Also, if they can't get our money, why can't they just ask us to wipe out our hard drive? And yes I know some people would download the music again after being requested to wipe out our hard drive. But why can't they do something else, other than sueing us.

Like prison?

iben has a point - i remember fuming more than once as i paid for an album that only had one song on it that i really wanted badly.

Here's an alternate viewpoint to the claims of the RIAA, well researched and with a thoughtfully concieved alternate solution. Not all of the RIAA's own members support what they are doing. If you read this, read the follow-up too, it's very interesting. http://www.janisian.com/article-internet_debacle.html

Something to remember in this debate is not only the fair-use issues or the supression of beneficial technology, but privacy and individual rights.  US culture has had a 225 year history of protecting an individual's right to privacy. A man's home was his castle and no one had a right to violate his privacy without the courts declaring it was ok. Only law enforcement was allowed to appeal to the courts for a search warrant to invade your privacy.

Do we want industry, private corporate interests, to have the right to examine our personal data, remotely destroy our personal computers or maintain a database of our personal activities?  This is an issue that goes way beyond file-sharing but this is certainly relevant to this debate.

The RIAA claims their actions are necessary because they are losing millions of dollars to file sharing. There is no independant study to verify this, only their own reports. Shouldn't they be the ones being forced to prove their claims before such draconian measures as imprisoning and financially destroying thousands of people is resorted to? I believe their loss of sales is because of many factors all of which are their own doing. I don't believe any of their loss of sales is because of file sharing. If anything, I believe they shot themselves in the foot with the Napster trials. I stopped buying any US CD's and I'm sure there are thousands of people who feel the same way.

 

Yes, the RIAA should have to prove their claims. If they do, it will be theft whether they have loss of sales or not. It's no different than patching into cable TV.

Why buy CDs when you can steal them?

"Rips" are only wrong if it's your own work and not anybody else's?

When record stores started making listening booths available to preview music the RIAA fought it, tried to make it illegal.

When VCR's became widely available to the public the movie industry tried to have the technology banned.

When movies were first rented to people with vcr's the movie industry fought it all the way to the supreme court.

They don't have the foresight to embrace new distribution technologies. They don't have the creative vision to move with the inevitable progress of technology into the future.

Companies should not be allowed to interfere with beneficial technology, advances that could provide a benefit for all mankind, to protect their own profits. They should have to adapt, as everyone else does. I supposs some of you feel it would be ok to prevent new non-polluting energy systems to be supressed because it would have a negative impact on some oil companies' profits. And it's ok to research and produce biological weapons because stopping the production of these horrible germs "would have a negative impact on the bottom line of several American companies" (quote GWBush).

What's our future to be? One that benefits mankind or one that benefits only rich executives? 

 

One that benefits an artist for his work.

Personally, I believe all this is just another "chink" being blasted out of our Constitution of the United States of America.

One day, it will be so riddled full of holes, it will not stand, and the Land of the Free will be no longer.

Read Janis Ian's article, there are other ways for the artists to benefit than by putting teenagers or their parents in jail or fining them into homelessness.

The artists loose more to the RIAA's stranglehold on distribution than they could ever loose by having wider exposure thanks to file sharing.

there are other ways for the artists to benefit than by putting teenagers or their parents in jail or fining them into homelessness.

I agree. There just has to be a better way.

#56 by DavidK - 8/1/2003 1:54:05 PM When VCR's became widely available to the public the movie industry tried to have the technology banned.When movies were first rented to people with vcr's the movie industry fought it all the way to the supreme court.They don't have the foresight to embrace new distribution technologies. They don't have the creative vision to move with the inevitable progress of technology into the future.

This is kind of out of the realm of the topic but that’s the direction it went so let’s see where we can go with it. Advancements in technology, energy or entertainment are always going to cut into someone’s bottom line and maybe that is the reason why things advance so slowly.

Look at batteries …why on gods name are these horrible designs still being used when the concept of batteries were long ago replaces by the fuel cell because batteries were deemed inadequate, when man went to the moon.

