Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Music download trial begins

JOSHUA FREED

Associated Press

Latest comment posted at 2:42 PM EDT 02/10/07

Jammie Thomas, a 30-year-old mother of two, is first of 26,000 people sued by the recording industry to take the case to trial ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Rob Bairos from Toronto, Canada writes: Im with the courts, just because its easy, doesnt give you the right to take something without permission.
  2. Reasonable Ranter from Toronto, Canada writes: Does suing people deter their activity? It does if they have a brain in their heads. I'll be the first to admit that as a young and money-strapped uni student 15 years ago I was copying video games like mad for personal use because I couldn't afford them, firmly convinced that I was doing no harm because I couldn't have bought them anyway. Today, I am lucky enough to be able to pay for everything I use, including the expensive software that I use for photo and video editing (though some of it costs as much as a HDTV). We've all seen the impact to the recording industry by music downloading...a year on year decline in the double digits, despite having the cheapest CD prices in the world. Not that I love every song on a CD, which is why I download (legally) or buy the single (better quality than downloads). As an engineer who moonlights as a photographer, I defend my photographs like a bear defends its young...it simply is not right that the effort to produce a work should be devalued by louts whom have no true appreciation for art. Downloaders are unrepentant thieves, and are the furthest thing from true patrons of the art as you can get. And, if suing 10 year old kids whom have an unearthly sense of self-entitlement to things they have no legal right to is the way to adjust their attitudes, power to the industry.
  3. No No No Yes No from Canada writes: BOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!
  4. Bernard B from Canada writes: I hope she wins. The fact that record companies proactively offer cheap settlements demonstrate the lack of a case they actually have against the 'violators'. Seems like scare tactics to me. The whole 'intellectual property' nonsense in the U.S. right now clouds any sense of fairness from copyrights to patents.
  5. the catholic church from Purgatory, Canada writes: Reasonable Ranter, you're way off base with your comments. Do your homework before you post opinion as fact. Despite common misconception, downloading in Canada is LEGAL, thanks to the CPCC and the levy the charge on all blank media (CD-R's, etc.) This was proven in court 3 years ago. And no, the music industry is not in decline because of downloading, it's in decline because the quality of the content produced has been sadly lacking in recent years. For some decent insight, try reading this article about Columbia Records' recognition of the real problem:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/02/magazine/02rubin.t.html?pagewanted=all
  6. Mike Mikelson from Toronto, Canada writes: Reasonable Ranter, have you bothered to repay the video game manufactures who's games you stole when you were younger? I find it amazing that you criticize someone for doing exactly the same thing you had done. Why is it okay for you to steal from someone and not someone else?
  7. Stephen John from Toronto, Canada writes: let's see
    I've got thousands and thousands of dollars worth of vinyl records
    I had to replace them with thousands and thousands of dollars worth of cassette tapes then I had to
    replace them with thousands of dollars of cd's
    same for videos and dvd's etc
    WOWOWOWOW
    Man they owe me dividends for the next 50 years for all the doe ray me they have made off me over the years and they have the gall to sue me for a personal copy of music files etc
    No wonder the music industry is in the S*ithole
    treat your customers like that
    put out inferior material to buy
    ignore older and fatter musicans and songwriters all-to-gether
    Tons of great music never ever heard at all
    They should be sued for descrimination and for selling us crap
    and manipulating the market by changing music formats to cheat us
    out of our money all in the name of advancement
    Good Bye Yellow Brick Road!
  8. G S from Canada writes: Disagree with Ranter as much as I do, I won't say he/she is off-base. There is a lot of fact in what you say, but I must agree with purgatory on a number of points (and thus the term fence-sitter is applied). Music sales are down and downloading plays into that to a degree. Music sales are down and there is little if anything out there to change that - the material we are being fed by the major labels is mostly crap and it's taking the artists not their agents of fortune to recognize that the system is broken. Take a look at Radiohead's decision as a band to release their own material and do something different in releasing it, encouraging the people to be interested - Don't fret if this one doesn't work, it's the concept that makes it interesting. If the record companies would quit dragging their own names through the mud by suing 11 year olds, and start spending all this money they steal from the artists on developing better methods of distribution and marketing, then this conversation would be over. Downloading is here and so easy that it's impossible to end - the better battle will not be beating downloaders, but joining it in a profitable way. God forgive the future of the major label if they get beaten to the punch by their artists (and former clients).
  9. Bill Smith from Chicago, IL, United States writes: For those of you interested in how all of this is going down, check out http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/
  10. Joseph Whistle from Canada writes: Bounty hunters using booby traps to trap their victims, while file sharing has become the norm of the online community (largely, anyway). Check everyone you know that's internet savvy. It usually doesn't even take a nudge nudge wink wink to figure out they also are sharing files.
    A mecca for lawyers. Disgusting.
  11. J M from Canada writes: I am in agreement that the major labels have sealed their own fate and have not treated customers, artists or basically anybody at all very well. I would love to see them suffer large and really can't blame the people for downloading for free. That being said I also agree with the argument that an artists work should be given away for free. The time and energy that goes into creating a song is unreal. Im not talking soley about writing the lyrics or the instrumental but in the whole process right through to mastering. A CD can take years to create and now we have to give them away for free...This is really a catch 22 for me I'm just hoping that people will still pay to go to shows and hoping that if you can supply a good product with attention to every song within the set than people will still pay for it.
  12. Dr. Gonzo from Canada writes: This is just the Death-Rattle of the Record Companies. It's a bunch of dinosaurs making a last ditch effort to avoid extinction, and keep their vast fortunes in check.

