supreme court ruling. Mp3's this time. [Archive]

CollinEstes

06-27-2005, 12:38 PM

I agree with you. In early 90s music was worth buying. You would get 15-19 songs for 12 dollars. Now you are lucky to get 10-12 songs for 16 dollars. So how am I suppose to feel bad about downloading a song from a band that makes millions and millions of dollars regardless. Most independant unknown artists encourage file sharing because they want to get their music and name out there. And most offer free music on their websites. Record label suits and the RICAA ruin music.

Soul Daddy

06-27-2005, 12:45 PM

[ QUOTE ]
There is very little that is less appealing to me than renting MP3s.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I'm torn. It sounds like a great deal, but when something better inevitably comes along it would suck to lose so much music. Still, it's good to progress the notions of flat monthly fees and unlimited legal downloads.

MoreWineII

06-27-2005, 12:47 PM

The RIAA is a dinosaur that sees the end and is desperately tying to cling to relevance. That's how I see it anyway. Do they really think that internet downloading is ever going to go away?

I don't.

If they were smart, they'd quit throwing money away on meaningless litigation and instead try and figure out a way to tap into the market.

CollinEstes

06-27-2005, 12:51 PM

Exactly. Real artists are about the music and not about the money. They are going to have very wealthy lives I mean they make tons of money to do something that comes naturally to them. The RICAA and the other suits are nothing but leaches. I will download music and buy cds that deserve to be bought.

balkii

06-27-2005, 02:03 PM

Real artists are about the music and not about the money. They are going to have very wealthy lives I mean they make tons of money to do something that comes naturally to them.

This statement is SO far from the truth its ridiculous.

RacersEdge

06-27-2005, 02:14 PM

I agree completely with the Supreme Court ruling. The stealing has to stop.

wacki

06-27-2005, 02:15 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The stealing has to stop.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. There are some peope in conneticut that want their homes back.

As for this decision. Well, I sense abuse I hope it isn't abused. There are plenty of legit reasons for using bit torrent and Kazaa.

ChoicestHops

06-27-2005, 02:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I agree. There are some peope in conneticut that want their homes back.

[/ QUOTE ]
Right to own property? What's that all about?

bennyk

06-27-2005, 02:22 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I wonder how much this ruling will be abused.

[/ QUOTE ]
from the court's opinion:
[ QUOTE ]

One who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright ... is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties using the device, regardless of the device's lawful uses.

[/ QUOTE ]

this seems to stipulate that if someone distributes a device without promoting its use for copyright infringement this would not provide grounds for prosecution.

nonetheless, i don't think this will matter since prosecutors/corporate attorneys will use this opinion to their own ends either way.

i am not aware of any programs that are officially promoted for the sole purpose of copyright infringement, regardless of what their "understood" purpose is. i could be wrong about this.

bk

CollinEstes

06-27-2005, 02:24 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Real artists are about the music and not about the money. They are going to have very wealthy lives I mean they make tons of money to do something that comes naturally to them.

This statement is SO far from the truth its ridiculous.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't doubt you think all musicans are all about making money but I don't think that is the case. Here is one example: Bob Schneider from Austin Texas. (Bobschneidermusic.com) He has sold more albums than any artists in within the city limits of Austin, selling only from one record store. He offers all of his music free to listen to on his website and also allows all of his live shows to be recorded and stored for public use (free legal download) on Archive.org. He is only one example there are many artists who do the same thing and never make the money like Metallica or DMB who complain about file-sharing. These people love to play music for people and like people to enjoy their music.

Please feel free to tell me how this is SO ridiculous.

[censored]

06-27-2005, 02:28 PM

Good, All of the free music commies can now suck it.

If your downloading its stealing, admit that much and stop trying to justify it with CD's cost too much and whining drivel.

CollinEstes

06-27-2005, 02:31 PM

So if I download a TV show from Kazaa that aired on ABC the night before I am stealing. Or if I download live shows from Jason Mraz that are legal to download from Archive.org then I am stealing. Or maybe I am downloading the new Audioslave song "Be Yourself" which they have for free on their website am I stealing.

MoreWineII

06-27-2005, 02:37 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Good, All of the free music commies can now suck it.

If your downloading its stealing, admit that much and stop trying to justify it with CD's cost too much and whining drivel.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, nobody tried to justify anything here. You sound bitter.

This ruling will stop about four people from downloading. Free music commies will rule the world someday.

[censored]

06-27-2005, 02:38 PM

[ QUOTE ]
So if I download a TV show from Kazaa that aired on ABC the night before I am stealing. Or if I download live shows from Jason Mraz that are legal to download from Archive.org then I am stealing. Or maybe I am downloading the new Audioslave song "Be Yourself" which they have for free on their website am I stealing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dude, You seriously can't figure out for yourself what is stealing and what isn't? It is pretty [censored]-ing clear to me.

CollinEstes

06-27-2005, 02:42 PM

Wow, you missed the point.

I know those aren't illegal but all can be done using a progam like grokster or Kazaa. You were saying that all those were used for was stealing I was pointing out a bunch of ways that they are not stealing.

[censored]

06-27-2005, 02:43 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Good, All of the free music commies can now suck it.

If your downloading its stealing, admit that much and stop trying to justify it with CD's cost too much and whining drivel.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, nobody tried to justify anything here. You sound bitter.

This ruling will stop about four people from downloading. Free music commies will rule the world someday.

[/ QUOTE ]

Justification example
"In early 90s music was worth buying. You would get 15-19 songs for 12 dollars. Now you are lucky to get 10-12 songs for 16 dollars. So how am I suppose to feel bad about downloading a song from a band that makes millions and millions of dollars regardless"

As for you, you're justification seems to be, This won't really affect anything and everyone is going to continue to do so it's fine for me to continue to steal as long as I lie and say it is only 1-2 songs and then I buy the CD. Whatever man, nobody believes that crap.

Just say I download copyrighted music becaused it is avaialable and I like it.

CollinEstes

06-27-2005, 02:47 PM

I have much more bought cds then I have burned ones. I just went out last week and bought three cds. All I am saying is that those programs can be used for other purposes.

Besides how exactly do you feel sorry for those people. They rip the customer off all the time. The major record labels determine everything you hear, not the consumer. Live music is still the only pure form anyway.

tolbiny

06-27-2005, 02:48 PM

"They are going to have very wealthy lives I mean they make tons of money to do something that comes naturally to them."

