Legal Issues Don't Bother American Downloaders

An anonymous reader writes "Ipsos-Reid has released its latest research on file trading. Bottom line, the great majority of users do not believe they are breaking the law. Only 9% feel there is anything wrong with their actions. With 40 million Americans identified as active file traders this is indeed stirring information, though not surprising. Another stat, 73% of US downloaders report that their motivation for trading was to sample music for later purchase. You can see the charts and original press release here."

Comments

Released by a Reputable News Source

[Scoria]

After submitting data, participants were rumored to have disappeared. When approached by reporters, Hilary Rosen stepped outside of her Mercedes sedan and emphatically responded, "The result of this survey was entirely unexpected and blatantly anti-American. Like, who would've thought?" Screams emanated from her automobile, but Rosen was quick to assure her interviewers that they were merely products of her favorite Mafia films. Jack Valenti was hesitant to comment.

Re:Released by a Reputable News Source

[Anonymous Coward]

Laws are made by the people. If 93% of the people think this is right, maybe the laws should be changed.

Re:Released by a Reputable News Source

[mythr]

Don't worry; being a Democrat is not un-American. It's just stupid. The same, however, is true of being a Republican. Think for yourselves, people!

Re:Released by a Reputable News Source

[Daetrin]

Laws are made by the people. If 93% of the people think this is right, maybe the laws should be changed.

RTFA. Just to be nitpicky, the number you're looking for is 91%. "US downloaders feel that file trading activities are benign. Only 9% thought that file trading was wrong." However, that's out of US downloaders, which earlier they stated to be "almost one-fifth of the US population over 12."

Needless to say i would expect to see some correlation between people who choose to download music and people who think it's morally okay to do so. It's possible that the other 4/5ths of the population all think d/ling music is horribly wrong. Admitedly that's not too likely, but at least a fair number of them may think so, enough to counterbalance the 91% of downloaders who think it's okay. Your statement is like saying that 95% of muggers polled thought that beating people up to take their money was okay, so perhaps it should be made legal.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

haw haw

[Anonymous Coward]

Piracy is a victimless crime, like punching someone in the dark.

Re:haw haw

[gearheadsmp]

...except for the fact that if you punch someone in the dark, so to speak, they are at the very least going to grunt, yelp, scream, etc.

Re:haw haw

[tony1c]

It's also a harmless crime, like punching someone in the appendix.

Re:haw haw

[Gossy]

(Yes, I know it's meant to be funny, But...)

Perhaps a better analogy would be like flailing your arms around randomly in the dark.

Almost all of the time you hit air and it's a victimless crime. Sometimes you end up hitting criminals, helping the people trying to stop you. Other times you hit regular people, and cause real damage.

Most of the time you'd never have bought that MP3 you just downloaded. Some of the time you'll go buy an album after getting that MP3. Other times you'll download instead of buying, and they'll lose the sale.

The morality of downloading music is not clear cut.

no

[Suppafly]

Bottom line, the great majority of users do not believe they are breaking the law.

I beg to differ. Its pretty apparent to anyone you talk to that they know they are breaking the law, they just don't care.

Re:no

[nfg05]

Or that they think the laws are flawed and unbalanced in the first place.

Re:no

[lpret]

Actually, I've found what this article said to be true. Most people I talk to don't feel it's illegal. Their reason why? "It's free." People who do not understand what is required to write programs cannot comprehend that a program should cost money. These same people would never steal a cd from a store, yet they don't understand that the music they download is the same.

I would recommend the RIAA to work hard at making music, not the physical cd, but the actual song, what is being purchased. Once people realize that the song is what they own then they will respect it even when they see it is for "free".

The other problem is that there is no crackdown on downloaders. If you started arresting people, it would actually sink in to 90% of the users that they are breaking the law. If you could walk in to a store, grab that cool shirt you've been wanting, and walked out without being stopped, you'd probably get into the habit of it. But not only because of our conscience, the detectors at the door and the security cameras help deter us from stealing.

Obviously there would still be people d/ling mp3s, but it would be much less than the 20 million or so that do it now.

Mind you, I don't necessarily agree with the law, but I'm explaining that people don't realize they're breaking the law, why they do, and how they could be stopped.

Re:no

[hyphz]

> People who do not understand what is required
> to write programs cannot comprehend that a
> program should cost money. These same people
> would never steal a cd from a store, yet they
> don't understand that the music they download
> is the same. I would recommend the RIAA to
> work hard at making music, not the physical
> cd, but the actual song, what is being
> purchased.

It's a good point, but I don't think that the RIAA could really help. I think that more of the problem is that the average person believes themselves to be so disconnected from music stars that they just don't apply that kind of moral.

Society, and the industry itself, have some responsibility for that disconnection. The industry creates a glamour around musicians in general that makes them seem weird and different (seen Perfect Blue?) Likewise, society's embrance of the "talent" hypothesis - which is scientifically unsound, but useful to ensure productivity - has backfired, because the majority of people think "Well, it would be a lot of work for me to write that music, but it isn't for that famous musician, because they're talented. Talent makes the work easier, so it wasn't hard work for them."

Of course, the industry clampdown has only made things worse, because now when people DO know a musician themselves, chances are they are a small musician who WANTS their stuff copied just to get it heard.

If we could get back to the stage where musicians were respected as basically regular people who happened to stick their necks out and write some good songs, then piracy would go down. As long as we have the image that they're impossible perfect glamour beasts who have a magic 'talent' that makes anything they lay a finger on become perfect, people will not consider them morally in the same way either.

"pre-purchase tryout" is a lie!

[swordgeek]

OK, most people don't REALLY plan on buying more than one album in 10, 20, 50, 100 that they sample. It's not that they're saying to themselves, "Well I'll listen to this song and the maybe buy the album." No, they say "I want to here some 'X' today." Sometimes 'X' blows them away, and they DO buy the album.

The internet file sharing model isn't 'listen and buy,' it's just 'listen.'

The question we should be asking ourselves is why exactly is this any different from the library?

Re:"pre-purchase tryout" is a lie!

[sweetooth]

You return your books to the library. If you don't they send you a big fat bill in the mail.

Re:"pre-purchase tryout" is a lie!

[PhxBlue]

A couple ways, if you think about it. First, materials are donated to a library, at which point the donor no longer has access to the donated material. Second, you inevitably have to return any item you check out to the library, after which point you no longer have access to the material.

Re:"pre-purchase tryout" is a lie!

[ramzak2k]

OK, most people don't REALLY plan on buying more than one album in 10, 20, 50, 100 that they sample

Isnt that what sampling is all about ? To make sure that you purchase what you think is really worth a purchase. You are not forced to purchase everything that you check out in the stores, are you? I fail to understand why this is so NASTY when people have been doing it all the time by recording songs off their FM.

The radio analogy works better than a library because tapes are closer to a digital medium than books. Copies are made and distributed, rather than lent out to people as in a library.

Re:"pre-purchase tryout" is a lie!

[Jardine]

Many libraries have music and video collections that you can borrow. In fact, if I borrow a CD from a library, copy it for my personal use, and return the CD, I have not broken the law (in this country). Too bad there's a levy on the CDR that I'd copy it to.

Re:"pre-purchase tryout" is a lie!

[cpt kangarooski]

There is one other, but it's unusual: merger. That is, if turns out that there are very few ways of expressing a particular idea, copyrights on the expressions will be voided. But you'd have to challenge the copyright and prove the merger of expression and idea.

Re:"pre-purchase tryout" is a lie!

[knobmaker]

1) Most materials in libraries are not "donated." They're purchased with money taken from taxpayers-- all of us. They still belong to us, even if they're under the temporary control of the librarians.

2)You may have to return the items you borrow from the library, but you can always get them again. You may not have "immediate access" to these materials, but you do have permanent access, any time you feel like going to the library.

I think this is right on.

[Anonymous Coward]

I have downloaded about 30 Gigs of music, all for the articles.

In Other News....

[Anonymous Coward]

56% of americans said "I get mp3s off kazza but I dont file-share"

Names....

[idontneedanickname]

Please just fill out this form, it shouldn't take you long.

Why do I need to put my name and adress? You said this was an anonymous survey?

Oh, that's just for ehh ... our computer, eh... so he can list you in alphabetical order, and ehh geographical area... yes, that's it! *Scratches back of head nervously, looks away*

This, and many other fine stories...

[Anonymous Coward]

...are available in this month's issue of "Duh!" magazine.

Let's look at the facts:
-The music industry is actively hostile toward their customers, referring to them as thieves.
-Meanwhile, the music industry was found guilty of price fixing CDs for a DECADE. What must they give their customers as restitution? ALMOST enough money to buy ONE new CD!

Clearly, the only solution is mob justice-- in this case, the mass downloading of music by people who are presumed guilty by the RIAA anyway. Nobody loses sleep over this except the RIAA executives who stuff their mattresses with the cash we've paid for CDs where all but 2 of the tracks are pure shit.

Re:This, and many other fine stories...

[Ryan Amos]

Aah, to be idealistic. I agree with you, that's the way it SHOULD work. But American voters are so apathetic of elections that who gets into office largely depends on their party affiliation. This is especially true for representatives. Nobody knows who these guys are, they just elect them because they're a republican or a democrat. The only election people pay attention to is the presidential election. The money helps because it allows for name recognition; people who know nothing about the issues and are middle of the road are more likely to vote for the guy whose name they recognize.

