by Stephen Hinkle

The Music industry has been putting a lot of pressure on colleges to help them stop music piracy, especially in the form of file sharing in college dormitories. The industry sends thousands of copyright notices to universities a week, according to web sources. In addition, the record labels and movie studios are sending threatening letters, claiming they will sue colleges who do not block access to peer-to-peer file sharing networks such as KaZaa Media Desktop, Gnutella, Opennap, and Blubster. The music industry also blames high school students, because most of them use P2P networks and burn custom mixed CDs using MP3 files.

The campus anti-piracy campaign has gone so far, that the RIAA, MPAA, and others have hired “copyright spy police” such as MediaDefender, NetPD, OverPeer, Vidius, BayTSP, and others to essentially “wiretap” student’s internet uplinks, and shared directories for MP3 files. Some even launch denial of service attacks, to “clog” P2P uplinks. These actions resulted in some students blocking IP ranges of known copyright spy police, at their firewall level, or using proxy servers to avoid being spied on. The companies that do this, could potentially cause fourth amendment issues for the student.

For these reasons, blaming the students may make since for the music industry lawyers. However, the music and movie industries have not asked the question “Why do students use P2P so much?” For this, we need to look at the nature of an average student.

Most students these days have a very low income. Most kids in high school, have entry level, minimum wage jobs. Most college students also have low wage jobs. In addition, the cost of college is very high. This means, most students have to use their limited incomes for things like rent, books, tuition, and other expenses associated with college. This leaves the average student very little budget for fun and entertainment.

For Entertainment, the student has many choices on what they can do for entertainment, such as Music CDs, DVDs, Going to the movies, Going out to dinner, going to a bar, video games, bowling, and others. Because of the small budget, they can only afford to do a very small number of the choices for fun every month. So, the student could choose between buying a CD, or going to the movies, or saving for a Playstation 2. Suppose the student wants to save for a Playstation 2. This would mean that his/her money would not go to buying CDs.

Because of these budget issues, most college kids cannot afford to spend $15.00 or $20.00 to get a CD, when they want just one or two good songs on it. This cost prohibition forces the students to look for other alternatives to get music, when they cannot really afford it. Some ways the students get their music is to copy CDs from their friends’, and make custom mixed discs using MP3 files from P2P services.

The labels responded with subscription services that are limited in catalog, and employ digital rights management technology that restricts what the user can do with the files they download. However, most people, including college students rejected these services, because of the limited catalog, and the use restrictions. Some of the restrictions include extra fees to burn tracks, or keep tracks for extended lengths of time, and files that are incompatible with most MP3 players. Most students cannot afford to pay twice for their music (once to download it, and then a second fee to burn it to CD). Right now, peer-to-peer services such as KaZaa Media Desktop and LimeWire are no comparison to any label subscription service out there, in terms of Catalog and File Usability.

However, most college students I have talked to at my campus, San Diego State University in San Diego, CA reported that they would be willing to pay a small price for music downloads, so that that the artists and songwriters can make a living. Many students say they would be willing to pay between $3.00 and $12.00 per month, for music downloads, if they were in non-encrypted MP3 format, and they were CD burnable, could be kept indefinitely, and it was easy to get their favorite major label hits of many genres. They also reported that they would like to see the artists and songwriters getting a bigger share of the pie from the online revenues, than the labels.

The music industry needs to do something more proactive, than just “spying” on users through companies like MediaDefender and NetPD, and sending out DMCA takedown notices, and turning colleges and universities into copyright police, and blaming students for its problems. One solution would be to give students a good price on MP3 Files. In addition, they should have an option for high school students to be able to pay online, who are too young to have a credit card. Another option, would be to license the university and add a fee to their dorm rental that includes royalties for downloaded music.

I feel that if the industry keeps up doing what they are doing to students, it will reduce their customer base in the long run even more. People do not want to buy from companies that threaten to cut off their internet access, sue them, or put them in jail for file sharing.

High School and college students love music, just like anyone else does, and should be able to enjoy music without being alienated by it.

The record industry has reduced supply for the past three years. Now they're eroding the demand.

It's just bad business.

First post!!

I totally agree. though there is a mix up between High chool students and University students...

ok, maybe not first post, anyway, i thought of something...
if the RIAA was smart, they would by out Sharman Networks and Grokster and keep kazaa and grokster going with the ads and spyware, and take the money form monthly checks from ads... If i was the RIAA i would do that, but then again the RIAA is not as gifted as me...

If Kazaa was smart, they would send the RIAA a bill for promotional services.

Those names seem familiar. My firewall currently blocks...

OverPeer 64.15.228.160-64.15.228.190
OverPeer 65.174.0.0-65.174.255.255
OverPeer 65.160.0.0-65.160.1.255
Ranger 216.122.15.255-216.122.255.255
Ranger 204.92.244.0-204.92.244.255
MediaForce 65.192.0.0-65.192.0.255
MediaForce 65.223.0.0-65.223.255.255
MediaForce 4.43.96.0-4.43.96.255
MediaForce 4.43.124.192-4.43.124.255
MediaForce 65.217.219.0-65.217.219.255
MediaForce 65.247.105.240-65.247.105.255
MediaDefender 66.79.0.0-66.79.255.255
MediaDefender 64.225.202.0-64.225.202.126
RIAA 208.225.90.0-208.225.90.255
RIAA 12.150.191.0-12.150.191.255
RIAA 208.192.0.0-208.192.255.255
MPAA 63.199.57.96-63.199.57.111
MPAA 64.166.187.128-64.166.187.158
MPAA 198.70.114.0-198.70.114.255
MPAA 209.67.0.0-209.67.255.255
NetPD 128.241.0.0-128.241.255.255
C&DCop 64.106.170.128-64.106.170.158
BayTSP 209.122.130.0-209.122.130.255
BayTSP 209.204.128.0-209.204.189.255
BayTSP 209.204.190.3-209.204.191.255
Vidius 207.155.128.0-207.155.255.255
Xupiter.com 63.236.32.0-63.236.32.62
Xupiter.com 63.208.235.30
GAIN 64.94.89.0-64.94.89.255
GAINCME 66.35.247.0-66.35.247.255
GAINCME 66.35.299.0-66.35.229.255
gd17.doubleclick.net 209.67.38.99
md1.doubleclick.net 204.178.112.170
gd11.doubleclick.net 205.138.3.62
doubleclick.net 199.95.207.0
doubleclick.net 199.95.208.0
ads22.focalink.com 216.52.13.39
ads22.focalink.com 216.52.13.23
R.R. Donnelly 207.79.74.222
Cyveillance 63.148.99.224-63.148.99.255
Cyveillance 65.118.41.192-65.118.41.255
DoD Network Information Center 214.0.0.0 - 214.255.255.255
DoD Network Information Center 215.0.0.0 - 215.255.255.255
Federal Bureau of Investigation - CJIS 153.31.0.0 - 153.31.255.255
Warner Music Group 216.52.242.0 - 216.52.242.255
Warner Music Group 206.245.128.0 - 206.245.128.255
Government Of The Province Of Ontario 142.145.0.0-142.145.255.255
NameProtect 12.148.209.192-12.148.209.255
IDSA 216.194.192.0-216.194.255.255
SPA 207.95.37.0-207.95.37.255
APG 213.150.32.0-213.150.63.255
MSN Messenger pop-up 200.59.91.10
MSN Messenger pop-up 200.163.190.151
BSA.org 128.121.215.173
BSA.org.tr 212.98.253.0-212.98.253.255
BSA.org.tw 202.39.48.0-202.39.48.255
BSA.co.za 196.2.147.241
BSA.si 212.18.32.20
BSA.sk 81.0.202.0-81.0.202.255
BSA.lv 195.13.160.32-195.13.160.63
BSA.or.jp 61.197.225.96-61.197.225.111
BSA.hu 212.105.232.128-212.105.232.159
BSA.cz 194.213.210.0-194.213.210.255
BSA.hr 195.29.168.0-195.29.168.255
CAAST.org 207.139.69.0-207.139.69.255
BSA.or.at,.de,.ch 195.243.162.0-195.243.162.255
BSAA.com.au 203.147.240.0-203.147.240.255
BSA.ee 212.107.32.152
BSA.it 195.14.162.14
BSAPERU.org 200.4.218.38
CHINESEBSA.org 210.77.158.57
US Department of Justices 149.101.0.0-149.101.255.255

THASP could i copy and paste those addresses into my sygate firewall ??? or do i need to load them another way

its funny how they they b*tch at us for downloading illegal music then hack into our computers and servers.

There you have it. A list of the groups that have used the DMCA to erode our constitutional freedom in the name of copyright protection.

First, I don't think college students are really so poor that they have to sacrifice a weekend of fun for a CD. They have a small fixed income and can't just go out buying all the time, but they are not scratching for peanuts either.

Other than that, I think Stephen had some good ideas. I'm sure that someone with the labels has thought of some of this, but I really think there were a lot of good ideas put up. You should really e-mail this article to the labels.

Doug, how old are you? And are you currently, or ever have been a college student? A lot of students are paying their own way through college. Working full a full time job, trying to pay any bills that they have, etc... I think that situation accurately describes a lot of students. They are scratching for peanuts.

Doug thinks it's all about the money and that we should pay for mp3s no matter what the copyright owner thinks. On another post he made yesterday or today (the Jewel article), he said,

"As long as anyone’s music is just given away for free, regardless of the owner’s wishes, I will always be against them."

Giving him the benefit of the doubt, let's say I'm twisting his words. Maybe he meant to say "against the owner's wishes" and just chose the wrong word.

