Vote

Record companies have already destroyed their product. Why should they have rights to what users do with it after the puchase? I can sell, give away, lend modify, replicate, or do what ever else I want with my car after I buy it, why can't I do that with my music? Maybe if the industry weren't so focused on "losing sales" to file sharing, which is a proven falacy anyway, and spent more time on producing a decent product, it wouldn't be in nearly as much trouble as it's are in. Sharing is caring!

Copyrights are being enforced for the benefit of the music companies' executives, not the artists, who often must hire lawyers to get what's due them. Just as offensive, much music is holed up in vaults because execs won't let it out unless they can squeeze us for the last penny. This is happening (imo) with Maynard Ferguson's MF 1/2/3 albums and Sony. If a company can't or won't market a quality pressing for some block of time (say, two years), it should be required to sell the rights back to the artist at a low rate so the music can be re-marketed or public-domained, possibly by the fans themselves.

Provided that the sonic quality is not degraded in order to facilitate the copyright protection. Legitimate music buyers should not be punished for the sins of the music thieves.

Copyright protection for an artist's work is just fine. It's the antics of the RIAA and labels under the pretence of copyright enforcement that needs wider debate.

The music industry should increase the percentage of profits that the artists receive and loosen the copyrights rules so that a wider audience can listen and enjoy!

RIAA's ridiculous actions can lead to more widespread piracy.

Consumer's fair use rights are being killed in the digital age.

The real problem is companies like Sony that bitch about people down-loading mp3's, then build machines to play them. Just like stand-alone audio CD burners that can't make a second generation copy, but use a computer CD burner, and you can make a copy of a copy of a copy until the cows come home! Atists have a right to protect their creations, but why make it so easy to get at the cookies before lunch? I believe that there is a sinister plan to make recording completely against the law.

Artistic works need protection. I think it is important to educate the consumers. Possession without payment is stealing. Can you say "free cable TV"?

The holder of the copyright should be the artist alone, not the record producer, etc.

I do not really have a problem with copyrights. I realize the copyright holders want to be paid like everyone else. I have a problem with content being too expensive for low-quality music and then demanding that, after you have paid your money, you cannot do as you will with it. The companies didn't have a problem with people recording to VHS or cassette tapes, but mention the new formats and the earth comes to an end. How about this idea: Give the customer what he or she wants and you might make a lot of money, instead of biting the hand that feeds you. The culture changed, but the big companies didn't.

MUSIC WITH A COPYRIGHT LIFE OF ABOUT 100 YEARS IS RIDICULOUS PLUS THE MUSIC INDUSTRY IS A MONOPLY - THIS SHOULD BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION

All this pirate crap is driving me crazy. Don't they understand that the downloaded and computer copies lose sound quality. We must stop the illeagal downloads. All I want is to hear the message that the artist is giving. And I want this as pure and clean as I can afford. The RIAA and the music labels have a very good point. These illegal-downloaders(IDLS) are making it bad for all of us. These IDLS don't give a crap about the quality and sound of the music. I bet 95% of the IDLS have boom boxes or cheap shelf systems purchased from low-end mega stores like "BB" and "CC". These are places that put more money into the decor of the store than the equipment they sell. Which means they don't care how the music sounds. The only other solution is to educate the masses on the high-end. I am sure most audiophiles are just like me, always talking about the their systems, trying to tell friends and family how much better the musical experience can become with better equipment, always inviting people over to listen(always telling them to bring their best or favorite recordings). Then, they ask the price..., some come over, most don't! We as a audiophile community are in a tough situation. I wish I knew the sure answer. Remember one thing,..."It is all about the music".

I am in "mortal" defense of an artist's creation. Until "soft-heads" who like "rip" truly understand that the artist gets only a small portion of the "business", I guess this debate will continue. But art deserves to be protected with iron-clad guarantees of recompense. Yes, I know some are so silly such as Buddy Holly's "Peggy Sue" as to hardly deserve protection, but, if you like it and enjoy it, then please be prepared to JUSTLY compensate the origin of your happiness.

The laws are fine and important. However, how they are enforced by the RIAA leaves a lot to be desired.

Little anal, but not as bad as everybody makes it out to be. And NO, music should not be free; cheapass.

I think we have the right to free use. I believe we should have the ability to make copies if we desire. End of story. I'm going to get back into old vinyl and it may affect the entire industry the way I currently buy CD's. Just kidding, they won't notice a thing.

If you make it worth $16 I'll pay $16. Most of the lame crap the music industry puts out is not worth the money.

As one who once made a living playing music (pre CBS Fender Precision Bass with a five digit serial number), I am well aware how important the protection of intelectual property is. I just want to be able to make copies or compilations for my personal use. Some of the newer protection schemes make this difficult or impossible. Those CDs I return. I'm so glad they can't do that with LPs.

Music copyright shouldn't be changed, as it's very adaquete as it is. Though, I believe the best way for new music to be discovered is through free distribution, which copyright doesn't allow. As long as the consumer buys the album if they like the music, why should the music be spread around freely - that's what music is meant to be; entertainment, not a business

As a major consumer of music products over the past fifty years, I'm nothing less than apalled at the way consumer rights have deteriorated. While I don't condone pirating, I strongly believe that, as a consumer, I should have the right to make a backup copy of any music I have paid for. I also feel that there should be no question about my right to transform that copy to whatever medium suits my needs. Musicians are indeed entitled to fair remuneration for their art. The RIAA and labels who are making so much noise about copyrights, in my opinion, are nothing more than leeches living of the output of the true artists.

Music is love. Love is free. Free as a bird.

The length of time for a copyright should be reasonable, perhaps 20 years. Extensions to copyright should be limited to once, 10 or 15 years. Currently, lenght of copyright is much too long, 75 years after death !! For "Happy Birthday" to still be copyrighted after a century is a farce.

There is a pretty good balance as it is now. However, the sound quality of the copy protected CDs I've heard is very poor so I do not buy them.

Why is it legal to record a song from the radio but not from a P2P group. Why is it legal to let a friend copy your CD? What about our privacy rights?? I think we need to petition the gov't to allow for P2P. They'll never stop it anyway. They'll just be sending innocent kids to jail. These musicians make millions from concerts and marketing t-shirts, etc. Plus people will still buy CDs because the quality is better. If they ban P2P, kids should band together and form groups where they share CD's in person instead. Let's keep the government off of our computers and out of our homes.

One of the sad results of file sharing and CD copying, is the lowering of the perceived value of music. Most folks have no problem paying $6 or more for an adult beverage, but squawk at a cover charge for a live band. Most people enjoy music, but don't think it's worth paying for.

I think the rights associated with copyright are correct. What is wrong is the term which is absurdly long (and it seems will effectly be infinite as a result of ongoing lobbying). Also a standard royalty system for using samples is required.