Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Kosh on April 11, 2006, 02:18:40 am
-
http://www.shoutwire.com/viewstory/8794/RIAA_To_Student_Drop_Out_Of_School_For_Piracy_Settlement
Is this getting rediculous or what?
-
Hrmmm.
The crap indeed.
-
I find it sad that they are willing to sacrifice America's future (students from such universities as MIT) for the sake of a few extra dollars (and not even that considering how expensive lawyers are).
-
Next up; RIAA suggests mothers pimp out their young children to pay for the S-Club 7 track they inadvertantly downloaded.
-
Next up; RIAA suggests mothers pimp out their young children to pay for the S-Club 7 track they inadvertantly downloaded.
i thought S-Club 7 paid people to listen to their tortu....er...music
-
I find it sad that they are willing to sacrifice America's future (students from such universities as MIT) for the sake of a few extra dollars.
I believe the massive cutbacks in funding and the travesty that the educational system has slowly been turning into (see: ID actually getting into schools) pretty much shows conclusively that Americans don't give a flying f**k about their future...
-
hence the reason i boycott all american music made by big name lables. i can pirate some other country's music. norwigian kvlt bm bands dont seem to care as it is very kvlt to have your music pirated. its not like the big lables in the us are responsible for any good music anyway.
-
I find it sad that they are willing to sacrifice America's future (students from such universities as MIT) for the sake of a few extra dollars.
I believe the massive cutbacks in funding and the travesty that the educational system has slowly been turning into (see: ID actually getting into schools) pretty much shows conclusively that Americans don't give a flying f**k about their future...
Private universities have nothing at all to do with the primary/secondary educational system. I sincerely doubt you'd see MIT students being taught about ID, just like you wouldn't in at least half the country. Don't let a few idiots taint your view of the entire country.
-
Private universities have nothing at all to do with the primary/secondary educational system. I sincerely doubt you'd see MIT students being taught about ID, just like you wouldn't in at least half the country. Don't let a few idiots taint your view of the entire country.
There are bible universities in the Us that teach that though, aren't there? Y'know, they'll shove in something like creationism 101 alongside as a general elective to a business degree.
-
http://www.shoutwire.com/viewstory/8794/RIAA_To_Student_Drop_Out_Of_School_For_Piracy_Settlement
Is this getting rediculous or what?
next they'll be expecting people to say "Sig Heil" :doubt: :rolleyes:
-
Private universities have nothing at all to do with the primary/secondary educational system. I sincerely doubt you'd see MIT students being taught about ID, just like you wouldn't in at least half the country. Don't let a few idiots taint your view of the entire country.
There are bible universities in the Us that teach that though, aren't there? Y'know, they'll shove in something like creationism 101 alongside as a general elective to a business degree.
There are, but you don't group one of the country's top engineering schools with Bob Jones University.
And I didn't make up the name of that second university.
-
Private universities have nothing at all to do with the primary/secondary educational system. I sincerely doubt you'd see MIT students being taught about ID, just like you wouldn't in at least half the country. Don't let a few idiots taint your view of the entire country.
There are bible universities in the Us that teach that though, aren't there? Y'know, they'll shove in something like creationism 101 alongside as a general elective to a business degree.
There are, but you don't group one of the country's top engineering schools with Bob Jones University.
And I didn't make up the name of that second university.
There's a huge difference between ID/creation being taught as religious ed and it being taught as actual science. I don't know of anywhere in the country besides a couple of ass-backwards high school districts (thank you Kansas) that actually teach ID in a scientific context. Despite the massive flash in the pan that all of these debates are, very few of them actually get through to the classroom when it's all said and done.
What's sad is that these "negotiation hotlines" that the RIAA uses are highly illegal - right in line with intimidation practices used by the mob - and yet they never get any attention.
