NationStates Jolt Archive

I think its time to get some more opinions. Since my old topic is obsolete that I created. I'm creating this because the Abandonia topic brought up some good points before it was closed. Anyway the rules of this topic are no links to warez or games sites where you can DL.

I'll just copy and paste what I said in my old topic.

Who thinks its wrong to download? I'm talking about music, games, movies, TV and whatever else.

I honestly have no problem with it and I know a lot of my friends don't have a problem with it. But there are many people who think its wrong.

I just want to get your opinions on it.

Edit here's a link to the old topic. If you want to read it http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=473470

Yeah, it's wrong. It's stealing. Sure the recording companies are gouging you on the price of a CD, but it's still stealing. A Rolex isn't really worth the tens of thousands they charge, but I don't have a right to rob a jewelery store.

Jesus would be a filesharer.

It's only illegal if you get caught. ;)

Jesus would be a filesharer.

Since when do unemployed drifters have computers with internet connections?

I really think it depends. Unfortunately, US copyright law is really screwy and puts up some fairly ridiculous barriers to the free distribution so I tend to take a more positive stance towards "illegal" downloading.

That being said, I do believe that there should be some limits to what kind of material can be downloaded and distributed; there has to be a balance between being allowed to download a song or movie for you and your friends and someone downloading a song or movie and producing pirated copies of the material for financial gain.

Ultimately, it's whether or not the downloads are being used to pirate copyrighted material for profit that determines its propriety in my opinion.

Downloading things while you *know* they are offered for download without the copyright holders consent is of course no different from obtaining items you know are stolen. You are not the thief yourself, but you are not without blame.

Offering things for upload without permission is a crime. It does not matter that the owner does not lose money - could even earn money since you might be persuaded to buy stuff from them after listening - since you are doing something with their property that they don't want.

There is after all no law against artists being idiots and hurting their own wallets.

I think its time to get some more opinions. Since my old topic is obsolete that I created. I'm creating this because the Abandonia topic brought up some good points before it was closed. Anyway the rules of this topic are no links to warez or games sites where you can DL.

I'll just copy and paste what I said in my old topic.

Who thinks its wrong to download? I'm talking about music, games, movies, TV and whatever else.

I honestly have no problem with it and I know a lot of my friends don't have a problem with it. But there are many people who think its wrong.

I just want to get your opinions on it.

So going by that "logic:rolleyes: :rolleyes: , you think it's quite alright to go to a gas station and fill up your tank and then just drive off, or to go to the gorcery store, fill a cart up with food and then take the cart out to your car, empty said cart into your car and drive off, not to mention walking into a restaurant, ordering and eating food, and then walking out, all without paying.

Nice.

To quote actress Carrie Fisher, I'd call you a ****, but you lack the depth and charm.

Since when do unemployed drifters have computers with internet connections?

Do you think that the Son of God (tm) needs a computer to access the internet?

Besides, there are internet cafés.

Jesus would be a filesharer.

The Republicans would disagree ;)

I hate the idea of intellectual property rights, and most of the time I have no problem with downloading music.

However, I guess I can see some circumstances where it would not be acceptable - when it is denying needed income to a small company or an obscure artist, for instance.

Tbh, I've never really been a fan of the idea of "Property" anyway, so I suppose I don't see anything wrong with File Sharing.

I hate the idea of intellectual property rights

Why ? I admit it would be a nice world where scientists, inventors and artists would be so respected by the community they could create wonderful things without needing compensation - but we are not living in that world. Many Creators need food, recognition and like a say in what happens with their creation.

And since they are the ones doing the creating.. who are we to tell them otherwise ?

So going by that "logic:rolleyes: :rolleyes: , you think it's quite alright to go to a gas station and fill up your tank and then just drive off, or to go to the gorcery store, fill a cart up with food and then take the cart out to your car, empty said cart into your car and drive off, not to mention walking into a restaurant, ordering and eating food, and then walking out, all without paying.

Nice.

To quote actress Carrie Fisher, I'd call you a ****, but you lack the depth and charm.

Stealing something physically and downloading something online are not the same thing. :rolleyes:

I hate the idea of intellectual property rights, and most of the time I have no problem with downloading music.

However, I guess I can see some circumstances where it would not be acceptable - when it is denying needed income to a small company or an obscure artist, for instance.

So the artists and the company matter but fuck the poor bastard who spends eight hours per day printing CD liner notes or burning CDs in a factory? His family doesn't need to eat.

Tbh, I've never really been a fan of the idea of "Property" anyway, so I suppose I don't see anything wrong with File Sharing.

I guess you don't really care for the idea of an "economy" or "jobs" either.

Why ? I admit it would be a nice world where scientists, inventors and artists would be so respected by the community they could create wonderful things without needing compensation - but we are not living in that world.

Who said anything about not giving them compensation? All I want to deny them is ownership.

Many Creators need food,

Absolutely. They should be given it.

recognition

They will get it faster without intellectual property rights.

and like a say in what happens with their creation.

Why? How can anyone justifiably own a collection of sounds, or an image, or anything that is infinitely reproducible?

And since they are the ones doing the creating.. who are we to tell them otherwise ?

If they want to keep their creations private, they can. But they have no right to both make them public and restrict our capability to use and distribute them freely.

I guess you don't really care for the idea of an "economy" or "jobs" either.

People who DL mostly would never have bought the CD, movie, game etc in the first place. File sharing is also a good way for people's works to get around.

I have bought CD's that I enjoyed after downloading them.

Stealing something physically and downloading something online are not the same thing. :rolleyes:

Technically you're still taking something without paying for it so yes it is. Just easier to do it online is all:p

http://home.maine.rr.com/waassaap/Forum%20Pictures/fasterdl.jpg

Jesus would be a filesharer.

Only of what he owned. He said to sell what YOU own and give to the poor. He never said to take from someone else's property.

So the artists and the company matter but fuck the poor bastard who spends eight hours per day printing CD liner notes or burning CDs in a factory? His family doesn't need to eat.

Putting people in useless jobs is the worst solution to unemployment.

Only of what he owned. He said to sell what YOU own and give to the poor. He never said to take from someone else's property.

I didn't realize Jesus sung songs. :p

Stealing something physically and downloading something online are not the same thing. :rolleyes:

Why not ?

Seriously - there seem to be two main sides in this debate.
One is that of the Creators, the people that actually create all the fancy stuff that other people want. Artists, Inventors, Financers, Sponsors and so on and so on. They believe it is[1].

The other one is that of the "non-Creators" that wish to obtain the Creators stuff. They believe it isn't - and that their opinion is far more important than that of the people who actually did all the work.
I cannot help but wonder how on earth they believe they can make that stick.

Footnote:
[1] Some believe it isn't of course. But downloading their stuff is not illegal ;)

So going by that "logic:rolleyes: :rolleyes: , you think it's quite alright to go to a gas station and fill up your tank and then just drive off, or to go to the gorcery store, fill a cart up with food and then take the cart out to your car, empty said cart into your car and drive off, not to mention walking into a restaurant, ordering and eating food, and then walking out, all without paying.

Nice.

To quote actress Carrie Fisher, I'd call you a ****, but you lack the depth and charm.

You are forgetting something: The restaurant, the gas station, the grocery, they all work with material goods. The artist has no financial loss. He, she or they can even profit from filesharing. For example: no one outside of Cologne knows the Wise Guys. If I now uploaded their music via P2P, people could listen to them, who never heard of them before.

What I mean: the topic is not one-sided as people claim it is. I think however legalisation of P2P for personal use only would help society to a certain point. At least if it is used together with a 'flatrate for culture' a monthly fee per private internet connection, which compensates the artists to a certain point.

Putting people in useless jobs is the worst solution to unemployment.

Nearly every job is useless if you can steal what they produce instead of buying it. Shit, if I could hijack trucks from Merck I would never need a pharmacist again. Does that make pharmacists useless?

it's wrong because it's illegal, if you don't like a law work to change it, don't just go around breaking it because 'it's not fair' that's idiotic.

You are forgetting something: The restaurant, the gas station, the grocery, they all work with material goods. The artist has no financial loss.
Well, you know, aside from the time they spent writing the lyrics, composing the music and molesting their guitars. Time that could have been better spent working at Burger King if the only people who listen to their music just take it for free.
That, and the small matter of the investment that went into acquiring/borrowing the recording devices that they used, purchasing advertising, etc.
So, yeah, aside from all that money that was spent to produce the CD, there isn't any financial loss involved.

it's wrong because it's illegal, if you don't like a law work to change it, don't just go around breaking it because 'it's not fair' that's idiotic.

Well I'm probably just biased. I've been DLing for almost 10 whole years. 2007 will mark my 10th.

Why not ?

Seriously - there seem to be two main sides in this debate.
One is that of the Creators, the people that actually create all the fancy stuff that other people want. Artists, Inventors, Financers, Sponsors and so on and so on. They believe it is[1].

The other one is that of the "non-Creators" that wish to obtain the Creators stuff. They believe it isn't - and that their opinion is far more important than that of the people who actually did all the work.
I cannot help but wonder how on earth they believe they can make that stick.

Footnote:
[1] Some believe it isn't of course. But downloading their stuff is not illegal ;)


I guess some people need to read the parable of the Little Red Hen.

Well, you know, aside from the time they spent writing the lyrics, composing the music and molesting their guitars. Time that could have been better spent working at Burger King if the only people who listen to their music just take it for free.
That, and the small matter of the investment that went into acquiring/borrowing the recording devices that they used, purchasing advertising, etc.
So, yeah, aside from all that money that was spent to produce the CD, there isn't any financial loss involved.


Artists make shit when it comes to CD sells. They make all their money from concerts.

Artists make shit when it comes to CD sells. They make all their money from concerts.

So the working stiff who burns the CDs or prints the liner notes still doesn't matter. It's all about the artists, the company and the cheap ass listener.

I guess some people need to read the parable of the Little Red Hen.
:confused:

:confused:
For your reading pleasure:


One day as the Little Red Hen was scratching in a field, she found a grain of wheat.

"This wheat should be planted," she said. "Who will plant this grain of wheat?"
"Not I," said the Duck.
"Not I," said the Cat.
"Not I," said the Dog.

"Then I will," said the Little Red Hen. And she did.

Soon the wheat grew to be tall and yellow.

"The wheat is ripe," said the Little Red Hen. "Who will cut the wheat?"
"Not I," said the Duck.
"Not I," said the Cat.
"Not I," said the Dog.

"Then I will," said the Little Red Hen. And she did.

When the wheat was cut, the Little Red Hen said, "Who will thresh the wheat?"

"Not I," said the Duck.
"Not I," said the Cat.
"Not I," said the Dog.

"Then I will," said the Little Red Hen. And she did.

When the wheat was threshed, the Little Red Hen said, "Who will take this wheat to the mill?"

"Not I," said the Duck.
"Not I," said the Cat.
"Not I," said the Dog.

"Then I will," said the Little Red Hen. And she did.

