<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Accused music pirate turns the tables on the RIAA</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.geeksaresexy.net/2008/04/28/accused-music-pirate-turns-the-tables-on-the-riaa/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.geeksaresexy.net/2008/04/28/accused-music-pirate-turns-the-tables-on-the-riaa/</link>
	<description>tech, science, news and social issues for geeks</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 22 Nov 2009 02:00:20 -0800</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=abc</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Mogur</title>
		<link>http://www.geeksaresexy.net/2008/04/28/accused-music-pirate-turns-the-tables-on-the-riaa/#comment-195061</link>
		<dc:creator>Mogur</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 03 Oct 2009 10:23:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.geeksaresexy.net/?p=2465#comment-195061</guid>
		<description>This is a thread I can identify with. My brother was in the music industry before an accident wrecked his vocal chords. He made 2 Albums, with a total distribution of about 10,000. 
Our take is this: Distribute the music, in a decent (raidio) quality for download on MP3 format. people who truly enjoy the music, will purchase the CD, or go to a concert to see you. We believe it&#039;s no different than going to the library to read a book, then buying the book for your collection if you enjoy it. I&#039;ve borrowed many dvd&#039;s, CD&#039;s and books from different venues, then gone out and purchased the ones I enjoyed the most for my private collection.I&#039;ve bought the entire Xanth series twice over, multiple copies of bands Cd&#039;s I&#039;ve enjoyed, and Copies of DVD collections, even after I&#039;ve seen them on TV.To the artists that are working to make a name for themselves, Free distribution via Radio, TV and other venues do not harm them financially, if anything, it helps keep their music alive, and may bring new fans to the table. If anything, distribution of music, books and video only helps to INCREASE interest in whatever is being traded. Granted, some intellectual properties shouldn&#039;t be done this way... Games, Software ect... but TV shows, MUsic, and books in my mind should be made available for download. Not too many people will go out and buy quake or duke nuken 3d as a new copy, it&#039;s just not financially sound.
So, if you can&#039;t find what you&#039;re looking for, download it, listen to it (or read or watch) what you will, then go and purchase the collectible version of the item you&#039;re looking for.

Perhaps they can setup a free download which times out after so many uses, or sets up a nag to purchase the item like shareware does. I&#039;ve no problem paying for what I want butprefer to make sure that the software is useful to me, or that I enjoy the band, like the movie enough to want to buy it.
IMHO</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is a thread I can identify with. My brother was in the music industry before an accident wrecked his vocal chords. He made 2 Albums, with a total distribution of about 10,000.<br />
Our take is this: Distribute the music, in a decent (raidio) quality for download on MP3 format. people who truly enjoy the music, will purchase the CD, or go to a concert to see you. We believe it&#8217;s no different than going to the library to read a book, then buying the book for your collection if you enjoy it. I&#8217;ve borrowed many dvd&#8217;s, CD&#8217;s and books from different venues, then gone out and purchased the ones I enjoyed the most for my private collection.I&#8217;ve bought the entire Xanth series twice over, multiple copies of bands Cd&#8217;s I&#8217;ve enjoyed, and Copies of DVD collections, even after I&#8217;ve seen them on TV.To the artists that are working to make a name for themselves, Free distribution via Radio, TV and other venues do not harm them financially, if anything, it helps keep their music alive, and may bring new fans to the table. If anything, distribution of music, books and video only helps to INCREASE interest in whatever is being traded. Granted, some intellectual properties shouldn&#8217;t be done this way&#8230; Games, Software ect&#8230; but TV shows, MUsic, and books in my mind should be made available for download. Not too many people will go out and buy quake or duke nuken 3d as a new copy, it&#8217;s just not financially sound.<br />
So, if you can&#8217;t find what you&#8217;re looking for, download it, listen to it (or read or watch) what you will, then go and purchase the collectible version of the item you&#8217;re looking for.</p>
<p>Perhaps they can setup a free download which times out after so many uses, or sets up a nag to purchase the item like shareware does. I&#8217;ve no problem paying for what I want butprefer to make sure that the software is useful to me, or that I enjoy the band, like the movie enough to want to buy it.<br />
IMHO</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Laptop Guy</title>
		<link>http://www.geeksaresexy.net/2008/04/28/accused-music-pirate-turns-the-tables-on-the-riaa/#comment-181866</link>
		<dc:creator>Laptop Guy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Aug 2009 09:55:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.geeksaresexy.net/?p=2465#comment-181866</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m with you buddy!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m with you buddy!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Laptop Guy</title>
		<link>http://www.geeksaresexy.net/2008/04/28/accused-music-pirate-turns-the-tables-on-the-riaa/#comment-181865</link>
		<dc:creator>Laptop Guy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Aug 2009 09:53:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.geeksaresexy.net/?p=2465#comment-181865</guid>
		<description>Wow what is America coming to? People are way to sue happy.  I hope this woman doesn&#039;t win money, especially her asking price for that is simply ridiculous.  If she gives 4.8 million to charity then fine I&#039;m ok with it. This is a joke, and well the RIAA needs to worry about bigger fish.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Wow what is America coming to? People are way to sue happy.  I hope this woman doesn&#8217;t win money, especially her asking price for that is simply ridiculous.  If she gives 4.8 million to charity then fine I&#8217;m ok with it. This is a joke, and well the RIAA needs to worry about bigger fish.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: That Guy</title>
		<link>http://www.geeksaresexy.net/2008/04/28/accused-music-pirate-turns-the-tables-on-the-riaa/#comment-140407</link>
		<dc:creator>That Guy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Mar 2009 09:54:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.geeksaresexy.net/?p=2465#comment-140407</guid>
		<description>You&#039;re all really missing the point.  People have no &quot;rights&quot; to &quot;intellectual property&quot; beyond what a simple piece of paper provides; which in itself, is nothing.  

The artists you claim to speak up for, or represent?  They&#039;ve become slaves to the labels, and the RIAA is just another parasite on their backs.  Artists have lost sight in the purpose behind their work, which is not to turn a profit or to fill their stomachs.  Many of the best artists lived in poverty, and made hardly a dime off of their pieces, because art is a hobby, a life-joy; being an artist IS NOT a job, it&#039;s a luxury.

Music, art, and literature are meant to be shared with everyone, to enhance culture and to diversify our people.  Forcibly charging people to view, listen, or observe these expressions should be the real crime.  Media piracy hurts no-one but the leaches on artist&#039;s backs (AKA the labels/RIAA).

You cannot liken music to something like an automobile or a TV, such things are material objects.  You pay to have them constructed, and to use them for specific tasks.  Music, literature, and art are more often than not immaterial, and are merely perceived.  They serve as a passive muse to people, and to charge for these things is akin to unjust taxation.  Do you pay for every song you hear on a radio?  Do you fork over a fee to view any billboard, or ambient, scenic artwork you happen to stumble upon?    

The &quot;moral high ground&quot; claimed to exist in this argument is only the byproduct of years of misdirection that&#039;s been bred into the world&#039;s culture by the greedy, pulling the wool over today&#039;s artist&#039;s eyes, and condemning their only REAL supporters with costly lawsuits, backed with TRULY illegal activities to back these falsified accusations.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You&#8217;re all really missing the point.  People have no &#8220;rights&#8221; to &#8220;intellectual property&#8221; beyond what a simple piece of paper provides; which in itself, is nothing.  </p>
<p>The artists you claim to speak up for, or represent?  They&#8217;ve become slaves to the labels, and the RIAA is just another parasite on their backs.  Artists have lost sight in the purpose behind their work, which is not to turn a profit or to fill their stomachs.  Many of the best artists lived in poverty, and made hardly a dime off of their pieces, because art is a hobby, a life-joy; being an artist IS NOT a job, it&#8217;s a luxury.</p>
<p>Music, art, and literature are meant to be shared with everyone, to enhance culture and to diversify our people.  Forcibly charging people to view, listen, or observe these expressions should be the real crime.  Media piracy hurts no-one but the leaches on artist&#8217;s backs (AKA the labels/RIAA).</p>
<p>You cannot liken music to something like an automobile or a TV, such things are material objects.  You pay to have them constructed, and to use them for specific tasks.  Music, literature, and art are more often than not immaterial, and are merely perceived.  They serve as a passive muse to people, and to charge for these things is akin to unjust taxation.  Do you pay for every song you hear on a radio?  Do you fork over a fee to view any billboard, or ambient, scenic artwork you happen to stumble upon?    </p>
<p>The &#8220;moral high ground&#8221; claimed to exist in this argument is only the byproduct of years of misdirection that&#8217;s been bred into the world&#8217;s culture by the greedy, pulling the wool over today&#8217;s artist&#8217;s eyes, and condemning their only REAL supporters with costly lawsuits, backed with TRULY illegal activities to back these falsified accusations.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: GAS&#8217;s Most Popular Stories of 2008</title>
		<link>http://www.geeksaresexy.net/2008/04/28/accused-music-pirate-turns-the-tables-on-the-riaa/#comment-127631</link>
		<dc:creator>GAS&#8217;s Most Popular Stories of 2008</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Jan 2009 05:05:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.geeksaresexy.net/?p=2465#comment-127631</guid>
		<description>[...] Accused Music Pirate Turns the Tables on the RIAA - 109622 [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Accused Music Pirate Turns the Tables on the RIAA &#8211; 109622 [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dizzy&#8217;s Ten Post Round-Up : Hypocrisy and More</title>
