RIAA Seeking $1 Million in Damages from a Student for Sharing 7 Songs on Kazaa

I am no fan of the RIAA. But, How can you justify an illegal activity that hurts the industry with another activity that helps it? Purchasing music legally gives one no right to steal it as well. If I do work for a charity, does that also give me the right to steal from it?

How were the artists compensated for those "tens of thousands of songs" you downloaded? They may only get a sliver of royalties from music sales through their label. But, I am pretty sure that they got zero for any of those thousands of songs.

How were the artists compensated for those "tens of thousands of songs" you downloaded? They may only get a sliver of royalties from music sales through their label. But, I am pretty sure that they got zero for any of those thousands of songs.

How much of the money that the RIAA collected from those lawsuits reached the artists and songwriters? How much of the fee collected when buying blank CDs makes it to the artists as well? Maybe some of those downloaded songs made it to a friend who bought the artists' CDs? Maybe if the RIAA didn't keep prices so artifically bloated for so long, this wouldn't be such an issue. What about those people who've had their house broken into and their hundreds of CDs stolen (I'm one of those people)?

Like I had said, I am no fan nor apologist of the RIAA and their practices.

Legally, the artists have signed contracts with their labels. They could have chosen a route free of the RIAA and used an independent label. But, the revenue potential would have been lower since the RIAA labels do have an extensive distribution and promotion system.

Music is not a right. You can make the choice not to buy it if you consider it overpriced. You can make the choice to purchase only independent artists if you are offended by the practices of the RIAA.

None of what you have stated gives you the right to violate their copyright by stealing  the music. I cannot give an answer on how much of the RIAA collections ever make it to the artist. But, I can give you an answer on how much the artists get when you download their songs illegally. Zero.

Artists no longer get a reasonable amount of money from CD sales alone these days. The money I spend on concerts and merch from the band members themselves at concerts I think makes up for what I may download.

And chances are, if I download something and really like it, I'll go out and buy the album.

For any person who listens to a large amount of music, it's unreasonable to expect them to go to a mainstream CD store and preview every album they may want to buy. You don't buy a house or a car just because you see a picture of it or look at it in a lot. You check it out first. That's how I approach music buying and listening.

You don't buy a house or a car just because you see a picture of it or look at it in a lot. You check it out first. That's how I approach music buying and listening.

You don't steal a house to see if you like it either. There are legal ways to sample and discover music. Every music download site has song previews. There are internet, terrestrial and satellite radio stations that specialize in new release music. People usually have friends with similar tastes that recommend new artists and albums.

The sampling issue is not new. How did people select music to purchase before digital?

You don't buy a house or a car just because you see a picture of it or look at it in a lot. You check it out first.

Isn't that what radio is for?

You don't steal a house to see if you like it either.

Song downloading is not theft either. Theft removes an original and places it in the possession of another. Music pirating makes a copy of the original and leaves it with the original owner, unharmed.

Isn't that what radio is for?

Hah. If it's on the radio, it's not something I'm probably going to be listening to.

Most of the indie artists I download want their music to be pirated and spread. It's not about physical CD copies being made and sold. It's about exposure and tours and merchandising.

I am no fan of the RIAA. But, How can you justify an illegal activity that hurts the industry with another activity that helps it?

Amen. I guess the real shame of it all is that people who are relatively miniscule infringers are being sued when others are bragging about "thousands" of infringements.

I'm also willing to state that I have very little sympathy for the RIAA, or those they represent, as their own failed business practices created the problem they're now facing, but I also am constantly amazed at the stupidity of those who *continue* to do something which has *known* dire consequences. It's like those who bang their head against the wall, despite an ongoing headache. 

It's then silly, imo, to be upset at the existence of the wall, or to complain of the headache.

How much of the money that the RIAA collected from those lawsuits reached the artists and songwriters?

My second least favorite argument. The problems of major label greed are not new. Guns are *not* held to heads when artists sign these contracts. Quite honestly, the fact that all this bull@!$%# is ongoing yet we hear *very little* from artists about it, is appalling, and reduces whatever sympathy I might have for their not seeing a piece of the lawsuit pie. Too few artists speak out against the practices of the labels, and those who don't, I simply don't particularly care that they signed themselves into a @!$%#ty contract, based on the exposure it would provide. Them's the breaks.

Song downloading is not theft either. Theft removes an original and places it in the possession of another. Music pirating makes a copy of the original and leaves it with the original owner, unharmed.

This is the oldest argument in the book, and it hasn't improved with age. You've gained something you don't own, and didn't pay for. If you want to play a game of semantics and claim that you're not hurting anyone by doing it, be my guest, but it gets harder to justify that arguments when hundreds of thousands of songs are downloaded, and when douches on Slashdot proudly talk about how they steal music that they would otherwise buy to prove a point.

What you're doing is attempting to justify your infringement, but doing so doesn't suddenly mean you're not infringing. 

I say it again. There are two major problems with the digital era:

The RIAA on one end.

And those who believe that unlimited pirating is justified on the other end.

I'm willing to put quite a lot of money on my suspicion that the vast majority of people who pirate thousands of songs but then claim to buy as much as they steal are lying.

Oh I certainly don't buy nearly as much as I download. What I download and really like, however, I do support. What I don't like, I delete.

I'm pretty sure an artist would prefer someone pirate an album of theirs, really like it, then buy one or two hard copies and go to their show when they're in town and buy a shirt, rather than have a potential fan and customer turned off because their only option is to blindly buy a CD.

And as for previews, that really doesn't mean anything. You can't know from a 30-second preview if you're going to like a 4-song, 2-hour long Godspeed You! Black Emperor album. Maybe it works for @!$%#ty, catchy pop tunes, but not for real music.

I'm pretty sure an artist would prefer someone pirate an album of theirs, really like it, then buy one or two hard copies and go to their show when they're in town and buy a shirt, rather than have a potential fan and customer turned off because their only option is to blindly buy a CD.

I think it's silly to claim that the only way to get a sample of songs in this day and age is through piracy. I would wager that almost anything at all that you want to hear, that is new to you, can be found in a variety of ways and available for either abbreviated or full listen.