Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[rocketsauce]

Are you still using P2P? You might be able to find out if the RIAA has issued a subpoena to your ISP for your personal info.

http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/riaasubpoenas/

There was a representative from EFF on TechTV today who said that they've seen instances of as few as 5 songs cited on some of these subpoenas.

While you're there make sure you check out the Action Center to find out some ways to make your voice heard on this issue as well as other privacy issues.

Rob

[JimH]

Rob,
Privacy and copyright are two different things.

Jim

[rocketsauce]

Of course they are, and I'm all for copyright laws being enforced. However, the misuse of a subpoena to gain access to private information about an individual based merely on a suspicion that they might have possibly done something illegal is a privacy issue.

If someone is seeking your name without a reasonable claim of copyright infringement, that's an abuse: For example, if someone is using the subpoena to harass or defraud; if they've matched filenames, but not their content; if you weren't using the IP address listed (because of a typo or other error, such as because someone else was using a wireless network). Even if you did have copyrighted material on your computer, you might have a lawful right of fair use.

Chilling Effects is collecting these materials to help gather a record of how the DMCA is being used. Since 512(h) subpoenas are issued without prior judicial review (the subject may bring it before a judge with a motion to quash only after the subpoena has issued), we are concerned that subpoenas may be used to obtain identity information in cases where there is no copyright infringement.

http://www.chillingeffects.org/subpoena.cgi

Also, while I personally don't use P2P, I thought it might be a useful link to some of the people on this forum who do.

Rob

[sraymond]

From a paper I recently wrote...

RIAA v. Verizon is the first case to call into question the nature of subpoenas issued under § 512 of the DMCA, which provides that

A copyright owner or a person authorized to act on the owner's behalf may request the clerk of any United States district court to issue a subpoena to a service provider for identification of an alleged infringer in accordance with this subsection.

Such a subpoena serves as a sort of private search warrant that allows virtually anyone to effect a subpoena without judicial supervision or any lawsuit having been filed.  Abuse or misuse of such a subpoena is certain.  One such example of misuse concerns MediaForce, an Internet anti-piracy firm that functions as a sort of bounty hunter to copyright holders.  Their services allow music publishers, record labels, recording companies, motion picture studios, and members of the software industry to have P2P networks searched for pirated material by using bots (software tools used for digging through data) to look for infringing material.  The service also generates form letters to be sent to ISPs of suspected offenders.  Alas, their system isn't perfect.  In their Motion to Expedite, Verizon raised the issue of a case where MediaForce sent notice to an ISP alleging that a user had posted the film Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone for download.  The letter further demanded that the ISP terminate the users account.  After preliminary investigation by the ISP, the "infringing material" turned out to be a file titled "Harry_Potter_Book_Report.rtf"  - it contained a child's book report on Harry Potter!

Scott-

[xen-uno]

I almost hate to buy CD's now...knowing that some of the money may go (or is going) toward development of snoopware and bot's that would see my legitimate music files as actionable material in court (worst case). If the legality of this is bent in the RIAA's direction, everyone be on their toes.

10^-27

[kiwi]

I almost hate to buy CD's now...knowing that some of the money may go (or is going) toward development of snoopware and bot's that would see my legitimate music files as actionable material in court (worst case). If the legality of this is bent in the RIAA's direction, everyone be on their toes.

Well, go to sites like http://www.cdbaby.com... or get CDs from independent artists through Amazon.com.  

Or, get live concert recordings from bands like Phish.  Or look at the etree.org network for other concert recordings of "trading friendly bands."

There's lots of wonderful music out there just waiting to be found.  

kiwi

[phelt]

Yeah, CDBaby is pretty cool. Another route is to see if the an indy record label that issued your desired music has an online store. Get it straight from the source.

I don't think the backlash against this has as much to do with the RIAA hunting file sharers as it has to do with privacy rights, as other posters have noted.

Corporations and individuals now have the capability to cause subpoenas to be issued without proof of probable cause or violation of law, and do so through a clerk - not a judge. This potentially gives anyone with a grudge or pathology the capability to acquire personal information for a given internet user and involve them in legal action. This is more power than the police currently have. IMO, it's not a good thing. Power granted is eventually power abused.

[LonWar]

hmmm I was doing some thinking about the whole piracy thing and have a question for anybody.....

1.  Dude1 goes onto Kazaa and downloads AC/DC Back in Black. Now, the RIAA is annoyed as the artists and themselves are not being paid for this.

