Quick! You better go after those people who still have VCR and audio cassette decks and put then in Guantanamo! They might be recording stuff!

This is bullshit. I don't download music, but come on. Most users who stupidly put music sharing programs on their computers in most cases don't know the access is a two-way street. I know a guy who left a sharing program running overnight by accident and as a result had 3 GB of transfer logged overnight. He had no idea (not saying it's an excuse) that people could access his music by default.

You have to be careful how you set those programs, making sure you share only what you want to share, and not your entire harddrive, which can be done if you are not careful.

"Most users who stupidly put music sharing programs on their computers in most cases don't know the access is a two-way street."

But it wasn't just the fact the program was on her computer. She had copywritten music, over 1000 songs, she had illegally stolen. She also lied about when she'd replaced her hard drive.

Think about it: if someone invented a magic key that could open doors to homes, would stealing the contents then be okay?

The best way to get music is to have lots of friends who like music. I can't afford to buy all the CD's I want, but I can buy a few, everyone else buys a few, and you swap, OFFLINE.

And the man is none the wiser.

What is this illegal download talk? It is undocumented downloaded music. Maybe we should have anmesty for people who download undocumented music.

If it's OK for business to want near-slave labor, then it's ok for consumer to have free music. When you artar cracking down on bastard employers then talk to me about downloading music.

Fined? Was she too old to be strip searched?

He she was Mexican, she'd be off the hook.

He=If

"It is undocumented downloaded music"

Bull. It's copywritten downloaded music. And someone else owns that copyright.

This is bullshit. I don't download music, but come on. Most users who stupidly put music sharing programs on their computers in most cases don't know the access is a two-way street. I know a guy who left a sharing program running overnight by accident and as a result had 3 GB of transfer logged overnight. He had no idea (not saying it's an excuse) that people could access his music by default.


I think in 2001 you might have been justified in that excuse...but not in the post-Napster landscape.

Think about it: if someone invented a magic key that could open doors to homes, would stealing the contents then be okay?

Not even remotely close to the same thing...

"Not even remotely close to the same thing..."

Bullshit. Copyrights are worthless if you allow the first buyer to give it to everyone else for free. We all used to pay for our music...and that was fine with everyone, until someone invented a way to steal it without paying for it...and suddenly taking copywritten material belonging to someone else became okay.

Well, the song still belongs to the creator(s). If you want it, pay for it; if you don't, don't. But don't pretend it's valuable enough for you to want, but not valuable enough for you to pay for. Just because you can steal it, easily, doesn't suddenly make it right.

Well, the song still belongs to the creator(s). If you want it, pay for it; if you don't, don't. But don't pretend it's valuable enough for you to want, but not valuable enough for you to pay for. Just because you can steal it, easily, doesn't suddenly make it right.

Posted by Danforth at 2007-10-05 10:48 AM | Reply


I can't fathom how people do not see it that way.

Bullshit. Copyrights are worthless if you allow the first buyer to give it to everyone else for free. We all used to pay for our music...and that was fine with everyone, until someone invented a way to steal it without paying for it...and suddenly taking copywritten material belonging to someone else became okay.

Well, the song still belongs to the creator(s). If you want it, pay for it; if you don't, don't. But don't pretend it's valuable enough for you to want, but not valuable enough for you to pay for. Just because you can steal it, easily, doesn't suddenly make it right.

We all used to pay for our music...sure. But we also had sane copyright laws where the works of someone couldn't be "protected" for 95-120 years after their release.

Not to mention you and I pay a 2 percent surcharge on every piece of burnable media I buy. Burning an operating system image to a disc, not music? Doesn't matter, you're still paying.

I pay a 2 dollar surcharge on every burner and reader I have purchased which goes directly to the RIAA.

I've paid enough, thank you very much.

Not to mention the current system with their DRMed music and bullshit proprietary setups. Why would you not want to steal music when you have to deal with the bullshit associated with being a legimate, legal consumer?

Person A: Buys 300 dollar Ipod, configures ITunes with serial number, Has ITunes read all tracks on the computer, Copies tracks to IPod. Reduced quality on tracks that can be purchased. Can't copy them to a another device for personal use. Limited rights on reduced quality music you have paid for twice.

Person B: Buy 300 dollar Sansa (AWESOME product BTW, I highly recommend.) Download CD quality music and copy it over to the MP3 player like it's another Hard Drive. Can do whatever, whenever.

