NationStates Jolt Archive

UN Delegates:

Please vote to approve the Napster Resolution. With the resolution passing, it will allow the free trade of music over the internet. This will not allow record labels to sue downloaders who use the music for private and personal use only. This will save the expensive coourt costs of these insane trials. What good does it do to sue a 12 year old who downloaded nursery rhymes?

Please vote for this resolution's approval so it can be brought to all UN members to vote on..

UN Delegates:

Please vote to approve the Napster Resolution. With the resolution passing, it will allow the free trade of music over the internet. This will not allow record labels to sue downloaders who use the music for private and personal use only. This will save the expensive coourt costs of these insane trials. What good does it do to sue a 12 year old who downloaded nursery rhymes?

Please vote for this resolution's approval so it can be brought to all UN members to vote on..

none, but it isn't wrong to sue people who are pretty much stealing hundreds of pounds/dollars/whatever off sites who have acquired new music without the consent of the people who made it....

Good proposal.
I've tried a silmilar proposal, but I hope this one passes.

We the People's Republic Of Amyth wonder why we shouldn't be stealing everything. Why should we just stop at music, when we can include computer software, movies and video's. Perhaps we could broaden this resolution to include merchandise displayed in front of the store?

A proposal to legalize piracy? Yo ho! Get me a wench and a parrot.



As for approving your proposal.... I am disinclined to acquiesce to your request. That means no.

Leave as it is, but if Napster wants to sue people for downloading...in this case...make Napster pay all court costs and fees. the "money they'll be getting back from stopping piracy" can more than cover this expense in the long run.

Leave as it is, but if Napster wants to sue people for downloading...in this case...make Napster pay all court costs and fees. the "money they'll be getting back from stopping piracy" can more than cover this expense in the long run.

I agree. The burden of proof has to go to the plantiff (or the prosecutor). Though record label companies do have the right to sue people for copyright infringement, they should pay all of the court fees if they lose, and half of the court fees if they win.

I approved your proposal. If we ban file sharing, let's also ban the VCR, the Xerox Machine, and the Library.
Keep up the good fight.
President Winphuk

Napster was just like a huge music library. Do you pay for the books you get from the library? I think not.

Napster was just like a huge music library. Do you pay for the books you get from the library? I think not.

You pay taxes and taxes pay for books, so yes the books are paid for unlike the music you download.

In order to gain my support for this, I would like to see all theft legallized. By eliminating all rights of ownership everywhere, anyone would be able to take anything they wanted, creating a freer society of love and togetherness...

Napster was just like a huge music library. Do you pay for the books you get from the library? I think not.

You pay taxes and taxes pay for books, so yes the books are paid for unlike the music you download.

But the books are only bought once and the taxes pay for the Library itself. You don't have to pay for each time you read the book.
It's the same as paying for the MP3s via monthy ISP bill.

UN Delegates:

Please vote to approve the Napster Resolution. With the resolution passing, it will allow the free trade of music over the internet. This will not allow record labels to sue downloaders who use the music for private and personal use only. This will save the expensive coourt costs of these insane trials. What good does it do to sue a 12 year old who downloaded nursery rhymes?

Please vote for this resolution's approval so it can be brought to all UN members to vote on..

You want to legalize stealing? Forget it. NO! I will go down fighting this. Go RIAA. No one should be able to get away with stealing. The law is the law, no matter how much 'safety in numbers' there is. I'd like to see every person sharing music illegally sued myself. This is an embaressment to our laws. It costs companies millions upon millions of dollars in lost revenue every year.

Napster was just like a huge music library. Do you pay for the books you get from the library? I think not.

You pay taxes and taxes pay for books, so yes the books are paid for unlike the music you download.

And it is impossible as of now to accuratly tax music downloaded on the Internet. It's simply unfeasable.

