What is PJ's view regarding filesharing of their music?

Pepe Silvia

i don't know how they feel about their studio albums but when they first sold their live boots in stores after Binaural their stance was they don't care what you do with them after you buy them

VINNY GOOMBA

It should be up to the artist whether or not their music is for free. If they want to pursue people who steal from them, it's up to them-- however, anyone who wants to regulate the internet the way Bono is talking about is way out of line. Bono, please, stop sticking up for the little guy, or pick a different little guy to stand up for... This sort of thing is always a backdoor entry to unnecessary censorship, and he almost acknowledges that in his writing with his China reference.

I know my band is going to sell the physical version of our next album, and make the music free to download online. T-shirts, stickers, hoodies, those all cost money, and people actually BUY those these days. Basically, the fans are paying for what actually costs us money-- the packaging and artwork, but the music is free. Music isn't my career, so I'm not in the same ballpark as people who are trying to make this their primary source of income, but in the end, this strategy may benefit us more than someone who is touring the country trying to make money off of everything they have to offer, including the music. Time will tell.

concertaholicshirt

Something that a LOT of people are forgetting here is that it's not just the performers. Some of the greatest music written in the last century was written by people who never had hits themselves, or who weren't performers at all. Does Bernie Taupin deserve to possibly be a pauper because he wasn't much of a performer, even though he co-wrote most of Elton John's career building hits? While his stuff isn't really my cup of tea, should Burt Bacharach only have a minimal level of assets from his mediocre performing career, instead of writing royalties from all of the monster hits he wrote for others? For that matter, should Dave Abbruzzese not get royalties for Elderly Woman or Corduroy? There are TONS of song writers who never made it as performers, but live very comfortably because they wrote the music and/or lyrics of a platinum record or two. All of those who suggest that obtaining music illegally is OK and the performers should make all of their money on concerts and merchandising are massively screwing over thousands of songwriters. In some cases, they could keep the world from experiencing further art from the writers that would possible due to the cushion they have from their first hit. Some people out there are pretty myopic about this issue, and need to consider a bit more of the overall picture.

pauland74

keeponrockin wrote:

What I don't get is why people feel they are entitled to music at a cheaper price simply because they don't like the price it's currently at. Am I allowed to steal an iPod because I feel they SHOULD be cheaper?

I don't think it's right to compare downloading against stealing. E.g if I come home to you and steal your car then that means you cannot use your car until it's returned. However if I download music from the internet it doesn't mean there aren't any copies left. It's very unfortunate that the two get mixed up together ,because stealing is stealing and downloading is an infringement on a copyright. Also lets not forget that the basis for all communication on the internet is based on copying. Also the ways things are going now is that ordinary people who are caught downloading maybe fined very large amounts of money (atleast here in sweden) more as scare tactics and not the actual value of the downloaded file. That means tha ordinary people could have to pay much larger fines than compared if you would assault,rape or kill someone. Now isn't that sick?

Yielded wrote:
Yes, technology is a lot more accessible nowadays. It is a lot easier for the 'Regular John' to record and publish his own tunes. People tend to think that cheap equipment means everyone can make records or films cheaply. It doesn't matter how cheap or how expensive it is - If you don't know how to use it, you won't make it sound good. Don't you think expertise should be rewarded adequately?

Of course expertise should be rewarded. Have I said anything to the contrary? Just because I advocate free filesharing for private use doesn't mean I don't think highly skilled people should get paid. But you have to get your figures right. The size of the cake has gotten bigger for artist in terms of revenue from concerts and merchandise, however record labels have lost some income due to decline in sales of cds albums. I prefer that the artists gets the money!!

But electricity in turn created jobs in power plants and coal mines, didn't it?

How can anyone think that people will keep creating art if it doesn't allow them to live anymore?

Yes. That's a great point. Even though electricity came and some people lost there jobs, new jobs were created. That's the thing with technology. You can't stop it by laws and other repressive actions.

Yielded wrote:
Like anything, there's two sides to every argument. There are also studies that prove the contrary. I don't care whether the record industry is right or wrong. What I know is that art isn't worthless and the widespread assumption that has been created (especially amongst young people who have never lived without the internet) that art is just commodity to be shared isn't something I can agree with - As someone who values original creation.