The two party system also doesn't help. Party platforms are the bane of modern politics. I'm personally pro-choice yet against a lot of gun control. Who the fuck do I vote for? I have to choose which of these issues (which really are both the same issue; the government's ability to legislate my private life) is more important to me, there's no viable third party that encompasses both of these. Yes, I realize that these views are supported by the Libertarians. They are not a viable third party because they will never win an important election. Not with the winner-take-all system in US politics. And that's not something you can change by calling your representative.

Survey says

[Anonymous Coward]

People don't feel bad about getting back at companies that screwed them over for years.

News at eleven.

Re:Survey says

[Pendersempai]

More likely, the survey says that people like getting something for nothing. When my friends download an mp3, retribution is the least of their motivations -- and I don't think they're alone.

Re:In time, and in theory,

[ciroknight]

Musicians that hit it well (and therefore what most people listen to) are used to making hundreds of millions of dollars, more than most people see in their lifetimes. I don't think that filesharing is going to bankrupt them any time soon just as long as they keep selling cds and do their thing the best they can

So I was right all along?

[Metallic Matty]

And by I, I mean, the generally informed geek population at large.

We've all been doing this for quite some time now; Music trading (regardless of whether or not its illegal) doesn't feel like a crime. People _do_ actually use this stuff for the purposes they claim too. I often download mp3 samples of bands and djs before I'm willing to invest in their cds. The RIAA dumps all over this. Record companies should be taking advantage of this instead of trying to put an end to it.

Of course, this is just the same ol' story. The numbers don't lie though: if THAT many people are using music sharing, and in their opinion, legitimately, you're better off tapping it for your own gain, than to try and drive it into the ground, especially because it just isn't gonna happen.

And they proably smoke pot too.

[smcavoy]

Let's round 'em up and throw them in jail for 5-10, that'd outta fix 'em.
I'm mean if it's illegal, it's got to be bad.

My take

[Raul654]

IF I could mod you to "+10, absolutely right", I would. You have hit the nail on the head. Most people realize (intuitively) that downloading music/movies/software is (at the very least) a victimless crime in that 99.99% of the stuff that is downloaded and not later bought would never have been bought anyway. I think the remainder is more than made up for by the increased sales due to increased exposure.

Re:My take

[IamTheRealMike]

Most people realize (intuitively) that downloading music/movies/software is (at the very least) a victimless crime in that 99.99% of the stuff that is downloaded and not later bought would never have been bought anyway. I think the remainder is more than made up for by the increased sales due to increased exposure.

Yeah, you tell yourself that, if it makes you feel better. I'm sure there are some here on Slashdot that download a few gigs of music every month, then go out and buy CDs for music they already have. Ya know, 'cos they're moral sort of people.

The vast majority of p2p pirates do not do this. I'm talking from personal experience. They don't download music to "sample" it, they download whole albums, sometimes even with artwork. Even worse, some of them have the gall to then burn them onto CDs and sell it on to people without broadband connections, sometimes for as much as 500% profit.

They never buy CDs. Why bother, when downloading it is so much easier? The fact is, if there was no music piracy, CD sales would be higher, because all those people who never buy CDs (or who buy them for nearly nothing from "friends") would have lower music consumption but would actually pay for it, so the gross profit is still higher than zero.

This "victimless crime" garbage has got to end. Music piracy is a victimless crime in the same way a war on Iraq would be a victimless crime - there are victims all right, you just can't see them, except in occasional glances the media gives as events rush past the window.

Re:My take

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact is, if there was no music piracy, CD sales would be higher

Yet again, this "fact" is quoted with no evidence, or even an indication of evidence, to back it up. Where do you get your figures from to support this "fact"? Have you seen studies that support this "fact"? Or, as I suspect, is this "fact" simply a conclusion that you have reached with no real supporting evidence or even a willingness to at least look at studies which do not support your views?

I may as well remind you that we're posting in an article which is talking about a survey which does in fact appear to show the opposite of this "fact" that you quote. A large percentage of people have stated that they go on to buy CD's after they have downloaded the MP3. Other studies have shown the same.

Ho hum. Fact away, factman.

Re:My take

[hacker]

That's an absurd argument. An album costs tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars to produce. A single copy of that album costs $15 or so. It should be fairly obvious that the money being spent by the purchaser doesn't justify creating and releasing an unlimited number of copies of that album.

First, I am not advocating piracy at all, and to date, I have never downloaded a single mp3 from the internet that wasn't already on the artist's website. However, ever single cd I have purchased, I rip to ogg format, because I don't have a stereo (it was stolen), so my ONLY way to listen to music is on my computers.

Second, I was correcting the myth that the music was never purchased. It was, and had to be (in most cases) by at least one person, who ripped the disk and illegally put it onto the net or p2p space.

Third, your math is grossly incorrect. If putting out 1M copies of a cd costs 'x', putting out 4M copies of a cd does not cost 'x*4'. The initial startup and production (studio) costs may be more initially, but once you have a digitally reproducable medium, you can replicate that BILLIONS of times at only the cost of negligible commodity hardware. You don't incur studio (human, carbon) costs for each new run. You do, however incur non-human (silicon, paper, cd media) costs.

It currently costs roughly $4-5/USD to put a cd into the hands of consumers in the record stores, which does take into account shipping, packaging, printing, and so on. The remaining $10-15/USD that you pay is.. PROFIT. Please do some research first. CDs do not cost $15.00/USD each to produce and master. If you believe that, you've been brainwashed by the record companies and RIAA for far too long.

Also, artists are starving because the record companies don't own up to their end of the bargain, and refuse to pay them, withold payments and loans, etc. Bands have no recourse but to claim bankruptcy in many cases, and now the RIAA and record companies are trying to make that against the law as well. When a singer like Jennifer Lopez clears $40k in salary in 2000, you really start thinking about where the $200 BILLION dollars that the record companies collected that year goes.

Besides, it's not always a purchased copy that's used as the source of the copyright infringement. There was a Slashdot article a little while ago that talked about how Eminem's album was #1 on a chart that tracked CD plays done on computers. The catch? His album wasn't even out yet -- he made it to #1 just from people listening to illegal copies.

You just reinforced my point. These were obviously leaked from the studio itself, so how are "piraters" and p2p/filesharing services to blame? The motivation to put it out on the net existed already, the existance of p2p didn't "suck it out of the studio windows". Someone wanted to leak it, and they did. If it wasn't p2p, it would be ftp, or http, or some other means.

This also just recently happened with the Oscar pre-release DVD versions of many movies not-yet-released.

People need to get a grip on reality here. The RIAA is pissed because they missed the boat on the internet as a legitimate music distribution medium.

1. Broadband is available, and cheap. You can now download 600 megs of data in very short order.
2. Printers have gotten much better in quality and price
3. CDR/CDRW media and hardware is also exceptional quality and low price

So why didn't the RIAA/record companies just decide to make an "online store", where you pay $5.00 for an ISO + artwork, download them, print them and make your own version? If it was $5.00, their sales would SKYROCKET. But for $15.00 in a store, where most of the music on the disk is garbage, of COURSE people will pirate it.

I'm all for allowing everyone their piece of the pie, but the RIAA and the record companies are quadruple-dipping, and at the same time, trying to make it illegal or impossible to use t

Re:My take

[Qzukk]

Yeah, you tell yourself that, if it makes you feel better.

Fine then, I'll tell myself that. Meanwhile, I'll be ordering another round of CDs from CD Japan pretty soon, for instance the SaiKano OST and the GitS:SAC OST which I "borrowed" from a friend since I wasn't a big fan of the show, only the music (amongst other CDs that I have mp3s from.

Why bother, when downloading it is so much easier

I only have one reply to this: snort. I'm really sure its "so much easier" to deal with the drek, people who never let you fetch stuff, and other crap on kazaa and the like. And thats if anyone else out there actually had my interests in music.

Now, I'm completely against the people who do as you describe and resell the burnt CDs for 500% profit (at this point, I would call it "bootlegging"). But you have to face it: Today's US music industry relies on people not hearing the crap on the disc ahead of time, so that they might be fooled into buying it. Since they have managed to get their industry into such a run-down state that the only way they can manage to sell anything is by accident or deceit (wouldn't you call filling a CD with two good songs which get radio advertising time, and the remainder with remixes or other crap deceit?) they have to force people to not preview the music. So they push for laws against it.

You know what really makes me feel better? It's not telling myself that I'm going to buy the stuff I like, because I know that to be true. It's that I look out and see civil disobedience performed against the gross misuse of a once-honorable law (copyright law, to be specific). Once upon a time it let people be creative and get money for their creations. Now, the music industry (amongst others) has shifted the power of the law from protecting authors to protecting the publishers. Once upon a time, an author granted permission to a publisher to publish the work. Nowadays, the publishers use work-for-hire loopholes and other tricks to take the work by force and leave the author with nothing but debt. For instance, if you read the text of the DMCA, you'll notice that there are no rights assigned to authors of a work. If I record a song in a DRM-enabled format, I have no right to remove the DRM from it, because the DMCA protects the DRM, not my work. (And before you claim "bullshit", take a look at this where legal threats were made against a person who wrote his own tool for fixing the "don't embed" bit for fonts he created himself. It hasn't gone to court, apparently, but given that the DMCA repeals rights of due process, that doesn't matter much, does it?)

So do the American thing. Protest the commercialization of your government and download an mp3 today.

