iTunes, One Billion Suckers Served
By Thomas Hawk |
February 24th, 2006
Comments (27)
[OPINION] Crank up the old PR and spin machine. Apple today announced their one billionth iTunes download today. The song? “Speed of Sound” by Coldplay.
“Over one billion songs have now been legally purchased and downloaded around the globe, representing a major force against music piracy and the future of music distribution as we move from CDs to the Internet,” said Apple CEO Steve Jobs.
Personally I’ve never bought an iTune and I don’t own an iPod. I think Apple’s DRM is awful and represents a major step back for us all. I think those that are investing in iTune digital libraries are suckers. You are basically betting that Apple’s proprietary DRM laced format will be the standard for the rest of your life. You are paying too much for your music and tying yourself to only Apple products going forward. More innovative ways to play your music may indeed come in the future but unless they are marketed by Apple you will not likely be able to use these devices with your iTunes files due to Apple’s tight proprietary control.
Personally I want nothing to do with it. I still collect my digital music the old fashioned way, I rip it straight from CDs to crystal clear high bit rate DRM free mp3s. These files of course can be played on any device and represent better value in my opinion for today’s consumer.
What happens when the killer phone is finally here? You know the one, built in terabyte of storage, lightening fast file transfer speeds, full satellite radio, a breathalyzer, your car and house key, a tiny little thing the size of credit card with a 12 mega pixel camera on it (hey it’s the future right, we can dream). What happens when this phone is out and you really want it and unfortunately Apple didn’t make it? That’s right, you’re a sucker then aren’t you. I thought so. You paid all that good money for your iTunes and now you can’t put them on your new phone because your new phone threatens Apple’s dominance. So who owns the music anyway? You or them? They do. You bought nothing. You bought the right to play their song on their product. It might work today. But I’m not about to bet that this will be the format du jour 10 years from now.
Of course the record labels won’t care about you being screwed because they’ll be happy to just have you buy your same music all over again. Just like you did when you bought it on LP, then cassette, then CD then from iTunes. Why charge you once when they can keep charging you over and over and over again?
And if you think Apple will be opening up their proprietary format anytime soon, think again. Apple makes virtually nothing on their iTunes downloads, after paying the labels, marketing costs, bandwidth costs, etc. they make peanuts. They make a *ton* of money on the other hand on selling iPods. This was the genius deal between Steve Jobs and the hacks over at the record labels who are just as big of suckers as you are and basically have done nothing but cannibalize existing more lucrative CD sales. They were short sighted and never thought to try to get a piece of the hardware sale and now they are yammering on about raising iTunes prices on you because they are bitter dogs over the screwing that Jobs gave them. Jobs of course is quick to turn around and call them greedy hacks, but can anyone here say “pot” “black”.
They will do everything they can to protect this market including screwing over you the customer who mistakenly thought you bought a song from them.
Above and beyond all though this has done absolutely zero to stop online digital music piracy despite Jobs’ central point in Apple’s spin release this morning.
Just look at the latest P2P numbers from BigChampagne, and I’m not even going to get into BitTorrent which makes the numbers BigChampagne tracks look tiny. And this does not even begin to scratch all of the other ways that music is being traded. Let me ask you a question. Can you rip your friends CD on your PC? Yeah I guess you can. Can you rip your brother’s CD on your PC? Yep this works too. Can you copy your entire digital music library of 100,000 mp3s and give a copy to your brother on Seagate 500 gig drive? Theoretically it’s possible right? What about sneakernet? Again, theoretically. Would it be possible to send that same hard drive via the U.S. mail to your new friend that you met last month on your My Space account? And would it be considered sharing if he sent it back to you in the mail full of his own 70 or 80 thousand favorite tunes. Welcome to the darknet ladies and gentlemen.
And what if you are just dying to get the latest CD from that hot new band. Again, theoretically, would it be possible to go down to Amoeba records, buy it for $14, take it home and rip it, then return it within 7 days to get 75% credit back? What’s that like $3.50 for the new CD? And with 12 songs that’s like what 29 cents a track? Hmmm… would I rather have a crystal clear high bit rate mp3 track for 29 cents or a sure to be antiquated DRM bloated track from iTunes for 99 cents?
Now don’t get me wrong. I’m not advocating piracy here, per se. But the way I see it, if Apple is going to go to war with me the consumer to lock up my music and keep it off my innovative new devices of the future, then this doesn’t really represent a valid step forward away from piracy at all.
