Whether you agree that music downloading is right or wrong, you should be aware of the consequence of your actions. Lots of information on this at:

http://www.musicunited.org

If the record industry would realize that times are changing and with new technologies comes the change in how business should be done to meet the bottom line and compensate artists for their hard work and labor.

P2P is the technology of the future for exchanging information quickly and efficiently between people in a day and age where information is needed on the fly and time is of the essence. The only way to eliminate this and other future advancements of technology and use net is by firmer laws controlling use of the internet. I hope not!

The music industry should adapt to the changing ways of our nation and create a P2P service that allows them and the artists to get paid for their work, but allows technology and the net to become a way of the future. Music available at your fingertips by a pay per download format. I for one would gladly pay for this service and I am sure opthers would follow suit.
The shame is that the RIAA had a tremendous format in Napster yet the pushed them underwater til they drowned so they could aviod the inevitable changes that these new worldwide technologies have brought to the table.
Imagine the avenues and opportunities that worldwide paid downloads would open for the RIAA and the Artists whose work may never be heard.

"Times a changin''........

Time for the RIAA to realize this and conform the way they do business!
Their old fashion greedy mentality is all that keeps this change from becoming a reality.

Just had to post a few links, sort of big picture stuff. The first one is from a recent column in InfoWorld:

The Gripe Line (Ed Foster): An Uphill Battle

"It's almost a bad joke to see how many bills to deprive consumers of digital products their rights were introduced in Congress this year..."

This article starts off talking about software, but stick with it. It goes into the efforts to get laws passed that will allow hacking the computers of P2P users. Corporate vigilante justice, enshrined as law. If they pull this off, any thinking person will shudder. This could be nothing less than the first move by corporations to take over the police powers of the state.

This link is to a recent John Dvorak article in PC Magazine.

One Buck Forty Or Die

He finsihes it up with this gem:
"The U.S. government should not be corrupted by the Recording Industry Association of America and should instead do more about (CD) price fixing. And let's stop lecturing people about legality and morality. Students in particular are not moral reprobates, nor are they fools. They are pragmatists, and they stretch the rules along with their budgets... Give up. Rethink your business model. The problem will be solved."

This article generated so much discussion on the PC Magazine Forums that he posted this follow-up:

When Is Stealing Not Stealing?

I don't always agree with him, but he's definitely asking the right questions in these articles.

As for Empire895 who laments that the opposition "can't even find the time to follow up on their beliefs but also don't have the intelligence to put it in their own words and truly express the reasonings behind their beliefs," I can only ask you this:

Have you ever worked for a big corporation?

There's a corporate goal, and everyone is expected to pursue it Nobody likes someone who brings up contrary ideas. Nobody's interested in opening a "dialog". Forget "reasoning" and if you have "beliefs" that differ from the corporate misson, leave 'em at home. Your job is to carry out orders that have been handed down from the top of the chain of command. If you don't do this, you're not a "team player".

RIAA has a mandate is to agressively eliminate, by any means possible, the threats to the continued AND CONTINUALLY EXPANDING profitability of the recording industry.

Corporations grow or they die. They don't want a smaller slice of the pie, no matter how greedy they've been in the past. That's called reduced earnings, and stockholders don't like it. And taking a short term loss for a long term gain is unacceptable. You're expected to have a short-term gain and a long term gain.

So the strategy is: fight like hell against any innovation that takes money out of their pocket in the short term, but lay the groundwork to profit from that innovation in the long term. That's what all these proposed laws are about. Once you can't buy a PC, a Mac, a Walkman or a PDA that doesn't have copy-protection hardwired in, RIAA will toss it's campaign against P2P like a used Big Mac wrapper.

The sad part is, by the time their plan is all sewn up, we will all have lost a lot of our legitimate rights. And they'll still be charging too much for music and screwing over artistis.

They obviously rigged the poll by stating the real question in bold, then restating using the antithesis for the poll.

That was a dirty trick, hoping that most of us wouldn't take notice until after posting our opinion. I, too, erroneously posted 'yes' when I actually support the 'no' answer.

