[jman3001]

Sorry, but these arguments are tired and old. Anyone can download tons of free music from satellite radio and never use an ISP.
Record labels for years and years have paid their artists between 5% and 10% of the NET, for what they receive from record sales. Bands and Artists make more money off of the writing and publishing than they do from record sales. Record labels are notorious for cooking the books and not paying the writers and the artists what they deserve.
The real music stealing happens in Russia, China, and everywhere else in the World where the American RIAA has no jurisdiction. Busting kids that download music in America has no bearing on what happens elsewhere.
So, let's get off the soap box and let the kids trade their music on the internet. Britney Spears doesn't need anymore money and neither do the record labels.
It's time to reinvent the Music industry and become more creative as to how we distribute the music. BTW, what is publicity worth? The Internet is the biggest promotion marketplace for music that there has ever been.
Music will continue to flourish with or without the giant record labels, and quite frankly, will be better off without them.

[gnawbone]

I don't get it .... ???

Downloading music for free, without permission of the owner, that is otherwise for sale, is theft.

Somehow people in this country think that because they don't want to pay for something they shouldn't have to. Since when?

What possible excuse could someone make that it is OK to steal someone else's labor, talent, and product?

The RIAA is "one of the most reviled organizations in the United States" because they try to enforce the law. Only in America can someone spin that to the point that millions of petty thieves can believe it. And NO, I don't work for the recording industry in any way, shape, or form.

[jman3001]

I just informed you that the owner receives pennies for the record sale. Do you want to support record labels and promoters that steal money from the artists and writers? By all means, lets continue to support the real thieves; the biggest thieves; the record labels. Music lovers are supporting the artists and writers by promoting their music through downloads, and then word of mouth.

Most of the early RAP artists never had label support, so they created their own labels independently, because the major labels wouldn't even sign them. The independent RAP artists made a lot more money, because they got the revenue instead of the major labels. Many bands are being signed because of the downloads they get online. Downloading music promotes bands and artists, it doesn't destroy them. Name recognition is the most valuable thing you can have as an artist or a writer.

The artists and writers benefit better by touring and selling their music at concerts and online. Cut out the middle man and go directly to the fan. The FAN will pay for the music, if he or she knows that the artist and writer is being supported, and they aren't being robbed by greedy record labels.

BTW, iTunes is doing very well with sales, however the money still gets sent to the greedy record labels for the most part.

[robinh]

@jman3001 - first sensible thing I've heard in a long time.

...and you only have to look at the new '360' deals the labels are tyring to tie artists into, to see the extent to which they will try and protect their own profits.

[hillstones]

jman3001 said:

Who among you has ever made a Cassette tape or CD of your favorite songs? Everyone has.

It's the same thing. We simply live in a digital world now and the record industry, that has ripped consumers off for generations, is now getting slapped back for it's greedy practices. The practices perpetrated by the record industry over the last 80+ years are far worse than any down-loader could ever enact.

It is NOT the same thing. When you recorded a CD to a tape, did it sound EXACTLY like the original? No, it was significantly degraded because of the cassette tape's technology. Making a cassette tape of your favorite songs is different than putting it out for everyone to copy. You could not make mass copies of copies and have them sound like the original. Multiple copies continued to degrade. No one was interested in acquiring a degraded copy.

The digital world is very different and the RIAA never thought music would blend with computers allowing digital copies to be made in mass quantities with no degradation from the original. They also never expected music to be compressed to a downloadable size and never expected high speed access to allow fast downloads. Before high speed internet and compressed music, no one would ever consider downloading a 600-700 MB CD over a dial-up connection.

Explain how the RIAA has been ripping off consumers for the past 80 years. How is selling records, tapes, and CD's ripping people off? Selling music to consumers is far worse than consumers stealing (downloading) it? You are completely clueless! Someone else's artistic work is not free for you to download or steal. You feel that since the RIAA is ripping you off by charging money for CD's, you have a right to now steal that CD? Are you a car thief too? You have to spend money to buy a car too. Your comment has no merit whatsoever.

[hillstones]

The RIAA won't be able to enforce download limits on anyone's internet access. Comcast lost that court battle when they tried to restrict download speeds for customers that downloaded more content than others in an effort to level out bandwidth.

[jman3001]

Every time you listen to the radio you are stealing an artists artistic work. That's what music is for. To joy an artists artistic work. To listen is not to steal. Downloads are for promotion, and it works out very well for the artist, it just doesn't suit the record companies that want to exploit the talent of others for all but a few pennies on every record or download sold.

I draw the line at someone downloading music and then marketing that product for resale. That's not cool, and it does hurt the artist. But for people to download and listen on their iPods, I have no problems with that. It's healthy and it helps the artist gain popularity and be exposed to people that would otherwise never hear their product. This results in more involvement from the Fan base and more money for the artist in the long run. I could care less about the record companies. If you want to look for a thief, that's where you will find them.

[megatrick]

An artist gets paid a small sum every time their music gets played on the radio. That's how it works. The radio station pays a license to play music. It's not free, dude.