2   Dude2 goes into a Used CD store and Buys the same album. Now the RIAA is not mad, But they still are not being paid.

So what's the difference between 1 and 2?? Wether I download the album or buy it from a used cd store they still are not getting $$...

[JimH]

In the second case, someone did buy a CD once and so the artist, record label, and song writer were paid.

[LonWar]

Well, for you to be able to get the music from Kazaa someone bought the cd and ripped it....

[JimH]

In the old days, if you bought a CD and sold it, you were selling your only copy of it.

Now if you buy it and sell it, you may be also keeping a copy.

The problem from the record label/artist/songwriter point of view is that it is now trivial to make perfect copies.  And it costs nothing or close to nothing.  So people do it and ignore the rights of those who created, performed, and delivered the music.

I recognize that privacy is important, that the RIAA has been heavy handed at times, and that the law may be biased.  I don't think those problems provide justification for taking the music without compensating the rights holders.

I won't argue this further.  I recognize that some people see things differently.

I may close this thread later.

[LonWar]

I wasn't trying to argue. I was just curious.. And you make sence.

I personally don't download music, It just not worth the hassels ie, Viruses, half of a song, screwed up tag, crap quality and so on.

I just wanted to here people's opinion..

[nila]

In the old days, if you bought a CD and sold it, you were selling your only copy of it.

Now if you buy it and sell it, you may be also keeping a copy.

If I remember correctly (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) - selling your CD again after you had bought it originally for yourself was also technically considered illegal by them?
The copyright entitled you to buy it for yourself but then technically you weren't meant to sell it again.

Was that the case or was I misinformed?

[sraymond]

JimH,

There are certainly many sides to this...  and I think you properly pointed out that there's a difference between privacy and copyright.  Unfortunately, the RIAA is mixing the two.

It's a fact that the DMCA gives more power to non-government individuals than the government currently possesses.  The Fourth Amendment is written:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

This is why police need search warrants when you have a legitimate expectation to privacy (i.e. in your house).  Why shouldn't non-government entities be held to a similar standard?  Sure, we could argue "expectation of privacy"...  Many would argue that lack of judicial review gives rise to a "warrantless search" by the RIAA (or anyone who claims to be the holder of an infringed copyright).

I wish the RIAA would combat this technological problem (vis-a-vis the ability to easily create duplicates of copyrighted works) with technology, not lawsuits.  As is, I hope the RIAA finds themselves on the wrong side of a class-action lawsuit - though I doubt that'll happen.

Scott-

[Bartabedian]

What, you mean there's more than one way to look at this!?

Welcome to the legal system.

And oh, btw, the artist and songwriter RARELY see any money from a disc sold. Usually those two are on the .01 to .03 list after the label doubles or even quadruples it's production costs. For a few artists like Madonna or Aerosmith or U2, they signed deals that can actually get them 50% profits beyond productions costs. But keep in mind, average productions costs for a mid-level act is around $300k to $500k. Now do the math, and figure out when about 90% of the acts will actually see money from a release. It's very rare, which is why you don't hear a lot of the musicians complaining about this. They get the bulk of their income from touring and other apperances.

It's just the facts...

WP

[loraan]

2   Dude2 goes into a Used CD store and Buys the same album. Now the RIAA is not mad, But they still are not being paid.

As far as I know, the RIAA specifically deals with copyright-related issues. While issue 1 is clearly a potential copyright violation, issue 2 is, I think, somewhat less so.

Issue 2 is different because, once you've bought the CD, you are legally entitled to sell it to someone else, including the used CD store, and they're allowed to sell it again once they've bought it from you. No copyright infringement is occurring here. No reproduction is occurring--just the transfer of a single copy that was legally created.

That being said, don't think that the record companies, RIAA, etc... aren't aware that they're losing revenue to used CD stores. Why buy a CD new for $15 when you can find it for $6 in the used CD store?

[loraan]

I wish the RIAA would combat this technological problem (vis-a-vis the ability to easily create duplicates of copyrighted works) with technology, not lawsuits.  As is, I hope the RIAA finds themselves on the wrong side of a class-action lawsuit - though I doubt that'll happen.

The problem is that there are many legal, non-infringing reasons to make copies of copyrighted works and technological solutions interfere with those rights. My guess is that the RIAA-guys would prefer to err on the side of protecting their copyrights; I'd rather err on the side of protecting my rights. Duh!

