Are you instane? How do you know what the year 2010 will hold. For christ's sake....there will always be a SS#.

huh? 2010?

WHAT?


ummm i thougth it was 2001... maybe i have been sleepign too long?

hehehe


gosh, it's late and i need some sleep

Yes, but don't forget that laws are not set in stone, and they must serve the needs of a society. It's clear that clients such as Napster and Gnutella exist because of failures in the pricing schemes of those below-mentioned companies. Martin Luther King was breaking the law for years before people finally woke up and changed an unjust law. The question really is whether it's just to put people in prison for copying such material. Does the punishment fit the crime? Are the current laws reflecting the needs of our society? "Breaking the law" alone is a moot point--the real issue is WHY are people doing it? The answer: because the laws are unjust and fail to provide for our modern society's needs. It used to be that artists couldn't exist without the publishing house because there were no means to distribute the music without one. Now, publishing houses are obsolete--and to compensate for their dwindling importance, they're lobbying for stricter copyright laws which don't even serve the artists themselves, and which threaten to keep the web stuck in a pen-and-paper age. We should all be proud, as King's supporters were, to break arcane and unjust laws.

How full of sh*t are you!!

You are comparing a great man, Martin Luther to File COPYING programs.. Get with it..

You can try and try all you like to justify breaking the law but anyone with half a brain can see that THE reason that its successful is because you are getting SOMETHING for NOTHING!!

END OF STORY!!

20 years ago industry spokespeople said that the VCR would bring about the end of the movie industry--in fact, it increased revenues after the industry adjusted to incorporate the technology instead of fighting it. Multiple studies have been shown that there are similar benefits to artists and record label by the non-profit sharing of mp3s. People who download 1 or 2 mp3s often go out and purchase the entire album. Often, mp3s are the only way a person can listen to the unplayed songs on an album and realize what a gem the album is--so the mp3 actually enables them to make that purchasing decision. Yes, people do get music for free, but that free music informs their next trip to the CD store, and perhaps is what gets them to buy the mug and the bumper sticker and the t-shirt and go to the concert as well. You can moan about the mythical lost revenues, but the fact is that mp3s are getting music to many people who wouldn't have paid for it anyway--and many of these people DO go on to support the artists in other ways. It's a two way street--some people get music for free, and some artists get exposure for free, exposure that leads to other sales. If you look carefully at things without screaming "END OF STORY," you might find out that the real mp3 story actually includes a win-win situation for both parties involved.

RUBBISH! We've heard all these points before, and they've been proved crap.

If it was increasing income - then the artists, music labels and all those involved in the supply chain wouldn't be complaining would they??????????

And how can you compare VCR tapes to these files.. It is a LOSSLESS medium.. ie with video tapes, cassette tapes etc, quality is reduced with each copy.

ALSO, to enable each COPY it had to be physically passed, reducing the amount of 'COPIES' possible. There were no 'instantaneous electronic' means to COPY the files. (I still fail to see why everyone calls it sharing).

I'm sure you read all these points in some pro-copying forum such as this one and just decided to simply follow and believe them like a sheep.. perhaps a touch more research and logical thinking is in order??

"but the fact is that mp3s are getting music to many people who wouldn't have paid for it anyway"

Hmm.. The other day I found a set of keys to a persons Lamborghini. He never uses it - it just sits there in his garage. so I stole it. Which is OK since he never uses it. I wouldn't usually steal things, but since I foudn the keys.. that makes it OK.

That's the logic you are using. Think about it.

Actually thats completely different. The argument he is making is "lets let the people testdrive the car because if they never see it they will never buy it anyway" Record companies are simply refusing to adapt to a changing business structure. Industry's grow old and collapse. Its the nature of capitalism. If the record companies time has come, they should simply die or adapt rather than trying to hide behind all there money and lawyers. Let the bands make there music, let us hear it for free, than go to the shows, buy the shirts and cds and posters, and have that money go right to the artists who deserve it. Not to the corporate gatekeepers who the artists must presently pass through to allow themselves to be heard.

Well, your off-the-cuff reply does raise some interesting points. I'll try to respond point-by-point to make sure I don't leave you with any questions...

>RUBBISH! We've heard all these points before, >and they've been proved crap.

---Interesting...where have they been proven crap? I've seen things supporting my original post in the New York Times, on CNN, and most recently, in Wired. I don't feel any of these sources to be particularly suspect, nor biased towards either side. Wired, actually, seems to carry plenty of studies (all from RIAA and its affiliates) to the contrary, but whom can you believe? Perhaps, as you mention, it comes down to sheep following the herd. Those who can look outside the box will see there's a vast market for anyone who can accept current (modern!) marketing models and actually market in ways that make sense.



>If it was increasing income - then the artists, >music labels and all those involved in the supply >chain wouldn't be complaining would >they??????????

