Ripping a CD you own is STEALING... - Page 6

Steven Lyle Jordan · 10-05-2007, 10:52 AM

Chiefly because file-sharing itself isn't illegal... you can create something entirely original, and share it with the world. It's when you share someone else's property, against their wishes, that you get in trouble. So the file-sharing software manufacturers aren't held responsible, any more than a gun manufacturer is held responsible for your shooting someone.

The situation really is similar to the broadcast taping situation: Sure, it's legal to tape broadcast music and/or programs for personal use. It's when you try to repackage and sell them that has always been the legality-breaker. The only difference is, the software used to break DRM is considered illegal to use (though no one is called on it until they make a DRM-broken file available to others, costing the rights owner money). So, the law now has a tool to declare you in violation, even if you haven't physically given the file to anyone.

Mambo · 10-06-2007, 11:22 AM

Unfortunately, I strongly disagree with most of you in the matter of stealing and crime. I think the biggest crime is preventing people from free access to INFORMATION. In the 21th century!

We are not in the medieval any more. Did you know that a few hundred years ago owning a Bible was crime? This is the exact same thing and they should be ashamed of themselves not us.

Just a few examples:

-- If they have the right to intellectual property, why do they publish it at all? Why don't they keep it in secret for centuries, if it is theirs? Reason: they want your money and take all of it if possible every time you want to listen to it. Now this is not making public something so they should not call it publishing. They are lying. This is intellectual slavery. Why can't they understand the fact that once you published something it is not a secret anymore and you lost your control over it?

-- They want you to buy what they tell you. What is in the news, what is on the top list what is in the commercials. Buy what they want to sell you not what you need. Again this is manipulation and serious crime. Every time you try to find your own identity and find the stuff you can identify yourself with they look at you and say: what? Are you crazy? You listen to Betty Wright or Fontella Bass instead of Madonna or R.E.M.?

Yes I am listening to what is good music and not the big names and very sorry but what I listen to can not be purchased in store because publishers are not interested. If they are not interested in me, the customer, why should I be interested in their rights for intellectual property?

-- They always package CDs like 2 nice songs with 10 junk and sell it to you for 10-20 usd. Now this is stealing because you actually don't need the junk 10 songs only the 2 nice songs, but you can not buy it separately. If I want to buy 20 good songs I have to invest in 10 junk CDs and compared to my %age share of overall income this is rather stealing from me than what I am stealing from them.

-- Last time I bought a song online after listening to 20 seconds and it was good, but I just realised later that the full length of the song was only 1.5 minutes and only the 20 seconds part of it was any good, and I can not return it and they don't give me back my money!

-- I'm also a big fan of Veggie tales and you will never find out where did I learned about it that this series exists? Of course it was on the torrent sites and not the good guys the publishers who are totally uninterested of selling this stuff because it is not 18+ stuff and they can not manipulate you for buying more of other things. Again if you want quality contents easily accessible, it is only on the torrent sites.

-- How many times I went to the cinema after reading reviews or watching commercials and the movie was complete junk. Who will return that money to me?

I know these are small things for you, but if we would aggregate it with the experience of millions I believe we are ripped of more than the so called "publishers" are ripped of by us. These things that are happening should not happen in the 21st century, we are still in medieval, the human kind is still not enlighted and we are all kept in intellectual slavery, where you should have money first before you are allowed to learn anything in school and live a life that a human being deserves. Even there are copyrights on my thoughts, because I am sure somebody already wrote and published the same thing I am writing to you and I am not sure when they will sue me because of stealing it

Sorry guys I'm not a lawyer and I'm just a simple man with not very high IQ, but my conclusion is that they have the right to do the bulls..t marketing and offer their crap stuff whereas we also have the right to either buy from them or download from the internet and search if we can find any quality! material out there if exists at all. And we have the right to be out of their reach, the constant flow of commericals, marketing, emotional pressure, manipulation with sex they try to impose on us.

I'm not hurting their market because I was never their customer in the first place, I have never seen a shopkeeper who treated me as a customer by tsaying: what are you interested in? What are you looking for when buying music? Good melody with fast tempo? Double-bass with gospel choir in it? Ska-like rhythm is what you want? Ok, I will show you a few things and I'm sure it will drive you crazy. They are not very famous, but they are the best in what they're doing. Now this is what never gonna happen to me, so all I can do is download everything from torrent sites and hope one day I find the holy grail of music (and thanks God it already happened a few times).

