digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

Indiana Gregg to The Pirate Bay: The Internet Police Are Com

torrentfreak.com — A little while ago we wrote about the exchange of emails between artist Indiana Gregg and The Pirate Bay. Indiana wanted The Pirate Bay to remove torrents linking to her work, which they refused to do. Now Indiana has a response for The Pirate Bay and file-sharers in general. It doesn’t pull many punches.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • shiitake, on 07/04/2008, -7/+117Makes me want to download her stuff now... whoever she is...
    • Daggity, on 07/04/2008, -2/+48Download it, seed it, but not listen to it. :D
    • Depravo, on 07/04/2008, -2/+39Then her plan has worked. Honestly, who had heard of her before this fiasco? About 12 people and she was at least three of those people.

      This outburst was calculated to goad people into downloading her music. A lot of those people will listen to it. Some of those may even like it. Hey Presto! She has now increased her potential market from 12 to several thousand.
    • afx1, on 07/04/2008, -2/+33she's just upset nobody is seeding her music
    • Fungii, on 07/04/2008, -0/+5I'm surprised nobody's commented on the Amazon listing for her album. Wow, she really is a nobody!!

      http://www.amazon.com/Woman-at-Work-Indiana-Gregg/ ...
      http://www.amazon.ca/Woman-at-Work-Indiana-Gregg/d ...
      • itspuddingtime, on 07/04/2008, -0/+4damn, $32 for this *****. I realize it's an import, but CMON!
    • ThreeDee912, on 07/05/2008, -0/+1Reverse psychology anyone?
    • abdiviklas, on 07/05/2008, -0/+4http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
    • KhanneaNL, on 07/05/2008, -0/+1I'd used to throw stale beer in the face of bleached poodled like her.

      Contact Indiana

      Indiana Gregg
      To Contact Indiana, send her a message via Myspace.

      PR Contacts

      For promotional information please contact Zest PR on
      0207 734 0206 or via email:

      Jen Bahaijoub jem@zestpr.com
      Sarah Gartside sarah@zestpr.com

      Let these grey losers know what you think.
    • smpx, on 07/05/2008, -0/+6Or you know, just ignore her. She's trying to get a piece of the publicity. Remember how much press metallica got after that whole "don't dl our *****" move?
    • davotoula, on 07/07/2008, -0/+2There are so many flawed arguments in her little soap box performance it's not even funny.

      She sounds like a spoiled child complaining to her mum about how the world is unjust and that she didn't get picked for the cheer leader team.
    • campusquarterly, on 07/07/2008, -0/+0I think she has was asking some good questions. Most of this sounds like it's
      trying to make people think and in her original blog she explains about how
      the Pirate Bay was bullying. So, I can respect any artist who speaks up for
      musicians. The songwriters suffer most because they write for other people
      and for themselves and from what I see, this is a valid point. Also, in some countries
      bands have to pay to play, so, gigging and touring isn't always profitable. I think
      the main point here is that The Pirate Bay is something like a new form of radio and
      radio always paid royalties to songwriters, the musician's who play on the record, etc.
      So, she's saying that rather than take all this heat from the RIAA and everyone sueing
      you and your sharers, it might be an option to change and agree to pay a royalty
      for the revenues. That might help make it legal. Or, it might not, but it would show that
      there is being an effort made.
    • ecenta, on 07/12/2008, -0/+0What she percepts as a distant future,
      OH NO HALOFREAK115 IS HOPING THE INTERNET BORDER, GET HIM!
      Border Patrol: freaking lag
      Border Hopper: NOOBS! I PWN YOUZ!!!
  • juicebag, on 07/04/2008, -4/+134Internet Police? Oh No!
    • t2t2, on 07/04/2008, -1/+40Internet Sheriff already failed, what police gonna do then? Attack with donuts?
      • doshindude, on 07/04/2008, -2/+36It doesn't affect enemy Pirate Bay!
        Pirate Bay used SATIRICAL RETALIATION!
        It's super effective!
      • applemachome, on 07/05/2008, -2/+1They could send poisoned donuts...crap just gave them their next method.
      • breadfred, on 07/05/2008, -0/+2Don't worry, we'll digg you down so no-one will notice!
    • 1807, on 07/04/2008, -0/+30The is the internet police...we have your website surrounded. We know you're in there...come out with your hands up. If you do not step outside slowly we will be forced to bombard you with empty, excessive threats.
    • ZeRux, on 07/04/2008, -7/+2http://lolinternetpolice.ytmnd.com/
      • Puffles, on 07/05/2008, -3/+1Why're you burying him for a completely relevant link?
    • DeFex, on 07/04/2008, -0/+3It ok i got internet exp-packs and internet mines waiting at the entrances. their internet jeeps will blow up good.
    • AmICoolNow, on 07/05/2008, -0/+3Internet police, arrest this man! He talks in maths.
  • mrm3x1can, on 07/04/2008, -30/+3i read such a long article, and for thte first time, i have to agree with the majority of it. its going to happened sooner or later whether you like it or not.
    • Stormwern, on 07/04/2008, -0/+13Very much doubt it, the internet is too big and spread over too many countries to be controlled.
      • Mononuclear, on 07/04/2008, -0/+5While it probably won't happen, that doesn't mean it can't happen. Look at china for an example of how a country can control the internet. The US could create a firewall and basically only allow certain whitelist sites or they could blacklist billions of sites and add new ones to the blacklist as they become popular.

        Again I agree I don't think it is going to happen but it certainly is feasible.
    • Cybrwolf, on 07/04/2008, -3/+5Sharing/Pirating is never going to stop!
      My Grandfather pirated reel-to-reels.
      I pirated cassettes.
      My son will pirate the world!

      Take what you can, give nothing back!
    • Deanblackoak, on 07/05/2008, -0/+1F you!
  • muppetman2000, on 07/04/2008, -30/+10I don't like stealing peoples work anymore, i think i grew up...
    • specialK16, on 07/04/2008, -2/+12Is it because I'm at work with nothing to do at all, is it because it is 4th of July, but what the ***** is going on with the ammount of trolls on this place today!?
    • Elranzer, on 07/04/2008, -3/+4According to all these Diggers, music artists should be giving their music away for free. It's not worth paying for, none of it. To support themselves, musicians need to work OTHER jobs.
  • scottja35, on 07/04/2008, -5/+122She is aiming at profundity, but comes off like a blundering buffoon.

    "[S]tating I’m a ‘millionaire’ wasn’t appropriately quantified. Am I a millionaire because I have millions of ants in my garden? Is it because I have had millions of people listen to my music on sites like MySpace or YouTube? Is it because I’m grateful to be healthy? How people quantify ‘richness’ in their lives depends on how people perceive value."

    Indiana, if you really do have one million ants, I need to warn you that them fellas won't grow *****.
    • Charlesbian, on 07/04/2008, -0/+9agreed. she needs to severely improve her predicament
    • snapcase, on 07/04/2008, -0/+17She also gets redundant pretty quick about halfway through. She clearly misinterprets the meaning of people talking about change and adaptation and then makes a statement that seems to claim that torrent site owners try to get their users to quote Darwin. She doesn't understand the ability of ISPs to track their users or that of the Governments. She clearly doesn't understand that The Pirate Bay is under absolutely no obligation to take down any copyrighted material. And she actually tries to claim Prince as a soldier for her cause.

      Piracy will never die it just changes. You'd be better off adopting it into your marketing strategy like NIN and see a profit. Oh and of course there's the clearly irrelevant that with organizations like the RIAA/MPAA the artists don't get but a small portion of the money made off of their albums. The music industry isn't dying because of Piracy, the music industry is dying due to its own devices.
      • lolcat23, on 07/04/2008, -0/+4this is exactly it. the "industry" needs to find other ways of making money. they are acting like its gonna be the end of it all for them.

        Well it will, but like always, boring men in grey suits will find excellent ways of making money of this somehow, and there will be alot of money to make.
        Imagine how much google is getting just by being a search engine. what if the industry just gives up and lets ppl download/share as they like. couldnt a similar thing to google then work for music, and generate money in the same time. just like google is free for the user but generates massive amounts of revenue for the companies(both google and its business costumers).

        they are just putting up a fight because, for the time being, its worth it. They have it all calculated, unless they achieve X victory in Y time, its better to abandon this model of moneymaking and go do something else. untill that day its worth it to send in hordes of lawyers to sue, lobby etc etc.
    • idolwalrus, on 07/04/2008, -0/+4and blankets
    • sprouts42, on 07/04/2008, -0/+12I had an ant farm once.
    • evilregis, on 07/04/2008, -2/+11...and if you pull their legs off, they look like snowmen!
    • SaladCactusKing, on 07/04/2008, -1/+4Mitch Threadberg
    • feignNU, on 07/07/2008, -0/+0Not to mention that she meant to say "qualify" not "quantify". This little manifesto makes it plain to see that she is heinously stupid, and her opinion is void of any importance.
  • compu73rg33k, on 07/04/2008, -10/+34YOU JUST DON'T GET IT DO YA?
    /dr. phil
    • BowieX, on 07/04/2008, -0/+13YOU GO, GIRLFRIEND!
      /oprah
      • ElTomacco, on 07/04/2008, -0/+14ALRIGHT, SHUT UP!
        /judge judy
      • BowieX, on 07/05/2008, -0/+9UUUP NEXT, INDIANA'S EX SAYS SHE USED TO DOWNLOAD COPYRIGHTED LESBO PORN!! WE'LL BE RIGHT BACK!
        /jerry springer
      • MacSuxWindozSux, on 07/05/2008, -0/+9OH YEAH!
        /Koolaid Guy
      • rhinofinger, on 07/05/2008, -2/+4WE'LL DO IT LIVE!
        /bill o'reilly
  • doshindude, on 07/04/2008, -6/+93Arr, ye who scuffles with the Pirate Bay be walkin the internet plank.

