Well, Pc_Tool, I think you have found the keyword. It should be temporary, so that the effort becomes sufficiently paid, but not "perpetual".

Bingo. Originally there were no "extensions" offered for copyright. Then the whole "welfare" system began and now people who had *nothing* to do with the works in question are making money off of them in perpetuity.

Example: "Happy Birthday to You" was originally registered in 1935. The people associated with its creation are long dead. ...and yet it is still copyrighted and illegal to perform in public and the "owners" are still making mint on it. It is not expected to become public domain under it's current extension until 2030, and I am sure it will be extended longer.

Even more amusing? The tune was not theirs, it was borrowed from another song completely. Had copyright been as absurd as it now is, that song would *never* have been even possible.

So are you arguing for or against copyright ?

I see on some of your postings you talk about businesses who own products being able to do what they want with it.Should businesses also have an expiration date on how long they can make money on their products ?
Are you for economics, against copyright , for it, against people being able to pass on something ?
What exactly is your stance or should i just focus on your 'Welfare System' statement.
You use statements like that and of in alot of your postings about peopel who feel they deserve everything for free. Stop trying to be vague so you can respond back and be a troll.
State are you for it or against it dont' be lame.

New here? You obviously haven't read many of my posts, nor can you seem to read for context.

You seem to like things black and white, but the real world never is. I'll try to keep it as "simple" as I can for ya:

"So are you arguing for or against copyright?"
I am for it, but with caveats. Definitely not in its current form. The original terms were 14 years, no extensions. Those are good. I'd go so far as to limit it to 7 with the possibility of only *one* 7 year extension. One needs to understand the intent of copyright was *never* to provide perpetual income; It was intended only to support the person(s) for a small period of time to allow them to continue producing more creative works.

"Are you for economics"

*laughing*

For economics? How can you *not* be "for economics"? Economy is the trading of items or services of value for items or services of value. Without it, there is no buy/sell/trade...we might as well live in caves and never see another human being. Want to take a stab at making sense?

"I see on some of your postings you talk about businesses who own products being able to do what they want with it.Should businesses also have an expiration date on how long they can make money on their products ?"

??? You mean like the App Store? Obviously, these are copyright-related and thus my answer on copyright above would apply. Of course, Apple could continue to sell items that have fallen into the public domain as long as people would be willing to pay them for it. I hope you aren't referring to Wal-Mart/Target-type stores selling physical retail-products.

"against people being able to pass on something ?"

In terms of IP, it should obviously be tied to the creator's of the work in question. The intent of copyright is to provide incentive for the person(s) to continue to create more works....obviously, if they are dead...incentive is pointless. Past money generated from IP is theirs and no-one else has any rights to it. They can obviously decide what is done with it themselves.

Clear enough for you, or do I have to grunt and use single-syllable words?? Next time, do your own research....I've been posting about this stuff here for years...

What I meant is that RIAA is a legal cover to own their music after selling it and to keep selling the same product again and again. I am paid every day for my daily work, but I get my money only once and I must work again if want to get paid again.

Water is a free product for as long as it is not owned by somebody. When it is owned by someone you must pay if you want to use it, not because of its good or bad quality, or because it is mineral water or ordinary one, or any other of its properties, but just because it is owned by somebody. The same would happen with air if it could be a private property.

"The same would happen with air if it could be a private property."

Check out your local Wal-Mart. They sell Canned-Air dusters.

Of course, you are paying for the collection, compression, packaging, and distribution....not really for the "air". ;)

Want to try again?

There is a simple answer for all this Riaa stuff. Without consumers, the RIAA has no product. So as consumers I suggest that any company/artist/record or what ever that is represented by the RIAA is Totally boycotted forever. Dont buy their products, music or what ever and it will soon stop.

The key here is how the jury were ordered to find the guy guilty.

Justice for sale.....to one of the wealthiest industries on the planet.

Comforting, huh?

@ Hocuspokus

The guy admitted his guilt on the stand. His defense? "Art is meant to be shared."

