On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 4:09 PM, andy baxter <andy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: <SNIP> > I think the same thing sometimes. The copyrighted music I download is all > stuff that's been around for some time, and I don't see anything wrong about > that, Please consider that many artists get/got lousy royalty deals when they are/were young. Managers and recording companies took terrible advantage of them and the money went elsewhere. These folks have grown old and many of them aren't rich. However a lot of these contracts exist for a number of years, expire and then the artists actually start to earn more which is very important to them. For every Beatles/Stones/Pink Floyd that wouldn't miss a dollar from you there are hundreds if not thousands of artists that really _need_ the money. I understand that there are many in the world that feel that because things like movies and music are digital and can be downloaded for free that they should be downloaded independent of the ownership of them. I had some discussions with NetFlix recently about why they don't support Linux with their Instant Watch environment. The answer was (paraphrased) 'Because it's s den of thieves...' We get the world we create. Just my 2 cents... - Mark _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