P2P is the greatest thing to happen for the music industry and the fans!
The big record companies have always been lagging in technology and have fought, FM Radio, Cassetes, VCRs, and even Piano Rolls. This is just history repeating itself. When the music industry finds out that they can't shut it down they will be forced to use P2P for their advantage, and this a great opportunty as they have already jump started with I-Tunes, Rhapsody, PressPlay ect... and competition will eventually drive costs down and offer a quality product that people can purchase in the comfort of their own homes.
In order for this industry to evolve, prototype models are needed such as kazaa, morpheus, ect.
To simply tag it stealing, may I encourage you to take a more far-sighted approach.With every new music technology, Congress always had to draft a new set of copyright laws to conform to changing technology.

As I've said in my telegram replies (and as some of you have said here), the downloading of music files for personal and private use is no different than taping a show on television rather than buying the product in a store on VHS or DVD.

Delegates, please place your endoresements.

P2P is the greatest thing to happen for the music industry and the fans!
The big record companies have always been lagging in technology and have fought, FM Radio, Cassetes, VCRs, and even Piano Rolls. This is just history repeating itself. When the music industry finds out that they can't shut it down they will be forced to use P2P for their advantage, and this a great opportunty as they have already jump started with I-Tunes, Rhapsody, PressPlay ect... and competition will eventually drive costs down and offer a quality product that people can purchase in the comfort of their own homes.
In order for this industry to evolve, prototype models are needed such as kazaa, morpheus, ect.
To simply tag it stealing, may I encourage you to take a more far-sighted approach.With every new music technology, Congress always had to draft a new set of copyright laws to conform to changing technology.

With music downloads, you're actually giving MILLIONS of people access to totally free music that would otherwise cost about $15 in the store. VHS isn't stealing on that massive of a scale, because you can only show one movie to so many friends. Recording television shows isn't so huge, because I don't know anyone that buys boxed sets of television show episodes anyway, so no one is losing money. No, this is buying ONE CD and allowing MILLIONS of people get an exact copy of that CD for free and save it to their own computer. Technically, all you'd need is one CD and the whole world would have the song eventually.

Stealing.

Let's say you were to make p2p programs that made you pay for every song. What stops one person from buying a song, and then putting it on a free p2p program and sharing it with everyone on there? Or what about putting that mp3 on their website and letting people download it? It's still stealing.

Napster was just like a huge music library. Do you pay for the books you get from the library? I think not.

You pay taxes and taxes pay for books, so yes the books are paid for unlike the music you download.

But the books are only bought once and the taxes pay for the Library itself. You don't have to pay for each time you read the book.
It's the same as paying for the MP3s via monthy ISP bill.

This would be true is the ISP bill went to the Recording Companies and not to completely different companies

As I've said in my telegram replies (and as some of you have said here), the downloading of music files for personal and private use is no different than taping a show on television rather than buying the product in a store on VHS or DVD.

Delegates, please place your endoresements.

The taping of television is different beacuse it is a different economic model. The television companies are giving their product away and selling advertising space to advertisers who feel that you might want to buy thier product. You are not stealing by recording tv because they are giving it to you. Music on the other hand is usually done differently. Usually when a new albulm comes out the record comapnies release one or two tracks onto the radio in the hopes that you will buy the whole albulm. When you download the rest of the albulm off the internet it is stealing because the copyright holders are not giving you permission for you to take it. There is a difference, just try your defense if you steal something from the store and say "they were giving out free samples"

As I've said in my telegram replies (and as some of you have said here), the downloading of music files for personal and private use is no different than taping a show on television rather than buying the product in a store on VHS or DVD.

Delegates, please place your endoresements.

no, its not....TV shows, which you record, are for public viewing....and you have to pay for the TV license in the first place to watch the shows....music is sold to the public, not just shown like the TV programs....besides, like i said earlier, the companies allowing downloading of music for the most part do not have permission for free downloading, whereas the viewer of TV does....

Edit: i think amyth put it better (above), but theres my opinion.....

Its stealing. There is no doubt about that! It Is Stealing.

Before all videos, there is a warning, that warns all from making profit off this tape by making copies and selling them or showing it and charging fees unless you have the company's/owner's consent. They have a right to prosecute if you do not follow this

So what? Some say. The record companies are rich enough.
That may be true, maybe not. If you steal from the companies, the companies will lose money (obviously) and then have to cut back. YOu aren't just stealing from them, but from the technicians, janitors and all others that work for these companies! If the records c. cut back, who is going to be hurt? Not the artists! The technicians and janitors!

