This add will have a huge effect!

Millions of eyes will roll simulaneously across America.


(What clubs do those guys go to? They don't play RIAA stuff at the ones I know.)

Here's what Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun said in 1985, in Dowling v. the United States:

It follows that interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion or fraud. The Copyright Act even employs a separate term of art to define one who misappropriates a copyright: "Anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner," that is, anyone who trespasses into his exclusive domain by using or authorizing the use of the copyrighted work in one of the five ways set forth in the statute, "is an infringer of the copyright."

I got on board late, so pardon me if I am a repeater.

Why doesn't the music industry spend its money protecting it's investment from piracy like any other big-money corporation, and stop the public sobbing? You don't hear Microsoft crying.

To sum it up again:

Why do people download?

1) The RIAA/artists/labels are too rich.
The government is pretty rich, too. I guess I won't pay taxes anymore.

2) The music is crappy.
Why in the hell are you downloading crappy music?!

3) The prices are too high.
If $9.99 for downloads is too high, you should probably be looking for a better job.

Okay, so #3 is a bit weak, but it's weak on BOTH sides of the issue. Stuff being expensive doesn't justify taking it.


I love PSU even more now. Free Napster premium service (which I probably wouldn't have even considered paying for myself) allows us to download about half a million songs for free. There's pretty loaded with DRM, which sucks, but beggars can't be choosers.

Ok, I have a few points here:

1) Finding music of smaller musicians isn't always easy, so those CDs are more likely to actually be bought...and since they aren't controlled by corporate mofo's their music is more likely to be consistently good.

2) I downloaded a Theatre of Tragedy CD (good band, check em out) and liked it so much that I actually went out a bought the CD at my local Borders.....and then made two copies of it for friends (hehe)

3) This commercial is hypocrisy at it's finest. Last week sometime there was a link here about how the RIAA was confiscating hundreds of thousands of mix CDs that DJs and producers rely on to gain credibility. This is a case where the RIAA is actually doing harm to an artist...and one that it involves in its heartfelt commercial.

4) CDs are so incredibly overpriced that its disgusting, and there have been cases of price fixing, such as here (forgive my inability to make a link):
http://news.com.com/2100-1023-960183.html
So excuse me if I download music for free, I still buy CDs that I think are worthy of my wallet...and that are set at a more agreeable price. Looks like those execs will have to do without a couple more BMWs or a new Jet.

*They're* pretty loaded...

My bad...

/self-grammar police

Don't watch the grammy's. TURN OFF YOUR TELEVISION.

crazy_Gaijin:

Legally, there is a difference between theft and copyright infringement. While they're both prosecuteable, that doesn't mean they're the same. Stop trying to compare them, asshat.

Call me names if you wish, but I made no mention nor comparison of theft and copyright infringement (but I will later, now that you've goaded me). My post centered on all of the whiners whining who want music for free even if the musicians and/or companies don't want to give it to them for free, and how the pop culture that they crave would be oh-so-different without the so-called evil, rich capitalist record companies to shape and deliver it to them.

In elementary school, the exercise is called understanding the main idea. Perhaps you should go back for a few lessons?

By the way, nothing says, "My point is relevant," more than a good name-calling. You twit.

For the record, I support the notion that copyright infringement is a specific type of theft, and thus, is theft.

If you take the data from a service (musicians making a song for profit) sold for money (which excludes audio-taping free radio play like I did as a child in 1984) that you did not pay for (which excludes making backup copies of your own already-bought album), then, whether or not the RIAA is a crooked or straight organization, you have stolen something without their permission. In my eyes, that makes you, for that moment, a thief. It's very simple. No hard feelings from me, since I'm not producing the garbage for profit.

If you don't like it, kids, then (a) don't buy the service provided by that company, and (b) find artists who are recorded by companies who do wish to give you free samples. Or (c) dust off that copy of The Man From the Flying Trapeze.

Next:

baphomet_sloth

The argument used by some advocates of the RIAA that without them (RIAA) there would be no good music and we would be listening to music such as "Bicycle Built for Two" is completly absurd. I am sure Brahms or Beethoven used the major labels and appeared on MTV cribs in another dimension but not on this one.

You're right. While I'm being overly-defensive for unjustly being called an asshat in the previous example, I find it hard to resist being defensive here as well. (I am not an RIAA supporter in particular, just a supporter of liberty and responsibility in general).