-
What's sad is that these "negotiation hotlines" that the RIAA uses are highly illegal - right in line with intimidation practices used by the mob -
Who says they aren't the same organization? :nervous:
-
What's sad is that these "negotiation hotlines" that the RIAA uses are highly illegal - right in line with intimidation practices used by the mob -
Who says they aren't the same organization? :nervous:
The mob are more respectable.
-
**** the RIAA. **** them. **** them with a red-hot tire iron. I ****ing hate them. They want a kid to drop out of school to jump through their ****ing circus hoops? They can go blow an elephant. **** them.
-
Ford phrased that quite elegantly :)
-
I thought so too.
Might've missed a few '****'s though.
-
Little tame.
-
Why don't they break the settlement down into smaller payments? I don't get it! They're earning their money and not completely ****ing someone over!
Nevertheless, it was quite dumb of him to get caught in the first place.
1) Burn music to external sources so "The Man" cannot scan your computer to see how many files you have on there. I've got several DvD's worth.
2) Listen to music that doesn't suck ass. That usually means downloading the music of bands the RIAA doesn't give a **** about.
-
I just don't buy RIAA labels anymore. Incidentally, does anyone have a full list? I say we start a net-wide boycott. ANyone else agree?
-
http://www.riaa.com/about/members/default.asp
Personally, as much as I'd like to not buy RIAA stuff, there are a few artists on some of the more minor labels that I'm going to have to keep buying.
-
Find a good used music store. You can't get stuff as soon as it comes out, unless you're pretty lucky. But it's usually a lot cheaper so less money goes to the RIAA. Not sure if used music stores still have to pay the RIAA for used music, but at least they'll be getting less.
-
http://www.riaa.com/about/members/default.asp
Personally, as much as I'd like to not buy RIAA stuff, there are a few artists on some of the more minor labels that I'm going to have to keep buying.
Text Not Found: Century Media
Text Not Found: Nuclear Blast
-
You break the law, you pay the price. I have 0 compassion for this fellow. Frackin buy his music used or something. He knew he was a poor college student and could not afford to be sued. Basically if you can't pay the price, don't do the crime. If RIAA committed a real crime I would say the exact same thing.
-
You break the law, you pay the price. I have 0 compassion for this fellow. Frackin buy his music used or something. He knew he was a poor college student and could not afford to be sued. Basically if you can't pay the price, don't do the crime. If RIAA committed a real crime I would say the exact same thing.
What if you're downloading music you already own, but the likes of DRM prevent you from burning an mp3 for use on your player? Or if you lost the CD. Or if the track itself is literally unavailable in the shops due to it being old, obscure and/or from a band that has long since vanished? Or if it's an unobtainable b-side (from a delisted single) or live/accoustic rarity?
-
What if you're downloading music you already own, but the likes of DRM prevent you from burning an mp3 for use on your player? Or if you lost the CD. Or if the track itself is literally unavailable in the shops due to it being old, obscure and/or from a band that has long since vanished? Or if it's an unobtainable b-side (from a delisted single) or live/accoustic rarity?
Or you don't want to pay $12 for a CD that should cost $3. They gouge the prices, they can expect people to bypass them altogether.
-
http://www.riaa.com/about/members/default.asp
Personally, as much as I'd like to not buy RIAA stuff, there are a few artists on some of the more minor labels that I'm going to have to keep buying.
Text Not Found: Century Media
Text Not Found: Nuclear Blast
ah yes, labels i know well. its such a shame that satyricon's new album came out on a lable under the tyranical grasp of the riia. good album, but they ****ing sold out.
What if you're downloading music you already own, but the likes of DRM prevent you from burning an mp3 for use on your player? Or if you lost the CD. Or if the track itself is literally unavailable in the shops due to it being old, obscure and/or from a band that has long since vanished? Or if it's an unobtainable b-side (from a delisted single) or live/accoustic rarity?
