“Russian music site of questionable legality AllOfMP3 may well be close to breathing its last. Credit card companies Visa and Mastercard have stopped accepting credit card transactions for the site,” Mark Mulligan blogs for JupiterResearch.
“AllOfMP3 have persistently sailed as close the wind as is humanly possible and claim legality through some creative interpretation of Russian copyright laws that the music industry refutes,” Mulligan writes.
“Without going into too much detail, the dispute centres around the authority of the new media license granting body in Russia to grant license on behalf of record labels and also around the much smaller license fees paid compared with standard licenses. Though AllOfMP3 claim to be catering for a Russian audience, they have clearly got their sights set on a wider audience and indeed usage is driven from Western Europe and beyond,” Mulligan writes.
Full article here.
Geez, super tim is still sore at me for lambasting his utter lack of knowledge the other day in the Consumer Reports story?!?! I believe i used all of those “big words” correctly, and merely schooled you on the subject of statistics. You clearly didn’t understand it beforehand, so I thought I’d give you a lesson before your professors made you look like a fool. Too late, I guess.
Next time I’ll try not to use such “big words” in my posts to you. That should make it easier for you to see where you are wrong. It’s nice to know that our high schools have prepared students such as yourself for the big life of the university.
The discussion above about sovereign nations is interesting and important, and you’ll note that I did not question the sovereignity of Russia. Russia had very lax laws about intellectual property rights, and allofmp3.com took full advantage of that. However, the Duma passed legislation in July 2004 that tightened up those laws. They were very concerned about joining the WTO at the time, and faced trouble on that front if they didn’t bring their IP laws into agreement with international norms. Those new IP laws were not scheduled to go into effect until September 2006.
So, the laws are in effect, but they are difficult to enforce. Also, no one really cares to enforce them. Russia is threatening to walk away from the table with the WTO due to some sticking points in agricultural trade talks, so that would mean they would have less reason to enforce. Also, the Duma is talking about rewriting Part IV of Russia’s Civil Code, which deals with copyright and IP laws. If that is done, the rewrite will supercede all previous IP laws.
So, there you have it.
“You tool, the RIAA doesn’t give a crap about the artist.”
– Hmm, I don’t recall every saying that I thought the RIAA cared about the artist. A quick check through my earlier post confirms that I in fact never said what you attribute to me. However, regardless of how much the RIAA may or may not care about the artists, the fact still remains that they do pay the artists something. For many artists, that something is all they have to live on. So go ahead and deprive them of that too if it makes you feel better about your “civil disobedience.”
“If you honestly believe the RIAA cares about the artists then this is a pointless discussion with you.”
– If you’re going to misquote me and argue against points that I have never made, then yes, the discussion would be pointless.
“I’m avoiding buying anything with DRM sewn into it. If you want them to dictate what you do with YOUR music”
– I agree. I’m completely against the concept of DRM myself. I never buy music that has DRM somehow attached to it. How this has anything to do with justifying copyright infringement, though, is beyond me.
“I don’t mind paying for music, but I want it to be fairly priced”
– yes, and I would like to pay less for gasoline too. This is yet another argument that does nothing to justify what you are doing. Just because I may not like the price of OS X, that doesn’t mean I can just steal it.
“I’ve barely heard anything in 10 years worth buying.”
– Ah, but it’s worth stealing. It’s funny how the value of something changes when you actually have to pay for it.
“You go ahead and swallow their “save the starving artist” campaign.”
– I’ll just rephrase your statement as, “strawman argument meant to deflect attention away from the fact that I’m justifying stealing from the artists along with the ones that actually do worthwhile work for the record labels.
For those that have argued against the RIAA (which I personally dislike) above, let me ask you this:
An artist writes, performs and records a song. Do you agree that the artist should be allowed to sell that song for as little or as much as they want to? If it’s too much, you just say “It’s not worth it” and you don’t buy, right? OK, so should the artist be allowed to say “I will sell you this song, but you are not allowed to copy it, or you can only copy it to 3 computers and your iPod.” Once again, you can say that it’s not worth it, or you can purchase it.
Now, there is no difference between the artist selling their works and having a store or an agent sell them. In this case, they license the RIAA or iTMS to sell. They still have the rights to their own stuff though.
So, as much as we all may hate the RIAA and their policies, they have the right to do what they are doing. If you don’t like the price or you don’t like the restrictions – don’t buy. It’s just that simple. When their restrictions cause them to stop selling, they will change their tune (pun intended). If you take it illegally because you are not happy with their policies, you are stealing. It’s that simple.
