i will not comment on software or the film industry- but only music. i pose this question not to hhz, but to all that are bitching about this today:

why should artists not be compensated for their hard work? tell me why. for every brittney spears or madonna, there's a death cab for cutie or the decemberists.

can't spend $20 on buying a CD? guess what- don't.

that's right. don't. you aren't entitled to free music. you'd like to think it, but you aren't. you aren't entitled to that free entertainment just like you aren't entitled to free tvs, free dvd players, free xboxs, free movie tickets or free concert tickets.

why should something that CAN be distributed online be any different that something that can't? people should be compensated for their work- digital or not.

those companies which front the money (and trust me, it doesn't take pennies to get those CDs to retail) should be allowed to get their investment back.

we'd like to think that they're all heartless big corporations. guess what, tons of them are neither heartless nor big. nor are they publicly traded on a stock market, nor do they sell more than 15,000 copies of a record (in a good year). and i'm not talking about your cousins shitty beatles cover band or some lame ass jam band that's playing at the local community college. i'm not talking about your friend down the street who started a record label which will release only his bands burned CDR.

i'm talking about bands like spoon, the shins, sujfan stevens, arcade fire and all their buddies and labels.

p2p put cuts a sizable chunk from the amount of money (and thereby music) these small companies and artists make. and guess what, lots of your favorite smaller (but nationally known) artists still have day jobs. they still work cook lines, front doors and small record stores across the country. they're aren't on "cribs" nor will they ever be. and, most likely, their careers will last only 15 years- they only real amount of time they'll have to make a living off of their art.

you'd love to think you're only fucking sony/warner/bmi/universal and best buy/tower/walmart over. but guess what... you might be fucking them but good old sonic boom/easy street are feeling it along with touch and go/secretly candian/kill rock stars and all the mom and pop labels and stores.

you might think you're "stickin' it to the man" but your also dickin' over mom and pop.

free music is bullshit. bullshit.

bullshit.

Artists see very little (if any) revenue directly from CD sales. Most artist receive the bulk of their revenue from tours, licensing distribution/adverts/image, and contracts that may or may not include an insignificant percentage of media sales. A significant number of the artists themselves have made numerous attempts to make CD sales and the lack of a real cut an issue.

Artists themselves are not satisfied with the RIAA itself if you will go here to see.

Now beyond the ethics, which you don't really know much about since you think this has to do with a battle waged by the artists, not the representatives of the music industry who reap the rewards (except the few images they bring along for the ride while the rest are off slaving to make money by touring non-stop, earning less than what they really should), but there are other concerns that come to question you don't get.

War drives industry. p2p is an invaluable industrial tool for tranporting any type of data across an unstructured network using a variety of nifty techniques...that's all it is and it is used for much more than stealing music. Brought to you by thieves, a range of users from universities to scientists use p2p services to transport large amounts of critical information.

The music that is used as an example is not the indie label, it is the Brittney Spears and Metallica that they are pissed about. It is the gold sellers.

The RIAA doesn't fight for the indie artist, they move hard against them to make sure that independent labels have the toughest time possible to get shelf and ad space at major distribution vendors. They even charge premiums to local shops who peddle music because they don't deal in the volumes the chain stores do.

This isn't about the music because p2p services have promoted a far wider exposure to music than radio is capable of.

It's not about ripped off either because the same people who are ripping off this music are the same ones that would record the songs from radio so they could listen to it on demand.

It's not even about being too poor to buy music because most humans will steal if no-one is looking (finders keepers).

It is about sticking it to the industry that is killing music Grant and I'm afraid you have yet to show you know anything about that subject as you walk the line of squaresville.

Numerous studies have shown that p2p services have drove up sales of music, especially the per diem downloading services offered by Apple, Napster, and others. There has yet to be any proof showing that the p2p industry has actually harmed the industry in any way other than that people who wouldn't have bought the CD anyway have ripped it off because they could. The economic model in use by those who create bootlegs (copies of music that are packaged identical to retail packaging) has shown that all the RIAA needs to do is decrease their prices to $3 for CD's and they would see a rise in sales that would exceed current sales by the proportion of those buying pirated editions.

