RIAA Prepares Legal Blitz Against Filesharers 1192
Sayonara writes "The RIAA are now well and truly gathering their forces for a financial onslaught on file sharers in the US, with a "fear and awe" campaign targetting college and high school students in particular. The strategy can be reduced to 'We should really charge you $150,000 per song you have downloaded. Pay us $50,000 now, and we'll say no more about it.' In a related article, the BBC describes how the netizen known as 'nycfashiongirl' is now attempting to delay the RIAA's case against her by claiming their investigation of her online activities was illegal. The RIAA has dismissed these arguments as 'shallow.'"
Joy (Score:1, Insightful)
shallow? (Score:2, Insightful)
Damn I'm a pessismist (Score:5, Insightful)
The laws that make it possible won't get changed either.
*sigh*
GOOD! (Score:5, Insightful)
God, I hope that gets tossed out. Well, actually, I hope it all gets tossed out, or 'nycfashiongirl' gets a small ($1/song shared) damage against her.
Repeat after me: You have no privacy on the internet. Any privacy you think you might have is simply you being too small and insignificant for anyone to bother to look. Consider your activities to be taking place on a sidewalk using postcards and loud voices--and act accordingly.
*sigh*
Sooo... (Score:3, Insightful)
Sounds a lot like the SCO lawyers (Score:5, Insightful)
Someone's really gotta put a stop to this. Where are they getting this $150,000 number from? If you go into a record store, steal the CD, go outside the store with your laptop, and start burning free copies for people walking in, would you fine be nearly as high?
Why the bias against people who "steal" (or infringe copywrites) with computers?
It's been said before, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Then when the poor student has picked himself up from the floor and the blood returns to his face, the lawyers will say broadly: "OK, we'll let you off the fine if you agree to pay, let's say, a mere $15,000".
Furthermore, in one recent case, a college student was told that just by filing an answer in court, the cost of any final settlement would rise by $50,000.
If this isn't extortion, By God, I don't know what is.
High Schools... (Score:5, Insightful)
Open season? (Score:3, Insightful)
By that logic, everyone is open to whatever searches of other people's systems they want. Why is the US gov't going after people for "hacking", if the intent is just to look around then all is fine according to them.
I love this hypocrasy (Score:2, Insightful)
Now that they are actuallly employing this strategy, the cry is noo!! It's wrong, it's bad, or, or something.
What's the deal here? Do you people just don't care about copyright infringement? You people have no idea what it takes to create something and try to make money on it.
Re:shallow? (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, sure... (Score:2, Insightful)
Shallow (Score:3, Insightful)
Because due process is shallow and boring and not really necessary, right? If the RIAA says you're doing something bad, well, that should be all the proof the government needs!
Sheesh. If they're breaking the law to catch people breaking the law, they're still breaking the law.
Re:shallow? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know why anyone is complaining about this campaign... the
well done RIAA (Score:3, Insightful)
Extortion (Score:3, Insightful)
The thing is, even if a court does rule that you owe the RIAA $100 000 000, what would happen? It's not like they could ever collect. I never expect to own that much money.
Re:shallow? (Score:2, Insightful)
Well now they are going for the users.
Re:I love this hypocrasy (Score:3, Insightful)
I think copyright is evil. In its original form it might have been argued to at least be a practical good, and thus worth keeping around, but in its current form it is out and out evil, in that it attempts to squash the development and exchange of ideas in favor of the development and exchange of profit, and ideas are a fundamental part of the development of civilization.
Seeing as I think civil disobedience was one of the better ideas developed lately, I'm pretty much likely to support any user who shares just about any file.
Immunity??? (Score:5, Insightful)
So if I hack Mr. Oppenheims computer and "unreasonably" search it (i.e. rifle through his private data) I am immune to rules on unreasonable searches because I am a hacker and not a cop? Nice to know.... Now where did I put that SubSeven kit.....
"Futile" (Score:4, Insightful)
shared public files (Score:3, Insightful)
What about other activies? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll tell you why. It's because P2P is an alternative distribution model that threatens their business (in the long term) much much more than a little music piracy by college students who wouldn't be able to afford to buy the thousands of songs they steal anyway.
This is, and has always been, about controlling music distribution and not about stopping piracy. Piracy is a side effect of the real problem: Loss of Control.
