I used to share music like many others, but over time, my views have changed like many of you folks. I have stopped for several reasons:
> It is indeed ethically wrong to download music without paying for it.
> The music I hear nowadays is junk, so there's no point.
> If there is a diamond in the rough, I would support them by buying their CDs. This would be great when many people do this -- it encourages the good artists and tells the bad artists to go home.

For you file sharers who think the RIAA is doing wrong, I sympathize with you because their actions are indeed too single-handed.

Ok, avarage cd is like what, 15-20 dollars US? And each CD is about 12-15 songs.

So my question to you is this: If there was a service that has access to the music of the world, would you subscribe to it ?

Now I am probably going to get bashed and flamed for this but here it goes.

Anyone over the age of 30 will probably say yes. Anyone under the age of 30 will probably say no.

Why ?

Maturity. Pure and simple.

You know in your heart of hearts, that file sharing is not really right. It is stealing. Everyone knows that stealing is wrong. If stealing wasn't wrong, then you could go to your local Wal-Mart and take anything you want from the store, without paying for it, and not be punished.

Go to Wal-Mart today and try it. You will be arrested and tossed into jail.

Why ?

CAUSE STEALING IS WRONG !!!!!!!

The music is copyrighted. (like software ! and movies ! and books !) Someone owns it. If you want it, you have to PAY for it.

Pure and simple.
Period.
End of discussion.

I love sharing music. Since I've been downloading music, I have been listening to music from the USA less and less. I love listening to music from all over the world. Has anyone ever heard of Dir en Grey, Rammstein, Crystal Kay, Gackt, Ayumi Hamasaki, Unspeakable, or Yaida Hitomi? The only way I could ever listen to their music is through P2P. If I could ever find any of their CDs, it would be at least thirty dollars to have it shipped to me. What if I only like one song? Thiry dollars for one song? It's simply impractical. Foreign music isn't the only plus for P2P networks. Bands or musicians that aren't mainstream can be found so much easier through file sharing. As for the RIAA, does anyone know that they take more money from musicians than P2P netoworks do? There have been many studies clearly stating that music swapping doesn't have a significan't effect on CD sales. There are many reasons why music swapping isn't wrong. Many people just don't know all the facts.

-- Grid --

Finally a smart post. I couldn't agree more! There is more music than m&m and britney spears.

Besides, how is it stealing? If I stole music from a file swapper, he/she would no longer have that song. Besides, since they are letting me download it, its not stealing sice I have their permission. Maybe if the RIAA charged the artists less and spent less on lawyers and more money on bringing rare music in for 25 cents, then things would be different.

I will never buy a CD from any artist just because of the Nazi actions of the RIAA. If the groups support the RIAA, then screw them!!!!!

that's just like saying you're not going to drive on the roads anymore because you don't like the police pulling people over for speeding.

this analogy breaks down very fast so i don't want to press it anymore but the RIAA is doing what they are legally entitled to do. when they've over-stepped their bounds (ala DMCA) they've been restricted. i don't really care much for the RIAA either as i would rather give my money to the artists, but the law is the law. anyone that says music should free shouldn't be getting paid at their own jobs.

well........ it's been 2 yrs since i paid for a retail CD.So there!!

http://DONTBUYCDS.ORG

Myself and thousands and thousands of other music enthusisists agree with you. We will never buy music CDs ever again, period.

Millions of young people growing up will never have bought a CD, and probably never will, as distribution networks continue to change.

Keep empowering the corporation!

and that's absolutely your right. i still like CDs, myself. i like to have the case and cover.

Personally, I can care less about the issue of music. Mainly because I do not listen to it to begin with. The real issue isn't necessarily the CDs or enjoying the music. The issue is theft. Most people can't seem to get it pass their own wants and desires that what they are doing is wrong. They are expecting people to work and not get paid for it. Regardless of how anyone feels, none of the arguments I've heard so far would hold up in a court of law. The only things I've heard, and then some, are ... The RIAA is charging too much ... or ... the artist make a ton of money ... I'm not buying a CD because they can't do this ... That's crazy. Look at it this way, someone breaks into your house and robs you. Will you just sit there and not try to get your property back? No you wouldn't. By any means necessary you'll be trying to find out who it is so you can get what's yours back.

Why make up excuses? Most people steal because it's easier to steal than to go about getting it through legitimate means. Yes, it's easier to download than to buy. But theft is theft. Regardless of how you look at it. If you do not want to buy the CD, then don't buy it. But why turn to illegal means to do it? They have every right to charge as much as they want to for a CD. No one can stop that. They have to make money just like everyone else. A basic rule of economics, TINSTAAFL. There is no such thing as a free lunch. That means everything has a cost. Even things that are "free". Eventually, someone has to pay somewhere.

man, i really hate going into these discussions but i couldn't help myself. i 100% agree with you. people are trying to justify to themselves reasons for stealing. its the same as people trying to justify warez by saying software shouldn't be free. they use mentor's manifesto or something similar as a scapegoat when in the end they just don't want to pay for it. as much as i am against illegal software and such, what really bothers me is that people try to justify it without having an argument. they want downloadable music but when services like iTunes and such come out with relatively inexpensive prices they complain again.