    Like it or not, P2P fille-sharing is here to stay, and in it lies the future of music distrubution, cutting out the middle-man.
  13. Sean L. from Toronto, Canada writes: She should counter sue, and file a criminal complaint against the plaintiff - the only way they could possibly have any information about what she does on her PC, is if they have conducted the internet equivalent of an illegal wire tap. The only way they would have sufficient information to get a warrant to learn this, would be if they already invaded her privacy by forcing her telecom provider to provide information about her account, or through illegally hacking into her network. Unless they independantly were informed that an illegal act was occuring, there was no justifiable reason for her telco to allow them to conduct a fishing expedition. This is constitutes invasion of privacy, trespass and a whole host of federal telecom related crimes.
  14. brokeback mountain from toronto, Canada writes: hmm... maybe singers should actually SING to make a living, ie giving mini concerts or sing at clubs/restaurants as opposed to doing a recording and sitting at home, waiting to collect royalties!
  15. Tony . from Waterloo, Canada writes: the catholic church from Purgatory, Canada writes: 'And no, the music industry is not in decline because of downloading, it's in decline because the quality of the content produced has been sadly lacking in recent years.'

    I'd rather strongly disagree with that statement. In my mind the quality of music over the past 5 years has been absolutely outstanding! Not only is there a whole bunch of great music being produced, but it's coming in every genre you can imagine. The thing is, it's not coming from the big name studios.

    Ok, admittedly this isn't entirely a new thing, the best music has often started out as fairly obscure indie bands even if they eventually became mainstream hits. However I think we're seeing even more of this now then ever because there's so much more access to good indie music and less risk-taking by the major labels.

    That's only one part of the story though. Another aspect is a failure of a model that the recording industry built themselves up on in the 80's and 90's where an album would contain one or two hits and a bunch of filler. This let them pump out a lot of albums quickly, but it just isn't working anymore, people are just downloading (legally or otherwise) the one or two good songs instead of buying the CD.

