i can see why its been made illegal.. i mean, if everyone started to get free music off the internet, then how are the people in the music industry going to be paid? then bands' cds wouildnt sell because everyone would get their music for free, and the whole musical economy would go ballistic or something. but..it doesnt even matter if you download it off kazaa or whatever program you use, because there are tons of fake files in the system now..my friend downloaded dozens of songs and more than half of them were fake. so i dont think theres really a point to try and download music from the internet anymore. it was there, but now its not, so maybe move on and just buy the cd or burn it off someone

musicans are just sell outs (well some are and others arent)

I think it shouldnt be legal but trying to stop it is impossible so it doesnt really matter.

simply put, downloading free music should be illegal. that doesnt mean kazaa n those softwares are illegal...just POTENTIAL in being used for illegal purposes (like a copy machine or a DVD burner). I hate it when people go "KAZAA IS BAD" n whack. They just assume that the program is illegal...when it can be used for legal purposes that may even be beneficial.

Now...the RIAA...im against them. Yea..free music should be illegal..but the way they're handlin it is totally wrong. Suing college kids, uploading fake music, and threatening to shut down kazaa n morpheus...thats stupid. they should just support iTunes or somethin like that...and not resort to force.

people might be able to take that post seriously if you turned caps lock off.

anyway, i think it should be legal. you are only doing it for yourself. yuo download some songs, you like it, you buy the cd.

downloading free music should be illegal because
that is how song writters get broke if people don't buy there records
if everyone downloaded it for free the world would fall into an alternate caus

Seeing as someone invented genicide, is it okay too? What about slavery?

funny how i wrote this 2 years ago - and now, i download music.

well most of the time i cant find the cds of bands that i like at stores. its almost impossible. but i can find anything when i download it. i think it should be legal. its lame to pay 99¢ per song on itunes. especially if you cant really pay for it since most young adults/teens only have cash on them.

and its so much easier than going out to buy cds where some of the songs you dont even like. you might only like one song.

i say it should be legal.

I'd usually use stuff like Kazaa to listen to some of the tracks off the album. If I'm itching for more, I'll buy it, if it's just okay, I'll just keep the songs on my hd and not buy it.
I guess it should be illegal when album sales start getting pitiful, but for now I guess it's okay.

artists can lose millions a year over people illegaly downloading as opposed to actually buying the albums.


that being said, i think you can hardly find some of the rarer/less popular bands/singers CD's in some countries like mine, so downloading is pretty much the easiest/only way to get to listen to their stuff. if the song you're after is like, Sexyback by Justin Timberlake, and you love his stuff, i think you should just buy the damn CD, whereas if you're looking for something like Anberlin's CD, it might be excusable to download since there's no way you'll find it at any store.

i dont clearly understand this, If its illegal, shouldnt it be stopped? and if its so illegial, why can you still get itunes? does all the itunes money go to the artist?

^Seriously? Are you seriously asking that?

iTunes is not illegal because you pay for it, and it has to get distribution rights from the copyright holder before it can sell any music. Not all music off unofficial sites are illegal either, though; artists and labels can choose to release any of their music free that they want. It's technically illegal to download other songs for free that were no designated to be such. However, pot smoking and underage drinking are also illegal, but can they be stopped? Of course not.
In the future, try to at least grasp the most elementary concepts of a topic before posting and save us all the headache.

Me personally I think it should be legal,Even though some people out there burn CD's and sell them but I mean then why do they make CD burners,Its just music,Even though that might have to do somehting with the artist profits... I dunno.

i think that the muzik shud cost money, im just gonna steal anyways tho cuz i want other ppl to pay for it while i get mine pirated

i'd say is would be paid because the artists dont make profits and they lose alot of money and time by recording their music on CD's and not anyone buying them and just pirating it on the computer.

but meh, i pirate my music on the computer too. so

probably everyone would crack the music on the computer if it costed money
(actually, everyone does it now. lol)

Well, I sell photos, and it's pretty annoying when people steal my stuff. Especially when it's an expense to me. So, I say downloading music for free should be illegal. Producing music is going to cost somebody money, and sales how they get that money back.

Although, I'm going to agree with the people who've said it, many music artists are quite overpaid. Music is a luxury, and yet it makes millions of dollars, versus something more essential, such as education, where teachers are quite possibly underpaid.

