New Interview

[Evil Ernie]

Originally Posted by The Flying Mouse

I was wondering what your earlier comment about canceled shows had to do with anything (as it was way off the topic) but it's easier to think someone doesn't deserve money when you think they have done you a personal wrong.

You guys look at things as black and white too much.

It has nothing to do with that.

Forget I even brought up the cancelled show.

[CarylB]

Originally Posted by Evil Ernie

I still like ML, I just don't give him as much leeway as some you guys do. Forgive, but don't forget.

I'd call it respect. You said hold it against the artist always. Doesn't sound like forgiveness to me. As SueK says, move on and don't choose to let something colour you disappointed forever .. it's such a dismal colour

There's a difference between rebooking Wembley Stadium and rebooking Rexall Place. That's really what I meant by him not caring enough. It's not to say that I didn't understand, but other artists have rebooked... Or at least included them on the next tour.

I don't see the difference, (except Meat covered costs himself, the tour was on the road, the venue available, and it could be fitted in) .. and you must surely be able to see that it isn't as simple as "rebooking" a venue; just a glimpse at the cavalcade Meat has to take on the road to give the shows he does must make that obvious. Meat reschedules when he can .. sometimes he cannot. It may have all fell neatly into place for the other artists you refer to, but not for Meat. Nor does he select the venues he goes to .. that's what the promoters do; they can vary from tour to tour, they may not be prepared/able to book the venue you want.

If you don't think Meat cares you have woefully sold him short him in my view.

You guys look at things as black and white too much.

I think we see many colours and shades. Even an opaque window can suddenly achieve transparency.

Forget I even brought up the cancelled show.

Now given what you've said, that's funny

Caryl

[PanicLord]

Originally Posted by The Flying Mouse

THat would be the same as buying an album from a shop, copying it onto your PC, and then selling it on.
Two people have the album, one unit has been sold.
You don't need to be an accountant to see that that is bad for business.

Well of course I accept that the accountant would prefer there to be 2 sales of new CDs, but the world doesn't entirely work the way the accountants would like

Originally Posted by Evil Nickname

The thing is that when you buy a CD, all you buy is the plastic thingy, and a license to play the music it contains. You don't actually *buy* the music, just the right to play it. Same with mp3s from Amazon, iTunes, etc.

And that's where it—imo, ianal—gets tricky:
One could argue that since you pay a license, you're free to do whatever you want with the container.
On the other hand, you could argue that since you sell the CD, you no longer have the license to play it's content.

I don't know.

I think I heard that somewhere. Although you'd think they'd include a copy of the licence so that you know exactly where you stand wouldn't you?

[Julie in the rv mirror]

Originally Posted by loaferman61

I think what is more of an issue is one person buys a CD and loans it to friends to rip to their ipods or computers. If the friend likes the songs he keeps them, if not he deletes them, but he never paid for a copy.

According to the RIAA, this is the biggest issue. Technically, you don't have a "legal right" to transfer a CD to your computer, but this "won't usually raise concern", as long as you are not sharing copies with others.

Originally Posted by Evil Ernie

What I mean is that musicians and actors get to do something fun for a living. They have talent, true, but it's still something that isn't a real job.

My brother-in-law is a professional musician (granted, he's neither rich nor famous), and I'm pretty sure he considers it a job. One he loves and is passionate about, but a job nonetheless.

Originally Posted by Evil Ernie

You really think that the performing artist doesn't get royalties? Than how do they make money?

Well OK, the artist does get some on record sales, but probably not as much as people think. It's a complicated system.

Originally Posted by Evil Ernie

I don't care that much.

It sounds like you do...

[CarylB]

Originally Posted by Julie in the rv mirror

My brother-in-law is a professional musician (granted, he's neither rich nor famous), and I'm pretty sure he considers it a job. One he loves and is passionate about, but a job nonetheless.

I'm sure he does .. and one that requires a lot of hard work as well. Most people in the music business, and in the wider field of entertainment, don't get a quick burst of fleeting fame via some Cowell production .. they have to graft for years to achieve success, and even then they work damned hard. Anyway, enjoying your work and finding some fun in it shouldn't mean you are not entitled to earn a good or even a great living from it.

Well OK, the artist does get some on record sales, but probably not as much as people think. It's a complicated system.

Yes, and Meat's had to fight for much of those due to him

It sounds like you do...

Caryl

[Adje]

Just to be clear. Piracy isn't the same as theft.

You are a thief if you actually steal something. As in take it away from a person.

