Quest Means Business   « Back to Blog Main
April 16, 2009
Posted: 2017 GMT

On Friday in Sweden, a court ruled on whether several defendants are guilty in the Pirate Bay case of Internet file sharing.

The issue isn't new. When we file share are we guilty of stealing? Or is it our right to do this – after all we bought the music, or film in the first place. It seems the digital age has led us into temptations and acts that we would never dream of if in a traditional shop. We don't shoplift from our local grocery or music store but – whoops – go online and everything is up for grabs.

My view is that most people do this because they don't have any personal interest that they've seen stolen online. They don't have property worth protecting from illegal downloads so they can't relate to the anguish this causes. The key time of course is when it's YOUR copyrighted work at risk. Because I guarantee you – if You have a hit song, or copyrighted piece that was being shared "willy nilly" Ha! You'd scream long and loud for compensation.

I am not pure here. Let me own up to the fact that in the early days of p2p sharing I did my fare share of unauthorized loading up the digital player ... Morpheus, Napster, yup – I did 'em all.

I don't like paying for downloads anymore than you do. But these days I do recognize someone wrote, performed or distributed this song. And yes – it wasn't me.

You on other hand have some very different views ... join the debate below.


Ladidairo@richardquest One feels guilt for about 2 nano-secs, then u figure u got one over on the big cats!

Ignacious@richardquest In these hard economic times, how are we supposed to survive without Pirate Whose worried about downloading movie

Agromilia@richardquest You just found out about double standards in morals!!! I knew it already!!!

mommaude@richardquest Copying is one thing downloading is another. someone allowed you to download. 2009 if they don't want you to have it block it

jehahn@richardquest internet file sharing is a lot like shoplifting

twistedviewed@richardquest Companies use file sharing all the time with software etc. so what is so different with movie files, software has copy rights

SergioFlores_@richardquest If its illegal to download, then its the same to uppload. Then why have sites like Youtube? Which the news uses frequently

Panhinda@richardquest Knowledge should as far as possible have no boundaries. Archimedes didn't even wait to dress up before he began sharing

sepiahats@richardquest As long as no one's making money out of it,it really is our right to copy.Remember those self-made tapes from teenage days?

Lauratheexpat@richardquest I'll respect the law.But it would help if I didnt have 2 pay ridiculous prices to see a movie or buy a textbook!

carlmcdade@richardquest no more a double standard than speeding in your car but expecting swift justice for being hit by a speeder.

echom @richardquest of course it's questionable, but society and the law lag behind the development. there are no broadly acceptable rules, yet

core_APPLER@richardquest HYPOCRISY is a product of the Western World (not just w/downloading data)..Let me just give u 1 example: NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

MichaelDCC@richardquest File sharing is stealing by sharing. Robin Hood was not a good guy he was a thief

Rikki_ND@richardquest I didn't as a teen, but as I've gotten a bit older I've come to see the issues arising from it so I buy what I download!

Posted by: ,
Filed under: Banking •Business •Profitable Moment •Quest Means Business

Share this on:
Deni from Canada   April 16th, 2009 8:30 pm ET

There has been sharing of material like this in one form or another over the years. I think you can look at everything from bootleg clothing and tapes to file sharing, it's not a question of is it illegal or not but how long they're going to struggle against the sharing of information.

Preeti Bakaya   April 16th, 2009 8:34 pm ET

As we move towards the digital age, it is imperative that we also look at news laws and regulations for the virtual world. The Internet is the new market place and we have to create regulations for it like its offline counterpart.

Mohammad   April 16th, 2009 8:44 pm ET

In my country, if we don't share new movie, there are no ways to get it !

Craig Eyles   April 16th, 2009 9:09 pm ET

you're right. look how much of Joe Public goe to court over stolen this or stolen that.
BUT, i believe networks do leak programs onto the net for downloading.
Here in Australia, we had the "Underbelly" contreversy, a home made series. Banned in my state, but shown everywhere else.
Two shows into a 10 show series, I knew somebody who downloaded the whole series.
And morals?? I know of a chuuch pastor who pirates by the truck load.
Also, if i bought a DVD for the kids, copied it to protect the original, does that make ME a pirate??
Notice you don't have a video for the "profitable moment" today. Imagine the cries of hypocrisy if we had to uplaod something that was the property of yours.
Enjoyed the show today (rare occasion these days coz of time diff).