I like how he believes his world view alone should shape the law. He deserved to be found guilty. Because he was definitively guilty. That is comforting, in fact.

ironically, the Recording industry cut its own throat with the sayiong :"no other industry ... into perpetuity"

[1] I still have and listen to occasionally, OLD disks called "records" that were made in the 1930's. they don't go boom and will not go boom anytime soon afaik. On the other hand, the artists are getting paid for a one time job, over and over and over again. Sorry, If I make a burger, that the end of that. i did the job I was paid to do. if I want to get paid more then I must make more burgers. This whole "entitlement" of people who write a song, or play a song - has to stop. sell your song, then if you want paid more, write or perform another song. period. You all do NOT deserve to get paid repeatedly for doing something ONE time

Music is like cheeseburgers... nice. I think it's a little more complicated, but I might be wrong. You could actually have such bad taste in music that it's possible to compare your collection to cheeseburgers. Though, "You all" explains your position clearly.

The problem with your argument is that it leads to a price increase. Prices on media are designed so that you can have a novel or an album, something that takes months/years to make, for 20 bucks or less. You think royalties are a form of "entitlement"? Do you really want to pay $100,000 for a book that took two years to write?

The current system (copyright and royaties) allows for multiple people to pay off years of efforts at a low price. This isn't "entitlement". It's a structure that rewards both the consumer (cheap media) and the creator (financial compensation).

So... you might have an argument if that hamburger took 16 months to cook. But its didn't. So you don't.

How ironic- at a time when we need to re-think the whole process of copyright, patent, and the DMCA laws, good old "Hahvahad" is going in the opposite direction. so much for the Ivy league progressive thinking s***:
http://www.boston.com/ne...s_much_more_than_a_name/

Oh..and "Hahvahd" is the largest landowner is MA. Greed is alive and well in those Ivory towers.

If the air could be owned we should have to pay for breathing: somebody would invent a legal reason for it.

That might be relevant if someone was actually spending time and money to create the air in the first place. There's a push to equate the efforts of artists with freely available resources that people require to survive. Music/television/games/art is not analogous with water and air.

With all due respect to the aliens that inhabit the planet Saturn- Water is not free. we, here on Earth, pay for water.:)

rtwnt:

We don't pay for water. You can put a bucket outside and get all the free water you want...

Now, if you want it cleaned and pumped to your house? You might have to pay for that service.

Want it cleaned, bottled, and delivered to your local grocery store? Well, you might have to pay for those services as well...

Didn't think before posting that much, did ya? ;) *wicked grin*

PC:)
yes that did cross my mind and if you or the people from Saturn want to do that than please don't clog up the emergency room after you get sick. *more wicked grin* There's an old saying that I'll paraphrase:
All s*** goes into ground water and all s*** flows downstream"

Even though I have mixed feelings about wikipedia, here's there thoughts on your idea.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_pollution:

*more more wicked grin*

You totally missed the point. It wasn't the drinkability of rainwater. ;)

Yes we do. But it still isn't analogous with music/television/games/art. Water is a resource that we absolutely must have to survive. Music/television/games/art is a luxury.

You must pay for water not because of its quality or any of its properties, but only since the moment that it is owned by somebody. You can always use rainwater for free when it falls into your courtyard, but not if it falls into the neighbour's. This way, if the air could be owned ...

You pay again and again to the author of the music because it is owned even after being sold. RIAA is the legal cover for it.

I wonder if we all are equally measured. Most of us must work again if we want to be paid again, no matter how creative our work may be.

"You must pay for water not because of its quality or any of its properties, but only since the moment that it is owned by somebody. "

Um...no?

They "own" it because they've collected, filtered, bottled and distributed it.

As for copyright, I don't think anyone is arguing the fact that it is an artificial "worth". it was designed that way. The intent was to allow content creators some freedom and a *limited* time to continue their works without having to "get a job". Of course, it has since been perverted into a form of perpetual welfare....

