The Hoboken Cafe 

do you think its wrong, someone at my job made a point.
years ago when cassettes were being used we use to copy and share,with friends. isnt it the same thing?
this guy got cought big time.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/06/27/music.sharing.co...

I think that sharing to listen but if you don't like it, you should delete it. If you want to sample things that is fine.

Now, the method of copying should not be illegal since we were able to do it with Cassettes and VCRs. The difference with cassettes and digital media (HD, iPod, CD) is that it will be an exact duplicate with no degradation (or seemingly none).

However, giving people tapes so that other people don't have to buy it should be illegal. However, I have no sympathy for RIAA since the industry makes tons of money from these artists and the artist (for the most part, imho) make not a dime for extra sales.

In fact, independent artists rather using file sharing as a good medium of advertising. However, they would even frown on the practice of file sharing if their livelihood was being compromise by the unscrupulous few.

Me, I share things but delete it if I don't like it. It would be the most ethical thing to do. If I do like it, I would try to get it on CD. As for concerts or live events, that is sort of a grey area. But, since it was allowed with cassettes, the same logic should apply.

Years ago, the entertainment industry was in uproar, too. The Supreme Court ruled that copying entertainment onto and from magnetic tape media does not constitute theft.

I'd also make the point that the scale of digital entertainment sharing (i.e., the ability of one person to share entertainment with hundreds of thousands of people per day) is the real difference here. The scale is such that it has become a threat to the content generators.

-sg

To clarify: Copying magnetic tape media entertainment for personal use does not constitute theft. Copying for sale or public performance is obviously illegal.

the difference would be that with cassettes (or now, burning cds) you had to actually find a friend who had the music you wanted. with file sharing networks, you're 'sharing' with everyone else who is connected (which can be A LOT of people!) technically, it's probably no more or less legal, but there's a big difference between making copies for a few friends and allowing everyone on Gnutella (or whatever network) to have it.

im a dj and i do buy cds but only in compilations.
im not going to spend 14 to 20 bucks on a cd that only has 1 or two good songs on it.
artist make 40c to 1 dollar per song on one cd , record labels make lots more!
so im only taking pennys, please give me a break!!!!!

In RIAA defense, if you and 100 million other people out there bought all of the CDs that you shared songs (compared if you did not so scrupulous), then that penny (per CD) get translated to a million dollars. Of course, this is RIAA poor defense since they are bleeding artists dry.

In the same respect, if people were not file-sharing with people, the artist will not have another outlet to advertise their music and thus alienating millions of new fans.

I remember reading in a Slashdot article, someone did a actual study where the sales drop of CDs were due to RIAA lack of advertising and lack of material (there were a lot less CDs published comparing 2001 and 2002). But the RIAA spinned the sales loss (not mentioning the study) to file sharing thru Napster like mediums.

Considering the fact that for years, we the consumers, have been raped by the recording industry by putting out these albums that have only one or two good songs on it. They manufacture talent, wrap it up in shiny paper and put it on sale for $15.99 - and we only get 3 minutes of entertainment from the damn thing. Maybe if artists actually started to put out good CD's - then I'd buy it. I say get your lazy asses back on the road and earn your money entertaining people, if a band is that good that I'm supposed to spend $16 a pop on, then they are certainly good enough to make enough money touring.

Yeah I wonder the same thing. When I talk to people about this (or think about it myself) the logic tends to be a bit circular. (That is a bit of a warning for the following meandering)

When I download 6 different covers of "Wish you were here", I think 'wow, this is great...' and at the same time feel a twinge of something not quite approaching guilt... I should pay someone for their work - just maybe not the RIAA.

It is amazing to see the amount of stuff available on Gnutella-type sharing networks. Whole programs with cracks, Full length movies. Plenty of tech books. Whole albums, etc.

THe cassette analogy breaks down with the sheer volume of file-sharing. When you made or got a cassette the quality was noticably lower than an lp so if you really liked the music you would go out and get the real thing. With file sharing (if you have the bandwidth) you can find the actual .wav files - thus less of a reason to get the real thing. It is more like pressing albums and leaving them on your front stoop for anyone to pick up...

Discussions of this issue range from the cynical 'everybody-does-it' to the sactimonious to the self indignant...

But there is an enormous dollop of hypocracy on the RIAA side. I found the following Wired article humorous (Sen. Orrin Hatch is calling for software that would fry the file sharing computers - but an astute web-saavy individual found that the souce code on Hatch's website contained javascripts that were lifted from another company):
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,59305,00.html

I'm not a lawyer but it seems that IP law is a very active area at the moment. I think much of the discussion of file sharing is clouded by issues that have an elective affinity to it. Overly restrictive patent applications and the Open Source / Closed source debates are examples.

There is an interesting article in the New Yorker on how patent and IP law is used in a predatory way:
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/?030714ta_talk_surowie...

The legitimacy and increasing popularity of Open Source Software is a strong counter tendency (despite the SCO- Linux suit). Open Source has effectively proven that the development of free software tools (ie Linux Apache Perl Postgresql etc...) prospers and has competitive advantages over Closed source (Microsoft, etc).

So in this environment in which Open Source and other challenges to more traditional notions of IP, file sharing becomes less heinous.

Most of the people I talk to about this feel at least some level of discomfort and nobody I know has come up with an excellent argument for the legitemacy of file sharing... But we are talking about an industry that has been bloated and behind the times ffor years. I feel about as bad for the large music companies as I did for PanAm or TWA. If an entire industry is unable to deal with technological change and come up with a viable business model, then it should go the way of the dinosaurs - not be propped up by Orin Hatch and his ilk.

I think this will spawn a new kind of music service (and you see examples like the Apple music thing or a Sirius-style satellite programming) while the RIAA is twiddling around with self-destructing files and lawsuits...

I came across something you might interested in. It might not help you but I figure it was interesting just reading it.

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=10452