Slashdot Mirror
UK Record Companies Suing File Sharers
WebHostingGuy writes "As reported by MSNBC, the first lawsuits were filed in the UK against file sharers trading songs." These are the first suits, after many others settled out of court. From the article: "Music fans are increasingly tuning into legal download sites for the choice, value and convenience they offer...But we cannot let illegal file sharers off the hook. They are undermining the legal services, they are damaging music and they are breaking the law"
Get it, teeth?
UK?
Heheh
Who cares. The UK has bigger problems right now than worrying about a bunch of Spice Girl piratez.
(UK people have ugly teeth, and big ears)
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
No, that comment was not "from the article". It was "from the Peter Jamieson, the BPI Chairman. Let's not go crediting MSNBC for writing incorrect articles.
Also, here's a link that works in Firefox (MSNBC didn't load for me w/ Firefox): http://www.out-law.com/page-5967
I don't really want, none of the above.
I want to pee on you.
8======D~~~~ ~~ ~
A ham radio article on Slashdot!!!! woohoo!
Companies actually looking to be paid in a CAPITALIST society! They must be brought down!
If greed-driven artists and record companies think a few lawsuits can stop the masses from exercising our free right to share media they have another thing coming.
The lawsuits might be coming on strong, but file sharing has been growing steadily regardless. They may have the lawyers, but we have the numbers.
Support Fair Use! In fact, first thing after school today I'm going to go buy a CD, and rip, rar, and torrent it. I encourage everyone else who supports Fair Use to do the same.
Let's show these thugs they cannot win!
sex with ducks mutherfuckers!
stick it in their other quack hole!
When you can't beat 'em, turn into 'em.
I won't be buying any of the crap these record companies produce.. they complain about the lack of sales and blame the P2P users. Well, I haven't bought a CD since 2k and I doubt I will.
Note: I don't download their shite either. If it isn't on the radio.. I just won't hear it.
Tell me what you believe...I'll tell you what you should see.
Why do people say things like this? It's not like everyone is going to drop what they are doing and go after only the absolute most important thing. I would like to know the way that the music industry in any way can help the UK equivalent to the FBI find and stop radicals intent on killing.
/rant
Stop Global Warming!
Just say no to irreversible processes!
Yes, because it's the consumers who have damaged music. It couldn't possibly be damaged by all the crappy artists they've promoted the last decade.
I for one would like to see how the "open access point" defense holds up in court, e.g. claiming that you internet connection was through an unencrypted wireless router, therefore ANY of your neighbors could have been sharing those files! If somebody taps into your phone line and then uses it to threaten the Prime Minister, should they come and arrest you, just because you're the one paying for the phone line?
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
...non-nuclear aircraft carrier. But in all seriousness, countries that have diplomatic relations with the US will tend to mirror our laws. Canada did it, now the UK, Austrailia. I don't want to hazard a guess who's next though.
I don't get it.
It has been years since I was even in a record store.
Never again will I spend my money on anything the major record labels produce.
Ever.
The article accuses illegal downloaders of "damaging music". How does one damage music?
Generally, the mp3 files are posted with excellent bitrates, so that can't be it. Most of those mp3s also don't have random noise superimposed over the music, so that's not it either.
Maybe if they'd stop trying to be so dramatic and incendiary, and say what they really mean: illegal downloaders damage the financial bottom line of the music recording companies.
But that doesn't really inspire the same level of dramatic indignance on the part of the reader, does it? "Holy hell, they're damaging the music! They must be stopped!" versus "Who the hell cares, record companies make too much money already."
Damn public relations spin doctors...
ok... so instead of sorting out crime... like the bastards that stole my car stereo, OR LIKE RANDOM BOMBERS... they're going to travel around prosecuting the more legal amoung us that can afford to own a computer sort your life out UK legal system, please dont become another America. At least democracy is still intact here.
I have heard the "damaging music", "hurts the artists", "blah blah blah" arguments from the record companies for what, six years now?
Regardless of whether you think downloading music is right or wrong, I don't see any evidence of all this "damage". So, if you are suing for damages, but there aren't any, then what should the fine really be?
