<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:s="http://www.techrepublic.com/search" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"  xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<channel>
    <title><![CDATA[Discussion on BitTorrent users take another hit ]]></title>
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-238933]]></link>
    <atom:link rel="hub" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/" />
    <atom:link rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-238933/rss" />

    <description><![CDATA[]]></description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>2013-05-25T15:02:02-07:00</lastBuildDate>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[The dissenting opinion]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-238933-2391277]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[As what seem like the only person in the thread who has an opposing view, I thought I'd post again.I can't argue with the fact that many big businesses are greedy profiteers that care little about content or quality, just bottom line dollars.  But lets not forget we the people helped make it that way.  Let's also not forget that someone is buying some of the so called crap, at least enough to keep the profits rolling in.  I'm sure many of you feel you have above average intelligence, and that may be true, but it does not entitle you to having the world bend to your desire for better, cheaper music.I care more about how this corporate vampirism has led to me losing my job three times in 6 years.  How we outsource far too many jobs to foreign countries.  Our dependency on products we know to be harmful like tobacco and alcohol simply because the are high margin easily exportable goods.  Sure the companies are sucking the life blood out of America when you can't say &quot;$h!t&quot; at work because a co-worker might overhear and call HR.  You have no job security because if the company needs an extra nickel on their per share revenue they may need to lay off 500 employees.  Nevermind they cut your well deserved bonus because the old CEO got a $10 million dollar golder parachute.  I can't afford gas to get to work because it's $3.00 a gallon and I bought my SUV when it was $1.35.  I can't take mass transit because there is none.By God, the biggest problem facing us today is that poor starving artists aren't getting their due.  The record industry is corrupt and I'm not going to take it anymore.  The fact that U2, The Rolling Stones, Britney Spears, Bon Jovi, and Joey Fatone all live in houses that make mine look like the servants quarters is unforgivable!  They need bigger houses and another Bentley!  I mean, they provide the most essential of all human needs - entertainment.  Forget teachers, policemen, nurses, and garbagemen.I know iTunes has song samples and I know many artists offer streaming music on the site so you can check it out.  I agree that it's a different world in music today.  But don't blind yourself with your music superiority.  If no one bought or listened to it, then it would change.  My 13 year old and all her friends love crap I think sucks.  But my parents hated Motley Crue, Metallica, The Cure, The Smiths, Van Halen, and just about everything else I listened to.  They listen and they buy.  Just because we have become dated doesn't mean the RIAA is stupid.  They sell what gets bought.  Every generation gets their own new bucket of crap.I just re-purchased some Led Zeppelin CDs that had gotten damaged and I'm rockin' out to them as much as I can.So rock on dudes!(I got tired of writing and went a little wonky there at the end!)]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-238933-2391277]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[scott_heath@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 27 Dec 2007 14:04:15 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Wow]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-238933-2390949]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I am glad I checked back in on this thread...Wow, thats about all I can say atm... maybe after the coffee has kicked in some.  Good post.  Not sure I agree 100%, but I do agree with the meat of your post.  Big buisness has turned music into a commodity instead of an artistic expression.  Greed and profitering have sent prices through the roof and kept them there. Piracy is blamed for the loss in revenue, not hugely inflated prices, and poor quality products. (I have had well over 15 commercial CDs decay on me in under 10 years of life.  How long were they claimed to last?)  With radio stations no longer providing a good mix of music, people look elswhere for samples, selections to hear.  Hence p2p.  And, like you, I purchase much more music when I am exposed to many new and different bands.  I purchased more CD's in the Napster age then I have since.  And its not because I am downloading them, because I am not.  I juat have become very, very selective.  And my DVD purchases have gone up.HDTV, I will not get into that..its a nightmare of lies, deceit, marketing, and massive DRM, all in an attempt to prevent you from recording shows for latter viewing.  Bye bye dvr.  HDTV could be the death of TiVO.