    Finally there's the 'competition of media' that gets talked about some times. There's just more choice out there with DVDs and video games taking away some dollars that maybe used to go to album sales.
  16. Kevin Dooley from Canada writes: Ever since the start of this debacle, two things have stuck in my mind. First, that it is a mistake for any industry to take legal action against its most devoted customers. And second, when your business model fails to adapt to changing technology, your sales will always suffer. The RIAA had enormous advance notice that this was the way the world was going, but rather than start an armada of *legal* download sites that would have stemmed the tide of illegal sites, they simply dispatched their lawyers. This whole debacle has been completely mishandled, and the RIAA shows no signs of waking up. As an amateur musician an big fan of all styles of music, I am deeply saddened by the whole situation because it virtually guarantees that the people who actually make the music will never get their share of what it's worth.
  17. brokeback mountain from toronto, Canada writes: btw, why is it ok to copy fashion designs, but not downloading music? or borrowing books in library or sharing magazines and newspapers, etc?
  18. Rollo Tomasi from darkness falls, Belgium writes: The file-sharing programs that emerged to take Napster's place point users to files available on a variety of computers and servers. But their impact has been the same: Millions of songs are being downloaded for free instead of purchased legally.
    -----------------------------------------------

    ...instead of rented legally. A copy of a copy of a master recording of a concert. Shame.
  19. Susie Q from Canada writes: Record companies are suing people to cover up their failings in handling their clients' assets.

    But, it's as ridiculous as Donna Karan suing me for giving my used clothes to the Sally Ann.
  20. C C from Canada writes: With regards to Ranter's silly rant, take a look at this recent Economist article:

    http://www.economist.com/business/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9443082

    I like how the Warner Music exec summed it up best by saying that the music industry is growing BUT the record industry is struggling. No one will miss the record labels as they fade away into a historic footnote.
  21. Anthony B from Sydney, NS, Canada writes: How about suing the recording industry for polluting the airwaves?
  22. Barry Moss from Abbotsford, BC, Canada writes: brokeback mountain from toronto, Canada writes: btw, why is it ok to copy fashion designs, but not downloading music? or borrowing books in library or sharing magazines and newspapers, etc?

    If you loan your CD to someone to listen to that's completely legal. However, if you broadcast it without permission or make copies that's not. If you make a photocopy of the entire book you took out from the library that's illegal too. The problem with illegal downloading is it's not really sharing--its illegal duplication. If I share something that means that I have less of it--certainly not the case with music downloading.
  23. Bryce Lachance from Toronto, Canada writes: I haven't bought an album in years - As long as the internet is around, piracy and peer2peer networks will live on...
  24. N. M. from Canada writes: Now I'm no lawyer but from this article it sounds like RIAA can't actually produce any proof as to the damages (i.e. exactly how many tunes she 'stole' for herself and how many she gave away to others (and to how many others)). I hope they get torn apart and this woman gets here legal fees reimbursed.

    But let's summarize some of the wiser points here.

    CD sales are down mostly due to increased media competition (movies, DVDs, video games, kids spending more time on-line rather than listening to music) and arguably (though I wouldn't be denying this) the content from the big lables (what's left of them) is derivative and uninspiring, and increasingly so at that.

    'Illegal' (not in Canada) downloads are taking a small nibble out of CD sales but so are legal downloads but both of these also probably increase word-of-mouth and halo type advertising effects (something along the lines of free samples).

    The record labels fired their A and R departments throughout the 80s and 90s and where in the past bands were developed over a number of years and given a few albums to grow their talent and art, they now have one shot with one 'hit' (usually an imitation of a past hit altered just enough so that they don't get sued for plagiarism) and if they don't make it huge they're stuck paying back a giant advance.

