A turning point for online piracy?

I think this should be embraced by the software and music industries, not shunned. Musicians could get away from terrible contracts where they earn next to nothing, and instead label themselves (such as Radiohead did, asking people to offer what their CD was WORTH, and in turn making much more).

Treat your customers like criminals, and you only create more criminals. This is the main reason that pirates will PURCHASE games from Stardock, because they do not treat their customers like trash, they do not force you install damaging DRMs, and instead create a product worth paying for.

Sadly, this article persists in using the false term "file sharing" to describe this phenomenon. It isn't "sharing". It's "stealing" and nothing else but. If you have a copy of something without permission from the copyright holders (ie, most of the time, you paying for it), that's theft. I find it confusing that some people have a hard time grasping this concept. We all learned this in kindergarten: don't steal from others.

If artists and production companies don't get paid for their art, what incentive do they have to continue? In the case of the XMen movies, those are serious outlays of money to give us quality product, and they deserve to get return on their risk. It's tough to police this situation, but piracy ultimately hurts everyone.

And the argument that artists do it for the art itself, is fine, but they also deserve to make a living from what they produce, and a good living if they produce good stuff. It is robbery to pirate material.

As an entrepreneur with a small production company, I am amazed at the number of otherwise decent and honest people who suddenly feel that theft is okay as long as they can steal over the internet.

The assumption that big "Fat Cat" superstars and large corporations are the only ones who get hurt is a fallacy. Having produced a training product for handling large scale emergencies a couple of years ago at great personal expense, I am now faced with anonymous distribution globally.

We are still upside down on this project and now our hopes of even recouping our initial investment are being destroyed by thieves. Wondering if you are a thief? Simply ask yourself these two questions. 1. Am I downloading something free of charge that I did nothing to earn? 2. Do I need to protect my identity by using special software or other means to prevent my prosecution.

Digital data has an incremental cost-of-production of $0. True, there is a non-zero R&D cost, but whether 1 copy is made, or 1 trillion copies are made, total production costs are basically static. This economic reality is not a secret, but producers have not responded with adjustments to merchandising, they treat digital products as-if they had the same production costs that physical products have. Consumers aren't stupid, they feel that producers are abusing them, so they respond by engaging in unauthorized production. The producers can end this pain any time they want by using merchandising models that reflect the reality of digital product economics. As long as they antagonize consumers with fundamentally abusive merchandising models, consumers will rebel.

If I want to see a movie, I will go to the theater and watch it. I will watch it again online and I will most likely buy the dvd when it comes out. digital piracy isn't all that bad

Yes, I download pirated media, the real question is WHO DOESN'T! The government should not be stepping in to stop it because frankly, it cannot be stopped, EVER, and they shouldn't waste their money and time trying. If these companies had any brains about them, they would embrace this technology and change the way they distribute their product. Sell your movies as digital files, and let the the person do what they will with it. Whether that is to watch in on their computer, burn it to a disc, or transfer the file to a PS3 or other media device to watch on their t.v.. People wan't options and freedom with media they purchase, and this form of distribution grants it to them. The old way of packaging movies and selling physical copies has long since been at an end. As the younger generation, who is fluent with said pirating ages, the demand for physical copies will be less and less. Anyone ever think as to why blu-ray is off to a rocky start? IT'S BECAUSE THE MOVIES ARE OVERPRICED AND YOU CAN FIND A PIRATED HD VERSION BY SEARCHING FOR IT IN GOOGLE!!! I find it hard to understand why these companies are not willing to embrace this technology. By selling digital copies instead of physical, they would save money on discs, packaging, printing, shipping, and who knows what else. And you know what, people might actually be willing to pay again! They wont feel like their being ripped off, and they will be buying from a company who actually gives it's customers what they want, FREEDOM!

I do what I want, cause a Pirate is free. I am a Pirate.

great story cnn, i had no idea that xmen was avaible to download till i read this story.. i occasionally download stuff first legally but if i can not find it i have been known to go to the pirate site i have started to download xmen and have watched the first 5 mins of it.. it definatly made me want to see it in theaters even more!

Pirating is bad, artists and companies should get paid for their work.

I do download music illegally. This article is a very good representation of my feelings towards the music industry and its values.
http://www.demonbaby.com/blog/2007/10/when-pigs-fly-death-of-oink-birth-of.html

I think McCartney has gotten enough of a reward. Long live the pirates!

Every time a government lays down the hammer on one of these sites, five better ones pop up in their place and make it even easier to pirate media.

Most people will remember Napster. Napster was a complete pain to use, and extraordinarily slow compared to the filesharing options available today.

This will never end in the forseeable f uture, and labels / governments do themselves no good by continuing this path.

LMAO!!!!

yea...piracy is near it's end.....LOL!

get REAL....

have you EVER gotten rid of piracy? oh...NO!!

then why do you think it will just go away now?!?!?

you typical lemming....you just keep following the person in front of you....don't worry about the lack of vision you'll have...just keep following....

i challenge ANY of you iTarded media execs to bannish piracy altogether....oooops...i just remembered, that won't happen....YOU'RE NOT SMART ENOUGH!

a couple of kids that only use 1/100th of their brains are out-smarting you lemming idiots.....it can't stop...but i'm sure you'll continue whining.

you are PATHETIC!

I know let's sue IBM or Apple for making it easier to steal intellectual property by making home computing affordable. It seems to me that if people didn’t have computers they wouldn’t be able to share files with each other. Wouldn’t it be a better world without computers? Wait I’m old enough to remember when people didn’t have them…it wasn’t better at all. In fact, it was terrible. You had to pay up to $20 for a CD or cassette, about the same for a VHS of a movie. You actually had to buy game consoles instead of using emulators. You had to wait for movies to come out in theaters to watch them. You had to buy porn in stores or by mail order. You had to see doctors to get prescription drugs. You had to leave the house to meet new people. I could go on and on, but I won’t. The fact of the matter is, the internet isn’t going anywhere. You can plug a hole in the dam but it will just spring another leak. It would be cheaper for everyone if they just let the dam break. The movie companies need to just focus more on product placement in the movies. Then they can stop complaining about people who don’t feel like spending $20 to watch them because it will be paid for by advertising revenue. Hell they can start putting ads between songs on CDs that’s make them some green. How do they think the internet works? Most internet sites are kept afloat by advertising. Just because these companies are too stupid to figure out a better way to make money doesn’t mean innocent people need to suffer. By innocent people I mean people who wouldn’t buy the stuff that they are stealing anyway. And by stealing I mean making a copy of, which can hardly be considered stealing because if you didn’t take something away from the person who originally owned it, then how is that really stealing?

PS....

thanks for letting me know where to get the new XMEN movie...i can't wait to watch it tonight.

and since i never go to movies because of the exorbitant prices the studios rip you off for, this will be some nice icing on my cake!

i would have not even attempted to look for this online if you had not mentioned it.

good job keeping piracy going!!!

I think it's pretty terrible to try to place the burden of policing on ISP's. It drives me crazy that this issue makes it seem like this is all people are using their internet connections for. A fair few people (myself included) primarily use it for information purposes. The internet is a wonderful collaborative tool that brings the collected knowledge of humanity together. Yes, copyright holders deserve fair due for their work, but don't legislate it in such a way that you cripple the internet in the process. It's getting to a point where having internet access is going to be as crucial as having a telephone. I just don't want to see anything get in the way of that.

I think piracy is a two-fold thing that has both wonderful and awful implications. The first part, the wonderful part, sends a clear message to the companies that distribute media – we don't like your system. It's largely ineffective and overpriced. The second part, the awful part, is that creators and artists don't see as much return on their product (whether it means less payment or just less recognition). There have been great marketing solutions to piracy that I support – the iTunes model for downloading music (pay per song) and the redbox model of movie rental (dollar per day). But the mainstream media marketing system is still imbalanced and that's why piracy has been so popular, in my opinion.

IP Crime is a serious threat to the western system of innovation and business development that is responsible for creating the very systems that these punks use to misuse what does not belong to them. If someone were to steal their identity to defraud a credit card company and it ruined their lives, you can bet they would be crying to government for protection.

It is time for these people to grow up and join the human race as productive citizens carrying their own weight, instead of leaching off of the hard work of others.

Also, the duplication costs of digital media are a fraction of the overhead associated with creating games, software, movies and music. If the had any connection with the world outside of their mothers basement, these leaches would know that.

Grow up boys, pay for what you take. Be men.

I have no problem, no problem *whatsoever* making micropayments towards music, television and film producers so that talent goes rewarded–but I promise you, the system is broken.

I refuse to pay $10 for a CD worth of music online. I refuse to pay $2 to 'rent' a movie online. This pricing scheme reflects an old, outdated, progressively more anachronistic business model. I pay for internet bandwidth. I pay taxes. I'm happy to do these things too. But since downloaded music has become available, I have refused to pay for a packaged CD at the same time as I refuse to download–legally or otherwise! Until the music/film/TV-production complex completely revises their business plan, they will continue to get zero from me.

Sadly, were CDs or movies available (to keep!) online for a dollar or less, or songs available for a dime, the industry would make so much from me in bulk per month, I would make up for a decade of non-engagement with the industry within half a year.

Wake up and smell the flowers. It's the 21st century.

I definitely can see both sides of the issue. I do believe that artists who work hard should be rewarded. But I don't want to support artist who puts out one good song while the rest of the album is crap. I don't even want to support them by buying the one song. I can record a movie that is on tv, and that is not piracy. If I lend it to my friend, is that illegal? If I buy music, movies, or books from a used store, the artist is not getting any profit. Should we make that illegal?

Had anyone making money from movies, music, or software thought that piracy would impact the bottom line in any meaningful way, they wouldn't make the product. They have, and are rich for it.

Paul McCartney can just go soak his head, he is filthy rich. He has made his "living" as so many want to trumpet out as an excuse to gouge consumers. Microsoft sitting on a cash pile of some odd 42 billion american dollars, bah, they have made their money and then some.

The little guy is not always hurt in these things, the little guy gives his stuff away hoping that someone will like it and pay for it. Paul or Microsoft, you going to ever do that?

To start, I don't pirate regularly, but I do support the fundamentals of the Kopimi movement underlying the Pirate Bay.

In the modern technological world intellectual property cannot be protected against unauthorized duplication without hugely damaging the system of rights the Western World has achieved. The market surrounding Intellectual Property is changing and the industries that seek to profit from and provide content need to adjust their business models accordingly.

The blow levelled against the Pirate Bay is not even going to put a small dent in global piracy because Napster changed the way people view content. Though I'm sure the content industry would love to rewind the clock, free online distribution is the future. Trying to restrict information is like plugging a crumbling dam with bits of chewing gum. Content providers and producers better get used to that fact and find a way to make a living under that model.

Lastly, paid or not, art will continue to be produced simply because art is an innate human pursuit. Much like athletes though, artists who succeed today are paid ungodly sums of money for what they do. I don't feel sorry for them.

Online piracy is a direct result of abuse on the part of manufacturers. I am tired of paying anywhere from $10 to $30 for a CD when I find most of the tracks on a CD to be undesirable.

And I agree with Anon: Digital distribution is virtually free. When manufacturers make the switch to digital distribution and let us buy songs by the track and not force us to package them in albums, I'll consider buying music. Give us the freedom and convenience of the Internet to enjoy our music.

