LoveToKnow Music:AllComments

From LoveToKnow Music

Comments

Whatever dude, screw them, they only care about money and that's it. Music these days sucks anyway just a piece of crap. I couldn't give a flying f*** about the big labels, I'd rather buy from the humble ones, of course until they get greedy and disgusting as the "big" ones.

-- Contributed by: F'uck'em

Also,

Yes, record companies are paid small royalties for mp3 players. However they are paid royalties for cd's, tapes, and blank media that is used for reproduction. So it was not like these royalties began as a result of mp3 players. The record companies do not take these royalties as bribes, so they won't sue- like the article suggests. These royalties were mandated by the copyright law.

-- Contributed by: Mary

When you think about it, it's not actually that interesting to note that only the majors are suing, not the indies. The indies are also getting music stolen from them. However, they simply lack the financial resources and the legal team to sue these companies.

Secondly, there are tons of sites that allow you to download single songs legally. People have not been forced to buy entire albums for quite some time now.

I think people forget that it is not only the "greedy" artists and record companies that are not making the money that they should. Tons of distributors, A&R workers, and people that make much less profit then most other occupations are now making even less now. That is, if theyre lucky enough to still have a job...

-- Contributed by: Mary

Personally, the bulk of the music I have downloaded via Limewire is stuff I already paid for on disk, then cassette, then CD, and I wanted to consolidate it all on to one MP3 for me to play in my car. How many times to these artist think they should be paid for their songs?

-- Contributed by: jamew

I would love it if the companies would stop the crappy lawsuits. It makes them look like vindictive terrified bunny rabbits. I and many people out there would love to get licenses for the music they download, but I don't want the music industry to tell me how to get it. They need to offer 100 ways to license the music and , by the way, distributing music faster and further is good for them. They just need to have a model that rides the wave.

I still remember how album prices doubled when they went to CDs. And it was not an addition in MFR costs. It was GREED. CDs still don't sound as natural as accoustic recordings. Why don't they figure out why and fix that rather than going after "Terrorist" high school "liberals".

-- Contributed by: Keith

limewire should not be responsible to pay, they should make the users pay. Hello? that is the same as putting the gunmaker in jail for creating the weapon that murdered. It just shouldn't work that way. And this is just another one of those ways of societal change. Like machine putting man out of work. It happens so the record execs should just change their business models to accomodate. start taking royalties from merch sales, tour revenue, and magazine/tv PR. And the locked players/CDs will not work. Just as you can make a format, you can make a player for it. Theres no such thing as digital/electronic security, really.

-- Contributed by: okabuka

once music hits the airwves it is public knowledge..... they cant control or determine who can and cannot listen to metallica's next bob seger tribute or of anything else they jus think they can

-- Contributed by: KC

You're right there, but after the Pirate Bay case, Limewire may be in trouble.

-- Contributed by: Hlmcdona

dude it is bogus limewire has no say of how the program is used if people use it for piracy o well there are billions of people who are what are they gonna do arrest everyone in the world with a computer

-- Contributed by: limewire

Hi PD - Legally, the kinds of copies you are talking about would be treated the same as making copies of music - but still, it's a tricky issue. If you are not making money from your copies, then it is difficult to prove a copyright violation.

-- Contributed by: Hlmcdona

Limewire: I wish you luck in legal case. I don't want to copy music per say. I like to copy some vedeos from various people like KPFK talk shaws. Others deal with political trends. Rare do I want to record music. What do you say?

-- Contributed by: PD

It is an interesting point you raise about the artists, James. The thing is, the RIAA, who goes after people for file sharing on services like Limewire in the US and who has collected judgements from people - and most recently was awarded a $2M verdict against a woman for sharing 24 songs - does not have a procedure for distributing the money they collect to artists. So, the artists are not really collecting anything when someone pays a fine for using a site like Limewire. There needs to be a better system in place.

