Well since I would classify all of those artists that they quoted as "bad music" that I would "not ever listen to even if you put a gun to my head and tried to make me," does that mean that the music artists that I like support file-sharing? Ummm, yup! At one time I had quotations from almost every artist I like supporting the ideas behind file sharing. But of course, it's the artists who are really against file sharing and are suffering because of it;) .
Most TV shows are copyrighted works, I'm really hoping that FOX doesn't start suing me for all of those Futurama, Family Guy, and Simpsons episodes I'm recording (especially since I'm buying the DVD sets the moment they come out)
The RIAA needs to realize that suing the 57 million users of P2P isn't going to stop P2P, it will only make those people who would have seen some kind of remote sympathy for their predicament and also purchased music will now be alienated and incensed that an unfeeling industry has now actually started suing consumers one by one. A victory for the marketing dept. to be sure!
But although distribution of copyrighted materials without permission is illegal, one has to look into the costs and benefits of enforcing said legislation before deciding absolutely whether to introduce a bill of this nature.
Look at prostitution: it is virtually a sinkhole for law enforcement money because there is no way to adequately, effectively, permanently enforce it. What we are left with instead is tax dollars wasted and a couple nights in jail for 1% of the prostitutes of the world.
The wording of the legislation itself should give a bit of warning as to trying to enforce it: if more than 2,000,000 people are using JUST KAZAA at ANY ONE TIME, if say 20 or 30 (conservative estimate) million people using file sharing, they are talking about having to prosecute literally 10% of America. The burdens on the legal system would be insane, not to mention the fact that if such a large number of people are willing to break the law frequently without any seeming guilt, it isn't a "degradation of morals" or anything of the type, it is an indicator that unfair or unbalanced laws exist that either do not meet the needs of a growingly technologically centered marketplace or are being supported by special interest groups that believe they have much to lose.
Despite the fact that copyright is law, the current laws and levels of enforcement are obviously enough to keep the companies involved in business, trying to arrest every file-sharing citizen will just take the most tech-apt 10% out of America, undermining the economy far more than file sharing could ever hope to.
I've made peace with the fact that downloading unowned songs is illegal. It happens. But you seem to think that we are justifying ourselves by saying the record industry is evil, rights, ad nauseum. This is not the case, at least for me. In my mind there are two issues: P2P and the RIAA being evil. They mingle, but are not one and the same. One area in which the RIAA and P2P really DO mix and it makes me...angry, is that they claim that they lose xx billion/year from pirated music. Now, I don't know about everyone, but if I didn't download music, I certainly wouldn't be buying it instead, not at $18 for a single CD. If I really want to support a band, I go see them live, because I have no interest in supporting an industry that does nothing to support those who consume its product or those who produce its product.
Did anyone see that episode of Drew Carey where Mimi had Mr. Wick convinced that there was a terrible storm outside and so he had to stay with her and do what she asked or he would be blown away? Mimi is the record industry, Wick is the artist. Look at Linkin Park. Online word-of-mouth MADE the band. They had no recognition whatsoever until they released some tracks for free online, and now they are enormously successful. Music artists need to realize that associating with the RIAA is not in any way beneficial.
Why is the record industry working so hard to eliminate the support of its largest consumers? Pre-teen, teen, and college age students are the largest consumers of new music, and yet they are being raked over the coals, forced to dump their life savings, and otherwise tortured by the record industry for engaging in activities no different than those of millions of others.
My brother, for instance, has about 5,000 songs on his computer, but he also buys something like a CD a week because he will hear some band online that he would like to hear the whole album. If the record industry wants to pull itself out of its slump (which, no matter how much they would like us to believe it, is NOT caused by P2P), they should start selling CDs at something less than $18 per.
Guess what? I don't care about packaging. Jewel cases are small and ugly. If you want to sell CDs for $5-8 in a paper sleeve, I would actually buy a ton of music! Anyways, that's my thought.