On one hand, I understand that point of view. But the labels are the owners, not the creators. I think the person that creates the music should have some say in it.

ASCAP is lobbying against downloading in Washington on my behalf but they never asked my opinion. They are stealing my songs to use for the profit of others. I trusted them to protect my music from the record labels and they are delivering it into the hands of the RIAA.

At this point in time, the only way to protect my music from being used as evidence to prosecute consumers is to stop writing and performing. Copyrighting a song no longer protects it, but merely enables it to be used to advance the interests of the labels.

The authors need a way to opt out of the DMCA provisions before the labels even see our songs. We need a way to bypass the use of our songs in the consumer witch hunt without giving up the protection against plagiarism.

Unless this happens, I'll never be happy.
And I'll never write another song.

mr. hinkle,

I wold like to take issue with a few things you wrote.

stephen hinkle wrote Most students these days have a very low income. ... This leaves the average student very little budget for fun and entertainment.

well, I think where your point here fails a bit is that you ignore history. historically, that age bracket, while perhaps not very high on the expendable incoome ladder does spend a large percentage of what they get on music and entertainment. they are active consumers and unlike older consumers, much more, dare I say mallaeable ones. they're open to new artists more than other age groups.

if this group were so afflicted financially I daresay that the record companies would be doubly idiotic in trying to keep them as paying consumers. why no just ignore them and concentrate on the people who really spend the money?

the answer is, they are the ones who spend the money, who set the trends and help fuel the market.

stephen hinkle wrote Because of these budget issues, most college kids cannot afford to spend $15.00 or $20.00 to get a CD, when they want just one or two good songs on it.

ridiculous, they have done so for years. as I mentioned above, the issue here is that there is an alternative. not that they cannot afford the "legal" product offered for sale.

stephen hinkle wrote Right now, peer-to-peer services such as KaZaa Media Desktop and LimeWire are no comparison to any label subscription service out there, in terms of Catalog and File Usability.

in this, you are absolutely correct. the labels have stumbled and fallen (and yes, they cannot get back up). they've utterly failed to offer a decent, competitive product.

and that is exclusively the fault of the labels.

stephen hinkle wrote Many students say they would be willing to pay between $3.00 and $12.00 per month, for music downloads, if they were in non-encrypted MP3 format, and they were CD burnable, could be kept indefinitely, and it was easy to get their favorite major label hits of many genres.

I think many people would pay for this service. of course, the labels have made a conscious decision to ignore this business model and stick to the gravy train they've been riding since the beginning of the last century.

stephen hinkle wrote The music industry needs to do something more proactive...

yes sir they do. and they should. but as long as consumers keep buying cds and as long as pliant legislators continued to follow the riaa line, the record companies will continue to ignore the demands of the consumer and follow the path they've been on.

finally, in general, I agree. but stay focused on the real target here. it's retail as much, maybe more than the labels themselves. the retailers are the ones who stand to lose is digital delivery becomes viable. the record labels will continue to have "product" available for the consumer via either means of distribution, the old, current one or a newer, digital download version.

so who is getting cut out of the pie here?

and why?

if you want to send a message to the record labels, don't buy anything from companies such as best buy, wal-mart, tower records, or any major music retailer.

then, when that source of revenue for the labels has dried up see how fast they open the floodgates of the digital dam.



a final thought.

there's nothing dignified about stealing. don't get me wrong, I'm not necessarily against people exchanging files. I think it helps force this issue to some more reasonable conclusion than we've tried so far. just don't kid yourself. you're not robin hood because you have a few gigs of mp3's to share.

trading copyrighted files of music you never bought is stealing. I'm not scolding anyone but as I said before, don't think you occupy some higher moral ground.

rather, think of yourself as being civilly disobedient in the face of an unreasonable situation and look forward to a time, hell, fight for a time, when you can once again buy music, for a reasonable price and know that the artist who made that music is being supported by your purchase.

if you want to make difference convince your friends to to not only stop buying music but stop spending ANY money at retailers like the ones I named above.

thanks.

What I find most startling is that these "copyright spies" are launching DoS attacks. Fight illegal with illegal!

I am sure not winning any popularity contest here...oh well...

Yes, I am in college. I am a senior and I study Music Industry. I also bought around 12 CD's last year. Although I received about 5 more on top of that for free, for a total of 17, I purchased an average of one CD a month.

At the same time I don't have a job, my car's favorite hobby is breaking down, I depend on student loans and I budget like a motherF*****.

When I go out I see many of my peers buying the most expensive clothes, buying sound systems that exceed the value of their car, investing in muti-thousand dollar rims and frequenting their favorite club that has a door charge of almost $30.

I know that there are some kids who legitimately can not spend money on anything besides food, rent and books. I'm also aware that most kids have expendable income and they also have mommy and daddy backing them up. Even though some kids are dead broke all the time...to the large majority of kids who tell me they can not buy CD's, I say BullS***.

You're telling me I buy CD's monthly, bought $120 worth of concert tickets this year, I'm just as broke as you are, and you can't afford to buy CD's never ever? What crap....

Go find CD's on sale...go to used stores, hell....if you're that broke...humble yourself and buy a cassette tape of the recording. Music recordings are not priced and available to just the rich and famous.

Most kids live in dorms where they have access to high speed connections. They can download songs at tremendous speeds and burn them just as easily. It’s convenient and all right there. This all comes down to, "I don't wanna spend the money at all." If you don't want to spend the money, fine...you made your choice as a consumer. Part of your choice entails missing out...sorry...it's just the way it is. I know people don't like me, but the rules were made long before I ever showed up. This idea that college kids can not buy music is a lie and is a borderline insult. Even if this were true..I'll drop another one of my famed analogies.

If a poor person needs clothes, should he walk into a JC Penny and shoplift with justification? I mean, after all...he's poor and the clothes were made in The Republic of Poor Starving Women and Children for five cents a shirt. No, he goes to Goodwill, the Salvation Army or elsewhere. Otherwise we take him and lock him up. This example is not even applicable since college kids can buy CD's, but I thought I'd drop it in for good measure.

Oh yeah....one last thing....

It is about money. MUSIC BUSINESS....part of it is music(art) and part of it is business(money). It's the way it is and for anyone who does not like that, they should have stayed out of the industry or should consider another career.

Haydenswall...I assume you're Bill, but I hate assuming...I really feel for you man. I've always considered myself a musician first, so I really feel for you. Infact...I hope somehow you get your career up and running and can feel free to create. I’m not being sarcastic, I am actually sincere….But this idea that I am greedy is way off.

I want to see people pay for the music they listen to. Does it make me greedy because I think someone should pay for an MP3 or other listening media? As I pointed in a previous post, most people are not just downloading to check artists out. Most people seem to think MP3's are good enough to burn to CD's for listening pleasure. In this case, regardless of who's name is on the copyright, it should be paid for. For me, it's that black and white. Call me simple, stupid, greedy...whatever. That is the way I think and I am a MUSICIAN and a COLLEGE STUDENT.

I think I'm off my little soap box now...

well im not gonna pay for music thats out these days...art should be free

I remember this little saying..."There is the way things should be and there is the way things are." Art is not free. You mean to tell me that years of practice, discipline, and hours of studio time is free? Are you suggesting that a professional musician can spend entire days making music for nothing, while they have bills to pay? Hate to break this to you...but art is not free. By the way, artists need to eat and pay the bills too. It takes hard work, lots of time and thousands of dollars....and that's just talking about becoming a musician. I have not even touched on the work involved in making a record or running a label. Last I checked; the last 11 yrs of my life wasn't free. If you want to enjoy the fruits of someone else's labor, you need to pay for it. Otherwise, go make your own art.

It's nice to see the truth finally coming out. People just want things for free. Thanks for helping making the truth clear. I guess the "smoke and mirrors" have been cleared up.

My name is George Ziemann. I live at 1604 N Date Dr., Tempe, AZ 85281. My phone number is area code 480-946-2951.

I am not Bill Evans. Make no mistake about it.

My band is Hayden's Wall, hence the user name.

I am a musician and an audio engineer. I've been doing both for 30 years and I now run my own business. Go to my web site and you can see my entire resume. http://www.azoz.com

And you can download my entire CD -- ABSOLUTELY FREE. It's on the front page.

If my name is on the copyright and I want to use a song or an entire CD as a loss leader to attract business, that should be MY decision, not the RIAA's. And certainly not yours.

You have no business telling me that all mp3s should be paid for.

Get it straight. An mp3 is a promotional giveaway like a pen with my company name on it and it's cheaper to produce. As an artist and a publisher, once the CD is made, the mp3 costs NOTHING! It's even cheaper than the damn pen.

And just like the pen -- IT IS NOT STEALING IF YOU TAKE IT. THAT'S WHY I PUT IT THERE!!!

It's business. I don't need you or the RIAA or anyone else to tell me what I can and can't do with my music.

You say you're a musician. Have you created a product and tried to sell it? If not, you have no business saying what anyone should and should not do with their own music.

If so, where is YOUR ad? Let's see how you sell your music without offering samples.

And by the way, back in the Jewel thread, you started a paragraph with, "Why do we give out millions of CD's?"

We?

I wanna kill Xupiter.

doug,
based on your statement of how many CDs you bought last year, I'm assuming you are a member of BMG or Columbia House.
You know that not a single penny of that money you spent went to the artist. CD club sales don't pay the artists, all that is gravy for the record companies.

If I misinterpreted, I apologize.

doug,

as a follow up, why do you equate downloading with shoplifting. the two are in fact unrelated. If an item is shoplifted from JC Penny, that is a direct loss to the store in the form of shrinking inventory & lost sale of that item.

