more copyright nonsense

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'.......be well guys, and have a very musical xmas