Comments on: RIAA sues more file sharers http://www.p2pnet.net/story/1737 p2pnet.net - reader powered Mon, 23 Nov 2009 08:51:28 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/1737/comment-page-1#comment-4544 Reader's Write Fri, 20 Aug 2004 21:30:21 +0000 #comment-4544 They don't copyright the songs, the major labels do. If they market their music independently, or sign with an independent label, they decide whether or not they want to copyright the songs. They don’t copyright the songs, the major labels do. If they market their music independently, or sign with an independent label, they decide whether or not they want to copyright the songs.

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/1737/comment-page-1#comment-4543 Reader's Write Fri, 20 Aug 2004 21:28:06 +0000 #comment-4543 Yeah, what the hell does the RIAA think they're doing? Not only are they suing their own consumers and losing more supporters in the process, but they don't even represent the artists. When they sue someone, does the money even go to the artist? I don't think so. And if the lawsuits cause people to start boycotting major labels, and sales drop, do the artists get any compensation? And even if the artists do want to sue people, they'd never make like a short, balding drummer named Lars and do it themselves, because they know it would just make them look like assholes. So instead, they let someone else do it for them while they remain anonymous and "support" their fans. Yeah, what the hell does the RIAA think they’re doing? Not only are they suing their own consumers and losing more supporters in the process, but they don’t even represent the artists. When they sue someone, does the money even go to the artist? I don’t think so. And if the lawsuits cause people to start boycotting major labels, and sales drop, do the artists get any compensation? And even if the artists do want to sue people, they’d never make like a short, balding drummer named Lars and do it themselves, because they know it would just make them look like assholes. So instead, they let someone else do it for them while they remain anonymous and “support” their fans.

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/1737/comment-page-1#comment-4542 Reader's Write Fri, 20 Aug 2004 21:18:58 +0000 #comment-4542 It's not illegal. And even if it was illegal, you know what else is? Hacking. Spying on people's internet habits is a seriously unethical crime, but why aren't they getting in trouble with the law? Because they have money. The amount of money they actually sue people for is outrageous. It's one thing if it were a dollar a song. But instead, they try to get so much more than that. Remember the girl from the Pepsi commercial? Over a period of 3 years, she and her siblings downloaded about 900 songs. When the RIAA got her, they made her pay $3000, and if her family hadn't settled out of court, and lost, the RIAA would have been able to prosecute them to the full extent: $150 000 per infringement. That would bankrupt her family, and completely ruin her life. Do the math: Losing a court case of 900 downloaded songs would take an average person more than 270 years to pay for it. That's why they couldn't take that risk; not when a multi-billion dollar giant like the RIAA has infinite lawyers at their disposal. In fact, just to prepare for court would cost them tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees. So, like many other victims, this girl's family had to swallow their pride and pay up. Don't you get it? The RIAA is cutting their losses and then some by bullying working families. And yet, who do they give any of this money to? The artists? No, it goes back into the greedy pockets of the major labels so they can sue more people and stay at the top. I can't believe you'd defend something so criminal. Whatever your opinion of downloading is, nobody has the right to intimidate these people like this. It’s not illegal. And even if it was illegal, you know what else is? Hacking. Spying on people’s internet habits is a seriously unethical crime, but why aren’t they getting in trouble with the law? Because they have money. The amount of money they actually sue people for is outrageous. It’s one thing if it were a dollar a song. But instead, they try to get so much more than that. Remember the girl from the Pepsi commercial? Over a period of 3 years, she and her siblings downloaded about 900 songs. When the RIAA got her, they made her pay $3000, and if her family hadn’t settled out of court, and lost, the RIAA would have been able to prosecute them to the full extent: $150 000 per infringement. That would bankrupt her family, and completely ruin her life. Do the math: Losing a court case of 900 downloaded songs would take an average person more than 270 years to pay for it. That’s why they couldn’t take that risk; not when a multi-billion dollar giant like the RIAA has infinite lawyers at their disposal. In fact, just to prepare for court would cost them tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees.
So, like many other victims, this girl’s family had to swallow their pride and pay up. Don’t you get it? The RIAA is cutting their losses and then some by bullying working families. And yet, who do they give any of this money to? The artists? No, it goes back into the greedy pockets of the major labels so they can sue more people and stay at the top. I can’t believe you’d defend something so criminal. Whatever your opinion of downloading is, nobody has the right to intimidate these people like this.

