DescentBB

I just thought of this the other day. Every single one of you who has any illegal music, movies, or software are breaking the law, and destroying the economy, just as much as all of the illegal immigrants that are pouring over our borders. I'm not supporting illegal immigration, but at the same time, we're all helping destroy the country, too.

And for those of us who don't fit your catagory I just want to say: Heh!
My glass house is bought and paid for with legal labor and the the view from within is just great

the internet is the devil's work i tell you! the devil!

snoopy wrote:I just thought of this the other day. Every single one of you who has any illegal music, movies, or software are breaking the law, and destroying the economy, just as much as all of the illegal immigrants that are pouring over our borders. I'm not supporting illegal immigration, but at the same time, we're all helping destroy the country, too.

And you're telling us you are innocent? BS

So you are saying the RIAA controls this country? If that's the case then GOOD! Destroy this country!

And all the software I use is FREE, not stolen.

We are allowed to legally download in this Country.
Every blank media we buy has TWO levys on it, one for International artists and another for Canadian.

As long as I don't use the media for profit or commercial use I can download or make copies and share all the music I want.

Fully 3/4 the cost of blank CD's here are levys.
The surplus from these levys is so large that now recording engineers and audio technicians are being included in the payouts, and they still can't give away the money fast enough.

The RIAA has totally brainwashed you and at the same time has you bent over while rifling through your wallet. Just because your Country lets the RIAA get away with ripping off the consumer doesn't mean the rest of the world has to let them.

/me fires up Bittorrent and downloads another 5 gb of music.

I have no glass house because I took a sledgehammer to it.

snoopy wrote:...we're all helping destroy the country, too.

I rest my case Merlin. For all of you who are ranting and raving about how your music or software is legal- that's fine, note that I did refer to illegal copies of all of these things.

Destroying the economy?

What?!

Since when do illegal downloads place a heavy burden on Medicare, or any other social construct paid for with MY MONEY.

Since when do illegal downloads declare that they're going to take over cities and claim them in the name of BitTorrent?

How do downloads affect ANYONE but the RIAA and the artists? They don't. The RIAA puts CD prices way up there because they can, not because they have to. My taxes aren't raised because of illegal downloads.

Technicaly, most of the music I download is Japanese. So by your logic I am damaging the Japanese economy.
[sarcastic]I am a bad bad person![/sarcastic]

Just ignore the fact that downloading this music has caused me to go to places and search out where I can buy it for myself.
heh, I actually bought that CD when I was IN Japan and it cost me about $35 used.

Most of the people who d/l illegally wouldn't buy the games/apps/music or whatever. So they are not losing any money. They try to tell they are losing billions but thats a lie. They inflate thier $$$.

It's all BS.

Maybe we should all download Iranian Music. That'll frig 'em up.

I think I bought maybe 6 albums all my life until I went online and was exposed to all sorts of music.
I have actually bought more media because of it.

And Tool's new CD kicks. I think I'll get it because
with it's 3D cover art at least an attempt was made to give something back to the consumer, to replace the album art that the labels ripped from us when we went from vinyl to cd.

Also the indy scene is really heating up.
Lots of talent there that doesn't suck on the RIAA's teats.

http://indy.tv/

Oh and Flabby Chick... that will get you on the USA's, \"Homeland Security's top one billion list\"

CDN_Merlin wrote:

snoopy wrote:I just thought of this the other day. Every single one of you who has any illegal music, movies, or software are breaking the law, and destroying the economy, just as much as all of the illegal immigrants that are pouring over our borders. I'm not supporting illegal immigration, but at the same time, we're all helping destroy the country, too.

And you're telling us you are innocent? BS

nope, he never said that. and he's right.

Click me

Pretty much sums up my opinion.

You are allowed to make copies of your music in the States and give it to your friends. But only one way, http://www.musicunited.org/2_thelaw.html

\"Copying CDs

It’s okay to copy music onto an analog cassette, but not for commercial purposes.

