i've been following this subject with interest. maybe people who file share wouldn't find the need to do so if the music industry didn't rip people of with their prices - i live in england and we pay more for a music download than anywhere in the country - 20p more than europe! If they didn't rip off the consumer then maybe people wouldn't feel the need to do the same to them.

The largest digital music download retailer in the world is iTunes. They charge 79p for single track downloads in the UK. They charge 99 cents EUR for single track downloads in Europe.

When I ask Google ".79 gbp in eur", I get this response: ".79 British pounds = 0.967153496 Euros", which is 97p for tracks in Europe at today's exchange rate. That's 2p difference.

In the US, people pay 56p for a track, though. That's 23p difference. They say it's because doing business in the US is much cheaper for them than doing business in Europe and the UK.

Have a read of the article on the subject at TorrentFreak. It goes into the details of the news article and details aspects of the case that haven't been widely mentioned at all which change the entire story

http://torrentfreak.com/...-and-the-damages-080821

It's all just 1 and O's, **** it, steal it all.

Talk to a child with stage 3 cancer, then decide how important file sharing is in the scheme of things.

Assrammers.

*laughing*

Because it's less important than cancer, we should all just ****ing ignore it.

There a re a lot of things less important than cancer, should we ignore those as well?

You know, that child probably thinks war, poverty, starvation, torture, drugs, are all less important than cancer. Let's forget about all of them, shall we?

Nice one.

Posting this at the top of the thread.

Bottom line:

There are honest file sharrers.

There are dishonest file sharers.

File sharing isn't going away.

It's a lost battle to try and prosecute to get rid of it.

The public isn't buying intot he "fear" game - they never did and never will.

The file sharers are getting legal council and the Corps are losing.

The Draconian rights policies stripping consumers of value WILL eventually change because it's a losing battle to perpetuate them.

Moralistic posturing won't change anything - at best it will provoke derisive laughter.

If the Corps want the situation changed, they should find a way to add value to their wares. that won't get rid of file sharing - nothing will - but it will bring more customers back tot he fold.

All of the above is inevitability - no amount of rhetoric on either side will change it.

In contradiction to the in-your-face copyright warnings such as for films, piracy isn't theft, its copying, whether you think it's right or wrong that has to be admitted; if you steal a car the owner can no longer drive it, whereas if you copy a song the artist does not lose their material, or indeed any money if the individual wasn't going to buy it in the first place. Most people can appreciate both sides of this eternal arguement, leaving the choice being which side of the theoretical line they fall on.

My view is that the outdated music industry needs to keep up to date and embrace new technology and business models, such as providing free music in return for displaying sponsored advertising (such as QTrax promised), whereby everybody wins. The fact is that the price for a CD single or album is extortionate, and if it were not for the realms of illegal downloads then far less music would be sold. Consider the software industry, many companies make their software easy to copy and use so that students who can't afford to buy them get accustomed to using their brand, so that when they move into a profession they will continue to use it and pay for legal copies. This is also true for the music and film industry; think of it as try before you buy and fairer rights for students (who aren't second class citizens, and don't choose not to work, but can earn very little money when working long hours with no financial return on their educational investment).

Make it cheaper, make it fairer, don't rip-off the very people who make you what you are, and decist in the Americanism of "sue everyone", and the music industry would reep the rewards.

This is a violation of privacy.

LOL!
And the responses just keep getting more ridiculous!

Yup, they should have thought of that before posting on a PUBLIC forum.

People have the right to post on a public forum while remaining anonymous.

Isn't several bands suing the RIAA for not paying them the money that they have collected with theses lawsuits. The RIAA is not even supporting the people that they represent. NICE.

Nothing new here. They are using the money made off of lawsuits to fund...further lawsuits.

Lawyers, judges, and congress critters don't grow on trees, ya know. ;)

Shakespeare said it best.

Once more, the burden of proof falls on the user. I use peer to peer to download FREE (open source and freeware) software in large quantities. Will I be accused of downloading music, movies and video games? If I am, I won't be able to afford to mount a defence. Will I be forced to pay the lesser fine?

LOL! good luck! it will just end up as a big mess like in the USA. Besides, the brits would never let something like RIAA or MPAA happen in their country. What a joke!

LOL!

It's called the IFPI!!

LOL!

BPI mainly.