Piracy is getting a copy that's shared by someone (who most likely has the hard copy). But even if the person sharing hasn't got the original it's still not the same as stealing. Making/dpwnloading a copy and not buying IS NOT stealing.

Going into a store and take the CD whitpout paying for it, now that's stealing.

I read somewhere in this topic someone comparing it with a burglar taking away a vcr and stuff. That's a really silly example as one has nothing to do with the other.

As for the legal issues. And I'm sure evilnickname knows the ins and outs here, but as far as I know it's legal in the Netherlands to download any content. It's however illegal to share it. Or at least that's how it's been a year or so ago.

[duke knooby]

Originally Posted by Adje

Just to be clear. Piracy isn't the same as theft.

You are a thief if you actually steal something. As in take it away from a person.

Piracy is getting a copy that's shared by someone (who most likely has the hard copy). But even if the person sharing hasn't got the original it's still not the same as stealing. Making/dpwnloading a copy and not buying IS NOT stealing.

Going into a store and take the CD whitpout paying for it, now that's stealing.

interesting point

so in financial terms, to be a thief, i would have to physically rob a bank

but if i just made money disappear from someone elses account and appear in mine that would be ok?

[Adje]

Originally Posted by duke knooby

but if i just made money disappear from someone elses account and appear in mine that would be ok?

No because you actually took it away. That's the differense

Now if you would copy the money it would be forgery (sp) but not theft

[CarylB]

Originally Posted by Adje

I read somewhere in this topic someone comparing it with a burglar taking away a vcr and stuff. That's a really silly example as one has nothing to do with the other.

The really silly example would be mine. I used it in response to a post which basically said famous musicians have enough money, so to take money from their pockets was OK. I replied "So theft is OK as long as it's from people you have decided have enough money. I guess the people who broke into my home and removed my VCRs, camcorder, most of my jewellery etc plus a suitcase to carry it off in thought the same." My example had everything to do with the concept that it was OK to rip off those who you felt had enough money.

It may be your view that taking downloads for free , piracy, or whatever else you call it, is not theft. In my view it is if it deprives the artist, record company and anyone else who is entitled to earn from the production of an album for the work. The material belongs to them, and whatever legal pedantry you choose to apply to it, it is as if you stole something in my view. That some feel they have a right to do this simply because it is made possible through the internet is neither here nor there. In most cases they don't. They are grabbing something for nothing which they can, and should in my view, pay for. In my opinion it is a form of theft, just as to use your employers' facilities for your personal use is considered theft, and can lose you your job.

Caryl

[loaferman61]

Originally Posted by Julie in the rv mirror

According to the RIAA, this is the biggest issue. Technically, you don't have a "legal right" to transfer a CD to your computer, but this "won't usually raise concern", as long as you are not sharing copies with others.



My brother-in-law is a professional musician (granted, he's neither rich nor famous), and I'm pretty sure he considers it a job. One he loves and is passionate about, but a job nonetheless.



Well OK, the artist does get some on record sales, but probably not as much as people think. It's a complicated system.



It sounds like you do...

The RIAA is hardly an impartial source. They spend millions on lobbyists to buy off politicians to write the rules their way while nobody represents the consumer.
Fair use is only one of many limitations, exceptions, and defenses to copyright infringement. For instance, the Audio Home Recording Act establishes that it is legal in some circumstances to make copies of audio recordings for non-commercial personal use. See USC 17.10.1008, amended by the Audio Home Recording Act.

[Julie in the rv mirror]

Originally Posted by loaferman61

The RIAA is hardly an impartial source. They spend millions on lobbyists to buy off politicians to write the rules their way while nobody represents the consumer.
Fair use is only one of many limitations, exceptions, and defenses to copyright infringement. For instance, the Audio Home Recording Act establishes that it is legal in some circumstances to make copies of audio recordings for non-commercial personal use. See USC 17.10.1008, amended by the Audio Home Recording Act.

Oh, of course they're not impartial. I posted the link to them, because they are out there suing people for "improper" use. It is legal to make copies in some circumstances, as you said. If you notice, they specify that it's OK to make a copy to an audio CD, because there are royalties paid on them (the blank discs). The same is true for blank cassette tapes.

[Evil Ernie]

Originally Posted by Adje

No because you actually took it away. That's the differense

Now if you would copy the money it would be forgery (sp) but not theft

Let's see. Before I download Ozzy Osbournes new CD he has $39 million and 1 cent in his bank account (probably much more).

After I download his CD.... He still has $39 million and 1 cent.