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/1737/comment-page-1#comment-3193 Reader's Write Thu, 08 Jul 2004 18:18:08 +0000 #comment-3193 Thiis just in - another study showing downloading DOES affect music sales negatively! Go get your facts straight and stop stealing! http://sympatico.msn.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040706.gtpolarajul6/tech/Technology/techBN/sympatico-technology Thiis just in – another study showing downloading DOES affect music sales negatively! Go get your facts straight and stop stealing!

http://sympatico.msn.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040706.gtpolarajul6/tech/Technology/techBN/sympatico-technology

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/1737/comment-page-1#comment-3006 Reader's Write Fri, 02 Jul 2004 20:54:02 +0000 #comment-3006 This is my last post on this subject with you as you don't know what you are talking about. Studies like the Harvard study on downloading that say downloading doesn't affect sales are innacurate - I even tried discussing this with it's authors with no luck after I questioned some points in their study. The bottom line is I have been in the business for over 10 years and once Napster became a household name and people realized they could steal music sales began to really drop. No study can show me (a person actually in the business that is being studied rather than some outside person making assumptions) that downloading hasn't affected sales. The best study to conduct is to ask most people (especially teens) how they get their music and most will tell you that they download rather than buy it. I've been told many times by people "You buy music? Who does anymore!" That proves to me that people are stealing rather than buying. Most know by now that it is wrong but would rather get the music for free and still have $20 to spend. In fact compilations which take all the best songs and put them on one CD have had the biggest drop in sales which counters your argument people don't want to pay $20 for a bad CD. When we give them the option of not buying the album and getting all the hits on one convenient CD then how come no one is buying them? Maybe it's because they are downloading all the hits themselves and making their own CD compilation! My closing statement is that if you don't like the price of and quality a CD (as you clearly don't) then don't buy it! Simple as that! If you don't like my product I don't want you to but it but at the same time It does not give your the right to steal it! End of argument! This is my last post on this subject with you as you don’t know what you are talking about.

Studies like the Harvard study on downloading that say downloading doesn’t affect sales are innacurate – I even tried discussing this with it’s authors with no luck after I questioned some points in their study.

The bottom line is I have been in the business for over 10 years and once Napster became a household name and people realized they could steal music sales began to really drop. No study can show me (a person actually in the business that is being studied rather than some outside person making assumptions) that downloading hasn’t affected sales. The best study to conduct is to ask most people (especially teens) how they get their music and most will tell you that they download rather than buy it. I’ve been told many times by people “You buy music? Who does anymore!” That proves to me that people are stealing rather than buying. Most know by now that it is wrong but would rather get the music for free and still have $20 to spend.

In fact compilations which take all the best songs and put them on one CD have had the biggest drop in sales which counters your argument people don’t want to pay $20 for a bad CD. When we give them the option of not buying the album and getting all the hits on one convenient CD then how come no one is buying them? Maybe it’s because they are downloading all the hits themselves and making their own CD compilation!

My closing statement is that if you don’t like the price of and quality a CD (as you clearly don’t) then don’t buy it! Simple as that! If you don’t like my product I don’t want you to but it but at the same time It does not give your the right to steal it!

End of argument!

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/1737/comment-page-1#comment-2933 Reader's Write Mon, 28 Jun 2004 22:08:34 +0000 #comment-2933 Your circular logic is boring everyone on this thread... Go file a lawsuit... or adapt your marketing techniques. Even the statistics you quote are inaccurate. Neither you nor anyone else can conclusively prove that the "lost sales" caused by downloading are directly effecting record sales. Record sales are slowing because fewer and fewer people can justify $20 for bad albums (Alcoholica- I mean Metallica, Brittany, Justin, etc.). Get a grip and look at reality. Record sales are down, because the majority of the music sucks and it is terribly over priced- Not because people are downloading it. There has been study after study that tells the labels, and you what the problem is and they do not listen. The majority of the studies, show that downloading is no more harmful to sales than the taping of cds and giving them to friends- which I have never seen anyone get sured for. I for one have found it goes a long way toward generating word of mouth PR. Incidently what atrists do you represent- since you seem to be too wrapped up in this issue? Your circular logic is boring everyone on this thread… Go file a lawsuit… or adapt your marketing techniques. Even the statistics you quote are inaccurate.
Neither you nor anyone else can conclusively prove that the “lost sales” caused by downloading are directly effecting record sales.

