Point two:
Sure, Joel might not have payed for the music he shared. This is, of course, illegal. But I still think the punishment for a crime should be appropriate. This verdict is everything but appropriate. I have seen notorious drunk-drivers who killed someone with their car walked out of court with a monetary penalty not half as high as this one.
But of course in Joels case the penalty was only so high “to set an example”. Sure.

And this is what self-righteous people like MLS should reflect about.
Is it legal to punish a young person in such a exzessive way just to “set an example”? I thought the u.s. american law system is constrained to look only at the single person and not to use a person for what examples or political goals ever.
I also thought that the law is not only meant as an instrument to punish people but also as a possibility to reform a person. For people like Joel there is no second chance since their lifes are pratically destroyed.
I mean, just look around you. Joel is not the only one. There are in fact a lot people out there which have to deal with $100.000 and up lawsuits.

Point three:
When you look at these cases it is noticeable that the oh-so-concerned-about-the-law RIAA seems to be not SO concerned at all suddenly when it comes to the rights of other people. Illegal browsing on foreign harddrives, hacking online media services, threatening people. But of course this is okay since this is all for the greater good. All men are equal, but some are more equal?

Point four:
Downloading music you have not paid for is illegal. Okay, this is simple. But right now the RIAA is using and abusing laws which are made for a society without the technical possibilities we have now. Some years ago I could videotape a movie or a tv show and share it with friends and thats it. Nowadays I am a fucking pirate and a criminal if I do so.

It is also happened that some artist used a certain piece of music for, lets say, an animation movie AFTER making sure that the copyrright of this music was expired. And then some lawyer came along with an injunction suit because the piece of music was not copyright protected anymore but the ADAPTION was. Who the hell should actually understand these laws?

Point five:
Maybe the big music companies should move their asses and come to terms with the technical standards of these days instead of suing everyone?
It is not our fault that they just overslept the beginning of the 21st century. All I see are restrictions even… no, scratch that… ESPECIALLY when I paid for the music I want to listen to. I can buy songs via iStore but I am not able to play them on every mp3-player because of DRM. I buy CD´s and can not play them on every player.
And there are other things… as european citicen it is not even always possible for me to check out music I am going to buy on some artists official youtube channel because half of the vids there are blocked for european users “due to copyright regulations”… I am not allowed to watch, but of course I am supposed to BUY that stuff? Yeah, right.

Boy is your name appropriate.

I actually meant to write more for that last sentence but I forgot and hit submit. I meant to say that people are always saying “do stuff for the artist”, when the RIAA is suing us for the same thing thing they are doing - using other’s ideas (not that I think people can own ideas, but w/e).

I’m so dumb, amirite? But let my small brain argue with you anyway, Ben, who is so smart to have this all figured out.

“so too should you not expect artists to continue putting their full efforts behind creating new works without the expectation of compensation.”

I already covered this implicitly, smart man. I said that artists will continue to make music without the currently lawful digital distribution model, and I further claim that they will put in just as much effort without the RIAA. Some artists are actually passionate about music, and not about money. And I find passionate music the best, don’t you?

And who cares if the current artists put in their full work if the best they can do is “You’re a Jerk” by New Boyz. No thanks, I don’t like the RIAA money driven formula, which also forces me to listen to their crap with the amount they spend on advertising.

“I find it hilarious that you think artists will continue to tour and sell merchandise to makeup for the lost revenue from the illicit, free consumption of their work.”

Um, this is exactly what they already do. I’m pretty sure the vast majority of their money comes from this.

“If people like you complain over 1 dollar tracks and 15 dollar cds as being too expensive.”

It’s not too expensive, it’s just there’s no reason to pay for something that costs nothing to make, and doesn’t really benefit anyone (again, consider a world where digital music is free).

If bread was free to make, would you expect the hungry to pay $1 for it anyway since that’s cheap?

“what will you do when a tickets begin at 200 dollars per show and merchandise is 75 dollars for a t-shirt?”

The prices are already close to this, and I’m sure plenty of pirates show up, since they can’t download the experience.

“And before copyright law, music was generally subject to patronage.”

And before that patronage, there was music. And before whatever else you try to put in, there was music. Try thinking outsite your box for once. Go to anywhere in tribal Africa, there are “bands” there that play for everyone’s enjoyment, with no copyright or patronage or anything. And here you are, telling me that without some form of copyright, music would suffer.

“That doesn’t give you the right to consume the fruits of their hard work for free merely because it’s your personal opinion that they shouldn’t be in their line of work.”

First of all, you can’t consume digital music, it’s free to copy!

And that’s not the argument I was making, read it again. I was saying how artists don’t really deserve tons-o-cash given the volitility of their market and the fact that machines have usurped their distribution mechanism.

Go to thepiratebay.org, mininova.org, etc, look in the music section, at the comments, the lists of seeders/leechers. Go to any rapidshare forum. Then tell me you want to go into a career in distributing digital music. You do so knowing full well that you must fight a machine that is superior to anything you can think up (besides scare tactics [suing people]). Hence, it is unwise.

And I already tried to show you that “hard work” doesn’t alone deserve compensation if the work performend is done so unwisely! Here’s another example, I put HARD WORK into making VHS tapes, which is UNWISE because VHS has been usurped by a superior technology (DVD/BD). People want to watch videos, so there’s a market there. And people apparently respect hard work so no problem there. Wait, so where did I go wrong? Why don’t I make tons-o-cash? Oh right, my distribution method is inferior.

“I find it hilarious…”

At last my smartness lacking antics are paying off ! Chuckle away!

“Being an “artist” is not a wise career choice.”

That doesn’t give you the right to consume the fruits of their hard work for free merely because it’s your personal opinion that they shouldn’t be in their line of work.

While on the subject of payment, you woefully misinterpret the employer/employee analogy. Just as you wouldn’t continue to work for free for an employer who decided that your work wasn’t worth anything, so too should you not expect artists to continue putting their full efforts behind creating new works without the expectation of compensation.

I find it hilarious that you think artists will continue to tour and sell merchandise to makeup for the lost revenue from the illicit, free consumption of their work. If people like you complain over 1 dollar tracks and 15 dollar cds as being too expensive, what will you do when a tickets begin at 200 dollars per show and merchandise is 75 dollars for a t-shirt? Because that’s the only way they’ll be able to provide for the tour infrastructure and logistics and still make a profit without the financial backing of a recording industry employer.

“music has been around way before them, and way before copyright law”

And before copyright law, music was generally subject to patronage. And most patrons fiercly controlled the release of the works to the public. If you are to derive any lesson from history, it’s that artists’ works have never been free for the taking, nor will they ever be.

“I’d like to close by saying the RIAA profit off of the ideas of others.”

I’d like to close by saying that your name is very apropos. Given that every business in existence profits off the ideas of others, your point is what exactly?