    Direct links to the emails (in order):
    1st email: http://static.thepiratebay.org/legal/indianagregg_ ...
    2nd email: http://static.thepiratebay.org/legal/indianagregg_ ...
    3rd email: http://static.thepiratebay.org/legal/indianagregg_ ...
    4th email: http://static.thepiratebay.org/legal/indianagregg_ ...
    • jaseshimmy, on 07/04/2008, -0/+31Ian Morrow (record label of Gregg):
      "The illegal file sharing of the Indiana Gregg album ... has almost bankrupted our company and sadly the artist and myself personally, not to mention many other small independent labels and artists worldwide. "

      Indiana Gregg:
      "I am a millionaire and do not claim to be bankrupt. Your opinion is not necessary or relevent to my request that you remove the URL."

      How stupid can these people get?
      • Gutterpunk, on 07/04/2008, -0/+19Well she has a million ants, or is that a million muffins?

        Indiana Gregg, Muffin Mogul!

        /Sell your muffin instead of your music, they can't be pirated!
      • Mononuclear, on 07/04/2008, -0/+8She does mention a bakery in the article
    • KMartSheriff, on 07/04/2008, -1/+11God that was awesome. Thank you (PirateBay, the idiot who sent the letters, and you doshindude) for making my day brighter. :)

      That idiot really had no idea what he was talking about.
    • talkingwires, on 07/04/2008, -1/+5I like how they included the URL to the torrent in the third email. Downloading it now...
    • Anonymous41, on 07/04/2008, -0/+5>Thanks for your IP Address and Server / Routing details

      Uh oh.. they found their IP address, guise. This could mean trouble. TPB better prepare themselves.
    • shakbhaji, on 07/05/2008, -0/+2"You're a hoot, that's what you are :)"
      Someone watches Boston Legal...
  • Risingashes, on 07/04/2008, -5/+76Songs are not the same as guitars because you cannot endlessly reproduce guitars at no extra cost. If there was a machine that could create guitars out of thin air then I would expect to be able to hand a guitar copy out to every single person I meet without the guitar companies expecting a commission.
    • spongman, on 07/04/2008, -13/+1the cost of distribution argument isn't really valid. it costs around $1 to physically reproduce & ship a CD to a store. does that mean you should be able to walk into a store, hand over $1 and walk out with a $10 CD? In most places, that would be considered theft.
      • zeabu, on 07/04/2008, -1/+5It's still plastic. It has a value of at least everything that was needed to produce it. CDs are not made from hot air.
      • Risingashes, on 07/05/2008, -0/+2To sell a CD you first need to produce the CD, you then need to load the songs on to the CD, you then need to distribute the songs to places where they can be sold, they then need to be overseen and sold by employees of the store.

        The $1 argument is built on the faulty premise of only counting what it would cost to produce CDs and have them just sit in a random factory. CDs and downloaded songs are different things.
    • timsline, on 07/04/2008, -8/+13How much did it cost to record the song? You know stuff like studio time, studio workers. record label, marketing, etc. Of course if you could pull things out of the air like magic you would give it away, but songs just don't get magically recorded on their own. They are written, recorded, produced, marketed, and everyone who works on it isn't doing it for free.

      Anying can argue that it's free to download from P2P networks, but how can you say the people who make the work don't deserve to get paid for the money they invested in it?
      • jbarket, on 07/04/2008, -4/+13It didn't cost her *****. It cost her label whatever they felt they could get out of her. Big labels treat artists the same way big movie studios treat actors and directors... they attempt to make the overall cost of production magically equal the amount of money they made so the people actually responsible for the hard work and creativity get a pittance while they rake it in.

        Unless you simply _don't_ tour, that's a musician's bread and butter income. Getting your name out there and having people actually know who the ***** you are means more ticket sales if you're actually producing something worth listening to.
      • acetv, on 07/04/2008, -5/+5jbarket:

        If your time isn't worth anything to you, you should get you priorities checked. It takes time and effort to write and record music, you know.
      • zeabu, on 07/04/2008, -1/+4Singing covers of songs other people scored a hit with, and show off how "good" you can sing, is not being creative. Or there are a lot of people that get very creative when showering.
      • twiztidsinz, on 07/04/2008, -3/+7@acetv:
        like half these people write/compose their own music.
      • MacSuxWindozSux, on 07/05/2008, -0/+3This is what you get for trying to sell information.
      • jbarket, on 07/05/2008, -0/+4@acetv

        You completely miss the point. In the dark days when piracy was limited to dual cassette decks, most artists were still making more money touring than on album sales. A large part of this is due to the recording costs, which are an artificially inflated number created by the industry.

        The cost of recording is *****, which is why you see so many artists begin recording in their own studios as soon as they can afford more than a copy of Protools and some egg crates.
    • pyro789x, on 07/04/2008, -6/+1Please see my comments below for why this is a fallacious argument.
  • hoshizakistar, on 07/04/2008, -4/+95"... we tracked and found over 100,000 leechers of my album alone. Since then, we’ve found about 150,000 more, of which I, the artist ... haven’t received a dime."

    Who's to say that if those people were unable to download a torrent of her album, they would have bought it instead? Perhaps they're just trying it out to see how her music sounds. More importantly, who's to say that a number of those people didn't go out and buy her album after giving it a few listens and deciding they liked it?

    The music industry always cites how many times an album is shared on the internet and directly equates that with lost revenue. What they don't understand is how that logic is flawed. There are too many other factors to account for: People downloading an album they had once purchased but then lost, people trying out music they would never pay for in the first place, 'try before you buy', etc.

    My point is that people fail to see that file sharing can do plenty good for artists and help them to gain exposure. It also does plenty good for the consumer who is able to sample music before they buy it, which will hopefully force the music industry to improve it's products so more people want to buy them instead of download them for free. I'm all for better main-stream music.
    • Stormwern, on 07/04/2008, -2/+14It may also force some artists to actually work for a living. Whatever happened to making money from live preformances?
    • sams2100, on 07/04/2008, -1/+9Come on guys, just about everyone has been in the same situation as the corporations that are trying to convince everyone that the total number of pirate copies equals lost revenue. They know full well that its not true, but they can claim that and hope someone listens to them. It makes them look better.

      Same with most people, when you are trying to win an argument, do they always come out and fully disclose all information or do they try to twist it and hide information to try and win their argument? Not saying its right, but please don't believe these guys are unaware of their flawed logic with their argument, its simply not true. They know what they are doing and hoping they win.

      The only thing they really don't understand is that you can never stop these sort of things. No matter what they do, it will always happen because there are endless ways to do it.
    • pyro789x, on 07/04/2008, -11/+6: Who's to say that if those people were unable to download a torrent of her album, they would have bought it instead?

      Simply because the person may not have bought it anyway is not a good enough argument to say that they have a right to it without paying. If they don't feel the price is worth the product, they have a right, no, a duty, to forgo using that object.

      : The music industry always cites how many times an album is shared on the internet and directly equates that with lost revenue. What they don't understand is how that logic is flawed. There are too many other factors to account for: People downloading an album they had once purchased but then lost, people trying out music they would never pay for in the first place, 'try before you buy', etc.

      It is true that people may wish to try music before they buy it, but at the loss of the ability to try it does not mean that they have the right to go out and try it any way they find that they can. You're not defending the argument that file sharing is okay, you're just defending against the argument that in that particular case it is bad. Consider this: If 60% of the furniture stores allow you to lay on their beds before you try it, and 40% do not, do you simply buy at the 60% that allow you to and encourage that type of behavior, or do you go to the 40% that do not and try every method that you think possible to force yourself on their beds anyway, regardless of what argument they used to stop you from trying them, from damaging the furniture to an emotional plee for you not to disgrace their products. Who are you to decide that, simply because you don't like their reason, that you have a right to disregard it anyway?

      : My point is that people fail to see that file sharing can do plenty good for artists and help them to gain exposure.

      If that's really the only reason that you defend filesharing, then why would this torrent site refuse to remove the property of this artist who specifically asked for her work to be removed? Does she not have a right to decline your help? If you think that every woman deserves to know the pleasure of sex, would you have one gangraped day and night for a month despite her cries that she does not want that of herself, because you think you know better for her than she does?
    • DeFex, on 07/04/2008, -1/+5she could have a concert and people would pay to see it if shes that good.
    • dsmx, on 07/04/2008, -0/+7The fight against music sharing is really a fight to save the record companies, they know they aren't needed any more but they refuse to admit it so there desperately trying to hold on. Distribution there not needed for, advertising there not needed for, discovering new talent there not needed for so what the hell do record companies actually do?

      The main thing about all piracy is that every pirated copy exist because that person didn't believe at that time the legitimate copy was worth paying for. The argument about it being right or wrong is pointless because if someone doesn't believe your product is worth paying for then they simply won't buy it if they can't pirate it. However if they pirate it they may believe it's worth paying for and buy it at a later date.
    • zeabu, on 07/04/2008, -0/+5she's a ***** lyer.. look at how many times it has been downloaded off TPB. That's one of the big sites, multiply that with 100, and you're still far off from 150000 leechers.
    • RungeKutta, on 07/04/2008, -2/+4Yes I completely agree, a downloaded piece of IP (movie, song, software, book, ...) does not translate into lost revenue for the owner of that IP. By that same form of bad logic, it doesn't mean that every "downloader" never supports the artists. Sure the downloader *may* go out and purchase it, and they *may* tell their friends who also *might* purchase it, but there's absolutely no obligation to. Of course some people support the artists whose work they download (illegally) - I would bet most don't though.

