Jean-Michel Jarre Quotes

I oppose piracy and want to see intellectual property protected because that is what fosters and rewards innovation. But SOPA won't accomplish a meaningful reduction in piracy and causes massive collateral damage to the Internet ecosystem.

It's interesting that the book publishing industry, on the iPad, has much more flexibility than the music industry had.

The big news already broke. The file-sharing and all that stuff, it's a done deal. And I think figuring out how to make that a fair exchange for the people that make music is still an issue.

The U.S. government is saying that my website enabled piracy when the entire Internet is enabling piracy. Every ISP that connects people to the Internet is enabling piracy - Google is, YouTube is, everybody is.

Napster was predicating its business model on violation of copyright.

Compliance with the Stop Online Piracy Act would require huge overhead spending by Internet companies for staff and technologies dedicated to monitoring users and censoring any infringing material from being posted or transmitted.

It's the big boys, the Googles of this world, that are already benefiting from piracy and not paying the artists a dime.

I've never supported this concept of going after Napster. I think the rock bands who fought this were wrong.

When I saw that Google bought YouTube for $1.65 billion, I was dumbfounded! Why would Google get into bed with thieves? They've built a huge audience on the backs of copyright holders - and then they say I have to monitor them?

I recognise that the whole issue of downloading and intellectual property rights is not an easy one, but on the whole, I'm a fan of downloading, both legal and illegal, and the open-source ethos that it harbours for the future is a good one.

I'm happy if my music is being downloaded, whether it's legally or illegally.

When you think of Napster, you think of music. But the first thing that struck me was that this was an important case not only for the music industry but for the whole Internet.

There's this thing called compulsory licensing law that allows artists through the record companies to take your music at will without your permission.

There's definitely some sort of dissent brewing between labels, publishing companies and artists. A lot of it has to do with older licensing schemes.

Software is becoming no different than a videotape or a record album or a paperback book, and not all of us are ready for that change.

A hundred years ago, of course, the question that the German Composers' Co-operative asked itself sounded a lot more fundamental: How do you create a fair share for those who ensure that works can actually be performed at all?

Unfortunately writers take a very small part of the profit on their books, and I think in the e-book world there is a real danger they will take even less, unless they are vigilant and robust about protecting their own interests.

People think that it's their sovereign right to download music and not have to pay for it.

I'm the only girl songwriter that fights for a lot of things. I fight for songwriting fees, which record labels want you to shut up about.

The best way to really make the VPN issue a completely nonissue is through global licensing that we are continuing to pursue with our partners.

I challenge record companies to show me evidence of a single penny they've lost due to Napster.

Books are so cheap and easy to get that people don't bother stealing them, which is the essential rule of piracy that the music business learned much too late.

SOPA has been described as hitting a carpet tack with a sledgehammer. But technology was a sledgehammer to the music industry, one that allowed digital distributors like Apple to grow rich.

The Audio Home Recording Act directly says that noncommercial copying by consumers is lawful.

Punishing people for listening to music is exactly the wrong way to protect the music business.