‘I've yet to hear one that condones it, whether they're famous or not.’
There are plenty of artists that condone it (or at least are indifferent to it). They just don’t get the media attention.

‘If you can afford a PC to download the music and a stereo to play it on, you can afford the CD.’
This seems like a gross generalisation. Don’t people receive gifts anymore? What about on your families stuff? Work? Stereo's last a while, finances change. There are many, many situations where you can not afford a CD but have the means to play an mp3.

‘A sense of fairness should not only apply to struggling artists. It should also apply to the ones that are talented and successful.’
I was expecting this to come up. Most people should realise by now that talent doesn’t necessarily equal success in the music industry. There are many undeserving successful artists and vice versa. Success is a result of marketing, hype and promotion. Talent isn’t nearly as important as the looks you were born with, the contacts you have, so on. I do not say this out of bitterness as I have very little interest in being one of the ‘rich and famous’. I’m just stating what I assumed was the obvious – becoming rich and famous doesn’t necessarily mean you deserve it.

‘I'd assume you'd hope that your fans would remain faithful to you, even after you become rich and famous.’
Of course I would, but I would also not mind if other means were used to hear my music (as I have already stated in an earlier post). Am I going to notice the difference in my bank account? No. If I did notice, would I care? No. It’s just money. If it means my music reaches a broader audience, there’s not much more you can ask for than that. To demand even more money if I was already ‘rich and famous’, would be greedy, arrogant and selfish of me.

Posters here might be interested to know that the band "Harvey Danger" has just released their 3rd and latest album as a completely free high-quality digital download (mp3 or ogg format).

http://www.harveydanger.com/downloads/

Harvey Danger you say? Well they had that song in the late 90s Flagpole Sitta ("paranoia paranoia, everybody's' comin to get me... I'm not sick, but I'm not well...").

This is no struggling garage band, though a bit of a one hit wonder in the alternative scene so far. They state their reasons for doing this quite frankly on the site (http://www.harveydanger.com/press/why.php). Essentially they do hope to maximise profit and are trying this as an experiment. As well as the album being available in stores you can also simply donate an amount of your discretion via the site. Good luck to them.

HarryC – your comments re copyright being levied to provide artists with income and reward for their effort is correct and hence applies not only to music but works of authorship and any “creative” pursuit.

The rabble who defend illegal downloading and duplication of "copyright material" seem to justify it with assertions that the “big bad record companies” are rich enough. This is irrelevant when the monies collected by record companies for copyright are distributed over to "legal the copyright holders", be those “copyright holders” the original artists, the heirs to the original artists estate or someone who has purchased from the original artict or his/her heirs the rights to copyright income for the period of time until the copyright lapses and the work enters the “public domain”.

I have an interest in copyright – partly because I used to work in the pre-recorded music industry for some years but more directly because I own copyrighted products of my own origination. However, when some scruffy flea bag tries to steal my software products, they usually find the outcome is more than they bargain for.

As for your suggestion “copyright violation is copyright violation, nothing more” what remedy or retribution would you pursue if you or one of your children had been “violated”

Spendocrat – your rambling attempts to justify your immoral and illegal actions do not merit comment. I hope, one day you will own property (doubtless inherited, you lack the originality to “create”) which someone else decides they have right of benefit from and deprive you of your inherited income. You will then have experience to appreciate both sides of the debate.

Lisamaree – your post 4 Oct – I agree

Col, you are making a lot of harrumphing noises about scruffy flea bags, but are avoiding the question.

When I "buy" a CD, what exactly am I "buying"?

Am I buying the right to listen to the copyrighted material? If so, what relevance does the medium have in this context? I have only one pair of ears.

I have now bought Miles Davis' Kind of Blue" in four different formats, three of which are today practically inoperable. What happened to my license for the first three - why is it illegal for me to transfer one of those? I can do it with software, after all.

I absolutely resent the fact that the Sony Corporation can take me to court for ripping my CD copy - the fourth license I have bought for the same product - to mp3.

Miles, by the way, can no longer be categorised as a struggling artist.

You damage your own credibility by resorting to personal attacks, Col.

…and it hurts my feelings! *sniff*

But seriously, if you think my opinion doesn’t merit comment, then here’s a hint: Don’t Comment.

A band I used to play in released an EP in Perth (I live in Melbourne now), and sold about 200 copies, mostly to people who happened upon us in the small venues we played and remembered our name (hardly platinum status, you’ll agree). It was indeed copied and traded on the net. I downloaded a copy myself, to make sure they had encoded it at a decent quality. So I already have experienced what you said you ‘hope’ may happen to me someday. I believe it was around that time my opinions on the subject were formed.

I didn’t feel my income was deprived. We didn’t then, nor would I now, record and release music for the purpose of making money. We did it because we love music. Obviously the people who downloaded our music also loved it, which is the biggest flattery you can receive and more than I would ever ask for. Any amount of cash, large or small, would never be any more than a bonus.

Obviously it would be a dream to make a living out of it. But even if that were the life I lived, I would never take legal action on those who wanted to hear music for free. If they were copying for the purpose of profit, well, that’s a very different story – I have major moral objections to those who profit out of someone else’s creation. But if it’s just to listen to, rock on.

I’ll say it again: the music is what the music industry is about. Everything else, including money, is secondary.

PS: I do not justify the act of downloading on the basis that record companies are big evil corporations. I merely pointed out that they have a lot of nerve pursuing those who share music considering some of the illegal and immoral (to use Col’s words) practices they engage in.

It is harder, somehow, to think of downloading as some sort of crime, when most of us have taped things off the radio, or burned a CD for someone, or whatever. It seems from my reading of the various comments (from those better versed in these laws than myself), that even copying the CDs I have purchased onto a 'mix' CD for my own personal use is violating the copywrite. How can that be? And when I already own the CD of my favourite song, how is it really so terrible if I also downloaded it to play on an ipod or similar?

I guess 'intellectually' I can see it as taking revenue from those who have legitimate right to sell the item, but when I have already paid for the item once, it is hard to justify paying again and again for the same thing