      The above is, however, completely irrelevant because the owner of the IP has the right to dictate how they want others to "see" it. If they want to make people pay for every copy of it, then they have that right to. If they want to charge $10,000USD / song, then they should have that right. What I don't understand is why some people think that owners of IP have no rights to it at all. I bet the same people that complain about artists wanting to protect their work, are some of the same people that bitch if some company gets caught "closing up" some piece of GPL software. It really is no different.
    • sfelton, on 07/04/2008, -0/+3I totally agree. Most of the stuff that I get off the Internet I would never buy. I might listen to it a few times, then just remove it. If I find someone I like, yes I listen to a lot of new music, I will go and buy it for the better audio quality. She has no ability to grasp the concept of the internet, and further the concept of music. It is not until recently that a large group of musicians have been able to become super wealthy, which is due to the fact that we have better means of communication. Without radio/cds/internet/television she most likely not be able to be a full time musician.
  • earthforce1, on 07/04/2008, -12/+74Why is it some people cannot wrap their brains around the fact that 1's and 0's are not physical property and cannot be treated as such. Sharing is not stealing. Her store analogy is flawed - you are not going into a store and taking things, you are just giving away products identical to what the store has.

    Property law is based on scarcity and finite resources - this does not apply in the cyber world.
    • OmegaWolf, on 07/04/2008, -1/+12They're trying to apply physical world laws to the virtual world of the Internet. Well, what can we expect from people who think the Internet is a "series of tubes"? *shudders*
    • Drewnami, on 07/04/2008, -8/+7Giving away products identical to what the store has...but they still aren't being paid for. Sure, some people wouldn't buy it anyway, but I'm willing to bet that most people that would've bought the album, but downloaded instead (and liked it) STILL wouldn't buy the album.

      Why? Because they already have it! Why would they want to pay $15 for silly little things like a jewel case and liner notes? They can download it for free and no one - not the artist, not the store, not the evil recording industry - gets a cent from it.

      Are we absolutely sure we want this business model? I'm all for free information when it's reasonable, but this is a really slippery slope.

      (I'm asking to be dugg down, I know, but at the very least people can think about it.)
      • earthforce1, on 07/04/2008, -0/+5> Giving away products identical to what the store has...but they still aren't being paid for.

        So I would be an evil person for sitting outside a bakery and giving away free bread?

        Sorry, I don't continue get paid for work I did 50 years ago. Money can still be made from music, (My stepson is a musician and is an avid P2P fan) but in the 21st century you make it the old fashioned way - by playing it LIVE.

        I find the DRMed producer controlled world to be much more scary, as they would cripple any new technology that does not comply with their business model, or has even a remote chance of being used in a way that does not comply with their business model. Remember, the MPAA tried to have the VCR outlawed, and with the transition to digital media and some DMCA type laws will effectively do so in the future.



      • Drewnami, on 07/05/2008, -2/+4> So I would be an evil person for sitting outside a bakery and giving away free bread?

        Is it your bread to give away? Did you bake it yourself? Because in that (flawed) analogy, it's the equivalent of using the baker's secret recipe to make bread that's just as good, but at no cost to anyone - except the original baker, who's out a successful recipe.

        I'm of course playing devil's advocate here, but I'm seeing far more holes in the pro-piracy argument than against.
      • InfiniteNothing, on 07/05/2008, -1/+1Which is another great reminder why you can't draw good physical analogies for digital content. PS, it's not identical to a store product because the store product has artwork, plastic, and the CD itself looks cooler while the mp3 is a lossy copy.
      • aukxsona, on 07/05/2008, -1/+1In Russia you get paid for what item you produce. You can go out and print a hundred books of fairy tales, tales you collected from the internet, and you get paid for the book. No one has the right to the tales to get paid. Only the person who made the book does. Now, this is not an American way of thinking. This is a Russian way. But life is easier and no one whines as much.

        I only learned this from a Russian exchange student, so may be acess to other cultures is good?
    • shagen, on 07/04/2008, -1/+2reminds me of Chappelle's i"f the Internet was a real place..."
    • pyro789x, on 07/04/2008, -8/+8: you are not going into a store and taking things, you are just giving away products identical to what the store has.

      Which is also illegal. Back when there were only brick and mortar stores, this kind of thing already had to be dealt with. Did somebody have the right to go to a bookstore, copy down each sentence word-for-word, and then reprint each book on their own and sell their version for a smaller profit than the book store? This is something we had to deal with, and we decided that no, nobody has that right. Now that a greater number of products are available in digital, rather than analog form (which carries higher production costs than the digital format), it's important to understand this concept. This isn't anything new, you're just not seeing the parallels. You may argue that the artist loses nothing.. Similarly, the book store loses nothing, seeing as how you did not physically take anything from their store and everything you produce is at cost to you (where before it was the cost of the paper and materials, now it is the cost of maintaining a server and a distribution method). But we still saw fit to ban it. That is why copyright law was invented. Maybe you should start off by arguing to bookstores that you have a right to distribute these books for free with only ad revenue to support you, because "sure, we may be giving away the same thing at a lower cost, but if they decided they like it they could go and buy it from you afterwards!"

      It seems to me that the only person here who is defending their argument from the 'physical property' perspective is you and your kind. File sharers are always the first to bring up the argument that there are no physical losses when defending their actions.
      • aukxsona, on 07/05/2008, -2/+1Copyright only applies to UNPUBLISHED works. look it up.
    • MacSuxWindozSux, on 07/05/2008, -0/+4They're selling information in a free society.

      Then they chase after people when that information starts circulating.
  • mahoutie, on 07/04/2008, -4/+217Who the ***** is Indiana Gregg?
    • sirber, on 07/04/2008, -0/+25a millionaire
    • sirber, on 07/04/2008, -0/+18someone on myspace!
    • KMartSheriff, on 07/04/2008, -1/+26Honestly, she should be happy people even give enough crap to bother torrenting her album in the first place.
    • Devotia, on 07/04/2008, -0/+30Henry Gregg's dog?
    • ichbeineinrcg, on 07/04/2008, -4/+14Someone I'd like to see naked.
    • ElTomacco, on 07/04/2008, -1/+13A pretty little mouth piece for the RIAA?
      • CedEx, on 07/04/2008, -0/+9What? Could you re-write that? I couldn't get past the part where you said "A pretty little mouth"...
    • Gutterpunk, on 07/04/2008, -0/+13Someone who think her opinion matters?
    • Linkin4, on 07/04/2008, -0/+4Creamy, Beige
    • zeabu, on 07/04/2008, -1/+6What the ***** is an "Indiana Gregg"?
    • heystoopid, on 07/04/2008, -0/+3Some one who can't really sing in tune even on a good day !
    • PopcornDave, on 07/05/2008, -0/+2Who knows. They named the dog Indy.
  • zerocool1990, on 07/04/2008, -5/+88What a ***** idiot.
    Internet police ? Internet passports ?...Who the ***** is that bitch anyway ?
    • highwebl, on 07/04/2008, -0/+14I have no idea who she is, but without The Pirate Bay, I never would have heard her name.
  • GhostyBoy, on 07/04/2008, -7/+84What an ungrateful bitch.

    I'm releasing an album pretty soon and it would be my dream come true if it was even remotely popular to torrent. All those listeners enjoying her music and she is complaining about it?!? ***** you lady.
    • pyro789x, on 07/04/2008, -8/+10Not everyone has the same goals, or are requesting the same cost in exchange for their product. If you think that your music should be free and you merely wish for people to appreciate you, that's fine, be happy with the people that download your music. Just because you want to give your stuff away for free and feel that appreciation is fair compensation, however, does not mean that she feels the same way about her music, or that anybody has the right to treat her music the same way they treat yours simply because you feel that it is the way that it should be.
      • xsquirrel378x, on 07/04/2008, -2/+4yeah art for arts sake is so overrated
    • artbell, on 07/04/2008, -0/+8At the risk of inviting spam, please post where we might give your new album a listen. I am very open minded, and would love to give it a fair shot. PS: I listened to Indianas stuff, and its really no good at all.
      • GhostyBoy, on 07/05/2008, -0/+2Well the album isn't released yet, but if you want there are a few tunes and a music video I made up at MySpace.com/GhostyBoy
        You can download the sample tracks if you like them.

        Sorry about myspace link, I'm going to have a real website soon.
    • pixelsoup, on 07/05/2008, -0/+5That's cool, but let's talk in a few years. Maybe you'll decide just being listened to isn't enough. When you decide you want money for your craft there should be a way to make it happen. Just saying...

      BTW, I had a listen to I.G's music at her MySpace page. HATE the stuff. no money for her no downloads for me.
      • GhostyBoy, on 07/05/2008, -0/+1I agree, but I guarantee anyone who has that many downloads on a torrenting site can make a good amount of cash on merch, touring, and hell lots of people still like to buy cd's.
  • rl1cool, on 07/04/2008, -4/+22LOL!

    I'm not sure that stealing something like bread is the same as creating a copy of digital information. Bread has ingredients with an associated cost. Digital reproductions of music do not cost anything. As the file sharers are creating the copy of the digital information a better analogy is that music is like a recipe for a type of bread, and file sharers are bakers with their own oven using different recipes. :D

    Musicians only lose money to file sharing when people who would NORMALLY buy their work do not due to file sharing. To assume that everyone who downloaded Indiana's album would have purchased that album otherwise is ridiculous.