One more thing: I'm the type of guy that I want to OWN what I have beacuse I'm a collector. If they don't give me the right to actually OWN what they offer for sale than I AM NOT INTERESTED IN BEING "MORAL" AND ADHERE TO THE LAW. (and by owning I mean to enjoy every aspect of it by putting it to all my devices, sharing with my family, friends and enjoy together, keeping it forever and listen to it every time I want without worrying that I will loose it or it will be impossible to play due to the fact that the format is not supported any more.) I buy only if I get support, I get upgrades, they provide quick access, comparison to other staff, try before buy, value for money, otherwise I'm just downloading.

CCDMan · 10-06-2007, 11:42 AM

The real problem here is clearly the laws. They have been made consumer unfriendly for two reasons:

1) The industry sees that it is to their advantage to have such laws and push hard for them.

2) Too small a portion of the voting public understands or cares about these issues to force the congress critters to pass more sensible laws.

It will take quite some time but as increasingly larger percentages of the voters become digital savvy - and almost all of the under 25 crowd is now - we can expect this to change. Then, and only then, will congress have to respond to the will of the people instead of the will of a few greedy buttholes in Nashville and Hollywood.

Steven Lyle Jordan · 10-07-2007, 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mambo

Unfortunately, I strongly disagree with most of you in the matter of stealing and crime. I think the biggest crime is preventing people from free access to INFORMATION. In the 21th century!

Information may want to be free, but this case is about entertainment, and whether someone has a right to take for free what some entertainer should get paid for. Say what you will about the trial and its punishment, but the point of it is to protect the people who should be making money off of their work.

If you (and a lot of other people) want to just have everything for free, that's fine, but you'll find that without any monetary compensation, a lot of entertainers aren't going to be entertaining you any longer. And remember, if you don't like what they're selling, you don't have to buy... not even the one good song. It's not oxygen... it's a frivolous purchase. It's pointless to complain about the unfairness of a service or industry, if you continue to buy from them, and don't tell them what you don't like. Don't buy the CD at all, and tell the record companies why. Let them figure it out, if they want your money.

Easy for me to say? Yes, it is. I buy no more than 1-2 CDs a year, and chiefly because I research the album until I know it's worth my money.

paulkbiba · 10-08-2007, 01:28 AM

It seems to me that Harry has some sort of visceral dislike of teenagers. Surely they aren't the evil monsters he seems to portray them to be.

The stupidity of this whole thing is that the record industry persists in pricing their product at a level that encourages the behavior of all these evil youngsters. In any other industry, and I've been in corporate America for over 40 years, the company would look at the demographics and adjust pricing to account for the lack of sales. But not the record industry.

What continually amazes me is that the record, and video, industry persists in refusing to set a price level that will adjust to the behavior of the evil teenage crowd. It seems better for them to sue their potential consumers, rather then to price their product in such a manner as to make it available to them.

I guess because they are teenagers, even though they are the industry's best customers, the industry, like Harry, considers them beneath contempt.

Sad. The industry has nobody to blame but themselves for their problems.

HarryT · 10-08-2007, 07:56 AM

Paul,

Please read:

https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...&postcount=228

and then you'll understand the reason for my "visceral dislike" - not of teenagers, but of so-called "pirates" in general.

Steven Lyle Jordan · 10-08-2007, 08:01 AM

Okay, I must have missed a posting, because I don't know what you're talking about. If you're referring to HarryT, I haven't seen anything in this thread that would suggest he has a dislike of teenagers. And Thomas is a single mother of 30. There is no doubt regarding her guilt in this case, a mark of her own bad judgement, at best.

The fact that Harry has no sympathy for people who steal from other people doesn't indicate a dislike for teenagers, only a dislike of dishonest people, whatever their age.

Granted, the music industry has serious issues that they need to deal with, many of which surely encourage people to share songs against their wishes. Yes, the public and the legal system has allowed them to get away with a lot. But there's no reason to talk as if the music industry is destroying this country, and all the file sharers are young Robin Hoods defending the weak and feeding the poor.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Music is entertainment. It's not a requirement, it's not a nourishment, and it's not a God-given right. It's just entertainment. File-sharers aren't saving the world, they're just swapping bits of entertainment that some entertainer isn't getting paid for.

