You seemed to have forgotten a major point of FACT that came out in this case. The woman sued was a music fan and had spent thousands of dollars purchasing hundreds of CD's. Yes, she also downloaded free music - most music fans do. The facts in this case do not support your view of people who buy vs. people who download. The reality is that the major record companies are going after the very music fans who keep them in business.

Those "corporate pricks" you call the recording industry created this monster years ago when they turned the other way to companies that provided recording equipment on stereos(reel to reel, cassette recorders,etc.).Why didn't they have a problem with us taping albums back in the day,but now they cry it is illegal? Thiry years ago Metallica would have given their left nut for people to download their music for the exposure,now all of a sudden their "artists" who claim they aren't getting their "fair share"! I say bring on the battle! The crap that they throw at us called rock bands is a sham. Bring the boycott on and let's see who flinches first! Signed: "Old School Rocker!" Fight the Power! We have strength in numbers!

If the record industry decided to stop putting music on the market for a year, they would die, almost instantly. There are plenty of fantastic independent musicians who remain undiscovered solely because so many people just listen to the stuff the RIAA puts out. People would immediately switch over to independent bands, who would in turn start giving away their stuff for free, as it would be necessary to be noticed in the first place (many of them already do). The massive music infrastructure not under direct control of the RIAA would switch to talking about the remaining bands still putting out stuff, and -everyone- would get used to the taste of free music. The RIAA's ability to sell digital downloads or make another undeserving superstar would be crippled, and considering that their entire business model depends on having a couple BIG hits, they would be absolutely decimated. Plus, their stock prices would -vanish- during that year, making it even more difficult for them to recover.

Why didn't they have a problem with us taping albums back in the day,but now they cry it is illegal?

that's not true at all. the labels complained about taping of music all the time. heck, they even succeeded in getting a special tax levied on tapes.

the good news in all of this is that the landscape will change. there's a ton of great music out there, most of it on smaller labels.

The author of this article is definitely diluted in her theory. Ultimately, the reason why people clasped on to the idea of d/l'ing music was due to the fact that the major labels were/are financing "artists" that release garbage. The material released on these albums were subpar thus reducing the industry to singles which they originally focused on, to begin with, back in the late 80's early 90's(Cassette Singles anyone??). "Record" shops weren't letting customers preview music anymore and people were getting tired of being ripped off, again, by purchasing whole albums that only had one or two good songs.(Imo,Metallica is a great example of this). P2P made it possible to d/l these singles and not get jacked by the overpricing of CDs thus leading the underground to more ways of bypassing the system,i.e;Bittorrent & Direct Download Links.

The most important thing that this author fails to understand is that by boycotting the only people that still buy into this shallow,exaggerated & exploited market will only cause them to further plummet. I mean, come one, the music industry has not only been screwing the customer but they also have been screwing their "artists" for years, just look at Prince & Warner Bros.

Until they back the artists with true talent unlike the head shaving, loose cannon Britney Spears, I will agree with The Haze and stand with the many!!

Most people still purchase CDs but it is from bands who are independant and still give a good portion of their music away. Which is evident by the upcoming release of Radiohead's latest CD.

#1: The only reason for illegally downloading music is to avoid paying for it. Going after those who illegally download does not diminish the industry's customer base because someone who illegally downloads is not a customer.

No matter how many cars I own, it will still be against the law if I steal one. You'll never hear Chrysler say the arresting of car thieves is "going after the very people who keep us in business." Check your economic law: thieves cost an industry that then passes the loss off to paying customers. Thieves are not the backbone of any industry; they are the osteoporosis of every industry.

#2 The industry has always had a problem with illegal reproduction and distribution of their music. Reproduction warnings are not a new thing.

While there is no fundamental difference between illegally uploading/downloading music and illegally reproducing music from album to tape, the market impact between the two is very different. It used to take one person the length of an album to record that album onto one tape and give it to one other person. There were those who were able to record one album onto dozens of tapes for dozens of people. Now, it takes one person a few minutes to share one album with millions of people.

