Paying for mp3's, stupid or no?

[Popinjay]

I buy my music at a penny per megabyte legally, daryn says I am a dumbass for doing so. Am I?!

[BusterStacks]

yes. music is free and will always be free. btw I only download by the album anymore... before it hits store shelves.

[ThaSaltCracka]

do you use suprnova.org?

[mmbt0ne]

That's pretty freakin cheap. That would make a song only 3¢-5¢. Where do you do that?

I use SoulSeek for the not so legal.

[Popinjay]

one of my arguments was an RIAA subpoena, thoughts?

[ThaSaltCracka]

naw, one of the courts overturned the ruling that allowed the RIAA to subpeona IP addreses from ISP's.

[daveymck]

At this moment in time I see no reason to pay.

However if in future bands start to publish themselves online and therefore most of the cash goes to them then I would look to pay.

If I like an album that much I then go out and buy it to get the full package and artwork and stuff, yes we only listen to the music but theres somthing good about having a good album with good artwork etc, its a pity CD's cases are so small, some of my vinal records look so much better than the cd counterparts.

[sfer]

I cheerfully pay for CDs and legal downloads.

[Senor Choppy]

Stealing from the big names seems OK to me, but if you listen to bands that still play small bars and have to hold down second jobs, buy their album for [censored]'s sake.

[astroglide]

the russian sites are not legal

[nolanfan34]

[ QUOTE ]
Stealing from the big names seems OK to me, but if you listen to bands that still play small bars and have to hold down second jobs, buy their album for [censored]'s sake.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree this this, generally. I just had a friend in Spokane who released his first album (rap, BTW). My brother is a huge rap fan, so I bought a second copy to send to him. Couldn't imagine pirating a copy when I know it's a guy who works another job, and is trying to get the music career off the ground.

[YourFoxyGrandma]

If you like an artist enough, you owe it to them to buy their stuff, no matter how big they are.

[Lazymeatball]

why not just pirate the album, and send the artist a check for half the cost of the CD. you will both benefit from this.

[daryn]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In risposta di:</font><hr />
Stealing from the big names seems OK to me, but if you listen to bands that still play small bars and have to hold down second jobs, buy their album for [censored]'s sake.

[/ QUOTE ]

note that i have no problem with people going out and buying CD's. paying for MP3's however, i see as stupid.

[daryn]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In risposta di:</font><hr />
why not just pirate the album, and send the artist a check for half the cost of the CD. you will both benefit from this.

[/ QUOTE ]

correct. the artist might even benefit more than he would have had you bought the CD! after all how much of the actual CD price goes to the artist?

damn lazy you win this thread.

[ilya]

I voted no, but I think the "stupid/not" question is only relevant if you don't think there's anything wrong with stealing music online. Which is a popular opinion, evidently. If you have a problem with the stealing, I don't see how you could do it even if figured to be the "smart" thing.

[daryn]

i agree with that. however, to all those who consider it stealing: would you consider it stealing if your friend bought the tape and recorded you a copy? oh yeah, we don't use tapes anymore. eh, the question still stands.

[turnipmonster]

I would consider that stealing. record companies did also.

--turnipmonster

[lowroller]

I remember when DirecTV pirating was real big as little as a year ago. Everyone was doing it, with all kinds of rationalizations as to why it was OK...until they got served by DTV. Everyone backpedaled and started crying "I didn't realize..."

This reminds me of the same thing. If the record companies take a page out of DirecTV's playbook, they will go after the site hosts and get end-user's info from them. Then the party starts.

[ilya]

[ QUOTE ]
i agree with that. however, to all those who consider it stealing: would you consider it stealing if your friend bought the tape and recorded you a copy? oh yeah, we don't use tapes anymore. eh, the question still stands.

[/ QUOTE ]

I suspect I'm in the minority but yeah, I would consider it stealing. At least if it was an exact copy of an album. I wouldn't take it unless the artist was dead. Also I wouldn't take something like a Mozart tape unless the pianist or whoever was also dead. There are exceptions for me both ways but I've already gone into too much detail.
With a mix-tape I'm not sure because a mix-tape is almost like an ad for a bunch of bands.

