piracy and ur opinions

[catnap1972]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

How do we suffer you might ask? At least one way is the loss of culture. Do a little research into the film industry and how many early films have been lost, never to be seen again. Many reels of film were stored in damp basements and simply disintegrated. You could say it was just the film studios' loss, but was it? Those works were supposed to enter the public domain (meaning they'd be owned by society as a whole) after copyright expired, but because copyright prevents anyone but the copyright holder from legally duplicating works, nobody was able to do so. The Library of Congress does some archiving, but it's by no means comprehensive. As any techie knows, redundancy is the best way to preserve data, but continual extensions of copyright prevent that.

Same can be said for many "obscure" television shows...instead of people being able to enjoy someone's work, the videotapes are sitting rotting in damp storage somewhere.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: ntdz
I have a huge problem with the way the RIAA and MPAA go about suing people for copyright infringement. The way they do it should be illegal, as you have no way to defend yourself until you are actually sued. You can't participate in the court proceedings that the record companies use to get your names from ISPs.

😕 Yea? How is that unfair? Should the RIAA call your house before they decided to actually file court information crap?

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
If the only reason that artist paints, and the singer sings, and the sculpter sculpts, is for financial gain, then i would be seriously doubting in the quality of their work. I think the focus on the finances has taken a lot out of the heart of modern arts, particularly music. It prevents people for going outside the established norms. Can you see there being a Picasso today? A new Beatles, or Stones, or Led Zeppelin? A new Hemingway? If piracy helps to break the status quo, then I'm all for it. The greatest front in art today is something that is not financially compensated, its your U-Tubers and the like. Some of the coolest stuff I've seen and heard is by people who did something because they had an idea, and never will see any compensation for it, and would never expect it.

I am still at odds with my current generation and I think they fail to notice they other people behind the scence. You think bands like Tool for example do everything by themselves? Do they setup the concerts? Ticket Sales? Make their own website? No, they don't and without the help of the record industry they'd probably be nothing today. Reguardless, if we like it or not the recording companies want and do deserve a peice of the pie.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: ntdz
I have a huge problem with the way the RIAA and MPAA go about suing people for copyright infringement. The way they do it should be illegal, as you have no way to defend yourself until you are actually sued. You can't participate in the court proceedings that the record companies use to get your names from ISPs.

😕 Yea? How is that unfair? Should the RIAA call your house before they decided to actually file court information crap?

In other words, they can get a warrant to get your information off your computer and from your ISP without you even being able to defend yourself in court to stop them from getting it. It's a loophole in the legal system and they are exploited it to no end.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
I also feel that the RIAA would suffer a great financial shortcoming if they somehow became more efficient in prosecuting piracy. I think it's the single greatest idea for free advertising ever developed.

I think there's a difference between free advertising and piracy 😛. Also, it would be very interesting to see what would happen if piracy laws were actually enforced, but I suspect the public outcry would stop this from happening. I think the only thing left is for the the recording industry to change the way it does business. Which they seem to be doing, very slowly unforunatly.

 

[mect]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
If the only reason that artist paints, and the singer sings, and the sculpter sculpts, is for financial gain, then i would be seriously doubting in the quality of their work. I think the focus on the finances has taken a lot out of the heart of modern arts, particularly music. It prevents people for going outside the established norms. Can you see there being a Picasso today? A new Beatles, or Stones, or Led Zeppelin? A new Hemingway? If piracy helps to break the status quo, then I'm all for it. The greatest front in art today is something that is not financially compensated, its your U-Tubers and the like. Some of the coolest stuff I've seen and heard is by people who did something because they had an idea, and never will see any compensation for it, and would never expect it.

I am still at odds with my current generation and I think they fail to notice they other people behind the scence. You think bands like Tool for example do everything by themselves? Do they setup the concerts? Ticket Sales? Make their own website? No, they don't and without the help of the record industry they'd probably be nothing today. Reguardless, if we like it or not the recording companies want and do deserve a peice of the pie.

And yet there are many other bands that go through recording companies other than the big four, with similar demands, and they can still sell online music without drm restrictions and feel they can make a profit. I'm not encouraging piracy, just stating that I don't agree with the size of the slice of pie to which the big four seem to think they are entitled, both in terms of money and control.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: ntdz
I have a huge problem with the way the RIAA and MPAA go about suing people for copyright infringement. The way they do it should be illegal, as you have no way to defend yourself until you are actually sued. You can't participate in the court proceedings that the record companies use to get your names from ISPs.

