Kazaa!!!

[J_V]

I can't seem to get any new music. All the new songs seem to be overloaded with files that don't work. Those greedy bastards are stopping me from stealing there music! Someone needs to develop a plan to stop them.

[Vehn]

2 words: bit torrent.

[Wake up CALL]

Two more words: Compact Discs

Support your local economy.

[Vehn]

No.

[brad]

might help if u use kazaa lite instead of kazaa (eg, no spyware included , etc.)

http://www.kazaalite.tk/

somewhere in my bookmarks a kazaa lite message board like this one im sure they would be discussing that ad infinitum.

[blueboles]

Would you pay $100 for a pair of jeans worth $20? Of course not, so why would you expect someone to pay $20 for a CD worth .05? I'll buy CDs when 1. The price becomes resonable for what I get and 2. The music doesn't totally Suck ass. I actually have 2 new CDS that were well worth the price. Cory Morrow: Full Exposure. CD/DVD and Cory Branen: The hell you say.
Both worth the price.
Kelley

[Wake up CALL]

"Would you pay $100 for a pair of jeans worth $20?"

No but I wouldn't go out and steal the same pair of jeans either! If the music isn't worth the price just don't listen. Personaly I think they should swap all the prisoners locked up for drug usage and exchange them with music pirates. It's bound to be better for our economy!

[blueboles]

I'll agree with you about the stealing. But how would letting drug dealer/users out of prison help the economy? Is it all the taxes that drug dealer pay that would help? You've got me somewhat confused.
Kelley

[Homer]

Would you pay $100 for a pair of jeans worth $20? Of course not, so why would you expect someone to pay $20 for a CD worth .05?

You aren't paying for the CD itself, you're paying for the information on it.

If you want a blank CD, I'll sell you one for 5 cents.

-- Homer

[baggins]

if the big fat cats at record companies wanted my dollar, they should make CD's at a reasonable price, and put out a place where i can pay reasonable prices for song downloads.

until they realize that music downloads isn't actually hurting their business, but exposing people to new music they hadn't heard before, and expanding their market, then i refuse to feel bad about downloading music or burning CD's for people.

[J_V]

god you're an idiot..god help me if I rea abother post of yours.

[Boris]

It's precisely because of the fact that music downloads expose people to new music that recording industry hates the the practice. You don't hear any of the Indy lables complaining about Kazaa. The people who bitch about are the washed up loser acts like Metallica and Garth Brooks.

[Boris]

[ QUOTE ]
It's bound to be better for our economy!

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe you can try to explain this line of reasoning. I think you're dead wrong.

[adios]

I think your analogy about stealing a pair of jeans is exactly right FWIW. As a consummer if the price is too high you don't buy but it doesn't give you a right to steal. What did I miss here? Also there are companies providing music and video downloading for a fee. Can anyone prove that free downloads have increased sales and/or profits of music as some have opined?

I'll let you answer Boris's question but if intellectual property isn't protected I can see how eventually it puts a damper on economic growth.

[nicky g]

Don't you guys know all property is theft? Time to read up on your Proudhon.

That said I'll defend my PS2 with my wife. I mean my life. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[Nottom]

[ QUOTE ]
As a consummer if the price is too high you don't buy but it doesn't give you a right to steal.

[/ QUOTE ]

What I think is ironic about the whole music downloading issue, is that the consumers have spoken by not buying overpriced CDs. Instead of reducing the price of the CDs and seeing if that helps their sales, the music companies instead have chosen to spend millions of dollars hunting down teenagers and grandmothers and raising prices in order to pay for it all.

[adios]

"What I think is ironic about the whole music downloading issue, is that the consumers have spoken by not buying overpriced CDs."

Why buy when you can download for free? This is what the music companies are arguing anyway.

"Instead of reducing the price of the CDs and seeing if that helps their sales, the music companies instead have chosen to spend millions of dollars hunting down teenagers and grandmothers and raising prices in order to pay for it all."

Again why would anybody buy music if they can download it for free and burn their own CD's? Seems like a price cut would be futile. It will be interesting to see how these online subscription sites do.

I don't see how the music companies are going to stem this tide. First of all Kazaa isn't the only site. Second of all there are other ways to "network" in obtaining free music like email lists. My step daughter told me yesterday that she download quite a few songs and even a movie from Kazaa yesterday. Perhaps this is the price these companies will pay for possibly keeping prices too high for too long. I say possibly because I don't really know. It still seems like theft to me though.