I claimed that there would be no pop culture as it exists now, not that, "...there would be no good music..."

I'm with you on the issue of Britney Spearsish pop-culture lacking merit. I'd love to see the world with fewer morons and more people who:

* would listen to a Beethoven symphony, who have heard of Charles Ives,

* support a creative, energetic young rock band on an independant label,

* read more books than have watched t.v. sitcoms and Entertainment Tonight,

* and have a clue about free-market economics or even responsible personal finance.

Hell, if more people understood responsible personal finance, this thread wouldn't exist!

BowlinDude: "There's pretty loaded with DRM, which sucks, but beggars can't be choosers."

Actually, thanks to Peer to Peer, they can! I love sticking it to the RIAA. They've been over charging the music buying public for far too long. I have a huge collection of tapes & vinyl. How many times am I supposed to pay for the same recordings? I'll download them for free, thanks.

I agree with the pirating of music (for the time being) because I, for one, am NOT a rich yuppie who can afford to toss out $20 a CD, as someone above put it.

I like one, two, maybe three songs on the whole album, and am wanting JUST those three songs, so I have to go pay 20 dollars?

Uh-uh. Sorry. Ain't gonna happen.

Music is extremely unreasonably priced for the amount of use/entertainment you get out of it (unless you actually want ALL of the songs on one album, which is all but never for me). Now, say, take piracy in it's other forms, such as movies or games? I disagree with that, because I believe that $30-$50 is a fair price to pay for anywhere from 8 hours - several weeks of entertainment (not including replay value), and that $20 is a decent price to pay for a movie I like.

Whem music CDs start having more content that I like in one package with a '$20' sticker on it, or they mark that sticker down to, say, $8 or $10, then I'll start, and be more than happy to, buy music from stores.

Vegetable: No matter how dispicable they are it
is theft. If you disagree with that you're ignorant.

No, it's not theft, farktard, it's copyright infringement. The reason theft is because one person's gain comes at another person's loss. This isn't the case; if you download a song, the RIAA et. al. still have that song to sell. That's not theft.

jpboaty:
I always thought buying music was like buying shoes,
you enjoy having shoes that fit and feel comfortable,
and Nike likes making them... isn't it the same for CDs?

It's not. You get to try on a pair of shoes before you buy them. How often can you actually listen to an album before you buy it?

BowlinDudeXIIX: The government is pretty rich, too. I guess I won't pay taxes anymore.

I scanned over the thread, and didn't see any mention of someone claiming the RIAA/artists/labels are too wealthy. The argument most people give is simply that the RIAA makes a business of screwing everyone around them. They gouge the artists and consumers to line their pockets with gold, then whine and cry to the people they just screwed about stealing from them and we're supposed to feel bad?

They've monopolized distribution, marketing, and sales channels. They're a bunch of control freaks complaining to the people they're trying to control that they don't have the sort of control that they want. You see, the fundamental difference in this instance is that they RIAA is a cartel in the truest sense of the word. All the major record companies have banded together and decided to resist the laws of supply and demand. Any other business, or for that matter, if any label that had tried to do this on their own, would've tanked. Imagine if Kia decided to charge a flat $60,000 for every car they produce. They'd go down faster than the cheapest hooker near a naval base. But by banding together, the RIAA gets to call us the bad guys for not buying into their business plan. It's like someone jumping into an undertow and then screaming that everyone else is an arse for not jumping in to save him.

I agree that copyright infringement isn't the ideal solution, but come on; with all their monopolization and how broken copyright law is, it's about as good a solution as we can hope for. People aren't just going to stop listening to music. So either these farktards will have to give the consumers what they want, or go out of business, sticking to their crappy business model the whole way. My money's on the latter; it's a shame we have to listen to their tantrums on the way out.

If $9.99 for downloads is too high, you should probably be looking for a better job.

It's rarely the expense itself that bothers people. Music is a commodity; it's supposed to be cheap. The problem is that CDs go for ~$15 in-store. That $15 not only goes to pay the artist, but production, design, warehousing, shipping and fabrication costs for the physical medium, which are a very significant portion of a CD's cost. So now, they're trying to sell us something most people feel is overpriced in the first place in a format filled with DRM that restricts our Fair Use rights, is of lower audio quality, and doesn't come with a hard copy, liner notes, artwork, or any of the extras CDs have. The cost has come down, but consumers are getting even less value for their dollar than before.

