There is a balance that needs to be found and struck. Certainly the extreme that the record companies want (ie no personal copying, pay for ringtones you already own, etc.) is ridiculous, but being able to "share" 1000s of copies isn't good either.

This woman likely didn't know she was sharing thousands of copies and thus Kazaa needs to hold some of the responsibility as they are the facilitator and conduit that is making money in the trade of this questionable activity.

And her lawyers surely decided to use the strategy of (im)plausible deniability; bad advice given the likelihood it was her, barring an alternative. I wonder if any groups hopped on board to "help" her fight this?

I agree performers should bypass the record companies but that isn't going to stop folks from sharing.

Oh for the days when you produced music for the love of music and there were no recording devices, and there were no copyright laws... Oh yeah, I guess I wasn't born yet ;-)

> Easy for non-musicians to tell them to go solo.

Actually, I'm one.

Anyway, you're right that it's hard to market music without access the resources (radio in particular) that are tightly controlled by the cartel of record labels and companies. And they are cartels, they're similar to drug cartels. (For example, they indirectly bribe and blackmail music journalists, basically control the billboard charts, and so on.)

Apple should open iTunes Store for independent artists, marketing and selling music directly from the artist (who does his own recording) to the end-customers for 69 cent or less a song with quality control, or, if the artists wants to, for free without quality control. At least half of the revenue from a sold song should go directly to the artist.

If Apple would do this, all of their existing contracts with record companies would likely be canceled immediately and they'd be sued for every song that contains the cords C Am F G or so. ;-)

Speeding kills too dynsight. Speeding is wrong, I hope the next time you tip over the limit, you get a $9250 fine for allowing your car to thoughtlessly go over the limit.

What is wrong, is 'sending messages' to the tune of $9250 per song, which is totally out of whack with reality and the nature of the infraction.

Why do record companies wield such power? It's actually more of a danger to speed, where the fines are far, far less than that. Speeding could endanger others lives, copying a song, doesn't rise to that level.

We, as a society, can decide how to run it. Most citizens would never support such an out of balance system. Protect artists rights to earn from their creations...do so in a reasonable way.

I have no intention of justifying file sharing, I don't engage in it, and I think it is wrong. However, I'm not going to froth at the mouth applauding an obvious injustice.

Many things in this society are plain wrong. This $9,000+ per song "made available" regardless of whether it was ever actually even seen, much less downloaded, is in fact absurd by any rational measure. However, laws are written by people who have the money to hire lobbyists, and by people trying to make a name for themselves. No one ever looks at the actual consequences.

Read the patriot act. (none of the actual legislators who voted on it did). It's amazing the number of things that fall within it's definition of "terrorism" or the things it allows the government to do. Then again government agencies very often go beyond the statutory rights they actually have anyway, and do whatever they want with no consequences. If you don't have the money to mount a defense, you lose. In many cases, you lose anyway, because no one pays attention. . . . and because the cost of defending yourself in a just case is far more than the cost of paying the unjust fine or whatever.

Legal precedent that allows this sort of judgment is similarly short-sighted and completely out of whack with reality. But, on the other hand, it is reality when they actually hit you with it. Most people just go on with their lives and don't do anything about it, if it doesn't directly affect them. If you have a problem with this, write your congressman.

if you sue enough people your defendants in cases will out number your customers. What better way to alienate the people who pay your bills. Giving a choice I pay for content, make it so restrictive (windows only) and expensive $17.99 for new CDs for years and you get file sharing. F off record companies.

I'll voice what others have said- you can go solo over multiple online music

We'll see the appeal

While I dislike the labels as much as the next person, I'll offer another counterpoint to those saying the musicians should just go it on their own. Let's say all the musicians dumped their labels and published their music themselves. While that takes out the "greedy middlemen", does it solve the problem of piracy? Would that stop Jammie from illegally downloading and sharing over 1700 songs? No. So piracy will continue. Who, then, will go after the pirates to protect the rights of these indepenent musicians? Few if any of them would have the resources to do so.

Yes, the record labels are evil (at least the majors, anyway). But in at least some instances (resources to produce and market the music, curb the blatant mass-piracy, etc), maybe, just maybe, they are a necessary evil.

We just need less greedy, more customer-focused, progressively thinking people to run them!