If I download the latest 50 Cent track, I have not deprived anyone of a tangible item for sale & it is pretty tough to prove intent ie. if I hadn't downloaded the track (or cd) was I "in the market" (defined as the willingness & ability to buy) for that particular CD.

IMHO, the RIAA fears filesharing because it gives consumers a chance to be well informed before they buy. Why are CD sales down? Consumers have listened to the crap being pushed out by the record labels & have voted "No Thanks" with their wallets.

You can't return a CD if you don't like it, but you can't "test drive" the whole thing generally speaking. What other product has that advantage?

Just to clear up any confusion thumbtack is Bill Evans. I posted the article Stephen Hinkle sent. Stephen is a college student residing in San Diego.

Haydenswall...

"I said I was assuming...but I hate assuming". What this means for slow people, is that I think you might be Bill but I'm not sure. Now that I know you're not, I don't have to wonder anymore. "We" give out CD's relates to the music industry. We=labels giving out free CD’s. I have created my own music, but I’ve never tried to sell it. By the way, I have every business saying that I don’t think music should be given away for free.

No, I do not belong to one of those clubs. Believe it or not, I purchase from e-tailers or at brick and mortar stores. I know it's unheard of these days, but I do it. I was also aware that the artist does not see anything from club sales, just to let you know.

How do I equate downloading to shoplifting? ...Because it is stealing. I know that people downloaded innocently, and don't want to believe they ever stole a thing...but they did. When you download an MP3, without permission, you have taken something that does not belong to you. Go ahead and rationalize it in anyway you can, but it's still stealing.

MP3's are a promotional item if that is how you use them. A CD can be a promotional item or a sellable product. It depends on how it is used. MP3's are the same way. This is the first time I've ever heard the "promotional item" argument, but MP3's do not become promotional items by default.

Doug, you must be living under a rock if this is the first you've heard of the promotional item arguement. It's been surfacing around at least as long as the whole napster controversy started.

This is the first time you've heard of the promotional item argument?

Then, yes, you are stupid, not merely slow.

I have personally put it in front of your face at least five times. Every time you simply ignore it.

What college do you go to anyway? I sure don't want my kid to go there because they are apparently teaching you to ignore the obvious information.

It doesn't matter if its morally right to download MP3s now - if its not, it will be soon. The music industrys going down, and im going to watch them.

Doug, have you looked at DMusic.com? This is where I'm making my posts from.

There are hundreds of songs here for free downloading, all placed here willingly by the people that wrote them or own the copyrights.

IT IS NOT STEALING!!!

It is only theft if it's unauthorized. If you went to a better school, perhaps you would have captured this minor nuance of the copyright law. Do I need to send you copies of the copyright law? Do they not have these venerable tomes in your school? Or have you just chosen to ignore the truth?

Go look at mp3.com. Thousands upon thousands of songs available for free download. All placed there by the owners.

It's not stealing. In fact, at mp3.com WE HAVE TO PAY TO GIVE OUR SONGS AWAY.

Downloading them IS NOT STEALING.

When you graduate and enter the real world, you will discover that you really didn't learn anything useful in college.

You certainly haven't so far.

Why is it that a radio station can transmit songs it owns without a liscence for the music from the record company but a person can't transmit songs from their computer from their own CDs? It's because the record companies like to pick and choose: "Which illegal process makes us money?"

To everyone else...

Doug77 is a perfect example of why authors need a separate copyright that specifically exempts the provisions of the DMCA for a particular work.

This is the only way that the authors can prevent high-minded, self-serving morons like the RIAA and anyone that buys into their bullshit from prosecuting consumers in the name of the author.

Doug assumes it is stealing because he has not bothered to question the author or the copyright owner about their intent.

Currently, we have no method to indicate our intent. If we copyright our songs to protect them from plagiarism, then post them for free download, some moron who has no stake in the business whatsoever is going to come along and try to tell our potential customers that downloading them is theft.

Doug has apparently never received an AOL CD, Never downloaded Netscape or the latest version of Internet Explorer. He does not understand this "free promotion" principle.

AOL obviously has some intellectual property that they are willing to allow to be freely shared and distributed. So does Microsoft.

But AOL does not appear willing to share things that come out of the door marked Warner Music Group.

So within the same company, there is a dichotomy. Some downloads are free. It is a matter of choice of the author or copyright owner.

Until we have a way to label our songs as DMCA-exempt, we're going to be listening to people like Hilary, I mean Doug, spouting off this nonsense in our faces.

Or we can just stop copyrighting and put our songs directly into the public domain.

Under the DMCA, there is no middle ground.

Haydenswall...

I attend one of the most recognized schools for Music Industry. On top of that, I am fully aware that MP3's are legal if the copyright owner authorized it. No, you don't have to send me a copy of the copyright law. For future reference; don't dare attack the quality of my education again. I sympathized with you concerning your plight with ASCAP, so I don't think it is fair or appropriate for you to start making cheap pot shots.

Further, I was talking about illegal downloads on Kazaa and other such sites. I seem to remember supporting what DMusic is doing and praising you for trying to use MP3's as a source of promotion. Where you got this idea that I am out to take down DMusic, I have no idea. Either we should have been more clear when we talked about MP3's being legal/illegal, or you're just coming at me with anything in an attempt to make me look bad.

"Some moron who has no stake in the business whatsoever is going to come along and try to tell our potential customers that downloading them is theft."

This was obviously directed towards me following a comment, in a previous post, telling me that unless I sell my music, I should keep my mouth shut. To this comment I replied that I do not sell my music.

Does this mean I don't have a stake in the industry? To hell I do have a stake. Once I finish school I have to get a job. The more money coming into the industry, the easier it is for me to get and keep a job if I choose to work for a label. Further, what if I want to sell my music someday? Maybe one of these days I may feel like selling some of my work. The enforcement of copyrights is not only a moral issue for me, but I do have a direct stake in it.

You're easy to read man.... You are pist off at the industry and you are directing that anger towards me. Putting down my education, calling me a moron, calling me by Hillary Rosen...saying I must be a RIAA rep or someone with a label…it goes on. You're insults are silly and do nothing for making your point. Every time you insult me your credibility and this discussion slowly turns to shit.

Since you seem to be confused on where I stand, I'll make it crystal clear.

1. Unauthorized MP3's, regardless if a corporation or the creator owns it, are illegal.

2. Authorized MP3's are just fine and dandy.

3. Independents should use MP3's on sites like DMusic.

4. The shut down of sites like Kazaa and Napster do not hurt independents. If people want indie music, they'll go to DMusic and other such sites.

To finish all this up, FacistBastard had a question.

Radio stations do have a license to transmit music. On top of this, royalties are paid for the music they play by PRO’s. With your CD, you also buy a license with that CD. This license basically says the CD is for your private use only. You can not distribute the CD, in any way, without permission. Unlicensed public performances of the CD are even illegal. I hope this helps you understand why you can’t transmit a CD on your computer without licensing it.

Ooh, you hurt me so bad....

You may potentially have a stake in the industry at some point in time.

As of today, you do not.

"As long as anyone’s music is just given away for free, regardless of the owner’s wishes, I will always be against them."

"2. Authorized MP3's are just fine and dandy. "

You are contradicting yourself.

Frankly, I could care less what you think of me. But every time you or someone like you tries to use distorted truth and misconceptions to put forth a philosphy based on utter lies and decption, I will be there to call "bullshit." If you continue to say something stupid, I will continue to point out your lack of knowledge and education in the matter.

I never said you were out to take down DMusic and I defy you to dig up a quote that says I did.

I was merely trying to enlighten you about that free promotion you say you never heard of.

I'm not pissed off at the industry, 95% of it is fine. I'm pissed off at the lobbying group known as the RIAA that represents the interests of the slave-owners of the other 5% of the musicians in this country but has somehow gained control of 100% of the market. I'm pissed off at the government for allowing five guys in suits to ruin the music business in the name of copyright.

"We" should have been more clear in our discussion? How much clearer could I be?

You are the one that has consistently ignored the truth, ignored the facts and have changed your position numerous times to validate your argument. In the story I posted on the RIAA's 2002 year-end statistics, you ignored the fact that the numbers were Net minus returns numerous times to further your misconception that units were bound to come back from the retailers.

Maybe you're not stupid. Maybe you just don't read very well.

Maybe you're just choosing to ignore facts that don't fit your "all mp3s should be paid for" stance because if that fails to come true, there will be no record labels left to work for.

I have remained steadfast to my position. Yours changes to suit the argument.

Maybe you're not stupid. But you're certainly not very thorough, not very perceptive and don't seem to be able to comprehend plain English and it was necessary to insult you to get you to acknowledge that not all mp3s are illegal.

A lot of those songs freely distributed on mp3.com do, in fact, come from the major labels. I see Bon Jovi there, Godsmack, Tom Petty, Jimmy Eat World, Linkin Park. In fact, the majors have crowded out the independents, which is why we're leaving there in droves.

If you expect to find a job working for a label (extremely questionable wisdom -- you'd be better off working for the asbestos industry), perhaps you need to do a little more research to see what they are REALLY trying to do.

The same thing as the independents. Because it works.

To paraphrase your item 1:
Authorized MP3's, regardless if a corporation or the creator owns it, are legal.

So my question to you, Mr. Music Industry College Student is this:
How is the public or the FBI supposed to know the difference? Is Bon Jovi's "Everyday" a legal download or not? If Bon Jovi and his label are distributing it for free on mp3.com, how can it be illegal on Kazaa? They've authorized free use.

If it was given to me freely and I give it to someone else freely IT IS NOT ILLEGAL. No one has profited, except Vivendi, who is charging Bon Jovi to give that song away.

