Destroying PC's of File-Sharers

[kiddiesunshine]

I saw this article and thought it was interesting.
I can't see the legality in it.
Destroying File Sharer's PC's (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030618/ap_on_hi_te/downloading_music_9)

[Discloner]

I don't see how it could be legal either!

I think destroying someone's computer...something they mostlikely paid over $1,000 for could be.

[batboy2001]

Am I one of the few that think these people should just stuff it? We already had the debate over if file sharing was morally right or wrong, been there. I think this is ridiculious, just complaining, and trying to punish the average guy, who isn't some power hungry, money grubing buerocrat.

Maybe after they quell some real crimes, like rape and murder, then they can start on file sharing.

I hardly doupt this idea will wash though.

[Supreme]

Rep. Rick Boucher, D-Va., urged Hatch to reconsider. Because Hatch is Judiciary chairman, "we all take those views very seriously," he said. But Kerr said Congress was unlikely to approve any bill to enable such remote computer destruction by copyright owners "because innocent users might be wrongly targeted."


Besides, I couldn't find anything in the article stating the method that they would use. It suggested that it was an online thing, which is impossible. As much as hackers and the government would like to think, it just isn't possible to do physical damage over the Internet. It would be like me disagreeing with someone on this board and threatening to kick their ass.

[Psycho Fox]

Problem any thing that occures at system level without the strick consent of the operator is as a security hole. Meaning such technology would leave a back door open to hackers and terrorist to systems.

Also while most users are using MacOS and Windows there are countless desktop OSs and tring to create a technology that will distroy all computer running any OS is far too complex. Resulting in bootlegers just using RiscOS,BeOS,ect to get their songs and create a clean copy from those machines.

[Zechs]

What a load of tripe these people need to get a grip. The RIAA is still making a **** load of cash off music CD's.People are goign to do what they want no matter what they do. Yes people burn CD'c but it's not like every person in the U.S is doing it some even buy CD's even thought they've burned other songs. The RIAA needs to get real and relize sooner or later they're going to have to strike a deal with the people they are trying to destory.

[Matthew Hunter]

If they're saying the file sharing is a crime, geez, talk about the pot calling the kettle black. I don't want someone to fry my computer because I downloaded a song. Let's see...song/computer. song/computer. I think we all know what is more valuable financially there. That would be unfair punishement. Ouch.:coyote:

Up at college the school has put a firewall on all the file sharing programs. Can't download stuff over programs like Morpheus or Kazza Desktop anymore. They said that they were concerned about the legal implications, and more concerned that the programs were so popular that they slowed down the school network system.

I can see how people downloading entire albums off the internet for free is a serious problem, but a few songs you've heard on the radio someplace and liked I see no problem with downloading. I think most of the time people use file sharing to give music a closer listen before they buy it, or to get obscure oldies they enjoy and can't or don't want to buy an album of.

It all comes down to the problem of musicians and software people losing money. But in my humble opinion, I think that if a singer is good enough, word will get out about their CDs and they won't lose a whole lot of money. I doubt people share too many Rolling Stones or Beatles tunes...they probably go out and collect albums. Or for a more modern example, say, Maybe Dave Matthews has lost a few dollars here and there, but he's the kind of artist that people really follow and listen to. He may get a few internet swipes of "Crash Into Me" or "Ants Marching", but other than that I don't think he's losing sleep over his financial security.

-Matthew :daffy:

[SlyBoy]

Problem any thing that occures at system level without the strick consent of the operator is as a security hole. Meaning such technology would leave a back door open to hackers and terrorist to systems.

Also while most users are using MacOS and Windows there are countless desktop OSs and tring to create a technology that will distroy all computer running any OS is far too complex. Resulting in bootlegers just using RiscOS,BeOS,ect to get their songs and create a clean copy from those machines.

Plus, what's the government gonna do about Atari ST and Amiga users?

[Parallax]

Well that's kinda stupid. I don't see why they stop the people putting up the file sharing programs instead of attacking the people that download it.

[jeffrey 228]

I think that also issues the Invasion of privicy too, and with them acting more bad then doing good, this will hand out alot of threats and huge complaints too.

[dendawg]

As much as hackers and the government would like to think, it just isn't possible to do physical damage over the Internet. It would be like me disagreeing with someone on this board and threatening to kick their ass.

Actually, I think it may be theoretically possible to remotely install a program to flash your BIOS blank...I hope I'm wrong, though. :shrug:

[Psycho Fox]

Actually, I think it may be theoretically possible to remotely install a program to flash your BIOS blank...I hope I'm wrong, though. :shrug:
Look the only way it would work is with a virus but the small problem is that no one has created a cross platform virus yet.

There is too many differnt platforms and hardware to design a virus to even be compatible with everything. Then you run into brick walls with Unix and its variants (like Linux) that are usally heavy on security.

[wrenchien]

It's times like this i realize...

I think every day , the government deliberately tries to find new ways to get its own citizens in trouble.

New inventions they let go, then they make laws against it and people get in trouble.

And then the government can sock those still free with higher taxes to pay for holding hostage those who couldn't know any better.


Time for a regime change, in our own government, then.

Find who's in then , vote, vote them out, and make sure everyone votes them out. Protest anything inconvenient or crippling to your personal freedom and don't let up.

Tell your senators and congressmen they're going out and nothing will get them back, ever, and make them realize they serve the people, not dictate what they can and cannot feel, do and cannot do. Tell them if they touch our computers to hurt them whether we done what they say is wrong, or not, they are committing the crime of hacking just like a hacker and they can go to jail, and they will be sued and bankrupted.

This is crisis when the rights and privacies of citizens mean less than political goals.

Solve the crisis, vote the bums out, complain to the bums, and be sure they never forget they're your servants, not the other way around.

[Chris Wood]

It's times like this i realize...

I think every day , the government deliberately tries to find new ways to get its own citizens in trouble.

New inventions they let go, then they make laws against it and people get in trouble.

And then the government can sock those still free with higher taxes to pay for holding hostage those who couldn't know any better.


Time for a regime change, in our own government, then.

Find who's in then , vote, vote them out, and make sure everyone votes them out. Protest anything inconvenient or crippling to your personal freedom and don't let up.

Tell your senators and congressmen they're going out and nothing will get them back, ever, and make them realize they serve the people, not dictate what they can and cannot feel, do and cannot do. Tell them if they touch our computers to hurt them whether we done what they say is wrong, or not, they are committing the crime of hacking just like a hacker and they can go to jail, and they will be sued and bankrupted.

This is crisis when the rights and privacies of citizens mean less than political goals.

Solve the crisis, vote the bums out, complain to the bums, and be sure they never forget they're your servants, not the other way around.

Hello Mr. Anarchy. Personal freedom in the US is not unlimited, nor could it be without encroaching on the freedom of others.

I probably wouldn't support hacking downloaders' computers, but protecting intellectual property rights is definitely in America's best interest.

[RZetlin]

There's a saying, "Be careful what you preach or it might come and bite you in the butt!"

Orrin Hatch: Software Pirate? (http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,59305,00.html)



The senator's site makes extensive use of a JavaScript menu system developed by Milonic Solutions, a software company based in the United Kingdom. The copyright-protected code has not been licensed for use on Hatch's website.

[Psycho Fox]

Hello Mr. Anarchy. Personal freedom in the US is not unlimited, nor could it be without encroaching on the freedom of others.
That's debatable considering there is an Anarchism ideology that is based on the choas theory.


I probably wouldn't support hacking downloaders' computers, but protecting intellectual property rights is definitely in America's best interest.
No its in the corperations intrest not the US's there is a differnece.

The US already doesn't support artist in regards to intellectual property only their backers rights ever gets backed.