-- Contributed by: Hlmcdona

THAT ARTIST COULD CARE LESS. AS LONG ASS THEY MAKE THIER MONEY MONEY,, SCREE THEIR FANS AS LONG AS THEY GET THEIRS!!! ITS ALL ABOUT THE MONEY FOR AN ARTIST NOW ALL I HAVE TO DO IS YELL YAAA ALL THROUGH OUT A SONG AND MAKE MILLIONS

-- Contributed by: JAMES

LIMEWIRE IS A JOKE!! STEALING IS STEALING IF A MAN GIVES YOU A BAT KNOWING YOU MIGHT DO SOMETHING BAD WITHIT, BUT GIVES IT TO YOU ANYWAY GOES HOME AND 2 DAYS LATER HIT SOMEONE WITH IT, KILL THEM AND NOW YOU BOTH ARE ARRESTED! WHY? HE SUPPLIED YOU WITH THE WEAPON!!!!!! LIMEWIRE SUPPLIES YOU WITH THE TOOL TO STEAL!!! THAY ARE A SUPPLIER!!1 DRUG ADDICTS HACE A SUPPLIER IF THAT DRUGY DIES THE SUPPLIER GOES TO JAIL!!!!

-- Contributed by: james

I am with you, Friend. It is a very complicated issue, but in reality, people have always shared music.

-- Contributed by: Hlmcdona

Truely it is no different than sharing with your friends. I mean everyone shares their CDs and Mp3s, also people record movies and shows off of tv and share them amongst their friends. If anyone should be payed for this is the artists themselves not the recording labels. Besides has anyone asked the artists what they think about this. Most of them just love to make music and have people enjoy it. But it is very complicated.

-- Contributed by: Friend

Interesting take, Broslin. I've worked with a lot of musicians who are glad when people download their music, and then a lot who don't like it all. It's definitely a complicated issue!

-- Contributed by: Hlmcdona

I used to download songs for free but realized that it is "stealing" no matter what spin you put on it.. Limewire knows this and should be shut down or transformed into an online music store.

-- Contributed by: Broslin

Hahaha... I have NEVER paid for music or software!!!! NEVER will!!!!!

-- Contributed by: PirateBoy

awesome website!!!

-- Contributed by: reyman

I can tell you that I have never thought downloading music illegally was that bad- didn't think it was a big deal. After discovering how many people this is truly affecting and how many people are losing money on their art which they worked so hard to create, I have really changed my mind. I would be so crushed to find that I worked so hard on a song, putting endless time and money to have it created for others' enjoyment- and then have them steal it from me for nothing. No consequences whatsoever. I will NEVER download a song illegally- and I am proud to say so. My opinion has changed, and I hope to change the opinions of others as well.

-- Contributed by: Aislinn

All good points, Wendell. I worked at a record label for many years and now I have a record label, and I have to tell you, from perspective of myself and the artists I have worked with, we actually are not that upset about downloading. In our experience, it's been a good way for small labels to get people to hear their music, and it's actually helped our sale. Many people who share music are big music fans who still pay for music, too. So, I definitely see both sides of the issue.

-- Contributed by: Hlmcdona

people dont understand where the money from each CD goes...the artist gets a fraction of a penny from each cd and the rest goes to paying the song writers, the record lables and the list goes on. I dont wanna hear that you cant find the songs you want anywhere, go look it up on itunes...i HIGHLY doubt you cant find a song on there look at this from the artists side...would you want to work CRAZY hard on a cd, spend thousands of thousands of dollars on studio time, and work your butt off to get people to listen to it...and then have people steal it from you when its your only way of money? no!!! if you worked at McDonalds and people stole half of the burgers you made...youd get mad, AND YOU DONT EVEN MAKE MONEY FROM THOSE BURGERS! there is NO excuse to steal music...if the people youre getting it from got it somewhere...then you can too

-- Contributed by: Wendell

You buy the instruments and learn to play them. You build your own studio. You buy the recording equipment. You spend a year writing, recording, and mastering the songs. After that, you tell me that you would sell your music for less than $1.00.