    Oh noes people are enjoying more music...
    • SPECOPS, on 07/04/2008, -0/+7The irony here is, people who don't even know her, may download her work, and find out they like her work, then buy her work - just because of this article and wouldn't even have known about her if it weren't for the ability to find out for free. Why do you think Microsoft became so popular so fast - Gate's himself was a business genius in more ways than we can think.
      • HonoredMule, on 07/04/2008, -0/+4I doubt anyone who hears of her this way and downloads her albums would hold her in a high enough opinion to then purchase her work even if they did like it. She's really just digging her own grave. Had I discovered her some other way, I might have sampled her music then purchased some, but now I'm a guaranteed non-customer, with no interest in buying or even hearing her work.

        Through some strange stroke of bizarro world (yet not that strange at all), almost all of the music I've found and liked in the last 5-10 years came from independent artists who make their music available for free, despite such sources being a minority of the music to which I am regularly exposed. Statistically, the chance of someone defending draconian expectations for IP control AND producing something I actually want are astronomically slim.

        Maybe money isn't the best driving force for creativity.
    • Drewnami, on 07/04/2008, -1/+3Would you assume that everyone - or anyone - who would have bought the album, but downloaded it instead, would still buy it?

      There's the flaw in that line of thinking.
      • InorganicMatter, on 07/04/2008, -0/+4I would. I like my lossless, and 192kbps MP3 files are sorely lacking in quality. Do I download music? Sure, because I want to try new stuff out and I refuse to pay their game of "blindly pay $15 for the possibility of two good tracks." If I like the music, I buy the real deal so I can get my lossless.
      • Drewnami, on 07/05/2008, -1/+2Okay, follow-up. Would you assume that most downloaders would do that? I would think that you're a rare case, and that about 95% (guess, not statistic) of people who download music say "hey, free music" and leave it at that.
      • PopcornDave, on 07/05/2008, -0/+2Yes, I would because sometimes I like to listen to a CD in my car when I get bored with satellite radio.
      • InfiniteNothing, on 07/05/2008, -0/+2Yes, if I like an artist I go to their shows and buy their merch so that they can afford to keep making music.
    • BTime, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1Technically, there is a cost in bandwidth. But that's covered in your monthly internet billing.
    • DarKnyht, on 07/04/2008, -5/+3But there is a cost that can be associated with that digital reproduction, it just happens to be a negative number. It is lost income for the artist, recording studio, songwriter, producer, and everyone else that would have made money from the sale of the album you copied. You claim that no one is hurt by a digital copy, but people are hurt by it.

      Just because you think you are getting a bad deal for the product doesn't mean you have the right to just steal it. If you don't like what you are offered spend your money elsewhere.
    • javaroast, on 07/04/2008, -2/+4The bread analogy is completely off base. If I go into a baker and buy bread I can share that bread with whoever I want to share it with. If I buy music and share it with anyone I'm breaking the law. See the analogy just fails however you use it. A song isn't bread.
      • rl1cool, on 07/05/2008, -2/+2I said a song is a bread recipe dumb ass. Learn to read.

        "music is like a recipe for a type of bread"
  • geoken, on 07/04/2008, -4/+56This person must have been living under a rock for the last 10 years. Her comments summarize pretty much every logically fallacious claim made about filesharing in the past decade, and she presents them as if they're revelations. "Every download = a lost sale" and "downloading an infinitely and freely reproducible item = stealing actual goods" are arguments only made by people who have no grasp of logic or reality.

    Just accept the fact that there are a lot of people who place zero value on your work. They will only appropriate it when it's cost is equal to the value they place on it. If you revoke their ability to obtain it at this value, they will merely go without it.

    Oh, btw. Good job aligning yourself with Microsoft. What better way to make us feel sorry for the little guy (ie. artist such as yourself) facing off against giants than by likening yourself to Microsoft.
    • pyro789x, on 07/04/2008, -7/+2: Just accept the fact that there are a lot of people who place zero value on your work. They will only appropriate it when it's cost is equal to the value they place on it. If you revoke their ability to obtain it at this value, they will merely go without it.

      I fail to see how this harms her in any way, shape or form. In fact, I'm for it. If you don't think something is worth it, you have no right to it. Period.
    • geoken, on 07/05/2008, -0/+2Fine, but don't count it as lost money if those people somehow obtain it for free. I'm not even trying to argue whether or not those people have a right to it, I'm only commenting on the ridiculous belief that every download represents a lost sale.
  • sgt99999, on 07/04/2008, -4/+19The only real argument for the copyright protection she wants is that it is the law. I think it is time the law was changed.
    • SPECOPS, on 07/04/2008, -2/+8You're going to have to come up with more money than the RIAA/MPAA does to line the pockets of the lawmakers - Or better yet, get off your ass and vote them out of office and someone into office that has some integrity.
      • PopcornDave, on 07/05/2008, -0/+3Voting the dinosaurs out of office is a lovely idea. But trying to convince the cable zombies glued to American Idol week after week is a tough road to hoe.
    • DarKnyht, on 07/04/2008, -3/+1Good then start a petition. Until that happens though you don't have a right to break the law.
    • sgt99999, on 07/05/2008, -0/+1Specops: For one, it is not on my shoulders. For two, to change something as monolithic as constitutional (and treaty) copyright protection will take a lot more than voting on one issue. It would take a grass roots movement. Since the US version of the Pirate Party has not taken off, I think that means that the "group wisdom" is that it is more efficient to resist the current law.

      DarKnyht: Who said I broke any laws? I am advocating change in the law.
  • ThreeDee912, on 07/04/2008, -6/+17The Internet Police Are Com!!!!!
  • cjshamrock, on 07/04/2008, -4/+29Smells like Publicity Stunt.
    • KMartSheriff, on 07/04/2008, -1/+9Based on the amount of people who have even heard about her before now, she needs it.
    • Depravo, on 07/04/2008, -4/+1It also sounds, looks, tastes and feels like one.
    • Gutterpunk, on 07/04/2008, -0/+4Probably. And when it will (inevitably) backfire, they will blame The Internet...
  • felidaeus, on 07/04/2008, -12/+2The internet police are communists?

    In Soviet Internet, Torrent Police You?
  • virtualonliner, on 07/04/2008, -4/+15Great! Now I have heard that name twice in last couple weeks. Whoever she is. Plan worked!!
  • Arcotik, on 07/04/2008, -2/+15I wasn't aware it was desirable to have to have an "ePassport" to visit a website based in another country. ***** stupid.
    • crossmr, on 07/05/2008, -0/+1Korea already does it in a sense. If you want to create a login for just about any Korean site you have to use your Korean Social Security Number. Oh wait you're not Korean? Well as a foreigner you can send us copies of your passport, a urine sample, and some hair, and we'll give you limited access to some websites.

      Yet the entire country seems perfectly okay with it. Pisses foreigners off though.
  • toxicityj, on 07/04/2008, -5/+6No, Indiana Gregg. YOU'RE com!
  • Croecop, on 07/04/2008, -4/+23http://thepiratebay.org/tor/3664298/Indiana_Gregg_ ...
  • gavin422, on 07/04/2008, -7/+14Seriously, though, artists should be able to earn a living from what they do. Obviously downloading some Metallica, U2, Radiohead, or NIN isn't going to colossally impact the fortunes of those bands, but filesharing is making it hard for smaller musicians who don't have economics of scale on their side. And with gas prices rising out of control, they're making less and less money from touring as well.

    I don't think file sharing should be abolished, but surely we can find a music distribution model that both eliminates greedy record companies and is fair to the artists.
    • clubby, on 07/04/2008, -3/+21"filesharing is making it hard for smaller musicians who don't have economics of scale on their side"

      You've got that 100% backwards. Smaller bands can't get a record deal. In order to get known outside of their hometown, they *need* filesharing. Those poor smaller musicians have *never* had economics of scale on their side, but thanks to filesharing, they're getting there.

      Like it or not, bands are going to have to make money from donations and live performances. Just like in the old days, before we invented this copyright thing.
      • gavin422, on 07/04/2008, -1/+5Yeah, but it's a double-edged sword. While filesharing is one of the greatest promotional tools ever devised, it also translates into reduced sales once you've established yourself. Keep in mind that I'm not supporting the ***** line of "one download = one lost sale", but certainly there have been *some* sales lost to downloads.

        "Like it or not, bands are going to have to make money from donations and live performances. Just like in the old days, before we invented this copyright thing."

        I strongly disagree with this. Why should musicians have to work like street performers, depending on spectacle and the kindness of strangers for money? I, too, believe that copyright is in serious need of reform, but we have to find a solution that still allows musicians to earn a respectable living, or else music will suffer a catastrophic blow as hundreds of talented artists say "***** it" and get office jobs.

        EDIT: And you also forgot that rising gas prices, as mentioned before, are making many tours prohibitively expensive. The only solution is to raise ticket prices, and who's going to pay $20 to see an unknown?
      • jbarket, on 07/04/2008, -0/+3Agreed.

        The number of bands I've discovered through piracy and eventually either bought legitimate (decent quality drm free) albums of or saw live is massive.

        Where else am I supposed to find worthwhile music in an era where Music Television is 1% music and anything on the radio is complete *****? 15 years ago when I had no bills it was pretty easy to skip lunch a few times a week and pick up an album based solely on the cover, genre, associations or song titles.

        I would happily accept some kind of alternate reality where I only ended up paying for the albums I pirated and felt were worth keeping and could toss the garbage aside as easily as emptying the trash on my computer.
    • azimir, on 07/04/2008, -2/+8"artists should be able to earn a living from what they do."

