[citation][nom]khanny[/nom]I do like how the title of this article is "Woman Must Pay $1.5 Million for /Sharing/ MP3s." Should read "Woman Must Pay $1.5 Million for /Stealing/ MP3s." Secondary title: "Do You Think She Still Loves Music?" I would question if that woman EVER loved music. The simple fact of the matter is when you steal MP3s, you're hurting the artist MUCH more than some exec, or whatever justification people use when they decide bootlegging MP3s is somehow ethically okay. It's absolute crap that people can somehow find "moral" arguments that they grapple onto like leeches as they steal thousands of songs. (@ekulz: it looks like she stole some 62,500 songs)At the end of the day, you're hurting an entire industry that is trying to entertain you. Your carte blanche willingness to steal their product is not only disrespectful, but its illegal. With all that being said, 1.5 million is excessive... I imagine its in large part due to the attorney's fees that she will have to recoup to Capital.[/citation]
do you realize 90 % or more of the majority of artists income comes from concerts and such, and not as much from accual sales.