The type of files on peer to peer networks are nowhere near the quality on a CD anyway so I don't know what the labels are so excited about. Witness the simulataneous marekting of DVD music format as being higher quality than even CD format etc.

Formats like mp3 are called "lossy" compression because they literally lose audio information yo keep the file small. mp3 actually serves as a low quality preview to the actual CD music which is often purchased (surprise!) if it is deemed 'good music' by the listener. Perhaps a real reason why CD sales have declined is that people get to easily hear an entire CD in mp3 format and decide it is 'bad music' and simply not worth purchasing. Previous to that you had to try and listen to a few tracks in a store or at a friend's place. Now, with the convenience of peer to peer filesharing over the 'net, the sheer awfulness of the majority of pop music being marketed by the 'big 5 record labels' today is so transparant, it is little wonder that sales are declining. This is closer to reality than the naively appealing 'piracy' hypothesis for declining sales.

Just because people are downloading mp3s, doesn't mean they actaully like them or keep them or would have ever considered risking their money on a potentially bad CD in the first place. i.e. You can't draw a direct line between the sharing of music mp3s and call that 'lost revenue' because a lot of these people would never have bought the music before or after listening to the mp3 format of it. A lot of them are simply sampling...and isn't sampling healthy for a market or a new form of the music market?

Umm...that's like saying 2/3rds of muderers don't hink killing is wrong. That's not such a big problem if barely anyone is a murderer.

In order to know whether the RIAA's policies are making a difference, you need to find out the total number of people stealing copyrighted work online and see how that number is changing. It could be that it's going down --- we just can't tell from the information in this article.

This flash clips says it all

http://www.campchaos.com/cartoons/napsterbad/goblin03.html

The bottom line is that downloading music, whether you would have bought it or not, it illegal. It is stealing. Same as running out on your restaurant bill. Same as stealing a car. Even if the car is a Ford Mustang and you never would have BOUGHT a Ford Mustang. Allowing it to continue in any way sends the message that it is not a serious concern. If a musician wants their music available for download they will present it that way. My congratulations to the RIAA and their winning the obviously righteous right break down the digital wall between the ISP's and their criminal customers. JaKe

Artists can develop their music on affordable computers using free software. They can market themselves through live performance, internet radio and websites. They can distribute their music through filesharing. Even at only 3 bucks a CD, a small volume artist can make a very respectable living selling a few thousand CDs a year and performing regularly.

With this mode of business, the artist makes more profit, keeps the copyrights to his songs, prices are cheaper and there is increased competition for musical talent. The artist comes out ahead and so do the consumers.

Consider a 10x more popular musician under the only alternative: Sign a restrictive contract with a record company which retains the rights to your work, typically keeps all the profits and treats you like a serf. Even if you sell a hundred thousand albums, the record company will keep all the revenue and then play accounting games to prevent the artist from getting any royalties. The story has been told a thousand times before.

The real threat of the internet is not due to direct loss of sales. It is due to direct loss of CONTROL. The record company has control when I have to listen to the radio or MTV to sample new music instead of 1000 independent internet radio stations; they have control when I can only buy the songs they choose to produce CDs for instead of independent artists or out of print ones.

The current spat of lawsuits and bogus laws criminalizing file sharing are just desparate attempts to delay the inevitable collapse of an profitable but outdated business model. Good riddance.

JaKe: I have one answer to your post and it is: BULLSH*T. Perhaps you work for RIAA, or are just misguided, but your statement is incorrect.

Copyright infringement is NOT stealing. It is illegal, mind you, but for the most part it is a civil offence (unless profit is made). When I steal a Ford Mustang I have DEPRIVED the dealer from one unit of a car. Downloading a song does not deprive the copyright owner from anything concrete but rather the copyright owner loses POTENTIAL revenue (and nothing tangible like a car).

As a side note -- RIAA interest have little in common with artist interests. Very few artists make a lot of money, most of them end up pretty poor or broke even when records sell relatively well.

AMEN!!!!

Should everyone leave the room when I play a new cd because they didnt pay for one themselves? Let the artists make the money they so hard worked for, instead of the greedy riaa. Let the artists create downloading sites cutting out the riaa and there piece of plastic costing us 20 bucks. If the songs are good , we'll definitly buy, if they suck we'll pass on by. I'll bet if that happens, every song on a cd is gonna be alot better. Just a thought.

Ok Here is this issue in a nutshell.

We can download music and we will. I have never bought a CD in my life until I started downloading music off of the now debunk napster.

Since napster I have learned about all these new different groups and have consequently gone out and bought their full cd's and gone to their concerts. Before napster I had not bought a single cd.

Wether its right or wrong or illegal or legal, fact of the matter is people can and will do it because in their mind and the minds of many, its not hurting anyone, its not stealing, so its easier for us to convince ourselves its ok. Now for those of you that say,

"oh well, lets legalize prostitution or marijuana because as you say if its right or wrong , illegal or legal,people will do it". My response to that is , people get hurt physically and emotionaly and people DIE from those acts so its concevable that is a matter not to ignore.

Downloading music on the other hand does not take a criminal mind and even a 8 year old girl can download her favorite avril lavigne song on her computer.

Conclusion: Maybe CD's sales would have been a lot lower than they are now if it weren't for file sharing software (kazaa, napster), I for one have spent over $200 alone this year on music cd's that I would have never spent if I didn't get to download it and listen to it.

Get over it, adapt. Evolution people. Technology. Didn't people freak when you could record on VCR's? How about cassete tapes? well CD's and mp3's are yet another medium, we need to push forward and stop our efforts to fight technology because we will fail.

And all this mention of mp3's , how about cd burners? Lets say all the file sharing software on the world was somehow assimlated. I would call my friend to burn me a cd, that he got by asking his friend to burn him a copy..etc...

lets move forward.

Alex

Now instead of potential consumers the RIAA have bitter people...If the RIAA thinks it can convert bitter people into consumers by being bullies they are crazy. I download all of my music legally from Emusic.com, never have done peer to peer file sharing. The RIAA is a bunch of babies that can't realize that they are not selling music because of poor quality and nothing else. I will never buy any thing that is associated with the RIAA...do you think they can sue me because they can't MAKE me buy thier junk?? That is next..

