I was getting all geared up to challenge Col's post but then I realised that it makes very little sense and there aren't any 'points' to dispute, at least in the sense I'm used to.

It seems he's in the minority view here. Most people posting have the sense to see that downloading music, just like buying a second hand cd or taping the radio, is not stealing.

Col, your analogy of 'borrowing' a car is wrong. For it to be the same as downloading music, the perpetrator would have to magically make an instant clone of the car, and drive *that* around, with the original owner not losing anything. That's what happens when a song is downloaded.

It seems most people (in these big court cases) who do believe it is stealing seem to be the ones who have some sort of financial interest in believing so. I don't like to be reminded how music is treated as a commodity instead of as art, like it should. Why is it all money money money. It's so BORING. Music enriches your life. No one should be denied that privilege simply for not being able to afford a cd.

I'll say it again. If they weren't going to buy it ANYWAY, what has changed? How has the industry been affected?

...it hasn't, has it.

spendocrat "I was getting all geared up to challenge Col's post but then I realised that it makes very little sense and there aren't any 'points' to dispute, at least in the sense I'm used to."

Admitted defeat - thanks

My car analogy was to observe the denial of rightful benefit owed to the car owner - in that context my analogy is correct - that such subtlety is beyond your scope of comprehension comes as no surprise.

"I'll say it again. If they weren't going to buy it ANYWAY, "

If they were not going to buy it they would not want to download it.... downloading implies intent. Downloading of copyright product is theft as sure as 'shop lifting' is theft.

Self righteous rationalisations of "big bad record companies" relies on your cheap reasoning of an illegal act and displays a complete absence of ethic -

I suggest that is why you have difficulty in challenging my post

It would be impossible for you, even if you were not hamperred by such limited vocabulary and reasoning skills, to justify what is blatently illegal and unethical.

col

looks like l hit on a raw nerve. Sorry to push your buttons old boy.

The language l use is deliberately harsh, not as a reflection of my politics (nuetral to the point of indifference) but as a reflection of frustration at the very glib, cliched, well constructed, one sided PR dross that music biz shills constantly barrell out. lm more than happy for folks to live in their self made kingdoms of prosperity. Personally, l like 'fat cats' but when they howl about the fact that they might need to change to stay fat and instead harp on about the injustice of it all, targeting the little kittens, mice and rats, then they just sound like fools. In my book, someone who holds themselves out in a particular way deserves to be treated that way. (lets se you call me a fool now).

That said, l cant be bothered addressing your gross assumptions, misrepresentations and name calling invective. Not to mention the tone of our posts reflect on the writer, something which l have no problem accepting, even if you do. It seems to characterise your type of response to posts in this place and frankly, l dont know why l have even bothered replying. (yes l know, neither do you).

Methinks you might want to read your posts and maybe take your own advice.

Any laws, such as the copyright laws, which turns many otherwise well meaning and scrupulously honest people into criminals, are clearly bad laws.

It is time that we recognised that the whole business model, upon which the music recording industry is based, is completely flawed and an impediment to the realisation of the full benefits of computer and communications technologies.

If the music recording industry, as it stands, can't survive without relying on Governments to enforce draconian laws, which are open to abuse, then it deserves go under, and other means to fairly remunuerate those who create music need to be found.

My humble suggestion is :

Set up a publicly funded company (or statutory authority) that would distribute music freely based on something like an open source software license. A database would record the most popular downloads and the artists would be remunerated from a common pool of funds to which we would all contribute as taxpayers, based on a formula which would increase the payments depending on the popularity of the download.

I would suggest a formula which is not linear. The newer and less popular artists would be remunerated at a higher rate per download, whilst the more popular artists would receive substantially more, although the rate per download would decrease as the number of downloads increases. The formalus could be revised until a system which fairly rewards all musicians, yet still gives financial incentives to produce better music, is found.

There would be many technical problems to be solved, but they would be vasty less problematic than those entailed in maintaining the current copyright system.

In time such a system would prove itself to be vastly cheaper to consumers and would leave most recording artists better off than they ever could be even with these harsh and punitive the copyright laws.

If i can get music on the net for free, i will. I dont really give a toss if you define it as stealing or that "in the process [i am] denying income to the recording artists and songwriters". I wasnt aware i owed them a living. And anyway, how much do they actually make when i buy a cd? $2-$3?. This article is nothing more than a record company exec trying to justify maintaining the status quo in the distribuition of music (i.e., on his terms, thanks very much). As for saying "Silverchair, Jet, George, Alex Lloyd and John Butler" support his stance. Well thanks for stating the obvious. They dont benefit from this cushy arrangement by any chance do they?

As far as im concerned the internet has provided a distribution network that breaks the record company monopoly. Good. The music industry is worth $20 billion in Aus according to the article. So what, how much of that is monopoly rent? Is it the right price, is it worth $20 billion? When i download music from the net the artists who wrote the music dont benefit in a financial sense (but why should they anyway), but if i do get enjoyment from listening to their music i'll pay to see them live and if they setup a website hosting their music, i'll donate some money.

From my reading the reason that copyright law was first enacted was to motivate artists to produce works. If they could profit from their creativity they were more likely to exercise it. There didn't exist the concept of ownership of reproducable works as the record companies want you to believe there is today, that is a modern invention.

On reflection the matter is obviously not as clear cut as they would like you to think. We all know what theft is, it's when you deprive someone of their property. They will miss that particular posession next time they look for it. If they park their car and it is stolen they will get back to where it should be and curse and call the police and have to get a taxi home. Consider what the record company experiences when you download a song on the internet. Do they even know? What if, as is often the case, that you never would have ever bought the song anyway? What have they lost?

The bottom line is with music we are talking about a recorded sound, which is just information. If you duplicate their information you have "stolen" from them. Yeah right.

The first post has it right, copyright violation is copyright violation, nothing more.