I'm not talking about her pirating the music, I'm talking about how RIAA is approaching this, it's beyond irrational. edit: ^Seriously. Quite a bit of music is pulled down everyday by labels.
I have no idea what the RIAA is and I have no idea where musicians make their money. All I'm saying is that piracy is illegal and people who pirate should be punished. Music isn't a necessity so I couldn't care less if buying it legally limits you to hundreds of songs rather than thousands. I agree that piracy can sometimes have benefits. Little bands can get noticed etc. But, people need to upload these files, right? I'd think that if people never notice these bands, they wouldn't go out of their way to upload music from them and no one would go looking for songs from bands they've never heard of. So I don't think piracy even helps bands gain fame very much. Uh Youtube is free for everyone so I'm not really making anyone lose money. You could say that by watching videos of songs that were obtained illegally, I'm encouraging the uploader to continue uploading pirated songs, I guess. But I don't see a law telling me I'm not allowed to listen to pirated songs off youtube. I cry every night.
They gain potential fans that they might not have otherwise, not fame. There's a BIG difference between the two. Also, if my memory serves me correctly, the RIAA again, has no ties to the artist and they don't actually monatarily compensate the artists who have been pirated against. From what I've read, it's all BS(the RIAA) . Think of it as you winning a lawsuit against someone whoncaused you harm and the lawyer gets ALL of the money. What the hell is the point!?
I hope you realize that torrent apps are also free for everyone and thus torrent downloading is free for everyone. What's the difference? I think your legal morals might be based off of BS laws by a BS entity, and not based in your own logic.
They're also artists for a reason, they want people to enjoy their music. RIAA - Recording Industry Association of America. Directly, they have no direct ties with the artists, but they do have ties with what is well, recorded, sold, etc.
Exactly. The fact is that (most of) the songs aren't open for free use. Whether or not there's a direct law for listening to YouTube videos, it's the same thing as downloading it, just without the download.
Probably less. Speaking of this, my current library would be 6 weeks, 5 days, and 4 hours worth. Hehe
Somebody is seriously rewriting history. The only P2P app I would consider being even close to the "iTunes of file sharing" is Napster. Napster provided any music you wanted, any time you wanted it. And they got away with it for so long because the music companies didn't understand technology. Limewire was always a "me-too" app that used marketing muscle to displace the competition. After Napster there was Gnutella. Gnutella somehow managed to "leak" out of the control of the corporate overlords who technically owned it. Good for filesharers, but bad for maintenance. To keep enhancing the protocol, a number of Gnutella clones showed up. The best one was a Java client called Furi. Limewire showed up, copied what Furi had done (just not as well), put that stupid green skin on it, and managed to kill off Furi. The rest is history. (i.e. Limewire continued sucking, users moved on to Kazaa, DirectConnect, and a bunch of others before P2P kind of petered out and was replaced with the Bittorrent download client.) I'd bring up Sun Microsystem's attempt to own the P2P market with an open P2P library and standards, but that was just too embarrassing to recall.
So you're basically saying you pirate everyone's music and support only the few artists who perform within a hundred miles of where you live? That's incredibly unfair. I worked in the independent music industry for several years. Not all artists are able to have world tours, not even national tours. In fact, it's generally only the already successful and popular artists who can have concerts. To support artists only by concerts and merchandise is to essentially give the middle finger to the small guys, who rely on music sales to support their profession. Piracy is a disgusting thing, because pirates never discriminate between the largest or the smallest artists. The Internet should have made it easier for small guys to become successful, not hurt them more.
The thing is, is that if the smaller bands weren't at least somewhat popular, then not many if any people would pirate their music. And if a band can't even find local, small venues to hold concerts at, then they aren't going to last very long in the industry. "The Internet should have made it easier for small guys to become successful, not hurt them more." - It did. Without iTunes and Amazon among other distributors, most small bands would get absolutely no exposure, aside from a bit of word-of-mouth. Especially those who don't hold concerts...
Who needs limewire these days anyways. You can get CD's so many other ways, and pr0n is practically free everywhere now too. What else is it good for? LOL Yup. I used it at school since Limewire was blocked.
I've been to the majority of the artists I have on my library who are in fact, the small guys. Not to mention how many people I introduce to their new music daily. The internet is actually probably helping the small guys because it's getting their name out.