The music industry is a job soucre for thousands of people!

~Korunida~

Also, p2p file sharing is effecting CD sales (As any person can tell you). Sales on CD's has dropped by thirty-one percent! And that was even with the price drop this summer.


Any way you slice the cake, this isn't something for the UN. That is why this has never gotten to resolution stage. The UN doesn't decide thing slike these. They can't make international law binding to all peoples in the world. Read the UN Charter! They aren't suyppose to be able to do it! Let each nation for itself decide whether or not this is right or wrong and should be legalized or outlawed. But, don't put it in the NS UN. It doesn't belong there.

~Korunida~

Napster was just like a huge music library. Do you pay for the books you get from the library? I think not.

You pay taxes and taxes pay for books, so yes the books are paid for unlike the music you download.

But the books are only bought once and the taxes pay for the Library itself. You don't have to pay for each time you read the book.
It's the same as paying for the MP3s via monthy ISP bill.

So... the music labels have nothing to complain about because you are paying your ISP bill? That theory would work if the labels were receiving a penny of that money you are paying your ISP. But guess what, they're not.

Napster was just like a huge music library. Do you pay for the books you get from the library? I think not.

The Libraries are supported by the government which is not a business and is non-profit. (believe it or not) They don't expect to make money from their libraries.

The Record companies pay to have them made, they should be paid when you listen to them. They are a profit-based business, nothing wrong with that.

~Korunida~

OOC

I d/load music, and then if I like the artist enough, I'll go and buy the CD. Without P2P sharing, I would never have heard about a lot of artists whose CDs I own. I'm not going to buy a CD if I don't know what it will be like, and by downloading songs beforehand I can see if it is worth buying. I realize that a lot of people simply d/load and burn their own CDs, but not everyone does.

We in Gurthark, who are generally inclined to view large corporations ith suspicion, hate to come down on their side, but we're afraid these are the facts:

1. The music labels *own* the songs. The musicians who created them signed those copyrights over to them. I know the musicians often get raw deals (and I think more should be done to prevent this), but the way things are now, the songs, that were the original, rightful property of their creators, were signed over to other companies. There's no way to get around this fact without either denying artists the right to their creations or making these rights completely nontransferable. Both of these seem like a very bad idea.

2. Owners of intellectual property can *choose* to sell a public broadcast liscence or the equivalent. Publishers sell books to the library (for more than the cost of the same book in a bookstore, by the way) with explicit permission for them to loan it out. Studios sell films to television (for a lot more than the tape would cost in a video store) with explicit permission for them to broadcast them--and the same with songs to radio. Labels do *not* sell you a CD with permission to put it on-line. They could. Maybe it would even be a good idea for them (free marketing, etc). But they don't, and that's their right.

3. You can tape television and watch it again because you have the right to "time-shift" things that have been given to you. Similarly, you should be allowed to make copies of CDs and rip songs off of them *for your own use*. That does *not* mean you have a distribution license--that stays with the television station that got it. (You can't send out copies of taped TV shows, either, but it's not really worth anyone's while to prosecute that.)

Note that this doesn't mean the record labels are entirely in the right here. Some pieces of law that they have lobbied for--most noticeably the United States' DMCA, are *dreadful* laws, serious violations of both free speech and the right to privacy. And it's not clear that their current tactics--strong-arming ISPs into handing out users' personal information--aren't almost as bad. But that does *not* mean that the behavior that inspired these tactics--stealing music--is acceptable behavior.

(Similarly, international and American copyright law are being seriously corrupted--copyrighted works *should* be allowed to eventually pass into the public domain, and some companies [Disney especially] are doing their darndest to see that they don't. But that doesn't mean we should applaud everyone who breaks copyrights, or drop them altogether.)

Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Gurthark

Napster was just like a huge music library. Do you pay for the books you get from the library? I think not.

The Libraries are supported by the government which is not a business and is non-profit. (believe it or not) They don't expect to make money from their libraries.