-- Contributed by: Will

Hey ... record labels if they would come down on prices a little maybe we would purchase the CDs yet still I don't understand why they are concerned with Limewire its not like they provide all the music....I mean the people upload music as well so its just like a friend making a CD for another friend...So what is the big ...ing deal

-- Contributed by: TaKedra

Here we go again. Why can't the music companies throttle their greed once and for all. They totally misunderstand the concept. When I use LimeWire to download a few songs, I usually end up buying the complete CD anyway. Because no matter what, and I can tell the difference, when I buy the real pro made CD the quality and depth of the sound is always a little better. It is slight but I am a perfectionist and want only the best in the end. Plus when I do burn a CD it always has different songs from different artists. I keep it for personal use only. Can you imagine how inconvenient it would be to buy a complete CD for each and every artist. Most of the time its only a single song I want. Plus some of the music I want is not available on records, tapes, or CD's anymore. A lot of the LimeWire user's feel the same. So please, music Exec's and Ceo's etc., stop whinning and put your greed where the sun don't shine. You won't be gaining much by killing LimeWire anyway. Your money hungry thirst was mostly satisfied a while back when you killed free Knapster and related sites. So c'mon give it a rest already.

-- Contributed by: Richard Cantlay

yeah F-U-C-K Recording Industry Association of America btw . awesome story hehe

-- Contributed by: joe

Once upon a time, there was a little girl who lived in a village near the forest. Whenever, she went out, the little girl wore a red riding cloak, so everyone in the village called her Little Red Riding Hood. One morning, Little Red Riding Hood asked her mother if she could go to visit her grandmother as it had been awhile since they'd seen each other.

"That's a good idea," her mother said. So they packed a nice basket for Little Red Riding Hood to take to her grandmother.

When the basket was ready, the little girl put on her red cloak and kissed her mother goodbye. "Remember, go straight to Grandma's house," her mother cautioned. "Don't dawdle along the way and please don't talk to strangers! The woods are dangerous."

"Don't worry, mommy," said Little Red Riding Hood, "I'll be careful."

But when Little Red Riding Hood noticed some lovely flowers in the woods, she forgot her promise to her mother. She picked a few, watched the butterflies flit about for awhile, listened to the frogs croaking and then picked a few more. Little Red Riding Hood was enjoying the warm summer day so much, that she didn't notice a dark shadow approaching out of the forest behind her...

Suddenly, the wolf appeared beside her. "What are you doing out here, little girl?" the wolf asked in a voice as friendly as he could muster.

"I'm on my way to see my Grandma who lives through the forest, near the brook," Little Red Riding Hood replied.

Then she realized how late she was and quickly excused herself, rushing down the path to her Grandma's house.

The wolf, in the meantime, took a shortcut...

The wolf, a little out of breath from running, arrived at Grandma's and knocked lightly at the door. "Oh thank goodness dear! Come in, come in! I was worried sick that something had happened to you in the forest," said Grandma thinking that the knock was her granddaughter.

The wolf let himself in. Poor Granny did not have time to say another word, before the wolf gobbled her up!

The wolf let out a satisfied burp, and then poked through Granny's wardrobe to find a nightgown that he liked. He added a frilly sleeping cap, and for good measure, dabbed some of Granny's perfume behind his pointy ears. A few minutes later, Red Riding Hood knocked on the door. The wolf jumped into bed and pulled the covers over his nose. "Who is it?" he called in a cackly voice.

"It's me, Little Red Riding Hood."

"Oh how lovely! Do come in, my dear," croaked the wolf

When Little Red Riding Hood entered the little cottage, she could scarcely recognize her Grandmother. "Grandmother! You voice sounds so odd. Is something the matter?" she asked.

"Oh, I just have touch of a cold," squeaked the wolf adding a cough at the end to prove the point.

"But Grandmother! What big ears you have," said Little Red Riding Hood as she edged closer to the bed. "The better to hear you with, my dear," replied the wolf.

