That's only half true though.
You can still get a TV and a license (with the TV being considerably cheaper) then have access to more content than pre-digital era. Freeview has over 100 channels, about 20 of which are actual TV channels. Prior to freeview there were 4 channels, 5 if you were lucky.

Ok, an internet connection is required for much of the new services but it is hardly like people only use the internet for TV and movies. Public WIFI can be used to download content in a pinch.

Streaming services offer much more at a much lower cost than the likes of Blockbuster ever did. If you rented a few films a month in the past that is the price of an streaming sub and about half your internet sub.

As for trading in physical media. That shit is worthless very quickly. Spend a tenner on a DVD and see how many times you can trade before you get nothing back. It won't take long.

If you tried to subscribe to every streaming service, every SKY package and plug the gaps with digital downloads. Yes maybe that is more than in the past but people aren't doing that. There isn't that much time in the day to consume it.

Yossarian wrote:

Jaco wrote:

Oh yes, I sometimes forget that basic morality got dropped once we moved into the digital age...

I view current copyright law as immoral, so my basic morality is fine with it.

You're wrong. Massively, completely and inexcusably. Without copyright law, we creatives wouldn't be able to create any of the stuff you enjoy consuming.

But I'm not getting into this, it's one of those subjects that brings the red mist on...

Jaco wrote:

Yossarian wrote:

Jaco wrote:

Oh yes, I sometimes fo

Spoiler:

rget that basic morality got dropped once we moved into the digital age...

I view current copyright law as immoral, so my basic morality is fine with it.

You're wrong. Massively, completely and inexcusably. Without copyright law, we creatives wouldn't be able to create any of the stuff you enjoy consuming.

But I'm not getting into this, it's one of those subjects that brings the red mist on...

‘Current’ is the key word there, it is not to be replaced with ‘any’.

Yossarian wrote:

Jaco wrote:

Yossarian wrote:

Jaco wrote:

Oh yes, I sometimes fo

Spoiler:

rget that basic morality got dropped once we moved into the digital age...

I view current copyright law as immoral, so my basic morality is fine with it.

You're wrong. Massively, completely and inexcusably. Without copyright law, we creatives wouldn't be able to create any of the stuff you enjoy consuming.

But I'm not getting into this, it's one of those subjects that brings the red mist on...

‘Current’ is the key word there, it is not to be replaced with ‘any’.

Do we have a thread for this discussion?

What aspect of it is immoral, in your eyes? (Genuinely curious, rather than trying to necessarily defend it...)

LivDiv wrote:

That's only half true though. You can still get a TV and a license (with the TV being considerably cheaper) then have access to more content than pre-digital era. Freeview has over 100 channels, about 20 of which are actual TV channels. Prior to freeview there were 4 channels, 5 if you were lucky.

Except nearly all the terrestrial channels now are full of garbage – reality programmes, soaps, crappy gameshows and mountains of repeats. All the good stuff has now moved over to paid-for.

LivDiv wrote:

Public WIFI can be used to download content in a pinch.

Maybe for the amount of the country that has access to it. When I loved in Southampton we had "public" WiFi. It was grabage and coverage was limited. Where I am now, there's nothing like that for 50 miles in any direction.

LivDiv wrote:

Streaming services offer much more at a much lower cost than the likes of Blockbuster ever did.

Not true I'm afraid. New flicks were about £3 to rent, but the shelves were heaving with £1 a night classic titles / golden oldies (and good luck finding most of those on any of the streaming services).

Then of course there were the bargain bins where ex-rental DVDs were sold off for as little as 50p...

LivDiv wrote:

If you tried to subscribe to every streaming service, every SKY package and plug the gaps with digital downloads. Yes maybe that is more than in the past but people aren't doing that. There isn't that much time in the day to consume it.

It is more expensive than it was, that's just a fact. And people are getting everything, because of the ridiculous modern "fear of missing out" nonsense. If you want to keep up-to-date with the latest "big" shows, you need multiple suscriptions.

Not that I'm one of those folks.

Yossarian wrote:

Mostly it lasts far too long. IIRC, the original copyrights lasted for 7 years before the rights moved into the public domain. I fully agree that creators should have some time to earn from their work, but I believe that copyright lasting for decades stifles creativity.

Hmm. This is hogwash I'm afraid.