Of course there are two sides. RIght now there are corporations who feel that the internet is a threat to them. And on the other side you have people/orginasation/grassroots who are fighting to keep the internet free for all humanity to use and spread information. I would compare what's happening now with what was happening when Gutenburg came with the invention of printing books(another technolgy change where some people probably lost there job,but new jobs were created). This was of course a big threat to the catholic church who then ( I think it was in the 16 th centrury) had a monopoly of all the information that was put out.

I understand your feelings about young people who have never lived without the internet, but consider being in there position. They are used to exchanging information at rate that was unthinkable for us when we were young (I'm 35). Also you have to consider that the amount of data that is being produced every year is growing exponentially. See link.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOpA9kNb3fkAnd this was from 2008.

For me it all boils down to if there isn't anything done with the copyright laws we are going to move towards fascism. So which do you choose?

pauland74

concertaholicshirt wrote:

ll of those who suggest that obtaining music illegally is OK and the performers should make all of their money on concerts and merchandising are massively screwing over thousands of songwriters. In some cases, they could keep the world from experiencing further art from the writers that would possible due to the cushion they have from their first hit. Some people out there are pretty myopic about this issue, and need to consider a bit more of the overall picture.

So how do you think you are going to stop filesharing? The only way you can stop it is by controlling all of the information that is flowing through the internet. Of course the costs for this would be very huge (taxpayers will probably have to pay it). But it also mean that there will be a third party listening to all the information that you exchange with family,friends,collegues etc.. A clear violation to the universal declaration of human rights!! Who would you like to give that power to? Are we going to have corporate police on the internet hunting down people for filesharing? This is probably there future business plan I guess. In a democratic country you can't have mass surveillance on the whole population then you are on your way to the slippery road to fascism. This is not acceptable in my point of view. That's why the rule of law says that if you want to surveil somebody you have to get a court order with a justible cause, otherwise there will not be any rule of law which is essential to a democratic society. Also it has been shown that people that live in a surveillance society are often less likely to express themselves in the way that they would if they know or suspect there is a third party listening to them. What kind of impact will that have on society.

But I do agree with you that some people out there are pretty myopic about this issue, and need to consider a bit more of the overall picture.

pauland74

What we refer to as copyrights is actually several rights . These different rights (4 in total) have more differences than simularities. If we are talking about these rights we should be clear about which of these 4 rights we are talking about.

Two of these rights are civil exclusive rights, what we colloquially refer to sa monopoly, and can be sold or transferred. Their purpose is to maximize the culture of society. The other two laws are about an artist's relationship to his work, and stays with the artist throughout their lives and originate in moral rights and values.

1. A commercial monopoly on the production of copies of recordings of the work.Monopoly lasts throught the artists life plus 70 years!!

2. A commercial monopoly on public performance i.e concerts and radio.

3.An artists right to be associated with his work.Attribution. This right basically lasts forever.

4. An artists right to prevent performance on their work.

I think the first 2 points have to be changed/reduced to explicity apply to business activity trades, and should not apply private persons or activities in non-profit organisations. And the monopoly should be reduced for 5 years from publication.It should only apply to the original work. Meaning that mashups,remixes should be encouraged.

Point 3 & 4 I have absolutely no problem with.

keeponrockin

concertaholicshirt wrote:

Something that a LOT of people are forgetting here is that it's not just the performers. Some of the greatest music written in the last century was written by people who never had hits themselves, or who weren't performers at all. Does Bernie Taupin deserve to possibly be a pauper because he wasn't much of a performer, even though he co-wrote most of Elton John's career building hits? While his stuff isn't really my cup of tea, should Burt Bacharach only have a minimal level of assets from his mediocre performing career, instead of writing royalties from all of the monster hits he wrote for others? For that matter, should Dave Abbruzzese not get royalties for Elderly Woman or Corduroy? There are TONS of song writers who never made it as performers, but live very comfortably because they wrote the music and/or lyrics of a platinum record or two. All of those who suggest that obtaining music illegally is OK and the performers should make all of their money on concerts and merchandising are massively screwing over thousands of songwriters. In some cases, they could keep the world from experiencing further art from the writers that would possible due to the cushion they have from their first hit. Some people out there are pretty myopic about this issue, and need to consider a bit more of the overall picture.

Great point.

keeponrockin

musicismylife78 wrote:

keeponrockin wrote:

What I don't get is why people feel they are entitled to music at a cheaper price simply because they don't like the price it's currently at. Am I allowed to steal an iPod because I feel they SHOULD be cheaper?

