Peer-to-peer file sharing has become one of the most welcomed evolutions on the net. Most of the times songs are downloaded almost for preview purposes. I, for one, go out and purchase the original CD after listening to a download version. It just feels good to have the actual CD, with the original photos, and jackets and knowing that you are supporting an artist whose music you love. The move by the record companies to sue file sharers would do more harm than good. They would be suing the same persons who buy their music and support them.
"Piracy" is such an emotive word. The correct terms for the acts being committed are "unauthorised distribution" or "breach of copyright". File swapping is not akin to pillaging and murder on the high seas! Of course, by likening the file swappers to pirates, it is easy for the RIAA to create a negative image of them.
Record companies live in a dimension. They expect us to limit our tastes of music to theirs and to pay excessively for this. Why on earth do I have to pay the price of an entire record for just one song? Why do I have to depend on record companies to release the type of music I like? Why bother with CDs when I can have so much more flexibility with the mp3 format? The music listener now expects flexibility and instead of responding, the record companies only seek to secure their pockets.
I believe the actions of music pirates and the industry alike are wrong. Those that get their music exclusively by free downloads don't understand exactly how much harm this is causing musicians, and to a lesser extent, the labels. Only a handful of artists are really rich with new artists depending almost exclusively........
