http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/

and any of the posts/comments here:

http://slashdot.org/tags/mafiaa

One of the things that has become apparent to me, at least where music and video are concerned, is that we, the creators, have the right to sell our creations directly to the people who want them, cutting out all “middle men”. The RIAA and the MAFIAA are determined to make a buck off people who don’t wish to be represented by them, and have lobbied congress to get laws passed so they can legally do so. They’ll also sue the pants off people who have never “stolen” a file on the basis of an IP address (which can be spoofed.)

The younger generation has followed this issue, and has developed a (some might say healthy) disrespect for the RIAA and the MAFIAA.

Reading the posts on those slashdot threads will give you a better overview of the issue than anything Big Media is saying, mostly because Big Media is invested in protecting their own turf, in the same way they’re not covering Chris Dodd’s at least temporary win against Telecomm Immunity and his incredible stand for the US Constitution and the Rule of Law.

Our sucky media in this country has a lot to answer for . . .

But I digress.

Things re copying are less clear when it comes to books, since there is a real need for print, and there is a real cost involved in creating/publishin/promoting/distributing any book, and, Kindle aside, it is damned uncomfortable trying to read a book’s worth of text on a screen. So I think copyright and fair use and all that make more sense in that context (after all, it’s the context for which the laws were originally written.)

Anyway, that’s my two cents.

I will record CDs from my iTunes to play in the car, because stupid iTunes doesn’t have a good car analogue yet, but when I can just plug my iPod into my car, I’ll do that.

The problem with assuming so and so is a millionaire is that most people assume every artist is. Sure, Hannah Montana is selling very well, but that doesn’t mean all twelve of those songs in the mix are. People talk about JK Rowling, but most novelists are lucky to make 5 figures off their writing per year.

I will make Mix CDs, but I won’t steal the music to do so. It will be something I own. Like the tape I borrow from my friend if I forget to tape the episode. I also lend friends books. But again, there is still only ONE book. not multiple copies of books. Books that are available as ebooks can be put on a site and dowloaded a gazillion times.

So I guess I’m halfway down the list. Right now, we’re in a debate with a friend because he wants us to make him a copy of a CD we bought of a local band, and we strongly feel that he should drop the $15 and buy his own copy of this poor, local, unsigned band’s CD.

So you wouldn’t steal the CDs, but you would download them, having just admitted they’re the same thing? I’m not following. Is the difference the greater chance of getting caught stealing in person?

i think that if artists dont want us to share what we bought they shouldn’t give us the optoin to.

Artists don’t mean to give us the option to, I think. It’s just the way technology turned out.

i don’t think that it is fair for us to not buy the CD, but does it matter if i buy one CD when my best friend already bought it? does it matter if i donload Hannah Montana songs, when she is already a million air? i think not.

So you don’t think it’s fair, but it doesn’t matter.

I’m just trying to get some insight on what you might be thinking here, and I have to say, it’s not making sense to me.

Would she be a millionaire if no one bought that first CD?(Ok, I realize Hannah Montana is a bad example, given who her parents are.)

For the record, I’m guilty of a couple of song downloads off a freeware site. Most of the rest of the stuff on my MP3 was either copied off a CD I own or there when it was given to me by a friend. I felt bad about the downloads, though.

But I refuse to feel guilty about book sharing. One copy was paid for and one copy is being used. Period.

Certainly the business model is changing, but for the artist, we are getting back to being the person on the corner doing our thing with a tip jar. If it is all available for free, what can you do besides ask for tips?

Either way, if that is the way the youth of today wants to go, well, I’ll adapt.

By the same token that downloading a movie or two for free isn’t different than me borrowing the DVD from a friend who purchased it, it is the allowing 6 million people to download it that is, uh, questionable.

As I understand it, one of the reasons why our copyright laws in America are so stifling is because of Disney and other corporations with gobs of money to persuade the lawmakers twice to extend copyright protection. That’s why the words to “Happy Birthday” are still owned by Time/Warner, but the tune is in the public domain.

Here’s a blog article about copyright, fair use, and the spirit of things that may be interesting to you: http://blog.wfmu.org/freeform/2005/10/do_as_i_say_not.html

And I was talking to someone about this last night, who said, “What’s the difference between sharing software or movies, and giving your friend a book you’ve already read? Someone has only paid for it once–same thing, right?”

Hmmm . . .