She took the wheat to the mill and had it ground into flour. Then she said, "Who will make this flour into bread?"

"Not I," said the Duck.
"Not I," said the Cat.
"Not I," said the Dog.

"Then I will," said the Little Red Hen. And she did.

She made and baked the bread. Then she said, "Who will eat this bread?"

"Oh! I will," said the Duck.
"And I will," said the Cat.
"And I will," said the Dog.

"No, No!" said the Little Red Hen. "I will do that." And she did.

The attitude of Duck, Cat and Dog is very similar to that of many people here. They contributed nothing to the creation, but they do wish to have a slice. Regardless of what the hard workers want.

it's wrong because it's illegal, if you don't like a law work to change it, don't just go around breaking it because 'it's not fair' that's idiotic.

I am member of the Pirate Party of Germany because I want to change the copyright laws*. People often forget that there is the possibility of political activity.

*among others. I actually want to change a lot of things in the same way as the pirates want to.

Nearly every job is useless if you can steal what they produce instead of buying it. Shit, if I could hijack trucks from Merck I would never need a pharmacist again. Does that make pharmacists useless?

If hijacking trucks were a viable means of distribution, yes. Unfortunately, unlike music exchange, it is not.

Well, you know, aside from the time they spent writing the lyrics, composing the music and molesting their guitars. Time that could have been better spent working at Burger King if the only people who listen to their music just take it for free.
That, and the small matter of the investment that went into acquiring/borrowing the recording devices that they used, purchasing advertising, etc.
So, yeah, aside from all that money that was spent to produce the CD, there isn't any financial loss involved.


So?

Te Vaka (great band BTW, big recommendation from me) CDs are not sold in Germany. I could not listen to their music or leech it. Where is your loss now? popularity is not euro or Yen, but as soon as the music is sold in Germany, popularity will HELP them.

I have absolutely no problem downloading things that are out of print or otherwise impossible to obtain. I bought bootleg cd's pre filesharing, and I use file sharing for the same thing. Yes, it's illegal. But in my opinion not immoral.

If hijacking trucks were a viable means of distribution, yes. Unfortunately, unlike music exchange, it is not.

I don't know. There are guys who do it for a living. It must be at least somewhat viable.

Anyway why does it matter if it's easy to do? It's still taking something you have no right to take and undermining people's jobs.

Welcome to a postmodern, high-tech, 21st-century, information society. Media travels in all forms at different speeds all around the world. You can't stop it.

I have absolutely no problem downloading things that are out of print or otherwise impossible to obtain. I bought bootleg cd's pre filesharing, and I use file sharing for the same thing. Yes, it's illegal. But in my opinion not immoral.

Good point. Illegal and immoral is a big difference. If a natrion has many laws outlawing things, which are perfectly okay for the majority, it loses its reputation and people are more likely to break laws, not only on that particular field.

I don't know. There are guys who do it for a living. It must be at least somewhat viable.

For them, perhaps. Unfortunately, they are not the only ones who need the drugs distributed.

(Actually, intellectual property rights is really irrelevant to this. If the work involved in reproducing the music is difficult, people will want to pay others to do it, or will pay the cost themselves, in effect, by doing the labor themselves. The question is whether the original makers continue to get paid for every sale.)

I am member of the Pirate Party of Germany because I want to change the copyright laws*. People often forget that there is the possibility of political activity.

*among others. I actually want to change a lot of things in the same way as the pirates want to.
but you are working to change that.... that's the point she's making.


now I wonder how many people actually read the poll... it states ILLEGAL Downloading. not Downloading in general...

but you are working to change that.... that's the point she's making.


now I wonder how many people actually read the poll... it states ILLEGAL Downloading. not Downloading in general...

*Checks pants* Well that confirms I'm a guy. :p

Just wanted to defend myself. I am quite opinionated when it comes to internet-rights and -laws.

For your reading pleasure:



The attitude of Duck, Cat and Dog is very similar to that of many people here. They contributed nothing to the creation, but they do wish to have a slice. Regardless of what the hard workers want.

Ah, thankyou. I totally agree with you on that one.

I do however download stuff. I've bought too many albums on the basis of hearing one song and then discovering I hate the rest of the album. Generally I'll download a couple of tracks here or there from a group I vaguely know, or a track of artists of a genre that I like, but have never previously heard. If I like them then I'll shell out the dough. If not then I won't. I never download full albums/games or anything like that.

It's wrong I know, but fuck it.

*Checks pants* Well that confirms I'm a guy. :p

this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11914875&postcount=34) that I was replying to, was in response to Smunkee... a she. ;)

this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11914875&postcount=34) that I was replying to, was in response to Smunkee... a she. ;)

Well even so. I did have to check after all. :p

Well even so. I did have to check after all. :p

well...





thanks for the confirmation... :D

Im fine with it, unless you would actually go out and buy it otherwise then the music company or whatever aren't losing out...

Im fine with it, unless you would actually go out and buy it otherwise then the music company or whatever aren't losing out...

And what, pray tell, makes your opinion more important than that of "the music company or whatever" that actually made the stuff you want ?

And what, pray tell, makes your opinion more important than that of "the music company or whatever" that actually made the stuff you want ?

The music company makes me want it! :eek:

And what, pray tell, makes your opinion more important than that of "the music company or whatever" that actually made the stuff you want ?

Because the RIAA steals money from artists.

Isn't it technically legal to download music but illegal to share music? In the same way buying a shirt which is probably stolen off the street for a quid isn't illegal, but the person who stole the shirt and sold it is doing something illegal?

And what, pray tell, makes your opinion more important than that of "the music company or whatever" that actually made the stuff you want ?

Du bist nicht allein, du bist nicht allein! Wir sind Millionen und es werden noch mehr sein!

(ie: the majority is not on the side of the music industry)

Isn't it technically legal to download music but illegal to share music? In the same way buying a shirt which is probably stolen off the street for a quid isn't illegal, but the person who stole the shirt and sold it is doing something illegal?

Yes. But what I'm wondering is, if you have legally downloaded something, is it 'legalized', and therefore legally uploadable?

www.reloaded.org - A good freeware site (although Reloaded Abandonia... wtf? It used to have a much better name...)

Yes. But what I'm wondering is, if you have legally downloaded something, is it 'legalized', and therefore legally uploadable?
With the author's permission only, usually, but yes, in theory, in most cases.

Yes. But what I'm wondering is, if you have legally downloaded something, is it 'legalized', and therefore legally uploadable?

No, because when you upload, you effectively make a copy of it and send it to the server. That is an infringement on copyright law.

With the author's permission only, usually, but yes, in theory, in most cases.

Copyright laws confuse me.

Copyright laws confuse me.
Me too, therefore, I use CCed music and GPLed software mostly!

What is CCed music?

Music under the different versions of the Creative Commons License. Basically, these licenses allow you to share the music legally (in most cases, you must specify the name of the creator). They can allow derivative works or commercial use, but don't always do.

www.creativecommons.org

Artists make shit when it comes to CD sells. They make all their money from concerts.
Some artists make a lot of money from cd sales. Some make a lot from live performances. Many artists believe that, because of illegal downloading, the way to make money in the future will be through live performances.

And you know what? The record labels and other MNCs are trying to get into this market by signing artists and streaming their live performances online...for a small fee of course.

In response to the poll question - yes, illegal downloading is wrong. It is illegal, as the name suggests. Doesn't stop me, though.

Well for me, if I wasn't going to buy it in the first place, downloading it isn't depriving anyone of anything. But for games, downloading is the only real cost and time effective way to test whether a game is worth getting. Demo file sizes are getting larger while the demo gets shorter and is in no way a reliable fraction of a sample of the game.

Its wrong because Britney Spears isn't rich enough.

Technically you're still taking something without paying for it so yes it is. Just easier to do it online is all:p


but physically taking something prevents someoen esle from being able to buy it at the cost of the person selling it. But downloading something only makes a copy of such a thing and does not prevent the owner from selling it to someone else.

if people were able to make materials popout of no where and be able to assemble a replica of an item, would that be stealing?

Some artists make a lot of money from cd sales. Some make a lot from live performances. Many artists believe that, because of illegal downloading, the way to make money in the future will be through live performances.

And you know what? The record labels and other MNCs are trying to get into this market by signing artists and streaming their live performances online...for a small fee of course.

In response to the poll question - yes, illegal downloading is wrong. It is illegal, as the name suggests. Doesn't stop me, though.

I don't think its wrong at all.

In response to the poll question - yes, illegal downloading is wrong. It is illegal, as the name suggests. Doesn't stop me, though.

*Points to her sig*

In the country where I live in, it was illegal to own land and a business when being Jewish. This does not mean the law was ethically correct. Who knows what history will make out of copyright laws.

Well i dont see it as a problem of any sort.
Since I'd never ever pay for their software or music or media in any way, they arent losing any profits from me.

But i see the argument for it. Since it took time and work to make it, it shouldnt be free and isnt fair to those who do pay for it.

But hey, we all love the Gnutella network anyways ;)

Because the RIAA steals money from artists.

True. However, the artists let them do that. Being stupid morons was their choice.

You have repeatedly stated you believe there is nothing wrong with distributing copyrighted work without the creators (or the people (s)he gave ownership to) permission. If the creators disagree with you, why do you believe you have the right to overrule them ?

We should be grateful of the 'Net's international nature.

A US law cannot direct intervene about files hosted on a Russian, Chinese, Swedish, Norweign or German server except through indirect means.

Fight to keep the 'Net free! The free flow of information (and porn) is a catalyst towards a more stable world.

True. However, the artists let them do that. Being stupid morons was their choice.

You have repeatedly stated you believe there is nothing wrong with distributing copyrighted work without the creators (or the people (s)he gave ownership to) permission. If the creators disagree with you, why do you believe you have the right to overrule them ?

I never said I have the right to overrule them. I said I don't care.

However, I guess I can see some circumstances where it would not be acceptable - when it is denying needed income to a small company or an obscure artist, for instance.

Yep. Although paradoxically, I find that obtaining albums like these through downloading is the only way for me to find out if they're worth spending money on - since I usually have to order obscure albums from overseas, which costs a lot more money than CDs by any given famous band that I can easily find in stores. I would go as far as saying that most of the albums I own today (some 300) I wouldn't have bought without the help of file-sharing. No radio station plays stuff I like, and there's only one store I know of that I have a chance of finding something I want in. Or I end up buying secondhand, which also "deprives the artist of income" and is just as bad as filesharing, according to the RIAA. :rolleyes:

Interesting thought though-

Is buying second-hand albums, videos, or computer games as "wrong" as downloading them? Why/Why not?

Artists make shit when it comes to CD sells. They make all their money from concerts.

Not entirely true. Comparatively, a chart topping artist is likely to make more money out of concerts due to all of the other actors involved in producing and marketing a record; but an obscure one that is self-releasing music or has a good contract with an independent label may make just as much or even more out of selling albums. A lot of poor artists cannot afford to travel outside of their home countries, so the CD sales are their only source of revenue outside of the country. Furthermore, concerts are "one off" revenue, whereas a CD will continue to sell likely even after the band has dissolved; providing some source of income through royalties to its former members. And then there are some bands that don't tour live at all for whatever reason.