Slashdot Mirror
Well since I would classify all of those artists that they quoted as "bad music" that I would "not ever listen to even if you put a gun to my head and tried to make me," does that mean that the music artists that I like support file-sharing? Ummm, yup! At one time I had quotations from almost every artist I like supporting the ideas behind file sharing. But of course, it's the artists who are really against file sharing and are suffering because of it ;) .
Most TV shows are copyrighted works, I'm really hoping that FOX doesn't start suing me for all of those Futurama, Family Guy, and Simpsons episodes I'm recording (especially since I'm buying the DVD sets the moment they come out)
The RIAA needs to realize that suing the 57 million users of P2P isn't going to stop P2P, it will only make those people who would have seen some kind of remote sympathy for their predicament and also purchased music will now be alienated and incensed that an unfeeling industry has now actually started suing consumers one by one. A victory for the marketing dept. to be sure!
But although distribution of copyrighted materials without permission is illegal, one has to look into the costs and benefits of enforcing said legislation before deciding absolutely whether to introduce a bill of this nature. Look at prostitution: it is virtually a sinkhole for law enforcement money because there is no way to adequately, effectively, permanently enforce it. What we are left with instead is tax dollars wasted and a couple nights in jail for 1% of the prostitutes of the world. The wording of the legislation itself should give a bit of warning as to trying to enforce it: if more than 2,000,000 people are using JUST KAZAA at ANY ONE TIME, if say 20 or 30 (conservative estimate) million people using file sharing, they are talking about having to prosecute literally 10% of America. The burdens on the legal system would be insane, not to mention the fact that if such a large number of people are willing to break the law frequently without any seeming guilt, it isn't a "degradation of morals" or anything of the type, it is an indicator that unfair or unbalanced laws exist that either do not meet the needs of a growingly technologically centered marketplace or are being supported by special interest groups that believe they have much to lose. Despite the fact that copyright is law, the current laws and levels of enforcement are obviously enough to keep the companies involved in business, trying to arrest every file-sharing citizen will just take the most tech-apt 10% out of America, undermining the economy far more than file sharing could ever hope to.
I've made peace with the fact that downloading unowned songs is illegal. It happens. But you seem to think that we are justifying ourselves by saying the record industry is evil, rights, ad nauseum. This is not the case, at least for me. In my mind there are two issues: P2P and the RIAA being evil. They mingle, but are not one and the same. One area in which the RIAA and P2P really DO mix and it makes me...angry, is that they claim that they lose xx billion/year from pirated music. Now, I don't know about everyone, but if I didn't download music, I certainly wouldn't be buying it instead, not at $18 for a single CD. If I really want to support a band, I go see them live, because I have no interest in supporting an industry that does nothing to support those who consume its product or those who produce its product. Did anyone see that episode of Drew Carey where Mimi had Mr. Wick convinced that there was a terrible storm outside and so he had to stay with her and do what she asked or he would be blown away? Mimi is the record industry, Wick is the artist. Look at Linkin Park. Online word-of-mouth MADE the band. They had no recognition whatsoever until they released some tracks for free online, and now they are enormously successful. Music artists need to realize that associating with the RIAA is not in any way beneficial.
Why is the record industry working so hard to eliminate the support of its largest consumers? Pre-teen, teen, and college age students are the largest consumers of new music, and yet they are being raked over the coals, forced to dump their life savings, and otherwise tortured by the record industry for engaging in activities no different than those of millions of others.
My brother, for instance, has about 5,000 songs on his computer, but he also buys something like a CD a week because he will hear some band online that he would like to hear the whole album. If the record industry wants to pull itself out of its slump (which, no matter how much they would like us to believe it, is NOT caused by P2P), they should start selling CDs at something less than $18 per.
Guess what? I don't care about packaging. Jewel cases are small and ugly. If you want to sell CDs for $5-8 in a paper sleeve, I would actually buy a ton of music! Anyways, that's my thought.