Illegal File-Sharing

**desihotchick** · 12-31-2005, 05:30 PM

Should be legalised in my view.

**lobato777** · 01-15-2006, 06:22 AM

Originally Posted by maebach

I think it should be legalised because the artists get paid enough.

I agree.

**DorisInsinuate** · 01-15-2006, 02:32 PM

Originally Posted by lobato777

Originally Posted by maebach

I think it should be legalised because the artists get paid enough.

I agree.

Yeah, all five of them get paid way too much.

**suprafreak6** · 01-16-2006, 05:14 AM

its not the artist that makes this money its the record label, the artists make few dollars on everycd, record label takes everything else

**Tempestv** · 02-18-2006, 03:00 AM

The RIAA likes to claim that every song I download is a $1 theft (price of a song on Itunes) but the thing is that I would not listen to as much music if it was not for p2p. I would listen to the cd's I get for chrismas and what not. with me listening to downloaded music, they are not richer or poorer than if I didn't download. How can they complain if it doesn't hurt them?

**Busyman** · 02-18-2006, 10:39 AM

Originally Posted by Tempestv

The RIAA likes to claim that every song I download is a $1 theft (price of a song on Itunes) but the thing is that I would not listen to as much music if it was not for p2p. I would listen to the cd's I get for chrismas and what not. with me listening to downloaded music, they are not richer or poorer than if I didn't download. How can they complain if it doesn't hurt them?

It does but just not on the scale they are claiming.

The fact is filesharing has exposed shit products. Only 1 good song on that album? I'm downloading it.

I do hate when people say "the artists have enough money". Many of them don't and music is a business not a charity like many think.

Listeners cannot stipulate why an artist makes his music. Personally I love the music but want the fortune.

Who would you wanna be? The fella who spreads his music over the net accepting PayPal donations or the fella on TV with the multimillion dollar contract?

**GepperRankins** · 02-18-2006, 10:37 PM

Who would you wanna be? The fella who spreads his music over the net accepting PayPal donations or the fella on TV with the multimillion dollar contract?

paypal dude

-------

just, like, something to think about.

i wouldn't have bought 70% of my CD collection if it wasn't for piracy 'cause i wouldn't download random shit and decide that i like it, then buy CDs by the artist. maybe the thing that pisses the RIAA off most is that i've left the realm of pop music and i listen to who i want and pay who i want

**1337shiznit** · 02-19-2006, 02:56 PM

Originally Posted by VivaciousAkasha

Sharing copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder is illegal.

No shit. What we should be discussing is the moral/ethical and ecomomic reasons why copyright (and other intellectual property laws) exist in the first place.

if it was legalised, the artists would get very little.

Do you have any evidence for this? Or is it something you just take for granted.
Many artists get very little with the current system.

http://www.negativland.com/albini.html
(if you find this link questionable, then I apologize)

Originally Posted by Gam3Guy

If dling becomes legalized, where do they get their money from?

Maybe the same way they made money before records were even invented!?!
(By playing live for those who are a bit slow.)

But I still believe that should copyright laws not exist, users would still purchase recorded music assuming:

(a)It is very convenient and easy to purchase and use.
(b)The product is fairly priced
(c)Sufficiently advanced technology is used that is ahead of what can be obtained on the rip-off market. I don't mean copy protection, I mean advanced technology - currently I would imagine that would be something equivalent to blu-ray (but smaller and more durable). Something like that would more convenient than CDs and much better quality than a lossy format like MP3.

Right now, the music (and movie etc) takes advantage of the large market inefficiencies due to the government-enforced monopoly they are granted. Perhaps once the inefficiencies are removed, they will be kept more honest - they might actually have more incentive to listen to the customers and produce a better quality product for a fairer product, eliminating the need for p2p distribution.

I know that as an artist, I much prefer the internet for distribution - I've made more money and had much more exposure than I would have with the traditional music industry route. Virtually all of the artists I know support p2p.

Those of you who say it shouldn't be legalized because you think that the artists won't make any money, should state the reasons why they still justify downloading. (Apart from the few that already have and apart from those who don't download illegally.)