Sad to see socialism/marxism/communism has reached this level of intensity. Property rights are meaningless to so many people. Governments have no respect for property rights as demonstrated by taking your labor through taxation to redistribute it to those who won't get off their butts and they pass this mentality on through the education systems. Everyone is "entitled" to the fruits of YOUR labors. I'm not arguing over the rights and wrongs of how they prosecute those who do the downloading, just the mentality of the people at all levels of society that believes in the "entitlement" mentality and lack of respect for property rights.

Dear Ed,

I've been running across a lot of talk of "the music industry" and I wanted to remind you that the music industry is a very diverse place. I feel that many journalists and bloggers tend to conflate the independents with the major labels, much to the detriment of the independent music sector, who are generally anti-major and resent the tools of control the majors use to keep competition down and, erm, "influence" consumers. Their tools are organisations like the RIAA.

And even among independent labels there is a divide between those with the culture and attitude of the corporate giants who dominate the industry (and would act just like the majors if they had the market share) and what I consider to be the true independents, who have a culture that is much more artist- and consumer-focussed. Let's just say that independents like the one I work for weren't involved in these lawsuits. At the same time we don't deserve to suffer from illegal downloads. These days, most of us are barely scraping along as it is.

Part of the problem is that the people who are downloading all our music for free don't see the distinction between the companies fuelled by corporate greed and the ones who merely wish to make a livelihood for themselves and the artists they represent. How are the artists supposed to be able to make their music if they can't live off of the fruits of their labour?

I recently attended an event where independent labels were able to talk to a panel of 18-25 year-olds about their music listening and purchasing. The panel was pretty much unanimous in their opinion that the music should be free and that labels and artists should make their money off of merchandising (t-s***s and ringtones) and synchronisation licence sales. It's hard to imagine artists who sell at most 5,000-10,000 albums gaining the stature required to make a living off of merchandising and synchronisation--that's the domain of the really big artists who have major financial backing and that "influence" I mentioned.

My point is that if bloggers and journalists conflate the independents and the majors, regular people will, too. And we're definitely *not* the same.

Regards,

Damon

How are the artists supposed to be able to make their music if they can't live off of the fruits of their labour?

Get a job?

Practice and gig on weekends?

Ya know...Work for a living?

If you happen to be good enough to earn enough from gigs to quit the day-job, Great!

If you are not, why should we support you?

Gotta love the entitlement in this topic.

Damon: I do feel for the independents,and I stand corrected for the music industry term,you are in the unfortunate position of being caught in the middle of a rather messy situation and will get splattered with mud.That is why I wish that all parties could somehow reach a compromise as far as downloading of material,as it has positive possibilities such as exposing minor artists to a very large potential audience,free promo if you wish,but as long as this stigma of every download is illegal mentality persists,I see no immediate resolution.

Ed: Thanks for your comments. I agree that there has to be a middle ground and I hope that many other independent labels are contributing towards finding it. Our label allows listeners to download free songs off of nearly every album we release, but that doesn't appear to be enough for some people, who want everything for "free". But of course nothing is really free. I imagine that some people are unaware that even the least-cost scenario for releasing music to the world requires time, space, recording equipment, servers, and skilled people at all levels to make it possible.

Perhaps if the industry caught up with the technology, this type of draconian old school thinking would cease. As technology evolves, so will the need for business models to evolve. To attck the small people at the bottom of the earning pile is an act of corpoprate desparation brought about through lack of control over change. The law firm are exploiting the games companies, internet users and the ever changing situation. Either government should prevent filesharing from being possible or it should be left alone and business should mofigy their approach. To allow companies and lawyers to prosecute people for using tools freely avaialble on the net is tantamount to government sticking their heads in the sand. make a decision or allow it. Games companies could write software that exploits the internet making it pointless to free download, but they have an out of date mindset, despite leading the way with their digital content. it is a shame. think i will log into the shopping channel to buy a shotgun, oh ... i'm not allowed......

So I've got this big knife in the kitchen, which I obtained perfectly legally from the knife shop... By your logic it should, therefore, be ok for me to use it to stab random people in the street - Just because something is freely available doesn't mean it can't be misused.

As far as the music industry goes I'm in favour of illegal downloads. Not really done that much of it myself, but it's the loss of earnings that I like.

Just consider it, with less money record labels will not be able to pump streams of cash into pop drivel which is only acceptable as music when it has been cleaned up and enhanced using one or two computers. Music may have a chance of going back to the days when only people with talent could make it and they had to tour to make cash.

Artists wouldn't be so easy to cancel tour dates at a moments notice with no thought of the fans if they didn't have their back catalogue of CDs to fall back on and the gig actually mattered to them.

Or maybe I’m just being hopeful and naive.