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-238933-2390949]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Dumphrey]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 27 Dec 2007 05:38:01 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[The music industry lied to us, copyrights, 'service', a rant]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-238933-2390638]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[IMHO (universal disclaimer, I'm ranting about ideas, not individuals or their worth as human beings. All ideas are not created equal, they live or fail on their ability to spread and become accepted, based on the funding to spread them, the acceptance by the majority of the media, or the integrated self replicating memes embedded within (read God given truth or two or 100). )The fact is that the music industry lied and used illegal monopolistic practices when the music CD was introduced. They claimed that the music CD would only have a high price for the initial 2-5 years, until the 'research and development costs were recovered', then CDs would drop in price and be cheaper than vinyl. They also claimed that CDs were virtually indestructible compared to vinyl. You can find magazine ads from the early 80s when they were trying to get CDs off the ground with exactly this kind of wording. Then the major distributors started refusing to accept returned vinyl for cost and began heavily discounting returned vinyl, even customer returned defective vinyl, refunds to the retailers. All the while, it appeared (to myself and several friends) that they were going out of their way to produce vinyl in poorer quality, like ABC/Dunhill, Avista, and other companies. This gave a brief niche market to high quality producers of vinyl, half speed mastered disks, limited pressings, etc., while forcing retail outlets to switch to CDs.Have you noticed how many of these companies also produce the playback and recording devices, or have a major stake in the manufacture's that do, or vice-versa? Used to be that any klutz with modest amount of mechanical skill could put together a decent turntable, align a cartridge and isolate the platform from vibration. When was the last time you replace a read head on a DVD player?They got greedy when they saw how much they made when they replaced 8 tracks with cassettes for the mobile market.I have over 800 vinyl titles. It wasn't a problem if I made a tape for my own use, or even to give to a friend, that usually amounted to two copies at the most. And it was of music that I had already paid for. The same applies to TV  and radio broadcasts. For special events, the stations used to even provide cues for commercial breaks so that you could record the show for your own use. I  also paid for duplicates of about 50 titles on cassette and then again on CD. Why did I have to pay for the same product 3 times in some instances?Have the prices of CDs dropped?Why can I buy a DVD of a great movie, two or more years after its release, for 1/3 the price of a CD? Is the music industry that much greedier than the movie industry? Aren't their production costs higher? Why do the majority of the albums released today contain only 2 or 3 decent tracks with the rest garbage? And why do the same retail outlets sell CD media storage products that damage CDs? I haven't heard more than a few 'quality' albums of new music a year. In popular music, Ozomatli's Street Signs contained an amazing collection of cross genre music, all well written and produced, and a couple of dozen other artists, in their respective genres, have done the same. Look at the crap that established bands have put out. The Clapton/JJ Cale CD was mostly crap. Any of JJ Cale's previous albums were better. The Eagles lastest? Mostly mediocre. Taste is personal. The desire to be able to listen to a variety of music, old favorites and something new, used to be more prevalent. The time was that, if you decided that you needed to collect music, many radio stations would rotate lots of different material. If you collected, you would get excited about 2 to 12 new releases a week. You'd go out and buy about half of them. College stations, guys in the military around the world, would play a wide variety of old and new music, regional favorites, and samples of music outside of their market genre. I remember hearing bluegrass, bebop, acid rock, reggae, country, swing, folk rock, blues, pop classics from the 40s and 50s, kool jazz, fusion, and even classical music, all on one radio station during the weekend. I went nuts exploring the different styles, buying a bit of everything.Corporate greed took over. The corporate takeover and merger of radio stations was part of a coordinated marketing and restraint of trade action combined with the release of the CD format.In the local market where I live, when a small company tries to start a new radio station, with a more creative format for music, the corporate giants coordinate 2 to 4 of their local stations with format changes and expanded play lists to try and squash the new station. If, or when they succeed, they return to their bland boardroom dictated format. The same corporations that control 40-80% of the broadcast market, now control more than 50% of the live venue production market.The music industry was healthier before corporate consolidation and greed. I'm hoping the internet can change that. And P2P sharing is part of it.As far the artists go. Take a look at an old editorial article that the old American Society for Quality Control published in their magazine about the Grateful Dead.Number one in quality for customer service in the music industry. They invited fans to bring recording equipment to their concerts and set up a separate engineering board that they could hook into. They negotiated all of their record deals to force the record company to release albums at the lowest possible price. They did the same with ticket prices for concerts. They were even cited for how they treated their employees. In the mid-80s the average low end salary for their roadies, technicians, etc was $50k/year. After a year with the band, college trust funds were set up for all of the employee's children. They also guaranteed set periods of inactivity from the road so that employees could have time with their families. They created the first band controlled 800 line for ticket sales, then internet sales, without the added service fees of Ticketmaster. Their merchandising was always highest quality. Bootleg recordings circulate all over the place, but their fans also pay for the product enough that they have a comfortable living, as do their employees.And speaking of keeping ticket prices lower. Lets