Americans, only you can stop this:

[Trolldeg]

Ok, it was 62% but it still supports my view that the majority of the FANS, not new listeners, refused to pay!

Didn't you read the quote?

According to the survey, the number was 62%, but that's just the people in Comscores panel. According to Radiohead, their numbers are wrong. Most probably, a much larger percentage of the FANS chose to pay.

And Radiohead STILL made more money per album on average, than they would have, had they used the traditional way of record company/distributor.

I have yet to meet a single "filesharer" who has paid for any of their music for about 5 years...

Ok, meet me. I pay for most of my music, since you can't play mp3s on an analog turntable.

[Dr. Shoe]

Didn't you read the quote?

According to the survey, the number was 62%, but that's just the people in Comscores panel. According to Radiohead, their numbers are wrong. Most probably, a much larger percentage of the FANS chose to pay.

And Radiohead STILL made more money per album on average, than they would have, had they used the traditional way of record company/distributor.

Ok, meet me. I pay for most of my music, since you can't play mp3s on an analog turntable.

I bet you wouldn't if it was available in digital...

[JNR]

After reading this thread for awhile, I really don't understand what Trolldeg is so wrapped tight about. Is he angry that he can't download music for free? or that other people download music without paying for it, and get away with it? or is he angry because artists, musicians and producers charge for music? or is it because those that do download it from the internet without paying for it might get caught and charged a whole bunch of money for trying to get away with not paying for it? Life isn't fair. I don't know of one society, civilization or social order that says you can't do anything you want to do as long as you're willing to accept the consequences of your action -- that is, what ever the particular society deems appropriate punishment. In some social orders if you knock up a girl (get a girl pregnant) all the father has to say is "escuse me" and life goes on. Other societies, there is hell to pay, depending upon the circumstances -- even jail time. So, why aren't we arguing about something that really matters> If a person enthralled by listening to music, why doesn't he get a flute and play it? That way, it's free with no consequences attached to it.

[Dr. Shoe]

The original post was about the fact that the US government want to impose tougher penalties for copyright infringement especially for downloaded music and that they are looking for legislation to monitor internet usage for perpetrators. I get the impression that Trolldeg wants to be able to continue to steal music without consequence...

[Trolldeg]

We've been through this; it's not stealing if the original item is still there. Call it for what it is; copyright infringement. What I am opposed to is that a few greedy corporations are trying to make copyright infringement into a crime on the same level as robbery or assault, perhaps even murder, with regards to the punishment. The first fault is that lawmakers bow down to corporate special interests. Laws should be passed for the common good of the people, not for the good of some greedy companys who refuse to adapt their business models, and not just because they can afford to lobby for it. The second fault is making file sharing into a "serious crime". It is not. It's a minor felony. Raping, assaulting, killing, are serious crimes. We must not let these greedy bastards turn our societies into police states just because they feel that file shares must be hunted down at all costs.

[JNR]

We've been through this; it's not stealing if the original item is still there. Call it for what it is; copyright infringement.

What I am opposed to is that a few greedy corporations are trying to make copyright infringement into a crime on the same level as robbery or assault, perhaps even murder, with regards to the punishment.

The first fault is that lawmakers bow down to corporate special interests. Laws should be passed for the common good of the people, not for the good of some greedy companys who refuse to adapt their business models, and not just because they can afford to lobby for it.

The second fault is making file sharing into a "serious crime". It is not. It's a minor felony. Raping, assaulting, killing, are serious crimes. We must not let these greedy bastards turn our societies into police states just because they feel that file shares must be hunted down at all costs.

Bubba136 wrote:

I often wonder why it is so difficult for some people to realize that if something is "wrong," is it simply wrong!

A piece of recorded music is sold. One copy at a time. The only way that music can be reproduced is usually from a copy of the record that someone has purchased.

Now, if the person that paid for the record lends it to you and you reproduce it for yourself, you've effectively infringed upon the "legally granted" copyright issued to protect the material. And have cheated the musician out of any money he would have earned from the sale.