Newsflash: More research

[borg]

In other news:

• 95% of drivers over 18 years of age think it's not a crime to go up to 7 mph over the speed limit.
• 100% of fourth graders think that they shouldn't have to pay anyone to sing "happy birthday" in class.
• 82% of record company CEOs didn't think that they did anything wrong when they conspired to raise the cost of a CD.
• 100% of christine aguileras surveyed thought it was ok to teach fourth grade girls how to be whores.

ok, i'm not sure what i'm getting at (especially with that last one...), but it's something along the lines of "law doesn't equal ethics." you can buy a law, but Leges sine moribus vanae ("Laws without morals are useless.")

Semantics

[worst_name_ever]

Only 9% feel there is anything wrong with their actions.

Note thechoice of words. I'd be willing to bet that the majority of people who download mp3's are well aware that what they are doing is illegal, but may not believe in their heart of hearts that it is actually wrong - there's a semantic difference implied at the very least.

Most know it is wrong

[intrico]

But, we look at it the same way as going 5-10 MPH over the speed limit while driving - we know that the risk of cops bothering to single any one of us out for a pullover while everyone else is speeding at the same time is slim, so we continue to do it.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

"illegal" != "wrong"

[wayne]

The statement that Ipsos asked people if they agree with is "Downloading free music off the Internet is wrong". Only 9% sgrongly or somewhat agreed.

There is a difference between what is illegal and what people believe is wrong. Before the civil war, it was illegal to help a run-away slave, even if you were in the North. Many people worked on the "Underground railroad" anyway and didn't think it was "wrong" to help slaves.

Now a days, the whole concept that you could "own" a person seems pretty strange. But then, some people today also think that the whole concept that you could "own" an idea is pretty strange.

Re:"illegal" != "wrong"

[Anonymous Coward]

Owning people isn't that strange.

I mean the majority of people in America have to rent themselves to a master for 8 hours a day to feed their family so it's not that strange at all.

Re:"illegal" != "wrong"

[Ramze]

I totally agree.

According to the Home Recording Act, I can record any signal I can pick up in my home from the radio or TV AND let any of my friends or family borrow or record from my recording.

So, it's not illegal for me to get a radio tuner for my PC and encode songs to MP3 -- yet, it is illegal to download those exact same songs in mp3 format or to post them to the web, but it is legal for me to give my radio-encoded mp3's to any of my friends. Also, the same is true for any TV shows. I can record The Sopranos, burn it to a DVD, and give it to a friend, yet I can't download the episode of the Sopranos I missed last week even though I pay for HBO!!

Anyone else think this is stupid? I can listen to any music on MP3 whenever I want -- so long as the original source was from either a CD I baught, the radio, or a friend or family member who gave it to me as long as they got it from the radio or TV -- but NOT from a stranger online... mmmkayyy. But, if I met a stranger online in person, and we were friends... they could give me a copy & that'd be legal.. so long as their source was from a the radio or TV.

I fear that laws will change to where noone can copy anything (goodbye fair use), but I'd prefer that they'd change so that noone can enforce a copyright longer than 7 years. (after 2 years, most music and movies have made their serious dough anyway -- 'cept TV shows b/c they get their major money in sindication (sp). I think a fair compromise would be -- you can't copy anything for other than personal use, parody, news media, or some other variant of free speech/fair use ... unless it's 7 years old :-) (in other words, no sharing of an exact copy of a full work with anyone unless it's 7 years old)

Re:"illegal" != "wrong"

[Snoopy77]

If you read up on some of the ancient philosophers and how they defined law you will actually find that most, if not all considered unjust laws to be invalid. While in practice the lawmakers would probably disagree and charge you with breaking the law if you chose to do so, theoretically I have no problem with there claim. Slavery would in this case fall into the unjust area of law. I doubt the 'average man' would disagree with me there. But do copyright laws fall into the unjust area? I challenge anyone to explain to me how copyright laws are fundamentally unjust. You can't get everything for free.

Re:"illegal" != "wrong"

[seschmi]

The problem is that the definition about what is "unjust" can change quite fast. At the times of slavery, only few people considered it unjust to hold slaves.

Another, more recent example: After the reunification of Germany, many people (e.g. members of the secret services of the GDR) found themselves punished for things they didn't believe to be unjust before.

If you think about it, most people have a relatively simple system of ethics:

1. Very important: Rules that protect people (like themselves). Most people don't kill other people, as they don't want to be killed. Even if there is no enforcement, most people follow this rules.
2. Less important: Rules which are important to keep the society running. Most people accept the statement that the government needs taxes, but they pay taxes only if they are forced to do so.
3. Least important: Rules, where people cannot see that anybody is harmed if the rule is broken.

Drinking alcohol and filesharing fall in the third class.

Re:"illegal" != "wrong"

[Danse]

The unjust part of copyright law is the fact that it is no longer a balancing of the rights of the consumers and the rights of the creators. There is no such thing as a "natural copyright". In fact, given the obvious ease with with ideas spread, it would seem that nature is quite opposed to such a thing. Copyright was created to make sure that creators were compensated for their work, and that the work could be made widely accessible to the people of this country. Ideas that were good and that people liked would end up staying around and being changed and built upon. Now, over the years the scales have tipped WAY in favor of the copyright owners (who are rarely the creators anymore), giving them more and more control over much longer periods of time. What have we gotten in return? Absolutely nothing. That is what I feel is unjust.

9 Percent of People Believe Anything

[gadlaw]

Look here. When I bought my first portable radio it had a cassette recorder so I could tape music from the radio. Then I bought a portable CD player that had a cassette recorder in it so I could tape music from the radio or CD. Then I bought I stereo with many components and fancy connections so I could tape from my CD and my FM receiver in high quality sound. Then I bought a VCR so I could record shows, movies and even music. Then I bought a fancier one so I could make even better quality tapes and copies of movies and shows. Now I have a computer and an internet connection, a CD burner and access to even more music than I could get from my radio or FM receiver with a high gain antenna. I can make tapes and CD's of music like I always have to listen in my car or elsewhere. Now you want to tell me I'm a 'pirate', a 'thief' or a 'criminal' for doing what I've always done and I might add-something that the technology has always allowed me to do. I'm surprised that 9 percent of the people think it's wrong now. In better news, 91 percent of the people are not so gullible as to believe something that's always been legal and encouraged is now illegal.

Moral? I'll do it.

[FFtrDale]

It seems that large groups of folks act on the principle that,

(a) if it seems moral and ethical (for example, I'm not taking anything that somebody currently owns away from them, and

(b) the laws are complicated, unclear, currently in dispute, and seem to stake out large chunks of "what's fair" as "You Have To Pay For This From Now On" territory, then

(c) people are going to do it, regardless of any attempts by people with lots of cash and hubris to have the laws they want passed by those whose jobs are to write and interpret the law.

Folks are accustomed to being able to listen to copyrighted programs on TV or radio without paying extra. They don't expect to take things from grocery stores without paying. That distinction seems to drive a lot of behavioral choices.

We pay for Linux distros, knowing that we can DL them for free. Why? We're willing to pay people to save us time and effort, and we have the feeling that the prices they ask are reasonable for the time and effort they expend (actually, it feels like we're getting a great deal on the results of their efforts, and Thanks!). We're not willing to pay other people to cost us time and effort with their attempts to own our choices and limit our behavior with predatory laws. That's not what laws are for.

Re:Adaptation.... Evolution...

[mauthbaux]

It prettymuch was popular interest that ended prohibition as well. The book "Drug Crazy" by Mike Gray made that point pretty clear. According to his statistics, heavy drinking (which was a crime) and violent crime rates skyrocketted. Getting rid of prohibition helped the economy (in the hospitality industry) as well as helped decrease the amount of gang activities. Human civilzation has advanced when information and communication became more common. By promoting free access to information, society as a whole ends up benifitting (that is, unless your idea of an ideal world still has outhouses and no deoderant.) What the record and software industries need to understand is that prettymuch no matter how illegal they try to make file sharing, it will still be around. Big brother isn't going to get them out of the quandry they now face. What they really need to focus their efforts on is attempts to proffit off of it, or how they should abandon what they're doing and move into a new industry. When the automobile replaced the horse as the popular form of transportation, the people who sided with the horse-based businesses had only themselves to blame. The masses have spoken, and filesharing is going to be around until it gets replaced by better, more popular and convenient technology. Those who still try to stand on their soap boxes and stop everyone have only themselves to blame when their efforts fail...

Terms

[hackwrench]

Music should be paid for in terms that both the musician and listener both like. Until then, war's all.

Anecdotal evidence

[Joey7F]

I have been downloading songs from Sister Hazel for a few months. I was told they were pretty good, so I downloaded and agreed. Yesterday I bought their new album, virtually (heard 2 songs)sound unheard (or whatever the audio equivalent of sight unseen is).

The only reason why I bought their album is because of Kazaa.

This year have purchased about 3 cds. My pre file-trading average was about 5-6 a year. I know I will get at least one more when Big Bad Voodoo Daddy releases their next one in April.

So my quantitative purchasing habits have not really changed, but my satisfaction with purchases have increased tremendously. My choices of what I buy also have changed a little.

In summary, what the hell is the RIAA worried about? I feel most people are like me, they pay for what they like, and try to do the honest thing.

--Joey

Re:Anecdotal evidence

[Thomas M Hughes]

I feel most people are like me, they pay for what they like, and try to do the honest thing.

First rule of social science: never assume that anyone else is like you. Generally, you are exceptional, until the data says otherwise.