And online piracy will never go away. It is too easy and too fashionable to go away. Those who cry foul because they are not profiting from P2P file transfers need to wake up and realize that there is a new way of doing business. There is PLENTY of room on the Internet for CREATIVE and innovative ways to make money, you simply have to be agile enough to adapt. Look at korean MMORPG's: People are spending anywhere from a few cents to a few dollars on "digital fashion" they can only wear and strut around in online. They are more than happy to PAY a small fee for something they can enjoy, why can't we pay a small fee for instant enjoyment of music online?

Music:
1) Artists make most of their money on tour, giving shows. Record labels make most of their money selling a medium of recording and recanting this music–CDs, pay-download MP3's, et cetera. Artists profit from this relationship due to the exposure the record label has to offer, and record labels profit by using the artistic work to get consumers to buy their plastic disks.

2) In the early days of CDs (before CD-burning and importing software was widely available), the record labels held the "means of production" of sorts. With the advent of internet sharing and other piracy technoloy, that ability got shifted out of the control of record labels, and into the control of the consumers.

3) There are two incentives for artists now. they can either:
--appreciate the dissolution of the middleman, and use the free exposure medium, or
--litigate and complain of 'intellectual theft'. Unfortunately, this is because its hard to become a millionaire artist without a completely centralized advertising avenue–record labels. When the public can just jump online and explore their tastes, its hard for advertisement to mean much–and even harder for ultra-profit pop projects to come into fruition.

So, I have one question: Why should the public have to purchase anything from the middleman? Artists do not have the innate right to become millionaires–they should get paid for their work performance like the rest of America, by going on tour. Record labels do not have the innate right to hold all power of exposure–they should find new ways of attracting customers beyond calling those who find other avenues of exploring music "criminals."

If all recorded music was free and available online, the popular music of our society would be as democratic as our governance. If we allow these suits at record labels to dominate what is available and what is not, then expect nothing but more of the same quasi-punk boy bands and young sluts with synthetic voices to fill the airwaves.

The greatest quote from an artist was from Kid Rock concerning this-

Why do I care if someone downloads my music. Im already a millionaire many times over.

I think this isn't people's fault. Technology is designed for sharing and not piracy protection. We need to either get effective engineering measures to stop piracy or law enforcement as if its murder. Both of which seem quite far, so stop complaining and do something to protect your content if you want to. Hey piracy actually makes you popular. It's like computer viruses and anti-virus companies.

Whenever I hear the RCIAA bemoan piracy I consider that a music CD movie soundtrack is usually MORE than the DVD movie itself... Yes artists deserve to make money... but how much is enough? Do they deserve to make the GDP of a small country? Why can't a CD be reasonably priced? They're pennies to make. Have I downloaded pirated movies? No, I'll wait until I can borrow it from the library. I'm a patient sort that won't let the industry hype me up. Have I gotten pirated music? Very little... frankly MP3's don't stand up to the original CD for audio quality (which already suffers shortcomings and I can get from the library). It's unfortunate a whole generation has no idea what hi-fi is all about – it don't come in a 12 to 1 compressed mp3 file. I go online to the library, request it, and they let me know it's in... wow maybe they'll go after the library now...

Artists are supposed to starver and suffer for their art.

Piracy is wrong, plain and simple, and justifying such actions only demonstrates a person's understanding that they are doing something wrong. Producers, actors and artists spend many hours and lots of money to provide the world entertainment. They deserve to be paid for their ability. Stealing from these people is wrong no matter which way you look at it and pirates have failed to maintain an acceptable level of morals and should be fined and jailed.

I see people commenting on this subject saying they like to be pirates or think piracy is just great. That type of attitude makes these people no better then the pirates off of Somalia. They do the same thing, taking things that are not theirs and hurting people that try to make a living.

While I believe that the artist and everyone involved deserve their "piece of the pie", I just can't seem to muster up any sympathy. They have spent years picking the pockets of the consumer and continue to do so. And now I'm supposed to feel bad that the tables have turned?

The music industry could have created a Napster like service at the very start of this fiasco but they didn't. Why? Because of pure greed. They would much rather have a customer spend $150 on 10 CDs for 10 good songs and 90 junk songs, rather than the customer spend only $10 for just the 10 songs they wanted. Customers got sick of being robbed and places like Napster were born. The Music industry only decided to try the a la carte method when they realized shutting down Napster merely caused a dozen more such services to pop up in its place. Oops.

But did being forced into a pay-per-song model finally give the consumers what they deserved? Nope. Greed strikes again. Every song was tagged with DRM. The customers could play the song only on "this" PC, or only with "this" device. Say what? I bought the song! I should be able to play it on ANY music playing device I own.

Even before the days of digital downloads, the music industry was ripping people off. Let's talk about what the customer is purchasing when they buy a CD. When I buy a music CD, I accept that a portion of the cost is for manufacturing, marketing, etc. The majority of the cost is to purchase the intellectual rights to play/listen to the song. Again, quite acceptable. So when my Cyndi Lauper True Colors CD gets scratched up and I need a new one, why is it that I have to pay full price? I already paid for the intellectual rights once, why am I paying for it again? I should only have to pay the manufacturing costs of the new cd plus a little extra something for the service provided. But does the music industry take the moral high road and have a program in place for customers to exchange their current CDs minus the price of the intellectual rights? Absolutely not. They couldn't pick the customers pocket that way now could they?

While this corporate greed had to be tolerated before the age of digital downloads, now customers have the choice of being robbed or to do the robbing. No shock they choose to do the robbing.

If the music industry wants this to stop, they need to offer downloadable songs with no DRM. At least, that's what they should have done, but I fear it may be too late for them now. I don't condone the down loading of pirated music, but you'll find no sympathy here. The music industry's own greed brought this about.

Anyone that thinks pirated stuff is being slowed down by actions against sites should visit http://thepiratebay.org/

It is still running. Still feeding hundreds of thousands of downloads a day...and is still just one site out of thousands that do exactly the same.

Any software protection is broken within 20 minutes of release. I do not care how new or how "complex" the software protected files are...they are broken for copying and distributed across the world the very same day that they are released. Crack down on France, Sweden, USA...but unless you can crack down on every single country in the world...you are fighting a losing battle. China for example has been selling bootleg software ON THE STREETS for 15 years. You think a kid in Hong Kong is going to be afraid of an order against pirate bay in France?

Figure out a new business model that realizes that piracy is unstoppable...or go the way of Tower Records. There is no middle ground. People will NEVER pay $20 for a cd again.

I think companies will be surprised that their revenues will not increase as much as they think they will, even in the extremely unlikely event that they succeed in totally shutting off ALL internet piracy. There are many reasons for this, but here are some of the bigger ones:

1) People just won't watch the movies or listen to the music. Ironically, this may actually hurt media producers even more: Many people download things to see if they like it, and if they do, they'll go and buy the item. I'm one of them.

2) People will simply copy things directly from friends that have already bought the item in question. The people who bought them would have bought them anyway, so there's no additional revenue there.

3) People will rent the things they want from, say Blockbuster or whatever, and copy it that way.

Part of the problem here is that the media producers (and I mean the companies that package and distribute content, not the original artists/moviemakers) are too greedy. CDs should not cost as much as a DVD, yet often they cost more. If a film like Spiderman 2 with a $200M budget, can sell for $15, then why does a CD that cost in the $45,000 range to produce (300 manhours * $150/hr average salary) and $3/ea tops for the CD itself and packaging, cost $16? You can bet your bottom dollar that the artists themselves see a FRACTION of that profit... maybe 5-10 cents per CD.

Then you have your $10 movie tickets... to see a movie that you don't know if you'll like or not.

Online downloads are the entertainment industry's version of a test drive of a car. Some people test drive for the fun of it, and have no intention of buying. Others will test drive, and if they like the car, they'll plop their money down. And yes, some people will buy a car without a test drive.

I, for one, don't think it'll ever go away, and I think it's time the industries involved change their business models to support it.

I agree with Anon. People can complain all they want about it, it is not going to stop there is to many people doing it and people will just find another way. These companies need to adapt with the times and catch they are doing business practices that worked 20 years ago but they don't anymore obviously. With tough economic times who wants to pay 20+ for a movie anymore its not worth it is a complete rip off to charge that much for a movie. What can they expect with these prices. Companies need to start looking into things like hulu or full episodes on youtube and start making money from add revenue and things like that. Catch up with the times.

**THEY ARE NOT ARTISTS***

Does it cost money to look at artwork in a museum? No. They are not artists.

Art is not something that is completed in order to make money, that is goods and services, if you demand money for your "art" then you are not an artist. You are a service provider.

The music industry provides a service of entertainment. If anything people are pirating from the entertainment industry, not art.

Real artists do not demand money for their work. (look at famous dead artists, unknown while they were alive, notorius while dead) They just want it to be seen/heard.

Do not misconstrue Artists from Entertainment Providers.

I download personal computer (PC) games on a regular basis. I do so not because I feel like stealing from a software company; I do so because consumers like myself NEED to be able to "test-drive" this sort of media prior to purchase. Especially as PC game complexity and system resource demand increase, it has become more and more common that a given PC game will simply not run (or will run exceedingly poorly) on a given consumer's computer. The lack of full demos for the vast, vast majority of PC games only serves to exacerbate this problem; never mind that game demos generally do not provide the consumer with a true idea of how the full, retail version of the game will perform on their home system.

Speaking for myself again, there have been many occasions where I have purchased a PC game at a retail outlet (for $50-60 for most new games) and taken it home only to discover that the game cannot be used in a playable manner on my system. Upon attempting to return the game, I am inevitably informed that I cannot receive a refund for the game because it has been opened (and is now considered "used", just as in the auto industry)... but they ARE nice enough to give me the option to "trade-in" this brand new game for $10-15 (which they can then re-shrink wrap and sell as new, to quote the practice of one game retailer) and this $35-minimum loss over the course of an afternoon is just not a good return on my investment.

Therefore, it has become my general practice to download ANY game I am considering buying before I even consider a purchase. In this way – by testing the full, retail version of the game prior to purchase – I can ensure my money is being invested wisely. I will gladly attest to the success of this method; in approximation, I end up purchasing one out of every ten games I download and the remainder of nine is deleted from my system within days (usually hours) of initial download. While I understand that many, many, MANY people are NOT this honest (I have met quite a few myself) I would still endorse this kind of "pirate" activity as a means of responsible product evaluation.

Actually ENFORCING honest behavior of this sort would be much more difficult; the release of full demos via the company's website could help, but ultimately the best solution to ensuring that the final purchase is made could be to distribute additional content only to consumers with some means of proof of purchase. Internet-based digital distribution (which would require creating a user account to purchase games directly from the company) would be the easiest means of checking this variable. In fact, the solution to the pirate problem (for any media) could very well be the following: switch over EXCLUSIVELY to digital distribution as the primary means of media income, particularly for the film and music industries.

Our Internet infrastructure is developing to the point that providing your media FREE of charge in conjunction with brief advertisements (at the beginning of the film for feature films or interlaced at normal "commercial break" areas for television content). This ensures a CONTINUING source of income as online advertisement can be tailored to particular types of content in addition to being present on the site itself. I refer you to thedailyshow.com, southparkstudios.com, or hulu.com for examples of this kind of thing that I use myself. Since television will likely be supplanted to a huge degree by Internet content sources in the near future, this would be a good bandwagon for companies to jump on very, very soon.

By relying entirely upon FREE distribution for post-theater (etc.) release of media, the producing companies can cut pirates' legs out from under them by denying them access to reproducible forms of their product. By providing access to their material that is free to the end-user (or new game content that is free to the legitimate purchaser) companies can continue to enjoy advertising revenues through greatly increased usage rates for their site. This seems like a practical and reasonable next step to take in the face of a society that is – let's face it – moving towards more sophisticated technologies at an accelerating rate.