As for games, i'll usually buy them, because modern ones are too big for me to download in any reasonable time frame. Old games (abandonware) that I can't find anywhere else, i'll download - but there's a local second-hand shop that I usually snap old games up from when I see them (I usually get them for under $10, which certainly is low enough to justify buying, since I get a nice manual and CDs. :p I picked up Wing Commander III the other day for that price.) Although, again, that's depriving the copyright owner of income so that's naughty too.

Movies and TV shows I generally have no interest in downloading. Unless they're old or foreign movies that I have difficulty finding.

Furthermore, concerts are "one off" revenue, whereas a CD will continue to sell likely even after the band has dissolved; providing some source of income through royalties to its former members. And then there are some bands that don't tour live at all for whatever reason.

But what if they release a live album? :p

But what if they release a live album? :p
Still have to pay the sound guy, the producer, the company that presses the cds, the designer who does the artwork, the distributors...

But what if they release a live album? :p

Well, that's further proof that they're not making all of their money from concerts, hey?

Still have to pay the sound guy, the producer, the company that presses the cds, the designer who does the artwork, the distributors...

Less money for them. Same amount for me apparently.

I think the entertainment industry has to rethink their approach to this. The only way they can win by fighting downloading is to shut down the internet, and I'll be damned if they do that. No, they need to see this as an oppurtunity, not a threat. Personally I think the answer is in 'micropayments'. That is, they sell shit incredibly cheap, but for recurring payments for services. For example, RIAA opens a website where you gain access to capped downloading (in volume) for say $1/week. With this $1 a week you are entitled to say 20 downloads a week, and pay an extra 10 cents for every download after that. The website indexes every artist with a label and excellent facilities. With the millions of subscriptions they'd recieve they would make millions of dollars a week, all in completely weightless transactions (No shipping, cash, or other tangible things requiring logistical planning). So in reality they'd be making tenfold this figure just from the weightlessness of the operation (in comparison to selling CDs). Either that, or they should just sell the songs for 20 cents each. This would be a marked improvement on their current mode of business. Take a look at Itunes, they rake it in.

To compare downloading to stealing a car or a rolex is inherently falacious. There are a series of Australian anti-piracy media campaigns that follow of the lines of "You wouldn't steal a car, you wouldn't steal a mobile phone. Internet piracy is theft". Everytime I see it I slap my forehead. Sure I wouldn't steal a car, but I would download one into my garage. The point is that data is inherently different to tangible goods, not only in form, but in the way one must market it.

It is also important to remember, for the most part, people who download illegally (all of us) aren't doing so for the point of stealing. I don't download my music because of the rush I get from giving it to the man, I do it for the massively increased selection I get from this method. When I buy a CD I pay $20 for 1 song I want, and 19 I don't. When I download I get 100 songs that I want. If the recording industry could provide me with a way to have this kind of access for a reasonable price (i.e. less than 20 cents a song) then I would gladly do so. In fact I do. There are several budding sites which offer this kind of service, however, they do not boast as fantastic of a range as many of the illegal sources of download. The recording industry needs to get it's act together and start capitalisning on my potential status as a high-volume customer.

On the price, minus costs like CD cases, Album art, the CDs themsleves, the recording of the CDs, the assembly and packing of the CDs, the boxes in which to pack the CDs, the international shipping and distribution of the said boxes, the rent and maintenance of CD stores, the wages of the case-makers, album-artists,-CD-makers, Cd-recorders, CD-assemblers and packers, box-makers, international shippers and distibutors, CD-store workers, and the business owners of each of these middle-companies a $20 CD (about $1 a track) could easily be sold for a few cents a track. The internet makes the journey from artist to consumer a 3 step economic process, from a 10 step economic process. Thats seven less middle men, and their families and employees, one has to feed when purchasing music.

Viva la economics.

If it's something I really like, I figure I can do the producers the courtesy of purchasing their movie or game. If it's not something which was good enough for me to intend to buy, it seems to me there's no harm in downloading it for free. It's not like the item is actually a physical object with a limited quantity. On a related note, I noticed in the Company of Heros license agreement that it was only for use on one computer. A quick inspection noted this was the same for several other games. Maybe I'm behind the times on this, but... WTF. Just WTF. SOME people have more than one computer... do you expect me to buy multiple copies of the software for every one? And I can only use it in the same country? WTF again? What the hell is the point in selling games in airport duty-free stores, for a long list of starters? :headbang:

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y239/NuGo1988/Communism.jpg

If it's something I really like, I figure I can do the producers the courtesy of purchasing their movie or game. If it's not something which was good enough for me to intend to buy, it seems to me there's no harm in - downloading it for free. It's not like the item is actually a physical object with a limited quantity. On a related note, I noticed in the Company of Heros license agreement that it was only for use on one computer. A quick inspection noted this was the same for several other games. Maybe I'm behind the times on this, but... WTF. Just WTF. SOME people have more than one computer... do you expect me to buy multiple copies of the software for every one? And I can only use it in the same country? WTF again? What the hell is the point in selling games in airport duty-free stores, for a long list of starters? :headbang:
Yes they do. As you can see they have a problem discerning the difference between an infinitely replicatable piece of data, and a tangible physical item which must be produced. Seriously though, they should do like WoW and many other MMORPGs and practically give the game away for free (most of them let you download for free, not WoW) then charge for access and/or services rendered online.

not different than recording off radio/tv/etc

I generally only download media when I don't have a choice. Often it's music from CD's that are damn near impossible to acquire (out of print and so forth).

Also, I generally watch downloaded fan-subbed anime, at least until it's licensed and released in official translated format. Even then, I'll often prefer to watch the fan-subs because their quality is so much better than the big corporations' translations. Go figure.

"Normal" movies I haven't downloaded, though I'm starting to consider it. Lately, I've been growing more and more annoyed at official DVD:s. The studios feel that they just have to include a propaganda commercial saying how bad it is to download. Often you can't even skip by it! Overly intricate and slow menus add to the loathing. Just let me watch the bloody movie! :headbang:

I think that media corporation's attempts at discouraging piracy is really doing nothing but annoying the people who buy stuff legally.

On the price, minus costs like CD cases, Album art, the CDs themsleves, the recording of the CDs, the assembly and packing of the CDs, the boxes in which to pack the CDs, the international shipping and distribution of the said boxes, the rent and maintenance of CD stores, the wages of the case-makers, album-artists,-CD-makers, Cd-recorders, CD-assemblers and packers, box-makers, international shippers and distibutors, CD-store workers, and the business owners of each of these middle-companies a $20 CD (about $1 a track) could easily be sold for a few cents a track.
They could sell CDs for a fraction of what they do. CD-Rs with jewel cases cost around $1 each, which would be even less buying them in massive bulk. The album art could add some to that, but can't be too much. The whole CD business is a rip off plain and simple and even if the RIAA switched to online sales, they wouldn't price it to compete with something like iTunes. It would be more like $2 a song.

I'm waiting for some brave prson to make the best desicion , as in the old supermarket maxim 'sell it cheap pile it high'. I'm waiting for the brave bank man to suggest a credit card that is 1% and stays at 1% for life, I'm waiting for the record lable to switch to just internet sales, and charge 1p per track, and I'm waitiing for the supermarkets to remember just how that maxim works.

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y239/NuGo1988/Communism.jpg



And that, comrades, is why communism is awesomeXcore.

[QUOTE=SHAOLIN9;11914698]Technically you're still taking something without paying for it so yes it is. Just easier to do it online is all:p


Though unlike stealing something the origional owner does not actualy LOSE his coppy.

They may not make as much income but at least they are not deprived of the origional.

They could sell CDs for a fraction of what they do. CD-Rs with jewel cases cost around $1 each, which would be even less buying them in massive bulk. The album art could add some to that, but can't be too much. The whole CD business is a rip off plain and simple and even if the RIAA switched to online sales, they wouldn't price it to compete with something like iTunes. It would be more like $2 a song.


For various reasons, i'd rather have a copy of the album in my hands than a couple of MP3's on my hard drive. Anyway, cheaper CDs are available, if you look around. Most of the price (as with almost all things) is a retail mark-up, and of course people in Western countries pay a pretty substantial one by comparison. Do they have import CD shops where you live? There are two in my city that I know of, and I get a lot of my albums from them at half-price or less. So what if a couple of my CDs have something in Spanish written on the label, hinting that they're made in Argentina... :p

I never said I have the right to overrule them. I said I don't care.

You do not care about the wishes of the creators of the material you download. Check.

Why not ? And why do you believe that attitude should be the law ?

For various reasons, i'd rather have a copy of the album in my hands than a couple of MP3's on my hard drive. Anyway, cheaper CDs are available, if you look around. Most of the price (as with almost all things) is a retail mark-up, and of course people in Western countries pay a pretty substantial one by comparison. Do they have import CD shops where you live? There are two in my city that I know of, and I get a lot of my albums from them at half-price or less. So what if a couple of my CDs have something in Spanish written on the label, hinting that they're made in Argentina... :p

The only Imports I buy are really rare ones. I only buy metal albums and I have to order them off Amazon. I would rather DL them.

Then there's those albums that they only made a limited supply of. If you can't find them anywhere to buy then whats the point in not DLing them?

I think the entertainment industry has to rethink their approach to this. The only way they can win by fighting downloading is to shut down the internet, and I'll be damned if they do that. No, they need to see this as an oppurtunity, not a threat. Personally I think the answer is in 'micropayments'. That is, they sell shit incredibly cheap, but for recurring payments for services. For example, RIAA opens a website where you gain access to capped downloading (in volume) for say $1/week. With this $1 a week you are entitled to say 20 downloads a week, and pay an extra 10 cents for every download after that. The website indexes every artist with a label and excellent facilities. With the millions of subscriptions they'd recieve they would make millions of dollars a week, all in completely weightless transactions (No shipping, cash, or other tangible things requiring logistical planning). So in reality they'd be making tenfold this figure just from the weightlessness of the operation (in comparison to selling CDs). Either that, or they should just sell the songs for 20 cents each. This would be a marked improvement on their current mode of business. Take a look at Itunes, they rake it in.that might work. however, what's stopping me from paying the $1, downloading 20 songs and sending copies to 100 people. that's potentially $100 the company doesn't make. and if I charge those 100 people 2 cents per 20 songs, I make a 100% profit for that week ($2), and the company looses $100. and think about if I charge .50 for 20 songs...

or better yet... I don't charge them anything.

