Why Kicking Fans Off The Internet Won't Make Them Buy
from the we've-done-this-before dept
When Lord Mandelson officially announced his plan to kick file sharers off the internet based on accusations (not convictions) -- the so-called "three strikes" plan -- I asked a simple question: how will this get people to buy more. It was fun watching industry defenders paint themselves into corners trying to explain it, but they couldn't. The best they could say is that the fear of losing an internet connection would get them to stop file sharing. But, of course, getting them to stop file sharing is a lot different than actually getting them to buy something.And, on top of that, we already have empirical evidence that a fear-based campaign doesn't make people buy any more. Over at The Telegraph in the UK (where I'll now be writing a semi-regular column) I explore how the industry already tried a fear-based campaign when they threatened and/or sued tens of thousands of individuals for file sharing. Even the industry's most strident defenders, who support taking away people's internet access have admitted that such a punishment is less scary than being sued and potentially on the hook for millions of dollars.
So how did that work out? If the industry's logic is correct, than the fear of being hit with a multi-million dollar fine should be a lot more persuasive in (a) getting people to give up file sharing and (b) buy more instead. And yet... the industry is still freaking out, complaining about phantom "losses" and demanding new laws to protect them. So, if kicking people off the internet is less fearful than being on the hook for millions of dollars, and the potential of being sued for so much did not slow the growth of file sharing or get people to buy any more, can someone explain (please) how it's possible that anyone thinks kicking people off the internet will get them to buy?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: peter mandelson, three strikes, uk
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I really wonder if the execs realize just how aggressive the refusal of their strategy is getting. If I was them, I would honestly be afraid to be in public, even in another country.
They have ruined the lives of so many people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Ahem, as the person who coined the phrase along with it's terrifyingly disgusting and graphic definition, I can attest with certaintity that he indeed spelled raporist correctly, while your incorrect correction makes you a mispelurder...
Stop committing mispelocide!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Telegraph column
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Telegraph column
GJ!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh well, let's implement the plan anyway and work out the bugs latter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
no, they'll buy, you just have to set it up like this:
1) if you are accused of file sharing, you will be put to death.
2) anyone who does not buy $100 of digital media every month will be accused of file sharing
3) er go: pay the MAFIAA $100 a month or be killed.
4) hooray! music is saved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Actually, we've noticed that some people buying $100 worth of music seem to have more music than that. We'll need to get Congress to raise that to $200/month.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Even been driving down a highway 20 over the limit, and you see a police car, flashing lights on the other side with someone pulled over? For most people, it's enough to get them to slow down, at least for a while. While they didn't get a ticket, the effect that another was getting a ticket is enough to remind them to stay a little closer to legal.
Ridiculing an idea because you aren't able to understand cause and effect is just silly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That is really the most asinine statement I have ever read. Kicking your best fans (remember, the biggest pirates also tend to spend the most real money) off the internet will not get those other people to spend more. It will just piss of your biggest sources of revenue.
Plus the idea that you can punish someone by kicking them off the internet for nothing more than ACCUSATIONS goes against the normal way punishments are handed out.
Ridiculing an idea because you aren't able to understand cause and effect is just silly.
That part was very well said. It's too bad you are too oblivious to see how it applies to you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In your (already flawed) analogy, "slow down" = "stop file sharing", not "buy more music."
Hint: When crafting analogies for your shilling, stay away from the following objects...
Cars. Theft. Houses. Doors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The point IS NOT whether or not the punishments will discourage file sharing. Of course it will, if even only a little.
The point IS that these punishments will not encourage people to pay more money. In fact, if this happens, people like myself -- who are NOT file sharers, anyway -- will intentionally boycott products by the supposed "offended party". Thereby DECREASING revenue, and they'll fall victim to what's known as "shooting yourself in the foot".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The end effect will be to put a huge burden on ISPs thus increasing the costs for all of us non-file sharers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Punishments discourage the act that you are punishing. Cause and effect. Ticketing speeders discourages speeding, just like punishing file sharers discourages file sharing.
But where does buying more music come in to the picture? It's like claiming speeding tickets encourages higher tollbooth usage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
His whole point is this will not stop file sharing, just as the threat of being sued did nothing to stop it much less help sales.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's the Media Gnomes
Step 1) Kick File sharers off the internet
Step 2) ..........
