Bad analogy.  I also don't pay the artist every time I play a CD.  Are you suggesting the artist should get paid once when the CD is mastered, but get no royalties for any discs sold?

The analogy with regard to freely distributing ripped music would be that, when a plumber fixes my toilet, he must fix my friends' for free also.

I must admit I don't really understand this setup. However an artist is signed to a label under contact; what that contract entails is their business.  The label undertakes various work for an artist that I suppose deserves some recompense (developing rootkits is a costly business).  Are you suggesting that, by sharing ripped files, this is benefitting the artist more?

Again, irrelevant; you've missed the point.  This is the point: You cannot say that by purchasing an object you have the rights to do anything you wish with that object.  It just isn't the case, whether it's a gun or a CD.

Nothing that you have said has changed my perception.  However I also agree that it is useful for people to try before they buy.  That said, isn't that what the radio is for?  Less mainstream bands can, and do, provide poor quality samples on their website for evaluation purposes.  I know that this is not ideal; I'm not sure of my stance on this one; whether I have one, or particularly care to adopt one.  The simple fact is that most people who use P2P do not eventually buy the album; it is used as an alternative to making a purchase.

The more people read the facts at www.p2pnet.net, www.boycottriaa.com, www.webcasteralliance.org., www.cdfreaks.com. The less influence the **AA's will have attempting to poison your mind

I know someone who has a workmate who's dog gets cheap DVDs from their relative in Malaysia.  What's that all about?  How can they press and distribute Disney DVDs so cheaply?  Is that legal, or just unprosecutable?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=364734"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well, some (even musicians themselves) think that music should be completely free, that the Artists shouldn't even charge for it.

Personally, if I could only pay the artist, I would.

I won't support RIAA record labels.  Paying record labels sends them a message that 1) It's ok to install rootkits on my pc and violate antispyware laws, 2) It's ok to conscript the U.S. government and lobby for corrupt laws hellbent on destroying technology that we take for granted today.  3) That its ok to sue 12 year olds, and specifically target Americans who don't have the money to have a single leg to stand on in court.  4) That its ok to waste taxpayers money trying to get so-called "educational" programs forced into schools to brainwash children to the whims of the content control cartel.  Any artist that signs up with an RIAA label has just signed a death sentence, both between themselves directly and the RIAA, and with the fact that there will be more and more people who will refuse to have anything do do with RIAA artists. 

Here's a counter-analogy for you "If a public library allows you to read and check out books, CD's and movies for free, then it must allow my friends to do it for free also". --Oh wait, they already do.  Regardless if authors or creators of any work in a library have made any sort of a deal with them in any way does not diminish this.  Hundreds of millions of people every year are depriving the content creators of DIRECT revenue from the "consumers" of copyrighted work from libraries, therefore, the RIAA/MPAA should pander the U.S. Senators to have all public libraries smashed down, destroyed, in the United States for facilitating copyright infringement.

This has been analyzed, and published in one or more large newspapers by a Harvard Professor, that filesharing increases visibility of music and increases sales, its free advertising.  If this werent possible, then tell me how in the hell there are musicians who specifically WANT THEIR MUSIC SHARED ON P2P? FOR EXAMPLE  BILL LONERO  http://www.billlonero.com/  How come he hasn't gone out of business? he's not making money on his music online?  Independent artists also don't use DRM either, amazing isn't it?

Wrong, the point is that as the buyer of a product, I can do ANYTHING I wish with it, AND, you, nor anyone can stop me.  If I go buy a crowbar, here's a few things I can do with it:  1) Can pry nails from lumber, 2) Can paint it to change its color 3) Can sell it or give it away for free to anyone in the world, at will 4) Can use it for self defense if someone breaks into my home 5) Can smash a computer with it that pisses you off 6) Can smash windows with it 7) You could kill someone with it, or mug someone, with severe consequences, but you have the freedom to break the law initially.  You can do *****anything***** with it.