If you don't like the way music companies do business, don't buy from them... it won't kill you. There are other sources of music available, including directly from the bands. And the lack of sales will clue the industry into the fact that they need to change with the times, a lot faster than stealing from them will. (Remember: They can continue to make money off you if you steal their music, and they sue you. If you don't buy it OR steal it, they're screwed.)

And remember, it's the job of taxpayers to force the government to change its laws. We as taxpayers have allowed the government to listen to lobbyists and vote according to their bribes, while we've spent our time worrying about whether our TVs are listening to us. Don't like the laws? Convince your congressperson that they will be out of office if we catch them making bad ones.

Too many people are cursing the music (and publishing) industries, then doing nothing constructive to change things. In fact, stealing, file sharing and DRM-cracking aren't doing anything to change things for the better, they're just allowing the industries to legally tighten DRM and sue customers. That's not helping. Boycotting. Writing your government leaders. Petitions. Voting. That's helping.

Let's face it: Thomas was foolish, and now she's screwed. But there's no good reason to create more Thomases out there. Nor to beat up on forum members because they don't sympathize with criminals.

Lemurion · 10-08-2007, 08:27 AM

As I've said repeatedly the best way to force a change on the industry is through positive actions. If you don't like DRM or the RIAA, don't spend money on DRM products or RIAA label CDs. Spend money on non-DRM products and independent labels. The trick is to show that you are spending money, but not on certain things.

One reason why I like Fictionwise as a tool to help sway the publishing industry is because they have both DRM encrypted and non-encrypted ebooks. By spending money on the non-encrypted books and not spending any on the encrypted and restricted books I'm making a point that adding DRM is bad for business. If more people followed that example there would be less DRM.

Yes I think Ms. Thomas was fined too much, but she did infringe copyright and the RIAA is supposed to work toward stopping that. I may disagree with their methods, and think their interpretation of the effect of file sharing is out of line, but I have no problem with their goals.

wgrimm · 10-08-2007, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HarryT

"Ripping" your own CDs has never been legal in the UK, and downloading copyrighted material is most definitely a crime regardless of whether you "own" the CD or not. This is like the very silly argument some people make saying that it's "OK" to download an illegal eBook simply because you've bought the paperback.

I'm 110% on Sony's side in this. These "filesharing" criminals need to be taught a lesson. The RIAA are most definitely the "good guys" here.

Well, ripping cd's IS legal in the US of A. Had this not been legal, the Ipod would never have been the hit it was. Now, let's have some truth in advertising. If you buy a cd, you buy a tangible object. If you "buy" an MP3, what are you buying? The right to use that music in ONLY an MP3 format? Or, say you want to convert it to a more compressed format for a nano. Can you do that legally? What happens if that MP3 is DRM'd, and you switch brands of music players?

Seems to me this can be carried to absurd lengths. What will happen in this case is that the digital markets- for ebooks, movies, or whatever- will come to a grinding halt. Not many people want to line corporate coffers by paying for the same content 2 or 3 times over.

If you pay for the content 1 time, you should be able to use that content in whatever player you want.

wgrimm · 10-08-2007, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HarryT

I agree with you; many of the "activation" procedures required by modern PC software (especially games) are onerous in the extreme. I guess that's perhaps why the games industry is shifting towards "closed" games consoles like the Sony Playstation and Microsoft XBox which can be "locked down" and hence effectively eliminate piracy.

Effectively eliminate piracy? That's laughable- do you know how easy it is to chip a Playstation so that one can use "backup games?' Very easy. You don't even need to chip the Playstation to hack its game protection- buy a boot disk and put one of the top-loading covers on it. Even a 10-year-old can do this.

Sony has had years and years of experience developing copy protection schemes- and none of them are effective. Even their foray into rootkits was a dismal failure.

HarryT · 10-08-2007, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wgrimm

Effectively eliminate piracy? That's laughable- do you know how easy it is to chip a Playstation so that one can use "backup games?' Very easy. You don't even need to chip the Playstation to hack its game protection- buy a boot disk and put one of the top-loading covers on it. Even a 10-year-old can do this.

My point is not that it defeats the serious pirate, but that it prevents the type of "casual piracy" that's all too easy, even for the person who would probably regard themselves as basically honest, that you get with CDs, say. It's so easy to run off a copy of a CD these days.