Is it free or is it not? Who decides? You?

Since you weren't aware until just a few hours ago that an mp3 might be used for promotional purposes, I wouldn't expect that you have even considered the intricacies of the pros and cons of how it works.

Doug, you are digging yourself a pretty deep hole here. You might want to rethink your stance.

Doug77, you seem to be defending what the RIAA stands for - control of music - so you can't blame some here for misinterpreting your motives. It seems to me that you are trying to justify an industry that is dying by its own hand, and since you have positioned yourself to enroll in this industry, that's not sitting too well at the moment. Might be time to think about that career in trucking, eh?.

"The shut down of sites like Kazaa and Napster do not hurt independents. If people want indie music, they'll go to DMusic and other such sites."

The limitation of technology seems like a very backward thinking and totalitarian approach to solving any problem. These programs do not represent any illegal interests. You might as well say that we should have outlawed the printing press at conception because someone might use one to distribute copyrighted literature illegally.

No, I've not dug any holes.

Haydenswall, I have never changed my stance. It troubles me that people like you attack people and call them liars just because they disagree with you. That is the conduct of a child. I see small children call each other liars when they don't have facts to debate what each other are saying. So, Hayden...how does it feel to be compared to a five year old child?

My stance has been that unauthorized music should not be free from the very beginning. I've seen numerous quotes from others proclaiming how music should be free. No, it should not. My stance has never changed. That you claim it has is bullshit.

In your article you claimed that units were missing. You subtracted one number from the other and called it "unaccounted units." I read your article and reviewed both the RIAA’s numbers and your article very carefully. How the hell do you know that those units were all lost? You mean to tell me that a simple table made so that the dumbest of the dumb can read it can tell you everything about every unit sold in a five year period? You are either naive or you're using anything to further your argument.

I've kept my stance the whole time and have been truthful. You, on the other hand, resort to misconceptions, lies, and insults. Particularly, insulting me and posting the famed 4 billion dollar article.

There is an entire drove of people on here thirsty for free music and you take advantage of them by lying to them. These people want to hear anything and you make shit up to get them even more pist. How much better are you? You are preaching to the choir and lying at the same time. I bet you couldn't grab a neutral audience and argue a point, using truth that is absent of insults, if your life depended on it. The difference between you and I is that I have the balls to come on here and try to argue a point that I know is not popular. You make crap up and you cry about not writing music, ASCAP and RIAA trying to invoke sympathy. Boo hoo…..

What’s this “All MP3’s should be paid for” crap? That alone is one example of you making a lie and trying to create a misconception to discredit someone. I have said that people should pay for MP3’s, unless the copyright owner has authorized it’s free distribution. How many times have I said that? If you can not understand that after I said it a million times, then there is no use trying to explain it to you again.

My position never changed Hayden. It just pisses you off that you are trying to debate with someone who disagrees with you and has some idea about what he’s talking about. It’s a lot easier to make stuff up and have everyone follow behind you saying “right on”, isn’t it?

What is this crap……“Since you weren't aware until just a few hours ago that an mp3 might be used for promotional purposes.” Again, you are making an insult in an attempt to further your argument. Just a year ago I advised an independent artist to use MP3’s for promotional use and now you’re telling me I just found out about it a few hours ago? Whatever…. Trying to tell me what I just found out and just learned. I don’t know if I should call you arrogant, pompous or just full of shit.

I’ll attempt to answer you question about Bon Jovi before I finish. If the owner of “Everyday” authorized it to be put on MP3.com, it is legal. If it is then traded on Kazaa, I think that distribution might be illegal. Common sense tells me that it would not matter, since it was free to begin with, but I think it might still be illegal. I’m not 100% sure, so I really don’t know. I’m man enough that I can say when I’m not sure about something. In any case, I’m curious now and I’ll find out. To answer your second question, the owner and the copyright law decide if it is legal or not, I have nothing to say about Bon Jovi’s distribution.

You told me you’ll be around to tell people like me “bullshit” whenever we spout our mouth. We’ll two people can play at that. I’ll be around to discredit your ass every time you try to push a lie as fact. I’ll be there to pick you apart, push facts in your face and blow a hole in every lie you make. I’ll be there to do it because I can do more than preach to the choir, and with you, it’s one of the easiest things I’ve done. And when it’s all said and done, and the labels don’t fall like you predict, I’ll be sitting back with a smile. Cheers…..

Okay, let's take one item at a time.

March 28, 2003 @ 11:55 AM
"This is the first time I've ever heard the "promotional item" argument, but MP3's do not become promotional items by default."

March 28, 2003 @ 8:30 PM
"Just a year ago I advised an independent artist to use MP3’s for promotional use and now you’re telling me I just found out about it a few hours ago?"

Which one is the truth and which one is a lie?

"What’s this “All MP3’s should be paid for” crap? That alone is one example of you making a lie and trying to create a misconception to discredit someone. I have said that people should pay for MP3’s, unless the copyright owner has authorized it’s free distribution. How many times have I said that?"

This makes once.

Here's what you were saying before.

"Even as a musician I am and was against sites like Napster. As long as anyone’s music is just given away for free, regardless of the owner’s wishes, I will always be against them."

Look up "regardless."

On the RIAA stats story, I did not defend my conclusions here and did not question yours. I merely stated the fact that your ignored the obvious.

The original story says...
"Manufacturer's Unit Shipments
In Millions, net after returns"

You responded...
" Like davepike1 said, most of the units in the final chart posted by Bill were probably returned to the company. When a store gets a shipment, they are able to return unsold units. It's logical that not every unit produced and shipped will actually be purchased.

For Bill's calculations to really be complete he'd have to figure out how many units were shipped to retailers, subtract how many were sold from that number and then subtract how many were returned."

Doesn't it say at the top "By George Ziemann"?
But you missed that, apparently.

I responded, "And apparently some of you missed my note above. THE NUMBERS ARE NET AFTER RETURNS."

After which you replied...
"Isn’t it reasonable to think that there are units that have been shipped that are still unsold and in the possession of the retailer? This means we would be talking about a number that does not appear on the chart. We would be talking about units that are still on the retailer's shelf waiting to be sold"

You ignored the facts. Repeatedly.

"To answer your second question, the owner and the copyright law decide if it is legal or not, I have nothing to say about Bon Jovi’s distribution. "

You sure have a lot to say about everyone else's.

Lastly, I'm not preching to the choir. I'm preaching to the government. I'm just using you for practice.

But you're definitely record label material.

legal shmegal, in the end any law is just scribbles on paper, unless it can be effectively enforced, which is not the case with copyright.

It used to be that sound and video copying technology was expensive and only available to companies willing to invest some serious money. Now it is no longer the case. Any person with a PC is his/her own "recording industry".

As for people who invest money into "years of practice, discipline, and hours of studio time" hoping to sell CD's: their business model is no longer valid, they should start looking for a different source of income. When demand disappears, industries gop out of business, it is a normal part of free market.

The very notion of "professional musician" will become an anachronism just like a "telegraphist" or a "shaman".
If you want to do it as a hobby - go ahead. If you think you can build an industry on it, you will go bankrupt.

And they shall not dare come after students.

For an alternate viewpoint from a completely different college student at UCSD (University of California at San Diego) who has done a tremendous amount of research, you may be interested in a paper done by Daniel Franco, who sent it to me with the following forward,

"Two weeks ago I was given the task of writing a research paper on anything relating to the phenomenon of the Internet. Being a musician and an avid fan of the Internet, P2P, and the expanding music community on the web, I had little choice but to try and uncover what all the fuss has been about."

It's Chapter 14 on my front page at azoz.com.

And while we're on the topic of file sharing, it is my understanding that the entire Hayden's Wall CD, "Big City", is now available on Kazaa. Since I don't use Kazaa unless I'm visiting someone who does, I can't promise that it is there. Someone else is posting it for me.

This is totally authorized. I own the copyright.

Also, I said I wouldn't write any new songs. I didn't say I wouldn't release any. I'll stop posting for a few days now so that I can record a 20-year-old song that I've never recorded. When I'm done, I will not register a copyright for it.

As long as I say it's copyrighted, that's good enough to protect me from plagarism. If I do not register the copyright or register the song with ASCAP, it cannot be used to prosecute anyone under the DMCA.

It's not about the money.

They will go after students. Two reasons:

1. If they scare universities into blocking p2p they not only stop a few hundred thousand users, they also deprive the community of those universities large upload capacities.

2. Scare tactic. Once the RIAA starts going after a few students and home users it will scare many people so they either leave p2p or become non-sharers.

Dougie, Dougie, Dougie: Sorry to hear you’re no longer giving classes in business ethics to your good friends at Enron, Citigroup, Lucent, InClone, HealthSouth, Global Crossing, Arthur Andersen, et al.
But, hey, you’ve still got the music industry cabal – for now. (P.S. your master’s boots need licking.)

Glad to hear you’re taking courses to have a “fall-back” career, though four years to learn how to say, “Do you want fries with that?” seems a bit embarrassing.

In sympathy with you having to increasingly struggle to support a stance respected by a continually decreasing number of people, I can only wish you well in all your “scholastic” endeavors, but please ‘hold the fries’ – they tend to make the coffee lumpy.

Hayden, I still fail to see where I was contradicted.

March 28, 2003 @ 11:55 AM
"This is the first time I've ever heard the "promotional item" argument, but MP3's do not become promotional items by default."

This was directed towards a handful of statements in which you said that MP3's should never be sold because they suck and they are promotional items. I think that most people can read that my statement means that MP3's are not promotional items just because they're MP3's. It also says you are the first person I've spoken to who has made the argument saying that all MP3's should be free because you think they are only promotional items.