This is what is ridiculous- the vast majority of musicians will not make tons of money. Very few are able to even make a living out of it. There are a thousand garge bands out there for every multi millionaire musician, and even amoung those who do make it big large numbers of them are locked in to terrible contracts and are not making nearly what you think they are.

MoreWineII

06-27-2005, 02:48 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Good, All of the free music commies can now suck it.

If your downloading its stealing, admit that much and stop trying to justify it with CD's cost too much and whining drivel.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, nobody tried to justify anything here. You sound bitter.

This ruling will stop about four people from downloading. Free music commies will rule the world someday.

[/ QUOTE ]

Justification example
"In early 90s music was worth buying. You would get 15-19 songs for 12 dollars. Now you are lucky to get 10-12 songs for 16 dollars. So how am I suppose to feel bad about downloading a song from a band that makes millions and millions of dollars regardless"

As for you, you're justification seems to be, This won't really affect anything and everyone is going to continue to do so it's fine for me to continue to steal as long as I lie and say it is only 1-2 songs and then I buy the CD. Whatever man, nobody believes that crap.

Just say I download copyrighted music becaused it is avaialable and I like it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Justification? Dude, are you for real? I stated the reason why I download music. I'm sorry you don't agree with it, but honestly I don't give a [censored] what you or anyone else thinks.

I bought the Coldplay and the Black-Eyed Peas CDs the other day after sampling and enjoying several of the the songs.

Or maybe I'm lying about that too oh noes!

[censored]

06-27-2005, 02:48 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Wow, you missed the point.

I know those aren't illegal but all can be done using a progam like grokster or Kazaa. You were saying that all those were used for was stealing I was pointing out a bunch of ways that they are not stealing.

[/ QUOTE ]

So your contention is that these programs were designed with the purpose of sharing non copywrited material? Come on dude! Stop with the justification BS and admit what's going on. These programs were designed to and are used 99% of the time to promote the distribution of copywrited material.

You like using them, fine I understand. Just stop trying to come up with BS reasons as to why it isn't wrong.

Of course these should be shut down. Will other's spring up, yes. Will it make a difference, no. But that doesnt mean the labels should have to sit back and take it the ass.

[censored]

06-27-2005, 02:50 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I have much more bought cds then I have burned ones. I just went out last week and bought three cds. All I am saying is that those programs can be used for other purposes.

Besides how exactly do you feel sorry for those people. They rip the customer off all the time. The major record labels determine everything you hear, not the consumer. Live music is still the only pure form anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh cool, I'm allowed to steal from people as long as I don't feel sorry them. Whatever commie.

[censored]

06-27-2005, 02:52 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I have much more bought cds then I have burned ones. I just went out last week and bought three cds.

[/ QUOTE ]

Alright I'm going to go steal from Safeway today. I shop there all the time. I just bought groceries last night and I only need a few things this time. That's ok then right?

CollinEstes

06-27-2005, 02:54 PM

That wasn't my justification, I said that they are used for other purposes as well. I understand that 90% of the usage is for illegal copyrighted material. But it isn't all stealing.

I was only speaking about musicans who are part of the RICAA or in other words the big market bands and artists that make tons of money and complain about file sharing ie Metallica. My point was all those garage bands you were talking about don't care about file sharing.

MoreWineII

06-27-2005, 02:54 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have much more bought cds then I have burned ones. I just went out last week and bought three cds.

[/ QUOTE ]

Alright I'm going to go steal from Safeway today. I shop there all the time. I just bought groceries last night and I only need a few things this time. That's ok then right?

[/ QUOTE ]

You work for a record company, don't you? I guess if I knew my industry would be irrelevant in ten years, I'd be pissed too.

[censored]

06-27-2005, 02:57 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Justification? Dude, are you for real? I stated the reason why I download music. I'm sorry you don't agree with it, but honestly I don't give a [censored] what you or anyone else thinks.

I bought the Coldplay and the Black-Eyed Peas CDs the other day after sampling and enjoying several of the the songs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well now you are being honest. You think you should be able to pick and choose which laws you follow and you don't care what society thinks about it. We have a name for people like this---we call them criminals.

Oh wow I didn't realize you bought 2 CD's after first illegally downloading their music. I'm sure the rest of your stuff is all the up and up then.

[censored]

06-27-2005, 02:58 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have much more bought cds then I have burned ones. I just went out last week and bought three cds.

[/ QUOTE ]

Alright I'm going to go steal from Safeway today. I shop there all the time. I just bought groceries last night and I only need a few things this time. That's ok then right?

[/ QUOTE ]

You work for a record company, don't you? I guess if I knew my industry would be irrelevant in ten years, I'd be pissed too.

[/ QUOTE ]

And this is what you have been reduced to.

turnipmonster

06-27-2005, 03:00 PM

there are plenty of musicians that don't feel this way. here's the thing, it should be up to the musician, not the downloader, whether or not the musician's product should be paid for.

and contrary to your opinion, most professional musicians actually want to get paid for what they do.

--turnipmonster

Patrick del Poker Grande

06-27-2005, 03:01 PM

turnipmonster

06-27-2005, 03:04 PM

[ QUOTE ]

You work for a record company, don't you? I guess if I knew my industry would be irrelevant in ten years, I'd be pissed too.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't work for a record company, but I've been a musician all my life, and worked at as a professional musician for the past 10 years, and guess what? I think musicians should get paid for what they do!

[censored]

06-27-2005, 03:06 PM

[ QUOTE ]
That wasn't my justification, I said that they are used for other purposes as well. I understand that 90% of the usage is for illegal copyrighted material. But it isn't all stealing.

I was only speaking about musicans who are part of the RICAA or in other words the big market bands and artists that make tons of money and complain about file sharing ie Metallica. My point was all those garage bands you were talking about don't care about file sharing.

[/ QUOTE ]

So because a very small percentage of songs shared come from bands who don't care (and also don't make much money in the first place) the vast majority has to sit back and do nothing. Why because you are someone else has determined they already have enough money.

Sure the programs can are used for some nonillegal stuff, but again let's get real. We both know what they were made to do and what they do 99% of the time.

I am not argueing for example that the VCR should have been made illegal for the same reasons. BTW these arguements were used against it as well. In the VCR's case common sense said that it had a multitude of other uses and that any illegal activity was a only a minor consequence.

But with the file sharing programs common sense says that this is the entire purpose and any legal activity is incidental.