It’s also okay to copy music onto special Audio CD-R’s, mini-discs, and digital tapes (because royalties have been paid on them) – but, again, not for commercial purposes.

Beyond that, there’s no legal \"right\" to copy the copyrighted music on a CD onto a CD-R. However, burning a copy of CD onto a CD-R, or transferring a copy onto your computer hard drive or your portable music player, won’t usually raise concerns so long as:

The copy is made from an authorized original CD that you legitimately own

The copy is just for your personal use. It’s not a personal use – in fact, it’s illegal – to give away the copy or lend it to others for copying.

·The owners of copyrighted music have the right to use protection technology to allow or prevent copying.
Remember, it’s never okay to sell or make commercial use of a copy that you make.



Hey this is cool;
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/products/2 ... site_x.htm

Edited, umm double post?

As someone who used to download quite a bit, snoopy is dead on right. It doesn't matter if you THINK it's different, you are stealing. You are stealing from someone, somewhere. It doesn't matter if the RIAA inflates their prices, the gas companies do it, everyone does it. It's sick but it's the American way

Testi, your taxes aren't raised because of illegal immigrants. For the last hundred years, this whole issue was a non-issue, only in the last month has it been getting attention. The US didn't care about it, that's why there were so few borderguards, inadequate security and whatnot, I still say it's not the biggest issue on the plate.

Another RIAA droid. Think out of the box.

Check out the indy link, I found some really great sites from it.

http://indy.tv/

Oh and this is how Canadian Copyright Law handles copying CD's

Note that the Copyright Act ONLY allows for copies to be made of \"sound recordings of musical works\". Nonmusical works, such as audio books or books-on-tape are NOT covered.

The wording of the Copyright Act gives rise to some very odd situations. In the 6 examples below, \"commercial CD\" means a commercially pressed CD that you would normally buy at a retail store.

If someone steals a commercial CD, steals a blank CD-R, and then copies the commercial CD onto the CD-R, they are a thief, but they have not infringed copyright.
You can legally lend a commercial CD to a friend, give him a blank CD-R, let him use your computer, and help him burn the CD-R which he can keep for his own private use.
You can legally copy a commercial CD , keep the copy, and give your friend the original.
You cannot legally make the copy yourself and give your friend the copy.
Your friends Alice and Benoit really like the new commercial CD you just purchased. Alice borrows it and makes a copy for her own use. She then passes the commercial CD on to Benoit, who makes a copy for his own use. Benoit gives the commercial CD back to you. This is all perfectly legal.
However, if Alice had copied the commercial CD, given it back to you, and passed her copy on to Benoit to make a copy for his own use, then copyright would have \"probably\" been infringed. There is some doubt here because Alice's original intent is important. In the strictest terms, her copy was no longer just for her private use. Pretty strange considering that the end result of examples 5 and 6 are exactly the same!

From;
http://neil.eton.ca/copylevy.shtml#copy_for_friends

MD-2389 wrote:Click me

Pretty much sums up my opinion.

Rofl

The Ugly Truth:

Sadly, I'm not going to care until it has a noticeable (Mobius?), tangible effect on my personal life.

MD-2389 wrote:Click me

Pretty much sums up my opinion.

LOL!

http://www.illwillpress.com/vault.html

My favorites are Coffee House Propaganda, Small Medium Large, and Tech Support III

Snoopy,

would this be a fair summary of your argument:

\"If you believe illegal immigrants are bad because they broke the law to come here, you should also believe you are bad if you break the law by [warezing, speeding, etc.] and if you do not you're a hypocrite.\"

?

You are all a bunch of hypocrites

Hmm...
hypocrite
n : a person who professes beliefs and opinions that he does not hold

Well... Where have we said that we think copying\\downloading music is something that should never be done...and then go ahead and do it.

That would be the correct reason to call us \"hypocrites\"

If you believe stealing is illegal and you download music, then you're a hypocrite if you think it's ok. If you didn't pay for it, you shouldn't have it.