On that note, I have personally been involved in the music industry for many years. I have close friends that have had #1 hits all over the globe. Literally. What have they got to show for it? Not as much as you would like to believe. Then where did the money go? To the record companies and their executives ~ NEVER to the artists.

There are so many examples to choose from. Look at Toni Braxton and her filing for bankruptcy not too long ago. She claimed her record company refused to pay for her promotional expenses (advertising) and even her concerts. The majority of the money she made went right back into keeping her career alive ... while the record company laughed all the way to the bank. If that were not the case, how can these companies afford to pay Mariah Carey all that money just to quit?! Plus, CD's cost the record company about $1.00 USD to manufacture. Guess again if you think the artist got the balance from what you and I paid for the same CD.

So, as a fellow artist, copy away people. Share and share alike. Let's face it, the public is always going to find a way to share music and files, so why bother fighting it. Just like when they invented the bullet-proof vest, someone invented the armor-piercing bullet.

We, the people, have to be careful as to downloading "new and improved" CD sharing & burning software. Before doing so, try to ensure the product hasn't fallen into the hands of the people trying to banish music sharing. Otherwise, you may find your favorite software no longer functions in this capacity. A simple rule of thumb: if your software 'aint broke, don't replace it.

Be aware of what your digital rights management (DRM) software is doing.

Once there was only live music, and the issue of who owned the sound after the artist produced it did not exist.

An accident of late 19th century technology (Edison) created the recorded music industry. The legal right to record music was established by judicial fiat at that time. Freelancers, commonly derogated as bootleggers, not allowed. Our right to record the music of our choice was legally stolen from us.

An accident of late 20th century technology (Napster) gave us the ability to share our recorded music over the internet. Our legal right to do this has been stolen from us in the last year in the process of destroying Napster, again by judicial fiat.

The original copyright law established by Congress ran for 14 years. It has been increased a number of times, is now 56 years and there is constant pressure to lengthen it more.

Most of us are paid just once for the work we do. Copyright holders are paid again and again for the same piece of work.

The CD industry is one of the most profitable there is. CDs retail at $15 - $20, while al its production and promotion costs average less than $3. And now we find we do not own our CDs, we are merely renting them.

Capitalism does not sell goods at cost + a modest profit, it sells them for what the market will bear. A $17 profit on a $3 investment is the moral equivalent of selling heroin. If people will pay so much more than the cost of production, the purchase is not rational, it is compulsive.

Not only should we share our music across the internet, WE HAVE A MORAL OBLIGATION TO DESTROY THIS CORRUPT AND RAPACIOUS RECORDED MUSIC INDUSTRY. And file shaqring is the means.

I've just got a couple things to add to the mix. Firstly, I remember the same type of discussion when cassette recorders first became popular, the recording industry was going to go broke. DJs had to speak over the first portion of the song, making clean recordings impossible. Well, the recording industry is still here. Now we're having the same discussion. Granted, mp3s have a greater impact, but as the world changes (improves) so must the recording industry. Yes all buisnesses have the right to profit and make money, but you should not be able to legislate profits. It is a difficult situation, the recording industry supports the artists and "nurtures" them, making it possible for them to make music (blehk). Than they lay claim to the music, they own it and can sell it. This may sound far fetched, but could you be sued for walking down the street singing a song? I draw the line at profit. If you are not attempting to make a profit with someone elses music, it's probably not a crime. Granted, "make a profit" can also be interpreted other ways. If you save 20.00 by downloading a song, have you made a profit? Well thats food for thought.

Second, and my biggest gripe. Have you ever tried to replace a damaged CD? Music, software or otherwise, it aint happening. If you want to have your CD back you pay full price. With software, you can have the damaged original, be willing to send it back, be willing to pay for cost to the manufacturer. No deal, if you want it, you pay full price.

Well, sorry for being longwinded. This is a very new, very grey area (in my mind) and this type of forum cannot do it justice. Just my two cents, thanks for your patience.