And what I dont get is, why people like you continue to apologize and support a dying and exploitative machine like the record industry. You really think any of those CEO's give a damn about any of their clients wellbeing beyond said clients ability to strengthen the bottom line (money)? The record industry shot themselves in the foot, they dug their own grave and now they have the ire and rage of the public to contend with. Its been said a million times before, but obviously some people, cough, cough, dont get it. When Napster appeared in 1999, the record industry could have called Shawn Fanning up and tried to work out a deal. Or they could have started some partnership where, for unlimited downloads, a customer pays 20 bucks a month, and that bill would come in the mail every month like the electric bill or the cable bill. Instead they have spent the last decade, demonizing, criminalizing, fining, and at times jailing those who download music.

Would you have honestly heard of half the bands you listen to if they didn't have a record deal of some kind? I don't mind the record company getting some of my money BECAUSE they're the ones taking risks with the artists, some of the time paying for recording, and giving them that shot in the arm they need to make it. I would almost gaurantee you that you would not have heard of 'Eddie Vedder' if it weren't for SOME FORM of record company. And it's not just the big boys, if you don't buy music, then I would assume you download EVERYTHING, including something like Broken Social Scene, who ARE THEIR OWN RECORD COMPANY. I think it should be up to the artist, if they want their music to be given away for free, do it. But if an artists wants one to pay for their work, then one should do so.

g under p

concertaholicshirt wrote:

Something that a LOT of people are forgetting here is that it's not just the performers. Some of the greatest music written in the last century was written by people who never had hits themselves, or who weren't performers at all. Does Bernie Taupin deserve to possibly be a pauper because he wasn't much of a performer, even though he co-wrote most of Elton John's career building hits? While his stuff isn't really my cup of tea, should Burt Bacharach only have a minimal level of assets from his mediocre performing career, instead of writing royalties from all of the monster hits he wrote for others? For that matter, should Dave Abbruzzese not get royalties for Elderly Woman or Corduroy? There are TONS of song writers who never made it as performers, but live very comfortably because they wrote the music and/or lyrics of a platinum record or two. All of those who suggest that obtaining music illegally is OK and the performers should make all of their money on concerts and merchandising are massively screwing over thousands of songwriters. In some cases, they could keep the world from experiencing further art from the writers that would possible due to the cushion they have from their first hit. Some people out there are pretty myopic about this issue, and need to consider a bit more of the overall picture.

I agree because I made the same of point of co-songwriter Pye Dubois on the song *Tom Sawyer* by RUSH. Everytime that song is on video, dvd or cd even played in concert he gets royalities. Just imagine how many times that song has been played in concert, in fact every RUSH show since it's release. He's able to live well due to having written that song along with some others and NOT being a performer in concert. They're many others like you stated and should be conpensated for their gifts of songwriting and not being able to play the stage.

Peace

musicismylife78

concertaholicshirt wrote:

Something that a LOT of people are forgetting here is that it's not just the performers. Some of the greatest music written in the last century was written by people who never had hits themselves, or who weren't performers at all. Does Bernie Taupin deserve to possibly be a pauper because he wasn't much of a performer, even though he co-wrote most of Elton John's career building hits? While his stuff isn't really my cup of tea, should Burt Bacharach only have a minimal level of assets from his mediocre performing career, instead of writing royalties from all of the monster hits he wrote for others? For that matter, should Dave Abbruzzese not get royalties for Elderly Woman or Corduroy? There are TONS of song writers who never made it as performers, but live very comfortably because they wrote the music and/or lyrics of a platinum record or two. All of those who suggest that obtaining music illegally is OK and the performers should make all of their money on concerts and merchandising are massively screwing over thousands of songwriters. In some cases, they could keep the world from experiencing further art from the writers that would possible due to the cushion they have from their first hit. Some people out there are pretty myopic about this issue, and need to consider a bit more of the overall picture.

Them being compensated for their work has no bearing in this conversation. So by buying an Elton John cd rather than stealing, I am helping Bernie feed his family? If I steal, I am stealing from Bernie? I dont have that power and neither do you. Again, you ever read a record contract? The relationship isnt fair to begin with. No question artists should be compensated for their art, but the question is whether time should be spent tracking down downloaders in order to get artists compensated, or if time would be better spent doing something else? Something else, like trying to change the RIAA recording contract laws, and trying to get congress or the House involved in passing a law that requires labels to enter into the contract 50/50. AT the end of the day, Bernie is gonna be happier with that result, as opposed to tracking down some University dorm student who couldnt afford the cd anyways.