Blond Rocker   April 17th, 2009 1:53 am ET


This is a confusing issue, so perhaps a little bit of litigation guideline will help as the technology is way ahead of the law.

Saying this, I always buy the real deal.

But what if the real deal isn't for sale and will never be?

Example: Someone tapes a live Jeff Beck gig and Jeff (congrats mate on induction to R&R HOF) never releases the gig?

Then someones sends me a copy?

Is that stealing?

Not that I have EVER received such merchandise; so let's just pretend.

Now I've confused myself and I still don't know how to send a tweet to RQ.

peace, love, and buy the real deal.
blond rocker
ps: is there a website where I can get a FREE tweet maual?

Sankhya   April 17th, 2009 2:17 am ET

Hi, Richard. This is Barbara from San Francisco. Can you follow me on Twitter so I can tweet my comments? I've been following you and it's time to return the favor! 🙂 I am @BarbaraCassidy_ on Twitter. Thanks!

Abe Kleinfeld   April 17th, 2009 2:46 am ET

If content is copyrighted and you take it without permission (or without paying for it if that is what its author demands), then yes, it is stealing. Plain and simple.

Lisa Rhodes   April 17th, 2009 3:10 am ET

I think people participate in file sharing not necessarily for a profit, but because then are able to do it. Also, its a way of getting attention and connecting with others.

Dr. Ana Penteado   April 17th, 2009 8:42 am ET

Good point, just because it is an intangible right does not make the tangible rights go away. Copies of DVDs and CDs pose the same question – why people share the contents and think that John Doe, the producer or composers will have the fair share? Better saying what about the guy that remastered the songs in your CD – do you think he will get something if you share files of cool music with your mate?

Aakash Andrews   April 17th, 2009 9:19 am ET

Hi Richard – Yes file sharing is most definately theft but it is uncontrollable....As usual the law is trying to catch up to technology.

River   April 17th, 2009 10:07 am ET

This is an outrage. Polls suggest that 95 percent of the people support filesharing of music and video. Should not the elected representatives take that into consideration instead of just obeying the fat musicrecord companies and their lobbyists every order!?

About this case: Piratebay is just a search engine, just like Google. There are more copyrighted torrent files to be found on Google than on Piratebay.

What is the next step, shut down Internet? Use the same strategies they use in China to silence opposite views? Again, the main thing here is that the PEOPLE SUPPORT FILESHARING OF MUSIC/VIDEO.

William   April 17th, 2009 10:20 am ET

I am an artist and musician and will testify that of all of my fellow artists perhaps 10% agree with the concept of copyright. The rest of us see it as pointless. When we make music it is not MADE for sale. It is made for music. Anything I have made and will make in the future is or will be available for free online. Money is made from merchandise, publishing and performing. Not from "selling" 0's and 1's.

alex   April 17th, 2009 10:23 am ET

Long Live TPB! Legalize file-sharing!

Steve   April 17th, 2009 10:34 am ET

If this outcome goes worldwide ISP's will loose massive amounts of money because their income is dependent on downloaders. Perhaps ISP's should be chipping in the millions of dollars to the movie industry as royalties?

mårten   April 17th, 2009 10:40 am ET

in sweden most young people are supporting the piratebay. They will win in a higher instance. most lwayers agree on that, the first level in court in sweden is often overruled.

piracy is NOT theft becouse the original stays with the owner.

Steve   April 17th, 2009 10:44 am ET

Curious, when it comes to file-sharing over the internet everybody calls it theft, but when was the last time you used your TIVO?

Brixtonboyo   April 17th, 2009 10:46 am ET

Here's to put it into perspective. I'm in a band on a major label. We are fairly unknown. Since October, I have been putting in 12 hours a day, 5 days a week (sometimes more) writing, and demoing songs for our next album. That's around 60 hours a week I work.

