Hmmm...let's see. Kazaa is accusing RIAA of stealing from them, yet they facilitate other people in stealing music, and get advertising revenue in the process. This isn't brilliant, it's the pot calling the kettle black. I hate to break the news to people, but let's remember the three Ps of economics: prices, profits, and private property. Let's face it: if anybody can obtain anything for free, they will certainly do so; they wouldn't pay for it. The musicians are paid by the record companies for the rights to their intellectual property (yes, that's what music is, even if teenage karaoke singers grace the front of most popular albums these days). The record companies need to convert that risk into reward through marketing and sales. That's why the RIAA is right to go after freeloaders ERRRRR! downloaders. If you develop software for a living (which is plausible if you're a regular on this site), you or your employer relies on sales revenue in order to keep writing paychecks for you. Here's the bottom line folks: as much as we hate to think about it, money makes the world go 'round. *out*

I'm certainly no fan of Kazaa, but I need to make one thing very clear here: Kazaa and other filesharing services don't facilitate theft of copyrighted material any more than FTP or the web do.

You may be able to pick a lock with a paperclip, but that doesn't mean that's all the paperclip is good for. Even if I market the paperclip as "The Best Paperclip for Picking Locks," it's still just a paperclip, and there's nothing illegal about that. It's only when you use the paperclip to pick a lock that you, the user, break a law. And that's your problem, not that of the paperclip or the paperclip manufacturer.

The irony here is that while Sharman Networks develops filesharing software that can be used to share copyrighted files (which is solely the responsibility of the program's user), the RIAA is very blatantly using a hacked version of Kazaa which clearly violates Sharman Networks' copyright, and exists for no other purpose than to violate this copyright. So, to connect this back to the paperclip analogy I used earlier, Sharman is selling paperclips and marketing them as good lock picks, whereas the RIAA is stealing those paperclips and using them to pick Sharman's locks.

That clear things up for you?

There was never any confusion to clear. First, I disagree with you assertion the filesharing services don't facilitate theft any more than FTP or the web. Why else do they exist? Kazaa's primary traffic is music and movies. Napster was shut down because it tacitly colluded with this theft. So, the Napster user breaking the law became Napster's problem -- and its death knell. I'm interested in seeing how Napster does as a pay-per-download service because a) they have competition, and b) will its users now pay for what they used to get for free. Also, I'm sure the RIAA isn't the only party using Kazaa Lite. Will Sharman sue these other offenders? The bottom line is this: thieves with paperclips aren't causing a significant decline in sales in CDs (that is, if you take the RIAA's description of the loss at face value). Thieves with filesharing software (that's *probably* easer to use than FTP for the average music downloader) are. *out*

Bahahaha!

Your evil laugh needs a 'w'. That is all.

Wait, you have hard data showing that filesharing is directly responsible for the drop in CD sales? Holy shit! I'd love to see that! In fact, I'll even pay you for it, because I can turn around and sell it to the RIAA because they'd love to see that too. Also, if you have the holy grail for sale, can I buy that too?

Sarcasm aside: pshaw. There is no evidence that CD sales have been declining due to filesharing. In fact, there is a lot of evidence that says exactly the opposite.

Exhibit A: While wailing and gnashing their teeth about declining CD sales over the last few years, the RIAA has conveniently failed to mention that during these years they slashed production by 25 percent. In the meantime, CD sales have declined only 10.3 percent, in spite of price increases and the evils of filesharing. That's a very good number...if you can slash production costs by 25% and have that result in a loss of only 10.3 percent of your revenue, you're saving money bigtime. ^[1]

Exhibit B: While RIAA-sponsored studies would have you believe that people who download music are less likely to buy CDs, this claim has never been backed up by an independent study. In fact, an independent study by Forrester Research in August of 2002 showed that people who download music are no less likely to buy CDs than people who don't download music. Geoff Garin, chief executive of Hart Research, even went so far as to say, "...we have clear evidence that downloading and copying do not have a favorable effect on record sales." ^[2]

From my own personal experience, I can tell you that, while I don't buy more than perhaps one or two CDs a month, every CD I've purchased in the last year has been a direct result of having downloaded something and liked it. That's not to say that I buy everything I download, because I don't...but I'd be buying less if I wasn't downloading music in the first place.

The fact is that even though piracy of copyrighted music is illegal, it's good publicity. The only difference between filesharing and radio is that the RIAA gets royalties for radio play, thus making it legal. If the RIAA would only recognize that filesharing is a much better publicity engine than radio could ever be, and if they would work with filesharing services instead of against them, they'd not only see increased profits, they'd also stop painting themselves as an evil money-grubbing Big Brother figure like they have been for the last few years.

Making your customers hate you or fear you is never good business.

Geoff Garin, chief executive of Hart Research, even went so far as to say, "...we have clear evidence that downloading and copying do not have a favorable effect on record sales."

Was that supposed to be "no clear evidence"?

Oops. The quote is correct, I just misread it. Hart Research was the group funded by the RIAA.