It will also be interesting to hear what Xeni Jardin has to say about the billionth download later tonight. I can’t tell if she was on World News Tonight Last night or will be on next Thursday. I’ll try to find out.
Also for more on the iTunes saga be sure and check out downhill battle’s great site on the subject.
And…. let the Appleheaded fan boys flame comments begin…. 5, 4, 3, 2, 1… now.
——
Editor’s note (A.G.): MacDailyNews has picked up the story and posted rebuttals to many of Thomas’ points. It looks we should all be seeing some good back and forth on this post in both the blogosphere and discussion forums.
February 24th, 2006 at 3:05 pm
So, what do you recommend that’s legal and moral?
February 24th, 2006 at 3:08 pm
We’re not living in the future. We’re living today, so what are these “future innovative devices” that you’re speaking of?
If they don’t yet exist, how are they incompatible with iTunes music?
February 24th, 2006 at 3:18 pm
Question for you… how many CDs do you own (or owned for a day before returning them) that have the same music that you owned on cassette tapes?
I’m guessing you had to buy the CD, after buying the tape years ago. Didn’t you just pay for the same music again?
Technology changes. Digital music is the next step, and iTunes is taking the wasteful, vinyl CD out of the equation.
[STRIKE]Realize that it’s not Apple’s “grand plan” to force you to buy music you owned in a different format, yet you spin it that way (You said you’d have to buy music again after you purchase a non-compatible device in the future).[/STRIKE]
I want to reword that… we all know DRM is working in Apple’s favor; there’s no doubt about that. But anybody with an ounce of knowledge knows that you’re not “locked in”. It’s just inconvenient to move the music to a non-compatible device. Your arguments are not isolated to iTunes, but to every device manufacturer out there. iPods happen to be the _most_ compatible MP3 players when you look at the full picture.
Almost every comment is about the future that doesn’t yet exist or is simply assumptions based on your narrow-minded view of this subject.
Don’t get me wrong, I know what you’re saying, but your article is simply trying to blame Apple and insulting every iTunes customer out there for not seeing things your way.
February 24th, 2006 at 3:22 pm
Let’s say that your _opinion_ about iTunes is correct. That 99cents for a song you “want” is bloated. Do you know how many CDs I have that are bloated with songs I never wanted, except for that one that I did? Which is more bloated?
February 24th, 2006 at 3:32 pm
And if iTunes has done “absolutely zero” to curb illegal song sharing, then why have I stopped downloading music illegally? 14 months and counting (since iTMS opened in Canada). Many [that I've spoken with] have followed suit… giving up one form of illegal instant gratification for a legal, more convenient option.
Again, please know the facts before spewing.
February 24th, 2006 at 3:41 pm
I’m an Appleheaded fan boy, and I’m responding.
Don’t you have anything to say?
(looks like I’m the only one responding, I felt sorry for you)
February 24th, 2006 at 4:12 pm
Here’s a related DRM news item that just came out:
Yahoo! Music Exec: Labels Should Consider Selling Music Without DRM
February 24th, 2006 at 5:57 pm
Well, I’ve bought 2 ipods, one for the wife and one for me, and we’ve probably spent about $120 on music from itunes. I guess that qualifies me as a sucker.
I bought the ipods because that’s what the wife wanted, because it has the best interface I’ve seen, and yes, because it’s popular. I’ve had other mp3 players that I was rather disappointed with. I’ve had a bit of trouble with my ipod, but overall it works great and at 60GB, holds all I could ever want.
I am very aware of the DRM limitations with music from itunes, and I’d rather have it free and clear. However, that’s easy these days, so I chose what’s most convient. I don’t want to spend too much on full CDs that I don’t want. I want to buy just the songs I want when I want them.
As cfactor said, we don’t really know what the future is like. I may have to buy music that I already bought in a new format (although not everything). I may want to buy it a new format if it’s better then what I have…like DVD audio. I may end up legally getting to switch formats in the future. I don’t know.
To me, it’s not that big of a risk. My mp3 players would be obsolete in a few years no matter which brand I picked. I’m not spending that much money on the music I’m buying. My wife is happy, I’m happy.
To me, it’s similar to buying a car. If I was smart, I’d get a used car and avoid the immediate depreciation. But I want a new car, so that’s what I get. I guess I’m a sucker there too.
I know what you,re saying and your arguements are sound (although I don’t care for the tone and think you are singling out Apple a bit much though). It does make sense for someone who’s building a huge collection to avoid apple. For me it’s fine. I imagine for most people, it’ll be ok.
I’m kinda surprised people aren’t complaining as much about subscription services though. Although you aren’t locked into a single service, you have to keep paying, and when you stop, you get nothing. Talk about having to pay for the same music multiple times.
February 24th, 2006 at 10:17 pm
Thomas just wants to brand his own Pod.
How the #$%#$% can you advocate people going to a store, buying a CD, ripping the CD and then taking it back or selling it? Thief.
Are you to ignorant and mentally incapacitated to ever read an agreement when you buy a CD? Duh. My cousin in grade 6 shows more smarts than you. You DON’T own the music. You are licensed to listen to it. You can’t reproduce it and profit from it. You don’t own the rights. You just don’t own the music man. When you buy software, you don’t OWN it. You only have purchased a license to use it. Once you sell/return the CD, if you have ripped the music and keep that ripped music, you are breaking the law. It’s illegal to keep copies if you don’t own the original - that’s your license to play the music. So you are a thief and a crook.
So for all your ’smarts’ (laughable I know), you advocate breaking the law instead of trying to abide the law. You would steal. You are nothing short of a thief. And an ignorant one at that. You are jealous. You are probably a Creative or Microsoft employee.
Just to clarify, this was your quote:
“So who owns the music anyway? You or them? They do. You bought nothing. You bought the right to play their song on their product.”
That is all you get when you own a CD. Nice one slick.
Plus, if you really had a small fraction of real smarts, you would know you can burn an audio CD from iTunes files and then rip as you would a normal CD.
So Genius, if you WERE really smart, you would be writing more about Yahoo and Napster. Once you miss a payment on your ‘lease’, your songs are no longer playable. Apple’s files play forever. And I guess the labels are hacks right? Two years ago, they made virtually nothing in sales online other than losing millions. Thanks to Apple, they have about $670 million in their pockets. Hacks.
If the music industry was left in your hands, you’d turn everyone into a pirate thief. Thank God your lot in life is just to write stupid, ignorant and mis-informed articles. Guess you have peaked with your life ambitions.
February 24th, 2006 at 11:22 pm
I think all DRM schemes are problematic just the same. Implying that Apple is worse than say Microsoft is insane since neither is open. The fact that Microsoft is SELECTIVELY licensing their DRM to whoever they think serves their purpose does not mean that their DRM can be trusted and all the arguments you mention hold for all DRM schemes. The only solution as per Alexander article link is to buy DRMless music. I would like to ask everyone to stop buying songs in iTunes so that the industry will feel the pressure and will sell DRMless songs. If we all come together it will work, believe me when iTunes sales start droping they will listen!
February 24th, 2006 at 11:40 pm
Some people are so fixated on the DRM that would *very* rarely ever show its ugly face. They’re just looking for something to complain about.
Please give me an example of how DRM has prevented you from doing something moral and legal. Back your blanket statements up with some facts and examples of WHY people should listen to you.
P.S. Where’s Thomas? Your fans want you!!!!
February 24th, 2006 at 11:42 pm
Once you are done fighting the DRM battle, why don’t you go lobby the hardware stores to make every bolt fit every nut. Now, that’s a story about wasteful incompatibility!
February 25th, 2006 at 6:32 am
Did you not hear that vista will only let users running it as their OS use certain monitors that are DRM approved? Never mind if your existing monitor works perfectly and does everything required of it. Vista will not allow products with DRM to run.
February 25th, 2006 at 6:39 am
Melvin can you and your wife have the same mp3 purchased from apple on your ipods? According to the apple DRM aren’t the mp3’s supposed to be limited to one portable device?
Another thing, If we are moving on into the future as Cfactor says, why is the quality of the music on the apple store so poor? its only encoded at 128kbps which is horrible. You put that on any decent system and the bass isn’t right the treble is off human ears can pick up the difference.
February 25th, 2006 at 6:48 am
Hey SnowJockey, it’s not cool to quote people out of context. Thomas specifically said he didn’t advocate piracy. He simply gave an example of how DRM (Apple’s DRM in this case) doesn’t do a thing to deter piracy.