all burn any media content with Barbara Streisand and the Eagles. World class ticket prices for concerts were $35-$45 a seat before Babs decided her fans would pay $125 a seat. (and the idiots did) The Eagles followed suit as the first major rock and roll act to ask over $70 a seat. Boom. Now I only attend concerts for 'cult' bands, up and coming bands, or nostalgia tours by bands who've lost their mass appeal. The average college student could afford a dinner and a concert date once. Not any more, unless mommy and daddy are footing the bill, along with their Porsche. File sharing is NOT an artist issue. Its an issue of controlling the corporate distribution channel. Is that what the copyright laws were intended to protect? Hell no, they were set up to protect the individual creative forces.I NEED TO HEAR IT BEFORE I BUY IT. RADIO IS NOT FULFILLING ITS FUNCTION 99% of the time.In the past, radio got caught flat footed a few times. In college, we were listening to the revamped Fleetwood Mac, a la Buckingham and Nicks, six months before we heard a single cut played on the radio.Bit Torrent and other P2P file sharing as a form of distribution is a direct result of the music, movie and software industries shutting down bulletin boards, usenet binary sites, and pirate sites.I don't care what some giant corporation tries to tell me about what is a copyright violation. If it were really true, the entire system of public libraries would be shut down tomorrow. And, as a completely different topic, it looks like the techbook and certification industries have found their own methods to cripple libraries, if you've looked at trying on-line library ebooks to prepare for a certification test. I believe anyone is completely justified in today's corporate environment to download an album. 90% of whats available for download is  compressed and not a hi-fidelity sample. I won't pay for that. If I like it, I go out and buy it. And for all those who believe that most people who love music would not do that, you're idiots with tin ears that don't really love music. And the music industry actually agrees with me. Look at the attempts to introduce higher quality formats. Yeah, MP3s are great for the gym, jogging in the city, etc. They suck at home, in the car, on the road in a hotel room, or in a club. I would never offer anyone a gift that was an MP3 recording.Notice I didn't say a song, or a track. Track based marketing is step backwards for the music industry. A return to the 45 single and artists putting out one or two samples of quality work along with a bunch of mediocre examples of their 'sound'.Album sales fueled one of the most profitable eras in the music industry, along with out of control DJs and people swapping tapes.Another side issue. The perversion of the copyright laws by corporations with software and even hardware.Patents were the tools used to protect corporate manufacturing. And they are time limited. Then competition can come in and try to sell a better mousetrap.How the hell can a giant corporation claim copyright for a product that the original programming team created and was then laid off? How does this protect the true creative individuals intellectual property?You want me to honor a copyright? Introduce me to the individual programmers who wrote the first revision AND the user manual, and nursed it to release. Prove to me that they, or their direct descendants, are still collecting royalties on the sales.Outside of small programming companies, corporate copyright is a lie. Show me any code produced by Bill Gates in the last 20 years. Hell, for over twenty years now, hardware manufacturers have jumped on the bandwagon. They've been circumventing the patent laws by using copyrights for chip layouts, printed circuit board layouts, wiring diagrams and enclosure layouts.Look at some of your peripherals and 'service', like your camera, cable TV or cell phone. I'm on my fifth cell phone, my third digital camera. My first two cell phones contained simple games. they were great if I had to stand in line and forgot something to read. Now I have to subscribe to a service and also pay a download for a game that's been in existence for 20 years, like tetris? And if I stop the subscription to the service they strip the game off the phone? How the hell is this protecting the intellectual property of someone? How is this a service worth paying for? Pay attention Verizon. Every digital camera I had till the most recent, formatted the memory chip so that I could buy a card reader and see the card and its contents as removable media in my computer file manager. Now Kodak has 'Easy Share'. I couldn't believe it when I hooked the camera up to the PC and I couldn't get my pictures without firing up the 'Easy share' software. Then couldn't believe it when even that wouldn't work if I put the memory chip in a card reader. I have to buy an Easy Share card reader from Kodak for that. I will discourage everyone I know from ever buying a Kodak camera for the rest of my life.The cable company. FCC rules state that ALL local broadcasts (more or less) must be carried on basic cable. We have 6 stations broadcasting a hi def signal. Our new TV can detect digital signals. It detects and shows ONLY the local hi def broadcasts. We cannot see any content that is only shown on a higher level of service. But the cable company wants to define any hi def as a higher level of service. So what do they do? They won't publish the location of these signals, they move the local hi def signals every two months to different channels, they broadcast software codes to lock up the TV. Meanwhile we get a preview of the all digital basic cable line up (once again, no content of a higher level of service). Guess what their spending their research dollars on? Down converting local hi-def broadcasts to 480i.Look at the Hollywood writers strike. Who's at the beginning of the creative process in the first place? Now the last point. The law