There is no lost revenue Grant, there is a desire for control.

I for one do not think the RIAA has the right to prevent me from copying a CD because there are legit uses for the technology that go far beyond stealing music.

That is what is at stake Grant and that is why I propose "sticking it to the man".

You don't see Microsoft Employee's getting a per CD piece of the pie do you Grant? What about them?

i think i understand a bit more about the music industry than you do. sorry, it's just an assumption. let's go bit by bit, shall we?

artists see very little (if any) revenue directly from CD sales

i'm not going to argue this point by point against you, but this entirely depends on how your deal is structured. some wil some won't. most mid-level successful indie-level artists will see a sizeable income from their record sales once the advance has been recouped. even in steve albini's "everyone is fucked" world, an artist would still receive 13% of a major label deal. let us also not forget the thousands of mom and pop record stores. you forgot them.

Artists themselves are not satisfied with the RIAA itself if you will go here to see.

That's a pretty impressive list of folks. No... wait... it isn't. And I can't find a quote against the RIAA on that page, or in support of illegal downloading. Yes, many artists don't like the RIAA. I can't say I support them suing individuals, as many artists do not. However, a majority of them support the efforts to stop illegal downloading. Most of them won't come out and say it (as it's seems it's quite unpopular to ask people to pay for things now-a-days) but they want to be compensated for their work.

Now beyond the ethics

Really, how does one get beyond the ethics? That's pretty nice. Can I get beyond the ethics when I decide to go steal that car in the parking lot? Let's hope.

Wasn't I making an ethical point about stealing someones intellectual property?

War drives industry.

We're talking about music here. Not GE. Get real.

The RIAA doesn't fight for the indie artist, they move hard against them to make sure that independent labels have the toughest time possible to get shelf and ad space at major distribution vendors. They even charge premiums to local shops who peddle music because they don't deal in the volumes the chain stores do.

Really... when's the last time you worked at an independent record label? Cause, I'd like to know. This has no basis in reality. Please look up the definition of what the RIAA is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIAA. They have nothing to do with distribution or retail. That is absurd and totally baseless.

Is the RIAA working hard directly for indie labels? No. Will the work that the RIAA is doing to stop illegal p2p file sharing help independant artists and their record companies? Yes.

It's not even about being too poor to buy music because most humans will steal if no-one is looking (finders keepers).

That's a great arguement- "Stealing... We'd All Do it If No One Was Looking!" Please, make a bumper sticker for me.

Numerous studies have shown that p2p services have drove up sales of music, especially the per diem downloading services offered by Apple, Napster, and others.

Guess what, Apple and Napster. Yeah, they charge you to get music. They won't be effected by todays ruling. Read the article you cited. Those who'll be effected will be: “One who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright".

The economic model in use by those who create bootlegs (copies of music that are packaged identical to retail packaging) has shown that all the RIAA needs to do is decrease their prices to $3 for CD's and they would see a rise in sales that would exceed current sales by the proportion of those buying pirated editions.

That "economic model" that bootleggers use (btw, thanks for clarifying what bootlegs are) is called "stealing". Sure, it's pretty nice to only charge $3 less for a product you had nothing to do with the creation, production, and promotion of. Sounds like a great "economic model" to me. I stole my neighbors TV... I bet I could only charge $50 for it. If only Sony wasn't so damn stingy, these things would be flying out the door!

It is about sticking it to the industry that is killing music Grant and I'm afraid you have yet to show you know anything about that subject as you walk the line of squaresville.

Do you have any idea what I do? No. Please refrain from making statements about what you believe I know and do not know.

Uh, I said that they received a small percentage, if any at all. Considering that the artist is the creator shouldn't they receive the bulk of profit instead of the handlers being well, the source for the revenue?

Okay, so your using your breakdown of the popular point average, let's let Negativland give it to you since you're too lazy to do a point by point with an example of a fair to middlin' record contract at 13 points.

