If you are going to make the bold proclamation with you are making (that Franz Ferdinand are stealing) then you have to have some hard substantiation to back up your alligation. When I went to find the “so called” bands, which you referred to as being victims of theft. I.e. “handle with care’s working for the man” I didn’t find any results WHAT SO EVER! And if all you have to work with is a piece of evidence with doesn’t even exist then you are of weak ground to support any case.

You obvious have a very large chip on your shoulder with can’t possibly have to do with the so-called stealing of music. I think you might be envious of Franz Ferdinand…

In closing I’d like to say: GET A LIFE!

People should have the right to use other’s material in my opinion. Creative Commons etc.”
A “THIEF” is some one who steals others property, be that physical or intelectual.
If someone buys a car and a person takes that car without permission then that is theft, plain and simple.
If some one sits their wallet on a table and someone else happens to notice it and makes off with it then that is theft, plain and simple.
If someone writes and records a song and copyrights the material then someone else comes along hears that recording and re-records it with only minor changes in the arrangement with the intention of obtaining profit from that recording then, like it or not, THAT IS THEFT!!!! Plain and simple!
Why exactly do you think that copyright law, intelectual property law, PRS etc. exist? Why were there major documented cases of litigation in the early days against producers who used too much sampled material in their recordings?
The only reason this has died down now is that the record industry saw the profit that could be made by recycling old material and decided that they wanted a slice of that particular pie.
Creative commons my ass!
If I spend years of my life learning to play an instrument, read music, write an original tune only to have it robbed by some flash in the pan no mark band who are more interested in image than musical ability then I think I am perfectly entitled to charge them with theft and recieve compensation for my losses due to their inability to do the hard work and their blatant disregard for my rights as an artist.
As it stands, filesharing only prevents the record companies from making profit to some extent and it’s the same as when they used to complain about home taping. Everybody did it but if you wanted something physical that would not wear out so quickly, you bought the album.
How many mp3 tracks do you have on your PC which you downloaded, have listened to a couple of times and then never played again? I have a fair number and all they do is eat up hard disk space.
Having listened to them and decided they were not to my liking I would certainly not be rushing out to buy the CD.
If I had bought the CD first then I would be pretty annoyed at the waste of money.
I think filesharing actually helps the record companies out as I have discovered a load of music I would never have been exposed to without the ability to download and have increased my CD collection and payed cash for disks I would never have bought or even heard of previously.
Arctic Monkeys were touted as an internet success story as they made their name through downloads because they gave away free CD’s at their gigs and people either shared these online or uploaded them to legit sites. The band didn’t do the marketing, the filesharers did!
Do you hear them complaining about filesharing killing the industry…NO!
Filesharing gave them a nuber 1 selling album.
Theft is theft but filesharing is in a rather grey area :-)

People should have the right to use other’s material in my opinion. Creative Commons etc.

they sell dvd reader/write combo’s for on top of your tv.

watch your new release rental & if you like it burn it too you 200g built in HDD

……i say fuck the world of politics, the internet was created to be FREE….they screwed us outta that, so lets screw them outta some of their $$$ for a change
TRADE ON BROTHERS & SISTERS