Step 3) Profit!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's the Media Gnomes
You messed it up. You really need to learn your interwebs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's the Media Gnomes
You messed it up. You really need to learn your interwebs.
I will refer you to the Wikipedia article (link) on the Gnomes. Specifically the screen capture at the top of the article that clearly shows step 3 as being profit. There is no step 4.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's the Media Gnomes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Presumably...
You see, the Deterrence Factor is defined as:
DF = Scariness of Punishment x Likelihood of Punishment
(yeah, I pulled that out of my ass, but it's true). Most people didn't give a shit about getting sued because they know how unlikely it is.
However, you're of course right that stopping file-sharing does not equal more buying. At least in my case, it would actually mean the opposite: I have sworn I will actively boycott any company responsible for any warning I might get (not that I consider that very likely).
Additionally, I predict that any people getting warned will likely rather be more careful in the future than stop file-sharing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Presumably...
Warning #1 - Call to service provider - I got this letter in the mail ... What do you mean I am being accused of file sharing and there is nothing I can do to protest this?
Warning #1 result -
Mom - son read this! I dont want to stop downloading my Julie child videos and internet porn what can I do?
Son - Well lets set you up with an encrypted VPN connection and uTorrent instead of bit-torrent. Did you just say internet porn?
Mom - No you must be hearing things and Thank you!!! I do love Julie
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Presumably...
"Additionally, I predict that any people getting warned will likely rather be more careful in the future than stop file-sharing." I agree
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Presumably...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh, come on
That said, it's a total misrepresentation and straw man to frame the issue as if it were the people who are kicked off the internet are the same "them" who are (supposedly) going to buy more.
The actual argument is that the deterrent effect will, on the whole, steer more people to buying than "stealing" content. It's the same argument used to justify arresting people who frequent prostitutes: the punishment is about changing social behaviors, not necessarily about impacting future behavior of the few people actually arrested. It's still a ridiculous argument even when framed accurately.
Let's at least practice a tiny bit of intellectual honesty over here on our side. Economics, human nature, and technology are all with us; there's no reason to use cheap misrepresentations too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh, come on
But the problem is there is no connection between discouraging file sharing and people buying more stuff.
You say that it will cause "changing social behaviours" that will lead to increased purchasing. But you don't explain how. That's the issue at hand: no one has explained how, they just say it will happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Oh, come on
That seems to be their typical method of operation. They throw out these statements like "if file sharing continues people will cease making creative content", "file sharing is causing us to lose 500 bazillion dollars a day", and of course "punishing accused file sharers will fix our busniess model problems". They never bother explaining how or why, they just make statements without any actual logic behind them, or with logic that skips steps and makes inaccurate assumptions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh, come on
The problem is that it still does not give the second person any incentive to purchase anything else. The argument being made is that if the person who was not accused of doing anything illegal in the first place sees another person kicked off the internet for file sharing, they will somehow feel the need to purchase music or movies. That's a pretty big leap without a lot of evidence. Oddly, the evidence currently shows that as the internet (and file sharing) has grown, the number of movies, amount of music, and overall revenue for the entertainment industry has grown.
In addition, as Mike pointed out, there is no evidence that the threat of being sued for millions of dollars gets people to stop sharing files or to purchase anything more than they would have. Although they are attempting to make it really easy to punish someone for being accused of file sharing (making it easier to punish people), the end result of the proposal seems like a lesser threat than their previous course of action and thus less likely to work as a scare tactic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh, come on
I didn't say it was the same them, but I stil don't see how it makes anyone buy.
The actual argument is that the deterrent effect will, on the whole, steer more people to buying than "stealing" content.
Again, that's the same argument that was used to support suing file sharers. How did that work?
Let's at least practice a tiny bit of intellectual honesty over here on our side. Economics, human nature, and technology are all with us; there's no reason to use cheap misrepresentations too.
My post was entirely intellectually honest. I don't see how kicking people off the internet drives *anyone* to buy more. And history supports that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Oh, come on
Business is only concerned with the near future. That next quarter. Bottom lines and all. Business rarely looks to the past. At least those in the business of entertainment.
