Take Action: Stop Online Music Piracy

Isn’t there a civil court system that already protects us from this, by allowing us to take action in the court system, by our choice? I, for one, am not for ANY legislation that regulates specific content on the internet. I believe that to be a violation of our first amendment right to Freedom of Speech, and I, for one, as an artist and as a citizen, would rather starve to death than to have that right legislated away. Thank you.

Is this only applicable to US hosted websites?
If not, this act gives the US government a serious amount of control over the domain name system and the internet as a whole and seriously challenges the ability to keep the internet global and “open”.
Far too easily manipulated for political and financial gain (file along side the divisive “Patriot Act”).
I imagine this will also result in an even more concerted effort to remove exclusive control of the DNS system away from the US government.

“We all use the web now for all kinds of parts our lives, some trivial, some critical to our life as part of a social world, In the spirit going back to Magna Carta, we require a principle that: No person or organization shall be deprived of their ability to connect to others at will without due process of law, with the presumption of innocence until found guilty. Neither governments nor corporations should be allowed to use disconnection from the Internet as a way of arbitrarily furthering their own aims.” -
Tim Berners-Lee
Personally I feel this is one of the first steps towards totalitarian control of the internet and you’re falling for it. Don’t get me wrong as I don’t agree with piracy but this is COICA legislation is not the way to go about it.
Maybe you should rethink about whether Tunecore supports this or not because if the end game of governments is to get a ‘limited internet v2′ where net neutrality is no more, we’ll have just a handful of sites that are ‘allowed’ such a facebook and all the sites of your musicians will be placed on the bottom of the pile where they will have to become verified and compliant. Where any of their sites can be struck off because their not politically correct.

I’d love to think that this provision is intended to protect “little guys” like independent musicians, but it most definitely is NOT, and will most likely have nothing in it to improve the ease with which independent musicians have recourse against P2P sites, etc.
This is about corporate copyright protections, which have been steadily increasing in recent years, ALL with the sole intention of decreasing competition and enabling corporations to more easily monopolize and monetize things like genes and ideas.
I am an independent musician, and I have been the “victim” of illegal downloading (in fact, I believe I have in some ways benefited from it) but I don’t believe this is intended, nor will it do anything to stop the practice. We already have laws in place to prevent sites from profiting from our music illegally (I found out my music was on Spotify without my permission, they made money, I never saw a penny, hello “cease and desist”) but it seems whenever these issues come up it only acts to prohibit the free and natural exchange of ideas and information for which the Internet was designed.
Watch and see, the only people who will benefit from this, if it passes, are the behemoth record companies, and anyone with enough money and free time to pick a fight with some spotty teenager in Duluth.

Any website whose sole purpose is to distribute music for free either without the music owner’s consent, or without compensating the owners of that music should be shut down…by any means necessary. Relating Freedom of Speech to the illegal downloading of music is an intellectual stretch.

Edward, it’s one thing to have people sharing your music because they like it. It’s another thing to have it being sold on websites, knowing someone is taking money on your behalf.
We are right to be concerned about keeping the Internet as a place of discovery and exchange. But I see no reason on earth to turn a blind eye to the Russian sites, notably.
I’m sure some modus vivendi can be found to enable bona fide discovery sites to remain active. In fact, they should come together and establish some sort of best practice.

I am very disappointed that Tunecore has decided to take a position supporting COICA. I can imagine a scenario where a former label artist who’s works rights’ have reverted back to them and is using Tunecore to sell music and/or give away free downloads for promotion has their website shut down by mistake by a label. I really hope Tunecore reconsiders their position.
Tunecore is supposed to help artists bypass the big, unfair label system, and here they are taking a similar position to them. You are just the same?
Jeff, your are effectively asking your users to live in the past, to have piracy be a concern instead of delivering the best music products and the experiences to the marketplace and competing with free offerings.

You may want to read what the EFF has to say about COICA before deciding what to do.
https://www.eff.org/coica
Personally, this looks like another badly written disaster (for us) waiting to happen. While none of us likes piracy, this is not the answer. It likely won’t even be very effective, as there a many, many other ways to trade/offer pirated material besides a website.

I’m shocked and surprised at how many artists are against the position of legally protecting their own work.
Just enter your artist name and email address into http://www.google.com/alerts and after a few days see if you change your mind when you see how many sites are trading your work for free.
This is a very targeted specific piece of legislation, not a conspiracy theory, and a great opportunity for artists to, if it’s passed, have an easier formal way to effectively reduce piracy and increase legitimate sales of their own music.