Record sales are slowing because fewer and fewer people can justify $20 for bad albums (Alcoholica- I mean Metallica, Brittany, Justin, etc.). Get a grip and look at reality. Record sales are down, because the majority of the music sucks and it is terribly over priced- Not because people are downloading it. There has been study after study that tells the labels, and you what the problem is and they do not listen. The majority of the studies, show that downloading is no more harmful to sales than the taping of cds and giving them to friends- which I have never seen anyone get sured for. I for one have found it goes a long way toward generating word of mouth PR.

Incidently what atrists do you represent- since you seem to be too wrapped up in this issue?

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/1737/comment-page-1#comment-2909 Reader's Write Sat, 26 Jun 2004 01:42:49 +0000 #comment-2909 Actually, asshat, you can go to a car lot and share a car. If your buddy buys the car as many of your friends as you can gather can share it till your heart's content. In fact, you're even free to pull it apart piece by piece and make 20 copies of all the pieces and put them back together so all your friends can have their own copy of the car. Don't be an idiot. You aren't taking anything away from anyone by making a copy of a CD. Every CD I buy (and I don't buy CD's from the RIAA labels) gets ripped to my hard drive so I can listen to it in any car in my house as well as my MP3 player. I make at least 2 hard copies of the CD...one for my car and one for my living room stereo...and the original goes into storage so I don't have to worry about destroying the original copy. Somehow we are only buying a license to listen to this music but at the same time we are restricted to only listening to it on the physical medium it is distributed on. Even if we have a valid license we can't get another copy of the media without buying another license. Get your head out of your ass and realize that the RIAA is full of shit and needs to be thrown out with the bathwater. Actually, asshat, you can go to a car lot and share a car. If your buddy buys the car as many of your friends as you can gather can share it till your heart’s content. In fact, you’re even free to pull it apart piece by piece and make 20 copies of all the pieces and put them back together so all your friends can have their own copy of the car. Don’t be an idiot. You aren’t taking anything away from anyone by making a copy of a CD. Every CD I buy (and I don’t buy CD’s from the RIAA labels) gets ripped to my hard drive so I can listen to it in any car in my house as well as my MP3 player. I make at least 2 hard copies of the CD…one for my car and one for my living room stereo…and the original goes into storage so I don’t have to worry about destroying the original copy. Somehow we are only buying a license to listen to this music but at the same time we are restricted to only listening to it on the physical medium it is distributed on. Even if we have a valid license we can’t get another copy of the media without buying another license. Get your head out of your ass and realize that the RIAA is full of shit and needs to be thrown out with the bathwater.

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/1737/comment-page-1#comment-2904 Reader's Write Sat, 26 Jun 2004 00:04:16 +0000 #comment-2904 If they say you bought the rights to listen to the music and not the music itself, doesn't that mean that you can listen to it and change format as you see fit. If you can't move the music from LP to mp3, or from player to player,then they should give you your money back because they are in breach of the contract and public trust when they originally sold you the music. If they say you bought the rights to listen to the music and not the music itself, doesn’t that mean that you can listen to it and change format as you see fit.

If you can’t move the music from LP to mp3, or from player to player,then they should give you your money back because they are in breach of the contract and public trust when they originally sold you the music.