So, pirating should be illegal, but the price of music should probably also be lowered a bit. Artists and/or labels get their money back, and more, and we'll be happy because it's cheaper, and we're receiving good entertainment.

^Arjuna, that's actually quite different.
People who get music for free aren't saying that it's their music that they made. Whereas, people who steal your photos might be saying, "Hey, this is my stuff, look at it!" That's not the purpose of free downloads. We're just poor and we need music. That's all.

I'm gonna continue to download music for free regardless.

same with me a slipknot, cradle of filth, HIM. It's essentially helping and hurting them.

Well, the people usually don't steal photos and saying "Hey I took this." They're taking them because they're in the pictures. Supposedly using the photos for their "visual entertainment" without paying for it, similar to how people who download music for free get the "audio entertainment" without paying.

And the producers of the products are going to be losing money that they put in in order to produce the music. (Of course, I still think many of the music artists are overpaid.)

i guess its only fair for the artists if its illeagle but really no matter what laws there are there are always going to be people doing it.

I think it should be legal. Agreed with the point where most teens don't have credit cards and barely any cash on us at one time. If downloads were free, i think it encourages more people to come in and listen 'cause they won't be losing anything if they just give it a try. If people like it, then they'll attend a concert or buy their CD, etc, etc and that way it all balances out.

but then again....it`s not like artists need the money.

actually, realistically, artists make relatively little money off of their cd's. they make most of it through concert tours. Record companies make most of the money to spend on the team of songwriters and mixers that create the artist.

Personally I also download to see if i like a band. If i do i go and buy their cd. I have a bunch of burnt copies of bands CD's which i WILL buy eventualy so i can have the actual artwork and stuff. The whole idea is stupid you buy somthing that will be in your computer and your ipod but you wont have it later in life so you'll end up buying it again. Just might as will buy the actual cd to prevent that. Besides the bands ive seen only make A dollar for each cd they sell since the record companies are indipendent(spelled that wrong) so in the end buying cds for me is a whole lot better.

I can see people going to concerts by sampling the music, but I know a lot of people would just download whole albums for free vs. buying a CD.

Anyway, there are other ways to hear people's music besides downloading it. There's the radio, streaming, T.V., etc.

bhu radio.. etc.. dont give the person what THEY want to hear. It`s whatever the "top 10" or whatever the "dj" decides to play.

makin` it legal.. let`s people CHOOSE what song they want to download. and what music THEY want to hear.

agreed. if they sell their CDs 1$ each, i'd buy them. everyone would buy them. then they make enough money and we aren't stealing music.

A lot of people nowadays arn't even interested in all this 'mainstream' stuff, people are starting to listen to some of those unknown, underground bands. Radio will only provide all that mainstream top 40 music, which is mostly rap, hip hop/r&b and pop music, on those top 40 stations. And you can't always get the best quality sound off of a radio, besides, who records off of radios nowadays? That was the time of cassette players.

People, please note that the radio isn't the only thing I mentioned.

As for the quality, it's free because, supposedly, it's just a sample of the music. Then if you would want to hear the full quality of the music, you would buy the CD or go to a concert.

People sample watered down versions of products to get people to buy the full product all the time. For example Costco food samples. They only give you a small portion of food and if you like it, then you buy the whole thing. Also, usually don't let you just come back for more samples; you gotta buy the product.

I just got me an ipod for xmas and need like thousands of songs & videos. I'm broke as it is so I'm just going to go with the crowd in this one and go with the flow. It's kind of pointless at this point, when you can see that some people have a library full of thousands upon thousands of songs. Anyways it's just music and in the end it's all fun and games.

i think downloading is a great way to spread your music especially for new music artists. a lot of the music i listen to are never played on the radio therefore i am forced to buy music or look for them on the internet.
i share music amongst my friends because i like the word of mouth and spreading the music artists i like. i think downloading free music is great!

Well, if the artist intended their music to be downloaded, that's a different story.

i think music artists typically want their music to become mainstream and popular. but i think label companies want money and they are the ones that are usually adamant about downloading.

the music artists' job is to make money and have a big, assuring fan base but if their fan base grows money will perhaps grow, therefore i'm doing something supportive, when i am sharing music.

The artists make most of their money from concerts and tours. The production company is what takes your money ... so I really see no problem in downloading music.