They KNOW how the Internet works? (Score:2, Insightful)
Sorry, pal. You're a VP. I'm an engineer. I've had an email address since 1988, and I was using ed to write homework papers formatted with roff in 3rd grade on an ancient Unix system. You do not know how the Internet works.
Replies per post compared to RIAA stupidity level (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't they understand that college students and high school students download songs because they are broke? Now with the continued slash and burn method; once the college student graduates and finds a job, this new generation of 'pissed off at the RIAA' simply are not going to purchase music legally simply out of hate, spite, etc...
Death to RIAA. (Score:3, Insightful)
Since they have declared war on us with this scare and awe bullshit, this only will speed up their own demise. There was once a time when the RIAA had a chance to actually take their piece of the pie and keep some market share by selling music to consumers embracing the new technology, but the RIAA has totally fucked it up and ruined their chances of actually surviving this.
So here is what will happen, the RIAA meaning record companies will cease to exist. I dont know how they figure they can sue people into buying music, or scare people into buying music, all this will do is make us boycott. I was not boycotting the RIAA until they started doing this, now I will never buy another RIAA CD. I will buy used CDs from ebay, I will pirate, I will do whatever it takes to keep from ever supporting the big record companies again.
I will support small record companies. I see it like this, why support someone who wants to sue me? Why should I support someone who is damaging the music industry for the musicians as well as the consumer?
Re:But they have to USE law enforcement, don't the (Score:2, Insightful)
When it's a private party, the rules aren't _quite_ as tight.
Cribs (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:brockman (Score:5, Insightful)
Uhh, new?
Re:shallow? (Score:5, Insightful)
Show me the difference.
Re:I love this hypocrasy (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:That's right asshole... (Score:3, Insightful)
If you put your files, publically, on a public peer2peer network, what's there to complain about when someone sees what you're sharing?
not download, sharing (Score:5, Insightful)
Technically it's illegal to even make copies for your friends but the RIAA (or anybody for that matter) can't feasibly do anything about it. But when you share your CDs (whether you own a legal copy or not is irrelavent) for millions of your closest "friends" then no duh you're looking to get in trouble.
It's idiotic that people think they can put CDs on the black market for the whole world to see what they're doing and then expect that their ISP is going to act as some kind of security guard to prevent them from being arrested.
Putting copyrighted materials on Kazaa is no different than firing up a burner and setting up at a street corner selling or even giving away copies except that your production costs are practically $0 with Zazaa.
You have no legal grounds to aquire anything you own from an illegal source. It doesn't matter if you own the CD. If you buy (or are given something) from the black market you've just committed a crime. Unless a company gives you a Lifetime Warrenty you haze ZERO expectations that what you bought is going to last forever. And if it becomes unusable then you have no legal recourse but to buy another if you didn't have some form of backup that you made yourself from your legal copy that you originally purchased.
Ben
Re:It's been said before, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
Break the law... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:shallow? (Score:5, Insightful)
How to fix this (Score:4, Insightful)
Anyway, there's an easy solution: quit downloading RIAA stuff and go for independent music instead. Artist-approved downloads. If you absolutely must have an RIAA tune, buy it, but otherwise ignore their stuff entirely. They'll be bankrupt in no time, with no legal recourse whatsoever.
And the best part is, we don't need any special boycott campaign. The RIAA is taking care of that for us. All we need to do is publicize the alternatives, as vigorously as possible.
Want to do your bit? Link to independent music on your weblog. If the RIAA isn't completely braindead (which is an open question), then this is what they're afraid of more than anything. Piracy is nothing compared to irrelevance.
Re:Death to RIAA. (Score:5, Insightful)
That'll make the world a much better place.
You know, if the RIAA and the anti-RIAA weren't being such destructive, pointless, vengeful, nutjobs, maybe something sane and wonderful in the world of music might happen.
Re:shallow? (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, and these four 80's compilations I bought trying to find Der Kommissar by After the Fire? They don't have it, so I downloaded it. Here, I'll give the RIAA back three copies of She Blinded Me With Science in exchange.
Oh, and I bought the Steve Miller Greatest Hits, but they shafted me with the short version of "Fly Like An Eagle", so I downloaded the full version. Fuck 'em.