All things being equal, what are you gonna do and whose fault is it?

this is good because the music is the PROPERTY of the composer and the arrangers and the artists and the publishers......

and its property that should not be stolen because thats what happens when you get it and use it for any reason and by any method other than paying for it.
if you have ever written or composed anything, then you understand that its a part of you and YOUR PROPERTY and even if you 'farm' it out through a publisher or arranger........its YOURS until you sell the rights to that property and you have NO RIGHT TO OWN it unless you PAY FOR IT.........

it is as much stealing as if you walked into the store and stuffed cd's into your pocket.....and whether they are on some sort of 'airwaves' or whatever doesnt matter one bit.

hopefully they were all good songs...

"Why would you not want to steal music when you have to deal with the bullshit associated with being a legimate, legal consumer?"

Funny...the thugs robbing the 7-11 said the same thing....

"the bullshit associated with being a legimate, legal consumer"

Oh...you mean paying for the product rather than stealing it.

"Person B: Buy 300 dollar Sansa... Can do whatever, whenever. All things being equal, what are you gonna do and whose fault is it?"

Well, now you're conflating issues. Buy the Sansa, and be done with that issue. But whose fault is it for the illegal downloads? The thief's.

Buy the Sansa, and be done with that issue

yes thats correct but its something when you actually become a part of the industry....

after publication, I began to buy two copies of music for marching band..........used to buy one copy and then copy parts for all of the flutes and larger sections.....after becoming a part of that industry I began to buy two copies.....that along with the publisher charging a little more and including more originals for those pieces solved the issue once and for all.......and I never violated copyright laws since.......

well I did steal one idea from shostokovitch but thats almost general domain stuff......and the rights all go to the russian government anyway...

so fuck'em...........

no......and this isnt exactly about taking tunes off of the puter.....but its close enough.....

At least they were good songs. Mostly The Wiggles.

JeffJ

Not even remotely close to the same thing...

It's exactly the same. Theft is theft.

No one should feel sorry for the revenue spike the record industry enjoyed when everybody switched from LPs to CDs. All their sob stories about revenues being down are in comparison to this once in a century windfall.

Congress did the right thing when they loosened up making copies for personal use (as opposed to the rampant stealing for resale in China). The policy unexpectedly helped the recording industry.

It costs considerably less to manufacture a CD than an LP. The record industry would probably enjoy another windfall if they merely lowered the price of CDs. Instead they attack people who cannot afford to defend themselves, hoping to scare everyone else. If they prosecuted everyone that did this they would soon be broke themselves. The result is random Injustice, a great American tradition that keeps Lawyers very happy.

There aren't really any free markets, just big fish eating little fish.

"the bullshit associated with being a legimate, legal consumer"

Oh...you mean paying for the product rather than stealing it.

I'll say it again since you're ignoring it.

The bullshit of having to purchase an inferior product crippled by poor bit rates.
The bullshit of restricting my rights even though I own something when I buy it (according to you).
The bullshit of me having to license and register on a per computer basis.
The bullshit of restrictive DRM which doesn't allow me to copy the song that I own (according to you) from one device to another for my personal use.

Don't get me wrong. Like I said in my original post I DON'T download music. I get it legally. My point was $220,000 seems excessive for downloading 24 individual songs.

My secondary point was that SOME people don't share songs knowingly, by being STUPID and using a filesharing program in the first place. Not saying it's excused, just saying some people aren't aware of the backdoors some software provides.

It's exactly the same. Theft is theft.

No actually it isn't.

If you were to steal the disk from the store, you would be charged with petty larceny and hit with a 3 digit fine.

If you downloaded the album from the internet and got caught, you would be fined 100 thousand dollars for that same album.

So...no it wouldn't at all.

I don't have any sympathy for any of the record companies. I didn't exactly consent to having spyware downloaded onto my computer every time autoload runs my CD's, atleast not when I bought my last Velvet Revolver CD.

"If you were to steal the disk from the store, you would be charged with petty larceny and hit with a 3 digit fine"

You're purposely minimizing the occurance. To compare apples with apples, what if you were to steal 1,701 songs from the store, and aid & abet others in their stealing as well....

Theft is theft. You don't own the copyright. What are you trying to say...it's valuable enough to want, it's valuable enough to own, it's just not valuable enough to pay for...?