RacersEdge

06-27-2005, 03:06 PM

[ QUOTE ]
most professional musicians actually want to get paid for what they do.

[/ QUOTE ]

hence the term "professional"... /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

but yeah, these excuses for stealing are lame. It's like saying "I went to my friends house, and he gave me lunch for free. So it's OK that I went to Kroger and stole a box of cereal."

CollinEstes

06-27-2005, 03:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]
there are plenty of musicians that don't feel this way. here's the thing, it should be up to the musician, not the downloader, whether or not the musician's product should be paid for.

and contrary to your opinion, most professional musicians actually want to get paid for what they do.

--turnipmonster

[/ QUOTE ]

Excatly so the RICAA is set up to protect these artists who what to be paid for every single download. What about the independant artists who just want to get their name out their. Columbia recording artist Ari Hest openly admits that he would have never gotten signed by Columbia if it wasn't for developing a fan base through file sharing.

So it should be up to the RICAA to try to control these programs not shut them down.

None of you want to touch the fact that numerous TV torrent sites have been sued by the MPAA. How is that illegal to download tv shows.

I just don't think it is all black and white like you guys make it out to be. It isn't all stealing.

SpearsBritney

06-27-2005, 03:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Hollywood and the major record labels disagree. They counter that peer-to-peer technology is destroying their livelihoods

[/ QUOTE ]

The only reason artists are so goddamn rich in the first place, is because of technology. They make one worthless piece of crap, and then sell it a million times over. It's because of technological advancements that their product has any value in the first place. Now that technology has further advanced and brought their incomes closer to what they really deserved in the first place, they start whining and filing lawsuits, caliming that they're not getting what they deserve.

FCUK 'EM! They have the nerve to rub our faces in their riches with videos showcasing their cars and mansions, money and women, diamonds the size of baseballs, and then want us to feel sorry for them? FCUK YOU! YOU SUCK! (not you wacki /images/graemlins/grin.gif)

CollinEstes

06-27-2005, 03:12 PM

Musicans due get paid for what they do. Nobody ever had a problem with people recording the radio station on casette.

MoreWineII

06-27-2005, 03:13 PM

[ QUOTE ]

And this is what you have been reduced to.

[/ QUOTE ]

Coming from the guy who replied to about 4 or 5 posts in a row and came out of left field with calling people "commies" I find this comment kinda funny.

[ QUOTE ]

This has nothing to do with it. You're stealing. Quit making excuses for it and call it what it is.

[/ QUOTE ]

If by justify you mean stating the reasons for doing what I do, okay. I never made any excuses. I'm not sure where all these comments about JUST ADMIT WHAT YOURE DOING come from. I did. Again, I pirate music. So we can just nip all these sort of redundant posts in the bud right here and now?

kurosh

06-27-2005, 03:14 PM

If I were an MP3, I would want to be free.
Rhymes like mine, sell for a dime.
Think about the code, check the mode.
The software wants to be aware.
The man shouldn't ban.

Sponger15SB

06-27-2005, 03:14 PM

[ QUOTE ]
So how am I suppose to feel bad about downloading a song from a band that makes millions and millions of dollars regardless.

[/ QUOTE ]

NOT A BIG DEAL?!?!?!

...This month Lars Ulrich was hoping to have a gold plated shark tank bar installed right next to the pool, but thanks to people downloading his music for free he must now wait a few months before he can afford it.

turnipmonster

06-27-2005, 03:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]

What about the independant artists who just want to get their name out their.

[/ QUOTE ]

if they want to share their music freely, more power to them! I think being on filesharing sites and stuff is great, BUT it's up to the musician, not to someone who bought the cd then decides to share it with the world. if the musician wants to give away their music, great. if not, stealing it from them is exactly that.

btw, taping music and redistributing it is just as illegal as filesharing copyrighted material. read up on this stuff a little and you'll have a much more informed opinion.

--turnipmonster

Tron

06-27-2005, 03:24 PM

[ QUOTE ]
RICAA

[/ QUOTE ]

Rhode Island Coalition for Affirmative Action? Why do they give a [censored] about illegal downloading?

CollinEstes

06-27-2005, 03:24 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

What about the independant artists who just want to get their name out their.

[/ QUOTE ]

if they want to share their music freely, more power to them! I think being on filesharing sites and stuff is great, BUT it's up to the musician, not to someone who bought the cd then decides to share it with the world. if the musician wants to give away their music, great. if not, stealing it from them is exactly that.

btw, taping music and redistributing it is just as illegal as filesharing copyrighted material. read up on this stuff a little and you'll have a much more informed opinion.

--turnipmonster

[/ QUOTE ]

You said it distributing. distributing. distributing. Here is the question without distributors then there would be no music to file share right? So those distributing the music are breaking the law. But noone has had charges brought on them for accessing and not distributing.

And again those artist who want to share there music should be able to do so via programs like Grokster and Kazaa. So shuting those programs down isn't fair.

Nor is it fair to sue TV Torrent sites which I guess none of you have a problem with MPAA. You have to protect your freedoms. I am not saying distributing copyrighted material is a freedom. But being able to download a free program a day after it airs I believe is a freedom. Or having the freedom to use technology to put your media out out to people is a freedom.

People abuse everything. People abuse welfare should we shut it down, No. People abuse the legal system, should we take away the right to sue, No.

spamuell

06-27-2005, 03:25 PM

From someone outside the US's perspective, how is this actually going to affect me? Does the US Supreme Court actually have the power to shut any of the filesharing sites down? If so, which?

I'd assume it would be ones with central servers in the US but I don't think bittorrent, limewire etc use central serves, that's the whole point of p2p, no? Also, if they do have central servers, why would they be in one of the countries which is most likely to make them illegal?

Anyone know?

CollinEstes

06-27-2005, 03:26 PM

Sorry I have been typing the wrong thing. RICAA. I meant RIAA. But you guys knew what I meant. Just a typo.

turnipmonster

06-27-2005, 03:26 PM

if I am giving away crack, I can get in trouble for distributing crack. if you buy crack from me, you can also get in trouble for buying crack.

now, replace "crack" with "stolen music". get it?

MoreWineII

06-27-2005, 03:26 PM

People always see this issue as being black and white. You pirate music, therefore you're a thief with no morals.

That's a really narrow-minded view.