Meanwhile he's still making money off of paid album sales. Because in order for something to be 'pirated' it has to be bought.

Let's look at it this way now. Im a big fan of ML in 1996, but he disappears from popularity in NA. It's now 2003 and I don't give a damn about him. But I remember how much I loved BOOH 1 and 2. I download his discography (which I later buy), discover more of Steinman's work (holy shit, he wrote TEOTH and MLOONAA?) and I buy that as well.

Than I see ML on his BOOH 3 tour. I buy a ticket, buy the CD and buy merchandise.

Hmmm. As a result of my 'piracy' I bought 9 records, paid $100 too see him live and spent $60 on merchandise. Plus I've bought around 7 steinman related CDs.

I did this because, while I don't always agree with his views, I love his music and his performance and his song selection. Plus his band is always solid.

Now, there are many bands that I like that I haven't given as much support to, but I try to support them in some way.

[CarylB]

Originally Posted by Evil Ernie

Let's see. Before I download Ozzy Osbournes new CD he has $39 million and 1 cent in his bank account (probably much more).

After I download his CD.... He still has $39 million and 1 cent.

Meanwhile he's still making money off of paid album sales. Because in order for something to be 'pirated' it has to be bought.

Not a strong argument in my view, as sadly you will not be the only one doing this. And by your argument, the copy that was pirated would have given Ozzy one cent. It doesn't need many to download illegally for this to be a negative equity situation. Unlike you I am not privy to what he has in the bank, but that's irrelevant .. how much the person you rip off has, there's no point at which doing so becomes legal or right. Envy is a bitter master.

Caryl

[The Flying Mouse]

Originally Posted by Julie in the rv mirror

Well OK, the artist does get some on record sales, but probably not as much as people think. It's a complicated system.

One of the arguments people use to try and justify illegally downloading an album is that the record companies rip off the artist by taking a piece of the pie that is a lot bigger than what they are due.

I agree that the record companies shouldn't get the percentage that they do.
The record company may put the album out, and deserve a considerable return on their investment, but the artist creates the music, and that's where the lions share should go.
The record companies are just money men.

But why punish the artist for the way the music industry works?
If you like the artists work, they deserve the recognition of decent album sales, and the money that goes in their pocket.

Originally Posted by Adje

Piracy is getting a copy that's shared by someone (who most likely has the hard copy). But even if the person sharing hasn't got the original it's still not the same as stealing. Making/dpwnloading a copy and not buying IS NOT stealing.

Going into a store and take the CD whitpout paying for it, now that's stealing.

I read somewhere in this topic someone comparing it with a burglar taking away a vcr and stuff. That's a really silly example as one has nothing to do with the other.

Another reason often given why the big bad record company is ripping us all off is the small cost that is involved in making the actual CDs.

The CD itself, the CD case, the booklet, they all cost pence rather than pounds, which is why CDs should be cheaper, right?

But it's not the CD you are paying for, you are paying for the work that's on it.

If the CD only costs (say for example) 10p to produce, there's only a difference of 10p between shoplifting the album and stealing it on the net

You could argue that the low cost of producing the physical CD is so small that it makes the difference between shoplifting and stealing it from the net pretty much insignificant



I've heard plenty of arguments.
"I believe music should be free".
"The record companies charge too much for the albums, so i'm Robin Hood".
"It's not stealing if you have nothing in your hand".
"I wouldn't have bought it anyway, so why not dowload it for free?"

IMHO it's clutching at straws to grab some warped moral high ground to justify the fact they don't want to pay for what they use

[Evil Ernie]

Originally Posted by CarylB

Not a strong argument in my view, as sadly you will not be the only one doing this. And by your argument, the copy that was pirated would have given Ozzy one cent. It doesn't need many to download illegally for this to be a negative equity situation. Unlike you I am not privy to what he has in the bank, but that's irrelevant .. how much the person you rip off has, there's no point at which doing so becomes legal or right. Envy is a bitter master.

Caryl

I notice that you didn't respond to the rest of the post.

Shortsided people are gonna shortside...

[Adje]

Originally Posted by The Flying Mouse

"It's not stealing if you have nothing in your hand".

Definition of Theft: the illegal taking of another person's property without that person's freely-given consent

That's a clear definition. Now piracy is not TAKING another's property but, in the worst case, copying it.

My point is that the Anti-Piracy people are using the word stealing and theft when, illegal or not, it's not what piracy is.