As others have said also, some countries have NO copyright laws whatsoever, NONE.  Your argument means absolutely nothing there not only in a philosophical sense, but also in a legal sense and in a real world sense, means absolutely nothing.  It would be like you saying that its illegal to go see a movie, and then go tell a friend not to see it because the movie sucked, and that now that person is guilty of copyright infringement because he caused another person to deprive the creator of that work of revenue.  Just because a "CREATOR" creates a work, does not predispose them to be ENTITLED the right to revenue.  If their work SUCKS, they DESERVE to suffer financially, thats the risk THEY took, they can go out of business and starve to death for all I care.  Customers are the boss, we create the rules, noone forces us to open our wallets, and when we DO open them, and buy, you better damn well believe we can do whatever on God's green earth we want with it.

The radio?  Your joking right?  The radio is full of illegal payola driven, extremely repetitive CRAP music

(none of which is independent btw)

Bottom line is this:  Your perspective on the issues with music is solely limited by how oblivious one chooses to be to what thousands of other people have had to say about the Multi-national corporate worldwide government promoting copyright industrial cartel.  The more people read the facts at www.p2pnet.net, www.boycottriaa.com, www.webcasteralliance.org., www.cdfreaks.com.  The less influence the **AA's will have attempting to poison your mind, and redefine your beliefs without you realizing it until you too become a sucker to their propaganda.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=366062"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

When I'm boycotting him, he or she doesn't get jack $hit, thats the price you pay as an artist if your stupid enough to sign a contract by an RIAA affiliated label.  Alot of musicians would make just as much money working at a 7-11 store by the time all the money is taken by everyone else except the artist.  That's the price musicians pay for being ignorant of how much they will or are getting screwed unless the go independent and use the internet as their primary method of getting known.

Answered in the above response.

It is a rather perfectly applicable and relevant analogy.  The MPAA/RIAA etc all scream bloody murder and say that when you download a song it's the same as stealing, and say that it does not qualify as trying before you buy.  But a public library allows anyone to try before they buy; whether its books, cd's, or movies.  While these are not the newest releases by any means, the principle still applies here.  Also, nothing is to stop anyone from renting DVD's or music from libraries and ripping them for their own personal collection, thus in the RIAA/MPAA's minds, they are in effect, FACILITATING copyright infringement.

You can't walk into a grocery store and grab a movie off the shelf for free and go rip it because you will be arrested for shoplifting, you can from a library however.  A library removes the purchasing requirement which makes so-called 'piracy' a little more difficult.

They sure as hell have alot more talent than just about any RIAA music made after 1995, and they also don't compress and distort their recordings all to hell to try to get your attention when you hear them on the radio, not to mention disingenuously try to make you think CD quality music is no different than Itunes DRM compressed crap, to fool the general public into further accepting crippled DRM downloads, since they won't think they're missing anything when the past 11 years of CD mastering has destroyed the fidelity of recorded music.

Hell no, thats not even debateable, the fact that you could even think of a question like that puts you squarely in line with the same mentality of those that want a Police State/New World Order.  Regardless of what your religious beliefs may be I'm going to say this:  When God created Adam and Eve, did He make it impossible for Eve to CHOOSE evil?  Did He prevent her from biting into the apple?  No.  What you just said also removes the responsibility of the crowbar owner to exercise his or her sense of what is right and wrong, so you want to remove that 'burden' of people to have to think for themselves and excercise self control, and put that control in the hands of a corporate or goverment entity to control those who have crowbars?  At whos expense also?  Sorry that smacks of fascism in my book, because your implying that **someone else** knows best instead of the individual.

Allow me to rephrase what you just said to illustrate the gravity of your statement.

'If it were possible to prevent guns from being used to mug (implying kill) without any other effects, do you really not think that would be a good idea'? 

Nope, violation of 1st Constitutional Amendment  --I need say no more (bearing arms assumes they WORK, i.e. as in are USEABLE, to shoot, to be able to defend yourself etc, DRM'ing a gun effectively violates the 1st Amendment through emasculation.

'If it were possible to prevent encryption from preventing law enforcement from being able to view the contents of a suspects hard drive without any other effects, do you really not think that would be a good idea'?