The quality of one piece of music has nothing to do with and does not justify stealing another piece of music. I can't walk onto a car lot and say, "This Mazda sucks so I have the right to steal this BMW."

#3 Perhaps it's high time for just such a shift in the market. If the record industry cannot or will not prove the worth of their product, it's logical for that burden to fall to the artists. Then, only the artists with business savvy will survive.

Do remember, though, artists and salesmen built the industry. The artists wanted to create and sell without the bother of selling. The salesmen wanted to sell but could not create. The bands that fare best, however, are those with business savvy. The Rolling Stones outlasted just about every band that started around the same time as they did because of their savvy and talent, not just their talent.

#5 You're saying people turn to illegal downloading because the labels are releasing garbage? What are people downloading then - garbage? No, they're illegally downloading the music they like instead of paying for it.

There are ways to legally download the music you like without getting the music you don't like. Those who illegally download don't opt to do it legally because it isn't free.

# In general: Stealing is stealing.

No one walks into a museum and expects free admission because they're there to see the Picasso exhibit and want nothing to do with the wall of Rembrandt, nor will they get away with sneaking in instead of paying. Once caught, their cries of "Picasso only!" will be nothing more than something to do on their way to jail.

While the center of the controversy is the recording industry, the artists' part in this is substantial. Without the artist, there is no industry. If you're not happy with the artists' representation, perhaps it's less the industry you're upset with and more the artists. The artists are, after all, the ones who partnered with the industry.

If millions of people can get together and successfully (albeit illegally) circumvent the industry, surely millions of people can get together on the idea of revamping that industry. There is only one reason for doing anything else, and it is the insistence that music should be free of charge.

Be careful what you wish for, though. When your employer decides what you do should be done for free, you might not think it's such a great idea.

i've never really bought the "if the industry didn't put out such crap, they wouldn't have this problem" line of reasoning. it all seems like rationalization to me.

the claim from the riaa is that downloading hurts the artist directly, which for the most part isn't true because the vast majority of artists don't get a whole lot from record sales.

still, the attitude that "it's all free" has always bothered me. sorry, it's not free.

on the other hand, somebody needs to tell the riaa and company that they're never, EVER, going to be able to put the genie back in the bottle. they'd be far better off figuring out how to leverage the power of the internet rather than tossing away money in the hopeless attempt to "fix" the problem. it'll never happen.

I'm glad you took such pride in your efforts to point out why stealing is wrong,but, that was not my argument. I wasn't trying to justify theft, I was merely pointing out that the people who were/are taking part in the crime are the same people who have felt ripped off by an industry. Most of these people want to "test drive" an album before they consider paying the exorbitant prices for their favorite media. With all these automobile analogies, try looking at what the car industry went through. When you present a sh!tty product for so long people are going to look elsewhere for something to fill its place. This is why your point fails miserably to recognize a solution!!

[You'll never hear Chrysler say the arresting of car thieves is "going after the very people who keep us in business."]

But in your article you state:

"...you've got enough money to stop putting music on the market for a year."

This is why I said:
"The most important thing that this author fails to understand is that by boycotting the only people that still buy into this shallow,exaggerated & exploited market will only cause them to further plummet."

Your lack of knowledge & the constant focus on this chirade by trying to sound like a philosopher & lawyer keep you from attaining the insight to present a solution. And, this statement,"The artists are, after all, the ones who partnered with the industry.",shows that you don't understand the fustration that the consumer & musician has had with the "Recording" Industry for quite sometime now!!

Downloading does hurt artists directly because the thieves affect the sales, so the artists become less valuable to music labels, who in turn won't offer as much for their next contract.

The industry does have to make major adjustments due to to technology and communists like Gupp who has some warped sense of entitlement and obviously doesn't create anything. You don't get to know what a meal tastes like before you pay for it. Why not run out on your restaurant bill?

btw, one really shouldn't use the phrase "lack of knowledge" when you don't know the difference between the words diluted and deluded, or how to spell charade. Go to a book store and steal a dictionary.

Go to a book store and steal a dictionary.

now THAT was funny!

"Go to a book store and steal a dictionary."

No need, Mr. Driftwood(as in what fills your head), that's what Merriam-Webster is for.