Re:Anecdotal evidence

[Tikiman]

Sampling is diven by the listener, not the performer. When the performer drives sampling, they feed the listener the "best bits" to sell the product. When the listener drives sampling, they listen to more random bits to see if the product is worth buying. Or, they listen to a bunch of bits from a single cd to see if that cd is worth buying.

You're implying that for some reason, performers are trying to hide the "bad" portions of their songs so listeners will somehow be suckered into buying their music. However, you have no real evidence of this. Go to www.samgoody.com - search for Sister Hazel (or whoever), and listen to the 20 second clips. It will give you a *very* good idea if you like the group or not. Now you can't hear every second of course, but what exactly are you looking for? Can you see every minute of a movie before going to it? Can you read every chapter of a book before buying it? What is so special about music that the only way to sample it is to download it and listen to it over and over until you finally conclude its ok to buy it?

The library, file sharing, and friends in the same city are the only sources for real sampling. The library and my local friends have very limited selection. That leaves...

You can always get a better idea if you'll like a CD if you listen to the whole thing. However, people are claiming that file sharing is the ONLY way to sample music, and this is simply not true. Sure it may be the "best" way, but the fact that other legitimate sampling alternatives exist makes it a very poor excuse to justify music downloading.

In Related News...

[0x7F]

"Ipsos-Reid has released its latest research on spamming. Bottom line, the great majority of spammers do not believe they are breaking the law. Only 9% feel there is anything wrong with their actions. With 40 million Americans identified as active spam receivers this is indeed stirring information, though not surprising. Another stat, 73% of US spammers report that their motivation for trading was to offer people legitimate products and services."

I hate the RIAA as much as any Slashdotter, but does this really prove anything?

Duh....

[GeneralEmergency]

.

Information wants to be free...
...and apparently is having no difficulty finding the exits!

It's too late

[Anonymous Coward]

Kid Rock Starves to Death: MP3 Piracy Blamed. Sad, but true.

Re:Why does this surprise anybody?

[kien]

Its the human condition, to try to get stuff for free if its easy to steal it. Take towels in hotels, cutlery or even glasses in bars. People take them knowing full well its illegal.

No. It is not the "human condition" to steal. I do not steal towels or cutlery or glasses because that is physical property that someone had to manufacture and someone else had to buy. It would be immoral and unethical for me to steal those things.

Songs are not physical property, as much as the RIAA would like you to think they are. Songs are creative entities that are sometimes captured on physical media. Given the chance, most people would welcome the opportunity to reward the authors of these entities. But because the publishers have taken an aggressive position to get in the way, people have routed around them.

I respect and reward people and companies that offer me their product and ask for my monetary support. I shun and despise those who treat me as a criminal first, customer second, and demand my monetary support.

--K.

9 percent

[tmark]

Only 9% feel there is anything wrong with their actions.

So what are we supposed to take from this ? What percentage of shoplifters really think they're doing something wrong (I know some think they're forced to do it, or that no one is really being hurt) ?

What percentage of heroin users think there's anything wrong with their actions ?

What percentage of the 9/11 terrorists thought there's anything wrong with their actions ?

What percentage of Timothy McVeigh's philosophical brethren think anything's wrong with his actions ?

What percentage of NAMBLA members think they're doing anything wrong.

Hey, this isn't a flame. It's just that when someone trots out an obviously meaningless statement, they need to be called out. Just because people don't think that what they do isn't wrong, doesn't mean it isn't - or is.

Re:9 percent

[Flamerule]

So what are we supposed to take from this ?

The article mentions the "education" efforts the RIAA, MPAA, etc., have been putting out, trying to convince people that filesharing is immoral, unethical, whatever. If large segments of the population don't think this is the case, the *AAs are going to have a devil of a time convincing them.

What percentage of heroin users think there's anything wrong with their actions ?

There's nothing morally wrong with heroin use -- if someone wants to fuck themself up, that's his right.

What percentage of the 9/11 terrorists thought there's anything wrong with their actions ?

Uh oh, filesharing == terrorism? Where to begin...

What percentage of Timothy McVeigh's philosophical brethren think anything's wrong with his actions ?

More terrorism comparison...

What percentage of NAMBLA members think they're doing anything wrong.

Oooooh, child molestation! You're really going at it.

Hey, this isn't a flame.

I'm afraid a /. poll would return overwhelming results against you on that one, buddy.

It's just that when someone trots out an obviously meaningless statement, they need to be called out.

It's not meaningless, it's the opinion of a segment of the population. They asked other questions too, so it doesn't all boil down to a "criminals don't think what they're doing is wrong" statement.

Freedom and Liberty ....

[bizitch]

Thats the problem - when you give people Freedom and Liberty - you just don't know what they're going to do with it.

Like - invent p2p networks and then trade files with it.

Re:In time, and in theory,

[nfg05]

Musicians that hit it well (and therefore what most people listen to) are used to making hundreds of millions of dollars, more than most people see in their lifetimes. I don't think that filesharing is going to bankrupt them any time soon just as long as they keep selling cds and do their thing the best they can

That is why its the record companies fighting to the death to destroy filesharing. The RIAA talks about artists benig hurt because people sympathize for them, not record company CEO's. Artists aren't going to be hit hard if the music industry is drastically changed and the middlemen are cut out, record companies are. All that being said though, even if the record companies are cut out of the equation artists still aren't going to be real fond of people trading their stuff around for free, but I think they will be supportive of p2p (for a price) and using the internet to distribute their music.

Re:In time, and in theory,

[bluxus]

True enough. It is really a pretty elitist sort of occupation, at least to be considered some kind of "mega star" recording artist. Those types will persist and should really not feel much pain from people trading their stuff. I mean, they've got huge venues they can fill, lots of exposure, lots of money coming in from all over the place. The people who may suffer, the "small time" musicians, the people who actually make good music, don't really make much money from it anyway. They have smaller fanbases, exist in a more intimate creative space, and seem to enjoy it. Their intent is quite a bit different, I think, than a Britney S. I suppose that the music made by certain people is also not for everyone, where as the Britney S. stuff is apparently filling that great "need" for some kind of comsumer homogeneousness...ahhhhhh, shit...i agree with you is what i mean to say. Good point.

Christian moral law caused it? *BZZTT*, Try again!

[fireboy1919]

The "minority" you speak of that caused prohibition was primarily women stretching their political muscles.

As near as I can figure, the argument is something like this:
Women's Sufferage movement: WE NEED TO VOTE!
Everyone else: Why? Aren't things going okay for you?
Women's Sufferage movement: WE ARE MORALLY OPPOSED TO ALCOHOL!
Everyone else: I guess you've got your convictions (and a few mumbles of approval that win support to the sufferage movement)

When it came down to it, the reason was mostly just an excuse to allow women to take the power they should have already had.

The prohibition movement was a small push that turned the tide.

I'd like to think that all of the women in America hold a lot more political power than media conglomerates, and unlike perhaps Christian moral law, women have *not* been completely replaced by money and corporate interests. But enough about that...

The primary goal of politicians is to stay in office - which means convincing the majority of the public that they are helped, or at least not hindered by this politician, since politicians are elected. If they don't, they won't get reelected.

The secondary goal of a politician is to make lots and lots of money - which is often in opposition to the first goal, since doing that may require that a politician attempt to legalize corporate crimes against his constituents.

As I see it the fine line they walk is to pass all the laws they can which legalize crimes against the constituents, while enforcing as few of these laws as possible, so that said constituents will not find out, get mad, and boot them from office. Then the new guy will have to repeal the "crime is legal" law before he starts writing his own.

Seems to me Congress is doing exactly that and will continue to do so as long as possible until they really anger the voters. Then they'll change whatever law made us the angriest, wait a few years, and write it again.

I have a theory that this perturbation process actually results in corrections becoming more major as time goes by (because the problem gets worse at a more fundamental level). If I'm right, one day income tax will be repealed. :)

Note to anyone arguing against this theory (a little note to help the argument-impaired here on /.): I did not substantiate it in any way, so you can't argue it's truth by presenting any flaw in its conception. The only thing that you might argue is that income tax is not a bad thing than angers voters.

They don't want the content to be purchased

[Anonymous Coward]

Otherwise, every a new format comes out, people would demand to buy a new copy on that new format at cost. Instead, they can sell you the record album, tape and CD (and if the future DVD) all with basically the same content, but at full price.

If you walk in to a store and take a CD or a shirt or whatever, that means someone else can't buy it. If you download a song, other people can still download it too. If you could clone physical objects (something like the replicators on Star Trek), then would it be a crime to clone yourself a copy of that t-shirt?

Download with intent to buy?

[sandbagger]

Wow.

People were downloading with a promise to buy?

I'd better get some kind of big, honking raise 'cause it looks like I am going to be spending a fortune on porn in the future.

no problems here

[ltwally]

Personally speaking, I don't have much of a problem with MP3 & movie trading. Though the RIAA would like us to believe that their sales drops are caused by all these dangerous mp3's, they also fail to mention that their declining profits precisely match the declining number of albums that they've been putting out in the last couple years.

As far as movies go.... How many movies out there are really up to DVD quality? Or even Broadcast TV quality? Not many! And certainly not before the movie has been put out on DVD do you find DVD quality rips... so does the MPAA really loose money, either? I seriously doubt it.

I can't speak for the rest of the free world.. or even the rest of Americans. But personally, if I download something and actually like it, I go out and buy the CD or DVD. Not because I feel that I have to, but because there are good reasons to. DivX & mp3's don't come with spiffy inserts and the extra's that make a store product worthwhile.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

What the hell is the RIAA worried about?