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/1737/comment-page-1#comment-2903 Reader's Write Sat, 26 Jun 2004 00:00:05 +0000 #comment-2903 These lawsuits are going nowhere. Not one of them has even gone to court. All you hear about are hush-hush settlements that only serve as a pr campaign. Filesharing isn't illegal and no-one has been arrested. None of the people the record companies have threatened to sue have ever been arrested for filesharing. It's true people can sue anybody in civil court for frivilous and silly things. It happens all the time and the RIAA are now the kings of unworthy and frivilous civil lawsuits, because they are too cowardly and greedy to really solve the problem. Sue your customers and see if they ever buy anything else from you again. These lawsuits are going nowhere. Not one of them has even gone to court.

All you hear about are hush-hush settlements that only serve as a pr campaign.

Filesharing isn’t illegal and no-one has been arrested.

None of the people the record companies have threatened to sue have ever been arrested for filesharing.

It’s true people can sue anybody in civil court for frivilous and silly things. It happens all the time and the RIAA are now the kings of unworthy and frivilous civil lawsuits, because they are too cowardly and greedy to really solve the problem. Sue your customers and see if they ever buy anything else from you again.

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/1737/comment-page-1#comment-2899 Reader's Write Fri, 25 Jun 2004 23:44:59 +0000 #comment-2899 MUSICIANS... RECORD AND DISTRIBUTE YOURSELF. EVERYBODY ELSE DOWNLOAD UNTIL THE INDUSTRY EITHER ADAPTS OR GOES BROKE. IF YOU DONT LIKE THIS... GUESS WHAT ... IT WONT MATTER. MUSICIANS… RECORD AND DISTRIBUTE YOURSELF.

EVERYBODY ELSE DOWNLOAD UNTIL THE INDUSTRY EITHER ADAPTS OR GOES BROKE.

IF YOU DONT LIKE THIS… GUESS WHAT … IT WONT MATTER.

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/1737/comment-page-1#comment-2898 Reader's Write Fri, 25 Jun 2004 23:40:35 +0000 #comment-2898 Respect is a two way street that starts with self-respect. You cannot have mutual respect without having self-respect first. People will not respect artists who do not have self- respect for themselves or respect for thier fans. Filesharing has nothing to do with the price of music, but rather respect, or lack of. Artist need to EARN that respect from the fans. Your fans are not a inexhaustable resource of mindless masses of people who plunk down thier money for your talent, nor are record companies your keepers. Just as you the artist are unique and have talent as an individual, so is each and everyone of your fans a unique human being, and on that level of humanity you are one in the same. Connect and relate directly with the people and respect will happen. Respect is a two way street that starts with self-respect. You cannot have mutual respect without having self-respect first.

People will not respect artists who do not have self- respect for themselves or respect for thier fans.

Filesharing has nothing to do with the price of music, but rather respect, or lack of.

Artist need to EARN that respect from the fans. Your fans are not a inexhaustable resource of mindless masses of people who plunk down thier money for your talent, nor are record companies your keepers. Just as you the artist are unique and have talent as an individual, so is each and everyone of your fans a unique human being, and on that level of humanity you are one in the same.

Connect and relate directly with the people and respect will happen.

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/1737/comment-page-1#comment-2894 Reader's Write Fri, 25 Jun 2004 21:11:06 +0000 #comment-2894 Your logic doesn't make sense - if people never liked the music then no one would be downloading it! Reality is all that music you say isn't any good people ARE downloading and enjoying. If you don't think it's worth $17 then don't buy it - but don't STEAL it either. Quit making excuses for stealing. Your logic doesn’t make sense – if people never liked the music then no one would be downloading it! Reality is all that music you say isn’t any good people ARE downloading and enjoying.

If you don’t think it’s worth $17 then don’t buy it – but don’t STEAL it either.

Quit making excuses for stealing.

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/1737/comment-page-1#comment-2873 Reader's Write Thu, 24 Jun 2004 23:50:50 +0000 #comment-2873 Thanks. I will try it agin. Thanks. I will try it agin.