In order to "chip" a Playstation, OTOH, you have to deliberately set out with the intent to break the law; it's not something anyone does "accidentally".

wgrimm · 10-08-2007, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlauzon

Morally, yes. Because the current copyright laws are unfair to the general public (there's no excuse whatsoever for copyright to go beyond the author's death) and laws like the DMCA attempt to take away the rights of consumers.

I would have to disagree with that- I think it is fair that an author can leave something for his family. Take US Grant, for example- he passed away right after finishing his memoirs, but his family was able to benefit from them- which is a big part of the reason he wrote the memoirs.

wgrimm · 10-08-2007, 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nekokami

Unfortunately, the apples themselves aren't free, and writers still need to eat. Until we have replicators and unlimited energy to power them, we aren't living entirely in an information economy.

Well, from what I am hearing and seeing, it doesn't have as much to do with author's/musicians still needing to eat as with the care and feeding of the "under-assistant West Coast promo man" and all of the other industry employees who can't seem to understand that they can no longer control distribution as was possible in the days of the LP. they need to expand their horizons and develop a new business model.

nekokami · 10-08-2007, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wgrimm

Well, from what I am hearing and seeing, it doesn't have as much to do with author's/musicians still needing to eat as with the care and feeding of the "under-assistant West Coast promo man" and all of the other industry employees who can't seem to understand that they can no longer control distribution as was possible in the days of the LP. they need to expand their horizons and develop a new business model.

I'm not defending the current record industry business model, simply saying that paying for content is reasonable. My statement was in response to someone earlier saying that since content can now be copied at low or zero cost to the creator, it ought to be free. I don't buy that. It may be the case that bands will start making more on live performances than studio albums, but I don't agree that the bands, sound engineers, cover artists, etc. who put work into creating a nice product shouldn't get paid for their work by those who enjoy the product.

wgrimm · 10-08-2007, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HarryT

My point is not that it defeats the serious pirate, but that it prevents the type of "casual piracy" that's all too easy, even for the person who would probably regard themselves as basically honest, that you get with CDs, say. It's so easy to run off a copy of a CD these days.

In order to "chip" a Playstation, OTOH, you have to deliberately set out with the intent to break the law; it's not something anyone does "accidentally".

Well, putting a top-loading case onto a playstation is just about as easy as copying a cd. If you can use a screwdriver, you can replace the cover. a 6-year-old can do it.

10-08-2007, 08:01 AM	#82
Steven Lyle Jordan Grand Sorcerer Posts: 8,478 Karma: 5171130 Join Date: Jan 2006 Device: none	Okay, I must have missed a posting, because I don't know what you're talking about. If you're referring to HarryT, I haven't seen anything in this thread that would suggest he has a dislike of teenagers. And Thomas is a single mother of 30. There is no doubt regarding her guilt in this case, a mark of her own bad judgement, at best. The fact that Harry has no sympathy for people who steal from other people doesn't indicate a dislike for teenagers, only a dislike of dishonest people, whatever their age. Granted, the music industry has serious issues that they need to deal with, many of which surely encourage people to share songs against their wishes. Yes, the public and the legal system has allowed them to get away with a lot. But there's no reason to talk as if the music industry is destroying this country, and all the file sharers are young Robin Hoods defending the weak and feeding the poor. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Music is entertainment. It's not a requirement, it's not a nourishment, and it's not a God-given right. It's just entertainment. File-sharers aren't saving the world, they're just swapping bits of entertainment that some entertainer isn't getting paid for. If you don't like the way music companies do business, don't buy from them... it won't kill you. There are other sources of music available, including directly from the bands. And the lack of sales will clue the industry into the fact that they need to change with the times, a lot faster than stealing from them will. (Remember: They can continue to make money off you if you steal their music, and they sue you. If you don't buy it OR steal it, they're screwed.) And remember, it's the job of taxpayers to force the government to change its laws. We as taxpayers have allowed the government to listen to lobbyists and vote according to their bribes, while we've spent our time worrying about whether our TVs are listening to us. Don't like the laws? Convince your congressperson that they will be out of office if we catch them making bad ones. Too many people are cursing the music (and publishing) industries, then doing nothing constructive to change things. In fact, stealing, file sharing and DRM-cracking aren't doing anything to change things for the better, they're just allowing the industries to legally tighten DRM and sue customers. That's not helping. Boycotting. Writing your government leaders. Petitions. Voting. That's helping. Let's face it: Thomas was foolish, and now she's screwed. But there's no good reason to create more Thomases out there. Nor to beat up on forum members because they don't sympathize with criminals. Last edited by Steven Lyle Jordan; 10-08-2007 at 08:09 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Editorial: Are Too Many E-books Stealing the Pleasure of Reading?	Bob Russell	General Discussions	75	05-24-2010 12:11 PM
Stealing Light by Gary Gibson	tech_au	Reading Recommendations	5	01-18-2009 01:21 PM
More on ripping CDs	Nate the great	News	10	12-13-2007 12:03 PM
Ripping a CD... UPDATE	Nate the great	Lounge	66	10-18-2007 03:32 PM

