RIAA or no RIAA?

[thegathering]

Originally Posted by JohnBoucher

OK. It's simple. Stealing is stealing. If it's for sale and you don't pay for it, it's stealing.

I hand my buddy my headset so he can give commands in CS computer. Now is he stealing from logitech for not buying the headphones? You really can't simplify a topic like that. Stealing in this case is based on your perspective. I see music as data, companies see music as licenses. They way you view music changes what can be done or not done with it.

If I pay $20.00 for a CD and I don't want it anymore will the RIAA be upset if I sell it on eBay for $10.00? I'm selling the original.

yes, that would be illegal. They claim you paid for a license to the music, not the music itself. That is why people have been brought under lawsuit for selling iPods on ebay that have not been wiped.

I know that this might be a little hard to understand but there is a lot of money being lost to people who pirate music.

I disagree. Musicians are still making millions of dollars off their music. I have yet to see any musician file bankrupt because pirates have taken significant amounts of proffit.

The RIAA blames every loss in sales on pirates and yet there are extremely large communities that are boycotting music to force the RIAA to stand down. The RIAA tends to spin losses even from boycots into more reasons for stricter legislation. Music has always been copied, "pirated", and purchased illegally. That's just an assumed fact of sales.






I might add, while I disagree with the RIAA tactics, I also do not download or pirate any music. Any music I listen to is either from free based artists that use services such as the older Ampcast to gain respect and reward for their music or it is paid for.