Simple solution. If they turn off the DRM servers then they loose any claims against people who break the DRM to use the products they purchased. Sounds fair to me. Maybe that is why people break stuff in the first place instead of buying the DRM laced versions.....hmmm

>RIAA is claiming that customers ought to just suck it up and accept that DRMed tracks will go poof even if they've been paid for, since no other products or service providers are expected to "provide consumers with perpetual access to creative works

Philosophically, that is true, technically it is not-
I understand that Gutenberg Press is no longer
in business.
(Erh, the Gutenberg Bible people, I mean)

Seriously... it kinda sickens me whenever someone tries to justify file sharing. It's wrong, regardless of whether or not the legal method of acquisition is wrong too

or whether the music is so good that it leads to a lifelong source of joy, or just begs to be shared.

I mean, I download too, but I'm not gonna go round saying I'm all high and mighty

It is much better to just borrow friends CD's and make copies.

Also, many public libraries allow you to check out music CD's like books. Check out a dozen CD's at a time and rip them in a couple hours or make copies.

There is no need for downloading music.

Although, if there is a certain song you just have to have, you can always pay 89 cents or 99 cents to download from Amazon.com...DRM-free.

There is no way to protect content other than identifying the device from where it is being downloaded or viewed.

In this regard, we have developed a technology called esysecured that can once and for all put an end to piracy.

They are not the first, the only, or the best. This type of protection has been circumvented many times before. If you seriously believe it can end piracy, you need to take the tin foil hat off your browser.

I think that most people feel comfortable "sharing" because it's done behind the veil of a monitor.
Also, sharing music is based on logarithms/pyramid theory; share with two people, those two people, share with two people, until your small "contribution" has been copied several million times.
The other problem is that most people don't create and do not understand the value/worth of creativity. Go to your 9-6, watch tv, sleep, wake up.
Music may not have royalty value in some critic's eye because of the idea of selling tickets to live performances; but what happens when you're past your prime or are at retirement age and can't perform?
Also, how is identity theft different; someone has stolen something dear to you and is using it to their benefit.

but what happens when you're past your prime or are at retirement age and can't perform?
You work like most people out there. A football player when he can't play anymore becomes a manager or does other things. Really, that shouldn't be an excuse. You don't think it's fair to get the money you need to live a lifetime in just a couple of years?
And they should spend wisely. No fricking private planes, luxury suites and the likes and they will have much more money to spend later.

Respectfully...who are you (or me or anyone) to tell someone else how to spend? If they want private planes, luxury suites, et. al., then they can do that if it's important to them because they make the money to do so. When they retire and have no cash...they can run out the clock in some crooked retirement home investigated by 60-Minutes, remembering the good ol' days.

But...I also believe that most Americans are consumers...not creators. They have no idea the work that goes into coming up with a song, writing it, recording it, producing it, distributing it, marketing it, and performing it; not to mention all the parallel businesses that go along with music (radio, videos, etc.) It deserves protection from the thieving hoards...for a time.

The issue isn't, nor has it ever been, should music be copyrighted. I think most people who think logically about it would agree that artists have the right to make money from their work. The real question is: for how long and with what restrictions...to Ms. Gunn's points in the article...this isn't fought in court.

Yes, I'm nobody but as you say the question is "for how long" and they shouldn't expect to live from a couple of songs (that was the impression you gave with your post). They should be creative all their life and if not face the same as all the rest of the people, lose their work.

That thing about not understanding creativity is simplistic. People IS CREATIVE in their same wok without writing a song and every day, but some decide to share their creativity with the rest of their coworkers while some others plan to live from it for a lifetime.

I don't have any problem with copyright, but in other terms. Just 10 or 20 years of rights and then is public domain. This way "creators" should work all their life as the rest of the people and that would make a better world for sure. Now we need to fix dictators, drug dealers, abusers and we will be done. :P

Hey we can dream about a better world. What would be without them... I mean dreams.