is the law.Benjamin Franklin funded his printing house by violating copyrights of European authors. Almost all print shops in the US did. You have to have government authority to brew beer and ale, make wine, or distill spirits.The FDA has to oversee the entire process from design conception to individual failures of medical devices, this evolved from a law that protected poppy growers in Connecticut and Massachusetts from foreign imports of opium?1984 has been here since about 1860. Black is white. Peace in our time. Drug addicts steal and commit crimes (please show me records of all the drug addicts committing crimes before 1903, when it was a medical and not a legal issue). You claim to be so upstanding on this point of 'morality'. That means that you've never violated a traffic law- never speed, never do a rolling stop, never yield the right of way on the highway and force merge into traffic, never have a glass of wine or beer with a meal and then get behind the wheel, never cut someone off in traffic, never tailgated, never drove in the left lane without passing, never took a colleagues idea and incorporated with your own, never lusted after someone other than your spouse, never took advantage of someone in a business deal, never payed a Congressman a $1500 campaign contribution to have breakfast or lunch with them, never sued someone needlessly, never hired a lawyer to protect you from a justified law suit, never reverse engineered a product, never inhaled, and you did not have sex with that woman?The facts are that this country was founded to protect the rights of the individual businessman, whether he was a farmer, a printer, a shop owner or a lawyer, before the concept of the modern corporation was invented. It was to protect us from the worst of government tyranny and business - the East India Company and their like. The constitution could NOT be ratified without the Bill of Rights. And the government and corporations have been trying to nullify the Bill of Rights from day one.The only people who have a moral complaint on P2P are the writers, musicians, and programmers who live on royalties, not corporate salaries.The music industry is NOT losing money, this is a lie. Its not growing profits as fast and as big as it would like. Just like the arguments about cuts in government funding. 99% never happened. Either got shuffled around, or cut the scheduled increase in spending.Its miracle the open software foundation exists, its one of the few things balancing things out in the intellectual property mess. Otherwise we might soon discover that our private thoughts are violating some corporation's copyright. We need the equivalent for the music industry, and the 'service' industry.If we live in an information society, how is continually restricting, controlling and charging for information any different than the company store taking our entire paycheck for the company house, food and clothing from the company store, and bills from the company clinic, doctor and pharmacist? Are we going to have National Guard militia machine gunning down people who've had enough of the abuse?See what a toothache can do for a forum rant?]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-238933-2390638]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[hayes_mike@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 26 Dec 2007 14:58:20 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Dictionary, Smictionary]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-238933-2354312]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Splitting hairs is fun!!! I'm in the mood to copy a cd(that I paid for), and give it to a few friends. The darn theives!!!]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-238933-2354312]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[nanerglyn@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Sun, 04 Nov 2007 17:27:43 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Wow...]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-238933-2341351]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[You people would say anything to support what you do.What if I steal something from you that your not using.  Or what if you have a wireless network and I steal data from out of the air. Blah, blah, blah.It makes me almost physically ill to read some of the self righteous arguments many of you have posed.  Can you speak these words without laughing out loud?  I don't care that much that many of you steal music.  What I care about is that we have lowered ourselves to make inane and ludicrous arguments with no logic our supporting fact to justify things we know to be wrong.Whether you &quot;believe&quot; the record labels own the music, the fact is that they do.  Most laws of this type are recognized all over the world.  It's just like owning the source code you write or the invention you dream up.BTW, call the local police or FBI or whomever and tell them you are using the local cable company's connection that's out behind your house without paying for it.  Then explain to them it's not stealing because &quot;you aren't depriving them of a physical object&quot;.  Because they still have the signal right?This is  such a lame conversation at this point.  I feel like my IQ has been lowered by just reading all of this crap.  I know I am seriously disappointed in the general level of honesty and integrity among people.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-238933-2341351]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[scott_heath@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 18 Oct 2007 06:05:18 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[What is theft?]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-238933-2340462]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[According to the definition it is &quot;the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it&quot;http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/theftMaking a copy != stealing by this definition.So it must be the money earned by the sale of said music.  