i have a hard time with this issue.

first of all, i remember vividly recording tapes in the 80's. we recorded tapes all the time, off the radio, tape to tape, mix tapes, etc. i don't remember anyone getting sued. i don't recall any of the dual tape deck manufactures being sued for producing equipment to copy music.

second, i remember cd's costing upwards of $18.00 to $22.00 when i was in high school. that is insanely high, especially for the quality of a 'made in china' cd. it's poor quality material, poor quality music, and poor quality packaging/marketing. going to the movies at the theater is somewhere around $10 now, not to mention the insane prices on food and drink as well...

now, if i remember capitalism correctly, it's the buyers who set the price, correct? if someone prices their product too high, no one buys it, the purchaser has affectively "set" the price, and the seller is left with empty pockets.

so, the consumer is saying "wow, this crap cost too much and i'm getting little value out of it for my money. i believe i'm going to get my products elsewhere, for cheaper." they then go online and find it for a lower price, or free. doesn't seem like business rocket science to me. i'm sure more people would purchase their movies and music if they were made to last out of quality materials and you were paying the artists, not a bunch of uncreative CEOs and marketing departments.

i'm personally waiting for the industry to produce a better quality product for cheaper. or even a better quality product NOT cheaper. cd's are NOT worth what the recording industry are asking for them. going to the movies is NOT worth what they're charging. cable and satellite tv are NOT worth what they're charging for them monthly, especially with the actual cost of air time of shows vs. air time of commericals. not to mention no one has a "mix and match" station package yet. come on...i gotta pay for crap i don't ever want to watch just to get the three channels i want to see? that's ridiculous with todays technology.

the greedy, greedy recording industry suits put themselves in this position. i have no sympathy for millionaires missing out on another chunk of un-earned money. swindlers getting swindled doesn't pull my heart strings, and these outrageously high settlements just prove what kind of out of touch scum they are, and certainly doesn't help their PR or cause.

I belive the same rationalization can be used to justify using a color copier to duplicate paper currency.

How can any industry compete against "free" when it has to bear the up front development and distribution costs?

Please, do elaborate.

For simplicity sake . . . say a person wants more money, but actually working for the money or saving/investing money to make more just doesn't appeal to them . . . well, along comes digital technology that allows the ready and relatively easy method of having money, albeit illegally, but nonetheless simple and fast.

Now, say a person wants the complete works of Led Zepplin, but doesn't have enough money to buy a box set . . .

i guess i would sympathize with that but what's standing between me and that sweet pile of money is NOT a bunch of useless, greedy middle-men who turn the amazing artistic ability and creativity of Led Zepplin into a cheap, plastic, made in china, costs $1.00 to make let's charge $150.00, make it so it breaks and doesn't last, fake piece of crap with stickered advertisements all over it and, lets not forget, censorship of lyrics and art whether you like it or not.

not the same in my book. these people have successfully argued, with excellent marketing, that they are somehow a VERY important part of the process. this simply isn't true. with thousands of bands doing their own booking, touring, processing, printing, recording, and distribution, not to mention on-line music sales, the proof is out there that those people that make up the overhead are useless, and are now scrambling to hold tight to their cash cows as our culture, and the way business is done, changes right under their noses.

Bullsh^&. I've bought every single Zep album legally- so I own a copy of those songs. Why can I not now transfer of those same songs to my music device of choice?

^^^ excellent point mtupower.

what about another example. Ford doesn't sue my friend when he lets me drive his truck. someone came up with the concept, designed it, tested it, marketed it, and sold it TO HIM only. then i come along and without paying my "FAIR SHARE," borrow it like it's mine and drive it around to move my stuff. how could i be so thoughtless of all that overhead and all those people who went into making that truck??? i should have to go out and buy my own if i want to drive a Ford truck, right?

The difference between printing money and downloading music is pretty substantial. First, money is SIMPLY for personal gain - meaning that if you're printing money you're going to spend it. You're not going to stuff pillows with it or roll around in it and be happy. Music is for personal USE, in that it does not generate a profit off of its application. Exactly as MTU said, If I buy a CD and copy it so I have it in both my cars, how is that possibly the same as printing money? It is incorrect to equate greed and pleasure.
Additionally, music is created to be listened to without medium of profits and money. Sure its nice to earn a few bucks but ultimately any serious musician performs out of a passion rather than greed (okay, MOST 95%+). Many, many artists solely use record companies to gain exposure since they see very little of the backend profits. Most money is made by playing performances, and now the internet is being a great source of exposure and information about bands as well. In fact, a lot of bands distribute their albums and demos online for free to whoever can listen to it and say "catch one of our shows". Been there, done all that but I don't print my own money and never would consider doing so.

oh yeah, and how about the library??? we should send the police and lawyers into there and sue the hell out of everyone who's reading those FREE books and magazines without paying those publishers and PR men and authors who are just STARVING to death now. that public library system really drove all those writers and publishing houses to the poor house huh?

i mean, you could go through life never buying a single novel by a best seller and read them all at the library. a free copy of a copyrighted item created by someone to be sold to make them money. just like an album.

and then, we can start raiding the used book stores....

