should you be able to copy a cd you buy to your computer?

[karyn]

from washington post

Download Uproar: Record Industry Goes After Personal Use

By Marc Fisher
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, December 30, 2007; Page M05

Despite more than 20,000 lawsuits filed against music fans in the years since they started finding free tunes online rather than buying CDs from record companies, the recording industry has utterly failed to halt the decline of the record album or the rise of digital music sharing.

Still, hardly a month goes by without a news release from the industry's lobby, the Recording Industry Association of America, touting a new wave of letters to college students and others demanding a settlement payment and threatening a legal battle.

Now, in an unusual case in which an Arizona recipient of an RIAA letter has fought back in court rather than write a check to avoid hefty legal fees, the industry is taking its argument against music sharing one step further: In legal documents in its federal case against Jeffrey Howell, a Scottsdale, Ariz., man who kept a collection of about 2,000 music recordings on his personal computer, the industry maintains that it is illegal for someone who has legally purchased a CD to transfer that music into his computer.

The industry's lawyer in the case, Ira Schwartz, argues in a brief filed earlier this month that the MP3 files Howell made on his computer from legally bought CDs are "unauthorized copies" of copyrighted recordings.

"I couldn't believe it when I read that," says Ray Beckerman, a New York lawyer who represents six clients who have been sued by the RIAA. "The basic principle in the law is that you have to distribute actual physical copies to be guilty of violating copyright. But recently, the industry has been going around saying that even a personal copy on your computer is a violation."

RIAA's hard-line position seems clear. Its Web site says: "If you make unauthorized copies of copyrighted music recordings, you're stealing. You're breaking the law and you could be held legally liable for thousands of dollars in damages."

They're not kidding. In October, after a trial in Minnesota -- the first time the industry has made its case before a federal jury -- Jammie Thomas was ordered to pay $220,000 to the big record companies. That's $9,250 for each of 24 songs she was accused of sharing online.
ad_icon

Whether customers may copy their CDs onto their computers -- an act at the very heart of the digital revolution -- has a murky legal foundation, the RIAA argues. The industry's own Web site says that making a personal copy of a CD that you bought legitimately may not be a legal right, but it "won't usually raise concerns," as long as you don't give away the music or lend it to anyone.

Of course, that's exactly what millions of people do every day. In a Los Angeles Times poll, 69 percent of teenagers surveyed said they thought it was legal to copy a CD they own and give it to a friend. The RIAA cites a study that found that more than half of current college students download music and movies illegally.

The Howell case was not the first time the industry has argued that making a personal copy from a legally purchased CD is illegal. At the Thomas trial in Minnesota, Sony BMG's chief of litigation, Jennifer Pariser, testified that "when an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song." Copying a song you bought is "a nice way of saying 'steals just one copy,' " she said.

But lawyers for consumers point to a series of court rulings over the last few decades that found no violation of copyright law in the use of VCRs and other devices to time-shift TV programs; that is, to make personal copies for the purpose of making portable a legally obtained recording.

As technologies evolve, old media companies tend not to be the source of the innovation that allows them to survive. Even so, new technologies don't usually kill off old media: That's the good news for the recording industry, as for the TV, movie, newspaper and magazine businesses. But for those old media to survive, they must adapt, finding new business models and new, compelling content to offer.

The RIAA's legal crusade against its customers is a classic example of an old media company clinging to a business model that has collapsed. Four years of a failed strategy has only "created a whole market of people who specifically look to buy independent goods so as not to deal with the big record companies," Beckerman says. "Every problem they're trying to solve is worse now than when they started."

The industry "will continue to bring lawsuits" against those who "ignore years of warnings," RIAA spokesman Jonathan Lamy said in a statement. "It's not our first choice, but it's a necessary part of the equation. There are consequences for breaking the law." And, perhaps, for firing up your computer.

[episode allah]

you should be able to download music for free.

people that make music should accumulate their money from doing kickass tours and from making CDs that their real fans (the minority) will want to own because they desire a physical manifestation of something they already know that they love.

[incog]

you should be able to download music for free.

people that make music should accumulate their money from doing kickass tours and from making CDs that their real fans (the minority) will want to own because they desire a physical manifestation of something they already know that they love.

So you think all musicians should have to keep their day jobs? Touring is physically very difficult and cannot really be done the same way after a certain age. Saying a band has to make a living on touring is giving gimmicky bands an advantage over good songwriters and it is condemning most musicians to never making a living at what they do, not even for one nice year.

[Baby_Switchblade]

Of course you should be able to rip the music from the CD onto your computer. The laws mentioned inside the CD cover only state that it's illegal to copy and distribute the unauthorised copies.

[Morning Glory]

So you think all musicians should have to keep their day jobs?

why not? the rest of us have to. I hate working and I'd love to get paid to do all the fun and artistic things that I enjoy doing. why should musicians get the monopoly on "valuable" activities when many other people have pursuits that are just as personally meaningful and are set aside for thier work? for that matter, most musicians DO have to keep thier day jobs and will never make a dime from it. It's the biggest slap in the face to them from the one's that are getting paid for it and not expecting to have to live up to the same standards as everyone else.

here's my question, if copying licensed material is illegal, than doesn't that make Tivo a crime?

[Glork]

The RIAA is getting out of control. Next thing you know just listening to a cd more then once will be a violation of the copyrights and they will expect us to buy a new copy every time we want to listen to it.


Pirates For Ever

[Mindgames]

here's my question, if copying licensed material is illegal, than doesn't that make Tivo a crime?

Yes and no. Recording a live broadcast simply to time-shift is permitted, but generating multiple copies (by downloading from your TiVo to your PC) is illegal. The law, at least in the US, sees the critical distinction only at the point of making the first copy of an ephemeral work (i.e. something broadcast once that you want to watch at a different time). Duplicating that recording, playing it to 'the public' or any other non-personal use is still outlawed by T17. The latest problem to hit the lawyers is what to do about on-demand PPV television (cable channels that allow you to watch something whenever you want) - as the original broadcast is time-shiftable the legal justification for TiVo-ing it is redundant, and there are actions lined up for 08 to try and get a judgment.

The same applies to the original post (I won't go into details of the case in question for various reasons but can talk about the specific home-duplicating issue raised) - home taping for time-shifting may be legal, and rightly so, but if you already own a portable recording of the music you can't claim the same exemption to copy it to a PC or MP3 player. There is an entirely different claim of fair use (I want to listen to it on my iPod so I need to copy it), but that's not yet been ruled to precedent. The industry claims that fair use copying only applies where the original work is not available in a usable format, and not simply to avoid buying it twice, but the rebuttal is that the physical storage medium is not the issue, as it's the music that's copyrighted not the polycarbonate. Who's right is going to take years to decide as each side stands to make or lose billions.

[evilstonermonkey]

also arent you legally allowed to make backup copies, as long as they are solely for that purpose and not being sold or otherwise distributed?

[GnArKiLL]

also arent you legally allowed to make backup copies, as long as they are solely for that purpose and not being sold or otherwise distributed?

thats kinda the whole point of the article. The mpaa and riaa are just being bullies now

[evilstonermonkey]

[Mindgames]

also arent you legally allowed to make backup copies, as long as they are solely for that purpose and not being sold or otherwise distributed?

No. There is provision in S117 of the Copyright Act (US) for making archival copies of computer software, but not for other forms of work (music etc.) even if they are supplied in digital form. The 'backup copy' exclusion is one of the main defenses used in P2P prosecutions and has been ruled as solely applicable to software products in every case, as the software was sold with the intention to install it (and so create a duplicate of the data anyway).

[inox]

The idea that you shouldn't be able to back up or otherwise copy your own music collection is probably about one of the dumber things I've heard from the RIAA.