And part of the woman's fine is for leaving the copywritten material out, in perfect digital shape, for everyone else to steal, too.

Music sharing is not going away. The intelligent musicians are embracing it.

I don't have any sympathy for any of the record companies. I didn't exactly consent to having spyware downloaded onto my computer every time autoload runs my CD's, atleast not when I bought my last Velvet Revolver CD.

Yeah, no shit...I didn't even mention the rootkits installed on legimate consumer's PCs because they want to listen to their new Neil Diamond CD on their computer.

I want to support my favorite artist. I paid for their new disk in addition to paying a 2 percent tax on every CDR I buy plus the 2 dollars for the drive that I own to listen to said CD. Now the company who I bought the disk from wants to install spyware on my computer in addition to me paying for the disk, plus being taxed twice.

Do you think that these tactics have any impact on the pirate? Zero. In fact, they've probably finished downloading the entire album before they finished laughing at the thought of someone trying to stop them. Who is hurt? The legimate consumer.

The bullshit of having to purchase an inferior product crippled by poor bit rates.

If it's inferior, why do you want it?

The bullshit of restricting my rights even though I own something when I buy it (according to you).

You don't buy the music. It is still owned by the label/artist

The bullshit of me having to license and register on a per computer basis.

What bullshit?

The bullshit of restrictive DRM which doesn't allow me to copy the song that I own (according to you) from one device to another for my personal use.

It is legal to make copies for your personal use.

If you were to steal the disk from the store, you would be charged with petty larceny and hit with a 3 digit fine.

If you downloaded the album from the internet and got caught, you would be fined 100 thousand dollars for that same album.

So...no it wouldn't at all.

I misunderstood the gist of your post. I agree with you and ddenton that the fine is out of line. But I maintain that the crime isn't. It shouldn't be -- as you say -- any more than stealing the CD.

If I choose to sing or hum a song that someone else has written and has copyrighted, do I have to pay that individual? Am I not stealing someone's creation?

Music Downloader Fined $220,000


This is ridiculous and the frantic gasps of a dying industry. They don't provide any value and just cash in on the interaction between the artist and the fans, much like stockbrokers, who saw their numbers reduced when people began trading their stocks online.
The tide of information sharing is unstoppable. My guess is that in the future recording artists will share their music online and make their money from concert appearances.

"Music sharing"

Sharing...between the folks who stole it and the 10,000+ downloaders they've never met.

Notice the creator/owner of the piece doesn't get a "share" of anything.

The original thief thought it was valuable enough to want, the downloaders thought it was valuable enough to copy, but now they all want to pretend it's not valuable enough to compensate the creator. Theft is theft. I'm glad the courts reinforced the concept of Intellectual Property Rights.

Goat,

If it's "legal" for me to make copies of my own CD's, why does the record label (Sony in the case of the aforementioned Velvet Revolver CD) drop a hidden device driver on my computer, which garbles the audio on any copy of the CD I attempt to make? It even garbles it when I copy the songs to a PC.

The only way to bypass that was to delete the device driver, then disable autorun on my CDrom. Only then could I make an ungarbled copy. Yes, easy for an experienced user. The instructions on the internet are not easy to follow for novice users.

If the label were truly interested in letting me make "legitimate" copies, they wouldn't have taken those steps. IMHO.

"My guess is that in the future recording artists will share their music online and make their money from concert appearances."

Which makes a lot of bands---Steely Dan, most notably---impossible.

Which makes a lot of bands---Steely Dan, most notably---impossible.

Posted by Danforth


I guess there will be other benefits as well then...
Call it musical Darwinism.

On a different note, I'm curious about how the "free market" crowd feels about the government (courts) stepping in to protect the profits of a large corporation.

Which makes a lot of bands---Steely Dan, most notably---impossible.

As indicated by their 1993, 1994, 2000, 2003 and 2008 tours?

If I choose to sing or hum a song that someone else has written and has copyrighted, do I have to pay that individual? Am I not stealing someone's creation?

Happy Birthday To You

Lyric copyright expires 12/2008
Music copyright expires 12/2016
Song written 1935
Person who made the song died in 1938
Person who wrote the lyrics died in 1946

Which makes a lot of bands---Steely Dan, most notably---impossible.

Posted by Danforth

Thank god for small favors.

