I can't believe this cr*p!!!

[KThunder]

its easy to say they are "targetting" students but most of the college students that i know, and i know many, out download anyone else i know by a factor of 3 or more. except my older brother who has thousands of songs.

if i download one song my ip will be there once, if i download hundreds... you get the point. if her fine was 3000 and she was being forced to pay 7.60 i think for each that comes out to 400 songs or so?

people miss the point though here if do not hold the copyright you have no right to copy even if for no profit. whoever hold the copyright holds all power to how the song is used.

[KThunder]

pixie wrote:

Theft in which way? They way prices are practiced?

most record companies make pennies per cd the only reason they have large of money is because they sell millions of cds. if you have millions of people downloading music they lose the millions of pennies.

it is the same as commercial software they are trying to make money and it really shouldnt be wrong to protect themselves.

[KThunder]

tomas wrote:
You got it completely wrong! It is the artists that make pennies per cd while the record company take most of the share.  
 



marketing, production, and distrabution cost nothing then? not the mention trying to protect your product from people who think its ok to cut them out of any profits

[KThunder]

stopthegop wrote:

people miss the point though here if do not hold the copyright you have no right to copy even if for no profit. whoever hold the copyright holds all power to how the song is used.

No they don't.  If they want "full control" then they ought not release such work into the public domain.  There is a such thing in law called "Fair Use".  Its what allows me to read (ie "use") a copyrighted newspaper article and when I'm finished, hand it to my wife to read.  Even though we only paid once, both of us are legally allowed to read it, right?

If an artist want absolute "individual" rights to his work, then he needs to keep it to himself.  Once he releases it into the public domain, especially for commercial purposes, then he (rightly and naturally, imho) loses some of that absolute control.  Copyright is designed to allow the artist to retain some control, but not all.  That would be like itemizing my tax check, telling the Federal Gov't precisely what I wanted my personal tax dollars spent on.  

noone cares if you make a million copies of a cd for your own personal use that you bought yourself. but thats not what we are talking about here is it. this girl did not own any of the music she downloaded
it is not in the public domain
your logic doesnt follow. what if the record company sold one copy of a cd-one and millions of people downloaded it off the owners site. is that right? yes i can loan my cd to a freind and obviously they can listen to it with me but again that isnt what we are talking about.

[KThunder]

music companies do have their value too btw

they have thousands of people working full time listening to music and sifting through. if it werent for them we would have to wade through every tom dick and harrys pitiful song sung out of tune to find anything worthwhile.
do you really want to be a judge on american idol every time you want some new music.

they also provide high quality recording facilities for those top 1% of artists so that when we do get some music from an artist it sounds good.

can this all be done online legally. yes it can. there are a number of reasons the industry didnt want it. first is conrol. if an artist wants to make a living at music (full time and highly skilled) he isnt going to get too far if everyone gives away their music.
the industry is a cenralized (more or less) body with rules and laws for making sure the artists get heard and make money (to expect them to do that for free is absurd)
secong the industry had an enormous manufacturing and dirstobution system in place that they probably didnt want toi just scrap: how many people are employed making cds cases etc.