@anonymoustache -"most people don't create"

Everyone creates! Creativity is universal. Certain creativity gets more attention and makes more money than others. Roofers find better ways to do things. Car mechanics find better ways to do things. A guitar player stumbles upon a great 'lick.' Everyone copies all of the above. There are millions of things that are created and copied with no compensation at all. But the artist has the satisfaction of saying 'I discovered that.' The next time you ask someone, 'How'd you do that' and then copy it, you need to compensate the person.

Oh, if anyone quotes or uses my remarks in anyway, remember, I created them and they are my intellectual property. I want to be given credit and compensated for them! Lawsuit will be forthcoming if my copyright is violated in any way. Thank you.

Hey anonymoustache: name ONE musician or "artist" with more than 3 hit songs to their name since the advent of file-sharing that is living in squalor! It's gonna take you awhile. Trust me, if someone is living in squalor, they've blown it all on drugs, women, or gambling, or all three! It's STILL all about the greed of the industry.
"but what happens when you're past your prime or are at retirement age and can't perform?" Well ,if you suck at what you do, then you would know this and look for work in another field like everybody else does BEFORE you get to that point. "One-hit wonders" do NOT deserve to retire in luxury and wealth!
P.S. People DO create when they go to work! It's called "PRODUCTIVITY".

Thank you DonGato! Well put.

Americans are both consumers AND creators. We go to work. We do our jobs WELL. We create products and services. We get paid for that work. We consume(purchase,use) things with the money we make. We retire at the end of this period. If we do any of these things poorly(i.e. "one-hit wonders"), we either get another job, or live in squalor. Again, name ONE "artist" living in squalor who did, or does their job well since file sharing began.

Simply AWESOME!

You are by FAR, the best commenter on this subject to date! Well put. Everyone else should just pack their bags and go home! You just made every pro-industry commenter look like an idiot without a clue! Thank you.
P.S. Can I borrow your comments in the future to shut up all of the file sharing critics?

@ dillapp21

If you're talking to me, be my guest. And thanks for the compliments.

This comment section is really chaotic. You don't know what answers what. :P

Most artists do not indulge in "private planes, luxury suites and the likes". Most artists do not receive the "money you need to live a lifetime in just a couple of years". Most live paycheck to paycheck. Without the benefit of employer assisted health care. You're arguing about the .01% of artists who become rich when the discussion really revolves around the majority (living around the poverty line) who find their efforts distributed for free. In short: Your argument does not address the reality of the situation.

> Yes, I'm nobody but as you say the
> question is "for how long" and they
> shouldn't expect to live from a couple
> of songs (that was the impression you
> gave with your post).

That's not the impression I wanted to give. Sorry if it came across that way. I'd agree with your statement that a single work should guarantee income for life, outside of some residuals every now and again.

We are conumers on budget. Bred that way unfortunately. Fact: Sharing songs sells music. Why is this so overlooked. It is not the fake math billions they are losing as a result of file sharing. The majority of the world is not stealing, just consuming beyond their means. They spend what they can on CDs and digital downloads and share quite a bit of others. Where did the original file come from? SOMEONE BOUGHT IT> When it is shared people are exposed to the artist. If they like it, guess what they may buy it, if not someone who it gets shared with certainly will. Law of averages. This actually gets exposure. People support what they like as much as they can afford to. Then take a little more because they are out of funds. I have $20 guess what that buys one CD. So what if someone took 2. They still only had 20 to spend. Next time they have $20 again they spend it again. And out of a 1000 shares some portion purchase. Some of those purchasers never would have had they not been exposed through sharing.

> "The majority of the world is not stealing, just consuming beyond their means."

:LOL: Why isn't someone using this defense in court?! Oh yeah...like the others people use to justify stealing...it just wouldn't hold up.

> Where did the original file come from? SOMEONE BOUGHT IT...

This person bought 1 copy for their exclusive use (supply). They copied it to 1 or 2 friends who wanted some of the music (demand) who copied it to 1 or 2 more friends who wanted some of the music (demand) who copied it to 1 or 2 more friends who wanted some of the music (demand). Next thing you know you have a few hundred people who have a copy (demand) of a CD 1 person paid for legally for their exclusive use (supply). This isn't "consuming beyond their means" it's stealing.

