Quote:
Originally posted by ubertuber
Maybe so, but file-SHARING isn't a business model - no money changes hands. Maybe you personally aren't claiming this, but I am tired of people saying stuff like this implying that Kazaa and Napster arose naturally to occupy the place of a digital distribution system and are therefore justified. They're not.
|
I see no reason to justify the existence of Napster and KaZaA. Not all material shared over these networks is illegal. The technology and services weren't created specifically for sharing illegal material. Almost any technology or tool can be used to commit a crime. That does not mean it does not have other legit uses and purposes.
Quote:
|
Also, Prince, no offense, but I am sure that the recording studio that U2 uses to record an album is more expensive than a home user setup. And although digital recording has simplified (and in some cases cheapened) the recording process, buying all new equipment every 4 or 5 years as technology changes isn't easy on smaller studios...
|
I don't know where you came up with U2, I never mentioned them...but really, they can record anywhere they please. That is beside the point. I mentioned the studios as part of my example of how recording new music has become less expensive, and more people are able to bypass ridiculously high recording expenses. The same goes for distribution...but the RIAA is battling against the very technology that provides these inexpensive yet effective distribution channels.
I do understand why the RIAA is attacking individuals that they have caught sharing illegal material. However I do not agree with the way they are doing it. They are able to force Internet Service Providers to fork over personal information before they even have to prove their case in a court of law. In doing so, they get the equivalent of a search warrant and search & seizure without any kind of due process.