Magic:

I agree with the pirating of music (for the time being) because I, for one, am NOT a rich yuppie who can afford to toss out $20 a CD, as someone above put it.

I like one, two, maybe three songs on the whole album, and am wanting JUST those three songs, so I have to go pay 20 dollars?

Syllogism:

I want only 2 or 3 songs from a $20 CD.
I am not a rich yuppie.
Therefore, I am entitled to those 2 or 3 songs free of charge despite the owner not wishing to give them away.

When you said in your bio that you sometimes agreed with commie-pinko etc. etc. liberals, I guess this is what you meant. :-)

All jesting aside, props to you on your soon-to-be career in the armed forces. People like you allow us to have what liberties we have left. Thank you.

By the way, $20 for a CD? Where are you people shopping?

"Do you know how to spell 'I-paid-too-much?' M-A-L-L." - Dave Ramsey

It's a capitalist country. If a plumber charges too much, someone else will plunge the toilet. If the RIAA is really a cartel, mob, monopoly, etc., something else will take its place to provide the service, time will tell. They are evidently providing a service to somebody out there, because they stay in business. I say if you don't want to pay, download for free (blatant copyright infringement) and accept the consequences.

Can someone please explain why people don't want to
pay for music they enjoy?

I always thought buying music was like buying shoes,
you enjoy having shoes that fit and feel comfortable,
and Nike likes making them... isn't it the same for CDs?

Buying music is not like buying shoes. If buying shoes was like buying music you'd find 1 shoe that fits and feels comfortable. However to get that one good shoe you also have to buy 21 other shoes that don't fit and for the most part and pieces of crap you're going to throw away the minute you get home.

People don't mind buying the music, check out iPod. It's not about getting free music, it's about getting the exact song you want and only that song.

And the pr0n.

pkat, how is the selection in iTunes or whatever it is?

Always wondered how many artists/albums they could get. And more importantly, what kind.

Everyone seems to be missing the point here... Most bands (not including the Britney Timberlakes) spend hundreds of thousands to record an album, usually money *loaned* to them by their record company. In *most* cases, the band ends up losing money on the CD... The label isn't the one taking the chances here, it's the artist. Most musicians start out broke & hungry... they get offered a deal by a label who says: "OK, we'll pay for the studio-time, but you owe us for it... we'll package, market, and distribute your music, but you owe us for it... and if you don't have a "hit", then you'll spend the rest of your natural life working at McDonald's trying to pay us back for it all." Artists don't make real money off CD's... unless they're one of the dozen or so artists the media is pushing these days(ie: Britney Timberlake) Artists make their money off of Live Performances. ie: Working. Like a job. The CD only exists to market and promote their product: the Live Show, and to pay back the label/loan sharks for their services. Myself, I'd rather pay $30 to see a show, than $20 for a recording, unless the band is amazing... then I'll pay $30 to get in the door, $20 for a CD, $25 for a t-shirt, and $25-$50 on over-priced beer to enjoy during the show... So I've just spent $100-$125 on a band I enjoy, and a minimum of $60 of that went directly into the drummer's pocket for the bands beer fund, the rest went to the venue to help cover the cost of bringing the band to me. And when I go home, CD in hand, I'll take that CD and put it into my collection with the rest of the CD's I will never put into my CD player, because I've already got the music; "illegally" downloaded from kazaa. Much to the dismay of those who feel that marketing is more important than music. Today we have the technology to eliminate record labels (read: loan-sharks) through the use of PC home-recording studios, and the marketing power of the internet (read: kazaa) and it is only natural that the RIAA is threatened by this. Their monopoly is in danger of becoming obsolete, and it makes me smile. Please, download music! Share it with your friends! If a band is good, tell everyone you know, then go and see them when they come to your town! Support the BAND, not the financiers. Go see a show! That's what music's all about! And if you insist on having "the fetish object, formerly known as an album", then buy it directly from the band. Believe me; they'll thank you for not buying it at HMV.

The economics of crime:

People will steal (or commit crimes) if the cost of stealing is less than the benefit of what is stolen.

The cost of stealing can be thought of as a combo of the probablity of getting caught and the punishment thereafter. Since the probabily of getting caught online is VERY low, and the punishment isn't too impressive either, then it only follows people steal music over the internet, i.e. the beneift of stealing music outweights the cost by a HUGE margin.