Lothar wrote:Snoopy,

would this be a fair summary of your argument:

"If you believe illegal immigrants are bad because they broke the law to come here, you should also believe you are bad if you break the law by [warezing, speeding, etc.] and if you do not you're a hypocrite."

?

Yep. You want people to follow the law, but don't follow it yourself.

EDIT I guess I should say "we," because I break it, too.

Are all people against illegal immigration because they think it is illegal or are some because they think it is ethically wrong? For somebody against illegal immigration but who illegally shares music, it would be self-consistent for him to think that illegal immigration is ethically wrong, but to think that sharing music is not ethically wrong, and to think that all people should follow ethics.

Jeff250 wrote:Are all people against illegal immigration because they think it is illegal or are some because they think it is ethically wrong? For somebody against illegal immigration but who illegally shares music, it would be self-consistent for him to think that illegal immigration is ethically wrong, but to think that sharing music is not ethically wrong, and to think that all people should follow ethics.

That's exactly the reason that the law exists. Otherwise I can decide that it isn't ethically wrong to rape and murder people so in my book I wouldn't be doing anything wrong by doing so. You can't say something is ok just because some given person doing it thinks it's ok. Furthermore, it is ethically wrong to steal artistic material, so your point is moot.

So if I download one song that I would otherwise have to buy a whole album (and never will), how does that hurt the music business? Besides, if it was illegal I shouldn't be able to download it in the first place.

Woody, that's kind of why Napster got shut down, the pay for song services are ok, it's the free stuff. As for hurting the business, what if everyone just downloaded one song and nobody paid for anything, the product isn't free, you shouldn't get it for free.

snoopy wrote:That's exactly the reason that the law exists. Otherwise I can decide that it isn't ethically wrong to rape and murder people so in my book I wouldn't be doing anything wrong by doing so. You can't say something is ok just because some given person doing it thinks it's ok. Furthermore, it is ethically wrong to steal artistic material, so your point is moot.

The law doesn't legislate morality, nor do you need to think that it does in order to want to follow it. You could, say, think that stealing from the rich is morally right, but abstain from it because you fear the consequences of being caught.

Of course, many people hold that it is morally right in itself to follow the law, but this isn't necessary for anyone to believe in ethics or to believe in following the law.

And when you say that it is ethically wrong to share music, this is not only a claim that you'll never be able to prove, but it is irrelevant. Hypocrisy (what you're claiming) involves breaking self-consistency, not breaking consistency with reality or some ethical ether world.

Jeff250 wrote:The law doesn't legislate morality, nor do you need to think that it does in order to want to follow it. You could, say, think that stealing from the rich is morally right, but abstain from it because you fear the consequences of being caught.

Of course, many people hold that it is morally right in itself to follow the law, but this isn't necessary for anyone to believe in ethics or to believe in following the law.

And when you say that it is ethically wrong to share music, this is not only a claim that you'll never be able to prove, but it is irrelevant. Hypocrisy (what you're claiming) involves breaking self-consistency, not breaking consistency with reality or some ethical ether world.

You are right in the context of a tight definition of the word hypocracy- in that none of us are illegally crossing international borders while expecting others not to. At the same time, I am right in a lose definition of the word hypocracy in that we are expecting others to follow the law while breaking it ourselves.

Morality, because of it's subjective nature, is an essentially useless cultural device. It may give some license to inwardly judge others, but the law is necessary to be able to outwardly judge and punish others. The law is intended to take to well being of all into account, and make it's best attempt to prevent anyone from being wronged. An individual may feel that a breaking a given law doesn't harm anyone (or doesn't harm anyone who doesn't deserve to be harmed), and thus it is morally and ethically ok to break it. This disagrees with the law makers (In the US, our elected legislators), who originally made the law to protect a given party. Once you start down that road, total chaos erupts. If it is ok to break copyright law concerning music, what qualifies that, other than subjective judgement? If you justify yourself in breaking copyright law, you have no grounds to judge others in their breaking of immigration laws, murder laws, or rape laws. If you allow your subjective morilty to decide what is right and wrong, refusing to be judged by the public standard (the law), then you open the flood gates for every psyco in the world to demand the same. The law is a necessary attempt at standardizing a culture's morality, and to dismiss the law is to start down the path toward anarchy.