You might want to check YOUR facts dumbass! You also are the master of misquotes Mr. Strawman. I never said YOU thought the RIAA cared for artists. Rather the whole point of my argument is that the RIAA is a scumbag organization, it gets stronger each time a lemming like yourself pays for their product, and I don’t plan on supporting them.
Again, I never said I stole any music either. Geez you’re a tool and a lackey. I said I liked AllofMP3’s site, it’s the way music should be made available, and I wouldn’t give the RIAA any of my money. YOU inferred the rest.
You attempt to defuse my post by arguing little snippets for totally unrelated points. You’re too busy looking at the damn tree to see the forest and what is going on around you and the point of my post. This IS just like the war on terror argument because they use a narrow little sliver of an issue (war on terror/starving artist) to manipulate you into doing what they want. Yes, the artist may suffer slightly, but judging from what I see on TV they’re not hurting too much. If everyone quit paying the RIAA tax maybe artists will start to jump ship and an independent music distribution model can get going. One where the artist reap most of the rewards instead of the record companies’ cartel.
I don’t want to cheat the artist and I don’t want to steal or have anyone else steal. But until we put up a fight nothing will change. Nothing would have changed during the civil rights era if people hadn’t been willing to break the law a little to show that they weren’t going to take the injustice any more. Same thing here. The RIAA is corrupt and actually hurts artists income compared to the potential they would have without the RIAA stealing from them. I won’t give them money any more, period. If you want to continue to feed their machine then go ahead, but I’ve decided to wake up and resist the manipulation.
You’re right Jimbo, it is stealing. I’m not denying that. But sometimes you’ve got to be willing to resist a little and break the law in order change the status quo. It doesn’t have anything to do with paying for the music, I have no problem with that. It has to do with overcharging and onerous restrictions the RIAA imposes.
The simple fact is that thiefs will steal no matter what, but most people will pay for the music and get it legally if the terms are fair. But, they choose to punish the honest folk by overcharging and DRM in the thought that DRM will somehow prevent theives from stealing. It won’t happen and honest folk are unnecessarily restricted in their use. Lower the price, remove the DRM, and money will come rolling in. iTunes has been a perfect example. They are the first to start to get it right. Still too expensive, still has DRM (less annoying than most) but iTunes has taken off in part because of the ability to buy just what you want and thus pay less.
I know that it may seem that I’m advocating stealing, but I’m not. I’m advocating resisting the RIAA and not giving them your money. You notice they were reluctant to do anything online until they noticed people were stealing music. Then suddenly they changed their stance. Only by not paying them will you force them to change. They have no motivation to change unless people avoid giving them money. I’m not saying steal, I’m saying quit paying them anything. Don’t buy their stuff any more.
My understanding is that allofmp3 compensates artists but not the record companies. Whether that compensation is adequate to the artists, I have no way of knowing.
All I do know is that laws, at least in the U.S. are put in place to protect the rich and powerful’s immense wealth, not the little indie rock star guy’s wealth. So my advice is to question authority as often as necessary, they are not looking out for your best interests. Instead, they are looking after the interests of some fat, rich white guy usually.
intheshelter,
I’m sorry if the lack of coherency and the extraneous thoughts in your posts forces me to “argue little snippets,” but it’s necessary to show why your argument doesn’t hold imder inspection.
“Again, I never said I stole any music either.”
– Fair enough. But you clearly stated that you support allofmp3 and went on to justify why stealing is permissible, and implying that it is perhaps the moral thing to do. Fine. And I’m trying to show why that point of view is flawed.
“Yes, the artist may suffer slightly, but judging from what I see on TV they’re not hurting too much”
– Do you get all of your information and opinions from TV?
“If everyone quit paying the RIAA tax maybe artists will start to jump ship and an independent music distribution model can get going. One where the artist reap most of the rewards instead of the record companies’ cartel.”
– Nothing is stopping the artists from doing that right now.
“I don’t want to cheat the artist and I don’t want to steal or have anyone else steal. But until we put up a fight nothing will change.”
– So just to be clear, you like the layout and distribution method of allofmp3, but you would never suggest or condone using it because you are against cheating or stealing from the artists. Your way of fighting the RIAA would be to simply not buy music, but of course, not steal it either. Is this correct? I want to be clear on this because it sounds a lot like you’re saying that stealing is bad, but it’s okay if it’s for a good cause.