So, now I'm a communist?? I guess I could be one held to engage in left-wing, subversive, or revolutionary activities. Considering that I'm an Independant, I may be happy when the day comes that the media conglomerate goes bankrupt and gives the music back to the people. Or maybe, I'll be happy when the RIAA finally cracks down on the black market and provides quality content that I can spend my hard-earned American dollars on,once more. OR, maybe, I'll be happy just sittin here in the middle...

As, for this article, I don't appreciate folks who want to lump in the people who have a grip on technology and what's available with the people who steal cars aand those that "Chew & Screw".

I guess I don't think in the narrow-minded sense like our Nazi friend,here, Mr. Driftwood!!

#8 When consumer frustration with the car industry grew, consumers did not "look elsewhere" by stealing cars. They took their checkbooks with them to the next dealer.

Many musicians used their frustration to self-promote, and some have their own labels. Many of those same musicians promote by way of free downloads, and still there are illegal downloads of that which is not legally available for free.

You're saying the consumer wants preview before purchase, else they won't purchase, but the number of illegal downloads says millions of people won't purchase anymore. They will find and take what they want, legally or illegally, as long as it's free.

The record industry has not produced a single CD that cannot be copied somehow, some way. This should have been their first response. Their next response should have been, as you noted, preview and the ability to purchase individual songs. That the industry has not done this still doesn't justify thievery. It does, however, justify millions of frustrated consumers contacting the industry and its artists with those frustrations and the conditions under which they will purchase.

Unfortunately, there aren't many consumers left - and who the hell listens to thieves?

I have presented a solution: the record industry needs to revamp itself according to consumer demand or remove their product entirely.

Millions of other people have found their solution, and it clearly has nothing to do with being a consumer and respecting someone else's work. They download music whenever they want with the understanding that they may be caught and punished accordingly. This is a good enough solution for them. That they in turn want this solution without consequence is laughable.

"They will find and take what they want, legally or illegally, as long as it's free."

Didn't you just say that nothing is for free. Downloading music still takes another person to upload it. That person had to have purchased the media somewhere...right?? I mean if they didn't then they either got the new music from the label or they knew someone that works for the label. Or they reviewed here at BC and then uploaded it themselves. So, Mrs. Morals, where does the "theivery" start?! From the looks of it along with Mr. Nazi, you, squarely,wanna place the blame on the consumer.

I see that from this thread that the propaganda has been uploaded, anyone for a free download??

Well, it's quite obvious nothing fills your head. You might want to use the MW link because you don't know how to spell independent. Besides if you really were independent would you need to steal the hard work of others for your entertainment?

Bands like The Grateful Dead and others who have explicitly stated their live music can be shared is fair game, but if you don't have a band's permission to share their music, then yes, you are a thief.

Maybe if you contributed something to society that people actually wanted and could steal from you, you'd understand. Rather than just working at the mall, why not nut up and open up your business?

The judgement will likely be overturned easily on appeal because the Iowa University computer expert gave incorrect testimony.

"Rather than just working at the mall, why not nut up and open up your business?"

Ah, yes, thanks for your worldly advice. I will quit my job at the mall & contribute to society because the low-lifes who work at the mall aren't worthy, Mr. Nazi!! Us lowly mall workers don't contribute enough to society to compare to a useless drug addict like Jerry Garcia.

Listen here pal... I contributed alot to this here United States and I don't need your approval. Second, just because I don't consider "sharing" to be in the same catagory as Grand Theft Auto doesn't mean that I partake in this type of event. [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]

Individuals who download artists music to profit from it are wrong and they are "stealing". Those who share their favorite music with others for pure listening pleasure are horses of a different color.Those who are so inclined to paint a broad stroke across the musical palette and accuse all who have ever downloaded a song as "stealing" are narrow minded and need to put their "P.C. stones" down and come out from their glass house and smell the music. So what if you listen to "stolen music"? Does that make you an accessory to a crime? Bottom line: for profit = WRONG!, for listening pleasure = sharing!BTW - Diana, got any Metallica I can borrow? To listen to,of course!