Under fair use laws, you can.

How is this not rationalizing violation of rights and theft?

I'm not sure whether there is sarcasm involved in your post, but if not . . . libraries pay for their copy/copies. The number of copies that are available for "loan" is somewhat limited and this is recognized by the publishers.

Even digital e-books have to be purchased by libraries as individual copies. Anyone that's used the e-book service of their public library knows that there's usually a "wait list" to get the download.

Obviously if you're going to do a bout of heavy duty p2p'ing, drive around and find someone's open wireless network and use that for a while. :D ;) J/K.

Or do it at a Starbucks or McDonalds or something....then the IP is not traceable.

As for limiting upload.....most ISP's provide between .5 and 2.5 MBit (some up to 10+) upload....even on .5 Mbit you can send out quite a bit of data in a day....over 24 hours you can probably surpass 3 gigs or so....that's a lot of music. On 2.5Mbit....5 times that.

I'm sure that UTube and other on-line video services are paying for the right to "rebroadcast" the material...let's be sensible about this...

Are you going to "rip" a song from a UTube Playout? To me, that's like taking a microphone from your cassette deck player/recorder and setting it up in front of your little sister's "close and play" stereo recordplayer and "ripping" Black Sabbath's "Sabbath Bloody Sabbath" album...get real...

What the RIAA should have been fishing for was the folks that sold their material AFTER THEY bought it...that's were the ripoff originated and was perpetrated from the getgo...

I have no problem w/p2p as long as it's free for everyone and everyone has equal access...

That's why I have an issue with so-called SW piracy...I can't tell you how many times I go to open something that's been sent to me and the sender is using the "latest and greatest" hit from Billy-Bob G..

Well, guess what? My version of the oldies sucks so bad, I'm suppose to spend the next few frickin' hours searching the internet in dog-knows-what-kind-of-zones, looking for and down-loading some piece of code that will do dog-only-knows-what to the version of the program I'm trying to update, all for the benefit of reading some piece of tripe that got sent to me?

Or, better yet, I drain my wallet and hand the contents over along with my left nad to Billy-Bob G., so he can maybe dance the Watusi with the Watusi in Africa, and I can finally read my piece of tripe by the glow of the candles I have so I can keep the electric bill down just enough in order to afford another update to that computer that was suppose to make my life easier and fun.

Well, poke me in the eye and call me silly.

:rolleyes:

Your hatred of the "big, bad, evil record company/RIAA/whatever" is understandable, and well-deserved.

And I know this from an up-close and personal perspective... I've had two major-label record deals, and being a recording studio owner and professional session/touring drummer, I have dealt with their bull$h!t for years and years, and continue to do so on a regular basis.

And I also agree that over the years many of the artists that they have signed and promoted have largely been offering music of lower and lower quality, while the labels steadily raise the price.

And as I personally know, they have been screwing musicians and songwriters over for decades, in more ways than you can even imagine.

So the hardships that labels are currently enduring garners no sympathy from me, and is in fact LONG overdue Karma.

HOWEVER.

NONE of this justifies STEALING.

Yes, the internet is a promotional tool of unprecedented reach and influence.

But it should be the ARTISTS' choice to offer their music to the world for free. Not YOUR choice.

The REAL losers in all of this are the artists.

Artists no longer have financial and promotional support from the record labels, because the label knows that many people will just steal it anyway, so there's very little money in it for them.

Artists no longer have financial support from their fans, because it's the "internet age" and everyone thinks everything should be FREE! :rolleyes:

Almost everyone who tries to rationalize illegal downloading contradicts themselves in the same manner: If the music that labels are offering is such crap, and is not worth the asking price, then why do you want it in the first place??? Why even bother to steal it if it's that bad?...

Now that pretty much every song in the universe is available for sale individually at itunes.com, etc., there is no excuse. If you think an album only has one good song on it, then cough up the 99 cents and buy it, and quit whining!

If you TRULY appreciate the artists who make the music that you love, then SUPPORT them. Buy the song, buy the album, maybe go to the show, maybe even buy the t-shirt.... Pay them for their work, just as YOU expect to be paid for YOUR work. This way, talented people can make a living and can continue to make music that you enjoy.

It's not about the record labels. Screw them. It's about the talented musicians and writers who are the REAL victims of illegal file sharing.

If you love music, stop stealing music.

Mike