[Chris Wood]

[Psycho Fox]That's debatable considering there is an Anarchism ideology that is based on the choas theory.

??? Without certain limits on personal freedom you have nothing but anarchy.


No its in the corperations intrest not the US's there is a differnece.

Corporations make the US economy go round, and without them we'd be on welfare.


The US already doesn't support artist in regards to intellectual property only their backers rights ever gets backed.

The US is making a lot of noise about copyright violations in places like China.

[Psycho Fox]

??? Without certain limits on personal freedom you have nothing but anarchy.
Uhh the chaos theory is there is order with in chaos.

IE many think ants are a monarcy meaning the queen tells the ants what to do but this is wrong. The queen is really to the other ants more like a factory, the means of the production of more ants thus they do feed and protect the queen yet the factory (queen) don't tell them what to do. Ants really just each do their own thing without the knowledge of the rest of the nest (yet they do leave sent trails to food for other ants to follow) and via the chaos comes a complete orderly nest. Meaning ants are an anarchy system of goverment that works as advertised (at least for them)

To the right of the anarchy ideology is socialism where your personal freedoms come after the communites freedoms yet in theory this should maximize everyones personal freedoms unless you belive in the chaos theory.



Corporations make the US economy go round, and without them we'd be on welfare.
That is debatable. Yes currently the US economy is driven by big business but if they are better then small to mid sized business is not proven. Also without the US economy the citizens of the US would be logically in a non capital system not on welfare as you suggested.


The US is making a lot of noise about copyright violations in places like China.Still the US gives more protection to publishers and such then the actully artist.

[RZetlin]

Corporations make the US economy go round, and without them we'd be on welfare.


That's debatable. Corporations can be the cause of the welfare.

Ever heard of Enron? Worldcom?

[Chris Wood]

[Psycho Fox]Uhh the chaos theory is there is order with in chaos.

Yeah, well I'm talking about legitimate forms of government, not bizarre theories.



That is debatable. Yes currently the US economy is driven by big business but if they are better then small to mid sized business is not proven.

I didn't say big business. All business. You don't have to be THAT big to be incorporated.


Also without the US economy the citizens of the US would be logically in a non capital system not on welfare as you suggested.

They would logically be starving on the streets.



Still the US gives more protection to publishers and such then the actully artist.

How do you mean? I'm not sure that artists have the legal capacity to pursue piracy themselves.

[Psycho Fox]

Yeah, well I'm talking about legitimate forms of government, not bizarre theories.

So what makes the current form legitimate and not a bizarre experiment :rolleyes:



They would logically be starving on the streets.
Uhh non capital systems are systems were good and sevices are not produced for profit instead are free acces or at cost. Since such system are designed not to work with capital you wouldn't be on the street just becouse there is no economy as without capital you wouldn't have an economy.



How do you mean? I'm not sure that artists have the legal capacity to pursue piracy themselves.But the goverment does not give them the legal capacity to pursue legal actions aginst their own backers basicly the US makes it okay for a label to steal from their own artist but not okay for anyone to steal from the label.

If a artist goes to the US goverment favours the publisher it goes to the extent that if a publisher wishes they can even prevent the artist from having access to their own works.

[Chris Wood]

[Psycho Fox]So what makes the current form legitimate and not a bizarre experiment

I don't know why this thread has turned into a debate on democracy, but clearly it has been a successful form of government in many countries for centuries.


Uhh non capital systems are systems were good and sevices are not produced for profit instead are free acces or at cost. Since such system are designed not to work with capital you wouldn't be on the street just becouse there is no economy as without capital you wouldn't have an economy.

This sounds like it might be an attempt to promote socialism, which our various cold war rivals have proven to be a much more inept system than capitalism.


But the goverment does not give them the legal capacity to pursue legal actions aginst their own backers basicly the US makes it okay for a label to steal from their own artist but not okay for anyone to steal from the label.

If a artist goes to the US goverment favours the publisher it goes to the extent that if a publisher wishes they can even prevent the artist from having access to their own works.

That is an issue of contractual rights, not of piracy, which is the topic of this thread.

[Psycho Fox]

This sounds like it might be an attempt to promote socialism, which our various cold war rivals have proven to be a much more inept system than capitalism.

Sorry only Spain pre WWII came close. The cold war rivals were not using anything close to non-capitalist systems.


That is an issue of contractual rights, not of piracy, which is the topic of this thread.The reason copyrights were drawn up in the first place was to protect the ARTIST not the backers.

[Chris Wood]

[Psycho Fox]Sorry only Spain pre WWII came close. The cold war rivals were not using anything close to non-capitalist systems.

This is a dead issue, so let's not spend more time on it.


The reason copyrights were drawn up in the first place was to protect the ARTIST not the backers.

??? Artists aren't required to sign with record companies. A lot of bands are self-produced these days and own all the rights to their music.

Those who do sign do so because (presumably) the label is much better at marketing their music than they would be themselves.

Anyway, copyrights are designed to protect the rights of the copyright holder, whoever that may be.

Getting back on topic, I don't support destroying peoples' computers but it's understandable that industry is very concerned about piracy.

[Psycho Fox]

??? Artists aren't required to sign with record companies. A lot of bands are self-produced these days and own all the rights to their music.
Getting harder and harder to do as record companies become more and more monopolistic


Those who do sign do so because (presumably) the label is much better at marketing their music than they would be themselves.
Not really most sign becouse the evil record companies also own the media outlets so those that don't sign get locked out of the mainstreem media.


Anyway, copyrights are designed to protect the rights of the copyright holder, whoever that may be.
Orginally copyrights were designed to protect the artist and only the artist so artist would have incentive to be artist. Right now I think the goverment needs to give BOTH the artist and backer compete copyright privilages meaning the artist needs the backer to agree and the backer needs the artist to agree to do anything with the work.

[Chris Wood]

[Psycho Fox]Getting harder and harder to do as record companies become more and more monopolistic

It's very easy to do actually. What's hard to do is go platinum without label backing.


Not really most sign becouse the evil record companies also own the media outlets so those that don't sign get locked out of the mainstreem media.

"Evil"?? Come on, let's at least pretend to be objective. You are correct that recent convergence in the music industry is a bit troubling, and could probably stand stricter regulation.


Right now I think the goverment needs to give BOTH the artist and backer compete copyright privilages meaning the artist needs the backer to agree and the backer needs the artist to agree to do anything with the work.

This is all decided when contracts are drawn up. New artists will have to sacrifice more, but once they become established they can increasingly set their own terms.

[Psycho Fox]

"Evil"?? Come on, let's at least pretend to be objective. You are correct that recent convergence in the music industry is a bit troubling, and could probably stand stricter regulation.

They already abuse their power hanging on to their copyright to even prevent the artist to distrabute work. It is not just the music biz, can WBA put out DVDs of the TTA spring break special? no since Time Warner won't allow it even though they have no plans to anything with.

All I see is that the labels are controlling something that they only loaned resorces to. To me most labels are just loan sharking that is illegal so I do not recognize their rights only and I only recognize the artist rights. So when a artist comes out and says they don't care if people bootleg their work since they are not in it for they money I don't see an issue.



This is all decided when contracts are drawn up. New artists will have to sacrifice more, but once they become established they can increasingly set their own terms.
Don't work that way if the arist don't make tons of money they won't be able to get their rights back yet the if the label doesn't want release any more of their work the artist is stuck.

[czyznyck99]

University networks can simply not allow file-sharing programs to run at all, which eventually should weed out all of the "illegal" material. Destroying the computer is unnecessary, but it would be funny to see.

Later.

