The Red and Black

It would've been nice to hear from someone opposed to "downloading music is theft" on the panel (or if there was someone, more of a mention in the article). Not everyone is convinced that downloading a song is the same thing as stealing a pack of gum in the grocery store. Not everyone believes imaginary property deserves the same rights as real property.

As for the now less rich musicians, they should take a close look at who exactly is stealing from them. Is it a college kid who otherwise couldn't/wouldn't afford to buy his album and downloads it instead? Or is it droves of no-talent (MAF)*IAA hacks who exploit thousands of hard working musicians as a business plan? I tend to think it's the latter.

Joseph what you need to remember is it costs money to produce music. They are full functioning companies, which have marketing, legal, payroll, and many other types of expenses. They also spend quite a bit of money finding and marketing talent for the first time. Their successes must pay for their failures. In order to produce the music they do they need to get paid for it. If you allow people to illegally download it for free you can not get everyone to pay for the song that could and would pay for it if they had to.

Gum manufacturers also spend money producing their product, but the difference is since it is not a information commodity they can prevent people from taking the gum for free easier.

The other thing to consider is if everyone pays for music and record companies make more money, since they are competing with multiple record companies, they will most likely spend more money trying to generate more music and more differentiated styles of music or allow them to decrease prices for everyone who does pay for it. Perhaps this will allow you to find more music to your liking, since you think the current selection is made by no-talent hacks.

I mean don't get me wrong. I would love to download unlimited music for free, but that doesn't mean it is right.

I also can't complain, since they are finally trying strategies to differentiate their consumers, since some will/can pay more or less for music. Ruckus is designed for a market, college students, who have less money. It allows them access to music at the cost of ad exposure, but does not let them keep the music for free. After you graduate you get a job.....$15/month for music is not something that is not affordable. However, if you do not want to pay for it you, you can choose ad-supported access to music. Use a radio. There are also several online options for streaming ad-supported music online. Sure it does not give someone all the personal choices of when and how to play a song, but you have to give the people who are willing to pay for music a reason to pay for it, since they are the ones paying to produce it.

"Honestly, you have a better shot with your crack ho."

That's the coolest prof ever. Ever...

There is a new option now: if you are a student, you have free access to Ruckus. It is a website where you can download about three millions songs. You needn't worry for the copyright as the site already took care of that.

Don't want to share it, then you probably shouldn't create it. Copyright is effectively dead.

'nuff said!