The music industry is at a crossroad: their model is obsolete and technology has spun circles around it.

I'm not saying downloading is the solution but the status quo is ridiculous.

Radiohead had an interesting suggestion last week: download from their site and pay what you want. The band makes money on tour, with collateral material (i.e. swag).

Apple music, et al is also an alternative.

$9,250 for each of 24 songs

What 24 songs would you pay $9,250.00 for each?

1. Cabaret
2. The Sound of Music
3. These are a few of my favorite things
4. Lay Lady Lay
5. You Light up my life
6. Dont Stop Believin
7. We built this city on rock n roll
8. We didn't start the fire
9. Achey Breakey Heart
10. Ice Ice Baby

"As indicated by their 1993, 1994, 2000, 2003 and 2008 tours?"

I was referring more to their 1991-1992 International Tour: One music station interview in Vermont.

Not to mention the peak of SD's success was before those tours.

If you steal a CD from a music store is this the type of fine you could expect to see?

She stole the equivolent of what? Like 2 CDs? I would assume you would be arrested, pay a small fine, do some community service and be banned from the store, but I doubt you would be liable for almost a quarter of a million dollars. This seems unbelievably excessive.

"Happy Birthday To You"

Sing it all you want at birthday parties. Hum it all day long for free. But use it in a movie for which you're charging admission? Pay up.

Don't like it? Simple: don't use it. Simpler still, write your own song.

All of you idiots that think this was a just and fair ruling need to shut the fuck up and do some research on the technical history of the whole filesharing conflict and the scare tactics of the RIAA/MPAA. I'm incredulous at those who read this article and said, "good".

Hey, Chicken...whom do you believe owns the rights to these songs?

But use it in a movie for which you're charging admission? Pay up.

Don't like it? Simple: don't use it. Simpler still, write your own song.

I tried to pay the artist directly...you know the people who should get their "share", but they've been dead for 70 years.

Fortunately, someone will probably be extending the copyright law to 150 years in late 2008.

Don't like it? Simple: don't use it. Simpler still, write your own song.

Posted by Danforth at 2007-10-05 02:58 PM

thats fine I can understand some artist getting upset because I was making money off of his song but what about making a copy for your friend... for free?

downloading from the internet is not illegal. making money off of copyrighted material is. It is utter bullshit that if I copy a song and listen to it in my home the Music Industry or any Artist has any claim to that music.

Does anyone else remember Friday Night Album Night... "queue up your tapes here comes Led Zepplin's Houses Of The Holy!"

download all you want just don't share out anything copyrighted until these assclowns give up on this bullshit.

I tried to pay the artist directly...you know the people who should get their "share", but they've been dead for 70 years."

Physical property gets passed from one generation to another all the time, why shouldn't intellectual property?

"what about making a copy for your friend... for free?"

I admit I'm a relativist about this one. I see a vast difference between loaning out one scratchy LP to one friend at a time, vs. "sharing" a perfect copy with 10,000-100,000+ folks you've never met.

"It is utter bullshit that if I copy a song and listen to it in my home the Music Industry or any Artist has any claim to that music."

I agree 100%.

I admit I'm a relativist about this one. I see a vast difference between loaning out one scratchy LP to one friend at a time, vs. "sharing" a perfect copy with 10,000-100,000+ folks you've never met.

HAHA...so its OK to steal one song at a time (from a scratchy LP as you eloquently put it) as opposed to 1000, even though no money is made in either example. I believe what you called that was "purposely minimizing the occurrence"? :D

The only difference is technological...The LP had a production value in packaging and materials which was taken off a shelf...and the digital version has no expense outside the original recording.

If it's "legal" for me to make copies of my own CD's, why does the record label (Sony in the case of the aforementioned Velvet Revolver CD) drop a hidden device driver on my computer, which garbles the audio on any copy of the CD I attempt to make? It even garbles it when I copy the songs to a PC.

Just because it's legal doesn't mean the label has to make it allowable. Just as it is legal for Wal Mart to sell tires, doesn't mean they have to.

If I choose to sing or hum a song that someone else has written and has copyrighted, do I have to pay that individual? Am I not stealing someone's creation?

If singing it for profit, yes.

" I believe what you called that was "purposely minimizing the occurrence"? :D"

You're absolutely right, and again, I admit as much. I just believe, in this case, the scale matters. There's a physical limit when it's a concrete loan. But there's no limit on a digital file. That 1000 could easily be 1,000,000, or 10,000,000.