[sraymond]

The problem is that there are many legal, non-infringing reasons to make copies of copyrighted works and technological solutions interfere with those rights. My guess is that the RIAA-guys would prefer to err on the side of protecting their copyrights; I'd rather err on the side of protecting my rights. Duh!

lorann,

There are a many technologies that would address the problem, without interfering with the ability to make archival reproductions.

Scott-

[loraan]

There are a many technologies that would address the problem, without interfering with the ability to make archival reproductions.

Just for perspective, I'm semi-well-versed in DRM technologies. All of the ones that the RIAA has backed (as far as I know) have been pretty drastic. I'm not saying that fair ones don't exist, just that the RIAA and their ilk tend to favor scorched-earth technologies.

Also, I'm not just talking about archival reproductions. Once I've purchased a CD, I should have the ability to copy the songs to mixes (for personal use), download the songs to my digital media player(s), copy it to my computers, etc...

[sraymond]

I'm not saying that fair ones don't exist, just that the RIAA and their ilk tend to favor scorched-earth technologies.

Fair enough...  I think we both agree that the RIAA is working at one extreme, and there is certainly middle ground between them and the users that want to fairly use that which they've purchased.

Scott-

[sraymond]

From http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/breaking_news/6428142.htm:

Posted on Thu, Jul. 31, 2003  

Coleman launches inquiry into RIAA's piracy crackdown
Associated Press

WASHINGTON - Sen. Norm Coleman on Thursday began an inquiry into the recording industry's copyright lawsuits against online music swappers, saying the tactics could ensnare innocent people.

Coleman, the chairman of the Senate's permanent subcommittee on investigations, asked the Recording Industry Association of America for, among other things, copies of its subpoenas issued to Internet providers, and description of its safeguards against targeting innocent people.

"The industry has legitimate concerns about copyright infringement," said Coleman, R-Minn. "We are dealing with the stealing of a recording artist's songs, and the industry's profits. The industry has every right to develop practical remedies for protecting its rights.

"Yet, the industry seems to have adopted a 'shotgun' approach that could potentially cause injury and harm to innocent people who may have simply been victims of circumstance, or possessing a lack of knowledge of the rules related to digital sharing of files."

The RIAA has issues 900 federal subpoenas against computer users suspected of illegally sharing music files on the Internet, with roughly 75 new subpoenas being approved each day, court officials say.

Scott-

[loraan]

"The industry has legitimate concerns about copyright infringement," said Coleman, R-Minn. "We are dealing with the stealing of a recording artist's songs, and the industry's profits. The industry has every right to develop practical remedies for protecting its rights.

Just to be clear (and some of you may already know this), copyright infringement is not the same as stealing, in a legal sense. The RIAA has worked to create the public perception that "copying" == "stealing", but the two are not the same. Legally, nothing has been stolen when I copy a CD or download songs from a CD. Legally, stealing involves depriving the original owner of something that he or she had--e.g. if I take the CD itself, then you don't have it anymore. You can't "steal" something that someone was going to have (future profits that are compromised by copyright infringement). Copyright infringement is not stealing; anybody who says it is is more interested in propaganda than facts.

[sraymond]

loraan,

That's an excellent point...  even the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that there is a significant difference between the two (a 1985 ruling on Dowling v. U.S.)

Scott-

[sraymond]

From http://news.com.com/2100-1027_3-5058107.html?tag=cd_mh:

The United States' largest supplier of ADSL (asymmetric digital subscriber line) connections is challenging the recording industry's current campaign of targeting song swappers with a lawsuit filed late on Wednesday, charging that the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) is violating its customers' right to privacy.

Pacific Bell Internet Services (PBIS), operated by telecommunications giant SBC Communications, challenged the subpoenas served against it by the RIAA on procedural grounds, arguing that hundreds of them were served improperly. However, the group made it clear that its action was taken in order to protect the privacy of its customers.

The plot thickens...  I hope SBC has more luck than Verizon!

Scott-

[Bartabedian]

OK, I download a song, or even a whole disc of songs in MP3 format...what have I stolen, or infringed upon? Not the CD that the label is selling for profit, or the songwriter or artist. I'm not performing their song for my own profit. What I have is a "reduced" facsimile of the orignal CD, but the label isn't selling that, their selling a CD, which I did not steal, or infringe upon in any way.

