited downloads for �10 a month, it's so much more reliable than a P2P network and well worth the money.

But when I did use them I didn't feel guilty. I had an extensive record and CD collect (circa 5,000 CD's) so felt I had more than paid my dues to the music industry. I still purchased CD's I liked a lot so for me it was more of an audition service.

I agree with brooklyn77 in that a few years ago when there was a lot of talk about high CD prices they justified it by saying there were high production/distribution costs. They are now totally void when talking about downloadable music, it should be so much less. On Napster to download and burn a CD costs about �9, I can by it in Tesco for �8.97.

[brooklyn77]

Nice to hear somone actually agree with my point. Does anyone else agree?