Advance: $ 250,000
Manager's cut: $ 37,500
Legal fees: $ 10,000
Recording Budget: $ 150,000
Producer's advance: $ 50,000
Studio fee: $ 52,500
Drum Amp, Mic and Phase "Doctors": $ 3,000
Recording tape: $ 8,000
Equipment rental: $ 5,000
Cartage and Transportation: $ 5,000
Lodgings while in studio: $ 10,000
Catering: $ 3,000
Mastering: $ 10,000
Tape copies, reference CDs, shipping tapes, misc. expenses: $ 2,000
Video budget: $ 30,000
Cameras: $ 8,000
Crew: $ 5,000
Processing and transfers: $ 3,000
Off-line: $ 2,000
On-line editing: $ 3,000
Catering: $ 1,000
Stage and construction: $ 3,000
Copies, couriers, transportation: $ 2,000
Director's fee: $ 3,000
Album Artwork: $ 5,000
Promotional photo shoot and duplication: $ 2,000
Band fund: $ 15,000
New fancy professional drum kit: $ 5,000
New fancy professional guitars [2]: $ 3,000
New fancy professional guitar amp rigs [2]: $ 4,000
New fancy potato-shaped bass guitar: $ 1,000
New fancy rack of lights bass amp: $ 1,000
Rehearsal space rental: $ 500
Big blowout party for their friends: $ 500
Tour expense [5 weeks]: $ 50,875
Bus: $ 25,000
Crew [3]: $ 7,500
Food and per diems: $ 7,875
Fuel: $ 3,000
Consumable supplies: $ 3,500
Wardrobe: $ 1,000
Promotion: $ 3,000
Tour gross income: $ 50,000
Agent's cut: $ 7,500
Manager's cut: $ 7,500
Merchandising advance: $ 20,000
Manager's cut: $ 3,000
Lawyer's fee: $ 1,000
Publishing advance: $ 20,000
Manager's cut: $ 3,000
Lawyer's fee: $ 1,000
Record sales: 250,000 @ $12 =
$3,000,000
Gross retail revenue Royalty: [13% of 90% of retail]:
$ 351,000
Less advance: $ 250,000
Producer's points: [3% less $50,000 advance]:
$ 40,000
Promotional budget: $ 25,000
Recoupable buyout from previous label: $ 50,000
Net royalty: $ -14,000

The following is a list of artists who signed the JustSayNo petition demanding that the RIAA leave music lovers alone (don't care if you like them or not Grant, these are artists who stand up for copyleft):

Miriam Rainsford aka iriXx
Daniel James
Signed:
Negativland - www.negativland.com
Kris 'Thrash' Weston (formerly of the Orb, director of bLiP records -
www.justablip.co.uk)
iriXx (Miriam Rainsford), www.copyleftmedia.org.uk
mindlobster - www.mindlobster.com
Daniel James - www.x-11.info
sylvi macCormac - www.sylvi.ca
Carya Amara (Kevin Busby) - www.earthrid.com
George Ziemann - www.azoz.com and friends of the Wizards of AzOz:
John Hayden (Hayden's Wall)
Ian Wright (Hayden's Wall)
Michael Wright (Hayden's Wall)
Cara Hayden (Cara LaFemme)
Michael T. Wright (The Facts)
Deborah S. Staires, Ed.D.
Gene Hilbert
Chris Hattingh (Too Old to Rock)
Jenn Hartmann
Hank Tomlin
Eric St. Cyr (Ignition)
Rob Hinkal (ILYaimy)
L.Y.F.E. Kids
Robert A. Rich II (Empire Day)
Mike "Schmoo" Steely (Electric Gypsy)
Andrea Wallace (Electric Gypsy)
Ross Steely (Electric Gypsy)
Bert Ross (Jerolyn)
Chuck Heffner (aka Fat Chuck)
Steve West
John Robert Cox
Michael McElroy
Wes Wilson
William G. Hartwell
Norman P. Hodges
Badly Wooden Head
Paul Giampaolo
Jeremy Mitchel
Joshua M. Gordon
Tim Morningstar
Ryan Russell
James Danner
William Arneson
Craig Quillen
Devyn Geremia
Jeffrey L. Gleason
Zachary Korte
Patrick Saweikis
Russel W. Fausnight
Greg Starling
Anthony Kruz III
Alex Hillesland
Nathan Levinson
Philippe Larock
Ronnie Patterson
Scott Bruffey
Josh Prince
Jeffrey Buckholtz
Aaron Frazier (The Old Dogs at Play)
Joshua Dyke
Patrick Gifford Mauretti
Chad Hulsley
Neil Alan Steininger
Grant Peterson
Sgt. Abbigail Kappeler (US Army)
James Twyford
David Maruca
R. Randall Gooding
John Columbo, Jr.
Scott McFarland
Joe McGuire (tinfoilmusic.com)
Steven Davis
Benjamin A. Hunter
Nathan Marquez
Jason Walker
Joseph Szoke (BlueCollarCrime.com)
Sean McManus
David M. McLean (SDML)
Taylor Kenneth Kerns
Blase
Mike Ohrum
Wayne Smythe
Wil Wheaton
T. Spikes
Bill Sellers
Steve Franko IV
Barbara Harley
Ralph Gatton
Insane Wayne
ashleigh j
Brian R. Boyko
Marshall A. Jones (Dark Holler)
Jeff Saxton

