Stealing removes possession from the owner. File-sharing does not remove possession from the owner, therefore file-sharing cannot be stealing. It is copying files that is illegal, but that's breach of copyright, not theft. Whilst most condemn stealing on moral grounds, far fewer think that breaching copyright is morally wrong. It's similar to speeding, most people don't think it's immoral to do 5mph over the speed limit.
They won't be able to stop Wikileaks either. Cryptome does essentially the same thing as Wikileaks. While I'm at it - somebody Wikileak Wall Street - or better yet, the Fed!
Also the idea of music not surviving is silly. Near-costless distribution makes the industry more efficient - no more cases of not being able to find your favourite artist's CD at the local store, no more cases of not finding out about a great new band because they have no big record deal or distribution, or legal problems stopped them recording or their album being distributed. Do you know how many bands broke up and their careers failed because some record company went broke or screwed them? There will be a different model, but without reasonable pay for musicians, almost no one will write music (at least, not good music). Since people have a strong desire to hear good new music, they will pay money for it. It's just that the way musicians will get paid is different - live shows, merchandise (t-shirts etc), instrument sponsorship, fan clubs, and so on. Also, some fans will still pay for online content, especially if artists do things like have updates and bonuses e.g. first dibs on new tracks, first in line for concert tickets, backstage passes etc. There are always hardcore or rich people who will pay for access, exclusivity, first dibs, or "official" stuff. Overall, if you are a great musician or songwriter, your chances of succeeding now and being heard, being able to reach people who appreciate your music, are far greater. If you are a fan, your access to music is unprecedented, especially for more obscure genres. Removing barriers to trade such as long delays for signing and distributing bands/albums, high overhead making it too risky to take chances on unknown obscure artists, improves the whole process of creating and getting good music to interested listeners. Those against file-sharing have very flimsy moral grounds to stand on, because copyright is an entirely artificial concept with little or no basis in natural rights/law or even utilitarianism - hence why 500 years ago there was no such thing as copyright. Hence why even copyright expires eventually. It's similar to patent law - a legal contrivance to make some people money at the expense of the best interests of broader society. Only a few vested interests and reactionaries who don't understand or appreciate change will shed any tears when copyright dies for music, films, books etc. The world as a whole, including the creators, will be much better off.
the contracts the majors are now pushing for are a 365 (i think that's the right term), where they get a piece of EVERYTHING. used to be, the rigid terms were for album sales...now, they want a piece of everything - tour, ringtones, merchandise, etc.
No one forces anyone to spend 1-2 million marketing an album. If you spend that dough as a speculative gamble to try and make millions, then if it doesn't work out, that's your choice and thus the outcome is your responsibility, just like if you blow 1-2 million on a bad trade. Nowadays it is virtually free to distribute a song, and marketing is cheap because of the same low-cost internet that allows file-sharing. The benefits of this far outweigh the costs to everyone except the middleman. But middlemen have always moaned when new technology came along and made them obsolete, so it's no surprise that they are doing so again now.
the irony of metallica's crusade is that they first became known from underground fans passing around cassette tapes. 'Orion' is a masterpiece though.
That's fair enough because they bring one useful thing to the table in marketing clout. It's just like hiring an ad agency or a PR firm to promote your product in any other industry. Record companies can either charge by the hour or charge a % cut - most artists start out broke, and most record labels profit from the smash hits only, so the % charge makes more sense for both sides. It's just that due to new technology, there is no real way to monetize the actual music sales anymore, hence the shift to new sources of revenue.
As in the original post, did anyone get a chance to look at the "legal" threats section of The Pirate Bay? It kinda opens the mind about what the internet can be.
Here's my view on it. When you buy music, you have an explicit or implicit contract i.e. a license just like for software. It allows you to listen but not to copy the music (except for reasonable personal use) or distribute it or play it commercially. So, if you buy music with such conditions, and you then upload it to to file-share, you are breaking the law AND you are breaking your contractual agreement. So I think it's reasonable to prosecute for that. However, the people downloading the music are doing nothing morally wrong. They have not made any agreement with the artist or record company, they are no more doing something wrong than someone who sees a stolen Van Gogh which is placed in the street, and enjoy looking at it or take photos of it. They are not stealing, because the owner of the music doesn't lose it when another copies it. They are not even necessarily making illicit gain, because many download music for free that they would not have bought if it cost money (demand at $0 is higher than at >$1-$10). Now, to dissuade this in the past, content creators along with lawyers made up a law called copyright. No morality behind it (copyright as a concept did not exist in any morality in the world before the printing press came along), they simply were of the opinion that they could get away with implementing it, and make a lot of money out of it. One government agreed (tax revenue for them), others copied, and so it became widespread. It is a bit like speeding laws. Clearly it is not immoral to do 71mph instead of 70mph. It is wrong to drive dangerously at 20mph and not wrong to drive safely at 100mph on an empty road in the middle of nowhere. Speeding has just criminalised something because governments find it easier to handle traffic enforcement if they can throw a blanket charge at someone and make it stick, without actually having to prove that any dangerous driving was taking place. I.e. speeding is illegal but not immoral (unless it's dangerous speeds). It's basically a utility law, not a law based on morality. People in general know the difference, and generally only obey utility laws out of fear of being caught and punished. They don't have any moral qualms about breaking them, as can be seen by the widespread breaking of speeding laws every day by billions of people. Ditto for file-sharing. Utility laws aren't necessarily bad, but there is no sanctimonious argument in their favour (if anything, moral arguments count against them as they infringe liberty). They are just a tool. In the current environment, utility laws enforcing copyright have, as a tool, become near useless. Any such laws restricting free flow of information purely for utility reasons will be unenforceable, so these governments are trying to hold back a dam breach by sticking in their thumb. Might work a bit for a while, but eventually it'll fail miserably. Meanwhile, restrictions on information that *are* morally justified, have widespread support e.g. bans on child porn, leaking of critical military secrets (assuming it's not some tyrannical regime, or evidence of war crimes etc), naming spies in hostile countries etc. So, I don't see any major problem here. Governments and business just need to recognise the changing reality and adapt to it. In 30 years people will look back at this and laugh at these people. They are today's equivalent of the weavers who went out smashing looms in protest at losing their jobs. Yesterday's men, becoming a pathetic spectacle by trying to turn back progress.