There are groups out there who do advocate avoiding the main channels for acquiring music though. Get the music any free way you can and send a quarter to the original artist. While that makes sense on the surface, it ignores the fact that the label’s do alot for an artist and should be compensated for that (production, distribution, marketing etc). It’s no secret that label’s get more then their share, but they do deserve a share….and I don’t think it should be up to the consumer to decide what that share is.
As for cfactor’s question about how it DRM has effected me negatively, I can think of 2 ways. One is that I have to think twice about purchase a product like Sonos or switching to Linux, since AAC won’t play ‘natively’ on those systems. The other is that when it comes time to buy another mp3 player, I won’t be happy with what Apple has to offer. I’ll ever have to go with the annoying ‘burn and rip’ method, Apple has changed their tune on licensing DRM, or hope that the courts have dismantled DRM as it currently stands.
I think it hurts companies like Sonos more then consumers in the long run…
One thing I do like about DRM is removes any ambiguity about what you can and can’t do legally as far as copying. With several of the tracks I’ve purchased so far, I’ve got the tracks on 2 PCs and 2 ipods (mine and the wife’s). Traditionally, I don’t think that’s been legal, but with DRM, I don’t think there would be any arguement against that.
Like I said before, I see the problems with it all, but I chose to proceed anyway.
February 25th, 2006 at 7:04 am
I just did a little test to make absolutely sure that this was true. We have the same itunes tracks on 2 different ipods.
I have noticed something a little odd. If I connect my ipod to my pc, itunes recognizes it and automatically syncs. If I connect my ipod to my wife’s PC, it see’s the ipod as a usb drive only, no syncing. I’m not sure if this is because the wife’s pc is tied to her ipod excluding all other’s, if my ipod is tyed to my pc excluding all others, or if I just haved fiddled with it enough. I haven’t played with it enough to figure out what exactly is going on. If the rule is one PC to one ipod, then it would appear that you could use 5 ipods for one itunes track, since you can have 5 pc’s for one itunes track.
February 25th, 2006 at 7:39 am
apple DRM allows you:
- to have the identical songs on up to 5 computers (you can have on a gazillion, but only 5 can be authorized to playback at the same time)
- unlimited iPods.
—
the reason your iPod didn´t sync is this one: each iPod needs a unique “mothership” computer, to / from which it syncs…
So, if you want to use your wife´s computer as your iPod´s mothership (on a Mac, iTunes asks you if you want to “retie” your iPod to a new computer) than it will erase everything which is on the iPod and either syncs everything which is on the new computer, or - if it is too much - asks you if you´d rather let iTunes choose which to sync or do a trimmed down delection (via playlists) yourself.
hth
Matt
February 25th, 2006 at 8:05 am
QUOTE:
Personally I want nothing to do with it. I still collect my digital music the old fashioned way, I rip it straight from CDs to crystal clear high bit rate DRM free mp3s. These files of course can be played on any device and represent better value in my opinion for today’s consumer.
END QUOTE
Thomas, I respect that view, but obviously the situation in the USA is quite differently than e.g. in Germany (I haven´t bought a CD in over two years, so I am not 100% sure my statement is still valid):
Two years ago, 90 - 95% of all CD were copy-protected. It even sid on the back of the CD: “Might be problem being used in some PC and car CD players, WON`T WORK IN MACS” (yes, you read that right, nonetheless, most often it was still possible to rip the songs on a Mac)
Now, I just checked back to amazon.de (german outlet); they used to have an explicit warning accompanying each CD with copy-protection as the one above; they don´t carry that anymore.
So far, so good: The killer is this: Each and every store as well as amazon refuse to take back CDs once opened (i.e. shrinkwrap broken). Probably reason: Although the CD has a copy-protection, it could still be possible to circumvent it, right?
So, what would you do? Especially with my music listening habits: Either on the iPod (while in the car, jogging, before going to sleep etc) or on my Mac. With the above situation, I had to buy stuff without knowing if it´d work, and the guarantee of losing a couple of bucks when trying to sell it. Great. :(((
So, now I download Music from the iTMS, rarely. And I listen to the music ripped from those 200+ CDs I own.
That´s it, the music industry lost me as a consumer for the time being (notice how the RIAA always laments revenue going down, but never mentioning neither profit nor sales execs bonusses)
regrds
Matt
February 25th, 2006 at 11:14 am
It looks like Thomas (a Contributing Writer to eHomeUpgrade) has decided to address comments exclusively on his blog since he’s been getting overwhelmed there - current comment total: 117.