"I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone." - Entertainment Industry
They really are ignorant to how art and culture and people actually work. It's so sad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Oh, come on
Right now I have friends who hear a song they like (at a club, on the radio, whatever) and their first move isn't to buy it, it's to download it. If you make the download option unpalatable, they will have to use other means to get the song they want. Surprise, that might be actually buying it.
You are acting like you expect someone to produce some sort of one to one relationship between file sharing people getting sued or shut down and purchases. It doesn't exist.
It's a question of trending. File sharing was on the big increase in the last 10 years, and now P2P traffic is down 20%. It takes time, like any trend, for the results to be seen. File sharing didn't happen overnight, and the move away from it won't either.
Will it stop the hardcore downloaders? Nope. But every stop that makes it less palatable to download, more difficult, or more expensive (pay for this VPN) makes it easier to actually be legal and just buy the music.
My post was entirely intellectually honest. I don't see how kicking people off the internet drives *anyone* to buy more. And history supports that.
There is no history because it hasn't happened yet. It's also not going to instantaneous, rather a process where downloading illegally stops being the first option. That changes the whole deal.
Remember too: Even if they don't ever buy music, but rather consume it through legal channels (radio, approved downloads, video channels, authorizes Youtube videos, approved internet radio stations / music sources) then it is all that is required. Buying the shiny disc or paying Itunes for a song is only one of many ways that the music industry "makes a sale" even without the end users paying money from their pockets. So it isn't just about driving them back to record stores or back to amazon to order shiny plastic discs, but rather back to legit sources that help to fund the future.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Oh, come on
And...you repeat the same fallacy...again.
Deterring file sharing != buying music.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Oh, come on
The unpalatable option is kicking people off the internet. So now when the hear a song they can't even go online and purchase it for $.99 and instead are forced to purchase the CD for $14.99 - my God, that's ingenious! The recording industry is saved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh, come on
You aren't pay attention. There is no chance that EVERYONE gets kicked off the internet. They only need to boot a few to change the mentality of others.
I can't believe anyone can read this thread and come to the conclusion you did.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh, come on
Sigh.
1) Already proven false.
2) STILL HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MAKING PEOPLE BUY MORE MUSIC.
3) See above.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh, come on
RIGHT! WIN!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh, come on
a deterrent, by definition, stops something. an incentive, by definition, encourages something. even if it were possible to stop file sharing (it's not), this legislation, i.e. the deterrent, can only stop file sharing. it does nothing to *encourage* anything. that's the point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh, come on
"It's still a ridiculous argument even when framed accurately."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Oh, come on
Brooks said, plain as day, that the "deterrent effect" will drive people to buy more, as if it were matter-of-fact. We're asking how. If it were so obvious, then at least one person would be actually able to explain it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What's the cost to implement and police such a program?
Sharing is a culture--NOT a crime.
This is stupid. real stupid.
Miles Maker
Writer/Director of 'Brown Baby'
The totally FREE movie you can share, remix, re-use and rediscover!
DONATE on IndieGoGo: http;//www.indiegogo.com/brown-baby
'Brown Baby' Website http://www.brownbabymovie.com
'Brown Baby' on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/brownbabymovie
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I, for example, have an internet connection at my house, three open wireless connections from my neighbors that I can use in a pinch, a McDonalds with a free Wi-Fi about 1/2 mile away, and an internet connection at work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Without your own internet connection, let's just say it would be very inconvenient for you to download.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
inconvenient, but not impossible.
that's the point of all of this: you cannot stop file sharing. you can only temporarily inconvenience it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kicking people of the Internet
Just sayin...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"been there...done that..."
anyone can get any media by so many means these days
that it is totally impractical to think that any one
means will deter anyone from pursuing their media
pleasure. in most cases people will simply move on
having captured all their music and movies anyway.
and since when have we had any compassion for the
artist or the label? if it's out there it's fair game...
those are today's rules. you don't want to play in a
hacker's backyard? take your media ball and go home..
otherwise....eat it man.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A (loose) Analogy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
amen
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tapes could copy music and video.
People did that - without the internet.
If I didn't have internet today - I would be watching TV maybe.
I might go to the library and rent some movies. Or just do the same thing I do now - buy movies I like; because I seen them somewhere else already - or part of it, for free.
Or perhaps I might buy some music - music I had already heard on the radio - for free.
Out of ALL the music I currently own, maybe 2-3 CD's at MOST I did not hear prior to purchasing them. ALL others I had heard - for free on the radio.