CollinEstes

06-27-2005, 03:29 PM

They can only try to shut down specific sites with regard to Bit Torrent. So that will never stop because new sites pop up all the time. Most of the bit torrent sites they don't have the right to shut down, but the MPAA files a suit against sites like www.btefnet.net (http://www.btefnet.net) and they don't want to fight the case or legality because of the expense and they just agree to close the site.

I don't think the US supreme court can close any site that is maintained outside the US. Like Kazaa, but I think Grokster is in California.

spamuell

06-27-2005, 03:30 PM

[ QUOTE ]
People abuse everything. People abuse welfare should we shut it down, No. People abuse the legal system, should we take away the right to sue, No.

[/ QUOTE ]

I download music, but this argument belongs in this thread (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=2714670&page=&view=&sb=5& o=&fpart=1&vc=1).

CollinEstes

06-27-2005, 03:32 PM

[ QUOTE ]
if I am giving away crack, I can get in trouble for distributing crack. if you buy crack from me, you can also get in trouble for buying crack.

now, replace "crack" with "stolen music". get it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Please feel free to show me a case where accessing copyrighted material has been found to be unlawful. Distributing cases are prevelant but no charges have been placed against anyone for accessing.

turnipmonster

06-27-2005, 03:33 PM

who said that? I didn't say pirates have no morals, just that they're stealing. on that point, I think it is pretty black and white. it's considered stealing, legally as well as ethically. if you're disputing this point, feel free to give a well formed argument as to why.

--turnipmonster

CollinEstes

06-27-2005, 03:34 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
People abuse everything. People abuse welfare should we shut it down, No. People abuse the legal system, should we take away the right to sue, No.

[/ QUOTE ]

I download music, but this argument belongs in this thread (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=2714670&page=&view=&sb=5& o=&fpart=1&vc=1).

[/ QUOTE ]

At least tell me why you think it is stupid. It is easy to say something like this without backing anything up.

CollinEstes

06-27-2005, 03:38 PM

[ QUOTE ]
who said that? I didn't say pirates have no morals, just that they're stealing. on that point, I think it is pretty black and white. it's considered stealing, legally as well as ethically. if you're disputing this point, feel free to give a well formed argument as to why.

--turnipmonster

[/ QUOTE ]

You use the term pirates loosly. So the guy that has tivo records a tv show, transfers it to file on his PC and posts it on a website is a priates? Because the legality of this has not been determined. The MPAA uses money to force lawsuits on these "pirates" and they settle before a court has the chance to rule if it is lawful or not.

turnipmonster

06-27-2005, 03:38 PM

like I said, do some reading (http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise44.html)

and you'll have a more informed opinion.

MoreWineII

06-27-2005, 03:40 PM

Wasn't really directed at you in particular Turnip. I pirate music, I never denied that. So now that we've got that out of the way...what's next?

I do it for reasons that I stated. I don't want to spend $17 on a CD that sucks. God knows I've done that enough times. So now I have a choice: I can either keep on going and pissing money away or I can download, sample, and buy what I like.

It's a pretty simple choice really.

If I could, I'd take advantage of everybody that I feel has taken advantage of me over the years. Credit card companies, phone companies, the gov't, I'd [censored] them all right in the ass if I could. Sometimes I do feel that two wrongs make a right. It just so happens that the RIAA is the one organization that I do have some power against.

Does that make me a bad person? I don't think so, but if you feel that it does, then hey, more power to ya.

touchfaith

06-27-2005, 03:43 PM

Wow. Just wow.

I haven't read the ruling yet and will later, but on the surface...This is scary.

What is next?

Carmakers get sued because a car can go 100 MPH?

Amazing.

[censored]

06-27-2005, 03:43 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
who said that? I didn't say pirates have no morals, just that they're stealing. on that point, I think it is pretty black and white. it's considered stealing, legally as well as ethically. if you're disputing this point, feel free to give a well formed argument as to why.

--turnipmonster

[/ QUOTE ]

You use the term pirates loosly. So the guy that has tivo records a tv show, transfers it to file on his PC and posts it on a website is a priates? Because the legality of this has not been determined. The MPAA uses money to force lawsuits on these "pirates" and they settle before a court has the chance to rule if it is lawful or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

You keep bringing this up when it is clear we are discussing music but...

The MPAA believes that to be a copyright violation and against the law. The place to determine, settle this is the courts which is where they took it. The process to do this is called a suit. I don't see what your problem is here?

spamuell

06-27-2005, 03:43 PM

People abuse everything. People abuse welfare should we shut it down, No. People abuse the legal system, should we take away the right to sue, No.

It's stupid because in the examples you gave, while the systems are not shut down, there a checks in place in order to minimise abuse of these systems. With peer to peer systems, quite the opposite is the case. If it was really designed for legal purposes, it would be trivial to put in place some safeguards in order to at least decrease piracy, if not eliminate it altogether. However, the way the p2p systems currently are, it is arguable whether piracy is their goal (well not really but it's deniable that it is), but clearly they have no real intention of preventing "abuse" of their system and thus are not comparable to social security, the legal system etc.

CollinEstes

06-27-2005, 03:44 PM

Again you show me a case or precedent in which someone was convicted of accessing copyrighted material and I will admit that I am very wrong.

The truth is I don't download music from file sharing programs, I just think they have the right to exist. I use Archive.org, Freshtracksmusic or many other free sites that are legal places to download music. I use bit torrent to watch shows that I miss. I think I should have the right to watch those shows on my computer just as I have the right to record them on my VCR or DVR.

CollinEstes

06-27-2005, 03:46 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
who said that? I didn't say pirates have no morals, just that they're stealing. on that point, I think it is pretty black and white. it's considered stealing, legally as well as ethically. if you're disputing this point, feel free to give a well formed argument as to why.

--turnipmonster

[/ QUOTE ]

You use the term pirates loosly. So the guy that has tivo records a tv show, transfers it to file on his PC and posts it on a website is a priates? Because the legality of this has not been determined. The MPAA uses money to force lawsuits on these "pirates" and they settle before a court has the chance to rule if it is lawful or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

You keep bringing this up when it is clear we are discussing music but...

The MPAA believes that to be a copyright violation and against the law. The place to determine, settle this is the courts which is where they took it. The process to do this is called a suit. I don't see what your problem is here?

[/ QUOTE ]

My problem is they intimidate these websites with high cost law suits and they opt to settle not take it before a judge. The system doesn't have a chance to work because they big corporation has too many resources. I think we are talking about all file sharing not just music, since these programs don't only deal with music.