I've done some work in both indi/pirate radio and for K Records as well as a bit of this and that for Ninja Tune out of the UK.

One get's beyond ethics when they step outside of the unreasonable boundaries defined by popular opinion of the day. Alfred Nobel did it when he blew up many an assistant developing nitro for the cause, Ghandi did it when he stepped outside of British oppression using civil disobedience to drive change, going back a bit farther Galileo did it when he pointed out the Earth wasn't the center of the Universe.

The reason why we are stepping beyond the ethics is because you and I differ on ethical views. I think it is okay to stand up against oppression, exploitation, and straight up evil while you think it is better to vote change into being. I think your way is stupid, you think mine is stupid. Cool but why not try taking what is there and answering it instead of inventing shit like stealing cars to make this a bit more personal than it should? (i.e. I'm not promoting shoplifting here, I'm promoting downloading a file composed of data that can be decoded to produce music that wouldn't have been purchased anyway).

Yes Grant, you were making your ethical point...the problem is that your ethical point does not dictate the rules of society. Society is demonstrated by their actions and the volume of global downloaders negates the broad spectrum ethics you'd like to apply to the n00b warez downloader. Your ethics are out of step with reality and have been since the question of recordable media was first put on the table against Sony. This isn't a new fight, it's just more public because accessibility to high quality music is there for the taking without controls.

When I say "War Drives Industry" I do expect you can muster firing whatever neurons it takes to see the analogy. With every maneuver in play by the RIAA the cracking community responds with better technology to devastate DRM. Cute response on the subject but I expected better.

No grant, not just apple and napster. Have a look at the following wide array of studies that show that the over blown claims of p2p's negative impact are simply false.

The Effect of File Sharing on Record Sales: An Empirical Analysis

Peer to Peer Networking and Radio Play: An unexplored link.

TIME FOR THE RECORDING INDUSTRY TO FACE THE MUSIC:
THE POLITICAL, SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF PEER-TO-PEER
COMMUNICATIONS NETWORKS.

There's just three among the rather plentiful studies that show locking up content is an evil thing despite the whining of the RIAA. But let's take this to Hillary Rosen, former head of the RIAA:

Steve Jobs, let my iPOD go

Grant, honestly...I don't care what you do. If you work in the biz then there's a conflict of interest present that probably negates your faculties of reason...the survival trait of sacrificing reality so that your construct can keep going despite the damage it causes.

What it comes down to is that the maneuvers of the RIAA, MPAA, and BSA are siting technological development. Purchasers of music are bound by an increasingly complex set of rules regarding what they can and cannot do with the media they buy, controlled by people contributing lots of money to candidates to make sure they retain control as a third party.

When I say you are a square it's because you almost seem like a conservative wolf in progressive clothing. You dislike my motivation and action which is neat as can be but you continually try and address points by either spinning what you can or just ignoring large parts of a post.