‘I, for one, am not for ANY legislation that regulates specific content on the internet.’
Really?
have you actually thought about that statement for more than a nanosecond?
Of course internet content should be regulated, using the laws that govern all the other parts of society.
Clumsily saying it shouldn’t, period, and you’re actually advocating all kinds of things such as child pornography, the sharing of people’s private information, slander, and to an obviously less harmful degree, unauthorised music sharing.
I’m sure you’re not an advocate most of those things, which is why i find your comment reactionary, careless and totally off the mark – this issue has nothing to do with freedom of speech.
The internet is just another public domain, it’s shouldn’t be exempt from law and rules.
If a shop gives away or trades your property without permission you would expect it to be shut down. Even if you didn’t know about it, you wouldn’t think it a bad thing if there was legislation and people acting on your behalf and everyone elses to prevent this from happening in the first place.
Putting people’s music on the internet so that everyone can have it for free (without the artists permission) is morally wrong, and only an idiot would dare argue otherwise. Artists pour money, time, effort, and emotion into making songs, CDs are cheap now, mp3s cheaper, there’s no excuse that you’re sticking one to The Man. In any other market, if you’re unhappy to pay for it you don’t buy it and then people soon put their prices down.
Another point made my Nick:
“Jeff, your are effectively asking your users to live in the past, to have piracy be a concern instead of delivering the best music products and the experiences to the marketplace and competing with free offerings.”
You can’t compete with free, and nor should you have to. Like I mentioned above, songs aren’t free to record and require more than just a monetary investment to make.

I think there is some confusion here. this is not about regulating what content can/cannot be displayed
this is about if a site is giving away someone else property for free without their permission, and that person is required by law to be paid for that property, that the site should stop giving it away
this is not about what you can/cannot view, talk about and/or an invasion of privacy
its important not to lump these two things together
jeff

If they’re going after “rogue websites” that don’t pay artists for their work, can they please start with You Tube?

the most effective method to support protecting your work and this legislation is to contact your states senators office- get the numbers thru a search and call your states representatives, advise others to do the same.
the cost of an MP3 is so minimal, in comparison to the cd and it is no ones decision but an artists or label to how they sell or lend, give their work. It costs money to make music….
small business comprise of 90% of the small businesses in the U.S.- and the protection of works is of import.

I really wish Tunecore would not have taken this position. There are already laws protecting copyrights, and all this law does is reduce due-process rights and give the large labels more muscle.
I am going to need to seriously reconsider using Tunecore in the future if they try to get political without really understanding what they are supporting.

I understand my position. That’s why I took it.
My label spinART was the first record label in the history of the music industry to put its entire catalog up on-line for paid download as MP3s in 1997.
In 1996/97, I contributed to the business plan for eMusic and was interim VP of Content Licensing. I ran its NY office for awhile.
I watched Napster climb off the backs of songwriters, bands and artists to allow people to get their music for free without the artist or label’s permission. By doing this Napster raised over $85,000,000. This $85,000,000 was used for to pay its employees salaries, overhead, legal expenses, health care and more. Napster effectively “sold” your music for money and then paid employees, provided healthcare, covered expenses. You got none of it.
The least they could have done is shared some of that money with the entities that helped them earn it. After all, its software was a means to an end, free music. It was this free music that made it have value.
I believe your music and songs and copyrights have value. I believe you should have the power to decide if you want to give it away or not. I do NOT believe someone else has the right to make that decision for you.
I believe if there is a physical store that buys one copy of your album, burns 1,000 copies and then sells these CDs you should be paid. If not, that store should be fined and/or shut down. I believe if the sole purpose of a website is to take other people’s property and give it to millions of people without the permission of the copyright holders, that that website should stop.
No I do not think this was solve the problem any more than a sign on the side of a road will cause someone to drive the speed limit. But that sign does have some impact.
The real trick is how to harness the energy of the technology to your advantage. However, this does not mean ignore an entity whose only purpose is to give away what is not theirs to give.
Jeff

There is a good breakdown of why this bill is flawed on the EFF site:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/09/censorship-internet-takes-center-stage-online