Or you don't want to pay $12 for a CD that should cost $3. They gouge the prices, they can expect people to bypass them altogether.
i agree. if you remember before the cd came along, an album cost anywhere from 5 - 8 bucks. the cd comes along, which is cheaper to reproduce and has poorer sound quality to analog media, yet they double and in some cases tripple the price (and early cds cost as much as $25). and dont you ****ing dare blame inflation!
-
If you own the CD i believe you are allowed to do so under license. I am not sure if DRM is on CDs? I haven't ripped a Newer CD in a long time. If you lost it, well I hope you atleast still have the case. Now if it is rare, search harder. Now if it is live recorded music, I don't believe this is technically the same thing. But I highly doubt that our little MIT student was downloading any of the things you mentioned before. Lets face it, he is likly downloading crap like Green Day etc.
-
If you own the CD i believe you are allowed to do so under license. I am not sure if DRM is on CDs? I haven't ripped a Newer CD in a long time. If you lost it, well I hope you atleast still have the case. Now if it is rare, search harder. Now if it is live recorded music, I don't believe this is technically the same thing. But I highly doubt that our little MIT student was downloading any of the things you mentioned before. Lets face it, he is likly downloading crap like Green Day etc.
DRM is on many CDs nowadays, particularly those from the large labels tat run the RIAA. Usually rootkit based self-installing stuff, like sony but not so publicised (for whatever reason).
-
oh well, it is a case of the few spoiling it for the many. Not that I like it. I don't. But DRM wouldn't be an issue if people didn't steal music or go around passing it around like the common cold.
-
oh well, it is a case of the few spoiling it for the many. Not that I like it. I don't. But DRM wouldn't be an issue if people didn't steal music or go around passing it around like the common cold.
That would imply that downloading music was an automatic lost sale. Many of the albums I own, I bought as a result of downloading tracks from the artist. It's pretty much de-riguer for me to download a few tracks before deciding whether I want an album; I think that is what musiccos are scared of.
-
well doing one then the other basically violates the economic restriction on information(you know, perfect information). In essence, I am sure you are partly right. But there are many that don't buy the music and just copy the CDs etc.
-
well doing one then the other basically violates the economic restriction on information(you know, perfect information). In essence, I am sure you are partly right. But there are many that don't buy the music and just copy the CDs etc.
Or tape it off the radio, or copy the CD (through aux if need be) and take it back to the shops, etc. I mean, we have to get the punishment proportional to the crime, here. I've never, ever, heard of an albums' poor sales being blamed on downloads; the opposite in fact (for example, the ArticMonkeys - UK band - surprinsing success was widely attributed to the free distribution of demos before it was released).
-
Thing is there always have been. People copied CDs onto other CDs before the net, Tapes onto tape and even simply recorded stuff from the radio.
Now the record companies put out nothing but unimaginative tat and blame piracy for their falling sales. It's not piracy. That's not really any worse than it's always been. It's the fact that the music is ****e that no one wants to buy.
-
Thing is there always have been. People copied CDs onto other CDs before the net, Tapes onto tape and even simply recorded stuff from the radio.
Now the record companies put out nothing but unimaginative tat and blame piracy for their falling sales. It's not piracy. That's not really any worse than it's always been. It's the fact that the music is ****e that no one wants to buy.
And the truth will set you free!
-
Thing is there always have been. People copied CDs onto other CDs before the net, Tapes onto tape and even simply recorded stuff from the radio.
Now the record companies put out nothing but unimaginative tat and blame piracy for their falling sales. It's not piracy. That's not really any worse than it's always been. It's the fact that the music is ****e that no one wants to buy.
Don't forget overpriced!
-
The internet has only made distrobution of material easier. But the truth is that it is difficult to tell what is causing what. Simply saying that RIAA is producing **** and that is why they are pursuing these people isn't any better than someone saying that improved job growth in the US is the result of Bush's economic policies of the lack therefore.
-
The fact is that in the UK album sales were actually UP a couple of years ago. Funnily enough no one seems to want to mention that over here when they complain about internet piracy causing a loss in sales.
