Firstly I'd just like to get this out of the way. I don't download albums instead of buying them. I still buy the same amount of albums as I always have. I don't think people should download music instead of buying it. I think that if someone likes what they hear, they should pay for it and support their favourite artists.

Now, firstly downloading illegal copies of songs isn't stealing. Stealing is when you take something from the owner. In theory, it wouldn't matter if an artist had one file or one thousand files copied if the people making copies of the music were never to buy the music. If people were stealing hard copies of their music from stores, then it would effect peoples pockets.

They way I see a situation is, if an artist is having trouble making money from selling their music, it is mainly because their music isn't wanted by the people. Now if these struggling artists can't sell records, nobody is going to want to download their music either so shutting down p2p programs is going to do nothing to help these people. In fact, it could have a negative effect for these people because the only way somebody is going to hear their music is by buying an album they know little about or on the off chance of hearing them on the radio.

The only people that p2p programs really effects is the record companies of well known artists who people (especially teenagers) enjoy listening to. Now these well known artists are already making a packet of money, but selling less records isn't really hurting them because they make the majority of their money from touring and appearances etc. Now the record companies income is only through record sales so these are the people that are being effected. Because these top gun multi millionaire record companies aren't making as much money as they want to (or expect to) and they can't controll what people do and put a price on things, they are getting upset.

Now because the RIAA are upset by all of this, they are hacking into peoples computers and servers and going through peoples personal files just to see if they have broken a copywriting law in some minor way. What this article is all about is saying that the RIAA can't and shouldn't be able to do this sort of thing.

By the way, Reverend Rock, if you are really worried about all the money you could be losing from p2p programs, you should try to look up how many people are sharing your files online. My guess (and it is only a guess) is that you won't find anyone with one of your songs, hence, p2p has no effect on your music or income at all (as nobody can download it) and shutting down these programs will have no effect for you at all.

Copywriting has been a plague all the way through the history of music anyway and it will never be stopped. In the days of Mozart his music was bought for around ten pounds and many people copied his music and altered it yet never gave him a dime. Radio came along and played peoples music while the listeners heard it all for free. During the eighties people used cassetts to to tape records and radio and this also annoyed the RIAA. Now we have the digital age...

Anyway, I thought music was all about sharing and being listened to by others?

I still buy cd's if I feel the band deserves it. P2P for me has made it so I can sample music before hand to check if the album is quality, I'm sick of spending 16 bucks on fillers. If cd's were cheaper then I think p2p users would go down, prices are insane for something that costs fractions of a penny to make. Artists hardly get any of those insane prices anyways. You can go on and say supply and demand, but the only way to fight these high prices of albums set by the RIAA is to get the music a different way, how bout they try lowering prices and then I'll sympathize with them.

I think I've made it pretty clear here that my concerns are not just about MY music. My concerns are about a general time-honored principle of copyright law that creators of music are entitled to compensation for the use of their work. Whatever anyone thinks of record companies or RIAA is irrelevant to that principle. I agree wholeheartedly that CDs are too expensive and that prices should come down, but that doesn't make it right to cheat music creators out of their livelihood.

As for your "guess" about how p2p affects my work, I think that's rather amusing, and I'm quite confident that you're dead wrong on that guess. That notwithstanding, I can assure you that this is not a mere personal crusuade on my part.

um, yeah, they're not making as much money as before so in order to "downsize" and save money, they have to give up on, (or not even sign in the first place) lesser known bands that make awesome music. This forces them into a financial bind and the only way out of it for them is to create pre-packaged crap, (i think we all know what im talking about) that the millions of Teenie-boppers will buy so they can make money. I dont think you really realize the amount of money that goes into even a single concert. Its Millions of dollars for Metallica to put on even a single show, and do you know who fronts that check? the record company...
Now I know as well as you that they are taking in MORE than they need etc because they're greedy, but I'd rather put up with a little greed on their part than see what happens when they're broke. (no concerts, no touring, only crappy bands etc...)
Peace.

You people do not get it at all. What is it you're downloading? Just the "well-known artists"? Yeah, sure. Don't make me laugh.

The people you are screwing are the artists you love to listen to, if you're downloading their music (and don't try to claim you're not). To quote John Lennon..."how do you sleep at night?"