Re:I love this hypocrasy (Score:2, Insightful)
When you encounter this person, you will likely have a conversation with them. You will probably bring up Ayn Rand.
When this person snickers at the mention of her, I want you to think back to this conversation.
Meanwhile, I'll be reading this journal article I just got published, being really annoyed that someone other than me now claims ownership to my writing, and remembering once again why I hate the idea of owning ideas.
Re:Joy (Score:3, Insightful)
So they're going after high school and college students for $50k? Yeah, right. The RIAA might actually succeed at causing these people to get a free college education... if they have a college debt and the RIAA comes after them for $50k they might just have to declare bankruptcy and their higher education turns out to be free.
This is all just absurd, of course. The penalty does not fit the crime. If I were one of them and received a judgement for $50k, I'd be quite tempted to move to Cancun and just forget about it. :)
Re:I love this hypocrasy (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Break the law... (Score:4, Insightful)
In short, I side with the lesser evil.
Might work for governments (Score:5, Insightful)
Will this do that? I don't know, but it is somethign they have to consider.
Let them. (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean they already blame piracy for the recession, so who cares? Lets actually give them a reason to blame it on piracy! Lets directly take their profits away.
"Either way they'll be portrayed as victims and filesharers online as the ones who killed a benevolent organization. Either way, they win."
They just declared war on us!!! Does it matter? In a war only one side can survive. The side which survives usually writes the history books, not the loser.
Re:oderint dum metuant (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, wait, no, he was assassinated by the entirety of the Praetorian Guard when they revolted.
Maybe it's not a good idea to take political advice from him after all.
Re:Death to RIAA. (Score:5, Insightful)
No, if they go out of business they lose. I could care less what an expired, non-existant bankrupt recording industry cites as the reason for their demise. They can say whatever they want. If they no longer exist, they lost.
And thats the exact problem. (Score:4, Insightful)
You cannot scare a person into buying music, you can scare them into not listening to your music anymore, but hey if they dont listen to your music anymore they wont buy your music.
So its a lose lose situation for the RIAA. They wont have any customers left to sell to. In the end their industry will die and be replaced by internet companies like Napster, Kazaa, Mp3.com, etc.
Re:Nycfashiongirl -- ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)
getting settlement $$ isn't the point (Score:2, Insightful)
Downloading vs. sharing (Score:4, Insightful)
Ok, correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think anyone has been charged with a RIAA lawsuit on dowloading alone. Downloading digital music might be a legal activity under so many circumstances (you have a legal CD, the file is not copyrigthed, etc.)
All of the RIAA lawsuits in the US are targeted towards file sharers, not downloaders, but uploaders, if you will.
Why? Simple as it is, the companies belonging to RIAA are the sole entities allowed to distribute and license distribution of their music. The label has indeed a shallow argument if it tries to sue anyone for downloading, but sharing music with others is violation of this exact premise, and the law is clearly on RIAA's side in any country where the property laws are upheld.
Re:They KNOW how the Internet works? (Score:4, Insightful)
Is he wrong?
Re:Sooo... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, let the uprising begin.. I mean, nobody goes to Metallica concerts anymore, right?
Last I heard, they were still selling-out stadiums across the country.
Re:Silly RIAA (Score:2, Insightful)
Of course, you have to question how their logic bridges the gap between stopping sharing and getting college students to each shell out $20 for all the CDs they want. It's pretty much the legendary step 2: ???
Re:Nycfashiongirl -- ridiculous (Score:3, Insightful)
When I sent an email, just as when I send a (snail mail if you will) letter to someone, I have the expectation of privacy. Tampering with mail is an offense. Intercepting email likewise is not acceptable.
But were I to create a website...a PUBLIC website...and put messages to people on there, I would have no reason to complain if I left private information there that somehow got out.
Likewise, when I'm sharing my files, WITH THE INTENT that other people both view and download them, when someone takes me up on that, I have no room to complain. This is very, VERY simple logic folks.
Bill of rights - Amendment VIII (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:I love this hypocrasy (Score:2, Insightful)
Caligula, not a good role model (Score:2, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:They KNOW how the Internet works? (Score:5, Insightful)
And apparently you don't either. By sharing files, she allowed the Kazaa to publish her location and the files available. By sharing files, she immediately removed the cloak of anonimity.
