The original copyright laws came about in the age of the printing press, when it was feasible to distribute large amounts of information, but only for publishers (who could afford printing presses and operation costs). It was designed to prevent other publishers from stealing work from authors and publishers who already had an agreement. Copyright, as it was originally intended, applied only to corporations. Quoting an article I found on the Web, "Telling [consumers] they weren't allowed to reprint a book was about as meaningful as telling them they couldn't have it laser-etched on the surface of the Moon." It was the new technology of first, the photocopier, and then computers and the Internet that allowed people to copy things large-scale, and copyright laws were changed by corporations to apply more to people, and also to apply to free distribution as well as resale for profit.

Technically, it is. With a copy on your hard disk the music can now be listened to in two different locations. That is illegal, the same way it is illegal to install a single PC licensed version of Windows or Office on more than one PC. I don't think the distributors would have a problem with you ripping the music to the hard drive to listen to more conveniently, but there's no guarantee that you won't be sharing it (i.e. if you have the music on my computer you could theoretically give the CD away or sell it and still have the music, robbing the music industry of a potential sale).

If you can't accept what I said above as a valid argument then there's no point debating piracy with you. If people are free to copy and distribute IP then that will take away from the industries based on IP and the industries will not be able to sustain themselves. Since you can't guarantee that the CD and hdd copy will never be simultaneously used or perhaps shared or resold in some way then they can't permit people to make copies of the IP. They probably won't go after you for simply making a copy onto your PC for convenience, but if you're sharing that copy with anybody or distributing copies then it's piracy and it is wrong. Period.

I rip all of my CDs to my hard drive as well as my iPod, but I don't share them with anybody else. I'm the only one that uses them.

I doubt that happened, but if it did it would be an easy case to defend. Obviously "writing a search engine for public folders" isn't in itself a crime (although depending on the platform, etc., perhaps there was reverse engineering happening or something... I don't know). IMO, the crime was placing those IP files in the shared folder [and copying those files from the shared folder]. I think that the companies that produce and distribute IP are still very new to the new ways that people can pirate the IP so they're making mistakes trying to prosecute offenders. That doesn't excuse piracy. It doesn't.

I agree with this one. If the site was intended to provide links to pirated IP then I would say they were involved in the piracy (they were assisting in the distribution of the pirated IP). If the site was just a generic site where users were posting links to pirated IP then I would say deleting the posts and perhaps punishing the users would suffice.

Waiting for the cops to shutdown Allegro.cc

There's a difference between a user posting a link to pirated IP on a site and a site being created for the purpose of linking to pirated IP. In the first instance, the administrators or moderators might be asked to remove the link and perhaps the user might be tracked down -- the crime committed, if any, was the user posting the link (and the user might not have realized that the IP was pirated; a slap on the wrists at most, unless the user has shown intent to distribute pirated works in which case I'd support more severe punishment). In the second instance, the entire site should be taken down for intentionally assisting in the distribution of pirated IP. The owners/administrators/moderators could all be tracked down and punished and perhaps even the users of the site. Anybody that was willingly assisting in the distribution of pirated IP is guilty IMO. Again, for some users a slap on the wrist would suffice, but for other more involved users and for the owners/administrators/moderators they really have no excuse for doing what they do.

I'm curious what you do for a living. I might be able to put things into terms you'd understand.

/indirectly-related
Something to consider when thinking about morals on the Internet.

Why? Even if not posting unauthorized IP, people are guilty for linking to it? So will people next be guilty for telling people about it? Assume that the person expresses the wish that more people go to the site and download it. The idea of outlawing links to unauthorized copyrighted material goes dangerously far down a road that leads to 1984. Anyway, the First Amendment explicitly protects people who simply link to material, as linking is simply a technological way of telling people the URL.

Firstly, those look like examples of artists that have been financially rewarded for free offerings; not reasons why artists can survive without restricting the copying of their IP.

Secondly, there is a slight problem with the figures other artists have seen through donations, IMO. It's a new strategy being taste tested; allowing consumers to have the product for free and donate. Undoubtedly, a fair piece of those donations were from pirates that are trying to promote the idea. Do you honestly believe that people will be so generous when everything is free? The answer is simply no. If people don't have to pay they probably won't. Consider Yves; he claims that he can afford to pay for IP, but chooses to pirate instead (including stuff he says he really likes, IIRC). There's also the issue of the location where people are getting the IP from. Sure, if you're downloading it from the official Web site with donate here sections then it's a little bit more convenient and effortless to donate. However, if the consumers are getting the IP through file sharing or some other means of distribution the donation interface is lost. Some of the major fans might find their way to the site to contribute, but the majority of consumers won't care enough to.

I've only made a few bad CD purchases because I take my time before buying them and thus far have been mostly satisfied paying anywhere from $9-25+. I agree, $18 is a lot to pay for a single song and that's why I generally go without until I'm confident that the album is worth the purchase. However, there are online stores that offer DRM-free songs so that's not a very good excuse.

Sure, NOW. Does Yahoo or who ever take Paypal? I've ordered some music from Magnatune, great quality stuff.

I love that whole site.

Try ffmpeg or pacpl. In both the cases of converting and fetching another copy of the song, the quality and license of the original song would have an effect on the legal and ethical status of both activities though. Perhaps you paid for a low quality copy of the song, but fetch a higher quality version for free. Or perhaps the cost for the song was reduced because of the closed format, with the intent of limiting it's use. I'd say there are a lot of variables to consider.

If someone is dumb enough, in a world in which "hackers" in the original sense are largely libertarian in the sense of not liking overmuch authority, to try to enforce their own draconian use restrictions with technology, that's their lookout. Which, incidentally, is why I hate the DMCA, because it criminalizes circumventing DRM, and thus allows providers to basically write and have enforced by the federal gvmt. their own copyright law.

Those licences haven't been tested fully. so no no one truly knows if they are legally binding. And the shrink wrap licences are almost deffinitely not legally binding. In fact, in some states are are invalid. And for good reason. how can you be bound to a licence you can't read till you agree to the licence by opening the package?

Thats the kind of stupid crap most licences have in them.