It's not free to listen to on the radio - you don't pay, but the station does.

If I had a CD out, I would want to be compensated for my work.

Right, but the second it goes over public airwaves, it's public domain.

It's not free to listen to on the radio - you don't pay, but the station does.

If I had a CD out, I would want to be compensated for my work.

WN: Do you believe that artists should be paid for their work?

Allison: Indeed I do, and it would be nice if the conglomerates that make up the RIAA would actually pay most of their contract artists what they're worth. Artists should really welcome file sharing as a method to promote their work and their touring events, and to escape the clutches of Big Music that they sign away their lives to. No one has ever gone broke and homeless or ever will because of file sharing, but the RIAA has not been averse to suing penniless 12-year-olds living in public housing for sharing files.

WN: Do you currently download software illegally?

Sigal: I'm not going to answer that one. But I support the downloading of music, movies and software for trial use, or to gain knowledge in the pursuit of development.

Allison: No. Not at all.

WN: Are you worried about the RIAA and MPAA deploying resources against you?

Allison: For now, the Pirate Party U.S. is a small undertaking that will probably exist under the MPAA's and RIAA's radar for some time. When they do notice us, I doubt they'll openly confront the party itself. Plus, they can't dismiss us as scofflaws like they do the people they sue since we want to change the laws rather than break them. So if they confront us openly, it rightfully puts their own motives to keep the status quo into question. Therefore, I expect they'll attack us through a proxy, perhaps through funding a pseudo-activist group or by influencing election officials to keep us off the ballot.

Sigal: Worried? Not at all. These fear tactics and scare tactics are doing the exact opposite -- yeah, they've busted a lot of people, good for them. But you've also seen a huge increase in the amount of illegal downloads. I think it's hurting them. The RIAA and MPAA need to wake up and see that they're doing something wrong and we're doing something right.

WN: What about RIAA CEO Mitch Bainwol's statement last week that "we believe digital downloads have emerged into a growing, thriving business and file-trading is flat?"

Allison: Bainwol should talk to Weird Al Yankovic about that. On the same day Bainwol said that, The Digital Music Weblog posted an article where Al said he gets more money from CD sales than from downloads, ironically enough. Getting his music sold through iTunes, the most well-recognized music download business, Al actually faces an 85 percent reduction in income compared to CD sales. The savings from not having to produce a CD or open up a brick-and-mortar record store are passed to Al's RIAA-affiliated label and Apple, not to Al himself.

Therefore, the companies that make up Bainwol's RIAA and Apple are benefiting from a "growing, thriving business," but not the artists. Big surprise, given this industry's history.

File-sharing, on the other hand, allows an artist to professionally record from their own studio, get their music out there to a wider audience by using the fans' bandwidth rather than their own, and reap financial benefits through touring and selling physical property that music lovers want in the form of a CD in a jewel case with liner notes, as well as related merchandise -- all without the RIAA siphoning off their hard-earned money via one-sided recording contracts, be it through CD sales or iTunes.

Sigal: I don't think that they've contained anything, and BitTorrent is all the proof you need. It sounds to me like they're conceding but they're just trying to do it politely.

...What? So as soon as the radio station plays my song all my copyrights vanish?

By downloading the file legally the artist gets jack **** anyway

so why should I fund the RIAA

In Canada downloading is legal, providing the files is illegal. Personally, I think they're both wrong.

... but all they're trying to do is protect themselves. I mean...

I'm not sure I follow that, can you elaborate?

In the old days, you HAD to sign a deal with a major label to make it.

Don't defend the RIAA's actions just because you have a misguided belief that the RIAA somehow holds the future of your success.

In reality, the RIAA shafts the artist of what is rightfully their cut of the profit.

So, again, if you do the math, you'll find that making yourself successful in the music world can be done on your own and you'll recieve a much higher percentage yeild of the profits to boot...

I'm not sure I follow that, can you elaborate?

Years of editing JK and other video games and not receiving a dime for it make me weep very little for those "artist". I do what I do because it's something I enjoy. These so called "artist" make a 5-10 year investment into the music world and then they're set for life. And what did they do to advance society so much that they deserve to live that kind of life style when there are people straining muscles every day, 8 hours a day, for 20, 30, 40 years, just to be able to retire in a middle class life style. These laborers make the things these so called "artist" enjoy. So, you'll excuss me when I have a hard time feeling sorry for them.

If they want to do it as a hobby in their spare time like real artist do and put up a Pay Pal on a website asking for donations to support more artistic works from them, then that's one thing. This is something totally different. Am I bitter for not getting paid to make JK levels? No, it's an artistic hobby that I enjoy doing and sharing with other people. The same should be true for music "artist" as well.

For the record, I don't own any P2P software and a regularily purchase CD's to support the bands I like...even though I know I could obtain the "art" at zero cost, that's not the point.

You'll be surprised how many people buy CD's even after downloading one or all of the songs to a particular album.

I'm stunned. You don't have any understanding of the life of a pro musician at all, and just sound upset over rock stars.

Look, for pro musicians to be able to pursue the art that you hold so highly, they need to be able to pay the bills. Especially if they have anything resembling a normal life (family, house, car). To a professional, music isn't some hobby you dick around with in your spare time. It's not some thing where you practise for five years or so and then become famous. To a pro, it's a lifelong thing. To a pro, it's your hobby and your nine-to-five job.

You also draw a comparison to police officers and teachers, saying they do their thing not for the big money but because they like it and believe in it. That may be, but they also wouldn't work for free.

Are you reading my posts? I already addressed this. Using the internet for promotion is a good idea. You know what would be better, though? If people used iTunes or some other paid downloading service to sample the tunes before purchase.

And come to think of it, there are many ways of sampling a CD before you buy it that don't hurt the artist. Record stores will let you listen to them. You might hear it on the radio. Or like I said you could use iTunes (which is like what, a dollar per song?).

Here's an analogy for ya, person A steals a bunch of stuff from a store and procedes to sell it. You know (and the police know you know) that it is stolen material, but you get it anyway. The police catch you. You're charged with knowingly posessing stolen material.

and for this whole downloading songs should be ok because it makes people want to go buy the CD, that should be up to the artists themselves.

It shouldn't be up to the public to decide whether their songs should be put online for free

Downloading isn't Theft, it's Copyright Infringement. Learn the difference and quit listening to the RIAA rhetoric. Piracy and Copyright Infringement are interchangeable terms.

...but it's often not up to the artist due to the RIAA.

The public is exactly who it should be up to. I don't live in China and don't intend to ever think that the government nor the RIAA/MPAA knows what's best for me and the society in which I live.

These debates are so retarded. We shouldn't be arguing about law. We should be debating the philosophical issues involved. I'm always so disappointed in these threads...

...and it's a good (read poor) excuss to get out of getting a real education and do something that will have a significant impact on society as a whole. Not to mention that, very very VERY few artist make it a "life long" pursuit. They do their 5-10 years and then retire. And why shouldn't they when they have the money to enjoy all the other things in life?

If we lived in a society where they would be provided for in the same way...my brother would tell you he would (he's a cop). The Amish perform hard labor everyday for no money at all. They work to provide and better their society...and it's the closest thing this world has ever seen to a Communist government/economy.

If you'd read the article (including the last bit of the section I posted above), artist are actually loosing money through iTunes and similar services. Wierd Al saw a 85% decrease.