Again, and I'll state this as flat as I can so you don't miss it, this isn't about the money artists receive. This is about the technology that is being threatend by copyright holders who would like to control what you play, how you play it, and what else you can do with a piece of technology.

Now I'd like to drop a story from a friend that should put this in perspective for the artist. A friend of mine's father was quite the Dead Head and followed Jerry around everywhere. A rather wealthy chap this guy recorded every Dead concert he went to but not because he wanted to sell it. He recorded everything because he loved the Dead and never wanted to forget the experience.

One day the Dead were playing in Japan but they wouldn't let this guy into the show because he had a crappy recorder in his hand (to hide the far nicer system incorporated into hat and jacket). After 8 attempts to get in with the hand held recorder this guy who had spent over $75,000 in ticket sales, merchandise, and traveling had to fork out $8500 to make a licensed recording.

He made the recording but this was the last Dead concert he went to and the last bit of favor that he would send Jerry's way.

Something to think about in your quest for compensation is that there are limits to what the consumer will take and it won't be the RIAA who gets blamed but the artists themselves for signing away their integrity to get that way too important contract.

If I might interject…

As an amateur musician trying to get a break, I love the idea of P2P file swapping. You see, right now I can’t get a break. So I take my music, put it on the internet, and people get to listen to it. One friend tells another, the next thing you know you start seeing faces in the crowd when you play. Then more people show up. Then there becomes a buzz. The next thing you know people are searching out your music. While I agree that artists deserve compensation for their work, I also have to say that if you are creating something merely for profit then you are in the wrong field, and you should quit and get a job in marketing. Seriously. The fact is I love to create, and whether I’m getting paid or not I’m still going to create. If I ever get big and huge musically (I’m already big and huge physically) maybe my tune will change, and I’ll start moaning about how I’m not getting paid while I’m driving around in my Bentley sipping Kristal and wearing my bling. Record companies for the most part are big conglomerate corporations, and they in fact own several small labels as subsidiaries. If you’ve ever seen “I Am Trying to Break Your Heart” you can see a bit of how that works.

Now, while I do support P2P sharing, there is something else that bothers me even more, and that’s the commercial use of music. Every day we are barraged by commercials ad nauseum using contemporary music, such as the Diet Pepsi commercial that has a bunch of cans dancing to ‘Blitzkrieg Bop’ by the Ramones, or ‘Buena’ by Morphine in a Miller Genuine Draft ad. I even heard ‘Should I Stay or Should I Go’ on an ad for a fucking RV show! Now, this is where I see the true evil, the publishing rights to music being sold out from the artists for commercial purposes. Who owns these rights? The record companies. When artists are young and wanting a break they sign the rights away and this is the result. Great songs forever marginalized to be nothing more than an annoying commercial ditty. Now that’s an outrage.

This is, I'm sorry, just beyond the pale. The fact of the matter is, its stealing. It may be the kind of stealing that we knowingly wink about, that we shrug our shoulders and say "no big deal about" but its stealing.

All of the Steve Albini arguments in the world (and I love him as much as the next former indie musician who gave up because the money sucked) can't get you around the fact that it is stealing.

The case against society, the case against the system, even the case against the crappiness of mainstream bands, can't get you around the personal responsibility (yes, that's the word "responsibility" and I am still a llifelong lefty and democrat) you hold for stealing music.

Bands probably do get screwed by shitty contracts and by sleazy managers. Most money probably does go to the corporate office and not enough probably gets to the musicians. But when it comes to evaluating the ethical decision around whether you should be allowed to steal intellectual property, i have to say that we should all be a little more ashamed about it.

Now look, if you want to give your music away via a website and you are the creator of the music, you should do that. Most indie bands send their songs out wide and far. But if I write a song or develop a cure for cancer and you start selling ti or giving it away without my consent, you are stealing from me. end of story.

You can argue the economics all you want. But stealing is stealing.