The Record companies pay to have them made, they should be paid when you listen to them. They are a profit-based business, nothing wrong with that.

~Korunida~

What about the publishers and authors. How many people are reading their books without paying for them?
File sharing is non for profit too. Why should it be considered different from as library?

Napster was just like a huge music library. Do you pay for the books you get from the library? I think not.

You pay taxes and taxes pay for books, so yes the books are paid for unlike the music you download.

But the books are only bought once and the taxes pay for the Library itself. You don't have to pay for each time you read the book.
It's the same as paying for the MP3s via monthy ISP bill.

So... the music labels have nothing to complain about because you are paying your ISP bill? That theory would work if the labels were receiving a penny of that money you are paying your ISP. But guess what, they're not.

Well,guess what? Are the authors getting paid each time you crack open a book from the Library? I think not. Why should it be any different.
There's music you can borrow from Libraries too. You can take them home and rip them to your hard drive. Ohmygod what a travesty.

You want to legalize stealing? Forget it. NO! I will go down fighting this. Go RIAA. No one should be able to get away with stealing. The law is the law, no matter how much 'safety in numbers' there is. I'd like to see every person sharing music illegally sued myself. This is an embaressment to our laws. It costs companies millions upon millions of dollars in lost revenue every year.

Actually that´s not entirely true. You see, in real life I´m running a record label so I´m having a somewhat unique insight here. Fact is that CD sales seen total are going up since filesharing started. Fact is also that people, since they can check out music first are more chosey compared to times when they had to wait until a video came on MTV.
It´s true, sales of RIAA organised artists are going down. Why ? Several reasons. People who hear music first are less likely to fall for advertising. People also get to hear much more music through filesharing. Most of the music out there is independent and not organised in the RIAA. So when I buy some garage band through the net instead of yet another Madonna (insert random plastic popstar here) album I buy but my purchase doesn´t show up in the statistics anymore. Thus giving the RIAA reason for sleepless nights...
Of course there ARE people out there who´s entire music collection consists of mp3s on CDRs and who neither have bought an original CD in their entire life nor plan to but they are an absolute minority. Trust me, I know. I run a florishing business and I´m completely independent of multi million dollar advertising campaigns such as exercised by RIAA members on a regular basis.
Bottom line is, RIAA labels see that their grip on the market is failing because customers actually get to chose what they like and of course they can not let that happen. The quasi monopoly must be defended at all cost.

You want to legalize stealing? Forget it. NO! I will go down fighting this. Go RIAA. No one should be able to get away with stealing. The law is the law, no matter how much 'safety in numbers' there is. I'd like to see every person sharing music illegally sued myself. This is an embaressment to our laws. It costs companies millions upon millions of dollars in lost revenue every year.

Actually that´s not entirely true. You see, in real life I´m running a record label so I´m having a somewhat unique insight here. Fact is that CD sales seen total are going up since filesharing started. Fact is also that people, since they can check out music first are more chosey compared to times when they had to wait until a video came on MTV.
It´s true, sales of RIAA organised artists are going down. Why ? Several reasons. People who hear music first are less likely to fall for advertising. People also get to hear much more music through filesharing. Most of the music out there is independent and not organised in the RIAA. So when I buy some garage band through the net instead of yet another Madonna (insert random plastic popstar here) album I buy but my purchase doesn´t show up in the statistics anymore. Thus giving the RIAA reason for sleepless nights...
Of course there ARE people out there who´s entire music collection consists of mp3s on CDRs and who neither have bought an original CD in their entire life nor plan to but they are an absolute minority. Trust me, I know. I run a florishing business and I´m completely independent of multi million dollar advertising campaigns such as exercised by RIAA members on a regular basis.
Bottom line is, RIAA labels see that their grip on the market is failing because customers actually get to chose what they like and of course they can not let that happen. The quasi monopoly must be defended at all cost.