February 25th, 2006 at 3:10 pm
Technically, iTunes songs are not MP3s, they are in the successor format, AAC, which is the audio codec for the MPEG-4 standard. AAC songs encoded at 128kbps have a higher sound quality than the same songs encoded in MP3 format, but don’t require a larger file. It’s a better codec.
Any “device” (computer or iPod) can be authorized to playback songs from multiple accounts at the same time. This happens seamlessly. For example, I have a song from a friend’s iTunes account on my computer and it plays right alongside my iTunes music. My computer is authorized on both accounts, so I need to know the username and password for each account.
February 25th, 2006 at 5:27 pm
Hey all, thanks for the love.
It’s simple really. When you decide to build a mammoth digital library quite frankly it’s too much work to have to try and deal with the speed bump hassle of downloading the tracks, burning them to CD, ripping them back from CD again, making sure everything went right, making sure your meta data is all correct, potentially getting reduced quality mp3s etc.
It’s much easier to simply rip your own mp3s in *high quality, crystal clear, high bit rate, mp3s* Almost every CD I buy is used. You can just about everything except for the hot new release on the day it’s out used these days. That’s because people just buy them new, rip them and then sell them back to the CD store where they turn up in the used CD bins very shortly. Assuming that you do in fact keep the CD and the license that goes with it you probably average $8.50 a disc with about an average of 12 songs on it. Still cheaper than Apple.
If you return your discs for credit after ripping, well that’s your business and unless the RIAA is going to begin tracking CD purchases and returns well it can be a lot cheaper than that of course.
And the end result? as I said cheaper, high bit rate, DRM free mp3s. I didn’t have to buy spindles of blank CDs to circumvent anyone’s DRM and especially with the new 200 disc rippers it is going to be even easier to do this while you dream of electric sheep up in your bedroom at night.
Even legally buying used CDs you can get a cheaper method than what Apple is offering.
But the truth of the matter is that many people, in fact most people, are not stripping out the fairplay DRM from their Apple downloads. They are leaving it in because it doesn’t impact them today. While they may or may not have that possibility in the future, it would be a daunting task for someone with thousands of tracks. And that hot new cell phone / mp3 player / Swiss army knife combo very well may not play fair with fair play.
Let’s continue.
“
Any “device” (computer or iPod) can be authorized to playback songs from multiple accounts at the same time. ”
Yeah, but not my audiovox smt5600 smartphone that has a mic built into the headphones and will automatically pause my song for me while I take the call and then pick up where I left off. I actually want to be able to catch calls and not miss them.
“I think all DRM schemes are problematic just the same. Implying that Apple is worse than say Microsoft is insane since neither is open. “
I don’t buy DRM tracks from Microsoft either. Apple happened to be singled out here because they are much more visible and it was a special day for them with their billionth download. Reacting to the Apple/RIAA/DRM spin machine more than anything.
“Please give me an example of how DRM has prevented you from doing something moral and legal. Back your blanket statements up with some facts and examples of WHY people should listen to you.”
I bought a Dave Matthews CD that I couldn’t rip. Therefore even after paying money I couldn’t get it on my phone where I wanted it.
“Once you are done fighting the DRM battle, why don’t you go lobby the hardware stores to make every bolt fit every nut. Now, that’s a story about wasteful incompatibility!”
Ok cfactor, whatever you say guy.
“Two years ago, 90 - 95% of all CD were copy-protected.”
Huh, less than 1% of CDs are copy protected and irrespective there will be always be millions of used CDs floating around most likely for the rest of our lives.
“We’re not living in the future. We’re living today, so what are these “future innovative devices” that you’re speaking of?
If they don’t yet exist, how are they incompatible with iTunes music?”
But it’s not unwise to think about the future and I’d much rather throw my lot with mp3 than fairplay. It is naive to think that others besides Apple could not come up with more attractive portable devices in the future. Apple’s position is to not allow their content on competitors devices. As I said before I don’t want to be in the position of having to burn, rip, etc. etc. thousands of songs when I want my music on a non Apple device in the future. Heck, I want my music on a non-Apple device today, my phone.
“Question for you… how many CDs do you own (or owned for a day before returning them) that have the same music that you owned on cassette tapes?”
Lots and lots. I had a mammoth record and cassette collection before upgrading to CD. I’ve spent thousands of hours in used record/cassette/CD stores over the years.