“But sometimes you’ve got to be willing to resist a little and break the law in order change the status quo.
…
I know that it may seem that I’m advocating stealing, but I’m not. I’m advocating resisting the RIAA and not giving them your money.”
– Would mind clarifying what you mean by “willing to…break the law.” Because if you’re not advocating stealing but simply not buying music, how exactly might it be necessary to break the law?
“The RIAA is corrupt and actually hurts artists income compared to the potential they would have without the RIAA stealing from them.”
– Is this a fact, or are you just trying to say it with enough authority that it sounds like a fact? I suppose you wouldn’t care to substantiate it would you?
“Still too expensive”
– Too expensive by your standards. The market suggests that many people think it’s a very fair price. Once again, the value that YOU place on something does not indicate the market value of something.
Again, you’re nitpicking and not seeing the forest. My obvious point (obvious to everyone but you I guess) is that you can either not buy their music, or yes, steal it. When I say I’m not advocating stealing I’m saying I’d rather they just quit buying, but I’d rather they do anything other than buy from the RIAA.
No, I didn’t not get all my information from TV, just the small portion I referenced where I see artist living in million dollar homes. Do you get all your information from the RIAA and George Bush? My question makes about as much sense as yours does!
“you clearly stated that you support allofmp3 and went on to justify why stealing is permissible”
I liked allofmp3’s options. I choose the format, the bitrate, and the price is affordable. That is what I liked. I also liked it because it gives the RIAA fits. As for permissible, I simply said that to me the time to make a choice between supporting the RIAA or opposing it has come.
Too Expensive:
“The market suggests”? And just how does it do that? Suggest I mean? Did it whisper in your ear? Hey, the Iraq war suggests we’re taking on the terrorist right in their back yard! Duh! The thing that does suggest to me that prices are too high, even on iTunes, is the fact that they are basically the same per song cost as CDs. These are the same CDs people copied because they were too expensive to begin with. The same CDs the RIAA said would go down in price after their were mainstream, yet never did. These prices are the same, yet there is no media, no physical distribution costs, no brick and mortar stores, etc. Yet the price is the SAME! It is too high. The thing that “suggests” this to me is the fact that I don’t like the prices, lots of people I know don’t like it, etc. Just because people are buying songs doesn’t mean that it’s not too expensive, it just means there is no other options, hence the description “cartel” when I reference the RIAA.
“Nothing is stopping the artists from doing that right now.”
No, nothing is. Nothing is stopping me from protesting the RIAA except draconian laws passed by corrupt politicians bought by the RIAA lobbyists either. Now, I still CAN protest this by stealing or not buying, but I risk the possibility of financial consequences if I do. Much like the risk artists would take by leaving the distribution cartel of the RIAA. See, it’s a vicious loop.
“‘m sorry if the lack of coherency and the extraneous thoughts in your posts “
Apparently it’s only incoherent to you because you’ve been the only one nitpicking. Which bolsters my point that you just don’t see the overall point of my post, and instead are dwelling on certain phrases. I can lead you to water . . . . .
All of what you say makes some sense up to a certain point. To me that point has been crossed. It is time to rebel and resist, even if that means “stealing” music as a way of being disobedient. I don’t WANT to steal, but I don’t want to get fleeced for the rest of my life either. If I do everything the way they want then nothing will ever change. Personally, I’m willing to avoid purchasing music any more. As I said, it pretty much sucks now anyway.
You still don’t get the big picture on this. You focus on the detail, but you’re missing my point that I don’t care any more, I won’t pay them. Either by not buying or stealing, but I wish everyone would just stop paying them a cent. That has been the point all along and it still stands. No amount of nitpicking line by line will change my viewpoint that the RIAA sucks, artists would be better served without them, they are vultures who would take every penny you have under the umbrella of “the artists” and I won’t pay them any more. It’s a viewpoint on how I will approach that marketplace from now on and you can’t prove my viewpoint wrong. It’s a stance I’m willing to take. You’d have about as much chance in saying that civil disobedience during the civil rights movement was wrong no matter what, even though it’s goals were to change something heinous. yes, technically they broke the law too, but just because it’s a law doesn’t mean that it’s right and I have the right to protest it by breaking it. I run risks, but I have the right to do that.
And for the trump card:
Argue all you want about the LAW, this phrase is the spirit of my argument. . . “The Nazi’s had pieces of flair they made the Jews wear”
Wave “the law” in my face all you want. I don’t care about the law. The laws are wrong and must be changed. Some times the only way to change the law is to disobey it, to refuse to conform.