[baggins]

Boris: you are correct. there are no indie labels complaining. the filesharing thing has boosted their sales tremendously.

i don't care if it is stealing.

however, personally, i have bought MORE CD's that i wouldn't have bought otherwise because i was able to download a few tracks from different bands and see which ones i liked. then i went out and purchased them. why did i purchase them?

1 - because i believe that i SHOULD support artists i do like with my money. most of the stuff i listen to is made by musicians who live on shoestring budgets while touring and hoping to make enough from album and tshirt sales to eat dinner and have gas to get to the next show. i believe that i should support them.

2-i prefer to have the artwork and liner notes that come with cd's. sometimes a CD has a DVD feature to it as well.

3-you can't always find every track from a CD on the filesharing programs. and the quality of those tracks is fair at best. not nearly CD quality. half the time stuff gets cut off halfway through the song, or there are bits of 'fuzz' in the song, etc.

The bigwigs of the music biz made a poor choice in my opinion. instead of making their product better, and lowering their prices to a fair price (didn't you guys hear about the price fixing scam that the big labels were involved in to jack up the prices of CD's?), they decided to use a court to go after kids who downloaded songs. they are losing respect every day, and after all this is over, they will have lost a lot of busines. however, i won't shed one f*cking tear for them because they'll still be raking it in on all the overpriced crap they are selling.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's bound to be better for our economy!

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe you can try to explain this line of reasoning. I think you're dead wrong.


[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the opportunity to elaborate Boris. Stealing adds nothing to our economy, so lock up the thieves. Drug users add to the underground economy so assuming that the money spent is not simply hoarded and stuffed in a mattress the economy is strengthened. I imagine if you told all the drug users under what conditions they were being released many of them would buy a CD or two in appreciation. This would surely help the economy (consumer spending = good for the economy, theft = bad for the economy). Really pretty straightforward stuff.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
god you're an idiot..god help me if I rea abother post of yours.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me see if my only two choices were idiot or thief I'd gladly choose idiot. If stealing copyrighted music is OK why would collusion at the poker table be any different? How about bank robbery? Just what and who determines what is OK to steal and what isn't? If it is you or others of your ilk I'll use my own better judgement instead.

[baggins]

"Let me see if my only two choices were idiot or thief I'd gladly choose idiot."

this would, however, be the choice of an idiot.

i'm not calling you an idiot, but there ya go.

personally, I'd rather be a smart thief than a moron who follows the rules...

[daryn]

come on man, he's not an idiot. no need for stupid name calling here..

i totally hear what he's saying. i think it's unreasonable how much they charge, but it's their product. i can charge you a million dollars for a homemade apple pie, but you don't have to buy it! even if it IS the best damn pie in the world


grow up chief

[Homer]

god you're an idiot..god help me if I rea abother post of yours.

Actually, you are coming across as the idiot.

-- Homer

[Boris]

I'm not going to argue about whether or not downloading music is illegal. My view is that technology giveth and technology taketh away. Any artist that doesn't want their songs downloaded shouldn't distribute their music on CD. They can play live concerts and earn their money.

While your arguments about what is good for the economy may carry some populist appeal, I find them to be lacking in logic. You say consumer spending is good for the economy. How about consumer spending on burglar alarms? Is that good for the economy?

[adios]

"I'm not going to argue about whether or not downloading music is illegal."

Why not?

"My view is that technology giveth and technology taketh away. Any artist that doesn't want their songs downloaded shouldn't distribute their music on CD. They can play live concerts and earn their money."

You mean anyone that doesn't want their music downloaded for free shouldn't distribute their music on CD.

"While your arguments about what is good for the economy may carry some populist appeal, I find them to be lacking in logic. You say consumer spending is good for the economy. How about consumer spending on burglar alarms? Is that good for the economy?"

Sure it is Boris, why wouldn't it be?

Here's an article regarding music copyrights, the history and MP3:

MP3 v. the Law: How the Internet Could (But Won't) Become Your Personal Jukebox (http://www.gigalaw.com/articles/2000-all/ghosh-2000-07-all.html)

MP3 v. the Law: How the Internet Could (But Won't) Become Your Personal Jukebox

Introduction

SEE ALSO
Behind the Music Files: The MP3 Legal Controversy

The Basics of U.S. Copyright Law

Questions and Answers About the Napster Case
The Internet has largely been seen as a vast resource on which information can be stored and retrieved, a digital library available at one's fingertips. But not only does the Internet have the potential to replace your public library, it also can provide another way to distribute and access entertainment.