[Ayanami Rei]

1) Anything that to shareholders of the constituent record companies looks like lost sales

2) You having more informed choices (hence bringing the commodotized music market closer to a free market)

3) Losing ground to new distribution technology. Or realizing that record companies and "labels" are becoming less important for the purpose of getting music to an audience (being replaced by the internet, and direct marketing)

Look at the poll question!

[epsalon]

Have you downloaded Music or MP3 files from the Internet in the past month?

I did not download any illegal material in the last, month but my reply to this question is "Yes!". I did download music which was played at the background of movie trailers or flash sites. Yes, I did download MP3 files when I downloaded the ISOs of RH8.0, which include some sample MP3 files.

Not all music or MP3 downloading is illegal! Not all music is even copyrighted.

MP3s: the corporate punisher

[Captain Beefheart]

I think much of this piracy stems from bitterness over lost jobs, high gasoline prices, gov't budget cuts, overpriced music and DVDs etc. Those who have managed to keep their jobs find themselves being given twice as much work, which they must accept or be put on the sidewalk.

I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying a lot of individually petty reasons can add up to a very big grudge. And we have lots of little reasons. Plus the shadow of a controversial war and vague threats of terrorism. So most people like getting their entertainment without leaving the shelter of their home.

So in total, people feel exposed and abused, and may feel the need to "strike back." How easy it becomes, then, to download some silly little file with music in it. Bunch of greedy suits, and the artists hardly see a dime of it anyway, so what's a dozen little music files?

Then there's the opposite end of the spectrum, The Collector. He (or she) downloads for the sake of downloading. "Hey, the entire Jimi Hendrix back catalog. That might come in handy one rainy evening when I have nothing to do." These people get it because they can, don't really listen to the music, and use what they listen to as nothing more than a digital radio--just listening to the latest pop hits, doing so on their terms and deleting the file when they get bored of it.

So it looks like I'm painting a picture that doesn't leave much room for the ordinary, shameful theif. Truth is, there's enough gray area to fill an ocean. Gray area with regards to the theif's ethics, and with regards to the concrete results of their actions.

The bottom line, for me: Is someone reducing your profit when they weren't going to buy it anyway? Yes, when profit is reduced exactly because the item is so easy to steal.

Breaking the law != doing something wrong

[Dr. Spork]

The story writeup has a howler of a conceptual mistake: It conflates the idea of breaking the law and doing something wrong. If you had asked American downloaders whether they're breaking the law, I'm sure the great majority would say they are. But get with it. Sometimes breaking the law is the right thing to do. Now I'm not saying that filetrading is a sort of civil disobedience, but I think, understandably, many Americans think that filetrading is as immoral as jaywalking--so, not very.

9% of people who are DOWNLOADING

[joeflies]

If the statement is "9% of people feel their ACTIONS are wrong" then it implies that they only asked people who are doing the downloading. So how does that compare to the general population (taking into the people who aren't doing any downloading of mp3s). I would guess that the people who feel their actions are wrong aren't doing any downloading at all

Misinterpretted Data

[silent_poop]

Slashdot's article misinterprets the data in the report. 73% of the people didn't say their motivation for downloading was for a later purchase. The survey asked if they enjoyed the ability to listen before they buy. Enjoying the ability to listen before you buy doesn't imply that that was their reason for downloading.

Re:How do people justify it?

[Jeremi]

So what is going through the heads of the other 91 percent? That the copyrighted material you normally have to pay for somehow magically teleported to your hard drive?

Have you been using the Internet very long? Other than your monthly ISP fee, 99.9% of the data you get off the Internet, you don't have to pay for. So yes, to most people, downloading free songs is normal and expected.

Re:What does the law say?

[cpt kangarooski]

17 USC 106 prohibits the copying and distribution of copyrighted materials. There are various exceptions to this, but none of them are prone to work for something like P2P sharing.

And while you're right in that actual damages are difficult to show, statutory damages are a substitute for that; if the plaintiff thinks it'll be hard for them to prove damages, they'll take the statutory. If they think that the damages are sufficiently high however, and are likely enough to be proven, they'll go for the actual damages.

As an aside, consider the Napster case. You cannot have contributory or vicarious infringement without someone being a direct infringer. Napster tried to defend their users and failed; the courts felt that infringement on a P2P network had occurred.

Viable solutions causing me guilt

[Cracula]

Up until recently I have had no moral qualms downloading to my heart's content from Kazaa, but lately I've been having a few guilty tugs at my morality whenever I double click on a semi-popular song. You see, viable solutions to mp3 freeloading are actually starting to pop up. In fact, this weekend I signed up for free trials on PressPlay and Rhapsody (listen.com). These services are cheap ($9.95 a month) and have a surprising variety of music. I have been impressed with the speed of the services, and especially with the interface of Rhapsody. While downloadable content is still sparse on both services (both have a good amount of streaming music, Rhapsody especially), I have to say that it's almost worth the full $9.95 just to save time that would normally be spent sorting through half-length songs from Kazaa and all the other annoyances of 'free' music.

I think that as these services become even better (and I'm sure they will) I personally will feel a moral obligation to sign up for them. The music industry needs to learn their lesson--they can't get away with price bloating in the 21st century. Once they learn that and come up with viable alternatives like PressPlay and Rhapsody, I will have no problem paying them $10 to listen to whatever the heck I want, whenever I want.

I do want to make it clear, however, that I still have no problem downloading songs from Kazaa that I cannot find on the pay services. That right there should be enough for the record companies to see what they need to do to get our business back: High quality and variety, and a REASONABLE price.

They're just a fraction away from getting my business.

Re:Viable solutions causing me guilt

[rwsorden]

Whenever I hear people moan about the price of CDs, I feel like laughing. Don't you understand that no one is forcing you to buy them nor do you need to purchase CDs to survive (i.e., they do not provide sustenance or shelter)? CDs are luxury items - plain and simple - and the potential consumer price associated with them, therefore, is uncapped. The bottom line: if you don't want to pay the price for a luxury item, then don't buy it. The only morality issue at hand here is whether or not you believe you are entitled to steal copies of the music through unauthorized copying.

Sounds Good

[miketang16]

Just don't go over your RIAA-set limit of 600 songs a day... =) Especially you Verizon ISP customers.

it's not just availability ...

[timothy]

I realize that there's a lot of music out there online "for the taking" for which -- you're right -- most downloaders are never going to pay, whatever they say about it.

However, I'm actually convinced that a lot of people who would like to pay the artists (out of enlightened self-interest if not deep morals) *don't* ever buy the album not because they like being evil and naughty, but because *the physical medium* is actually more annoying than valuable, and downloads-for-money are still a novelty on both sides of the Music Industry (ack, what a term! I imagine hard hats on the music assembly line, turning out each manufactured instant hit ... but that's another rant ;)).

Illustration: I've been slowly burning my CDs to Ogg files for a while now -- I even have a pretty tall stack of CDs on my monitor right now just from the last 24 hours of ripping-with-grip -- because it's much more convenient to have the files on many fewer physical units, and because (for the tracks on my hard drive) then I can search by song title, etc. These are CDs that I've collected over the last 12-15 years, and as the collection gets heavier it gets less convenient.

Also, I think there is a slightly larger grey area than you seem to allow ... downloading a warezed copy of The Complete Works of Roy Orbison (just to smugly know you hadn't paid for it) is one thing; slapping a few tracks together into a mix for a friend to let them sample your favorite artists seems something very different. Call me a moral relativist; I'd have to admit you were right. In a certain demographic (of which I am part), sending a mix tape of mushy and maudlin music is a standard part of wooing the opposite sex, at least between the ages of 12 and 18. If that's harmful to artists, I'm not sure what's good for them: I've certainly spent a lot of dollars on music that I wouldn't have cared about without tapes-in-the-mail from high-school friends.

My point is that there *is* some actual "sharing" that goes on in the online world just as there was before the Internet was a major social force. Wide-open directories of arbitrarily gathered music just to fill as many GB as possible, yuck, a different beast.

Aside, but related: Yes, it seems silly and transparent, just a built-in-excuse to say "well, if I own this album already (check), and could therefore potentially compress it for convenience play (check), then why not download from someone who has already done the compression work?" There's a very easy leap to say "Well, I obviously *could* buy the album at the record store down the street, and I intend to ... later. If I like the downloaded tracks. A lot." OTOH, a lot of people *really are* in that situation. If I could pay someone a nickel a track (the recording company? the artist? anyone, my interest is in my side of the transaction much more than theirs ;)) just to download albums I already own, rather than putting strain on my CD drive, I'd happily do that. I look forward to getting all my original CDs into cold storage, where they won't scratch, get left in the sun, or walk away never to be seen again.

timothy

I'm going to try something a little dangerous...

[TheWhaleShark]

...I'm going to play a little bit of devil's advocate on Slashdot.

I hate the RIAA as much as any Slashdotter, but you have to look at where they're coming from. Sure, file sharing technology can be a wonderful tool for previously unheard-of artists to get attention, and it's an equally useful way to determine what new music DOESN'T suck. It's very useful in guiding your future music purchases...

Which is where the problem comes in. For every legitimate use of file sharing, there are easily 10 people who abuse it. How many people do you know have simply stopped paying for music because they can get it for free? Be honest. The RIAA only sees the negative side of file sharing, and to be quite honest, it can be pretty damn negative.