I downloaded my first legal song on the weekend. Firstly, the site wouldn't work unless you used IE. That sucked. When I downloaded it, it wanted to update the DRM on WMP and wouldn't play on any other player. Screw that. I deleted the file and copied the song from a mate who has the album. This is a song that came out in the 60's. If this is what legal downloads are about, I wont be using them. Why should I have to jump through all these hoops just so some rich record exec can snort a little more coke. I wont be buying or downloading any music from now on (legal or otherwise)
I'm Brian & so's my wife.
How could file downloads be any more damaging to music than radio airplay, which the record companies appear to beleive increases record sales, otherwise they wouldn't spend so much money paying for airplay! Here these people are providing an equivalent service free of charge, and they are claiming it is "damaging music"? The only way it could damage music is if they use a compression scheme that is too lossy!
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
I bought it and donated it to the library.
Test 1 2 3 4
Legally, they're right to sue. Morally, i'm not so sure anyone should be charing for music in the first place... It's kinda like making a business selling air.... Something that has always been around and something that isn't ever going away and somewhere someone had an idea to make a profit selling something that should be free...
:-)
This is my opinion of course.
Ah, HA! So that's who's to blame for mediocrity in the top 40 these past few years: the file swappers!
Collectors collect. People who download music and don't buy the album would never have bought the album in the first place.
All men aren't pigs... we just smell that way.
When in doubt, use the fucking spell check.
A couple of months ago I did manage to get a (heavily edited) letter published in The Times newspaper here in the UK. Although they wanted hard references for many of my points, which I was caught off guard and not able to supply them with over the phone (such as the assertion that file sharing has no effect on CD sales - shortly before the OECD study was published that said the same thing) I did manage to persuade them to publish my opinion that the record industry's stance was borne out of a desire to maintain 20th century monopolies rather than anything else. The only followup I saw came a week later from a professional musician who said that he was scared of internet file sharing as well, because he believed he should be paid each time his music was performed, because this is how he earns his living, and this was nothing to do with "a futile attempt to preserve 20th century monopolies" (to quote my original letter).
This got me thinking, and I still am. Half of me thinks this guy is right and that he does deserve to be paid for the performance of his compositions (but EVERY time - insert credit card into CD player before pressing play?) But half of me thinks he is, in his own way, still living in the 20th century.
In summary, music isn't scarce any more and it CAN be copied easily. If our collective governments were wise, instead of letting the 20th century media barons cripple new technology, and force DRM-laden crap down our throats (Windows Vista and Intel's digitally restricted new chips spring to mind), they'd be busy devising new copyright laws that respect the fact that we all have "perfect copying machines" (computers) linked together in a worldwide network. The fact that they aren't says a great deal to my over-active and depressed thought state on this particular subject...
Better article (IMHO) at the Beeb
This
will obviously stop any investigation about the two attacks to London and will arrest dangerous p2p users instead.
Can I sue British Record Companies for Robbie Williams?
I've not bought a new CD since the Napster decision. When I was downloading songs off Napster I was buying 3 or 4 CDs a week from artists I would have never heard of without Napster.
Now I just go to the used CD shop, buy a CD, rip it, archive it, and then sell it back to the used CD shop.
I gotta think that's eating into the profit margin somehow. The absolute dumbest thing the music industry ever did was to criminalize thier fanbase....
What exactly is damaging about sharing music?
The only damage done is by the idiots who host the corrupted music files to intentionally mess up file sharing.
IMAGE VERIFICATION IS EVIL!
When you listen to the radio, you get to hear a song once in awhile. Not on demand. And it's not a file that you're keeping. Sure you could record off the radio to tape, but the quality would be truly dreadful. So radio, by and large, can function as a marketing channel for labels. If you hear something you like on the radio, the betting is that you'll run out to buy a copy to keep.
With file sharing, you are downloading a copy of the file that you keep. You can listen to the song whenever you want. As often as you want. And in the eyes of the labels, you are far less likely to purchase the album. Why pay for something you've already got a copy of, for free?
"Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is always a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs." P.J. O'Rourke
they are damaging music
What a crock. The music is not being damaged in any way, shape, or form. Music of the quality-level we have come to accept can be just as effectively produced under a profitable model that allows free downloading.
and they are breaking the law
When the laws are unjust, the just must become outlaws.
And yes, these laws are unjust. Or, at best, just really stupid and requiring much injustice in order to be enforced.
Too bad they won't let it go without a fight.
record companies profit off of album sales
artists profit off of concerts
why are artists hurt by P2P?
lameness filter thwarted.