If it is such crap...why are you downloading it?

Doesn't simply "not buying it" slow their cash-flow?

Stupid freaking "Freedom fighters". You're just as clueless as the rest, trying to justify your self-entitlement.

Downloading is "try before you buy".

I still remember when stores finally started doing that, a knee-jerk reaction to "oh my God, my profits are falling".

There is very little worth buying.

The music industry must accept that they;ll never again have it their way. That they'll never again enjoy the massive profits they did once. That copying music actually improves sales (I can't tell you how many albums I bought after hearing tapes and then later mp3s).

The greed inherent in our culture is what is driving their reaction but for the first time, it has come up against a foe it cannot win against: technology in the hands of everyone and not just the Corps.

From a purely business point of view, the only way out for the Corps is to start providing value for the customer (that which they need to exist) to the point that the customer sees a reason to buy.

lawsuits and capitalist credo ain't gonna do it. Universities, students, average joes are fighting back and the Corps are losing. For every one they prosecute, thousands more download. It's a losing battle form a legal and resource perspective.

The MPAA finally gave up. Inevitably the music industry will follow. It just takes time for their heads to be slammed against the concrete enough for the blood loss to take effect. :) :) ;)

Not in the case of the idiot I was responding to who claims ihe likes it because of the "loss of earnings".

Do try and pay attention.

Having read all these comments regarding the downloading of material,I would pose this question to the people who say that all downloading is stealing.As an aficionado of old music I have gotten stuff that I did not know existed and I could not purchase it even if I wanted to,because it is no longer in print or is not available in North America,I use it for my own enjoyment,I do not copy it,nor do I share it with anyone.I used to be against downloading of material till I saw how the "Music Industry"reacted,ie:sueing children and old ladies and other Nazi like tactics instead of seeking solutions that would keep as many people/groups happy as possible,untill they seek a more reasonable course of action I see only more and more holes in the dike.

Yay! More self-entitled BS!

.I used to be against downloading of material till I saw how the "Music Industry"reacted

So, two wrongs make a right?

As an aficionado of old music I have gotten stuff that I did not know existed and I could not purchase it even if I wanted to,because it is no longer in print or is not available in North America

Who are you to say,

"Hey, this isn't available, but I *want* it, so it's *mine*".

If the artist or label does not want it available that is *their* right.

Not yours.

My opinion,if you don't agree,fine. Calling it BS shows a definite lack of maturity and I will treat it accordingly, it is not "yours" either,so until it is it is better to remain silent.

Of course you will dismiss it. Otherwise, where would you get your free music/movies?

As for calling it BS, I call 'em as I see 'em. You provided no logic or basis for your justification that amounted to anything more than calling it that.

And stealing music is more mature than tools comment, gotta love that. Just because you want something doesn't mean that you are entitled to it. My God the I want it its mine is rather sick. Hell you want more money why don't you steal it from a bank or your neighbor there is no difference. Call it what you want but acquiring something that you did not pay for is theft.

"Hey, this isn't available, but I *want* it, so it's *mine*".

Who are you ti dictate what is available and how much you can gouge for it, especially when the artists themselves want it otherwise? Who are you to limit my rights for that which I paid money for in such a way as to wield the power of a master over a slave?

A pimp.

So, to answer your question, who am I to say the quote above?

The Customer.

God.

The One (the ONLY ONE) who justifies the existence of the entertianment Corps.

Provide me what I want, at a fair price, with reasonable and not Draconian legal rights or I will take my own steps.

Because thanks to technology, I now have the means to wrest your yoke from around my neck (and my wallet).

It's Consumer Detente at its finest.

Play Nice Or I Will Remove Your Capability To Play.

Eminently fair after over sixty years of enslavement, payola, greed and gouging.

I've spent more on music than most if not all of you here. i started collecting at the age of eight. I've seen the prices wildly inflate, the con job that was CD, the new con job that is SACD and the the rise of the Entertainment Reich. I've seen the "one song albums filled with dreck".

The present situation is the direct result of having mandarins dictate a market exclusively to their advantage with little thought to the customer. Now there is a situation that has evolved where they no longer have the tight control they are used to. it's time for them to actually become...

...oh, I don't know...

COMPETITIVE.

They now actually have to provide value.

They don't know how.

They are hoping for a return to The Old Days.

That's just never going to happen.

They need to exercise some serious thought about the services they are supposed to provide and how to make them attractive to consumers again.

Two wrongs don't make a right?

Who cares.