[daryn]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In risposta di:</font><hr />
I would consider that stealing. record companies did also.

--turnipmonster

[/ QUOTE ]



the fact that record companies did has nothing to do with anything. why wouldn't they?

anyway, wow. if you find a $5 bill on the street do you take it to the police station?

[daryn]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In risposta di:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In risposta di:</font><hr />
i agree with that. however, to all those who consider it stealing: would you consider it stealing if your friend bought the tape and recorded you a copy? oh yeah, we don't use tapes anymore. eh, the question still stands.

[/ QUOTE ]

I suspect I'm in the minority but yeah, I would consider it stealing. At least if it was an exact copy of an album. I wouldn't take it unless the artist was dead. Also I wouldn't take something like a Mozart tape unless the pianist or whoever was also dead.
With a mix-tape I'm not sure because a mix-tape is almost like an ad for a bunch of bands.

[/ QUOTE ]



uh oh... inconsistencies.

with a mix-tape you have stolen songs from many artists. even worse! also, what difference does it make if the artist is dead? what if all the proceeds go to his wife? now you are taking profits away from a widow!

[turnipmonster]

I am not saying that I have never stolen music, or never will again (although I generally try not to). but, I still think it's stealing.

--turnipmonster

[daryn]

ok, i dig that.

[destro]

For that price no but anything more than than a quarter per song is too much.

[ilya]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i agree with that. however, to all those who consider it stealing: would you consider it stealing if your friend bought the tape and recorded you a copy? oh yeah, we don't use tapes anymore. eh, the question still stands.

[/ QUOTE ]

I suspect I'm in the minority but yeah, I would consider it stealing. At least if it was an exact copy of an album. I wouldn't take it unless the artist was dead. Also I wouldn't take something like a Mozart tape unless the pianist or whoever was also dead.
With a mix-tape I'm not sure because a mix-tape is almost like an ad for a bunch of bands.

[/ QUOTE ]



uh oh... inconsistencies.

with a mix-tape you have stolen songs from many artists. even worse! also, what difference does it make if the artist is dead? what if all the proceeds go to his wife? now you are taking profits away from a widow!

[/ QUOTE ]

You may be right, my position may be inconsistent. It doesn't really feel that way to me though; I think it's because 1, when you make a mix-tape, you in a way become one of the artists yourself, and probably more importantly 2, a mix-tape gives the listener a 'sneak-preview' of several artists, and may well lead the listener to buy a whole album by one of those artists. An album copy on the other hand leaves nothing out, so there's nothing for the listener to go out and buy.
As for why it should matter whether the artist is dead...well, I just figure he deserves reward a lot more than anyone else. I think you could make a case for supporting the talent scout who found him, or the guy who did the mixing or what not, but I don't think those guys benefit from individual sales, esp. after the artist is dead. 'Cos they are prolly dead too. I think the case for respecting the relatives is kinda weak, unless it's some extraordinary situation where the wife nursed him back from 6 suicide attempts and a heroin addiction. Was essential to his existence as an artist, iow.
Flip the he/she if you like, I certainly am not trying to imply that all the great musicians are men.

[daryn]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In risposta di:</font><hr />
I think it's because 1, when you make a mix-tape, you in a way become one of the artists yourself,

[/ QUOTE ]

except for the whole being famous and getting paid part



</font><blockquote><font class="small">In risposta di:</font><hr />
and probably more importantly 2, a mix-tape gives the listener a 'sneak-preview' of several artists, and may well lead the listener to buy a whole album by one of those artists.

[/ QUOTE ]


actually, the way i see it is a mix-tape cuts out all the crap on many albums, and instead gives you a nice digest of all the good songs. a mix-tape saves you the trouble of buying many albums!


</font><blockquote><font class="small">In risposta di:</font><hr />
I think the case for respecting the relatives is kinda weak, unless it's some extraordinary situation where the wife nursed him back from 6 suicide attempts and a heroin addiction. Was essential to his existence as an artist, iow.