Arguing that some guy on a PC copying a song deprives the owner of the song money is only true if the said copier would have purchased said song, but now that he copies it, hasn't, and won't.This is where the argument runs into trouble.  If a person hears a song, and likes it, and wishes to own a copy, then said person can buy it.  But if said person can't hear the song because the place they spend their time is devoid of songs, then they can't buy it because the didn't hear it.I know for a fact, that while this forum has been going on, that there was at least one person that encountered a song, via an MP3 shared on the internet, and who after hearing the song, went out and bought the CD.The RIAA and the music industry have missed the boat.  They should be hosting mp3 sharing sites, and spending money on adds to drive people to them.  Instead they have chosen the path of pain.  Pain for them, pain for those they sue, and pain for all of us on this forum listening to accusations of moral corruption.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-238933-2340462]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[royhayward@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 17 Oct 2007 08:07:10 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Stealing?]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-238933-2338329]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[This issue is very simple. If I borrow a cd from a friend or an acquaintance and copy it, it's not stealing. If I tape songs from the radio or record videos from television, it's not stealing. Just because the government(record companies) say it's stealing doesn't make it so. Record companies are applying the word stealing to something that may never have been realized monetarily.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-238933-2338329]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[nanerglyn@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Sun, 14 Oct 2007 19:47:57 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Maybe you misunderstood...]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-238933-2337234]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[The comma seperated to ideas.  Both are morally wrong, but one is legal and the other is not.This is frustrating, but let me try to go over each of your points.1. It's possible that some laws might go against what we consider moral.  Go ahead and lay out your argument as to how protecting your interests insured by copyright law is immoral.  You didn't write the music or lyrics and the people who did sold it to the record label.  Also while your at it, try to make an argument for how stealing it makes a positive impact anywhere other than the theif's wallet and potentially better concert revenue for the artist.2.  I know plenty of people who believe this to be wrong.  Most of them wouldn't bother to post in a forum.  This is actually the first time I have posted on a non-technical thread.  I don't normally care to engage in debates with people about these sort of things, but I felt compelled this time. If someone here can make a compelling argument for how stealing music creates a positive impact on anything I'm willing to hear it.  We've already discussed that many bands have free music samples if you want to check out their music and iTunes and other sites offer free samples of music the sell.3.  Your library illustration has no bearing on this conversation.  I donate books and sometimes DVDs to my library all the time.  They are the original copies and have been paid for by myself.  The library then loans that single copy to a person who brings it back.  That single copy is then brought back and loaned to someone else.  THe RIAA cannot stop you from loaning out your possessions.  They don't care about that.  Duplicating a single purchased copy into 100 copies and distributing is not even close to the same thing as loaning an original out to a friend.Once again no one has produced even close to a legitimate argument for why it's OK to download music you didn't buy.  We all know you can sample streaming music at your leisure and download samples if you want to try before you buy.  And now with the availability of single song purchasing you can't whine about paying big bucks for an album you didn't like.We also all know the truth here.  Any argument for the theft of music is predicated on a personal desire to get something for free.  If you really cared about the musicians you'd be sending them money directly for what you have downloaded.  Please show me the proof that you have been supporting your artists through direct financial contributions and I'll get off your back.  ]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-238933-2337234]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[scott_heath@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 12 Oct 2007 07:15:25 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[There you go again..]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-238933-2336407]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[you write:&quot;I'll sum it up.Stealing = Illegal, morally wrongCorporate Vampirism = Legal, morally wrong&quot;This is that back and white attitude again.  So go turn yourself in for speeding and keep yourself internally consistent.For the rest of us, we know that there are these areas where, if we assume that lawmakers did their best to make good laws, they still fail in some instances when the law meets reality, or the moral question.Are you implying that Legal = moral?Syllogisticly like this?Being immoral is wrong.Braking the law is wrong,therefore breaking the law is immoral.Ok, that is like saying:Chickens lay eggs,Fish lay eggs,Therefore Chickens are fish.This logic does not work.  