Oh and by the way, don't call people square just cuz they disagree with you. If that becomes acceptable then I'd have to call you an ill informed hack. And you wouldn't want me to do that would you?

thanks for quoting albini... never read that one before **yawn**

i obviously don't understand what this conversation is about. i thought we were talking about intellectual property rights, but you want to talk about "the technology that is being threatend by copyright holders who would like to control what you play, how you play it, and what else you can do with a piece of technology".

i want to talk about intellectual property rights, and you want to talk about your iPod. i don't give a shit about your iPod or your vote-o-tron 2000.

i want to discuss whether it is right or not to download intellectual property which others have ASKED you to pay for and which others have SPENT MONEY TO MAKE.

either you support artists, the entire community behind them, those which have made you aware that they even fucking exsist, or you don't.

those who illegally download obviously do not support the arts, or blindly believe that their just fucking over "the man".

well, you go ahead and fuck over "the man"! you go for it!

sincerely,
a conservative wolf in progressive clothing

I sure would like it if you did call me an ill informed hack but I'd hope you'd at least back it up with some line of reasoning.

I haven't once said that stealing is wrong. I, like most of you, learned from Peter Cottontale of the dangers of thievery. I like you also like the heroic thievery undertaken in films like Ocean's 11.

I like balance because it allows for variables in a non-sepia world you see.

Consider if you will that many people must steal to live, as my primary title indicated. Licking crumbs references the bottom feeders of our robust moral civilization. Those who have little choice but to live off of what is but the least rotted refuse of the upper classes that seem so distant on the bottom rung of the ladder.

Yet this is thievery and trespassing upon the rights a business holder has over their precious waste storage area right?

So those thieves too should be cuffed and jailed for at least they would be fed and no longer be stealing that important garbage.

You say tomato, I say tomacco.

We are a society of addicts who are dependent upon the fabric of society that creates our place within the community. Rooted in passion, pain, pleasure, and porn of a variety of sorts this piss pot of pickled panhandlers certainly must go.

Drunk on the ability they take and take right? But why do they take if not for a taste of the sweetness that is unattainable, out of reach.

Like starving children of a different world, millions reach daily to quench this thirst for a taste without the sacrifice of what little there is to trade.

In honor of it they search, passionately and with both akward stumbling access or the kung fu of access to zero-day galore, to find that pot at the end of the rainbow.

It is their moment of speeding, not letting the cashier know about that extra quarter, or paying such low amounts for subsidized gasoline despite the marauding horde that has secured the volumes of petroleum necessary to produce it.

Thievery comes in all sizes, shapes, and with consequences that we call karma. Perhaps we are not all thieves but the evidence seems everywhere to ignore how many of us truly enjoy the pirates booty.

The Knights of Templar created the Jolly Roger, these modern day pirates of no real threat enrage you to be sure but they brandish that coat of arms with pride and deservedly so.

You dislike this thievery, cool...don't steal...but don't harsh the pirates mellow Benny G.

really makes me think twice about my stance on illegal downloading.

really makes me think.....

[/sarcasm]

Well, I'm the one that posted the post which wasn't really about "Right or Wrong" because that's really up to the individual and not Grant, Che420, Benny G, or myself but was entirely about the technologies that are being impacted by court rulings, legislation, and prosecutions.

Is it wrong to steal someone's car? Yes, sometimes. If you are a cop it's apparently a strategy and similarly for criminals they are useful for escaping cops who stole the car. As well I suspect that stealing cars when a catastrophe is upon them is somewhat normal.

I'm a pretty rational person, I can honestly say that I've stolen a bit now and again but probably made up for it in good deeds.

That said I would like to tattoo my ass with a jolly roger to moon you with if that helps describe my spirit of how much better Robin Hood is compared to the big record labels who make up the RIAA.

When you get up the task of addressing the rebuttal that provided the list of artists who support leeching music, several studies charging the RIAA makes a false claim of damage against the pirate music scene, and even a statement from the former blood thirsty head of the RIAA - please do so but for the love of conversation...let's eat up the Ritalin so you can get back on task.

