Comment: Do artists have a right to

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Call it rationilization if (see in situ)

Do artists have a right to

Do artists have a right to control their creative outputs? I believe they do. If they choose to give their CDs away to seed the market, so be it. If they don't and they'd like to be compensated on their terms at a market clearing price for their efforts, that is their right that needs to be respected also.

Nobody here is talking about kids making mixtapes for their girlfriends....we are talking wholesale downloading of entire musical catalogs IN ORDER TO AVOID PAYING MONEY FOR THEM. If it isn't nailed down and can be easily taken/stolen, sadly, it will be and that is exactly the business that the subject named individual was engaged in. I also don't buy the line that says he tried to shut down the pirates..."gee, I've got these millions rolling in because PEOPLE WANT THE BOOTY/LOOT/CONTENT", not because its simply another cloud storage service.

Regarding the reordering of bits fallacy...don't equivocate. You are simply changing the definition of what we're talking about to avoid dealing with the issue at hand: ACTUAL WORK PRODUCT. The bits are simply the medium for the artistic product. If you had "re-arranged" your drive's bits to look exactly like the source for Windows 8 or Google's secret (and massively expensive to develop) search algorithm, you would be in hot water quick and rightfully so. Nobody wants to listen to bits, they want the payoff, the product and they can now easily take that product by copying its bits without recompense to the content creator/author/publisher.

You hit the nail on the head with the iTunes example, there are easy and affordable ways to purchase singles or albums now through multiple sites.

One thing you might not realize about radio stations is that they actually pay royalties whereas the file sharing sites do not. Apples and oranges.