It was about some foreign person in a subway... he dropped his iPod and put it back together with electrical tape... and got shot in the head for failing to stop when police ran after him. As it turns out, he couldn't hear them because he was listening to some legally downloaded Spice Girls music... I'm afraid to go back to sleep after that.
So... am I the only one who, when told that a certain company may sue me, doesn't really feel any more inspired to give them my money for the products they're still trying to sell me?
that the UK buys the most albums per person of any country in the world, at 2.9 albums per person? So what are these lawsuits for, other than FUD?
i c/4738181.stm>BBC News</a>
Why sue people when the country in question buys an insane amount of music anyway?
Source: <a href=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/mus
From what I can tell, the music industry is doing it all by themselves. I turn on the radio these days just to make sure it still sucks (and it does) and ClearChannel is still playing the same damn songs they were 2 years ago. It all sounds the same, lacks innovation, and gives no one compelling reasons to purchase it. I have no idea how pirating the one good song they play on the radio is "damaging music". Aren't they worried that suing their potential customers is only going to make people neither buy music nor even want to pirate it, at which point they no longer have an audience even on the rare occasion something good does come out. These people are absolutely retarded in their mind set.
today is spelling optional day.
Seriously though, these companies control development, production, distribution, and marketing of their product. Of course they're going to go after anything that threatens such tight control and "yummy" profits, even the talent and the customers.
Continue not to buy their product, consume it in the way you see fit. Go to live shows, suport the artists directly, and support artists that are independent of the "machine." These record companies will go out of business or figure out a way to continue their business that fits with what we are willing to pay for, such as handcuffware-free ways of listening to music. Once the "hits" marketing machine goes away, maybe music will come back.
And don't listen to commercial radio, that's part of the marketing machine.
insert inflammatory anti-microsoft comment here
My library, for example has thousands and thousands of CDs, with an especially rich collection of jazz and blues but with plenty of fairly recent pop music as well.
You've already paid for access to your library's resources, so you might as well use them. Plus, considering that the American Library Association is willing to stand up to the Feds when it comes to snooping at people's library records, I don't think the RIAA has much chance to see what I've borrowed, and even less chance to prove that I've ripped anything.
I will not buy another CD from an RIAA company as long as they keep up this nonsense, nor will download anything from them legally or otherwise. But those CDs at the library belong as much to me as to anyone else in my county. I do intend to keep using what is mine.
And what happens when even one of these cases is lost by the music monopoly? Can they risk that? I will be highly surprised to see any of these cases actually reach a verdict.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Easy. Any level of lossy compression is a damaged version of the original. And if consumers get used to listening to damaged music, and even like it, well bad music will certainly drive good music out.
Then again, it's hard to imagine anything more damaging to music than a circa 1960 era car radio with a 5-inch paper dynamic speaker cone that has baked itself into petrification after a few summers inside a closed up car. Clearly after a couple experiences with that, no one listened to music in the decade of the 1960s any more.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
the words theft and stealing were ominously absent from the article. this makes capicu happy.
Wow, selling air. What a concept. Before you know it they'll be selling water too -- and at prices higher than gasoline.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
It is your money so you get to choose what you spend it on.
If you don't like the fact that you spend £15 on a CD and can't give your friends a copy, then leave that £15 in you pocket or spend it on something else.
We (actually: RMS) didn't like the license on some software 20 years ago, so he started GNU and wrote his own putting it under the GPL. Rather than wingeing about the nasty record labels - do what RMS did: produce your own music and release it under the creating commons license (or something). Like that we will all be able to enjoy your music for free.
This sounds nice, the trouble is that music isn't like software: incremental improvement doesn't seem to work; the name of author of s/ware is (largely) unimportant, who did the music very often is (it helps if they are pretty as well - counts out most slashdotters then).
The above are in the nature of the way in which music is promoted, there is no established ''market'' in: artists putting their music up for free download; letting others take it, improve it, release it themselves. It would take time for this to catch on, but there are benefits: we are all richer since we don't give lots of $£$ to the record labels; many individuals all over become involved in the creation/performing/... of music - getting involved is a good thing.
The above would take time, but the meme could catch on. We have the technology, we just need some good musicians, we need to make this fashionable and make fashionable music freely available.