😕 Yea? How is that unfair? Should the RIAA call your house before they decided to actually file court information crap?

In other words, they can get a warrant to get your information off your computer and from your ISP without you even being able to defend yourself in court to stop them from getting it. It's a loophole in the legal system and they are exploited it to no end.

😕 So, they goto a judge to get a warrent, get your IP number and then use that information to take you to court...

This is bad/illegal/immoral/wrong how?

 

[Slackware]

Originally posted by: brownboi512
doin research on piracy and copyright infringement for senior research paper and i wanted the opinions of the internet community

how do u guys feel about the RIAA and MPAA policies on copyright infringement?
how can people be justified by downloading music?
how do users justify online sharing of media?
any one have any solutions on the issue of piracy?
any info on piracy or how u feel about the issue is appreciated. just wanted to know some other viewpoints on the issue.

thanks

Fair use was abolished in the US, now the MPAA decides if you may wipe your arse if you crap while watching a movie (yes, they actually could and the DMCA would not only allow it it would make it IMPOSSIBLE for you to ever hide the fact that you are in fact taking a crap because hiding what would be illegal under a licence is illegal under the DMCA.

In my part of the world we don't care much for your rules, it is legal to share music here under fair use, only with friends. (ummmm, of fvcking course with friends, why would you help your enemies to get good music or movies?)

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: mect

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
If the only reason that artist paints, and the singer sings, and the sculpter sculpts, is for financial gain, then i would be seriously doubting in the quality of their work. I think the focus on the finances has taken a lot out of the heart of modern arts, particularly music. It prevents people for going outside the established norms. Can you see there being a Picasso today? A new Beatles, or Stones, or Led Zeppelin? A new Hemingway? If piracy helps to break the status quo, then I'm all for it. The greatest front in art today is something that is not financially compensated, its your U-Tubers and the like. Some of the coolest stuff I've seen and heard is by people who did something because they had an idea, and never will see any compensation for it, and would never expect it.

I am still at odds with my current generation and I think they fail to notice they other people behind the scence. You think bands like Tool for example do everything by themselves? Do they setup the concerts? Ticket Sales? Make their own website? No, they don't and without the help of the record industry they'd probably be nothing today. Reguardless, if we like it or not the recording companies want and do deserve a peice of the pie.

And yet there are many other bands that go through recording companies other than the big four, with similar demands, and they can still sell online music without drm restrictions and feel they can make a profit. I'm not encouraging piracy, just stating that I don't agree with the size of the slice of pie to which the big four seem to think they are entitled, both in terms of money and control.

Well, I think it's more up to the band to decide how they want the peices of the pie distributed. 😉 I am happy to see other recording companies using alternative methods of business.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Zorba

Originally posted by: BrownTown
I got an email two days ago informing student at my school of the punishments for piracy. The punishment is as followed: delete the pirated stuff and write a letter apologizing for stealing it. I mean on one hand I guess it kicks ass that I am more or less immune to being sued since my college refuses to turn me over. On the other hand, the risk/reward is of course waaay in favor of pirating. The WORST that can happen is that I lose the stuff I pirated (after I've watched all the movies and listed to all the songs a hundred times). It is simply impossible to come out behind. I know that most other people still stand the risk of being sued, but it is still very unlikely. Also, for me, I am legally an adult, but I have pretty much nothing to my name, even IF the RIAA could sue me, what are they gonna get?, I mean I don;t really own anything, could they get money from my parents now that I'm an adult? If not, than all they can get are my clothes and textbooks, thats the only even remotely expensive stuff I have to my name.

They can put a lein on your future income.

I think there was something else about how they'd just take it out of your social security. 😱

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: brownboi512
doin research on piracy and copyright infringement for senior research paper and i wanted the opinions of the internet community

how do u guys feel about the RIAA and MPAA policies on copyright infringement?
how can people be justified by downloading music?
how do users justify online sharing of media?
any one have any solutions on the issue of piracy?
any info on piracy or how u feel about the issue is appreciated. just wanted to know some other viewpoints on the issue.

thanks

To answer the direct question, piracy is wrong. Artists, musicians, writers and other creators deserve to profit from their work.

But.....

That having been said, I have a hard time feeling sorry for copyright conglomerates. The idea of copyright has been perverted from the original intent.

