reply to post by jdub297
No file sharer approves of theft or bootlegging either.
Unless you are asserting file sharing is either one of these things, which it isn't.
The same arguments used against someone downloading a song for free and listening to it can be used against someone who plays a song for another
person to listen to. And please, feel free to prove me wrong through any form of manipulation of language you can. You'll just show I'm right
because you can't. It's the same damn argument.
Mind you, people have been copying everything from vinyls to tape cassettes for decades. None of that was illegal. And none of that was "being crack
down upon". While this will certainly lead to pirating getting a large crackdown, the legislation will be used for other purposes, so much so that
you can't even call it abuse because that's its intent and purpose.
Another fact is pirating isn't hurting any industry outside possibly the movie industry.
With music, you basically have two situations. You're either a no name artist trying to become big, and fact is if no one knows who you are they
won't ever pay 15$ for the piece of plastic you're trying to hawk after a concert. Whereas if you made them free, available for download or give
disks away free, your popularity will grow. Much faster than any no name trying to make money from it.
Now, if you are a known and established artist, you still don't gain much from selling records. Originally, the purpose of selling records for the
artist never had anything to do with making money on the artist end. 99% of the profit is going to the record companies. Originally, the gain for the
artist was the spread of his music through the available mass media at the time. This being radio. And well, you need records for the radio stations
to play. And you can sell records to the people who can play them. That's about it.
The money from being an established artist comes from, like the majority of money prior to that, gigs you play. Artists make much more from their
concerts than anything else. Hell, artists make more money from gigs, merchandise, promotional deals, and simply their image than record sales. Record
sales seriously mean jack# to them.
The major push, especially from record labels, is because they are becoming unneeded. Today the equipment for producing music that is studio quality
is so cheap and readily available that you're an idiot if you're an artist and you don't do this. And the internet gives the ability to reach so
many people through free avenues that you don't need to make records to become famous. Several artists in recent years have proven this.
Funny fact is, the genre of music who pioneered and pushes the envelope in home studio equipment and usage, Electronic music, would be most affected
by this push. Considering most DJ's I know minimum have over a terabyte of music, most of which is either incredibly cheap (dollar each) or openly
available for free, you can see the effect this would have on the industry.
In fact, that's the entire motive for the record labels. They're colluding with ISP providers (many of whom are eventually connected through some
means) and the government to gain control over it. Doing so will MAKE artists need to go through them again to become popular, which makes home
studios pointless because anything you produce you can't share freely for popularity BECAUSE ITS ILLEGAL NOW.
This is just going to hit dooms day scenario where ISP's can charge access to sites, government can censor sites, and record studios gain a monopoly
over music again. Thankfully, unlike the masses of drooling twits who infest this planet and let corruption and bad people reign, most people who care
about the internet aren't useless mouth breathers. It isn't the Korean war that just started up again now, we have a cyber war between the powers
that be and the powers that should be. Who you want to side with, I don't know. But # has kinda sucked under the powers that be, so I'll choose the