      Why is that? Not to be harsh, but any work you pick to make money is either based around "people will pay for me to do this", or it's the government/criminals forcefully taking the money via some other means.

      If we as a society, for better or worse, choose not to pay for music/movies/tv, then that's our choice. Just because its always been a good source of revenue in the past won't make it a good one in the future.
      • gavin422, on 07/04/2008, -1/+1What's going to happen to music if artists can't make a living anymore? No one will want to do it anymore. Sure, you'll still have some people releasing great songs that they record in their spare time, but hundreds and hundreds of talented artists will just leave music for more profitable work, completely decimating the artistic landscape.

        And because we're dealing with filesharing, the normal rules of supply and demand don't apply. You may say, "If no one's making music anymore, then surely people will start paying for music again." But if unregulated, unpaid filesharing is the norm, it's impossible to profitably make music because no one will ever pay.

        Before I get too far off my original message, I want to reiterate that I'm not opposed to filesharing. I believe that artists have yet to harness the full power behind it. The ideal system, in my opinion, would be a torrent site where members download music at very low prices, of which the majority goes to the artist and the rest subsidizes the site's small overhead.

        The bottom line is that filesharing has the potential to either kill or boost music colossally. It depends on how it's used in the next few years.
      • HonoredMule, on 07/04/2008, -1/+2@gavin: Your whole argument hinges on the unstated premise that profit is the only motivation that drives humanity to creativity and art. That you can actually base your position on such a ridiculous fallacy contradicted by countless counterexamples that match or exceed commercial equivalents, ranging from single works and individuals to entire industries, amuses me, to say the least. Only a small portion of the world's creative output is actually produced commercially or even in a commercial setting. Money is a source of food, not passion.

        As for the artists that are only motivated by profit--do you REALLY think society would be that much poorer without the likes of Britney Spears, N'Sync, or the RIAA?
      • Papercraft, on 07/04/2008, -2/+3And you seem to assume that artists should have to work part-time as a bartender when they have the number 1 song in the country. Someone could easily say, why does a programmer have a right to make a living programming? Why does an architect have a right to make a living designing buildings? Any artistic pursuit should be engaged in only for the sake of the art itself. And I agree, those musicians who are real artists would play music anyway, even if they had to work a shift at Denny's to buy food.

        I firmly believe that musicians should have a choice in how their work is used. Those who want to distribute it free should do so -- in fact this may be the best way to do it for many of them. But what right do we have to tell the creator of a work that they have no say in how their artistry is spread? Because they can make some money off other avenues doesn't give us the automatic right to make off with their work however we see fit.

        The logical continuation of this line of thinking is that everything that can be digitally distributed MUST be free, and no one has any choice in the matter. So music should be free, movies, TV shows, paintings, sculptures (when we get 3D printers), business plans, logos, code, software. Just because it's easy to duplicate doesn't mean that it's right to duplicate it. The artist deserves the choice, in my opinion. If they choose badly and make no sales, that's their own fault, but we shouldn't be able to choose for them, no matter how much we want to.

        And it's not like sharing a baker's bread among all your friends. It's like sharing the recipe. No one really needs to go back to the baker again.

        This is why I use a subscription music service. I get pretty much everything I want for $15 a month, and I allow artists to manage their property how they see fit.
      • crossmr, on 07/05/2008, -0/+2Because people are willing to pay them for it..
        Quite simple.
        If you try to do your job, and you aren't making enough money its time to do another job.
        Its not the time to whine and moan about "why won't people give me money?"
        There are some musical acts which seem to have no problem making money. They should continue on the path they're on. There are also software companies big and small who are making money (for an example of a small one see spiderweb software, the guy has been making and still makes shareware games which are notoriously easy to crack, and yet still does it because people buy it) and those that aren't.

        For those that aren't, you have to realize that maybe your product just isn't that great and move on.
        Musicians used to make a lot of money by touring, maybe its time they tried that again. They expect to be able to fire off a couple of catchy songs in the studio and retire on them. Welcome to the real world. It may have worked like that for a short time for a few bands, but now its a pipe dream.
        People got tired of shelling out $15 for your one catchy song and your 11 ***** ones.

        There still hasn't been any conclusive proof that pirating hurts music sales and some studies (from objective institutions) which indicate that it might actually help sales. Especially for bands with poor name recognition/exposure.

        Anyone who becomes a musician now has got to know what they are getting themselves in to. Anything you record will end up on the internet, end of story. If you're not okay with that, find another job.

    • earthforce1, on 07/04/2008, -1/+4> filesharing is making it hard for smaller musicians

      Wrong. Filesharing is making it possible for smaller musicians to get exposure without selling your soul to middlemen and record labels in a lopsided deal. A lot of them have figured this out. Some just find the new world too scary, and lapse back into early 20th century thinking.

      http://www.musiccreators.ca/wp/

    • MacSuxWindozSux, on 07/05/2008, -1/+4Nickleback got famous because their first album got pirated and it became free advertisement.
      • crossmr, on 07/05/2008, -1/+6I hate those people who pirated that album. Those are the only filesharers I think that should be killed. Nickleback is a ***** abomination.
  • pigletj, on 07/04/2008, -5/+21I rant out of steam at the following sentence in the article:

    "Since the birth of the Internet, people have been hacking software, stealing music, books, films, television shows, credit card numbers, eBay accounts, IP addresses"

    I knew I had more IP addresses than that! It's so obvious now, SOMEONE IS STEALING THEM. I'm looking at you Digg.
    • CedEx, on 07/04/2008, -1/+5Here... let me give you an IP then... 64.191.203.30
    • twiztidsinz, on 07/04/2008, -0/+7I love how eBay accounts are grouped in with the beginning of the internet.
    • earthforce1, on 07/04/2008, -0/+7I have stolen your 127.0.0.1 IP address
      Come and get it from me!
  • digitallysick, on 07/04/2008, -3/+19Dear indiana Gregg, i don't know who you are, nor do i feel like wasting my bandwidth to listen to your sub par music. I would never buy your album, and you are lucky if i even listen to it via bittorrent.
  • milas, on 07/04/2008, -3/+8Is she related to Old Greg?
    • hoshizakistar, on 07/04/2008, -0/+4That one's Bailey's. That one's Bailey's a bit bigger. And that one's as close as you can get to Bailey's without your eyes getting wet.
  • zyl0x, on 07/04/2008, -4/+24Let me summarize her thoughts:

    "Wah."
  • MrKrinkleDude, on 07/04/2008, -2/+4Maybe, if she got good (HA!) she could call Trent Reznor and follow his example on how to turn it into cash. Or... provide a mailing address on her site. I know a few people who would download an album, like it, then send off $10 or so directly to the artist, completely skipping the middleman.
  • superkendall, on 07/04/2008, -6/+22Indiana Gregg - how do you think people FIND OUT about your music? Might it very well not be the 150k torrents out there?

    Torrents are the new radio. We as consumers will buy something if we like it. But we'll never know you exist through traditional means anymore. I don't listen to radio, and hardly watch TV. Do not try so hard to stifle the thing that has given you money, and that continues to lead new people to you.

    Your core problem seems to be jealously that people are making money showing other people you exist. Yet that's just one point on a continuum that is hardly far from radio itself - were you really making so much per play from radio? Yet they are making money hand over fist as well, why not get mad at them? Or any other distribution medium for your music that takes a cut?

    You have a lot of faith in the internet police, but like with so many truly effective acts of civil disobedience you simply cannot "come" for people when there are more people than police!

    I cannot help but wonder that on a day devoted to independence, you wish to shackle yourself further into old channels of distribution and ignore the real power of the FANS to make someone like yourself popular. Success you have had springs from them, so respect the love they offer and learn to paddle down the river they provide you.

    Those 50K+ extra torrents you noted? Consider this - that's 50k people coming to CHECK YOU OUT. Will you be worthy of them?
    • pyro789x, on 07/04/2008, -4/+2Torrents are not the new radio, because artists get paid for songs played on the radio, and radio stations recoup their losses through advertisements. Radio stations have to pay for every song they play, every time they play it, and they have a duty to rotate the artists that they play so that you don't hear too much from a specific artist at one time. If you hear a song on the radio and you want to listen to it over and over, wherever you are, at any time and repetition you see fit, you have to buy it. If you download a song off bittorrent, the artist gets paid nothing, and there is absolutely nothing a user will gain from buying it. The great majority of people are not the kind of people who will say "I like this song, let me show the artist my appreciation by buying it," and most of the people who are that kind will mostly over-rationalize the songs they play over and over but don't pay for by saying "well, this song isn't so great anyway, I just play it as filler."

      Police are used to reinforce laws and maintain the societal structure as the majority sees fit. When the internet continues its descent into lawlessness and continues to harm people hoping to make a living in a capitalist society, the police will come.
      • bjornredtail, on 07/04/2008, -1/+4"Torrents are not the new radio, because artists get paid for songs played on the radio, and radio stations recoup their losses through advertisements."
        Incorrect. Composers are paid for songs played on the radio. Artists are not.

        "If you hear a song on the radio and you want to listen to it over and over, wherever you are, at any time and repetition you see fit, you have to buy it."
        It is relatively simple to record music off the radio.