To compare downloading to stealing a car or a rolex is inherently falacious. There are a series of Australian anti-piracy media campaigns that follow of the lines of "You wouldn't steal a car, you wouldn't steal a mobile phone. Internet piracy is theft". Everytime I see it I slap my forehead. Sure I wouldn't steal a car, but I would download one into my garage. The point is that data is inherently different to tangible goods, not only in form, but in the way one must market it.good point. you spend months writing a great novel. the Great [insert name of Nation] Novel. it's guarenteed to be on the best seller's list for years... or would've been except someone scanned and posted it on the web making it available for free, and instead of 1,000,000 copies being sold, it was downloaded 1,000,000 times. and since only 100 copies were sold nation wide.... you only got paid for those 100 copies (which didn't pay for the printing and publishing of 10,000 copies of your book, a very, very small print run btw.) but you're ok with that. ;)

It is also important to remember, for the most part, people who download illegally (all of us) aren't doing so for the point of stealing. I don't download my music because of the rush I get from giving it to the man, I do it for the massively increased selection I get from this method. When I buy a CD I pay $20 for 1 song I want, and 19 I don't. When I download I get 100 songs that I want. If the recording industry could provide me with a way to have this kind of access for a reasonable price (i.e. less than 20 cents a song) then I would gladly do so. In fact I do. There are several budding sites which offer this kind of service, however, they do not boast as fantastic of a range as many of the illegal sources of download. The recording industry needs to get it's act together and start capitalisning on my potential status as a high-volume customer.that's why I look for "Greatest Hits" or compilation CD's. they tend to hold more than ONE song I'm looking for. and other times, I do find more songs on the CD that I will like.

Just because you only like one song outta 10-14 songs, still doesn't give you the right to Illegally download music.

On the price, minus costs like CD cases, Album art, the CDs themsleves,the recording of the CDs, the assembly and packing of the CDs, the boxes in which to pack the CDs, the international shipping and distribution of the said boxes, the rent and maintenance of CD stores, the wages of the case-makers, album-artists,-CD-makers, Cd-recorders, CD-assemblers and packers, box-makers, international shippers and distibutors, CD-store workers, and the business owners of each of these middle-companies a $20 CD (about $1 a track) could easily be sold for a few cents a track. The internet makes the journey from artist to consumer a 3 step economic process, from a 10 step economic process. Thats seven less middle men, and their families and employees, one has to feed when purchasing music. and you think about it. that's $20 per cd that pays all that. including benefits such as medical and retirement for them and their families.

now how about addressing the gaping hole in the internet download and sharing that takes away even the few cents per track from the artist, their staff and recording studeos.

Then there's those albums that they only made a limited supply of. If you can't find them anywhere to buy then whats the point in not DLing them?

For me - respecting the wishes of the creator, provided he/she does not wish me to.
But you already said you do not care about those wishes... so that is no argument for you.

good point. you spend months writing a great novel. the Great [insert name of Nation] Novel. it's guarenteed to be on the best seller's list for years... or would've been except someone scanned and posted it on the web making it available for free, and instead of 1,000,000 copies being sold, it was downloaded 1,000,000 times. and since only 100 copies were sold nation wide.... you only got paid for those 100 copies (which didn't pay for the printing and publishing of 10,000 copies of your book, a very, very small print run btw.) but you're ok with that. ;)

Thats a bad point considering not a lot of people DL books.

For me - respecting the wishes of the creator, provided he/she does not wish me to.
But you already said you do not care about those wishes... so that is no argument for you.

Say only one place has it but they are overcharging now since the album is out of print.

I'm not going to waste say $100 on an album that didn't even cost $20.

Thats a bad point considering not a lot of people DL books. so if alot of people do it, it's ok?
on line books are becoming more and more popular now days.

and the idea is still the same. both are intellectual property. the Artist buys the song from the writer (if they didn't write it themselves.) and for a fee, will share it with everyone willing to pay (buy the cd.) Illegal Downloading bypasses the paying of the fee to enjoy another persons work.

Say only one place has it but they are overcharging now since the album is out of print.

I'm not going to waste say $100 on an album that didn't even cost $20.That's their [sellers] choice to make. Look at how much a painting can run, and that is also a limited peice of work. the owner of the painting can put whatever price he/she wants. If you don't want to pay $100 to listen to someone's music... then don't pay and don't listen. meanwhile you can always talk to the record label and if enough interest is generated, they can re-release that $100 cd and sell it to you for $20. who loses? the idiot trying to sell it to you for $100.

Sorry, but downloading isn't stealing. It's infringing copyright. There's a difference: stealing deprives someone of something, infringing (in this context) does not.

Sorry, but downloading isn't stealing. It's infringing copyright. There's a difference: stealing deprives someone of something, infringing (in this context) does not.

does not Downloading deprive the artist, store and others involved, the money that would've been made selling the album/cd/movie to the person?

does not Downloading deprive the artist, store and others involved, the money that would've been made selling the album/cd/movie to the person?

Only if I'd have paid for them if I had no access to downloading. I wouldn't. Ergo, I'm not depriving anyone of anything by downloading that they'd otherwise have if I didn't buy music.

Only if I'd have paid for them if I had no access to downloading. I wouldn't. Ergo, I'm not depriving anyone of anything by downloading that they'd otherwise have if I didn't buy music.

there are two ways to obtain that music. one is to buy the music (thus paying the artist, record label, etc...) the other is to Illegally Download the music, in which you obtain the same Intellectual item but deprive the label, artist, etc... of their money.

if you paid for the download, then it's not Illegal.

there are two ways to obtain that music. one is to buy the music (thus paying the artist, record label, etc...) the other is to Illegally Download the music, in which you obtain the same Intellectual item but deprive the label, artist, etc... of their money.

if you paid for the download, then it's not Illegal.

No, you misunderstand me, sorry. Let me try to explain again.

I download because it's convenient. It's free, and I'm a poor student. If I didn't have access to downloading, I wouldn't buy the music anyway. I'd listen to the radio more often. Ergo, either way, I'm not depriving a company of revenue since they wouldn't get money out of me regardless of whether or not I downloaded. It's not stealing unless I deprive someone of something, and therefore, I'm not stealing. I don't deny that it's illegal, but I deny that it can be called stealing, as the record companies want us to believe.

No, you misunderstand me, sorry. Let me try to explain again.

I download because it's convenient. It's free, and I'm a poor student. If I didn't have access to downloading, I wouldn't buy the music anyway. I'd listen to the radio more often. Ergo, either way, I'm not depriving a company of revenue since they wouldn't get money out of me regardless of whether or not I downloaded.yes you are depriving the artist of something. by downloading it, you are obtaining a copy of the song. the only other way is to buy the song (from offical downloading sites where you pay the fee, or by purchasing the cd from either the recording studio or retail outlet.)

one the artist gets paid for it, the other the artist doesn't.

the Radio Stations pay a fee to get the permission to play songs on the radio (licence). the artist uses the radio station to advertise their albums/CD's (by allowing them to play their cd on the radio.) you can listen to it on the radio, but that's because the Radio paid to be able to broadcast that song and thus you are at the mercy of the radio programming as well as the advertisments that go along with the songs, but if you want your own copy, you need to pay the Common use licence to own a copy of that song (purchasing the CD.) any way where you don't pay the Common Use Licence is stealing.

and being poor doesn't excuse stealing. If I couldn't afford it, I won't go and steal food from a grocery store.

and being poor doesn't excuse stealing. If I couldn't afford it, I won't go and steal food from a grocery store.

Thats not the same thing. Downloading a music album is not the same thing as physically stealing something.

Also The Mindset is right. If somebody who never wanted to pay for the album in the first place DL's it. Then the artist doesn't lose a sell because they wouldn't have bought it in the first place.

Thats not the same thing. Downloading a music album is not the same thing as physically stealing something.

Also The Mindset is right. If somebody who never wanted to pay for the album in the first place DL's it. Then the artist doesn't lose a sell because they wouldn't have bought it in the first place.
and all thefts are done because somebody didn't want to pay for it.

If somebody who never wanted to pay for the album in the first place steals it.
If somebody who never wanted to pay for the book in the first place DL's it.
If somebody who never wanted to pay for the DVD in the first place DL's it.
If somebody who never wanted to pay for the car in the first place steals it.
If somebody who never wanted to pay for the jewerly in the first place steals it.

what's the difference?
The fact that a song isn't a tangable item? neither is an Identity, but taking that is still wrong. Neither is printed materials if you copy/scan them yet those are still wrong.

The fact that under normal circumstances, you wouldn't pay for the song?
well, under normal circumstances, most people wouldn't pay for a car,
or a Rembrant,
or a HD television,
or to change their Identity, but just because you wouldn't pay for it, is not an excuse to take it without paying for it.

so you're saying because you don't want to pay for a copy, it's ok for you to take a copy? all movies are eventually shown for free on broadcast television... so if I steal a copy now, it's ok?

back to my book example.
you spend months writing a great novel. the Great [insert name of Nation] Novel. it's guarenteed to be on the best seller's list for years... or would've been except someone scanned and posted it on the web making it available for free, and instead of 1,000,000 copies being sold, it was downloaded 1,000,000 times. and since only 100 copies were sold nation wide.... you only got paid for those 100 copies (which didn't pay for the printing and publishing of 10,000 copies of your book, a very, very small print run btw.) but you're ok with that because normally, they wouldn't want to pay for the book.

In terms of movies, my policy is usually watch it in theatres or rent it first before downloading it. TV series I watch on tv (ex: south park, drawn together) before downloading. I dont pirate music much, but overall I dont ahve to much of a problem with downloading as long as I contribute to the industry in some way first.

I cannot help but wonder how on earth they believe they can make that stick.they make it stick every day. ;)

and all thefts are done because somebody didn't want to pay for it.

If somebody who never wanted to pay for the album in the first place steals it.
If somebody who never wanted to pay for the book in the first place DL's it.
If somebody who never wanted to pay for the DVD in the first place DL's it.
If somebody who never wanted to pay for the car in the first place steals it.
If somebody who never wanted to pay for the jewerly in the first place steals it.

what's the difference?
The fact that a song isn't a tangable item? neither is an Identity, but taking that is still wrong. Neither is printed materials if you copy/scan them yet those are still wrong.

The fact that under normal circumstances, you wouldn't pay for the song?
well, under normal circumstances, most people wouldn't pay for a car,
or a Rembrant,
or a HD television,
or to change their Identity, but just because you wouldn't pay for it, is not an excuse to take it without paying for it.

so you're saying because you don't want to pay for a copy, it's ok for you to take a copy? all movies are eventually shown for free on broadcast television... so if I steal a copy now, it's ok?

back to my book example.
you spend months writing a great novel. the Great [insert name of Nation] Novel. it's guarenteed to be on the best seller's list for years... or would've been except someone scanned and posted it on the web making it available for free, and instead of 1,000,000 copies being sold, it was downloaded 1,000,000 times. and since only 100 copies were sold nation wide.... you only got paid for those 100 copies (which didn't pay for the printing and publishing of 10,000 copies of your book, a very, very small print run btw.) but you're ok with that because normally, they wouldn't want to pay for the book.

Then the artist doesn't lose a sell because they wouldn't have bought it in the first place.