Well ever since downloading music started, artists of course didn't get as much of the 10% commision that they usually get through their contracts. To be honest, downloading music could actually help more artist to become more well known since the internet is something that it used in almost everyones normal day life. Since artists get more money through their merchandise sells and concerts I don't see why downloading music should be illegal. I mean of course its sucks for the record companies and all but I rather see positive effects for the artists.

personally, i think artists are probably more concerned with the way fans like their music, not the money that they're making. yeah, the record companies are behind most of this but guess what? if the artists become successful, obviously, some of that money gets passed down to the record companies.

i think that most artists only care about that if they truely are artists and care about thier fans buts musicians like madonna that have alot of money because lets face it shes been in the buissness for a long time. and still is openly against free music downloading and file sharing beacuse now its to the point where its all about the money.

thats how i see it.

I think it should be legal...Well who cares I do it anyway,If they didnt want it to be legal they shouldnt have programs where people can d/l things.

That's like what someone else said before; tools exist which can facilitate murder, but which of course, is not the purpose for which it was intended. Does that mean murder should be legal?


The term 'artist' has been semantically extended to include those beyond painters. It is well accepted that art increases with value posthumously so this analogy fails on custom.


It's a few against many; as many others have noted, there really are very few options open to them in terms of enforcing the law. It may seem like bullying what with a big corporation targetting a population notorious for having very little financial means to begin with, but they are the primary culprits. You're hardly going to go after an accomplice when you can get the murderer himself, right?

As for why it's illegal, well, kryogenix has already explained that all creative works are intellectual property. Why do you think some of the layout designers here at this very forum, get pissed off when people jock their code and steal their layouts without giving credit? It's ignoring the initial effort, time and inspiration behind the product.

Copyright laws have formally existed since 1911 but the idea behind it goes back even further. Laws have simply been amended consequently to encompass the development of the digital era.

People have mentioned a compromise; well what do you think software such as iTunes is about? $.99 for a song is pretty damn acceptable if you ask me. Obviously when you hold it next to free, it's never going to measure up but if you made the downloading of all music legal, where would you find the deterrent against mass exploitation? Some people have said they do fear being caught and punished; floodgates will be opened for DVD copying to be made legal and all other forms of creative work, which begs the question: where does one draw the line?

As you've basically all said, downloading may be illegal but the majority of you still do it and I admit that I do too. It's just convenient. Simple as. Why get dressed to go out to a shop and buy a CD when you can lie in bed and have the same songs in your hands at the click of a few buttons?

I think it's important to point out that musicians/performers may be 'overpaid' but it's not through royalties. Concerts and touring are indeed a huge part of their income but it's sponsorship which really lines their purses. Just look at all the endorsement deals Beyonce has under her belt. If the sponsoring companies think the performer is worth the amount they're being paid in endorsements, then the sponsored party is hardly going to ask for a reduced sum, are they?

The real victims of our downloading culture are new and upcoming artists who require the capital recording companies invest to develop their music. By taking away from recording company profits, we're actually hindering the success of undiscovered and unsigned talent. Case in point, Misteeq, a UK R'n'B/Garage girl group had a string of hits here in the UK and were on the brink of breaking the much coveted US market when they were dropped from their record company...who had gone bust. Yes they could have been signed by another company if they were 'that good' but the point is, they were denied continued success because they were without a recording company to back them.

The thing is, the RIAA also uses a lot of techniques, or imposes a lot of rules, which are of dubious legality. A lot of the lawsuits they file may not even be based on law and would in fact lose if given a fair trial, but they never make it that far. The pockets of the RIAA are much deeper than that of the private citizen, so given the chance to go to court or settle out of court, many innocent people simply settle out of court because it's cheaper. The RIAA is just another example of a corporation exploiting the masses by taking advantage of its deep pockets, top-notch legal counsel, and extensive lobbying capabilities. When a private citizen issued by a corporation, his access to justice is disproportionate and largely unfair.


As a somewhat tangential note, there are mechanisms by which so-called "intellectual property" can be protected, at least as far as credit goes. Licenses such as the GNU Public License, the BSD License, and the Creative Commons licenses, among myriad others, can give an author legal recourse to require credit, while allowing others to make use of his work.

Furthermore, the question is really whether "intellectual property" is a fair term. Is it "property" in the traditional sense? And are creative products, or works that expand human knowledge, really something that should be kept tightly under wraps in the first place, or should they be freely shared with the world? Should the answer to that question be applied generally, or is it up to each author? Does the benefit to humanity outweigh the benefit to the individual?