I basically concur in all that k wrote on this issue. There is no denying that downloading mp3 files is illegal, but when the big record companies try to give the impression that it is also immoral, they really are on thin ice. During most of the history of mankind, certainly for all of recorded history apart from the last couple of centuries, the two chief means of dissemination of works of art have been 1) watching/listening to a performance and subsequently re-performing/re-creating it, and 2) making manuscript (or printed) copies. Thus dissemination of poetry, literature, music etc. (and even to some extent pictorial art) has always taken place largely beyond the control of authors/artists. Artists etc. earned their money from performing, from selling the original versions of their works of art, or from wealthy patrons who supported them. Basically artists/musicians etc. had to perform in order to make a living. This is a lot healthier than getting ludicrously rich by just releasing an album every other year. And in fact the vast majority of musicians still have to rely on live performances for their income. Their situation is not changed for the worse by file swapping. In fact quite the opposite, since peer-to-peer networks and other Internet technologies offer them inexpensive ways to market their music. Those that are hit by file swapping are music and entertainment behemoths and pampered mega stars. As for music, it will survive as long as mankind does, and it will no doubt be healthier outside the stranglehold of the likes of Warner and BMG. May they perish soon!

Right or wrong, 60 Million people are downloading music for free. Thats 1/4 of the entire U.S. You can't sue 1/4 of the U.S. They're just going to piss people off and worsen their situation.

The game is over. The RIAA is fighting a losing battle. They are wasting tremendous resources on a campaign thats sure to lose. Instead, there are plently of other ways to make big money utilizing this new world of the Internet. They should be spending money and resouces on finding those ways and taking advantage of them.

Times have changed. With new technologies, comes new businesses and new opportunites. Some business die. This is called capitalism.

I have to agree with k, there. Blaming piracy alone for the decline in music sales, is moot. Really, the industry must take a look at thier tired business practices, artists, concepts and methodologies. And frankly, the plastic, artificial nature of today's marketed music, which has been promoted in lieu of "real artists", has about as much to do with the decline, as piracy.

The point being, is people's lack of respect for this industry is being reflected by thier lack of interest in wanting to pay or pay attention to anything these people produce. If a cd is good, people will go out and buy it, especially if there is a sonic "fidelity" reason for doing so. Otherwise if it's a cheap imitation, who cares about paying for a more "hi-fi" version of it?

Emerging intelligence which comes about with any new technology also means you cannot force feed the same old material to a new type of audience.

I believe that the internet age has spawned this new type of global awareness in which a new type of thinking must be applied to the music and entertainment media's business structures and social practices in order for them to survive.

My own experience with the industry has shown that the "powers that be" are refusing to sit up and take notice of what it is people are really looking for these days, and plastic imitations are not something people are going to value for long. It seems that the "old industry" is spending more time and money on lawsuits and harassment than on people and ways to improve the situation for everyone.

It's time for the industry to invest in and promote environments where such true innovation can occur, instead of harrasing and ultimately losing thier audience, their artists, and all thier money.

I suspect this would involve changes in the way these people "do business", ahem, and perhaps it is time they took a long hard look at their "societies" and rectify the unfair manner in which artists (who have made them millions) are, and in many cases, are not, compensated.

New talent and ideas are squandered and supressed in order to promote tired old formulas from tired old people all the time in this "game" and it's only natural this type of practice will turn around an smack them hard in the wallets.

And in response to Dev Null, as far as the comment about murder being wrong, you should check out the type of people the industry hires these days. =)

If two third of the american population like
doing something illegal, then it is time to
make that activity legal.

Support independent music and you will save your American rights from the mind control society that is the RIAA and it's arrogant beneficiaries.

Independent artists won't sue you for downloads cause they WANT you to hear thier music!

Down with pampered superstars who act as if we the public "owe" them anything, it's time for the real talent with real love for what they do to shine through all the clouds of lawsuits.

I agree with all of the people who posted, the RIAA and the recording industry had it coming to them.

Stealing is wrong, but the RIAA and the industry which they failed to regulate with any kind of ethics have been stealing from it's artists for years and years and years.

May the spirits of all the dead artists who died broke or were killed off, after making millions for the evil empire of an industry become rested with the winds of change that are now blowing. What goes around comes around.

i think people fail to see the real issues here. of course it is illegal to post music online for free that millions of people can download. no judge or court in this country will see otherwise, because that is a clear example of diluting a copyright. the real issue is that in the p2p battle, we are losing the actual mean of "peer" to "peer". All through the 1980's, there was a thing called permissable use. It meant that a stereo company could build a unit that had 2 cassette decks, easily allowing the consumer to make duplicates of recordings. The record industry knew very well that copyrighted materials were being copied and traded, they tried it in the courts and did not win ... not even close. When the cd came around there were units that legally allowed easy cd > cassette dubbing. The point was the courts said there was nothing wrong with making a copy of a recording, as long as there was not mass duplication and distribution. It was this whole permissable use concept. But the current fight is blurring the lines, and causing the act of making any copy, even a personal one, an act that may soon be illegal. How is it not permissable use for me to get online, meet up with some girl in japan and trade some tunes with them??? what is the difference between that and me making a duplicate of a tape back in 1985 and giving it to a friend????

Just think about this for a minute: we're allegedly "stealing" a series of soundwaves from some corporate fat cats in a tall building. Big deal.

To Dev Null.

That depends.

If what these people are doing threaten the security of the Nation or the rights of the people as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States of America, then no it should not in any way be legal.

However, downloading is much more than a national issue, it is an international issue, as the RIAA certainly cannot "Sue all the World".

Like I said, something created with real passion will be recognized and appreciated by people of all walks of life from every country despite race or religion,as demonstrated by the great works of art that have survived the ages of wars and socio-economic turbulence.

Perhaps it is time to focus of the ressurection of an "Age of Greatness" as opposed to the "Age of Fakeness" which is what has been the Hollywood and Recording industry's "spear"-head for the past 20 years.

indeed, 60 million, I will personally donate one dollar to anyone who is made to pay a fine...maybe 10...Lets think if half the people who file share did this thats 30,000,000 dollars, if they donated 10 buck thats $300,000,000! that would be enough to pay the fines of over 100,000 people! and how long would it take to prosecute 100,000 folks? the riaa's premise is flawed. SO, whos setting up the fight fund?

rockit thrust
I AM a rocket scientist!

The RIAA and PETA have two things in common. The unique ability to go way off the other side, just to make their point. It is illegal, then why don't they come up with a solution, instead of aggravating the problem.. It's simple. Use your money and brains to solve this problem, so that it appeases both sides, instead of flying off the wacko handle...... But, if the truth is known, and ever comes out, the RIAA is owned and ran by a bunch of lawyers that have to keep suits going on to make a living.

The question i have, is, How much of the money from the lawsuits is going to get to the artists, and away from the RIAA. I think they are using this to make money, and in the long run, they are the ones that will wind up screwing the artists..

I think suing people is the smartest thing that RIAA can do. Maybe it will scare music, video, and software pirates into stopping their actions. Theft is theft and that is all there is to it. DON'T STEAL OTHER PEOPLES INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND YOU DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT GETTING SUED!

