http://www.minnpost.com/stories/2009/06/19/9654/download_decision_its_meaning_for_music_industry_and_consumers

Mike Spence sounds like he’s only read one side of the coin and thinks he knows what it’s all about.

“This is a huge victory for artists, businesses that create commerce with the artists’ content, and groups like the RIAA, who serve as a consolidated voice for those artists and businesses.” Is the biggest pile of BS I’ve ever read. This is not a victory for artists and it clearly shows just how out of touch with reality and the customers these people are.

“Downloading copyrighted music violates two of the owner’s exclusive rights — making copies of the song, and then distributing those copies.” The owners are the labels, not the artists, so again, artists do NOT benefit from lawsuits.

Artists would benefit if the prices on iTunes and the like were dropped in half. Artists would benefit if they sold their content with a “pay what you feel is right” after sampling concept. Artists would have control if they didn’t sign away their temporary monopolistic privileges (aka ‘rights’) to artistically challenged-commerce-only-focused-technologically-challenged-slow-to-adapt-greedy corporations run by blind people.

“As far as music downloading, it is here to stay, and will grow to surpass physical [CD] sales. Now, more people will hopefully think twice before choosing where to get that new digital song they want. There are many legitimate, affordable and even some legal, free sites. This case probably gave everyone about 2 million reasons to do the right thing.” Sound a bit contradictory, if downloading will grow, how can you assume they are going to be thinking twice on doing the ‘right’ thing for the labels (not for consumers or artists)?

Right, back to sleep Mick Spence, sorry buddy but you need to read more than pamphlets from the RIAA to get a picture of what’s really going on.