US Constitution Article I, Section 8, Clause 8

"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."

To begin, the transmission of ideas has changed over the last few centuries. Two centuries ago, disseminating ones work could take many years. The process of distribution has been changed with technology. Instead of having to write a book in longhand, typewriters and computers increased the productivity of authors. Spelling and grammar checkers have sped up the editorial process. Printing is now a matter of sending a computer file to a print shop, no more painful typesetting process. And now with the Internet, not only has production of new works sped up, but distribution is almost instantaneous. The return on investment for creators come far faster now than it did 200 years ago. If anything, copyright should have gotten shorter, not longer.

Second, due to the influence of corporate money and the fact that corporations are by law, people who never die, copyright is essentially limitless now. Every time Mickey Mouse is about to enter the public domain, along comes congress to rob the American people of their contractual rights. The citizens held up their end of the bargain and gave Disney the sole right to distribute Steamboat Willie but Disney keeps changing the deal, and the American people suffer for it.

How do we suffer you might ask? At least one way is the loss of culture. Do a little research into the film industry and how many early films have been lost, never to be seen again. Many reels of film were stored in damp basements and simply disintegrated. You could say it was just the film studios' loss, but was it? Those works were supposed to enter the public domain (meaning they'd be owned by society as a whole) after copyright expired, but because copyright prevents anyone but the copyright holder from legally duplicating works, nobody was able to do so. The Library of Congress does some archiving, but it's by no means comprehensive. As any techie knows, redundancy is the best way to preserve data, but continual extensions of copyright prevent that.

Think about how DRM (an attempt by copyright holders to extend copyright forever) is going to affect the passing of works into the public domain. Think of an obscure movie you saw that was released in 2006 that you enjoyed. Under current US copyright laws, that movie will be copyrighted until the next century. Corporate authored works currently have a copyright of 95 years. Do you think your DVD player will still work in 2101? What format do you think we'll be using? Now consider the fact that if the movie you're thinking of isn't a blockbuster movie, it's doubtful that the studio will continue to release that movie in ever new format. Sure, we still see Charlie Chaplain movies, but how many other movies from the silent era are currently on DVD? Back to the movie from 2006, this means that when copyright finally expires on that movie, the only viable copy will reside in a box in a studio warehouse somewhere. What are the chances that the movie ever sees the light of day again? Not good.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm sure most pirates aren't downloading copies of Spiderman 3 for such lofty goals, but the fact is that if there were no pirates there'd be nobody standing up to the media giants who are locking up our culture in their vaults and using it to extort money from us endlessly. And don't think for a second that if piracy suddenly vanished, that those media giants would suddenly decide to loosen their grip on their ?intellectual property?. Those companies are not fighting pirates because some nerdy kid in his basement robbed Sony of $12 by downloading that copy of Spiderman 3 instead of buying the DVD. Fighting piracy is just a convenient excuse for the media giants to lock up their content and squeeze consumers for every penny they have. They don't want to just sell you Spiderman 3. They want to sell it to you 12 times. If they could, they'd put a scanner in your living room that told them how many friends you had over to watch a movie, and they'd bill you per person. And then they'll charge you again to watch it on your iPod, simply because it's a different format.


I could go on and on, but these are a couple ideas for you to ponder in your research. On one hand, I detest piracy because it takes away incentive for artists to create. On the other hand, corporations have created an environment that fosters piracy with high prices and attempts to restrict fair use.

Great post really helps explain the other side from an angle I have not heard before.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: brownboi512
doin research on piracy and copyright infringement for senior research paper and i wanted the opinions of the internet community

how do u guys feel about the RIAA and MPAA policies on copyright infringement?
how can people be justified by downloading music?
how do users justify online sharing of media?
any one have any solutions on the issue of piracy?
any info on piracy or how u feel about the issue is appreciated. just wanted to know some other viewpoints on the issue.

thanks

To answer the direct question, piracy is wrong. Artists, musicians, writers and other creators deserve to profit from their work.

But.....

That having been said, I have a hard time feeling sorry for copyright conglomerates. The idea of copyright has been perverted from the original intent.

US Constitution Article I, Section 8, Clause 8

"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."