That, Trolldeg is against the law. The person that copied the material without paying for it has committed a crime. A crime is a crime. There's no such thing as something being just a little bit illegal. Something is either illegal or not. No in between. Certainly, it isn't a "big" crime. However, it is a crime, nevertheless.

Now, you have your choice. If you don't like the copyright laws, you, together with your friends and other like minded people, can ask your state legislature (or, what ever body of your government makes your country's laws) to change the provisions of this particular law to fit your conditions. Short of that, you must abide by the law as it stands or be willing to accept the consequences..

And, I'll tell you that unless you succeed in getting the law changed, if you presist in breaking any law just because you don't like it or believe it to be unjust, you will have to pay a penalty. One way or another, you will pay.

And, there isn't a judge on earth that will give any of your incredibley weak reasons for not obeying it one instant of thought before he pronounces you guilty.

So, get over it or get the law changed.

[Trolldeg]

JNR: like I wrote in my deleted post, if find YOUR WAY of trying to lecture me pathetic, not you.

[JNR]

Look, o'le sport! I wasn't "lecturing" you. I was just trying to explain, in the simplest terms I could, the difference between "right" and "wrong" as it is in "the real world," so to speak. Now, if you don't like what I said, so be it. If you don't like my comments, get over it. This isn't an issue that I am willing to go to war over. This discussion isn't personal (yet) with me. Like I said, I really don't care if you continue to download music from the internet in violation of any and all copyright laws as they are currently written. And, I also stand by what I said. And, that is if you do continue, you must be willing to to pay the price when and if you're caught. That's all. I wish you well in your quest to "change the world" by angst and anger and demonstration.

[Dr. Shoe]

Neither do I.

[Trolldeg]

I was just trying to explain, in the simplest terms I could, the difference between "right" and "wrong" as it is in "the real world," so to speak.

Do you know what the word "condescending" means?

[JNR]

Trolldeg wrote:

Do you know what the word "condescending" means?

Of course I do.

And, I am sorry you feel that I was treating you like that. It certainly wasn't my intention. It's just that you just seemed to be having difficulty understanding my point. Or, grasping the entire concept, for that matter.

Like I said, if you want to continue to download copyrighted material from the internet without paying for it, knock yourself out. But, don't take this any further because, like I also said, it's not personal. After all, I do like to think that I am dealing with adults on this forum.

[CraigR]

We've been through this; it's not stealing if the original item is still there. Call it for what it is; copyright infringement.

Trolldeg, your statement on stealing can be considered accurate, but not in what you are applying it to. If someone were to come in to my house, take my television, and leave with it, your statement fits, the original item is gone. However, the legal definition of Theft/Fraud, at least here in the States, goes far beyond that. The basic principle of Theft/Fraud is that a party (person, company, etc.) has been deprived of what is legally and rightfully theirs. That leaves a lot of room beyond the original item actually being taken, and it would definitely apply to this age of the Internet and downloading music, videos, or software. If a party applies a Copyright to their material, which they also have the right not to do, they control access to that property and are entitled to compensation for someone's use of that property. If someone downloads the party's music, videos, photos, or software, and does not compensate the party concerned, the party is deprived of what is legally and rightfully theirs and a Theft/Fraud has occurred and a crime has been committed even if the "original" is still there.

I'm fine with calling it Copyright Infringement...it describes what kind of Theft/Fraud occurred. If someone thinks Copyright Infringement is not as serious as Theft/Fraud, or Stealing as you put it, that is their opinion, but it still is Theft/Fraud. That would be like saying that Date/Acquaintance Rape is less serious that Stranger Rape. There is no difference in the penalties, they are both Rape, they only describe the circunstances under which a Rape occurred.

Just the Law's, and my, two cents worth...and certainly not meant to be condescending to anyone.

[Dr. Shoe]

Exactly. Even Trolldeg has to admit that Copyright Infringement is fraud in just the same way that the executives at Enron committed fraud. Perhaps they were telling each other "no we're not committing a crime, the company is still there, look!"