November 10, 2007


by Chris Randall

I don't mind when people that are outside of the music business get the wrong ideas. In fact, I expect them to. But, yet again, this moron at (the most ill-named site on the Intertubes) proves that he doesn't belong. For the last time, it's not really illegal to download music. It's illegal to give away music you don't control the copyright for. No one has been sued, ever, for downloading music. They're sued for UPDLOADING, you stupid fuck. Go manage a Wendy's or something and leave the music business to the grown folks.


Page 1 of 3

Nov.10.2007 @ 1:46 PM
Why do you read that site, if not to get pissed off? It's like listening to Rush Limbaugh. Just turn it off.

Nov.10.2007 @ 2:23 PM
Chris Randall
I can't help it. It's like slowing down when you're passing a wreck on the highway to see if there's any blood.



Nov.10.2007 @ 9:29 PM
Actually, there have been quite a few people sued by the RIAA who neither downloaded nor uploaded music. The RIAA supenoed the wrong IP address, or someone's computer got taken over by a rootkit and used as a proxy, or someone forgot to secure their wireless access... and the next thing you know some innocent Grandma is handing her social security checks over to the RIAA.

I hate it when people try to argue the morality or immorality of downloading 'pirated' music, and totally ignore the fact that there is no practical way to enforce the law against illegal filesharers.

When your intellectual property 'rights' have to be enforced at the cost of my constitutional rights, then yeah, screw the artists. Sorry, I am a bit particular about these kinds of things. If you have to sue or jail innocent people to catch a few 'pirates', then you better find a new buisness model - I wouldn't be OK with innocent people being punished to stop terrorism, let alone to stop little Jimmy from downloading the latest 50 Cent album.


Nov.10.2007 @ 9:45 PM
Chris Randall
Well, all the "woulda shoulda coulda" shit in your first paragraph aside, which has nothing to do with anything, I actually largely agree with you to a certain extent. I would tender the following thought, though: the business model was fine until the Cory Doctorows of the world decided that it wasn't. It was designed to take advantage of a certain class of people that were prone to addiction, but the consumer (who wasn't involved in that end) was largely happy with the whole process.

Nowadays, the consumer is being punished, the artist is being punished, and the label is being punished, all because some crafty but misguided individuals made it so you didn't have to take a bus to Tower on Tuesday to get your new releases.

Let me make this one thing crystal fucking clear, though, if you're gonna spout righteous indignation on _this_ site: your "right" to download my song without paying me for it does not exist, in this life, the next one, or the last one. Don't ever confuse the ability to do something with the right to do so. Because the RIAA (another group of misguided individuals) accidentally sues everyone with an email address has little to do with the actual state of affairs, other than creating a backlash in which people feel justified in their actions.



Nov.11.2007 @ 11:25 AM
Millions of people in American manufacturing industries have had to seek new careers. Why should the music industry be any different?

Nov.11.2007 @ 4:34 PM
Hasn't this been doing the rounds long enough? Yes it's true that the record industry needs to adapt to the current climate & it most likely will. This does not take away the fact that downloading without paying is stealing - end of story.
The authors idea of "abolishing copyright" is complete rubbish.
All property starts of as intellectual property regardless if it ends up like a bus or a poptune The right to protect ideas is the cornerstone of all manufacturing. Whoever wrote this article is uninformed and it's sad that some people will read the crap and believe it contains some kind of truth.

Nov.11.2007 @ 4:50 PM
as long as we're being pedantic, it is not stealing, it is infringing. If it were stealing it would be persecuted in a criminal court instead of/as well as civil court.

Nov.11.2007 @ 4:55 PM
Chris Randall
That's a good point, Bill. And as we all know, there's nothing that makes me happier than being pedantic.



Nov.11.2007 @ 5:05 PM
I might also add that it's "prosecuted" and not "persecuted", BoxcardBill.

Nov.11.2007 @ 5:41 PM
I am David Mellor, publisher of, 114 High Street, Tetsworth, Thame OX9 7AE, United Kingdom, responding to your post.

I have noted your concerns about an article posted on

If you have an issue with anything on the website, please send a message from the 'Ask a Queston' link on the site. Your question will receive a response, which will be published on the site.

We will ask you to give your full real name (published) and your physical address (not published but may be checked before publication). is not anonymous.

David Mellor


Page 1 of 3



Sorry, commenting is closed for this blog entry.