10-05-2007, 10:52 AM	#76
Steven Lyle Jordan Grand Sorcerer Posts: 8,478 Karma: 5171130 Join Date: Jan 2006 Device: none	Chiefly because file-sharing itself isn't illegal... you can create something entirely original, and share it with the world. It's when you share someone else's property, against their wishes, that you get in trouble. So the file-sharing software manufacturers aren't held responsible, any more than a gun manufacturer is held responsible for your shooting someone. The situation really is similar to the broadcast taping situation: Sure, it's legal to tape broadcast music and/or programs for personal use. It's when you try to repackage and sell them that has always been the legality-breaker. The only difference is, the software used to break DRM is considered illegal to use (though no one is called on it until they make a DRM-broken file available to others, costing the rights owner money). So, the law now has a tool to declare you in violation, even if you haven't physically given the file to anyone.

10-06-2007, 11:22 AM	#77
Mambo Gadget fan Posts: 147 Karma: 3968 Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: London Device: RM Tablet PC, iLiad, PRS 505, iPod Touch	Unfortunately, I strongly disagree with most of you in the matter of stealing and crime. I think the biggest crime is preventing people from free access to INFORMATION. In the 21th century! We are not in the medieval any more. Did you know that a few hundred years ago owning a Bible was crime? This is the exact same thing and they should be ashamed of themselves not us. Just a few examples: -- If they have the right to intellectual property, why do they publish it at all? Why don't they keep it in secret for centuries, if it is theirs? Reason: they want your money and take all of it if possible every time you want to listen to it. Now this is not making public something so they should not call it publishing. They are lying. This is intellectual slavery. Why can't they understand the fact that once you published something it is not a secret anymore and you lost your control over it? -- They want you to buy what they tell you. What is in the news, what is on the top list what is in the commercials. Buy what they want to sell you not what you need. Again this is manipulation and serious crime. Every time you try to find your own identity and find the stuff you can identify yourself with they look at you and say: what? Are you crazy? You listen to Betty Wright or Fontella Bass instead of Madonna or R.E.M.? Yes I am listening to what is good music and not the big names and very sorry but what I listen to can not be purchased in store because publishers are not interested. If they are not interested in me, the customer, why should I be interested in their rights for intellectual property? -- They always package CDs like 2 nice songs with 10 junk and sell it to you for 10-20 usd. Now this is stealing because you actually don't need the junk 10 songs only the 2 nice songs, but you can not buy it separately. If I want to buy 20 good songs I have to invest in 10 junk CDs and compared to my %age share of overall income this is rather stealing from me than what I am stealing from them. -- Last time I bought a song online after listening to 20 seconds and it was good, but I just realised later that the full length of the song was only 1.5 minutes and only the 20 seconds part of it was any good, and I can not return it and they don't give me back my money! -- I'm also a big fan of Veggie tales and you will never find out where did I learned about it that this series exists? Of course it was on the torrent sites and not the good guys the publishers who are totally uninterested of selling this stuff because it is not 18+ stuff and they can not manipulate you for buying more of other things. Again if you want quality contents easily accessible, it is only on the torrent sites. -- How many times I went to the cinema after reading reviews or watching commercials and the movie was complete junk. Who will return that money to me? I know these are small things for you, but if we would aggregate it with the experience of millions I believe we are ripped of more than the so called "publishers" are ripped of by us. These things that are happening should not happen in the 21st century, we are still in medieval, the human kind is still not enlighted and we are all kept in intellectual slavery, where you should have money first before you are allowed to learn anything in school and live a life that a human being deserves. Even there are copyrights on my thoughts, because I am sure somebody already wrote and published the same thing I am writing to you and I am not sure when they will sue me because of stealing it Sorry guys I'm not a lawyer and I'm just a simple man with not very high IQ, but my conclusion is that they have the right to do the bulls..t marketing and offer their crap stuff whereas we also have the right to either buy from them or download from the internet and search if we can find any quality! material out there if exists at all. And we have the right to be out of their reach, the constant flow of commericals, marketing, emotional pressure, manipulation with sex they try to impose on us. I'm not hurting their market because I was never their customer in the first place, I have never seen a shopkeeper who treated me as a customer by tsaying: what are you interested in? What are you looking for when buying music? Good melody with fast tempo? Double-bass with gospel choir in it? Ska-like rhythm is what you want? Ok, I will show you a few things and I'm sure it will drive you crazy. They are not very famous, but they are the best in what they're doing. Now this is what never gonna happen to me, so all I can do is download everything from torrent sites and hope one day I find the holy grail of music (and thanks God it already happened a few times). One more thing: I'm the type of guy that I want to OWN what I have beacuse I'm a collector. If they don't give me the right to actually OWN what they offer for sale than I AM NOT INTERESTED IN BEING "MORAL" AND ADHERE TO THE LAW. (and by owning I mean to enjoy every aspect of it by putting it to all my devices, sharing with my family, friends and enjoy together, keeping it forever and listen to it every time I want without worrying that I will loose it or it will be impossible to play due to the fact that the format is not supported any more.) I buy only if I get support, I get upgrades, they provide quick access, comparison to other staff, try before buy, value for money, otherwise I'm just downloading.