In an age of digital media, any attempt to crack down on the free spread of data is ludicrous. To be quite frank, it is ridiculous anyone thinks that their music has value beyond what people are willing to pay for it in any given instance. Because there are no fees associated with reproduction of data in this age, there is no longer a reason to force individuals to pay for it. This is not going to change – get over it. Labels sucked dry artists innumerable in the past and now they are whining – you say the artists get hurt, I say the artists get heard by a much larger base of people (and this is what’s important with regards to art – it’s not income, unless you’re a blood sucker yourself.) Artificial control of (infinite) supply is not an excuse for forcing payment for digital media, nor is it an excuse for enacting legislation to prevent the free spread of information. Neither is your hard work and effort. Price for a particular good throughout all time has been determined by supply and demand. Do you really expect the government to step in to enforce this “natural law”, when we finally have a tool that bypasses it?
Even if the law is passed, there will only be ever more individuals working on keeping as much information and as many tools as possible completely free on the internet. If we can’t have an egalitarian society because of greed, inheritance and lack of upward mobility, there are many of us who will make sure the internet stays so, and becomes ever more so.

I, for one, recognize this as nothing more than the conspiracy it is. Forget the word theory, it does not apply here. It’s an obvious power-grabbing ploy that, hopefully, will be delayed a little bit longer.
I, as an artist, am being harmed by all of this copyright-enforcement crap that’s currently going on. I’m not that concerned about getting money for every copy of my music. If the recipient is being charged, I want my cut of course, but if they’re getting it for free, all the better to me. In addition to utilizing TC to put my music on iTMS, Amazon and Napster, *I* put *MY* music up on a torrent site. Why? Popularity, mostly. I know if more people hear my music, more will buy it. I don’t need 100% of those hearing my music to buy. 1% would be enough to make me never have to work a day-job again.
But that has recently come to an end, apparently. After serving about 12 copies of my album on torrent, I’m not receiving any response from the trackers any longer. About half the trackers my client is attempting to access right now are MIA, and have been for long enough to leave me concerned that they have been shut down. (I’ve not seen any news to indicate whether this has ocurred or not).
At some point, money corrupts music. I get the struggling artist bit, (I’m living on <$10k a year from a day-job myself), but I understand that there comes a point where you need to stop worrying about a few people getting your album for free. Where that line is drawn is strictly based upon the artist’s moral grounding.
In regards to the issue of (insert country of choice outside of America here) sites actually selling music, there isn’t any easy or right way to fix that, and this legislation isn’t going to do it. Let me state this clearly: AMERICAN LEGISLATION WILL NOT AND CANNOT SOLVE FOREIGN PIRACY.

Thank God so many people were quick to comment against the support of this bill. I originally ran across this bill while on a torrent site POSTING MY OWN MUSIC in order to boost awareness, hits, and sales. Torrenters buy WAY more music than your average fan. They look at d/l’ing music as a way of previewing, not stealing, and realize that artists need support if they want to continue hearing music by them. I would launch into my own rant, but you guys seem to have this one covered. Kudos to the artists who realize that a life-long, devoted fan is more important than the 75 cents they receive from their 99 cent single. For those interested, the petition that pleads AGAINST this policy can be found here: http://demandprogress.org/blacklist/

I can’t believe Tunecore supports a bill that lets internet sites be blocked without judicial review.
With sampling and such, I wonder how long it would take to find copyright infringement on Tunecore.com
Holding websites responsible for the acts of their users is just plain wrong. The recording industry’s failing business can’t be legislated into success. On a side note, record labels aren’t paying artists either.
If this becomes law it won’t stop music from being illegally downloaded or uploaded. Just like the existing laws don’t. What it may do is stop new business models from developing. Legislation like this would have stopped radio, VCRs and DVRs from being the great tools they are/were.
Artists should be looking to embrace file sharing. Why? Because consumers like to find music that way.
You’ve lost nothing by having your music downloaded. You’ve gained a listener, a potential fan and maybe even a customer if you have something that they value enough to buy.
That just how it is, this bill does nothing to change that.
Take a look at this link. Nine Inch Nails’ FREE albums topped the SALES charts. Without the need for foolish legislation.
http://arstechnica.com/media/news/2009/01/free-nine-inch-nails-albums-top-2008-amazon-mp3-sales-charts.ars

Focus on the demand, not the supply. Outlawing drugs doesn’t stop their distribution, neither will shutting down torrent sites.
This is what happens when you charge $20 for a plastic disc. The power is with the people now.
My band, Over-reactor gives fans the option. They can have our album for free or pay for the disc, or simply donate via paypal.
This legislation is out of touch and a waste of taxpayers’ money.