"the digital version has no expense outside the original recording."

So the artist should be paid for the first sale only?

If singing it for profit, yes.

Posted by goatman at 2007-10-05 04:13 PM | Reply |

How about a wedding singer? A bar band? A street musician? C'mon.

"A bar band? "

Bars which feature live music (and bars with jukeboxes, for that matter) pay royalties to ASCAP and/or BMI which cover the artists who appear.

And don't forget, the vast majority of songs written since the dawn of time are not copywritten. Choose one of them. Or write your own songs. But if the song you choose, because it has value to you is one of the few owned by someone else, pay or pass.

How about a wedding singer? A bar band? A street musician? C'mon.

Yes, I believe technically they are supposed to pay the musician's guild.

So when would a physical limit push you over the edge, when no money is being made on the transaction? Loaning the CD out 50 times? 100?

So the artist should be paid for the first sale only?

Allow me to be a bit clearer. Back in "the day" the only avenue for getting an album was the store. You could argue that the damage would be more when you were required to make a physical purchase when you wanted the new Styx album.

Now a days, outside the actual production of the song there is no other involvement from the label. No CD Jewel case, no media to print, hell not even bandwidth needs as the ITunes of the world provide that service. Yet it still costs the same. But I digress.

Of course I'm not talking about independents. The artists get the lions share of the money from independent album sales. If I were to share MP3s (WHICH I DON'T!) I would make sure that those people got their money...cause its theirs. Even if someone is a part of a major label, attending their concerts is a way to make sure they get their money too...but I refuse to be a part of the music meatgrinder of the big labels...and I won't shed one tear when their rotting carcasses ultimately collapse for their inability to adapt to a changing marketplace. Not to mention their desire to stifle innovation and the consumer through frivolous lawsuits.

"Now a days, outside the actual production of the song there is no other involvement from the label."

While I agree with most of what you say, the above statement is nuts. Labels are involved in band promotion all the time, even when the band is footing 100% of the bill.

Still, you're right about everything else...except the lawsuits stuff: the copyrights have GOT to be honored, somehow. I don't claim to know the answer, but giving up the concept of intellectual property rights isn't it.

Use BitComet or BitTorrent and turn off the sharing when you're done. Also, delete the files when you're done (tv shows) or convert them.

The bullshit of restrictive DRM which doesn't allow me to copy the song that I own (according to you) from one device to another for my personal use.

I'll second that. DRM is indeed total BS, and its not just about copying files. You can't even stream them in your own house if the hardware doesn't match the DRM. I have my computer in my bedroom, and my 360 in the living room. I've got a fair amount of music purchased from the iTunes Store, and guess what - I can't listen to it in my living room unless I buy more Apple hardware. I can sort of understand not being able to actually duplicate the file to my 360, but to not be able to stream it across a network in my own house... Absurd. (and yes I know I can burn it out to a CD and rip it in a DRM-free format back into my library, but as a consumer, I shouldn't have to go through that kind of hastle to listen to music I've paid for, not to mention wasting a CD).

I quit buying from the music store because of this.

Ok, End Rant.

PS. If you have a Mac and a 360, you really should check out Connect360 by Null River. Works great except for that pesky DRM.

I think the point being missed here is the fact there is absolutely nothing that can be done to stop it.

The only way this can be stopped is by putting the burden of solving this problem on Internet Service Providers.

However, if this were done in the US, there would still be vast amounts of sharing overseas.

We all know there are other countries where this problem is even worse. Other countries are blatant about selling cd copies and think nothing of it.

It is inevitable that new methods of marketing and selling will have to be developed. And performers will just have to perform to make money. Hey ... there's a novel idea. But they won't get to become mega rich anymore ... .aaaahhh ... so sad.

Frankly, the days of paying 18 dollars for an album with 1 or 2 good songs are just plain over and the music industry is crying in their soup. They had it sweet for awhile.

Sure ... it's illegal but the problem is nothing can really be done about it. It's too wide spread and putting the solution on downloaders won't work. It would be like putting up speed limit signs without law enforcement. I mean, who would really slow down?

Unless ISP's solve the problem, how can it be stopped?