Again you miss the point friend. Were these forgotten about songwriters EVER respected, or given their dues? You seem to think of this mythical, and make no mistake it is mythical, time where artists who were honest, and important and whatnot, were rewarded with loads of money for their work. Those who wrote the music and accompaniment for the best music of the last century never were respected, and never were given compensation for their work. The music industry is rich precisely because they refused to pay any money to these folks.

What overall picture are you talking about? When have the most important people in music ever been given the due they deserve? Its always the Britneys who are living comfortably, while the creators of real honest music languish in the shadows. Its alot like activism. MLK and Malcolm x are important. But maybe more important than them, are the millions of blacks who protested and demanded their rights. The grandmothers who walked miles to work each day during the Bus boycott. We will never know their names, yet, they deserve probably even more credit than the MLK's of the world.

So yeah, I agree, many musicians languish in the shadows and never recieve their due credit. But again when were they ever? As I said, modern music is built off the work, exploitated work that others, usually black musicians did. How many of the original blues musicians and early black rock musicians ever got their due for being the impetus for the billions of dollars modern music makes every year?

The illegal filesharing issue is a strawman. The real issue is the treatment of artists by their employers. I do not have the power to hire or fire a musician. The real enemies are the CEO's of these corporations who as I said, ONLY care about the bottom line. When a musician signs a contract, the CEO doesnt give a crap whether that artist makes important, long lasting music, or if that music is cherished by people in personal ways. The artist is dropped if he or she isnt making money. That to me is beyond sad.

How about creating a more valuable A and R experience. Where the record label employs someone who can guide the artist after that first record hits big. An A and R person who can help the artist deal with fame, stress and the modern musical environment.

musicismylife78

another thing is the inherent Quixoitic nature of those who pursue the downloaders. How is it even feasible to stop hundreds of millions of people from illegally downloading? How do you go about that? You sure as hell dont go about it the way the industry has since 1999. For all the lawsuits and jail time and fines, 2010 has more people downloading now than at any time since 1999. Cd sales continue to slip month after month, year after year.

As has been stated, you are for prosecuting the downloaders? Fine. Now tell us a legitimate legal and law enforcement strategy to stop hundreds of millions of people worldwide who download. Whats your plan? Whats the strategy? The game plan? Cause it has to be different than whats been going on. We have tried fines, jail time and hauling people into court. We have tried demonizing those who download. That hasnt worked. What should be the next course of action?

musicismylife78

g under p wrote:

concertaholicshirt wrote:

Something that a LOT of people are forgetting here is that it's not just the performers. Some of the greatest music written in the last century was written by people who never had hits themselves, or who weren't performers at all. Does Bernie Taupin deserve to possibly be a pauper because he wasn't much of a performer, even though he co-wrote most of Elton John's career building hits? While his stuff isn't really my cup of tea, should Burt Bacharach only have a minimal level of assets from his mediocre performing career, instead of writing royalties from all of the monster hits he wrote for others? For that matter, should Dave Abbruzzese not get royalties for Elderly Woman or Corduroy? There are TONS of song writers who never made it as performers, but live very comfortably because they wrote the music and/or lyrics of a platinum record or two. All of those who suggest that obtaining music illegally is OK and the performers should make all of their money on concerts and merchandising are massively screwing over thousands of songwriters. In some cases, they could keep the world from experiencing further art from the writers that would possible due to the cushion they have from their first hit. Some people out there are pretty myopic about this issue, and need to consider a bit more of the overall picture.

I agree because I made the same of point of co-songwriter Pye Dubois on the song *Tom Sawyer* by RUSH. Everytime that song is on video, dvd or cd even played in concert he gets royalities. Just imagine how many times that song has been played in concert, in fact every RUSH show since it's release. He's able to live well due to having written that song along with some others and NOT being a performer in concert. They're many others like you stated and should be conpensated for their gifts of songwriting and not being able to play the stage.