---Since you seem to claim expertise in logic, surely you know that the above statement is a logical fallacy. Even with its poor punctuation properly corrected, it's clear that the statement doesn't make any sense. The real point is that the record labels are whining about inflated numbers that don't reflect actual pecuniary losses. Are you trying to say that people who listen to music _don't_ go out and buy T-shirts and go to the concerts? I've been on planet earth for a while now, and that seems to be the general trend. And do you think that everyone with a copied mp3 would have paid 12-17 bucks for the CD?
No. It's just not accurate.

>And how can you compare VCR tapes to these >files.. It is a LOSSLESS medium.. ie with video >tapes, cassette tapes etc, quality is reduced >with each copy.

---They're very comparable. The issue of "lossless" is moot because for all intents and purposes, one can listen to a tape (or VHS cassette) as many times as one wishes. Yes, it wears out, but big whoop--I've got tapes I listen to that are 15 years old and they're still good enough for me. CDs wear out too--from getting scratched and from that mold that eats the surface after a decade or two. But big deal. Realistically, people's musical tastes wear out before any of the media does. Unless you're meaning 8-tracks. Those were pretty crummy. Even LPs can be playable decades after they were purchased. So for all intents and purposes it's exactly the same thing.


>ALSO, to enable each COPY it had to be physically >passed, reducing the amount of 'COPIES' possible. > There were no 'instantaneous electronic' means >to COPY the files. (I still fail to see why >everyone calls it sharing).

---Again, see the above point. Your point is just a silly, moot, ridiculous thing to try to argue. Yes, there are a tiny fraction of folks out there so anally audiophilliac that they care about the degredation of each pass on the player. But aren't those the same folks that already went out and bought the CDs the second they came out? Aren't they also the ones who play the CDs anyway because computer speakers haven't yet matched regular audio quality? The vast majority of folks couldn't care less about the slight quality difference.


>I'm sure you read all these points in some >pro-copying forum such as this one and just >decided to simply follow and believe them like a >sheep.. perhaps a touch more research and logical >thinking is in order??

---Good advice. Too bad that it's again completely inapplicable. I've gotten my information from a variety of sources, biased and non. I am a professor at a major university, and I also happen to have been a songwriter, and I currently write for a number of different print and web-based publications. I've been on the radio, and I have a very solid understanding of the issues that does not come copied out of some pro-Gnutella forum. I also don't have my head up the brown orifice of the RIAA, as you seem to. I can also spell and punctuate properly, and I'm confident that my logical skills are quite ample to participate in this forum. You, on the other hand, might want to take a remedial writing course, and refresh your critical thinking skills. I also would like to say that, while I support the copying (fine with me to call it that) of mp3s, I _don't_ do it personally. There are just 2 mp3s on my "shared" folder, both downloaded to test the technology. I support the technology because of its incredible alternative means to publish information, to reach audiences, and to share video, songs, and lyrics without having to bend over and take whatever the RIAA chooses to put up your ***. It is discraceful that we allow small, close-minded individuals to shut down a technology that offers far more than the ability to pirate copyrighted music. By your logic, you'd argue that the right of Free Speech should be removed because people use swear words or offend people from time to time. This decentralized file-sharing technology eliminates the need for a middle-man, yes, and until the middle man works out a new way to profit, they'll be upset. That's why the RIAA wants to get rid of it. Artists, songwriters, and writers should be embracing this technology--This is not a threat to artists. File-sharing is only a threat to those who, not unlike leeches, attach themselves to an artist in exchange for publicity and market-share. The RIAA didn't even initially want to return online playing royalties to the artists themselves. That's so transparent and hypocritical that I'm amazed even someone like yourself hasn't seen the light. (Of course, you seem to be hypocritical anyway, since you download mp3s but are all holier-than-thou to others about it).

Last point: Along with lots of gratuitous capitalizations, you seem to like bringing sheep into each post. Perhaps that points to other, deeper frustrations? Was there a bad experience in childhood involving sheep and file-"shearing"?

No, seriously, (had to get the pun in there somehow!) I understand the concern that people don't think carefully about an opinion before blabbing it out on a forum. But in this case, it's a very carefully thought-out and well- researched opinion that (really!) seeks to find a win-win for everyone. Hopefully, that's what we're all looking for--an ideal compromise where everyone's happy.

I feel relieved now that a real university professor has lend his authority to these deliberations, particularly since I happen to 'share' his opinions, or at least most of them.
I doubt if anyone, however, is very impressed with his qualifications and publishing experiences; they hardly elevate his remarks to the level of scripture. It's nice to have the ability to spell, punctuate and adhere to accepted conventions of formal grammar accurately, but that doesn't invalidate the thoughts and positions of others who don't 'share' these skills. if you're going to write extended formal essays, Dude, you might consider registration on these forums.
By the way, I can't resist one observation. Statements can't be logical fallacies. A logical fallacy is an invalid argument by which a conclusion (true or false) is reached by violating a formal rule of deduction. I trust you're not a Professor of Logic.