    The record industry was asleep at the wheel in the mid-90s when it became evident a new paradigm for music distribution (i.e. internet delivery) was rapidly about to explode onto the market and it still does not understand (or will not accept) that it must adapt and cope. Rising sales and increasing profits are not rights to which the labels are entitled; some businesses collapse as technology and society evolve.
  25. Mike Z from Saskatoon, Canada writes: Why do these articles never mention the fact that the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that music downloading is legal? It is only UPLOADING of music that is illegal, and I suspect that very few file-sharers know how to upload. As a point of clarification, having a downloaded file on your system being shared with other computers is NOT uploading. For every file online there is exactly ONE uploader. On torrent sites you can usually tell who that is, as their handle is often published so they can take credit.
  26. andy c from Canada writes: one thing to keep in mind is that music piracy has been around long before the internet. taping of radio and making duplicates as well as ilegal cd sales where popular before the internet age. Two very important factors changed with the internet. first, there is almost no quality loss when downloading from the net compared to radio taping. second, downloading online leaves a electronic trail to your computer/ip address where as if someone was recording off the radio the RIAA had no way of knowing.
  27. Rob Bairos from Toronto, Canada writes: Morals people.

    You do not own the music you download illegally.
    You do not have a right to do so.
    Ethics are not based on convenience.
    Ethics are not based on your perceived 'decline of music quality'
    Ethics are not based on what you* are willing to pay for an optional form of entertainment.
    Ethics are not based on your voluntary desire to replace your
    record collection with a superior technology (vinyl -> cassette-> digital).

    If the Recording industry is not adapting to new technology fast enough, or charges high prices, then the result is missed economic opportunity for them. It does *not     mean thievery is now permissible.

    In thirty years, when we'll be able to illegally clone a car or bookshelf or tv set as easily as we can clone a song, will thousands of assembly line workers suddenly realize what all the fuss is about..
  28. Sam Snead from Canada writes: I don't like it that some artist may be losing money because of this ... but live performance etc. offers a lot of revenue avenues. Recording industry took their fair share of from the artist themselves anyway.

    But no sympathy from me ... if you sold a CD from 10-12 bucks most people would simply buy it rather than spend the time downloading it. If they switched to a internet delivery mechanisms as well, they would probably get the same profit margin as they did before by selling for 10-12 bucks. Selling music will become less important in generating revenue streams anyway.

    But RIAA knows their distribution channel is over. They are just trying to maximize their money on the way out to other ventures. They don't care if people get pi$$ed off because they won't be there in 5 years.

    I welcome the change myself. Maybe now, what music is available will not be dictated as much as it was in the past ... maybe.
  29. J Williams from Moncton, Canada writes: I think the industry has definitely promoted the very thing that they are trying to stop now. Sony developed the Walkman as well as tape decks to connect to record players to record songs to play on said walkmans.

    No one gave a hoot when people were recording songs off the radio or copying LP'S, but now, the action is the same, but the result is more widespread due to the internet.

    I have no problems with downloading music, TV shows, or movies. However I do not download software as I do believe this constitutes theft. TV shows and movies are or will be free to all once they appear on television. Software, however, will never be available free of charge.
  30. N. M. from Canada writes: Oh don't equate my points as excuses for piracy. If you like some music and listen to it you should remunerate the artists involved in creating it. I just don't like the labels attributing all of their great recent losses to illegal copying through malicious, vindictive, morally petty lawsuits.

    They've finally realized that they've gotten themselves into serious trouble and are acting out of desperation with no regard to their customer base.
  31. Greg Calgary from Canada writes: What a waist of time. Right or wrong I Hope she wins.
  32. Stop! Think! from Canada writes: IT IS NOT ILLEGAL TO DOWNLOAD MUSIC....WE PAY A LEVY AND SURCHARGES ON ALL BLANK MEDIA...A DOWNLOAD CAN ONLY BE CONSIDERED COPIED WHEN IT IS PUT ONTO A CD, DVD, ETC...BUT WE PAY SURCHARGES ON THOSE MEDIAS THAT GO BACK TO THE MUSIC INDUSTRY....DOWNLOADING A SONG ONTO A COMPUTER IS NOT COPYING...IF YOUR COMPUTER CRASHES AND YOU LOSE YOUR HARD DRIVE, THERE GOES THE MUSIC.

