Also:
How Not To Get Sued By The RIAA For File-Sharing
http://eff.org/IP/P2P/howto-notgetsued.php

so much more useful than the EFF article...



enjoy!

Thanks sell -- that article is great. Are you sure you won't reconsider taking a guest-spot on Signal-to-Noise from time to time?

Let's make sure we're all clear on something, though: the EFF is your friend, and you should give them money to support their cause.

Anyway --

As for the EFF's simplification. I mean, the title of the article is HOW NOT TO GET SUED, and sad as it is, some of these kids might not know better. I can understand why they want to keep it simple.

to weigh in, somewhat less briefly than i originally intended, i download a fair amount of music.

lots of it is actually stuff i have on vinyl, so that's not even an issue.
some of it is stuff i don't own. a LOT of it is stuff i plan to buy when my finances are not so shifty (and, for the record, i do purchase stuff after downloading it), and some of it is stuff that i download, listen to, decide i don't like, then delete it. still more of it is stuff that i used to own, no longer do, and can't find anymore (eg big drill car, exhorder, nihilist).

i don't claim that downloading stuff i don't own is legal. whether or not it's ETHICAL is completely a different question, and i think the two are getting confused in this thread. personally, i think trying stuff out is completely legitamate and i don't have any problem doing it. the main objection that i see to this practice typically goes something like this: "well, um, you just can't DO THAT. you can't go steal an orange and throw it away and then claim you never had it and you didn't steal it."

i get this. however, the nature of the media being stolen / traded / downloaded is very different than most things (and it's these exact issues that organizations like the EFF help to explore), and can't really be regarded in the same way as an ordinary theft.

sellthekids, saying something is "just wrong" and referring to people who may have legitimate gripes with the talent-whoring nature of most corporate record conglomerates as "misguided youth" doesn't have any argumentative power at all -- it's flag waving. it's so much more complex than that. if you want to support art and artists, purchasing their $18.99 for $2 cost cd may not be the best way to go.

again, i'm not posting in an attempt to excuse or deride anyone's behavior or opinions, but i really don't think most of what's been said in this thread is very in depth or well-thought out.

we differ somewhat as a band, internally, as to whether it's a good idea or not. i think that (with my admittedly limited understanding of economics and the extremely vague nature of the data to be quantified in terms of one's presence or standing in any given scene), people swapping your music is most likely beneficial for artists below a certain threshold of success, and then slowly begins to decline after that point has been reached. what that point is or how the math works out, i don't know, and honestly, i don't really care enough to work it out.

everyone should go ask dan gerken. he's the ethicist in the room.

Is it still wrong to tape songs off the radio? Can I ask what the difference is between taping a single off the radio and downloading it off the 'net?

I just think that if a band's going to put a song on the radio they must know that people are going to (or at least did before the internet) tape it.

I haven't been reading too much about what the RIAA has been saying but it seems as if they are going after people that are sharing rather than downloading. But, of course, to make the P2P services successful you have to share in order to get what you want. Nobody wants to let you download something from their collection if you're not offering something back.