1) there is judicial review – stating there is not is incorrect. This is why the Justice Department must go to the courts to get the right to move forward
2) Who said don’t give your music away? This bill is saying YOU have the right to decide to give it away. You will not allow someone else to give it away without your permission
3) this is not about 1st amendment content – this is not stating what someone can/cannot post on their website. This is stating if someone takes your property and gives it away without your permission they have to stop.
Bit-torrent away, you have every right! Hand out free CDs, it’s your right. Allow downloads of your music for free, it’s your decision!
However, I do not believe anyone but you has the right to make that decision
This legislation is designed to specifcially stop sites whose only function is to give away your property without you saying its ok.
This is NOT about if you should or should not give away your music. This is about YOU having control over your own life, your own creations.
Do you want with them, they are yours! And I will fight tooth and nail on your behalf to stop anyone from denying you that right. But this also means you have the right to NOT have someone give your property away for free.
I would no more force you to have to sell your music then I would force you to give it away for free. The choice is not mine, or anyone else’s, to make, it’s yours.

1. The bill clearly gives the Justice Dept the authority to shut down any site it that it thinks is dedicated to infringing activities.
2. This bill cannot control who gives away music. It will effectively censor websites and kill new business models.
3. Copyright is not the same thing as property. When you sell property, you no longer have control over it. Copyright gives you a monopoly to control your output after it’s sold. (Another reason why the bill isn’t needed).
Ironically, the purpose of copyright isn’t to guarantee control. The government believes that without copyright, musicians won’t create. So they grant copyright as an incentive to create.
This bill isn’t about protecting musicians, it’s about shutting down websites using biased information. It’s misguided and will do nothing for musicians or consumers.

Censorship is a nasty tool in the hands of anyone, even with the best intentions, and with the US government wanting to silence Wikileaks for example, it will be abused.
I give my music away for free as it markets my live performances which is where most musicians really make their living.
I am unknown, if I try to charge for my music it is unlikely people will pay just to hear, if I give it away it doesnt cost them anything other than the time, and they then may buy tickets to see me live, or even pay for a CD.

@Marcus
What you state is not correct. The bill does not give the Justice department unilateral power to shut down whatever website it “thinks is dedicated to infringing activities”. The bill creates due process that requires the Justice Department to go to a court to get the courts ruling in order to move forward.
It’s a check and balance system and exactly why we have three branches of government – each checking the other.
The courts have shown themselves to be lenient towards these sorts of cases to assure creativity and business growth are not being stifled. As one example it took the 9th circuit court over two years before an injunction was served to Napster.
2) The bill does not intend to control who gives away music. The bill intends to stop entities from giving away your property without your permission
Stating that this kills business models is the same as stating shutting down an illegal DVD/CD pirating ring is killing business models. The difference between on-line and off is the economy of scale and up-front investment.
Entities like Pandora, Apple, Netflix, TuneCore, TopSpin, LastFM, GraceNote etc all either did or are doing very well with their new business models.
This bill does not stifle business models. If it did, the courts would react the same way they did in 1998 by stating the government is going too far too quickly.
3) Under the US constitution Copyright is the same thing as property. It is even called “Intellectual Property”.
When you create music in the US, and make it tangible (i.e. record it, write it down etc) you are given six specific rights. For anyone else to use your copyright protected materials (like a song) you must assign those rights to that entity. This gives the creator control over their work. The exception being mechanical royalties and covers which can not be denied but come with a statutory rate that must be paid to the copyright holder (unless waived).
Copyright was created to allow the artist to generate commerce from their works while protecting them from others using it, selling it or giving it away in en-masse without their permission.
I feverently believe the artist has the right to decide if someone can give away his/her music. Any entity that wants to give away or sell your creation/property must get your blessing. If they do not, you should have the right to have them stop and/or be compensated.
I by no means am suggesting you should not give away your music. Nor am I advocating you should sell it. That choice is yours, and that’s the way it should be.
Jeff

1) On applicaton to a court the attorney general can shut a site down before any wrong doing is proven. All he needs is “upon information and reasonable belief”. This is not due process, it’s a new low.
I know what this bill is intended for but it’s like throwing the baby out with the bath water. It’s so general that it can shut down websites that have legal uses such as YouTube, Google’s upcoming music locker or even a search engine.
Pandora, Apple, Netflix, TuneCore, TopSpin, LastFM, GraceNote are unaffected as ths isn’t law yet.
2) Intellectual property and property are not the same. The purpose of property rights is to manage scarce resources. Property is tangible.
Intellectual property rights (similar to copyright) attempts to make a scarce resource out of something that is infinitely abundant. If you give someone an idea, you still have possession of it.
Linking or hosting music is not a property or an intellectual property.
All of this to say that this is a censorship law designed not to favor small artists but the entertanment industry whose business models are becoming obsolete.
“I feverently believe the artist has the right to decide if someone can give away his/her music. Any entity that wants to give away or sell your creation/property must get your blessing. If they do not, you should have the right to have them stop and/or be compensated.”
I agree with the above statement and copyright laws already protect people from this. That makes this law even more of a misguided effort.

