RWC wrote:IMO, there are no such things as illegal downloads. Only illegal uploads. If I have time later tonight, I'll even link to a portion of copyright law that can be interpreted as such. There are no "illegal music downloads." Copyright law prevents one from distributing materials without permission, but the person receiving them holds no liability. Not a single person has been sued for downloading, They've all been for distributing copyrighted material. That only goes to support my opinion.
Also, copyright infringement is not theft. Calling it such is a buzzword to misinform people, to tack an emotional argument onto an intellectual one.
This is probably not the board to give my opinion on the matter, because it's in the very small minority. And feel free to disagree angrily. I think information should be kept secret or let free, and that anything that can be stored digitally is information.
This may sound insane, but is there anything better? Suing the pants off people isn't going to fix things. People move onto different mediums. From kazaa, to IRC, to ed2k, bittorrent, to usenet, and whatever else is next. I also think it's crazy that the progress of technology is being slowed, or even halted for periods of time in attempts to create better methods of copy protection. For example, HD-DVD and bluray could have been out earlier if not for waiting on AACS. And look how effective the implementations of that have been!
The people making the legislation don't understand technology at all. The legal online distribution systems are pathetic at best. Even if they _were_ free, they'd still be worse in quality, selection, portability, than any other less legitimate service. Even for $0, they wouldn't be as good. Television is even worse. One can find HDTV captures of shows on the net in full quality _months_ before CBS, NBC, or FOX releases them on HDDVD or Bluray, and many times, they never even get released as such. So if you want a high def copy, you have no choice but piracy. I find it funny that some have received DMCA notices for distributing this "stolen" content when there is no actual copy in stores, or online to be bought, for it to be "stolen" from.
I just don't think the current legislation is right though. Regardless of what anyone's opinion is, I think one thing most can agree on is that a lot has to change. I think both the "FUCK THE RICH LABELS AND ARTISTS AND STUDIOS WORD UP TO BITTORRENT!!!1" and the "THEY ARE STEALING BILLIONS OF DOLLARS EACH YEAR FROM US WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO HANG ONTO A 50 YEAR OLD BUSINESS MODEL AND STALL THE PROGRESS OF TECHNOLOGY FOR OUR BENEFIT" sides both have a lot to think about if they ever want to come to a happy compromise.
Technology is not slowed or halted by lawsuits protecting intellectual property, it's slowed and halted by those who create intellectual property having to fight to protect their livelihood--and having to work other jobs to pay the rent.
If we had to wait for 18 year olds working full time at Mc Donalds to figure out all our new technology we'd be screwed. The world economy would go into a depression and many, many people would starve.
We have such good technology including the computer you're writing on and the internet on which you write because of strong intellectual property laws like copyrights, patents, etc. All of which can and are saved digitally.
And which must be shared to make money, do business, and serve their purpose. How could you keep a song a secret?
By your reasoning all patents should be free--which would crash our economy in a heartbeat. Not only no new recording gear but no more fuel efficient cars, no safer oil tankers, heat for many fewer people each winter, etc.
The world would literally be a wasteland. Protecting intellectual property created technology, it isn't slowing it. If you do any research, you'll find that talent and knowledge workers migrate toward appealing business climates--which means strong protections--and away from weak protections.
Putting the responsibility on the creators to keep it secret means what--don't release your songs? Don't partner with a company to build your phone or master your CD? That's going back to the dark ages.
Making artists, intellectual property creators, and those who serve them fight to get their money is a very inefficient way to create technology and culture. It takes a lot of extra money, energy and time that could be going to new content and new technology. Like trying to fill a leaky bucket.
I know a lot of people think, oh, it's just a couple songs, and it's such a big company (although I'd guess that much of the stealing on the board is from indies) but that's immaterial. Stealing is stealing. It doesn't matter who it's from, or even if you think you found a loophole in the copyright code.
I personally look forward to the day when music prices, movie prices and the like are raised significantly. I want the best bands to have more time in the studio and less time dealing with t-shirts, videos, clothing lines, producing and tours just to make money.
As it is they're working overtime and too much of their creative output is frustrated, angry, sad or tired.
Anyone who thinks this isn't related to how much money they stand to make over their lifetime from what they've worked so hard to create is fooling themselves.
Musicians know that even if they're successful, they'll have to go back to sh*t jobs unless they're The Stones.
Two hit records won't do it. Probably not even three these days.
What I find it hard to believe is that people think that they deserve to be educated and entertained for free.
" argument doesn't apply well. 