        "Police are used to reinforce laws and maintain the societal structure as the majority sees fit. When the internet continues its descent into lawlessness and continues to harm people hoping to make a living in a capitalist society, the police will come."
        It is a matter of time before the majority simply changes the laws to reflect the changes in technology. Assuming that they can get the political influence necessary. Alas, politicians still think copyright law only matters to the big content producers, so we shall continue to have new laws that pilfer the public domain, restrict our fair use rights, and do not reflect the will of the majority for the foreseeable future.
    • aladrin, on 07/04/2008, -1/+4Sorry, Internet Radio is the new Radio, not torrents. Radio never played entire albums, and it certainly never played anything lossless. There are plenty of legal ways to listen or preview songs before buying them. This is not a valid excuse to break the law.

      I personally don't -care- if you break the law. What bothers me is the rationalization of it. Be a man and admit what you're doing instead of whining and making excuses.
      • crossmr, on 07/05/2008, -0/+3That was the problem. Radio played the 1 or 2 good songs off a 15 track album, and people who bought it were left going "WTF???" when the listened to the other 13-14 tracks.
  • hotrodscott, on 07/04/2008, -0/+7Does anyone have any idea how to compensate artists? At what point in the chain does an artist make money? I hear a lot of complaining about the system, but I have yet to hear some real constructive suggestions on how to make this whole process of getting music on our mp3 players a win-win situation. btw - I am not connected to the music industry in any way other then on the advertising side, and I am feeling a heavy pinch because their ad dollars are way down. Seriously, any suggestions without slamming me? Concerts, tshirts, and people going back and buying a cd they already downloaded because they enjoyed it is no solution.
    • Gutterpunk, on 07/04/2008, -0/+7Sure their ad dollars are way down, they don't need to advertise much anymore as they are using MySpace and Facebook to do all the advertisement for them, and for free. Will you crusade against MySpace or Facebook because of it?

      They aren't slowing down their marketing machine because of pirates but because they do it for free while expecting as much money in return than if they were doing it through an agency like yourself.
    • pyro789x, on 07/04/2008, -7/+2This is what I wrote on my personal journal a while back:

      --------
      Don't feel sorry for me because I get paid a salary instead of a portion of the profits. I get paid a salary because i don't want to risk starting my own business. If the game flops, I don't expect the company to take the money they paid me back. I have a pretty secure source of income from that. Any amount of revenue my company can generate is fine with me, if they manage to make huge profits, that's theirs to take, they earned it for taking such a huge risk. If, however, they fail and I ended up making a crappy game for whatever reason, that loss is theirs to bear. I don't deserve extra money for that, my company does. In fact, if they make enough money, I might be able to negotiate with them for a higher pay. I don't want the ***** consumer to thing they know better than that and try to go around my company to pay me even more. Sure, I'd always like more money, but I don't deserve it and I don't want that ***** money. Pay my company, they took the risk on me, they're the one paying me.

      ~A video game programmer (or at least I will be one when I finish my education)

      In conclusion: Piracy is bad and your attempts to rationalize it by saying "the people who actually make the games don't get the money!" are ignorant.

      P.S. I don't think people should pirate any games. If a game is good enough to pay to buy it, then buy it. If a game is bad enough to not warrant paying for it, don't buy it. You don't deserve to still play it just because you don't think it's not worth it. If you think it's not worth it, don't get it. That's the way our economy should work.
      --------

      tldr; If you want to compensate the artist, buy their argument the way they were expecting you to.
      • pyro789x, on 07/04/2008, -1/+1sorry, I meant 'product', not 'argument' at the end there
    • MattBD, on 07/04/2008, -0/+3Ever heard of Magnatune?
      http://www.magnatune.com/
      You can listen to anything you want free, and you can download it for a price which you name. Might be one to watch.
    • prisoner24601, on 07/04/2008, -0/+6Quite seriously, I'm unclear on why you dismiss the notion that concerts are a viable option. Obviously the major issue here is that artists need to be compensated for their work. At the same time, everyone knows that the big labels take such incredible advantage of artists in their contracts that many of them see little or no money from album sales. (Courtney Love's interview in Salon really describes this well.)

      There's a lot of screaming from the "middlemen suits" that the distribution business is getting decimated, but has anyone seen any statistics that LIVE concerns have become generally less popular or had lower ticket prices in the last 10 years? Not that I'm aware of.

      It's perfectly valid to think that the future is one where artists can and should forget about "unit sales" and simply focus on profitable tours.

      The counter, of course, is "but what if they don't WANT to tour?!?!?!" and the answer is simply that the market is going there anyway. What I mean is that even if you could somehow "lock in" with some perfect DRM the music now under license, the next generation of artists who IS willing to "undercut" that system to get their shot at being on the stage WILL bee open to releasing their songs as a downloadable "loss leader" to get people into the concert.

      As much as the music industry wants us to THINK they are fighting piracy, the truth is simply that the *established* music industry is fighting the next generation (less "produced" and "managed" and far more anarchistic) music industry that will replace the dinosaur that has been.

      Right now the marketing guy at Capitol Records can say: "downloads are taking away my business" but that's a distraction from the real fact that Joe Nobody Band of My Mom's Garage is the one putting the nails into their coffin. Piracy is the more visible culprit to blame (and gets RIAA more sympathy) but it's truly just the tip of the iceberg.

      The paradigm shift is that an industry that got fat on unit sales AND concerts will now (unavoidably) be replaced by a new industry driven by bands getting discovered on MySpace who ONLY EVER expected to make a buck by touring anyway.

      The industry laments, but they are like the guys who used to hand-paint the manually copied books from 1,000 years ago. If you ever look at a gilded illustrated Bible from that period, you can appreciate the artwork. Then Gutenberg put the industry on it's ear.

      Some will say: "see, the poor monks were out of a job painting those Bibles. Plus the quality and artwork of those books was physically so much better than the plain black-and-white books made by the printing press." Sure, that's true at one level. But on one will ever argue that society was overall not radically enriched by the printing press.

      The current record execs (and perhaps even some of the artists) are a bit like fat Americans who are shocked to find that a Mexican worker will come into the country to do the same job for much less. These guys stand around and wonder how to close the border. They "preach to the choir" and keep telling themselves "we do so much better of a job, no one will want what guys produce." It's an entrenched industry that is genuinely (and for good reason) threatened by kids with a guitar in their basement who just want to be on stage and rock the crowd and will put their mp3's out there to get a rep.

      Old music is dying and new music will be a far less "pre-packaged and manufactured" experience. Less polished perhaps, and driven by concerts instead of unit sales. I don't think I'm going to miss the Chicken McMusic Nuggets the old system has been giving us for years.
    • bjornredtail, on 07/04/2008, -1/+2Perhaps we should go back to the patronage system? There was a time when great music was created without the aid of copyright. Bach, Beethoven, Vivaldi, Mozart, etc. never enjoyed copyright on their works, yet they created impressive volumes of work. Nobels, the wealthy and the church commissioned many of the great pieces we still hear today, and they also paid musicians to preform these pieces. I'd say, with a few notable exceptions, this is how most symphonies and 'classical' chamber groups make a living today, even when the music they play is largely in the public domain.
    • arkaycee, on 07/04/2008, -0/+2I think yours is the first reply to hit the nail on the head. Sure, there are benefits to the free advertising of having the music easily out there, but if no one pays for it, there's no benefit to the artist in financial eating terms.

      iTunes was a step in the right direction, just looking at the numbers -- too many others who tried making money off of digital distribution either made it cumbersome, overly tied to one platform, and/or charged too much money. Last I knew, you could get a digitally-encumbered iTunes track for $.99, unencumbered for $1.29.

      Of course, all the middlemen want their money too, which is why a CD costs so much compared to what it actually cost to produce, and the artist gets so little of that generally.

      @hotrodscott (my tone is neutral here, I am stating facts as I see them and have no intention of slamming you), as with many industries, you obviously know full well that the advertising industry is going to have to change (and is obviously trying to) -- specific artists are becoming phonemena on the internet through word-of-mouth much more easily than in the past without an ad company being part of it, we TiVo past the commercials, BitTorrent doesn't throw up a new ad at me every time I go on it. And, of course, advertising is part of the cost baked into a CD -- a "middleman" piece if you will, whose necessity is changing. In the past, advertising was a huge part of how an artist got heard.

      But I think there's still opportunity -- viz. the new Coldplay "Viva la Vida" iTunes ad or ads (I think I've seen more than one) -- we didn't TiVo-skip past that the first time or three we saw it.

      But for the larger question, it's a good one. Still lotsa major artists who make major money, in part because they have major backing and get major TV and radio play. I think that for a long time to come, superstars will be made, and there will be lots of easily-influenced people waiting for the latest big name with glitzy cameras at MTV award ceremonies and controversy on the E! network. On the other end are I'm sure lots of artists who get nothing but win out of Myspace who can at least be *heard*.

      I imagine it's mostly those in between who have a real problem -- not so much "you're worth $90 million because of sharing rather than, conjecturally, $100 million," not those who have 50 devoted fans because of their Myspace page, but those who drive their own cars to the next gig, who pay money out of their own pockets directly to the recording studio, whose income is more middle-class, who could be getting more lose than win due to file-sharing. Just as claiming that every shared copy of an mp3 is a lost sale is bogus, so too is saying that no shared copies cost any artist money.