Believe it or not, I consider myself to be a 39 year old conservative, but I am sick of being taken advantage of by big business. I will miss allofmp3 and their great offering. Illegal or not, it offered the choices that many want in digital media.
I wonder how many artists have received checks from allofmp3? It would really be interesting to know how they pay artists directly and go around their contractual arrangements with whatever record companies they are signed with. Sounds like a bunch of bull intended to remove the guilt any potential buyer of songs throught their site. I just happen to believe they are skimming money that belongs to someone else by simply selling what isn’t theirs through a foreign website safely out of the reach of US, and most other countries’ (at least advanced legal system countries) laws. I wonder if they’d care to open their books for examination if they claim to pay artists. Bet that won’t happen… hah!
As to what is a fair price for selling DRM’d music… what exactly should that price be? CD’s often sell for in excess of $15 US, unless they are past their popularity prime, and at least on iTMS there is a bit of a savings to the consumer, plus the ability to cherry-pick songs (worth quite a bit in my book.) Sure, the distribution costs are next to nothing at that point… but someone (Apple in this case) put together a workable system, so we pay a bit for convenience, and the labels get a little less than if they sold hard copies. What’s the big deal? Folks, you can always go to your favorite Wal-Mart for the cheap CDs (recent top 40 or bargain bin discounted old shit) or some specialty music store and pay much higher prices for the harder to get albums. Nobody’s forcing anyone to do anything. If you are inclined to steal, choices of how to buy aren’t going to stop you. Most folks who refuse to pay for any music unless, “it’s going to the artist” are probably the same ones who would steal my cds out of my car. I doubt the artist really matters to them.
Now, does Russian law really allow you to sell intellectual property or copyrighted artwork which belongs to me at whatever price you want to, and to whomever you want? So I live in the States, and all a Russian guy has to do is copy my work, and then he now owns it by going home to Russia? Some system. Hardly recognizable as anything but the way things were done in the lawless old west. What a bunch of crooks. Hard to really defend without being a crook yourself.
I wouldn’t doubt that allofmp3 doesn’t pay the artists despite what they say.
As for costs, Apple is making money on iTunes, maybe very little, but it’s not in the red on the service. The artist gets paid VERY little, much less than on traditional distribution methods because of RIAA contract changes. The only one making out well is the RIAA.
I think there is room to move the price down. Keep the Apple chunk the same, increase the artist share somewhat, and lower the RIAA share DRAMATICALLY. They will make that up in volume because folks will flock to a lower price. I think most people want to be pay for it and be legal, but the price is still too high.
“These are the same CDs people copied because they were too expensive to begin with… Yet the price is the SAME! It is too high.”
– It’s easy to confuse “protesting high prices” and “stealing because there’s little chance that I will get caught.” Just because people are stealing music, that does not necessarily mean that the price is too high. I assume you know the whole correlation versus causation argument, so I won’t bore you by explaining it here.
“The thing that “suggests” this to me is the fact that I don’t like the prices, lots of people I know don’t like it, etc.”
– What would be a price that you “like” and why is your opinion any more important that anyone else’s? Or are you saying that if someone thinks that $5.00 for a CD is too much, then they are justified to steal it, that is, as long as it’s in the form of a protest? See, the problem is, where do you draw the line? When will the price ever be something that everyone will agree is fair? And should everyone be allowed to steal if the price doesn’t match their personal preference?
“Just because people are buying songs doesn’t mean that it’s not too expensivei]
– and likewise, just because people are not buying songs, that doesn’t mean that they are too expensive.
“Apparently it’s only incoherent to you because you’ve been the only one nitpicking. Which bolsters my point that you just don’t see the overall point of my post”
– No, your point is quite clear, it’s just that your arguments are rather unconvincing, many of which don’t actually support your basic argument, namely, that stealing is an acceptable form of protest when the consumer feels he is being treated unfairly. Of course, I’m sure you would not grant everyone that same freedom to break the law whenever they feel slighted.
“It is time to rebel and resist, even if that means “stealing” music as a way of being disobedient. I don’t WANT to steal, but I don’t want to get fleeced for the rest of my life either.”
– The problem with that philosophy is that even if you are pretty reasonable and feel that, say, $5.00 for CD is a fair price, the person next to you may feel that anything over $1.00 is too high. Should they be allowed to steal also?