[/ QUOTE ]


i think you might underestimate all the things a wife does for her husband!

[GuyOnTilt]

Stealing from the big names seems OK to me, but if you listen to bands that still play small bars and have to hold down second jobs, buy their album for [censored]'s sake.

What's the pinciple behind your thinking here? Would shoplifting from Sears seem okay to you, while shoplifting from Joe Shmoe's Hardware seem wrong? Or boosting a car from Carmax instead of out of someone's driveway?

Stealing is stealing is stealing.

GoT

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
This reminds me of the same thing. If the record companies take a page out of DirecTV's playbook, they will go after the site hosts and get end-user's info from them. Then the party starts.

[/ QUOTE ] A court already overuled a decision that allowed the RIAA to obtain IP addreses from ISPs.

[lowroller]

I'm sure they'll find a way. If not, then congratulations to everyone who is getting over...

[ThaSaltCracka]

I doubt it, that pretty much put a halt to all the lawsuits, which were totally ridiculous in the first place.

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
Stealing from the big names seems OK to me, but if you listen to bands that still play small bars and have to hold down second jobs, buy their album for [censored]'s sake.

What's the pinciple behind your thinking here? Would shoplifting from Sears seem okay to you, while shoplifting from Joe Shmoe's Hardware seem wrong? Or boosting a car from Carmax instead of out of someone's driveway?

Stealing is stealing is stealing.

GoT

[/ QUOTE ]

Indeed.

GuyOnTilt: I stepped on this girl's sunglasses getting out of bed one morning a couple months ago and snapped the arm off of them. I told her I'd buy her a new pair yada yada, and that morning when we went out to breakfast we took turns mutilating them. They ended up with one lense popped out, the remaining lense scrathed to death, the remaining arm completely bent in half, etc. Anyway, when I went to nordstrom later that day I found an identical pair of glasses, walked up to the desk in BP, held up the pair of mutilated glasses and was like, "Ummmm, these were defective." The girl looked at them and was like, "Uhhhhhh, okay," and let me exchange them in for the new pair for free.

Above quotation from this thread (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&amp;Number=1136015&amp;page=&amp;view=&amp;sb=5&amp; o=&amp;fpart=all&amp;vc=1)

PS: While it's quite amusing that he would be the one to make the point, I do agree w/ the point GoT makes re: stealing from U2 being just as bad as stealing from your local indie band.

[daryn]

oh snap! what do you have to say, HypocriteOnTilt?

[BusterStacks]

The record industry settles a price gouging lawsuit that covered a duration of years. That was during the time I used to buy CDs, so this is my way of evening the score. Furthermore, users like myself who are slightly more savvy than your typical Kazaa user, use methods virtually untraceable by the RIAA, so this is not a threat. In the end, it comes down to a moral issue, which is certainly not enough to hold me back in any situation.

[BadBoyBenny]

I think the court only ruled that you must be notified that you are being subpeonaed, and then be given a resonable amount of time to challenge the subpeona (like 20 days). It is not a get out of jail free card.

[Schneids]

[ QUOTE ]
American Music and Copyright on the Internet: Arguments for Complete File Sharing Rights



The invention of the MP3 compression format has once again brought the issue of intellectual copyright to the cultural mainstream. MP3’s allow for the compression of music files at near CD-quality and beyond, in file sizes often 5MB or smaller. Although initially designed as a tool to digitally backup one’s music collection, it has instead become synonymous with modern-day digital piracy. The proliferation of file-sharing techniques and programs of all kinds (from the original FTP databases to modern-day decentralized peer-to-peer programs such as Kazaa) have assisted in this association as sharing has become both more common and understandable to the non-computer savvy masses. Furthermore, the growth and spread of high-speed Internet connections have helped as well, as download times per song are now measured in seconds or minutes instead of hours. As they were during the initial days of the videocassette recorder, the battle lines are now drawn between publishers of intellectual content (in this case, musical production companies) and consumers.