When we get into the studio and finally record this album I will have put in close to 3,000 hours working on it. I absolutely enjoy my job. I love music and I would never want to do anything else. However, people expecting to get what I just spent 3000 hours on, and poured my heart and soul into for free? You're out of your mind!!

But that is exactly what is happening. People don't care. They don't think that they are stealing, and that is just blind, ignorant, selfish thinking. You're going to drive the very music you love out of existence because musicians will have to go work at mcdonalds.

Patrik   April 17th, 2009 10:55 am ET

It si now ok in Sweden to prosecute Volvo for helping somone to kill a person becous they gave him the tool to do it whit.....
Im ashamed to be a swed tody.. and beg forgivness from our children who we have to rais in ths country...

paai   April 17th, 2009 11:00 am ET

Eevery time that I download a pirated movie or song, it is with deep satisfaction that finally I can get my own back from the robber barons that corrupted our legal system and destroyed our culture. I say: Hang Disney cum suis, hang then high!

Tarmo   April 17th, 2009 11:02 am ET

I second William's point of view. Plus some additional sentiments of mine. One of my hobbies is music making itself and I go even that far that I release my compositions under a Creative Commons license. Money is not my God... And music helps me to unwind.

For the record, illegal file sharing is evil, and I do not condone it. However, the file sharing itself has also a number of legitimate uses. You can guess three times what thing is listed as a download option Debian Linux's or Big Buck Bunny's web site. Uh uh. Now if there will be a crackdown, who guarantees that legitimate uses won't be targeted either? Plus, legitimate uses go unreported in media.

Am I only one who suspects that news on such topics are dreadfully biased towards the big industries and we shouldn't expect neutral reporting from big media on this matter.

Isabio from Barcelona   April 17th, 2009 11:07 am ET

Laws are based on habits of society, and our societies are changing pretty fast. Maybe laws should adjust themselves to those changes too.

Patrik   April 17th, 2009 11:08 am ET

Hi Brixtonboyo,

What kind of a contract do you have how much in % do you recive from one sold album... who is the persons steeling from you.. the people that buys your albums or the persons who probebly get more than you do from one sold album by doing noting exept loaning you the mony so you can record your album..

bodonianx   April 17th, 2009 11:17 am ET

Hmm this is like sending gunmakers to jail because people get killed with their guns. I don't like guns and I don't like piracy but this is just stupid and wrong.

Golodh   April 17th, 2009 11:22 am ET

Copyright infringement most certainly isn't theft. Neither legally nor morally.

Legally it's something different, or it would be termed theft instead of copyright infringement. It does not take the original away from the rights holder.

Of course it's illegal, and one may argue that copyright infringement does deprive the copyright holder of some revenues, i.e. the fees that he might have received had the copyright infringer attempted to buy a license.

Might, because it's by no means certain that anyone who downloads an image, a text, a track, an MPEG, or a piece of software would have paid the license holder what he would have wished to charge. The copyright infringer might simply have decided not to avail himself of the copyrighted work.

The issue is of course how far we (as a society) should extend copyright how seriously we should take copyright infringement. That's where opinions differ.

First of all, copyright is not a "god-given" or a "natural" right. It never has been, and never will be. It's simply a notion that has evolved within our society and which can be adjusted by common consent. It should be adjusted to provide maximum benefit to society as a whole, not just to those who are most adept at lobbying.

Companies that do nothing except trading copyrights and buying publicity (music publishing companies, film publishing companies, software publishers) have a vested interest in suggesting that copyright is a form of "intellectual property", in portraying copyright infringement as a form of theft, and in painting its economic impact in the blackest possible terms. And they routinely do just that. Nevermind whether it's true or not, it's what they push for.

The public on the other hand, always out for a freebie, has a vested interest in loosening copyright as much as possible and portraying copyright infringement as something trivial.

There are studies (payed for by copyright holders) that suggest that copyright violation conatitutes a net disbenefit to the economy. Other (more academic and independent) studies suggest that the amount of damage is limited. Microsoft for example acknowledges copyright infringement as a valuable tool in markets where its list prices are unrealistic but where it wants to prevent e.g. Open Source products from gaining familiarity and market share.