Learn to read. :rolleyes:

the Radio Stations pay a fee to get the permission to play songs on the radio.that is not true.. I worked 3 years on a Radio station.. I have my weekly sixty-minutes of fame.

It is the other way around.. if someone would receive any "pay" it would be Radio Staff.
Managers would beg us to play their tune.
I even got free:fluffle: once.. (or maybe its because I am goodlooking... Naaah.. It had to be the tune selection thing)

Learn to read. :rolleyes:
Learn to THINK. :rolleyes:
Thats not the same thing. Downloading a music album is not the same thing as physically stealing something.

lets see what Dictionary.com says.
steal  /stil/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[steel] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation, verb, stole, stolen, stealing,
–verb (used with object)
1. to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, esp. secretly or by force: A pickpocket stole his watch.
2. to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment.
3. to take, get, or win insidiously, surreptitiously, subtly, or by chance: He stole my girlfriend.
4. to move, bring, convey, or put secretly or quietly; smuggle (usually fol. by away, from, in, into, etc.): They stole the bicycle into the bedroom to surprise the child.
please show me where STEALING is only defined to PHYSICAL objects.

now legal Dictionary definition of theft.
theft n. the generic term for all crimes in which a person intentionally and fraudulently takes personal property of another without permission or consent and with the intent to convert it to the taker's use (including potential sale)(and this includes making it available for others without the owners consent). In many states, if the value of the property taken is low (for example, less than $500) the crime is "petty theft," but it is "grand theft" for larger amounts, designated misdemeanor, or felony, respectively. Theft is synonymous with "larceny." Although robbery (taking by force), burglary (taken by entering unlawfully), and embezzlement (stealing from an employer) are all commonly thought of as theft, they are distinguished by the means and methods used, and are separately designated as those types of crimes in criminal charges and statutory punishments. (See: larceny, robbery, burglary, embezzlement) again, where does it state ONLY PHYSICAL ITEMS.

Also The Mindset is right. If somebody who never wanted to pay for the album in the first place DL's it. and all theves don't wanna pay for it in the first place. all acts of theft begins with someone deciding not to pay for it.
Then the artist doesn't lose a sell because they wouldn't have bought it in the first place.then why download it? Because you want to own a copy of the song right? so before Downloading, the only way was to buy a single or the Album. hence that artist gets paid for that sale.

but now, your reasoning is that with illegal downloading, since now you don't have to pay for the song, the artist is not losing a sale because you are not buying the song. Bullshit! you are obtaining a copy of the song WITHOUT paying for it. the artist is LOSING a sale of his creation.

your reasoning:Then the artist doesn't lose a sell because they wouldn't have bought it in the first place.
because it was not paid for, the artist/manufacturer etc. didn't loose any money because the thief wouldn't have paid for it in the first place. :rolleyes:

that is not true.. I worked 3 years on a Radio station.. I have my weekly sixty-minutes of fame.

It is the other way around.. if someone would receive any "pay" it would be Radio Staff.
Managers would beg us to play their tune.
I even got free:fluffle: once.. (or maybe its because I am goodlooking... Naaah.. It had to be the tune selection thing)

broadcasting licence?

RIAA Licence?

that's what I'm referring to.

broadcasting licence?

RIAA Licence?

that's what I'm referring to.bottom line:

The Radios never-ever pay the Managers (singer agents) pay for the rigth to play the tunes..

If anything the Managers will offer us "stuff" to play thier tune.

bottom line:

The Radios never-ever pay the Managers (singer agents) pay for the rigth to play the tunes..

If anything the Managers will offer us "stuff" to play thier tune.

The right to play the songs, copyrighted materials, is in the licence the staion buys and maintains. that's why most Web radio sites are under attack. we had a web radio site and the only thing that saved our butts was that a local radio station took us under it's wing and covered us with their licence.

also, with the managers/artist giving you the cd's they are giving the station consent to play their stuff.

that's why most Web radio sites are under attack. we had a web radio site and the only thing that saved our butts was that a local radio station took us under it's wing and covered us with their licence.Let me tell you something else..

if the FCC and/or the CRTC think they can regulate the Internet Radios.. they are delusional.

Let me tell you something else..

if the FCC and/or the CRTC think they can regulate the Internet Radios.. they are delusional.

not talking about the FCC or CRTC. the RIAA.

they can issue lawsuits for copyrite infringment. however, permission to play copyrited material is in the broadcasting licence that established radio stations have.

not talking about the FCC or CRTC. the RIAA. the RIAA does not have the power to issue a broadcasting licence.

The RIAA cannot regulate Radio stations.

the RIAA does not have the power to issue a broadcasting licence.

The RIAA cannot regulate Radio stations.

Read my post OcceanDrive, nowhere do I state that the RIAA is issuing broadcast licences. nowhere do I state that the RIAA is REGULATING anything. I mentioned Lawsuites. they are suing unlicenced broacast stations with copyrite infringement. the right to broacast copyrited materials is in the broadcast licence. you broadcast copyrited material and make it available to the public without a Broadcast licence or RIAA permission (that you have to pay for that you don't have a broadcasting licence) and the RIAA can sue you for Copyrite infringement.

The only Imports I buy are really rare ones. I only buy metal albums and I have to order them off Amazon. I would rather DL them.

Then there's those albums that they only made a limited supply of. If you can't find them anywhere to buy then whats the point in not DLing them?

I understand that. Fortunately there are some pretty cool metal stores in my city. I can usually find what I want unless it's *really* obscure.

As for out of print stuff, meh, I consider it fair game to download.

Read my post OcceanDrive, nowhere do I state that the RIAA is issuing broadcast licences. nowhere do I state that the RIAA is REGULATING anything.You are funny. :D *hint* post # 112

Occean: if the FCC and/or the CRTC think they can regulate the Internet Radios.. they are delusional..

Junii: not talking about the FCC or CRTC. the RIAA.

Occean: the RIAA cannot regulate shit.

Junii: I never said the RIAA can/is REGULATING anything.

You are funny. :D
*hint* post # 112

Occean: FCC/CRTC to regulate Internet Radios? only when pigs fly.
Junii: not talking about the FCC or CRTC. the RIAA.
Occean: the RIAA cannot regulate shit.
Junii: I never said the RIAA can/is REGULATING anything.

and that's right. I never mentioned the RIAA regulating anything.

I said I wasn't talking about the FCC or the CRTC.
post 108, I mention both licences Seperatly.
post 110, I mention the RIGHT to play copyrited material is in the licences.
post 112, I said I wasn't talking about the FCC or CRTC. but that the RIAA was issuing Lawsuites for those broadcasting copyrited material without the licences.
I never mention the RIAA Regulating anything. if they were, I would not say lawsuites, I would've said FINES. ;)

for you memory, post 112
not talking about the FCC or CRTC. the RIAA.

they can issue lawsuits for copyrite infringment. however, permission to play copyrited material is in the broadcasting licence that established radio stations have.

they can issue lawsuits for copyrite infringment. this is the US
anybody (with enough money) can sue anyone.

this is the US
anybody (with enough money) can sue anyone.

but for Copyrite infringement? only the owners of the copywrite can do that. and the RIAA is a tool that those owners use.

and the RIAA also investigates INTERNATIONAL copyrite infringements as well.

then why download it? Because you want to own a copy of the song right? so before Downloading, the only way was to buy a single or the Album. hence that artist gets paid for that sale.

but now, your reasoning is that with illegal downloading, since now you don't have to pay for the song, the artist is not losing a sale because you are not buying the song. Bullshit! you are obtaining a copy of the song WITHOUT paying for it. the artist is LOSING a sale of his creation.

your reasoning:
because it was not paid for, the artist/manufacturer etc. didn't loose any money because the thief wouldn't have paid for it in the first place. :rolleyes:


No. They don't lose a sale because nothing physically was stolen. Say somebody steals a CD from a store and keeps it. The artist loses money from a could be sell.

Then say somebody goes into the store buys the same album and uploads it to the internet. The artists makes money from the CD sale but doesn't lose anything from somebody DLing it who would have never bought the album in the first place.

but for Copyrite infringement? of course you can sue, you dont need the RIAA permision to sue.

You could tell-yourself that the 3 years eminem hit.. is likely derived from something you wrote 10 years ago.. and sue him.

but unless your song is really close to the hit.. the Judge should smack you all the Court costs.

No. They don't lose a sale because nothing physically was stolen. Say somebody steals a CD from a store and keeps it. The artist loses money from a could be sell.when you purchase a cd (and the SONGS/DATA on it) you are buying a users licence that gives you the right to listen to that song whenever you want. On that cd is the encrypted data that allows those songs to be carried by whatever means you want it to be carried (Tape, CD, MP3) that is all covered by a common use agreement you signed when you purchaced that cd.

by downloading the song without paying for it. you are getting a copy of that data and denying your end of the agreement. You get a song without paying for it. a copy that is now totally under your control. you can now listen to it at your leasure. you want a physical aspect of the crime? the DATA on the CD, MP3 player, Harddrive that you copied without the express permission by the artist and owner of the copyrite.

Then say somebody goes into the store buys the same album and uploads it to the internet. The artists makes money from the CD sale but doesn't lose anything from somebody DLing it who would have never bought the album in the first place.the person who uploads it to the Internet is violating copyrite laws and is just as guilty as the person downloading it.

of course..
You could tell-yourself that the 3 years eminem hit.. is likely derived from something you wrote 10 years ago.. and sue him.think that hasn't been done before? guess again. many artists faced that kind of lawsuites. and some have lost.

that's one of the reasons why artists are sensitive about their copyrited material and are concerned with downloads.

think that hasn't been done before? guess again. many artists faced that kind of lawsuites. and some have lost.of course it has been done..

Like I said. Anybody can sue anyone.

you dont have to be the RIAA to be able to sue.

of course it has been done..

Like I said. Anybody can sue anyone.

you dont have to be the RIAA to be able to sue.
the RIAA is backed by the artists/filmakers. They speciallize in copyrite infringement.

sure the artist/filmmaker can pursue the infringers on their own. but the RIAA does it for them.

(and I never said you NEED THE RIAA to sue, I only said the RIAA will sue for copyrite infringement.)

for working at a radio station for 3 years, you sure don't know alot about the RIAA.

when you purchase a cd (and the SONGS/DATA on it) you are buying a users licence that gives you the right to listen to that song whenever you want. On that cd is the encrypted data that allows those songs to be carried by whatever means you want it to be carried (Tape, CD, MP3) that is all covered by a common use agreement you signed when you purchaced that cd.

by downloading the song without paying for it. you are getting a copy of that data and denying your end of the agreement. You get a song without paying for it. a copy that is now totally under your control. you can now listen to it at your leasure. you want a physical aspect of the crime? the DATA on the CD, MP3 player, Harddrive that you copied without the express permission by the artist and owner of the copyrite.

the person who uploads it to the Internet is violating copyrite laws and is just as guilty as the person downloading it.

Actually you can put an album you own legally on your hard drive. They allow an archive in case you damage your CD or its stolen.

