ground and pound wrote:
>>>> We all know you had no way to win this losing argument, Johnnie, no
>>>> need to underscore it further.
>>>
>>> Wrong. You have been unable to demonstrate a single reason why
>>> anoyone should not download a movie off the 'net, if the urge to do
>>> so hits him.
>>
>> For the exact same reason a person should not go into your house
>> and help him/her self to your property. If that isn't abvious to
>> you, then at this point you are condemned to be a clueless thief the
>> rest
>> of your pathetic little life.
>
> This is an excerpt from a speech she gave at an entertainment
> conference in 2000:
>
> "Recording artists have essentially been giving their music away for
> free under the old system [*note: the contractual system of the majors
> which ****s artists out of the money they generate], so new technology
> that exposes our music to a larger audience can only be a good thing.
> Why aren't these companies working with us to create some peace?
>
> "There were a billion music downloads last year, but music sales are
> up. Where's the evidence that downloads hurt business? Downloads are
> creating more demand.
>
> "Why aren't record companies embracing this great opportunity? Why
> aren't they trying to talk to the kids passing compilations around to
> learn what they like? Why is the RIAA suing the companies that are
> stimulating this new demand? What's the point of going after people
> swapping cruddy-sounding MP3s? Cash! Cash they have no intention of
> passing onto us, the writers of their profits."
>
> This is the page that the quote comes from:
> http://archive.salon.com/tech/featur...ove/index2.htm
And now, for a different take on the matter:
=======================
Jefferson Graham USA TODAY
If you're sharing music online, the record industry is coming after you.
Starting today, the Recording Industry Association of America (news - web sites)
begins an unprecedented campaign to track down music fans who trade
unauthorized songs on the Internet. The RIAA plans to file ''hundreds'' of lawsuits
as early as August.
''Any individual computer user who continues to steal music will face the real
risk of having to face the music,'' RIAA president Cary Sherman said.
It's the most dramatic step in a shift of copyright enforcement from swap services
-- often based overseas and difficult to shut down -- to the millions who trade online
Potential damages could reach $150,000 for each violation.
Recent court victories against Verizon have given the RIAA the ability to easily
subpoena and retrieve the identities of infringers from Internet service providers.
Verizon, with the support of such groups as the ACLU and Consumers Union,
is appealing.
The RIAA's initial targets will be the ''most egregious'' song sharers, Sherman
said, though no limit was specified.
File sharing and CD burning are being blamed for lower album sales -- down
8% this year, according to unreleased figures from Nielsen SoundScan. Kazaa,
the most popular pirate service, claims 230 million registered users. Legal
alternatives such as MusicNet and Pressplay have 300,000 total subscribers.
But the success of the Apple iTunes Music Store, which has sold 5 million
songs in two months at 99 cents each, has proved there's a market for music
sales on the Net.
''We're at the point where the public has been educated,'' Sherman said.
''People understand this activity is illegal, the legal services are getting better
and there's no longer any excuse for downloading illegally.''
Wayne Rosso of file-swap service Grokster called the RIAA's actions
''lunacy'' and said, ''It is typical of them to not only alienate their customers
but sue them into bankruptcy.''
=======================
Everybody is so busy suing each other, nothing productive will ever
get accomplished.
Does anyone know if there is now a tax on blank cds?
--
Later
Kal
--
Don't look now, but I think our village
is full of idiots!
Similar Threads