The RIAA is rapidly digging it's own grave. Who are these so called consultant's and lawyer's that recommended these actions? -Obviously just looking to make a buck with no interest in their's clients interest. Keep it up!

The underground file sharing avenue is simply unstoppable. There are so many discreet ways that the only way to stop it is to destroy the internet altogether. I expect that on-line sharing is going to explode given all the recent publicity in the same way that it did during the Napster days and Lars Ulrich's outburst.

I'll enjoy watching the RIAA sink.

The fundamental problem with music (and video) downloads is that the music (and movie) industries are not meeting market demands.

I don't buy the argument that many people use Kazaa as a way to preview music. There are many people out there who will never buy another CD again because they prefer to have their music in digital format on their computer where they can make play lists, burn party CDs, schedule an entire evening of music for a party or romantic dinner. You just can't do any of this with a CD player.

What is even more plain is that CDs and DVDs will eventually disappear. There is no need for them. They are all digital. As bandwidths increase more and more people will fall into the category of completely digital / anti plastic.

Many of these people would be happy to pay for the music instead of downloading it from Kazaa. People will pay for download speed, assurance of quality, better quality format, convenience, ease in locating a song or movie. Customers will pay for the service they receive, not the "intellectual property". If the service is too expensive custoemrs will not pay for it.

The problem is the music and movie inustries refuse to service these markets. They leave the user who wants to listen to music through his computer or watch a movie on the computer with no alternative other than to download from Kazaa.

If the industry is not selling in the medium that the customer wants, how can they turn around and say that 'customers' are stealing. Customers are not paying because the industry is not selling the product they want to buy.

Just look at iTunes. 6 Million downloads since they opened = $6 Million. A service so good its almost enough to make me want to go out and buy an Apple + iPod. But it is incomplete. Not all the music lables have signed on and they don't offer all of their music. Plus, why should I have to buy an Apple to download music legally when I can download it right now using Kazaa on my PC.

My feeling is that when I can get on the Internet with my PC and pay a reasonable price to download music and video that I want to listen to or watch, and the files are not too restricted by copy protection, and the copy protection is not made by Microsoft, I will become a paying customer of the music / movie industries. Until then I am not stealing anything - they are just being bad businessmen because they refuse to meet the needs of the market place.

This is very much about the give-and-take of the Internet. If you think about it, Microsoft et al are in the same boat to some degree. They sell their software over here for a fortune because it's what the market will bear, yet they complain bitterly about how they get ripped off overseas by all those nasty "pirates" in the former Soviet Union and China. One solution they toyed with was to sell Windows cheaper over there (also because people make a whole lot less money over there) but then with the Internet, the moment they do that then the rest of the world will know about it and everyone will expect a better price. Insomuch as the Internet is continuing to be a great equalizer, it's truly very neutralizing for shaping market forces freely. It's much harder to hide things like pricing when you can find out instantly. Moreover, I believe that the market will ultimately help to decide what a momentarily popular song is worth at this particular point in time and the music industry has to be ready to accept that and allow the payments to flow to them in as seamless a manner as possible. Unfortunately, that process just isn't completely in place right now although most of the pieces already exist: digitization of the content, broadband for delivery, digital recording to media, etc. The huge and overwhelming body of content that continues to expand every day makes everything more disposable. Unless those who sell the content can get that content out there quickly and easily at a price that no one questions, that fleeting bit of information - be it a song or a news article - will no longer be relevant or of any value to anyone.

"The bottom line is that downloading music, whether you would have bought it or not, it illegal. It is stealing. Same as running out on your restaurant bill. Same as stealing a car."

That is a lame statement. Downloading music is nothing like stealing a car.

If I go to a friends house and relieve him of possesion of a cd, thats stealing.
If I go to a friends house and borrow his cd, take it home and burn a copy and then return his cd, thats copyright infringement.

There is no loss of tangible property in copyright infringement.

This is nothing but the market dictating worth. The music biz needs to find the price point that will be agreeable to consumers. As it is today, it only costs about 50 cents to manufacture a cd, that the industry can somehow get the courts to protect their right to an outrageous profit margin, is unbelievably fucked up.
The fact is the industry can't even prove downloading is wiping out there profit.
I know that I, like most, buy the real cd if we find music we really like. Music I wouldnt have known about accept for peer to peer sharing.
If I get snagged by the RIAA, they will be forced to put me, an otherwise spoke in the wheel normal citizen in jail. Because there is no way in hell they are going to get a penny out of me, and when I get out of jail, I will download extra hard to make up for loss time. If there are enough people like me out there, the taxpayer outcry alone will be deafening.
Musicians need to figure out a way to eliminate the greddy middlemen, and directly sell to their audience. The internet is a powerful, cheap delivery system, that could eliminate a lot of the business out of the music business.

I've often thought of a lot of analogies for the RIAA's onslaught. Can you imagine if they had been around when Gutenberg started printing books and they represented artists? Eventually, when magazines cae out, they would be suing the magazine publishers (the ISP's) because too many people were looking at their pictures for free in doctors' waiting rooms. They might even consider restricting access to paper or charging a tariff on it because people could use it to "copy" their pictures. Oh wait -- I forgot! They actually already do that already! There were fees padded to cassette tapes, videotapes and VCRs, as well as CD-ROMs in order to appease the recording industry mafiosi already - sheesh! We live in an age of such a discardable information that everything has fleeting value. Visual artists have long had to live with that fact; the RIAA and musicians may finally have to get used to it. Nobody ever asked Leonardo to paint the Mona Lisa twice nor did anyone going through the gallery ever pay him a fee for looking at it. Think about it. Why should a 3-minute audio experience be worth more than a 3-minute visual experience?

I've often thought of a lot of analogies for the RIAA's onslaught. Can you imagine if they had been around when Gutenberg started printing books and they represented artists? Eventually, when magazines cae out, they would be suing the magazine publishers (the ISP's) because too many people were looking at their pictures for free in doctors' waiting rooms. They might even consider restricting access to paper or charging a tariff on it because people could use it to "copy" their pictures. Oh wait -- I forgot! They actually do that already! There were fees padded to cassette tapes, videotapes and VCRs, as well as CD-ROMs in order to appease the recording industry mafiosi already - sheesh! We live in an age of such a discardable information that everything has fleeting value. Visual artists have long had to live with that fact; the RIAA and musicians may finally have to get used to it. Nobody ever asked Leonardo to paint the Mona Lisa twice nor did anyone going through the gallery ever pay him a fee for looking at it. Think about it. Why should a 3-minute audio experience be worth more than a 3-minute visual experience?