The person who uploads it is actually more "guilty" than the one who is just downloading.

I have a question. Say somebody misses their favorite TV show. Do you think its wrong if they download the episode they missed and then deleted it?

Actually you can put an album you own legally on your hard drive. They allow an archive in case you damage your CD or its stolen. and you legally own that album. you can put it on your drive/mp3/back it up on another cd. but you cannot distribute the file itself. that's also a grey area for burning copies of DVD's. as long as you have the original, you can make a copy. and you CANNOT distribute it without the written consent of the copyrite holders.

The person who uploads it is actually more "guilty" than the one who is just downloading. recieving stolen goods is just as bad as giving them. both are guilty, but usually the reciever can lessen his penalty by giving up the supplier.

I have a question. Say somebody misses their favorite TV show. Do you think its wrong if they download the episode they missed and then deleted it?depends on where they download it from.
from an offical site run and held by the station? no.

by some file-sharing joe who taped it on his telly and up-loaded it? yes.

deleting it when you're done is preferable. but for clearer answers, read the copyrite laws and those announcements you see infront of DVD movies. it states any reproduction is illegal. no longer does it specify only "for profit intent."

remember, the question asked in the poll is
"Is Illegal Downloading wrong" Legal downloading is ok, but not Illegal ones. ;)

Illegal downloading? I am for it!

I read those. I laugh at them since I download a lot. :p

I read those. I laugh at them since I download a lot. :p

and you can laugh at them. most crooks who get away with breaking the law do laugh at the laws they break... until they get caught!

Well I really DL older stuff that nobody cares about anymore like old SNES games. I never DL movies so the MPAA won't care about me.

Well I really DL older stuff that nobody cares about anymore like old SNES games. I never DL movies so the MPAA won't care about me.

how do you know they don't care about it?

isn't the WII supposed to be able to download old SNES/NES games? so keep an eye out. you might see a crackdown on some of those emulator sites. ;)

how do you know they don't care about it?

isn't the WII supposed to be able to download old SNES/NES games? so keep an eye out. you might see a crackdown on some of those emulator sites. ;)

I plan on getting a Wii anyway. I'll finally be able to play old N64 games again. :p

Also actually I don't think they will come cracking down. The IDSA gets paid by companies to protect their games. I doubt that every company will care about their old games. Only a few might ask the IDSA to protect some of their games. Its mostly only the big gaming companies that can afford to have all their games protected like Square Enix.

first: It's copyright. Anyone who says copyrite IMHO loses much credibility.

Second: leeching and sharing won't go away. The RIAA can try to abolish the internet, but they won't succeed. This does not make leeching exactly right because the artist is not compensated. If the MaFIA (Music and Film Industry of America) was smart they would realize that thesis and antithesis can form a synthesis in the form of for example a Kulturflatrate (You pay an amount of money for the internet connection and this will be distributed to the artists whose songs are DLed)

JuNii, are you basically ignoring everything about three people have said that the artist would not have made the money from a sale? I'll try to explain it again.
The artist earns x amount of dollars. I do not wish to purchase this particular item, so I as a consumer are not going to have my money go to the artist. I download this item. The artist still earns the same amount of money. Their profit is EXACTLY THE SAME. It's not a hard concept to understand :rolleyes:

nah, it's not wrong. property is a stupid concept anyway. itunes is more convienient though, so I've actually completely stopped doing any of the illegal downloading in favour of that. how american of me. *sigh*

JuNii, are you basically ignoring everything about three people have said that the artist would not have made the money from a sale? I'll try to explain it again.
The artist earns x amount of dollars. I do not wish to purchase this particular item, so I as a consumer are not going to have my money go to the artist. I download this item. The artist still earns the same amount of money. Their profit is EXACTLY THE SAME. It's not a hard concept to understand :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
who pays the Artist? the Record Label. (Contracts specify that the artist also gets a percentage of album sales, ticket sales, etc)

How does the Record Label get the money to pay the artist? Sales of the artist's CD's / Concerts etc...

How does the Label and the Music Industry measure the success of the Artist? sales

when an artist goes on tour, who pays for the majority of expenses. The Record Label

when Record sales drop, who will be most affected by it? the Artist, the record label has dropped contracts citing lack of sales or failure to meet sales expectations.

so what happens when 10,000 people don't buy the album/song but Illegally Download the songs without paying for them? the loss of those 10,000 people not buying those albums will be felt by the artist. if enough people don't buy the albums, the record label will drop the artist.


now, you explain how lack of sales of a song/album does NOT affect the artist.

and none of this "well, I wasn't going to buy the song/album in the first place so it really doesn't affect their bottom line crap." if you DL'd the song, then you wanted the song and thus you would've paid for at least the cd single or to download the track.

for working at a radio station for 3 years, you sure don't know alot about the RIAA.me-do-nt-ca-re about the RIAA (thay can shit on their pants all they want)..

the singers/music industry always sucking up to us. They need us.

Stealing something physically and downloading something online are not the same thing. :rolleyes:

You're an idiot of the lowest calibur.

In fact, you give idiots and 'tards a bad name.

There is no difference.

None.

In both cases you are committing a felony, (theft) as well as depriving someone of income that they have all rights to under both legal law and the rules of common decency, which you have none of.

You're an idiot of the lowest calibur.

In fact, you give idiots and 'tards a bad name.

There is no difference.

None.

In both cases you are committing a felony, (theft) as well as depriving someone of income that they have all rights to under both legal law and the rules of common decency, which you have none of.

Ah. Resorting to flaming instead of backing up your statements. You remind me of an idiot we once had on my forum. :rolleyes:

My take on the whole file sharing issue goes like this. If you do not attempt to directly financially benefit from your own sales of the download, then it should be legal. Otherwise you get into a really hairy issue of what exactly constitutes copyright infringement. Because technically, every time you fire up the old DVR or VCR to record your favorite television program, or make your own mix CD or tape you are violating someone's copyright. Where does that line get drawn? Between what's illegal and legal? So if I go looking for a song on the internet that is no longer even offered on CD (if indeed it even ever was) because the Powers That Be have decided there is not enough money to be had in producing said CD, and I use it for my own use, without selling it for personal gain, then I should be able to do so without having to worry about going to jail for the act.

The RIAA sucks.

Besides, you should be able to sample the song in its entirety before a purchase. How are you supposed to be able to do that with the specialization of radio station formats in this day and age? Say you like Sousa music or any other form of music what could be considered somewhat less than popular overall. Cool. Where the hell are you going to find an outlet that plays Sousa music in, say, Murfreesboro, TN? Answer : you can't. It ultimately has the end result in making you an unintelligent consumer, one who is undoubtedly going to have to buy a lot of crap to find your own particular jewel. The RIAA doesn't care. They have your money. Or they going to get it. They don't care that you bought the new Squirrel Nut Zippers CD thinking you were going to get the next new swing sensation.

They already have your damn money. They. Don't. Care.

Plus, many recording artists frankly sign contracts (particularly new artists) that net them a very small portion of the profits of their CD, if they have any share in royalties at all. I could go on and on for days about recording artists that got the shaft from their record company. Hundreds. Thousands. Ask Mary Wells of the Supremes how she feels about Motown records and what a swell deal she got from them. Oh, wait a minute. You can't. She died penniless and destitute. Motown Records, on the other hand did quite well for itself.

People who use the whole cheating the artist angle to explain why downloading is evil annoy the hell out of me.

If I like the artist that I hear from a download. I will buy the CD any way. You get things from an actual purchase in that way you do not get even from a legal download. Album art, lyrics, videos, in some cases. Show me a link that proves in any way that downloading depresses record sales and I might believe you. Until that day comes, all I hear is more RIAA lies and propaganda.

If they want to keep their creations private, they can. But they have no right to both make them public and restrict our capability to use and distribute them freely.
Soheran opposes patents, too.

I could go on and on for days about recording artists that got the shaft from their record company. Hundreds. Thousands.

I'm sure you could, and you'd blame the record company, because you're a moronic 'tard. It isn't the record companies responsibility to get the best deal for the artists that they sign to contracts. Quite the contrary, it's the exact opposite. It is the artists responsibility to get the best deal royalty wise and otherwise for themselves. The record companies are businesses, and their first responsibility is to the bottom line, which is as it should be. Ask Mary Wells of the Supremes how she feels about Motown records and what a swell deal she got from them. Oh, wait a minute. You can't. She died penniless and destitute. Motown Records, on the other hand did quite well for itself.

Sweet Jesus you are so completely full of shit. Mary Wells left Motown because she and her husabnd/manger felt that Motown wasn't paying her the proper amount of money given her current status in the music industry. Which to out it plainly, wasn't all that. Wells left Motown as her hit single My Guy was rising up the charts and signed with 20th century Fox for an advance of several hundred thousand dollars as well as some movie roles being dangled in front of her. The movie roles never materialized, but that isn't 20th Fox's fault, it's Wells for being a shitty actress. Wells stayed with Fox only for a year and later signed with Atco and Jubilee. Yes, she did have trouble landing recording deals in the late 1970's and 1980's, but prtecisely how is that Motowns fault?

Answer: It isn't.

If you had bothered to go to allmusic.com and read Wells's bio you'd have found all this info out for yourself, but instead you had to bleat and shriek out a bunch of pigshit lies to try and force acropss your bullshit preconceived conclusion.

But because of me, you got your ass handed to you in public.

I'd advise you to retire to the sideline.

I'm sure you could, and you'd blame the record company, because you're a moronic 'tard. It isn't the record companies responsibility to get the best deal for the artists that they sign to contracts. Quite the contrary, it's the exact opposite. It is the artists responsibility to get the best deal royalty wise and otherwise for themselves. The record companies are businesses, and their first responsibility is to the bottom line, which is as it should be.

Sweet Jesus you are so completely full of shit. Mary Wells left Motown because she and her husabnd/manger felt that Motown wasn't paying her the proper amount of money given her current status in the music industry. Which to out it plainly, wasn't all that. Wells left Motown as her hit single My Guy was rising up the charts and signed with 20th century Fox for an advance of several hundred thousand dollars as well as some movie roles being dangled in front of her. The movie roles never materialized, but that isn't 20th Fox's fault, it's Wells for being a shitty actress. Wells stayed with Fox only for a year and later signed with Atco and Jubilee. Yes, she did have trouble landing recording deals in the late 1970's and 1980's, but prtecisely how is that Motowns fault?

Answer: It isn't.

If you had bothered to go to allmusic.com and read Wells's bio you'd have found all this info out for yourself, but instead you had to bleat and shriek out a bunch of pigshit lies to try and force acropss your bullshit preconceived conclusion.

But because of me, you got your ass handed to you in public.

I'd advise you to retire to the sideline.

