It is a violation of Copyright Law to download mp3's of music you have no legal right to.
You can justify it in your mind if you wish, you can justify it to your friends if it makes you feel better, but you are 100% unable to justify your action in a court of law if you have no legal right to the music.
That being said, and, hopefully, understood, the action of the RIAA is nearly humorous. Instead of embracing a new distribution model, they push it deeper underground. I suppose the RIAA thinks out of sight, out of mind.
A life long dream of mind has come to fruition. Imagine ordering something over the Internet and having it appear in your hands instantly! Saturn can't zip a car through your phone line, Domino's can't send a pizza through your modem, but the music industry can!
Now is the time for an enterprising group of people to from a 'record' label, recruit some musicians, produce an album, and offer it for sale over the Internet. Say, $2.00 for the entire album, and it gets split 50/50 with the "record comapny" and the musician. The musicians get as much as they're getting now, the "record company" gets a shake, and the middle men get nothing because they're not needed!
Now, this does not solve the piracy issue. There is but one solution to that: prosecute every single person who commits that crime. Will that happen? We both know the answer to that...
And after we get this up, we can help Domino's with the delivery of their pizza.
On the 35-minute ride to work, my girlfriend and I have been discussing the Napster issue. It's been a topic of discussion for the past month or so where we, both groggy and still half-asleep, discuss our differing viewpoint on the issue. I'm blinded by my years of a shareware addiction, she by her budding music career. It's an interesting conversation, where I try to illustrate Napster as a shift in paradigms, a new way to distribute music, or a great 'try-before-you-buy' plan. She'll have none of it. Her standard reply, which she has taken to muttering in her sleep, is simple yet eloquent. "But you haven't paid for it." I agree fully. I try to illustrate that if I download a Yanni mp3, I can decide if I like it well enough to go out and buy the CD. Her obvious reply? "But you haven't paid for it." I realized that it was time for me to shift gears, so I changed my track. "I have no problem with Dr. Dre's suit, but Metallica used to pass out their music for free! It's near hypocrisy! They would give people tapes and ask them to listen." What's the difference, other than now it's being pushed by the demand side? 'Twas throwing words away; for still The little Maid would have her will, And said, 'But you haven't paid for them!'
Slashdot Mirror
Let's be honest here.
It is a violation of Copyright Law to download mp3's of music you have no legal right to.
You can justify it in your mind if you wish, you can justify it to your friends if it makes you feel better, but you are 100% unable to justify your action in a court of law if you have no legal right to the music.
That being said, and, hopefully, understood, the action of the RIAA is nearly humorous. Instead of embracing a new distribution model, they push it deeper underground. I suppose the RIAA thinks out of sight, out of mind.
A life long dream of mind has come to fruition. Imagine ordering something over the Internet and having it appear in your hands instantly! Saturn can't zip a car through your phone line, Domino's can't send a pizza through your modem, but the music industry can!
Now is the time for an enterprising group of people to from a 'record' label, recruit some musicians, produce an album, and offer it for sale over the Internet. Say, $2.00 for the entire album, and it gets split 50/50 with the "record comapny" and the musician. The musicians get as much as they're getting now, the "record company" gets a shake, and the middle men get nothing because they're not needed!
Now, this does not solve the piracy issue. There is but one solution to that: prosecute every single person who commits that crime. Will that happen? We both know the answer to that...
And after we get this up, we can help Domino's with the delivery of their pizza.
On the 35-minute ride to work, my girlfriend and I have been discussing the Napster issue. It's been a topic of discussion for the past month or so where we, both groggy and still half-asleep, discuss our differing viewpoint on the issue. I'm blinded by my years of a shareware addiction, she by her budding music career. It's an interesting conversation, where I try to illustrate Napster as a shift in paradigms, a new way to distribute music, or a great 'try-before-you-buy' plan. She'll have none of it. Her standard reply, which she has taken to muttering in her sleep, is simple yet eloquent. "But you haven't paid for it." I agree fully. I try to illustrate that if I download a Yanni mp3, I can decide if I like it well enough to go out and buy the CD. Her obvious reply? "But you haven't paid for it." I realized that it was time for me to shift gears, so I changed my track. "I have no problem with Dr. Dre's suit, but Metallica used to pass out their music for free! It's near hypocrisy! They would give people tapes and ask them to listen." What's the difference, other than now it's being pushed by the demand side? 'Twas throwing words away; for still The little Maid would have her will, And said, 'But you haven't paid for them!'
You may be a King or a litle street sweeper, but sooner or later you dance with the Reaper.