Even if all three statements are true, (the moral syllogism, not the chicken) they don't support each other.You also make this statement:&quot;It seems no one here is looking past the nose on their face, which quite frankly is astonishing for a group of technically proficient people. Typically the industry requires excellent analytical skills...&quot;From this I infer that you are feeling that the majority of your peers on this forum are in disagreement with your position.  (I have not done the calculations to see if this feeling is accurate)  But if that is what you think, it might be wise to re-evaluate your position.  Even if you don't change it.  Finally, the content had to come from somewhere.  Unless the original CD/song was acquired by an act if shoplifting, or breaking into the artist home and stealing his track, then all the content on bit torrent and the other web sites are also spawning from legitimate sources.  The RIAA does not go after Libraries where they have collections of &quot;donated' music, because the distribution is slow and clumsy.  Online, thousands can share the music quickly.  That is why they go after napster and torrent.  (but inferring that lawyers are guided by moral incentive is quite entertaining)  Going after some guy in his basement on his PC who, &quot;oh my gosh&quot;, didn't pay for the song he is listening to, or sharing, plays well to the press.  Going after a library would play badly.  Pretending that these suits are based on any moral footing is just being duped by the PR guy the law firm hired so they won't get run our of town.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-238933-2336407]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[royhayward@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 11 Oct 2007 08:36:22 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[BS, Teenagers and nonconformity of old guys.....]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-238933-2335824]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Oz_Media your rant rings true. While I as a 50 something guy look wistfully backwards to the good old days.I do from time to time drop in on the club scene, and I'm happy to report some very nonconformity young 19 to 20 something doing and listening to new tunes.Your rant makes me wonder if the Internet could  recreate the good old days of &quot;request radio&quot;, that could come alive again, in real time?Goddog]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-238933-2335824]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[goddog@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 10 Oct 2007 17:57:54 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Open minded?]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-238933-2335168]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I hate the open minded argument.  Does the fact I disagree with you mean I am close minded?  I have listened to what everyone has said and I have read every post. No one has yet come up with an argument that justifies stealing music.  I am willing to listen to your argument, that is what makes me open minded.  Agreeing with absolute crap would just make me stupid.  The only thing being said here is &quot;I'm going to keep doing it and here's why&quot; but none of those arguments can justify stealing someone's property.  They are just a person's attempt to rationalize their own behavior.And to compare this to slavery is insulting to every human on Earth.  I see the point you are trying to make but come on.  Government revolution to stop the FORCED oppression of a people is totally different than offering a product you don't like for a price you don't want to pay.And since you brought up slavery, I'll use your argument against you.  When the majority of the US population thought it was OK to have a slave, did that make it right?  Did it suddenly become wrong when the majority changed their minds?  Uh, no.  It was wrong from the beginning no matter how many people where doing it.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-238933-2335168]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[scott_heath@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 10 Oct 2007 06:26:01 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Getting old fast]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-238933-2334689]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[These arguments are getting old fast.  It seems that opinions become entrenched instead of opened in this kind of format.In a democracy, when the majority, or significant fraction, of the population engage in an activity, can it be morally incorrect and can it remain illegal?  If laws were left to law makers to change then the USA would still have slavery and only men could vote.  Motivation for change often arises because people force their representatives, the big corporations and the buracracies to rethink the status quo.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-238933-2334689]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Canuckster]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 09 Oct 2007 13:24:30 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Simple would be nice...]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-238933-2334523]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I'm not saying that all of this isn't a total suck-fest.  I hate having to deal with all the little annoyances in life as much as the next guy.  I've got three kids who always want the latest CD by whomever, and another video game, and another this or that.  Life isn't cheap.  And I've been laid off 3 times by greedy companies who ran the whole thing into the ground.  It's not easy to have to look for a job and wonder how you'll feed your kids.  If there is a group of people who should feel entitled (and there isn't) than I think I would be a good candidate for it.  To be clear, I am not for greedy companies and lazy government.  I want to do away with wasteful state goverments and redundant layers of policymakers.  