We need some sort of middle ground. File sharing can't go on unchecked, because that WILL hinder the RIAA's ability to profit. In the end, the RIAA is still a business and has a right to make money. However, if somehow they manage to crush major file sharing technologies, they'll alienate most of their cosumers. In addition, the artist who actually made the song should get at least some say in this matter; Metallica sued Napster over that very issue.

That's the key: a middle ground. I don't know what that middle ground is, but we definitely need it.

no blood, no foul

[fermion]

U.S. Downloaders Do So To Sample Music, And Believe Their Activities Are Benign

I think that is they key statement. In the U.S., most of the time the things we think are wrong are the things that harm the innocent. We have no problem breaking all sorts of laws when we drive, because we do not think it is likely we will do harm to innocent victims. Industry and government knows this which is why they try to show, for example, the damage that drunk driving causes, or link illegal drugs to terrorism. Of course, some of these links are more valid than others, and such ads do backfire when the assertions are bogus.

Which is of course what is going on with the music industry. The industry wants us to believe we are stealing from artist, even though the artists I talk to say most of the money is made off t-shirts and sometimes concerts. They want us to believe we are harming the local retailer, even though the local retailer is harmed more by Wal-Mart and online sales than by copying. They have thus far resisted the urge to tell us that the high level executes are going to forced to sell their Escalades and give up their trophy spouses if we continue to trade music. They might have a better chance by citing the number of people the industry employs, but in a time when unemployment continues to rise with no end in sight, and no leadership to control it, I do not see that even that will get much sympathy.

Re:congratulations

[smasherbob]

[insert random post about getting a sense of humor here]

Re:Adaptation.... Evolution...

[unixbob]

I agree wholeheartedly with your comments. My understanding of the RIAA argument is "Record sales are down, therefore that must be caused by filesharing". Perhaps they miss the point that the general public is bored and disinterested with the bland repetitive "product" which these companies provide. Today, the music industry is not about music but about product. When was the last time you saw a fat ugly woman with a beautiful voice in the Billboard charts. Pop music isn't my taste, but I'm not being snobbish about it - it has it's place. But the fact that it is mainly marketted to 11 year olds surely tells a lot about how adult interests aren't being considered.

The RIAA was borne out of the fact that these companies were able to utilise vinyl record technology to fulfill a service which the general public wanted, to provide popular music to the mass market. Today they've stepped away from that original premise. Mainstream music today is bland because it is easier to sell music that everyone finds inoffensive than sell music which some people think is great (and obviously others will hate).

For the record, I download mp3s from filesharing networks. And what I have found is that it has instroduced me to music I wasn't aware of before and I have purchased CD's off the back of those downloads. Those people who decry filesharing have obviously never used it. mp3 quality is ok for basic PC speakers, but usually sounds poor on a decent stereo. Downloaded mp3s are freqeuently incomplete. So it doesn't replace any other medium, but is an addition. I can't use my local radio station as a sampler for the sort of music I like. filesharing lets me do that.

73% previewing music for purchase...

[rnturn]

The item about people downloading music to obtain previews/samples of music they might later purchase has got to have the RIAA companies thinking that maybe all that money they've been spending on payol^H^H^H^H^Hpromotion might be wasted. And it can't help the owners of the cookie-cutter style radios stations feel very good about the number of people who are finding an alternate means of discovering new music.

Something Spontaneous about MP3s

[panaceaa]

I find a big reason I listen to MP3s is because I hear new things all the time with them. On an average week I probably download 20 songs that I've never heard of, and put them into my random rotation. Often times when I'm listening to my collection I hear something I've never heard before... which is cool.

I find myself doing a similar thing in my car. I always listen to radio in my car, not because I love the music the radio plays, but because it's random. I don't know what's going to happen next (even though it'll prolly suck).

I dislike CDs cause they're a fixed format. Every time I listen to one, it's the same thing. I don't think I'm alone in liking the randomness of formats like radio and MP3s. It would be nice if record companies could offer me something legal to listen to my genres without having to worry about downloading stuff or hearing a song more than a few times. (Maybe I should try XM Radio.)

New Music, Bad CD's

[sfm]

I could agree with the logic of song preview before purchase. In looking for download files, I have found MANY differenc music choices that I would not have seen otherwise. But with all the new CD's being "corrupted" and not playable on a PC, I have not purchassed anything in a long while.... Just a thought

Re:In time, and in theory,

[FCAdcock]

No, actually people pay taxes because they face fines or jail time if they do not. People pay taxes because they are forced by the government to pay taxes. The average American does not think "Wow, I'm so glad that this money that I worked so hard for is going to help protect me now." while he or she is filling out their tax forms. Instead they are most likely thinking things that I should not even mention over the internet.

People in general don't usualy work to change things that they don't like. All too often people just roll ofer and do whatever is currently being done. People don't like making a stur. It is just not something that the average person does.

I do wish it did happen that way though.

What of Live Concerts?

[CaptCanuk]

IF downloading mp3's ripped from CD's is illegal, then why can't I make a recording at a live concert? Each concert is different; each seat and angle. I'm supporting the artist and i'm getting material not available on CD. Why is that illegal (for most concerts)? And after all, isn't that what the recording companies are doing - paying the artists (I with my ticket, they with hopefully substantially more cash) to perform live and recording it? So I don't get the fidelity and one-on-one nature that they get as well as retakes and digital remixing and tone balance and the lie. In reality, live recordings probably hurt the artist more - some bands are horrible live and the price of a ticket is often greater than a CD. Plus people tend to by shirts and stuff. I just want something I paid for... the ability to listen to what I did whenever I want. Otherwise, anyone caught on a video tape or audio tape who has exclusive deals with a corporation should be able to sue you because you taped them. Soon entertainers will sign with major labels for extended amounts of work (x amount of films) instead of pick and choose which parts they wish to audition for an turn down scripts they dislike. Soon the Media Conglomerates will own all. I just can't wait...

Re:In time, and in theory,

[Anonymous Coward]

actually most artists dont have a choice in hating p2p. they are told to. they have no opinion besides that.

Who's complaining?

[verbatim]

I rarely hear of artists (except the big M) complaining about file-sharing. I haven't heard many artists come forward saying "hey, that's not fair" or "hey, you're hurting us."

Instead, I hear the big music conglomerates shaking their heads saying "hey, you're cutting through our business model" and "hey, that's not fair." And, of course, when they first said "hey, you're hurting us" a few years back, their sales went up (for a time).

The obvious change is happening: consumers don't want to buy albums anymore - we want to buy songs. Individually. And once we have the song, we want to be able to shift it between mediums as we see fit. For a long time, music companies have gotten away with albums because it was the most conveniant way of selling a bunch of songs from a band. But the technology exists now to purchase songs on an individual level - and this scares them.

It scares the agencies because they can't try and re-sell the same songs on compilation CDs. It scares some artists because filler material won't cut it anymore. It scares anyone attached to the tired old business model of dictating to customers how music is to be enjoyed.

It really scares producers because where once a flavour-of-the-month artist could sell an entire album or two, the new methods would only allow them to sell that individual song. Heaven forbid that consumers have a right to pay for only what they want.

But what scares them most of all is that, in the "new economy", artists may no longer need big distribution companies to reach an audience. No, a band can strike up their own website and share their content globally without having to even pay for the servers - their listeners will do that for them. File sharing means that distribution companies no longer have a monopoly on distribution. And they are scared because their confortable monopoly is in danger. Real danger. And it's being decided, not in the court of litigation, but in the court of public opinion.

And they're loosing. And they're scared. :P

Re:Prohibition ?

[Wyatt Earp]

Actually, the majority did support it.

The United States government implemented Prohibition only after the Temperance Movement had worked for nearly 150 years to push for it.

By the 1830s the idea had spread, the movement had it's ups and downs, but large segments of the population were behind it, first the women's rights movements, then anti-immigrant and finally pro-business organizations.

The 18th Amendment to the Constitution--passed by Congress in 1917, and ratified by 3/4 off states by 1919 was then suplemented by the Volstead Act which defined what an alcoholic beverage was.

It's common to think that Prohibition was like a war on drugs, just shoved down the people's throats by the Feds, but it was voted on by Federal and State Senates twice to get to the Amendment point, then again at the Federal level with the House and Senate to enact the Volstead act.

Which begs the question....

[MortisUmbra]

When does something like this stop being illegal and start becoming a "our IP system sucks" issue to the mainstream?

I mean if it was murder thats one thing, but on something so subjective as this when does it become and issue of "40 million people can't be wrong".

Considering there is only 280 million people in the US and 40 million of those are downloadingmusic (arguably that 40 million is the 40 million CAPABLE of doing it, if more people understood how to do it I would bet you anything that number would be way higher).

I guess as long as RIAA's pocketbooks are fat enough we will still all be "criminals". What kills me is the consensus amongst some people that "its theft, plain and simple".

You show me a way to not buy 95% garbage and JUST get the songs I want and I will give you a little leeway. Show me a recording industry that doesn't behave like the mafia and I will give you a little leeway. Show me a RIAA that doesn't lie (look at their claims of financial loses due to P2P) cheat (look at how they try to push legislation allowing them to tamper with other people property when and how they feel like it, via DoS attacks, viruses, etc. etc.) and steal (look at the way artists are treated, look at the LONG history of artists being royally SHAFTED by the recording industry) and I will give your argument a little bit of leeway.

The arrangement isn't ideal, I will grant you that, but who's fault is that? Mine because I dont want to be fleeced anymore for a 95% bogus product? Or the recording industry's, who doesn't feel like changing, who wishes to restrict us and our liberties (note, not freedoms, liberties) because they are too antiquated to try to adapt?