But this is the RIAA specifically we're dealing with. The RIAA is known for thier bad music. Your record label probably doesn't invest in the huge pop stars other HUGE recording labels invest in, but it probably invests in music more people can really get into. The RIAA sells through hype, and lots of it. You can sell good, but maybe not as well known, music. The RIAA really can't improve their sellings from where they were at their peak, but you have room to go up. You can do this because of the reasons you just gave. People can hear the music of lesser known bands for free and will come to find some of it is good stuff. Then they'll go buy it and your sellings effectivly go up.

In the RIAAs case, they have nowhere to go but down when people hear their music for free.

But that still doesn't make stealing right. If you want to delete the music from your computer after listening to it and deciding it's bad, fine, do it. If you want to go out and buy the CD after determining it's good, fine, do it. But don't just burn the music onto blank CDs and leave it at that. It's STEALING, be it from your recording label or from the labels of the RIAA. The only way around the 'quasi-monoploy' is the illegal way. It's working, too. But that doesn't make it right. I believe in upholding the law over overthrowing the RIAA.

Well,guess what? Are the authors getting paid each time you crack open a book from the Library? I think not. Why should it be any different.

Library books cost a LOT more then books from a bookstore, first. I think your average childrens book going for $5 at the book store costs around $16 for the library to purchase. It only goes up from there. Plus those libraries, as said above, are given explicit permission to share those books. Every time a book is lost, stolen, or badly damaged you get to pay that $16 back to the library so they can buy another copy. More money for the author.

There's music you can borrow from Libraries too. You can take them home and rip them to your hard drive. Ohmygod what a travesty.

Libraries have permission to share that music. You do not have permission to share music from a CD.

Tell you what, if you want to see a music library so bad, why not petition to the government to start one? I'm sure that they'll see the usefulness of being able to check out a bunch of rap CDs for 5 days. In any case, you find a building, get government funding, buy CDs for $30 a piece, and be ready to eat quite a bit of profit on replacing those CDs that get 'lost'. Then you can attain your goal of free music for everyone.

You didn´t understand. Whatz I mean is that file sharing is not stealing because it let´s sales grow. Not just mine but sales overall. The RIAA is just trying to protect their territory like the dinosaur they are. They fear the challenge because they KNOW they only sell crap.

So they outlaw everyones right to choose. What they do has nothing to do with artists rights, it´s affirmative action to protect their own jobs and since politicans worldwide are on their payroll they go along with it.

Napster was just like a huge music library. Do you pay for the books you get from the library? I think not.

You pay taxes and taxes pay for books, so yes the books are paid for unlike the music you download.

But the books are only bought once and the taxes pay for the Library itself. You don't have to pay for each time you read the book.
It's the same as paying for the MP3s via monthy ISP bill.

So... the music labels have nothing to complain about because you are paying your ISP bill? That theory would work if the labels were receiving a penny of that money you are paying your ISP. But guess what, they're not.

Well,guess what? Are the authors getting paid each time you crack open a book from the Library? I think not. Why should it be any different.
There's music you can borrow from Libraries too. You can take them home and rip them to your hard drive. Ohmygod what a travesty.

your absolutely right, it shouldnt be any different....we should have to pay for both....and indeed we do....

the authors are paid for every copy sold to a library - and their books go to a lot of libraries - and we pay for those books through taxes....

we pay for the music by buying the CDs.....

see, we pay for both....

and if you think we shouldnt pay for either, then whether or not you pay taxes is a different topic.....

I'd like to point somthing out. The bulk of mp3's online are in crappy 128 or 92kbps . thats just slightly better sound quality than you achive with a.m. radio. next, the vast bulk of the mp3's online are pop culture garbage that we are bombarded with daily. its inescapable. in addition, said songs are broadcast daily on digital cable, sattelite radio and regular radio. therfore, all of the said mp3's _could_ easily have been recorded directly to a hard drive and encoded into mp3 format from one of those sources. then if the mp3 was lost due to deletion or hard drive failure, it could be restored from a p2p service. unless the person downloading the mp3s was burning cd's for actual sale i fail to see where riaa has a point. lucky for them , the law does not have to make sense, and lawyers are very creative.