Now, I hear stuff on the web and if I like the CD, I buy it. I do the same with movies. I don't buy a movie to 'check it out' - I buy a movie because it's good enough to prompt me to own a copy - same with music.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You're telling me that allowing you to know what you're buying BEFORE you buy will actually entice you to buy it?!?!?!?!
That's complete rubbish and I'll prove it with examples from other industries:
1)Automobile industry doesn't let you test...wait, damn yeah they do
2)Home Electronics stores don't let you rubberneck...wait, damn yeah they do
3)Restaurants don't tell you what's in their...wait, damn yeah they do
4)Clothing stores don't let you try on...wait, damn yeah they do
Well, it MUST be rubbish, because the entertainment industry says so!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Those are all legitimate and legal ways to try before you buy.
1) try taking the car home for a few months to test it out. See how that goes over.
2) try taking that big screen home to watch it for a while to see how you feel about it
3) try eating dinner before deciding if you really intend to pay
4) try taking the clothes home and wearing them a few times before you decide if you want them or not.
None of those would work. Why should you be allowed to take the entire music product (at your choice, not the artists or right holders choice) and enjoy it fully for as long as you want, only to pay for it if you really feel like it?
Most important, why should you be allowed to make the choice for the rights holders?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
This has been going on for centuries. Where have you been?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You have it all wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Waiting for the other shoe to drop
1) Accuse people
2) Accused kicked offline
3) Accused buys more product!!!!
Its a straight shot to profit, people! Lets get moving!
Also, they'll find out the IP addresses of their critics and take them down too. Not kidding. It will happen if they're allowed to become sheriffs of the internet. Remember, they don't need proof.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
People forget
The sad thing is that the RIAA/MPAA literally do not have a single shred of actual evidence to back up ANY of their claims.
To them the ideals of "Due Process" and "Fair Use" do not exist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
People forget
The sad thing is that the RIAA/MPAA literally do not have a single shred of actual evidence to back up ANY of their claims.
To them the ideals of "Due Process" and "Fair Use" do not exist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
actually all miss out
1 fan buys music
2 fan fileshares
3 non fan downloads becomes fan buys music goes to gigs
or
1 unknown band filesharers track
2 people download send unknown money
3 unknown band happy new fans happy.
now record company gets filesharers cut off web
no one file shares no new fans no new bands record industry collapse everyone returns to file sharing hey great plan.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: actually all miss out
1 fan downloads music
2 fan fileshares
3 non fan downloads becomes fan and enjoys the music.
4 non fan (now fan) fileshares
5 wash, rinse, repeat.
He can't go to a gig because the band isn't ever going to play within 500 miles of him, and honestly, why buy the music when you already have it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: actually all miss out
1 fan downloads music
2 fan fileshares
3 non fan downloads becomes fan and enjoys the music.
4 non fan (now fan) fileshares
5 wash, rinse, repeat.
If that's the case then why does study after study show that people who download lots of movies and music also spend lots of money on movies and music? You have completely fabricated an argument that filesharing prevents purchasing, but reality continues to prove you wrong over and over again. Yet you continue to repeat that same disproven statement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: actually all miss out
The reality is that there are no clear studies that show that average downloaders buy more or less music than average music buyers as a whole. However, it is pretty clear that they have a significantly large music collection for the same price.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: actually all miss out
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: actually all miss out
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To number 5 up there
You are all lap traffic is how I like to look at.. ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Operant conditioning would be good to know
-Positive Reinforcement: Rewarding behavior with something desirable -- Buying music should offer the purchaser something that other behavior does not.
-Negative Reinforcement: Rewarding behavior by taking away something undesirable -- Buying music should remove an annoyance (i.e. having to wait in line at a local concert).
-Positive Punishment: Punishing behavior by introducing something undesirable -- This is the definition of RIAA et al's lawsuits.
-Negative Punishment: Punishing behavior by removing something desirable -- This is the definition of the 3 strikes plan, in removing internet access as punishment.
The following table from the APA gives a good visual indication as to why ultimately punishments are the poorer choice for changing or encouraging behavior:
http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/amp/55/1/images/amp_55_1_137_fig3a.gif
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Operant conditioning would be good to know
I should clarify what I mean: The key words in that model are "Engagement" and "Disengagement". One who is positively reinforced ins't only more likely to repeat that behavior, but is also actively engaged in everything to do with the behavior (the other parts of purchasing when it comes to artists/music/movies/etc.).