Ah, and that begs the question: Can copyright laws that apply to written media (i.e. books) apply to other forums of so-called "intellectual property", such as software, music, and movies? In other words, is all media the same? Should all media be protected equally or identically? And, most importantly, what was the original goal of copyright law, and does copyright law still protect those original goals?

Copyright law is not even a part of our Constitution; the Constitution only authorizes Congress to establish copyright law, if need be. Why is that?

It's important to note that copyright law is not meant to protect publishers, or even authors per se; rather, it's meant to encourage authorship, and to help spread creative expression. You have to ask yourself: Is copyright law, as used today, still encouraging free expression and authorship—or is it hindering it?


Where does one draw the line, indeed?

It's becoming increasingly clear that the traditional means of distributing media such as music and movies is rapidly become passé in the digital age. Why should I pay $20+ for a CD when I can download it for next to nothing? Sure, there has to be some infrastructure to enable such downloads, but the distribution of electronic media over the Internet is miniscule compared to the distribution of physical media such as CDs (or tapes and records in a bygone era).

Industries come and go. Eventually some fade away and become cost-ineffective. A truly evolutionary business adapts to marketplace trends. Record companies can either come up with a way to make money from music downloads—and there are ways—or they can whither and die.


And here we have a good example of how media companies and artists can continue to make money. People will never stop going to concerts. There's nothing like seeing a live band. The best stereo system in the world can't capture the essence of a live concert. The same goes for movies: Until we have enormous movie screens in our houses, some movies just have to be seen on the "big screen". Going to the movies is such a part of our culture that it's not going to go out of style anytime soon.

On the other hand, maybe record companies and movie studios can reduce costs by not releasing so much crap. Most movies aren't worthy of being scene in a theater; they look just as good at home, on my small TV screen. Likewise, most music is stuff I don't even want to hear recorded, let alone hear live. Maybe record companies and studios can win back some fans when they stop turning art and music into a marketable, commoditized product. But I digress.


The nature of digital media, however, is such that a band doesn't need a record company. Recording equipment is inexpensive, especially if one is willing to make an investment that could become a career. The costs of distributing digital media over the Internet are miniscule. The great thing about the age of electronic media is that artists are no longer beholden to recording behomeths—they can self-produce and self-distribute. I think Apple even lets some independent artists place their tracks in the iTunes Music Store.

In fact, I posit that an artist today wouldn't even want to sign to a major label, if he really took the time to think about. The contracts that artists sign with major labels are so one-sided that an artist might be better off trying to go it alone. At least he'd stay true to himself and his art, even if he didn't make a lot of money (and, hey, aren't artists supposed to be poor and starving, anyway?).

What techniques? Which rules? Is it fact that the lawsuits filed are not based on law? I'm in the UK and therefore not familiar with the manner in which cases are handled in the US but I am wondering whether corporate lawyers are in fact as aggressive as you seem to be painting them?


I used the comparison of the layouts offered at cB to bring the analogy closer to home but credit and actual reward are obviously different as you have pointed out. Again, talking about law with relevance to British legislation so you'll have to forgive the disparities.


And what is the 'traditional' sense in which the term 'property' is used? The whole concept of intellectual property is purely as an extension of self...depending on which theory justifying the existence of intellectual property, one follows. That would lead to a digression from the original topic since the arguments for and against intellectual property seem to go in circles. There is however, a distinction to be drawn between creative products, and those which expand human knowledge. I would hardly say 'Hit Me Baby One More Time' (by Britney Spears in case anyone is wondering), expands human knowledge, so why should it not be subject to copyright laws? (as applicable under British law). If a musician/performer has to put a certain amount of hours and effort into the product, why should they not be rewarded simply because it benefits society? It really depends if you are a supporter of laissez-faire or socialism - again, I digress.


Why should software and books not be regarded as the same? Does the same amount of graft and attention not go into the produce of either? The original goal of copyright is a question which can only be answered subjectively - whether one falls on the side of encouraging production of creative works, or whether one believes every author should be entitled to reward for his time and hard work?


Actually, the Rome Convention of 1961 does that very thing - it is specifically intended to protect 'neighbouring rights' i.e., those of publishers and broadcasters; those financially/orginsationally responsible for the product. As to the encouraging of authorship being the purpose of copyright, again, it depends which theory you follow (and obviously, you believe it is to encourage authorship).


