'ISPs don't work for the RIAA'

Or they can legally copy said music off the raido, if it airs.

Because I believe if I am to use CD-quality music, I feel the need to pay for the CD it comes on. However, there are very, very few CDs worth the price of a full retail purchase (ie. $15). Most CDs only have one...maybe two tracks worth listening to, and that isn't worth the price. I simply wait for the market to take over, and pick myself up a copy of said CD once it hits the bargain bin at a music store.

As for why I don't use legal downloading? I think paying similar costs for lesser-quality product loaded in DRM isn't worth my dime. CDs have always been fine, and I don't need to worry about how many of my computers/devices the music's on.

How about the "best of" and anthology type CDs? You get nothing but the hits and at a good price. That is the only way I buy CDs.

If I post just to post I would not be here for the past three year's. Frankly as you can see I got a job and thing's to do. I only came here to share my point of view and it offends me when people speak as if they know it all.

Sure a new business model is needed, iTMS is a great example of that change. But frankly I am not going to waste my time arguing because you think what I am saying is pure fallacy.

Believe as you wish, but to break this down to the simplest form is that in fact you are stealing no matter which way you look at it.

There is a huge difference between radio quality and CD quality. But yes you can legally copy, I believe there was a huge war just like this but it was in regards to people recording radio on tape and calling it stealing.

This could or is the same issue all over again but probably for CD. If music is an art, or a form of expression it should have not been a business model to begin with.

Copyright as SRFireside pointed out is not federal crime plus it has to be for reason of national security and not just any federal crime

That's about a 50/50 crapshoot, honestly. Sometimes a "best of" can be awesome, and have literally their "best of" songs. However, others will stray with the CD, again only including 2-3 tracks of good music, and the rest filled with the "best of" crap music filler.

Again, if a CD's worth the price, I'll buy it. For the other one-track temptations, I'll just wait for them to be offered at a better price.

I dunno. Many of these digital tuners put out "close-to" CD sound for me. Maybe my ears aren't picky enough, or my speakers not adequately fancy, but the difference between a good FM feed and a CD are small. There's certainly a difference, but the price is right for the quality you get. Much more so than a $15 CD for a single desired track.

I never said that. I said what I said because you just gloss over the points I tried to make and just go back to saying what you have already said.
I also do not believe in stealing.
Until there is a law that is clear and fair to the consumer as well as big business and there also is in place a fair business model ,I personally do not believe they are stealing.

Wrong. No such case EVER existed. The RIAA has NEVER sued anyone for downloading music. RIAA cases are brought for distributing/offering music. Please get your urban legends straight.

CD quality is a direct recording and there is no compression which is why it sounds better and yes there is a difference because it's never been compressed and straight from the mixer.

Each file is saved in .wav or .aiff and burned to CD in that form. The compression you put is when you import the CD in MP3/AAC format.

Radio is 64kbps audio. Maybe for the average joe there isn't much of a difference but for a audiophile there is.

You can create your own iMixes on iTunes as long as the music is in the store and do it that way.

They go by "Christmas Essentials" or "Trance Hits" created by users. The business model provided by iTMS is flexible and the audio is cheaper because it's compressed and delivered online.

I am pretty sure you did say a new business model was needed.

Or are you simply referring about how I "think" you believe what I am saying is fallacy?

I'm sorry you feel that way. But unfortunately both of you are wrong. Obviously you've never READ the FBI warning at the beginning of any movie.

»sanfrancisco.fbi.gov/doj ··· 2606.htm

»209.85.165.104/search?q= ··· =2&gl=us

lmao fbi warning

Read copyright law. It's a civil offense. The NET act is what you're talking about and if you read the charges the big clincher was this was a conspiracy to distributing a work that was being prepared for commercial distribution. That's a LONG way off from file traders. Why do you think the RIAA is suing people?

Because they are the illegal distributors of such commercial works. That's why.

U.S. Copyright Law {Title 17 U.S.C. Section 101 et seq., Title 18 U.S.C. Section 2319} Federal law protects copyright owners from the unauthorized reproduction, adaptation, performance, display or distribution of copyright protected works.

Note the word FEDERAL in the second sentence.

It doe's however allow for "civil" remedies which are the most commonly pursued.

Just because it's a Federal law doesn't mean it's a criminal offense. There are civil laws in the Federal books too. Copyright law is federal law, however it deals with compensation of royalties and licenses.

So it's not a crime to reproduce, adapt, perform, display or distribute protected works, without the owners permission?

Just because a law is in the Federal Book doesn't mean that it must be followed through by Federal Agents directly, However it doesn't make it non-criminal if it is not.

ALL copyright violators that are caught go to a FEDERAL Prison, are Charged a FEDERAL offense, Pay a FEDERAL fine. The only thing civil or local is when the FEDERAL government possibly asks for assistance in apprehending & detaining these criminals until they are transferred in to FEDERAL custody.

A crime is a crime, Federal or otherwise.

Show me where in copyright law it says copyright infringement is a criminal offense and what kind of prison time is applicable. It's in there to be sure, but not for EVERY infringement violation. The sort of offenses you are pertaining to only apply to certain limited circumstances. The uploader next door will not ever do jail time. Neither will Jay Z for remaking Tiny Bubbles without permission. You have a van full of copied CD's you are selling without paying royalties? That's one instance where you might do the time.

Take a look for yourself.

»www.copyright.gov/title1 ··· html#501

I now understand how you got yourself lost. Let me see if I can clarify things for you a bit with one of my famous links: ( just use google for future references)

...The lowest penalty is conviction of a federal misdemeanor, with a prison sentence of up to one year and a fine of up to $5000.
courtesy : »209.85.165.104/search?q= ··· =1&gl=us

It's also not unheard of for persons to be imprisoned for up to TEN (10) years.

Before you ask "Why don't we hear about these in the news". Consider the Patriot Act. Most uploaders are issued gag-orders, and it is against the law for news agencies to comment about such cases, period.

I think my point is further proven here.

Finally. end.

Lets try this again. Read the remedies in copyright law. The ONLY time copyright infringement is a criminal offense is if the total retail value of the infringed work exceeds $1000 over a six months period or if fraudulent copyright claims are made. All other remedies amount to things like cease and desist orders, injunctions, royalty repayment and statutory damages. You know... civil remedies. It's all there on the link you provided.

You don't hear much about file traders doing jail time because it hasn't happened. Don't you think the RIAA would love to show a criminal conviction for uploading music? That would be their golden goose in their war. The gag order more likely come from settlements and cases where the RIAA had to drop the case.

So I say again. Copyright infringement in of itself is not a criminal offense. It is primarily a civil offense, even if it is a federal law. Infringement that proves significant monetary damages can be criminally charged if it meets the required guidelines, but the exception doesn't make the rule. You haven't disproven my point. Just further solidified it.

Where would the money be, however? The **AAs have no intention to actually punish anyone with these methods. They're just hoping that people will be intimidated, and cough up the $1k (or about) settlement money to save their ass from a court date.