It's actually happening right now, Executives at Microsoft are showing police officers how to get in the secret NSA backdoor(s) of Windows Vista built in encryption utilities.  That's ok, when most people encrypt their HDD's (they won't  use Vista) its for the SPECIFIC purpose of making it as hard as possible if not impossible for even the NSA, FBI, DHS, CIA, local cops to be able to break it, it's none of their business wtf is on anyones machine, legal or illegal.  Even if someone is a terrorist or other criminal, the FREEDOM that technology provides, TRUMPS national security, without freedom NOTHING else matters.

Therefore you have no problem willfully forfeiting your fair use rights and personal property rights, and you also have no problem helping fund the very people who want to outlaw technology that you have probably enjoyed, and perhaps even make this website illegal for talking about NON-DRM'd audio compression, and which drives are best able to bypass copy protections.  Maybe when hydrogenaudio.org gets served a DMCA takedown notice and the freedom you had to post here will be non-existant because the site won't even exist.  We'll see how your attitude and beliefs stand up if and when that ever happens--remember in Finland (for example), it's illegal to even TALK about DRM in any organized manner, these are the types of laws that people need to be removed from power from for perpetrating upon their countries.

Yeah, that's irrelevant.  Americans and the world abroad had the best technology at the time and we enjoyed it and used it to its fullest extent.  People made dubs of innumerable cassette tapes and we passed them around and listened to them on our home stereos or in our cars.  The 'sneaker net' was alive and well back then because that's all there was, and the **AA's never complained back then.

Freedom prevails over all else, fair use trumps copyright law

Just to give a little perspective, a very small proportion of the music I now buy is affiliated with the RIAA, and those that are tend to be from '80s.

Quote

Good music was made in the 80's, personally if I were to buy some now, I would buy it used from ebay or somewhere else, used.  Btw I also don't believe in paying record labels 90 years after the artist is dead.  (Btw it used to be 75 years after the artists death before the work became public domain, they didn't think that was long enough so it was extended to 90 years, cool huh?)

Quote

And what, expect him to pay for studio time, promotion, materials &c. out of their own pocket in the hope he'll get it back?

When I'm boycotting him, he or she doesn't get jack $hit, thats the price you pay as an artist if your stupid enough to sign
a contract by an RIAA affiliated label.  Alot of musicians would make just as much money working at a 7-11 store by the time
all the money is taken by everyone else except the artist.  That's the price musicians pay for being ignorant of how much
they will or are getting screwed unless the go independent and use the internet as their primary method of getting known.

It is a rather perfectly applicable and relevant analogy.  The MPAA/RIAA etc all scream bloody murder and say that when you
download a song it's the same as stealing, and say that it does not qualify as trying before you buy.  But a public library
allows anyone to try before they buy; whether its books, cd's, or movies.  While these are not the newest releases by any
means, the principle still applies here.  Also, nothing is to stop anyone from renting DVD's or music from libraries and
ripping them for their own personal collection, thus in the RIAA/MPAA's minds, they are in effect, FACILITATING copyright
infringement.

You can't walk into a grocery store and grab a movie off the shelf for free and go rip it because you will be arrested
for shoplifting, you can from a library however.  A library removes the purchasing requirement which makes so-called 'piracy'
a little more difficult.

Quote

If it were possible to prevent crowbars from being used to mug people without any other effects, do you really not
think that would be a good idea?

Hell no, thats not even debateable, the fact that you could even think of a question like that puts you squarely in line with
the same mentality of those that want a Police State/New World Order.  Regardless of what your religious beliefs may be I'm
going to say this:  When God created Adam and Eve, did He make it impossible for Eve to CHOOSE evil?  Did He prevent her from
biting into the apple?  No.  What you just said also removes the responsibility of the crowbar owner to exercise his or her
sense of what is right and wrong, so you want to remove that 'burden' of people to have to think for themselves and excercise
self control

and put that control in the hands of a corporate or goverment entity to control those who have crowbars?  At whos
expense also?  Sorry that smacks of fascism in my book, because your implying that **someone else** knows best instead of the
individual.

Allow me to rephrase what you just said to illustrate the gravity of your statement.