Well you finally actually explained yourself for once. Yet again you flamed somebody. Is that all you can do? :rolleyes:

and none of this "well, I wasn't going to buy the song/album in the first place so it really doesn't affect their bottom line crap." if you DL'd the song, then you wanted the song and thus you would've paid for at least the cd single or to download the track.
By this argument, if you are willing to pay a dollar for a bar of chocolate you should be willing to pay a hundred. If you paid a dollar, you wanted the chocolate bar and should be willing to pay more, no? :rolleyes:

By this argument, if you are willing to pay a dollar for a bar of chocolate you should be willing to pay a hundred. If you paid a dollar, you wanted the chocolate bar and should be willing to pay more, no? :rolleyes:Are you saying that you should only Pay for things you want to pay for?

Can you name me anything you would pay for if there was an option of NOT paying for it?

If you had the option to get a car for free (and it was Legal to do so) would you pay the tens of thousands of dollars for a car?

if you had the option to get the best, state of the art computer for free, would you pay for it?

and I suggest you take Economics and Business... learn about supply and demand and how businesses find the optimum price for goods and services. if a business or artist charges $100 for something not worth a $100, I won't buy/obtain that product. I will look for something else.

Shit, if I could hijack trucks from Merck I would never need a pharmacist again.

Yes you would. Unless you've got a degree in pharmacology, there's an even chance that you'd dose up on something wrong one of these days when you're down with the cold. You can't download skills...although that would be awesome.

Yes you would. Unless you've got a degree in pharmacology, there's an even chance that you'd dose up on something wrong one of these days when you're down with the cold. You can't download skills...although that would be awesome.

THE MATRIX HAS YOU NOW! :D

Yes you would. Unless you've got a degree in pharmacology, there's an even chance that you'd dose up on something wrong one of these days when you're down with the cold. You can't download skills...although that would be awesome.

I SO want that to be possible! Can someone please upload some maths skills?

For your reading pleasure:

...

The attitude of Duck, Cat and Dog is very similar to that of many people here. They contributed nothing to the creation, but they do wish to have a slice. Regardless of what the hard workers want.

Do you think the Little Red Hen would not give some bread to the Duck, Cat and Dog if she had a way to replicate it infinitively? Because that's just what file copying is...

THE MATRIX HAS YOU NOW! :D

Well, if that were possible, we'd probably see 4 year old theoretical physicists and educational institutes would be out of business. :p

Well, if that were possible, we'd probably see 4 year old theoretical physicists and educational institutes would be out of business. :p

not if the amount of information downloaded is proportional to the amount of space available in the human brain.

thing about it... Autistic (Idiot) Savants are geniuses in some ways but below average in everything else...


so as the brain grows and get "exercise" the more it can retain from a download...


Hmmmm.... -.-

its not stealling, its pirating.
music is your soul. we you sign a record deal you are selling your soul. you should hsared it for everyone for free.

music is your soul. we you sign a record deal you are selling your soul. you should hsared it for everyone for free.

It's not exactly easy to make music when you have to work full-time to support yourself.

It's not exactly easy to make music when you have to work full-time to support yourself.

alot of people do it. i do. i'm happy not making money off my music. i just want people to hear it.

It's not exactly easy to make music when you have to work full-time to support yourself.


and all the artists on jamendo.com? how do they do it?

and all the artists on jamendo.com? how do they do it?

I wish I knew. I'd have an album out by now. Employers don't take kindly to "I can't work on Saturdays, I have band practice".

alot of people do it. i do. i'm happy not making money off my music. i just want people to hear it.

I'd be happy with a small amount of money; I don't ask for much and I don't think I ever will. Enough to be able to eat and pay for an internet connection :p I'd just want something to live off if i'm putting my heart and soul into something. Can't fault most artists for that - would you work a full week for no pay?

I wish I knew. I'd have an album out by now. Employers don't take kindly to "I can't work on Saturdays, I have band practice".



I'd be happy with a small amount of money; I don't ask for much and I don't think I ever will. Enough to be able to eat and pay for an internet connection :p I'd just want something to live off if i'm putting my heart and soul into something. Can't fault most artists for that - would you work a full week for no pay?

its pretty easy to have a band and work full time. as i say downloading music should be free. it is ok to except money for playing gigs cause thats physical work.

Obviously, if I don't want it to be wrong then it isn't.

I mean.. come on, the artists have tons of money.
It's not like it'll make em poor or anything.
And Other people still buy CD's. Y'know.. artwork and all that.
I just don't see what the fuss is about.
If anything, we've just made artists more popular coz of trading.

...No, but seriously. It's stealing, and either you're okay with it or you aren't.
It wasn't yours and you took it. It doesn't matter that it can be replicated.

not if the amount of information downloaded is proportional to the amount of space available in the human brain.

Theoretically, it's stated that the subconscious remembers what the consciousness doesn't, which can be implied it never forgets. So if that gap can be bridged with information downloads, no problem for storage.

Theoretically, it's stated that the subconscious remembers what the consciousness doesn't, which can be implied it never forgets. So if that gap can be bridged with information downloads, no problem for storage.

I doubt the subconscious could hold infinite storage. I think it would eventually overload even if it is possible to download stuff directly to your brain.

I chose it depends.

Reasoning: I think that if I download electronic media that is simply unavailable any other way, such as a book that's out of print and not to be found in any local used bookstores, then it's fair game.

If the recording/printing industry wants to claim falling profits as a result of piracy, fine. If, on the other hand, I am pirating a book or CD that I cannot purchase legitimately because they're not publishing it, then they're not losing a dime.

As a second point: Consider the extraordinary steps being taken by the industry to control media we downlaod legitimately through the abuse of licenses.

Suppose I go to a store and buy a book. Under fair use laws, I can take that book and make a backup photocopy of it. I can sell the book to my friend if I want to. I can give it to him if I want to. I can loan it to him if I want to.

But if I buy an E-book, I am not allowed to do ANY of those things. I can download it only to a particular computer or login client. I cannot legally give it away, sell it, make a backup copy or loan it to anyone.

I understand that's because it's a million times easier to copy a DVD than a book, but that doesn't justify treating the consumers like prisoners. What makes them think that alienating us will make us sympathetic to their profit loss? The CEO of the record company flies in a private jet. I drive a Mistubishi.

P.S. I forgot to mention that some licenses can be revoked and your media deleted, and you get no refund. Chew on that.

...No, but seriously. It's stealing, and either you're okay with it or you aren't.
It wasn't yours and you took it. It doesn't matter that it can be replicated.

I agree with this, but I think it's over the top that when I buy DVDs now I get a commercial at the beginning that I can't skip through that tells me digital piracy is equivalent to stealing a car. It ain't.

Theoretically, it's stated that the subconscious remembers what the consciousness doesn't, which can be implied it never forgets. So if that gap can be bridged with information downloads, no problem for storage.

for storage, yes, but accessing the subconsciously stored data is another thing.

I agree with this, but I think it's over the top that when I buy DVDs now I get a commercial at the beginning that I can't skip through that tells me digital piracy is equivalent to stealing a car. It ain't.

Those horrid commercials on your PURCHASED media almost makes me just want to steal it and edit it out, out of spite and annoyance.

Those horrid commercials on your PURCHASED media almost makes me just want to steal it and edit it out, out of spite and annoyance.

When I had to experience these horrible anti-piracy spots in cinema, I stopped going to the sneak previews (and I went there weekly). When they controlled my backpack, it was the last time I went there. Yes, you CAN lose money due to piracy, but more due to stupidity.

(BTW: did anyone put LOTS of mud and worms into a backpack only in case it is searched for recording devices?)

I think you should be able to try something out before you pay a ridiculous amount for it.

Also, filesharing is a good way to boycott companies whose business ethics you disagree with yet you would still enjoy their music/games.

Those horrid commercials on your PURCHASED media almost makes me just want to steal it and edit it out, out of spite and annoyance.I use those times to go and get snacks, dinner/lunch, use the bathroom etc. after all, it will stop at the menu anyway.

When I had to experience these horrible anti-piracy spots in cinema, I stopped going to the sneak previews (and I went there weekly). When they controlled my backpack, it was the last time I went there. Yes, you CAN lose money due to piracy, but more due to stupidity.

(BTW: did anyone put LOTS of mud and worms into a backpack only in case it is searched for recording devices?)never had my backpack searched.

Since when do unemployed drifters have computers with internet connections?

He was a freelance carpenter. He'd probably have a laptop.

Those horrid commercials on your PURCHASED media almost makes me just want to steal it and edit it out, out of spite and annoyance.

It is truly appalling. Its like they want us to pirate stuff. and games with copy protection like starforce. not only does it piss people off, it breaks the dvd drive so you can only play downloaded stuff. goddamn idiots.

Im fine with downloading. no one is losing anything. If I walk to work im not stealing from the train company by travelling for free. if I download a song I would otherwise have never heard, no one loses anything. and if something is worth buying chances are I will buy it.

It is truly appalling. Its like they want us to pirate stuff. and games with copy protection like starforce. not only does it piss people off, it breaks the dvd drive so you can only play downloaded stuff. goddamn idiots.

Im fine with downloading. no one is losing anything. If I walk to work im not stealing from the train company by travelling for free. if I download a song I would otherwise have never heard, no one loses anything. and if something is worth buying chances are I will buy it.

Agreed. I downloaded Oblivion a while ago and played it for a bit, because there was so much hype for the damn thing.

Two weeks into having it, I get infinitely bored, and haven't even played it all that much. It definitely isn't worth the 60$ pricetag, and since I can't rent PC games, this saved me the trouble.

Whatever you do,
Don't Download This Song
Weird Al


Once in a while maybe you will feel the urge
To break international copyright law
By downloading MP3s from file-sharing sites
Like Morpheus or Grokster or Limewire or KaZaA

But deep in your heart you know the guilt would drive you mad
And the shame would leave a permanent scar
'Cause you start out stealing songs and then you're robbing liquor stores
And sellin' crack and runnin' over school kids with your car

So don't download this song
The record store's where you belong
Go and buy the CD like you know that you should
Oh, don't download this song

Oh, you don't wanna mess with the R-I-double-A
They'll sue you if you burn that CD-R
It doesn't matter if you're a grandma or a seven year old girl
They'll treat you like the evil hard-bitten criminal scum you are

So don't download this song
Don't go pirating music all day long
Go and buy the CD like you know that you should
Oh, don't download this song

Don't take away money from artists just like me
How else can I afford another solid gold Hum-Vee
And diamond-studded swimming pools
These things don't grow on trees
So all I ask is, "Everybody, please..."