notice very few actual artists actually agree with riaa? ever look at the actual costs involved with making a music cd? its about 5 cents. the cost of vinyl( records) or tapes is significantly higher. yet, cd's cost more than tapes or vinyl. this is so riaa and the major lables can continue to shortchange both consumer and artist to line their own pockets and continue their strangle hold on the music industry. the delivery of formulaic pop crap at high prices while convincing the public that they really do want to hear yet another lame boy band is the name of the game. there is a really interesting article floating around online written by some of the members of the klf; it details -exactly- how to write, produce and get to market a one hit wonder lp. once you have read it, and understand the formula involved, and the total LACK of talent involved, you can easily see the pattern in pop music.

if all the top echelon members of riaa and the major record lables died in a tragic accident, the world would be a better place.

You want to legalize stealing? Forget it. NO! I will go down fighting this. Go RIAA. No one should be able to get away with stealing. The law is the law, no matter how much 'safety in numbers' there is. I'd like to see every person sharing music illegally sued myself. This is an embaressment to our laws. It costs companies millions upon millions of dollars in lost revenue every year.

Actually that´s not entirely true. You see, in real life I´m running a record label so I´m having a somewhat unique insight here. Fact is that CD sales seen total are going up since filesharing started. Fact is also that people, since they can check out music first are more chosey compared to times when they had to wait until a video came on MTV.
It´s true, sales of RIAA organised artists are going down. Why ? Several reasons. People who hear music first are less likely to fall for advertising. People also get to hear much more music through filesharing. Most of the music out there is independent and not organised in the RIAA. So when I buy some garage band through the net instead of yet another Madonna (insert random plastic popstar here) album I buy but my purchase doesn´t show up in the statistics anymore. Thus giving the RIAA reason for sleepless nights...
Of course there ARE people out there who´s entire music collection consists of mp3s on CDRs and who neither have bought an original CD in their entire life nor plan to but they are an absolute minority. Trust me, I know. I run a florishing business and I´m completely independent of multi million dollar advertising campaigns such as exercised by RIAA members on a regular basis.
Bottom line is, RIAA labels see that their grip on the market is failing because customers actually get to chose what they like and of course they can not let that happen. The quasi monopoly must be defended at all cost.

Thank you!!!!

Straight from the horses mouth! Listen and learn!

Whether it's Libraries, booksharing mobiles, VCRs, file sharing or what have you, copying is copying and sharing is sharing whether it's one item or millions of items.Sharing and copying is not inherently illegal.True piracy is selling various published items for a profit without giving the artists their fair share, but with P2P nobody is making money.
You can't penalize technology just because some greedy record execs can't keep up with it.

Whether it's Libraries, booksharing mobiles, VCRs, file sharing or what have you, copying is copying and sharing is sharing whether it's one item or millions of items.Sharing and copying is not inherently illegal.True piracy is selling various published items for a profit without giving the artists their fair share, but with P2P nobody is making money.
You can't penalize technology just because some greedy record execs can't keep up with it.

no, but you can penalise the people who deliberately use this technology illegally to take what isn't theirs to take, who know that it isn't theirs to take, and who refuse to obtain the (music) legally....

Whether it's Libraries, booksharing mobiles, VCRs, file sharing or what have you, copying is copying and sharing is sharing whether it's one item or millions of items.Sharing and copying is not inherently illegal.True piracy is selling various published items for a profit without giving the artists their fair share, but with P2P nobody is making money.
You can't penalize technology just because some greedy record execs can't keep up with it.

no, but you can penalise the people who deliberately use this technology illegally to take what isn't theirs to take, who know that it isn't theirs to take, and who refuse to obtain the (music) legally....

Your not taking anything. Your making a digital duplication of something for your own use. Nobody is paying an out of pocket expense, and a large majority of file sharers do go to the store to purchase official merchandise.
There is a big difference in quality between MP3s and CDs that you purchase at the store.

Oh, please! You don't actually believe this crap! Barbarian Wrath is in NO way associated with a record label. No one that runs a business will claim that taking it without paying doesn't constitute stealing. Sorry to disappoint you people. And I have never seen a more inaccurate analogy to affirmative action. In case you missed it- yes, I am calling you a liar.