I remember their commercial (annoying clip before every DVD movie started) that you don't steal another people's car or radio and what else. No because one has NOTHING to do with another. It was a stupid promo

[The Flying Mouse]

Originally Posted by Adje

Definition of Theft: the illegal taking of another person's property without that person's freely-given consent

Turns out property is not always something you hold in your hand

“Property”
(1)“Property” includes money and all other property, real or personal, including things in action and other intangible property.

Theft act 1968

Originally Posted by Adje

My point is that the Anti-Piracy people are using the word stealing and theft when, illegal or not, it's not what piracy is.

The link above disagrees with you on that, but would you prefere fraud?

Originally Posted by Adje

I remember their commercial (annoying clip before every DVD movie started) that you don't steal another people's car or radio and what else. No because one has NOTHING to do with another. It was a stupid promo

I blame the pirates for that damn annoying thing.
No pirates, no warnings

Besides, as i've already argued, the CD itself is almost worthless, what is valuable, what is being stolen, is the content.

[CarylB]

Originally Posted by Evil Ernie

I notice that you didn't respond to the rest of the post.

The rest wasn't something that really made me want to comment, but here goes:

Let's look at it this way now. Im a big fan of ML in 1996, but he disappears from popularity in NA. It's now 2003 and I don't give a damn about him. But I remember how much I loved BOOH 1 and 2. I download his discography (which I later buy), discover more of Steinman's work (holy shit, he wrote TEOTH and MLOONAA?) and I buy that as well.

I thought it was before 1996 that Meat was in a forgotten land in the USA? He came back with a vengeance with Bat2, won his Grammy, and started touring again. He toured there before 2003 (Storytellers and Having Fun at least) .. launched his autobiography and did a book signing tour in the USA, and there were both UK and International fansites to keep up with what he was doing .. and Rockman for Steinman.

Than I see ML on his BOOH 3 tour. I buy a ticket, buy the CD and buy merchandise. Hmmm. As a result of my 'piracy' I bought 9 records, paid $100 too see him live and spent $60 on merchandise. Plus I've bought around 7 steinman related CDs.

You've bought albums buy a ticket for a a concert (you missed some great tours!) due to pirating .. and you chose to buy merchandise .. whoopee. Many don't .. That's the issue. There is no evidence to suggest that album sales increase as a result of pirating .. statistically a few examples don't stand up.

I did this because, while I don't always agree with his views, I love his music and his performance and his song selection. Plus his band is always solid.

The first we know, as to the second .. great .. and the labourer is worthy of what he earns .. or should earn.

Now, there are many bands that I like that I haven't given as much support to, but I try to support them in some way.

Your choice and perhaps their problem .. if you are downloading their stuff free

Caryl

[Adje]

Originally Posted by The Flying Mouse

Turns out property is not always something you hold in your hand



Theft act 1968




The link above disagrees with you on that, but would you prefere fraud?




I blame the pirates for that damn annoying thing.
No pirates, no warnings

Besides, as i've already argued, the CD itself is almost worthless, what is valuable, what is being stolen, is the content.

Still it's not stealing. I didn't take the property, I used/duplicated it but that's completely different from stealing.

And THANKS to those pirates I now get copies without those annoying warnings. They are shown to the wrong people to begin with


That said, I have a nice and quite large collection of original BluRays and cd's (Throwing out almost all my DVD's).

I download a lot and what I like I buy. I'm not bothered if it's illegal or not but for me it's the only way to keep it affordable.

Bless Piracy

[Evil Ernie]

Originally Posted by CarylB

The rest wasn't something that really made me want to comment, but here goes:

I thought it was before 1996 that Meat was in a forgotten land in the USA? He came back with a vengeance with Bat2, won his Grammy, and started touring again. He toured there before 2003 (Storytellers and Having Fun at least) .. launched his autobiography and did a book signing tour in the USA, and there were both UK and International fansites to keep up with what he was doing .. and Rockman for Steinman.

#1 - I'm not from the US. I said NA because I hadn't heard of anything significant. In Canada, I didnt hear anything either. Was I not paying attention? Maybe. But this was before the Internet was everywhere. If I didn't get it on Much Music or the newspaper it might as well not exist. Were there fan sites? Yes. But out of sight, out of mind. At that point I thought he only had 3 records.

#2 - Bat 2 was released in 1993. 3-4 years is significant. He also released WTTN, which was also great. Maybe my timeline is off. Say 1998 as being more accurate. I hadn't heard of storytellers until I downloaded it.

#3 - yes, those tours were probably great. And I may have bought a ticket.... If he came to my area.