To begin, the transmission of ideas has changed over the last few centuries. Two centuries ago, disseminating ones work could take many years. The process of distribution has been changed with technology. Instead of having to write a book in longhand, typewriters and computers increased the productivity of authors. Spelling and grammar checkers have sped up the editorial process. Printing is now a matter of sending a computer file to a print shop, no more painful typesetting process. And now with the Internet, not only has production of new works sped up, but distribution is almost instantaneous. The return on investment for creators come far faster now than it did 200 years ago. If anything, copyright should have gotten shorter, not longer.

Second, due to the influence of corporate money and the fact that corporations are by law, people who never die, copyright is essentially limitless now. Every time Mickey Mouse is about to enter the public domain, along comes congress to rob the American people of their contractual rights. The citizens held up their end of the bargain and gave Disney the sole right to distribute Steamboat Willie but Disney keeps changing the deal, and the American people suffer for it.

How do we suffer you might ask? At least one way is the loss of culture. Do a little research into the film industry and how many early films have been lost, never to be seen again. Many reels of film were stored in damp basements and simply disintegrated. You could say it was just the film studios' loss, but was it? Those works were supposed to enter the public domain (meaning they'd be owned by society as a whole) after copyright expired, but because copyright prevents anyone but the copyright holder from legally duplicating works, nobody was able to do so. The Library of Congress does some archiving, but it's by no means comprehensive. As any techie knows, redundancy is the best way to preserve data, but continual extensions of copyright prevent that.

Think about how DRM (an attempt by copyright holders to extend copyright forever) is going to affect the passing of works into the public domain. Think of an obscure movie you saw that was released in 2006 that you enjoyed. Under current US copyright laws, that movie will be copyrighted until the next century. Corporate authored works currently have a copyright of 95 years. Do you think your DVD player will still work in 2101? What format do you think we'll be using? Now consider the fact that if the movie you're thinking of isn't a blockbuster movie, it's doubtful that the studio will continue to release that movie in ever new format. Sure, we still see Charlie Chaplain movies, but how many other movies from the silent era are currently on DVD? Back to the movie from 2006, this means that when copyright finally expires on that movie, the only viable copy will reside in a box in a studio warehouse somewhere. What are the chances that the movie ever sees the light of day again? Not good.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm sure most pirates aren't downloading copies of Spiderman 3 for such lofty goals, but the fact is that if there were no pirates there'd be nobody standing up to the media giants who are locking up our culture in their vaults and using it to extort money from us endlessly. And don't think for a second that if piracy suddenly vanished, that those media giants would suddenly decide to loosen their grip on their ?intellectual property?. Those companies are not fighting pirates because some nerdy kid in his basement robbed Sony of $12 by downloading that copy of Spiderman 3 instead of buying the DVD. Fighting piracy is just a convenient excuse for the media giants to lock up their content and squeeze consumers for every penny they have. They don't want to just sell you Spiderman 3. They want to sell it to you 12 times. If they could, they'd put a scanner in your living room that told them how many friends you had over to watch a movie, and they'd bill you per person. And then they'll charge you again to watch it on your iPod, simply because it's a different format.


I could go on and on, but these are a couple ideas for you to ponder in your research. On one hand, I detest piracy because it takes away incentive for artists to create. On the other hand, corporations have created an environment that fosters piracy with high prices and attempts to restrict fair use.

I don't doubt what you've said and it's a shame if we've lost films simply because they refused to let them come into public domain. I remember reading about when the RIAA tried to ban cassettes and how it would result in the destruction on the music industry or that's what they said.

Somehow, I think pirating material is a very ineffective way of the consumer telling the electronic industry that we're unsatisfied with the way they conduct business. I can nearly guarantee anyone that the sole reason anyone pirates anything is because it's free and the risk of getting cought is for all practical purposes non-exsistant. If we could only get maybe 1/4 of the people that pirate to join an organization like the EFF I would think things would be much more different.

 

[mect]

Originally posted by: Tab

Well, I think it's more up to the band to decide how they want the peices of the pie distributed.

And the consumer, though the consumer dictates by not buying music through means they don't like (although in this sense I mean more in terms of control of the music). I don't like the hassle of dealing with DRM, so there are a lot of songs I just don't buy because there are only one or two good songs on the album that I like and it isn't worth the hassle of DRM. However, if it is through an independant label with no DRM, then I'll buy the couple of songs that I like. That is really what it all comes down to is consumers not viewing piracy as an alternative, but rather voting with their dollar how they want music distributed.