Somehow, the guys who threw the Boston Tea Party didn't give a crap about those lofty, self-righteous and above all hypocritical "morals".

They just got the job done.

BTW, for an example of folks who did figure it out (not that I agree with their solution but it does work), look at Apple and iTunes.

They're making money and they ain't whining, crying the blue about "two wrongs don't make a right" or any other nonsense. They aren't suing anybody.

They turned the situation to their advantage.

EDIT:

I logged off and then remembered this real-world example. There is a cool Brazilian Nu Jazz band called via Jameiro. they had one album, appropriately entitled "Via Janeiro. It's very difficult to get. i've been trying for literally years. I finally tracked it down to an online store that wanted 35 EUROS for it plus shipping.

I Don't Think So.

I first became aware fo the band through some 192bit MP3s that I downloaded. Now, no highway robber is going to get 35 EUROS (!!) out of me, plus shipping, for something that costs less than 10 CENTS to make. So I'll happily listen tot he reduced quality MP3s while checking back with various record stores until someone comes to their senses and charges me a reasonable price for what I am very willing to buy.

Stick the "Two Wrongs Don't Make A Right" rubbish in a suitable orifice - the record companies are reaming ALL of ours.

It ain't stealing here.

It's making a copy a la research material according to our Supreme Court (despite your government's feverish but unsuccessful efforts to coerce our government into changing that).

As to "I want it, it's mine", capitalism has built that mentality for well over a hundred years and the rampant throw-away consumerism of the "Me Generation" personifies that. get used to it. If you don't like it, change the business model.

Yep,so do I

Contrary to what some may think,I have spent much more than I should have on music,having purchased my first 45 rpm record in 1965.Since that time I have collected(purchased)thousands of 45's,8 track tapes,LP's,and yes CDs and DVD's,and I do download some additional music,not a lot but some. Some people get ruffled feathers real easy though,makes for a more lively debate.

First of all I did not steal it,it was made available,I made a copy,the original is still there,much like recording a TV program,ever done that?,if you have,well I rest my case. It is also possible to conduct a conversation without resorting to derogatory expletives,which in my opinion shows immaturity,or a lack of self control,as does equating copying music to stealing money,please

*yawn*

It's too expensive!

They suck!

Waaah! I hate them!

I think they're wrong!

I'm not going to let them!

More BS to justify your overblown sense of entitlement. Don't want to pay 345 euros for it? One would think you could just live without it than...but *no*....you're entitled to the MP3.

*laughs*

You have the responsibility of a child. Congratulations.

Who are you ti dictate what is available and how much you can gouge for it, especially when the artists themselves want it otherwise?

So full of s***. The artists signed. If they want, they can sign with someone else when the contract is up.

You think you are GOD?? You are one of *BILLIONS*, the majority of which are more than willing to pay. You are no god...you're just a whiny brat who thinks they should charge him less because you're so *special*.

Special....indeed.

First of all I did not steal it,it was made available,I made a copy,the original is still there

Take a $20. Copy it. Let me know how you like it in federal prison.

Thanks for playing.

Some of the comments below are STAGGERINGLY ignorant and niave.
If a piece of music has enough worth for you to want to listen to it, then you should pay for it.
Suggesting that musicians being paid for their work equates to a police state is utter twaddle! It's like suggesting that firemen should work for free!
If you want hobbiest musicians, if you want part time efforts you will get the music you deserve...and it wont be pretty!
Musicians have bills to pay just like the rest of the world, stealing from them is just pushing nails into the coffin of a once vibrant music industry.

Glad I don't live in a police state!

Give it a few years though and we could be just as bad as they are :(

Artists put some of their music on the net to be purposely downloaded, its free publicity, and the other artists well, if they music weren't available on the net I wouldn't be a fan or listen to their music as much as I and other people do at the moment

Downloading is the way of the future, and if artists really want to make money open up a clothing line otherwise just get back to work and carry on making music for the me, the people, the world............in mp3 format for people to download free lolz

In terms of music - DROP DRM!!!! When that happens I will happily buy music from reputable online sources!!!! - The only reason I don't is because I can't take my MP3 - WHICH I PAID FOR and play it on my SD card in my MP3/SD enabled Car radio/Hifi/DVD player.. or any other computer in the house!!! Once this is sorted I guarantee you people will come flooding through to buy them.. Just look at 7digital!!