"But Grandmother! What big eyes you have," said Little Red Riding Hood.

"The better to see you with, my dear," replied the wolf.

"But Grandmother! What big teeth you have," said Little Red Riding Hood her voice quivering slightly.

"The better to eat you with, my dear," roared the wolf and he leapt out of the bed and began to chase the little girl.

Almost too late, Little Red Riding Hood realized that the person in the bed was not her Grandmother, but a hungry wolf. She ran across the room and through the door, shouting, "Help! Wolf!" as loudly as she could.

A woodsman who was chopping logs nearby heard her cry and ran towards the cottage as fast as he could.

He grabbed the wolf and made him spit out the poor Grandmother who was a bit frazzled by the whole experience, but still in one piece.

Oh Grandma, I was so scared!" sobbed Little Red Riding Hood, "I'll never speak to strangers or dawdle in the forest again." "There, there, child. You've learned an important lesson. Thank goodness you shouted loud enough for this kind woodsman to hear you!"

The woodsman knocked out the wolf and carried him deep into the forest where he wouldn't bother people any longer.

Little Red Riding Hood and her Grandmother had a nice lunch and a long chat.

-- Contributed by: Jill

... the RIAA!!!!! lets bring them down!!

-- Contributed by: Mike

Amen to Clint.......He expressed peoples feelings well. I myself like to hear ... 1st before I commit to buying an album that may turn out to suck ass. I'm not trying to rip anyone off. Just trying to get my money's worth.

-- Contributed by: Jenn

i use some of these p2p software but I still either buy the whole album online or I go get the cd at an actuall store,if the labels loose money is because the image or music there marketing sucks ass!!! bottom line....

-- Contributed by: Richie

Wow, did I read that right when it said Microsoft and Apple have to pay the record companies every time they sell an Ipod or a Zune. That's bullshit, you don't have to pay the record companies every time you create a blank CD. I don't believe copyrighted media should be free, but this is becoming ridiculous. $150,000 per copyrighted song?

-- Contributed by: Mike

These Companies that are sueing for hundreds of thousands of dollars per song are more of a greedy cooperation. Where does the money go? Who get to pocket this huge amount of money? Sadly, I dont believe the artist get it, I believe the blood sucking lawyers, and music companies are responsible for ruining lives over a song. So they downloaded a song...! wooooo. There are real criminals who go out and intentially hurt, kill, and destory someones life, and then some kid downloads a song and he goes to prison and pays a hefty 150 thousand dollar fine. Goes to show that our justice system, and the people sueing are just as equally like the criminals. Since I have journey'd through sharing programs, and I have bought more music than I did before I could sample or hear a song. I subscribe to monthly services, buy music from itunes, yahoo, online record stores, and the local record stores, but mp3 is becoming the future of music, so the Riaa, and all these other companies better wake up and realize people are going to download music, rather it be from a sharing network or an online store. Also, the more these comapnies sue people over songs being downloaded the more people will not want to buy or have anything else to do with music. Why should we support greedy coorperations? besides, it is a cut throat business, which means it is all about money. They dont care about the artists as long as they get a paycheck. Look what radiohead accomplished. That was brilliant. Get their music for free, and or donate. I donated, but never downloaded the music. I just supported thier thinking. Well, if the RIAA or whoever wants to sue us go for it. You'll just continue losing music lovers, and eventually music sales will drop. That is how the market works. Once you ... on the fans the fans will ... on you...!

-- Contributed by: Clint

Ok say they make that illegal, we will still be able to go to a persons house, rip a cd to thier computer and then they can burn it from there....