-
The truth is that you cannot get any good statistics on the matter. No one really is going to say to a pollster, yeah I pirate music all the time without buying a solitary one of the albums. Besides, do we know for a fact that these people are continueing to keep these songs even after a 24 hr period. Meaning, when the RIAA busts them do they have oogles of music on their hd? or are they going on some sort of online tracking on kazaa or the like? Basically, I am asking do these morons keep all this music that they are "sampling?" I have to claim ignorance because I am unaware as to what the legal evidence RIAA has for doing this sort of shakedown.
-
If you want it, pay for it.
If you want to punish them, don't buy it.
Vote with your walllets. What you are really saying is, you want it, but you don't want to pay for it. So you perpetuate the bull**** that the RIAA pulls off, you GIVE them targets for this insanity by stealing it.
They have it, they charge for it, you get it without paying for it. Justify it all you want with word games about "property" but you got something you didn't pay for.
Stop giving the bastards the satisfaction of being right.
Oh yeah, it's not about not wanting to pay for it, it's about freedom. I forgot.
-
It's about value for money, actually.
-
Redmenace would have a heart attack if he saw the piracy in this country. Anything you want (assuming that it is reasonalby new), two RMB.
-
If you want it, pay for it.
If you want to punish them, don't buy it.
Vote with your walllets. What you are really saying is, you want it, but you don't want to pay for it. So you perpetuate the bull**** that the RIAA pulls off, you GIVE them targets for this insanity by stealing it.
They have it, they charge for it, you get it without paying for it. Justify it all you want with word games about "property" but you got something you didn't pay for.
Stop giving the bastards the satisfaction of being right.
Oh yeah, it's not about not wanting to pay for it, it's about freedom. I forgot.
I consider it morally (though of course not legally) justified to steal from the rich, particularly when the specific people I steal from contribute nothing to society, are responsbile for the commercialization of what is supposed to be an art form, and serve as llittle more than conduits to take money from the stupid and give it to the ruthless.
-
Redmenace would have a heart attack if he saw the piracy in this country. Anything you want (assuming that it is reasonalby new), two RMB.
Believe me, I know. I also know the 50% bs response they give for it. Actually, one of my professors and I were talking about that very subject about how you can get basically anything on the street. Not only that but look at all the chinese imports on frackin ebay. all due respect, believe me, I am well aware.
-
It's no joke that you can get anything on the street. There is one street in this city that all the stores sell technology related devices. People there hang around these stores with a handful of pirated DVD's, and if you are interested in buying something, they will take you to their homes where they have 100s of pirated DVDs of almost everything. Computer software, movies, tv shows, you name it. There are also lots of these people on the streets too.
The pirated stuff looks genuine (right down to the DVD covers). For example, I bought a DVD of "Lord of War" (while it was still in theatres in America) and, except that the screen would occationally turn grey for a couple of minutes and say "Property of Lions Gate Entertainment", I could not tell that it was pirated at all.
This makes me wonder, if the people who pirate and sell these things for $0.25 can make enough money to stay profitable, it makes me wonder why DVD's in America cost $10 or more. So is it really worth it to buy legit stuff? For me it isn't when I can get anything I want (for example: Adobe Photoshop for 7 RMB) for the equivelent of 1 USD on the black market.
-
If you want it, pay for it.
If you want to punish them, don't buy it.
Vote with your walllets. What you are really saying is, you want it, but you don't want to pay for it. So you perpetuate the bull**** that the RIAA pulls off, you GIVE them targets for this insanity by stealing it.
They have it, they charge for it, you get it without paying for it. Justify it all you want with word games about "property" but you got something you didn't pay for.
Stop giving the bastards the satisfaction of being right.
Oh yeah, it's not about not wanting to pay for it, it's about freedom. I forgot.