Exactly,I have purchased music from LEGAL on-line music stores and it is a royal pain in the ass,I can't play it with just any music player,I put it on my computer,tried to play it ( after several months),with the required player,guess what,it says I have to download it again in order to play it,the site wants me to pay for it again.As an interesting side bar I read recently about groups suing record companies for using their material ILLEGALLY,and failing to pay royalties.Sort of people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw rocks.

HUGE cottage industry in utilities allowing you to reclaim your rights as a consumer. Google is your friend. :) :) ;)

File sharing and copyright violations are a serious crime comparable to muggings, burglaries,thefts. You're robbing the creators, authors, and artists of their dedicated hours, days, and months of work.It totally demoralises these people to a point where they'll stop doing their good works. Society as a whole will lose then.

How dare you say that! If I want it, then I am entitled! I say so! I determine what I want and who are you to suggest that the owners of such material have any say!

It is people like you and your common sense who are destroying this society! While it is parasites like us who self-entitle ourselves and others to others material that makes this society great.

So, let's have no more common sense posts that do no more than confuse the myriad adolescents here who have entitled themselves to others work and who whine and idiotically think that CD prices are higher now (in current dollars) than they were 30 years ago (but gee, they cost more dollars now dont they! See...its more! duh!)

kumkum what r u on? u serious? u must go out muggin urself rite? lolz

artists should b making music for the luv of music not for money and if stop making good music coz they aint got no money then they aint no real artist just sum commercialized produce of the music industry

yea it is wrong but muggins,thefts,burglaries u cant compare, no one gets hurt wen downloading duffy - mercy?? do they?? nah i dint fink so maybe duffy´s pocket but come on artist make most their money on tour

so allow ur statement, stop listening to britney spears and society wont loose anything apart from the fine everyones gonna pay

and another thing, record labels and game software companies should stop charging so damn much if they want people to actually buy their stuff , come on like a dvd costs only lyk 25p nowdays or something

Oh Please,that comment is not worth any reply

So theft is ok. How about I take something from you that worked hard for. The fact that I want makes it ok to take it from you. That is just what you are saying.

There weren't CDs 30 years ago Numb nuts.

There were these great things called LP and Single records, and Gosh you could record mix tapes and play them back or give them to friends. OMG How can that be?

(Side note LPs so on the way back to popularity it seems, I been seeing them all over... why? Gee NO DRM BS maybe? I think so. Long live the LP)

A few years later you could take smaller cassette tapes with the content and play them on a walkman as you moved around town, instead of having to carry a stack of records or a reel tape.

OMG in heaven the world came to an end copyright holders were not getting compensated.
BULL CRAP!

Today were have the EXACT same argument going on that the Betamax ruling was suppose to have ended at long ago. But No the industry in their ever growing need to be a pain in societies a** decided to pressure ignorant politicians with campaign donations and fundholders to pass DMCA, the worst law ever contrived short of prohibition. So now the EXACT same freedoms we had with fair use just 10 short years ago are felonies, that aren't felonies cause they NEVER go to Federal court! NEVER! Why? Because the Industry does not DARE take it to Federal court cause they have ZERO evidence that can stand up to such scrutiny, and they dare not risk another case that could result in it going to the supreme court and result in another BETAMAX type ruling as it should have years ago.

So for this NON-Felony felony. Not counterfeiting, Not Profiteering, Not racketeering (thats what the RIAA does), Not selling, nor distributing of any physical product what so ever. Essentially this crime is the equivalent of someone walking around with a boombox playing a CD and being told that they are in violation of copyright law because someone could be listening to that without paying for it, or worse hearing something they like and recording it from the air. OMG AIR becomes a distribution channel!! SUE anyone that has ever heard music from car to car.

I'm all for the brits taking these to court maybe there they will allow it to go high enough for a ruling that will actually make the industry quake in their boots once again and stop this nonsense once and for all. In all reality I say lets lock up you people and you can live in that little world of yours you like so much in a nice little penal colony (I hear Australia is nice; worked before lol) while the rest of the millions upon millions of masses continue life as normal.

You're FAR too late.

Capitalist Greed has already made your mucky moralistic parable a reality by stealing for the consumer for decades.

Given that it's not the "property" of the artist but owned by the pimp who 'represents" him or or and given that the artist sees very little of what they 'worked so hard for" and given that it's an imperfect copy of that property and not the original and thus also not "taken away" and given that...

If you get near a point, make it.