I think that good music is good music, I can't understand why it is so subject to fashion (disclaimer: I mostly listen to classical music).
...getting sued for pirating an Oasis track. Well, I hope those on the receiving ends remember this in the future and learn to pirate higher on the musical foodchain... like Mozart, or Beethoven...
If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
Silly RIAA, downloading is for kids.
Borrowing CDs from the library and then ripping them to PC? Someone's sleeping at the wheel!
---
----- You know you have ego issues when you register a domain in your name.
http://www.downhillbattle.org/itunes/
?giS
What's being stolen is the Public Domain. It is being stolen by ever increasing lengths of copyright durations that far exceed the -- in the USA at least -- expressed intent of encouraging the creation of the performing arts.
The moment something is created, the copyright in effect at that moment was clearly sufficient for its creation. Extending it afterwards only steals from the public at large to benefit -- not the individual artist to any great extent, who may already be dead -- but the giant publishing corporations who have sought to own all creative works in perpetuity for centuries now. The American Constitution specifies secure for a limited period exactly because European publishing houses of the time had been able to lock up copyrights forever.
Now we've become them!
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
But now I think you are a twat, as we say here in the quaint old UK. I have straight teeth, perfect nose and excellent hair - you insensitive clod!
Would that matter at all? Or would it be because I also have sharing turned on, and am uploading to other users as well? I think that we (teenagers) need the other side of the story, not that we'll slow down in our music downloading any time soon (or that our parents will give us their credit card numbers for iTunes).
Silicon & Charybdis McLuhan Kildall Papert Kay
I don't seen any independent artists selling in iTMS at a discount to the $.99 being funneled to the big companies. It might bring Big Music down if you could buy better stuff for less money. And wasn't Apple always about bringing down Big Everything to benefit the Common Man?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Are they dropping it on the floor and breaking it? Running it into a tree? Spraying grafiti on it? Where do these guys get these statements?
And how in the hell do you "damage music" any worse than Britney Spears does when she sings?
That is all.
Can't you see that downloading songs illegally is causing our children so much pain...
Why don't you just stop downloading music illegally and think about the Children
-- "Litigation as a business plan? you're not kidding..."
All the new stuff I get, is from CDbaby.
Well, I have bought some old CDs from Amazon too, but record stores? Nope. At the rate record stores are closing down it is clear that lots of people feel the same.
Oh well, what the hell...
Yeah, you shouldn't be running an unencrypted wireless router; if someone uses it for illegal activities, then you are responsible for providing them the tools.
But when WEP is so easy to break, even if you have encryption turned on you are not really stopping anyone from using your network. Is that enough or is it possible that currently it's simply not safe to have a wireless router at all? If someone uses your network for something illegal, and you have WEP enabled - is that enough to protect you from charges like we have seen against other wireless AP owners?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Big record companies may have the wrong mindset on this issue.
I'm sure radio stations in the UK are a lot like they are in america: the same handful of songs played over and over, from a narrow list of genres.
I'm not old enough to remember, but from what I gather, radio didn't used to be like this. Instead, it was a medium in which small bands could get their music out to the masses, a medium that people would actually _want_ to tune into to discover new music.
Those days are now gone, and broadcast radio is all but dead; it seems only natural that P2P should serve as FM's modern-day replacement.
I really don't know what the RIAA expects us to do when it takes away our only venue of getting new music and then outlaws the alternative.
cd shower ; make clean ; cd
Back to that again, are we? So while dangerous stereo thieves and Muslim bombers are still on the loose, I suppose law enforcement should just ignore the rest of the crime being committed in the UK.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
If only there was a law againt price fixing...
When I used to download free music from Audiogalaxy, I used to buy tons and tons of CD's. Maybe 2 CD's per week. The lawsuits against music users in the US helped get the message accross about how evil the music industry was, so I stopped downloading music. And I also stopped buying music from them. Now I get music exclusively from non-RIAA sources like www.magnatunes.com
Funny, if the lawsuits had never happened, I would STILL be buying 2 CD's per week. As it is now, I havn't bought a single CD from a member of the RIAA in 2 years I believe.
... and in the DRM, bind them.
Itunes suffers the same problems all (most?) other legal download services have: DRM. This is the sticking point that will keep me from buying legal music services. Until I can get an unrestricted MP3 or OGG file, I'm not interested.