What about fossil fuel? are ways really being worked on to replace this source of energy…it is debatable that it will ever happen because a lot of peoples bottom line is dependant on the internal combustion engine….from OPEC to all the parts producers to the machinists, mechanics, laborers, the transit of crude ect ect…think of all the things that would have to turn over…use your imagination…some will rise many will fall.

One thing is certain is new technology cannot be suppressed forever….as turbulent as advancement is, it is probably more dangerous not allow for advancement. Much like an FBI director who found computers useless...so much so that he would not keep one in his office…while enemy combatants are using encryption technologies and communicating without concern of detection, discussing how they were going to destroy America with a medium deemed useless. Eventually those who do not allow the advance fall just as those who thought the internet was a useless and passing fancy…or a fad…so far history is not shining favorably on those who suppress new ideas.

Since when is the activities on the Internet considered one's home? Since when is KaZaA considered somebody's home? If KaZaA is said to be one's home, which cannot be entered without a warrant, then the rest of the Internet should be considered the same way, because I don't see how KaZaA is any different from a site. Therefore, people should have the right to post anything illegal, including child pornography, anywhere on the Internet because unless the police will be able obtain a search warrant, it'd be wrong to stop them from doing something on the Internet (i.e. their home).

Whoa, hold up people...I'm kinda confused here. Since when should music be free? Actors use their talent in (sorta) the same way musicians do. DOes that mean movies should be free too? Should a player on a sports team not get paid because the enjoyment of watching the sport "should be free"? No. You CANNOT make excuses for piracy of music by yelling "right to privacy", "music should be free", or "Constitutional rights". Piracy is illegal. NOBODY can tell me otherwise. You're not downloading music because of some conspiracy to make you pay more than you should. You're downloading music because it's quick, easy, and FREE. It's also wrong. Now that that's out of the way, the RIAA's making a huge mistake in the overall way they're handling the problem. Rather than trying to hold on to "traditional" CD sales ar record stores, they should adapt and overcome so that people can get the music just as quickly and easily, but not for free. Will the RIAA ever stop piracy? Not in a million years. Can they reduce it by giving the people that download an alternative? YES! Will sueing the pants off of potential customers help anything? Take a guess. Just like the Betamax, the RIAA has an oppurtunity to greatly increase their revenue in the end, if they'd just adapt instead of clutching to their old ways.

In short: Piracy is illegal and nobody has an excuse, but the RIAA is handling this WAY wrong.

Who said you can get music for free?
You must first buy a computer,mine was not cheap.
Then you need to pay the electric bill,and for me the phone bill.
Then you pay the internet provider.
Then you spend a lot of you free time searching and downloading,how much is your time worth?
You get a song who knows what it is or how it will sound until you listen to it.
Mostly file sharing is good for getting songs that are not even available any more.
By the time your done it would have been less expensive to buy the thing at a store if you could find it.
Free they say, nothing is free.
I think the problem today with music is it ain't what it used to be.

I think the problem today with music is it ain't what it used to be.

What should music be?

Played with at least one real instrument.

I might be mistaken, but I think there's music being released presently that is played with real instruments.

Yes.
Just let me listen to some Rush.

The Band Rush.

re fuel cells and batteries - fuel cells may indeed hurt the bottom line of battery purveyors someday - particularly if the fuel cell purveyors steal the fuel to put in the fuel cells, and then distribute them for free.

new technologies have always opened the way for larceny in forms that have never been possible before. and the theft is usually "legal" at first due to a lack of applicable law, which has to play catchup.

i also have trouble with the concept that in an arena where theft is the issue, the burden is thrown onto the victim to prove in court that the theft actually did tangible damage to him, otherwise it's not rally a theft. what planet did this form of logic come from?

i agree wholeheartedly that bankrupting and/or jailing randomly chosen john q. publics is the worst approach to the issue that i can think of.

Buggy whips used to be a big item until the car.
Someone should have sued the car makers out of existence to save the Buggy whip industry.

The problem with chasing the music steelers is that you can't find them unless you brake the law.And violate everyone's privacy rights.
What the music industry should do is join the new game and compete,I think they could win if they were smart.

Someone should have sued the car makers out of existence to save the Buggy whip industry

iben - when the carmakers opened operations, they didn't go around and steal all the horses in the state to drum up more business.

It was meant to illustrate that times they are a changing.