Here is another item I get to defend myself on....

"Even as a musician I am and was against sites like Napster. As long as anyone’s music is just given away for free, regardless of the owner’s wishes, I will always be against them."

Well I can see that you took that as meaning that MP3's should not be traded whether the owner wants it traded or not. For some reason I thought you understood that statement meant I was against MP3 trading without taking into account what the owner’s wishes were. I thought that was fairly clear.

The third defense....

I did not even bother reading all of this. Isn't it simple to understand that you don't know how many units were unaccounted for? Stop acting like you do, because you don't have any idea. We don’t even have to go through the hundreds of words we both wrote to come to that simple, immediate conclusion.

So that I can disappoint all those that hate me, I will not be working at a dead end job. Didn't anyone ever tell you that labels are just one area of the industry? Oh, that’s right....I guess you forgot about manufacturers and publishers as well as other music related jobs in the music and entertainment industry. Just slipped your mind huh?

The entire music industry is not going to disappear. Labels will not disappear either. These gloom and doom predictions are based on wishful thinking. They are based on the wishful thinking of people who want something for nothing. Maybe my old fashioned upbringing of working and paying for something seems outdated and unpopular, but I frankly don’t care. I guess I’m among a rare breed of people who believe in paying for taking other people’s property, and not following the group just because it’s popular. If you ask me, I call this a strength and not a weakness.

Doug, some of your statements are ambiguous at best.

"This is the first time I've ever heard the "promotional item" argument, but MP3's do not become promotional items by default."

Not many people are going to realize that you directed it towards all of those statements. You didn't specify. I also still stand on that you must be living under a rock if this is the first time you've heard about the promotional item arguement.


When you come off saying something like,

"Even as a musician I am and was against sites like Napster. As long as anyone’s music is just given away for free, regardless of the owner’s wishes, I will always be against them."

You know what the word "regardless" does to that statement? It makes it sound like you are against .mp3's. There's no getting around it.

The thing about the unit's unaccounted for. It was actually pretty clear about that. What was shipped minus what was sold would be total units unaccounted for. Some of those units still are still in stock, some of them were stolen. It's actually pretty clear what that was. You keep on making yourself look worse and worse. They were not accounted for in any way shape or form in what was posted. You just can't ignore them. It's simple math, learn it.

"I’m among a rare breed of people who believe in paying for taking other people’s property, and not following the group just because it’s popular. "

You know, you can go and fuck off. I can't even begin to count all of the posts on here where people said they were more than willing to pay for things.

Your problem is that you a.)skim and miss the good stuff, b.)have no comprehension skills, or c.)you skim, see the important things and still don't comprehend it. Also, get some simple math lessons, they're useful.

While Doug was busy avoiding the facts (again) and planning what he will do when he graduates from the prestigious school which he refuses to name (unlike every other college student who has written to me and mentions their school first), I have been busy uploading the rest of the Hayden's Wall songs to DMusic for free download, along with two songs which are not on the Big City CD.

And, in case anyone else misunderstood my original point, a) Yes, I feel that 128 bps mp3s are inferior and should not be sold, EVER. 192bps, maybe. b) Not all music should be free. It's up to the owner and their own personal motivation.

Finally, a reminder that if you agree with my view that content providers need a separate copyright to protect us from abuses of the DMCA, time is almost up to write to the Library of Congress and let them know you support my position and that I (George Ziemann) speak on your behalf. The deadline is Monday.

The address is 1201@loc.gov.

And only because the overwhelming privately expressed opinion is that I should continue to slice and dice, I asked my six-year-old daughter to examine the following text,

"Manufacturer's Unit Shipments
In Millions, net after returns"

She understood "manufacturer's" and "unit" and "shipments" and "millions". The kid's got an awesome vocabulary and next year she goes into an accelerated program.

Anyway, she looked at it and asked, "What does 'net after returns' mean?"

I only had to explain it to her once.

"Manufacturer's Unit Shipments in Millions, net after returns" - means… billions (“four”) OR… billion (no ‘s’).

Were talking dollars here people, (“billions (“four”) OR… billion (no ‘s’)”).

IT DOESN’T MATTER how many BILLIONS of dollars. (Dougie: Get over yourself.)

Even if it’s only one billion… WHERE DID the MONEY GO!!!

Perhaps the answer is all those free CD’s – you know – the ones that are GIVEN to all the music industry flacks (salesmen, DJ’s, Music Critics) – you know – the ones who got into the business because they love music, and could be expected to be among the buyer demographic that purchase the largest number of CD’s per person annually.

And what do they do with all those FREE CD’S? What do they use them for? (Coasters, Frisbees, bribes for little post-pubescent girls?)

And WHO PAYS FOR ALL those missing BILLIONS of dollars worth of CD’s?

Is it; the music industry (whose actual cost of production is PENNIES per CD?), or are they charged back to the artists (the musicians – the creators of the musical performance) AT FULL RETAIL LIST price?

And, then does this sum (BILLIONS of DOLLARS), that COST mere millions, get written off the industry’s taxable income as ‘legitimate’ expense, while at the same time ALSO get BILLED to the artist as pre-profit EXPENSE against royalties?

“ Money is important and essential to providing for one’s self! Only 5% of all albums even turn a profit and you think it’s justifiable to lower that number to zero? Yeah right….”

IF that is true – and not just some accounting gimmick to screw artists – then the most incredible bunch of incompetents in the entire history of commerce must be running the business (?) and that probably isn’t the case.

Has anyone else EVER HEARD of the term: FORENSIC accountants?

justed,

Before the conversation on this page even started, I have been calling this the "moron defense" for exactly the reasons you just stated, among others. This phrase is not a reflection on any one person, company or whatever. I've been using it for weeks, if not months.

My personal premise is that (especially after reading all of the glowing reviews of themselves in their 2001 Year-end corporate reports to their stockholders), the only way to justify the RIAA position is to claim to be completely oblivious of far too much overwhelming evidence than any first-year accounting student would be able to pick up on.

Because after I found them, I discovered that I was dead wrong about one major fact. Promotion and marketing are NOT the greatest expenses of the recording industry.

It's manufacturing -- Cost of Goods Sold

And yet they charge the artist the manufacturing costs...?? and the packaging costs...???

No Kneo...you can fuck yourself. I'm quite sure that may be your strongest talent anyway. I have been clear, others on the other hand have made me sound the way they want me to sound. You're so hell bent on calling people like me liars you'll twist every fucking word we say to meet your purpose. Your simple conclusion is naive. Do you really think that simple chart tells you EVERYTHING? On top of that, if it were true, do you think the RIAA would spell it out that easily? Oh wait; I can answer that question myself. You are able to manipulate it, like my words, to meet your purpose; so you use it and swear your life to it. You and Hayden should consider careers as politicians or lawyers.

Hayden...I'm glad your daughter can understand something after one time. So, why can't you understand that you don't have all the facts? You think you do, but you don't. You wrote this whole fucking worthless piece of shit article and now no one wants to let it go. Why can't you understand something as quick as your daughter can? Oh well...I guess your daughter takes after the other side.

For future reference, I guess I'm going to type my posts like I'm talking to a foreigner or a young child. This way maybe the assholes who disagree with me can't twist my words to meet their argument. You guys are so pathetic that you can't make a counter point. All you do is twist my words or you continue to swear your souls to an assumption you think is fact. Fucking sad....

Oh Hayden, I refuse to name my school because I want to keep a degree of privacy. Since I am the only "Doug" in the department where I study, I'd be easy to just find out who I was just by giving my school name. I know you like to post your phone number on here, but I enjoy my privacy.

Hayden, since you are slow, I will say this one more time. I KNOW how you got your numbers. After reading your article, I looked at the RIAA's table several times. Just so you can save your little fingers the trouble, I know how you got your "unaccounted units" number. Let me say this clear like I'm talking to a little child, "You still do not have all of the information. You are wrong...go out and try again."

Oh Hayden...yes....a shit load of CD's are given out for promotion. When you think about it, it makes perfect sense. Every radio station and critic will tell you they want a CD before they review or play it. The radio station does not want to look at the CD; the label wants the station to look at the CD. If the label does not send a CD, like the station wants, it will never get looked at. That's just the way it works and it makes sense. You’re damned right it’s expensive, but that is the way it’s done and it makes sense. Even if you don't like it, don't hop my shit about it. As I've said before, the rules were made long before I showed up.

You'll like this one, but it will have to remain shady because I have other things to do other than type all day. Yeah Hayden...there are some fucked up things in the industry regarding packaging, manufacturing etc. I never came on here and proclaimed that the industry was nothing but a pair of sinless saints. This, I know, makes you happy. Despite this, I will always stand by my belief that unauthorized MP3's should not be traded. You are also still dead wrong about your "unaccounted units."

I just can’t wait to see what meaning you decide to twist out of all of this. Either way, I’m sure it will be humorous and full of imagination.

The prosecution rests.

And what the hell does that mean?

Doug, you're a simpleton. When you stop making ambiguous claims, people won't twist your words. The RIAA is full of morons with a big pocket book. Do you really think that they care that they make mistakes? Someone from there is always being caught saying something stupid. Why should this be an exception? You're acting like it is. If that isn't all of the information, then where is the rest of it at? Are you saying that they're hiding information (you're starting to act like you do)? I'm not sure why you can't understand the phrase "units unaccounted for". It says everything that it is. You keep on claiming that it's not. Fine, claim it, but if you want to argue that point, back it up.

Further more, boy, how are we supposed to know that you're the only Doug in that department?

Dude, first get a clue. Hell, I'll even buy you a clue. Would that help?