 

[Slackware]

Ok, let's get realistic, if an album makes 1000k sales then what does the artist get, 1000k, guess why Metallica started their own label.

IOW, if you give a nickle to the artist for every album you download it is still moree than he'd get if ou bought his alvum.


And software, i can use this software to install on one computer at a time, i have three, YAY, learning this Software along with oteher software will be great, or if i had the software on two computers, buy a multiplayer game, then we could use that to multiplay at hom, right... No, one game per computer to multiplay.

I just bought a console for my kids that they don't give a crap about because they are still sitting at their Slackware boxes and burning, playing, fixing trixing and so on.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
If the only reason that artist paints, and the singer sings, and the sculpter sculpts, is for financial gain, then i would be seriously doubting in the quality of their work. I think the focus on the finances has taken a lot out of the heart of modern arts, particularly music. It prevents people for going outside the established norms. Can you see there being a Picasso today? A new Beatles, or Stones, or Led Zeppelin? A new Hemingway? If piracy helps to break the status quo, then I'm all for it. The greatest front in art today is something that is not financially compensated, its your U-Tubers and the like. Some of the coolest stuff I've seen and heard is by people who did something because they had an idea, and never will see any compensation for it, and would never expect it.

I am still at odds with my current generation and I think they fail to notice they other people behind the scence. You think bands like Tool for example do everything by themselves? Do they setup the concerts? Ticket Sales? Make their own website? No, they don't and without the help of the record industry they'd probably be nothing today. Reguardless, if we like it or not the recording companies want and do deserve a peice of the pie.

You might have missed it, but tool is exactly what i am complaining about. They suck, end of story.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
If the only reason that artist paints, and the singer sings, and the sculpter sculpts, is for financial gain, then i would be seriously doubting in the quality of their work. I think the focus on the finances has taken a lot out of the heart of modern arts, particularly music. It prevents people for going outside the established norms. Can you see there being a Picasso today? A new Beatles, or Stones, or Led Zeppelin? A new Hemingway? If piracy helps to break the status quo, then I'm all for it. The greatest front in art today is something that is not financially compensated, its your U-Tubers and the like. Some of the coolest stuff I've seen and heard is by people who did something because they had an idea, and never will see any compensation for it, and would never expect it.

I am still at odds with my current generation and I think they fail to notice they other people behind the scence. You think bands like Tool for example do everything by themselves? Do they setup the concerts? Ticket Sales? Make their own website? No, they don't and without the help of the record industry they'd probably be nothing today. Reguardless, if we like it or not the recording companies want and do deserve a peice of the pie.

You might have missed it, but tool is exactly what i am complaining about. They suck, end of story.

I understand your point completely; piracy is going to create more creative artists correct? It's just that you failed to show any evidence of this and I think most will disagree with your opinion about Tool. 😉

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: mect

Originally posted by: Tab

Well, I think it's more up to the band to decide how they want the peices of the pie distributed.

And the consumer, though the consumer dictates by not buying music through means they don't like (although in this sense I mean more in terms of control of the music). I don't like the hassle of dealing with DRM, so there are a lot of songs I just don't buy because there are only one or two good songs on the album that I like and it isn't worth the hassle of DRM. However, if it is through an independant label with no DRM, then I'll buy the couple of songs that I like. That is really what it all comes down to is consumers not viewing piracy as an alternative, but rather voting with their dollar how they want music distributed.

:thumbsup: But of course, everyone must take it to the man and those big fat rich no good corporate CEOs to suck it while they pirate material! 😛

 

[Arkaign]

Pirates make good movies

/arrr

 

[brownboi512]

great stuff guys, keep em coming

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: slash196
I refuse to pay 14 bucks for a CD, when nine dollars goes to the label, 4.50 to the distributor, and the artist gets 50 cents or less. I will start buying music again when I can be assured that ALL my money goes straight to the person who deserves it (the artist). As it stands, I refuse to support the current corporate climate that enslaves artists and gets rich doing it.

Well then don't pirate music either and then you can claim the above. If you pirate while saying the above, it is simply an excuse for you to do what you do.

If you don't want to support something, don't buy it.. but you can't also go and get it for free as well.