That's how the "internet" works, and Oppenheim is correct, nycfashiongirl is mistaken if she though her nick would keep her anonymous.
My MP3s sit behind a firewall. There's no link to those files on the internet, no way for the RIAA to find them without hacking through my firewall and into my system. If I share files with my friends through an encrypted VPN, there's no way for the RIAA to know I've shared those files. If the RIAA were snooping in on that VPN traffic, then yes, that would be illegal because there's no reasonable cause for the RIAA to be sniffing my private communications. That is what nycfashiongirl is trying to claim, and that is truly shallow. If you can't see the difference between the two examples, then you don't know how the internet works.
BBC bias (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:"Futile" (Score:2, Insightful)
I couldn't agree more. When the framers of the constitution limited government's ability in search and seizure, I doubt very much they meant for private organizations to take up where the government had to leave off.
Bypassing 'due process' by legislating the behaviour to private organizations is an abuse. Violating copyright is wrong, but it pales in comparison to the undermining of 'due process.'
To understand the mindset of those opposed to 'due process', may I suggest "Les Miserables" by Victor Hugo. (Off-topic, but Kennith Starr and John Ashcroft need to familiarize themselves with this book.)
Re:What If I Just Don't Pay? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Joy (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Time for a Campaign of Shock and Awe Ourselves (Score:3, Insightful)
My hope is that they succeed at this. My hope is that they manage to squash file sharing, and build up a huge amount of ill will from the public, and end up destroying the popularity of all the material that they own. In the best of all worlds they'll succeed at this until they drive themselves utterly out of business.
Then we can start over.
No... (Score:3, Insightful)
There both wrong. (Score:3, Insightful)
If someone fears you, they will do what you want, for a time. When they have nothing left to loose, they will come after you.
If someone hates you, they will do what they can to get you.
If someone loves you, they will stop at nothing to protect you. That includes looking the other way or making excuses for you.
Re:oderint dum metuant (Score:3, Insightful)
Not only that - they killed his wife and bashed his young daughter's head open.
People will only put up with fear and hatred for so long. Then they tend to get angry.
Re:IN CAPITALIST AMERICA... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:High Schools... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What about other activies? (Score:2, Insightful)
On Kazaa one person can reach many millions. Usenet isn't nearly as user friendly and bootlegs, well, when was the last time you saw a bootleg in a store that most people you know trafficked regularly (IE Wal-Mart?)
They deserve control over works the RIAA member companies own. You have no right to take that.
Certainly non-signed artists can do what they please, but you have no right to drag others along a path they may not want to venture down.
And there's nothing that P2P that screams to me "valid distribution model." Every time I look on most any P2P service it's warezed music, movies, software, games and porn.
A smart artist would put mp3s on their own website, where advertising is exclusive.
Re:Yes. (Score:1, Insightful)
I had two friends murdered two years ago next week when some real terrorists crashed a plane full of civilians into their offices. "Terrorism" isn't just some magic word you sprinkle on anything you don't like.
Re:Death to RIAA. (Score:5, Insightful)
However, they invoke legal power (Score:4, Insightful)
To take the classic car trunk analogy. In this case, the police officer would open the trunk for the RIAA, but not actually look into it himself. Would that be legal? If so, the 4th amendment is basicly worthless.
Then you can simply create a force that is not officially a part of the government, but that would be able to inspect your trunk at whim and report whatever they find to the legal system (or worse). But it's still government force that facilitates this.
There is no doubt in my mind that the 4th Amendment should apply to a DMCA invocation like this. Whether that stamp from a judge's clerk is sufficient to be allowed under 4th amendment is a more complex problem, but the amendment itself applies. IANAL, but that's how I read it at least...
Kjella
Re:shallow? (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, according to the CD insert, I've purchased a license to use the works on the CD. Therefore, as long as I retain the CD insert, I'm free to redownload and reburn the works provided.
Doesn't matter anymore anyway, as I have encoded all of my music CD's and store the originals on a spindle where they can't get damaged or stolen. But I still am owed several CD's that I still have the inserts for, but the CD's have gone damaged or missing. I have the license to use the music, so I can either download, copy from a friend or pay the RIAA to send me another CD and duplicate license. Guess which one I won't be choosing.