Its a lot easier to steal music from the internet than it is from a music store... or than it is to steal doritos from a convience store(from a comment early on).

The RIAA is acting to both increase the probablity of getting caught stealing music and the severity of the punishment.

And then the theives, obviously, will respond by changing the means to steal music to reduce the probability of getting caught.

Oh, and the fact that so many people do it dilutes the immorality of the act.

/Economics Boy is done

Theft implies that the victim lost property. You steal shoes, nike is one pair of manufactured shoes short.

Copyright infringement of music doesn't affect the company involved. They lose zero actual property.

It annoys me that record companies got so much money from the distribution of music that they ended up having the rights to all the music as well. It also annoys me that a copyright extends for what, 90 years now? That's retarded.

Move the copyrights to 10 years, then I won't have such a problem with price fixing.

You can get good dvds for cheaper than shiatty cds nowadays.

Buying music is not like buying shoes. If buying shoes was like buying music you'd find 1 shoe that fits and feels comfortable. However to get that one good shoe you also have to buy 21 other shoes that don't fit and for the most part and pieces of crap you're going to throw away the minute you get home.

People don't mind buying the music, check out iPod. It's not about getting free music, it's about getting the exact song you want and only that song.

Bring back record players, and then in turn, 45s!

Oh, that's right. Singles. I don't believe too many people bought those when they were still widely available.

(There's something about seeing that vinyl label turn around and around. I still picture the companies (Capitol, Atlantic, ...) by their pre-1980's record labels. I miss them. )

It's been all downhill since 1985. Now most pop music is pure shiat. I do not buy nor do I download what I could buy if it was not all shiat. Very, very few bands will make me want to purchase a cd. And thanx to ClearChannel Nazification of the airwaves exposure to new music is much less.

fark em. Alot of established artist need to get real jobs or make better music.

"Well, it's probably because the music industry, as this thread has well established, controls and protects the output of 80%+ of the music that gets out. If downloading mp3s wipes out what the RIAA puts out, that's a good chunk of change that leaves the US economy short."

Soooo... people will stop listening to music altogether? Or a similar amount of money will flow through a non-cartel system instead?

If the RIAA is really a cartel, mob, monopoly, etc., something else will take its place to provide the service, time will tell."

This is why we have anti-monopoly/cartel laws... those types of organizations don't get dislodged thanks to natural capitalistic processes.

For the Nth time: Copyright infringement of music doesn't affect the company involved. They lose zero actual property.

For the Nth time: It doesn't? Sure, they don't lose a concrete, hard copy of their service, but in the future, they're less likely to be motivated to put their intellectual talents (or in many cases, a lack thereof) to market.

They own the service they provide when they set out to create it. They choose the terms to trade that service with willing customers. It's wrong to steal it, no matter what semantics you use to label the deed. This goes for stealing the CD in your coat pocket at the store or pirating a copy.

/"It becomes ours..." - Peterman from "Office Space." (I know, I know! This refers to actual theft...)

Downloading music is like jaywalking or speeding: Everyone knows it's illegal, but they also know they probably won't get caught if they do it, and probably have suspicions that the law itself it a little hinky (speeding because it's used as a revenue source for local govts, downloading music because the RIAA has the govt in it's hip pocket).

It doesn't help that the RIAA has painted themselves as some kind of luddite ogre- suing children and grandmothers, refusing to adapt its business model, preaching to its customers, marking up their product thousands of percent, and rolling around in big big piles of money.

Also doesn't help that if you weren't going to buy the CD anyway, this is pretty much a victimless crime.

ALSO doesn't help that it's so easy a monkey could do it.

To those making this a "moral absolute" kind of argument: Grow up. You've never driven 56 on a highway marked at 55?

"This is why we have anti-monopoly/cartel laws... those types of organizations don't get dislodged thanks to natural capitalistic processes."

People not buying (pirating) CDs is way more effective in changing the current situation than the court system that takes 20 years to execute a convicted murderer.

My point is that piracy is obviously causing a hurt to the RIAA, and may be what is necessary to make the change that so many farkers have expressed in this thread, but somebody is still buying enough CDs to keep them in business. If the climate is right for the market to change, our system of capitalism will allow some new service to take the place of the RIAA.

The radio broadcast is free to me...

Not only is it free to you, the record labels PAY the radio stations to play their music.

