Why should poor people have any less right to music than rich people?

When people can find a way to download it (torrents, lending CDs, whatever) then I wish all the power to those people.

That’s music sorted.

But when it comes to physical things, I’ve got no problem in theory with nicking a rich bastard’s Ferrari. I’d rather not count down the days to the revolution in a jail cell though.

Hello :) I bookmarked this blog. Thanks heaps for this!… if anyone else has anything, it would be much appreciated. Great website HOT Piano Links http://www.klavier.m256.net…

maybe the more music i download illegally, the less likely i am to be sued. Think of it this way. Hitler, Stalin, Hussein…they’ve killed a shitload of people in their time. other nations just stoodby and watched as this happened. they were just like: “well done! 3 million people? really? wwow…how do you have time for anything else?”

maybe if the RIAA catches me, and after they find out i’ve dowloaded well over 150gb of music (22536 files to be exact) they’ll look at each other, then turn to me and say “congratulations….we’re so impressed with you that we’re not gonna sue. you’re free to go!”

But if u steal music over the internet, nothing has been lost.
In fact the music companys earn more because of the internet.

I have myself never bought an album that I havent heard at home or with a friend.
And I would never have heard it because of the internet.

So in fact they gain more money. Its a simple argument.

I download stuff and pay for the things I like, because if the product is good.
Why not support the company to make them able to do more good stuff?
And if its bad, DONT PAY! That way everyone will be happy ^^

First, creating a digital copy of something is not the same as “stealing” a physical object. There are many differences; for example, stealing takes an object from one who values it more and gives it to someone who values it less (as measured by willingness and ability to pay), making the world worse off. Creating a zero cost copy of media increases the net utility in the world.

So called “piracy” is not a real transfer of resources; the underlying concern is that it disincentivizes the creation of intellectual property. I, for one, don’t believe that’s a bad thing at all. Why should music be such an immensly profitable industry? It’s abhorrent that they can even afford employ the armies of Harvard MBAs & JDs that they use to build their empire. Many speak of wanting to return to a regime where we have artists in charge of making the music. Well, that is not a viable business option when you’re competing against companies that bribe radio stations for play time and run billion dollar marketing machines. The artists don’t choose this, we force it upon them by voting for representitives that support these laws. A 70 year + life of the creator copyright regime has brought us into this bizzarre position where rappers boast of killing, drug use, and mysogyny, yet in the next breath they berate the public as immorral for the consumption of copied music.

Also, don’t be fooled into thinking that piracy, in moderation, isn’t actually beneficial to the big labels; in their board meetings, it is likely often referred to by another name: price discrimination. Microsoft and Adobe both purposely allow piracy of their products because it keeps low income consumers from switching to competitors; though music has more limited “network effects” they are still significant. Piracy is the musical field takes the consumers that are the most likely to support independent artists, as those resourceful enough to pirate music are more likely to be resourceful enough to find new music on the internet, and then satiates their desires with free, pirated music, thus preventing the competitor from obtaining revenue. The music industry doesn’t want to abolish piracy, they only want to control it so they can maximize their monopoly profits.

[quote comment="12825"]Hehe, nice one.
I download a lot of music, and i have downloaded about 150gb in 3 weeks. I’m 17 and of course live at home. And my excuse is, I’m poor. I can barely pay the internet bills, about 80$ a month, (don’t even have speakers btw), so how the hell should I be able to buy music at the prices they are selling it for? 20 bucks for one CD is way out of my lead.
The truth is, the RIAA are too greedy. Many artists have gotten rid off this link, so now they can sell theire music cheaper, and still earn the same amount, and even more money than before.

I’d also like to recommend that everyone look around for unsigned musicians, as there are many artists in whatever category you fancy, wether it’s trance, polka, jazz etc… it’s out there.

But in the end, it’a nice to have music that people have heard about.

One more thing, doesn’t these lawsuits against people cost a lot? They probably use more money than they get in these cases, so isn’t the lawyers getting a nice salary by all this?

I got a cramp in my finger now… may write more later. Ciao :o)[/quote]

You honor! The music is not good enough to buy. It is only good enough to steal.

It is amazing. Most people’s brains have a stopgap that prevents them from willingly making themsevles look ridiculous to others. People like Dank don’t.

2. This is just a silly worthless comment. You can’t use copyrighted material for profit, which includes using it as a secondary form of profit. (Like playing music in arestaurant to create ambiance.)

3. Blah blah blah.

4. Whine whine whine.

Do you realize how sad articles like this make you look?