Sharing and copying are different, and easy to recognize. If I loan you my CD so that you might enjoy it, that is sharing. If I make a copy for us both to enjoy, that is copying.

The difference is clear in law, and the RIAA is within the law to pursue though of us that infringe on copywrites.

However, the real issue is the need for the industry to adapt to the wants and needs of it's consumers. Technology is a bell that cannot be unrung, and simply making your customer base into a large group of criminals to be sued or arrested is not the right step. Why bother doing all this when you could devote the resources to making the industry "whole" again in the eyes of the customer.

There has to be a way to make this work. We've been here before when recordable mediums were introduced to the dismay of the RIAA. They refused to adapt and lobbied hard against their very own customers and artist's fans. Now, the advent of MP3 has bit them on the ass, and they have NOT earned the respect of the public. Heck, most people view the record companies and many artists as petulant brats that have too much money and way too big egos to match. I'm sure there are many folks that feel good about not buying the CD, thanks to the animosity created over the last 10-15 years.

"There has to be a way to make this work."

Ohmygod, Blackmerceds and I agree on something!

I think the entire entertainment industry (including recording) has lost touch with the buying public and with the technology that we use. Until they understand that their world has irrevocably changed, they will increasingly alienate the public. Pursuing Joe and Jane Q. Public is sure not going to pay them the rewards they seek.

No matter how stupid, short-sighted, self-aggrandizing and monopolistic those ego-centric dolts are, they still have artists by the throat and the law on their side. I don't think the entertainment industry cares any more about artists' opinions than it does consumers'.

Nonetheless, by copying and sharing an artists work, we are stealing money that the artist has earned by his talent and effort. I'd love to cut about twenty layers of parasites off the back of the artist, allowing the artist to charge a reasonable fee for his product and reducing the price to the consumer.

I think this new marketplace that is emerging through the internet, of which Apple's seems to be a huge first commercial success, scares the industry spitless. Great! Couldn't happen to a more deserving nest of snakes.

The "market" does not determine THEFT. The law does.

Mike

The average artist's percentage as specified in most standard major-label recording contract varies anywhere from 12-17% of album sales, minus packaging costs, minus comps, minus...blah, blah, blah. In other words, not much. This figure can go up (in some contracts) after certain sales milestones, etc...It varies, but that's an average range. This low figure points to yet another longstanding problem in the music industry, but that's another topic altogether.

I do not defend the state of the industry...It is corrupt and behind the times, and has been for quite some time. I am defending the right of the individual artists to earn a living and not have their work STOLEN from them by their audience.

Mike

I have been out of touch in Jamaica for the last week. No phone, no e-mail. Wonderful vacation.
You are in a delima mikemover. When you defend the RIAA stance you are defending a business deal that you don't like but have to live with. My sympathies. I guess the only alternative is to publish your own label but I bet the snakes have all the cards stacked against you if you try that.
Given how you feel about the "snakes" I think it is fair to say that they would do just about anything to keep their share of the pie which includes pressuring lawmakers to protect their future income. Like a lot of things in this world it is unfair. I suppose the only thing that could change it would be a rebellion of the artists but I think you guys are too busy to try that. That could change though if the RIAA becomes nasty enough. It could be a chance for you to break out from under the control of the snakes. You would have public sentiment when the public found how little you make on a cd. It is terrible that you have to pay all the cost for the pittence you get.

link to almost any FREE music you want: FM, no static at all :D

If he has enough time/money he can try to change the law.
Historically our laws were formed by the rich and powerfull. Every once in a while the little guys would rebel and make a change, usually temporary. (think Magna Carta)
Not until 1776 did a rebellion finally make a major change that had staying power.
Ours is trully a government of the people by the people. The problem, if there is one, is that most of us are too busy to get involved when something isn't right. We could change these stupid copywrite laws if we had the money and time. I think they will be changed when someone who has a personal interest takes the time to do it. I call them stupid because they leave the mikemovers with a pittance while the leaches take 90% of the proceeds.

The issue that pushes this button the hardest is: morality

The morality of “downloading” music lies somewhere between the two extremes of speeding and murder. Almost everyone speeds without ANY regard for the law (except for getting caught), and almost everyone wants murder punished to the maximum penalty, thus assigning their own personal “value” to their moral choices.

ie: spock will not steal a subway sandwich because he feels its morally wrong, but probably has knowingly exceeded the posted speed limit without feeling moral guilt. (apology to spock if he has never speeded)

This problem is exacerbated when someone’s own personal moral values is questioned by others.

Would you question my morals for speeding? Probably not. Would you question my morals for murder? Most likely so. Do both examples break the law? Yes.

If I do speed (even once), am I morally “corrupt” ??? I would think that most would answer no, and leave my personal choices unevaluated, and thus accept my illegal actions as being my business, and not theirs.