Conversely, punishments result in depression, pain, and (the worst for artists) DISENGAGEMENT. What could be worse to an artist who is trying to be HEARD, whether for art's sake OR for profit, than disengagement? If your audience is disengaged, then as an artist it's over.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Operant conditioning would be good to know
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Operant conditioning would be good to know
The proof? They get all upset and cry when someone takes their favorite toy away (like oink).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Beyond the Effects on Sharing
Every person on the Internet is a person NOT shopping online. Will the government compensate ALL of the online stores for their "lost" revenue?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's about control, and shutting down all non **AA-controlled distribution channel.
The internet, file sharing, YouTube and all these things have made it incredible easy to disseminate your work directly to the public, without the need of the traditional entertainment companies. They are obsolete, and they know it.
The **AA will settle for nothing less than the complete destruction of any avenue of distribution that gives consumers a choice and control over their content. Any form of distribution that doesn't involve THEM, in other words.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In Micheal Moore's 911 movie
Where is the press release showing how that has stopped? How those troops were charged and fined the $1500 per song rate?
If this action is about stopping piracy - please go to Iraq and stop it in the US Military.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why not everything can be shared freely
- software
- music
- movies
- tv
- books
- trademarks
- patents
Currently there is no international "internet law" or "internet police", and the net is full of viruses, scams, spam and illegal businesses. A part of the problem stems from the anonymity. There is a lot of research showing that people behave worse when they a guaranteed anonymity.
Is this really what we want?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why not everything can be shared freely
Is this really what we want?"
Yeah this is pretty much what I want. So far I've not been a particularly bad victim of viruses, scams or illegal businesses. I get a lot of spam but I have a filter for that. I take responsibility for my own web surfing and try to ensure that I don't do anything dumb which will cause damage for my system.
The idea of internet law and order is abhorrent to me. The world is a wide and varied place and the net reflects that. Such law would only serve to lock it down and turn it into a broadcast vehicle for corporations and governments. Oh joy.
If you aren't an idiot then there will be few or no problems. They should not seek to limit the enjoyment of others just so they can protect fools from their own mistakes.
Oh and your comment that it will have a "profound effect" on a variety of things, you know "profound" isn't necessarily a bad thing... right?
Oh and if I was to get cut off from my net connection then the music industry would make no money from me at all. Not because of an active boycott but because I mostly buy single tracks off I-Tunes and that facility does not exist on the high street. I will not buy albums because I object to paying for filler. I will not buy the latest singles because by and large I don't like them and prefer the slightly esoteric music I stumble across online.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why not everything can be shared freely
how does anything you say compare to me sharing the mp3 I got over to a few friends?
then they share it over to their other friends, then to other friends....
Now that might just be a better definition of file SHARING... of course, sharing is illegal nowadays.. If you try out your friend's car with his permission, there will be a three strikes law that will catch you, and the third time will forbid you from driving completely right?
Oh wait, not it doesn't!!!
Have you been into a market before? you know, the places they sell tons of goods, where they even sell CDs... you'll find that now, there are some where there are some headphones in the shop, so potential buyers can choose to try those songs before buying...
Also, you seem to compare a tangible good to culture. (yes, music and movies are part of what we call culture...)
And "culture" should only be for those who can afford it... Right?
Why let people have cheap access to culture? why let them go on the internet and find music they like themselves? They should just watch our radio and TV ad buy only the ones advertised right?
Soon you'll start to tell me education too right? why let people have free access to knowledge? The Government should choose for us what we can know and what we cannot, right?
Last, you compare MTV or the radio to the internet?
so tell me, can you custom what the radio will play depending on your own tastes (thus increased chance of you finding a song you like, and increasing the chances you might buy it)? does it have a large list of songs properly ordered so you can easily choose a song to listen to? can you skip the song if you don't like it and go to the next one?
No? then I'm sorry, I am completely bored out of Radio, and the only things I watch on TVs are series and movies (which I can record directly on tape should I find it worth it... ohh, I'm an evil pirate....)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why not everything can be shared freely
[ link to this | view in chronology ]