“I’m guessing you had to buy the CD, after buying the tape years ago. Didn’t you just pay for the same music again?”
I did and I felt ripped off by it. Especially when the recording industry was gouging my eyes out for overpriced CDs and price fixing (yeah, their playing ethically and fair right?) http://www.usatoday.com/life/music/…ettlement_x.htm Like I said before, I’m not advocating piracy, per se, but I sure could see where someone might feel a little tit for tat could be in order.
And just because I had to upgrade my music in the past doesn’t mean that it’s right now that I have far more control over the music than I did back then. I won’t be upgrading again because I won’t need to. The fidelity of my high bit rate mp3s are perfect for me. Any incremental gain in sound quality at this point would not be worth the money.
“Let’s say that your _opinion_ about iTunes is correct. That 99cents for a song you “want” is bloated. Do you know how many CDs I have that are bloated with songs I never wanted, except for that one that I did? Which is more bloated?”
Possibly true, but here’s where you and I might be different. As a collector I’m a completist. I always want the whole album. Even if I don’t want other songs on the albums I’m constantly finding gems that I never knew existed.
“And if iTunes has done “absolutely zero” to curb illegal song sharing, then why have I stopped downloading music illegally? 14 months and counting (since iTMS opened in Canada). Many [that I've spoken with] have followed suit… giving up one form of illegal instant gratification for a legal, more convenient option.”
cfactor, we are talking in aggregate. click through the links and read the statistics yourself.
Thanks guys!
February 26th, 2006 at 8:38 am
I’ve resisted from visiting ehomeupgrade for the last month just because your site seems to be nothing more than a glorified Apple bashing blog. So when I return, the first article I find is this.
I’m sorry but buying a CD and ripping it, then returning it to the store (for any money back) is just wrong. Granted you paid for the CD, then ripped it - that’s fair use. But when you returned the CD, you are no longer in possession of the rights to that music. So yes you are technically a thief and you don’t have any more rights than a bittorrent downloader.
Put this another way, if the RIAA knocks on your door and asks to look at your music collection, what do you have to back up your media library?
No DRM isn’t a perfect system, but DRM DOES allow for an audit trail of what you purchased, and it’s been marked as a file belonging to you. You will never own anything more than fair use rights to listen to it, and you can transfer it to other media formats if you really want to. But the bottom line is you own the license, just like the software on your PC.
You don’t need to respond to this, because I’m no longer posting on this website. You’ve lost my interest, trust and your credibility is none existent. Stick to your media PC’s boys ‘cos thats all you really know about.
February 26th, 2006 at 2:36 pm
“Put this another way, if the RIAA knocks on your door and asks to look at your music collection, what do you have to back up your media library?”
At least in the United States you just can’t knock on someone’s door and ask to look at their music collection without a court order. When the RIAA gets a court order to invade my physical home and inspect my music collection without probable cause it may be time to leave the U.S. I’m not too worried.
February 27th, 2006 at 10:29 am
Hi Saurus,
I hope you decide to stick around. Don’t let the opinion of one writer change your thoughts about the whole site in general. As for why there hasn’t been more favorable coverage on Apple lately: I think we’re all waiting (hoping) for a Media Center-style PC or other “Digital Home” products to be introduced. We’ve already covered all the Elgato and Miglia hardware products (not to mention the iPod media docks), and even featured some non-Front Row media apps, now it’s time for Apple to show us the goods and their vision on where they want to take customers in the future regarding this space.
-Alexander
March 8th, 2006 at 11:33 am
I’m no judge, but if the RIAA came to my bench with this public article about you copying cd’s and returning them to the store, I’d grant that search warrant. Sounds like probable cause to me. I got no problem with that in my (USA) country.
Good luck.
Going back to Yahoo Music to buy some tunes now…
March 9th, 2006 at 3:35 am
So what would take to convict? Wouldn’t you have to find a digital copy of a song and that the exact CD that made that copy in the possession of someone else? The absence of a CD in your home is not prove that you gave the CD to someone else for use.
March 16th, 2006 at 5:34 am
Well, he’s already said he breaks the law….
Probably thousands of songs with no cd’s to show for them….
and
The RIAA does not want to go to court, ever. They want to scare you with the fact that it WILL cost you 10-15 thousand dollars for a good lawyer or they’ll be happy to forget the whole thing for a small two thousand dollar settlement.
That is what they do. They’d be happy to pick on any person that has probably cause.