I consider it morally (though of course not legally) justified to steal from the rich, particularly when the specific people I steal from contribute nothing to society, are responsbile for the commercialization of what is supposed to be an art form, and serve as llittle more than conduits to take money from the stupid and give it to the ruthless.
QFT! Robin Hood FTW!!
I used two 3-letter abbreviations! LOL!!
but seriously, im with Inq on this one
*adjusts eyepatch* and chicks totally dig the pirates
-
*shrugs* I listen to quite a bit of music, but most of it is OSTs/OSVs from games, piano music, and some techno. I could probably burn all the music I'd want to listen to onto a DVD. If I needed a musical pop-culture fix, I'd just turn on the radio.
-
I just completely gave up on all music save that from modarchive.
-
i stick to the underground, like i said, its very kvlt to have your **** pirated, and if i had a bm band, id want people to pirate it too. :D
rockstars in america need to work for a living. i listen to alot of foreign metal. i respect how close knit their musicians are. some of them will be in several bands at once, do 5 shows a week and for beans. now thats metal. theres nothing metal about multi-million dollar contracts and ripping off stupid kids. big record lables are bad for bands as well. they sign what they can sell, not whats good. usually simple music that is really dumbed down. then if you manage to get signed they manipulate your band so they can sell to a larger demographic. then they make musicians lives harder by making them filty rich, encouraging their drug and alchohal habbits, and in some cases, catering too their addictions. they burn out become arrogant as their talent breaks down. they flood the airwaves with overmarketed crap while people with talent are playing at bars and nightclubs, usually working a day job to make ends meet. when a band has to work for a living they dont have the time and the money for bull****. id rather give my money to such a band than pop star x. its not the legalization of piracy i want, people should be allowed to make a living of their work, its only fair as we all have to. none the less we need a restructuring of the system.
-
I pretty much agree with Inquisitor.
If you at Barnes and Noble and the available selection is both over-priced and poor-quality, you don't grab everything you can off the shelves and run away to "punish" them.
-
No. You go to a public library and read the books for free.
-
They have libraries in America, don't they?
-
Yeah.
Many have (Gasp!) CDs.
-
i dunno.
i don't disagree with what she said. i mean, he broke the law. he got fined. he can't afford the fine without dropping out of college/university.
... but suddenly the blame's on the RIAA because they're inadvertently forcing or implying that he should drop college? Are we forgetting why he's in this situation in the first place? He took a chance. If he didn't want to risk getting caught, he wouldn't have downloaded music in the first place.
Granted it may not be completely right for the RIAA to be fining people so high, but the fact remains that he broke the law, and he got punished for it. Not the RIAA's problem, not capitalist america's problem. his problem.
-
The issue is not that he has to pay the fine, it's that the fine is so damn high. I mean, say he downloaded $100 worth of music, shouldn't it be logical that he pay back that $100, rather than $1000? The only reason he is being fined so much is to crucify him so others don't do it, but other people are going to do it anyway, so they're forcing him to drop out of MIT - effectively ruining most prospects for his future - for absolutely no reason at all.
F*** the RIAA, f*** them up their stupid asses!
-
Lets say hypothetically that someone brings out an entirely anonymous version of something like the bittorrent client in the next few years, I can guarantee you that the RIAA and MPAA will use all of their (considerable) political push to bring into action new laws that will inhibit how you can use technology.
As far as I'm concerned they can keep peddling their ****e to anyone foolish enough to buy it. What they cannot do however is to tell me what I can do with something that I bought that they should have no ownership over; my technology. Unfortunately voting with your wallets is not a viable option because there are simply too many people in the world that care more about Britney's new album than their own rights. I consider it more akin to the old phrase "When freedom is outlawed, only outlaws will be free"; you need to take action which was previously not illegal in order to deprive them of the money they would use to trap you into creating more cash for them. Only when they realise that they are no longer able to make money on their terms will the market become more competitive. There's a reason that there's a 'big 5'. They bent the law and your freedom to make sure that nobody could stand against them.