The record labels use middlemen so they can deny any involvement in the trade, but the song-lists a station works with are paid for. Because record labels aren't stupid, and understand that if a lot of people don't get to hear the song "for free" then people are NOT going to buy the albums. Exposure.



Pirating CDs is wrong- Duping CDs and selling them at a reduced price for your own profit. A 13 year old downloading songs off of Kazaa for personal use is no different than hearing that same song on the radio. It's exposure. And the labels don't have to pay a dime for it.

You know how Metallica first became popular? Concert bootlegs. (Yes, people had the ability to copy music before MP3.) Imagine that...

I used to buy close to a dozen new CDs a month, and ALL of it was thanks to Napster and MP3s. I would find new artists that got little to no radio play all the time. And if I liked them, I bought their album.

While it may be "illegal" on paper, the RIAA are fools, and they're suing their BEST CUSTOMERS. They haven't received so much as a dime from me since the Napster bullshiat started, and they'll never see another dime from me again. So fark them. fark them in the ass.

http://www.boycottriaa.com/

Bottom line is me, you, and most of us here probably drive average cars, make an average income, and live in a average house, we cook our own meals, wash our own cloths, clean our own house, and have an average of 2-3cars. Yea, the size of fottball fields, have personal cooks, and someone who picks up there dirty underwear. God knows how ruff things are for them....i wish somebody would just show some sympathy and compasion to these people. I mean after all they have families to feed and only millions to do it with. You gotta feel bad for those millionares who only have 10 cars, can only drive there jags and BMWs, have houses without buying a rolex or a new car...before you know it there car insurance will cost less then most peoples HOUSES...what kind of life is that to live? I mean come one people, will some one plz think about these poor millionares?

err why did my last post get butchered and had whole sentences removed from it? Oh well.

The fact that you all seem to care so much about music released on RIAA labels is just sad. I haven't bought(or downloaded) any music by anyone off those labels sience before I had pubes. There are plenty of good labels run by the artists whose music they produce, you have NO excuse that you have to buy the mass produced garbage the RIAA spawns. Its that simple folks. Someone earlier said any successful labels get bought out, here in MN we have one of the most sucessful indie labels in the country, Rhymesayers, and they are only getting bigger and theres about zero chance Slug or any of the other artists will sell out to the RIAA.
I could care less if you steal from the RIAA, but by justifying it by saying 'i cant get music anywhere else' you
show your disconnect from the world of music.

Fook

Magic:
You are retarded! that is all I am going to say cause I know there is no way to make you understand how wrong your argument is (if you can call it that).

First: If you can't pay 0.99 cents for each of the 3 songs that shows me you are still living with mom, cause WHO cannot spend 0.99 cents a song? chirst even my cats have change.

Seccond: like someone else said if it's such a crappy cd then why bother listening to it in the first place? (if it's a good band they SHOULD at least have more than 3 songs considering most albuns nowadays have from 11 to 14 songs).

Third: $20? where the hell do you shop? jesus I just bought a cd on friday for $9.99 and most I saw unless they where imports where $11 - $13.

Forth: You know that kind of thinking "yeah stealing from the rich is ok cause they are rich" is pure BS and it's why third world countries are what they are right now, yeah keep that thinking you'll get far (sarcasm).


I don't understand why people argue about the artist loosing money they are sooo rich they shouldn't care!, it still makes you a thief, if you like being one keep downloading and listening to crap. I came to conclussion that people that argue this is cause they have a crappy job and they don't know how hard is to work for something.

There is so many Mp3 services that you can browse without having to BUY! for those people that asked about the I-tunes selection, why can't you just download it? I have Napster and I-tunes installed and it lets you browse to check the music (just installed them a week ago).

Record industry gets away with price fixing. Prices are still fixed. Do I feel sorry for them? No. Is the music going to die? No. They're irrelevant. Musicians make music. RIAA makes commericals.

If they want consumers back, they need to:

A. Drop prices to reasonable level (you know, supply/demand)

B. Work on affordable ways of securing their copyrights (look at Nintendo) instead of suing and assuming everyone is going to play nice.

C. Move into the 21st century.

I guess I can flaunt my moral superiority for buying CDs from non-RIAA labels at small, locally owned mom 'n pop record stores.

And I still download mp3s.