Hey DataWeasel: Something just occurred to me. Have you ever told anybody about a song you experienced? If so, by your rationale, YOU are ALSO illegally, though indirectly, sharing these files! When you told these people of your experience, it probably encouraged THEM to go and download(as you assumed they would in your above post) those files to experience themselves. They then did the exact same thing as YOU. They told THEIR friends. YOU should have kept that EXCLUSIVE experience to yourself in the FIRST PLACE! Now, all of your buddies are sharing(stealing?) JUST LIKE YOU! Ya better watch out! The RIAA is gonna come looking for YOU now. You illegal file sharer you.

Delusional drivel. I hope you didn't miss too much of the Spongebob marathon to post this.

There is no law against talking about music, or a song, or an artist, or what have you. To the contrary, it's the perfect kind of marketing that artists and record labels go for. However, there IS a law against making copyrighted material available for download..

Don't get me wrong...I'm not saying that I think the RIAA is within it's right to be doing what they are doing, nor is the copyright laws as they currently are written in the US sane. Sorry that you might have gotten that impression. However, the law is the point here, and currently that law says making copyrighted material available for download is 100% illegal. You can try to placate your conscience however you want. Don't like it, coming up with stupid scenarios in Internet discussion forums isn't going to fix it. Getting the law corrected will.

If publishers took the same view regarding authors and their books, libraries would be out of the lending business or forced to collect royalties on behalf of the publishers. After all, you don't read a book as often as you listen to a CD so lending it to someone to read pretty much kills any chance for a sale. Buying music should convey ownership of that copy to the purchaser. Period. I'm with Angela on this issue. Musicians don't need the "music industry" in the digital age and that's why the RIAA is scratching and clawing for every last dollar they can lay their fat, sticky fingers on. It might literally be their last dollar.

"...or forced to collect royalties on behalf of the publishers."

In many cases, they do.

I disagree. In no case does a public library collect royalties on behalf of a publisher. They pay royalties, however, when they purchase materials for their collection. I can say that with certainty as a published author and 10 year library board president.

And I can say with certainty that you are wrong. As an example: In Britain, authors receive library royalties of up to £6,000 every year.

Wow.

Angela Gunn, where has your editorial voice been the last 30 years?

As a person who has seen (in a very intimate way), the behind-the-curtain truths of the music publishing-indentured servant crimes of the century, this is THE first time I have ever read something that has attempted to reveal the truth.

The "uber" elite kings of media totally control this gluttonous gig.

They are the purveyors of this secretive enrichment strategy, and NO, you cannot PLAY.

I only wish the naive I-pod paying users of the world (i.e., "the kids") really knew just how bad it is for the actual artists involved.

Oy vey, indeed (nudge nudge, wink wink)

Will they ever lose their complete and overwhelming grasp of music?

People are incredibly passionate about music and the only thing better than enjoying it by yourself is sharing it. Turning another person on to a thing as singularly powerful as a song, or an artist is one of my, and many other peoples great joys... including apparently that waitress you mentioned. Altruism has nothing to do with it, it just feels good to help another person discover the wisdom and beauty of people like John Lennon, Jimi Hendrix, Stevie Wonder or more obscure musicians like Miho Hatori, Paul Desmond, Joao Gilberto, or Stephin Merritt. The driving force behind this movement is the power of music itself.

I don't begrudge you whatever modest income you can manage from your past work, I hope your checks keep comin, but I wouldnt recommend planning your retirement around them. It's unrealistic to think that you can maintain a lifetimes grasp on something as ethereal as music. People tried to and all we're seeing now is the fallout from their failed efforts and falling empire.

But in the end it's all for the good. People interested in getting rich quick will take up something other than music, leaving just the passionate. Aspiring musicians will be influenced by more artists than ever before, accelerating the growth of the medium. Fan bases will be built faster and larger for anyone who wants to earn a living touring.

You've become attached to the idea of 1 days work, a lifetime of reward, and as the Buddha says, attachment is the cause of suffering.