Furthermore, you're in position to tell people to fuck off when you're treating us exactly how the RIAA treats us, like an everyday common theif. Where do you get off doing that? If you're on our side, then act like it for once, boy.

*...you're in no position...

I'm batting a thousand today, folks.

Kneo, it's real easy to call me "boy" a “simpleton” and tell me to "fuck myself" from the safety of your computer keyboard isn't it? Don't feel like a big man because you know how to type. You think you're batting a thousand, but you are not doing a damned thing.

I meet and see people like you everyday. You think you know everything. You think you have all the answers. Hate to break it to you, but you don't know half as much as you think you do….boy.

Do I know how many units were lost in the past five years? To hell I don't. You and I have no clue how many units were lost. As of right now, you only know what you think you know. Go up to "Questions, Questions, Questions" ….boy...and you'll read that Hayden still has questions as to how units are tracked and inventoried. I don't know what your peepaw back in Buttfuck, Arkansas taught you, but my father taught me that you need ALL the facts before you make a final conclusion. Hayden does not have all the facts, it is that simple. Go ahead and cling to your belief that every one of those units were lost. If that’s what makes you feel happy before you go "out n' a huntin' fo' some deer", then do it. Either way, the number is still wrong.

How do you know that I’m the only Doug in the department? Because I just told you. I think that explanation fits my new “simple” way of communicating on here.

I was never on your side. Why the hell would I want to be on your side? Just because I am a musician, I have to be on your side? I’m on my side. My side says that people should not have to give up their right to control their intellectual property because some snot nosed high school/college student thinks it should be free. My side says that I support the shut down of Napster and AudioGalaxy. My side says that I support the lawsuit against Sherman Networks. My side says that downloading unauthorized MP3’s is theft. If that hurts your feelings and makes you feel like you’ve been called a thief, too fucking bad, you should stop doing it then.

I'm glad I've really pissed you off. It gives me an even greater chance to prove to you what a fool you really.

I've never ever been afraid to speak my mind, to anyone. You're acting like a bitch. It's as simple as that. You can assume everything that you want about me. Since when do I act like I know all the answers? I've always gone by what was given. Any person that has the comprehension skill of someone in middle school could see that. I guess you can't. That says a lot about you, doesn't it? And here's another clue, let's see if you get it. My "batting a thousand" remark was in reference to my poor typing skills. Get it now? I sure hope you do, dumbass.

What if I was from Arkansas, and what if I did go hunting for some deer? What does that have to do with anything? If that's somehow relevant in anyway, please point it out.

As I said in that thread that you so kindly pointed out to me, "I always thought that the phrase "units unaccounted for" meant that he didn't have all of the information. You're acting like you did have it. George never said he did have it. You LOVE to assume things. You LOVE to put words in people's mouths. It seems it's what you live for on here.

Now, to clear up another one of your moronic statements. My comment about us not knowing that you were the only doug in the department is that we couldn't have known that unless you told us. You should have caught onto that. I'm glad I'm not going to your college, it would probably drop my IQ.

You always gave the impression that you were on the artists and consumers side. It's great to know that you're a selfish fuck. You're only on the side that will benefit you the most. Who cares about everyone else, right? You're the prime example of what's wrong with society today.

Now, to clear another one of your misconceptions, the RIAA thinks that everyone who uses p2p is sharing and downloading illegal files, and this is not the case. If you use p2p, they'll call you a thief. Here's another shock for you. Yes, I've downloaded copyrighted material that I didn't own prior. And guess what else I did with it. If I didn't like it, I deleted it. If I liked it, I went out and bought it. You're acting like you've never ever illegally downloaded copyrighted material before. Here's another thing you seem to be missing, p2p has legal uses.

*..a fool you really are.

I'm batting a thousand plus one.

IT DOESN’T MATTER how many BILLIONS of dollars. (Dougie: Get over yourself.)

Even if it’s only one billion… WHERE DID the MONEY GO!!!

Has anyone else EVER HEARD of the term: FORENSIC accountants?

There’s something that really STINKS in the music industry, something that’s really ROTTEN.

Has anyone else EVER HEARD of the term: FORENSIC accountants?

Dougie: The world’s only “student” that has an intimate insider’s knowledge of the “music industry”.

METHINKS THOU DOTH PROTEST TOO MUCH!!!

Has anyone else EVER HEARD of the term: FORENSIC accountants?

(Like vote-hungry, image-improvement-hungry POLITICIANS?)

jeebus, kids. can we slow down for a moment?

a few random thoughts based in my historical reality. not in an academic course, wishful thinking or third hand knowledge (though some opinions do creep in here and there, they do tend to be marked as such).



one of my relocations was paid via "clean product". if you don't know what that means, we have nothing to talk about. if you do, consider that my use of them was trivial in comparison to a house and a boat for two other people I know personally. where does "product" go? anywhere the guy (and it usually is a guy) in the nice office tells it to.



there are few things more enigmatic and archane than music industry "accounting". "number fixing" would probably be a better phrase. but, I suppose, since all my experience came from one industry, I have little to compare to it, so perhaps it's no worse in said industry than it is at, say an energy trader or a telecom.



anyone who says "music should be free" or "I ain't never paying for music, it's not right" is a very underinformed and self-serving person of dubious character. even if one felt that way, the idea that one could voice that sentiment that boldly tells me something about their grasp of morals more complex than "gimme mine" is sorely lacking. and please, rather than even trying to flame me (it doesn't work, I'm already covered in charcoal), do a little introspection. it might help.



I tell you three times; this whole copyright thing is just a fulcrum. it's the one issue left to preserve the existing retail structure. the record labels could, almost next week, continue doing business with a vastly different distribution model were it not for the power and influence of the traditional retailers (non-web based). if tomorrow, you blinked and every retailer of music disapeared, the record labels would, after breathing a huge sugh of relief, run to the web to distrubute free low quality mp3's and start offering high quality and value added digital downloads (high quality mp3's, aiff files and the like).



I think that honest consumers make up the vast majority of people out there. given a reasonable pay per download option, they would use it. I might be wrong, that's just my personal opinion. I think it's sad in a way that much of this debate has been frame by the two polar opposites. on one side we have hilary "no such thing as fair use" rosen for the riaa (well, not anymore, but she did most of the bellyaching) and on the other, smug, not tied down to anything like moral freebooters on the web who feel they are owed a digital copy of anything every made as a constitutional right. I think both side represent a the minority. the largest group are people who just want to get decent quality music for a reasonable price and do so conveniently. that the record labels and retailers continue to ignore this speaks volumes about the power of the silent consumer in the marketplace.

Kneo, you only think you pissed me off. As you would probably say, You ASSUME I'm mad just because I am using insults and profanity. Why in the hell would I get riled up over some worthless inbred backwoods prick? I save my anger for people that are actually worth a shit. You, sadly enough, do not fall into that category.

Let's just skip the shit and get right down to it. Everyone who is angry with me became pist off initially because I did not jump on their "the RIAA sucks" bandwagon. Is that how you act? You start crying and turning red every time someone does not agree with you? I'm sorry, but that is sad. Like I pointed to Hayden earlier, it's easy to preach to the choir. It's easy for you to run your shit to people who already agree with you, isn't it Kneo? It's easy because you seem to piss your pants every time someone disagrees with you.

Stop being so sensitive. Get over it. You talk about what's so wrong with society. I think there is a problem with society when a bunch of crybaby fucks insults someone just because that individual disagrees with them. You get a bunch of people against the RIAA and not only do you think you are flawlessly right about everything, but you are also extreme and you can't handle hearing another view. Even when facts are put in your face, you all come back with this “smoke and mirrors” bullshit. You only want to hear the opinion of someone that thinks the same as you, and you only want to hear what will backup your opinion. Anything that disputes your view is a lie and only the details that support your opinion are valid.

This is not a discussion forum. This is a "kiss ass" forum where you build each other's morale towards your mission to take down the RIAA.

Concerning the 4 billion lost that Justed brought up, again, here is my answer.....again. I don't know how many were lost and none of you guys know either. How many units were lost and how much money did it cost? Again, I don't know and I'm not going to pretend to know. If a number is found, which it probably will, I’m sure some shit is probably going to hit the fan. I will tell you, for the millionth time, that it was not $20 billion over the last five years.

To all of those who enjoy calling me stupid and insult the school I go to, I frankly don’t care anymore. You have proven that you are just a bunch of crybabies that can’t handle hearing an opinion that deviates from your own. If there was any credibility to even half of you, I would hear more civil, intelligent discussion that is backed with facts and I would hear less angry insults. I’ve been immature by resorting to name calling after it was done to me first. A part of me wishes I took the highroad on that. Point is this; when you get angry and start insulting me you only demonstrate that you don’t have anything intelligent to say and you have very little to back up your way of thinking. Your insults are not only a result of your socially-retarded inability to hear another view and respond civilly, but it is also from your own stupidity and lack of knowing how to do anything else.

For those of you confused about what an intelligent discussion is, read iceweasel's post that preceeds mine. It's absent of insults, is intelligent, and funny enough...I agree with most of it. Not all of it, but most of it.

(QUOTE)
iceweasel23
there are few things more enigmatic and archane than music industry "accounting". "number fixing" would probably be a better phrase. but, I suppose, since all my experience came from one industry, I have little to compare to it, so perhaps it's no worse in said industry than it is at, say an energy trader or a telecom.
(UNQUOTE)

Dougie, Dougie, Dougie: Sorry to hear you’re no longer giving classes in business ethics to your good friends at Enron, Citigroup, Lucent, InClone, HealthSouth, Global Crossing, Arthur Andersen, et al.