CollinEstes

06-27-2005, 03:49 PM

But I agree there should be ways to stop illegal trading without scarificing the legitimate trading. That was a point about welfare and social security. They work to stop abuses without scarificing the good of the program.

Soul Daddy

06-27-2005, 03:49 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I do it for reasons that I stated. I don't want to spend $17 on a CD that sucks. God knows I've done that enough times. So now I have a choice: I can either keep on going and pissing money away or I can download, sample, and buy what I like.

[/ QUOTE ]
This was my strategy for a while. Now I don't remember the last CD I bought. I recognize that I need to change my ways, but I'm completely addicted to free music. I need an alternative stat.

[censored]

06-27-2005, 03:54 PM

Well what is it you want the MPAA to do? I may not agree with them but they certainly have the right to go to court no?

Also I do not agree that you have the "right" to watch these programs in this manner. I guess you could argue that once a program is broadcast into the public domain the network or whoever ceases to have ownership but that doesnt really hold up. Should you be able to download movies that are on TV? obviously no.

You can try an argue that these shows are free so there is no monetary harm but again that doesnt hold up well. The shows while free to you are infact paid for by those who advertise on them or in HBOs case by the subscribers. Thus we have a product created and sold for a specific viewing.

Where exactly do your rights to download and view come in?

CollinEstes

06-27-2005, 03:57 PM

I wasn't speaking about any shows from HBO or other subscription services. I am talking about the principal of time shifting as the Supreme Court ruled you had the right to do in the 1980s cause the MPAA brought trying to get VCR record made illegal. I don't see how there is a difference in owning a Tivo and downloading it from the internet. They are free to be viewed by anyone with an antenna and tv.

[censored]

06-27-2005, 04:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Wasn't really directed at you in particular Turnip. I pirate music, I never denied that. So now that we've got that out of the way...what's next?

I do it for reasons that I stated. I don't want to spend $17 on a CD that sucks. God knows I've done that enough times. So now I have a choice: I can either keep on going and pissing money away or I can download, sample, and buy what I like.

It's a pretty simple choice really.

If I could, I'd take advantage of everybody that I feel has taken advantage of me over the years. Credit card companies, phone companies, the gov't, I'd [censored] them all right in the ass if I could. Sometimes I do feel that two wrongs make a right. It just so happens that the RIAA is the one organization that I do have some power against.

Does that make me a bad person? I don't think so, but if you feel that it does, then hey, more power to ya.

[/ QUOTE ]

So if I feel that your family has somehow wronged me I should feel free to steal or whatever from them?

Also please explain how in providing a voluntarily used service or product at any cost these companies have "harmed" you.

The only possible explanation I can think of is that you somehow feel you are entitled to these things and you should be able to determine what and how much you pay for something. I think we both agree that would be incredibly silly.

If you were somehow forced or coerced into buying CD's you deemed overpriced or into using credit cards than I completely understand.

CollinEstes

06-27-2005, 04:02 PM

Advertisers are already making adjustments and they will find other ways to pay for shows to advertise. That is why we are seeing more and more in show product placement ads.

If we go by your logic then all DVRs (tivo) should be illegal as well.

SomethingClever

06-27-2005, 04:04 PM

Lemme just check something.

Do I need to pay back royalties for all the songs I've heard on the radio over the years? I mean, I heard the music with my own ears, but I never paid a dime for it.

I think I probably owe a lot, right?

Listening to music without paying is just the same as shoplifting. Right? That's the argument a lot of people on here are making.

Every time I hear a song I haven't paid for the right to hear, it's just like walking into Safeway and stealing an apple, right?

This analogy is so goddamn moronic I can't stand it any more.

Downloading *is* stealing. But it's not the same type of stealing as fcking shoplifting, you morons!

[censored]

06-27-2005, 04:08 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I wasn't speaking about any shows from HBO or other subscription services. I am talking about the principal of time shifting as the Supreme Court ruled you had the right to do in the 1980s cause the MPAA brought trying to get VCR record made illegal. I don't see how there is a difference in owning a Tivo and downloading it from the internet. They are free to be viewed by anyone with an antenna and tv.

[/ QUOTE ]

The difference is in who is providing the content. Although I need to say that I think the law is unclear on this so far. With the VCR, TIVO or whatever the program comes from the broadcaster to your storing device (TIVO etc). They provided something you consumed it, regardless of when you actually watched it.

With the bit torrents however there is now a middle man who has no right to distribute the material. The program goes from the broadcaster to the middle man, storing it, then to you. Does he have the right to redistribute, this material for which he in no way paid, on a mass level. Perhaps but I seriously doubt it. If you want to be able to pick and choose when you watch a program you need to buy the DVD's or get someother product like TIVO. Having a computer doesn't change that.

Listen man, I know this stuff is awesome to use but it doesn't change the fact that for the most part it is stealing.

[censored]

06-27-2005, 04:12 PM

When someone says that it is ok to steal a product because they sometimes pay for it, then it is fair to ask if it applies to other products for which you pay for

As for the radio, you do not need to pay royalties because the rasio stations do it for you. Very little is free.

SomethingClever

06-27-2005, 04:20 PM

[ QUOTE ]
When someone says that it is ok to steal a product because they sometimes pay for it, then it is fair to ask if it applies to other products for which you pay for

As for the radio, you do not need to pay royalties because the rasio stations do it for you. Very little is free.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's my point. It's a bad analogy.

Pirating music is stealing because you are not compensating the artist in any way.

HOWEVER

Pirating music doesn't actually take money out of their pockets. Stealing a real item from a store is a real loss for that store.

A digital copy of a song does not take anything out of the record company's inventory, or the artists pocket. Now, you can make the argument, and it's probably a fair one, that pirating will impact future sales. But it is certainly not true that every song that has been pirated would have instead been bought and paid for.

So.... while it is still stealing, it cannot logically be the same type of stealing as, say, shoplifting.

CollinEstes

06-27-2005, 04:22 PM

Well perhaps you are right. I am man enough to admit that. I just think that we should have the right to distribute and/or access data that is available with charge through other mediams at a time that is we choose. I personally have a tivo I use it 95% percent of the time but a work sometimes I download a show and watch it as a work.

This is a dead end debate that I am probably on the wrong side of. still it was fun.

In addition all of this will be irrelvant in two years when IPTV changes how we what tv.

MoreWineII

06-27-2005, 04:52 PM

[ QUOTE ]
So if I feel that your family has somehow wronged me I should feel free to steal or whatever from them?