[Psycho Fox]

University networks can simply not allow file-sharing programs to run at all, which eventually should weed out all of the "illegal" material.
But file-sharing programs have legal uses that could be handy for the University

[Chris Wood]

[Psycho Fox]They already abuse their power hanging on to their copyright to even prevent the artist to distrabute work.

Only because the artist agreed in the contract to give the label this right.


All I see is that the labels are controlling something that they only loaned resorces to. To me most labels are just loan sharking that is illegal so I do not recognize their rights only and I only recognize the artist rights.

Um...OK. So if I'm a big record company, why do I want to invest lots of time, money, and prestige in an artist who might suddenly be selling his wares to my competitor tomorrow? Sounds like an iffy business proposition to me.



So when a artist comes out and says they don't care if people bootleg their work since they are not in it for they money I don't see an issue.

How many big time artists have said this? Metallica certainly didn't.


Don't work that way if the arist don't make tons of money they won't be able to get their rights back yet the if the label doesn't want release any more of their work the artist is stuck.

Often true, but that's the nature of the beast. Like they say, it's a long way to the top if you wanna rock'n'roll.

[czyznyck99]

But file-sharing programs have legal uses that could be handy for the University

Beyond FTP servers or local networks (neither of which comsume the bandwidth compared to P2P), file-sharing has no real benefit to educational value. Most university heavily restrict access to P2P, or rate their priority so low that there is no use trying to download something because the rate is virtually non-existant.

Later.

[Supreme]

...why do I want to invest lots of time, money, and prestige in an artist...
How do you invest prestige? :shrug:



Like they say, it's a long way to the top if you wanna rock'n'roll.
http://www.ac-dc-fanclub.de/1.jpg (http://www.leoslyrics.com/listlyrics.php?hid=xQQObhSHkPM%3D)

[Chris Wood]

[Supreme]How do you invest prestige? :shrug:

Simple. A major label such as, say, Atlantic Records, is a famous and powerful brand. Every artist a label promotes is to some extent a representative of the label. If an artist completely flops or does something very controversial then it can reflect very negatively on the label, making artists, media, and investors skittish about working with it in the future.


http://www.ac-dc-fanclub.de/1.jpg (http://www.leoslyrics.com/listlyrics.php?hid=xQQObhSHkPM%3D)

Angus!!!

[Supreme]

Nah. They don't "invest" their prestige. In this scenario, they risk their reputation. Regardless, no one looks at labels much anymore. It's the artist who sells the records. No one says, "Did you pick up that new album by Warner Brothers recording artist Linkin Park?" If they fail, people say, "[insert band name] sucks!", not "That band sucks! And by association, so does WB, and Ira in accounting, too!"

[Web Head]

Seeing as how Psycho Fox and I already had this argument, I will one last time say

ARTISTS ENTER INTO CONTRACTS WITH LABELS GIVING AWAY CONTROL IN EXCHANGE FOR FINANCIAL BACKING AND MARKETING RESOURCES

A label cannot exercise any trademark rights the artist didn't give them.

[Psycho Fox]

ARTISTS ENTER INTO CONTRACTS WITH LABELS GIVING AWAY CONTROL IN EXCHANGE FOR FINANCIAL BACKING AND MARKETING RESOURCES

But once the label has control they don't have to give any resources since it is all in good faith. They could do a crap job of putting out your first CD then say its your falt you suck so we won't put any more resources into your band but you can't go to anyone else or do anything your self since we own you.


Beyond FTP servers or local networks (neither of which comsume the bandwidth compared to P2P), file-sharing has no real benefit to educational value. Most university heavily restrict access to P2P, or rate their priority so low that there is no use trying to download something because the rate is virtually non-existant.You do know band interviews that are legal, on file-sharing systems.