Oh, please! You don't actually believe this crap! Barbarian Wrath is in NO way associated with a record label. No one that runs a business will claim that taking it without paying doesn't constitute stealing. Sorry to disappoint you people. And I have never seen a more inaccurate analogy to affirmative action. In case you missed it- yes, I am calling you a liar.

On the contrary, independent artists are far more likely to increase their sales if people find out about their music through P2P sharing. Otherwise, they would only have a limited means of "advertising" their music. A large chunk of the CDs that I own (or plan on buying) are of local and independent artists that I would not have even heard about if it hadn't been through programs like napster and kazaa.

What happens if this peer to peer sharing is based in a non-UN member nation? Are we supposed to crush them?

What happens if this peer to peer sharing is based in a non-UN member nation? Are we supposed to crush them?

I think you got it confused. It's a proposal to legalize it. Not ban it.

Someone said it was bad. . .

My nation consisiting of a large entertainment industry would suffer from such a bill. Download Mp3s is downloading Communism. Communists are evil and therefore must die.

I would support this simply because it forces the music industry to fix the problem on thier own. Businesses need to stop whining to government to fix thier problems and do it on thier own, if they would have done that from the start they would have this problem fixed by now and wouldnt have wasted so much money in congress.

Although, in the end, you can't really sue for copywrite infringement, because if you just changed one pixel of music it's not the same song. And technically there is no way to prove beyond a doubt what artist or company the Mp3 was from, which confuses me to no end on how they can even have trials. :?

Oh, please! You don't actually believe this crap! Barbarian Wrath is in NO way associated with a record label. No one that runs a business will claim that taking it without paying doesn't constitute stealing. Sorry to disappoint you people. And I have never seen a more inaccurate analogy to affirmative action. In case you missed it- yes, I am calling you a liar.

Well, why don´t you check it out ?

www.BarbarianWrath.org

Happy now ?

We in Gurthark fully support Barbarian Wrath's right to run a record label, and wish them all success.

We agree that file-sharing is a great way for Barbarian Wrath to market songs, and agree that many listeners will likely go on to pay for their products.

We agree that file-sharing would probably be a great way for major record labels to market their songs. We seriously doubt their claims that file-sharing is responsible for their loss of revenue; if it is, it's in large part evidence for the fact that the product being marketed is empty.

However, embarking on a marketing campaign is a company's choice. Barbarian Wrath has given permission for people to share their songs. The large labels have not. So sharing Barbarian Wrath's music is fine; sharing big label music is not. It's as simple as that, and has nothing to do with whether the big labels would be *wise* to let you share their stuff.

In the best of all possible worlds, people, unable to get free access to major label music and wanting a chance to try before they buy, will begin to patronize smaller labels in greater numbers and leave the larger compaies to rot. As pro-file-sharing companies take over the industry, people will be able to share files without anybody stealing.

This will probably have the added benefit of increasing the overall quality of music.

Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

hey dumbasses....

im sure you HOPE this resolution passes
im sure that if it does it may be a huge improvement in your 'reality'

What happens in the nation states UN doesn't mean dick in either nation states or the real world.

[OOC:

You mean...this is a GAME!? :cry: :cry: Oh, whatever shall we do?]

Oh, please! You don't actually believe this crap! Barbarian Wrath is in NO way associated with a record label. No one that runs a business will claim that taking it without paying doesn't constitute stealing. Sorry to disappoint you people. And I have never seen a more inaccurate analogy to affirmative action. In case you missed it- yes, I am calling you a liar.

Well, why don´t you check it out ?

www.BarbarianWrath.org

Happy now ?

Cool site!

Oh, please! You don't actually believe this crap! Barbarian Wrath is in NO way associated with a record label. No one that runs a business will claim that taking it without paying doesn't constitute stealing. Sorry to disappoint you people. And I have never seen a more inaccurate analogy to affirmative action. In case you missed it- yes, I am calling you a liar.

Well, why don´t you check it out ?

www.BarbarianWrath.org

Happy now ?

Cool site!

Thanks :-) I wasn´t really planning to bring my private life in here but I hate getting called a liar...