I look at buying music as an investment. If I like an artist enough, I'll invest in their career. I feel guilty for not supporting my favorite artists. Of course, to figure out what artists are 'favorites' requires some extensive listening and digestion.

The ones that don't meet the bar, usually for quality inconsistency? Screw 'em -- I don't care if they make more music or not, and don't feel an iota of guilt for it, even if they're non-RIAA. Chances are, I delete their mp3s anyway.

Try before you buy. I consider that a perfectly moral position, and question the ethics of labels who refuse the opportunity to do so.

If the product has merit, people will pay for it.

And for the RIAA-defenders: http://www.negativland.com/albini.html If you haven't read that, you need to stfu.

kittypoo:

Third world countries are where they are today because the rich or powerful take advantage of the poor...have you ever seen Black Hawk Down?

BRAVO!!! One fine tag line!

theft

\Theft\, n. [OE. thefte, AS. [thorn]i['e]f[eth]e, [thorn][=y]f[eth]e, [thorn]e['o]f[eth]e. See Thief.] 1. (Law) The act of stealing; specifically, the felonious taking and removing of personal property, with an intent to deprive the rightful owner of the same; larceny.

Note: To constitute theft there must be a taking without the owner's consent, and it must be unlawful or felonious; every part of the property stolen must be removed, however slightly, from its former position; and it must be, at least momentarily, in the complete possession of the thief. See Larceny, and the Note under Robbery.

emphasis mine

"stolen" from dictionary.com

You know, back in the erlier days of this country, this mass outcry for cheaper music delivered in a different fashion would spring up a bunch of new industries trying to fufil that outcry. However, these days the RIAA has the US government eating out of the palm of its hand, has its cute little monopoly, and hence the consumer gets screwed in the end.

In another one of these flamewars, someone mentioned that had the RIAA been found to be fixing prices and whatever else it has been found of doing, the company would be dismantled and had its assets siezed, and there would be no more RIAA. Now all they have to do is give back a fraction of what they took (illegally I must add) to a few people who signed up on a website. You people defending the RIAA really want me to start minding MY P's and Q's when the RIAA gets off with gross violations of the law.

Oh wait, it's ok when they do it, they're a corporation.

korenhelmut, I'm glad you posted that. A friend of mine (a musician that is in a signed band) sent me that after I showed him that their new album was release early on IRC. He was actually pretty happy about it, and chalked it up as free publicity. Pretty interesting when someone that is supposedly the "victim of piracy" is openly advocating the downloading of his own band's music.

As long as there is the internet, there will be an easy way to pirate stuff. I will never ever pay for a cd again, nor will I feel guilty about it. And yes I admit it's wrong, but you know what, fark it--there's nothing anybody can do about it, no matter how much the Riaa kicks and screams till the end.

I've also helped others adopt this mentality by showing them the easiness of pirating mp3's--spread it around I say, the Riaa deserves to be farked.

Support the artist by going to concerts, etc, etc. Music is free and there is no such thing as copyright theft, no matter what facist laws our government invents.

commonsense: My point is that piracy is obviously causing a hurt to the RIAA..."

Obviously? The RIAA is screaming bloody murder about lost revenue, yes. But for every claim that they make that piracy is the cause, I can show you sales statistics from the heydey of Napster, when they posted the highest sales ever, or give an example of a more logical reason their sales are down.

For example:

1. The United States economy right now is not doing well. It's not exactly the Great Depression, but we are in a recession. And the RIAA can't seem to fathom that people people would prioritize feeding themselves over buying the new Illiterate Ghetto Trash the Rapper CD.

2. During the same years the RIAA has been complaining of declining profits, they've released progressively fewer albums.

3. The quality of music is so dubious that only the most mindless of 16 year-old girls really embrace pop music these days. RIAA labels follow the same methodology as Michael Eisner does with Disney: let someone else (Pixar/talented musicians) create something new or unique-sounding, then spin-off a flurry of over-produced clones to quickly cash-in.

4. Radio has essentially made purchasing CDs for a song you liked from the radio an excersize in redundancy. Radio stations have become so homogenous and the selection of music on the radio is so small and played in such heavy rotation that there's absolutely no point to paying money for a recording of a song when it receives such heavy airplay that you'll be sick of it within a few days.

For every anti-music piracy commercial I see, I'm going to download 3 more songs than I would have in the first place.

And yes, I got that idea from that one Maddox website.

