Here is what the recording industry does when they rip off…. erm… nurture their artists.

Courtney Love’s point of view
http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/

From the perspective of a record producer.
http://www.negativland.com/albini.html

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/29/bmr_feargal_sharkey/page4.html

I find it truly disturbing that so called legitimate enterprises are being used in this way against students.

Well said Jon. You hit the proverbial nail on the head there.

I find it truly disturbing that corporate business is being conducted on college and uni’s as a welfare handout. I also look with abhorrence at the idea that mom and pop will wind up footing the bill through tuition to pay for this monstrosity that has been heisted off on them through erroneous data used to support the argument that file sharing is the problem with why the industry is proclaiming to lose income.

In the first place, no one guarantees that just because you open a business or have one established, you therefor will make a profit throughout that business’s existence. The falsity that file sharing is devastating this profit motive is being used as a scapegoat for the poor understanding of future marketing and how to deal with it. This is a direct fault of the majors and not of its customers. Any time a business can not predict market trends and meet them, satisfy the customer and not leave them with the idea they got ripped off continually for the money, removes the ability to hear new stuff coming out on commercial radio stations through the use of payolla that prevents future sales in continual new interests, and calls their financial base they depend on for their economic livelihood thieves and then sues them, they themselves will at some point get caught in those lacks by loss of income.

Quote: …rampant theft of their work.

Though out history the common thought of theft requires denial of use of property. But IP is NOT property. You can’t fence it, you can’t deny use of it unless you take the container it resides in. Further all real property is taxed. For instance, if you own land, you pay taxes annually, same with a car through various means such as car tags and brake stickers. The majors have attempted to equate intellectual property with tangible property. This is akin to attempting to sell air. Now you can lay all sorts of arguments out about how wrong this theme is about IP property. Where the problem comes in is that people themselves know this is a BS argument. Simply they will not accept this as a real property like what you could erect a fence around. So even your potential market doesn’t really see this as a real deal but rather as an artificial one. When no money changes hands, there is no profit motive. The majors have also attempted to change the definition of profit from money changing hands to denial of profit through lack of the passage of money. They are not the same.

Quote: …promoted by heavily biased media such as your site.

This “heavily biased” has no meaning when compared to the bias of lamescream media. It’s like comparing an ant to an elephant when you consider major media is either influenced through payment as to not be fair and unbiased or take their news sources directly from the corporate pap. Thank heavens you can still find such counter sites somewhere that calls a spade a spade. Ever wonder why the major newsites are losing readership as well as major broadcasters? Oh, don’t take my word for it, there are surveys coming out every year saying major advertisers are reducing their ad budgets to these same outlets in favor of the internet; which is where those lost readers and viewers are going. They are going there because they can find something besides the filtered, bias, and obvious lack of real reporting. Things like what Britney or Winehouse is doing today has no influence nor use on how our lives will be affected by some important event. Events that fail to even see mention on the back pages of supposed news outlets. We’re not talking one or two publishers but near nationwide. There is no unbiased when it comes to hearing about the negative side of the music industry in public print of news outlets. It simply is ignored by nearly all, with the minor exception every once in a while. HCH, you should really do a bit of research on your subject.

Quote: …it is only a matter of time until the legitimate music industry succeeds…

No it isn’t a matter of time. Where to go for examples? Nothing is a given here, no matter the money throwed at it, no matter the legal research into presenting hairbrained schemes. How about the cassette tape, that’s a good one. This too was at one time a major contention with the music industry. Despite the legal pleadings, despite all the media snow jobs, despite all the calmouring about it being the death of the industry, they did NOT get their way with this. It is NOT a matter of time, rather it is a matter of acceptance by your customers. You can get all the bad laws passed you wish, you can not MAKE the public accept it if it is a bad law. You can chase your legal tail all over the world attempting to enforce it but you can not MAKE people obey what they see as not being wrong, no matter your definition or how you attempt to explain it, law or no law. Prohibition was a good example of attempting such an action. It didn’t work then, nor will similar work today.

Quote: …artists it has nurtured..

Correct me if I am wrong here but I seem to remember that the majors ceased to invest money into long term development of the artists. That is teaching them how cultivate long term success. Instead they dropped near 50% of their stables of artist. Those that were not major sellers of volume of albums. Instead the majors had the idea of letting the independents and small labels develop the artists and then the majors wanted to come along at the time when that artist was reaching their profit potential years and cherry pick from those that had invested that long term development. The only thing the majors have nurtured is their own pockets. They are like economical vampires to both the artist as well as any that attempt to deal with them. That is a more accurate picture than saying the artists were nurtured.

HCH you got it wrong, noone wants to do that.

What the people want is to not buy product at all.

They don’t care what you do with the money you earn from “sale of product” and they certainly don’t want to deprive “the legitimate music industry” of this earnings.

Please note further that those artist that want a piece of your cake too are technicly not counting as “want to “deprive” the industry”.
They have contracts that promissed them a share (even if it’s only a measly one) and you xan now not complain about that fact too!

Now that I know it I think we can safely say if “HCH” truely believes what he wrote Jon, I guess its time to call child welfare agency to protect the nurtered one since their guardians clearly keep them in a neglected condition and endanger them severely!

*http://www.dict.cc/english-german/nurtured.html

The dude almost had it right until the “nurtured” part. As for the part about “legitimate enterprises” defending themselves, he missed by a long shot. In terms of accurate reporting, it’s called regurgitating propoganda.