You've clearly only thought once. [/Serious]

[/living in a fantasy world where stealing art = helping the art community]

It seems to me that this is the future of music distribution. Much like the transition from records to eight tracks to tapes to CDs, it's happening and the industry can either get ahead of it or try to fight it. If you want someone to buy a record, make it something they can't find for free like Bruce Springsteen did on his latest record. I support artists and I support mom and pop shops, but there is an aspect of this fight that feels like trying to spit on a fire and wondering why it's not going out.

Let's use a realistic scenario instead.

Che420's.

I don't know what he does with his music but he probably does it his own way as is indicated by his nick..Che (See revolutionary) and 420 (da dank).

Now Che would probably have a tough time entering the market because the market is hard as hell to get into. It is literally a full time job to get local venues to pay you to play, radio stations to play your stuff, etc.

Che decides hey, lets see what happens when we put our music out online and on CD like Radio Head.

Che discovers that all of a sudden there are thousands of people listening to his music and because of the way it was downloaded, via a p2p service, there is an exponential increase in exposure due to mirrored downloads of the listers shared folder.

Now we can get fantastic and imagine that Che does something magical and spins a tune of revolution.

The people go mad for Che's tune but why doesn't the radio play it?

Calls come in and the station manager just can't explain it.

An unsigned artist with no label, people are demanding to hear this song everywhere but it's inaccessible to the radio station because they only deal with top labels.

The station chances downloading the mp3 just to keep the audience happy.

Che sues the radio station.

Che gets a monster truck and 1 million dollars in a settlement.

now that...is compensation

I think that buried in your comment here is the real point-- which few people seem to have a grasp of because of all the legal hoo-ha that gets tossed around this issue-- the real point being that the result of the Grokster ruling may well be that important technological innovations will be suppressed.

Everyone who knows anything about music knows that artists and/or Britney Spears make their real money off of tours and merch. So let's take the conversation away from money, and really even away from the files that are being shared... let's focus on the technology itself.

Last night there was a really awesome pro-innovation discussion of this issue on Open Source.

ps the reason grant isn't speaking to all of your points probably has more to do with the number of points you make in each comment-- there's a lot more here that I'd like to address as well but frankly I just don't have the time!

you've just read the treatment for greatest Lifetime Network movie yet:

Against All Odds: Che420's Fight Against a Mystical Evil Empire of Greedy Bastards

This is a seecrit but there's already a sequel in development.

The plot is a bit shakey, you know how it is but it goes something like this.

With Che's inspiration artists flock to p2p and spread their music across the network of internet campfires.

Without having to pay the fee to view, listen, and comprehend the message of artists the global audience blossoms a cultured appeal where this communication of artistry becomes a core of being human.

Leaping beyond the confines of mathematics that all musicians draw from in their bland interpretation of finite composition, new forms and broken beats tell new stories, draw new emotions, and say new things.

The artists thrive because society loves them and takes care of them because they are an important part of life that was so bland, so top-40 cycliclical, and so boring before.

Music long thought dead came back to life and jazz, classical, and tribal music again fills the city streets in night time celebration of this very human thing that is music.

In this fanciful sequel perhaps the only thing better is the royalty free access people have to celebrate music, a part of humanity that comes from each of our proverbial souls. The missing part of this sequel is the lack of a bad guy, but then the RIAA plays no part in this direct exchange between artist and listener do they?

MGM.v.Grokster: Despite numerous circuit court rulings based on the betamax issue, that Sony could not be held liable for what users of betamax recorders did with the product once they got home, the Supreme Court felt that companies can be held liable if their products were used to transport goods even though they weren't directly responsible (i.e. holding Red Ryder accountable for shooting your eye out with a bb gun).

Technologies at risk:

p2p - most know about this one.

IRC (Internet Relay Chat) - a very old network with long running established communities, a small percentage of which are devoted to illegal file trading. IRC networks are largely non-profit EDU sponsored entities that cannot afford to fight legal battles.

USENET - the oldest message board this evolutionary network stems directly from DARPA's original intent, to give scientists and military researchers a way to share data across distances without using a parcel carrier.

Listserves - sites that make lists of places where downloads could be had of a variety of sorts (including pirated data) may be at risk of prosecution if a user posts warez.

wifi/bluetooth/wired connectivity - technologies that can distribute content to a relatively local peer without the need for an intermediary handler. Sometimes used to transfer cell phone ring tones and the like.