Well certainly the emergence, and more importantly, success of those musicians through sites such as Myspace, prove what you say and I do agree that signing to a record company isn't as fundamental to a performer's success as it once was. And certainly there is a rather large difference between the manner in which business is conducted at a 'major' label and an independent one. But the intents of artists really is subject to differing opinions; they all claim to be doing it for the music but a certain amount of corruption will always seep into such apparently innocent motives.

US copyright law is still somewhat murky on whether distributing music and movies over P2P networks is illegal or not, but the aggressiveness of corporate lawyers often allows corporations to essentially create their own brand of justice. Say, for example, the RIAA catches me distributing 1000 songs over a P2P network. They sue me for, say, $1000 a song, for a total of $1,000,000 (this is a pretty low figure, too—the RIAA has tried to sue people for hundreds of thousands of dollars a song in some extreme cases).

In the US, however, parties in a lawsuit can settle the lawsuit out of court, generally for a sum of money. So while suing me in court, the RIAA might contact me and say, "We're suing you for $1,000,000, but we'll be willing to settle out of court for $20,000."

Now, I might be within my legal bounds to distribute those songs. I might win in court. But hiring a team of lawyers that could even approach the quality of the RIAA's would be astronomical; corporations have a lot of money and can hire the best of the best. In the end, I might win, but it still might cost me over $20,000—not including all the time and effort I'd have to put into the case. So it might just be in my best interest to settle out of court and "make it go away." Thus the RIAA has bullied me into paying them without having to prove their legal ground.

This is what happens to a lot of people, because the RIAA sues college students, grandmas, poor families, and the like—people that don't have the same access to "justice" that the RIAA does.

Granted, if I really wanted to push the issue, such defendants could contact the Electronic Frontier Foundation or maybe even the ACLU, but there's no guarantee such a group would take up the case.


The traditional Lockean view of property generally deals with tangible items, not intangibles like thoughts and ideas. I was referring to that notion.


That's relying on the assumption that it should be protected under copyright law, which hasn't yet been established. I ask, why should the distribution of a song such as "Hit Me Baby One More Time" be limited? I'm certainly not saying that Ms. Spears deserves no credit for her work, merely that I should not be prevented from giving a copy of her song to a few friends, even if I do distribute it over a network. I'm not "stealing" anything from her, as such electronic copies are easy to make, so notions of "stealing" clearly don't apply here. This is the thorny issue of intellectual property: Unlike physical property, it can't be "stolen" in the traditional sense.


An interesting question, to be sure. I posit that a performer can be rewarded for her work; there are ways to make money in music, art, film, or writing, beyond the traditional models of distribution. However, the business models of "art" are changing, and those who want to survive must adapt. A musician can still be rewarded, but why should she be continually rewarded, over and over, especially when I can easily distribute her work at no cost to her, so she isn't really losing money per se?

To paraphrase Richard Stallman, I'd like to get paid to stand on street corners and make funny faces at people, but the there are vast gaps between what I'd like to do and what I can actually get paid to do. In other words, the simple industry of recording music on physical media, then making money by selling that physical media/music combination, is quickly fading—there will come a point where it isn't possible to make money doing that. Artists can either adapt or die out. As I noted before, people will still pay to go to live concerts, or go to the movie theatre, both of which can generate fair amounts of revenue. So the trade isn't going to die out anytime soon, but the business models are changing.

Furthermore, services like the iTunes Music Store will continue to be popular. A dedicated high-speed server with a vast music library that is easy to use is a service that people are willing to pay for. It's certainly a lot easier than crawling filesharing networks for a track. And there are probably ways that crafty record executives could somehow generate ad revenue from music, too.

There's also the point that people will always make music for fun, too. Maybe they won't be able to make a living off of it, but there are still dedicated musicians who—gasp!—actually produce music as a hobby, and make very little money off of it.


Simply put, it's a matter of utility vs. art. Software, for example, is produced primarily to accomplish a task—given an input, it produces a desired output. In that sense, it's not artistic. It's a tool. Yes, it's creative, but it's not designed specifically to be creative or artistic. It does something.