10-06-2007, 11:42 AM	#78
CCDMan *** Posts: 335 Karma: 5759 Join Date: Mar 2006 Device: ***	The real problem here is clearly the laws. They have been made consumer unfriendly for two reasons: 1) The industry sees that it is to their advantage to have such laws and push hard for them. 2) Too small a portion of the voting public understands or cares about these issues to force the congress critters to pass more sensible laws. It will take quite some time but as increasingly larger percentages of the voters become digital savvy - and almost all of the under 25 crowd is now - we can expect this to change. Then, and only then, will congress have to respond to the will of the people instead of the will of a few greedy buttholes in Nashville and Hollywood.

10-08-2007, 01:28 AM	#80
paulkbiba Connoisseur Posts: 84 Karma: 45 Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: United States Device: Nokia e61i, iPhone	It seems to me that Harry has some sort of visceral dislike of teenagers. Surely they aren't the evil monsters he seems to portray them to be. The stupidity of this whole thing is that the record industry persists in pricing their product at a level that encourages the behavior of all these evil youngsters. In any other industry, and I've been in corporate America for over 40 years, the company would look at the demographics and adjust pricing to account for the lack of sales. But not the record industry. What continually amazes me is that the record, and video, industry persists in refusing to set a price level that will adjust to the behavior of the evil teenage crowd. It seems better for them to sue their potential consumers, rather then to price their product in such a manner as to make it available to them. I guess because they are teenagers, even though they are the industry's best customers, the industry, like Harry, considers them beneath contempt. Sad. The industry has nobody to blame but themselves for their problems.

10-08-2007, 07:56 AM	#81
HarryT eBook Enthusiast Posts: 85,544 Karma: 93383043 Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: UK Device: Kindle Oasis 2, iPad Pro 10.5", iPhone 6	Paul, Please read: https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...&postcount=228 and then you'll understand the reason for my "visceral dislike" - not of teenagers, but of so-called "pirates" in general.

10-08-2007, 08:27 AM	#83
Lemurion eReader Posts: 2,750 Karma: 4968470 Join Date: Aug 2007 Device: Note 5; PW3; Nook HD+; ChuWi Hi12; iPad	As I've said repeatedly the best way to force a change on the industry is through positive actions. If you don't like DRM or the RIAA, don't spend money on DRM products or RIAA label CDs. Spend money on non-DRM products and independent labels. The trick is to show that you are spending money, but not on certain things. One reason why I like Fictionwise as a tool to help sway the publishing industry is because they have both DRM encrypted and non-encrypted ebooks. By spending money on the non-encrypted books and not spending any on the encrypted and restricted books I'm making a point that adding DRM is bad for business. If more people followed that example there would be less DRM. Yes I think Ms. Thomas was fined too much, but she did infringe copyright and the RIAA is supposed to work toward stopping that. I may disagree with their methods, and think their interpretation of the effect of file sharing is out of line, but I have no problem with their goals.