    Funny part is that we are paying levies and surcharges to the music industry so that we can tranfer our personal photos to CD, DVD's...I say download as much as you can, because if you bought a blank media of any kind, you have already payed for the music, and more....

    I wish the media would actually tell it like it is instead of just making it look like we have the same laws that the US has...Geez!!!
  33. J. Douglas from Burlington, Canada writes: From reading the article it seems that they are not suing her for having illegally downloaded the files--they are suing her for allowing others access to her computer. Isn't this like me leaving the door to my house open and my neighbour coming in to take books from my library who then proceeds to photocopy them to put in his library? Why should I be sued for leaving the door open?
  34. Jason Thorne from Vancouver, Canada writes: Everyone missed the main point. I recommend re-reading the article. Forget about all the stuff about downloading and copying, which IS LEGAL in Canada, as long as it is for personal use, but this woman is in the US. The woman is being sued for having 1702 songs available online. No mention of downloading or uploading, or any illegal activities. There is nothing illegal about having the songs available online, which may have been electronic copies of CD's or songs purchased through legal online sites, and just because they are available doesn't mean you are uploading them because you need someone to download them for you to upload them. I would be surprised if the woman lost the case, the record companies have nothing and this woman was smart enough to realize it.
  35. Rebel Monk from Port Hope, Canada writes: I think it is interesting to note that the music industry, despite the threat posed by P2P file sharing programs, has not responded by either: opening up their own internet music download sites with prices that reflect the inferior sound quality of MP3 files, or dropped the prices of CD's. Seems to me they would rather take the moral high ground, while painting their previously loyal customers as thieves.
  36. Devil's Advocate from Canada writes: Let's see... statistics show file sharing has risen dramatically since 02 - the lawsuits aren't working. The music industry needs to find a different tactic than sue the living crap out of consumers, cause it sure ain't working.

    Putting files in a shared folder is no different than putting books in a library with a photocopier. Both are accessible to the public, and both allow for copying for personal use.
  37. Ben Dover from Vancouver, Canada writes: To heck with the industry. They authored their own demise when they chose to ignore digital music distributed over the Internet. The only reason Napster became popular 8 or 10 years ago is that it was the only means of finding a huge variety of music in a convenient format. However, it was a horrible pain in the butt to use. Time consuming, quality sucked, etc. But, like all things, P2P has improved over the years. Now many of us have gotten to this method and we aren't going to switch. Had the industry responed early on with a reasonable priced and convenient alternative, Napster and all the subsequent services would not have gained their prominenece. Furthermore, if not for Napster and co. we wouldn't even have the option to D/L legally. The RIAA would still have us going down to the local record store and shelling out $20
  38. Angry West Coast Canuck from Canada writes: Rob Bairos: that's the rub. RIAA claims she did, she claims they cannot and have not proven anything. People settle with the RIAA out of fear of the costs involved, not out of being right. This will finally determine if the RIAA can actually prove what it claims to be able to prove. The jury is literally still out on that.

    Preliminary technical analysis of the 'evidence' currently provided by the RIAA shows that they are on VERY thin ice here. Heck, the RIAA even tried to drop the case once it was sure to go to trial, only to be told they could not due drop it. Apparently the US legal system figured it was not an acceptable tactic to cost people thousands of dollars in lawyers fees only to have the RIAA just drop the case. It wasn't the first time they've done it either, but it's the first time the courts stopped them from abusing the system.

