[strela]

I guess the RIAA objects to piracy when they're getting screwed, but not when the labels are screwing the artists.

Isn't that a matter for the artists and the labels to sort out between themselves? Nobody holds a gun to the artist's heads to make them sign with record labels. Seems to me that most of the screwing going on between artists and labels is consensual in nature.

There are certainly valid arguments to be made for whichever side of this controversy you find yourself. Record labels have indeed screwed artists, and RIAA comes off as a bunch of church lady blowhards who are trying to line their pockets at the expense of the truly talented. However, I just can't help thinking that music pirates who justify their theft of other people's property by citing the misdeeds of others don't have much of a moral high ground to stand on.

(And no, I'm not insinuating in any way that you are a music pirate. Its the ones who admit they do it but don't have any moral problem with stealing other people's work who bug me).

[HairOfTheDog]

I know it is wrong, and yet I have done it.

Worse, I have downloaded movies I love, made by people who deserve my money. Now, in that case, the download did not replace my money. I bought the DVD anyway when it came out, because the download was not as good. But a teensy bit of technology would fix that, allowing me to download films that would be showable on my big TV, rather than my computer. Then the movie people will be in trouble too.

We shouldn't be able to get it for free. Music and movie makers deserve to be paid for the work we want. I just think we are closing the barn door after the horses have escaped. How could we stop it now? The sites don't even have to be in this country or operate by our laws.

[Caipirabob]

However, I just can't help thinking that music pirates who justify their theft of other people's property by citing the misdeeds of others don't have much of a moral high ground to stand on.

I think the issue in the music industry all comes down to market forces. In a another scenario, like cigarettes, the price was raised (for whatever reason) in such a way that it far exceeded perceived value. In response, a black market grew which met the demand of the consumer.

In the music industry, the demand for a $20 CD does not exist at the level that the industry hopes for and the perceived value and content of today's standard musical offering is not enough to compel the consumer to buy it. I would argue that most individuals are interested in persuing legal means of acquiring their music, but with the current pricing structure, the market convulsed and peer-to-peer sharing became the preferred means of the consumer to acquire their music.

I'm not condoning or condeming it, just making a statement of what I see are the facts of the situation. The music industry can either profit or perish by those hard facts.

[IncPen]

Isn't that a matter for the artists and the labels to sort out between themselves? Nobody holds a gun to the artist's heads to make them sign with record labels. Seems to me that most of the screwing going on between artists and labels is consensual in nature.

Maybe so, but I have a different view.

Intellectual property law in this country is so badly written and rife with special interests (can anyone say "Disney Copyright Giveaway of 1998"?) that the farce had to come to this sooner or later.

For Hilary Rosen to hide behind "the law" is spurious, when she and her ilk bought the law they're hiding behind.