[/ QUOTE ]

Have at it.

[ QUOTE ]
Also please explain how in providing a voluntarily used service or product at any cost these companies have "harmed" you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Long story, would bore everyone here. But I guarantee that some other posters here can relate.

[ QUOTE ]
The only possible explanation I can think of is that you somehow feel you are entitled to these things and you should be able to determine what and how much you pay for something.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, in some sense. I think this type of thinking is fairly common.

[ QUOTE ]
If you were somehow forced or coerced into buying CD's you deemed overpriced or into using credit cards than I completely understand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not exactly.

siccjay

06-27-2005, 04:54 PM

Wow all this arguing is making my head hurt.

I can't believe some poker players, who making a living winning money from degenerate gamblers, would feel so strongly againsty downloading a little music. Online poker is just as illegal as downloading music.

I DL music and buy what I like. If you don't believe me, who the [censored] cares. Do I have lots and lots of Mp3s on my computer? Yes I do. 90% of it is out of print underground ish that you can't purchase so suck me.

I'd say 95% of the people that DL music were NOT going to buy it anyway. So how is it really hurting record sales? It's not that big a deal really. Downloading doesn't stop good music (and some bad) from selling massive amounts of units.

[censored]

06-27-2005, 05:05 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When someone says that it is ok to steal a product because they sometimes pay for it, then it is fair to ask if it applies to other products for which you pay for

As for the radio, you do not need to pay royalties because the rasio stations do it for you. Very little is free.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's my point. It's a bad analogy.

Pirating music is stealing because you are not compensating the artist in any way.

HOWEVER

Pirating music doesn't actually take money out of their pockets. Stealing a real item from a store is a real loss for that store.

A digital copy of a song does not take anything out of the record company's inventory, or the artists pocket. Now, you can make the argument, and it's probably a fair one, that pirating will impact future sales. But it is certainly not true that every song that has been pirated would have instead been bought and paid for.

So.... while it is still stealing, it cannot logically be the same type of stealing as, say, shoplifting.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point. I agree.

Victor

06-27-2005, 05:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I'd say 95% of the people that DL music were NOT going to buy it anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

actually heard that since napster, etc. popped up, music sales are down 30%.

Mike Cuneo

06-27-2005, 05:17 PM

I usually don't buy CDs but it's either me download the music for free or just turn on the radio. Either way they aren't getting much (if any) of my money for a CD. Big record companies should just invest in a new, super high capacity CD-RW to hedge their bets and make money if people steal and burn music. Yes, I'm joking. But seriously record companies should stop complaining and fix the mess they are in. They are clinging to old ways and it isn't working.

People will generally take something for free regardless if it's right or wrong. The record companies don't lose any money from someone like me, because I won't buy CDs normally anyway. If there's something I like then maybe I'll go buy it. If not, they aren't getting my money anyway. So what exactly am I stealing?

Comparing it to shoplifting is absurd. When you go into a grocery store, you pay money and receive an item. When I download music, I get the song and the artist gets nothing, which is exactly what they would get anyway, because I usually don't buy music. When you steal a box of cereal the company loses an item of inventory. When I download a song no one really loses anything. I suppose I gain, depending on the song.

tbach24

06-27-2005, 05:18 PM

Does this mean I'm in trouble for dl'ing music?

BusterStacks

06-27-2005, 05:22 PM

I steal music because I don't want to pay for it. I'm not really concerned about whether it's right or wrong. Free > not free.

Patrick del Poker Grande

06-27-2005, 05:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I usually don't buy CDs but it's either me download the music for free or just turn on the radio. Either way they aren't getting much (if any) of my money for a CD. Big record companies should just invest in a new, super high capacity CD-RW to hedge their bets and make money if people steal and burn music. Yes, I'm joking. But seriously record companies should stop complaining and fix the mess they are in. They are clinging to old ways and it isn't working.

People will generally take something for free regardless if it's right or wrong. The record companies don't lose any money from someone like me, because I won't buy CDs normally anyway. If there's something I like then maybe I'll go buy it. If not, they aren't getting my money anyway. So what exactly am I stealing?

Comparing it to shoplifting is absurd. When you go into a grocery store, you pay money and receive an item. When I download music, I get the song and the artist gets nothing, which is exactly what they would get anyway, because I usually don't buy music. When you steal a box of cereal the company loses an item of inventory. When I download a song no one really loses anything. I suppose I gain, depending on the song.

[/ QUOTE ]
They do lose something and that is the opportunity to sell you the song, as well as some fraction of the demand for the song.

You people need to stop rationalizing theft. Theft is theft, regardless of whether you can put your hands on what your stealing or not.

This whole argument about "well, I wouldn't have bought it anyway, so they're not losing anything and if I like it, then I'll just go buy the cd" is a great argument for trying to get them to allow you to get their music for a free sample, but it holds absolutely no water when it comes to justifying your theft.

MoreWineII

06-27-2005, 05:31 PM

Actually if there was a service that offered the chance to listen to an entire CD one or twice, then gave me the option to buy at a reasonable price I'd be all over it. As far as I know, that doesn't exist though.

So I'll keep doing my thing and I'll hope and pray to the Music Gods that the RIAA doesn't break down my door.

This board is far more interesting when topics like this are brought up, btw.

slamdunkpro

06-27-2005, 05:38 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I can't believe some poker players, who making a living winning money from degenerate gamblers, would feel so strongly againsty downloading a little music. Online poker is just as illegal as downloading music.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually it’s not. Two separate courts (one appellant) have issued rulings that Online gambling is not in and of itself illegal. The justice department has taken a page out of the IRS handbook and have made the statement that” We are aware of the appellant court’s ruling but we are going to ignore it and consider online gambling illegal”

Second is a point of which I’m sure you are aware: Downloading copywrited music without the copywrite holders’ permission is what is illegal.

SomethingClever

06-27-2005, 05:47 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Good point. I agree.

[/ QUOTE ]

WoWoWoW!

Thank you. I've argued this with many people before, and can never seem to get my point across.

Thanks.

That analogy is just one of my pet peeves.

Chiron

06-27-2005, 05:54 PM

I hope the authorities never discover newsgroups.

turnipmonster

06-27-2005, 05:59 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Again you show me a case or precedent in which someone was convicted of accessing copyrighted material and I will admit that I am very wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

uhh, I showed you a law. I'm not going to go digging around for a case.

turnipmonster

06-27-2005, 06:03 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Do I need to pay back royalties for all the songs I've heard on the radio over the years? I mean, I heard the music with my own ears, but I never paid a dime for it.