Right now, the legal debate centering on digital music technology pits the Internet against the music industry in cases against Napster, MP3.com and Diamond Rio. The next generation of cases will bring movie and television studios into the fray. Broadcast and cable networks will not be far behind. How these future cases will be decided will depend on how the law deals with the MP3 technology, technically known as MPEG-1 Audio Layer 3.

If the Internet can be turned into your own personal jukebox, then one day it may also be your own movie theater and television station as well. For those with such hopes, I have to bring the bad news that things might not work out so nicely. On the brighter side, music distribution (as well as distribution of other forms of entertainment) will in part be liberated. The law cannot hold in check the forces of open distribution and access made possible by the new music and upcoming video technologies.

The History of Copyright Protection for Music

To understand the current cases, let's go back to the very beginning, pre-Thomas Edison, when if you wanted to listen to or perform a song, you had to have access to the sheet music and the necessary instrument. The legal status of such performances was uncertain. While the songwriter and music composer would have copyrights in the work, the extent of permissible use was vague.

The earliest technological innovation in the music industry illustrates the uncertainty. In 1908, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that music encoded in the piano roll of an automatic player piano was not a copy and hence did not open the user to liability for infringement.

This ruling left open the possibility that sound recordings could be protected under federal copyright law. Indeed, many states, with California being the leader, provided protection against piracy of sound recordings under state law. And, in 1973, the Supreme Court upheld these state statutes. The gap in federal copyright law was filled with the passage of the 1976 Copyright Act, which provided protection for all expressive works that were fixed in a tangible medium of expression. Under this definition, a piano roll would be protected as would music encoded in vinyl, audiotape, or later digitized on a CD-ROM.

The issue still open, however, is when does the personal use of music constitute infringement of the author's copyright? The 1976 Copyright Act protects the rights of the owner of the copyrighted music to make copies of the music, to prepare derivative works from the music, to distribute copies of the music and to display and perform the musical work publicly.

The 1998 amendments to the 1976 Copyright Act under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act also grant to the copyright owner the right to perform sound recordings through the means of digital audio transmission. These rights, largely enforced through BMI and ASCAP, allow the copyright owner to prevent, for example, a musical band from playing her song without obtaining permission and paying royalties.

An infamous case in 1996 involved BMI/ASCAP trying to enforce the copyrights held in musical songs against performances by the Girl Scouts. BMI and ASCAP backed off after negative publicity, and Congress responded with exemptions for the Girl Scouts and the Boy Scouts.

Uses of musical work and sound recordings can be protected by the "fair use doctrine," which excuses infringement of copyright in certain situations. A New York federal court found such a situation when it dismissed copyright infringement claims brought by Irving Berlin against Mad Magazine, for publishing parody songs to be sung to the tune of famous Irving Berlin numbers. The court analogized the situation to singing the songs in the shower.

Although the Irving Berlin case was decided under the 1909 Copyright Act, fair use has now been codified in the 1976 Act with four explicit factors: the nature of the use, the amount taken, the nature of the work infringed and the effect on the market for the work. The Supreme Court applied the fair-use factors in a case brought by Roy Orbison against Two Live Crew for use of the music from a country ballad named "Oh, Pretty Woman" in a rap song called "Pretty Woman." The Court ruled that parody would be a factor to consider in determining whether the use was fair.

The music industry distributes music not only through the sale of sound recordings but also through broadcast on radio and television. Sales to movie producers for use as soundtracks also is a form of distribution. But an equally prevalent means of distributing music is through jukeboxes. Until the passage of the 1976 Copyright Act, jukebox owners and users had an implied immunity from infringement under the law. The immunity stemmed in part from the 1908 ruling in the piano roll case that denied copyright protection to sound recordings. While the jukebox owner would have to pay a fee for purchasing the jukebox containing the vinyl records, there was no fee required each time a customer would play a song.

The 1976 Copyright Act, which protected sound recordings and their public performance against infringement, provided a major concession to jukebox owners. The Act permitted the continued performance of sound recordings subject to a compulsory license between the copyright owner and the jukebox owner. The compulsory license, administered by the Copyright Office, allowed the jukebox owner to continue use but for a minimal royalty per performance.

