Col
‘If they were not going to buy it they would not want to download it....’
Funny, I could have sworn that’s what I used to do all the time. I couldn’t afford to buy it, so I downloaded it. In that instance, what effect do you think I’ve had on the industry?

‘…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.’
Yes because when I download music it disappears of someone else’s CD which they rightfully owned. My mistake!

‘It would be impossible for you, even if you were not hamperred (sic) by such limited vocabulary and reasoning skills, to justify what is blatently (sic) illegal and unethical.’
Sorry, did I actually claim it should be legal, or that it was ethical? I must have been asleep when I wrote that. All I said was that it wasn’t stealing. I also said that as a musician myself, I believe that music is art and art is for everyone, even those who can’t afford it. Do you think that not everyone should be able to experience art, Col?

‘I suggest that is why you have difficulty in challenging my post’
Ok, well I suggest it was because your post was so fragmented and poorly written that it was difficult to distinguish what you were trying to say.

‘Self righteous rationalisations of "big bad record companies" relies on your cheap reasoning of an illegal act and displays a complete absence of ethic…’
Yes because record companies are fine outstanding ethical members of society who are only trying to make a buck in an ‘eat or be eaten’ world. Poor little dudes. Sure, with your average contract, the artist only gets about 10c per CD, and out of that they usually need to repay studio and video clip costs, but everyone knows I'm the unethical one because I can't afford to buy a song I want to hear.

Poor record companies, always getting bullied around...

The question I'd like the record companies to answer is "what, exactly, are you selling me?"

It cannot be the rights to listen to a piece of music, otherwise I would be allowed to buy it once, then copy it onto all my devices... which over the years, have constituted quite a number. I am old enough to recall LPs and reel-to-reel tapes, which morphed over time into cassettes, CDs and mp3 players. As the law stands, the record companies oblige me to pay multiple times for the same artistic output. Who here is the thief?

In trying to maintain their control over the media as well as the copyright content, record companies have resorted to the courts, resulting in triumphalist articles such as Mr Peach's. It is very noticeable that the tone is more "Yah boo sucks the court agrees with the industry" than analysing the issues, and discussing exactly why they cause people concern. Simply saying that downloading is a criminal act is a cop-out.

There will eventually have to be some form of compromise. The industry will ultimately disappear up its own iPod unless it comes to terms with the legitimate grievances of people who are asked to pay through the nose, over and over again, for the same old package that has made the industry its billions in the past.

And the public will fight back. Here's an item from news.com

"An Oregon woman accused of illegal peer-to-peer downloading has countersued the Recording Industry Association of America, contending that the music trade group illegally invaded her privacy, searched her computer without her permission, and conspired with other companies to engage in "extreme acts of unlawful coercion, extortion, fraud, and other criminal conduct."

just one thing to keep in mind about downloading. it is all very well to talk about the big bad music execs and how rich they all are and that you might be depriving them out of a tiny share of their money, but think also about the tiny little music people - the people in tiny independent bands who struggle to make any money at all from their music - who can only do it from cds sales and things like that. in australia, there are probably a very very few bands who can actually live off their earnings from cds sales, and by illegally downloading their music, you are basically saying that you do not honour their craft. you would not steal an artwork off the wall of a gallery - it is the same with downloading. it is theft. someone worked really hard to create that work of art, and while they would probably love you to listen to it, it is a different thing if you steal it without ever giving them the money they deserve for having made it.

most people in the industry struggle. you all seem to expect people to work hard to make good music, or art, but refuse to reward them for doing so. maybe none of you should be paid for your jobs either, and see how easy it is for you to survive.

Well said Suse. It's depriving the artists of royalties money they would otherwise receive.

Whoever said "copyright infringement is not theft" can be interpreted as "it's ok for me to steal because it's so easy to do and everyone else does it".

Suse, lisamaree, I have been one of those 'struggling musicians' for many years now, and as I have suggested in a previous post, a good idea would probably be to download the huge artists and use the money you've saved on the smaller ones. Record companies create massive artists by systematically destroying competition.

One example of how this is done is as follows:

Say you have two unsigned bands, both about the same talent, genre and marketability, except one has an attractive singer. A record company may sign both, even though it is only interested in one. Once a band is signed they are no longer aloud to release music under any other label but what they're signed to. So the company will promote the hell out of the one with the attractive singer, make the video's, bribe the radio stations (don't think it doesn't happen), all the rest. The other band will simply be 'held', for the purpose of eliminating competition, until the contract expires, by which time they are unable to compete with the massive band with the head start.

That is just one example of the many ways record companies maintain a strangle-hold on the industry.

If you download only the big artists and pay for the smaller ones, you are essentially helping level the playing field a little. It seems most people are only interested in swapping the big artists anyway. Do a search on a file-sharing program, it'll look something like:

Sigur Ros: 14 hits
Eminem: 3985934 hits

Poor Eminem, however will he feed Hailey tonight? Give me a break.

Trust me, downloading does not screw the artist, the record companies do an excellent job of that by themselves.

Spendo, you say that downloading does not screw the artist, but the artists themselves are against it. I've yet to hear one that condones it, whether they're famous or not.

Granted the record companies screw over some artists - but it's not up to me to "level the playing field". If you can afford a PC to download the music and a stereo to play it on, you can afford the CD. A sense of fairness should not only apply to struggling artists. It should also apply to the ones that are talented and successful. If downloading music and not having a user-pays sytem is condoned, where does it stop? With what commodities and at what point is it ok?

As a musician yourself, and perhaps aspiring to be successful, and with your sense of fairness, I'd assume you'd hope that your fans would remain faithful to you, even after you become rich and famous.