You've bought albums buy a ticket for a a concert (you missed some great tours!) due to pirating .. and you chose to buy merchandise .. whoopee. Many don't .. That's the issue. There is no evidence to suggest that album sales increase as a result of pirating .. statistically a few examples don't stand up.

The point is that I probably wouldn't have bought ANYTHING if I didn't do that. I believe there are studies that suggest that pirating spreads the wealth around more. There is also more quality control, so you know that you're not paying for crap.

There are so many great artists out there and now the record companies can't steer us into buying crap like they have for years.

[The Flying Mouse]

Originally Posted by Adje

Still it's not stealing. I didn't take the property, I used/duplicated it but that's completely different from stealing.

If you are in ownership of somebodys property (property does not have to be tangible, you do not have to be able to hold it in your hand) in breach of the law, it is stealing.

Originally Posted by Adje

I download a lot and what I like I buy. I'm not bothered if it's illegal or not but for me it's the only way to keep it affordable.

As I said earlier in this thread, if you steal a loaf of bread to stop you from starving to death, or if you steal medicine because you are in poor health, then you have a moral (if not legal) excuse for stealing.

What's the worst that can happen if you don't own an album?
There is no moral justification for stealing something that is not vital to your well being or the well being of others.

Most people who defend illegal downloads have a real crusading streak. They feel like Robin Hood taking on the big bad record company. (I think they protest too much myself and are just trying to cover up the fact they know they're doing wrong).

Here's a few differences betweem Robin Hood and an illegal downloader.......


The Sherrif Of Nottingham liked to knock peasants about and demand unfair taxes. If you didn't pay you would be sent to jail, or executed.

The record company makes music albums. They don't send a group of badass knights to beat the shit out of if you don't buy their albums.


Robin Hood robbed from the rich to give to the poor.

Downloaders rob from the record companies to give to, well, they just keep it actually.


The men and women of Sherwood were so oppressed and starved that many would die without Robin Hoods help.

The dowloader might have to choose between buying a CD and a Big Mac




Stealing something you you cannot afford and do not need is greed.
Nothing more, nothing less.

Stealing something you can afford and do not need is just being cheap.

Both are illegal in the eyes of the law.

[The Flying Mouse]

Originally Posted by Evil Ernie

I believe there are studies that suggest that pirating spreads the wealth around more.

There was a study saying that everyone who lived in the north of England should move to the south of England.

There is a dude online who wrires fan fiction about meeting Roy Orbison and wrapping him in clingfilm.

There are a lot of strange people on the internet

Originally Posted by Evil Ernie

There is also more quality control, so you know that you're not paying for crap.

This doesn't make sense in the slightest

Piracy makes for better quality control because the record companies want you to steal a better class of product?

"you're not paying for crap"?
You've not paying anyway. So you are not not paying for crap.
I need a lie down after this

Originally Posted by Evil Ernie

There are so many great artists out there and now the record companies can't steer us into buying crap like they have for years.

I will agree with you if you can give me a date and time of the last time anybody from a record company put a gun to your head and told you to "buy the motherf*cking album"

[Julie in the rv mirror]

Originally Posted by The Flying Mouse

One of the arguments people use to try and justify illegally downloading an album is that the record companies rip off the artist by taking a piece of the pie that is a lot bigger than what they are due.

I agree that the record companies shouldn't get the percentage that they do.
The record company may put the album out, and deserve a considerable return on their investment, but the artist creates the music, and that's where the lions share should go.
The record companies are just money men.

But why punish the artist for the way the music industry works?
If you like the artists work, they deserve the recognition of decent album sales, and the money that goes in their pocket.

Oh, I agree- I don't think it's justification for downloading. I pay for officially released music/ movies.

[Evil Ernie]

Originally Posted by The Flying Mouse

There was a study saying that everyone who lived in the north of England should move to the south of England.

There is a dude online who wrires fan fiction about meeting Roy Orbison and wrapping him in clingfilm.

There are a lot of strange people on the internet

Yup. A lot of narrow minded people too.

This doesn't make sense in the slightest

Piracy makes for better quality control because the record companies want you to steal a better class of product?

"you're not paying for crap"?
You've not paying anyway. So you are not not paying for crap.
I need a lie down after this

It makes total sense. I download a CD, I start to take a liking to the artist, I buy their records because I want the artwork, additional media, lyric book and the fact that I want to support an artist that I like.

I still buy the same amount of CDs as I have for the last 20 years... I just have a much larger collection of music. Most of which I never listen to anyway.