-
The issue is not that he has to pay the fine, it's that the fine is so damn high. I mean, say he downloaded $100 worth of music, shouldn't it be logical that he pay back that $100, rather than $1000? The only reason he is being fined so much is to crucify him so others don't do it, but other people are going to do it anyway, so they're forcing him to drop out of MIT - effectively ruining most prospects for his future - for absolutely no reason at all.
F*** the RIAA, f*** them up their stupid asses!
that's ridiculous.
so if someone breaks into a house and steals a television... and then a few days later gets caught. he/she should only be made to pay the retail price on the TV he/she stole? lol that's comical. it's the principal.
-
that's ridiculous.
so if someone breaks into a house and steals a television... and then a few days later gets caught. he/she should only be made to pay the retail price on the TV he/she stole? lol that's comical. it's the principal.
That's completely different, we're dealing with petty theft here, not breaking into an Rapper's house and stealing his bling. A more apt analogy would be someone breaking into your house and stealing some change out of the change-dish you keep near the door, and then - when they're caught - making them buy you a Television, all the while saying 'shutup, that's completely fair'.
-
Not to mention the fact that the record companies like us to forget that they're just a giant middleman between the artist and the public, and that the theft is not one that affects the person who made the music, but the company that took charge of its distribution. The artists quite frequently get ****ed by these companies to the point where a lot of them are now turning to smaller, independent labels.
-
I guess it's just funny that you guys think it's morally right - nay, it is your duty to steal.
If you don't like the law, try to change it. If everybody stopped obeying laws they didn't like...
-
that's ridiculous.
so if someone breaks into a house and steals a television... and then a few days later gets caught. he/she should only be made to pay the retail price on the TV he/she stole? lol that's comical. it's the principal.
That's completely different, we're dealing with petty theft here, not breaking into an Rapper's house and stealing his bling. A more apt analogy would be someone breaking into your house and stealing some change out of the change-dish you keep near the door, and then - when they're caught - making them buy you a Television, all the while saying 'shutup, that's completely fair'.
no it's not. theft is theft... just because you steal 'less' or something that's "worth less" doesn't make it any different. it's still theft. and as such, you're breaking the law. and as such, you can't ***** when you get a fine slapped on you. especially not now. everyone (especially a MIT student, i'd imagine) knows that what he's doing (or what he did. heh) is wrong, and that he stood risk of getting in trouble for it.
-
If you want to punish them, don't buy it.
You of course realize that by pirating, you are punishing them by your standards.
-
Actually, under the law, it's not theft. The crime they would get charged with, assuming it went into court, is allowing other people to download the songs from them, not downloading them themself or having downloaded songs in their posession. Therefore, it's copyright infringement.
Personally, I've given up on piracy. Quality's not good enough for my taste. Now, I'm just selective in what I buy.
-
Actually, under the law, it's not theft.
:ha:
Whatevery one seems to be forgetting when they say this person "broke the law" is that these are CIVIL LAWSUITS, not criminal charges. These are just mafia style scare tactics designed to intimidate and scare people into following their rusted, creaking business model.
-
They're being sued for copyright infringement, as that's the proper response under the law to copyright infringement.
-
no it's not. theft is theft... just because you steal 'less' or something that's "worth less" doesn't make it any different. it's still theft. and as such, you're breaking the law. and as such, you can't ***** when you get a fine slapped on you. especially not now. everyone (especially a MIT student, i'd imagine) knows that what he's doing (or what he did. heh) is wrong, and that he stood risk of getting in trouble for it.
So what your saying is that since all theft is equal all thieves deserve the same punishment surely? I can't really see it any other way than that. I should go to jail for the same duration as a person who stole cash from their workplace even though what I 'stole' is effectively of zero monetary value; if I could only have gotten it by paying for it in advance I would never have bought it in the first place.
