Dear 100 Hour Board,
Bullocks to Floyd the RIAA lackey. The BBC did a debunking of filesharing myths. Harvard economists did a study and found that filesharing fueled more purchases than anything else. That includes the radio, advertisements, and anything else recording companies throw at you.
I don't think you understand the current situation about intellectual property. Let me inform you. Intellectual property has never been legislated into law. It is the misbegotten offspring of misinterpreted PATENT and COPYRIGHT laws, neither of which are the same as this IP which as crept into the common law at the lobbyists behest.
Patent laws encourage innovation. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DOES NOT. Currently, the Sonny-Bono Copyright act extends copyrights to 75 years. How does that incent innovation?? It is corporate welfare (as the article suggests) of the first degree.
You want to defend patents? Great, protect REAL innovation, REAL science. Artists also deserve compensation, so why do they get less than 7% of the price of a CD? They do the inventing, and they get squat. The rest goes to 'materials' and 'distribution.' Nice.
The copyright system is badly badly broken. Don't believe me? I wrote up a little explanation as to why.
You say that music companies "should get a fair market price for thier music." I think artists should get a fair price, not the music companies. Downloading an album then donating $5.00 to the artist puts a lot more money in thier pocket.
I have not deleted every song, or purchased every album I had downloaded. You know why? They were worth, maybe $5.00 not $15.00 to me. I buy my music from allofmp3.com, illegal? Probably in the US, but for the stuff I really care about, I choke up the dough.
The costs run to the music/movie industry have been grossly over estimated. Most pirated stuff is pirated because it isn't worth the current price. Adobe knows this, people pirate photoshop to learn it (because before they know it, it isn't that valuable), then buy it to use it professionally (because it is worth the cost NOW).
The costs of piracy are based on some vague concept of possible profit. If piracy & pirated stuff disappeared, would all the pirates buy the stuff they pirated? No way. It is like saying "if you don't give me $100, you are costing me $100." In reality, no one loses money on piracy, they may make less, but it doesn't impose costs. And they don't make that much less.
The music industry and their bizarre "sue em' all" tactics are reprehensible. If they made a GOOD competing system, no one would need to pirate. Pirated copies are rarely good quality (128kbps? lousy!), often mistagged and a pain to fix. The music industry has advantages P2P can't provide, but they instead cling to a dying means of distribution.
PS Read the blog post I listed. It just might change your opinion, it did to one of my teachers (an author herself).
So... I'm a lackey now, eh. My basic argument is this: music is a product. Yes, people make a LOT of money on that product, but capitalism tells us that they SHOULD make money on that product. Bono is smarter than me and has created a piece of intellectual property. It doesn't matter how rich he is, I still need to PAY a fair price for his product.
If you head into WalMart to buy some tennis balls, but decide that those tennis balls are too expensive. What do you do? Steal them? Or, maybe you should go pick them up around the Racquet Club.
Regardless, Music is a product. It should recieve a fair price. Free downloading may be fun and easy... but that doesn't make it right.