Um...OK. So if I'm a big record company, why do I want to invest lots of time, money, and prestige in an artist who might suddenly be selling his wares to my competitor tomorrow? Sounds like an iffy business proposition to me.If I'm an artist and really want to get my work out and don't give a *beep* about the money why would I sign to record company since there is a chance my music would get shelfed and then I would have to wait tens of years for it to fall into public domain to use it again but by that time I'm dead and the only copies of my song left is bootlegs (the reason I don't like the idea of cracking down on bootleging since it perserves alot of work since record companies mostly just let them rot and by the time they become public doman the record companies copy is complet *beep*). Plus name me a record company that will allow their artist to do just one song dirctly to public domain?

[Lucky Bob]

If I'm an artist and really want to get my work out and don't give a *beep* about the money why would I sign to record company since there is a chance my music would get shelfed and then I would have to wait tens of years for it to fall into public domain to use it again but by that time I'm dead and the only copies of my song left is bootlegs (the reason I don't like the idea of cracking down on bootleging since it perserves alot of work since record companies mostly just let them rot and by the time they become public doman the record companies copy is complet *beep*). Plus name me a record company that will allow their artist to do just one song dirctly to public domain?

www.mp3.com (http://www.mp3.com) :p

[Chris Wood]

Regardless, no one looks at labels much anymore.

Buddy, investors, artists, and media companies sure do. If an up-and-coming rap artist is considering who to sign with, he's not going to choose the label which produces one rap flop after another. Conservative media firms are going to be reluctant to do business with a label that features profane artists who cause public protest. Investors won't like either situation.

[RZetlin]

According to slashdot (http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/03/06/23/1611226.shtml?tid=103&tid=99) a new law will be passed where the FBI will be directly involve in deterring copyright violation through use of peer-to-peer networks.

The bill will also allow the Justice Department to develop programs to educate the American public on why copyright violation is bad.

[Web Head]

But once the label has control they don't have to give any resources since it is all in good faith. They could do a crap job of putting out your first CD then say its your falt you suck so we won't put any more resources into your band but you can't go to anyone else or do anything your self since we own you.
For the contract to be legally binding, the artists services must be given in EXCHANGE for something. In this case that would be the label's promise to use due dilligence to market and promote the band. If the label refuses to do so, you've got one heck of a breach of contract suit on your hands.

File sharing does nothing for an artist. I mean hey, if you've given up all worldly possessions in a search for spiritual enlightenment, and only want to spread your music, great. But most artists aren't nearly so magnanimous.


According to slashdot a new law will be passed where the FBI will be directly involve in deterring copyright violation through use of peer-to-peer networks.
Destroying someone's PC remotely is a horrible violation of someone's civil rights. Creating task forces like this is a MUCH better idea, and I'm glad to see it.

[Psycho Fox]

For the contract to be legally binding, the artists services must be given in EXCHANGE for something. In this case that would be the label's promise to use due dilligence to market and promote the band. If the label refuses to do so, you've got one heck of a breach of contract suit on your hands.
But how can you prove in court that your CD didn't sell well becouse of their half ass attempt to promote your CD? IE if WBA was contracted like a band how could you prove in court that Time Warner mismanaged their cartoons?



File sharing does nothing for an artist. I mean hey, if you've given up all worldly possessions in a search for spiritual enlightenment, and only want to spread your music, great. But most artists aren't nearly so magnanimous.
But file sharing doesn't even effect independants. Look them up and you might get maybe one illegal mp3 after an hour of searching if your lucky. Yet file sharing does offer lots of shelfed still copyrighted music that noone would be able to hear for years otherwise.

[Web Head]

But how can you prove in court that your CD didn't sell well becouse of their half ass attempt to promote your CD? IE if WBA was contracted like a band how could you prove in court that Time Warner mismanaged their cartoons?
Well, contract law is admitedly not my strong suit, but I guess it would fall on what specific half-assedness the label was doing. This is pretty case specific, depending on what your beef with the company is.