Even other media, such as books, have different purposes. For example, looking at my (rather ample) bookshelf, I have a number of volumes, ranging from a book about discrete math, to a book about calculus, to several tomes covering software design in Java and Objective-C, to a few novels by Neal Stephenson. Now, of course, the novels are pleasure reading, and represent a creative, artistic effort on the part of the writer. But while I find discrete math interesting, my discrete math textbook does not represent a creative endeavour—it's purely meant to spread knowledge. That's not to say it took no creativity to produce, but it's intent is not about creation or art, but rather to teach something. Likewise, the programming manuals are meant to teach something.

So they're all books, yes, but they represent vastly different goals on the part of the creators. In other words, some are utilitarian, and some are creative. Should I be limited in my ability to, say, pass along some of the figures in the discrete math textbook? Should I not be allowed to utilize or pass along some of the algorithms listed in the Java reference? Should the formulae in the calculus textbook be protected from reproduction? There's no clear defining rule as to whether the information contained in these disparate books should be protected in the same manner.


I dispute that the original goal of copyright law is subjective—there is a fair amount of reference material that speaks of the origin of copyright—but yes, the question is whether all authors should be rewarded in the same fashion. However, copyright was originally intended to encourage authorship and the dissemination of information, not to reap huge profits for publishing firms. But does our current copyright situation encourage authorship, or does it serve to keep ideas under the lock-and-key of publishers? Take Mickey Mouse, for example: Even though Disney does not innovate in regards to Mickey, it continues to retain full rights over the poor mouse. Is that fair? Do we really want to live in a society where all ideas have to be produced from scratch, and we're not allowed to build on—or even use—the ideas of others?

I'm not saying that authors shouldn't be credited for their efforts, but I don't want to live in a society where I'm not allowed to build and expand on the ideas of others—a concept that has been around for most of human history. While I am a (very) amateur musician, most of my feelings in this regard come from my experiences as a software developer (yes, I get paid to write software, and I contribute to numerous open source projects) and a budding computer science researcher (yes, I have obtained a research appointment for this summer). It's a pain in the ass to have to re-implement a particular software module, just because someone else refuses to allow the reuse of his code. It stifles innovation, rather than encouraging it—and copyright law was originally intended to encourage the creation of new works! It's a confounding situation.


Well, that was 1961—hundreds of years after issues of copyright theory had been raised. By 1961, it's not surprising to see that major publishing corporations had hijacked the spirit of copyright to support their own ends. It's not at all surprising to me to see that corporations were taking advantage of the consumer to reap greater profits. And it's certainly not surprising to see governments bowing to the demands of large corporations.


Well, again, it's not what I believe. I'm basing my contentions on a strong historical basis.


Certainly. Not all "artists" are in it for the art. But again, just because someone wants to make money doing something, doesn't mean they can. Are we obligated to pay musicians large sums of money, just because they want to make large sums of money for their work? I'd love to get paid a six-figure salary to write software, but that's just not going to happen!

How can music artists make any money when free downloading is legal. They might make some money but very little. Even as an addict of limewire I do not agree with legalizing it.

Independently selling your music is, in fact, the best way to go in the music industry. The downside is that you don't get a budget via the record label or higher corporate headquarters for promoting your music. Which, of course, limits your exposure because you're left out of a network where a little bit can go a long way. However, selling your music independently allows you to keep a large portion of your earnings. instead of having to keep feeding money to a record label that has you bound by a contract that, in turn, owns you, you get to be the one who decides where the money goes (granted everything else is taken care of).

When it comes to downloading music, Indie artists have exanded their fanbases via the internet. Hell, its a very simple strategy to release a bunch of pre-album tracks online. The internet will start buzzing about an artist they know little about, and in turn, people will want to hear more. When the album actually drops, those who were anticipating the artist's release, will run to buy the album.

Major labels have tried a similar approach to boost record sales. This same approach has gotten many artists nowhere because, at this point, it's expected. Take HipHop artists contracted to a label like Universal. No matter who the artist is; no matter what subgenre of HipHop they perform; their album will somehow, someway be available online roughly two weeks prior to the release. From Nas to Chamillionaire, this has been the running formula. If stats show that people are rushing to download the album (illegally), it gives the company a good indication that the album is going to do well, thus, making them more money. But if downloads are slow, the album gets pushed back, another single is released and more money is dumped into promoting the artist.

Illegal downloading? Whatever.

It should be legal or up to the band/artist. The way I see it is if a band gives up a few extra dollars to let fans download their music, they may actually gain more money in the long run. The more exposed the band is the more fans they will have. Which means more fans at the shows, more merchandise sold, stronger fan base, which means more $$$.