-- Contributed by: shaggy

what i think about it is if i buy their books go to their concerts with money i worked hard to get they should be a little more giving too. what it boils down to is they want us to pay for their drugs their mansions and their parties while they just strum on an instrument and write a 10 second song they think that's real work. Britney and Dre and snoop and Metallica ain't hurtin for nothing they can go out every day and buy a new car but they want you to pay for their song every time you hear it it's stupid and they should be suied for invading our rights because when i buy a song it's mine or least it should be. instead i find all i'm paying for is the plastic that's the real ripoff

-- Contributed by: john

They are greedy. Seriously if you really love the music you'd let people have your music for free. Radiohead, KoRn and Insane Clown Posse are some examples of bands that don't care about the money. The goverment is always messing with people. Like the Nine inch Nails case when the lead singer was leaving songs in bathrooms during their concerts on purpose so they could listen. But the goverment was trying to screw over the peeps who fond the music. Pathetic. And why $150,000 per song?! It's probably so the goverment can pay the artists a couple bucks and then use the rest of the money to pay off all their depth from the Wars. Think about it.

-- Contributed by: Tweek

Indeed Leia, indeed. How much do you think they are making even without SOME of their profits coming from a few cd sales? billions and billions, and then they have the balls to sue Limewire for $150,000 per song shared on it? Thats hundreds of millions im SURE Limewire doesn't have. the only way they get money is the purchased version, and they ask you if you want to download "potential copyright infringement material" before you do. It is the user's choice whether to or not. Personally, i havent used Limewire for a year or two but come on, if the RIAA ever came to my door id get a magnet, wipe my hard drive and say prove it. It may look bad but theyre money hungry bastards with nothing better to do, why else would they sue every damn person on the planet that ever downloaded a song? And of course Kim is right, you dont want to pay a hefty $18 for a sonmg you really liked and 10 that suck. I know, iTunes Store is there to counteract it, but people still buy cds. I just bought Chase This Light by Jimmy Eat World because i like them and figured it'd be good, when i could have just as easily downloaded it. So many people do this that im positive the Record industry doesnt lose close to half their money at all. screw you RIAA. Screw you record companies. and bands, be more like Radiohead who just released a CD for free and you can donate if you want. They make money, why the hell cant you? Oh right, you are, so stop backing this ridiculous crap.

-- Contributed by: SpaZ

here is the rub when the cd format first came out they were hailed as an almost indestructable media . not so to be the case as they are suceptable to being scuffed up or scratched to the point of unusability .
for all know intelligence a cd is a portable format meaning if i choose to share my cd with a neighbor so they can listen to it and they rip the songs to their harddrive this is the same as p2p file sharing . this is not the consumers fault nor should it be labeld a crime it is merely taking advantage of the technology availabe today . the riaa and the music industry failed in their efforts to creat a ongonig money supply .
technology came to the answer of the consumer the music industry and the riaa have failed much like cassettes and video tapes were of the bane of the indutry before.the downloader really isnt doing no wrong unless he/she is reselling an artists music at a profit to themselves in essence profitting off the labors of others .
undeniably every song downloaded for free or otherwise is a advertizing for a particular artist for free . a service they pay for a i.e. radio station to play theri music or tv station .
the "artist" should be paying for each downloaded song shared for advertizing to each fan an advertizing fee as the truth is people upon hearing a song thru any media are more likly to buy a cd or attend a concert .
wilL lawsuits stop people from getting free songs the answer to that is a big NO . SERVICES SUCH AS MUSIC CHOICE OR SIRIOUS RADIO BROADCAST OVER SATTTELITE OR CABLE once coppied to video tape provide a near cd quality then a simple line in to a computor from a stereo and the consumer has effectivley made a copy capable of being burned to a cd or dowloaded to an mp3 player , untracable thru isp and such for their own use .

-- Contributed by: xxxx

Oh please these record labels and artists are selfish and greedy billionaires. They really need to give it a rest already.

-- Contributed by: Leia

so as per this issue of music downloading. there is a great possibility of people sharing files on the network but that doesnt mean they may or have gotten the songs for free as you claiming, i myself as i dj i pay my music on i tunes, so the possibility of sharing this music is high since not everyone knows how the system works. like for the people owning limewire software on their computers, the software is automatically set to share files until one has to go to options to set it private or not to share then it wount share the files. so i aint see no use of sony and all this other labels suing limewire for this. however the only thing limewire can do is to make a better software to prevent files being share over the networks.