Digital Video Recorders, VHS/CD/DVD recorders, Computers, and Display technologies. A copyright enforcement method will be included in future devices to insure that whatever form of Digital Rights Management is in use by the licensed distributor is strictly enforced so the end user can be prosecuted if technologies are sidestepped via h4x0rz. As an added benefit players can be disabled or destroyed by DRM.

Internet Protocols for Transport: All internet protocols could conceivably be regulated by the copyright holders. As it stands now copyright holders have the legal right to employ the use of data sniffers to seek out copyright violators.

MP3 Players and Portable Video Devices will require strong encryption that is not available overseas, complicating licensing and distribution of content. Further devices will have to employ non-flashable firmware to insure copyright controls are firmly in place.

Broadcast Information: Television, Music, and other materials copyrighted and broadcast in the air will no longer be recordable. The Broadcast Flag, if someone manages to sneak it into a bill somewhere despite massive outcry whose voice was carried by the Electronic Frontier Froundation, will render all devices useless for recording broadcast media. Imagine an important event (i.e. I'm on TV I'm on TV press record before the gestapo smash my head in at this protest) that you can't record because it's copyrighted.

Codecs: Codec(DivX, MP3, PDF) distributors can be required by the industry to include DRM in their codec because pirated content providers happen to use the compression technologies for transgressions against copyright holders.

So there's just a few of the technologies at risk of being hampered by this innocent little copyright fight that's been taking place in the underground for 20 years on the digital spectrum a wee bit longer on the analog side.

...because I have to toss my hat in this ring, I just have to. To give you the background I'm a fan of musicians and I pay for albums and live shows constantly. I'm also a downloader, and that isn't going to change. The years I've downloaded the most music in my life are the same ones I've spent the most on hard copies. Slice and dice how you will, but in 2003 I downloaded probably 20 gigs of music and also spent (estimate) $400 on legit albums.

I first started downloading music (jeez was it 99?) for cheap thrills, a broader selection than was available at my local store, and because I was a poor college student. It was amusing to me, and I loved snubbing the labels that repeatedly and colluded and price-fixed. I also downloaded because there was almost no decent alternative. Remeber all those CDs I've bought? They're buried in boxes, I haven't touched them since I ripped them. I don't care about packaging, never have.

But now I have a salary and there are (reasonably) good online music retailers. Now I can stream what I'm interested in and download for a price what I love, with a gauranteed result for my time/money. I'm not a musician, but I still feel like it's a good time to like music.

Read the recent ruling. It's actually a good thing in my view for real P2P like BitTorrent (I'm not joking). I use BT nearly daily- linux ISOs, homebrew movies, it's fantastic, and it's a network not created or advertised as an infringing service. There are far too many great reasons to keep P2P like BT flowing and far too many artists out there that deserve payment to snub them for no reason.

There's an ethicist out there who might even agree with your file sharing/file buying combo. See my comment on your comment on my post (ow my head hurts!). :)

I was having a conversation with someone yesterday about how music (well, some music-- there's a lot of crap out there) is an advertisment for itself. Hearing one song makes you want to buy the album; hearing the album makes you want to see the band live; and going to a show makes you want to buy a t-shirt. What the music industry needs to do is figure out a new model for promoting, selling, and distributing their product. As... someone was saying upthread or downthread, indie labels in particular have been good at putting one or two mp3s from their artists up on their websites. Not just a 15 second clip, but a whole song. This is far from a threat to profit-making... it's the future of profit-making. The big kids in the record industry should stop shitting themselves, start figuring this stuff out... and then maybe even think about doing something to increase the amount of money their artists actually get paid for creating and selling music.

Possible vision of the future: Grokster & its cousins being absorbed into Corporate Land for the promotion of music/movie product, and services like BitTorrent helping unsigned & undiscovered artists promote & distribute their art... either as permanently free (as many artists feel is right), or with the goal of being discovered by someone who can help them get paid for what they're doing.