IT DOESN’T MATTER how many BILLIONS of dollars. (Dougie: Get over yourself.)

Even if it’s only one billion… WHERE DID the MONEY GO!!!

Has anyone else EVER HEARD of the term: FORENSIC accountants?

(Like vote-hungry, image-improvement-hungry POLITICIANS?)

Doug, don't throw rocks in that glass house of yours. I haven't seen much intelligence coming from your side. You go on and on about me insulting you, yet you do the very thing to me. If you really want to look better than I do, you're doing a horrible job of it.

Now, time to dismantle your post, once again.

You are pissed off, otherwise you would have left me alone and gone and done something else like you said you were going to do when you got fed up with Hayden. Again, where is the relevancy to the whole Arkansas thing? Who ever said I was from Arkansas but you? Here's a good news flash for ya, I'm not from Arkansas! You only have 49 more states and the rest of the world to go!

I'm not sure why you think we're angry with you because of your disagreeing. No one really ever was in the first place. People are getting angry with you because you are redundant, you bring new to the table. You tell the people they're wrong, and a)you do it constantly without backing it up, or b)you tell people are wrong, and then make very ambiguous claims that have no merit to them. Face it, you can't keep your story straight, and you never answer all of the questions.

For your next paragraph, I refer you to the one I just made.

Once again, go up two paragraphs.

If you don't know the exact numbers, then don't say "I know it wasn't $20 billion over the last five years". You contradict your whole statement. It makes you sound like you do know! Learn some proper word usage!

Hey dougie, one last time, people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. If your college was so great, people here would be able to understand what you meant better when you're trying to have a real discussion! When most of the crap that comes out of you doesn't make sense, or is contradictory, or even shows that you've been living under a rock, rightfully so, we're going to think that you're stupid, and that your college isn't doing anything for you. People have responded civilly to you, it didn't work. If one path doesn't work, try another. If you dislike it so much here, then leave. No one will miss you.

Ok, someone might care, but it probably will be very little.

“I’ve been immature by resorting to name calling after it was done to me first. A part of me wishes I took the highroad on that.”

That was in the final paragraph of the last post I wrote. Read it carefully. Did you skip that part of my post, or did you conveniently forget it? It sort of turns your “stone throwing” argument into nothing since I have admitted I took part in the insult trading, and wished I had not. Going over that statement, it also says that I resorted to insults after I was provoked by other people’s insults first. Did you not understand that, or was even something that clear still too “ambiguous” for you?

As I said before, I am not pist off. In fact, my weekend went very well and you did nothing to change that for even a second. Keep dreaming pal. Whatever makes you feel like you’ve accomplished something.

Where did the Arkansas insult come from? Well, you sounded like a “down home god ole boy” when you said…

“Further more, BOY, how are we supposed to know that…”

and

“then act like it for once, BOY.”

Sounds of dueling banjos came to mind after reading that for some reason….

Maybe I’m redundant because I have to keep saying the same thing over and over again. Just because I don’t know how much inventory was lost, that does not mean that this 4 billion per year number automatically becomes fact? Frankly…it’s old. I give up on trying to explain it to you, Kneo. If you were ever going to understand why I said it was wrong and incomplete, you would have understood by now.

Kneo, you face it….. I have kept my story straight. Maybe you just did not understand me, just like you have never understood what is wrong with the 4 billion dollar figure. Maybe you fall into the category I mentioned where

“You only want to hear the opinion of someone that thinks the same as you, and you only want to hear what will backup your opinion. Anything that disputes your view is a lie and only the details that support your opinion are valid.”

I think you shoot down my statements because they discredit what you think you know, just like you will easily follow anything, blindly, that someone says as long as it adds weight to your cause; like the old and tired 4 billion number.

Since you are slow on the uptake, I will post another quote from my most recent post

“To all of those who enjoy calling me stupid and insult the school I go to, I frankly don’t care anymore.”

Tell me I live under a rock or whatever. I really could careless. Oh, but have fun thinking that they piss me off. Whatever makes you feel better and helps your self-esteem, pal.

I wonder why it is that the RIAA would bitch about me downloading, say; Toast and Marmalade for Tea" by TinTin, when they are the ones who made sure that I can't find it in ANY record store or online sales. Maybe if people started looking for Toast and Marmalade for Tea, and a big demand for it cropped up, would they have to go back and pay Tin Tin royalties on that? How does that work? I know when I go into Hasting and ask for anything older than the 80's, I amuse myself by watching this look of immense stupidity slowly crawl across the clerks face. Then in an almost robotic gesture, they get this hollow look in their eyes and give me the industry standard answer,"It's out of print".Can Hayden or Kneo enlighten me on this, maybe even Doug?

Doug, I would keep on beating the dead horse with ya, but there's no point to it anymore. People point things about you, you get pissy with it, more people find faults with you, you get even more pissy with it, etc... It's a never ending thing. I'll stop here on this thread. Feel free to respond, I won't.

Whatever Kneo...

Gee.....thanks guys.That really cleard that up. Looks like I keep downloading.

Rhythm, you made it sound like the RIAA was responsible for albums going out of print. If I misinterpret any of what you wrote, which is apparently common with everyone on here these days, I will apologize in advance.

Anyway, I'd like to correct you and say that the RIAA is not responsible for albums going out of print. The RIAA is just a lobbying group and they don't produce records. If an album is out of print, that falls on the label.

I can understand with you in what you are basically saying. You are wondering why the labels and the RIAA would get pist about piracy on an album you can't buy anyway. Perfectly reasonable question.... Despite this, downloading out of print material is still illegal as long as the copyright for that material still exists.

As far as royalties being paid on "Toast and Marmalade for Tea", royalties would be paid if people bought copies of the recording or public performances of the song were made. The problem with that is the song, according to you, is out of print. I’ve never heard of the song, so I’m taking your word for it. Unfortunately, if the MP3 was widely downloaded on Kazaa there would not be any royalties paid on the MP3’s downloaded.

I share your frustration about kids in record stores not knowing anything about old music. We have to be reasonable though...they're kids working a minimum wage job and they won't know much about music that is before they’re time. It surprises me when I hear about kids who have never heard of Van Halen before. Just the way it is with younger kids, I guess. I don’t know what your experience is, but I remember when my father was looking for a CD and received the same response. I forget the name of the artist. Anyway, I give the kid credit for checking into it using a computer that was at the store. Like I said, I don’t know what your experience was. Maybe some kids just say things are out of print because they did not want to try looking. Despite this, they are able to check and find out for you. If they don’t, I’d complain to the store.

Did that answer your question? I think that I may not have understood you completely

The labels make a lot of money of the current big band, but no one band can keep up those sales for long, so its nessicary to replace them frequently. Girls Aloud is just starting to fail, another will have to replace them. Because of this the labels try to ensure old music isn't easily available, because it may reduce sales of new music.

There has been a little fuss recently because some european countries have a copyright length of only 50 years, compared to 95 in the US. All that old rock 'n' roll music is starting to enter the public domain, so the RIAA has started lobbying for longer copyright lengths claiming those countries are being used to make CDs of old music that are then sold in the US

I'm sure glad goldenpi cleared that up.

Because when it comes to the way the labels operate, I don't have any answers. Just questions.

A lot of freakin' questions.

Yes thanks Doug and GoldenPi.I'm still irked about the whole thing. In all fairness to the kids working the racks, I can see why they wouldn't want to keep up on nostalgia. I guess my ire should be directed at the management who practice age discrimination in hiring.I came upon another interesting discovery while perusing the dumpster behind the local cd mill looking for old posters.The whole dumpster was full of those locking carriers that CD's and cassettes come in.I mean FULL. I suppose the consumer pays for that too?

No that's packaging. The artist has a 25% royalty deduction to pay for that, too.

Doug, allow me to step up the plate and apologize to you. I've handled the situation poorly. I guess this is what happens when there's too much miscommunication and misunderstanding. I'm sorry.

So, what I'm slowly starting to realize here is that the RIAA, is essentially a group of self serving, would be tyrants, who could care less about the artists other than being their cash cow? You mean the artists has to pay for the packaging?!? Seems like someone else is benefitting from the artists blood, sweat and tears.

I, too, would like to give my apologies. It really wasn't necessary for me to be so cruel.

In fact, I would have loved to have an intelligent discussion about what other possibilities existed for the infamous "unaccounted for units."

Is my $4 billion accurate? Hell, no. But your $2 billion figure is too low. It's not right, either.

Despite what little actual information is available on the RIAA charts, you chose to argue about the only one they DID give us -- the number of units we don't know what happened to.

That's where the conversation should have started. For future reference, here's how you approach this.

"Do you think they really gave all of those away? Isn't there somewhere else they could be?" And then try to determine the answer to that.

Do I have all the answers? Hell no. I'm a fucking moron addle-brained useless long-hair musician that hasn't learned to give up after 30 years of getting kicked in the face.

We wasted all this time and energy because you just wouldn't accept the only real facts we had to start with. Maybe, with a little input from someone besides either of us, someone might have stepped forward and offered an answer to some of my questions.

You were so proud when I said I didn't know what happened to the unaccounted for units.

Duh.

Rhythm,

Yeah. The artist pays for packaging. Did you read that Incubus story?

In fact, if I'm not mistaken (it could happen), the artists are paying the same rate to have those teeny little CD inserts made as they were when the packaging had a one-foot sqare album to protect.

Okay, the albums weren't square, but the packaging was.

Actually Goldenpi, a music copyright in the U.S. can last longer than 95 years. If you’re talking about a work-made-for hire, then it would last 95 yrs. A music copyright, of a published work, filed after 1978 would last the entire life of the composer plus 70 years. If some 18 year old kid filed a copyright before 1978, it was published, then he died when he was 65; his copyrighted work would not enter PD until 117 years after he filed the copyright when he was 18 years old. There are many different classifications that all have different lengths.