By the way, if I buy a CD, take it home and listen to it and eventually end up selling it used to Half Price Books who sells it to someone else, who's breaking the law here? What if I make a copy of the CD before I sell the original? And does the used bookstore technically have to pay someone a royalty? Technically, every time each and every one of you make a photocpy of an article or pages out of a book, you're breaking the copyright laws. Based on the RIAA's logic, we'd all get busted and have to pay their "clients." The photocopy companies would have to get even more restrictive on disclaimers and paper would automatically carry a premium to help them offset their losses. Based on all of this logic, our book and magazine publishing industries should have been completely wiped out by the time the Internet added the final straw to the camel's back. And our movie industry should have been in shambles because the VCR and HBO were going to completely destroy cinema and movie theaters (instead they raised the price of popcorn and soda! ;-) )

How the hell did we let all this get so out of hand in the first place? And who do we need to take out to the back of the woodshed to shut all of this nonesense down?

The RIAA is making a dangerous mistake by pressing the file sharing issue. They are driving a wedge between the generations at a time when they can least afford it. The second wave of Dot.coms will be run by kids with a totally different set of technologies (and values) than the first. The changes that come are going to be revolutionary enough without the Record Industry laying down backwards in the gulliotine and razzing its tounge at us.

Ok Here is this issue in a nutshell.

We can download music and we will. I have never bought a CD in my life.

The best things that ever happened to me where Napster, DSL and Krispy Kreme Donuts.

I have never stole in my life. I just click search and find the songs I want and "COPY" them to my computer, I do not "TAKE" OR "STEAL" them.

I calculated tonight with my TI-89 calculator using the Radian Mode and graphing the functions of my actions, that I have downloaded over $250,000 worth of music in the past few years.

I think the RIAA should stop suing Artists for making crappy music, and instead invest that money into finding and nourishing new talent. The fact is, the times of Hip Hop Legends such as the Beatles and Rap singers like Elivis are over. We need to move on with the times.

We need to find a way to bring IN and Outs and Krispy Kremes to every town in america, maybe even cuba if they stop sending little eliians and stuff in the ocean in rafts and tires floating with the dolphins to FLorida, hello Janet Reno, Hi big guns in my face, oh i'm getting deported? Iz ok, i come back in another tire. bye bye.

Anyways, The RIAA is not taking the issue seirously and needs to find out why this technology works and how to stop the technology because that is the problem. They need to find out how to make people stop using computers and listening to music on the mp3 players that are out, and very small and cheap mind you.

The RIAA needs to take a chil-fukin-pill and get a check up from the neck up and really understand that they basically cannot control people's lives and the advancement of technology in our society. Who are you to tell me I can't download what I want? Its my money.

Keep tellin em guys!
Big M.

Piracy is the new business model. Artists make their money from touring and merchandise sales, not necessarily record sales. Just look at Phish: concert taping engenders fan loyalty. Look at all the hardware/software/media companies which have arisen and grown like entrepreneurial mammals after the fall of the recording industry dinosaurs: Burning software, blank CDs, PVRs, wi-fi home media network gear, portable mp3 players, broadband internet access. Money is shifting from the RIAA companies to other companies. It's as unstoppable as manufacturing jobs disappearing and being replaced by tech jobs. The technological genie has been let out of the bottle: whining about what's illegal is pointless: the masses have spoken. Speeding is illegal, too.

This is nothing more than the new printing press, the new cassette tape, the new video tape. Home taping is killing music! Nope. Home VCRs are killing the movies! Nope. The printing press is killing the scroll industry! Yep, killed it dead, and aren't we glad of that? File-sharing is killing the recording industry! Yep, and about time, too. You'd have to be some special kind of idiot to think that music itself will die. Now it will be freer than ever. Information wants to be free, and music is the most powerful form of information, encoded with a spirit no corporation or law can control.

One serious conflict with "downloading any music is illegal" thing is that nearly all the music I download, I already DO own a CD or tape of. I was a commercial DJ for years, and have a couple of thousand CD's. However, with a very fat broadband pipe coming into my office - its actually faster to download a bunch of them into my little MP3 player (for jogging with mostly) than to get the CD's, rip the tracks into MP3 format and then download them into the MP3 player.

I think it is ironic that the RIAA, who have been ripping artist off of their royalty for years are now professing to be working in the best interest of the artists. The artists really do not need recording studios. They can record directly to server hard drives. They do need distribution techniques (such as direct links through the internet) that put the profits into their pockets rather than the recording studios, management and organizations like the RIAA. I am also sure that better royality records could be kept via the internet than by the RIAA.
The cats out of the bag, new technologies are replacing old ones (as always) and the smart entrepreneurs will figure a way to make a profit from the new methods moreso than trying to hold on to the old ways.

On a side note. I would gladly pay a dollar for a CD rather than the 35 cents if the extra 65 cents would go to a organization for distruibution to the artists as long as it wasn't the RIAA

I also like the idea of setting up a fund to help those who get sued. For every lawyer that works for RIAA there is another lawyer who would gladly fight against them (for a fee of course). Is anyone organizing such a fund and getting lawyers ready to take on the RIAA. Maybe even some lawyers would be willing to donate their time for such a cause knowing that their name will be in the news for years (and there is nothing like exposure to advance a carreer as a litagator)
Is anyone out there in a position to organize a RIAA Harrasement Relief Fund.
I would think that if everyone who is against the RIAA actions (for whatever reasons) would donate what they could afford, the Relief Fund would be bigger than the RIAA war chest. And in America the one with the biggest checking account ususally wins.

To Jake and all the other sell out brain dead sheep of this world. Sharing mp3's is not theft. Period. It never was and never can be. At the very most, it is copyright infringement of a non commercial type, i.e. done without profit. Since this is a civil matter, it is not even a crime.

I am so tired of all the overly affluent who leap to defend a corrupt and immoral system. You should be ashamed, except you obviously don't understand any of the issues involved.

Money is the root of all evil and the RIAA represents money. Really, it is all so very simple.

Will all the threats and criminal action work?

Let's look at history because as it's been said that history simply repeats itself.

PROHIBITION with the total weight of the Feds did nothing except criminalize people who had been doing nothing more than what they had always been doing through the ages. Now it's legal to drink.....after the Feds failed miserably trying to stop it.

Now the pharmacy big boys want to pocket all of the seniors money by stopping them from buying the same medication from Canada, Germany and a few other countries at about a third of the cost of the US.....and it ain't working, folks. Even seniors are telling the big boys to "stuff it".

This is exactly what is going to happen to the recording industry. If the product had been marketed at "fair price" and the customer given "good merchandise" for what they had paid for.....none of this would have even existed. Face it....the big record industry has "screwed" the average Joe for so long and now it's coming to an end and this is their last thrust with the dagger. It's too bad for them though, because it's about the same as standing in an ant hill and stomping a few ants. The eventual loser is going to be the record industry and not the P2P users that get stung.