The RIAA would want you to believe it's a black-n-white issue, but as in most legal matters there's a world of grey area to frolic in.

[loraan]

OK, I download a song, or even a whole disc of songs in MP3 format...what have I stolen, or infringed upon?

By the letter of the law, your download is indisputably copyright infringement. Basically, the copyright holder has certain exclusive rights, including the right to duplicate, or reproduce, physical manifestations of the songs, regardless of format (tape, CD, MP3, etc...) or quality level. The only exceptions to this are certain specific "fair use" exceptions which allow you to legally make copies even when you don't hold the copyright (examples of "fair use" include purely archival copies, samples for the purpose of review, educational use... there are others but I forget).

There are lots of arguments to justify P2P sharing of copyrighted works. People argue that the current copyright system is flawed and/or needs to be changed. People argue that the record companies deserve to get robbed because they charge too much for a CD and/or they screw the artists. But I don't know of anybody who thinks it's not infringement under the current system.

[loraan]

As I described above, download a song to avoid buying it is pretty clearly a copyright violation under current laws. Things do get murkier in certain circumstances. For example, I'm legally allowed to make an archival copy of my CDs. That archival copy could be in MP3 format. Now, what if my entire CD collection is stolen. That's exactly the kind of situation where an archival copy would come in handy, no? Now, what if I forgot to make an archival copy, but instead, I download all of that music from the Internet. Have I violated a copyright? Only a judge could say...

Now, what if I bought an 8-track in 1975. Subsequently, I lost it. In 2003, I download MP3s of the songs that were on the 8-track. Have I violated a copyright? Again, I think that's a pretty gray area, although the RIAA would probalby want me to buy the CD again.

[Will_L.]

I don't think the 8 Track thing would work out for you since the producer sold you something completely different than a CD - but that's as maybe...

What I would like to know are the implications of this scenario. CD's are NOT indestructible in fact their pretty fragile in the real world - just ask anyone with a baby. So I make archival backups and then lil Timmy spreads peanut butter all over my original collection. So I restore my backup (I.e MP3 back to CD a hideous propisition but clearer for argument's sake).

So I still have the archival backup (I.e MP3) and my collection of CD's (All Reproductions). Which is illegal? The MP3 backup or the the restored CDs? I mean if you look at the intent of the archival process then I think both collections should be legal.

But something tells me the RIAA wouldn't agree.

Basically what I want to know is even if it is legal to produce the archive is it actually legal to use it?

[digital:rogue]

In the second case, someone did buy a CD once and so the artist, record label, and song writer were paid.

Exactly right. It's called Transfer of Ownership.

*steps on soapbox, forum groans*

I personally do not see why people are in such a tiff about their right being violated over snoopware and their 'legal' mp3 collection. If you have legal music, don't share it! Plain and simple. That is the heart of the matter. I am not taking sides here, and the RIAA has deinately overstepped some boundaries; however, copyright law is copyright law, and they have been getting resistance every step of the way. Of course they are going to begin taking extreme measures such as those now. Not like they have been getting much love over this from the beginning. You break the law, the courts have always issued warrants for the search and seizure of your property and evidence. Now, I agree completely with the other posts about this absolute power of the RIAA to get warrants by just bringing in a list of names to a court clerk. There is absolutely no system of checks and balances there, and gives the RIAA blanket permission to mess with whomever they choose.

Yes, the companies represented by the RIAA are a monopoly.

Yes, the these companies have engaged in price fixing.

Those issues need to be addressed as well. If the record labels would quit selling CD's at such a high cost to the distributers, maybe companies like Tower Records wouldn't be in such trouble while other conglomerates like Target sold them at a huge loss to get kids in the store only to make up the profits in other marketing areas.

Yes, this issue hits a little close to home for me., for my ex-girlfriend's cousin is the founder of Tower Records/Video/Books, is a heck of a nice guy, and I have seen the effects of this from the inside. Yes, their business model is in need of updating, but that is not the issue. The real issue is people are violating copyright law, period, and then complaining about their god-given private rights to do so. You can have all the mp3's you want, nor is P2P networking inherently illegal; however, making your legitimate mp3's available to other people who have not paid for them over ANY network or other means IS illegal. Always has been, always will be. As was mentioned before, start buying from indie labels who support sharing. I, for one, think that art should be free. These people should be happy they can even make a living by playing music alone. Talk about a good life!

