This lawsuit is petty to say the least. The multi-billion dollar music industry is suing a few college(aka poor) students who are most likely already in debt so they can buy another mansion. Personally i think that there are many talented artists out there, but i don't believe in them being millionaires because of it. Record companies are even worse because they only exploit the talent of others without having any of their own making themselves gobs of (unearned)money. Granted that we(the public) don't HAVE to have the music that these "artists" produce, but where is the line going to be drawn. I think that everyone should boycott all products made by the RIAA. Make sales drop another 50%. Show them that they are not a necesary institution in this country, and that the general public will not be told what to do with what they purchase. I see no difference between listening to a friend's cd in person and listening to the mp3 s/he sent me over the internet of his cd. I still get to hear the music. They(RIAA) will say that the song was copied and distributed to a person who doesn't own it allowing me to play the song at will. But there are ways to do that anyway without explicitly copying the song. Remote access to a machine can be configured in such a way that all of the output(audio and video) from the machine get redirected to your machine, still allowing you to play the song at will but denying you a copy. Is there a difference? Isn't the user still listening to the song at will, or is it going to be illegal to listen to music that you do not explicitly own? How far are we gonna let them take this? Land of the "free"
Slashdot Mirror
This lawsuit is petty to say the least. The multi-billion dollar music industry is suing a few college(aka poor) students who are most likely already in debt so they can buy another mansion. Personally i think that there are many talented artists out there, but i don't believe in them being millionaires because of it. Record companies are even worse because they only exploit the talent of others without having any of their own making themselves gobs of (unearned)money. Granted that we(the public) don't HAVE to have the music that these "artists" produce, but where is the line going to be drawn. I think that everyone should boycott all products made by the RIAA. Make sales drop another 50%. Show them that they are not a necesary institution in this country, and that the general public will not be told what to do with what they purchase. I see no difference between listening to a friend's cd in person and listening to the mp3 s/he sent me over the internet of his cd. I still get to hear the music. They(RIAA) will say that the song was copied and distributed to a person who doesn't own it allowing me to play the song at will. But there are ways to do that anyway without explicitly copying the song. Remote access to a machine can be configured in such a way that all of the output(audio and video) from the machine get redirected to your machine, still allowing you to play the song at will but denying you a copy. Is there a difference? Isn't the user still listening to the song at will, or is it going to be illegal to listen to music that you do not explicitly own? How far are we gonna let them take this? Land of the "free"