Feds to audiophiles: You're all pirates now

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.

"The modern concept of mob rule is despicable"
Daffy Duck 1965

Sorry for the tone of my previous post, but I was in a hurry at work and didn't have time to edit myself. But the content is correct - and it really does astonish me that so many people don't get it. Copyright laws are not a music industry invention. They are basic personal property protections.

If you can "steal" music that was created and sold to you under the explicit understanding that it is only for your personal listening use, then why can't I steal your Ipod?

I believe it would be a better "Business Model" for you to hand over your Ipod and be happy about it. Just think, if I take your Ipod, then I might tell 100 friends what great music is on it. And they, seeing what great taste you have, might all come to you, begging to pay you to load their Ipods up with downloaded music. So if I steal your Ipod, it might actually be a great career move for you.

Look, we have all stolen (and lied in some form or another) - it's just standard human weakness.

What irks me though - and what really makes for a dangerous trend on a societal level - is when people try to base/justify their weaknesses on moral grounds. I occasionally copy CD's to give to friends, but I don't pretend that it's right. It's just convenient and a nice gesture (for the friend) - and it's petty larceny. I usually point out that if they like the CD, it would be a good thing to support the artist and buy another, since they got this for free. But that doesn't make it morally correct. It's wrong, smalltime wrong, but wrong.