Ok, sorry about the rant

*steps off the soapbox*

[zevele10]

Of cause ,most of the time ,downloading a mp3 is a copyright violation.
No need to start again why people do it ,price of the cds ect ect.

It is just that ,for US people what happens right now is a challenge to democratie.
Corporates make the rules ,not the State.
To a point where ,in all honesty ,you are not sure that USA is really a democratie.
And ,is less and less if you take the plain meaning of the word Democratie.

This problem goes far beyon mp3 download because it is as USA are see most of the time around the word.
Kind of supermarket trying to impose his supermarket chains.

I do not know if you saw it ,but in all the mess that Irak is today ,one thing is settle for good :
People from the riaa had built a DMCA  according to they rules.

What iraa is doing in the back-packs of soldiers?
Not only iraa is in the back-packs ,i know this......

You have to figth , not to get the right to use Kazaa ,but to have any corporate playing according to the democratic rules.
Not to have - as it is now- corporates making the rules ,ignoring democratic rules.

More and more you are nothing more than a big supermarket.
Only tills but no soul .

The best way to nourish disliking and hating around the word.
The best way to be a geant with clay foot ,and one day feel down.

Look like we are far from Kazaa and riaa , but all is one.
It is just that this two actors are  a focus of USA today

[JimH]

More and more you are nothing more than a big supermarket.  Only tills but no soul .

That's a simplistic view of a complex country.  

There is no "you" in most respects.  "We" are as varied as the world.  All kinds of people here.  

"We" don't sent retail chains to your country just as "you" don't buy the food or clothes.  And "they" don't last unless someone buys them.

The ugliness you speak of comes from a competitive economic system that brings us some strange things that people seem to find useful.  It is a reflection of us, to be sure, just as the quality of TV is a reflection of our tastes.

[zevele10]

That's a simplistic view of a complex country.

-=-=-=
First, it is not my view
But it is the way people see USA

You==people

And i know that "You" is made of millions  of 'I -We-Us-'

But ,from outside ,we do not see them ,heard them, know about them.

This is the problem ,a very big one .

My main point was to ask if a country where corporates -- not only musical ones by the way- make the rule not The State  is still a democratie at 100%.

Right now on this post it is about p2p ,but there is a lot of other exemples.

To move on a funny side :
YES ,YOU send us your retail chains here.....
But we like it : Ace ,Office Depot and others  are good places to buy.
REALLY ,was MANY things we cannot get before they opened here .

[Charlemagne 8]

YES ,YOU send us your retail chains here.....
But we like it : Ace ,Office Depot and others  are good places to buy.
REALLY ,was MANY things we cannot get before they opened here .

HA!HA!!  Now you belong to US!!

[digital:rogue]

The ugliness you speak of comes from a competitive economic system that brings us some strange things that people seem to find useful.

A competitive economic system based on the value of money, and the goods and services that it buys. Money=Power and some people will fight to the very end to hold on to every bit they have. As long as money's intrinsic value dictates what we as people can afford to buy and own, and how we as people can afford a 'standard of living' by the goods and services that it can purchase, we will in some sense be enslaved into a power-mongering, money-grubbing system and it's people. It's been said that 5% of the population controls 95% of the wealth.  

On another note, my ex-girlfriend went to Germany a couple of months ago to visit family and she was surprised at the amount of anti-american sentiment in Europe. We sit over here from our viewpoint talking about "oh, to hell with these countries, we keep bailing them out and to get stabbed in the back", etc.; however, I think the overall negativity of the world toward us is more along the lines of a concept that dates back to early American History called Manifest Destiny. It is a guiding principle in American politics and what most of the world hates about us.

The TRUE irony of all this is that no matter HOW MUCH these other countries complain about us and call us names, they STILL worship our pop-culture and spend BILLIONS upon BILLIONS on our goods and services.  

But now I am WAYYY off topic  (But I am sure you have all noticed I tend to do that anyway )

[sraymond]

It's been said that 5% of the population controls 95% of the wealth.

Not being one to pass up an opportunity to further draw this thread off-topic...

This is nothing new - in the 1800s, Pareto (an ?Italian? economist) determined that 80% of the land in Italy was owned by just 20% of the people.  It's now a generally accepted "law" that 80% of the objectives are achieved with 20% of the means.

I wonder if the U.S.'s wealth is really 95/05, though.  That seems quite high - even considering the Bill Gates of the country.