Darian Sentient
wasabisoft.net

I do not have a problem with copyright owners filing suits against pirates of copyrighted material like movies and music etc. What I have a problem with is the tactics used by the copyright owners. Hammering on ISPs to monitor or control what is going on at each subscribers Internet connection is expensive and will ultimately cause all subscribers rates to go up. The reason is that ALL Internet traffic going through an ISP service portal has to be monitored to make it happen for the copyright owners. That requires equipment and software, and hopefully ethical management by ISP personnel. Do you want somebody reading your email? This is what will start it.

Now onto the issue of privacy. The RIAA and the movie industry will trample the privacy rights and in effect "wiretap" ALL network users to find the minority of media thieves that are out there. Without the illegal collusion of the ISPs or a proper legal warrant, the RIAA and the movie industry cannot target a specific IP address in any ISP network service area. Big Brother isn't the government in this case, its the recording and movie industries. If they succeed, 1984 just got delayed a few decades.

I believe an artist should be amply compensated for his/her work. In the case of Sir Paul though, I have purchased some of his work on 45 RPM, LP, 8 Track, Cassette, CD as well as ITunes now.. I say is it fair to the consumer to be charged again and again for the same product. Th eother thing I see is people buying CD collections on sites like Ebay, ripping them to their computers and then turning around and reselling the same collection again on Ebay. Technically they are the owner of the cd when they rip it to MP3 so they are not pirating at all. The music/entertainment industry really needs to come up with new distribution systems that make purchasing products reflect their actual distribution costs which is zero.

The turning point isn't going to be for online piracy – the turning point is going to be for corporations who think they can sell you something without really selling it to you. If they had their way, movies and music would be printed on discs that slowly break down over a few months, forcing you to buy another disc to watch what you've already paid for.

In this age of ever-expanding options and choices, the RIAA and MPAA run counter to the stream. They try at every opportunity to limit their consumer's options and make them pay more and more for less and less. They think by locking down their content properly that they will stop the pirates. There have been times where I have had to turn around and pirate content I have already paid just so I could use it on my computer. The corporations treat me, the paying customer, like a criminal. At that point, I have to wonder, why pay for it at all?

People don't like wasting money on crap movies or music. People will usually buy something they know they enjoy. That is the purpose of dvd sales yes? -Selling something the people have already seen but enjoy.

If people weren't downloading it, they would just be borrowing, it or watching it at a friends house, or trading Tivo discs, or exchanging files via hard drive transfer in order to not pay for it. The fact that they didn't see it in a movie theater means it wasn't worth 15 bucks to them. Some people can wait for tv and on demand airings, and others just dont care.

I don't want the little mermaid dvd menu features, and i already paid for the little mermaid on VHS. I would not care if i downloaded that file- but i didnt, because: I don't care enough to bother. Personally i like the vhs ability to skip the previews better than most Disney dvds. I dont care about the file size (750 mb is fine by me) or feel the need for DVD quality files. I certainly don't want to support any abusive and frivolous formatting changes. I Just require an avi that i can watch and then delete.

The downloaded media has no value to someone who refuses to pay for it. Its not going to stop, its just going to change. People don't want to pay money and then be disappointed.

I think the most realistic download for me is catching up on entire seasons of shows all at once- without the commercials. (the lack of commercials makes downloading more desirable than real TV) **THIS FAVORS LESSER KNOWN ARTISTS AS THEIR WORK IS SEEN MORE** If you're an artist that is... (DOWNLOAD=PRO ARTIST)

You want to cut back on piracy? Try offering a refund at the end of a film or concert to the people who feel they have been cheated out of their money. They didn't come for a live exhibition to experience with their fellow contemporaries, they came for entertainment. Or they stayed at home for it.

How about music labels or movie/tv studios find ways to distribute content online legally? It wouldn't stop leaks like the Wolverine one, but I'd be very happy to pay a fee to access lots of types of content. I'm also more likely to buy something if I've seen it, or pieces of it, on the web. A preview helps to overcome the "what if I don't like it" fears.

I'm sorry. What's the difference between Google and The Pirate Bay?

Movies, CD's, iTunes files – they are all overpriced. The media companies want to rip you off so that they can continue to pay the ridiculous royalties and salaries to these "artists". They do not reflect reality and as one poster already stated – consumers are not stupid. Why should I pay $12 to go to a movie – so that these actors can be worth $100 million dollars or more and live in another world that the rest of us will never experience? Should you pay $1 per song so that some loser who dropped out of high school and talks about bitches and ho's can make ten times more money than a doctor who spent 11 years in training and saves lives? And don't ever believe artists won't work for less – would they rather make $1 million per movie (as opposed to $30 million) or would they rather work at McDonald's?

We keep getting told that piracy is stealing and we are to feel guilty for a single downloaded song. Fact is, we as 'consumers' are being manipulated and stolen from ourselves – the costs we're being charged are absolutely unreasonable as is the profit percentage that is NOT going to the artists. The laws are made by their lobbyists and their encryption and zoning helps them corner the market and fix prices. Pirates aren't the thieves; it takes a certain morality to stand up and say 'You're not going to pick my pocket anymore!"

Perhaps when the industry stops flaunting and glorifying the riches, then people will buy the fact that they are actually hurting. I'm really tired of seeing/hearing gangster rappers sing about their millions and also the stars wearing designer clothing and jewelery. Why? Because they can wiggle their butt and/or happen to have the right face? Sorry I have no sympathy. Anyway, isn't this the principle of the capitalist system? The weaker die out. I don't think any of this is fair but it's the world we live in; I think the public now has the means to take back some of the unfairness for themselves.

Viva la Pirate Bay!

How do you heasr a CD before you buy it. Radio?? Not any more. THe record companies have taken control of radio and will only allow the stations to play cetain tracks.
Piracy is a response to this contyroll of what the consumer can know about the product be we buy.
There is a cliche that says "Let the buyer be ware"..Piracy is the consumers method.
And as the earlier poster noted. Digitatl product is vastly over priced. $$0.99 a song is abject greed. And note artists don't get rich making records. They get rich touring.
Butt do we really need our movie stars to be billionaires.
I have sympathy for the indie and new artist, but The big boys and girlss din't seem to be adversely affected by piracy.
One last question. How many pirates would buy the product if they couldn't download it? And the follow on question. How many pirates buy the product after they have downloaded it. That level of detail never comes from the RIAA.

You can stop internet piracy about as well as you can stop drug use, war, prostitution and so on. Might as well find a way to live with it.

I tend to agree with Darian Sentient in this matter, I have not downloaded illegal content in well over a year myself. Mostly due to lack of interest in the current industries soft ware but that aside I would actually enjoy a nice full retail version to test on my system. Many times I had purchased a program or game that I found I didn't like or simply couldn't run on my system. I too began downloading games and programs to test drive them prior to a 50-60 dollar purchase, since I am a 1-2 program every month/ other month buyer this is a considerable sum to be spending for me. One simple thing that many companies can do is put a time limit on their games, I have played many full versions under a trial period and that is all it takes many times to put it at the top of my purchase list (or the bottom like Spore, this is a great game, but I am not purchasing a new computer to run it.) – Afore mentioned game was played at best buy on a demo computer. Microsoft has started to understand that some of their programs are expensive but set out dummied down versions for trial/ free (I am talking about Visual C++, Visual Basic etc.) these are full programs that are capable of doing the jobs of the fuller versions without so many of the pre-created tools that the fuller pay for versions have. Great job and idea I say, as a part time programmer this is a great way to test the program and the particular language that suites my needs prior to a multi-hundred dollar purchase.
As far as the media goes, what is the matter with filling in a little selfless advertisement prior to the showing of a movie? Heroes TV series is 99 cents on COMCAST on demand, NBC.com shows it for free... if you sit through a series of 20 second advertisements... that is well worth it to me and guess what, I might actually be interested in the movie/ product of what they are showing. I may even want to go to the theater with my family and watch the newest movie coming out if it appeals to me. Advertisement is the reason I paid to see 7 Pounds, as well as less artistic movies like My Bloody Valentine 3D. I enjoyed myself, supported the producers of the media and would have never known about them if not for the advertisements.

Internet piracy will never end. Quality product aside the loss piracy is causeing Movie makers and record labels can be counted in the cost of the lawyers for the endless litagation they waste on this issue. The company's are fighting valient rearguard action against the paradigm shift of new media. They are counting the loss internet piracy has cause based the idea the all the downloaders would have bought the product in question if they couldn't get it online. A broad and incorrect statement. Profits for a movie should be counted in the Movie theater and network showings thru ads the additional revenue of provideing a online version with included ads in the download should easily provide a new revenue stream without fighting against the tide. The music industry needs to streamline itself and focus more on concerts and low cost online versions. Ad revenue should be the bread and butter of the music and films industry of the future as the internet provides a easy and costless media in which to progate exposure to ad on a dramatic level as if quality product is free the download will be viewed by millions in record time.
Profits will be less but more stable. The problem is the companies long for the days of the $20 dollars cd and as history has shown us time and time again copyright laws protections only serve to stifle innovation as without competions there is no impetus for improvement and the price inflation due to the fact that you can buy it from them or you can't buy it all. A thorny issue indeed but rest assure that the record labels and movie makers will due everything in their power to extract as many dollars from your wallet with the lowest quality product they can get away with. That's economics.

Sorry Hollywood and the RCA, but you've had this coming for a long time.

We're sick of buying overpriced media that's waaay behind the times. Get with the program and you might see piracy decline, keep fighting your consumers and you won't ever see it do anything, no matter how much you cry for the government to help you out.

Well, as an experienced Pirate, I must say that "burp..excuse me.." I find it silly to pay for anything these days. Why would anyone want to pay 6-8$ for a movie ticket then 35$ for popcorn, a hotdog & a coke, when u can get a free HD version of the movie on the net??
I think the realisty of the situation is that "so called artists" should get what they can and be happy with that and also be happy with what they got. To try and "go after" and "stop" pirating is a total waste of time, effort, and $$$. You can't stop it.ever............Now back to the Black Pearl for me .Yarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!!!!

I infrequently download materials. I purchase the ones that I like.
Let's imagine the world that anti-pirate forces want.
They will shut down open and transparent networks, like the pirate bay.
This will result in secret and encrypted networks popping up in their place:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darknet_(file_sharing)
Now, to crack down on these, record companies will insist that the government either spy on everyones internet traffic, or allow them to do it.
Everyone's privacy will be compromised, not just file sharers. Consider that the post office and google also allow file sharing.
proof?
google for: filetype:torrent xmen
We have a choice, allow for file sharing and put a tax on heavy broad band users to compensate artists directly, OR head down an orwellian path of internet drivers licenses and constant surveillance.
This is the choice to make. Allow for the free flow of ones and zeroes, or monitor them all and imprison people 'stealing' ones and zeroes.

You will never stop this. They lived fat while physical media was the only alternative. Now, if a movie gets made in Hollywood, I want in. A cd get sold in the store for $18.99, I want in. You can stop me, possibly. But to stop everyone, you have to stop EVERYTHING, EVERYWHERE.

How about the stuff I download because someone recommends them and I learn I enjoy them as well? My 0$ intial investment turned into a 15$ CD sale and a 45$ concert ticket and a 20$ t-shirt. Though, I guess they still like to pretend that 100% of their money is from CD sales alone. Unless they make replicators and holodecks, I'm not yet able to pirate reality or merchandise.