“Wave “the law” in my face all you want. I don’t care about the law. The laws are wrong and must be changed. Some times the only way to change the law is to disobey it, to refuse to conform.”[/]
– Sometimes disobedience works, but that doesn’t necessarily justify your situation. After all, terrorism is a form of protest too.
” “The Nazi’s had pieces of flair they made the Jews wear” “
– I’ll let Godwin’s law take it from here.
If you really want to protest against the RIAA while still supporting the artists, buy the CDs at the concerts. Granted, it’s not always the most convenient, but that way more money goes to the artists.
Jeez, how many posts have you wasted and you STILL misrepresent my argument.
I have not one said stealing should be allowed, or is right, or is justified (justified by whom?). YOU said all those things, then turned around and refuted your own statement. I’m not saying any of those things and you know it.
Let’s sum it up for you so you don’t f*ck it up any more.
The entire point of my argument is I liked allofmp3’s offering and it annoys me how the RIAA bullies any possible competition to their cartel distribution model. Soooooooo, I’m not going to pay the RIAA any more. They are crooks and bullies and I won’t support them. I’m also saying I can disobey the law while knowing that there may be consequences for that disobedience if I’m caught. It doesn’t make disobedience right, just that I can do it as a way to rebel against the RIAA tax.
As for Godwin’s law, . . . you need to get a life. It was making my point by making a little joke. A joke! Do you know what a joke is? Do you realize you’re the only one who hasn’t understood all of this, obfuscating and nitpicking my overall argument.
Jeez you must be the death of any party that you attend. You need to step back and see the big picture of what people say rather than nitpicking and misrepresenting what they say. You’re the person that everyone hates to talk to at work because it’s such a chore to carry on the conversation.
intheshelter,
Just out of curiosity what do you do for a living? Do your customers (or employer) pay you a set rate or do they just pay you what they feel like at the time?
dp:
Let’s not waste time going down that road. It also misrepresents what I’ve said, much like Realist.
Not only does it misrepresent my argument, but for it to be remotely apt I would have to be the only provider of my service, force my employer to pay whatever I say, change the terms of my employment at will, install spyware on your PC to force you to pay what I ask, install software on your computer that compromises security(rootkit) to force you to pay what I ask, buy politicians to pass laws that force you to pay what I ask, etc., etc., blah, blah, blah.
Apple. . . . Oranges
Forest. . . . Trees
Nice try.
Where are all the nice americans? The americans that are not expert on every topic all the time.
American’s? I don’t understand.
“I have not one said stealing should be allowed, or is right, or is justified (justified by whom?).”
– While you may not have stated those explicit words, that is the meaning of much of your post, whether you recognize it or not.
“I’m also saying I can disobey the law while knowing that there may be consequences for that disobedience if I’m caught. It doesn’t make disobedience right, just that I can do it as a way to rebel against the RIAA tax.”
– True, you are not physically prevented from disobeying, but if you admit that disobedience is not right (I’m assuming morally and ethically) then why do it? How does doing something that you know is wrong just to advance your own personal agenda make you any better than the RIAA?
“It was making my point by making a little joke.”
– Yes, I understood the reference. No, it was not funny. I’m sorry that you’re not a good comedian.
“You need to step back and see the big picture of what people say rather than nitpicking and misrepresenting what they say. You’re the person that everyone hates to talk to at work because it’s such a chore to carry on the conversation.
– If the supporting arguments don’t actually support the big picture, it makes the big picture rather meaningless.
I’ll grant your wish and end this debate with you. It has proven quite useless anyway, mostly due to your constant wavering of your stance. You go from saying that disobedience (implied meaning = stealing) might be necessary (“necessary” being the moral equivalent to “justifiable”) in order to advance a personal cause, and then say that you are against stealing, but that you can do it, but that it’s not right to do. You cite examples of civil disobedience producing good results, thus implying that disobedience can sometimes be the right thing to do, but then say that it is not the right thing to do. Quite frankly, your stance is so full of contradictions that you seemingly fail to recognize, so any further discussion would just be a waste of both your time and my time. If you want the last word, so be it.
I think this preference to download higher quality (bitrate) and full quality uncompressed wav files from a site like allofmp3 should send a message to the RIAA to let online music distributors to sell full CD quality files for close to but not the full price of a standard music CD that you would buy from a brick and mortar store.
Basically you would be buying the CD without the actual physical packaging and shipping costs that would add to the cost of a normal CD.
You will be getting a discount for buying a downloaded CD as opposed to a physical CD and they make money where the RIAA would have lost the sale to allofmp3 or, Limewire sites.