Scott-

[JimH]

I wonder if the U.S.'s wealth is really 95/05, though.  That seems quite high - even considering the Bill Gates of the country.

Don't forget KingSparta.

[zevele10]

I saw ,not long ago that the scale of inegalitie is 1/11.

Means that ,on average rich are eleven times richer than the poor.
As i say on average at national level
They said that it was the higger difference concerning  rich countrys.

I do know another one very close to1/11 if not at 1/11.
They call it the land of milk and honey..........

[digital:rogue]

I wonder if the U.S.'s wealth is really 95/05, though.  That seems quite high - even considering the Bill Gates of the country.

well, the number on that varies by study; however, it should be generally accepted that 5-10% of the upper-upper class  of society here control the most powerful parent corporations (i.e. Pepsi, General Electric, et. al.) or control the most powerful positions in government, hence, controlling the most wealth and commanding the most power -- be that power in the form of corporate market domination, political "support and contributions", or directly in political ties itself.

Means that ,on average rich are eleven times richer than the poor.
As i say on average at national level
They said that it was the higger difference concerning  rich countrys

Very good point, zevele, I remember reading something about this in the past as well. It was an astounding number.

Wait, this forum is about software, isn't it...  

Thanks for the heads up on the subpoenas, rocketsauce. I am sure any P2P'ers around here appreciate the link.

[Will_L.]

Hey,

I want to address the guy who thinks all art should be free. Two friends and myself own a production company that released two short films and three CD's last year. We publish everything under what's called a NonCommercial, Nonderivative license. That means you can freely distribute our stuff as long as no changes are made (Nonderivative) and no money is made (noncommercial). So I agree in a way that art should be free.

To poor people and that's it...

I really do believe that poor folk shouldn't be locked away from art. To turn it to something elitist is just antithetical to art. But if you have the means to purchase you should. If for only one reason this:

Advertisers lurk everywhere. Look if artists can't make any money from the audience then advertising is the only source left for the RESOURCES necessary to produce the works. I'm not talking about MTV cribs and Ferraris here I am talking about the cost of production which is insanely high. If God/The Fates have given you the means to buy nonessential stuff (Like CD's and DVDs) you should but ONLY directly from the label/producers involved.

I really think that the industry's rage over file-sharing is because for the first time perhaps we are seeing thousands of WHITE collar jobs being displaced by technology. Who needs an A and R man when you have the internet available? Home PC based recording has killed the recording industry (I mean the guys who actually press record - not the music industry in general) and now the wide adoption of the cable/dsl/broadband acess points is poised to eliminate the distribution side of the equation. Marketing is the only one left and communications are so good now that word of mouth is becoming the only viable form of marketing around.

When those three things come together, production, distribution and marketing, under the aegis of a web-site then most of the production industry becomes irrelevant. But only if the audience jumps on board.

If you think that as the audience you shouldn't have to pay for it at all then only two things will happen. Art will die entirely due to the fact that we have to work to live. If I'm pulling forty hours a week at Burger King how much energy do you think I have for a project that will have zero return?

The only other option is to turn to advertisers and that will kill art as well. If it is motivated by advertising then art ceases to be anything of value and becomes propaganda (for tooth paste and thongs no less -  Yee Haw!).

So support your ARTISTS! Not the machines behind them. (Idealist mode ON) Change the industry - Stop giving David Geffen even more money and seek ways to buy Art (Cd's DVD's Books whatever) DIRECTLY from the people who made them. That way prices can fall (thanks to the lack of industry bloat) AND Art can continue but now only beholden to the artists who make it and the audience who supports it.

<Marketing Mode On> And start by visiting www.thrillahill.com for a really good time.

[nameless]

It doesn't make sense to say that all art should be free.  Why should someone be doomed to a life of volunteerism, just because of where their talents and interests lie?  Who defines what "art" is, anyway?  If all art should be free, then I can start naming a whole lot of things that you didn't consider "art" before.  Like that meal you just had.  Or the last paint job you got on your car.  Or a magic show (hey, why can't they be free?).

As for not giving Geffen more and more money...  Well, it's kind of impossible not to do so.  I want the work of certain artists, and there is only one (legitimate) outlet to obtain it.  I don't want stuff from bands I've never heard of.  I've gone down that route before, and I simply can't devote 17 hours per day listening to music, just hoping I hear one or two good songs during that time span (which is a charitable estimation of the truth).