Yep, I completely argee with the above posts.

Consider this:

Picture it: somewhere in America.

You have a nice PC, sitting near your window in your house. I walk by and see said nice PC, and notice that the front door is open and no one is home.

I go into your house, and take PC. Why, cause to me, it's FREE !

So please, anyone who complains about music and file sharing, etc, etc. Do us all a favor. Leave your house unlocked, your car keys in the ignition of your car, your ATM and credit cards out with the proper security codes for them. And then tell everyone about.

Yep, losing stuff that belongs to you get pretty old fast.

Grow up, nothing is free in life. EVERYTHING comes with a price.

I absolutely hate when people try to compare peer-to-peer theft to real theft examples. No one ever gets it right..

Try this one on for size. When my house was robbed, I lost my stereo receiver, my 6-disc changer, my speakers, and my 120-cd case (which was full of legit CD's, I still have the cases), do you know what they told me? CD's have no "legal" value and their street value could not be added to the theft. My case was labelled Aggravated Theft where if the value of the CD's had been added, it would have been Grand Theft and I may have actually had a police office do something other than eat donuts.

This happened a few years ago and since then, I have purchased probably 3 CD's. Now when some big corporation reports huge "sales" losses, they get to do whatever they want as far as John Doe cases.

What most people fail to grasp is the greater crime. Assigning random numbers to a case as a "potential loss of sales" should be considered false evidence. While I do agree that some sales may have been lost due to P2P, I have downloaded many artists that I would have NEVER been caught purchasing. When someone hears the music I play, I always provide information in case they decide to purchase the album.

i would definately agree that the word "stealing" itself has different concepts depending on what you're talking about. if i steal your car, i now have it and you don't. however, if someone steals a song, no one has lost a song, but someone has gained one. if i break into BMW's headquarters and copy the schematics to their next car, i've stolen them but they still have them. each of these is covered by the law but are all forms of stealing. it sucks about your CDs, but i consider that a case concerning your local police department and/or insurance agency. as far as whether P2P is causing record industries to lose money, i've seen figures supporting both sides, so to me that part of the argument is a stalemate.

Stealing in my view is, downloading music then burning to a disc and then selling them. that's stealing !!!! i don't do that.

so the act of stealing to you isn't actually taking something that doesn't belong to you, instead it is the act of profiting off of said "taken without permission" goods, right? and i can also pull down a warez copy of Windows XP, Office and Photoshop and install them and that's fine since i didn't sell them? and as long as i don't sell a car, i can take any car i find on the street and it wouldn't be stealing?

yohimbe9 - you can go on & on with this subject. personally i don't use cracked software. but i see your point.has for music, if you bought CD's in the past and you want to share it with your friends or family members you copy the music to a tape and you give it to who ever. nothing was ever said about that, before the days of music file sharing. the music industy was caught sleeping when the p2p techology was born. now the RIAA is using (really buying) new laws to do what they are doing.

surfbum4fun, i have actually enjoyed this conversation and respect you for holding your ground on your point. i always enjoy a good argument. as such, this will probably be the last thing i say on this. the RIAA actually did fight against the tape recorder and the CD back in the day and that's how the AHRA Act came about (http://cyber.law.harvard...roperty00/MP3/ahra.html). another example is when the MPAA fought (and lost) against VCRs.

but to your point, the RIAA does distinguish between people that want to share music with their family and friends (a relatively small population) and the mass internet. while both are technically illegal, they are concerned about the mass market and have addressed that in an FAQ here:
http://www.riaa.com/news...ngs/napster_faq.asp#mix

Yohimbe9- I also enjoy a good debate............thanks !

Stealing can have as many meanings as you want it to, but it still doesn't apply to what's being done on P2P networks.

The RIAA is suing for copyright infringement, not theft. Theft necessarily involves one person/entity being deprived of something, be it physical or virtual, by someone else. Since you are not actually taking anything from the record company, you are not committing theft. Whether you are committing copyright infringement is a separate debate, but it bugs the crap out of me that people keep referring to it as "stealing" or "theft" when even the RIAA will tell you that what they are suing for is not theft, but copyright infringement.

It's also interesting to note that the only studies supporting the RIAA's claim of lost revenue have been in some way supported or commissioned by the RIAA. Also keep in mind that they have a way of twisting facts to suit their goal. For example, they claimed that CD sales were down last year. Only problem is, they were claiming this based on their members shipping less CDs to stores than the previous year. The actual number of CDs sold actually increased, according to the industry tracker (SoundScan). Only in RIAA-land does it count as a loss if you ship fewer but sell more.

Its different with files. You DON'T steal the files when you download them!!! You COPY them, meaning they have the original and you have the copy. Its not the same thing as stealing a car since you leave the owner with NO car.