[/ QUOTE ]

not sure if anyone mentioned this yet, but radio stations pay fees to ASCAP and BMI based on their playlists and this is how musicians get paid for radio play. the radio station picks up the tab, but the musicians still get paid.

Patrick del Poker Grande

06-27-2005, 06:05 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Do I need to pay back royalties for all the songs I've heard on the radio over the years? I mean, I heard the music with my own ears, but I never paid a dime for it.

[/ QUOTE ]

not sure if anyone mentioned this yet, but radio stations pay fees to ASCAP and BMI based on their playlists and this is how musicians get paid for radio play. the radio station picks up the tab, but the musicians still get paid.

[/ QUOTE ]
Also, you're paying by having to listen to commercials.

SomethingClever

06-27-2005, 06:13 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Do I need to pay back royalties for all the songs I've heard on the radio over the years? I mean, I heard the music with my own ears, but I never paid a dime for it.

[/ QUOTE ]

not sure if anyone mentioned this yet, but radio stations pay fees to ASCAP and BMI based on their playlists and this is how musicians get paid for radio play. the radio station picks up the tab, but the musicians still get paid.

[/ QUOTE ]
Also, you're paying by having to listen to commercials.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know all this; I was just being sarcastic to make a point.

siccjay

06-27-2005, 06:45 PM

What about the people that download music, like it, and then buy it?

There is plenty of music that I would have never been able to hear without the ability to download first. Without downloading they would have missed out on a sale.

Downloading music hurts big name artists, but they are not in trouble. Downloading probably helps smaller, underground artists just as much, if not more, than it hurts them.

If you notice, it's only the rich people bitching about this. Tech-N9ne offered his whole album for download on his website last year.

NoOuts

06-27-2005, 06:51 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I hope the authorities never discover newsgroups.

[/ QUOTE ]

Patrick del Poker Grande

06-27-2005, 06:51 PM

[ QUOTE ]
What about the people that download music, like it, and then buy it?

There is plenty of music that I would have never been able to hear without the ability to download first. Without downloading they would have missed out on a sale.

Downloading music hurts big name artists, but they are not in trouble. Downloading probably helps smaller, underground artists just as much, if not more, than it hurts them.

If you notice, it's only the rich people bitching about this. Tech-N9ne offered his whole album for download on his website last year.

[/ QUOTE ]
Again, this is a great argument for the copyright holders to allow for their music to be downloaded for free, but it still is not a valid argument for theft. Use it to argue for a change in the record labels' business model, not to justify theft.

siccjay

06-27-2005, 06:53 PM

I'm not trying to justify theft. I'm just trying to argue that downloading isn't as bad as they make it out to be.

brassnuts

06-27-2005, 07:24 PM

Well, of all the responses, I've seen only a few so far actually pertaining to the original topic. I think this ruling is a joke. It's horrible. This type of logic used by the justices is devsstating to the progress of the internet. I hope it doesn't take precedent.

Blarg

06-27-2005, 07:46 PM

This Supreme Court is getting more stupid and out of its depth by the day.

Just last week they increased the right of cities to take land from citizens, which really gave me the creeps. Basically, anyone can categorize virtually anything as "community development," and use that to justify seizure of land, which very often gets taken for a tiny fraction of its real market value, and transfer of it to other private individuals who've padded the pockets of their local politicians.

This Supreme court has been making me sick for a long time. And it's just going to get worse, as we stuff it full of more and more reactionaries.

MelK

06-27-2005, 08:29 PM

The court should be dealing with important stuff, like this:

http://gallery.choad.tv/picKLE-cache/Funny/toyota_1_640.jpg

thatpfunk

06-27-2005, 08:48 PM

Random question for those who disagree with stealing music:

Should it be illegal to look at famous art on the internet if it is not a licensed site? Is it illegal if I use it for my own personal use- desktop background or my avatar? Is it ethical?

balkii

06-27-2005, 09:58 PM

<blockquote>In risposta di:<hr />
<blockquote>In risposta di:<hr />
Real artists are about the music and not about the money. They are going to have very wealthy lives I mean they make tons of money to do something that comes naturally to them.

This statement is SO far from the truth its ridiculous.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't doubt you think all musicans are all about making money but I don't think that is the case. Here is one example: Bob Schneider from Austin Texas. (Bobschneidermusic.com) He has sold more albums than any artists in within the city limits of Austin, selling only from one record store. He offers all of his music free to listen to on his website and also allows all of his live shows to be recorded and stored for public use (free legal download) on Archive.org. He is only one example there are many artists who do the same thing and never make the money like Metallica or DMB who complain about file-sharing. These people love to play music for people and like people to enjoy their music.

Please feel free to tell me how this is SO ridiculous.

[/ QUOTE ]

My bad, original quote should not have included the part about "being just about the music."

The statement "most musicians are very wealthy" is ABSURD.
and so is "doing something that comes natural to them." THAT IS SUCH BULLSHIT. Musicians work their asses off to learn how to play, and you obviously dont know [censored] about it so i suggest you STFU.

Dr. StrangeloveX

06-27-2005, 10:21 PM

No one seems to get that the cost of copying an album has virtually dropped to ZERO. Very soon you will be able to store and distribute the combined works of mankind for basically nothing. This is a huge step forward in the cultural evolution of humanity, and will result in a large improvement in quality of life for all of us. This result is worth the cost.

Intellectual property law is what must change, not file sharing.

Our goal as humans should be to make all our lives as rich as possible. This has meant in the past, and will require in the future, massive changes in society. Think of the luddites. RIAA+MPAA=Neo Luddites.

Say we harness the power of the sun. The price of producing and distributing pretty much ANYTHING will drop precipitously. Would you rather we protect ConAgra and ADM at the cost of leaving many hungry, when we could just as easily feed everyone? I suppose the analogy isn't so great, as these companies don't own intellectual property rights to FOOD but...Oh wait, they do.

Knightmare

06-28-2005, 12:50 AM

i think in order to understand the real problem here, a basic understanding of the technology itself must first be attained

"filesharing" is not a specific term; there are many methods and modes through which it can take place including bit torrent sites, various p2p clients, handing a cd you burned to a friend, etc.

the problem that the government, or more specifically, the media industry faces is that there is no infrastructure present in order to facilitate some type of control over the ever exploding "filesharing" craze (again i use the term loosely). You cant just "shut down"
a p2p client or arrest every single person who's ever burnt a cd.