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/1737/comment-page-1#comment-2872 Reader's Write Thu, 24 Jun 2004 23:50:20 +0000 #comment-2872 Your logic is circular... Chasing your tail, along with the dinosaur-like industry you are trying hopelessly to protect. The Problem is not the downloading, the problem is that the record labels and marketing organizations refuse to change their marketing strategies and try new things... The law of the land is simply ADAPT OR DIE... and you have one foot in the grave, and the other on a bananna peel. CD sales are down, because the labels got greedy and started trying to change a cheap ($3) cd into an expensive pyramid scheme ($17.00 baseline) for bad music. The music industry picks people to make stars out of, and if the public does not buy it they whine, they complain about profits, they blame everybody but the industry itself (sounds like the Bush administration) refusing to accept it's own mistakes... Try making good new music, be innovative and embrace change, or go extinct. Your logic is circular… Chasing your tail, along with the dinosaur-like industry you are trying hopelessly to protect.

The Problem is not the downloading, the problem is that the record labels and marketing organizations refuse to change their marketing strategies and try new things… The law of the land is simply ADAPT OR DIE… and you have one foot in the grave, and the other on a bananna peel.

CD sales are down, because the labels got greedy and started trying to change a cheap ($3) cd into an expensive pyramid scheme ($17.00 baseline) for bad music. The music industry picks people to make stars out of, and if the public does not buy it they whine, they complain about profits, they blame everybody but the industry itself (sounds like the Bush administration) refusing to accept it’s own mistakes… Try making good new music, be innovative and embrace change, or go extinct.

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/1737/comment-page-1#comment-2865 Reader's Write Thu, 24 Jun 2004 19:58:42 +0000 #comment-2865 OK, tell me what industry you work for and show me that they aren't out to make "corporate profits" as you describe! Every business needs to make a profit else they wouldn't be doing it! How come any other company can make a product, charge more for it and it's OK but when the record business does it you guys say it's a rip off and it justifies you not paying (stealing) for it? Quit making excuses for stealing music! Let me rebut these two comments as well: "We respect artists not the people you choose to be artists and then promote the hell out of until people concede to with brainwashing through repeated radio play. " - Then how come the majority of illegally downloaded music is popular music? You may not like commercial artists but the majority of people stealing their work do! Are you saying if you don't respect them it's OK to steal from them?! "ABout your last point, I don't buy cd's I don't like, but frequently I CAN'T buy the CD's I do like." - I can't find a pair of old Air Jordan's that I want to buy but does that give me the right to steal them from someone I know who has them and won't sell them just because I know where I can take it? I do hear you though that you want to buy it but can't find it but it still doesn't justify the stealing. Let me end by quoting this post from June 22nd that a friend thought I wrote and showed me - and in turn got me on this site reading and debating with you... 22 Jun, 2004 21:49 "That is the most loaded article I've ever read. But, one thing was glossed over...file sharing is ILLEGAL. Sure, I've downloaded a few songs from Kaaza in my time (not anymore now, though), but they are going after people who are doing A LOT of file sharing...and what is filesharing of copyrighted stuff???? It's ILLEGAL. So, I say sue away. People have had their warning. Sure, I think CDs are overpriced. I also think cars are overpriced...but that doesn't mean I can go to the car lot and "share" a car. Buck up and pay the $.99/per song on Napster or iTunes or just buy the CD. Do you really need 1000 plus songs on your computer??? Do you really need that much music? " OK, tell me what industry you work for and show me that they aren’t out to make “corporate profits” as you describe! Every business needs to make a profit else they wouldn’t be doing it!

How come any other company can make a product, charge more for it and it’s OK but when the record business does it you guys say it’s a rip off and it justifies you not paying (stealing) for it?

Quit making excuses for stealing music!

Let me rebut these two comments as well:

“We respect artists not the people you choose to be artists and then promote the hell out of until people concede to with brainwashing through repeated radio play. ” – Then how come the majority of illegally downloaded music is popular music? You may not like commercial artists but the majority of people stealing their work do! Are you saying if you don’t respect them it’s OK to steal from them?!

“ABout your last point, I don’t buy cd’s I don’t like, but frequently I CAN’T buy the CD’s I do like.” – I can’t find a pair of old Air Jordan’s that I want to buy but does that give me the right to steal them from someone I know who has them and won’t sell them just because I know where I can take it? I do hear you though that you want to buy it but can’t find it but it still doesn’t justify the stealing.