Peace

So some frat kid at the University of Iowa is damaging the financial status of Pye Dubois? Excuse me while I politely disagree friend.

musicismylife78

per usual Damien Rice has sobering thoughts on the whole issue. Brilliant as always:

"A true artist does art for its own sake and has no fear of not having money. Great songs write themselves—a song, like fresh air, is a gift. We are programmed into thinking we can buy and own things, but it’s all just an illusion. I play along because that’s what we do here on earth—for now."

Quote-unquote. Discussion put to bed.

Yielded

musicismylife78 wrote:

per usual Damien Rice has sobering thoughts on the whole issue. Brilliant as always:

"A true artist does art for its own sake and has no fear of not having money. Great songs write themselves—a song, like fresh air, is a gift. We are programmed into thinking we can buy and own things, but it’s all just an illusion. I play along because that’s what we do here on earth—for now."

Quote-unquote. Discussion put to bed.

So because Damien Rice thinks so this puts the discussion 'to bed'?

The fact is that the music being downloaded does NOT belong to anyone apart from the ARTIST. If they wanna share it for free, there you go. But the arrogance demonstrated by thousands by assuming it's OK to download is beyond me. I'm thinking of thousands of people who aren't on major labels, independent labels that may have started in bedrooms and are offering fair deals to artists they believe in. No one is forced into a record deal.

I don't agree with suing some college kids who will never be able to pay off any of their debts anyway. That's just counter productive. I also don't want tight regulation of the internet.

Trent Reznor, Radiohead, Damien Rice (who I all love by the way) keep being mentioned, but these guys are in certain positions and can afford to say and do the things they do.

CJMST3K wrote:

However, the idea that people should be compensated for their work is lost on a lot of people.

Exactly. If music keeps being devalued the way it has been, that makes me rather sad.

TriumphantAngel

Yielded wrote:

musicismylife78 wrote:

per usual Damien Rice has sobering thoughts on the whole issue. Brilliant as always:

"A true artist does art for its own sake and has no fear of not having money. Great songs write themselves—a song, like fresh air, is a gift. We are programmed into thinking we can buy and own things, but it’s all just an illusion. I play along because that’s what we do here on earth—for now."

Quote-unquote. Discussion put to bed.

So because Damien Rice thinks so this puts the discussion 'to bed'?

apparently so :?

if an artist wants to give away their music, that's up to them. they don't speak for every other artist. and what about all the new and upcoming artists. what will happen to them. they don't have an abundance of funds like the already well established artists. they need someone to invest in them before they can even think about living off what they would make from hitting the tour scene.

keeponrockin

musicismylife78 wrote:

g under p wrote:

concertaholicshirt wrote:

Something that a LOT of people are forgetting here is that it's not just the performers. Some of the greatest music written in the last century was written by people who never had hits themselves, or who weren't performers at all. Does Bernie Taupin deserve to possibly be a pauper because he wasn't much of a performer, even though he co-wrote most of Elton John's career building hits? While his stuff isn't really my cup of tea, should Burt Bacharach only have a minimal level of assets from his mediocre performing career, instead of writing royalties from all of the monster hits he wrote for others? For that matter, should Dave Abbruzzese not get royalties for Elderly Woman or Corduroy? There are TONS of song writers who never made it as performers, but live very comfortably because they wrote the music and/or lyrics of a platinum record or two. All of those who suggest that obtaining music illegally is OK and the performers should make all of their money on concerts and merchandising are massively screwing over thousands of songwriters. In some cases, they could keep the world from experiencing further art from the writers that would possible due to the cushion they have from their first hit. Some people out there are pretty myopic about this issue, and need to consider a bit more of the overall picture.

I agree because I made the same of point of co-songwriter Pye Dubois on the song *Tom Sawyer* by RUSH. Everytime that song is on video, dvd or cd even played in concert he gets royalities. Just imagine how many times that song has been played in concert, in fact every RUSH show since it's release. He's able to live well due to having written that song along with some others and NOT being a performer in concert. They're many others like you stated and should be conpensated for their gifts of songwriting and not being able to play the stage.

Peace

So some frat kid at the University of Iowa is damaging the financial status of Pye Dubois? Excuse me while I politely disagree friend.

Not necessairly. Lets say Pye Dubois got, 10 cents from every Rush record sold (I don't know what the total is, but for numbers sake). If that record were to sell a million copies, then he would make $100,000. Now, if half those people just downloaded, he would only make $50,000. Thats a hell of a difference. So, an individual fat kid downloading doesn't make a difference, but a million of them do.