		<link>http://www.geeksaresexy.net/2008/04/28/accused-music-pirate-turns-the-tables-on-the-riaa/#comment-121215</link>
		<dc:creator>Dizzy&#8217;s Ten Post Round-Up : Hypocrisy and More</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Dec 2008 22:24:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.geeksaresexy.net/?p=2465#comment-121215</guid>
		<description>[...] Single mom flips the script and sues RIAA&#8230; Accused music pirate turns the tables on the RIAA&#8211;Geeks Are [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Single mom flips the script and sues RIAA&#8230; Accused music pirate turns the tables on the RIAA&#8211;Geeks Are [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mackenzie</title>
		<link>http://www.geeksaresexy.net/2008/04/28/accused-music-pirate-turns-the-tables-on-the-riaa/#comment-120412</link>
		<dc:creator>Mackenzie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 30 Nov 2008 00:00:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.geeksaresexy.net/?p=2465#comment-120412</guid>
		<description>Let&#039;s boycott DVDs while we&#039;re at it.  Those things are covered in DRM.  Ew!  Now, I&#039;m not saying don&#039;t go to the theatre, but don&#039;t buy DVDs.  VHS is fine.  Theatres are fine*, but DVDs are just bad.  Hey, if I saw a foreign film at the theatre and decided to buy the DVD, it wouldn&#039;t play on my US DVD player anyway.  How messed up is that?

* though I usually use theatres to see movies that aren&#039;t under the MPAA&#039;s control because they&#039;re foreign films</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Let&#8217;s boycott DVDs while we&#8217;re at it.  Those things are covered in DRM.  Ew!  Now, I&#8217;m not saying don&#8217;t go to the theatre, but don&#8217;t buy DVDs.  VHS is fine.  Theatres are fine*, but DVDs are just bad.  Hey, if I saw a foreign film at the theatre and decided to buy the DVD, it wouldn&#8217;t play on my US DVD player anyway.  How messed up is that?</p>
<p>* though I usually use theatres to see movies that aren&#8217;t under the MPAA&#8217;s control because they&#8217;re foreign films</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark O'Neill</title>
		<link>http://www.geeksaresexy.net/2008/04/28/accused-music-pirate-turns-the-tables-on-the-riaa/#comment-120366</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark O'Neill</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 29 Nov 2008 19:20:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.geeksaresexy.net/?p=2465#comment-120366</guid>
		<description>Tanya Andersen DID win. She got $108,000, although a federal judge had to put the screws on the RIAA to hand over the money. I don&#039;t know what&#039;s happening now, whether the RIAA is appealing or if it&#039;s all over.  I haven&#039;t been keeping up with the case.  If you put her name into Google News, I&#039;m sure you&#039;ll find recent stories on her.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Tanya Andersen DID win. She got $108,000, although a federal judge had to put the screws on the RIAA to hand over the money. I don&#8217;t know what&#8217;s happening now, whether the RIAA is appealing or if it&#8217;s all over.  I haven&#8217;t been keeping up with the case.  If you put her name into Google News, I&#8217;m sure you&#8217;ll find recent stories on her.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Travis</title>
		<link>http://www.geeksaresexy.net/2008/04/28/accused-music-pirate-turns-the-tables-on-the-riaa/#comment-120363</link>
		<dc:creator>Travis</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 29 Nov 2008 19:06:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.geeksaresexy.net/?p=2465#comment-120363</guid>
		<description>Remag...the problem with your logic here is that FOOD and MUSIC are completely different things.  Food is a consumable...we have to keep buying it in order to survive. We can share our food all we want...but we still have to buy more.  With music, someone just has to buy it once. If they were allowed to share it all they want, then no one would ever profit from it...not the artists, the musicians, producers and even the evil record labels everyone speaks of.