Still a good analogy:

[Tokerat]

The RIAA has been yelping and screaming ( "OW! My profit!!!" ) ever since they (well, their affiliates) brought us fabulous new talent like 98 Degrees and Sum41.

"Gee, Bob, I can't understand why people aren't buying the CDs, these bands are practically clones of the last big hits we signed... Ahh, must be those God-damned pirates again! Betty! Can you get my lobbying group on the line, please? We got some ass to kick!"

I really am beginning to feel bad about piracy.

[crashx99]

I personally am feeling guilty for having to download tracks from some artists. when I download something I'll listen to it, and keep it if I *really* like it, and plan to purchase the album later (I really do, I'm now buying a CD a week now, maybe two a week), so with the mp3's i have, I delete them one by one as I purchase the CD. So I have a record of what albums to purchase. I don't buy it when people say that they will buy the album later, 98% of my friends/others/relatives say that they buy more CD's because of mp3's. No! They just buy bigger HD's. Well, I'm done for now, but if CD's do cost too much for you, get them used. You'll save a lot of money and have a legal copy.

Now, about me copying my CD's to MD, that's another touchy subject!

I know it's against the law...

[batlock]

... and I don't care. I still download MP3s.

Hell, it feels good, stickin' it to the man!

Re:congratulations

[ArmyOfFun]

Settle down man, the post was a joke, and was (probably) in reference to a Simpson's quote

Nelson: "Shoplifting is a victimless crime, like punching someone in the dark."

Yet they do bother citizens of other countries???

[aSiTiC]

Give me a break! Only Americans ignore copyright regulations?? Citizens of other countries abide by copyright regulations like angels.... Why do I not believe that??

Last time I was in Hong Kong you could buy VCDs every other block on the Kowloon peninsula. Don't even get me started on Eastern Europe.

Re:I'm going to try something a little dangerous..

[Thing 1]

In the end, the RIAA is still a business and has a right to make money.

No business has a right to make money. It's like the pursuit of happiness -- you don't have a right to happiness, you have the right to seek it out.

In the same vein, businesses have the right to attempt to make a buck; they don't have a right to be profitable. If the RIAA/MPAA/TLAA can't embrace the new technology then that's their problem, and they should die like the buggy whip manufacturers.

Or as Heinlein much more aptly put it,

There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute nor common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped or turned back, for their private benefit.

(I had to google for this. Here it is (scroll down to "What Inspired Heinlein?"))

libraries

[commodoresloat]

The library buys a fixed number of copies of songs/albums, and they can only be used by one person at a time. If there is popular demand for more copies of that song, the library pays for more and increases the fixed number.

I was on the Academic Technology Committee at the university where I work, at one of the meetings we discussed library e-books and I didn't get the point. They were buying books that were available electronically, but the software was crippled so they could only be "checked out" by one person at a time, while that copy was in use nobody else could access it until it was "returned." I guess it destroyed itself on the user's hard drive somehow after a certain period of time and that was the return. And the text was actually image files so you could not search the text or copy and paste anything. These "books" cost more than your average library volume, although the library got a deal for buying lots of them at once. But I didn't understand why they'd bother. What's the point of getting electronic versions of a book at all? Those restrictions made the electronic copy functionally no different than the actual book -- worse in fact since you could still photocopy a real book, plus you get all the other advantages of having a physical book. We are crippling the technology as fast as we can invent it, just to protect the greed of corporations who own artists' work. I think the p2p issues are the same. Why should we cripple the internet? Why did we bother inventing it in the first place?

Re:In time, and in theory,

[MegaHamsterX]

Hey, that's the way most musicians I've known live, you see only a very small "commercially viable" group ever make any real money from their hobby.

With a few thousand dollars in equipment you can now have a fairly professional production, make a website, put demo mp3s up and sell some cds to those that would like to support them, musicians can now make money worldwide without the record companies, and they're "living on handouts".

Record companies see the writing on the wall, the industry hasn't been very good at adapting since the player piano was invented.

Why copyright is unjust

[Politas]

Well, I for one think it is unjust that people who spend their time writing, singing, playing music, etc, should be paid over and over again for the same original effort. If I build a chair and sell it to someon, I've (presumably) been paid for my effort. I don't expect to continue to be paid everytime someone sits on that chair, or sells it to someone else.

Fair payment for effort taken, and quality of that effort is all well and good, and I do want the authors of the books I read and the music I like to listen to to be paid commensurate fees for their creative work.

I don't see any justification for a large company to extort royalty payments on the works of a long-dead author. No justification = unjust.

I'm not saying we can just throw away copyright. I feel we need to change the way that creative individuals are paid for their efforts, to bring it more in line with the rest of the population.

Re:Prohibition ?

[rking]

With a precedent like that, how was drugs prohibition implemented without requiring an amendment, or was no amendment ever required?

Re:"Online Privacy"

[unitron]

"I would glady trade my privelege of "online privacy" (whatever that means) in order to live safely in a world free of terror."

Sounds good except for the part where giving up your privacy does little or nothing to aid in preventing the kind of terror of which you're thinking and perhaps even makes it easier for the government and the corporations who lease it to come up with new (admittedly less likely to be fatal) ways to terrorize you.

Open Source Music?

[Punk Walrus]

Seeing the open source model, I wonder (not "predict," but wonder) if this is what will happen:

1. Government bans swapping
2. Sales still go down
3. M$, RIAA, and the like make some sort of anti-theft device in CDROMS like they did with DVDs (yes, you can bypass, but not easily for the average user)
4. Sales still go down
5. They raise album prices, because of "continued piracy" and renewed advertising cost.
6. Sales still go down
7. This model becomes "Hollywood Critical," meaning no innovation because industry people are afraid to take risks in a cutthroat environment. Sales falling through the floor as boy band after boy band thrusts their craft on Nickelodeon. "Latest polls" show 40% of the males aged 12-24 like new star "B*Bop Pinky-Poo," a girl who is genetically part of every race in her demographic target (not too white, not too tan, kind of Asian, kind of black, but not TOO black... and is that a hint of Hindu?), and all about gi--, er, unisex power! Sales are still dropping. B*Bop is forced to make dance remix of Hendrix's "Watchtower." She's found dead in a hotel room over a sleeping pill overdose when even her decrepit sellout morals collapse in on herself. A new artist, "Sharon Apple," who can't possibly offend anyone with her music, turns out to be a computer.
8. Independent artists begin to spring up everywhere, and thrive because everyone is so sick of the bland crap pumped into their face from countless car ads (thank you Mitsubishi), and there's only so much "classic" stuff you can listen to before it's not classic anymore but, in fact, "reruns." Cyndi Lauper's residual checks even start to dwindle.
9. Sales still go down. It must be piracy! Raise the price! CDs now going for $50, but now they have videos on them! Music industry desperately tries new format, but it's selling less than 8-tracks did. They start forcing new albums to be on this new "music memory stick" format. The albums only play if your fingerprint matches what they have on file, and can only play on a device that can call home to check and see if you're allowed to play it. Sales still go down. Piracy so rampant, it's like the black market in late 70s Russia.
10. Artists begin to compose music... not because they want to make money... but because they are artists. They start swapping in Vorbis format or something. Kind of like how people are working on Linux and stuff not for profit, but because they are programmers and wants stuff that works. P2P-like networks show REAL hits, in real-time, and new pop stars spring up from basements and garages around the world. Kind of like MTV when it started. And no money is changing hands.
11. Music industry collapses. Distributors flee to third-world overseas markets.
12. Years later, people reminisce that there's no "good live concerts" anymore, and that digital feed HDTV of "Seamus Chien and his New Durban Posse" isn't the same as "Aerosmith" or "Kid Rock." Kids born after 2010 wonder why anyone would expose themselves to all that pollution and crime in the outside world just to see someone sing and pay $30 for a tee-shirt. "Ticketmaster," is officially entered in the Oxford Dictionary as an old synonym for "ripoff."

Okay... maybe not...

_______________________________________________
"A planet where walruses evolve from men?" - Get your flippers off me, you damn, dirty pinniped!

Re:In time, and in theory,

[junklight]

indeed - music has always existed music industry or not. Piracy may (or may not) end up making the current model of selling recorded music unviable but the question is not "how will the music industry survive" but instead "How will musicians continue to be paid for making music" (a question the "music" industry has very little interest in).

I suspect that the answer to this will see a return to live music and musicians building closer relationships with their fans. There are plenty of bands already doing this. The Grateful Dead being the most famous.

the truth

[tetro]

The truth is people download music so they don't have to buy it. I think that "sampling" excuse is the biggest piece of crap. People buy the really really good stuff. The okay, mediocre, and good music with limited lifespans are the ones that nobody buys after downloading. Think about the excuse porn consumers give...that it's for "education." Not many people publicly admit it's for masturbation, but everyone knows what its for.

And I understand people buy the CDs that they're exposed to via downloading, but considering the amount of awesome music worth buying, I'd say people who abide by the rules are outnumbered.

One more word to the RIAA, if you don't like the situation, change the damn business model.

Re:the truth

[Anita Coney]

"I think that "sampling" excuse is the biggest piece of crap."

For about the five years before Napster I bought about 3 CDs. Since Napster (and all of its brethren) I've bought about one CD a month. All of it from stuff I've downloaded online. And, all of it stuff you cannot hear on the radio, on MTV, or via any other mainstream outlet.