At the core of this controversy between the RIAA and consumers, like most issues, is money. The RIAA’s contention is that the music downloading industry has substantially cut into its profits. According to the RIAA, each year the music and recording industry loses an estimated $4.2 billion worth of revenue due to piracy worldwide (RIAA, Issues). They further attempt to support these claims by showing that since 2001, their total net returns have dropped each year (RIAA, 2003).



The problem with the way the RIAA presents their stats is that it’s very misleading. In fact, the music industry’s profits per released have increased since file sharing began. In 1999, when the MP3 phenomenon began to take off via Napster, the record industry funded 38,900 new CD releases, and earned $14.651 billion; $376,632.39 per release. In 2001, however, the industry had only 27,000 new CD releases. Those 27,000 netted $13.7 billion; $507,407.41 per release. It is also important to note that 2001 was right in the middle of the economic crash and after file sharing of songs had become exceedingly popular. In effect, the result of analyzing the statistics in this manner is that the music industry dropped the number of releases by 25 percent, yet total sales only dropped 4.1%; while the average income per CD release actually went up 135% (Ziemann, RIAA).



Perhaps not so coincidentally, raw CD sales did not begin to fall until after the RIAA had Napster shut down (Ziemann, RIAA). If free music downloads and piracy is a problem for the American recording industry, how can all of these trends show otherwise? The recording industry should have seen a drastic drop in sales during the height of Napster’s popularity, not after the fact, as was the case. Analyzing the stats even further, the total sales dollars after returns for 1999 including CDs, cassettes, vinyl LPs, music videos, and DVDs totaled $14.313 billion. In 2001, this value was $13.596 billion. Had the music industry not dropped the 12000 new CD releases between 1999 and 2001, and had each of these releases sold a measly 3000 copies (very easily attainable, as 3000 sales is considered to be a huge failure in the recording industry), both units shipped and total sales would have continued to rise as they had in years past (Ziemann, RIAA).



Still, the RIAA contends, in the face of their own statistics, that piracy is to blame for 100% of the woes their industry has felt these past few years. Online music sales alone have seen a sharp drop as well, which has also been naturally blamed on file sharing. Revenue plummeted 39% in the third-quarter of 2002 compared to the same period a year earlier. At the same time, subscribers to file sharing applications have increased exponentially. Regardless, one more time the industry assumes that these types of correlations prove causation.



Ann Harrison, a noted technology expert, says, “The point that is missing in news stories about the study is that it is not simply the ‘irresistible lure of something for nothing,’ that draws music fans to file swapping sites. Users of these sites are willing to pay for products the value. The failure of the recording industry’s online music ventures is due to a combination of factors including the fact that they are still pricing their online music too high, pushing CD sales instead of music by the track, and failing to toss in value-added material.” She also contends that the most important point is that the recording industry is “not offering music in a convertible, transportable, format that allows users to move their music from their computers to their portable mp3 players or car stereos.” In short, the music industry is simply not giving its consumers what they want, and that is the reason why “they are getting thrashed in the market place,” says Harrison (Harrison, Why).



Another popular argument for preserving the rights of music file sharers is that doing so allows people to sample music they would otherwise not have access to hearing. Consider this: according to Sen. John McCain, Clear Channel now owns more than 1,200 radio stations. In 2002, Clear Channel’s owner Art Moss made the statement that Clear Channel had introduced more than 3000 new songs from 550 artists. By George Ziemann’s calculations, 52,560,000 songs are played in a year by Clear Channel stations. According to SoundScan data, 33,443 new releases were issued in 2002. Only 3,000 new songs got played in any of the more than 52.5 million available slots in 2002 on Clear Channel – which amounts to less than 3 new songs for the year per station. Less than 10 percent of last year’s releases got airplay, and if more than one song got played off any one release, the percentage drops even more (Ziemann, Consumer).