Never have so few, with so much, did so little, for so many, for so long. And once again the losers are:1) The Artists 2) The Consumers, (THE PUBLIC) I feel so PROTECTED!

I agree that RIAA is a middleman taking more than is justified. No question. They don't represent me, or any of my friends. Bankrupting music lovers is absurd. But the file sharing sites are not altruistic individuals promoting art. Those people are making bank. The individuals sharing files are coming from a much more understandable base... the mentality reminds me of back in the Pleistocene era when I used to make a cassette tape of my favorite songs for my friends from a bunch of vinyl records. But in those days, a copy of my favorite songs was not available at iTunes for 99 cents. If you enjoy a piece of art enough to share it with a friend, doesn't it seem reasonable to spend one entire dollar, so the artist is compensated for their effort? I'll never forget the time I gave a waitress a CD after a gig. I came back a few weeks later and she said "I loved your CD...made copies for all my friends". She's the kind of person who has more than two friends. It was an interesting sensation. I didn't really know what to say, so I said "Gee, thanks". Never occurred to her that I was in the business of selling music, because it seems to this dinosaur that the prevalent mentality in the year 2009 is that 'music is free, to be shared'. The same waitress would never consider walking into a graphic artist's studio and walking off with a print, never mind making copies for all of her friends, she's really an honest person. I still can use the little checks, even if they're coming from a system that is often stealing from the artists. It's a problem, for sure, and the RIAA is not in court because they care about me, but the end users don't really seem to care about the artists either.

DS, you shot yourself in the foot... sure it's hard to confront someone so enthusiastic, but you should have simply graciously explained to the waitress that you did her a kindness and didn't really intend to give it away to all her friends. You can look at it as increased exposure for your product... but I say the RIAA should be going after MASS distributors and not individual sharers. You really should have spoken up to the waitress, or how do you expect readers here to take your laments seriously... I don't condone theft, but there needs to be some pushback against corporate middlemen like the RIAA. Individual sharing is exposure for the artists... mass distribution is major theft. Some sharing is inevitable, period... and you can't reasonably brand it as criminal... and analogies to other products just don't hold up. I like to buy trax for 79 or 99 cents... I like to share too... but I don't make dozens of copies. Buying hardcopy music or CD's in stores is going to go the way of the discount bins for movies as more and more people buy online. I've had Liquid Audio in the past... and they went out of business and I lost my trax. I'll never 'rent' music or subscribe with 'strings' attached. Music is not a utility like electricity. I'll never by DRM'd trax that disappear... if I have to, I'll play the trax and put a mike to the speaker and record it. I don't need digitally 'pristine' music... just something melodic or singable that plays reasonable well (I don't live in an audio studio listening booth)... and hopefully, the artists will reap the majority percentage of the revenues. The days of the distribution/promotion middlemen reaping the lion's share are numbered. Kudos to Ms. Gunn for some of the best descriptions of what should happen to the RIAA and others, that I have ever read... my hero ;)

RR...

Point taken, it would be wonderful to have meaningful conversations at every crossroads... but obviously in the workplace it simply is not possible. She's waiting tables, I'm moving gear.

Criminalizing music enthusiasts is absurd. As a rule, I do not believe the individuals sharing files are stealing, any more than I think I was stealing when I made cassette copies from vinyl. Seems like essentially the same idea to me. I do believe that the individuals are perhaps unaware, perhaps uncaring that a great many artists are dependent to a certain extent on the various commercial uses of their work, particularly those who do not derive any portion of their incomes from creative endeavors.

The mass distributors, on the other hand, are 100% aware of the commercial value of digitized art, and exploit it to their benefit.

Sharing does result in sales, and I hand out CDs like they are business cards for that reason. Extraordinarily expensive business cards, but more music is purchased today via downloads than physical sales, and that's the way it is.

