more copyright nonsense

A new bill in congress to stop Pirating!
Pirating is making copies and distributing. Making a copy and using it for personal use is perfectly legal I believe. I would be shocked if anyone here was pirating. C'mon give the artist their due.
Why is that whenever the people who own the rights to the music try to protect it the people who are trying to steal it go ballistic? Pretty obvious don't you think. It is summed up pretty well in the article.

Back in the day, my friend's Elton John collection encouraged me to buy my own. If she'd made me identical MP3s, I would've spent the money. However, I'd still shell out for Elton John concerts.

The "would've" is obviously a mistake; she meant she would not have spent the money and therefore would have deprived Elton John, Bernie Taupin, and the record company of their fair share. I find it comical that she feels paying to see him in concert gives her the right to steal his music.

Equating borrowing a record with giving away a digital copy is ridiculous. It has never been illegal to loan out a copyrighted article whether book, record, or whatever. However, it has always been illegal to copy it and give it away. I have no idea whether or not this particular law is good legislation but the idea of copyright enforcement is an excellent idea. The author seems to think that file sharing is just fine and a good thing for the artists. What she fails to realize is that the artists generally disagree and since they own the rights, they have every right to protect what is theirs.
when you buy a cd or lp, you're buying the disc itself, and your right to reproduce the music is restricted to personal,and/or in home use. in other words, you own the media, not the music. the music delivered via downloading is no different.
The Digitial Millenium Copyright Act was one of the worst laws ever passed in our country. This is more of the same. Congress has lost sight of the true purposes of copyright laws (encouraging innovation by granting creators exclusive rights for a LIMTED TIME.) FYI Slikrik3000, it is unclear what effect the DMCA had on the Sony betamax ruling which effectively legitimized copying for personal use. Disney effectively bought an extension of their copyrights with the Sonny Bono copyright extension act (which extended copyright for an additional 20 years). The problem is that music companies have no clue how to make huge amounts of money in the digital age -it is very possible that business model just is no longer valid. People are not buying CD's much anymore (mostly just old audiophiles.) The porno DVD industry is in the same sinking boat. The practical issue for most may be the attempts to criminalize putting music you have paid for on a digitial server. Do you think the record companies wants everyone to pay again, like people were suckered into replacing LP's with CD's? Who do you think pays more to buy lobyists, congressmen and president(s)? Record Companies and Walt Disney, or music consumers?
suppose i buy a cd and after listening to it for a month bring it to a friend's house. after hearing the cd my friend says: "i think i will buy this cd". i suggest he doesn't have to buy the disk because i will come over to his house and let him listen to it once /week. is this stealing ?

or suppose i lend it to him ? is that stealing ?

suppose 4 people create a library and each one borrows a cd ? has stealing occurred ?

it seems to me as long as no money is changing hands there is no stealing. what is the difference between giving my friend a free copy and lending him the disk or bringing it to him, if the result is that he doesn't buy the cd ?
Mrtennis-no fair applying logic. Greedy music makers and politicians who will do anything for a campain contribution.
mr tennis, you have been 'granted' the right to do that..of far as declining sales of the compact disc, even if the sales are declining, its still a huge, huge industry. for any oldie but goodie who can remember, the music business was much smaller in the sixties than today. the delivery media is just a consumer choice...finding and developing the great artists of today and tomorrow is the challenge.
I humbly suggest the music industry is not looking for great artist. They are looking to sell us the same music over and over in different formats.
The untold story is the number of great artists whose contracts were not renewed.
Did you know that Joni Mtichell went nine years without a contract and had to produce her own latest album?
Does not sound like they are looking for talent.
Post removed 
Mr. Tennis, you miss the point entirely.

If you lend your copy to a friend then you no longer have the use of it until he returns it, at which time he can no longer use it.

If you make a copy and give it to him then you both have the use of it simultaneously.

Lending results in a single copy in use at any one time; copying results in 2 copies in use at the same time.

To follow your logic “as long as no money changes hands” then I can post a copy on the internet and millions can get it free while the artist gets paid for one. Do you think the artist thinks this is stealing? Millions listen to his art and he gets paid a few bucks. Wake up.

The bottom line is it doesn’t matter what you or Greg consider to be fair or logical. The artists and record companies are selling what they own and they can therefore set the rules. If they shoot themselves in the foot in the process then so be it.
No"they don't "set the rules."
A sale is a contract. A contract requires a meeting of the minds. Morever to protect both parties certain rules are set by the government that are super imposed on the contract. In fact that is what they are going to congress for to get more favorable rules for themselves. In fact they want to have these rules affect sales they have alreaddy nade.
They will get thier way. Congress will sell out. They always do.
You rarely hear artist complain. Most don't make any money off record sales. They are dependent on concerts and other sales. They actually benifit from having as many people as possible hear there music.
many of the great music artists of yesterday and today were able to thrive and prosper because of an enviroment and a culture where their 'rights' and their 'property' were protected by law. since the advent of recorded music, most consumers haven't had a problem with that notion. the business enviroment today allows many established artists to create and market their own products without signing to a label. mccartney, mitchell, the eagles, carole king and many others still need the protection of law to protect their copyrighted songs, and performances. the new artists coming up..good or bad..deserve no less.....even the recordings of 'the three stooges' are protected..nyuc nyuc
We might take example from the gratefule dead, tuck and patti who allow taping of thier concerts. Copyright laws were not intended to block every copy of an artists' work. They were designed to prevent others form going into business on someone elses work. That was a civil matter subject to private enforcement. Quite a difference from the FBI knocking on a 12 year olds door.
the grateful dead allowing fans to tape a show is not uncommon. artists also donate their songs for use by organizations, charities, etc. the 'dead' do however have a problem with a fan profiting from the making and the selling of copies or trademarked merchandise. yes it happens, but keep in mind, if the dead perform a bo diddley song for instance...they pay bo diddley's publisher, and they have no rights beyond the right to perform it with permission. there is nothing new or diabolical about copyright protection or trademark law. the fact that it has all become news worthy is because all intellectual proprties, from written, to images, from film to music for under seige. the black market from china alone may be nearly as big an industry as the entire film or music industry. most artists, like most athletes, are not rich, and depend on the policing of royalties to survive. one of the largest single expenditures for all artists is someone to track and organize the business end of their work. in the end, as consumers, we'll get the art we deserve. stealing is a learned behavior....unfortunately when it comes to art, many kids call it 'sharing'. anyone who's been robbed can testify that getting your property back is generally never easy, and the process of getting it back is humiliating and sometimes costly. the #1 reason used by bicycle theives of all ages is 'i didn't know it belonged to anyone' well guys, and have a very musical xmas