In the 1980s, the compulsory license provision was challenged by the music industry as placing the United States in violation of its treaty obligations under the Berne Convention, which sets minimum standards for copyright protection and fair use among its member nations. Specifically, Article 11 of the Berne Convention required exclusive rights in public performance rights. As a result, Congress amended the 1976 Copyright Act in 1988 to replace the compulsory license provision with a voluntarily negotiated license provision, which required the copyright owner and the jukebox owner to negotiate in good faith over the terms of license. The Copyright Office acted in an oversight capacity to ensure that the negotiation went through. Should negotiations break down, a compulsory license would be provided. Then, in 1993, the compulsory licensing provisions were completely eliminated, making all licenses with jukebox owners voluntarily negotiated ones.

The Threat of MP3

Where do the current developments with MP3 fit into this background? The technology presented by MP3 allows for digital compression of sound recordings, which means that large musical scores can be saved on easily storable and transmittable files. Furthermore, the digitization of music allows for perfect copies at all generations, unlike the traditional analog format, which ensured that every copy would be a degraded form of the original and that subsequent copies would be even further degraded.

Music stored in the MP3 format permits a rival to the traditional forms of music distribution: individuals sending computer files containing music through the Internet. Should these people be considered pirates or not? And if not, to what extent should the uses be permitted?

As to the piracy question, the issue rests in part on analogies with other technological innovations that posed a threat to traditional distributors of information. The MP3 technology could be analogized to the photocopier, which allowed individuals to make and sell copies of books, undercutting the market for the original publication. The clear distinction is that photocopiers resulted in degraded copies; MP3 permits the creation of exact replicas of the original. Furthermore, photocopying is readily detectible, but because of its ability to replicate exact originals, the use of MP3 technology is more difficult to detect and prevent. Photocopying is regulated by application of fair-use principles and is allowed within limits; because of the nature of MP3 technology, stricter regulations might be required to protect copyright owners.

The analogy with video recorders is also tenuous. Although video recording can produce exact replicas, its use can be detected. Video recording is protected by fair-use principles and is allowed within limits. The Supreme Court restricted these limits to what it termed "time shifting," allowing the viewer to watch a broadcast show at a more convenient time. But the use of MP3 permits more than time shifting. It allows the playing of whole songs repeatedly and the compilation of a whole medley of songs for redistribution and public performance. When analogies fail, the law has to come up with fresh answers.

Congress responded to part of the threat now posed by MP3 when it enacted the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992. The impetus for this legislation was the development of Digital Audio Recording Technology (DART), which permitted users to make compact-disc recordings.

The MP3 Lawsuits: Diamond Rio, MP3.com and Napster

In 1999, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) launched the first salvo in the war against MP3 by seeking to enjoin, or stop, the use of the Rio, a portable music player manufactured and sold by Diamond Multimedia Systems, under the Audio Home Recording Act. The Rio was a device that could be plugged into a personal computer. The user could make copies of MP3 files from a hard drive or from the Internet and store them on a Rio player to play back later.

The RIAA claimed that because Rio did not conform to the Serial Copy Management System, an industry standard for detecting and restricting digital copies, it violated the Audio Home Recording Act. Diamond argued, and both the district court of California and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit agreed, that Rio was not covered by the Audio Home Recording Act, because it was not a digital audio recording device. The court of appeals, in affirming the district court, concluded that a handheld device capable of receiving, storing and re-playing digital audio files stored on the hard drive of a personal computer and that did not record directly from digital music recordings was not a device covered by the Act because the device permitted only indirect reproductions of transmissions. As a result, the RIAA could not stop the distribution and use of the Rio player, and today MP3 players are in widespread use.

The Diamond case addressed solely the issue of the use of the Rio player, not the legality of MP3 files. If, however, the use of MP3 files were found illegal, then the use of the Rio player could also be challenged as facilitating infringement.

The issue of whether MP3 files themselves constituted copyright infringement came in front of the district court of New York this year in a challenge brought by owners of copyrights in musical recordings against MyMP3.com, an Internet company that created and stored MP3 files for its subscribers. The Internet company claimed that its use of the MP3 files were protected by the fair use doctrine, no different from video recording.

The company's service allowed users who had legitimately purchased CD recordings of music to store their CDs on the Internet as MP3 files to be played later, either on the computer or on devices like the Rio player. The plaintiffs alleged that the conversion of the music into MP3 files was illegal copying that violated their rights, under copyright law, to copy and distribute the musical work. The court agreed and also dismissed the Internet company's argument that such copying was fair use. The court found that the company's motivation was commercial, that it copied entire recordings, and that the use violated the copyright owners' rights to enter the Internet distribution market directly. The Internet company's arguments that such use permitted "space shifting," analogous to the convenience and time shifting permitted in the Supreme Court's video recording case, were rejected. "Copyright," the court stated, "is not designed to afford consumer protection or convenience but, rather, to protect the copyrightholders' property interests."