'If it were possible to prevent guns from being used to mug (implying kill) without any other effects, do you really not
think that would be a good idea'? 

Nope, violation of 1st Constitutional Amendment  --I need say no more (bearing arms assumes they WORK, i.e. as in are
USEABLE, to shoot, to be able to defend yourself etc, DRM'ing a gun effectively violates the 1st Amendment through
emasculation.

'If it were possible to prevent encryption from preventing law enforcement from being able to view the contents of a suspects
hard drive without any other effects, do you really not think that would be a good idea'?

It's actually happening right now, Executives at Microsoft are showing police officers how to get in the secret NSA backdoor
(s) of Windows Vista built in encryption utilities.  That's ok, when most people encrypt their HDD's (they won't  use Vista)
its for the SPECIFIC purpose of making it as hard as possible if not impossible for even the NSA, FBI, DHS, CIA, local cops
to be able to break it, it's none of their business wtf is on anyones machine, legal or illegal.  Even if someone is a
terrorist or other criminal, the FREEDOM that technology provides, TRUMPS national security, without freedom NOTHING else
matters.

Quote

That's of course not analogous to rootkits, which clearly do have other effects, but I really don't see any problem
with DRM providing it doesn't actually do anything else.

Therefore you have no problem willfully forfeiting your fair use rights

and personal property rights

and you also have no problem helping fund the very people who want to outlaw technology that you have probably
enjoyed, and perhaps even make this website illegal for talking about NON-DRM'd audio compression, and which drives are best
able to bypass copy protections.  Maybe when hydrogenaudio.org gets served a DMCA takedown notice and the freedom you had to
post here will be non-existant because the site won't even exist.  We'll see how your attitude and beliefs stand up if and
when that ever happens--remember in Finland (for example), it's illegal to even TALK about DRM in any organized manner, these
are the types of laws that people need to be removed from power from for perpetrating upon their countries.

Just to give a little perspective, a very small proportion of the music I now buy is affiliated with the RIAA, and
those that are tend to be from '80s.

Quote

I haven't read all of those links extensively, but if you think they're all unbiased you're equally as blind as
someone who believes all the RIAA says.

If you or anyone were to publicly proclaim that ANY SITE was unbiased, they would say that YOU or they were blind.  People
love to try to make it look like their point of view is omniscient and voids all others point of view.  The less you read
from different sources, the more limited your understanding remains, this is obvious.  At the same time, if you don't stand
for something, you will fall for anything.  Disagree with me an any point you wish, just remember in the future when you wish
to do something with your digital music/media and you are not able to do it because they took your freedom away, you helped
bring it upon yourself by giving the benefit of the doubt to an extortionist cartel desiring nothing but to turn the entire
realm of entertainment into 'pay PER play, PER CLICK, and per VIEW' for everything that you and I are currently able to enjoy
for free today (example, AOL trying to spearhead the idea of charging for emails).

That whole paragraph basically reinforces the message that the whole of your last post gave me: your thoughts and opinions are really much more considered
than I first gave you credit for, and while I do disagree on some points I apologise for being needlessly aggressive in my
first reply 

I don't see why this matters at all; libraries intently have a legitimate purpose. Although needless to say many people do take advantage of them, the same could be said for shops.

Somehow to me that is relevant problem, possibly because of selfish motives; while I do have sensitive information I don't intend to attack anyone with a crowbar

I think to illustrate my original point it needs to be reduced rather more since as it stands there are far too many other aspects interfering with it. The crux of it is this: A company is making a crowbar. It's almost complete but without one more component it's entirely non-functional. There is a choice of two components, X and Y. Both are identical in cost, in design, and in every other way but one. Both can be used to pry things open, and both can be used for self-defence. Somehow, though, component Y cannot be used for attacking people with (this is a very special crowbar, of course!) Under what justification could the company add in component Y? To allow
freedom of choice? Of course that's not even remotely analogous to the situation since DRM isn't something that's equally as easy to apply as a... lack of DRM. But how off-topic can a post in Off-Topic get?

Under what justification could the company add in component Y? To allow freedom of choice?