-- Contributed by: dj i and i

I actually do pay for the music I download. I pay every 6 months to use limewire. I do not use the free version. I do not share my files, and I do not burn CD's for other people. They are for my own personal use. I am sick of paying for CD's with one good song, or for CD's that have poor quality after a month of use(read comments above). I agree the consumer should not have to keep purchasing the same CD over and over because of the poor quality that is given to the manufacturing. SO....SONY, ARISTA, BMG, and VIRGIN....If you are so against the downloading of music off of the internet, then get your act together. Make sure the songs recorded and the artists you pay are more than one hit wonders and then maybe the consumer would be more than willing to purchase full CD's

-- Contributed by: Kim

The music industry needs to be fair about pricing. 99 cents a song for download is robbery. They have no costs other than the artists. No blank CD, no jewel case, no covers, and no artwork when we download. A download song CD will cost more than buying a CD.

People want to pick the songs they wish to listen to themselves. Not have a bunch of bad songs with one or two good ones the record companies decide to put on a CD. The way people listen to music has changed.

Last, how many times must you buy the same song? Vinyl, 8 track, cassette, CD, download for one or more MP3 player. I thought I paid for the song for my personal use, now I have to pay again.

Fairness is what will fix the situation. Will the recording companies try to be fair to their own customers? Probably not, they would rather sue them.

-- Contributed by: Jim

PEOPLE, start a chain of reaction for those who agree with these public comments. Everyone SAY, "Stop Suing! Stop Paying Courts! Stop Paying Lawyers! Fix The Problem That Started The Problem! Make Consumers HAPPY! INDUSTRIES, FIX YOUR OWN CREATED PROBLEM! STOP SELLING CRAP TO US! People keep this statement going! Someone out their is watching, and hearing us. If we work together, we can make a difference! Keep this statement going!

-- Contributed by: Tiffany

A point to Lisa statements I read. I would like to give my opinion too. If the market wants to continue with there terrible methods of selling us copies of movies and music on these new age CD's & DVD's. One method of helping consumers with there investments would be to start a mass internet storage of information on purchased material by consumers! ONE THAT WORKS FOR US! We should be allowed to back up movies & music we purchase! No matter the store or download distributor which we made such purchase. (Windows Media Player has not Fixed this issue, since buying sends data to the computer which it was downloaded to prove purchase by copyright data.) If you loose your hard drive, the copyright data is useless! Also you cannot backup from another home computer since the copyright was only good for the computer it was downloaded to originally. Yes it is possible to burn the first downloads of ONLY some material, and rip them back to the Media Player to erase the copyright data, and thus help backup the originals, but this is so time consuming, and trouble-some. Each buyer should be allowed a coded storage of any and all proof of purchase, something like a special web site to go to. Then when and if the time comes that we can no longer use our poorly made and purchased for sale copies, we could download backup material which was paid for. This could help allow people to prove proof of purchase by storing individuals purchase data, and allow for back up copies by purchasers. This is already used by tons of software sellers on the Internet. If we purchase a program which we loose for any reasons, we can go back to the sale site, and re-download our previously purchased programs. We are not made to re-purchase downloaded programs. Not that I know of? I have purchased games, and software, had my computer crash, and hard drive erased,and even to the point of buying a new computer. Think the sellers and makers of the software I purchased, for allowing ME, a consumer, the RIGHT to get back what was paid for! Now MUSIC INDUSTRIES, YOU START BACKING UP WHAT YOU SELL! Fix your own created problem! Stop suing, and start FIXING THE PROBLEM! This MEANS YOU TOO, Microsoft! Windows today is not so purchaser friendly either! My OPINION!