The simple fact of the matter is that pirating music is illegal.  I hate it when people get all defensive about this issue...&quot;oh, the artist doesn&#039;t get any of the money that I would pay for a CD or on iTunes...blah blah blah.&quot;  Okay...so stealing the songs somehow give the artists more money? Right.
Further, the artists are the ones who signed the contracts with the labels.  It&#039;s not my problem that they do or do not get paid what they should...they agreed to it in the fist place.
Someone earlier said that the prices on iTunes were extortionate...I have to disagree.  You can buy a full album at Best Buy for $15.  You can buy the same album on iTunes for $9.99.  Extortion? Hardly.

As to the original news story...I hope this lady wins here case too.  The RIAA has a legal right to protects it&#039;s intellectual property, but I don&#039;t entirely agree with their methodology in doing so.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Remag&#8230;the problem with your logic here is that FOOD and MUSIC are completely different things.  Food is a consumable&#8230;we have to keep buying it in order to survive. We can share our food all we want&#8230;but we still have to buy more.  With music, someone just has to buy it once. If they were allowed to share it all they want, then no one would ever profit from it&#8230;not the artists, the musicians, producers and even the evil record labels everyone speaks of.</p>
<p>The simple fact of the matter is that pirating music is illegal.  I hate it when people get all defensive about this issue&#8230;&#8221;oh, the artist doesn&#8217;t get any of the money that I would pay for a CD or on iTunes&#8230;blah blah blah.&#8221;  Okay&#8230;so stealing the songs somehow give the artists more money? Right.<br />
Further, the artists are the ones who signed the contracts with the labels.  It&#8217;s not my problem that they do or do not get paid what they should&#8230;they agreed to it in the fist place.<br />
Someone earlier said that the prices on iTunes were extortionate&#8230;I have to disagree.  You can buy a full album at Best Buy for $15.  You can buy the same album on iTunes for $9.99.  Extortion? Hardly.</p>
<p>As to the original news story&#8230;I hope this lady wins here case too.  The RIAA has a legal right to protects it&#8217;s intellectual property, but I don&#8217;t entirely agree with their methodology in doing so.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Remag</title>
		<link>http://www.geeksaresexy.net/2008/04/28/accused-music-pirate-turns-the-tables-on-the-riaa/#comment-115640</link>
		<dc:creator>Remag</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Nov 2008 21:25:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.geeksaresexy.net/?p=2465#comment-115640</guid>
		<description>I could perhaps understand if people where selling the music for a profit or if the music was stolen and then shared, but I don&#039;t agree that sharing, even on the international level, is stealing. By that logic, a meal should be paid for twice even if it isn&#039;t finished by one person and then eaten by another. If someone buys a CD, and said CD allows for that person to take the music off and save it to their computer and they share it with other people and don&#039;t make a profit of the CD and if the network doesn&#039;t make a profit of of the CD then I don&#039;t consider it stealing or think the companies have the right to sue other people. If they don&#039;t want their music &quot;stolen&quot; then they should make the music unable to be removed from the CD. But sadly, their are very little people who share the view that once paid for a CD should be able to be enjoyed by as many people as possible.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I could perhaps understand if people where selling the music for a profit or if the music was stolen and then shared, but I don&#8217;t agree that sharing, even on the international level, is stealing. By that logic, a meal should be paid for twice even if it isn&#8217;t finished by one person and then eaten by another. If someone buys a CD, and said CD allows for that person to take the music off and save it to their computer and they share it with other people and don&#8217;t make a profit of the CD and if the network doesn&#8217;t make a profit of of the CD then I don&#8217;t consider it stealing or think the companies have the right to sue other people. If they don&#8217;t want their music &#8220;stolen&#8221; then they should make the music unable to be removed from the CD. But sadly, their are very little people who share the view that once paid for a CD should be able to be enjoyed by as many people as possible.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: TONY</title>
		<link>http://www.geeksaresexy.net/2008/04/28/accused-music-pirate-turns-the-tables-on-the-riaa/#comment-114971</link>
		<dc:creator>TONY</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 08 Nov 2008 06:39:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.geeksaresexy.net/?p=2465#comment-114971</guid>
		<description>What needs to happen is that artists should sell their work directly to the public until they can afford to pay for cd production and bypass the greedy record companies. Don&#039;t sign with them and they can&#039;t control you. If I knew that the money I spent on a song went directly to the artist I would gladly fork over .99 or even $1.50 per song. There are internet music sites out there that do just that. Just like book authors can self-publish. I know it&#039;s too late for most of the music already out there but this could start a trend and starve those greedy record execs. eventually. That&#039;s just my thoughts on the subject.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What needs to happen is that artists should sell their work directly to the public until they can afford to pay for cd production and bypass the greedy record companies. Don&#8217;t sign with them and they can&#8217;t control you. If I knew that the money I spent on a song went directly to the artist I would gladly fork over .99 or even $1.50 per song. There are internet music sites out there that do just that. Just like book authors can self-publish. I know it&#8217;s too late for most of the music already out there but this could start a trend and starve those greedy record execs. eventually. That&#8217;s just my thoughts on the subject.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ross</title>
		<link>http://www.geeksaresexy.net/2008/04/28/accused-music-pirate-turns-the-tables-on-the-riaa/#comment-114782</link>
		<dc:creator>Ross</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 07 Nov 2008 00:51:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.geeksaresexy.net/?p=2465#comment-114782</guid>
		<description>First of all, most of the albums on my hard-drive are albums which are damned near impossible to find in stores (Example: Circle takes the Square&#039;s &quot;As the Roots Undo&quot;. try finding that in a UK music store), Artists and bands who aren&#039;t going to be affected by my download, as I&#039;ll have a lot more people offsetting it (Example: Metallica&#039;s Master of Puppets), or bands who approve of the downloading process (Examples: Thursday, The Dresden Dolls, Nine Inch Nails, Radiohead; I could go on). 