    This is one trial I'll be keeping track of. It is time for the RIAA to be taken down a huge notch, and this just might be the trial that does it.
  39. Bob McDonald from Canada writes: The crux. She took the music illegally for her own use - at a dollar a tune that's what, $1400 - NOT $1.2 million!! Just because she left the files in an accessible folder on her computer doesn't make her a deliberate distributer. The Kazaa service 'instructed' her to create the share file and set up the software to access her computer - unbeknowns to her! This is brutal corporate intimidation. If the music industry can't defeat Kazaa and Limewire - why are they foolishly attacking their own consumers. The music industry is doomed by stupidity! Hey, kids, download the music offered by the musicians ONLY. Avoid the music industry like a plague and we will all be rid of their brutal ignorance.
  40. Sunshine Policy from Vancouver, Canada writes: Let's hope problems such as make artists and art lovers aware that we don't need the recording industry middle-man any longer. At one time they bought us microphones and sound engineers, they helped us manufacture and distribute physical records, they helped us advertise in radio trade journals, and pushed our names onto the disc jocky play lists but today none of these things are necessary. Today, many artists, including major industry players such as Prince and Radiohead, are experimenting with home digital recording and direct distribution methods - they're making recordings that people want and they're making money. Still, the industry wants to continue collecting their cut, on services that aren't required. The best thing for artists and music fans will be the day the music industry goes broke.
  41. Richard Ball from Charlottetown PEI, Canada writes: Stop! Think! from Canada writes: 'IT IS NOT ILLEGAL TO DOWNLOAD MUSIC....'

    But it is unethical. The surcharge on blank media was put there because Canadians were stealing music. There is absolutely no guarantee that the funds raised from media surcharges go to the actual musicians whose music has been stolen. It goes to the biggest names; small indie groups will get little or nothing.

    The music is copyrighted. It is not yours to take.

    'Thou shalt not steal'.

    'Love your neighbour'.
  42. David Gibson from Hamilton, Canada writes: So she's a bathroom philosopher and cheap like most of you, with no respect for other people's property or occupations or art or income, so she decides to give away 1702 songs which she doesn't own. Well, if you don't like the record companies, it stinks to high heaven to steal their horrible product and then badmouth them. Leave it alone, mind your own business, and take Prince and Radiohead for free. Excuse me, I'm going to take my Glock down to the bank and do a little 'money-sharing.'
  43. Russ Kehoe from Canada writes: Richard Ball you can't have your cake and eat it too, is it copyright infringement or is it theft. It cannot be both (for the reasons of fundamental differences between the two definitions, copyright infringement vs. theft)
  44. Jeff Kelly from Kitchener, Canada writes: Richard Ball: It's unethical to use something that I have paid for? Gee, how? I, and millions of other Canadians, pay a levy on every bit of blank media we buy. Now, it doesn't matter that I use blank media for work, for storing digital photos, for backing up software, etc... I actually burn very little music to CD/DVD. But each one cost me more because of a levy that the CRIA wanted on there. Now... You tell me it's unethical to actually take the music that I have paid for through the levy?

    No. I have paid for this music, the courts have ruled that it is not illegal, and no laws are broken. As for how the money is shared out, well, the music recording industry in Canada lobbied for things to be this way, let them sort it out. Your argument is specious anyway; very little profit from the purchase of a CD makes its way to recording artists. At least through the levy, I gather it skips the industry middlemen.
  45. Holden Longfather from Toronto, Canada writes: I download -- and I don't kid myself that it's not considered stealing. However, I do try to "ethically" download. For the most part, I restrict my downloading to items I already own. I have lots music trapped on vinyl and rotting on cassette that are now unplayable. I have 20-year-old VHS tapes of legally purchased movies sitting unplayable on my bookshelves because VHS is dead. I paid good money for this stuff! Whenever I can find the music in .mp3 format, I download them so I can continue to enjoy them on my ipod. When I can find the movies as mpg or avi files, I burn them on DVDs. Often if I see a film I really like at a theatre, I'll download it afterward so that I can watch it again at home. When it comes out on DVD, I buy the real copy and erase the downloaded (always inferior) version from my computer. There is also the rare occasion when I'm curious about an artist, but don't know if I like him/her or not. Take for example, Amy Winehouse. I wanted to find out what all the fuss was about. I downloaded a few tracks, I thought she was amazing, then I bought both her albums. So did I steal from Amy Winehouse? Did I steal from the artists whom I collected in the 70s and 80s? Did I steal from the movie makers who got my $$ at the box office and the video store? I paid royalties to all these artists and yet, I'm considered a criminal. It's a mad world.
  46. ginny ! from Canada writes: the business model in the music industry is changing, and you'll never stop that with a few lawsuits.
  47. Shamus M from Canada writes: If I take your car that's stealing. If I make a copy of your car you still have your car.
  48. Darren X from Toronto, Canada writes: Rob Bairos: "In thirty years, when we'll be able to illegally clone a car or bookshelf or tv set as easily as we can clone a song, will thousands of assembly line workers suddenly realize what all the fuss is about.. "