-- Contributed by: Jeff

We the public as consumers love the art of music, and the hard work involved by the artist to compose there songs, and "JUST MY OPINION", I buy CD's. CD's scratch all the time. No matter the care. THEY GET SCRATCHED! Then they SKIP, OR DO NOT PLAY. Sooner or later people will want a song BACK that was PAID for. CD's are not worth crap. I think TAPES were better as for taking care of in the long run. Now the market has invented DVD's & CD's, and the newest trent coming out "BLUE RAY. They all SCRATCH! Then WHAT! Just go buy more that SCRATCH! We all do this. My home burned down in 1994, December 22nd. I lost all the tapes, record albums, 45 records, and more that was in it. So sometimes I will look to get that song I lost in the fire that took my home. The music was PAID for. So if I occasionally back up a lost song. SO WHAT! I still purchase from stores music which I enjoy. Music sharing is not going to hurt anyone. We will all share our love of songs in the end, no matter what! If the music industies want to help the market loss of lower sales. Start going back to the beginning of song recording and sales. Make buyers something that does not get EASILY BROKEN, SCRATCHED, and UNUSABLE ONCED PURCHASED! That is the MAIN reason sharing is high today. Come on, what is wrong with the music makers today? File sharing is called wrong by the music industies, but selling crap copies is OK? Fix they problem with reproduction of music FIRST, then come back and fuss about music sharing. I hate knowning CD's & DVD's are hard to copy, and they tear up so freaking easy. Buyers need the right to make copies just to save their investment. If we can't back up our purchased material, that is WRONG! Stop the ability to RENT videos if that is a problem with coping without purchasing! But I beleive if I buy the crap copies that destory so easy, then I should have the RIGHT to make backup copies! To be made to pay for more copies of what I have paid for is ILLIGAL in my OPINION! Take that to court and chew on it awhile! This sharing stuff has only happen due to the MUSIC MAKERS! Listen to what we want as consumers! We want better for ourselves than what we are being offered! I would love to sue the ethics of those making & selling crap copies for profit! When did it become legal to sell music and movies that in the end will not be worth crap, and tell the buyers that they can't backup there investments. The consumers must BUY MORE COPIES if they scratch, and just say it is our fault for not taking care of the copies we buy. NO, it is the MAKERS FAULT! I had better times caring for tapes, than I have ever had taking care of CD's & DVD's! So don't come knocking down the art of internet sharing! We never shared music TAPES on the WWW! We never uploaded VHS movie tapes on the WWW! (Even if we the public could continue to make copies for use on the WWW, of taped movies and music the quality would be LOW, so we would want to purchase original copies, more than downloading poor sound quality of re-recorded.) It is the method music & movies are made that has created the low profit that these makers fuss about! So go back to work on making consumers happier about there purchases, and you will solve your own industies problems. We want better products, (I WANT BETTER QUALITY!), you makers want higher profits. Save your law suit lawyer fee's, and court fee's, and FIX YOUR PROBLEM YOU STARTED! Leave the sharing software, and users alone for now. Once you spend your time and money the right way by making the consumers happy, you will solve your own created problem. AMEN!

-- Contributed by: Lisa

I hate companys that want more money. Companys that that want people to pay n pay again. Microsoft is the same. I hate microsoft. Microsoft makes money when they sell computer n then makes money when they sell the program to run the computer. Like i said u pay n then pay again. The movie company is the same way. There not happy to make 50 million profit for the movie. They want to get paid everytime somebody watches the movie. The movie should only be sold one time n then that person can do what ever they want with the movie. The same for music. Sell it only one time to a person n then that person should have the right to give to anyone he wants to. Thats how i feel. Yes the record company makes less money but so what, thats the way it works. Movies n movies should be the same as buying a car or house or tv. When u buy it u own it. If u buy a sony tv u dont pay sony a dollar for every person u let watch the tv. ARGUE THIS IN COURT...(WHY DONT PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO GIVE AWAY MUSIC) IS THERE A LAW THAT SAYS PEOPLE CANNOT GIVE AWAY MUSIC?

-- Contributed by: JOHN
> Return to article