To reiterate this fact, ninety percent of the songs released never got any airplay in 2002. Perhaps that is why less than 10 percent of the American recording industry’s releases are profitable? Could it be that the recording industry’s supposed woes have little to do with file sharing, but rather, because the public has never heard of a majority of the music that’s available? In fact, the RIAA should be ecstatic that people are downloading music, because how else are we supposed to find the other 90% of the music they release? Do they honestly expect us to buy music we have never actually heard?
Consider what the Kansas City Star had to say about music over saturation:



In 2002, radio was not very interested in bands like the White Stripes or stories like the "invasion" of Swedish bands like the Hives. Radio, instead, was interested in the same-old/same-old: modern rock and the new breed of teen-pop stars. Wondering how Avril Lavinge sold more than 4 million copies of "Let Go"? It's all about radio oversaturation breeding addiction and -- cha-ching! -- demand at retail record stores."



Last year U.S. radio stations played Lavigne's song "Complicated" more than 364,000 times -- about 1,000 times a day, according to Nielsen Broadcast Data System, which monitors airplay at 1,100 radio stations in 128 U.S. markets.



It is not a fluke that a lot of musical artists are in favor of peoples’ rights to share music. For instance, Courtney Love and rapper Chuck D., both contend that the recording industry's efforts to muzzle Napster and other similar programs have less to do with defending artists and more to do with the industry's distribution monopoly (Harrison, Making).



A final argument is that file sharing, peer-to-peer programs such as Kazaa are here to stay, and the proliferation of such programs is too widespread for the RIAA to put to a standstill now. According to Websense, as of January 2003, there were more than 130 peer-to-peer applications online, and that the number of peer-to-peer file sharing web pages increased by more than 300 percent during 2002 (Hyman). The current situation with MP3 file trading is no different than many other forms of controversial technologies when they were first introduced, such as the VCR. In all cases, time has proven technology the victor, even though respective industries have always tried to fight the new technology via lawsuits.
Intellectual copyright is important, and no one is trying to deny that fundamental fact. Of course artists should be paid for their creativity, as should the ones that produce and distribute their work. The problem with the RIAA is that their thinking is entirely flawed. Industry sales did not drop nearly as much in the last two years as did the industry’s investment in itself, and the return on investment per new release actually increased. Plus, they fail to factor in some of their sales decreases were likely due to a worsening economy. Record sales themselves did not truly begin to fall until after Napster was shutdown. If the industry adopted even the simplest plan for online music payments and gave consumers what they wanted (instead of battling the world with relentless lawsuits), lost record sales could be offset. These are the reasons many people believe in the rights to share music files.




References:


Finn, Timothy. “The year in music wasn't so hip -- or different -- after all.” 16 January 2003. http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/entertainment/columnists/timothy_finn/4972505.htm?1c. 12 October 2004.


Harrison, Ann. “Making The Inevitable Pay Off.” 16 July 2001. http://www.computerworld.com/managementtopics/roi/story/0,10801,61891,00.html. 12 October 2004.


Harrison, Ann. "Why online music sales are down." 3 November 2002. http://www.nwfusion.com/newsletters/fileshare/2002/01626615.html. 12 October 2004.


Hyman, Gretchen. "File-Swapping Sites Grow By 300 Percent." 23 January 2003. http://www.internetnews.com/stats/article.php/1573701. 12 October 2004.


RIAA. “2003 yearend statistics.” 2003. http://www.riaa.com/news/newsletter/pdf/2003yearEnd.pdf. 12 October 2004.


RIAA. “Issues.” 2003. http://www.riaa.com/issues/piracy/default.asp. 12 October 2004.


Ziemann, George. “Consumer Declared Innocent; Radio Killed the CD Single.” 16
February 2003. http://www.azoz.com/news/0024.html. 12 October 2004.


Ziemann, George. "RIAA Statistics Don't Add Up to Piracy." 11 December 2002. http://www.azoz.com/music/features/0008.html. 12 October 2004.

[/ QUOTE ]

edit: bolded a few key points since 99% will gloss over since too large.

[nolanfan34]

[ QUOTE ]
oh snap! what do you have to say, HypocriteOnTilt?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ditto, I had forgotten about that thread. El Detective strikes again!

[GuyOnTilt]

oh snap! what do you have to say, HypocriteOnTilt?