    rob, that would represent glorious PROGRESS. The assembly line workers can be put to work on more useful activities, just as record shop clerks and entertainment lawyers can be now (if the latter have any useful skills, that is).
  49. P S from Canada writes: Seems like a lot of people are trying to justify their downloading by ignoring the obvious.

    If a song is downloaded for free, no one gets paid, not the record company or the artist.

    Sharing a song that 100's or 1000's of people can download and copy is not the same as giving away one piece of clothing you've paid for.

    If you don't think all the 1000's of copies downloaded has impacted the record industry (and artists) by reducing income , then give your head a shake.
  50. R M from Canada writes: If she actually had these songs all available for others to upload, there's no choice that she broke the law. Beyond that, there are a number of issues that may not affect the legality or illegality of this case, but affect all of us. The record industry makes a lot of bogus claims about the impact of file sharing. The financial cost they put forth is ridiculous. They assume that every song that is downloaded is a lost sale. Let's get real here. Were the songs not easily available for download, the vast majority would not have been purchased anyway. I know many people who have tens of thousands of songs that they've download sitting on their hard drives. I would venture a guess that they've never listened to 75% of them, nor will they ever do so. File sharing becomes obsessive at times - people download complete artists' discographies simply because they can, not because they really want them. I also download to have a listen before I purchase the CD. Blue Rodeo put out a new release this week - I downloaded and had a quick listen, like what I heard and went out and bought the CD. There is also no question that the quality of music coming out from the major labels is declining. There are fewer and fewer releases, and they focus only on material that will sell to the mass market. Artists who do not have that mainstream appeal will likely never find a label willing to record and distribute them. I've begun to get most of my music from Emusic.com, which distributes independent stuff in regular mp3 format without copy protection. Cost is about $0.35 each, a reasonable price for a downloaded song. I was a bit afraid that I wouldn't find material to my liking from an "indie" distributor, but I was delighted to find everything from rock to folk to easy listening. It's allowing me to say bye-bye to the mainstream crap put out by the big companies. Big companies are dying a natural death by failing to adapt to new markets and technologies.
  51. D K from Canada writes: Why is it I cannot get a legal copy of my favorite artist's music for <$35. Because he is from Australia? In today's digital world, that is no longer an excuse. But hey music is "reasonably" priced. Phhht!
  52. Music Fan from Canada writes: Any real artist will still survive because they will make their money from performing live and profitting from ticket sales. The downloads are just free advertising for them.

    And to Reasonable Ranter, If someone wasn't going to buy your work anyway, then they should be able to steal it, right?
  53. Greg Ohio from Cleveland, United States writes: The IP address shows there wasn't a router? Sorry, the cable box assigns the IP address, and it would be the same whether there was a router or a computer connected to it. But, perjury seems to be the norm for the recording industry.
  54. Chris Haines from Vancouver, writes: I hope she gets off. I used to illegally download all the time before I had a fair and legal alternative. If none of us ever did that, music companies would have not started making their libraries available on line and we would still all be buying CD's at retail outlets.

    The Boston Tea Party wasn't legal, but it led to the US Declaration of Independence. Sometimes civil disobedience is necessary to force change, especially when the market is designed to prevent change.
  55. No No No Yes No from Canada writes: Got this on Slashdot...Shows the extent that some studios will go to.