Look at downloading as an extended form of the radio. Only I get to listen to the entire thing as opposed to the single...

And in case you haven't noticed... People are still buying music. Money is coming in. It's just going into the pockets of more people as opposed to a select few.

I will agree with you if you can give me a date and time of the last time anybody from a record company put a gun to your head and told you to "buy the motherf*cking album"

Wow.

It's what you listen to on the radio, TV, etc. with the Internet you get to listen to a wider variety of artists than what major or local labels would promote.

I dunno about you, but before the Internet I bought what was advertised on TV, played on the radio, whoever they were interviewing that I found interesting, etc...

I can name dozens of artists who I would NEVER have heard of if I didn't download their music. No way in hell. Mostly smaller bands.

Do you hear Stratovarius complaining?
Symphony X?
Vitalij Kuprij?
Mark Boals?
Yngwie malmsteen?
Tony macalpine?
Planet X?

Who DO you hear complaining?
Metallica
Puff Daddy
JayZ
Etc...

Than you have artists such as NIN and radiohead, who rather than fight reality, they embrace it.

[The Flying Mouse]

Originally Posted by Evil Ernie

Yup. A lot of narrow minded people too.

If not wanting to wrap Roy Orbison up in clingfilm makes me narrow minded, then narrow minded I am

Originally Posted by Evil Ernie

It makes total sense. I download a CD, I start to take a liking to the artist, I buy their records because I want the artwork, additional media, lyric book and the fact that I want to support an artist that I like.

See my earlier points on finding out if an artists music is for you.
You do not need to download. There is no need to download.

Originally Posted by Evil Ernie

I still buy the same amount of CDs as I have for the last 20 years... I just have a much larger collection of music. Most of which I never listen to anyway.

If you have a vast collection, but don't listen to it all, and still buy as many CDs you used to, would it not make more sense to buy the albums you want to listen to and not download the ones you are not going to listen to?

Originally Posted by Evil Ernie

Look at downloading as an extended form of the radio. Only I get to listen to the entire thing as opposed to the single...

You can look at the moon as a giant ball of cheese, but it doesn't make it so.

Originally Posted by Evil Ernie

And in case you haven't noticed... People are still buying music. Money is coming in. It's just going into the pockets of more people as opposed to a select few.

This makes no sense.
Why does the fact that everyone in the music industry gets their work ripped off to an extent balance things out so more people get more money?

Originally Posted by Evil Ernie

wow.

Don't tell me i've given you a moment of revelation

Originally Posted by Evil Ernie

It's what you listen to on the radio, TV, etc. with the Internet you get to listen to a wider variety of artists than what major or local labels would promote.

Yes, you get to hear a much wider range of music and artists, but do you need to dowload their entire works if you've heard a decent sample and decide you like them.

Originally Posted by Evil Ernie

I dunno about you, but before the Internet I bought what was advertised on TV, played on the radio, whoever they were interviewing that I found interesting, etc...

Let's see, I found Meat through a TV ad for Woolworths, Roy Orbison when my mum gave me some of his tapes the day he died, Joe Cocker when he brought out Unchain My Heart and I saw the vid on music TV, Guns N Roses because I was 15 once .......

I found good music by accident mostly, not because a shadowy orginazation was wafting it under my nose.

Originally Posted by Evil Ernie

I can name dozens of artists who I would NEVER have heard of if I didn't download their music.

Do these artists not have ANY of their work available without downloading it?
Do they have nothing on youtube that you can form an opinion on wether you want to buy their product?
Because if they haven't, quite frankly, it's their own bloody fault

Originally Posted by Evil Ernie

Do you hear Stratovarius complaining?
Symphony X?
Vitalij Kuprij?
Mark Boals?
Yngwie malmsteen?
Tony macalpine?
Planet X?

No.
Mostly because I have no idea who any of them are

Smaller bands need a fanbase to get them going, so are much less likely to complain about being ripped off.
They are too busy being glad someone cares enough to listen.

Artists like Meat have served their time. They are good at what they do, and they are well known for it. They've worked hard for what they've got so good luck to them.

Originally Posted by Evil Ernie

Who DO you hear complaining?
Metallica
Puff Daddy
JayZ
Etc...

If I was losing the kind of money those guys are losing, I might complain myself.

Originally Posted by Evil Ernie

Than you have artists such as NIN and radiohead, who rather than fight reality, they embrace it.

Good for them, but it doesn't change the law's position on what an artist is due.