In this day and age, when people initially purchase a lot of music in an electronic format, trying to interfere with people protecting that investment is absurd at best.

These greedy, short-sighted dinosaurs are honestly going to slit their own throats with this overzealous litigation and ludicrous testimony. The model of the future is subscription (rather than outright ownership) anyhow.

Time for these assholes to step aside and stop interfering with innovation.

[inox]

The industry claims that fair use copying only applies where the original work is not available in a usable format, and not simply to avoid buying it twice, but the rebuttal is that the physical storage medium is not the issue, as it's the music that's copyrighted not the polycarbonate. Who's right is going to take years to decide as each side stands to make or lose billions.

It's situations like this that sometimes make me ashamed to be a part of the legal profession.

Copyright law wasn't designed with modern technology in mind, but I find it an untenable assertion that lawmakers ever intended that a copyright owner's exclusive right to reproduce a work should extend to backup situations.

Oki, time to break out the citations:

Audio Home Recording Act of 1992, §1008:

No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.

Emphasis mine.

RIAA v. Diamond Multimedia

As the Senate Report explains, "[t]he purpose of [the Act] is to ensure the right of consumers to make analog or digital audio recordings of copyrighted music for their private, noncommercial use." S. Rep. 102-294

They refer to it as "space shifting" (rather than the commonplace "time shifting" seen with Tivo and VCRs of olde.)

The fact that this is even an issue shows an appalling amount of greed on the part of the entertainment industry, and makes me want to see them tank.

[Morning Glory]

Ok, so then why are they allowed to sell CD and DVD recording devices?

I guess it's kind of the same deal that lets headshops sell "tobacco water-pipes", and not get busted for drug paraphernalia.

[DiePlague]

piratery is horrible, if people is allowed to download mp3 instead of buying the cds then the "artists" will loose a lot of money, so much they will only earn 1000 times more than my mother...horrible, imagine an artist like christina aguilera, ripped from her little mansion in bahamas, just cause some bastard invented the p2p programs!

[athenahollow]

gah... annoying lack of grammer. Way to ruin a perfectly good debate.

[theUnclean]

I think the thread is meandering a little. The question is if it is an issue to make a personal copy of music you buy. It is perfectly legal and has been for a very long time. It's the distribution of copyrighted material that is illegal. The RIAA is full of shit and they know it.

As far as artists making what they make. WTF! Who the fuck cares if ho-bag Aguilera lives it easy off of a bunch of dumb asses with poor taste?! Seriously, I don't give a shit how much untalented hacks make, or don't make.

My concern is for artists that I like. About them having the money to pay their bills and still have the time to keep making music I like. I have no problem paying for what I want/need. My problem is some asshole trying to tell me what I can and can't do with what I own.

The RIAA missed the boat years ago on this entire situation. And now, it seems they want to dive even deeper up their own asses.

[DiePlague]

gah... annoying lack of grammer. Way to ruin a perfectly good debate.

im sorry if my good enough english offends you, english is not my first languague and i dont really think its necesary for me to spell check all my posts since, well this is not a grammar class and i can manage to make myself understood
perhaps you would like me to post in my mother languague?

[DiePlague]

I think the thread is meandering a little. The question is if it is an issue to make a personal copy of music you buy. It is perfectly legal and has been for a very long time. It's the distribution of copyrighted material that is illegal. The RIAA is full of shit and they know it.

As far as artists making what they make. WTF! Who the fuck cares if ho-bag Aguilera lives it easy off of a bunch of dumb asses with poor taste?! Seriously, I don't give a shit how much untalented hacks make, or don't make.

My concern is for artists that I like. About them having the money to pay their bills and still have the time to keep making music I like. I have no problem paying for what I want/need. My problem is some asshole trying to tell me what I can and can't do with what I own.

