Well the person who i was responding to.. responded on digg with
mementh, youre missing the point
Are the RIAA douchebags? Yes. Theyre using the law in entirely the wrong way, to punish the wrong people, using dirty tactics (although I would say that the Sony rootkit is equally as bad).
HOWEVER.... you are breaking the law. By "its a different age" do you mean that because a certain number of people want something for free, stealing should be legal? Dude, if you take away any financial incentive for people to create content, there will be no content. Thats right up there with people arguing that Windows should be pirated because Microsoft is full of douchebags, or that it costs too much. Guess what? They can charge as MUCH as they want, its THEIR content. Whether theyre assholes or not has NO bearing. Whether or not you would have bought the song if you hadnt downloaded it has NO bearing. There are laws, and ethics, involved that you cant change simply because you wish to.
You also argue that the RIAA was designed to stop people from selling their content illegally--are you saying because one person CHARGES for the illegal song, its worse than giving it away?
What also has no bearing is whether the RIAA recompensates the artists. Thats a seperate issue, to be dealt with seperately. Part of their purpose is to protect their content. When you download music you did not buy, you are breaking the law. If you want a single song, use iTunes, or Rhapsody, or any of the other online legal music download sites. You dont get to shape the law to fit your desires--if you think the law should change, we have a system that allows you to suggest that change, and vote on a representative that you think will initiate that change. This is NOT a democracy, the mob does NOT make the rules--our representatives make them.
Your statements suggest that we use a system that is akin to anarchy--people doing whatever they want.
And i feel i given a good point responce here
I am saying that the RIAA has overstepped it reasons for being and that they should not go after the normal consumer..
It IS a new age.. where we have seen "don't download this song" given away for free... and "white and nerdy" given away for free.. yet Weird Al is if i recall was top on VH1's music video list..... (which if i recall bases on record sales and some user choices?)
So the old idea that you MUST buy is no longer there.. yes it is anarchistic somewhat. but consider i bought the Weird Al Album... only one i have bought.
I have only bought TRACKS of songs i like for a long time
My Point is and always will be... even in its highest point P2P file sharing never hurt music sales.. if anything it helped them...
There Is though a proven fact.. that there are illegal sellers of the music. And that people are BUYING from them...
now.. to me.. whats worse..
1 million people trading a few files a few POPULAR songs.. and more then likely 2-4 out of 10 will buy the track online or the CD.. (200-400k profit if buying the song itself)
1 million people buying the cd for the equivilent of $4 USD on the streets of hong kong or some other city... (-4 million )
which should a company be concerned with.. ???? IMHO.. i would take the free advertizing.. maybe find a way to do it more though my own sites ( advertizing revenue though banner ads ) and find a way to give the consumer a good deal..
And i would go after the shops that are illegally selling..
makes more sense in my pocket book
What do you all think?