FILE SHARING ISN'T STEALING! Just because the music industry was caught with their pants down in the digital age doesn't change the fact that file swapping is no different than sharing books or cassette tapes. What IS criminal is that the RIAA would try to fix a broken and out-of-touch music industy by twisting the laws and paying off politicians. FIGHT BACK!!

At first, the music industry said radio would kill record sales, "who will buy a record when they can hear it on the radio for free?". In spite of their efforts, record sales went up, when people could hear the music. Then they said the same about tape recorders, then VCR's, then CD burners. Exposeure to good music will cause sales to go up. Unfortunatly, the record industry is falling into the same trap that the auto industry did in the 70's. They put out crappy cars and then blamed the Japanese for their losses. If the record industry would put out a quality product, people would buy it regardless. I guess now, I will have to burn any book I read because loaning it to a friend will be a felony. Pretty soon, we will have to pay ASCAP\BMI\AFTRA roylities whenever we throw a party with a little music. It will become a requirement to get a permit from the FBI to play music where others are present and do not own a copy of anything that is played. Come on industry, give us something other than a blonde chick that is half clothed shaking her ass, that can't sing, or a wannabe punk white boy singing about raping his mother.

Downloading MP3's IS NOT ILLEGAL. Anyone can download MP3's from MP3.com or directly from thousands of band's offical websites.

MP3 is a great digital audio format, and Ogg Vorbis (.OGG) is even better!

CD Audio is a dated digital format(1982), it's old, and now many bands are moving to newer digital formats. This is a good thing.

If the RIAA and others want bands and the public to stay with old CD Audio digital formats they are fighting the future. It's no use.

I am a Record Industry representative and parterns in a major record label. If I don't make money, I will simply stop signing artists. I won't make any more music videos or put out new cd's and huge tours.

Its up to ou. Download music and we will either sue you or you will see its adverse effects nextime you go on kazzaa or sam goody, less music if any put out by us.

And finally, why don't we say this: "If you download music, you are a criminal". How come copying a version of Microsoft Windows is illegal? That is piracy. Music is no different. Just becuase you like to do it, you enjoy it and you can, does not in any shape or form mean its right.

You can imagine my frustration after all the time and money we spend on these artists you download. Behind every artist is 10's and 100's of other people working their butts off and spending money on various things that result in what the public calls a "cd".

You must remember that we loose millions of dollars every year on artists that "failed" in the market. For ever star we put out, 100's more of artists have gone through our label and cost us tons of money. So when we finally get a star, to break even, not only do we need to get back every penny spent on that artist, but that of also 100's of other artists.

And everyone is making us look like the bad guys. We get a big percentage of artists' sales but remember, that doesn't go in our pockets. We use it to pay all the other people in our staff, our lawyers, PR, etc.. So we can function and continue supporting your favorite artist. What is left goes in our pocket. And even then, most of that goes back out to "new" talent.

Also, no one ever forces anyone to sign with us. This music industry is a nasty thing. Everytime we sign and spend money on a new artist, we put in 100% risk of money while the artist puts none. If the artist matched the funds we put up with theirs, we would get 50% and they would get 50% but as it stands, we put almost all the money down and assume all the risk.

So next time you go to click on download on your next favorite song, keep in mind all the people that have worked so hard to make that and the fact that if that artist becomes unproffitable to us we will drop them. Its not a threat, its a business, and it is treated as such.

I am all for file sharing and mp3's. I'm just not for file sharing copyrighted works and allowing people that don't own the products to download them. How to stop this? I have a few ideas, but nothing conrete yet. Tell me what you think guys, I'm setting a new tone for this message board and want to get some responses please.

Sincerely,
B.M.

I also think that that the RIAA has gone overboard with this but I think that we are never going to beat them by trying to win on this issue. Instead me must realize that these corporations behind the RIAA are not perfect either. I think that we need to go after them for Accounting Fraud. We all know that they have done it; it’s just a matter of finding it. And when we find it, the SEC will not let go until these corporations are punished severely. For instance, AOL Time Warner is already in a bit of trouble with the SEC for faulty accounting practices. Why not broaden then technique to include all of the companies that back the RIAA.

P.M.

I agree with LEX, two messages up.

I am posting this in response to the perposterous claims LEX in his post.

Your full of it. , I am an artist. I have been signed before, but now I'm independent due to the corruption and lies from people like you.

You talk about it is the industries "risk" on artist and that the put up the money. You are a Lier. The label LOANS out the money to the artist and when the artist get paid they REALLY DONT GET PAID, the labels just get paid back.

And trust me people, this guy would make you beleive that labels sometimes loose money on artist. That is bull$#it. My band as small time as we were, made our label a little over 3 million dollars GROSS, DUE YOU WANT TO KNOW HOW MUCH WE WERE PAID!!!!!!!!, AFTER THREE YEARS WITH THIS LABEL OUR CONTRACT WAS UP AND WE RECIEVED $1,400 each. WOW!!!!, out of 3.2 million, and now that we are not with that label anymore and we have gone INDEPENDENT, the two CD's we cut with them are THERE's WE NO LONGER SEE ANY MONEY FROM THE SELLS OF OUR CD'S , the label retaines the right to the profits even though we are still a band ,and still together, WE DO GET MONEY FROM OUR OWN MUSIC.

And trust me my friends the BIG FIVE in the RIA-Gay are much bigger theives than the small label we were signed with!!!

DO YOURSELF A FAVOR!!!!!
Dot beleive the industry!!!
You do not steal by listening to what music you want when you want!!
You are the true fans!
Listen to the facts, and decided for yourselve, do you want to give more money to the theves (RIAA) or the artist.
DOwnloading only cost's the LABEL not the ARTIST

In Response to Embroken:

I'm sure you think what are you are saying is supporting your assertions but infact I will show that your own points only go to support my argument.

First off,you said:

"You talk about it is the industries "risk" on artist and that the put up the money. You are a Lier. The label LOANS out the money to the artist and when the artist get paid they REALLY DONT GET PAID, the labels just get paid back. "

Yes, we loan out the money to the artist. When you get a loan from a bank you have to pay them back with interest. We say if the artist makes money, they need to pay us back. Alot of times the artist doesnt make enough money to pay back the loan. And per our contract we can't come confiscate your possessions like a bank can to payback your debt.

As far as your situation with your last record label, alot of the stuff you are talking about is stuff you could have stipulated in your contract if you had a good lawyer. For instance, getting paid for cd's you made with a label after you leave them is a negotiable term in your contract and any good lawyer would ask for it.

And like i said before, no one forces anyone to sign with us. Every single artist that signed with us did so because we gave them the best deal they could get.And if you don't sign with a label because its the best deal you can get , your stupid.