Wow, Paul McCartney. Sure you get lucky and do some mega artistic thing you should be rewarded. But who define art and what is considered mega? Also, aren't they rewarded enough? Too much I would say. We treat musicians/celebrities like they are better but really, most just got lucky. I don't think the should be rewarded the way they are. It is ridiculous the amount of money they make from putting some sounds together on a computer. Some median has to be found.

After reading this article, I wonder who is getting hurt more, the CEO of these company or the artist that promote their media in song, movies, or other line of public display. The last time I check I have not heard of any artist filing for bankruptcy or any media company asking the government for a bail out. All I see in the real life is common "John and Mary" are working their butts off to afford the simple things in life while these CEO and Artist are reaping in the riches of sueing the common people for downloading their media. I could understand if they are living the life or a normal Joe, but they are not. I am all for people getting what they work for but sueing people for something they downloaded or offered a service to help people do such thing is wrong. If these CEO or Artist dont want their work to be "stolen" then dont produce anything that can do that. Make a normal earning like the rest of us. As far as I can remember, their has always been way or copying or recording. The VCR, Tape recorder, Burnable Cd, now its Internet file sharing. Here a question for you all, Is banning people for downloading or sueing people for either putting stuff on the web that help people to download things. Is that saying that the first admendment on our United State Constitution is not in effect anymore? When did we loose our freedom of speech? Last time I check we can post anything on the internet because it is our first right living in the US.

I don't believe that piracy will ever truely stop. Although I do not participate in it there are too many people who do, and will continue to. It is just like cybercrime, there are 100 different internet security products and antivirus software to protect yourself with, but the people who engage in the acts of cybercrime always think of something new. If one form of file sharing is banned than a new form will emerge. There was a great report on the underground economy of cyber crime at http://www.wesrch.com, here is the link if you are interested (http://tinyurl.com/cbsmn9)

Record companies are not in the business of creating music. Artists are.
Record companies are in the business of distrubting music and shaping demand.
The creation of the internet makes them redundant. The internet offers practically zero cost distribution. I listen to streaming radio that creates a personalized playlist uniquely for me. I follow the musical suggestions of strangers.
The middle man is cut out. Record companies see this, they are frightened. They are shelling out huge bucks to lawmakers to keep them in business. This is a government backed monopoly bent on eroding your privacy.
The internet makes digital supply infinite. Pretending otherwise is burying your head in the sand. There is no way to stop this. Only a massive government program of surveillance can even pretend to curb it.
Also, if you look at the bottom of this webpage you'll see a copyright notice. Your web browser has illegally copied this webpage and it displaying without the explicit written consent of the rights holder. Turn off your computer and turn yourself in, filthy criminal!

Environmental changes drive innovation – not crying about things being unfair. There will always be an element out there stealing content and not caring about those who worked so hard to produce that content. Content providers will have to become more inventive and think of things to offer that cannot be stolen so easily (i.e. 3D effects, super high end audio,etc...)
I do think that fighting these forces is essential but I do not think they will ever win – it is more of a balancing act. By drawing up new legislation, making things more difficult, pirates will have to be more creative.
Welcome to Digital Darwinism!

I think artists deserve to be paid for their music. But the music industry, artists and all, need to get off their high-horse. The days of a singer/artist/performer getting paid millions of dollars to sing songs at the price of less fortunate ppl who have normal jobs. I think Metallica and all those bands that are not embracing the new paradign of media are just scared they can't write more songs and better music. Also, why are music artists immune to issues of any job? Merit and reward needs to align properly with value for dollar, not an excuse to inflate prices for music on CD's and DVD's. When carnivals, clowns, and side show acts when out of style back in the 80's and 90's, there were any lawsuits by Bobo the Clown that video recordings were killing his industry. He just evolved. Evolve or die.

Artists are combining their efforts to stop the abuses of record companies.
http://www.brandrepublic.com/News/889783/Musicians-form-lobbying-group-protect-interests-record-labels/
Pay the artist, not the middle man.

Every wonder why the Ipod was so popular becouse all the other greedy corporations were trying to make it so you had to have the correct DRM code to install it on their MP3 Player and theirs only. while the IPOD did not care where you got the material. Note last I did know if you downloaded from ITunes it only would install on Ipod but that might be changed by now. And if I want to see a movie at the theater I will but I will also pirate one but it is normally on Cable by then anyways so whats the deal? I can record it from TV but I cant burn it from the internet. Believe me it is far from dead for every site they close 20 more open up. Worst case it will be back in IRQ. Not to mention on some of thier digital downloads they want to put limitations on it. aka how many times I can burn a copy ect ect ect even if i buy it. Comes down to greed. IF they endorsed this technology 5 or 10 years ago and changed thier marketing instead of trying to get every last penny they thought they diserverd they would have been ahead of the game by far.

I do respect that artists and companies deserve to make a living with their work. But do you call 10 Million Dollars for an actor in a movie "making a living"?! Don't get me wrong. I love movies and I deeply respect actors, they should get much money for good work on the stage, they shall have a big house and a fancy car. But why do they deserve a bank account with 100 Million Dollards after few years of work? Or look at the companies. They make a lot of profit although piracy is growing that much.
Sorry, but I don't see that anyone is harmed by pircacy. The companies should just reduce the prices to a moderate level and update their marketing ways and piracy will be history.

Maybe some of these oh so talented creative artists can come up with a business model that actually works today. The time when industry controlled media and its distribution has past. Deal with it.

There seems to me to be three camps in media today, those happily creating, those dead, and those loudly whining that they want to keep on doing business as usual. All I ever seem to hear is that last group though.

Shame really, because they're the ones I want to hear the least. I have to listen so carefully to hear anything I want to at all anymore.

I understand downloading some indie film might hurt some upcoming producer but downloading a big MGM film is not hurting the little guy. See what the administrators and actors drive and are paid then you will see we are not hurting the little guys by downloading Xmen. I have never downloaded any small time films I have never been able to find them and I've tried hard. Most of the easy stuff to get are the major brands anyway. For the real pirates that spend all day working and searching they should be able to download anything they want they actually work very hard to find some of this stuff. I will never stop NEVER NEVER NEVER. When is the last time you saw your neighbor being taken away in a cop car cause he download shrek??? Until then it will never stop!!!

There are so many parallels between this issue and America's "War on Drugs". You can not and will not ever eliminate digital piracy, period. Take out one "Dealer" and there are 100 more waiting in line to take their place.

The record/movie industry (much like the US auto industry) needs to wake up and realize that the world is evolving while they are standing still. They need to figure out how to embrace and adapt to the technology and make it work to their advantage. They need to stop spending millions on prosecuting the "pirate bay's" of the world as it accomplishes absoloutely nothing except for the spending of millions of dollars to prosecute.

As far as "The Pirate Bay" is concerned.... They were raided and shut down years ago when they were operating in a different country. They had backup servers already set up in Sweden, and their website was only offline for a few hours. If this recent verdict somehow manages to shut them out of operating in Sweden, they'll just move to a different country (if they haven't already). Eventually, they'll end up running their servers on a boat in international waters.

As of right now, "The Pirate Bay" is still fully functional.... this verdict has done nothing at all to disrupt their operation.... and even if it did, there are hundreds if not thousands of other torrent sites waiting to take their place.

I'm yet another independent filmmaker who is the victim of piracy. In my case, old fashioned bootleg DVDs were made of an early version of my film which had been sent to a film festival. Turned out, a screener at the festival let a friend borrow it. That friend burned a copy of it and shared it with someone else.

Before we knew it, we were getting emails from people all over the South telling us how much they liked our film – and it was still months away from being shown to the public, much less released on DVD. We have since released it on Amazon, but the hundreds (or thousands?) of bootlegs had already done the damage.

I say all this because this was my first film and the producers and I spent a lot of my personal money to make it. I would have liked the opportunity to earn it back and (heaven forbid) make a profit. What distributor in their right mind would purchase a film from a filmmaker when the product is already being pirated?

I think there will be a lot of new filmmakers who, like me, are "one and done" because once you get burned, you learn. All the accolades and positive reviews in the world can't pay your credit card bills.

I would like to see the bands, artists, movie production staff, and so one who actually get a check from any settlement that pays out. I, and the vast majority of people I know, do not believe that the anti-piracy campaigns are truly for the benefit of the artists. Instead the perception is that the corporations are benefiting in the name of the artists.

Should any entertainment industry that relies on distribution of video or audio content wish to put a real dent in digital piracy, the industry must adopt a more favorable model of distribution that acknowledges the internet as the favored methodology of distribution. over the current hard copy distribution model.

With regard to CD and DVD, the industry be able to save on overhead associated with getting products to market, and as Mike indicated above, the cost to produce all units after the first unit in a digital environment is essentially zero. The times they are a-changin’ and the industries impacted must either roll with the changes, or continue to lose revenue.

Also, as far as I can tell any film that is available for download prior to the release date is leaked from the studio itself. Clean up your own back yard before you go knocking on your neighbors door.

The only way file sharing can be stopped is massive government monitoring of the internet. This will take resources away from real crimes. It will eliminate privacy.
P2P has no economic effect on cd sales. You would like proof of such a bold claim wouldn't you?
Here is a report (pdf) from Harvard:
http://www.unc.edu/~cigar/papers/FileSharing_March2004.pdf
Hope Google got their permission to make this copyright work available for free! Otherwise it's stealing right? So what if I'm using their work as intended to spread culture and to foster discussion.
There are more reasons leave pirates alone than to prosecute them. It is simply the logical thing to do.

There's a very, very simple reason people started pirating media in the first place: Companies were ripping consumers off.

When Napster hit the headlines some 10 years ago now, do you know what was going on then? CDs were being sold for $15-$20, with a total production cost of under $5. That is a 400% mark-up on production costs – much of it profit going straight towards the record labels.

With video games, Spore is easily the pinnacle. Spore, one of the most highly anticipated video games of last year, was discovered to be released with something called SecuRom. This "anti-piracy" program meant that it communicated with EA's servers every time you started it up. It also meant that you could only "install" it a grand total of three times – and after that you had to get their permission (which they could arbitrarily refuse). Not only that, the program circumvented Windows OS security protocols and would not fully uninstall – even if you uninstalled the game. Now, you tell me if that sounds like something you'd pay $60 for. Because of SecuROM, Spore – a version which doesn't have SecuROM and will run without internet access – has been the most pirated game to date.

As for movies, well – I have to agree with the article on this one. Spreading a movie that's currently in-production is pretty poor form. For movies that have already released – that's always happened. Bootlegged videos have been available since I was born, and decades before that.

In the end, what the Copyright industry has shown is an enormous inability to move forward with the times. iTunes, Amazon Music, NetFlix, etc. have all got it right. When you digitally distribute a product, the overhead goes way down while still maintaining a profit margin. All of those services are very successful. Now I can go to Amazon and download a -single- Annie Lennox song for $1, whereas 10 years ago I would've had to buy the $15 CD – and have no choice but to pay $14 extra, most of it inflated for profit.

When you treat your customers like Pirates (a la Electronic Arts – who created Spore), they will ACT like Pirates. Furthermore, there will ALWAYS be ways around any roadblocks or regulations people put on the internet. What companies have to do is offer their products at a price that pleases the conscience.

People, in general, don't want to Pirate anything. However, people – in general – also aren't stupid. If they smell foul play, they'll play foul right back.

As for the first post who said that Artists deserve to make a living from their art – if it's good, they will. Artists do NOT create art for profit, though. Any artist who does is an outright hack. I have taken several different "art" courses – from drawing, to music, to creative writing – and the very first thing the Professors tell you, is that you will NOT make money doing this stuff.

