Wednesday, January 21, 2009

Some Common Sense on Music Piracy

I have a strong dislike, bordering on hatred for the RIAA because I pretty well don’t believe anything they say. I think they are a money sucking dinosaur attempting to take as much hard earned money from music purchasers as they can before we all realize that thanks to the internet we don’t need them anymore. If Amazon can give me a list of 100+ books I might enjoy based on what I have searched for/already own, there is no reason a service can’t be set up like that for artists. They will gain exposure and be able to market themselves without the need of the RIAA and company. Home studio equipment costs next to nothing, and thanks to the internet distribution is nearly free. By cutting out the middle man, there will be some happy combination of artists making more money, and consumers spending less on music.

Because of my intense hatred for the RIAA and burning desire to see the association die, I was happy to come across this article on Slashdot which finally puts into the legal record something I have been saying for a long time.

The judge ruled that 'although it is true that someone who copies a digital version of a sound recording has little incentive to purchase the recording through legitimate means, it does not necessarily follow that the downloader would have made a legitimate purchase if the recording had not been available for free.'

This is absolutely true. Where would a 16 year old get the money to buy the thousands of albums he has pirated? It’s just an imagined loss, and I’m finally glad that after a decade of these cases in the courts someone is finally ruling along these lines.

No comments: