Feds to audiophiles: You're all pirates now

Cruz, 100 buddies!!! I don't even KNOW 100 people let alone have 100 buddies. I would venture to guess neither do you or the majority of people reading this thread.
Dusty, those same 100 people will now pay to see this artist live in concert thanks to the exposure file-sharing has brought them.
It is wrong to punish people for sharing music without the intent to profit from it.

Dreadhead, I think Cruz may have misused the term "buddy," but he's right on that if you put a ripped album in a shared folder on a P2P network it would be likely that at least 100 people would find their way to it. And if the band is lucky, then even more than that!

The level of moral aptitude I always find in arguments over file-sharing, etc. is astonishingly low - usually on the part of the Gen X and Y'ers who just feel entitled to free stuff.

If the Artist says "This material is copyrighted" - that means copying it to give away is STEALING. Simple. Case closed. IT'S NOT UP TO YOU to decide what business model might work better for the artist. IT'S UP TO THE ARTIST!
There's no law that anyone HAS to copyright their material. The law exists so that they can, if they want to. If you see "Copyright" --- that means the artist made a decision and is telling you, "I created this, and I don't want you giving it away."

You are simply ripping people off, and if you had any cajones you would stand up and say, "I rip these artists off because it's fun and because I can." I would at least respect the honesty of that.

The entire premise of that MSNBC article posted above shows the same type of utter ignorance of the issues. Lending a Record to someone is not the same as making a copy and giving it to them. Lending someone an physical lp is not a against the law.

And the fact that the Radiohead experiment flopped does, IMO, expose the high level of hypocrisy among the bottomfeeder, "music should be free because I say so" crowd.

And yes, it IS the music execs and a sparse population of artists that are shaping the laws, because if congressmen and congresswomen ran on the platform of limiting MP3 sharing, how many votes do you think that would garner...besides Mikelavigne's...(just kidding, Mike!)

laws should protect property rights. while i should be free to copy and use copyrighted data within my household; it should not be my right to copy and share it with someone outside my household without compensation to the data creator. i should be able to give or sell that singular copy of that data to someone if i do not retain any use for myself.

i am all for rewarding the artist and the support system of that artist.....as opposed to doing what might be popular. the modern concept of mob rule is despicable......regardless of the level of technology.

Dreadhead, you're right, I don't have 100 buddies. But I have 10, and those ten have ten, and so on and so forth. I guess I just don't get the concept of expecting a music artist to give me their work product for free. Opalchip has summed it up and I'll leave it at that.