You have to do it for the love of the art, and any money is a bonus. I also have not seen any convincing arguments about how much profit is being lost due to Pirating. I have found at least 4 different independent artists through YouTube videos that I adore far more than any current bands or vocalists. So far, all I have seen companies complain about are "theoretical" losses due to Pirating because they assume everyone who downloads the music/move/etc. would have bought the product (not true) and that their current method of distribution is perfectly fine (also not true). Are the companies taking a loss? Yeah. Times are a changing. VHS sales took a loss when DVDs hit, Cassette Sales dropped when CDs hit, CD sales dropped when portable MP3 players hit. You can't hold everything status quo just to appease your profit margins. You have to move forward.

Then again, I am definitely biased. I can't trust organizations like the RIAA who – because of their fictional numbers – sued a Preteen girl for over $14,000,000 (though they did subsequently lose the trial).

We're not artificially controlling the perception of the news by filtering out logical arguments for a supporting file sharing, and allowing for only the crude and embarrassing ones to appear are we?
That would amount to censorship wouldn't it? Not an accusation, perhaps I've missed something here. Just a thought...

I do believe artists should be paid for their work, but I feel like record companies get too much of that. I would be far more inclined to pay for a cd if I knew that the majority of the money went to the artist.

I am not a pirate, but let's look at this from the other side of the equation. The big studios have lobbied and obtained ever-longer copyright protections for their works. This is an abuse as well. Artists should be paid for their work, but for not only their life but well into the lifespan of their descendants as well? Acts who tour and who can put on a great live performance continue to do well.

As someone pointed out earlier, a lot of game-changing technology has been introduced in the last decade. What is sacrosanct about the big-record-label business model? I will certainly shed no tears if the uber-rich popstar or movie star disappears from our society.

End of digital piracy? I think not. Check out the pirate bay website and watch the video they posted after the trials. there's more trials coming. and swedish laws say it's ok for them to do what they do. They don't actually store any of the files, they act in the same capacity as google to find torrents. No one will sue google. Pirate bay will come out on top. They are a search engine, not a file hosting website. The hosts are other people's computers where they are seeded from.

There is no direct relationship between file sharing and a loss in profits for artists and *shudder* record companies.
Proof? Would you believe Harvard?
http://www.unc.edu/~cigar/papers/FileSharing_March2004.pdf
(pdf)
Creating the measures to limit piracy would cost more than doing nothing. Who here wants massive government surveillance of the internet?

Ryan has a great point. CNN is encouraging the piracy by telling people how to find pirated copies. The torrent descriptor might be common knowledge to some, but it wasn't common to all until now...

As a avid downloader I can't begin to calculate how much I'm saving by pirating. Probably $50,000 over the past few years easy. The final straw was a few years back when I bought 3 new CD's at something called a record store. I shelled out $45 for what amounted to 3 songs that I liked.

I got tired of having commercials jammed down my throat every 12 minutes on the tv. Paying $10 to spend 2 1/2 hours in a movie theatre to see a bad movie, toss in an extra $15 for food. Movies used to make their money in the big screen. Now they get you at the theatre, DVD release, Enhanced Bonus DVD Release, the video game, the breakfast cereal, the action figure.

Don't tell me the studios are not making money. They are just not making as much as they'd like to be. Britney has someone write her songs, a sound engineer to make sure she sounds good, then she can go on a lip-synching tour and get paid again.

PS-Hey Paul McCartney, keep you library away from iTunes a bit longer. It's money going out the window. I have 142 Beatles songs & a handful of Wings tracks. Didn't spend a cent.

PSS-Axxo???

An argument for legalized file sharing:
It costs nothing and has NO negative impact on the purchase of media.

Wait, no sales are lost as a result of file sharing?

That's right, check it out:
http://www.unc.edu/~cigar/papers/FileSharing_March2004.pdf

Now, to limit online piracy you would need to create privacy invading software to spy on EVERYONE. For what? File sharing hurts nothing!

"If artists and production companies don’t get paid for their art, what incentive do they have to continue?"

The same incentive that our ancestors had in painting the cave walls.

I'm a conscious consumer. I've laid down thousands of dollars for books, films and music. Artists who want to complain about piracy, I'm pretty sure I've paid for a meal or two of yours. I continued to buy this in the digital age until it became a complete rip-off. In the past, I would buy the full catalogue of a band and make a mixed tape/CD of my favorite tracks. I can no longer do this. Copy protection doesn't allow me to fully use what I purchase. So instead of purchasing an artist's entire collection, I download it illegally, without the copy protection. The only way I can get a DVD I already own onto my ipod to watch on the way to work is to download an illegal copy of it, or at least use some sort of software to illegally crack the copy protection. Either way, I'm the criminal.

If I could buy a car that I wasn't allowed to drive where I wanted, would I? Hell no. If I could steal a car that I could drive anywhere (and it only hurt the car manufacturer and designer), would I? Hell yeah. A few of the other posters are right on. The marketing strategy needs adjusted. It just doesn't make sense to the consumer, so why would they pay you for something they can more easily steal?

That said, I don't agree with what I myself view as real pirating and copy infringement: Publishing something pre-release, making money off of another person's work, or taking credit for another person's work. I hope the marketing strategies change soon so that that sort of thing doesn't become common practice among the common citizen. It's heading that direction, and that is where the artist will truly be hurt.

Last time I checked Movies are bringing in Box office records in $$$ and Artists are still Living in Mansions and driving expensive cars... I dont see them on the welfare line.

Yes, I pirate everything. Sorry.

On music:

Musicians make most of their money playing live and selling merchandise. Last I checked, a major label band gets less than $1 for every CD they sell. But then the band has to pay back other expenses in the end such as recording costs, label advances, and all that... so they practically make next to nothing off CD sales. The people that get that money is the record labels... not the bands. If you want a better break down (and one of the best articles written on greedy major labels), read Steve Albini's "The Problem With Music" at http://www.negativland.com/albini.html

When people download music and spread it around... the band is getting FREE publicity. Why a band would get mad at this... I don't know. The more publicity you get, the better turn out you will have at your shows/concerts... and that's where the money is. We all know that if someone really likes a band, he or she will buy tickets to see them, buy their shirts, buy other merch, and, in a lot of cases, go back and buy the band's CD.

On a personal note, it saddens me to see how music is now more of a money making ordeal and popularity contest than it is about the music. I say download what you want... and if you enjoy what you've acquired support the band.

I can't believe people still think piracy hurts sales, despite 9 years worth of independent studies showing otherwise.

It's about time these companies get with it. They still charge a buck a download or 10-15 bucks an album, which is nearly what you'd pay for a physical copy, yet they have no manufacturing, packaging, or shipping to pay for. They are making even more profit digitally now and are pissed because people have found ways around them. Their greed knows no bounds. The music and movie companies will be a dying breed if they don't change the paradigm. It's a little more true for music than movies, but individual bands can right now produce their own albums and sell them online at a greatly reduced price or even for donation which results in much higher profits for the actual artist (Radiohead...anyone). On top of this they are saving more money for true fans who can in turn see them in live concerts and support them in various other ways.

I don't think the average "digital pirate" is someone who wants to get everything for free, but is instead a fan who wants to support the artists. If squeezing out the large companies that have dictated, exploited, stereotyped, watered down and raped popular media culture for decades for their own benefit then so be it.

One problem seems to be the feeling of entitlement on the part of the consumer. It takes a couple of forms:
1 – That somehow the record companies, movie production companies, etc. owe them free or very inexpensive product (digital or otherwise). Without a sufficient return on the investment for the producer, there will come a time when the only music and movies you will be able to get are ones you wouldn't want to pay for anyway.
2 – That simply because some musician or movie actor, whatever, has made alot of money in the past, that somehow they now owe us absolutely free stuff. Well, there are billions of people on this planet that make pennies a day that think those wealthy Americans owe them a bunch of free stuff. Are you ready to send them all of YOUR income? It's all relative...

Another problem is that the product is attainable from the comfort of home with a download path that can be rather easily covered up. The risk is low for the consumer of being caught in the act. If the product (let's say a digital video) was only available for download in a store, even at a very low price, how many would still simply download it illegally for free – because they can? I suspect those people would continue to do so regardless of whatever "progressive/modernized" retail model the vendor comes up with. This isn't an issue of what the price points are, it's an issue of how specific consumers basically think. Once a pirate/thief...

It almost seems as if the creators of the product(s) are trying to taddle to the teacher about the bully (pirates) who won't stop beating them up. Maybe they should just stand up to the bully and learn to outsmart him rather then just tell on him every time they get beat up. Obviously things are not going to change by just reporting the bully's misbehavior, something has to give, and my guess is that it needs to come from the from the producers of the material. If they do not, they will be doomed just like newspapers are, when the failed to acknowledge the internet as a legitimate form of media.

I get amused by the entertainment industry trying to use the argument of equity. They don't have clean hands in the theft of millions of dollars from people who rightly should profit from work that they did. I.E Did anybody know that the movie "coming to america with Eddie murray LOST money for the studio. It grossed in the hundreds of millions of Dollars but With some Enron type of Accounting ALL movies lose money for the studios so they dont have to pay people who have net profit deals. The Rockford Files with James Garner ran for 8 years on NBC yet it was a money loser according to NBC, so they dont have to pay james garner for any reruns. The fact is Hollywood said they lost money for piracy in the old betamax cases. In fact the VCR made hollywood and the like more money because it increased the amount of sales to nothing that they ever had. Its the same with online issues. In fact, you are a pirate for tivo any television program because the networks could sell that program to you and by tivo it, you are potentially reducing their revenue.

It is all hogwash because it expands their markets, and might just stop the music industry from making new artists sign contracts that give almost all of money to the music labels instead of the stars if a new way to deliever music is realized.

The entertainment industry has such dirty hands that they have no right to ask for so called equity.

I view online piracy as competition for an illegal monopoly so I support the efforts of the Pirate Bay. Monopolistic movie studios have screwed the public for many years so until they are punished for what they have done and prevented from doing this in the future I whole heartedly support the Pirate Bay and other internet file sharing web sites.

Examples of movie studios screwing you:

Forcing you to watch advertisements in the theatre or on that DVD you rented. Only recently have you been able to skip the ads on DVD but the DVD's generally still require you to manually skip them.

Increasing the volume dramatically on advertisements during most broadcast television shows and programs.

Monopolizing movie distribution and jacking up the prices on movies in violation of anti-competitive laws.

I personally rather just rent the movie from blockbuster for $5 ($2.50 with discount book) than download the torrent file but I like having the download option available if the studios decide to pile on the advertisements and prevent you from skipping them.

Don't buy the argument that piracy increases prices. Quite the opposite actually. LIke myself, many look at pirated movies as an alternative to the advertisement bloated rental DVD so piracy is actually keeping prices lower by keeping demand lower.

If piracy diappears, expect much higher prices and more advertisements. It's a monopoly and piracy web sites are essentially their only competition.