Let me end by quoting this post from June 22nd that a friend thought I wrote and showed me – and in turn got me on this site reading and debating with you…

22 Jun, 2004 21:49
“That is the most loaded article I’ve ever read. But, one thing was glossed over…file sharing is ILLEGAL. Sure, I’ve downloaded a few songs from Kaaza in my time (not anymore now, though), but they are going after people who are doing A LOT of file sharing…and what is filesharing of copyrighted stuff???? It’s ILLEGAL. So, I say sue away. People have had their warning. Sure, I think CDs are overpriced. I also think cars are overpriced…but that doesn’t mean I can go to the car lot and “share” a car. Buck up and pay the $.99/per song on Napster or iTunes or just buy the CD. Do you really need 1000 plus songs on your computer??? Do you really need that much music? “

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/1737/comment-page-1#comment-2864 Reader's Write Thu, 24 Jun 2004 19:42:52 +0000 #comment-2864 Thanks for not swearing! 1) Why would anyone go after used CD stores? Someone legitimately bought the CD once, owns it and if they decide to sell it that is their business. Car companies don't go after used car lots for selling a car that they sold originally! The problem is people who download the songs for free and don't pay anyone for it - not people reselling something they already bought. 2) Not sure on the exact breakdown but I'm assuming the online retailer gets most of the GROSS revenue - doesn't necessarily mean that they make a profit though. 3) I'm not arguing with you lending tools or a CD because if you read carefully what my msg contains it says there is no problem lending someone a CD to listen to but if they make a copy that is a problem as they now have the exact same disc without paying for it. If I lent you a lawnmower and you put it in a machine and it made an exact duplicate for free that you could use anytime you wanted and I still had my lawnmower do you think that's fair? 4) Let artists start their own labels - many do and labels aren't stopping them. What is stopping them is the money needed to record, market and promote on a level that is needed to make the mass population aware of their music so that they hopefully buy it. Try going to a bank and ask for a loan to make a record! That's why record companies who are a bank fund artists to allow them to make thier music and in return expect to make money for doing so. Just like the bank who lent me money for my house wants to make money in return for the mortgage. I don't see anyone complaining about the banks though... Tell me what business you are in and imagine someone no longer paying for what you make because they can download it for free... How would you pay for your rent/mortgage, food, clothing, etc. It wouldn't be nice would it? Well that's what is happening to us. Think about it... Thanks for not swearing!

1) Why would anyone go after used CD stores? Someone legitimately bought the CD once, owns it and if they decide to sell it that is their business. Car companies don’t go after used car lots for selling a car that they sold originally! The problem is people who download the songs for free and don’t pay anyone for it – not people reselling something they already bought.

2) Not sure on the exact breakdown but I’m assuming the online retailer gets most of the GROSS revenue – doesn’t necessarily mean that they make a profit though.

3) I’m not arguing with you lending tools or a CD because if you read carefully what my msg contains it says there is no problem lending someone a CD to listen to but if they make a copy that is a problem as they now have the exact same disc without paying for it. If I lent you a lawnmower and you put it in a machine and it made an exact duplicate for free that you could use anytime you wanted and I still had my lawnmower do you think that’s fair?

4) Let artists start their own labels – many do and labels aren’t stopping them. What is stopping them is the money needed to record, market and promote on a level that is needed to make the mass population aware of their music so that they hopefully buy it. Try going to a bank and ask for a loan to make a record!

That’s why record companies who are a bank fund artists to allow them to make thier music and in return expect to make money for doing so. Just like the bank who lent me money for my house wants to make money in return for the mortgage. I don’t see anyone complaining about the banks though…

Tell me what business you are in and imagine someone no longer paying for what you make because they can download it for free… How would you pay for your rent/mortgage, food, clothing, etc. It wouldn’t be nice would it? Well that’s what is happening to us. Think about it…

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/1737/comment-page-1#comment-2853 Reader's Write Thu, 24 Jun 2004 07:12:59 +0000 #comment-2853 I do care that's why I'm trying to convice you guys that P2P is stealing. Except I'm diplomatic about it... Try swearing in a court or on TV and see how people respect what you are saying. It's hard to treat you serious when you can't even have a decent conversation. The sky is blue and I can show you it is blue but you'll still think it's green. Downloading copyrighted material is stealing but no matter what I argue you won't agree. I do care that’s why I’m trying to convice you guys that P2P is stealing. Except I’m diplomatic about it… Try swearing in a court or on TV and see how people respect what you are saying. It’s hard to treat you serious when you can’t even have a decent conversation.