If the band doesn&#039;t have a large following, I&#039;ll generally wait until I can afford to order it online (case in point. I&#039;m ordering Pretty Balanced&#039;s &quot;Icicle Bicycle&quot; soon.) I&#039;ve only let that one thing slide once for Nevea Tears&#039; &quot;Run with the hunted&quot;, and that&#039;s the only album I can honestly say that I&#039;ve ever felt guilty about downloading, not because it&#039;s incredible - which it isn&#039;t - but because they&#039;re a tiny little Californian band.

I don&#039;t have a problem with people telling me that downloading isn&#039;t right and so on, and when it&#039;s outside of those 3 criterion I mentioned above, I usually won&#039;t (exception to the rule being that damned Nevea Tears album), Nor do I have a problem with artists speaking out against downloading (say, again, Metallica, or Tool.) But when the structure of the music industry is so biased AGAINST those who are the lifeblood of it - that being the artists - that ARTISTS are speaking out, directly (in the case of Courtney Love and Thursday, both fairly well selling artists) or somewhat more implicitly (Radiohead and NIN moving to independent distribution etc. is a pretty damning take on labels in my view.)  I can&#039;t honestly put my hand in my pocket with a clean conscience knowing that the artists will get next to nothing from the albums being sold

I try and offset any &quot;loss&quot; that I make the artists make by going to as many shows as I can possibly afford, and when possible, buying Merch or CDs if they&#039;re selling them at the merch stall (Example: Reel Big Fish tee and Streetlight Manifesto&#039;s 3rd album when I went to see them both in February*). 

I stick to this so much that it&#039;s nearly got me in trouble at a couple of the shows (Fightstar in June, Argument with bouncer because I&#039;d waited in a huge queue for the merch stall to be told that &quot;the merch stall was closed&quot; despite the fact there were still a ton of people queuing. not even the guys on the stall could believe it) but nonetheless I stick to it. My personal take on the matter is that if you download, at least go to shows and buy merch to put the money where it should really go.

Secondly. and this is the thing that really gets me, and I alluded to it in the first point. If it&#039;s hurting the artists in the pocket, why isn&#039;t it the ARTISTS who are stepping up to the plate with the legal battles etc. Answer? because it isn&#039;t. People who download are only really hittting the record companies in the pocket, who have been screwing the artists - who, without which remember, they wouldn&#039;t exist - out of money for YEARS. The RIAA make money out of these settlements under the pretense of the Artists&#039; intellectual rights being infringed, but pass on this money to the companies, not the artists. The whole Music industry is rotten to its core.