I'm so tired of hearing about how piracy is killing originality and quality by stealing their money. I call BS. Times have changed and the cost of producing media has gone down. My generation knows this. The problem is that the media companies overcharge. If you drop the prices to a reasonable level, instead of $40 for a freaking Blu-Ray, you'll have more people willing to buy and less willing to pirate.
You also have people who 'pirate' because they cant find something elsewhere. You know how hard it is to find certain CDs, especially pretty old stuff? When was the last time you saw a fairly new Cascada CD in your local store?
How about using this new system to your advantage instead of trying to kill it. You've seen that people are willing to buy music from Apple, as long as you don't kill us with the rules about the music that we purchased. DRM sucks and always will. You simply antagonize people by doing things like that.
At the end of the day, if you want to attack someone, go after the people that SELL pirated gear, and leave the individuals alone. The people that actually DO pirate are a lot fewer then what is represented, and make a negligible impact on the bottom line. The decrease in your bottom line doesn't necessarily mean that pirates are wreaking havoc. It probably means your product sucks, or is overpriced. Stop blaming everyone else for your problems. Piracy may not be right, but it should send a message that people won't tolerate the greed anymore.

I have in the past downloaded music. I still listen to music but legal ways now. Not because I am nice, but because they have made it easy for me to buy what song I want and when. Surprisingly I do not spend alot of money on music. I still get it free with the artist giving it away. (no to itunes) or use Imeem. I have since moved to torrents to watch TV and movies easily. I did have a DVD collection of over 800 DVD's. I have sold them and went digital. I am now waiting for something easy to use .(hulu and youtube. netflix mce plugin) I currently use RSS feeds to get my weekly shows (and old shows that i just cant find anywhere.). I can not get cable where I live. I can get satelite but why pay and extra 60 dollars a month to have it delivered to my door when I can have it sitting in my folder when I get home from work for free. I am not trying to avoid commercials (I can skip those or remove them from the show that I just recorded. Just like tivo...how is that legal?) Question to CBS ABC and NBC, why cant I download a "podcast" of my favorite show with commercials. Small time guys are doing it in there garage just fine and making money at it. And you will know instantly how many people are tuning in and downloading that particular show.

I pay my cable bill each month. If, for some reason, I miss a show I want to watch, shouldn't I be able to get it via file sharing? I mean I already paid for it right? How's that different from using a VHS?

I have mixed feelings here. While I feel artists and others deserve a reasonable profit for their work-I'm not so sure about the unbelievable deep "middle men" that add no value-and they appear to be the loudest complainers. The Internet was developed to share information FREELY. In every way it can be monitized, it has been done. Perhaps people advertising a product, like the record companies, should NOT be allowed to use the Internet at all. Perhaps Amazon should be required to develop a storefront from which to sell its wares. I am tired of the constant marketing and monitization of something intended to develop and share information freely-have I said freely enough? I doubt it!

Digital piracy will ALWAYS be around as long as there is an internet. It will never be stopped or crushed completely. Attempting to do so will only succeed in pushing it down further out of the spotlight. I've seen guys at companies where they had a 300gb hard drive filled with mp3s, games, applications, etc. If you asked him, he would loan it to you so you could copy it all. That was the rumor, anyway. I never met him.

What piracy demonstrates is that there is an untapped market *if* these companies would pull their heads out of their you-know-where and develop business models THAT WORK!!! Be creative. Most don't download because it's *free*. When faced with a $400 operating system, then *YES* people are going to download it for free. Price the same OS at $50, and they're more apt to pay for it.

The existing business models of selling music on plastic discs is old and antiquated. If the music industry had spent all of that time and money developing better technology, they wouldn't be in this mess of trying to put a genie back in a bottle. Come up with more appealing, more appetizing products, and you'll have more people buying it up.

Some musicians/bands out there are now giving their music away for free to everyone, and charge their greatest fans for exclusive offers, concert tickets, etc. etc. And these groups are gaining popularity while raking in plenty of money. The only difference is that a huge portion of that money is not going to the industry execs. Forget hiring music labels, hire a darn good webmaster to build your website and treat your fans with respect and dignity, don't try to crush them underfoot.

The internet is a whole different ballgame that's playing by a different set of rules, time to adjust your strategy. If you don't like it, have fun going out of business.

Like many have said here, pirating is bad, but necessary if the production company over-inflates the value of the product. Especially when the price has not come down for the old material being sold on places like iTunes.

True artists should have protection for their art, but most music and movies are not art, they are productions, produced methodically. Nothing more.

This will forever be a cat-and-mouse game between the media giants and the pirates, but just because the companies that are supposedly losing money can't stop the pirating doesn't mean they should stop trying. That same argument could be made for any crime. Just because the police can't stop theft/vandalism/drunk driving doesn't mean they should just lay down and let criminals run wild. Bust who you can, try to get the moral message across, let the law of supply and demand work within the movie industry. If MGM and DeamWorks weren't making any money off these movies, do you think they'd still be making them?

1. I definitely agree the media companies need to adjust their business models to not only accept but leverage the new technologies available, and their pricing structure should reflect the cost savings the new tech provides.

2. File sharing, pirating, whatever you want to call it IS theft. If you were at work and busted your backside for two weeks creating an outstanding report/tool/something, and then someone copied it off your computer and gave it to your boss, who then said 'thanks for the hard work but since we got a copy for free you aren't getting paid for the last two weeks.", would you be unhappy? Not to mention broke?! How do you think these bands record anyway? A recording studio is an expense and no business is going to take on an expense that has no 'return on investment'. Ergo, where are these musicians going to record their work?

I am amazed by how technology is attacked in the court systems. The problem with blacklisting a technology like bit torrent is that it serves many useful purposes. Any website or email address can transmit copyrighted works. Why don't we ban the whole Internet? Computers can help with piracy. Ban them. Cars can be used to move DVDs around too, let's ban them. Seriously, this has got to stop. It's the media industry's responsibility to make it enticing to buy a real copy of a work, not the other way around.

Now one can argue intent with the Pirate Bay. Even their name is obvious about what they're about. Google isn't trying to be the search for piracy. Why not make movies affordable. We're in an economic downturn so piracy will be up. It's a fact of life.

Don't punish me for wanting to distribute free software I wrote on bit torrent. That's what's happening now.

If musicians made better quality albums, people would be more inclined to buy the whole thing. If I listen to an album and like most of the songs, I will go out and buy it. However, until musicians start putting more than 1 or 2 hit records on thier albums I'll be pirating one song at a time! 1 good song is not worth paying the price of a whole CD...and if you think about iTunes...at 99cents a song...to buy a whole albums worth of music would cost more than the actual CD would. Maybe the artists can wipe their tears with some of their millions of dollars...that would cheer them up.

I ride the fence on this issue. While I believe stealing is not a good habit to get into, and I certainly would not steal a CD or DVD from a store, I do not mind downloading pirated music of movies. If I really enjoy the CD or movie, than I will go and buy it. But in this economic crisis I do not have the budget to go out and buy music, or even rent or buy movies. I have many friends who feel the same way. I find myself not wanting to spend $10.00 on even a digital download for music or up to $25.00 on a DVD on a weekly basis. And rentals tend to drain the wallet as well, especially if you are like every other american and dont return the movie on time. I agree with the above comments that the producers and distributors need to change their methods in order to deal with the new 'digital age'. However, I do not believe that physical DVDs and CDs should be eliminated, but if pricing were to go down more people would be willing to buy non pirated material.

I typically will not download or watch a movie that is out in theaters that someone has videotaped. To me this is cheating and is actually harming the producers because a digital copy has not actually been made. Most movies make their money from the box office, not from DVD sales.

As far as musicians go, art is art, and music happens to be art. Just be happy that people enjoy your music enough to want to pirate it. Musicans and recording studios make more money from tours and merchandise sales than they do off of CD or digital sales. Typically I will download a pirated album, but if I enjoy it enough I will actually go out and buy the real thing.
I agree that there is no way that the government can stop this form of piracy. People will get what they want, and if they cant get it, they will just find someone else who can get it for them. Producers and distributors just need to adapt and either make it harder for their material to be pirated, or just tighten down on security so their material wont be leaked. I dont feel sorry for Wolverine... really? who was the mastermind who let that one slip?

Hmmm what is truly piracy? Could it be the over-priced Blu-Ray DvD's? Could it be the over-priced digital downloads? Nonetheless let's put the blame where it truly belongs...GREED...on all of Hollywood and singers. Oh...so I'm suppose to feel sorry for, oh I don't know any of them because now they can't afford to buy a multi-million or multi-billion dollar lear-jet next year or whenever??? Please...screw them

You know, it's interesting when I read that a movie cost $20M to make, and grossed $150M in the opening weeks, and the producers are loosing money? Plus, add the money earned by the actors from talk-shows, commercial spots and other endorsements, as well as revenue generated by DVD sales. This adds up to a TON of money, so exactly how is the movie industry loosing money? They are counting every pirated download as a POTENTIAL customer, even though many of those "pirates," like me, generally buy the movie after they watch it. I remember a time during the VCR days when many people would rent the tape and copy it, but no one did anything about it, then (except for complaining, of course), and the movie and music industry is stronger than it has ever been. In fact, I have never heard of any complaints because someone records a radiobroadcast to listen to later. So, having said all this, is pirating movies and music wrong? Yes. Is it hurting any of those industries? Hardly. All those industries are complaining about is the money they could have made because some poeple didn't buy their product. They're STILL making obscene amounts of money, in spite of it. It all boils down to greed; the industry wants more and more money (of course, who doesn't?) and is willing to try to squeeze blood from a rock by making consumers pay more money than they can possibly make in a lifetime in court fees, penalties and jail time. If you think you're loosing money on a non-existant sale, how in the world can you expect to get (more than) that amount from someone that doesn't have it to begin with?

I think, we need more creativity People are always out there to come up with new tech, stay ahead of the game. put your movies on the internet, create a website, let peopel watch it live for 99 cents or 1.99 heck. by doing earn advertising revenue, like networks do. also, let your viewers know, if you watch in theater, u get much better quality and more show...but god damm republicans, they all care about their money and dont want to think about creativity.

I'm still pissed that Myspace stopped allowing downloadable songs after Rupert Murdoch took over. I think what we have here with the piracy debacle is a big experiment in human nature. The average consumer doesn't want to feel sorry for the big business industries because big business always pulls shady sh*t to maximize profits. It's human nature.

They're always seems to be a majority of people looking to gain for themselves, rather than help other people out. The same could be said for the pirates. They might try to hide behind lofty goals of hurting big business, but the reality is that p2p piracy is incredibly easy to do, it's relatively anonymous, and people, when given a choice between paying for something or having it free, generally choose to have it for free. It's just too bad that the internet age has made people who are creative the victims of piracy. Why couldn't it have been the bankers, or the government, or f*cking McDonald's?

You could say all you want about trying to hurt big business, but P2P piracy makes no distinction between smaller, independent creators and the bigger companies that also employ plenty of honest, hardworking people (I know, you don't care). In trying to put a dent in corporate CEO payrolls and the small percentage of rich artists/programmers, you're actually getting more lower level workers laid off, and putting indie artists and labels out of business (again, the pirates don't really care. They just know that free is totally AWESOME. "Content Utopia", as some have said.)

And as for the "low cost of digital distribution" excuse for piracy, CD's don't really cost that much to make, either. The real cost is in producing the content. That should be obvious to anyone who isn't blinded by the freetard sense of entitlement (junkiez...).

Others demand that the industries get with the times, even though the iTunes store has been around for years now, and most TV shows can be streamed online for free with minimal advertising. Most internet radio/music sites stream music for free, again, with minimal advertising. But that's not good enough. How are they supposed to compete with absolutely FREE. You can't. There's no business model that is better than absolutely FREE. So their only real choice of action is to try and shut down rampant piracy, especially when they hear rumors of the guys from the Pirate Bay pulling in significant profits from their web ads, while gaining huge volumes of traffic by peddling the works of others.

