Originally Posted by Jefferson

Then why are you illegally downloading music?

Originally Posted by foundit66

Just because the most they achieve out of any given day involves playing an air guitar, a banjo, or a juice harp...
... that DOES NOT make them a "professional" musician.

So you eat meat too?
Why am I not surprised!

< end facetious post where nothing should be taken seriously... >

Originally Posted by tristanrobin

I know that you're not being an ass. LOL I'm just trying to make you understand.

First, how do you know how long it takes an artist to paint? Some paintings do, indeed, take a year to paint. But, if the medical care for a year is a bad analogy - how about doing my heart bypass surgery gratis (certainly a painting takes 5-6 hours to complete).

Second, it IS property. I have a friend who just settled a HUGE settlement with a hotel in Houston that had taken her designs from a piece of work and used them in a carpet (Caristan carpet - Paula Nadelstern artist). They didn't actually steal ANYTHING material from her. But they stole her work - her ideas - her right to make money from what she does for a living.

The ONLY way a songwriter makes money is to get royalties on what he has written. Everytime you download his song without paying for it, it's the same as going into his home and taking something that belongs to him.

The Mona Lisa is not a good example - it's past the copyright time limit - just as anybody can record Beethoven or Bach or Wagner. But you CAN'T record Stevie Wonder without permission and/or paying a royalty.

I know that you don't see the harm - and I've read enough of your posts to know that you're fair and that you're not being a jerk about it! But why is it that the things people in this country prize highly - music, films, books and art - are the things they feel most legitimate about copying or pirating or downloading without paying the artists who have enriched their lives?

Originally Posted by Katczinsky

No, you are completely right. Thanks for your knowledge on the subject and enlightening me. However, I still feel as if something just speaks to me that the punishments the RIAA is dealing out, and to whom, is far more 'immoral' than any damage done with file-sharing. I can perfectly understand it's illegality, however, even with file sharing, these artists still lead a very rich and self-indulged life where they can quite literally do or buy what ever they want. While on the other hand, the poor college kid or the fourteen year old that is getting sued for $10,000, is having his or her life ruined, and perhaps changed drastically. Perhaps it is this that lead me to cloud my judgment and go on a rather slippery slope. But that was essentially what I was trying to say, but perhaps I went too far.

Originally Posted by Katczinsky

A large vast majority of the files people (mostly teenagers) are downloading from p2p networks are from the most successful of the MTV generation. The richest of the richest. The 'dirt poor' musicians you refer to, are not that well known and therefore the vast majority of the audience that downloads these files won't be interested in downloading the songs from these artists, but mostly because it's virtually impossible to find songs from such artists over the internet.

Originally Posted by Katczinsky

A large vast majority of the files people (mostly teenagers) are downloading from p2p networks are from the most successful of the MTV generation. The richest of the richest. The 'dirt poor' musicians you refer to, are not that well known and therefore the vast majority of the audience that downloads these files won't be interested in downloading the songs from these artists, but mostly because it's virtually impossible to find songs from such artists over the internet.