As one, admittedly off the top of my head, example...say you think your label isn't spending enough money promoting your band. You would need to establish what what the industry standard is for a band of your stature in regards to advertising money spent. If you're a punk band with two top 40 singles, what does your label/other labels spend on similar bands. If you are getting the industry standard, or you can find no examples of how you got shafted, you can't really complain (and you have no legal recourse)

Granted, that is a VERY primitive example that doesn't take into account your particular state's case law...

[Psycho Fox]

Well, contract law is admitedly not my strong suit, but I guess it would fall on what specific half-assedness the label was doing. This is pretty case specific, depending on what your beef with the company is.

Well lets pretent WBA was contracted like a band to do radio plays and it followed the same history of WBA from 1990 till KWB

So it starts out strong and everything is fine then TW creates its own radio network and gets all its talent on radio to be exlusive to that. Their radio network takes years to even get decent coverage let alone liseners. TW foces on what has already been produced thus fewer new eps of the radio plays then WBA feels it needs.

So now what? like TW now would claim its is WBA falt for letting their works slip while WBA points the finger TW that they mismanaged their works making it impossible for them to maintain or grow their viewer base (in this example listener base)

Labels in general are not any smarter or ethical then TW

Also now that you have regulation of radio (and TV) in the future it is not unlikey you have labels having their own radio network and artist of that label ONLY gets played on their labels network. Then there is nothing stoping labels just hiring talent as workers under contract thus a salary and everything you make while under contract is the sole property of your employer.

Let me ask you a question if the band memebers of your favourite bad was giving free CDs of their shelfed songs becouse their label is a jerk and shelfed them would you report them to the RIAA? Would you take the CD?

If it was possible to buy directly from the artist I don't think bootleging would be as much of a problem it is today.

[Chris Wood]

[Psycho Fox]Well lets pretent WBA was contracted like a band to do radio plays and it followed the same history of WBA from 1990 till KWB

So it starts out strong and everything is fine then TW creates its own radio network and gets all its talent on radio to be exlusive to that. Their radio network takes years to even get decent coverage let alone liseners. TW foces on what has already been produced thus fewer new eps of the radio plays then WBA feels it needs.

So now what? like TW now would claim its is WBA falt for letting their works slip while WBA points the finger TW that they mismanaged their works making it impossible for them to maintain or grow their viewer base (in this example listener base)

Labels in general are not any smarter or ethical then TW

I'm not following. What's WBA? TW?


Also now that you have regulation of radio (and TV) in the future it is not unlikey you have labels having their own radio network and artist of that label ONLY gets played on their labels network.

There is potential for a real problem here, but hopefully regulkation will prevent it.


Let me ask you a question if the band memebers of your favourite bad was giving free CDs of their shelfed songs becouse their label is a jerk and shelfed them would you report them to the RIAA?== Would you take the CD?

Of course I would take it, but why would the band be so stupid? how are they going to make a living giving away their work?


If it was possible to buy directly from the artist I don't think bootleging would be as much of a problem it is today.

For smaller artists it often is possible to buy directly from their websites. Albums of major artists are usually (but not always) readily available from retail outlets.

It's hard to say what would best discourage piracy. Controlling CD prices is one thing, but providing unique content (like a concert ticket) that cannot be readily downloaded may be the best defense.

[Psycho Fox]

I'm not following. What's WBA? TW?
WBA=Warner Brothers Animation, TW=Time Warner



There is potential for a real problem here, but hopefully regulkation will prevent it.
What regulation? The FCC is into deregulation as they belive the free market will correct it self and they job is censorship not regulation.



Of course I would take it, but why would the band be so stupid? how are they going to make a living giving away their work?
If their label shelfed it, they won't make money off it anyway.



For smaller artists it often is possible to buy directly from their websites. Albums of major artists are usually (but not always) readily available from retail outlets.

It's hard to say what would best discourage piracy. Controlling CD prices is one thing, but providing unique content (like a concert ticket) that cannot be readily downloaded may be the best defense.Well fans are willing to throw money at artist yet seems reluctant to throw at giant cold faceless corperations.