I want a law that says that while we won't legislate how much you charge for your product, we will stop you from receiving 5 million in bonuses when the company is in the red and 400 people lose their jobs.  I am all for the little man.  But I am an American and I believe in doing it the right way.  If you are reading this, you have a computer.  Look up some addresses, email or snail mail, and staret being heard.  Send the same email\letter every day for weeks.  Ask your friends to do it.  Ask them to ask their friends.  If we can waste $6 on a coffee with a fancy name then I think we can spend $10 in stamps every month to be heard.  I will be the first to admit that I don't make myself heard to the politicans enough.  But this thread is starting to motivate me to write some people.  Not about music, which in the grand scheme of my life isn't even on the radar.  We need to write more about education, corporate resposibility, and goverment accountability.Hmmm, OK, it appears I got on a soap box...  ]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-238933-2334523]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[scott_heath@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 09 Oct 2007 09:41:43 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[WHAT?!?!]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-238933-2334490]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I don't need to back up the fact that you can't accidentally download music.  When you see a song on a BitTorrent site by U2, Toby Keith, or whomever you know there is a 99.99% chance of downloading the song illegally.  I guess I'll allow you exceptions for unknown bands or classical music that you may think is no longer under copyright.  Heck, that may make up for .01% of downloads.  You and I both know the majority of the downloaders know they are downloading copyrighted music.  We can pretend all day long that this isn't about people saving a buck and getting what they want for free.  Fine.  I'll flip my Reality switch to Ignore if it will make you feel better.You made another totally unusable analogy by comparing BitTorrent to Radio.  Radio stations pay for the right to play songs.  The music is bought for everyone.  That's like saying once a movie is aired on cable I should be able to dupe my DVD and hand it out to anyone.  Or once I sell my product of any sort so a member of the public who can and it can be seen in plain sight that none of my patents or copyrights are valid anymore.  All the stuff you see for &quot;free&quot; was bought and paid for by someone else.  It seems no one here is looking past the nose on their face, which quite frankly is astonishing for a group of technically proficient people.  Typically the industry requires excellent analytical skills...Not one person has produced a viable reason for these BitTorrent sites that contain almost exclusively illegal content to exist.  BTW, I use BitTorrent all the time to download trailers and other legit content.  The technology will never go away like other P2P technologies that had no real application outside of distributing illegal content.I think the RIAA figures that people found new music before the internet and they will continue to do so even if their avenues for downloading it illegally are cut off.  I tend to agree with them.  The number of people technically savvy enough to use P2P is growing, but I know many people who tried it and ending up with viruses and such and will never do it again.Anyway, since I am rambling now I'll sum it up.Stealing = Illegal, morally wrongCorporate Vampirism = Legal, morally wrongThat's what it boils down to folks.  You can live in Idealism World all you want, but the plain truth is that I can charge $50 for a bucket of junk, but my over-priced junk doesn't justify you stealing my property.  Try to mix it up anyway you want about failing distribution models or unjustly treated musicians.  You'll never win the argument with anyone who has decided that right is better than easy and that our own displeasure with the rules doesn't give us free license to violate them.  If you don't like it, move to Holland, China, or somewhere with some real freedoms like Iran.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-238933-2334490]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[scott_heath@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 09 Oct 2007 09:31:14 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[I think you missed the point.]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-238933-2333992]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[You make this statement, &quot;You can't &quot;accidentally&quot; download someone else's property.&quot;  And then you don't back it up.  I gave examples of  how one 'accidentally' does this.  You haven't refuted any of them.I am not stating that speeding is equivalent to copyright infringement, merely stating that there are areas of right and wrong or legal and illegal that are not very clear to everyone or easy to steer clear of.  And that is pretty much the only equivalence here.And we both seem to be saying that there are millions of satisfied purchasers of music from traditional venues.  I don't know why we are arguing that.  Its a fact.The point myself and others are making is that we buy music that we are exposed to for free, a la radio or internet.  When the RIAA shuts down music from a bit torrent site, it is like shutting down a radio station with a major audience.  Sure they will stop the illicit taping/downloading of the music, but they will also cut of an outlet of exposure to customers that might pay them money.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-238933-2333992]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[royhayward@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Mon, 08 Oct 2007 17:11:54 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[The personal use perspective]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-238933-2332365]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[A self confessed criminal - a man who did 60 in a 45 mph zone - is going to tell me what is morally right and wrong?Just kidding.Yes we are talking copyright law.  