If one looks at the state of development of the sciences and technology, it is plain that both science and technology have benefited immensely from a free exchange of information, and an absence of copyright on finds.

Copyright of life + 70 years is probably excessive, and motivated only by concern for companies like Disney, who would suddenly be deprived of the possibility of milking 50-year old material, and who would rather not see promising young artists extend the cartoon figures that were invented by the now-deceased Walt Disney.

We should separate hype and self-interest from fact and shape copyright so that it benefits society as a whole. Those who have created, those who wish to create by reusing adapting, or reinventing, and those who merely consume.

tvnewswatch   April 17th, 2009 11:27 am ET

Serious stuff! Maybe. The 'pirates' will appeal and in Swedish law they won't have to serve their sentence until all appeals are exhausted. There is some naivity from producers of digital media [whether music, fims or software] in thinking they have absolute control over it once released into the public domain. Young people particularly are the targets for this media, but many have few financial resources to purchase the material. Before file sharing with sites like Napster, teenagers taped music off the tv, radio and swapped recordings from friends records collection. As the internet came to the fore and media became digital sharing music and films has become easier and of higher quality. While it could be argued that the downloading of such material IS theft; it is arguable to suggest that the companies are losing money. Many of the downloaders would be unlikely to purchase the CD, DVD or game anyway. CDs are way over priced. After reaping back recording costs, companies should reduce the price significantly. As a teenager I possessed about 30 singles and less than a dozen LPs as well as a large collection of tapes. Singles cost about 75p in 1977 and LPs more than £3. Those prices have increased significantly and its unsurprising that youngsters share and download MP3s for free. Over ten years or more I have built up a large CD collection of some 300 titles which would cost in excess of £3000. What teenager could afford that? Similarly my more than 200 DVDs would also exceed an average teenager's pocket money allowance for several years. Simply put the media companies are waving a rather large carrot at the proverbial donkey. It's temptation beyond endurance for those with little money. For those with more money it's easier to spend the £15 for the CD or DVD

Marcus   April 17th, 2009 11:34 am ET

So I buy a music CD from the music store or DVD movie, it's copyrighted material right? I make a copy for my mother, its that delivering copyrighted material illegally. At what point do I have the right to own something and share it with whomever I want regardless of the medium without it being illegal?

Peter   April 17th, 2009 11:42 am ET

Richard, the answer is a plain and simple yes. Of course it is stealing.
You are taking something without paying for it.
Every good citizen pays for it by going to the local shop and buying the CD or DVD. But somehow, some people think they're so special, that they can just take it for free?
Ever wonder why it isn't free in shops?

This is like back when I was studying and working in Melbourne. People would hop on trams without paying for tram tickets. They would only immediately whip out their "Daily x 10" tram ticket once they see the inspectors come onboard.

Same principle with piracy. People will steal stuff if they can get away without paying for it. And the typical response to justify their actions would be to ridicule those who call them out, or the same old tiresome "Don't judge me", etc. This speaks volumes about the nature of their character.

Quoting Pirate Bay from the CNN report:
""It is the opinion of us and our lawyers that you are ... morons," the response continued, suggesting that studio representatives perform a sexual act. The response closed with an obscenity."

I think jailing them for blatantly breaking the law is poetic justice for those crooks. They had been given a warning. But they ignored it, and responded with ridicule. Please don't sympathize with them now, it's not like they weren't warned fairly in advance.

I applaud Sweden for this move. Let this serve as an example that piracy is illegal. You either pay like everyone else, or don't pirate it at all. If you pirate it, you break the law and should be jailed. You are not above the law.

Of course, I've read some legitimate reasons for pirating, such as those willing to pay for something, but can't get it from their countries. We can then try to discuss or monetize how to get those things, through online buying, etc. But it's still no excuse to break the law by pirating.

Tee   April 17th, 2009 12:03 pm ET

Omg! What would we do without p2p sharing sites like The law seeks to take us back to the stone ages; please, wake up! File sharing is not illegal because the person sharing the file bought the CD/DVD in the first place! Is it illegal to go over to a friend's house and rip a copy of his Kanye West album onto your laptop (or burn a copy onto a CD)? If that is not illegal, then I see no reason why this is illegal.