I haven't studied his theory however, one could draw a similar analogy in terms of the idea he puts forward, with land. Yes, okay, the difference between land and 'intellectual property' being that land is tangible, but the concept behind land being finite and intellectual property not being physical in its very nature, are, to me, one and the same. Just because everyone is entitled to land, doesn't mean one person can't lay a more substantial claim to it; land law proves that. And just because one cannot physically grasp thoughts and ideas, they are nonetheless given such physical expression in their manifestation. But it's a moot point in terms of this discussion.


I completely understand what you are arguing here but I fail to see how the easy reproduction of copies negates the concept of stealing. If you copy your housekey and give it to a friend who then sees fit to make similar copies and distribute them, that's okay with you? Further, aren't you the one arguing for flexibility and adaptability in business models? Surely the rules which govern the free movement of goods and property (such as misappropriation), should demostrate a similarly pragmatic nature?


I think financial loss is measured by the potential gain at initial production/distribution. Any business measures profit by outlay vs. income. I don't see it as the artist being rewarded 'over and over'; this implies that if an artist received their reward for their work all at once, we wouldn't be having this debate? I don't dispute that copyright is intended to encourage creative endeavours but I don't think this is its sole aim. It is meant as a system by which artists are proportionately rewarded for their work; that their products are measured by no fairer a means than the public. If the public enjoys the work, the artist is paid. If not, the artist gains little or nothing. I don't see anything wrong with this model, and therefore I do not see why artists should not be rewarded 'over and over'.


I apologise if there is any controversy in the analogy I'm about to draw, I know he is a figure either loved or despised but take Windows; it is undoubtedly a worldwide phenomenon. (I am neither endorsing nor condeming it, nor am I making any reference to their marketing strategy etc; I am using Windows purely as an illustrative device). I cannot say whether Bill Gates intended to make billions out of it but it serves a purpose. Such a widespread, and in this day and age, invaluable purpose that it's only right, I believe, he is properly rewarded for his work. Yes it is a benefit to society, but I do not submit to the socialist argument that individual effort is rewarded by the gains to community. So this may be a point on which we will simply have to agree to disagaree.


Yes, encourage authorship through proper reward for their time and efforts. I agree that 'neighbouring rights', those afforded publishing firms etc do not jive with my argument that authors themselves deserve reward, but the economic pros/cons are not my argument. I dispute the impossible theory behind allowing free distribution of any creative product.


I sympathise on this point but again we return to where the line is drawn between protecting and hindering. Clearly Disney have behaved in a manner which many would see as hindering development and innovation, however, for every unfair act, there are dozens properly exercising their right to financial reward.

When it comes to software and programming, 'open source' will always operate to keep the true spirit of copyright alive; the question of corporatios hijacking said spirit is not in contention - capitalisim, unfortunately for the consumer, is simply the business model/religion of choice. A way will always be sought to do the least to get the most, which, for many is simply the definition of exploitation. And again unfortunately, to the detriment of the consumer. One could argue that the continued illegal downloading of music, movies, videos and other creative products, such blatant breaches of copyright, are necessary to prevent a complete subjection to corporations. But that doesn't make it right, morally. As I have said, I admit that I am a major offender when it comes to illegal downloading and copyright beaches, but I would never claim that my conduct is just, justified, but not just. And my justification is what I have already said; the need to swim against the current that is capitalism and corporate exploitation.

It is illegal because the bands/singers complained about people being able to download there music for free. Why? Because if someone downloads there free music, it makes them not want to go out and buy the actual CD which in fact costs money, which means they lose money cause for every CD sold, they gain that much money. Understand?

It hurts the band or singer.

i think music artists typically want their music to become mainstream and popular. but i think label companies want money and they are the ones that are usually adamant about downloading.

the music artists' job is to make money and have a big, assuring fan base but if their fan base grows money will perhaps grow, therefore i'm doing something supportive, when i am sharing music. it doesn't hurt the band/singer.

(Sorry it took me so long to respond. I've been quite busy and haven't had adequate time to devote to this.)


Physical property is different. I've already noted that principles of physical property don't apply uniformly to intellectual property. A house key, for example, is different because it is a physical object used to guard and lock other physical objects. Music, movies, ideas, they don't guard or lock anything -- except knowledge (and perhaps creativity, if you want to extend the concept farther). There's a clear reason why I wouldn't want someone going through my sock drawer, but does this reasoning apply to knowledge? If someone "takes" my knowledge and does something with it, am I without that knowledge? Am I unable to use it? Has my knowledge been disrupted in the same way that rummaging through a sock drawer disrupts the items?