The RIAA missed the boat years ago on this entire situation. And now, it seems they want to dive even deeper up their own asses.

well my point was that anyways the good musicians gets the money from performing and from the real followers who will always buy the original cds if they can afford it, and those musicians are generally not so much affected by the sharing programs, in fact the ones who fight the most against sharing programs are the biggest and shittiest ones.

[TheDeathKnight]

I think music and art should be shared, for your own enjoyment and appreciation as an artist. If artists never got paid for their work, people would make art and music anyway...

But that's beside the point.

The bottom line is that legally, if I pay for a CD, I should be able to use that music for my own use. In my car, in my computer, on my stereo, etc... I paid that artist for their music when I purchased the CD. Next thing you know they will be asking me to pay for each time I listen to a song...

Now sharing that music, or giving copies to other people, that goes under the "pirating" thing... But for my own use, I should be able to make backup copies as much as I want to. Am I supposed to buy a CD for my car, one for my house, and one for my portable radio? Is that their theory? That makes no sense at all. I should be able to make copies to use in my different devices.

Again, even if they were able to enforce that law, technology would overcome it. You'd have one central server, or CD changer, with all your CDs or MP3's, and wirelessly transmit the music to your car, phone, ipod, or whatever. There are ways around their "rules". All they need to do, is make it cheaper and easier to legally purchase MP3's, and make sure the artist get a cut...

[ForrestBlack]

I think music and art should be shared, for your own enjoyment and appreciation as an artist. If artists never got paid for their work, people would make art and music anyway...

But that's beside the point...

People have the right to share their music and art, unless they enter into an agreement that limits their control over what they can share. I could give art away, which I often do, and I could obviously charge for my work. The problem with the piracy argument is that consumers are trying to decide for the artist, which work should and shouldn't be given away for free.

[ForrestBlack]

I think CDs, as a format, will be dead in the not terribly distant future, and it would be a shame if recordings were lost because they were legally bound to that format. I don't believe changing recording format is intrinsically piracy because piracy to me is about ownership, not format. However, I do understand the challenges that position faces when artists or distributors try to protect their product from abuse and theft. As soon as distributors proposed copy protections, people cried about personal use. But all too many pirates cried wolf, whining about that 'personal use' when the first thing they do is give the works away to their pirate cohorts all over the globe. This isn't to say that all reformatting is piracy. I've recorded tracks off CDs I legitimately own and put them on my MP3 player so I could listen to them at the gym or whatever, but isn't it legitimate to try to ensure that people obey the law and ultimately respect copyright?

[evilstonermonkey]

i agree that the law, in this case with respect to copyright, should be followed, but the issue at hand isnt about copyright - its about putting cds you have bought onto your computer. i have a very large cd collection, not a single one of them a burned copy, and every single one of them is on my computer. and there are many reasons for that: so i can put them on my mp3 player, so i can set up my computer as a big jukebox when i have a party, so that when i want to listen o a particular song i can find quick-fast, so that if the cds are damaged i dont lose my fvourite songs. the list goes on. and none of these in any way lose the artists or the recording companies any money - i am not up- or downloading songs, im not burning copies for my friends. hell, i dont even have a burner.

In legal documents in its federal case against Jeffrey Howell, a Scottsdale, Ariz., man who kept a collection of about 2,000 music recordings on his personal computer, the industry maintains that it is illegal for someone who has legally purchased a CD to transfer that music into his computer.

[TheDeathKnight]

If they want me to buy the music a second time, then they need to offer me a new format with better quality, or new music, or new artists. Why should I have to pay for the *same* stuff I already bought? When I convert to MP3, it's the same or lesser quality to the original CD I purchased. I really don't even think it should be much of an issue. CDs are mostly of older artists, and older music. If they want to sell me new music, and make money off me, they just need to come up with a way to sell it to me in the new format. But who gives a shit if I want to copy my old CDs onto my computer, or Ipod, etc? It's just the record companies trying to hold onto revenue in some way. By making people buy music over and over and over, every time there is a new format, or a new player, etc... Which if they get away with that, means they will just keep changing formats, and making people buy their whole libraries of music over and over again. Fuck that shit. If I have to keep a CD player around to listen to my "old" music, then fine... But they really just need to focus on the future, and the real issues of copyright protection, when it comes to how to sell MP3s, etc...