There are different similar scenarios to this issue. If we agree that this is illegal, very soon the law would propose that even sharing files via msn messenger or skype is illegal. I really think this is a wake-up call, and people need to stand up for their rights. How can we call the internet a global village when you cannot share freely with friends? The keyword here is 'sharing' not 'stealing'. It is done with the consent of the original purchaser of the file, and this makes it completely different from shop-lifting.

Jim Smith João Pessoa, Brazil   April 17th, 2009 12:10 pm ET

Anything available to the general public whether it's broadcast video, digital movies or music or whatever is always going to be cloned, copied or shared. The more things the companies try to do to stop it, the more often people will find ways to get around it.

Instead of treating people like criminals, a better approach must be found. If you continue the hard line, it will only get worse.

Patrick   April 17th, 2009 12:24 pm ET

It is the entire Copyright Concept that needs to be rethought.

Technology has advanced so much that laws protecting an ancient concept much adapt with their time.

File sharing will not be stopped by laws, and if you think it can, you do not understand that the evolution of technology MUST be followed by an evolution of laws.

At the beginning of the Internet, everything could be found for free. There were no eBusinesses yet, and Greed did not yet infect the Net. Now that one can copy and share anything, copyrighted or not, there is no more understanding of an outdated concept.

Stop being greedy, change the law.

Patrick from Switzerland

Thornton   April 17th, 2009 12:47 pm ET

Todays film and music industry is a chewing gum business, yet the media companies charge it's guests for french cuisine! I for one am sick of gum and won't pay another nickle for it!

Thornton   April 17th, 2009 1:25 pm ET

And by the way, claiming the film industry is "bleeding" is total and utter horse manure. According to the wiki, listing the 50 highest grossing movies of all time, 39 of the movies are from 2000 and later, including 8 movies from last year!

Thornton   April 17th, 2009 1:25 pm ET

And by the way, claiming the film industry is "bleeding" is total and utter horse manure. According to the wiki, listing the 50 highest grossing movies of all time, 39 of the movies are from 2000 and later, including 8 movies from last year!

Michelle Chaves   April 17th, 2009 2:42 pm ET

I am trying to contact CNN in Trinidad and Tobago now.

Cesar   April 17th, 2009 6:23 pm ET

If the industry was a bit smarter, they could be actually getting some profit out of this. Instead they complain about something in which there's no turning back like internet sharing, stealing or however you wanna call it.

Mike   April 17th, 2009 6:24 pm ET

Consider two, distinct activities: sharing and downloading. Both are personal choices, yet one is illegal and the other is not.

dogdaze   April 17th, 2009 6:43 pm ET

Absurd discussion. The music and film industry is getting money from a media tax on every R or R/W cd or dvd and every harddrive in every computer bought in Sweden whatever you use it for.
Also they get compensation from every Radio and TV program at least here in Sweden. What else do they want?

soma   April 17th, 2009 7:15 pm ET

first of all, downloading copyrighted material is not the same as stealing a dvd or cd from a store. Why ?
Because there's no additional effort (material, mental etc.) needed for you to be able to download that material, once in a digital format it is multipliable infinitely without any extra effort. Whereas stealing a physical dvd would involve the whole manufacturing and distributing process of that dvd being "stolen", which does include additional effort. Secondly, as stated before, downloading copyrighted material does not mean one won't buy a legal copy afterwards, nor does refraining from illegal downloads guarantee one will buy a legal copy. Which makes speculations about monetary losses purely fictional. And regarding the industry standpoint or rather attitude towards people downloading "their" material, let's just say the industry needs those people (the majority of people watching films, listening to music etc.) infinitely more, than those people need the industry. Why ?
Because people can live happily without films and/or music completely, it is not a necessity for them (they may have been conditioned to think it is..), whereas it is a total necessity for the industry to have people who buy their stuff. And the funny thing is that even without the whole film and music industry you would have excellent films and music made by people in the independent scene, who although still would need money to fund their work, but at least
would provide quality material for, i'm sure, a fraction of the price you would have to pay for industrially produced material. It is the typical case of someone dull and shallow making a pile of crap with all the worlds resources available to him/her versus the creative enthusiast producing something of inherent value with minimal resources. This is of course an extremely simplified view, but highlights the problem i think.