@JeffCore – I support what you have wrote 100%, as well as the bill. Bottom line is, if you keep biting the hand that feeds you, you will wake up one day and their will be no hands.
@ExDeath – I do not believe you can bypass supply and demand. It is still in effect. What you’ve done with “free” music is to shift the supply of music to virtually infinite, so that the price point falls to $0. This cannot, and will not last.
Even if one makes most of their living on touring/shows, there are large segments of the industry who do not directly. Such as many label & studio owners, engineers, producers, djs, radio stations, distributors, songwriters, and more.
It is quite absurd to think you can take something of value for free, and when the owner complains tell them that they can just make more copies??
If you can create the song yourself, then you would rightfully earn a “free” copy. But if you can’t, you need the artists to originally create the song. Then you want it for free? Telling them, “Don’t worry, you can survive on touring income and merch… well, that is if I really want to buy your stuff..” That sentiment negates the rest of the industry outside of your ordained income sources (touring/merch.. etc.), and even lends itself a certain psychopathic type of thinking.
As Jeff has already stated, it is not your decision to force artists to be complicit in streaming/sharing/etc.. their music, like it or not, because in your opinion it would always be to their benefit? This type of thinking is detrimental to the music industry, and to our society.

hello i dont want to be left out i reside in toronto ontario canada how do i get support or how do i get connected to the proper channels to add the list of artists who wish to eradicate music piracy

I do not support this in any way, it’s all just smoke and mirrors tae fill the coffers of corrupt capitalist corporatioms with even more cash. These companies have been ripping off musicians (many of whom have died in poverty whilst their music makes cash for the BIZ?????) since rock’n'roll began. To all those brothers and sisters who make music don’t let them fool you with their concerned about your welfare lies. And then of course we have the ROCKSTARS (HAHAHAHAHA) with their empires of greed, I’ll stay here in my empire of dust where people have true morals. Music belongs to no-one and everyone. PEACE from a poor musician.

I’m shocked and surprised at how many artists are against the position of legally protecting their own work. Just enter your artist name and email address into http://www.google.com/alerts and after a few days see if you change your mind when you see how many sites are trading your work for free. This is a very targeted specific piece of legislation, not a conspiracy theory, and a great opportunity for artists to, if it’s
passed, have an easier formal way to effectively reduce piracy and increase legitimate sales of their own music.

To all of the true artists out there, thank you for the noise you have created around this issue, including the 87 Internet scientists. The COIA has been shelved since the bill authors are too weak to stand behind it pre-election season. This is clearly sends a message that if people like Leahy can’t elected today by representing the voters interest, tomorrow special interest money will help get you re-elected.
And for all of you who think we need “less government” you should be happy this act has been delayed. We have more time to show it for what it really is: censorship with chilling and protectionism for incumbent middlemen businesses who cannot innovate and have lost leverage over the artists now that we can do everything on our own. We do not trust Congress or the Judiciary to use COIA in a fair manner. Tools like this are always being abused by those with power. At least the DMCA has due process, as flawed as it is. And don’t get me started about the various Mickey Mouse protection acts.
And to Jeff’s point:
“You can’t compete with free, and nor should you have to. Like I mentioned above, songs aren’t free to record and require more than just a monetary investment to make.”
You can compete with free. iTunes does it. Amazon does it. Bottled water vendors do it. Even Microsoft and the big labels do it. And saying you can’t compete with free means you can’t compete, period. And we don’t need more government to fix this. How can one compete with free, you might ask? By offering things that are better than free: Immediacy, Personalization, Interpretation, Authenticity, Accessibility, Embodiment, Patronage, Findability. Doe a search for “Better than Free” to find a great post by Kevin Kelly on how you too can compete with free. I am sure the management at Tunecore believes in all of them.

Shocked to see an Internet tech company supporting this. I will not be using Tunecore again for digital distribution.