Don't donwload this song (Don't do it, no, no)
Even Lars Ulrich knows it's wrong (You can just ask him)
Go and buy the CD like you know that you should (You really should)
Oh, don't download this song

Don't donwload this song (Oh please, don't you do it)
Or you might wind up in jail like Tommy Chong (Remember Tommy)
Go and buy the CD (Right now) like you know that you should (Go out and buy it)
Oh, don't download this song

Don't download this song (No, no, no, no, no, no)
You'll burn in hell before too long (and you'll deserve it)
Go and buy the CD (Just buy it) like you know that you should (You cheap bastard)
Oh, don't download this song

Download this song for free at Weird Al's website! (http://weirdal.com/)

I know someone, who would not agree:

MC Lars - Download this song (http://music.download.com/mclars/3600-8520_32-100912467.html)

It's 2006, the consumer's still pissed
Won't take it anymore so I'm writing a list
Don't try to resist this paradigm shift
The music revolution cannot be dismissed
$18.98 Iggy Pop CD?
What if I can get it from my sister for free?
It's all about marketing Clive Davis, see?
If fans buy the shirt then they get the mp3
Music was a product now it is a service
Major record labels why are you trying to hurt us?
Epic's up in my face like, "Don't steal our songs Lars,"
While Sony sells the burners that are burning CD-R's
So Warner, EMI, hear me clearly
Universal Music, update your circuitry
They sue little kids downloading hit songs
They think that makes sense
When they know that it's wrong

Hey Mr. Record Man
The joke's on you
Running your label
Like it was 1992
Hey Mr. Record Man,
Your system can't compete
It's the New Artist Model
File transfer complete
Download this song!
Download this song!
Download this song!

I know I'm rhyming fast, but the message is clear
You don't need a million dollars to launch a career
If your style is unique and you practice what you preach
Minor Threat and Jello both have things to teach!
I've got G5 production, concept videos
Touring with a laptop, rocking packed shows
The old-school major deal? It makes no sense
Indentured servitude, the costs are too immense!
Their finger's in the dam but the crack keeps on growing
Can't sell bottled water when it's freely flowing
Record sales slipping, down 8 percent
Increased download sales, you can't prevent
Satellite radio and video games
Changed the terrain, it will never be same
Did you know in ten years labels won't exist?
Goodbye DVD's, and compact disks!

Hey Mr. Record Man,
What's wrong with you
Still living off your catalogue
From 1982
Hey Mr. Record Man,
Your system can't compete
It's the new artist model
File transfer complete
Download this song!
Download this song!
Download this song!

You know, we just wanted a level playing field.
You've overcharged us for music for years, and now we're
Just trying to find a fair balance. I hate to say it, but…
Welcome to the future.

Download this song!
Download this song!
Download this song!

Hey Mr. Record Man
The joke's on you
Running your label
Like it was 1992
Hey Mr. Record Man,
Your system can't compete
It's the New Artist Model
File transfer complete

I know someone, who would not agree:

MC Lars - Download this song (http://music.download.com/mclars/3600-8520_32-100912467.html)

It's 2006, the consumer's still pissed
Won't take it anymore so I'm writing a list
Don't try to resist this paradigm shift
The music revolution cannot be dismissed
$18.98 Iggy Pop CD?
What if I can get it from my sister for free?
It's all about marketing Clive Davis, see?
If fans buy the shirt then they get the mp3
Music was a product now it is a service
Major record labels why are you trying to hurt us?
Epic's up in my face like, "Don't steal our songs Lars,"
While Sony sells the burners that are burning CD-R's
So Warner, EMI, hear me clearly
Universal Music, update your circuitry
They sue little kids downloading hit songs
They think that makes sense
When they know that it's wrong

Hey Mr. Record Man
The joke's on you
Running your label
Like it was 1992
Hey Mr. Record Man,
Your system can't compete
It's the New Artist Model
File transfer complete
Download this song!
Download this song!
Download this song!

I know I'm rhyming fast, but the message is clear
You don't need a million dollars to launch a career
If your style is unique and you practice what you preach
Minor Threat and Jello both have things to teach!
I've got G5 production, concept videos
Touring with a laptop, rocking packed shows
The old-school major deal? It makes no sense
Indentured servitude, the costs are too immense!
Their finger's in the dam but the crack keeps on growing
Can't sell bottled water when it's freely flowing
Record sales slipping, down 8 percent
Increased download sales, you can't prevent
Satellite radio and video games
Changed the terrain, it will never be same
Did you know in ten years labels won't exist?
Goodbye DVD's, and compact disks!

Hey Mr. Record Man,
What's wrong with you
Still living off your catalogue
From 1982
Hey Mr. Record Man,
Your system can't compete
It's the new artist model
File transfer complete
Download this song!
Download this song!
Download this song!

You know, we just wanted a level playing field.
You've overcharged us for music for years, and now we're
Just trying to find a fair balance. I hate to say it, but…
Welcome to the future.

Download this song!
Download this song!
Download this song!

Hey Mr. Record Man
The joke's on you
Running your label
Like it was 1992
Hey Mr. Record Man,
Your system can't compete
It's the New Artist Model
File transfer complete

Weird Al was mocking the RIAA.

Weird Al was mocking the RIAA.
I thought so...

Those horrid commercials on your PURCHASED media almost makes me just want to steal it and edit it out, out of spite and annoyance.

Amen to that...

And it's not just the guilt/threat commercials about piracy... I don't want to have to sit through 3-5 movie previews just to get to the main menu on the DVD. It's okay if you can skip them and go right to the movie, but they're coding them now where you can't.

It's like watching commerials for Levis and Coca-Cola at the theater... I paid $10 for a movie ticket so I would NOT have to sit through commercials...

And big media doesn't understand our aggravation.

Amen to that...

And it's not just the guilt/threat commercials about piracy... I don't want to have to sit through 3-5 movie previews just to get to the main menu on the DVD. It's okay if you can skip them and go right to the movie, but they're coding them now where you can't.

It's like watching commerials for Levis and Coca-Cola at the theater... I paid $10 for a movie ticket so I would NOT have to sit through commercials...

And big media doesn't understand our aggravation.

Agreed … Hell on vhs at least you could fast forward through them …

Do you think the Little Red Hen would not give some bread to the Duck, Cat and Dog if she had a way to replicate it infinitively? Because that's just what file copying is...

Possibly. But that should be up to the Little Red Hen. NOT to Duck, Cat and Dog.
Some Hens will share with the lazy bastards, some Hens won't. But I am certain many Hens would be annoyed by Duck, Cat and Dog demanding that she replicates the bread and pretending they have some mystical right to it.

what i find most entertaining about the whole debate is for once, and only once, the consumer has one up on industry.

any little person can share music or download a film that massive corporates want them to continue to pay way over the odds for.

so how do these companies react? a business strategy to encorporate the new technology? innovation? no chance, they scream and shout about 'theft' and try and have people prosecuted. exactly the shitty behaviour that has so few people seeing them as victims.

filesharing and torrents are the only use of technology that allows us opt out of consuming and that is a threat to them. so they react with fire. music and film companies arent losing money despite their claims.

i like alot of bands. i dont have enough money to buy all the cd's i want. so fuck it. if they are good, people will make money off thier gigs.

Possibly. But that should be up to the Little Red Hen. NOT to Duck, Cat and Dog.
Some Hens will share with the lazy bastards, some Hens won't. But I am certain many Hens would be annoyed by Duck, Cat and Dog demanding that she replicates the bread and pretending they have some mystical right to it.

They are not demanding any replication on her part ... they are doing that work themselfs

Is it wrong if I like to pirate?

They are not demanding any replication on her part ... they are doing that work themselfs

Exactly!
When I buy something, I should be able to do anything I want with it! For example, when I buy a new video camera, it's not forbidden to take it apart, see how it works and make a new one based on that! The only difference between this and file copying is the simplicity of such process...

Depends. I download a couple songs from a band or album to see if I like them before spending my money on them. I also download live tracks that aren't on any album.

I try to actually buy the albums, because quite a few of the bands I listen to aren't very well known and could use the support. Also, because I sometimes do believe in the golden rule. That is, I am in a band, and if/when we put out an album, I would like people to buy it as well.

Well you finally actually explained yourself for once. Yet again you flamed somebody. Is that all you can do? :rolleyes:

Jesus you're a fucking 'tard of the highest order.

I didn't explain myself, as there is no need.

Rather, I completelky and utterly destroyed someone who is bleating and shrieking pigshit and blatent lies in an attempt to justify out and out theft.

Jesus you're a fucking 'tard of the highest order.

I didn't explain myself, as there is no need.

Rather, I completelky and utterly destroyed someone who is bleating and shrieking pigshit and blatent lies in an attempt to justify out and out theft.

You have your own opinion you don't have to be an idiot and flame somebody who has a different opinion. :rolleyes:

Not everybody in this topic consider stealing something from a store and downloading a music album is the same thing.

Jesus you're a fucking 'tard of the highest order.

I didn't explain myself, as there is no need.

Rather, I completelky and utterly destroyed someone who is bleating and shrieking pigshit and blatent lies in an attempt to justify out and out theft.

Theft deprives the original possessor of the object of theft. Not so in this case.

Jesus you're a fucking 'tard of the highest order.

I didn't explain myself, as there is no need.

Rather, I completelky and utterly destroyed someone who is bleating and shrieking pigshit and blatent lies in an attempt to justify out and out theft.

Stop with the flaming and flamebaiting, Fooforah. And there is need to explain yourself, or you're just posting no-content tripe, which is spam and also against the rules so conveniently posted in the Moderation forum. Those would be good reading for you.

NationStates Forum Moderator
HotRodia

I hate those ads that attempt to drive the point home that you are STEALING, and go on to say "You wouldn't steal a car, downloading pirated software is no different" etc etc.

Put it this way, no, I wouldn't steal a car. But if a mate of mine rang up and told me "Hey man, how about I burn you a copy" ...I would seriously contemplate that.

(The above statement was not my own, but in fact a comedian's who I forget the name of. Nonetheless, it conveys my feelings towards this subject very well indeed)

What it comes down to for me, is that the difference between stealing and downloading shared files, is that one is actual stealing, and the other is copying.
Although I do believe it is stealing to make any profit off of the copied materials.


Filesharing is wrong in the way that public libraries, copy machines, and human ingenuity are wrong. It is said to protect intellectual property but if I constructed a perfect replica of a Dell computer or a pair of Nike shoes and only used them for personal use THAT would not be illegal, nor would most people consider it wrong. Yet, making copies of data is wrong. BUT, only when it's on computers apparently. If I got a copy machine and photocopies a friends book for personal use: not frowned upon. If I listen to a musicians song and recreate it myself for personal enjoyment: it is not frowned upon.

These corporations are just twisting around the definition of stealing because they're greedy. If they really want people to buy thier discs they should either make them more appealing, reasonably prices, or the artists should ask their fans to support them as much as possible.

Well, it isn't wrong, but I can't say I have no problems with it. It's slow at times, requires searching source or a tracker, and so on.


If software companies want people to treat their products like real goods, they should in the first place do it themselves. "The company is not liable for anything...", "The software is not sold, but licensed to you. You may not: rent, modify...", "This product comes with no warranty whatsoever, even implied warranty of suitability for any purpose..." - Would you expect this in your TV manual?

Well, if a company has as much responsibility for their product as if it was freeware, and doesn't treat it as other products, it certainly shouldn't expect the users to treat it that way.

I live in Canada, so s'all gut! :)

I live in Canada, so s'all gut! :)

Well Canada has awesome laws up there.

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=36027

This just proves the RIAA is full of a bunch of idiots.