This has already been hashed out so I don't feel like hashing it out again. But I don't feel a conscientious about exchanging ripped jeans, unthreading shirts, and the like to Nordstrom 'cause that's their policy and I pay for that being their policy when I shop there. Although the comment to the girl in BP about the glasses was said as a joke, she took me seriously at first and then when I told her I was joking she told me to just take the new pair anyway. I do feel conscientious about stealing things, such as illegally downloaded or burned music or movies.

I do like your nickname for me though. Very catchy. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

GoT

[GuyOnTilt]

While it's quite amusing that he would be the one to make the point...

While I'm not personally offended very easily, I do take a little offense to this statement. I realize you don't know me so all you have to go on is stuff that I bang out my keyboard, which may or may not be a good indication of who I am, but I'm a pretty upstanding guy. Or at least I like to think I am. You must think pretty freaking poorly of me to think it's "amusing" that I would think stealing unethical.

GoT

[daryn]

oh snap! what do you have to say about that ElAsshole? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Jim Kuhn]

That seems pretty morbid! You will only steal from the dead? Do you believe in ghosts?

Thank you,

Jim Kuhn
Catfish4U
/images/graemlins/spade.gif /images/graemlins/diamond.gif /images/graemlins/club.gif /images/graemlins/heart.gif

[Leo99]

Just because you're paying for MP3 doesn't make it legal. If I went out and made copies of CDs or MP3s and sold them on the street in NYC, is that legal? If you bought it from me you don't have a legal copy. You're just making some schmuck rich and since none of the money goes to the rightful owner of the copyright and you still have an unauthorized copy.

Is it illegal to download songs or just illegal to provide them to others?

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
You must think pretty freaking poorly of me to think it's "amusing" that I would think stealing unethical.


[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't say I think poorly of you to any remarkable degree.

I do, however, think it is very hypocritical of you to so boldly proclaim to people here who rip off MP3s or whatever that "stealing is stealing is stealing" yet happily accept sunglasses at Nordstrom's that you have no right to. That imo is just as bad as what you're condemning, probably even more so, since you full well know that you are taking sunglasses that you have no right to, while those stealing music for whatever reason don't consider that tangible stuff worthy of consideration.

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
oh snap! what do you have to say about that ElAsshole? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

GoT accepted free sunglasses from Nordstrom's in exchange for glasses that were purchased somewhere else that he mutilated on purpose. He then condemns people for stealing digitized music online. If that's not the height of hypocrisy, I don't know what is.

The other night, I had two rounds of drinks with friends at the bar, then there was a shift change. Had two more rounds and the new bartender rang us up. Two rounds total. I said, hey, I think you missed the drinks we had before. She asked what we had and I told her. Then she charged us for one of those two rounds. Great, everyone was happy. If that happened to someone else and they didn't say anything and just paid the bill they were handed, I wouldn't have any problem with that. But if they then started being all high and mighty about integrity of paying for stuff, I'd probably pipe up. That's all.

Carry on.

[daryn]

yes of course i understand you. i just saw the window for another witty 1 liner

[GuyOnTilt]

GoT accepted free sunglasses from Nordstrom's in exchange for glasses that were purchased somewhere else that he mutilated on purpose.

I did not purchase the glasses, but I did step on them getting out of bed. I asked the girl where she bought them and she said a Nordstom BP. I went to a Nordstrom BP and jokingly held up the mutilated glasses and said, "Um, these were defective." She was like, "Uhhh, okay," and said I could exchange them for a new pair. I told her I was just joking, but she told me that it was okay and that she could just do an exchange for the new pair for me. I was like, "Uh, okay, sweet." I don't know why I'm even bothering writing this. I'm done.

Concerning your bar situation, I've done similar things many times 'cause that's just how I am. I went to this Chinese takeout place and for some reason they forgot to ring me up after I ordered, and I didn't realize I didn't pay for my food till after I got back to my place. The next time I was there getting food for me and my roommate I told them to charge me for 4. Stuff like that is the norm for me.