I too am disappointed to see TuneCore supporting this legislation. This stinks of corporate greed. “Expedited procedures”…? What exactly does that mean? Is that like warrantless wiretapping? Sounds a little too draconian to me. Is piracy that much of a threat? I’d say, judging by the success of iTunes, Amazon MP3, eMusic, and others, no. I think this is a preemptive grab for power by the MPAA or some other entities that want control over the Internet. Not good.

THIS IS THE RIGHT WAY TO GO. ITS A BIG LIE THAT MUSIC BELONGS TO NO ONE…PEOPLE WITH OR WITHOUT FORMAL EDUCATION SHOULD LEARN ABOUT INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY (IP) AND UNDERSTAND THAT MONITARY VALUE IS PLACED ON IT, AND ONLY THE OWNER CAN DETERMINE IF IT WILL BE FREE! WHAT ARE U ALL SAYING!! YOU SOUND THIS WAY BECAUSE YOUR WORK IS NOT BIG, SO YOU BEG TO GIVE OUT YOUR MUSIC FOR FREE SO YOU CAN BE POPULAR, YOU DONT FEEL THE VALUE OF YOUR IP NOW BECAUSE ITS VALUED AS ZERO!!! WAIT TILL ITS TOPPING CHARTS.
PAY FOR WHAT YOU USE! IF YOU VALUE MUSIC, PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE YOUR MOUTH/HEART IS!! LIFE IS FREE, MUSIC IS NOT!!!

Censoring the Internet is something we’d expect from China or Iran, not the U.S. Senate. You need to stop this Internet blacklist in its tracks and oppose S. 3804.
http://demandprogress.org/blacklist/

Music piracy should be eliminated, music industry is suffering because of this.

Thankfully, this legislation is being killed…
“Big news! Yesterday the Senate Judiciary Committee voted unanimously to send the Internet blacklist bill to the full Senate, but it was quickly stopped by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) who denounced it as “a bunker-buster cluster bomb” aimed at the Internet and pledged to “do everything I can to take the necessary steps to stop it from passing the U.S. Senate.”
Wyden’s opposition practically guarantees the bill is dead this year — and next year the new Congress will have to reintroduce the bill and start all over again. But even that might not happen: Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Hollywood’s own senator, told the committee that even she was uncomfortable with the Internet censorship portion of the bill and hoped it could be removed when they took it up again next year!
This is incredible — and all thanks to you. Just a month ago, the Senate was planning to pass this bill unanimously; now even the senator from Hollywood is backing away from it.”

With regards to music piracy and from an ethical standpoint, I believe an artist has every right to be angry and seek legal action when their recordings are unwillingly sold for profit or bootlegged by a shady record label or download site. It’s the intellectual property of the artist, who typically writes and composes their own songs. Not to mention, the artist has developed their own way of performing a song, which is documented within the recording.  

In 2011, a judge ruled in favor of singer Paul Collins, whose  rock group The Beat lost substantial revenue from a series of unauthorized bootleg recordings released by an underground record label. The recordings were unknowingly engineered during The Beat’s tours with The Police, Eddie Money and The Cure. Although the label argued that the recordings were tracked and mixed by an independent investor during the 1970s and 1980s, Collins was unaware of these dealings and was awarded an unspecified amount of damages. Collins was granted permission to digitally re-master and officially release the live recordings. In response to backlash and negative publicity from fans accusing him of being greedy, Collins attempted to make a public statement about piracy. In 2012, Collins made the recordings available to everyone as free MP3 download tracks to fans worldwide.

Some fans might argue that Metallica was selfish to target Napster for illegally offering their music as MP3s. In all fairness, not everyone victimized by piracy are platinum-selling, wealthy artists in the caliber of Metallica. Paul Collins had just as much right to take legal action, but he turned the negative situation into a positive one by publicly releasing the pirated material as free downloads to his fans. Case in point, not all rock stars are selfish or “only in it for the money.” Musicians have a right to be paid for their intellectual property. People who support music piracy only think about themselves. If a musician isn’t being paid for their work, how are they supposed to continue recording, writing, performing and touring? Musicians aren’t slaves and if they aren’t making enough money to function, then they might choose a different career path that doesn’t involve making music.  

Yeah, I think everybody should pay upfront before being able to hear a new song, that way all the unknown artists would get tons of money. Right? Pay to discover, else it’s “theft.” Wait, is copying the same as theft … hmm, whatever, I want money for whatever crap I put out.

And also: radio should charge each listener a micro-payment for each song they ever hear. For example, 50 cents per song. So a family of four would have to pay $2 for each song they listen to on the radio. Else, let’s be honest, it’s simply “piracy.”