What about those creatives (most of them) whose works takes years, or decades to get recognised? Some writers, artists, musicians and film-makers never make it to the A-list, so they're reliant on income from old and new work. If copyright only lasted 7 years, then they wouldn't have a viable career and would likely have to stop creating. What about the artists / creators that take maybe 10 years to craft a piece of work? Do you really think they should have less time reaping the benfits of their graft than it took them to create it?

And of course, all the big corporates would exploit this to hoover up IPs as soon as they hit the public domain.

There’s definitely a tension between public good and private gain. Right now things are weighted far too heavily towards private gain, IMO, and the public good suffers because of it.

Jaco wrote:

Yossarian wrote:

Mostly it lasts far too long. IIRC, the original copyrights lasted for 7 years before the rights moved into the public domain. I fully agree that creators should have some time to earn from their work, but I believe that copyright lasting for decades stifles creativity.

Hmm. This is hogwash I'm afraid.

What about those creatives (most of them) whose works takes years, or decades to get recognised? Some writers, artists, musicians and film-makers never make it to the A-list, so they're reliant on income from old and new work. If copyright only lasted 7 years, then they wouldn't have a viable career and would likely have to stop creating. What about the artists / creators that take maybe 10 years to craft a piece of work? Do you really think they should have less time reaping the benfits of their graft than it took them to create it?

And of course, all the big corporates would exploit this to hoover up IPs as soon as they hit the public domain.

I think there is a sensible middle ground between 7 years and Disney extending it forever.

The irony with Disney being they built an empire on appropriating public domain work.

Diluted Dante wrote:

Jaco wrote:

Yossarian wrote:

Mostly it lasts far too long. IIRC, the original copyrights lasted for 7 years before the rights moved into the public domain. I fully agree that creators should have some time to earn from their work, but I believe that copyright lasting for decades stifles creativity.

Hmm. This is hogwash I'm afraid. What about those creatives (most of them) whose works takes years, or decades to get recognised? Some writers, artists, musicians and film-makers never make it to the A-list, so they're reliant on income from old and new work. If copyright only lasted 7 years, then they wouldn't have a viable career and would likely have to stop creating. What about the artists / creators that take maybe 10 years to craft a piece of work? Do you really think they should have less time reaping the benfits of their graft than it took them to create it? And of course, all the big corporates would exploit this to hoover up IPs as soon as they hit the public domain.

I think there is a sensible middle ground between 7 years and Disney extending it forever. The irony with Disney being they built an empire on appropriating public domain work.

Common sense says the IP should stay with the creator. If they want to leave it to someone else or have it go PD on their death, that's fine. But it should always be the creator's decision.

I’ve got less problem with IP laws around creative content than the archaic distribution models used by most content holders. Only Netflix and similar have cottoned onto the fact that distributing this stuff needs to be as convenient as downloading it illegally.

I'm not gonna go on further with the physical chat.
Was a good conversation though with some angles I hadn't considered.

In terms of copyright. I think the issue is that all too often the license doesn't stay with the artist or often never gets to them in the first place. Also oppurtunists like Marvin Gaye's family can get fucked.

Yossarian wrote:

Jaco wrote:

Common sense says the IP should stay with the creator. If they want to leave it to someone else or have it go PD on their death, that's fine. But it should always be the creator's decision.

But this common sense can prevent other people from creating new things based on things that came before, things which could be of benefit to all.

We're talking about the arts here, not medical sciences. Two very different things requireing a different approach to IP.

WorKid wrote:

Tempy wrote:

WorKid, literally read my posts for reasons why a Spotify sub is not "£8". Think about it from other perspectives. Digital does not supersede physical. Really, i'd love it if it does, but it doesn't.

With respect, I did, and I agree it's not £8 but most people have internet access one way or another anyway.

Streaming is orders of magnitude cheaper than buying CDs for all but the lightest consumer of music.

Also, taking into account that almost everyone will have a phone with Internet access, regardless of if they use Spotify or not. So they will own the tech anyway.

I'm not trying to be a dick here, just that I know I am lucky with the things I own, and I even I look at my £9.99 spotify subscription a month and consider cancelling it because my finances are so rough, and I am only supporting myself. My DVDs that I have had for years, however, are always there.

And even if you don't want to purchase a subscription, you could always buy digitally. You have access to your music library from any device you've downloaded it to. You don't even need permanent Internet access.