But to suggest that (in the rare event) an artist does somehow manage to create something of commercial value, that any individual who has purchased that item, should be able to instantly negate it's commercial value by 'sharing' through a mass distributor of some sort... a distributor who is deriving profit from use of that item... does not seem reasonable to me. I'm not aware of any other trade in which this might occur, can't think of any analogies in the daily workplace.

If individuals 'shared' their files, one at a time, with their friends, then that would not be a problem. I'm confident that no one would object... that is the essence of 'word of mouth' advertising, without doubt the the most valuable kind of advertising.

However, that is not the case in today's marketplace.... they are typically 'shared' with the entire planet, perfect digital copies. That does alter the equation.

Your argument was going great until you got to the part of someone going into an art studio and taking the art. You GAVE the waitress your cd. I don't think anyone(let alone this waitress) would go into an art studio and steal said art in the first place. Also, most people DO pay the.99 cents to purchase individual songs. The problem lies in the fact that today's artists, by and large, can't create more than 2 songs worth purchasing. Who in their right minds would pay upwards of $20 for a single cd to hear 2 songs? NOBODY! Most of today's artists simply SUCK, and they know it. They just want to make a billion dollars off of 2 songs, and the people ain't buying it.

Very well put. Two people constructively criticizing each other without nasty invective. Both of you make valid points. I guess in an ideal world people would not be able to use mass sharing distributors such as these. I like DS's idea. If there were some way to limit the amount of music shared through these protocols, that, I think, would solve the problem. The only remaining problem would be the greedy businesses such as the RIAA who are only in it for the almighty dollar. Sadly, greed will always trump common sense. .

And a furry little additude too! If you're more interested in getting paid than in reaching people with your music, I feel bad for you bro (and if youre a plant for the RIAA that sits at a computer all day writing sympathetic sounding sob stories and making false analogies then my heart really goes out to you.)

But seriously, I could list a hundred bands that I never would have known existed without file sharing, many of those bands I've paid good money to go see in concert... I even bought some concert tshirts.

Information wants to be free, regardless of what you or anyone thinks. And data is information. And recorded music is data. But the magic of a live performance cannot be duplicated, cannot be transferred, cannot be dragged and dropped. That's where the money is at... if thats what youre after.

ahhh boo-hoo to you and your furry little butt, i'm a multimedia artist and could care less for getting paid for it (although i do) but i steal and have been (enjoying it) for over a decade.

p.s. it was probably me, ds, who stole your hard work and it was so easy, lol

"Music is so much more than the music industry"

Which is why circumventing copyright makes no sense. If you want music freely, partake of the free music. If you want music that is legally protected, purchase it and deal with it. Copyright law allows those who (for better or for worse) want their works protected from illegal duplication. Legally speaking, that is their right.

"The courts aren't the place to conduct our battle against the music industry"

That's part of the problem. People actually believe that there is a "battle". There isn't. No one is forced to partake of works protected by copyright. The enforcement of copyright is a matter left to the copyright holder. Which means that no one is forced to release their artistic endeavors under the protection of copyright. It comes down the the artists choice and consumers choice. Crying foul of copyright in this day and age is akin to walking across a freeway in the dark while wearing all black. And then complaining that a car hit you. You don't want to be hit by the car? Don't cross the freeway.

What's funny about this is that there was no "battle" until some crappy band with a good lawyer noticed they weren't making as much money as they felt they that should have.

No... there's no battle. At all. If you don't want to deal with copyright, don't partake of protected media. There are other options. If you choose to partake of material protected legally by copyright, deal with it. Circumventing the law just because you disagree with said law is a slippery slope.

As an arguably more popular example, try getting Kid Rock's Devil Without A Cause online (legally). And isn't the recent Amazon/Orwell/1984 scandal good enough reason NOT to trust the RIAA, not to mention the fact they exist, leeching off what should be the artist's royalties.

Absurd.

Unfortunately, it will take a few Tenenbaun-like cases before we see the slow, wretched exit of the RIAA. And @DS, of course we don't want to rip off your tunes, we want to give more money to you and less (ok, none) to the middleman, whose antiquated position survives merely because of our antiquated laws.

oh wow a copyright holder with a furry little butt.....now whatever he says!!!!

