You're claiming that file sharing deprives you and artists of legitimate income. Perhaps so... but just how is that calculated? That there have been reduced sales of CDs and you believe the difference represents what consumers WOULD have purchased if not for file sharing? But music sales depend on what's being produced that consumers are willing to buy... right? There's not much new stuff I like so I haven't purchased a CD in perhaps a year.

Do you assume that each consumer must pay a license fee for each song they own?

If it's the latter... then by not creating a system where consumers can prove they purchased a song on, say a 45, LP, cassette, 8 track, whatever... YOU have been immorally collecting these license fees twice, perhaps THREE times, when a consumer upgrade from mono 45s to stereo LPs to CDs. Aren't much of what you consider your legitimate fees really just an acidential windfall from improved technology the artists had no part of creating?

So RIAA... since you're so good at calculating what you consider financial "losses" to P2P, do THIS math:

I have about 200 old 45s I bought back in the 60s, 100 pre-recorded cassettes, 50 cassette singles from the 90's, and 1200 LPs. I replaced some of those 45s with LPs. I replaced about 300 of those LPs with CDs and I've purchased some 200 songs at iTunes.


What do YOU owe ME for collecting unwarrented licensing fees on MY music purchases these past 40 years?

The reason the rights of people like myself are not protected from this ripoff is because no one I know is fighting this legal fight. YOU immorally collect all those unwarrented profits because your lawyers can bully lawmakers and consumers.

So PLEASE, RIAA, don't give me any crap about the immoral nature of P2P or defend your Nazi-like tactics until you come clean about your own despicably immoral behavior.

How are there no replys to this? He makes an excellent point.

No idea ... I missed it .. perhaps this particuar forum is a little out of the way. See http://gnutellaforums.com/showthread.php?t=63593

This might interest you ... seems the RIAA are being brought down to earth a little which is good news

Thank you hobo, it's always good to see the RIAA have a setback, however minor it is.

We can also hope that these lawyers use the best arguments possible to expose the RIAA's criminal arrogance in claiming they are "owed" double/triple royalties on the same songs just because consumers upgraded to better recordings of those songs.

Here are some interesting notes from Sony v Universal... the suit against Betamax back in 83. It should be clear looking at the Constitution that the intent of copyright law was to promote progress by granting a copyright holder a SHORT-LIVED monopoly on their intellectual property. It was never intended to protect those rights forever. That the law seems to have mutated in this direction shows it's been hijacked by those special interests who now believe they are entitled to profits copyright law never intended to protect.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...=464&invol=417