I'm still surprised that so many people still call it theft. Are these people sneaking into stores and stealing CDs? No? I didn't think so. What so many of you fail to grasp is that an mp3 or any similar music file is just an extremely lossy representation of a song. So if someone shares some ones and zeroes with you that sounds like a song that's the same as stealing a CD? Notice how it's not illegal to tape tv programs? Did you know it's not illegal to tape the radio? But if I taped a song off of the radio and then converted it into a digital file that I then sent to a friend, I'm breaking the law? This is a law against saving your friend the effort of legally pressing record on hs tape player? Sure it sounds like a stretch, but is it really? It's not illegal to let your friend borrow a cd is it? What if they make a copy of it? Have you broken the law for letting them borrow it? Besides, an mp3 does not sound as good as a cd. The mp3 is little more than a demo of the song. The biggest mistake being made by the RIAA and their supporters is equating a low quality version of a song that someone might listen to in order to determine if they like the song to a full quality cd. The vast majority of people (this has been proven) who download a music file and like it buy the album. If the RIAA relies on radio as a means of advertising their product, aren't mp3s just another way to advertise? The RIAA is getting free advertisement for their songs in mp3 sharing, but instead of embracing it they are using it as a scapegoat to lay the blame for their decreasing sales on instead of admitting their sales are decreasing because they are charging too much for their music while the quality of their music is decreasing. They're relying on a nearly 60 year old system of distributing music, and they have decided to sue their potential customers rather than make an attempt to catch up with the rest of the world and its technology. I can't believe people have fallen for it either. An mp3 is no substitute for a cd. Anyone who listens to one can tell you that. So why doesn't anyone call the RIAA out for treating it as such so that they can make money that they don't deserve?

Callmemorpheus: Oh hun I have a better thing than a movie, I LIVED IN ONE heh. So I think I kinda have a grasp on how it is from real life experience :)
MOST third world countries are where they are cause their government gets uneducated/poor people to think that the people that have industries and own shops and stores don't work for their money which is bullshiat.
Sounds particularly similar to idiots that claim they can steal from the rich cause they already make too much money...
NOW I will give you that NOT all rich got there by busting their asses working but don't you think that is a little narrow minded and makes you a petty person to think that you can do it cause of your jealousy?

Like I said is the same thing at least for me cause when my country started going to shiat, arguments like this one is all we heard.
Sure do whatever but don't farking say that is OK cause it's not.

Myrmidon:
It's not. You get to try on a pair of shoes before you buy them. How often can you actually listen to an album before you buy it?
---

Amazon.com ???

Used to be CDNOW.com, they'd let you hear the entire CD
in 30 second or 60 second portions... enough for most
anyone to know if they'd like the CD.

Amazon only playing 5 songs now, sucks, but it's still
usable... barely. There are times when they don't provide
any samples of what's on the CD, then I can't know what's
on it, and there's no way I'll blind (deaf?) purchase a CD.

Here's my take on the whole situation. These are generalities. Different situations may vary:

People will look to pay the least amount of money they can for a product. If they can get the product for free, they will, even if it's through illegal means, so long as the risk of getting caught is so low as to be worth the savings.

Corporations will look to charge the most amount of money they can for a product. If they can charge an insane amount of money for the product, they will, even if it's through illegal means, so long as the risk of getting caught is so low as to be worth the extra profits.

Both sides will invent justifications for their behaviors after the fact.

The major music labels have an oligopoly, seeing as how the independent labels collectively hold only a tiny fraction of the market share. The major labels have used this oligopolistic power to jack up music prices.

The consumers now have a way to get the music for free, with the advent of file-sharing services.

Both sides are acting in an equally unethical manner.

The process of recording something with your VCR or from the radio is called time-sharing. Basically since you have the technology but you either won't be there to watch/hear or are watching something else you have the right to record it to be viewed by yourself at a later date.

However, before this concept came into place there were previous events of so-called copyright fraud or theft or whatever you want to call it.

In the early 1900s there was the player piano that would play popular songs for you, eventually it was deamed a legal accessory.
The radio and VCR have gone thru the same process only to be allowed after having spent some time in the courts.
I can't believe that after all these the RIAA is still so unbelievably myopic about such things...in my view file-sharing helps listeners decide what they like to listen to while broadening their musical tastes and horizons...hence they buy more CDs with greater satisfaction.