Lex

Lex,

I am tired of hearing your argument that the music industry does not force any artist to sign with them. Upon taking a cursory glance this may appear to be true, but one must investigate deeper in order to truly understand the situation. Because five companies in effect control over 90 percent of the music industry, they control the supply of music. This places economic forces upon the artists to sign with these major companies. Therefore, in effect, the oligopoly that these companies have created controls the distribution of music. They are also put into a position of higher bargaining power with the artists due to the vast amount of artists and the few (5) amount of major recording companies. You are right, if an artist does not like the terms being offered to him he does not have to sign, but there are 100 more artists, as you stated, willing to take his or her place.

On a side note, I believe that the RIAA is in effect an illegal monopoly as it allows the major firms in the music industry to create strategy and avoid the competitive market forces. Others firms such as the Diamond distributor DeBeers are forbidden to operate in the United States as they control upwards of 70 percent of the worlds diamond supply. Explain to me why the RIAA should be allowed to operate within the United States. If the firms backing the music industry want to use litigation to attempt to correct their outdated business model, they should at least have to file these suits individually and not be allowed to pool their resources.

Finally, how can you make the argument that downloading music is hurtful when the parent company of one these major firms, AOL Time Warner, is now being investigated for financial fraud by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The trading of music online as the RIAA is currently attacking the public is through civil means. The violations that AOL Time Warner has potentially committed violate numerous Securities and Exchange acts as well as numerous Statements of Financial Accounting Standards (SFAS) created by the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) which is currently backed by the SEC as the body which controls financial reporting in the United States. By misrepresenting their financial position, AOL Time Warner has misled numerous investors who may have potentially invested heavily in this company. If you want to make the argument that sharing music is wrong, be advised that the Music Industry is not exactly honest as well.

Respectfully,

P.M.

Lex,

I am tired of hearing your argument that the music industry does not force any artist to sign with them. Upon taking a cursory glance this may appear to be true, but one must investigate deeper in order to truly understand the situation. Because five companies in effect control over 90 percent of the music industry, they control the supply of music. This places economic forces upon the artists to sign with these major companies. Therefore, in effect, the oligopoly that these companies have created controls the distribution of music. They are also put into a position of higher bargaining power with the artists due to the vast amount of artists and the few (5) amount of major recording companies. You are right, if an artist does not like the terms being offered to him he does not have to sign, but there are 100 more artists, as you stated, willing to take his or her place.

On a side note, I believe that the RIAA is in effect an illegal monopoly as it allows the major firms in the music industry to create strategy and avoid the competitive market forces. Others firms such as the Diamond distributor DeBeers are forbidden to operate in the United States as they control upwards of 70 percent of the worlds diamond supply. Explain to me why the RIAA should be allowed to operate within the United States. If the firms backing the music industry want to use litigation to attempt to correct their outdated business model, they should at least have to file these suits individually and not be allowed to pool their resources.

Finally, how can you make the argument that downloading music is hurtful when the parent company of one these major firms, AOL Time Warner, is now being investigated for financial fraud by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The trading of music online as the RIAA is currently attacking the public is through civil means. The violations that AOL Time Warner has potentially committed violate numerous Securities and Exchange acts as well as numerous Statements of Financial Accounting Standards (SFAS) created by the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) which is currently backed by the SEC as the body which controls financial reporting in the United States. By misrepresenting their financial position, AOL Time Warner has misled numerous investors who may have potentially invested heavily in this company. If you want to make the argument that sharing music is wrong, be advised that the Music Industry is not exactly honest as well.

Respectfully,

P.M.

Lex,
You are truely a "Music Industry Type". In none of your comments do you even talk about what we, the public, are saying to you and the people you work for. We are saying to you guys, catch up with us and get into today's world of technology. All of your comments talk about money and who gets what blah blah blah. I don't care who gets what. I want music. If your industry would listen to us and start offering music online in a format in which we can buy it from you, I think you may be able to buy that new house on the beach or your new Hummer. I want you to have those things. I want you to be happy. But in return make us your buying public happy. Offer your music digitally. I, and I know I'm not alone here, would be giving you a large portion of my paychecks to get music off the internet.
I have no idea how old you are "Lex", but you seem to not see what is so right in front of you. I assume you realize that the public is now using differnt ways to get their entertainment and different tools. Just stop looking at that dollar sign for one second and see what is right in your face. Just think if your company starts to offer music over the internet at a price. That dollar sign will probably turn into at least two... if not three or four. Just think if you sign someone new to your "Label" and just put their music on the internet on your website for us to download for a price. Wow... not only did you not have to spend all that money on producing a "cd" but you still have people buying your product. Once they sell enought through you website... then maybe you invest in a a cd format.

Give us a break... We want what you are selling and I think we are all willing to buy it from you. Come and join us in the 21st century.

Sorry Lance,
This is a business, its all about the money. Sorry to burst your bubble, and I'm guessing your a kid or atleast think like one. I'll repeat it again, its all about the money. You don't address any issues that are new, and you do not respond along the same lines of the argument, so as far as conversation goes, I am open to critism and argument so long as we are talking about the same issues and are speaking logically, if your thoughts differ i respect that just please talk sensibly.

As far as the 21st century goes we're in it. We will have to adapt and move on. So please get over it. We will find a way to make money or we won't continue our old business practices. Do you ever go to starbucks or tell a taxi driver that they shouldn't think about money? The starbucks won't give u a free coffee and the taxi driver won't give you a ride without money. LANCE. The reason you got screwed on your last record deal is that you probably didn't have a good lawyer, if any, but most importantly its because you don't see that ITS ALL ABOUT THE MONEY. And if you don't care about the money then stop whining.

Sinc,
LEx

in response to PM:

PM please stop posting you make no sense and argue like a kid. Yes some companies have illegal practices. That doens't mean copyright infrigment is ok.

What about everytime a cop shoots an innocent person? Does that making killing ok for other people?

One wrong doesn't make another right. And PM if you don't notice, all these scams are in the headlines as they are found out and people are going to jail over this. What they do is illegal and they are punished. So whats your point? If anything you support my statement that people should be punished for breaking the law.

Please talk with sense.

Y

Y,

I feel that you do not fully understand the argument that I am trying to make in this case. Do you have any education at all? Yes, I agree that copyright infringement is illegal, yet it must be enforced in a legal manner. The music industry is breaking numerous laws in its attempt to curtail these copyright infringements. First they fail to file these subpoenas in the correct jurisdictions. Second, I feel that they are violation numerous privacy laws. Third, as I stated before, the manner in which they attacking individuals in effect makes them a monopoly, which this country has a long tradition and history of trying to avoid. These violations may seem trivial to you, but these rules are put in place to guarantee our basic rights as citizens of this country.