[evilstonermonkey]

and if we cant copy onto our computers, how do we compy them onto our mp3 players? which they are still selling us? someone pointed out the legal terminology thing with tobacco water pipes, its like the people selling us those very same 'tbacco water pipes' are the DEA!

[Morning Glory]

I really think that this is just about corporate fat cats trying to make money, and not about artists getting what they deserve. A classic argument for the absurdity of the whole thing that I'll always remember was when an artist pointed out that under the copy-right law he could be sued for downloading his own records from a p2p.

I know that No Idea Records (although not exactly Sony or Warner, still follows the same formula when it comes to how they do business in relation to the law) screwed over many of thier old artists and gyped them for royalties. Because the money goes to the record label, and they are the one's in charge of giving the artist thier cut. One artist in particular just said Fuck it and give up the rights to his music because it was too much of a hassel to try and deal with it in the courts. So now he can be sued for performing his own songs.

I bring this up to illistrate that the whole idea of "creative control" is a scam because almost all artists have no control over thier music once it's recorded. Bands like radio head and NIN are realizing that now and they are excersizing more freedom of control by cutting out the record companies, which of course just makes them even more desperate to hold onto thier cash flow.

copy-right law (really, all law, for that matter) needs to be reformed so that it best serves the changes in technology and society, instead of making liberal interpretations to extort people because they are mad that their antiquated system doesn't work anymore.

[Mindgames]

an artist pointed out that under the copy-right law he could be sued for downloading his own records from a p2p

Not strictly true - if the downloader has permission to obtain the material from the rights holder (both being himself) then the act of downloading doesn't contribute to infringement under S108 even if the source of the download is illegal - otherwise the monitoring systems used in this case would be illegal too, and the thousands of people in that field with would be out of a job. The rights holder can basically do whatever he wants, as he can grant himself permission and can't sue himself. The only case where it'd be illegal is if the artist had signed away his rights to the recording completely, in which case he becomes just another customer.

copy-right law (really, all law, for that matter) needs to be reformed so that it best serves the changes in technology and society, instead of making liberal interpretations to extort people because they are mad that their antiquated system doesn't work anymore.

It is being updated - that's what cases such as this seek to achieve, as they define precedents for everyone. The problem is that judges are rarely brave enough to issue a wide-ranging summary, and restrict their judgment to as narrow a definition as possible to avoid setting up counter-claims. As a result it can take 15 or 20 cases to build up a good enough definition, and every time we think we've got one, someone takes the damn thing to appeal again. The DMCA and AHRA may be outdated already, but you can't change the law overnight when there's so many people waiting to lobby against anything you suggest. That's the American legal system for you - everyone gets to have an opinion, so nobody gets to have the last one.

It's important to remember two things about this thread:-

1) Please don't letter-bomb me for representing the industry viewpoint, I'm answering questions but not trying to preach any more than I normally do.

2) The Post article is entirely wrong in how it reads the case notes, and the precise reasons for the RIAA's claims are far more complicated than "this guy copied a file" - there are 15 pages of details in the claim and some of the best copyright experts in the world are still arguing over what the hell they mean (I've just spent an hour doing just that, on the grammatical significance of the word "and" instead of "and;"). Yes, it's a life you can envy.

[Amelia G]

I think it seems pretty legit to copy a file for one's own use in that way, but I assume mG is on the money and there is a lot more to this case than that. I know I don't mind if someone downloads an image from BlueBlood.com to their harddrive for a wallpaper, but I do mind if they mass download to a P2P folder, so the intent is an issue.

[Morning Glory]

The Post article is entirely wrong

that depends on what your definition of "is" is.