If there is no gray, and there is absolutely only black and white, anyone who has ever knowingly exceeded the posted speed limit by even one mph, is “immoral”, and NO LESS immoral than “down loaders”.

I will be the 1st to admit right here; I have knowingly speeded, and therefore am immoral.

hey spock, hows it going dude? :)

let me see if i understand the vulcan logic:

downloading is illegal, breaking the law, and is immoral.
speeding is also illegal, breaks the law, and is not immoral?

is the argument that it is not an "important" law valid?

Thrillbilly, you almost make a somewhat good point. I think a fallacy arises when you postulate that all transgressions are equal in the quoted near-syllogism, above. Obviously, they are not all equal otherwise we'd be nailing ol' Mr Spock's green hide to the wall for speeding same as for murder or downloading ripped songs.

Society and individuals generally recognize that there is a gradation to lawbreaking and it usually is correllated with the degree of harm inflicted. Small harm in speeding, big harm in murder, intermediate harm for grand theft of some poor sob's 500e. Stealing a song is probably closer to speeding than grand theft, but it is still doing harm to a specific individual and to a measureable degree. That makes it substantially different from speeding, in my eyes.

Hey guys, We are still trying to figure life out. It's complicated. Many of our laws came into existance when our lawmakers were wearing powdered wigs.
Remember that it was against the law to kill deer in Notingham Forest, but the evil sheriff enforced the law nonetheless. Of course the Robin Hood story is fiction, but the stupid laws that man has dreamt up are not.
I don't know what my opinion is worth but in my 54 years I believe that common sense usually wins out. A good example is the military draft, the death penalty going away and then coming back and before my time prohibition. I guess it's true we have to learn from our mistakes.

Hey! I'm impressed you guys! A civel debate going on on this forum! Way cool:cool:
But I am amazed that this subject can be debated for such a long time. The law is the law. Black and white. No grey there. But I suppose degrees of "blackness", or we'd all be on death row for going 56mph in a 55 zone;)

botnst, thanks for your reply.

again, the issue here is that of selective morality.

that is, everyone will evaluate which laws they they feel are important and to what degree they choose to abide.

speeding IS breaking the law. no question there, right?

if you willingly speed, you have made an decision that the rules just dont (or shouldnt) apply, and you can do what you want regardless of the rules, thus applying a selective moral judgment.

to rephrase the question ive seen asked here:

stealing the sandwich is illegal, and "wrong", so i wont do that.
but...
speeding is also illegal, and "wrong", but i just dont care.

botnst- none of this is directed at you. you just seem to be able to contribute in a positive manner.

I'll see your rephrase and raise you a rephrase plus a perspective change.

Rephrase
There is a gradation to lawbreaking and is usually is correllated with the degree of harm inflicted. Small harm in speeding, big harm in murder.

Perspective
A possible difference between sandwich stealing and speeding (assuming lack of extenuating circumstances like stealing for a starving child or speeding to get a cardiac victim to hospital) is that there is a victim in a theft who is deprived of property. In the case of speeding, the victim is the common good of society. The loss to the individual who sells sandwiches is a direct harm while the loss due to speeding to me, as part of the commonweal, by Spock zooming through a sublight zone in hyperdrive, is distributed among the population for whom the speed limit affects.

Extension
Extend that to ripping and uploading music for distribution. The burden of purchase is strictly assumed by the originator of the ripped tune. The benefit of the royalty from that initial transaction accrues to the artist and the pit of snakes who own a portion of the royalty. By circumventing royalty payment at each transfer of that tune, the user gets the benefit of the artists, sound engineers, producers, etc without compensating them for ther creativity and expertise. This is why it is stealing--everybody who receives the tune without compensating the artist is taking the artist's just compensation.

The recording industry shafts the public
The system was designed for physical recordings. The recording industry is failing miserably at addressing the new paradigm. This recalcitrance is screwing-over the artists and the public. The public ain't stupid--obviously physical production costs go to near zero for net distribution. The artist still gets the same flat rate. The music industry doesn't have to pay all of the manufacturing costs but STILL charges the same amount. They realize a huge profit by holding internet prices to physical sales prices.

technically, this is called getting screwed.

The response to all of this is where the moral issue arises.

Is it morally justified to take something of value from somebody just because you think the system is unjust? The decision to download is bound to the copier--nobody is forcing it. Thus, the decision is an individual's moral choice and is a direct reflection of that individuals moral character.

i must offer that breaking the law is breaking the law, and the gradation only comes to play with the degree of prescribed punishment incurred for said offense.

i just cant get behind an offering of "i know what the law is (as with speeding) but dont think that that particular law should apply to my moral position"

PS- i did DL several years ago (and did not share, i was a leech), but have not since then, and DO NOT support the position that (illegal) downloading is OK.

i am ONLY questioning the issue of selective morality. - ben