Originally Posted by Terry Graham
I like to see the pitiful rationalizings for "the right to free music" blown out of the water.

One of my own analogies is:
If I was making nice furniture in my front yard and you come by with a truck,
should you just be able to pick up a table and drive off? Well why is is that just because you have a computer, do you feel you have a right to the intellectual property of others. . . cleverly calling it "file sharing".

This article recommended by ASCAP

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/pda/2008/nov/18/digitalmusic-digitalmedia

Excerpt:

"Another argument being aired is that the music industry should stop being so hung up on trying to get paid on line, indeed one story even referred to "the music industry's obsession with copyright". That's like saying "the car industry's obsession with cars". Copyright is the oxygen of the music industry. Without it, there is no industry. Sure, there may be cases for changing some industry practices, but copyright remains the essence of making money from music.

Terry


I thought we were talking about illegal file sharing? At least that's what my inference was, based on the above which was the original post.

To me, file sharing is "to take or appropriate (someone's music) without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully" and when done, it is "b: an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property" Of course, "as" makes that part of the definition a simile, meaning that the defined word is not limited to "embezzlement or burglary," but is similar to both or either, which I find illegal file sharing to be.

However, anyone is certainly free to believe differently.

You've got to know your limitations. I don't know what your limitations are. I found out what mine were when I was twelve. I found out that there weren't too many limitations, if I did it my way. -Johnny Cash

It's only music.
-niteshift

Mike Dunbar Music