Re:Yes. (Score:2, Insightful)
Tell that to John fucking Ashcroft.
Re:Death to RIAA. (Score:4, Insightful)
Not quite correct. (Score:4, Insightful)
Rather, our system of law has set up a structure for their sales, and they were following it. Yes, the structure, known as copyright, is flawed, but it is the structure that they, as a legal business entity, have to deal with.
Now, P2P is not following the law. They are breaking the law. (rewind) Bzzewwwpt (Vol up) THEY ARE BREAKING THE LAW (Vol down). So the RIAA is going after them in the only way that they can.
Now, if you want to bring in a better business model, which is legal, then please go ahead and do so.
BTW, I've posted in my journal under "Public Domain", one idea on how to do just that. Since I did PD it, you can use it, without paying me anything.
Re:Its official, I hate the RIAA. (Score:5, Insightful)
Mr Oppenheim also said the RIAA was immume from rules on unreasonable searches on the internet, because it did not have links with law enforcement agencies.
so, because i'm not linked to law enforcement does that mean i'm immune from rules on searching the internet... say for some rolling stones songs?
Re:Might work for governments (Score:4, Insightful)
Unfortunately, in the united corporations of america, all you have to do is go to your local congresscritter, tell them, we're losing money becuasse people are downloading songs instead of buying them, and they prop up your failing business model.
you've heard of subsidies for farmers? welcome to the world of subsidies for failing corporations
Does no one have a concept for FAIR anymore? (Score:5, Insightful)
We not only have a concpet of fair punishments in the US... IT'S IN THE DAMN CONSTITUTION.
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
No, it won't... (Score:3, Insightful)
a) read slashdot and have the benefit of all this occasionally thoughtful discussion
b)think about much other than "DAMN!!! Christina Aguilera is HOT!"
(feel free to substitute the pop idol of your choice in b. above...christina does it for me, personally)
That said, there appears to be a market for overpriced CD's. Probably not as much of a market as there once was, but a market nonetheless.
In my personal perfect world, I'd hope for the following: If they knocked, say, $5.00 off the price of the average CD (make 'em an even $10.00 and I'd be happy) and went to a higher-quality, more data-hungry format, they might accomplish something.
They'd make average consumers happy on price, and audiophiles happy on quality, while making it more of a pain in the ass to download your favorite song in all of its nice, high-quality, multichannel, holographic, blah, features, glory.
They're not doing that now, which is irritating a lot of people, but that doesn't mean they're not making plenty of money, just that they're not making as much as they'd like. Don't count on the RIAA going away while there's a commercial radio station in your neighborhood that plays top 40 "hits".
Re:Break the law... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Pushing a rope (Score:1, Insightful)
Actually, it revolves around creating a small number of widely marketable products. It's a lot more profitable for them to sell 10 million Britney Spears CDs than it is to sell 10,000 CDs each from 1,000 different artists. So that's what they do, they create a product they think the most people will buy, they market the hell out of it, sell 10 millions of them, then move on to the next one. It's more efficient that way.
Re:What If I Just Don't Pay? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Its official, I hate the RIAA. (Score:5, Insightful)
So if you aren't affiliated with a law enforcement agency, you can do whatever you want online? Seems to me they could be charged with a real crime then. What's the on-line equivilant of being peeping tom?
Reminds me of the story (urban ledgend?) about the lawyer who insured his cigars, smoked them, and won the insurance claim in court because the contract didn't specify what kind of fire. Then the dumb bastard was charged with multiple counts of arson and fined 10x what he got from the insurance.
You're never as smart as you think you are.
Re:Death to RIAA. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:There both wrong. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What If I Just Don't Pay? (Score:3, Insightful)
Step 1: win in court. you owe them $15000
Step 2: you decide not to pay.
Step 3: they send you a threatening letter.
Step 4: you ignore it.
Step 5: they hire a collection agency that gets to keep half of what they connect.
Step 6: they ruin your credit. They send you letter after letter. They call you every day, sometimes multiple times a day. Sometimes they call you at work.
Step 7: you ignore them
Step 8: you grow up and decide to get married/buy a house. But you can't because your credit has been destroyed.