Anton   April 17th, 2009 7:23 pm ET

Here is Moscow (maybe this applies to other cities as well) some practice the following: after they read a book they leave it on a bench (or in some over place) in the city. Whoever finds it obviously can legally read the book, he can even keep it, but usually he does the same, that is he leaves the book in some place in the city (maybe some eatery). And so the process goes on…

I guess you can do the same with the CD and DVD, moreover you can do it on line, so that people can find it on the internet. I don’t see the difference. So it’s perfectly legal to download CD/DVD from the internet.
This is like if you borrow a CD from a friend.

Anton   April 17th, 2009 7:23 pm ET

It would be interesting to know how many instances of some video is being played compared with the number of them bought. If the former is less then the latter then all illegal copies are legal. 🙂

Anton   April 17th, 2009 7:24 pm ET

How is the price of the CD/DVD/blue rays determined? I think that the current way contradicts the free market system. Shouldn’t the price be determined by bid and ask prices? Moreover the price of intellectual property of any given CD is no more then $1(or even less), then why on earth am i supposed to pay $10? It ridiculous.

Michael fm Geneva   April 17th, 2009 7:52 pm ET

DOWNLOADING... Is that like TIVOing a movie you might want to see but miss, that's on your CABLE TV. Oh I'm paying for the cable TV, but I also pay for the internet provider. The electrons that are placed out in the cosmos are part of the PUBLIC DOMAIN and if certain things are to be kept from the public then don't put them out there. The ONISS should be on the ones putting the material out there and not on the ones using it.

Who sets the price on information anyways?

Akso   April 18th, 2009 7:47 am ET

What about people who can't afford academic journals or don't have access to them? What stops a person from lending his Cambridge University Press book to someone who needs it in real life?

Its all good for experienced and affluent internet users to say that 'I have material and other people should get into university or buy it if they want knowledge' but some people need books and if they are your friends then you forward them quotes and share books just as you would with a real life paper book.

Akso   April 18th, 2009 8:05 am ET

In China Google has released free download service since piracy is a major issue there. Google shares revenues generated though ads with copyright owners.

If you are going to deem 'file sharing' illegal then make sure you arrest every bleeding heart scholar who gives away his/her old print books for free to the needy. He is sharing those 'files' after all.

All books donated to UNICEF also need to be burnt since those files were also 'shared' and not bought as per copyright law.

Just reformulate laws people!

Shahid Sarwar   April 18th, 2009 10:55 am ET

Talking of business, this brings the issue to a proper and logical distribution system that should be put in place. If original copies were sold at a more logical price or if downloads of movies or songs would be available at a much cheaper price then we would not have needed websites like these. In this modern world where nothing can be stopped via communication, why don't the distributors bring forward a mechanism whereby movies or songs can be sold at minimal payment. Its only about thinking of selling more volumes at a less or reasonable price. The equation still remains the same and will put everyone in a win-win situation....

Maria from Spain   April 18th, 2009 11:13 am ET

True artists don´t need millions to make us happy, Richard!

Musicians make more than enough money from live concerts!

As for Hollywood: whoever invented the routine of the public paying for their propaganda movies, was one smart capitalist. Nothing to do with art and entertainment here.

Rahul Singh   April 18th, 2009 8:34 pm ET

I don't think that it's correct to share copyrighted files but on the other hand I don't think that the people that download it are doing something wrong...
What would you do if someone was handing out free DVD's on the street? Would you take it or would you not?

Rahul Singh   April 18th, 2009 8:34 pm ET

I don't think that it's correct to share copyrighted files but on the other hand I don't think that the people that download it are doing something wrong...
What would you do if someone was handing out free DVD's on the street? Would you take it or would you not?

Rahul Singh

Prasenjit Medhi   April 19th, 2009 5:11 am ET

Im a bachelor and Im not getting it. So I like looking at pics of pretty girls. But I get you. And I think you're right. Its just morally wrong.

