Shii Posted:

It’s a valid point, but at least SOME of that music would be legally bought. They might not spend $6,000 on it, but I’m sure they’d have at least 1,000 songs or so.

It’s not an issue of being “holier than the savages,” it’s an issue of paying people who deserve it. If some artist paints a new painting, if someone just walked in and took it cuz they wanted it, what kind of argument would “I’m too cheap to pay for it” be?

What kind of argument would “I just want to try it out and see if I like it” be?

In the real world, theft of property isn’t tolerated. Why is it tolerated online? Because it’s easier? Because everyone does it?

Here’s a shocker: not everything “everyone does” is right.

I never said that it makes it right. But heres a shocker the money it would cost to prosecute everyone is orders of magnitude above what is lost. Also legal online download have already surpbumed music sales. Most of the money doesn’t even go to the artists, that’s been known for a long time. Artists can make there money from tours but the music itself is more widely known through the internet.

Right or wrong things have changed, you can’t run things like they did 10 years ago. Companies need to adapt not attack. Because its really all they can do.

Not a single case of illegal downloading has ever been won by the RIAA.