[motexva]

I thought the courts had already thrown out a filesharing lawsuit. I am uneasy about this p2p technology, but this is an act of desperation from the RIAA. They're looking at a future where the artist will be able to distribute music directly to their market without the RIAA middleman.

The telling factor is that there is a distinct minority of artists that support these heavy handed tactics - just a handful. For example, Radiohead's new album appeared on the internet weeks before it's official release date. The band hasn't complained a bit, because the band gets all their money from touring. When you buy a CD, the money goes to a bunch of suits. Do they deserve their cut? Certainly - they pay for the recording and marketing of the titles.

But the fact is, they're carrying this stuff too far. Abuses have been made with the p2p networks, but RIAA doesn't want to stop there. They have argued in court that any copying of a CD is verboten, even if I transfer a copy to tape for a friend. My father checks classical music CDs out of the library and copies them on the computer - this is illegal in their eyes. There have been efforts to stop use of TIVO and other digital TV recorders. There was an organized effort by RIAA a few years ago to go after the sellers of USED CDs.

These guys are monsters, and it's hard to work up any pity for them. I believe their rights to their property have been compromised, but it's real hard for me and a lot of others to feel sorry for them at all.

[Jhoffa_]

If "they" are "monsters" and generally so bad to the bands, why do the bands do deals with them?

Let me guess, it's because they somehow "have to"

Isn't it?

[wizzler]

I thought the courts had already thrown out a filesharing lawsuit.

The judge ruled that a particular program could not be held liable for its users actions. The judge went on to say that the users' actions were clearly copyright infringement. But that's not what that suit was about.

Yes, sorry to say, but what your father is engaging in is copyright infringement, and that should be pretty obvious. He didn't pay for a copy of the material. It's not his to own.

As for artists and their "support" -- it would be wise to remember that "file-sharing" has taken on these kind of quasi-spiritual dimensions among big blocks of people online. Speaking out against it is a potential PR disaster. Artists and labels are both fine with the labels taking the black eye. Anyhow, many artists ARE publicly against online copyright infringement. See http://www.musicunited.net.