« Unprofitable VEVO Has "10's Of Millions" In Revenue | Main | More Music Industry News: U.S. Legislation Stalls, Windfall For EMI, Trademarking Music & More »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


I understand the need for knowledge and that the internet brings that to those who can't afford it. But people create these digital products at a cost to themselves or others.

Stealing (Pirating) it may be convenient and fair to those who receive the product, but what about those who are hoping to see a return for their work and money? People with less money can't afford food- so is it okay to walk into a grocery store and steal it because you can't (or don't want to) pay for it yourself?

The RIAA is definitely asking for too much from those who pirate, it's an unjust price to pay. But everything shouldn't be free because it's convenient and easy to get away with. There's a middle ground and the goal should be to find it.


>implying that anyone in a position of power has ever compromised without first sustaining a head kicking of colossal proportions


I have no sympathy for pirates and hackers. Internet security as well as the protection of works are certainly not to be take lightly.

"Their own academic development would not have been possible, had they not been able to pirate books, because they simply can’t afford them."

Does this mean that if you can not afford something you are entitled to steal it in the name of education and academic development?

This is akin to saying you will break into Guitar Center, steal a guitar and then claim that playing guitar has enhanced your personal and academic growth as a valid excuse for stealing.

The RIAA has every right to protect their members and do what is in the best interest of their constituents. If not for the RIAA, who would be lobbying for music copyright protection? While some of the strategies have been ineffective, their role is critical. If you let the pirates and hackers loose, then forget about Internet Security, secure websites and monetizing digital. It is bad enough as it is.

The notion that people should not pay for music if it is on a major label is a stab in the back for the new or up-and-coming artists that are signed to those labels. On one hand, people want to give the money to the artist but on the other hand they give them nothing because they are signed to a major. Then the artist is dropped because of low returns. The irony is sad and so is the double standard.

These hackers or may I say "Anonymous Cowards" need to be shut down. Nothing worse than hackers and their phishing scams that is for sure.

Constantine Roussos



guess their 'academic development' didn't stretch as far as informing them of the existence of public libraries then?

they'd better pirate some more books, quick!

Eric Jensen

It takes tens of thousands of hours of dedicated, deep, practice to get on the path to mastering a musical instrument or the art of composition, all unpaid. How many people in this culture will devote their lives to music if there is zero possibility of earning a living with their skills?


They are simply pied-pipers leading great music off of a cliff. The music industry are a bunch of idiots for not forseeing such a shift in consumption, but I don't like how these pandas are somehow these rebellious heroes bringing down "the system".

Intellectual Property has always been a life line for music. Illegal file-sharing pulled this plug a long time ago. And for this quote

"Their long outdated traditional views on copyright infringement enforced solely by rich and powerful corporations"

Statute of Anne. The first form of copyright legislation. To protect writers from having their content copied and to encourage writers to write!

Same goes for music!

If they cared for the music they would work out a way to give back to music. Instead of sitting smug on their chests of money.

Come on ISPs, get some balls.



>implying that these comments aren't astroturfing like 90% of the comments on this blog always transparently are

Justin Boland

Won't happen until the RIAA is forced out of the negotiation room. That's a conversation between consumers and artists.

Justin Boland

They're not talking about the latest Philip Roth book, they're talking about up-to-date textbooks. Those do not exist in public libraries because they're too expensive for public libraries.

I'm looking forward to someone from Greenwich, CT posting about "Well, we've got a full line of the latest O'Reilly texts for 2010 in OUR library right now...."

Justin Boland

A small minority previously known as "artists" -- I look forward to millions and millions of people giving up because their little rock star dreams are dead. It's called "clearing the field" and it's long overdue.

Justin Boland

Constantine, if you really believe in the cracker myth of "Internet Security," write an open letter to Anonymous telling them what cowards they are. You will be educated -- for free, no less!

Awful Title

It's hard to take Hypebot seriously as a news source when they post articles with headlines such as this.


I wish these anonymous cowards would "go the fuck away altogether". Sure Artists should make their music available for free but on THEIR terms, not on some leeches just because they can write some code.


When are these babies going to stop whining and start the real music revolution which is a new development and distribution system for artists independent of the labels?

If they're so smart and motivated, why aren't they building the future instead of kicking around in the ruins of the past? It's sad that so much talent is wasted playing this game.


These 4chan clowns are too young or dumb to know who the Weathermen were.

Those that don't understand history are doomed to repeat it.

Good luck with your delusions, freetards.


The one fact that you're completely overlooking is that the RIAA and record companies in general have become obsolete! In the digital information age, all you need is a website and a payment processor to promote your own albums (or whatever you want to call them these days).Then all you need to do to promote it is to put your stuff on sites like youtube, facebook etc.....thus completely eliminating the need for a record company or promoter. Let's face it, anybody that signs a deal with a record company these days is a fool, as over 90% of the profits from sales go to the company and their execs. Not to mention that the copyright for all of the material produced by the various artists on their rosters is actually owned by the record company, and not the artists that wrote/composed all of their own fresh material. The copyrights should go to the artists, not the record companies. This is what the fight is really all about. The RIAA and the recording industry in general are fighting to justify their own existence, because they know that they are now no longer needed! In the new digital age, using the model that I just showed, the artists get 100% of the royalties,and they also get to own their own copyright. What seems more fair to you? It a no brainer really.

The comments to this entry are closed.


Musician & Music Industry Resources