I don't know why I'm bothering to argue with you - someone who doesn't know me and has never met me - whether or not I'm an ethical or hypocritical person. I'm done.

GoT

[Ulysses]

I'm sure you're a very ethical person full of integrity when it comes to paying for $hit. I probably got the wrong impression based on your sunglasses story. No sweat.

[BusterStacks]

Two Carpal Tunnels going at it. I'll just hang back here with my bag of popcorn.

[daryn]

looks like you came into the theater while the credits were rolling

[Popinjay]

That brings up another good one! Should you sneak a pop into the theater or pay $3 for one?

[daryn]

pop. hahahhahahaha

[NLSoldier]

It is called POP! I know its not just boston people, but boston people definately give me the most crap for calling it POP. When the origin is Soda Pop, who cares whether you opt for the first word or the second word!?!?!

[daryn]

probably because your roommate is from bosstown.

pop sounds gay, come on, admit it.

[NLSoldier]

Yes I realize my roomate is from boston. And I think soda sounds gay. So there.

[NLSoldier]

BTW, what is with people from boston being SO obsessed with Boston....

I have 10 guys on my floor, and I can only name the city that 2 of em are from. Which 2 you ask? The 2 from Boston! Why you ask? Because they point it out at EVERY opportunity!

The sad part is, they are not even from Boston! They are from other parts of Mass. and just like to pretend they are from Boston.

[slavic]

For what it's worth I've had the same experience at Nordstom's with a pair of shoes. I scratched the hell out of them before a meeting and popped in to buy another pair. They were not going to let me pay for them. Their customer service is amazing, but you do pay for it.

[daryn]

i love the place. that said, i could move just to see the country/world, but i would always come back.

[Senor Choppy]

[ QUOTE ]
I do agree w/ the point GoT makes re: stealing from U2 being just as bad as stealing from your local indie band.

[/ QUOTE ]

The extra $1 someone makes when they are struggling to pay their bills is certainly more important than an extra $1 for any multi-millionaire. I think the real reason not to steal from U2 is that it's not just those 4 guys that have a financial interested in the album selling well, it's the secretary at the record company, or the other behind the scenes people that go into them making an album.

Stealing from U2 is certainly still stealing, but certain instances of theft are better or worse than others. Stealing to feed your family is better than stealing to be able to listen to music which is better than stealing to be able to afford another yacht.

As far as stealing from Sears vs. the mom and pop store, it seems more acceptable to steal fractions of a cent from many different people than to steal $15 from two, prima facie, although I can understand anyone that would argue that it's effectively the same.

[sfer]

[ QUOTE ]
The sad part is, they are not even from Boston! They are from other parts of Mass. and just like to pretend they are from Boston.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you were from Dumpsville, MA wouldn't you claim you were from Boston too?

I never tell anyone I'm from NJ. Oops.

[GuyOnTilt]

That brings up another good one! Should you sneak a pop into the theater or pay $3 for one?

AMC Theatres let you bring in whatever food or drink you want. They also have reclining seats, armrests that fold up, and are all stadium seating. They're the only theatres I go to anymore, mostly for the food/drink reason though.

GoT

[GuyOnTilt]

For what it's worth I've had the same experience at Nordstom's with a pair of shoes. I scratched the hell out of them before a meeting and popped in to buy another pair. They were not going to let me pay for them.

They're the only place I buy shoes for this very reason.

Their customer service is amazing, but you do pay for it.

Yeah, but I'm willing to because I really think it's worth it.

GoT

[ThaSaltCracka]

I would go to Nordstroms to buy nice dress shoes, or nice shirts/pants/suits. Other than that, its not worth it for the price. But for those items, it is worth every penny. My dad has a suit he bought from Nordstroms like almost 20 years ago, and a couple years ago, the seam around the inside stuffing was coming loose. He took it in there and they fixed it for free. They also alter suits and pants for free as well, as long as you buy them there. Not to mention their sales people in the mens wear section also have amazing style and can hook you up with some hella tight shirt/tie combos /images/graemlins/cool.gif