I know everybody wants music for a lot less than what the RIAA wants but, there needs to be a middle ground here and if iTunes sells a CD’s worth of music for $9.99 then, maybe make the uncompressed CD $12.99 and that will give the consumer a realistic alternative to buying lower quality music files.
But the way that this could work is if the uncompressed files were only available as a full CD and not a la carte.
I know people want individual files but, this would be the middle ground here.
We live in a society of convenience where we whould prefer to pay a little more to get what we want here and now instead of driving down the the store to get the same music.
Umm, just put 100 dollars into allofmp3 and it worked fine for me. I used a Mastercard and I live in Virginia.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”grin” style=”border:0;” />
Maybe they just haven’t really instituted it yet. Either way, I’m happy to say I still have plenty of allofmp3 usage left.
Realist why do you continue. You can’t win.
“While you may not have stated those explicit words, that is the meaning of much of your post, “
-Wrong
“you admit that disobedience is not right (I’m assuming morally and ethically) then why do it?”
-I’ve explained why several times already. If you’re incapable of understanding it then it does no good to repeat it.
“Yes, I understood the reference. No, it was not funny. I’m sorry that you’re not a good comedian.”
-No, you didn’t. Yes, it was. Yes, I am.
“- If the supporting arguments don’t actually support the big picture, it makes the big picture rather meaningless.”
-Wrong again. My supporting arguments do support my opinion. They have all along.
“due to your constant wavering of your stance”
-I’ve been consistent, you have supplied a parade of straw man arguments.
“”necessary” being the moral equivalent to “justifiable””
-Show me one place where necessary is defined as the moral equivalent to justifiable. You made up a definition to support your faltering argument.
“You cite examples of civil disobedience producing good results, thus implying that disobedience can sometimes be the right thing to do, but then say that it is not the right thing to do”
-Wrong again. You inferred it, I did not imply it. I said that sometimes may be necessary to break the law to work towards change. That does not equate to breaking the law as being the “right thing to do”. Again you misrepresent me to support a straw man argument.
“your stance is so full of contradictions”
-My stance is consistent and has been. Your straw man arguments have created inconsistencies in order to prove your non-existent point.
“If you want the last word, so be it.”
-It’s not the last word that I wanted. You could have had the last word if you’d just admitted that you’ve misrepresented my arguments since your first post, but your pride wouldn’t allow you to admit you made a mistake. I don’t care if you agree with me, I just don’t like being misrepresented, and you’ve done that from the start.
All I have to say re: “AllOfMP3 ‘close to breathing it’s last'” is:
Crap.
(I never used AllOfMP3, but I liked the thought of having it around.)
And all of you with your paper machete halos my response to you is:
Piss off!
So Trent Reznor couldn’t get the gold Egyptian cat statues on his personal jet fleet, whoopdie freakin doo dah to that. With AllOfMP3 now artists are getting paid exactly what I get paid for my duties at my job: DIDDLY SQUAT!
LOL!
(mindmelongdayatworknevermindmoveon)
I can’t read the link so maybe I’m commenting in ingorance but you just go through click and buy and then purchase an xrost card. No big deal!
As for those posters defending the status quo I have one point to make: So when you defend artists, the RIAA etc. don’t you dare make copies of your music and give it to friends, because that’s depriving artist and the RIAA from their cut of the pie. Frankly, after paying for over-priced music for far too long I’ve been happily downloading music from allofmp3. I also rent movies and rip them, and I also download movies and TV shows from torrent sites because I don’t think there should be copyright on works of art.
Likewise I don’t give a fig for the American system of slugging consumers everytime they breathe. I’m not being a hypocrite I’ll bust DRM any chance I get and I’m sick and tired of hearing about musicians bleating about being ripped off. You are ripped off by the record companies. The punters who go and see bands are more often ripped off paying prices that are charged.
If you believe in copyright don’t make copies of movies using Mactheripper and Toast, don’t make copies of music, don’t make copies of television shows or anything for that matter, because that defeats the whole purpose of intellectual property. The whole concept is based on the user paying through the nose. Honestly, I’m sick and tired of the whole system and I will consistently bust DRM any chance I get. I will purchase from DRM free sites at the best price going because I’m a consumer and I’ll get the best price I can.
Oh and for the record I spent over a decade and half in the entertainment industry (musician, promoter, and legal representative). Now I’m going back to my three movie downloads; and I’ve got four albums from allofmp3 that I haven’t had time to put into iTune and then into my ipod.