(Let me note that I'm speaking of a secular view of morality and the law- as a Christian I believe that the law and morality should originate from God.)

PLEASE tell me that one of you guys isn't going to link illegally DLing music to all out chaos...

What you said is true, amd makes perfect sense.

1) my problem with illegal immigration is not that illegals are breaking the law... it's that employers are exploiting illegals AND employers are exploiting taxpayers (by not paying for health insurance etc. for their employees and families like other companies have to do.) My other problem with it is that the government seems to have a completely stupid method for dealing with the problem.

2) my problem with illegal downloading is that, really, when someone produces intellectual property and then asks for money from its users, you should pay for it if you use it. I have a problem with those who just download whole albums in order to avoid paying for them, but I don't mind those who download samples in order to see if the product is to their liking and then either delete them or buy the album. I prefer for this to happen with the artist's permission (like, when they put samples on their website). I also don't mind people wanting to look at artwork before they buy it, etc.

Lothar wrote:2) my problem with illegal downloading is that, really, when someone produces intellectual property and then asks for money from its users, you should pay for it if you use it. I have a problem with those who just download whole albums in order to avoid paying for them, but I don't mind those who download samples in order to see if the product is to their liking and then either delete them or buy the album. I prefer for this to happen with the artist's permission (like, when they put samples on their website). I also don't mind people wanting to look at artwork before they buy it, etc.

x2

What Lothar said is exactly the whole point of shareware. If I'm going to fork out $15 - $20 for an album, it better be worth the price. I'm not paying that much for an album that only has one or two songs out of 10 or 12 that are on the album. I've been burned too many times to just fork out the cash and find out afterward. If retailers would make it easier to preview albums BEFORE you buy them, I imagine this would curb alot of p2p usage. It would also help if alot of retailers were set up so you can pick what songs you want, and they burn you a CD-R. You either pay a fee per song, or a flat rate per CD-R and you're on your way. I've heard of some places actually doing this, but unfortunately none are in my vicinity....or I would've already taken advantage of this some time ago. I love music, and I am WILLING to pay for it IF its worth the premium.

You all can sit here debating the ethics of folks downloading music, but until something is actually is DONE about it in a means that would actually WORK to benefit both the bands and the consumer, this is all moot.

Oh, and before any of you start calling me a pirate, I've got a stack of CDs behind me that I bought LEGALLY after previewing the content. Granted, its small compared to the collections gathered by some here, but its steadily growing.

All the music stores around me have stations where you can listen to the album before you buy it. But they usually only have the new releases available. It does help a little though.

Honestly, what is the difference between downloading a song and recording it off the radio? Pretty much the same thing so I don't know why the RIAA went crazy when Napster came out. Shouldn't they be attacking people who record the songs off the radio as well? It just doesn't make sense.

Thats literally next.
http://action.eff.org/site/Advocacy?id=221

Canuck wrote:Thats literally next.
http://action.eff.org/site/Advocacy?id=221

heh, bring it on. I'd love to know how they'd be able to track such things when we've had such capability for decades now. What are they doing to do, start invading random homes citing the "patriot" act?

Well I guess I wont be listening to the radio any more if that happens.

Xamindar wrote:Well I guess I wont be listening to the radio any more if that happens.

I barely listen to it as it is simply because the closest station that even plays GOOD music is over 50 miles away. All that plays on the local stations is country, rap, or that boy-band crap that the teenie boppers listen to.
If you're looking for Rock & Roll in Memphis, you're SOL. (Sad thing is, Memphis is where Rock & Roll as BORN!)