"Stealing" music is not the same as stealing a cd from a music store.
There is one obvious difference. If person A has a CD and person B steals it...person A no longer has the CD. If on the other hand person A has a CD and gives a copy of it to person B...A and B now have copies. I am not defending the practice, just pointing out that whatever it is, it's not stealing.
If I buy the newest Stephen King novel (God forbid) and give it to a friend to read when I am finished aren't I doing the same thing as giving a copy of a CD?
Just wondering.

Fuck the recording industry, they just steal most of the profits from the musicians anyway. This has nothing to do with the artists, or music, or copyright. It's about the "Entertainment" industry packaging up fads and fashions to suck up our disposable income - which is fine, until they start suing us because we aren't paying enough for their lame products.

The business model of the industry is changing, that's all. It happened before when recorded music was invented. Musicians got pissed when they lost gigs to recorded music, things changed, life went on. So musicians will make money from live performances and low-cost downloads. They'll probably still make the same money, there will just be fewer middlemen taking a cut.

Me? I listen to the fucking radio. Never dowloaded a song in my life. I also haven't bought a CD in years.

Back in the day, when I was in the Air Force, a new album would arrive in the Base Exchange, somebody in the barracks might buy it, and the reel-to-reel decks would begin making copies of "Electric Ladyland." As a result of this exposure Jimi Hendrix became a part of the Vietnam soundtrack, and a god in the rock 'n roll pantheon.

The new music is just wrong. The actual music is great, but the merchandising tie-ins for the contemporary equivalent of "mod-a-go-go-stretch-elastic- pants" is just pathetic. Who buys this crap, anyway? My 1969 battery-powered facemask bong, however, was a neccesity of life!

I was listening to vinyl last night.
Dark Star. Keith Jarrett.
Sweet.

Digital really sucks.
This lawsuit is just another reason to think so.

Zat,

Yea..I know what...pop...you mean.

I agree that...pop...vinyl...pop...sou nds better.

I still have my...pop...30 year old Radio Shack amplifier...pop...that's been in the shop and nursed for years. I prefer analog amps.

I still have my...pop...30 year old Radio Shack amplifier...pop...that's been in the shop and nursed for years. I prefer analog amps.

I still have my...pop...30 year old Radio Shack amplifier...pop...that's been in the shop and nursed for years. I prefer analog amps.

I still have my...pop...30 year old Radio Shack amplifier...pop...that's been in the shop and nursed for years. I prefer analog amps.

I still have my...pop...30 year old Radio Shack amplifier...pop...that's been in the shop and nursed for years. I prefer analog amps.

I still have my...pop...30 year old Radio Shack amplifier...pop...that's been in the shop and nursed for years. I prefer analog amps.

I'll hate when it finally dies.

But...cd's sure have some advantages...such as no popping or skipping.

Some people have no clue how to care for records.

This is being discussed on one of the musicians forums I belong to. It's about 50/50 for the punishment fit the crime/the fine was too stiff.

Even though the money goes to the recording companies, it still impacts the artist themselves. In todays mindset-if you can get it for free why pay for it, that means fewer cd's or even fewer downloads that ARE paid for.

I've read lots of posts here referring to the old days. In the old days you broke, scratched, melted your LP you went out and bought a new one. When LP's went to tape, you bought a new one. When tape went to CD, you bought a new one. You were paying for the song over and over again, why now do you want to buy the song once in CD and be able to put it on your computer, your Ipod, etc. without paying for it in that format?

As for the performing musicians, not the stars but the average musician trying to make a living, the pay for them hasn't changed much in the last 10 years. $300 a night for 5 sets (45 minutes a set), split between 4 to 6 band members. Not exactly great pay for the band is it. The way they earn their money is CD sales, downloads paid for on the internet, etc. Somebody shares their music, its taking food off their table and the roof from over their head.

Please don't mistake listening to the radio as free, it's paid for by advertising and they decide what you listen to at any particular moment. Just like television programs that come through your antenna if you don't have cable or satellite. It's not free, it's paid for with everything you buy.

If you like music and wish to support the artist instead of the big record companies, try going to some of the indy music sites. Most of them give the majority of the money paid to the musician not the site itself. Soundclick.com, Unsigned.com, and myspace.com are just a few of the sites you can go to.

Finally instead of comparing the theft of music to stealing from someones home let's compare it to stealing movies. They are both intellectual properties, they both have lots of people to pay in the production of it, and when its done well it's because a lot of hard work and training went into it.