Buy, burn, rip, and you've got an DRM-less .aiff or .wav file. Encode that to an DRM-less .ogg file.
"Music is everybody's possession. It's only publishers who think that people own it." --John Lennon In my opinion music is (or at least) should be free. How can a record company slap a price on someone's guitar playing and voice? I could understand paying for the media, eg a CD because they cost money to produce, and i can understand paying a little extra for a CD for the marketing costs and distrobution. However the song itself is just recorded sound produced by someone with natural talent, and even so in ogg format it costs nothing to produce. The artists can nowadays even record they're own tracks using inexpensive computer software or better yet open-source software like audacity? Why don't the musicans instead of trying to get rich and famous just go and release they're music in the Creative Commons License, if the band were that good they would be famous because of hearsay. It could be like the Open-Source software world at the moment, guys with day jobs who program in the evenings, why can't musicans get a day job and write and play/record by evening?
Go to allofmp3.com - its legal, its extremely cheap, it works great, and the russian mafia is not really into coke
But I remember the days when companies tried to get my dollar by offering me quality and service. Now it seems we get handed BS, and threats. Gone are the days when loyalty mattered. Now. Screw you if you aren't new.
I'm sorry, I'm to tired to be witty at the moment so this message will have to do.
No. Perhaps its a bloody disgrace the legal system has degenerated into the mess that it is now.
1. Look up a band I like on AMG / talk about it on a music forum / chat with one of the guys down at the record store about it
2. Look up bands I heard about from (1) on Soulseek
3. Listen to music I 'stole' during (2)
4. Buy vinyl with music I enjoyed during (3)
5. Goto (1)
Don't be like me. Enjoying music will destroy the industry. Piracy is the greatest threat to free thought in all of the entire universe. And don't get me started about checking out live acts in your town or city: if you were to buy a record on the basis of a good live show, you'd drive thousands of innocent artists into the merciless streets. Honest.
At least in America we aren't on camera 24/7 and don't go to jail if we refuse to give up our encryption keys. And just how is that GPS based road tax and national ID coming along?
The damage being done to the music industry is: Spending lots of money on antipiracy protection on CDs (that don't work, and cost the artists extra) Decreasing the number of songs per CD Increasing the price of CDs because piracy is hurting sales So, we have the music industry making you pay more for less for no benefit whatsoever, because the execs think they're losing money. I've seen reports that go both ways on the issue. Lots of people who pirate music go out and buy the CDs after listening to the songs. Personally I think the real issue is that artists get paid too much. People in the music industry, especially after "hitting it big" so to speak, get rich very quickly. The more one artist is getting paid, another artist will notice and want more money too. Same deal in professional sports and acting. These people certainly work dilligently (actors and athletes, only some music artists) but I don't think they deserve multi million dollar salaries. Especially not when important social jobs that are NEEDED for our (US) society get paid so little.
As a musician who is independent from the record industry, we have come to regard the CD as little more than a business card nowadays. Why? Because the fact is, most retail CD's are overpriced, and most records nowadays are done with very little financial support. To go into a recording studio on average you pay around $500-$1200 per day in a good recording studio with qualified personel. Just as most of you wouldn't cheap out if you needed a good mechanic, same goes for recording. With that in mind, record companies have things rigged so well that they undermine the process by only backing artists that have the potential for big payout on the first record. In days past, companies "developed" artists by allowing them at least three records to begin to establish a career. Now, forget it. As well, the average record contract pays pennies to the artist while most of the retail price goes to the label and their infrastructure. Bottom line is, if you need a good computer, you pay for one. If you want the CD that you love, buy it too. Quit looking for the cheap ass way out, or blaming the companies, as they are always in it for the profit. Music that makes you happy is special, that's why we musicians give it away for the most part, expecting the fans will only come back to the next show or buy the next CD. Perhaps that is the lesson in all of this. Sure you can get it legitimately, but somehow in your mind if you aren't 100% with a CD, you feel you should rip it just to get what you want.
Install, Then Run
Easy. Any level of lossy compression is a damaged version of the original. And if consumers get used to listening to damaged music, and even like it, well bad music will certainly drive good music out.