      Finally, there's a whole society-wide turning point -- as more and more of our economy moves to information over goods, what's the worth of creating something if everyone always gets it for free (the "copying information is not theft" position). Obviously, that's a big point in the discussion on either side of it.
    • earthforce1, on 07/04/2008, -1/+3I can think of a few ways:
      1. Live Concerts
      2. Play in clubs, private parties
      3. Commercial jingles

  • GoGoPoCoSo, on 07/04/2008, -3/+22Peter: 4
    Indiana: 0
    • itspuddingtime, on 07/04/2008, -0/+2more like:
      Peter: 1,092,210
      anyone who has ever sent TPB a takedown notice: 0
  • dunktim, on 07/04/2008, -8/+3I've got something for her to suck on.
  • Tyrghast, on 07/04/2008, -9/+4If you play good music Ill buy your concert tickets and t-shirts. I am never, ever going to pay for a recorded album.
    • pyro789x, on 07/04/2008, -3/+7If you're not willing to pay for a recorded album, then don't listen to recorded albums. Spend your life going to concerts and buying t-shirts whenever you have the urge to hear that song of yours. If you don't think the luxury of hearing their work wherever you want is worth the price, then you're entitled to that opinion, and nobody is going to stop you from not buying their things. That doesn't mean you are entitled to their music at no price.
    • myhandleondigg, on 07/04/2008, -1/+4And if a small household t-shirt screenprinting machine was invented where you could download images and print them yourself, you'd have another thing to cross off your list of "ways to support music".
      • PopcornDave, on 07/05/2008, -0/+1Uh, hate to break it to you but you can pick one up for about $50 at most craft stores.
    • samyoungguitar, on 07/04/2008, -0/+3You are ***** retarded. Why do you even listen to music?
  • djepik, on 07/04/2008, -5/+11I would bet her one million ants that at one point in her life she has surely said "I'm not in it for the money, I'm in it for the music!"

    Its a shame how people change when they get a taste of money.
    • pyro789x, on 07/04/2008, -0/+3I'm a programmer, I love programming, I'm working on a degree in video game programming. If my employer won't pay me enough because they need to keep a healthy profit margin and too many people are simply making illegal copies of my games instead of buying them, I will quit my job and enter some other profession. Just because you love what you do doesn't mean that it's easy or that you are willing to do it for free. That's not a very good argument at all.

      If you really believe that people should make music for you day and night simply because they love music and want you to hear their work, then why don't you go to newgrounds and other sites and download those songs that the authors made with that exact purpose in mind? Just because you think that somebody should be doing something out of the good of their hearts doesn't make you entitled to the fruits of their labor, if you're not willing to pay what they're asking for it.

      But nothing I can say is going to convince you, because you're not really trying to make an intellectual argument, you're just trying to rationalize getting music for free.
      • djepik, on 07/04/2008, -0/+2lol although you may have caught me partially red handed with the last paragraph, I am still trying to make a (fairly) intellectual argument. I think it's important to distinguish the difference between programming and music making.

        Certainly they are both valuable and important things. Also, they have the (good or bad) quality that they can be reproduced ad infinitum.

        The difference lies in the fact that one is "art" and one is not. -- Now you may try to tell me that programming is an art, and well maybe it is... but that's not really the point. I think most people would agree that music is more artistic than programming.

        Do you think Monet or Picasso were concerned about making money? Probably not. Sure they needed enough to survive, and I hope that they and all other artists (musicians included) get that - but I think they would be more happy that so many people can see and appreciate their art than the fact that their art is worth millions.
        ------------------------------------------
        On a separate point: what makes musician's work worth so much more than ours? We have worked our whole lives to develop an understanding of programming (you) and engineering (myself). Maybe we've only worked 90% or even 80% hell say 50% as hard as these musicians. But why do they make thousands of times more money than us?
      • pyro789x, on 07/05/2008, -0/+1I'm not really going to argue the concept that art should be free and nobody should have to pay for it, because that's more of a religious argument than a logical argument, and you simply cannot argue religion.

        As for why they make so much more money, it's all supply and demand I guess. They set the prices for their music and then people decide if it's worth it or not to them, and it seems like enough people say that it's worth it to make them that much money. If they can get money out of a genuine talent, especially that much, more power to them in my opinion. I really am not gifted with much musical skill.
  • SemiSarcastic, on 07/04/2008, -11/+8Everyones a hypocrite.
    Everyone is selfish.
    Your evil if you make money the old fashion way.
    Your evil if you freeload on products that you'd otherwise be buying if you had the cash.
    What is right? What is wrong?
    The problem is that both the torrent users and those in the music industry believe too strongly in their own perceptions of how the entertainment industry ought to run...

    and now look where we are now, because neither wants to compromise.
    • Acglaphotis, on 07/04/2008, -5/+2Was that a poem?
    • saphyrre, on 07/07/2008, -1/+1

      dude, you're too messed up, i can't follow you. stop smoking that..whatever you're smokin:)


  • ZenDavis, on 07/04/2008, -15/+10The fact is that most people will use any reason to justify not spending their money. You guys are incredible examples of that. Excuse after excuse after excuse to not support artists just so you can save a few bucks and call them an idiot in the meantime to make yourself feel better about yourself. The bottom line is that she wrote a mostly articulate, intelligent, and honest letter to us and for the most part, she is right.

    You can whine and bitch about it all you want and try to find any justification for your thieving, but for the most part, if you're a thief, at least own up to being a thief. Don't attack and mock the person for calling you a thief. At least they're the one being honest.

    Finally, accept the fact that kind of file sharing that goes on today will end. The moment the government and Internet providers think that the free ride is over, it will be over. Never forget that.
    • Mekun, on 07/04/2008, -1/+3What was stolen? What loss was there? If she wants to make money off music go preform live. Cd's should be whats makes people go out and pay 50.00 to see you not make you rich. Its like a painting, a picture of a painting isnt the same as seeing it first hand and noticing the strokes and textures of the artists.
      • arkaycee, on 07/04/2008, -0/+0Actually, your example is a somewhat poor one, as with your argument one could say that watching Picasso paint something live would be where the value is.

        Sometimes creating sonic textures in a studio as a coherent whole is where the art lies, just as with a completed painting. And, as with a real painting, only perhaps tens of people can own a Picasso; I'm sure hundreds of thousands, at least, own a print.
      • eleete, on 07/04/2008, -0/+2Uhhhhhh nice rant but...
        1. Absolutely nothing was stolen, a right was infringed upon.
        2 Just how much money do you think these artists get after all the other hands have grabbed at it (RIAA, MPAA, BCA) that little bowl of initial soup gets far less to the pockets of your poor artist.

        I'm with you though, lets all get paid for our entire lives, plus give money to our kids for 70 years after we die, for a few months work. Sounds feasible doesn't it ?
    • MudMan69, on 07/04/2008, -3/+3Well said, but expect to get buried because the truth hurts.
      • Kosher1947, on 07/05/2008, -0/+0You know what made me against piracy? I started creating things, and honestly I don't want those creations infringed (stolen) by some punk who thinks they are entitled to not only take my work, but to further give it away to people that don't give a rat's ass if I can support further projects.
    • workharderscum, on 07/04/2008, -1/+4"Finally, accept the fact that kind of file sharing that goes on today will end. The moment the government and Internet providers think that the free ride is over, it will be over. Never forget that."

      This possiblity scares the ***** out of me - I will never accept it. We should not create such a fantastic information sharing system and then intentionally cripple it for commercial needs.
    • RogueMountie, on 07/04/2008, -1/+2The bottom line is that her argument was full of holes... and so is yours.
      • eleete, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1which is to also say, that copyright is full of holes both way and therefore probably far to broad and over reaching.
      • ZenDavis, on 07/05/2008, -0/+1Holes? Not at all. In fact I made no argument at all. All in all, I just stated a simple and truthful observation. The only arguments pirates tend to rely on are rationalizations and unwitty insults. Nothing more.

        People don't like hearing things like this though because it makes them feel halfway guilty about themselves. They'd rather delude themselves into believing that they've done nothing wrong in the first place for any multitude of ***** reasons.

        The bottom line is that if someone creates something, they are entitled to use it however they wish. You can call them out to being dirty bastards for doing such, but once you start pushing them out of the equation to do with it what you will, you're just as bad as the labels.

    • robotdestructo, on 07/04/2008, -1/+0wait a minute, IS THAT YOU INDIANA?!!!111
    • mikey321, on 07/05/2008, -0/+0"Finally, accept the fact that kind of file sharing that goes on today will end. The moment the government and Internet providers think that the free ride is over, it will be over"

      lol, yea and maybe gas prices will go down to a buck fifty and someday all the spam in my inbox will actually go to the bulk folder

      Internet Police. haha. I'd actually like to meet someone who calls themselves that
  • skoles, on 07/04/2008, -3/+16Attention musicians:

    Put your entire discography up for listening to on your websites so that I may sample it there instead. The only reason I download my music is because I was burned to many times in the past from the one "radio friendly" hit on an album of suck. Had I the chance to listen to the album in full I never would've bought it.

    So your labels insistence on putting out singles that sound nothing else like the rest of the album hurts your sales. Why not let the artist pick the songs that really represent the album and audience they want to reach. After all, they will be the ones buying it & telling their friends. With CD's going for $15-18 a pop in most places (thank god for Newbury Comics here in New England with $12 new releases) I want to make an edjumacated purchase much like how I would first read up on buying any piece of electronics or software.

    There have been plenty of albums I may have purchase based on the single, but far more I was glad I skipped & deleted because of file-sharing. And as a bonus I've discovered a ton of new music I never would've thought of looking at based on some sites recommendation systems. I have been buying what I've downloaded in the past (because I do want the CD-quality rip) so fans may catch up with you in the end.
    • DarKnyht, on 07/04/2008, -6/+2Attention skoles:

      Caveat emptor - Let the buyer beware

      Get off your butt and go to a record store or used cd store that lets you listen to cd's prior to purchase if you feel you've been burned. It is not the artist's fault you improperly researched your options before buying and purchased something you didn't like.
      • skoles, on 07/05/2008, -1/+5What record store is going to have thousands of CD's open and ready to try? Surely they'll also have many listening stations so all the customers have a fair chance to hear.