Yeah, the artist pays for the packaging. Although I don’t have any numbers, I wonder if the artist ever pays too much for packaging. I’m bet they probably do. I’m sure Hayden will try to find out.

Cool Kneo…I apologize too. I don’t mind burying the hatchet. Yeah…shit can happen when there is a miscommunication. Although we’re on different sides of the fence, I’m sure we can give each other different insights. After all, that is the main reason I’m here…even if I don’t always agree.

Rhythm…if you want to blame anyone, you have to blame the labels. The RIAA is only a lobbying group. Yeah, they go to Washington and do the label’s bidding…but they are really just an extension of the labels. Even though I stick up for them, I will not stand here and lie to you by saying the labels never ever rip off the artists. If you are going to call someone a cash cow, you should direct that at the labels. When an artist gets ripped off, it’s the label that does it.

Hayden, I discredited my 2 billion numbers a long time ago. I actually discredited it in the very same post that I stated it. When I attacked your numbers, I was not really going at the angle of proving it wrong by providing another number. I was attacking it much like a lawyer might. When I went after the 4 billion number, I merely questioned the accuracy of it by pointing out that you did not have all of the proper information. An example would be when a lawyer creates reasonable doubt in a criminal trial without actually presenting another criminal.

This is gonna have to be my last post on this thread. Hayden has posted one hell of a lot of stuff I’ve been challenged to respond to. As of now, I really have not read much of it. Guess I gotta read it and at least say something. Judging by how much there is to read, it will take awhile. That’s why this will have to be it for this thread.

Actually, the article does do those two things, go back and re-read it.

Most students need most of their money for thinks like houseing and food. Not a lot of cash left over for CDs, espicially for those students who spend money on other luxuries (booze).

For the student, and most other people, CDs are being beaten by DVDs. Students can either buy an expensive CD, with songs they have heard on the radio, or thay can buy a DVD, which is even more expensive but at least keeps them well entertained for two hours. If they save a little more they can even afford computer games, which keep them entertained for weeks. By comparison a CD is just bad value for money. If they can get their music off p2p networks thats fine, but they wern't going to buy music even if they couldn't get it for free.

The recording industry is targeting students, but for two simple reasons. The first is because they have access to high-bandwidth links which can be easily threatened. A few warnings to the universities and suddenly p2p blockers appear. The second reason is because students are the consumers of tomorrow, and some of the more far-sighted executives have realised that if someone gets used to free information at a comparitively young age its going to be very hard getting them to pay for it.

Finally, student populations have a comparitively high proportion of techies. In the last few years it has become very popular in geek circles to hate the entertainment industry because of their technical ignorance and determination to make as much money as they can even if it means causeing social and technological chaos.

"However, the author fails to present a valid argument as to why students ought not be held responsible for copyright infringment."

You're right. The author fails to present this argument.

We argued it for him but he never brought it up.

I worded that incorrectly.

Anyway, for your first point, the author doesn't need to point it out bluntly. If you can't read between the lines, then don't make any more comments.

The second point you made was that students don't have enough money, and argued against that, but you missed one of the key factors in that part, the price of things. Sure, money alone does make the point moot, but money and the price of things does not. Granted the study was only done in a specific area, like a lot of them are. Even then if you want to say the point is moot, it's not wise to do so unless you see the polling numbers. If a lot of people were polled, then those numbers would probably hold up elsewhere.

Kneo, i REALLY hate to disagree with you on this one.

If we have learned nothing else in this forum, it is that, in addition to any logic applied to the point, in addition to any peripheral facts that can be brought in for consideration of any issue, the author MUST bluntly make the actual lines to read between.

It's great to read between the lines. God knows, don't stop doing that.

Look how much time we spent arguing (not with each other) about what I thought was a very blunt point. By saying "Students not responsible..." for whatever as a title, the author kind of promised us he was going to make at least one blunt point to justify the title.

Even if it's one simple and even vague summation, such as, "For these reasons alone, a logical person must agree that students do not deserve to be treated as pirates."

"Unfortunately, if the MP3 was widely downloaded on Kazaa there would not be any royalties paid on the MP3’s downloaded."

Royalties? For what?

Do we have a CD? Do we have a case? Do we have an original? No, we have a crapped down copy of the song in a different format.

There is no way to stop P2P apparently, and what's the difference from downloading it, and simply listening to a friend's CD on my player? Same concept as with downloading. I'm hearing music I didn't pay for. So should the person that bought the CD, be considered a "thief" or "pirater", if he has a boombox and 20 of his friends hear the music on the CD in it? They're hearing music they didn't pay for.

It'll always be around with P2P or not, and it has just been free promotion for the industry. I just don't get the stuff against it.

The Whole article is one big reason on why students shouldn't be blamed for piracy. You guys are right, it should say it bluntly, but it doesn't (because it doesn't really need to for the most part). Just because you don't see it there doesn't mean it's not.

Symonx, I was referring to this as your second point:

"Secondly, the author makes some kind of point about college students not having a lot of money. If we accept that premise as true, it does not follow that if college students *did* have a lot of money then they would buy more CDs and download less music using P2P."

Does that clear things up?

Hi guys,
I just wanted to add my opinion on this article.

First, most college kids can afford at least one CD a month, but who wants to be restricted to one CD a month? It's still too damn expensive to buy a CD at retail price in most cases, but I do like the $10 price for some new CDs.

I strongly believe, however, that the real reason that people use P2P networks is because they can 1)download individual tracks to listen to, 2) sample tracks of new artists and CDs. I saves a lot of time getting rid of 15-20 horrible CDs every year for a huge loss.

Regarding P2P:
Personally, I don't see the sharing argument. Inviting friends over to listen to a new CD is quite a bit different than offering the CD for download to 50 million people that you don't even know (the key difference being friends vs. random masses). I'm not at will to argue the legality of P2P, but if we look at it ethically, offering a free copy of a CD you purchased to 1/6 of the US is going to hurt record sales.

Personally, I think P2P is a great thing, but we need to pay the artists and labels for production of the CD. Also, with technology being such a huge pain in the ass at the same time, I think the best regulation should start with the service providers themselves. How hard would it be for us to pay a few extra bucks a month to have access to the internet and freely use P2P. Instead of hacking college kids' computers, the RIAA and the rest of the industry can collect straight from the student's tuition fees.

A somewhat usable example: we pay $50 for satellite service, but do we necessarily use all of the channels? P2P can just one of the many tools that we pay for with our internet service.

Otherwise, I see a constant legal battle everytime a P2P gains popularity, gets shut down, and is replaced by the next in line.

Arresting college kids for not being able to pay $80 a month for a decent CD collection is ridiculous. I think the industry can handle a slightly lower profit margin than normal.

It would be different if mp3s were CD quality.

getting to the bottom of things...

what we have so far
a) this debate will never end, it has been an issue each time a new tech comes along, including vhs and cassette tapes
b) Doug has a more solid argument
c) although Doug likes to point out that other people are taking pot shots at him, he has no qualms about taking cheap shots back

as for me, the consumer

a) i share mp3's
b) i own the cd's to the music on my com w/ two exceptions:
1) music i plan to buy... i am getting a paycheck this fri and plan to buy a couple of cd's, so this category is shrinking
2) music i cannot find... this category is also shrinking. in the past i could not find the arabian and hindi tunes i have but i recently found a bazaar downtown and have already bought two cd's

where i stand:
i agree w/ Doug to a point. people who are unwilling to pay for the music they have have no moral defense. everybody in the industry has to make money, its business, its life. i have no problem with people making money off of me. we accept it elsewhere in life, same as with athletes, movie stars, and lotto winners: someone gets a bunch of money and i get some non-essential in return.

however, i find it interesting that by simply downloading an mp3 i am a thief. if filesharing gets shut down, then ill just have to go back to borrowing a cd from a friend before i buy it. it will be less convenient, but im not going to just start buying 20 dollar cds for two songs just because a few people use filesharing irresponsibly. i am one of those people that listen before i buy, and im not just talking about mp3's... i borrow cd's and go to concerts. if the music industry wants to make money everytime music falls on my ears, then they need to start putting out something other than a few good tunes burried in a pile of crap, otherwise ill just have to listen to what i have (*sigh* where are the good old days when you could just listen to an album straight thru?!). either way, all the parties involved get what money (of mine) they are entitled to; i cant, however, speak for others that "share" files.

oversimplification is also fueling this debate

first of all, people need to realize the difference between the legal debate and the moral one.

the legal issue depends on how the government handles this new technology (mp3's). as with another fairly new controversy in entertainment technology (video games) the government has been handling it conservatively. the legal debate may eventually subside as it has done w/ vhs, cassettes, and even printed media. however, is sharing morally thievery when everyone gets their due?

it is important not to confuse the legal and moral debates: if something is illegal, it doesnt mean its wrong, just as if something is legal, it doesnt make it right (God forbid our government officials ever be the moral standard). laws are imperfect but necessary... they have to be rigid so that the government can efficiently and consistently decide cases and such (dont laugh, im being serious ). this is obviously imperfect because reality isnt static. the government cant afford to make moral considerations for every case it receives, it would take forever, so it has to do the best it can do. some of what i do (not just file sharing) is on the shady side of the law (im talking about stuff like speeding-which i dont do-not murder), but it doesnt make me a bad person. i make those choices because i understand what i am doing and have decided that my decision is better than the overgeneralized legal one. as long as i am putting no one in danger and i am not cheating anybody out of anything, who cares?