sheila Kaufman says:

I'm not actually an artist, I'm a lyricist, but I demo my own songs for other artists to get a sense of what I do, and what they might like to use. If that is then taken, stolen, what have I got left? If the general public want artists, including the ones who write the words they enjoy singing along with, to be able to continue to work, and to continue to eat as well, then stealing is just stealing, and paying is paying. Yes, it's great to get something for free, but you are taking something that can never be replaced, which is the time and creativity that went into the process.

StupidRIaa says:

Sure its stealing. Just like when I buy a book and then decide to give it away. I bought it and I decide what to do with it. The RIAA has stolen that choice from me when it comes to music.

How can authors of books possibly hope to survive? Easy, by not churning out junk, embracing new technology, and not giving their customers a giant F you when it comes to what they can and cant do with the stuff they already paid for.

Josh says:

Ever hear of myspace, purevolume, pandora, etcetcetcetc? All places you can find new music without OWNING it. That's the difference between exploring and stealing. With stealing you're actually taking someones work, putting it to disc or mp3, and then it's yours, so you have the convenience of listening to it anytime. You don't need to own music to hear it and appreciate it and eventually pay for it if you like it enough. Anyone that says you do is trying to justify their cheap-ass, thieving ways.

Omegaphi says:

Fuk you stupid waels and fuuk you dowfins and RRIA

nibbles and bits says:

…hell, if its one of my friends that gives me the mp3 its arguably fair use.

I love how people think these business plans and laws made by man are some sort of unbreakable cosmic pact that absolutely cannot be broken. If I took your physical copy that would be stealing. Copying is just copying.

Do you think all the information in the world should only be accessible by the monied classes? Ok, what about works of art and culture? Do you believe that the world is a better place with "total information awareness" for everyone on earth or do you think that way of thinking is dirty communist talk and if a poor African can't afford a text book they should just go wallow in ignorance and starve to death?

Justin Bowers says:

ok…yeah. like the musicians would make way more than the 15% agents make for them if they did everything themselves. BULLSHIT! ask a pro musician if he/she/they hates their record company. bet ya… my entire harry potter dvd collecti…on, my new couch, the bed i sleep on, my freestyle redline, aaaaaaaaaaaand a huge box of ramen, a professional musician will give their shirt off their back if their agent needed it. sounds to me like this is a classic note written by somebody who had no talent, and then is looking for something else to blame for their lameness other than themselves. right? bad habit to look into shit like this… it grows. turns into hate. then you yourself never lift anybody up cause you u think u might be scum. or, you become the starving artists who ends up embarassing themselves for the rest of thier lives by not seeing the truth in that maybe, as a musician, u fuking suck! lol like uncle ricco from napoleon (sp). if coach just woulda… dude. coaches DO NOT STEAL from those who perform. they benefit from by being probably more giving than the unfortunate lack of success by somebody, maybe talented, but also maybe a huge fuking dumb ass! record companies? lol ok. yeah. thier fault we don't buy cd's anymore. LMAO

Rick says:

You can't buy the music, only the container. Buying the music is like buying purple or hot.

If I go into a convenience store and put a bottle of Happy Springs water in my jacket, that is stealing. The Happy Springs company had to collect the water, bottle it, advertise it, and transport it to my location and sell it to the convenience store. That's expensive and it would be morally wrong to take it without paying in nearly all circumstances.

What if the Happy Springs River runs across my property, is it stealing to fill my canteen? In my mind it is not morally wrong to take something that is (for this analogy) unlimited. It isn't stealing because I haven't taken anyone's property, nor have I impeded anyone's ability to sell their product.

Technology has obviated much of what record companies do. Yes, many people will lose their jobs as the record companies change form to adapt to the new technology, but the change will happen. Ask the pinsetters, coopers, telegraph operators and milkmen about it.

Musicians can still make a living performing music just like they have for hundreds of years. Those performances can then be put onto physical media which can be sold. When you buy a CD you are purchasing a container of those performances, that makes some sense. If I pay 50$ to see Radiohead in concert then I am paying them to get up on stage and perform. But paying for a computer file that costs $0 to copy an unlimited number of times, that doesn't make sense.

In the end it is irrelevant. Because the "product" doesn't actually exist, there is no possible way to eliminate piracy without also eliminating legimate sales. This is one of those circumstances in which the defense will always be a step or two behind the attack. It's just a matter of whether it is the musicians that kill the record companies by striking off on their own, or whether the record companies kill themselves by killing all of their own customers.

Rune says:

Simple then

…

don't put ur shit on the internet

No need to know my n says:

Oh, one other thing. If this is such a big deal then why aren't the artists, or creators of said intellectual property, doing the suing. After all, they don't get much from the earnings when compared to the record labels and what not. That just proves that when you buy the media you are purchasing the medium on which the media if stored.