So from now on, Ill stick to daily babe on Facebook 🙂

scott   April 19th, 2009 3:58 pm ET

Piracy of copyrighted material is like shoplifting. It may seem harmless but that does not change the fact that it is immoral, a crime and you a criiminal.

Michael fm Geneva   April 19th, 2009 5:48 pm ET

Gee Richard aren't we all "SHARING" & "DOWNLOADING" information when we log onto cnn/international or cnn/quest means business or doesn' t CNN copyright their programs?

Walker Hartigan   April 19th, 2009 10:31 pm ET

Hmmm. What good is the local library? There are many many many millions of authors who write books that are in public libraries. Anyone can go down there, check a book out, read it front to back, and return it when they are done. Perfectly fine in the moral eyes of the government.

Hmmm. What good is the local p2p sharing site? There are many many many millions of artists who record songs that are in these sites. Anyone can go in there, download a song, listen start to finish, and delete it when they are done. Perfectly WRONG in the moral eyes of the government.

Not very many differences. Pirate bay should live. You would only be mad because your song is downloaded, or shared, no? Well when there was no internet to share, of course someone's going to make more money than you if they released songs back then. A new age means new standards, and with internet sharing, it's obvious that new musical artists and movie makers will not make as much money! Common sense.

And if you disagree with that, look at the comparison I used above and tell me the government doesn't have a double standard as well.

EmilyandWade   April 20th, 2009 3:07 am ET

Richard, how are you doing with your twitter followers in regards to catching up to Rick Sanchez? Hopefully your gaining on him.

paai   April 20th, 2009 4:55 am ET

Scott: stealing from robber barons to compensate for the damage they have already done, is not just simple shoplifting. And since I made my own books available on the internet, and donated a part of the price of every sold copy to an organization that fights such robber barons, nobody accuse me of not living up to my beliefs.
Large publishers, especially in amusement industry, are every bit as bad as corrupt bankers.

Peter Vaz   April 20th, 2009 7:15 am ET

We are lodging an Appeal! with you Mr. Quest.....we need your program business hours extended or continue until Saturday.These are depression days and why to punish those pirates? We have lost jobs, penniless and the courts have no mercy on us to download the free least we get our minds out of recession rather than food depressions. Can you atleast keep us busy with your Quest program? Hell promise...we will not download your Quest program....but keep us awake even on weekends.

Elliot Willcox   April 20th, 2009 12:13 pm ET

Sure, piracy is theft. However, the drying up of traditional avenues of profit offered by the copyrights of studio released music means that in order to remain profitable, singers and musicians have to go live in order to offer an experience not available in your earphones. And when you say live, you say quality. Its a bit darwinian, but never have there been so many good voices, and extraordinary shows, with great musicians. We have come back to old-style performance quality whereby artists had to be good "live" in order to make a living. Conclusion: even bad things can yield better results.

Michael Orlik   April 20th, 2009 2:01 pm ET

Well, they want to arrest them for "search engine". That is quite strange – yep, you find only torrents there, which are especially used for illegal files. But try Google – enter eg. some movie and try to look for torrent. You'll find hundreds of torrents to download. So, I am looking forward to seeing sue against Google company.

Caryl   April 24th, 2009 4:23 am ET

It is the songwriter and the band (musicians and singers) who are cheated by downloading or sharing their music.

As sales of recorded music decrease because of piracy, what incentive is there for musicians to create any music or to spend time recording it (which costs a lot)?

Would anyone like to work all week or month and not be paid? That is what is happening with music piracy!

Let's treat the creators of the music we love fairly. Maybe then they will continue to create MORE music!

Michael fm Geneva   April 24th, 2009 12:20 pm ET

If the ARTISTS were getting the highest percentage of the reward I guess that would be one story but the one who buys it from the artist and then puts it into the airwaves to get the highest percentage now that's another story...I.E. DISTRIBUTERS. WHAT DO THEY BUY IT FOR AND THEN HOW MUCH DO THEY GIVE BACK TO THE ARTISTS????

convert flv video   May 5th, 2010 6:37 am ET

Thanks, dude! That explains it.

avi converter   June 16th, 2010 10:21 am ET

You are so nice to share these with us.

Comments have been closed for this article

Powered by VIP