 

[Slackware]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
If the only reason that artist paints, and the singer sings, and the sculpter sculpts, is for financial gain, then i would be seriously doubting in the quality of their work. I think the focus on the finances has taken a lot out of the heart of modern arts, particularly music. It prevents people for going outside the established norms. Can you see there being a Picasso today? A new Beatles, or Stones, or Led Zeppelin? A new Hemingway? If piracy helps to break the status quo, then I'm all for it. The greatest front in art today is something that is not financially compensated, its your U-Tubers and the like. Some of the coolest stuff I've seen and heard is by people who did something because they had an idea, and never will see any compensation for it, and would never expect it.

I am still at odds with my current generation and I think they fail to notice they other people behind the scence. You think bands like Tool for example do everything by themselves? Do they setup the concerts? Ticket Sales? Make their own website? No, they don't and without the help of the record industry they'd probably be nothing today. Reguardless, if we like it or not the recording companies want and do deserve a peice of the pie.

You might have missed it, but tool is exactly what i am complaining about. They suck, end of story.

I understand your point completely; piracy is going to create more creative artists correct? It's just that you failed to show any evidence of this and I think most will disagree with your opinion about Tool. 😉

It's not going to create more creative artist, i don't buy music at all, i download albums that are free, THERE you have some creative talent, if i want to hear mind numbing crap music there are 1400 radio stations to pick and choose from.

And the man is right, Tool is a suckfest that only true Emo victims can truly appreciate and only because they feel that liking Tool is way cool.

 

[BoberFett]

Those of you who haven't read Steve Albini's take on the modern music biz, check it out: http://negativland.com/albini.html

 

[GoPackGo]

When I buy music, I get it from music clubs, used, or indy sites...

What the RIAA/MPAA fail to realize is the the Internet is the new transmission medium.

When they sell you a CD there are real costs involved and you get something for your money.

A file isnt worth as much to me. I have ripped my CDs but I do not share them.

AOL has it right. They let people listen to music for free. They let people watch tv shows for free. They even have the shows available at high quality levels and distribute them using P2P.

 

[compuwiz1]

The Parrot head has not checked in yet?

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: brownboi512
doin research on piracy and copyright infringement for senior research paper and i wanted the opinions of the internet community

how do u guys feel about the RIAA and MPAA policies on copyright infringement?

Overboard and unethical. Their tactics are a good argument that we're moving towards a plutocracy.

how can people be justified by downloading music?

$14+ for a typical CD, and you don't know if it will be worth it, while actual purchasing power of each person is going down the tubes. Whether you'd buy it or not if you like it, there's significant risk to buying CDs. It doesn't take too many bad ones to make up the cost of something that you have some assurance of being worth it to you. FI, a Nintendo DS and some games will be 10-15 CDs. A PSP even more 🙂.

how do users justify online sharing of media?

That they aren't causing anyone harm, losses that may exist will be minimal, and if they aren't, it's the suits, not the talent, that hurts most.

This is lent credence and garners sympathy on moral grounds due a very special word in the constitution: Authors. Not corporations. They want to keep their status as all-powerful middle men, but technology is beginning to obsolete that niche.

any one have any solutions on the issue of piracy?

Adapt. Birds don't complain that dinosaurs had it rough after that meteor. Some of them lived, adapted, and become something new. As far back as the player piano, it's been the same story in this country. If you're doing a paper, obviously you can't forget reels and VCR tapes.

How? Better music, cheaper music, better mastering, and pay the creative people who can do it well. The artist and studio folks (not just the producers!) should get most of it. I have a real hard time paying $10 for a major label CD, but have had no issue paying $20 or more when I could be assured it wasn't just going to a suit. Make those $10 CDs that way, and it will help get some of us back into buying music.

Become a promotional tool for the artists. Don't treat recordings as a primary revenue stream, and accept what happens. You cannot copy (with current technology) a live recording. Handling touring and other duties as well as recording and distribution of albums and such would offer a solution that would meet the needs of the market. I imagine that doing so in a satisfactory fashion would require more transparent accounting, though, which is something they would laugh at.

any info on piracy or how u feel about the issue is appreciated. just wanted to know some other viewpoints on the issue.

thanks

Obviously, www.eff.org
Us pinkos have to get our propaganda from somewhere, right? 🙂

However, easily found thanks to Google and Wikiquote, here's a nice summation of the problem of media piracy and DRM (which creates more pirates, as the pirated content has major advantages over the original):

There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute or common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back.

-Life Line

This would have gotten longer, but BoberFett linked away what could have been 300-500 more words 🙂.