That's like saying 'So one person driving a car wrecks the environment'... One doesn't, but at the combined, they do.

TriumphantAngel

concertaholicshirt wrote:

One thing that is frustrating is how hard it is to find who has the rights to things. I have a pretty extensive collection of bootlegs on YouTube, and I'd love to get permission from the performers and song writers. It's a pain in the neck to find the proper contacts in the first place, and the few I have never get back to me. Actually, Cheap Trick took the initiative and commercialized their song that I posted, and now ads show up. More power to them if they can make a few bucks from it... I have no problems with that. I certainly don't make any money off of it, and I think it only helps the artists. Seeing one of my videos is far more likely to make someone want to go see the artist live than to say that my footage is an adequate substitute to doing that. However, I'll always respect the artists wishes and take down the video if they want. It's only right.

this is a little bit off topic but still relevant to your youtube comment. it's also a problem for musicians who for whatever reason might want to broadcast their covers of other artists work. i know thousands of people do do it, and every now and then YouTube go on a rampage and delete delete delete :(

they get their revenue from advertising based on the number of hits each time someone accesses the link, and because they are receiving a financial benefit for the videos, they say they have to be careful of copyright laws. there doesn't seem to be a lot of consistancy in how they enforce it though.

i have played guitar for years, and mostly it wasn't an issue if we wanted to play tribute songs at clubs and bars because the venues would usually buy a licence from one of the societies. i understand that scenario is different to what you are talking about, because we were getting paid to perform.

if we were just having fun with the artists music with a few friends in our living room, then we are not publically playing copyrighted material so we were ok. no one can tell you what you can or cannot do with it. on YouTube though, according to them, whether you are being paid or not, you are still performing publically, so that's where they will get you everytime. I agree it's over the top and ridiculously anal, but i also see the otherside where music is like all personal property, when you want to use it, you need permission.

It's also ridiculous to expect that everyone will automatically join a Performance Rights Organization (like ASCAP) and pay their membership dues.

and no one can deny that if it wasn't for places like YouTube, we would not have the exposure to so many artists work that we may not have heard any other way.

have you ever had any dramas with your videos? i've seen posts in the porch where the fan boys go absolutely nuts if you post a link to a video of PJ performing, and they say you have to keep it a secret, otherwise the 10c will get it deleted because it breaches copyright. i don't go in that forum much unless it's tour time, but is there any truth to that?

kenny olav

I agree with Bono on this. To say cracking down on illegal downloading (filesharing is such a bullshit term) is like totalitarianism is beyond ridiculous... I'm sorry, but it is.

OK, I admit, I have illegally downloaded silly pop songs in the past, shit I would never buy anyway, and I have downloaded leaked albums.... but I later bought the CDs (if the music was worth the price of the CD). But I haven't been on any "filesharing" site in about 3 or 4 years, and I'm glad that steps have been taken to shut down those sites, or fill them with shitty quality or misnamed mp3s.

I like owning CDs. I like having the highest quality digital sound (even the best quality mp3s don't measure up) and having the artwork that comes with it. I don't mind the space they take up... I love looking at CD collections. I hope they don't go away. There's no need to make them smaller either... the album covers and booklets would be too small then... some might say they are already too small.

Of course I don't think that people should be arrested at random for downloading music. Crack down on the sites, not the individuals. It's not fair... millions and millions are also guilty and you can't charge them all.

concertaholicshirt

First off:

pauland74 wrote:

And the monopoly should be reduced for 5 years from publication.It should only apply to the original work.