You attempt to differentiate the financial fraud that these companies have committed with the issue at hand, namely the copyright infringement issue. This cannot be done. They are closely intertwined, as these companies need to follow the laws of this country just as they expect us, their consumers to follow. Any other way, and a dangerous double standard is set, which can only have negative consequences for our nation as a whole.

Your rogue cop example, although attempting to make your point falls short for an important reason. In your example, the illegal action of the cop (killing an innocent person) is followed by an illegal action by others (again more killing) that is equal in magnitude. In the case of the music industry, their illegal action (financial fraud) is much worse than the actions of individuals (downloading a few songs). You may attempt to point out that piracy costs the music industry billions of dollars each year in sales, but this number is miniscule when compared to the gigantic losses that occur each year through financial fraud. Investors rely heavily on these financial statements that by law must “fairly in all material respect accurately represent the financial situation of the company.” In fact some investors may invest large portions of their life savings in these companies, only to be deceived.

In order to truly understand this issue, you need to be able to understand these economic principles. As Lex has said, the music business is like any other business in that one of its main purposes is to make money. I have no problem with that purpose, as long as the money is made in a legal manner.

Let me put it another way that may better appeal. When you have a fly in your house, do you try to get it with a fly swatter, or do you go out and buy the biggest shotgun you can buy and blow huge holes in your walls. What the music industry is doing is blowing huge holes in the public in their attempt to curtail the illegal swapping of music. With regards to your claim that all of these scams are in the headlines, you could be no farther from the truth. Most financial fraud goes unnoticed and huge losses occur from this fraud.

In conclusion, I agree that music piracy is illegal and should not occur, however, I feel no sympathy for these companies. If they want to complain about consumers breaking the law and publicize their huge losses, their financial fraud should also be made public. After a thorough investigation by the SEC (which together with the newly former Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) and the FASB), I am confident that they will be in a much worse situation than if they had not made an issue of music piracy. I am all for following the laws, I just want all the laws to be followed by everyone, so that the playing field is fair for all.

Respectfully,

P.M.

I am going to enjoy watching this blow up in the RIAA's face over the next year. 60 million people share files in the USA alone , and they're filing 75 subpeonas a day ? Do the math....you have a better chance of getting hit by lightning. Die slowly , RIAA , so I can enjoy it more.

PM:

I think you area basically agreeing with what everyone is saying here just can't see it.

1) We agree that copyright infringment is illegal and when people download music they don't own they are acting in a manner which is against the law. (by definition illegal means against the law).

2) We both agree that alot of companies in the music industry may be involved with corrupt financial practices. That is also against the law.

3) You can't use those two points to offset the damage of downloading music. When corporate scams are uncovered, people go to jail and get fined.
When copyright infringment is uncovered, they should be dealth with also. Instead of not going after one person because another person is doing something wrong would lead to total chaos and the eventual economic collapse of our nation.

4)Get over it. I am a strict believer of the law. Anyone who breaks it should be punished. End of story.

sinc,

lex (accidentaly got posted as y last time, i dunno y)

They say we will be tried by a jury of our peers, right? Well with 60 million of us downloading where do they think they will ever get a jury that will agree to convict? And what great publicity the RIAA is going to get when they bring to trial 75 year old grandmas (like my Kazaa using mom) or quadriplegics (like my brother who was injured in a motorcycle accident in 1990)! I think they are grasping for straws and what they will get in the end is nothing more than a handful of splinters and a hundred thousand musicians who won't even want to be associated with them anymore.

Lex,

I am tired of your unsophisticated arguments. Typical of the music industry you are a superiority complex in which you feel that you are better than everyone else. Instead of coming up with valid arguments, you attack those who make the arguments. Have fun thinking the RIAA is going to win, because in the short run they may, but guess what, in the long run you guys are all toast. Don't respond to this because I am sure it will just be some negative comment that you seem to have an endless supply off, and I don't really care what you have to say. In the end, because of the way our markets are designed, the consumer (me) ultimately has the final word, so I take joy in that, and nothing you say can take that power away from me. Because of this incident, I will no longer get music off the internet, but I will no longer ever buy any music on CDs. Good Job, you have completely turned me off to buying any music whatsoever. On another note, for being a music executive (which I tend to doubt by the low level of both your arguments and your grammar) how do you have this much time to respond to this message board? I bet that you are just a little pathetic high school drop out that probably thinks that minimum wage is good idea too. (In case you were wondering, it’s not because it ultimately puts a lot of people out of work as the demand of labor decreases, so the benefits gleaned by those who still have a job at a higher wage rate is outweighed by the huge negative consequences of putting everyone else out of work.) I can’t wait for all this financial fraud to be uncovered! I don’t think any of these major companies will survive. Whys should I have to get over it? This issue is not settled and I am not ready to get over it. When I see the top music executives led out of their corporate headquarters in handcuffs like Andy Fastow. (I bet you don’t know who that is so I guess that I’ll have to explain who that was to you too. Andy was the CFO of Enron. I’m assuming that you have at least some intelligence although it is hard to see it through your crappy writing, and that you know what a CFO is and what Enron is, Lex.) Those who share music should be “dealth with also”? I think that you meant dealt with but I guess subliminally, you want all of your consumers dead. I think that would cut your revenues to zero buddy. Have fun with that. Zero revenues mean zero profits! I am not going to waste my time exchanging arguments with as big of an idiot as you. I tend to put for the intelligent arguments, and you tend to just say things like, “you think like a kid” or “just get over it” or “please talk with sense” and telling me to stop posting. I think I have that last right guaranteed to me in the United States Constitution, or do you and the rest of the RIAA want to take that right away from me as well?! Have a fun time with this whole mess, I’m just going to look at is as something funny to watch as a bit of entertainment. Five years from now, I bet you have a different job, or no job at all, if you really are a music executive now. The music industry is drastically changing now because the consumers of this country want it to change. There is nothing you can do in the long run to stop. Consumers have the final choice, so either get out of the way or get trampled by them. Thinking about it, I think the music industry is probably losing most of their money because they hire idiots like yourself to run them.

Respectfully,

P.M.

(I’m sorry for the long offensive rant, but it gets on my nerves when somebody who thinks they are superior to me talks down to me in the manner that you did. To tell you the truth, I’m not really all that sorry for the rant either. And don’t respond to this because I don’t really care to see your response. We will never agree, because you fail to understand even the most basic economic principles that you need to be able to fully understand this issue. You are one dimensional in your thinking and it is very annoying.)

Lex,
I beg your pardon. I am not a band member and have not tried to get a record deal. I am a music fan.

By the way.... Starbucks gives out free coffee all the time.

