The belief is more and more as we use iCloud services for documents and our photos and videos and music that perhaps the most price-conscious customers are able to live in an environment where they don't need gobs of local storage because these services are lightening the load.
I don't agree with the copyright laws and I don't have a problem with people downloading the movie and sharing it with people as long as they're not doing it to make a profit off my labor. You share things with people and I think information, and art, and ideas should be shared.
I think that Napster is the greatest invention since sliced bread. Napster, to me, is liberation and freedom for artists.
Napster's only alleged liability is for contributory or vicarious infringement. So when Napster's users engage in noncommercial sharing of music, is that activity copyright infringement? No.
It is piracy, not overt online music stores, which is our main competitor.
I don't believe every download is a lost sale.
My sense is that file sharing started in predominantly white, middle- and upper-middle-cl ass young people who were native-born, who felt they were entitled to have something for free, because that's what they were used to.
We live in a connected world now. Some find that frightening. If people are downloading our music, they're listening to it. The internet is like radio for us.
When I was younger, I'd buy a vinyl album, take it home and live with it, and I think that attachment's largely gone for the file-sharing generation.
I think music sharing of any kind is great.
I really got deep into downloading music when I moved to the South and got a computer. So I was downloading the The Diplomats, AZ, Half-A-Mil, 40 Cal.
I was never a Lime Wire guy because it's too much hassle to find the song.
I understand why some kid in his bedroom in Wisconsin thinks downloading songs couldn't hurt anyone. True fans will buy the CD or go see the movie after downloading, but to say it doesn't affect anyone - come on.
With something like Dropbox, it was immediately like, 'Wow, this is literally something that anyone with an Internet connection could use.' Everyone needs something like this; they just don't realize it yet.
The first mp3 I downloaded, which I guess was illegal, was a symphonic rendering of the Super Mario Brothers 1-1 theme song. It was great. I was like, 'This is blowing MIDI files out of the water. This is the future, right here.'
With Napster and the sharing of music, of course, there are going to be people who exploit it. Greed has no end. But there's a lot of good that could happen. We shouldn't let the economic concerns of the major labels infringe on our freedom to share music.
People equated burning CDs with theft. That's not what burning CDs is. Theft is about acquiring the music from the Internet.
Steal my stuff off the internet wherever you can and don't apologize. Buy the CDs and DVDs from my site and feel free to burn 'em and share 'em. Then come to the show.
Free downloads is something that I like to do its just not as publicised and it is the future of music.
Sharing music is not a crime. It shouldn't be. There should be a deeper meaning to making music than just selling downloads.
Digital files cannot be made uncopyable, any more than water can be made not wet.
Interleaf is very nice. I expect there to be a lot of competition for programs like that.
The approach that the music industry took to fight piracy was the wrong strategy.
Yeah, if someone's selling downloads and collecting money for our songs I would be unhappy about that but if they're trading it I don't mind, obviously if I make a thousand records or CDs or whatever, I like to sell a thousand.
In 2007, when I was a lawyer for the public interest group Free Press, I helped draft the complaint to the FCC against Comcast for secretly blocking BitTorrent and other technologies.