Peer-to-peer sharing allows me to hear music I wouldn't ordinarily hear. As someone once stated, the biggest obstacle to any artist is NOT sharing, it's obscurity. Peer-to-peer does a great job at addressing that problem.

Re:Adaptation.... Evolution...

[TGK]

In 2006 Congress passed the Digital Piracy Prevention Act, increasing the minimum sentance for on-line piracy to 50 years in prison and a fine for the market value of the content pirated. The Homeland Security Agency was tasked with protecting the nations intelectual property and a new division created for the enforcement of on-line laws and regulations. In a bizarre parody of fiction, this force became known as Net-Force in reference to a partuclarly bad series of books published by the Tom Clancy estate.

Net Force derived most of of its power from the Patriot I, and II bills, removing its need for warrents, or even probably cause for its various searches and seizures. Rumor and accusation were enough to incur its wrath.

Ownership of a private personal computer soon became a liability in the United States. By 2014 every personal computer was required to have a unique government identification number and to pay a licence fee to the Federal Government to fund the organizations necessary to monitor it.

In 2015 the maffia entered the picture. Using chips and other components aquired overseas, small illegal hack-houses began building and distributing pirate systems. Specificly designed without the vulribilities Net Force and the DOHS required, these systems provided an expensive but unregulated medium to exchange information.

I suppose I could add more, but lets leave that up to someone else. Sure, it's largly based on that love song for napster peice... but is it really so much of a stretch?

mp3=radio on demand

[glsunder]

It's too bad the recording industry cant realize that. Two things would revitalize their profits: encourage the artists releasing MP3s of their albums (heck, make them live versions if they want) and drop the price to under $10/cd. There's a lot of albums that I simply don't want to risk or bother wasting $20 on. But, I'm preaching to the choir.

We need some extinction too...

[TopShelf]

My understanding of the RIAA argument is "Record sales are down, therefore that must be caused by filesharing". Perhaps they miss the point that the general public is bored and disinterested with the bland repetitive "product" which these companies provide. Today, the music industry is not about music but about product.

I wouldn't argue that filesharing has little or no impact on the decline in CD sales. Instead, I'd say that this is a very good thing. A large part of society is basically saying that there isn't much value in the record companies burning CD's of prepackaged music for them and selling it to them at a healthy markup. Communal file sharing can be as transformative to our society as the Gutenberg press was, but the brutal fact is that there will be some parties that will lose big as a result (i.e. the record companies), while society as a whole gets a huge win, in the increased access to artistic content. Protecting the record companies now would be akin to protecting the companies who made punch cards for the computers of years past - it's a bad bet, period.

Illegal but wrong?

[dpete4552]

There is no way I could afford the CDs to all of the music I have. I honestly don't feel that there is anything morally wrong with what I do. It is illegal, yes, but morally wrong? I don't think so. I buy the CDs for most of the music I really like to show support for that artist, not necessarly to give them money, but just by the fact that by puchasing something you are voting for that something, in this case the artist, and I like to show my support when I like the music, and I still think that buying the CD is generally more convienient than downloading it.

I think of it this way. If you had a magical machine that could instantly make a copy of any product, and you went to a car dealership and made a copy of a dodge viper, and this was something you could never afford anyways, would it be wrong? Dodge is not loosing a product they need to pay to get replaced, because it is a copy, and they are not loosing money in the form of you getting something for free that you would have normally payed for without your copying machine, because you could never afford it anyways, and would not otherwise have it. Is that really morally wrong? Now it becomes morally wrong, imho, when you go and copy the car you can afford, but just don't want to pay for.

Now companies will bitch and moan, this is expected. I could very well be wrong, however I think by law they need to fight a legal battle to protect their IP, otherwise it could be argued later in court that they give up the rights to it by knowingly allowing people to "steal" it, without trying to do anything about it. And of course it is legally wrong, but taking into account my analogy above, do you honestly think it is morally wrong?

Re:In time, and in theory,

[C0LDFusion]

Well, noone likes taxes, but the question is as how much taxes must be taken and in what form? You know, long ago, our government operated 100% off of tariffs and non-income tax items. Now it's like 99.9% income tax.

I believe in a national sales tax, rather than a national income tax. Income taxes don't tax the wealthy (because the wealthy usually don't have jobs, they don't pay income taxes on money they've already earned in the past), instead they tax those on the way to becoming wealthy (middle-class up-and-comers and anyone else who higher tax brackets would hurt financially.

I mean, when people talk about taxes, or any other law designed to make the wealthy "pay their fair share", just remember: If Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi are for it, then the new law/tax won't affect the already-wealthy.

You're so right about the ugly people...

[caveat]

When was the last time you saw a fat ugly woman with a beautiful voice in the Billboard charts.

You know, I never really though about it, but it's so true - hell, The First Lady herself probably couldn't land a contract today. Oc course, leaves you wondering how Rosen got where she is...

Why are any of them getting so rich?

[lysium]

What, exactly, do modern day musicians (artists and 'performers') do to deserve hundreds of millions of dollars, again? They follow their calling well? So do I, and I am not entitled to millions for it.

Why is the IT job market in the dumps right now? Too many unqualified gold-diggers clogging the field.

Why is music in the dumps right now? Too many unqualified gold-diggers clogging the field.

Music was a hell of a lot better, imho, before the advent of the superstar. Not very rewarding, either -- I guess that meant you only sung if you had something worth saying.

Re:Hello? Anybody home? Think, McFly! Think!

[Catbeller]

Well, I hate to break up your analogy, but I don't have time to make a posting to continue the BTTF comparisons.

Here's the thing:

During the '80's, Saddam/Iraq obtained germ cultures from a firm in Virginia, with the blessings of the Reagan/Bush White House. That's what was removed from the Iraqi declarations lat year before the U.S. in turn handed them over to the U.N. We gave the "bully" his toys.

Wolfowitz et al had no problem with Saddam gassing Iraqis and Kurds in the 80's. There is a famous picture floating around of Wolfy shaking hands with Saddam a couple of months after he knew damned well Saddam had committed mass murder.

In '88, the U.N. attempted to pass a resolution demanding the investigation of Saddam's gas attacks against helpless civilians. The resolution was blocked by -- wait for it.... --- the veto of the U.S. in the Security Council.

Ironic, eh?

Reagan/Bush equipped and gave aid and comfort to Saddam because he was fighting the Iranians. This is fact. The same people are in Bush's White House. Fact. Another fact: they don't want anyone to remember that past. Their hands are covered with the same blood they denounce on Saddam.

We have delusions about our past: the rest of the world does not. The WH press corps has reliquished its responsiblity to question the President in any meaningful way. We do not receive accurate news coverage of our appointed President's actions: the rest of the world does.

When Saddam WAS acting the bully, he was our guy, and we didn't care. When he attacked our oil supply, he became the enemy. But he was always pathetic and helpless against any real enemy. He can't touch us, and has never shown any inclination to commit suicide by doing so.

We have become the world's only superpower. But instead of being a force for sanity and law, we've gone rogue.

We are oppressing and silencing dissent, at all levels, from our inability to wear T-shirts which oppose Bush to Bush himself holding "press conference" at which only selected reporters could ask pre-approved questions, with Carl Rove front and center maintaining a checklist, controlling the event. This is beyong bullying -- this is totalitarianism pretending to be what it used to be -- a democracy.

We have insulted and manipulated our allies into being the fall guys for our failure to make a sane argument for invading a helpless and non-threatening enemy.

We have news coverage tut-tutting "anti-American" protestors in the U.S. and around the world. An incredible, egregious lie: the protestors are anti-Bush, not anti-American. This is memetic bullying. We have bullied away all the incredible solidarity we had after 9-11. All the good will.

We have told the world we will blow up anything and anyone we want to, at any time. We have informed the world we will use nukes if we want to.

We have told the world that we will torture if we want to. That the Geneva convention no longer applies to our prisoners.

We have told the world that they can go to commie hell if they want us to sign environmental treaties.

We have told the world we no longer need the U.N.

We have told the world that we don't need the Brits to invade Iraq. Britons are understandably pissed off that even they who have supported us are crap in the eyes of the radical right.

We have told the world that we don't care what happens to international diplomacy.

We are the U.S., and people who oppose us (Bush/God) are commies, lesbos, godless, old Europeans, environmentalist pro-press whack jobs.

If Turkey won't take a bribe, then we will cut off their aid. I doubt Bush knows we hardly give any foreign aid compared to the rest of the world, and that Turkey won't miss us much. But it is the act of a bully.

We (Bush) have made it known we will punish economically anyone who opposes us. He is seemingly oblivious to the fact that our economy, via the money he borrows from abroad to pay for our tax cuts and mil

Copyright is not intended to compensate authors...

[orichter]

The notion that an author has a right to a profit is a falatious notion. Copyright is purely a social contract in which I give up my natural rights of free speech to ensure that ideas are made available to the public. Creators have no right to profit, just like manufacturors have no right to profit. It's thier job to earn that profit. Copyright is not designed to ensure profit, but rather to provide an incentive. They only have an (artificial) right to control thier creations so long as they live up to thier half of the social contract. Furthermore, if less content is produced as a result of copyright violation, it is me, as a fellow member of society who has had my rights violated, not the content creator. This is a very subtle point, and I may not have expressed it well, but I guess what I'm trying to say is: Copyright is a mechanism designed to achieve the goal of wide disemmination of ideas. There is no goal of providing compensation to creators, that is simply a mechanism by which the goal is achieved.