Now an even bigger problem arises; as more and more people begin downloading and sharing their own files (and im not just talking about music - movies, computer programs, tv shows, video games, anything that can be represented digitally), the record labels, musicians, movie makers, software companies, etc. must all consider the upcoming change. Eventually, although it may take some time, all information will be able to be obtained digitally for free and then what? What happens when so many people begin to download so many songs and movies that revenues hit zero?

I steal music. It may or may not be wrong. Im not going to try and justify it. But the problem is that eventually so many people will be doing it that there will literally be null income for movie makers and recording artists. A compromise must be found.

Now to answer the original topic post: what do i think of the ruling? In regards to whom it affects - ridiculous. Those who develop programs which may or may not facilitate a means to share copyrighted digital information do not deserve to be punished for their users breaking the law (besides, you cant "close down" a true p2p). In regards to the rulings purpose - a move in the wrong direction. Not because i steal music, or because i think stealing music isnt wrong, because it is stealing after all. What the ruling is is wasted energy. You cant stop people from sharing digital information; its impossible, and therefore this is a waste of productivity. It is just delaying the inevitable and if someone really wanted to get something done, they should look for a solution to the inevitable problem.

just my thoughts. take it for what its worth.

ps
CollinEstes, learn how to spell - makes you sound a bit more educated

maryfield48

06-28-2005, 01:00 AM

[ QUOTE ]
CollinEstes, learn how to spell - makes you sound a bit more educated

[/ QUOTE ]

Chuckle.

RacersEdge

06-28-2005, 01:52 AM

[ QUOTE ]
You cant stop people from sharing digital information; its impossible,

[/ QUOTE ]

You could probably say this about every law that is enforced today. Can you stop people from speeding?

The SC found the company Grakster (or whatever) to be guilty of predatory practices in how it marketed it's product. The court is making a move to doel out harsh punishments for companies that behave this way.

BusterStacks

06-28-2005, 01:58 AM

[ QUOTE ]

The statement "most musicians are very wealthy" is ABSURD.
and so is "doing something that comes natural to them." THAT IS SUCH BULLSHIT. Musicians work their asses off to learn how to play, and you obviously dont know [censored] about it so i suggest you STFU.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, let me play devil's advocate on this one: Most musicians that are pirated are wealthy. In fact, the correlation between popularity (record sales) and frequency of theft should be obvious. Secondly, whether or not musicians work hard is not the issue. The fact is, musicians enjoy playing, and if they are good enough, get paid for it. If they aren't in it for the money, there is no problem, and if they are, then I have no problem stealing from them. The tone of your post is along the lines of the same people who say music theft is stealing food out of the mouths of musicians' children, which is ridiculous.

oreogod

06-28-2005, 02:19 AM

This has no reflection on anybody contributing to this argument...but the issue at hand, and the argument trailing it, makes me think of this pic I ran across a while back:

http://www.forumspile.com/Retard-Arguing.jpg

ptmusic

06-28-2005, 05:26 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I steal music because I don't want to pay for it. I'm not really concerned about whether it's right or wrong. Free > not free.

[/ QUOTE ]

You suck.

-ptmusic

ptmusic

06-28-2005, 05:29 AM

[ QUOTE ]
People always see this issue as being black and white. You pirate music, therefore you're a thief with no morals.

That's a really narrow-minded view.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're generalizing. It is theft, plain and simple. But there are degrees of morality; if someone steals music on the internet he is not necessarily devoid of any morals. He's just immoral on that issue, which is not the biggest moral issue in the world.

-ptmusic

ptmusic

06-28-2005, 05:31 AM

[ QUOTE ]
But I agree there should be ways to stop illegal trading without scarificing the legitimate trading.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like what you are saying here. Would that your other posts were as fair-minded.

-ptmusic

ptmusic

06-28-2005, 05:44 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The statement "most musicians are very wealthy" is ABSURD.
and so is "doing something that comes natural to them." THAT IS SUCH BULLSHIT. Musicians work their asses off to learn how to play, and you obviously dont know [censored] about it so i suggest you STFU.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, let me play devil's advocate on this one: Most musicians that are pirated are wealthy. In fact, the correlation between popularity (record sales) and frequency of theft should be obvious. Secondly, whether or not musicians work hard is not the issue. The fact is, musicians enjoy playing, and if they are good enough, get paid for it. If they aren't in it for the money, there is no problem, and if they are, then I have no problem stealing from them. The tone of your post is along the lines of the same people who say music theft is stealing food out of the mouths of musicians' children, which is ridiculous.

[/ QUOTE ]

You really are playing devil's advocate (although your tone suggests that it is really how you feel). You have no statistics to back up your claim that "most musicians that are pirated are wealthy." (How do you define wealthy?) And even if that were true and somehow provable, that still wouldn't justify stealing from them.

And worse, you believe that if they are indeed wealthy, then there is no problem to steal from them. But what about everyone else involved in making their records, promoting them, putting on their live shows, managing them, handling their accounting, etc.? I assure you (and this CAN be proven by looking up salary averages) that most of these people are NOT wealthy, by any definition of the word.

So by stealing from so-called "wealthy" artists, you are indeed hurting many regular, hard-working people who are, in fact, "in it" for the money BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO MAKE A LIVING JUST LIKE YOU AND ME.

If you're going to steal, then steal, but don't fool yourself into thinking that you're only stealing from care-free fun-lovin' play-all-the-time super rich rock stars.

-ptmusic

HesseJam

06-28-2005, 06:40 AM

[ QUOTE ]
The court should be dealing with important stuff, like this:

http://gallery.choad.tv/picKLE-cache/Funny/toyota_1_640.jpg

[/ QUOTE ]

LMAO!

But wait, how could she have been a Hooters waitress?

MelK

06-30-2005, 01:58 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The court should be dealing with important stuff, like this:

http://gallery.choad.tv/picKLE-cache/Funny/toyota_1_640.jpg

[/ QUOTE ]

LMAO!

But wait, how could she have been a Hooters waitress?

[/ QUOTE ]

Haven't you heard? They can't discriminate against employing the lesser endowed.

Why do you think she was competing so hard in this contest, instead of maximizing her customer tips by lingering at the tables? /images/graemlins/grin.gif