Making copies of copyrighted material is a pretty insignificant crime on it's own. Everybody does it. The scale of P2P changes that impact exponentially. You can't blame the industries for trying to shut down the Pirate Bay, because it's gotten out of hand. I'm fine with piracy being a underground, fringe culture. That's where it belongs. But the Pirate Bay is right there in the wide open, for everyone to see and use.

I'd have thought that with a resurgence of REAL piracy around Africa, that the media would finally realize that what we are talking about here is COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT.

Perhaps if we talk about Copyright Infringement more, we can finally get to the REAL crux of this situation, which is a need for Copyright reform.

And as for the poor, starving musicians, people need to educate themselves. Musicians NEVER make money off of their album sales. All of that money goes to the record companies. Musicians get rich off of concerts, which the record companies don't control.

There is an interesting line being crossed here. Media companies want to force a type of consumption tax on the listener / reader / viewer, whereas individuals demand the flexibility to listen read or watch what they own on any device they own. The MPAA may not be aboard the shift, but some new films are being released WITH transfer software due to public demand and those movies are likely to sell better than their locked down competition. Furthermore there is nothing to prevent the consumer from playing a song on one machine and using a $2.00 cable connecting a second machine from recording that same song. Just like the cassette tape duplication of audio is not an enforceable law, recording of broadcast material is not enforceable. A free society will support what is good and destroy what is bad. Really good movies will get purchased as will really good music. There is a distinction that the media industry doesn't not want to face. Would you buy a car without a test drive? Why buy a CD or a movie without a full length preview?

I'm always amazed at the attitudes of many people towards piracy.

Quite simply, it is stealing. Just because you don't agree with the price that they want to charge, does not give you the right to steal it. If I were to disagree with the price of a new car, should I steal it from the dealership? If I think the interest rate of a home loan is too high, should I rob the bank for the money? Of course not, yet this is the justification most of you are giving.

I do agree, the industry should look at different business models, such as paid downloads, but I doubt people who are currently pirating will change their habits. The porn industry already offers a lot online, yet the piracy rate for their product is higher than mainstream movies.

Hong Kong used to have a vibrant film industry, producing around 200 films a year. It is virtually dead now, and piracy played a contributing factor in it's death. It could happen for hollywood too, if the piracy rate is high enough.

The bottom line is, people need to learn to be respectful of other peoples property, and music and movies are property – Intellectual Property.

Movies are too expensive. Maybe if they brought movies back down to the price of 1.50 or 2.00 per movie, I would go back to renting them, but jeez louise. At Blockbuster, it is $10.95 to rent a single new release, and there is no ONE DAY sale, it's ALWAYS for a week. These lack of options are the reason people go to file sharing sites. I am a japanese animation fan, and if I wanted 3 episodes of a particular series, it's over 10 dollars, and one particular series has over 200 episodes! That's ridiculous. So, until prices dumb down, I'll stick to file sharing sites. Also, file-sharing sites provide great movies that you cannot get on dvd, like old time movies and such that you could never find. And since the movies are no longer in production, the impact it has on the economy is ZERO because it's not being sold anymore and the copyright expired. Embrace this technology, film industries! I would gladly pay 2 dollars per movie download... it beats Blockbuster's outrageous 10.95 per.

If I buy an album and it sucks I can't get my money back. If I go see a bootleg DVD and I don't like it I won't get my money back either... BUT if I pirate this stuff and I like it I could go to the movie theater or buy concert tickets. Hello think people.

Yet another comments section of apologists saying they pirate to stop greed, or people saying pirating is bad, or generational models are wrong.

The real question is this- is it piracy to download? NO. There is no legal precedent yet set that equates downloading with stealing. Because it isn't. Real pirates sell copied media FOR MONEY in the physical world. Pirate Bay directs people towards COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT. That's all. Copying DOES NOT EQUAL stealing. Theft deprives the owner of the original item, copying does NOT. Get your facts straight. Yes, DRM is a big reason why people download- they want to watch media their way. Stop putting DRM in everything, get with the program and add digital distribution in multiple file formats to your selling equation, and stop overpricing your product. 40$ for a blu-ray is too much- try 15-20$.

And finally, go to places like slashdot and boing boing for an intelligent discussion over this matter, rather than reading comments from the other people who only know how to get their "news" and "opinions" from CNN. There is a lot of arguement out there over this- step into our den and read about it.

When the major entertainment companies come out with a program that doesn't require me to give them any of my information or sign anything and allows me to "test drive," their newest movie song or whatever I will no longer be a pirate. I "pirate" almost all digital media before I buy it. If I happen to really enjoy a particular album or movie then I will go out and buy it because I would like more of that product produced. But why should I pay 20 bucks for a cd that I will listen to for a week then toss on the shelf or even the trash for all the good it will do...

It's interesting that most of the opponents to this call it "illegal file sharing".

Think about it, we are teaching the younger generation that "sharing" is bad.

Corporations want you to believe this, since by sharing you are depriving the company of profits it would have made if you bought the product.

Have you ever loaned a DVD, CD or VHS tape to a friend? By doing so you have just deprived the makers of that product the money that they feel is rightfully theirs, or so this is what they would like us to believe.

Why is online file sharing any different? I have a digital copy of, say DUNE, and my friend wants to borrow it.

Can't I upload it to him? Can he download it from me?

No, because companies want that to be illegal.

Basically, companies are trying to "condition" us into the belief that sharing is wrong.

Earlier today a co-worker asked to borrow some sculpting putty from me, I said no since "sharing" would prevent him from going out and buying putty, which would deprive the manufacturer of their "rightful" profit.

He is against file sharing as well, but did not understand the example or what I was trying to say to him, which is this:

This situation can easily get out of control, all in the name of profits.

And we all know who has more power in this country; the corporations have the ear (and wallets) of the lawmakers, we don't.

Can't stop the signal...

people have an instinct for fairness and generally do what is right. i dont believe anyone pirates material out of a malicious desire to rob music artists.

i do not condone robbery at all, however, the music industry has created this situation themselves by robbing us blind for years. now, with the advent of p2p sharing, we have a choice. and the music industry has to do what every single other industry has to do to win customers – COMPETE. lower prices. listen to customers. that's how business works.

by battling their own customers in court, they only serve to alienate us further.

I'm amazed at all the posts here that defend piracy.

It is not an issue of whether an illegal download is a "lost sale". The issue is that it is theft. It costs money to make movies and record music. Perhaps they are over-priced but that's a matter of opinion, either way they should not be FREE.

I think new car's are over-priced too but do any of you pirate defenders think that it's okay to break into a dealer and steal a new car? It is no different pirating digital media. BOTH are theft. The only difference is the online piracy is far easier to both do and get away with. Pirates are criminals, pure and simple.

It is sad how many of you are okay with criminal activity so long as it is easy to get away with.

If this ends in favour of the biz industry; it's forboding news for internet entrance sites like Verizon because now the net access in broadband at least has to be shut down to actually afford it. This is the case for most in this reality bits world most of us live in.

I currently work with a small video game publisher, and I see first hand what digital piracy can do to a company. It's really sad when you see artists, programmers, and others working so hard to create something fun and exciting for people. Just to see it stolen or pirated. It's really sad and just because you are not physically stealing something, it doesn't make it okay. People complain about the prices, but it's set for a reason. There are many people involved and they need to get paid! Like they say, "Money makes the world go round." I hope companies do start embracing digital distribution, that will be one way of battling piracy. But then again, it will hurt the retail sector. They need to pass laws and punish people for pirating and downloading. Severe enough that it scares the hell out of people!

heck i use downloads to test out games and see movies before i decide to purchase them. with the price of a dvd or now blue ray and pc games why on earth would i take a 16 yr olds advice on what i like to watch.
and secondly i use google most fo the time to find my links and if not them then i use msn live search, does that mean Microsoft is going to sue themselves?
..... plus i dont remember mix tapes being illegal. basically every person in the 80's made mix tapes, so now are we going to sue and arrest every person that lived in the 80's. file sharing is like using a mix tape.. just that it allows you to access more of the tapes then just your group of friends.

Piracy..what do you mean..information is for sharing..seems if people has got the basics wrong..

"knowledge increases by sharing" "sorrow decreases by sharing"

get it ??

I agree with some of the other users comments about buying media after pirating, and the use of only one or two singles on a CD, as well as the price of movie media. I've downloaded songs and some movies but I tend to download more old media than new. For example, if I'm looking for a movie that was released a decade ago, chances of finding that movie in a store is slim to none, so I'll download it. Downloading new movies, especially before they're actually released for purchase is usually a waste because the quality of the movie is horrible. I still buy DVDs for movies that I really like, and I still go to the theaters to see new movies. And they're not going anywhere, movies are still breaking box office records, so the actors and production crews aren't going broke, despite what they might claim. And as far as music, artists now have listed numerous albums on sites like Myspace's music section. The production companies aren't making money off of these posts, and the music can be listened to as often as the user pleases, without downloading it. If production companies want to increase sales, increase the quality of your product, or cut the price, don't complain because you can't charge more for the same thing.

ARRRRRRGH!

Not surprised that Sir Paul McCartney spoke out against piratebay. Have you listened to what he released since the Beatles?
Well once every while you hear it anyways (radio). This is exactly where the $$$ go (subsidising mediocre nonsense). When people download his album(s) rest assured they will NOT buy the actual CD.
Record companies do not need to scout for talent. Nowadays we have Idols/....'s got talent/X-factor but also YouTube and MySpace. They already have all the data they need for wanting to sign-up an artist from either votes or 'hits' on the internet.
Also manufacturing & distribution has become much less expensive. This is usually outsourced anyways.
CDs should not cost more than $5.00 where $4.00 should go to the artist (more than they get now) and $1.00 for manufacturing and distribution. (they can burn them pretty much anywhere)
$0.10 cd
$0.05 burn
$0.85 Left for distribution

Record companies should stick with their business being pressing records and burning cds.

***THIS IS THE WAY TO STOP PIRACY****

The industry churns out crap to make a profit. They spam advertise us with adjusted content to target demographics, generally misrepresenting their product.

They over charge us, and resell the same product to us as many times as they can. See it in theaters, watch the pay per view, buy the dvd, and wait, its now a double disk special edition, but don't forget the new and improved HD edition, with all new special features.

They take our money, and then blow it on advertising so they can sucker more people into beliving that yes this really is the "number one movie of the year" or so says Joe schmoe the garbage man.

I have and will continue to support the artists that I believe in, and will do whatever I can to side step industry.

It's a huge expense for nothing. Some prohibitions are just destined to fail. The industries affected need to adapt their merchandising strategy. Just as now small independents, who by the old business model that these companies are trying to protect never had a venue for their work, are using the Internet to distribute their media. There's a lot of money to be made. To the media giants, stop whining and paying lawyers because you can't figure out how to get your share.

as a musician myself, i wouldn't mind if people were downloading my music without my permission. if some people would like to help me out by purchasing a cd, that would be great! but not everyone has the money and that shouldn't deprive them of the ability to enjoy my music.

and in response to Robert Britt, asking what incentive an artist would have to continue making music if everyone wasn't buying their music...maybe their incentive would be to be an artist for the sake of being an artist, not to sell records. artists shouldn't allow themselves to get to shallow about their art, then it ceases to be art and becomes a product.

Robert Britt also mentioned that the artists need to make a living as well. the fact is that the record companies and labels make most of that money and give a small percent to the artist. the artists in fact make most of their money playing live shows.

i personally make a point never to buy music from stores. i will buy CD's at shows to support the band while they are on the road, because it cant be tough. but i like to show my support by buying a ticket to their show. 99.9% of my music is downloaded for free. i make a point only to download music from artists that i know will not have a problem with it. artists that are just happy to be getting the exposure and to be getting their music out there. artists that are happy just knowing that people enjoy their music.