So, in short. If you download, don&#039;t make excuses for it, you do it - simple as. But don&#039;t call yourself a fan unless your at their show, queuing up for that merch stand, willing to put the money into the pockets of those who deserve it.

* N.B. Interestingly enough, in February, I got talking to Aaron Barrett about this after the show, and he said that under their old contract, they made more from touring and merch than they would have done even if they&#039;d sold 2 times as many albums, such were the terms of it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>First of all, most of the albums on my hard-drive are albums which are damned near impossible to find in stores (Example: Circle takes the Square&#8217;s &#8220;As the Roots Undo&#8221;. try finding that in a UK music store), Artists and bands who aren&#8217;t going to be affected by my download, as I&#8217;ll have a lot more people offsetting it (Example: Metallica&#8217;s Master of Puppets), or bands who approve of the downloading process (Examples: Thursday, The Dresden Dolls, Nine Inch Nails, Radiohead; I could go on). </p>
<p>If the band doesn&#8217;t have a large following, I&#8217;ll generally wait until I can afford to order it online (case in point. I&#8217;m ordering Pretty Balanced&#8217;s &#8220;Icicle Bicycle&#8221; soon.) I&#8217;ve only let that one thing slide once for Nevea Tears&#8217; &#8220;Run with the hunted&#8221;, and that&#8217;s the only album I can honestly say that I&#8217;ve ever felt guilty about downloading, not because it&#8217;s incredible &#8211; which it isn&#8217;t &#8211; but because they&#8217;re a tiny little Californian band.</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t have a problem with people telling me that downloading isn&#8217;t right and so on, and when it&#8217;s outside of those 3 criterion I mentioned above, I usually won&#8217;t (exception to the rule being that damned Nevea Tears album), Nor do I have a problem with artists speaking out against downloading (say, again, Metallica, or Tool.) But when the structure of the music industry is so biased AGAINST those who are the lifeblood of it &#8211; that being the artists &#8211; that ARTISTS are speaking out, directly (in the case of Courtney Love and Thursday, both fairly well selling artists) or somewhat more implicitly (Radiohead and NIN moving to independent distribution etc. is a pretty damning take on labels in my view.)  I can&#8217;t honestly put my hand in my pocket with a clean conscience knowing that the artists will get next to nothing from the albums being sold</p>
<p>I try and offset any &#8220;loss&#8221; that I make the artists make by going to as many shows as I can possibly afford, and when possible, buying Merch or CDs if they&#8217;re selling them at the merch stall (Example: Reel Big Fish tee and Streetlight Manifesto&#8217;s 3rd album when I went to see them both in February*). </p>
<p>I stick to this so much that it&#8217;s nearly got me in trouble at a couple of the shows (Fightstar in June, Argument with bouncer because I&#8217;d waited in a huge queue for the merch stall to be told that &#8220;the merch stall was closed&#8221; despite the fact there were still a ton of people queuing. not even the guys on the stall could believe it) but nonetheless I stick to it. My personal take on the matter is that if you download, at least go to shows and buy merch to put the money where it should really go.</p>
<p>Secondly. and this is the thing that really gets me, and I alluded to it in the first point. If it&#8217;s hurting the artists in the pocket, why isn&#8217;t it the ARTISTS who are stepping up to the plate with the legal battles etc. Answer? because it isn&#8217;t. People who download are only really hittting the record companies in the pocket, who have been screwing the artists &#8211; who, without which remember, they wouldn&#8217;t exist &#8211; out of money for YEARS. The RIAA make money out of these settlements under the pretense of the Artists&#8217; intellectual rights being infringed, but pass on this money to the companies, not the artists. The whole Music industry is rotten to its core.</p>
<p>So, in short. If you download, don&#8217;t make excuses for it, you do it &#8211; simple as. But don&#8217;t call yourself a fan unless your at their show, queuing up for that merch stand, willing to put the money into the pockets of those who deserve it.</p>
<p>* N.B. Interestingly enough, in February, I got talking to Aaron Barrett about this after the show, and he said that under their old contract, they made more from touring and merch than they would have done even if they&#8217;d sold 2 times as many albums, such were the terms of it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