MyMP3.com recently settled the case with the recording companies, in lieu of appealing the decision. However, the court's ruling still stands, with the implication that the use of Rio player to play MP3 files may constitute copyright infringement.

The third part of the MP3 trilogy is presented by the case against Napster brought by the recording industry in December 1999. In May 2000, a federal district court in Northern California denied Napster's motion for summary judgment, claiming immunity under Section 512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Then, in a dramatic series of legal events in late July 2000, the district court judge issued a preliminary injunction that effectively would have required Napster to shut down its service; two days later, the U.S. Court of Appeals stayed the injunction, allowing Napster to continue its service uninterrupted.

Napster provides its subscribers with a search engine to locate MP3 music files on the Internet and a mechanism for retrieving and playing the desired files. The company claimed that its liability for copyright infringement should be limited by subsection 512(a) of the DMCA, which limits liability "for infringement by reason of the [service] provider's transmitting, routing, or providing connections for, material through a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider, or by reason of the intermediate and transient storage of that material in the course of such transmitting, routing, or providing connections." In short, this provision limits the liability of an Internet service provider for acts of copyright infringement committed by its users.

However, five conditions have to be met for subsection 512(a) to be applicable. An ISP's liability is limited if:

* the user, not the service provider, initiated the transmission;
* the service provider automatically provides the material sought by the user without selection of the material;
* the service provider does not select the recipients of the material;
* the service provider does not maintain a permanent copy of the material for longer than a reasonable period necessary for the recipient to retrieve the copy; and
* the service provider does not modify the content of the materials

In denying Napster's motion for summary judgment, the court ruled that Napster could not make use of these safe harbors for two reasons. First, the court found that Napster "does not transmit, route or provide connections through its system" and therefore is not an ISP. Napster's role was not that of a passive conduit for information; instead, Napster provided the means to find and retrieve copyrightable material. Second, the court pointed to section 512(i) of the DMCA, which requires an ISP to maintain a copyright compliance policy if it wants to take advantage of the safe harbor. Even if Napster were a provider, the court concluded, its copyright compliance policy was inadequate.

Legal Analysis and Predictions

The technology of MP3 files, combined with the Rio player and the Internet distribution models of Napster and MyMP3.com, presents the possibility of the Internet being used as a personal jukebox. But the legal standard for this emerging standard is not as lenient as it has traditionally been for jukeboxes. The recording industry has perhaps learned from its past mistakes and has used copyright law effectively. Furthermore, Article 11 of the Berne Convention, although not officially invoked in the cases discussed, is arguably on the side of the recording industry.

However, fair-use principles should not be ignored. MyMP3.com's arguments about convenience are consistent with arguments accepted and advanced by the Supreme Court in its finding that home video recording is fair use when it permitted time shifting. The difference between recording via a VCR and recording through the technology available on the Internet is on the surface a superficial one. The problem, however, is one of identifying the source of the copied material. For video recording, broadcast stations and cable controlled the input. To broadcast the work, the companies had to obtain permission by either negotiating with the copyright owner or by obtaining the copyright itself.

With the transmission of MP3 files, the problem arises of identifying the provider of the content. If pirated files are distributed through the Internet, the originators may be impossible to identify. Programs such as Napster may be aiding in the distribution of pirated work. However, the problem of distributing pirated works is not a concern with distribution models like MyMP3.com, which provided the service of storing and retrieving songs that the user had legitimately purchased. What difference should it make whether a user who has bought a CD plays it on a CD player at home or through MyMP3.com anywhere? The court was wrong in not finding fair use in the MyMP3.com case. The Napster case is more questionable.

Through the trilogy of cases involving Rio, MyMP3.com, and Napster, the courts have developed a body of law that seems hostile to users of the MP3 technology. Debate will continue and the technology will evolve in its sophistication and applications. But perhaps in the long run, the legal system, whether through courts or legislatures, will converge on a model that has seemed to work for jukeboxes, a system of licensing administered either as a compulsory license scheme or as a voluntarily negotiated license scheme. While the beginning of the twentieth century was marked by relative weak protection for the music industry, the protections have increased at the century's end. But one way or another, the band will continue to play and the piper will be paid.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not going to argue about whether or not downloading music is illegal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now that is a good idea since it is illegal. Should it be? Maybe or maybe not. If you wish it to be otherwise vote out your congressmen and elect someone who agrees with your views.