Anything over 20 years old should be in the public domain.

Why should artists receive permanent, transferable copyrights, when patent holders only get 20 years? There's a good reason for this limitation – it forces technology forward, and similar copyright restrictions would move the arts forward as well. Think of how music, for example, would have stagnated had the works of Bach, Brahms, Beethoven and Mozart been held under tight copyright restrictions.

It's time to subject copyright to fair limitation.

I try to be very careful of copyright and fair use. However, the copyright law has within it a producer's responsibility to make the material available to the public. I have been searching for a particular CD that is out of print. I have found a Russian site that lists it for download as MP3 for a fee and maintains that they pay the copyright fees. I am probably going to pay them and download the material.

I have long thought that there should be no copyright on copying out-of-production works. The copyright should be suspended, but people caught in the return to production are simply required to buy the new version. Similarly, if one converts material from one electronic form to another, holding the copyrighted version after the conversion, I think that is fair. The copyright owner is paid for the costs of production, but the user has the material in the desired form.

It is not true that the cost of an electronic copy is zero. The cost of servers is real, hence the cost of availability is real. I believe in paying for what people provide to me.

i AM AN ARTIST,
We are the poorest of the poor in the business community everyone takes advantage, WITHOUT OUT US IN THE VARIED MEDIAS AND APPLICATIONS THE WORLD WILL GO " DEAF" "'DUMB" AND "BLIND". The very few that try to support ARTISTS , Please do not rip them off they help YOU HAVE A BRIGHTER MORE BEAUTIFUL WORLD . COME ON PEOPLE STEALING IS NOT " KEWL".

With internet companies such as Time Warner and their future plans to charge internet users for the amount of bandwidth that they use, this could be a key to at least slowing down internet piracy; especially for the download of HD Movies. However, I can't help but wonder how this will play out with companies that have been in the attempt to generate revenue through digital distribution. People will have to think twice about doing that as well because they will not only be paying the company they are buying the media from, but the ISP for the use of bandwidth to get it.

I've discovered tons of new music/bands by downloading their music to check it out.

If I like it, then I buy the cd and a lot of times go to their concerts. Without downloading the music first, I would have never discovered them, bought their music, or gone to their shows.

Downloading isn't always bad, although RIAA wants you to think it.

A lot of you people, Paul McCartney included, are missing the point, here. The effect of me copying digital media is (A) I get something I want, and (B) ...there is no B. Nobody is being 'deprived' of something they didn't already have.

Sorry to break it to you, but selling things that cost nothing to copy is fundamentally a bad business to be in, and trying to force it to work is a waste of resources. You can help it work better for yourself by making quality products that people feel are worth paying for and setting a reasonable price, but ultimately whether or not they make copies or pay you for them is going to be up to them.

I don't think piracy is so much the government's problem but the entertainment companies problem. The main reason why piracy even exist is because these companies are refusing to adapt to new forms of content distribution and new forms of technology. Now that the consumer demand has boiled over to piracy they are trying to use the government to maintain that monopoly. Instead entertainment companies should be adapting to the new technology to maintain their monopoly. ITunes did a great job in bringing down the number of illegal music downloads and sites similar to and including hulu.com have done a great job cutting down on the amount of piracy that was occurring with television shows. As long as the entertainment companies keep fighting the piracy war with the denial that people don't want to view content in a different manner this is never going to end and consumers will always be much faster in developing programs to get around "government regulations".

I agree that artists should get returns for their work, but only to a certain extent. If an artist has made a million dollars on a piece of work it should become public domain

If they're going to trash Google as promoting pirated material, then they'd better include every other search engine on the internet! What a ridiculous claim.

I use to have a yahoo music account for $5 a month that I legally downloaded music, but they sold there service to rhapsody and they charge $12.99 a month. I'm not going to pay double the price so now I pirate music. They could make more money if they weren't so greedy. If they aren't going to be honest why should anyone else.

It all still seems about money to me. I am a software developer for about 15 years now. No one has ever really made any real attempt to protect our rights, probably because enough money was never thrown at it to get politicians attention. But it started with the music industry, they spent a lot of money and got some attention. The last couple years the movie industry is now throwing money at it to get some attention. But still what about software???? Its all about money not ethics or the law.

If I had music talent, I'd try to get people to download my music for free. As much as possible! It'd sell more concert tickets, get me promotional gigs, sell t-shirts, etc. I'd still be rich without selling a single album.

If any artist. agent, manager, creates a performance in a digital format then they should encode it so that to access it a user will need the decoder. This should control the access. but if a content is leaked, then only the party or person who distributed is liable not the users who access it.

half of the liability for these snarbs are the people who put them out carelessly and then cry fowl, – if these incid are to be prosecuted there needs to be (beyond a shadow of a doubt ) that the originator took all precautions possible to keep this content from being distributed and used anti piracy tools in their digital recordings.

With so many parties involved in evaluating piracy, culpability of the creator needs to be eliminated or at least used as a measure of how much responsibility must be assign to the source when due diligence has not been taken to try and prevent this unauthorized distribution

As Artists we should be happy that anyone at all is enjoying our work. The music industry should adopt a new business model that relies more on concerts rather than record sales. The distribution of ideas and art has exploded with the wide availability of the internet. The reason that an artist, a true artist, produces his or her work is because it pours out from them with out incentive or reason. If the artist is able to earn a commission from their work then more power to them. However, in this writers opinion, if the artists work is being distributed and gaining a following they should be pleased by the fact that their message is getting across and they are gaining some notoriety.

When people feel anonymous, they're more likely to do anti-social things(like stealing). Look how people behave in a small town where everybody knows what everyone does, compared to life in big cities, where people are anonymous and crime rates are higher. The internet provides anonymity while also making crime more convenient. It also provides a platform for selling songs for a dollar. We can get the two decent songs found on most CD's instead of buying the whole CD. Maybe music will improve now that we can avoid buying the filler 'songs'. I buy all my songs to support the artists, but don't buy their crap.

Let's face the reality that the existing copyright laws are fundamentally flawed and inappropriate for the digital age, and they have been outdated since computer software came of age. Rather than attempting to shoehorn existing law onto digital media and distribution, we need to rethink the entire system, recognizing the ease of transmission, limitless free copies, and the incredibly short duration of commercial worth of many products these days (think of how quickly a movie goes from the theater to DVD to Red Box to the bargain bin).

I certainly do not have the answers, but I know that an organization defending its "turf" by filing thousands and thousands of lawsuits against casual users is indicative of required change. The music industry needs to recognize the power of the internet to reduce their costs in promotion and distribution and (this is key!) pass those savings onto the consumers, not in maintaining the same prices and pocketing the difference while unleashing the legal hounds to threaten college students and suburban moms with financial ruin.

Entire industries have come and gone with changes in technology and society - has anyone seen a blacksmith lately? Perhaps the days of all-powerful music and movie production companies are ending. Strengthening laws to prevent those kinds of changes is futile and further strains limited judicial resources, enriching lawyers. It took several years of rampant piracy before the music barons started to offer MP3s for sale, and the instant streaming of movies is finally starting to become a reality. Times are changing, and the laws need to change, too. If the laws don't change, they largely become irrelevant.

It's bad overseas too...

While in IRAQ... IRAQ of all places... we used to get DVDs from the Iraq's the week the movie came out... some good... some bad... but I was amazed how fast.

I remember watching 300 on an Iraqi DVD before a friend back home, who went on opening weekend.

This problem will not go away...

I think it’s funny that McCartney defends the music industry. When he and the Beatles where a huge part of the "fight the man" mentality of the 60's. Guess money does corrupt those idealistic virtues.

I find it quite amusing how many people think that pirating software and media is a "new trend". Ever since you could use a tape to make a copy of another tape (be it VHS or audio) there has been piracy. With the advent of home internet in the early '90s and the development of compression formats for media it became more sharing than one man selling another a copy of a commercial product. Yet all of a sudden the markets are affected.

I appreciate art and what artist create, but for them to expect to get millions of dollars for mere entertainment is foolish and a true reflection of our world society and the poor state that it is in.

Honestly, Its easy to download what ever you want. I belive that most of the people do download from internet.

when you need a recepe for a meal , you just go online and look for it instead of buying a book. its the same thing for music or anyhing else.

Of course its not right , but its part of the 21th century i belive.

For myself, the movies or music i like, i go buy them !

This is a huge problem that comes with the evolution of the world.
I would rather spend more time trying to fix the health system and mor major problemes than that one

Priority.

This has nothing to do with changing the copyright laws. The business models of the entertainment companies are in the same position across the board from the newspaper companies to the film studios. They are losing money because they are losing their monopoly on the distribution. They are losing that monopoly because they are stuck in the thinking that they can still make money the same way they always have. They don't know how to listen to their customers and deliver the goods that they want. Instead they are so caught up in the statistics of the past that they forgot to innovate and change with the times. The execs are more concerned about satisfying the needs of the shareholders then fulfilling the mission statements of their companies. Its no coincidence that Hollywood has effectively strip mined the 1970's and 80's and made every popular remake possible while at the same time making more squeals in one year then were made in the last 50 years of the 20th century.

Face it: technology is cheap. It's only worth what someone is willing to pay for it and clearly this is a sign that a significant number of people are not willing to pay. I am not going to pay money for something I feel has little value when it is already offered for free.

Someone turned me on to the idea of downloading newly released movies, recently. It sounded easy enough, and to be honest, it was. The reality though, is that you are watching a watered down version of an otherwise good movie. In the age of Blu-ray discs, I couldn't stand the idea of wrecking another good movie, so got rid of any other movies I'd burned to disc. If I don't see it in the theater, I will happily wait to rent it!

I have an idea for the industry. If we could just see more proliferation of high speed internet, capable of handling true HD content in realtime, a premium charge to "rent" pre-rental release content just might help stem some of the piracy. Sorry theater owners, but in the digital age, I think the time is ticking. When it costs an average family over $50 for a movie with concessions, it's not hard to imagine them being much more selective about trips to the theater.

On a sidenote, and I've maintained this for years. Just because a person downloads (pirates) a song or now movies, does not mean that the industry is one paying customer down. Odds are, that a certain (and sometimes high) percentage of these individuals were not going to be paying customers to begin with. The industry seems to have a way of inflating the figures of lost revenue, as if it disregards this possibility.

The recording industry is digging their own grave, internet file distribution is just a new medium with no oversight. The companies can't control what is distributed so they spend time and money fighting cases like this instead of embracing the opportunity to capitalize on the relatively new market.
It's all about convenience, I'll gladly spend a couple of bucks to watch my favorite TV show legally on a site like iTunes or Amazon, but when they start flooding the program with ads or up the cost beyond what is reasonable then the scales tip to underground distribution. Stop trying to bleed your customers and work with the flow of progress, not against it. Idiots.

a war on online piracy is ten times worse than the war on terror. nobody will ever stop it. ever. no matter what they come up with, someone will hack it.

I download movies and i agree that is is illeagl but there still is many good hearted christains or somthing who pay for everything.
I agree with mental ray they are just making not as much money.

btw

AXXO COME BACK PLEASE. I MISS YOUR MOVIES. YOU WERE THE BEST

[...] Googling "DarianSentient" to discover I post stuff at HuffingtonPost, arstechnica and cnn.com too is even weirder; finding my OkCupid profile and telling me I'm "f0ine" is [...]