    "Says Jennifer Pariser, the head of litigation for Sony BMG: 'When an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song. Making a copy of a purchased song is just a nice way of saying 'steals just one copy'.'"

    yup...Copying from your CD to your IPOD is stealing according to Sony...Nice.

  56. Devil's Advocate from Canada writes: The music industry has shown their true colours - the head of litigation for Sony BMG is on record as saying ripping music from a CD you own to your iPod is piracy, and they think you have to rebuy songs for each digital device you own.

    http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071002-sony-bmgs-chief-anti-piracy-lawyer-copying-music-you-own-is-stealing.html
  57. D K from Canada writes: Does she weigh the same as a duck? Burn her! Burn the witch!
  58. ali khan from Toronto, Canada writes: This is insane, they are suing her for downloading, who doesn't download, are they going to start suing everyone that downloaded, and jennifer pariser is an idiot, how the hell does she expect to pay for songs and then put limitations on them not being able to copy it for their own personal use. These companies need to find a new way to create revenue there are tons of ways to create revenue which will be more than the petty cash they will collect instead.
  59. Brit . from Canada writes: This women and her lawyer in this article is very stupid. It is her fault for allowing someone to gain access to her internet connection. If you buy a wireless router, it is your responsibility to secure it to prevent unauthorized access.
  60. A G from Canada writes: Re: Brit. from Canada ..."If you buy a wireless router, it is your responsibility to secure it "

    that is correct. Unfortunatelly consumers are not educated in this regard and malicious individuals use these open routers to distribute viruses, spam, hacking, illegal material, etc. All wireless routers are sold with a default configuration that is not secure because the emphasis is on the plug-and-play aspect not security. Such routers should be sold with a default configuration in which wireless functionality is disabled unless the user set-up the encryption keys, protocols, etc. In this particular case, even if she did not upload the music, she provided the means for someone else to do it.
  61. Jodey D from Ottawa, Canada writes: I buy music ... lots of it. To me this has little to do with who is in the right in terms of copyright. The record companies should ask themselves a simple question - Is it worth it? I think the answer is no. The PR hit they take is huge and I would love to see polling numbers on this.

    They come off as spoiled brats and I ask myself why I continue to support them. Yesterday I bought the new Bruce Springsteen album and I guarantee no matter what they do I will continue to buy his albums but on Monday I heard a couple of cuts off of the new Blue Rodeo album that I liked. I have been thinking I might pick it up even though I am not a huge fan. Well based on this article kiss goodbye to that sale. Picking on single mothers is just not doing it for me. My life will continue on just fine thanks without that music. I got lots of CDs at home. So if this continues.... well I am just going to stop buying CDs that are "optional" for me.
  62. Rob Bairos from Toronto, Canada writes: Darren X from Toronto, Canada writes: Rob Bairos: "In thirty years, when we'll be able to illegally clone a car or bookshelf or tv set as easily as we can clone a song, will thousands of assembly line workers suddenly realize what all the fuss is about.. "

    rob, that would represent glorious PROGRESS. The assembly line workers can be put to work on more useful activities, just as record shop clerks and entertainment lawyers can be now (if the latter have any useful skills, that is).

    --I agree, unless youre one of the people working diligently to mine the minerals, design the car, troubleshoot the prototypes, etc, etc, etc which your neighbours smugly steal a final copy of.

    Progress is never an excuse for a lack of ethics.
    I totally understand the delivery of music is evolving, and I look forward to the new mechanisms the market will provide, but nothing should trump property rights.

    Rob.
  63. Rob Bairos from Toronto, Canada writes: "Shamus M from Canada writes: If I take your car that's stealing. If I make a copy of your car you still have your car. "

    According to your logic, a person's contribution is only as worth as much as the cost of reproducing it ??

    How about you dedicate the next few years of your life producing something you find valuable. I'll then copy it onto a 25 cent CD and even reimburse you a quarter.

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to top