        You are the problematic thinking of record labels today. They don't understand the digital age and expect things to roll along smoothly without having to evolve. Hence why you'd rather me drive to the store, hope the obscure album I want to hear is either open, or loaded into one of those sampler kiosks, only to hear a few choice tracks in 30sec chunks.

        I, the user, want to hear the song on the radio and visit the artists website where I can easily listen to all the tracks of their albums. Then either purchase the physical CD, or download a LOSSLESS, DRM FREE version FOR LESS than the price of a physical CD.
      • DarKnyht, on 07/05/2008, -1/+2Well you can want it all you want, but it is ultimately up to the artists and labels to decide how to market their product. You don't get to open up computer software before buying and the demos they release don't show the entire game. By your logic unless they let you download and play the entire game first you aren't going to pay. And some on here would just take the game and give nothing for it (because they wouldn't have bought it anyways).

        As for the purchase of Lossless, DRM Free version for less than the price of a CD perhaps you should check out Amazon.com.
    • taketheleap, on 07/07/2008, -0/+2A-*****-men.
    • saphyrre, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1
      well download .flac files, so you don't have to buy the CD:))
  • wtfhacksDan, on 07/04/2008, -4/+22You will never stop file sharing or piracy, get over it.
    • arkaycee, on 07/04/2008, -1/+1Bad argument., no matter what other valid arguments there are. You could say the same about almost any crime, from rape to terrorism.
      • crossmr, on 07/05/2008, -0/+1and yet it is true..
      • WarZpriTe, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1Did you just compare Rape and Terrorism to music sharing?
        Can you really be that dense?
  • Super6, on 07/04/2008, -4/+6Yes, that's what we need: internet passports. That way you have to get governmental approval everytime you want to see a site in another country. Why didn't they think of that when they made the internet?
    • pyro789x, on 07/04/2008, -0/+3: Why didn't they think of that when they made the internet?

      Because the people who created the internet did so as a method of organizing, storing and recalling information. They never expected this kind of thing to come of it. Remember that article a few months back where one of the major players in creating the internet structure itself expressed disappointment at what it has become?
    • workharderscum, on 07/04/2008, -0/+4Can you imagine what the internet would be like if it were designed today? It would be some centrally controlled DRM mess, where any traffic has to be inspected, approved and billed.

      It's probably only because of the technological ignorance of politicians and other persons of influence that the internet managed to reach a critical mass without being crippled before its potential was realised..
  • bbliss17, on 07/04/2008, -5/+2lol
  • MadN, on 07/04/2008, -4/+5Who is Indiana Gregg, and why would I listen to her?
    Let her pay the Payola fees if she doesn't like downloads.
    I will do as she asks and ignore her music, but no, I will call in to protest any station playing any song by her.
    • pyro789x, on 07/04/2008, -0/+2: Who is Indiana Gregg, and why would I listen to her?

      You seem to imply that nobody knows who she is and is thus not downloading her songs, which would make her argument irrelevant. That's not a valid argument however, she gave specific numbers of how many people she caught transferring her song files in a specific time frame.

      : I will do as she asks and ignore her music, but no, I will call in to protest any station playing any song by her.

      This is also an invalid argument, radio stations have to pay the artists of the music that they play on their stations, and they simply are not comparable to bit torrent sites.
  • JirkJiggler, on 07/04/2008, -3/+9Long, boring and ultimately irrelevant.
  • Mekun, on 07/04/2008, -4/+0Well if you wanted to stop the downloading, complaining to the pirate bay was stupid. Did anyone in her camp do there homework?
    Piracy only hurts when people who would have bought it dont because they download it only.
    I bet the publicity wont hurt either.
  • imtheone989, on 07/04/2008, -7/+1Didn't even read it but it makes me hate my state : (
  • lolwutpear, on 07/04/2008, -3/+27we named the dog indiana
    • dechah, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1It is a more apt name for the dog's turds. The dog itself deserves better :-)
    • aliguana, on 07/04/2008, -0/+3Dugg for Dr Jones reference
    • eleete, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1If she can't reach her dealer, does Indiana Jones ?
  • btschul, on 07/04/2008, -1/+22Yeah, Internet passports. The interweb is the last vestige of absolute, complete freedom on the planet and she wants the government to use our tax money to monitor it and police it and restrict it. ***** you, Indiana Gregg.
    • Gutterpunk, on 07/04/2008, -0/+7On that subject, did you read the whole thing?

      She wishes for Internet passport and then 2 paragraphs later, explains how they would be used to nab file sharers and how cool and easy it would be for ISPs to be able to give your passport information to authorities on request.

      She is batshiat crazy, and pissing on everything anyone intelligent enough to clothes themselves love about the 'net.
    • KhanneaNL, on 07/05/2008, -0/+4She has seen nothing. In fifty years she will be screaming hell & fury if we made copies of her genetic material, cloned her, and sold the clones to some sheik to use as sex slaves in his Harem. This is only getting started and copying sounds is the very first stirring.
      • btschul, on 07/05/2008, -0/+2Wow. Could you hook me up with a clone of Adriana Lima?
  • MudMan69, on 07/04/2008, -8/+6The pirates' arguments seldom hold up to scrutiny. You don't like the price the recording industry charges, so the obvious fair alternative is to get it completely completely free? And then you accuse the artists of being greedy? The content obviously has value to you or you wouldn't download and listen to it.
    I'll be the first to admit that the recording industry is a sleazy organization and copyright laws are a mess, and I am a huge proponent of fair use. But downloading this stuff for free isn't any more ethical than what the RIAA does and runs the risk of eventually ruining things for everyone.
    • workharderscum, on 07/04/2008, -2/+3"You don't like the price the recording industry charges, so the obvious fair alternative is to get it completely completely free?"

      What is the alternative? It is either to pay what they ask, not have it at all, or "steal" it. The amount the record labels charge (and the restrictions they want to enforce) are extortionate. They were not even reasonable when the most efficient means of distributing music was to burn it onto CDs and ship it to stores. Now we have an extremely efficient mechanism, but everything the record labels have done has been to try to avoid using it.

      "The content obviously has value to you or you wouldn't download and listen to it."

      But how do you know if the content has value until you can listen to it?

      "I'll be the first to admit that the recording industry is a sleazy organization and copyright laws are a mess"

      Yes. the recording industry is. But actually the copyright laws aren't all that bad - the problem is the way the recording industry is trying to extend them to eliminate fair use.

      "But downloading this stuff for free isn't any more ethical than what the RIAA does"

      No, its not particularly ethical. But give people a convenient means to pay a reasonable price for music, with no strings attached, and enough people will do it to support artists handsomly. Just cut out the obsolete middlemen.
      • pyro789x, on 07/04/2008, -1/+2: What is the alternative? It is either to pay what they ask, not have it at all, or "steal" it.

        don't have it at all. If you think something isn't worth the price asked, you have no right to it, and they have no right to your money

        : No, its not particularly ethical. But give people a convenient means to pay a reasonable price for music, with no strings attached, and enough people will do it to support artists handsomly.

        Starting off with "no it's not particularly ethical" is basically like starting off with saying "This is a bad argument." You're simply admitting to the fact that you have come to a poor conclusion, but feel that you have the right to that conclusion because you feel entitled to that music at whatever cost. You need a severe reality check: you're not entitled to anybody else's work, grow the ***** up.
      • hierophantus, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1Not that I don't also download elsewhere, but I pay just under .25 per song on eMusic. And, obviously, songs eMusic doesn't have are at least cheaper on iTunes, Amazon, etc. than on CD. Again, not saying I'm squeaky clean, but the "all or nothing" argument is false.
      • workharderscum, on 07/04/2008, -1/+3@pyro

        "Starting off with "no it's not particularly ethical" is basically like starting off with saying "This is a bad argument."".

        Actually, its like saying "I agree with him on this point". I don't want to steal music, but neither do I want to be ripped off. As hierophatus says, its not an "all or nothing" argument - there needs to be a middle ground between mother theresa and baby eating.
      • samyoungguitar, on 07/04/2008, -3/+1You are a ***** retard.
    • Gutterpunk, on 07/04/2008, -2/+6No, it's not ethical, and yes it is wrong, but you are confusing the issues here.

      TPB is not un-ethical nor is it wrong. TPB is like a phone book, nothing more... No one would go after a phone books makers for listing sleazy escort agencies because the illegality of that enterprise has nothing to do with the phone book maker.

      Plus, being legal in some countries, it would be crazy for an American (for example) to get a phone book from Amsterdam and try to have them remove red light district listings because it's illegal in the States.

      What you do with that "phone book" is another subject altogether. Being for the Pirate Bay does not equal being a copyrighted work law violator
      • samyoungguitar, on 07/04/2008, -2/+1You, also, are a ***** retard.
    • KhanneaNL, on 07/05/2008, -0/+1UNLESS one actually despises all the products put out by the record industries and actively seeks to destroy this instrument and associated music.
  • freshgrease, on 07/04/2008, -8/+2Break her hands and stuff her mouth with the good ol' penis, and maybe JUST maybe I'll buy your ***** album to "listen to it". It damn well better have a video track as proof of said requirements, or so help me god I'll pimp slap the $20 out of you. Ungrateful retard bitch.
  • imapluralist, on 07/04/2008, -6/+17Honestly, whoever heard of Indiana Gregg before this debacle?

    And she IS wrong: if it