I just don't think of ideas as "possessions" that must be kept precious.


Not necessarily. I mean to say that historically, industry is driven by innovation. Given enough of a timespan, someone can reverse-engineer just about everything. So industry succeeds by fighting stagnation with innovation.

An example I'll use is the competition between Mac OS X and Windows. Given enough time, refinements in one OS will propagate to the other. Thus, one company does not stay ahead of the other by suing; rather, they continually release new updates to stay one step ahead of the competition.

Copyright, as used today, resists innovation; it allows an artist (or really, the record companies, since they own the copyrights, not the artist) to rest on its laurels and continue to make money from a product that might be 10, 20, even 50 years old. That doesn't exactly drive innovation and creative expression.


We keep coming back to this point, so I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. Historically, copyright is designed as a mechanism to encourage authorship. It might be used differently today, but a large part of my argument is that copyright today is abused.

I will point out that I'm not suggesting we dispense with copyright entirely, nor am I suggesting that artists not get paid. I'm just pointing out that a) when artists sign with a record label, the copyrights are owned the label -- a major corporation -- and not the artist; and b) there are other ways for artists to make money. Given that most artists make very little money from major record labels, my suggestions might actually serve to help artists be more lucrative in their profession.

Incidentally, Courtney Love recently wrote a good essay about how much artists are screwed by record companies.


Your analogy with operating systems is an apt one; as I've noted, I'm a computer science student, not a professional musician, so I relate better to software than music.

It may be surprising, then, to note that some people do make a fair amount of money releasing the rights to software, including entire operating systems. I am, of course, referring to systems like Linux, BSD Unix, and Solaris, to name a few. Sun Microsystems releases its Solaris operating system for free, yet they still make a pretty penny. Red Hat and numerous other companies do the same with their software, and still make money. And note that Google is a multi-billion dollar company that gives away all of its software, too.

I don't believe that it is fair to make money by taking advantage of others, by keeping things secret, by leveraging monopolies (which both Microsoft and the RIAA do). It's okay to make money, but not by taking advantage of the consumer. And as a computer scientist, I feel that it's far better for society to constantly innovate -- which is achieved best by sharing knowledge and information -- rather than by having a few rich capitalists make billions.

Yes, Bill Gates certainly deserves some money. But billions? I don't know. All he does is run a company -- a company that takes advantage of the consumer. Is that something we really want to reward?


What "impossible theory"? I point to the free software/open source movement to show that the free distribution of creative products encourages innovation and creativity while still allowing the authors to get paid. I point to science, where scientists continue to release papers, even though they are thereby forced to share their knowledge. And I point to the fact that a lot of artists -- mostly small ones, yes -- but a lot of them do release music for free, and even allow people to alter and reuse it in their own projects. So I dispute that the free distribution of creative products is an "impossible theory".


I'm afraid I might not fully understand your argument. Let me ask -- and I don't mean this in a snide way -- but is it "fair" and "just" for major record companies to stomp on my rights in an effort to protect theirs?

For example, under US copyright law, I'm allowed to make a copy of a CD. I'm even allowed to give that CD to someone else, provided I don't sell it. I'm also allowed to use music from that CD in personal (i.e. non-commercial) projects. But under many copy-protection schemes, I am prevented from doing that. Is it okay for RIAA-affiliated companies to enjoy the benefits of their rights by reducing mine?

Recently, Sony got in a lot of trouble for installing rootkits on computers that attempted to play their CDs. Is it okay for Sony to compromise the security of my computer in the name of their own security?

Those are but two examples. Aside from the ethical issues, what of the practical issues of digital rights management? Steve Jobs, the founder and CEO of Apple, posted a good essay about this the other day. To sum it up, there are a lot of hurdles to make DRM a) respect the rights of consumers, who are actually paying for the music, after all; and b) allow devices to be interoperable, so that one company cannot gain an unfair monopoly. So aside from the ethical issues, there are a whole bunch of practical issues that come into play.

In sum, my feeling is that DRM is not practical or ethical, and it makes more sense for media companies to adapt and innovate, rather than sticking with a dying status quo.