Step 9: you call them and agree to settle. You pay the fine, but only at a few cents on the dollar, so instead of $15000 you only pay $4000.
Step 10: they annotate your credit report to indicate that you paid up. Your credit still sucks, but you can now get on with your life (but with high risk interest rates).
Re:shallow? (Score:3, Insightful)
Many students seem to think, apparently, that the internet is a law free zone
Followed at the end by:
Mr Oppenheim also said the RIAA was immume from rules on unreasonable searches on the internet, because it did not have links with law enforcement agencies.
Immune to the law? Who sees the internet as a "law-free zone"?
This could fall under the same category as evidence gatherd by a PI. However, in the case of the RIAA, it's like the PI gathering the information and then bringing charges himself. IANAL, but the way I understand it, the spirit of illegal search & seizure was to ensure that those that enforced the law could not search citizens at will; searches must be approved by a higher authority. I guess applying that to what is posted on a public server is a different story, though...
I dunno, it just seems like the pot calling the kettle black.
Re:Joy (Score:1, Insightful)
The only thing you can do is stop buying (or otherwise obtaining) their music. If their revenue drops far enough they can't hire lawyers and lobbyists. Yes, this is patently absurd and will never work, but that's the extent of your power in a "free market" system - the $20 you can choose to drop or not. Really, "vote with your dollars" is code for "you have no say in this". And it's all you've got.
Source for royalty-free music (Score:3, Insightful)
I think a very effective backlash against the RIAA would be to support sites and artists who make their songs available without the restrictions. I firmly believe that free trade of music in many cases is more beneficial to the artists than otherwise. This is especially true in times such as now where big corporations own a lion's share of media.
If you look at a band like the Grateful Dead, who chose not to follow the path of rabid control over their publishing, that looks to be a major contributor to their success.
Most people are sympathetic to the artists, but not the corporate entities which end up getting most of the money and taking advantage of the artists.
If we all rally around sites, companies and artists who abandon the traditional extreme proprietary nature of their material, this would send a clear message to the RIAA that their acts will hurt them more than us, and we could care less about the next major-label-boy-band.
Re:Joy (Score:2, Insightful)
Now that we've blurred the lines with the NET ACT (trading for other copyrighted works = 'for profit) and civil suits vs. criminal suits, I can't believe the price range isn't lower.
As far as number of copies goes. I imagine the RIAA thinks that the one song 1 person downloaded from you then gets downloaded by 10 people, which then gets downloaded by 10X , etc, and will say 1 million copies are your fault. But in all actuality, you shouldn't be liable for OTHER people's illegal distribution too! Anyway, that is just my thought. I figured it was 10 to 20 times the actual cost (about $20 per song) but no matter how much math I do, I don't get to $750, let alone 150K.
(By the way, the $20 per song is from an actual article I read where they were trying to define how you could fall under a felony -- something like over $2000 worth of theft becomes a felony. Why oh why does the RIAA get away with their own math?)
Re:Joy (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:try this reworded approach... (Score:3, Insightful)
This is perhaps the most disturbing quote for me. Translated: "If you dispute this in any way, it will cost you another $50,000.00."
Who could afford to fight this, even if you were innocent?
Re:How to fix this (Score:2, Insightful)
Independent music is still the minor leagues. I don't want to pay money for it.
Re:Might work for governments (Score:4, Insightful)
1) The recording companies have been convicted of pricefixing and keeping the cost of cd's inflated.
2) Their numbers are suspect at best. I can't remember where it is, but I've read several reports that shows similar declines in "sales numbers" for other industries since the bottom fell out of the economy.
3) Mp3's are not perfect copies. They're pretty good, but not perfect.
4) Many people use file trading services to determine if an album is any good before they go buy it.
5) Many customers only want the music, not the CDs (I myself fall into this category) and until recently (iTunes) there have been no good online music content providers.
6) Why do consumers have to pay a tax on CD-Rs, to "combat online piracy", when they may use the media for anytything, not necessarily on burning copies of illegally downlaoded songs?
My point being there are always going to be pirates, Always, but they are not doing themselves any good with the methods they have chosen to combat it. They're in the digital age, they need to figure that out, and give theit customers what they (the customers) want, and not try to shove what they want us to have down our throats.
\end rant
did I make any sense, or am i still suffering from lack of caffienation?