Bullshit. This is simple rationalization. You wanted "50 Cds worth of pirated music in one form or another" and stole these performances. I fail to see how your ripping these cds helps to compensate those artists.

It doesn't but then, buying them won't either. They try and screw me, I screw them, what comes around goes around. If they were with a non-RIAA label, I'd buy them, no problems and I've got a stack of cds here to prove it.

If I want to support one of those artists I can go to one of their concerts.

OK, I'm gonna get into this, but I think I'll launch a new thread, since Bullit's original point is fair use, not piracy.

Beestie, the quick hit is this. CD pressings of newer artists are hoping to entice new fans to buy the record by selling it at a discounted rate ($10 is below contract retail for most discs). CD pressings of established artists, or rereleases, believe that they have an established fan base that will buy the recordings regardless. For most fans, if they know they want a reissue, the difference between $10 and $18 isn't going to make them walk away.

I release this may not have been the case in your situation, but the general principle holds.

-sm

Well I suppose that's one way of life.

And you've got the stolen stack too. Tell me that you've made an attempt for each cd to contact the artist(s) and compensate them.

And what about the tech guys in the recording studio? The photog that did the cover art?

You want to make it sound like you're boycotting. You're not. If you don't like the RIAA, leave their stuff alone. Don't rip it off and then tell me how bad they are.

Argh. First of all it's not theft. Using theft quite simply implies you don't see the fundamental shift that has occurred. Music, movies, books, all are information and exist at one point or another in digital form, increasingly so. You can replicate digital data as many times as you want for no cost and no loss of quality. Despite this the media industry thinks it can continue to screw people as hard as it wants and charge the same amount it did for cds formed quality lossy files. The situation has changed, what you are seeing is market forces at work. Once the hand wringing about the sky collapsing stops you'll see prices drop and a new price-point established that is workable. Theft is when I take your lawnmower.

I really don't download much anymore anyway (too much bother) but I've still got a node running with 5gig or so of RIAA stuff. Why? because they shit me off. Not so much a boycott as a vendetta. If there is one force that endangers the freedom of people to innovate and technology to move forward it's media lobbies protecting outdated business models, that pisses me off. A lot.

As for what happens afterwards, see this

I had a brief flirtation with the whole downloading music thing ... frankly the whole process gave me the willies with respect to allowing strangers to access my machine, even if in "limited" ways as well as in not knowing what I might be downloading along with my copy of certain happy tunes.

Anything I do as far as "copying" at this point relates to fair-use ... making mix cds just like I made mix tapes off my albums in high school and college, primarily for use in the car.

Here are the details. Another case of movies making no official profits. And this is after he makes no residuals for anything prior to the movies. He created the majority of Marvel's characters, and gets a bare pittance, and now they're trying to screw him out of movie money too.

Bogus. Bogus. Bogus. From any random twit on the net, I might accept that as a point of view. But I know you're not stupid, Jag. You must surely understand the concept of intellectual property and you must also know that the cost of most IP is not in the duplication but in the initial development.

Yes. There has been a fundamental shift. It is now quite easy to steal intellectual property. The only thing that stops one is their morals.

Oh trust me, I know more about IP than I care to remember. I am aware there are initial distribution costs but simply put, the paradigm has changed and the recording industry has not. Read that link for a better explanation. That does not change the fact I find the use of 'theft' and 'stolen' spin. There is a fundamental difference that needs to be recognized.

Secondly, our IP system is a fucking mess, both copyright and patent law need massive overhauls so say the least. As it stands they threaten freedom and innovation and will make global warming seem like a minor annoyance to future generations in terms of the damage it could do. Our society is more and more producing IP instead of physical products, striking the balance between creators rights and freedom is a very complex problem and the answers will vary area to area.

The recording industry in this form akin to a large dying animal, dying, but still dangerous, lashing out in all directions. Sooner it's dead the better for everyone. There are ways of paying artists without resorting to DRM and history suggests that it will be thrown in the garbage can where it belongs.

Call me cynical but morality doesn't come into it, this is the invisible hand of the market bitchslapping the recording industry and for a damn good reason. It's only going to get easier to move IP around, the involved industries simply have to adapt, they're running out of fingers and over the next 20 years the whole dam is going to break.

Keep in mind that "theft" is emotionally charged shorthand for "copyright infringement". In reality, they are very different crimes.

I download music. I have several downloaded albums. Usually that's how I roadtest music. If I like the album I downloaded i will often buy the next album by that artiste. Prior to the whole napster revolution a few years back, I rarely bought music. I would often go whole years without purchasing a single cd/tape. Since having access to filesharing I have started buying music much more frquently. These days I generally purchase 5 or 6 cds a year usually having listened to singles or previous albums by the same group