PM:

Downloading music that is copyrighted and that you don't own , is illegal. People should be brought to justice if they break the law, end of that issue.

2nd, you have a hard time distinuishing issues. Deep down I think you are an intelligent person, but for now it seems as though you feel that the corruption in corporate america offsets the importance of copyright infringment laws, which is just ridiculous.

Here is the break down. Just because we don't have a concrete solution to the copyright laws being broken now, doesn't mean its ok for people to continue doing it. And as always, everytime a crime takes place, the government finds a way to bring those people to justice, as best it can.

My conclusion is this: Corporations that are involved with corruption or financial malpractice should be punished to the maximum extent of the law. People who break the law, in this case, copyright infringment should also be punished to the maximum extent of the law. How is that for level playing feild PM? And keep one thing in mind, the reason I am conversating on this board is it allows me to understand what people are thinking and helps me shape my game plan. Also, keep in mind one thing. Regardless of how you feel about this issue, the law will be upheld and we will punish those who break it. Don't think that the technological barriers are any justification for your actions. There will always be illegal filesharing going on, but our job will be to make it very hard for you to do it. Go on Kazaa now and download a song from the ablum "Elephunk" by Black Eyed Peas, or how about the new Mary J. Blige album. You will notice that there is tons of songs on Kazaa for both albums, but when it comes to playing them back you will notice that for those two ablums specifically, 99% of the songs don't playback right, they have screechy sounds in the middle or just go deaf after 30 seconds. That was my idea, and it worked. We will just flood the filesharing softwares with bogus tracks and incomplete songs. Then what? This is not a threat, it is already being done. Its just a way to show that technology can go both ways.

We need to stop as many people from breaking the law as we can, and punish those who have, from Enron officials to Joe Buddy the teenager who stole over $10,000 worth of music off Kazaa.

Respectfully,
Lex

Lex,

I agree with you. A level playing field is all that I am arguing for. It is certainly within the rights of the Music Industry to protect what is legally theirs. I am glad that you at least agree that the music industry needs to play fair when enforcing these rules. I am sorry for the rude manner in which I last communicated with you. It was uncalled for and I am sorry. I am glad that you take the time to at least get a feel for what the public feels about this issue. It shows that you care. Yes, I agree, those that steal be it in the corporate board room or those who steal by using Kazaa should not be tolerated. I thank you for allowing me to better understand these issues.

Respectfully,

P.M.

PM, no worries. I appreciate your respectfull apology. We all, including myself, can get rude sometimes when we are in a conversation we are passionate about. That just shows your really into it which is good.

These boards are great I think because it brings all kinds of different people together and look at all the feedback we have on this one article alone. Its great. I enjoy hearing opposing views and understanding them. I am not biased so if I hear an opposing view that makes sense, I will definitely support that issue. Its all about logic. THanks everyone for giving me the opportunity to conversate with you and for putting your time into this issue and helping us all understand what is going on, because I think this is one of those issues that no one including myself understands and the only way we can understand it is to presenting the different views and sitting back and looking at the issue as a whole.

sincerely,
Lex

Lex, the problem is that you keep putting this outrageous price tag on the value of the music downloaded. What we downloaders are saying is fuck you, we arent paying it. You can keep banging your head against a wall, or you can find the price point we will pay(personally, I think it's around a quarter a song). Since a lot of the downloads are garbage, and end up deleted, are you going to sue for $125,000 each for those too?
Like I stated before, I am willing to do the time if I am prosecuted, but you will never get a penny out of me in court, or from a cd again, and I will just download more. We'll see how long the public will accept otherwise decent people going to jail at taxpayer expense.
Peer to peer, or some form of it, will be here long after the RIAA is gone.
Instead of embracing a delivery system that could in itself drive down the cost of music, you choose to prosecute your customers to hang on to a relic of a business model.
Good luck with that.

SockMunky:
I'm going to have to agree with Lex.

What you said SockMunky didn't make any sense. All you said was you will continue downloading and will do time for it. Thats great. Do I care?

You made absolutely no intelligent attempts at any sort of debate. Don't get be wrong, I think everyone should speak there mind and welcome opposing views, but I have to agree with Lex, OUr arguments must atleast be logical and have support. That way maybe one of us can see what the other is saying. We are using debate as a way of cross educating each other.

Filesharing can be flooded with invalid files just as Lex demonstrated they are doing now, and I tested the songs he said and he was correct, of 8 songs I downloaded only 1 was the song it said it was and that worked (for the groups he mentioned, they havent' done this for all their artists yet, as I found out after emailing Lex)

People lets argue thats fine but please, no vulgarity and please support your statements and debate with horse sense and some sense of logic. No Disrespect SockMunky, but your name is disrespect enough. ha ha...

I'm Out-
Jayson

I believe that it doesn't matter if the record industry does not make money. Who cares? They are an entertainment entity and are there to entertain us, nothing more. If they make money thats a plus. Its part of every culture. Go to south africa, the groups and singers there are not driving limos they do shows for free. This part of our culture should be free. I'm willing to pay for the actual cd (about 45 cents) and thats about it.

Yo, all this shit is givin me heart burn. If you dont want us to download music, figure out a way to stop us. Thats about it. As long as there are mp3s, pirate ware and no imminent threat of repercussions for downloading, guess what... people are going to download. Shiiit, please believe.

p.s is this fool lex retarded?

My mom says there's a lot of black people in China.

there is nigga

" Downloading music that is copyrighted and that you don't own , is illegal."

Actually, you are partially wrong. If this was true, then we couldn't downlaod music from legal and free sites like DMusic.com, the music is (often) copyrighted, but the artists give permission to download/share them.

I think what you mean is that it is illegal down download copyrighted works without permission.

"People should be brought to justice if they break the law, end of that issue. "

I somewhat agree, and somewhat disagree.

" Downloading music that is copyrighted and that you don't own , is illegal."

Actually, you are partially wrong. If this was true, then we couldn't downlaod music from legal and free sites like DMusic.com, the music is (often) copyrighted, but the artists give permission to download/share them.

I think what you mean is that it is illegal down download copyrighted works without permission.

"People should be brought to justice if they break the law, end of that issue. "

I somewhat agree, and somewhat disagree.

" Downloading music that is copyrighted and that you don't own , is illegal."

Actually, you are partially wrong. If this was true, then we couldn't downlaod music from legal and free sites like DMusic.com, the music is (often) copyrighted, but the artists give permission to download/share them.

I think what you mean is that it is illegal down download copyrighted works without permission.

"People should be brought to justice if they break the law, end of that issue. "

I somewhat agree, and somewhat disagree.

underground artists , mp3s , underground writers and poets , uncsensored forums , every thing you want , all for FREE.