[ QUOTE ]
My view is that technology giveth and technology taketh away. Any artist that doesn't want their songs downloaded shouldn't distribute their music on CD. They can play live concerts and earn their money.

[/ QUOTE ]

How about if a group of musicians decides it would be kinda cool to rob your home everyday while you are at work cause they think you are overpaid. You could always get a job where you work at home so you can guard your stuff, right? How do you like that idea? Not very well I'd imagine. How about those of us who are willing to buy the CD's? Doesn't our opinion count as well?


[ QUOTE ]
While your arguments about what is good for the economy may carry some populist appeal, I find them to be lacking in logic. You say consumer spending is good for the economy. How about consumer spending on burglar alarms? Is that good for the economy?

[/ QUOTE ]

So you say it is logical to steal from the musicians because you can but it is illogocal for me to want thieves locked up! Somethoing is certainly wrong with this picture. At any rate a burglar alarm will not stop you from stealing music now will it? No less burglar alarms will be sold, we will still have common thiefs so the added CD sales will certainly add to our economy. I am just suggesting we lock up a few hundred thousand music pirates in exchange for some minor drug offenders. IMHO it woild be quite logical and much more fair. The drug user doesn't harm me or cost me money, however the music thieves cost me money everytime I purchase music legally. If the drug user robs someone to support his habit, back in he goes.

[Michael Davis]

The problem with your philosophy is that YOU determine what is overpriced. If nobody purchased CDs at their current price, the price would come down. Supply and demand. Capitalism. Etc., etc.

Many things are overpriced. This doesn't give you the right to steal them. You exercise consumerism by choosing not to purchase them, and thus not to have them. If you must have something, you must pay the price asked.

Stealing doesn't solve the problem. Suppose I think the price you are selling your house for is too high?

-Mike

[Glenn]

The reason stealing is wrong is because you take something from someone else and then he doesn't have it anymore. If you could walk up to some guy's Mercedes, touch it, and then have a new one for yourself (while leaving his intact), it is quite a bit different than just taking his. So it is nothing like taking a pair of jeans from the store because you think they are too expensive. It is like pressing a magic button that makes a new pair of your own, without affecting the original or consuming any resources. There is an arguement for music sharing to be illegal, but thinking it is a moral one is ignorant.

[Jim Kuhn]

[ QUOTE ]
Let me see if my only two choices were idiot or thief I'd gladly choose idiot.

[/ QUOTE ]

How come I did not get no choice. It seems like the only ones that say they wood choos to be a thefe arent alreedy idiots. My techers always told me I got to ride the short bus was cause I was very special.

[Ray Zee]

you are kinda taking his potential income from his work. it might be analogous to maybe something you might create and then someone just copies it and gives it away or sells it themselves.
say for instance you got a great picture the news would pay for. then someone saw it on your desk and copied it and sold it before you. or gave it away and made its value nil.
i think its stealing in a sense and also wrong. but i hate the music industry for their practices and hope they get it good.

[Vehn]

Has anyone ever been arrested for downloading music from a peer to peer network?

[Moyer]

Personally, I wouldn't pay for any of the songs that I have downloaded because they're way overpriced. If I couldn't download them I'd just listen to them on the radio. So really I'm getting a little bit of convenience for free by downloading them and I'm not costing the music industry a dime.

I don't think it's really hurting the economy either. Do you think CD & DVD burners would be this popular if it wasn't for file sharing? What about MP3 players?

Besides that, the only people that get pissed off are rediculously rich record labels and bands like Metallica(who I used to respect) that in turn have their fans arrested.

Maybe this is all just my way of rationalizing it, but that's how I feel.

[Moyer]

By the way, if anyone wants to toss a difinition of bit torrent my way it would quench my curiosity.

[Boris]

[ QUOTE ]
"While your arguments about what is good for the economy may carry some populist appeal, I find them to be lacking in logic. You say consumer spending is good for the economy. How about consumer spending on burglar alarms? Is that good for the economy?"

Sure it is Boris, why wouldn't it be?


[/ QUOTE ]

Well if spending on burglar alarms is good for the economy and the threat of burglary causes people to spend money on burglar alarms, then burglars must be good for the economy. A theft is really only a transfer of wealth so there is no loss to the economy from the act of theivery. And since the theivery causes more spending to occur, then it (theivery) must be good for economy.

Just to make it clear, I don't actually with this line of reasoning; I'm just trying to illustrate how some flaws in Wake's line of thinking.