I'm about as small as you can be and still get an occasional royalty check for a few of the copyrights I own... and as regards your remark.. "hope an honest day's work happens to you someday"... well, I work my furry little butt off and appreciate the tiny checks each and every time. Years ago I found some files I created being 'shared' on Napster. I was thoroughly annoyed, to say the least. Any waiter I've ever known would scream bloody murder if someone lifted a $2 tip from a table, and would be justified. Evidently, you don't feel as though I've 'earned' the little bit of $$ that I'm paid as a copyright holder. I have to wonder why.

Well, I'm glad you still get the checks but if I were you I would be happy people are downloading and appreciating my work. That is partly why you created it. No?

arsenal3b...
Yes, absolutely, I am continually astounded that anyone besides me enjoys what I do."Grateful" does not begin to describe how fortunate I feel that I am (usually) able to pay my bills by doing something that I would do anyway. It's a conversation that my main musical partner and I have on the way to and from every gig. We've been doing this for thirty years, and getting paid for it. Hard to believe, can't really explain it, even from this side. At the same time... we work hard. I practice every day, for a couple of hours, minimum. I enjoy it... lucky me. We rehearse, and love every minute. We've invested thousands in instruments and stage gear. I love them... lucky me. I've learned to use high tech recording software... I hate it... who cares. Still have to eat, maintain gear, buy gasoline, keep the chops u, etc. just like everyone else. We're tradesmen, just like a carpenter or anybody else, except for the fact we're in a trade that appears to the general consumer to be glamorous and easy. "Playing" music. There's no such thing as 'easy money', amigo. And then someone says that we should not be compensated... because data needs to be shared. It's just a little tough to swallow sometimes.

Just to throw in my ten cents.

I may not be in the music industry, but I am in the software industry. Me I enjoy what I do, that is creating software. I do not care if I get paid (although getting paid is nice ). All I care is that someone is using my product and that they are happy with it.

If you ask me that is the attitude the music industry needs. Who cares if we get paid, music is music. If you enjoy making it, if you are truly passionate then the money won't matter. If you ask for donations and do live events you can still make a living at music. As it was pointed out earlier, nothing can replace the expirience of a live event. And I think that many many people would be willing to donate money if it was asked of them rather than demanded.

If you ask me ( and I do not require you to do so, but if you did ) I would tell you that all works out to be copy lefted. All the music and images (I do some graphics work also ) should be licensed under the Creative Commons license.

But hay, I am just a grump old coder, what does my opinion matter.

You are missing something really really important. Piracy isn't the problem, the problem is the business model.
The grateful dead became one of the highest grossing music acts of all time by encouraging their fans to make as many bootleg tapes as they could and pass them out to all their friends. Then they went on to make a killing on concerts, s***s, posters, books, mags, buttons, etc..
You can't stop piracy and furthermore I contend that most of the people downloading music are people who weren't going to buy the music anyway.
As an artist, it's time to stop looking at file sharing's bad points and start looking at how it can help you. File sharing is a great way for an artist to get his/her music out into the world and an effective way to take the power out of the hands of the record companies.

In my case, I'm a graphic artist. While my friends are constantly worrying about making sure the images they post online are too small to make good prints from, and they are constantly scouring the Asian art sites looking for pirated versions of their works, and sending cease and desist order to them, I release my images under creative commons licenses and allow and encourage sharing, printing, and downloading. As a result, my friends are struggling and I am doing really, really well. As a result of the increased exposure, I get commissions from all over the world! More work than I can handle.

My suggestion to you is to stop getting annoyed when you see your work on file sharing sites, and be happy about it because it means that someone thought enough about your work to want to share it. You have just gotten free advertisement with the help of someone that wasn't going to buy your song in the first place. But hey, someone downstream from that person may either want to hear more of your work and look for you when they are purchasing, or be willing to pay to see you live.

Wow! An opinion and a solution that does NOT contain any remnants of greed! You are a true intellectual! Who'd a thunk it?!