Here's two recent real-world examples that will hammer the point home:

Two years ago, ALL Canadian artists withdrew from the CRIA (the Canadian arm of the American RIAA) and formed their own association. The sreason given? "This organization is self-serving and does NOT represent the best interests of Canadian artists and we wish no affiliation with them". The second example is when our current (soon to be gone - Fall election likely) Conservative government attempted to introduce copyright legislation mirroring DMCA. Again Canadian artists spoke out against it, stating in a press release that such legislation (and the DRM that would result) does NOT represent the interests of Canadian artists (who incidentally have come out publicly stating that they have no problem with file sharing as long as people buy the CD if they like the material), that Mr. Harper (the Prime Minister) had NOT consulted Canadians on what they wanted and finally that they had hoped we would have learned from "the American mistakes". Kind of hard to get support when the people you're supposedly trying to represent call you out as kissing the a** of big business (particularly American bug business) and ignoring Canadians - who elected you.

We *like* our system. That's why we don't have *yours*. How dare you assume that yours is the best? It ain't theft is the people who produce the material don't view it as stealing. That's YOU imposing your own "moral standards" on the situation - something you people do very very well on a global scale and attempt to coerce others to do the same. To your own detriment, I might add. We're trying very very hard to keep the corruption, blatant disregard for consumer rights and self-serving political pandering of lobby groups that plague your political and legal system out of ours. This is just one topical example.

Of interest is the fact that some of your own artists (Radiohead, Evanescence) have come out publicly with that point of view.

The war is over - the content producers, suing the sh1t out of people, have lost.

All you will do is make more enemies. People are downloading because of the obscene prices you put up in the first place.

The problems they've got here is a hideous lack of hard facts.

They have no idea who actually uploaded the material. As has been proven, it is actually possible to get a letter sent to a printer about copyright infringement(?). They magically presume that downloading = uploading (which is actually quite rarely the case).

They can't just sue the broadband contract owner if it wasn't them that uploaded it.

Basically, they're lacking in actual facts when it comes to suing people.

Also: stop blowing your money on lawyers, advertisments about how downloading is illegal, and groups like the RIAA and you'll actually SAVE some money. How about that, eh?

Hi
I think this as gone to far now as the entertainment industries need to realize that the price they are asking for their products are more then the average Joe can afford.

In this day and age of high priced goods its the people who have children that want the latest music or game just can not keep up with the massive out put the industries have.

It is the families with the lest amount of income that will suffer from this and i think they all in the top end of entertainment get Paid to much for what they do and the industries need to stop being so greedy.

as for the individual that is down loading for their own personal use i think they should be left alone as you can tell personal use from use to gain vast amounts of money from coping to sell to the public.

THE ALREADY RICH OR RICH GET'S RICHER

I was walking down the street the other day and I saw this sweet ride, man!
So I whipped out my matter replicator and made me a copy, the cars owner never knew, even got me some custom plates.

The point is copying is NOT stealing since the original still remains intact and usable.
It's 'lose of earning'
(maybe I would have bought the car! yer right like I'm loaded)

Drive it and you go to jail.
waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

So let me get this right if I use my color copier to photo copy money its ok since the original is still there. Ok, try convincing the FBI that.

Good luck with that.

"Illegal file-sharing is a very serious issue resulting in millions of pounds of losses to copyright owners"

But its free! And its MINE! What about MY rights to self-appropriate others property without compensation!?

I am a victim! I am a victim! I am a victim!

Needless to say, if guilty, the dumb@sses deserve what they get.

What "real" property is taken? You and you're libertopian fantasies.

Also, it has been proven that downloading alone doesn't affect sales.

Trollin', trollin', trollin'..

FACT:

Person A downloads Alleged Victim D product.
Discovers its crap and deletes the thing almost immediately P A avoids waste cost , AV D is not rewarded for a garbage product.

Person B Downloads AV E product.
Discovers its a product of quality, and purchases it. AV E is rewarded for Quality product.

Finally Person C Downloads Either AV D or AV E product.
Uses it and passes word of mouth on it.
Person C would never purchase the product at all to begin with.
AV D AV E is not rewarded or Punish as it was an unrealized sale that was never going to happen to begin with. However Both benefit from word of mouth experience of Person C. At the same time Person C enjoys NO benefits of updates, or patches, or support that Person B would have attained naturally by purchasing the product.

This is exactly why MS sends out TONs, and I do mean TONs, of free NFR versions of their software to millions of users world wide at ZERO cost. In a sense BEGGING them to use the product for the feedback and a possibility of a future sale if the opportunity arises that their product will fit their needs.