<>

[People_Eater]

gnawbone said:

The RIAA is "one of the most reviled organizations in the United States" because they try to enforce the law. Only in America can someone spin that to the point that millions of petty thieves can believe it. And NO, I don't work for the recording industry in any way, shape, or form.

That's called vigilantism. It's not the job of the RIAA to enforce the law. That is solely the job of law enforcement officials. The RIAA has actually engaged in illegal practices in their attempts to intimidate file sharers - including massive DoS attacks and hacking into the machines of legally-run businesses.

[People_Eater]

hillstones said:

>

Quote

It is NOT the same thing. When you recorded a CD to a tape, did it sound EXACTLY like the original? No, it was significantly degraded because of the cassette tape's technology.

It is the same thing. When you make an MP3 of a CD, does it sound EXACTLY like the original? No, it is significantly degraded due to MP3 compression technology.

Regardless of if it is an exact copy - that has no legal relevance. Legally, what amount of degradation is required before it becomes a "different thing"? Even in the old days, one could make excellent quality copies by using studio master-grade analog tape.

[dougoftheabaci]

DPG4450Guy said:

When you sign up for a service provider, you agree not to use their service to break the law.

True, but as default innocent until proven guilty. You could sue any ISP that disconnected you and used unlawful activity as the rule stating that since they are not a legal body any such distinction they might make is speculative in nature which wouldn't be in the agreement.

Quote

Someone running a site with illegally shared copyrighted material is breaking the law.

True, depending on where the site is being hosted and accessed from.

Quote

The copyright owners have ever right in the world to sue the ISP. They can either do that in court, or give them a prior notice requiring them to take down the offending site and/or give them the person's name and address etc. that was breaking the law, so that they can sue to have said person prosecuted.

Blast! You were on the right track but you meandered a little bit. I'm going to sound a bit pedantic to start with and that might not be the best of ideas yet I'm doing it all the same. Here I go: ISPs have little to no control over websites. That's a web hosting provider not an internet service provider. The other thing to remember is that browsing the internet is in no way illegal. I, for example, can browse through The Pirate Bay all I like and until I start downloading something I've broken no laws.

There's also the matter of consumer privacy. You see, the RIAA actually has no real legal grounds to demand someone be identified to them. Think of it this way: If someone breaks into your car and takes your iPod you don't hunt them down yourself you go to the police. Legally speaking that is what the RIAA is supposed to do (so says a Harvard law processor and his class). As such the ISP can't give away your information without a court order as they're breaking the contract and, if someone wanted, you could sue them. You see, they are not a legal body and as such have no legal right to judge whether an action is legal or not. That's why many of them spell out activity they will not tolerate as it saves them from having to risk legal action.

Quote

If you think this is not legal, just ask the folks that used to operate "Demonoid" or whatever torrent site that was that got bitch-slapped big time in a California appeals court.

Demonoid is still up and running just fine and what goes for California (the seat of the RIAA, MPAA, and most major studios and record labels) does not hold true for the rest of the world. It's common knowledge that LA is practically a world unto itself, for example.

Quote

Downloading is one thing, POSTING is where I see the bigger guilt lies.

I don't see how? Both involve the same act. One is providing the service and the other is partaking of it. Both meet the same ends. The reason those are the people being sued most is because it's rather easy to prove an individual posted some files. It's not as easy to prove they downloaded them.

You would have to prove the file was currently in their possession and that it was the exact same file. Any difference and it could be argued that it was an entirely different file.

[frgough]

I don't upload my music to p2p servers, or make my computer a p2p server, so I was never not "home free."

[gnawbone]

Amazing!

The lengths you'll go to in order to make your theft sound legitimate.

It doesn't matter if the "greedy record labels" don't pay the artist a damn thing. Who signed the friggin' contract? The artist is responsible for his/her own actions, if they made a bad deal that doesn't allow you to be a thief. And you proved that they didn't have to! If the RAP "artist" (that is a stretch to call them "artists") can figure it out so can anyone else.

And by the way, if downloading for free is such a positive force for the "artist" why don't they all just skip the middle man, as you suggest, and put their stuff out their for free? Or are you the only one that KNOWS about this top secret marketing philosophy?

The artist signed a contract with a recording company, the recording company has a legal business model (yes, it is legal to make a profit in spite of what teenagers think -- one that doesn't include giving away their product), and they have a perfect right to sell that product based on the contract that BOTH parties agreed to.

The bottom line is, you are a thief. Deal with it.

[gnawbone]

Wow.

It is funny that the artists are standing there right beside the RIAA and the record companies demanding their money.

Now, why do you suppose they do that when your brilliant marketing plan is right there in plain site? You'd better call your favorite artists and tell them they need to start giving away their music so that they can make more money.

By the way, why do they sell their CDs? The manufacturing costs are a fraction of $15.99, so somebody is making money of people for some ill-gotten reason. I'll have to think about that one, unless that is another one of your brillian, secret marketing schemes.