The sky is blue and I can show you it is blue but you’ll still think it’s green. Downloading copyrighted material is stealing but no matter what I argue you won’t agree.

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/1737/comment-page-1#comment-2842 Reader's Write Thu, 24 Jun 2004 02:02:18 +0000 #comment-2842 I just did a test sign-on with no problem. Try again : ) Cheers! I just did a test sign-on with no problem. Try again : )
Cheers!

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/1737/comment-page-1#comment-2835 Reader's Write Wed, 23 Jun 2004 23:13:46 +0000 #comment-2835 No Swearing this time I Promise.........Lets look at another aspect that for some reason the RIAA seems to ignore.....why is it the RIAA doesn't go after the second hand stores and alike for reselling CD's. They sell billions of CD's a year collectivly and the owners profit personally without paying anything to the industry or Artists. Lets go after the little guy instead thats giving it away. hmmm I wonder why that is ???? (2) The RIAA is 100% self serving and have NO INTEREST in helping the Artists make more money, they only want to make sure their pockets are full so they can own million dollar homes and ride around in fancy cars....Maybe you can tell me honestly how the money on a .99 song is distributed, that would be interesting to know....Im sure it will show who's really making the money. Also the point I was making with the tools & lawnmower was that I bought it and I should be allowed to share it with whom I choose.....If some person I don't even know see's a sign that says free to use,I have the right to let him use it, same as I do a CD or song....Yes the Artists do have the right to make a profit for their hard work but the RIAA does not......Yes they pay the Artists first but could collect double the profits....that is a form of loansharking, and the last time I looked loansharking is still ILLEGAL, but of course we are talking BIG BUSINESS now aren't we.....Changing the name to Copyright Rights doesn't change the out come. It's about time the Artists started their own Record Industry, so their music could be sold at a fair price, but then again Im sure the RIAA would find away to stop that too......Your arguement holds no Merit what so ever for the Artists only for the Greedy RIAA. ......Cobbie No Swearing this time I Promise………Lets look at another aspect that for some reason the RIAA seems to ignore…..why is it the RIAA doesn’t go after the second hand stores and alike for reselling CD’s. They sell billions of CD’s a year collectivly and the owners profit personally without paying anything to the industry or Artists. Lets go after the little guy instead thats giving it away. hmmm I wonder why that is ???? (2) The RIAA is 100% self serving and have NO INTEREST in helping the Artists make more money, they only want to make sure their pockets are full so they can own million dollar homes and ride around in fancy cars….Maybe you can tell me honestly how the money on a .99 song is distributed, that would be interesting to know….Im sure it will show who’s really making the money. Also the point I was making with the tools & lawnmower was that I bought it and I should be allowed to share it with whom I choose…..If some person I don’t even know see’s a sign that says free to use,I have the right to let him use it, same as I do a CD or song….Yes the Artists do have the right to make a profit for their hard work but the RIAA does not……Yes they pay the Artists first but could collect double the profits….that is a form of loansharking, and the last time I looked loansharking is still ILLEGAL, but of course we are talking BIG BUSINESS now aren’t we…..Changing the name to Copyright Rights doesn’t change the out come. It’s about time the Artists started their own Record Industry, so their music could be sold at a fair price, but then again Im sure the RIAA would find away to stop that too……Your arguement holds no Merit what so ever for the Artists only for the Greedy RIAA. ……Cobbie

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/1737/comment-page-1#comment-2834 Reader's Write Wed, 23 Jun 2004 23:04:30 +0000 #comment-2834 The Reagan administration and most subsequent Republican scourges..... The Reagan administration and most subsequent Republican scourges…..

]]>