[NotJustAnotherPrettyFace]

The law enforcement is allowed to set fines - the fines are supposed to a) be a deterrent and b) be punishment for the crime. Stealing candy vs. paying a fine for a misdemeanor crime? Hmmmmm.....

Paying $.89 for a song? Is that too much to ask?

BTW, I'm a music publisher.

[Centurion2000]

Paying $.89 for a song? Is that too much to ask?

So for 10 songs 10 bucks? Nope, too much. When CD albums are 5 bucks I'd be glad to start buying them again.

Oh, and generate some decent music.

[RobRoy]

For most songs. Yes.

[L98Fiero]

"Paying $.89 for a song? Is that too much to ask?"

How many times do I have to pay for a song before it is mine to do with as I please? You expect me to pay $.89 for "my Sharona" when I've bought the damn thing 5 or more times throughout the years. Am I paying for the medium or the music? What exactly is the shelf life of my purchase? When do my rights to listen to what I have paid good money for end? How is this any different from recording a song off the radio? Why were double-cassette recorders invented and sold to non-recording industry consumers? Why were two whole generations allowed to copy music at will and now people are not allowed?

I'm 39 and I don't watch MTV. I'm not paying any more money for songs I have heard all my life for free.

[TChris]

BTW, I'm a music publisher.

OK, I have a few questions to ask you.

Why does the industry sue people for the exact same activity that they pay for others to do?

A) The recording industry pays millions of dollars, above and below the table, every year to promote their music on the radio.
See:
Will Congress tackle pay-for-play?

SONY SETTLES PAYOLA INVESTIGATION
Wikipedia: Payola
You Mean Music Companies Pay To Get Songs On The Radio?

B) Radio broadcasts are free for anyone to listen.
C) Radio broadcasts are legal to record for personal use.

If millions of people can hear the same songs for free on the radio, and see the videos for free on their televisions, and legally record both for their personal use, and the industry pays promoters and broadcasters to do this, how can they claim with a straight face that this activity will destroy them?

Downloading music from the Internet is not conceptually different from the radio station - radio receiver - tape recorder process that has been available and legal for decades. Only the technology differs.

I think the RIAA can't tell their head from a hole in the ground. To be paying both promoters to get songs played for free on the radio and lawyers to sue those who put their songs on the Internet shows an uncoordinated and unmitigated greed.