Feds to audiophiles: You're all pirates now

Rewind a few decades. What is the view on Big Music "out positioning", to put it politely, countless musicians who later realized they didn't have the rights to the music they created, and then watched others get rich off of those rights? And continue to get rich off those rights today. I saw Chuck Berry in the airport the other day, heading off to Europe for a 20-gig tour - I should have thought to ask him his opinion.

I don't disagree that it's against the law to pirate music. I just don't think it's as big a story as the media wants to make it out to be, and I don't particularly feel sorry for the "victims" even if I don't choose to pirate "because I can".

Big Music has used their legal muscle for decades for their own profit. Unfortunately, they did not engage with technical visionaries, or they never would have produced their product in a format that propogates the way a CD does. They're falling back on the one strategy they've used forever, but even their lawyers can't get the genie back in the bottle. As Dusty says, it's a bull-headed and, ultimately, bad strategy. I don't have to condone rampant pirating to chastise the music industry for their backwardness.

i was able to download hundreds of songs on napster before the big change. i found artists i had never heard and bought many cd's as a result.the win win in this is clear to me, however it appears some have very strong opinions against. the reinvention of the "45" single in digital downloads, at .99 is what is killing album sales, along with a lack of exposure on radio of new music beyond formatted stations that do not meet my tastes. satellite radio meets that need, but the various factors involved limit it's acceptance.

the idea that you can use cassettes in the same fashion was fought back when, and fair use prevailed. the idea that i cannot manipulate my paid for cd to use on computer and ipod is short sighted, as the other poster noted , music is becoming even more listened to as a result of accessibility willl ultimately benefit all artists, as will self production and internet makting make the riaa and big music a fading and faliling business, in the end i am happy to buy a dc when i can find an excellent recoding of a good performance.

no one gets it, until their personal property gets stolen. suddenly stealing is wrong.

Well said Jaybo,
I also found artists whose recordings I liked-from the "radio" -which paid artist for every play of their 'musical creation'
As a result I now own over 15000 lps, mostly rock, but thousands of classical & hundreds of jazz, and over 5000 rock single 45's---all of them "paid for".
To possibly think you doing an artist a favor(indicated in your email) by
1. downloading his art-without paying him for it, and then
2. distributing his art-again without you, or anyone else paying for it
is, I feel misguided for the following reason, among others.
Simply consider,
If people were downloading-for free- so they could go out and buy the album- then the record companies would be overwhelmed by demand, and artists would be making money from album sales.
Record(cd)sales would have started going through the roof with sales records being set with the advent of the internet.
The opposite of what has happened.
People download for instant or long term pleasure--as long as it's free.
I believe artists will come up with a way to allow download of songs very cheaply over the net,
in a compressed format,
with formidable copy protection making sharing impossible,
and 1 or few plays only.
If you like it you will have to buy it,in one or more formats or quality levels.
Let's put it this way. I don't work for free(unless it's for charity) and I don't know 'anyone' who does.

As far as "new-and-improved" DRM goes for downloads...I wouldn't count on that. As soon as a new rights management is released it starts getting cracked by an entire community of people who are just as smart as the guys who created it, which is why nothing has stuck so far. There has been some interesting talk about using digital watermarks to at least trace the digital path that an illegally downloaded song takes and identify it on someone's computer, but that only improves the Label's ability to prosecute, which I don't think has been too much of a problem so far.

The debate about the morality of listening to a sound you haven't paid for might be interesting, but that's not the problem that needs to be solved. The information has been freed from the medium, and there's no cramming it back in, no matter how much you might hate it!

-Dusty