Copyright isn’t tangible, that’s precisely the point. If it were tangible then infringing copyright would just be straight out theft. But for something to be theft, it has to be tangible and the removal thereof has to deprive the owner of its usage. If you could copy a chair, would the owner of the chair have lost anything? If he wasn’t a carpenter would he really be particularly aggrieved about his chair being copied? I doubt it. Let’s take this to the logical extreme. Radiohead (for instance) cannot claim that they have not had their music influenced by prior artists, and that said influence cannot be seen in their work. By your reasoning Radiohead should therefore go and pay all of their influences royalties for creating derivative works.

I don’t know why you’re still going on about this, because I don’t often listen to pirated music as I have legal sources for it. I was commenting on the utter fallacy of the assumption that piracy murdered EMI.

The funny part is when the economy goes belly up you won’t be worrying about that new Radiohead record cause you’ll be scrounging for food money just like that poor musician you steal from, karma…………
Say hi to mum and tell her what a good boy you are too junior.

“Show me one act that made it by themselves using the internet?”

http://www.mclars.com … Check his FREE MUSIC section.

And again, where’s the proof that someone would have bought the album if they’d been unable to pirate it? Piracy is a ‘risk-free’ transaction because if the person who downloads it he simply deletes it and he’s not lost any money from that.

And what about NIN and Radiohead? They’re both acts that have the majority of their following from the internet. What about RATM, who got catapulted to Christmas No.1 in 2010 by a viral ‘anti-marketing’ campaign on the internet.

The internet seems to belong to a new type of citizen. Someone who supports and protects those they respect. In some cases an attack on those the ‘inhabitants of the internet’ hold dear results in complete and utter devastation as a result (see Anon. vs Scientology in protection of sanity, Anon. vs IFPI, RIAA, UK IPO, etc in defense of Pirate Bay, Anonymous vs PayPal, Bank of America, Visa, etc. in defence of Wikileaks, and especially Anon. vs HBGary Federal in self-defence).

The old way of doing business by artificially modifying supply is dead. If there is something digitally available then it necessarily has the potential for infinite supply, and there’s precious little companies can do about it. The sooner they get to grips with reality the better their survival odd will be.

Show me one act that made it by themselves using the internet.

I can probably spare the money to buy a few tracks per month, but the simple truth is that very few musicians offer good value for money with their albums. Given that the costs of living in the UK are also rising that makes it harder as well.

To be honest, making music is something best done as a hobby. I’d probably do it myself if I was proficient at using any musical instruments. But it shouldn’t be about the money, because that leads down the road of mass-producing crap music to fill the gaps in the £15 a pop album.

Going back to my last post though, you seem to have ignored a specific point on purpose in that there’s no reasonable proof to suggest that less piracy would increase sales. It’s this premise you need to prove for the claim that ‘pirates killed EMI’ to hold water.

Show me one act that made it by themselves using the internet.

And oh yeah, with your bussiness model the musician is on the road 24/7 to survive.
You get to stay home and have mommy make lunch for you while your downloading tracks illegally. You’re the fan from hell……….go home please.

I do buy music, I buy good music. But there simply isn’t enough money in my pocket to buy all the music I want to listen to, because it’s too fucking expensive for only 3-4 tracks I really like. This is where all the industry figures on piracy fails. It makes the fundamental mistake of assuming that less piracy = greater revenue, which is hardly true when piracy doesn’t remove any spending money from the person doing it, but buying music does. Getting rid of piracy doesn’t give the customer more money to spend legitimately. Furthermore, because there’s no real ‘try before you buy’ policy endorsed by the industry customers are more likely to spend that money on more useful purchases rather than risk it on an album that could well be crap.