So you're cool with Barnes & Noble printing up copies of Ten, Vitalogy, etc and selling them with no $ going to PJ? Unless I'm missing something, these albums are well past the 5 year mark and would be fair game for that under your plan. If that's the case, I can't say that I agree with that.

~~~~~~~~~~~

Next, I love how, on these discussion forums, positions with no basis in reality get attributed to people. Both Pauland74 and Musicismylife78 seem to have me down as someone who wants the government to hunt down illegal downloaders and who wholeheartedly supports the RIAA suing 'little folks' for thousands or millions of $. I'm sorry, but I looked again and never found that part of my post that says, "...Therefore, we need gov't monitoring all of our computer usage." I absolutely, positively do NOT advocate anything like that. We're a bunch of cyber friends bullshitting on an issue, and I'm trying to make some see the bigger picture and maybe re-think their assumption that this is a victimless crime. It's my understanding that under the ASCAP type compensation plan out there, both the performers and the writers get a cut from every sale. So, if someone downloads Better Man from iTunes, Eddie should get two payments; one for being the sole writer of the song (as per the credit) and one that is an equal portion with the rest of the band members who performed it (just legal band members, though, and not session players.) For Eddie, maybe it doesn't matter that much. For Bernie Taupin, Pye Dubois, etc., it could be the difference between living in the street or not. I dunno... maybe I'd be a little more sympathetic if I knew some big evil corp bought out the rights long ago, and I'm certainly guilty of downloading some Django Reinhardt tunes for free figuring that he's long dead and doesn't need the royalties, but even that's me rationalizing.

All of that said, NEVER did I suggest that the gov't should intrude on our privacy. I'm just telling you knuckleheads to stop stealing. Hell... I could steal a thousand things a day. I could walk into 10 yards a day stealing hoses and garden gnomes. I certainly don't want cops searching me everyday to see if I've done this, just as I don't want them checking my computer data to see if the e-mail I'm getting has an illegally downloaded file. The point is that I don't go around stealing garden gnomes on a regular basis (which really is a victimless crime, right? ) because it's wrong, so I also shouldn't be stealing some artist's means of support.

And on that subject, screw Damien Rice... screw him right in the stinkhole. As others have stated, more power to him if he wants to give his stuff away, but how dare he belittle others who don't feel that way. Let's see how he feels about it in 20 years when he's not filling concert venues anymore. I'm personally acquainted with someone who was in a band that was somewhat popular in the 1980s and had a couple of huge hits that are still played on the radio a decent amount. He's at that stage of professional life where he has to hustle projects to keep afloat and will even do gigs in people's houses. He is adamant about the detrimental effect downloading has had on his financial condition, which includes his obligation to pay child support. Sit face-to-face in the kitchen with someone like, seeing how middle class (at best) their existence is and then get back to me on how they should just suck it up and not care about some kid at the University of Iowa downloading their property with no compensation.

And, I have to wholeheartedly agree with Keeponrockin when they point out that it's not just some kid at the University of Iowa. So, do we get rid of all littering laws? Gee... what's the big deal if some snappahhead like me in the NYC area tosses a Fritos bag out the window of his car? Come on... why are you bothered by that? Well... because if a million idiots do that, it has a demonstrable effect. Same with stealing from artists.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Finally, yeah TriumphantAngel, I have had issues with YouTube. The first one went without a hitch when Cheap Trick took over ownership of the 'Dream Police' performance I posted. Basically, we mutually get to decide whether to keep it up or not, meaning that I could choose to take it off and they could demand it. They now have a little ad that shows up for which they either get money if it's another product, or they hawk their own ringtones. It's all good. Another artist, who will remain unnamed to protect me from gobs of abuse, has his publishing rights managed by a firm, and they got the videos yanked. Seemed pretty dumb, since I kept reaching out to them to get them to do what Cheap Trick did and could never get through, and the fans thought they were FAH-BU-LOUUUUUS. Finally, my 'How Soon Is Now' by Morrissey at Carnegie Hall got yanked, but it was freakin' Carnegie Hall that did it... Morrissey couldn't care less. The stuffed shirts there are pretentious SOBs who had it pulled for copyright infringement of their venue :shock: Yet they still send me tons of mailings to "be a friend of Carnegie Hall" and donate money

pauland74

The whole thing with Bono is a very strange . I have always admired U2 and especially Bonos support for humitarian issues, but when it comes to filesharing he goes totally bananas! He is looking towards China and there rigurous filtering (read censoring) of the internet and is suggesting if they can (China) so can we..

It seems like some people will willingly accept any draconian actions or abolish important principles just to stop filesharing. What happened to important issues like rule of law, freedom of communication,confidentiality of correspondence etc..

To track and filter private communication is already doubtful when it comes to really serious stuff like chasing terrorists or sex offenders. Doubtful because our freedom to communicate freely and our rights for a private sphere are so central for a democratic society.

It's totally absurd If we do like Bono wants and use very severe measure to chase people who are sharing music. From his pedistal he is supporting those who are dismantling our democracy and even refers to China...

It's so sad and sickening...