I hope your not talking to me I'm all prorecort company, I'm hoping to get signed by one some day!

If you're not guilty, I'm not talking to you...

well, the glove doesn't fit...

dear reverend,

I occasionally download for such reasons :

1) sample a song or album.
2) some one-off singles, that are only available in a compilation or album (but other songs stink).
3) impossible to get bootlegs and songs ripped from vinyls (not available on cd).
4) b-side singles that are either not available locally or too expensive to import.

I think p2p is a very subjective issue. Most users abuse it I guess, but I don't think what I do is abusive ? Anyway, since p2p came into my life, I actually bought some cds because I managed to sample them beforehand, and liked it. As for my actions, I'm definite that if p2ps were no longer available, I will NOT be buying more cds. On the contrary, if I can keep sampling songs, I'll even buy more. I feel the best thing that the music industry should do, is to avail all songs and albums for legal downloads at a reasonable fee (say, $1 per track) or a cheaper sample copy (that expires or cut-off halfway through). But the RIAA is fighting a losing battle by their offensive tactics. If I were an artist myself, I'll form an independent label, and sell my songs on-line. They must understand that, in this age of rapid technology, everybody wants things instantly. So, give it to them. It's so much easier to download and sample and burn a song you like, within minutes, rather than going down to the record store, and find that the CD is out of stock !

The question of “stealing” does not ask whether or not the file in question is some rare bootleg or the latest official single; it does not ask whether the file is a representation of a song by a well-known band or a band toiling in obscurity; and it most certainly does not ask whether or not the potential “thief” was planning on deleting the file in X amount of days or archiving it for permanent storage.

The question of stealing asks the following: did a person get something that he or she should have paid for but didn’t? With a CD this is relatively simple. One CD sits on a shelf and no one buys it. If it somehow moves into someone’s possession, it was probably stolen. If it sits there, it exists to be sold and was NOT stolen.

But what of the actual content, which is the crux of the argument? Anyone can say if a physical CD isn’t stolen there are no thieves, and anyone can say that downloading full catalogs in the MP3 format that is prevalent now an burning them onto cheap blank CD’s is stealing money out of wallets. The reality is not so simple.

For starters, you would need to show that a person who downloaded an MP3 would actually have been a customer. Is someone who downloads MP3’s, realizes the band sucks, and deletes them somehow less guilty than someone who downloads several MP3’s, likes them, and follows up with a trip to see the band live? What if a third person does in fact by a CD? Does he or she somehow “reverse” the process of stealing in this case? If it can be argued that all three of these people “tried” something without paying for it, than ALL THREE are either guilty or not guilty. And now we have to figure out if these people would ever have actually spent money (of course one of them did, after the “crime” was already committed). On a per song basis, this is impossible.

Because of this the "when you download you take money from me" argument is almost completely without merit. In fact, it is equally as useless as saying "P2P filesharing is always great for musicians". We don't know either to actually be true, however logical they appear on the surface.

The industry should be coming up with a way to harness this technology; I've said before ITunes is not an answer. The files are a complete rip-off o the consumer and give as small a percentage to the artist as record sales did, and the only real advantage is the ease of which sales are tracked. For physical units, the bookkeepping in abominable, which is par for the course for ALL the RIAA's data.

The true effects on the sales of recorded music by P2P file sharing programs and the people who use them are still under review. No one actually knows how much the artists are being helped or hindered by the exposure they receive via P2P and the ease of which entire works can be captured in a compressed format.

Publishers, songwriters, musicians and record labels DO deserve be put in a position to make money. I believe in compensation for copyright holders, but I do not support the removal of the Fourth Amendment from the RIAA’s vocabulary. While we debate how copy/paste does or does not violate fair use laws, privacy rights are being violated on a scary level. When a 12-year old with a Linkin Park MP3 has fewer rights than a suspected terrorist, we have problems. Finally a judge sees fit to make this end. This is not merely a victory for people who want to steal one guy’s nickels. This is a victory for people who think they should have constitutional rights. The RIAA needs to abandon failing tactics, and would-be publishers, songwriters, and recording artists need to look more closely at their options.