Point is there is a group of people that download that will NEVER buy it regardless of it being available free or not. Those are not losses those are unrealized losses. They would NEVER have happened anyway, so it can not result in a physical LOSS. Take away the free download and add in the prosecution costs and you still get the same sales level with a realized loss generated from the legal fees and all the Anti P2P hackers you have to pay off to get the Person ABC lists to begin with. So is it any wonder they continue to loose money? Cause nothing they do is going to ever make Person C buy their product. Just never going to happen.

And lets face it, if Person A bought the product and trashed it; That doesn't help them much either cause they will most certainly not be a return customer. So the only one they hurt is the person doing the right thing. Person B.

That was the point in more detail.

Shareware and trialware is prefect Person B mentality. And is the natural order for this medium, and just about ANYTHING digital for that matter. If you like it, you are going to buy it, to support what you like and ensure more of the same keeps coming. If not, Its not going to be used anyway, cause you don't like it. So it goes away.

PS: Oh I did forget 1 more scenario.
Lets call him Person B1 cause it fits that event.

Person B1 Downloads the product Likes it and wants to use it. However Alleged Victim E has an unrealistic price tag on their product and Person B1 is unwilling to purchase product at that price. Over time the price falls because demand was low and price was too high. This is Econ 101 here folks.

Once the price comes into line with what Person B1 is willing to pay they reward the AV E as they always intended too. (two examples pop into my mind immediately. Music on iTunes, and MS Vista. However in Vistas case people just didn't use it after RC2 at all and waited for the price to drop and equipment that was compatible with it.)

The point is Person B1 is the control to inflated prices that an Alleged Victim often tries to pass on and make excuses for being so high because of illegal downloads. When they know full well that the above scenarios are FACT. Their REAL losses incurred are from THIER actions not the people downloading. As Person C would have Never purchased the product regardless of it being unavailable someplace for free. And Person A would have probably demanded a refund for a garbage product they will never again use.

You're of course right - online downloads don't affect sales.

In fact, they serve as such great publicity that sales of music are up dramatically.

And intellectual property isn't "real" property, and since you can't touch it it doesn't exist.

So, if you are buying a CD or the hardcopy of software, you are not paying for the use of the contents, you are simply buying the substrate...

The only intellectual property that is worthless is that which YOU utter.

Thanks for your continued comic relief.

Been practicing that legal abortion of logic long?

Bottomline: someone downloads it and likes it - they DON'T buy it as they already have it. Duh!

They share it with their friends, and they being smarter than you, already having it, don't buy it.

You see, some aren't as stupid as you downloading things they don't like only to delete them.

And the tons of promotional material distributed is not the full package or it has a limited functional lifespan - it is NOT the full program whereby the person gets full unlimited use of the product.

But then you must have a ball with your library of demo programs.

But why do you sound like one of the idiots trying so valiantly to justify themselves for having downloaded so many songs that you are of course going out to buy...or so goes your whine just after they nab you.

Spoken just like someone who has never produced anything of value who still lives with his mommy.

If I like it from a download I buy it. Be it software, Movies, TV shows, or Music. If I don't like it I trash it and do so with the justification that I didn't reward a pion like you producing Garbage. If anything I should charge the likes of you for the wasted bandwidth.

What YOU want is for the consumers to be suckers and be tricked into buying your product at the highest possible price without actually ever knowing anything about it. That is such a dead business model they barely even teach it in College anymore. The Reality of a Digital Age is a Quality Product is rewarded. And if its garbage its well known ahead of time to avoid it.

And NFR Software is Not for Resell, and it is Fully Functional Versions of Product (often enterprise level) that I receive Continually from Microsoft directly. Not demo, Not Trial, NOT ILLEGAL. Anyone that has Ever worked in retail or the IT field has at least seen it if not have some of it themselves. And your ignorance of this is Proof that you have no idea about anything in this industry except your narrow view that You feel your potentially garbage product should be paid for every time its heard, downloaded, or viewed. Sorry, But Its just not going to happen that way if its online. And reality anymore is if its not online No one cares about it anyway. Hence the success of Open source, Shareware, and Trialware product (and for music online sampling) that was almost nonexistent back in the Business Era you and the RIAA MPAA seem to be stuck in.

You download the full material and then, if you like it, you add an additional copy that you then go and buy.

Fascinating. You are a rarity.'
If the others did so, I suspect they woud have a great case to soimply produce the hardcopy and say see, I have bought it. The fact is, most of the folks on P2P networks, just like on PirateBay DO NOT.

Your notion that most share files in order to go out and buy that which they already have a copy of is utter nonsense.