I for one do appreciate the legalise, even if it's BS. all the better to understand why it's BS, and at the least, you know how you are getting screwed.

this whole back and forth process doesn't solve anything. like you said we can have fifteen cases to establish a precident and it means fuckall when the judge decides to ignore it or simply to disagree in the 16th. You can always take it to appeals where you'll get passed all the way up to the supreme court who decides it's not worth their time to hear it and then it's back to square one. No, what I mean is that it's time to lobbey for some new laws, maybe by real analysts other than the RIAA who has the "anal" part right, only instead of being followed by "ysts", it's proceeded by "head up thier".

[evilstonermonkey]

thanks mindgames, i actually lost sight of the 'fact-editing' in the article. 9 times out often i take all media with a pinch of salt until i have the bias figured out, but the RIAA has pulled a few annoying stunts that i was pretty easy to gull this time

and while im thankign people, thats to the mods for un-biggening my piccypost.

also id like to thank my family, and all the fans who have supported me...

[Mindgames]

For the people on here who are really interested (meaning those of us who feel reading court papers for an hour is time well spent), you can read the supplemental brief here.

(/me waits for one other person to return from clicking the link....)

The issue taken out of context by the Post is the section starting on line 16 of page 15. What they failed to understand is how page 15 is a forward to page 16 (claim D) of 'offering to distribute', which is where the issue of that 'and' word comes in - the making of the personal copy AND placing in a shared folder is the claim against the Howells, not the two acts in isolation which would be the phrasing should there have been a semicolon (the legality of each act in isolation is not the subject of the case, but is the argument the Post tries to run with). While we in the industry have an opinion on each act, in this case it don't matter squat.

Yes of course the press will leap on the evil RIAA for persecuting some poor American family, but by reporting the case inaccurately they've not helped anyone, and made it a whole lot more inflammatory than it needed to be. If this was reported as it is - "a guy shared files on the Internet and got caught" - the blogosphere wouldn't be going apeshit about it any more than for the hundreds of identical cases every year, but now it's made out to be something special when it's not.

[BookOfFaeye]

why not? the rest of us have to. I hate working and I'd love to get paid to do all the fun and artistic things that I enjoy doing. why should musicians get the monopoly on "valuable" activities when many other people have pursuits that are just as personally meaningful and are set aside for thier work? for that matter, most musicians DO have to keep thier day jobs and will never make a dime from it. It's the biggest slap in the face to them from the one's that are getting paid for it and not expecting to have to live up to the same standards as everyone else.

here's my question, if copying licensed material is illegal, than doesn't that make Tivo a crime?

um sports stars, movie stars, internet stars, please. Musicians are in the business of entertainment. That is their job and if they feel like crap or miss the birth of their kid cause their on tour then thats what happens. Musicians are a valuable asset. They provide stress relief, an outlet for anger, joy, sadness. They often poets who say what we can not find the words for, or can not get away with anymore in everyday life. They serve a purpose just like everyone else and deserve to be compinsated for that service. If you seriously want to complain about income bitch about football players, basketball players. $21 million dollars in one season to play games. I'd rather support Lemmy.

[BookOfFaeye]

Also I forgot but doesn't a cd say "for personal use only" and if you put your music in a format more convenient for YOU to use, then isn't that personal use?

This country is lawsuit happy and it really needs to be stopped somehow. Problem is lawyers are the ones in office and so are their friends.... so guess whos going to continue convincing us how nessicary all these BULLSHIT lawsuits are.

[Morning Glory]

Musicians are in the business of entertainment.

Some people find taking a dump to be immensely entertaining. What's your point?

I've spent hours of my time entertaining, or maybe boring, or maybe repulsing, on the blue blood boards. Since you are viewing my words on your computer, you are partaking in my "intellectual property" and I demand compensation!

seems pretty stupid when it's put that way doesn't it?

Entertainment is entirely subjective. If someone chooses to give their money to someone that is their right. But it's not anyone's right to be entitled to payment simply for doing what they are doing. Don't get mad at me if you're a starving artist, so am I, and I didn't invent capitalism.