Try getting a copy of the somg from any online retailer and all of them will be low bitrate DRM's. If the p2p version is superior (technically) to the (online) retail version, then how is it damaged ?
direct link http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=9250
;-D www.burnttoys.co.uk - all sorts of stuff from sc
This was published by the Inq a coupla years ago after the RIAA went batshitloco on the great American consumer. It was written by me to make a point or 2.
Subject: Music Piracy....
Hi there - I'll try and make this quick... I have work to do too you know!
1 - People pirate music because it is easy and "natural". To the industry sharing == piracy to the individual NOT sharing == miserable bastard.
2 - If I knew cash from music sales was actually going to the artist(s) I would be far happier buying it - if I can I will buy DIRECT from an artist (e.g. at a gig, from their OWN webshite etc).
3 - If CD's were cheaper I'd buy more - I do not like paying 15 quid for a CD. TBH I do most of my music shopping at places like SelectaDisc (Berrick Street for those in the know in Soho) - cheap with an excellent range - older CDs and back catalogue items can be had for 5 to 10 quid - GUESS WHAT!!! When I go into this shop I don't buy 1 CD at 15.99 I buy 3,4 or 5 CD's at 5 to 10 pounds each - yes I know that adds to more more but the encouragement to buy provided by impulse purchase prices is incredible! Plus I know I have a good few hours of listening to do.
4 - There is now an enormous back catalogue of music - I may be a 30 something Goth but at the Prism Multimedia shop up the road I can buy Johnny Cash's greatest hits for 3.99 - now that is amazing value.. so I bought it - and some Elvis and some Little Richard (I likes me rock n' roll) - The back catalogue problem is obviously a huge one for record companies (an increasingly dead concept) these (often dead) artists are cutting into the sales of modern artists (usually living but in the case of Girls Aloud I have yet to come to a conclusion). Classical music has an even bigger problem here as the works are often the same (e.g. Messiah) performed by different artists. Once a classic recording has been made (with good fidelity) why go back and do the same thing again? There are reasons but few that encourage sales.
Penultimately to back up some of these assertions it is interesting to witness the rise and rise of "alternative" (bogus phrase) music such as Metal, Death Metal, Goth, Techno, Garage House etc. More music is produced but to a smaller audience - the total audience is growing however.
Ultimately - there are a lot of artists and I suspect the days of 1,2,3 million selling singles have pretty much gone. There are now more artists, more genres and more listeners - artists can not expect to sell as many records as the Beatles but then consumers have more choice. Warhol was right - many more artists well have 15 minutes of fame. That still means there are 35064 fame slots per year.... nice!
So... where was the InterWeb in all of this? It is a cheap and convenient way of getting music to customers in places you would never imagine sending a CD to without a huge P&P markup.
If modern music lacks anything it is credibility and style - you can't buy class you know.....
30/04/2003.
That was then, this is now. What's changed? TBH I've never been a huge fan of p2p style networks. Frankly it seems that most people out there are just serous kleptomaniacs or will simply copy, copy, copy because they have a fat pipe and a fast machine. A little pointless in my opinion as they are not discussing, criticising or in anyway taking part in the collective experience of listening to music.
Also, at least in good ol' London Tan(sic), a lot more small, independent record shops have opened up and these are very appealing to me and to others. HOORAY! Sadly Prism Multimedia has shut down... but been replaced by another cheapo cd store so I ain't complaining yet.
LASTLY... SHAMELESS PLUG!!! If you want to download some music that the copyright holder is happy to have you sharing, discussing, p2ping then TRY MY WEBSITE!
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
Actually, they are putting petty stuff like murders on hold
A number of artists have twigged that the distribution of illegal copies can have a positive effect on their album sales.
...
I'm waiting for one of them to sue their record company for artificially depressing their sales by prosecuting illegal distributors
The last scintilla of doubt just rode out of town
Ok so I buy a CD record, happened about 500 times already in the past so I expect this is a fairly likely scenario in the future also. Why would I want to share it in the first place? It says in the CD sleeve copying and sharing the record is illegal as it clearly violates the contract I made with the record company as I purchased the record; a copyright infringement. For the love of being an atheist, just how does this limit my rights? No, don't anyone give me bullshit about how sharing is not a theft. I know it is not. But it is still illegal as you are violating copyright. The record companies have EVERY RIGHT to come after your sorry asses. What are you people still crying about? Are you just trying to justify downloading music for free is legal, because you do not have money or are too cheap to buy the damn CDs?