Yes it is illegal to share music.  Yes Hallmark should have the right to sue you if you say, &quot;Have a nice day&quot;.  And don't think that you own your own DNA, it can be patented by a pharmaceutical company.  Me, I prefer a simpler approach to life.  That's why I'm in IT and not law practice.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-238933-2332365]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Canuckster]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 05 Oct 2007 05:40:03 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Nice thought, but not realistic]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-238933-2331851]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Ok, the thing about professional muscians is this, they really don't make any money on the albums.  Where your bands make their money is on the live concerts and consessions.  You, T-shirts, ball-caps, posters, etc.  If you are in a band that is recording you will find that out.  I know that the record companies claim that &quot;stealing&quot; music is hurting the bands, but the truth is that downloading the albums does not really impact the bands.  Just my 2cents.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-238933-2331851]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Jonathan.G.Shilling@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2007 10:05:36 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Bad analogy]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-238933-2331700]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[The comparison with speeding doesn't quite fit.  It is impossible to do exactly 60 mph.  Your speedometer is most likely not even accurate enough to do it.  But yes, if you exceed the posted speed limit you are in fact breaking the law.  I got a speeding ticket last year because I failed to notice I went from a 60 to a 45 (on a highway!) but the law is the law and I paid my fine.You can't &quot;accidentally&quot; download someone else's property.  And the laws aren't outdated and this isn't a new problem.  Albums have had crap songs for decades.  If people have been copying their buddies tapes since it has been possible.  But 1 guy could only share the tape with his friends.  Now 1 guy can share it with millions reducing further the number of albums that can be bought.And the point that millions of albums get sold was that there are clearly people willing to buy music and are enjoying what they buy.  Would they like it to be cheaper?  Sure.  I'd like my next car\house\whatever to only be $100 as well.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-238933-2331700]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[scott_heath@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2007 07:32:23 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[In America......]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-238933-2331104]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[We always throw the President over.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-238933-2331104]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[royhayward@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 03 Oct 2007 09:32:11 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[It looks like there are two competing stands here....]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-238933-2331087]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[1.  Breaking the law is always wrong/immoral.2.  Bending or ignoring laws that are unpopular and difficult to enforce is morally acceptable.Here is what I mean.  Assuming that you are a driver or familiar with driving, is speeding a crime?  Under premise 1, it is a crime to go one inch per hour over the posted limit is a violation.  Under premise 2, it is not.Making copies of books, or art, or music and then selling it for a profit is obviously so far over the line, it is like the guy doing 80 mph in a 35 mph zone.but if I go visit a web site with a picture and a tune, am I speeding yet?  The images and music are bing reproduced on my PC.  What if my browser caches them?  Did I break the law?  Now copies are being stored.  What if I intentionally save a jpg of the Mona Lisa?  Or Handles Messiah?  Just for my own purposes mind you.  Did I break the law yet?  What if I redisplay these images and tunes on my own site?  Now I'm offering, or forcing those visiting my site to reproduce them and some times cache them.  Is that against the law?  What if I also have paid advertising on my site?  Or just link to someone else who has them?This is the dilemma that most of us fall in.  We aren't trying to steal, we are just not willing to walk the web with our eyes closed on the chance that turning on images will break the law.And don't start that we are talking about music, we are talking about copyright, intellectual property laws and the internet.  The laws are outdated, and some what us all to suffer while they catch up.  BTW, the argument that there are millions of albums sold is pretty lame, I buy books that I have read, songs that I have heard, and pictures that I have seen.  So what?  I want a nice copy on my shelf/wall is all.Not wanting to get sued I don't download music anymore.  (I was once unaware that there were legal issues here when I was a kid.)  But I also reject the concept that this is some black and white issue.  Its not.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-238933-2331087]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[royhayward@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 03 Oct 2007 09:28:02 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
    </channel>
</rss>