On the other hand, let's go back to my example and look at it from another way. As far as I know no one is getting paid to post on these boards, but isn't it still entertaining? Isn't it sufficiently rewarding on it's own? If you think that the value of being an artist is in dollar signs, then obviously you aren't a real artist.

[evilstonermonkey]

while i agree with absolutely everything you just said MG, there is a flaw in the arument - there is a difference between entertainment and the business of entertainment. if you are entertaining for the love of entertainment, in your free time and not charging for it then its a different animal completely from spending your life and all your time travelling and making new material and depending on the money you make to get you by.

[Cafe_Post_Mortem]

On the other hand, let's go back to my example and look at it from another way. As far as I know no one is getting paid to post on these boards, but isn't it still entertaining? Isn't it sufficiently rewarding on it's own? If you think that the value of being an artist is in dollar signs, then obviously you aren't a real artist.

But there is a difference here. While Tom Waites has decided to sell his music, I have decided to give away my board postings despite the vast entertainment value I provide. Maybe I lack his business savvy or maybe I am more generous than he is with my art, the point is, we both got to choose how people would access our art.

As much as I would like to keep my posting free, if I decided instead to write a book and sell it, I would be upset and like litigious is someone who was not me decided to give it away. Sure art should be made for it's own sake, but that is not always practical. And if you decide the works of the emo ball are not worth 7.99 in paperback, there are piles of cheaper or free works out there.

Likewise, there are bands who give away some or all of their music. If you decide that paying for music is not for you, there are plenty of options that do not involve breaking copyright laws. If you don't think someones art is worth buying, it shouldn't be worth stealing either.

At least that is my take.

[Morning Glory]

Likewise, there are bands who give away some or all of their music. If you decide that paying for music is not for you, there are plenty of options that do not involve breaking copyright laws. If you don't think someones art is worth buying, it shouldn't be worth stealing either.

At least that is my take.

I do agree with that. my point isn't that artists should not be paid, in fact, I really think that everyone should be able to make a living doing the things that they want and like to do. My point is that I don't think that I or rather society has an obligation to pay those people simply because they think that they deserve it and for no other reason. If they were the only one's that weren't getting paid, then that would be a different story, but as it stands they (as in professional musicians) are pretty much the only people that really get paid to make art, so they don't have much grounds to bitch about it, as far as I'm concerned.

This isn't really the issue here, but as I've said before, I just don't see "intellectual property" as the same thing as actual property. they say that stealing a car and mugging an old lady is the same as illegally downloading, but it's not. Just like how printing off an unlicensed copy of a picture on your computer is not the same thing as breaking into a museum and taking the real artwork.

[Mr Karl]

yes, you should be able to copy a cd to your computer and then put it on your mp3 player or on a long play dvdor even on a cassette,and, the day that the musicians that I support actually demand that I pay for each reformatting, that's when I find other things to spend my money on, no worries there's lots out there.

[Mindgames]

..as it stands they (as in professional musicians) are pretty much the only people that really get paid to make art...

/me watches the annoyed stares from graphic designers, photographers, architects, movie makers, authors, poets, actors, screenwriters, makeup artists, models... Amelia and Forrest....

Musicians are (almost) the only people whose work is almost universally abused through illegal copying and simultaneously attacked for complaining about it, but aside from that they're a tiny cog in a vast industry.

[TheDeathKnight]

I have no problem with people *trying* to make money from their art. Hey, if someone wants to pay for your art, that's great. But for real artists, they would do it regardless if they got paid for it or not. If Amelia and Forrest did not get paid, they would probably still do photoshoots for fun. If bands did not get paid, I guarantee people would still be out there preforming their songs. I know tons of dancers, artists, and musicians, who work normal jobs, but do their art on the side, and LOVE doing it. Those are the true artists. They want to express themselves, and be creative. That's the bottom line.