And if a material OWNER CHOOSES to distribute an unlimited use copy of their product, THEY are free to make the decision. NOT YOU.

If they decide to do that, it is not illegal.

IF, however, you in your infinite wisdom, decide to do it for them, it IS ILLEGAL. And THAT is what we are talking about, dimwit.

"Your notion that most share files in order to go out and buy that which they already have a copy of is utter nonsense."

What a load of BS that statement is... your view of the world is so twisted.

There are still honest people around.

...and very few of them use file sharing networks.

The *vast* majority of file-sharing is copyright infringement. Pure and simple.

Honest people generally know better.

My God

So if you download something and you don't like it you get rid of it and its ok since it was junk. What a load of s***t. No one says that you have to buy the product you could just give it a pass. I guess you are entitled to everything that is good. If its not up to your high expectations the creator deserves nada. Suppose you went to work and on pay check day the company states we don't like the way you worked so we aren't going to pay you. Oh yeah you I forgot you are entitled to that check. Your excuses are pathetic.

What is sad is that what the file sharing was made for was something good and thieves have killed it.

That is correct. People should be pissed off at the likes of Hollywood or c4pone or any number of other idiots here trying to justify the very reason file sharing is vilified and DRM is so cumbersome.

one important point that all the conservatives are missing in their dribbly fiscal arguments against file sharing of music specifically, is that most musicians copy, imitate, or reproduce their peers and idols (their influences) in order to make their music. this is why genres appear coz the musicians are too feared to go it alone. where do u think the general publics charge "they all sound the same" originates? why in the charts are all songs around the four minute mark? why they all using bass, drums, geetars, keys, singers? why they all shop at the same music stores, fender, roland, yamaha, sabian, etc. copying or rather the modern, sampling, is integral to artistic existence. removing this would render innovation at the end of a chain held fast by the incessant masterbaters hanging at the riaa.

What? So songs sound similar, therefore its ok to take them without paying?

Songs sound similar because lots of people like the same kind of music. They buy equipment from the same manufacturers because these manufacturers are perceived to make good equipment.

Just because you don't like the way music is made doesn't mean its ok to take something which has not been made freely available by the owner for free.

the tunes and the melodies are lifted from other musicians work. the beatles and the stones took from the blues. should paul mccartney give a large amount of his fortune to african americans? this has to be a point the unshiftable conservatives in this debate could agree upon.

"Songs sound similar because lots of people like the same kind of music" what do you mean by the use of the term "like?"

"Just because you don't like the way music is made" i never said this. this is your imagination creating stuff for your own use, please either support it with evidence or retract it?

"So songs sound similar, therefore its ok to take them without paying?" before the copyright laws were introduced musicians plied their trade either in the concert hall, as traveling jonglers, buskers, or hired for functions. now the big four majors rape musicans for what they tell the musicans they gonna have. so, sign with a major and u get 6 percent. out of this 6 percent comes all the costs of manufacture, recording, distribution, videos, etc. beardyboy - in your argument u implicitly support this cartel like trading and thats disengenous to working musicans at best. at worst u simply dont research before u enter a debate.

Wow that is really reaching while also being BS.

"Fascinating. You are a rarity."

Hell no. I do that myself - have done so for years. I know at least six people within striking distance that do the same (they buy to support the artist, to get the nice album artwork, etc.).

The propaganda of the Corps would have you believe otherwise and they suckered you VERY well.

"...and very few of them use file sharing networks."

Dead wrong. The six people iterated in another post who do buy what they download, and also myself ALL use the file sharing networks.

Lot's of Corp-sponsored propaganda and lots of suckers believing it.

Hell, do you know how HARD it is to buy an original Supperclub Vol. 1 CD? Took me MONTHS to find it.

DRM is a crime against user rights - plain and simple. I paid for it, I have the right to use it in any device I choose in any manner I see fit. I don't subscribe to the whole "yes you bought a car and you can use it as long as it stays in your garage" rubbish which is what DRM effectively is.

Remember, two wrongs don't make a right (derisive laughter).

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go download the Olympics Closing Ceremonies from the file sharing networks.

Don't like the DRM?

Did you know you can buy it without DRM? They sell it that way on these things called "CD"'s.

Yeah, cool, huh?

Now tell me how you're entitled to it in any format you want, and that if it's too expensive for you, you have the right to download it for free...

Do you know how little I care how hard it was?

If you hadn't been able to find it, you'd have kept the downloads anyway....right?

More entitled BS. Nice scrambling to justify it though. It's always fun to see the asinine excuses you idiots come up with.