There were 2 points that I think were missed in the debate on file sharing. I'm sure there were more, but 2 that I noticed right off.

Today most of the copyrights are owned by corporations and not the actual artists. If an artist wants to be able to make any serious money they have to sign a contract with the media monopolies. The contracts give over the copyrights to the corporations and not the artists. If the corporations were not worried about their own bank books I don't think we would even be having this debate.

Along the same line a copyright lasts the life of the author plus 70 years. I think that is a little extreme, even when we are just trying to protect the artist and his income. Especially considering most artistic works don't make much money(if any) after say 5 years.

My last point doesn't really have anything to do with file sharing really or copyrights except for the fact that... The music and movie industries have been overcharging the consumer for decades for a product that has become diluted more and more over the years. There are good and current works out there, but that doesn't change the fact that they are severely overcharging and people are getting fed up with it. This drives people to extreme measures such as breaking the law and illegally downloading media.

The media industries need to wake up to the fact that their industry is consumer driven and the consumers are upset.

I'm still not sure that the issue has been framed correctly.

Let's first assert something: computers copy things. There is no technical difference between file sharing networks, Kazaa, ftp, http (the web). The difference is the intent on which that technology is used. I could serve songs via web, ftp, file share, udp, it doesn't matter... computers create copies.

The RIAA wants to limit copies of copyrighted material. Fair enough. But there is no technology (that I'm aware of) which can restrict the copying of copyrighted material without placing severe restrictions on free copying.

We allow some technologies to exist *even though* they can be used in commissions of crimes (ie, guns).

My take is this: it is the entertainment industry's responsiblity to create some sort of technological answer, or keep suing people. But as a citizen in this society, I don't think they should be allowed to get extreme tort relief because some people use the technology in a illegal mannor. In other words, they can't restrict any technology that can facilitate illegal copies of copyrighted works when a the same technology has legal uses. It becomes their business problem, not government or societies.

Yes vernarial, I agree with you. And I think it was a flaw of the debate that neither Margot Adler or the professor from the The U. of Iowa didn't take Mr. Chandler anywhere near that argument: That it is the greed of the record companies that made peer-to-peer file-sharing attractive in the first place. Mr. Chandler says he defends the artists that they should get their just due. But what percentage of a $20 CD does an artist really see? I have heard that most of the time, it is less than a dollar. Mr. Chandler doesn't represent the artist. He represents the rich coporate cows that take no chances and make billions off the back of the artist. Mr. Chandler doesn't represent the interests of creativity. He represents the machine that tries to crush it. I'll never buy a piece of work by Metallica.

If you already own an LP and/or 8-track and/or cassette and/or CD version of a song, is it still a copyright violation to download a copy of the same song? If the music companies say we're just buying a license to the music, why or how does it violate copyright laws to download a digital version rather than buying another "license" to the same song? Shouldn't the music companies allow you to buy the CD release of a song you own on a different media, simply by paying a low cost for the CD? It seems the music companies want it both ways, by saying music is a licensed & copyright-protected creation, but then requiring you to pay full price to license the same music simply on a new media.

A word from a working artist. There's way too much idealized talk from non-artists right on this program about how our motivation should be the art, not the paycheck. The idea that aritsts should produce work for the enjoyment alone with no thought of personal gain is not merely overly romantic; it's patently absurd. Most people don't become artists for the money, but without the money it's hard to keep the art going. My 10 cents.

I think that P2P downloading is a good thing. i would be broke if i had to pay for all the songs i have downloaded. i dont think artists are really suffering from this either, its circulating their music and getting their names out into the public.

I believe that peer to peer editing is a positive influence on young people in our society. In my own personal opinion it is very helpful to our modern economy.

I feel that peer-to-peer file sharing is wrong. It is stealing from the creator of the song or movie or program. Stealing is illegal and file sharing is exactly the same thing. Artists are being hurt a lot by this despite what others think.

I feel that there should be programs avaliable to download music from without the risk of getting caught. If it is made required to pay for the songs then nobody will be downloading. Songs get a lot of publicity when kids can download as much as they want.

Ok personally i enjoy peer to peer file sharing because i like to sit down and burn a cd of songs i want instead of going out and buying a cd and only liking 2 songs off the whole thing. To the artists i guess it may nt be fair because they dont get there money, but they still get there music out there and if people like it enough they still might go out and buy the cd just because they like the artist that much. If they tool it away i wouldnt object i just would defineteley be disapointed. I say allow peer to peer file sharing.

Ok personally i enjoy peer to peer file sharing because i like to sit down and burn a cd of songs i want instead of going out and buying a cd and only liking 2 songs off the whole thing. To the artists i guess it may not be fair because they dont get there money, but they still get there music out there and if people like it enough they still might go out and buy the cd just because they like the artist that much. If they took it away i wouldnt object i just would defineteley be disapointed. I say allow peer to peer file sharing.

I agree that burning a CD for yourself or a friend is not right and that doing so is a violation of the copyright laws. But on the other hand, what happends if your CD gets dirty or if it gets scratched? I feel that burning the CD to another CD is not that wrong as long as you don't burn 10 copies for you and your friends.

Downloading music off of the internet for free should be leagal. it is sharing music and not stealing. the companies already have tons of money and not having a little bit more wont kill them. the artist wont suffer, they have more money that they don't know what to do with. People still buy CD's and movies and download too, so artists will still get their money. The average people wont buy a $15 CD for one or two songs and downloading is easier. If it should cost money, a real low price should be offered, like fifty-cents is ok.

Even though it is more conventient and cheaper to share music files etc. with friends it is A) illegal and B) unfair to the producers of the music product not just the artist. Though you are doing a favor for a fellow friend in the action of sharing you are hurting other people's incomes. All the money you pay to buy for cd's etc. does not go to the artist alone; other middle men suffer from peer to peer file sharing.

I think that peer to peer file shareing should be leagle. However, it is not moraly or ethically right. I feel "shareing" should be illeagle because the "sharers" are the ones copying the copyrighted material. Downloading, however downloading is on the end of borrowing. It is not the downloaders fault that the "sharer" made an illeagle copy.