Need I also point out that access to a wider array of musical styles and types has increased the uptake of more music? People who'd never have heard of international artists or musicians who don't get a top ten hit actually find out about their music and buy CD's that they'd never have heard were it not free for a taster in the first place.
-
the cd comes along, which is cheaper to reproduce and has poorer sound quality to analog media
Nuke... WTF are you on? CD quality is higher than the resolution of the human ear and is immune to distortion. How exactly is that better than analogue media? Analogue has far higher potential resolution, admittedly, but if both are better than the ear can distinguish why does it matter? Plus, analogue media is not immune to distortion.
Finally, note I said potential resolution. Whether or not the recording device can write data at that resolution is a different matter. Then you have to factor in the quality of the medium and the accuracy of the player.
I believe people who say they can hear the difference between analogue and digital recordings. They make the mistake of treating the analogue as a benchmark and assuming that it's 100% correct. That's wrong; the difference between analogue and digital is either the aforementioned limitations of analogue media or the settings of the digital playback device (which can be adjusted; you can't fix analogue distortion).
-
Analog playback does have a slight advantage over digital in that, regardless of the fidelity of the digital playback, it does not rely on reshaping to convert it to a sound that you can hear. Digital playback can be restricted to the hardware that's doing the playback itself (limited bit depth on a soundcard in post-processing where the 1's and 0's are actually converted to an audible wave, for example) just as much as analog playback can be distorted by the equipment doing the playback. The difference is 1) extremely high-fidelity analog equipment is more common than the digital equivalent and 2) the types of distortions made by analog equipment tends to be more pleasing to the ear than the distortions that can be introduced from digital output. Digital is quite capable, but we rarely get to hear it to its potential.
-
I would never believe it untill I saw it
http://www.playitcybersafe.com/pdfs/Curriculum-CC-2005.pdf
-
I would never believe it untill I saw it
http://www.playitcybersafe.com/pdfs/Curriculum-CC-2005.pdf
i'm suprised it's a ferret and not a weasel.
-
lol, well they are very close. I really wonder wtf was going through their minds when they wrote that cartoon.
-
lol, well they are very close. I really wonder wtf was going through their minds when they wrote that cartoon.
Dollar signs. We have to breed the new generation to be mindless consumers. After all, actually thinking about something before buying it reduces profits and puts pressure on the studios to put out QUALITY instead of **** (can't have THAT now can we).
-
(http://modernhumorist.com/mh/0004/propaganda/mp3.jpg)
Old, but classic.
-
Is it just my imagination, or does the ferret look downright evil in the first frame of page 3?
-
Is it just my imagination, or does the ferret look downright evil in the first frame of page 3?
That's because there's the other cartoon, where the ferret jumps through the monitor and viciously mauls the kid.
-
If prices seriously dropped, I suspect people would continue to pirate, saying, "well, since the CD is only 3 dollars, they won't lose much if I DL this."
-
(http://modernhumorist.com/mh/0004/propaganda/mp3.jpg)
Old, but classic.
in mother russia, the music downloads you!
communisim rules!
-
Some would, but many would not.
-
If prices seriously dropped, I suspect people would continue to pirate, saying, "well, since the CD is only 3 dollars, they won't lose much if I DL this."
i wouldnt be so quick to say that. pirating music isnt as free as one might think, the cost od bandwidth for example. my cable modem provider has about a 5 gig cap on my downloads. when i dl music from underground bm bands (mind you theese bands are more intrested in getting their message out that actually making money, and will seldom release the albums in quantities of more than a few hundred, and in many cases, will release whole albumbs for free download on their website), i usually get it at a bitrate of about 192 beind about 100 megs an album, meaning i can download 50 albums a month (but 15-20 is a more accurate number). now my net bill is almost 80 bucks a month. so you can say it costs me between $4-$5.33 an album. if they sold music for $3, id go th the record store every month and come out with a doezen underground albums (assuming i could even get them, most are rare and i dont exactly live in a place with big record stores). now surely in other locations bandwidth is cheaper and there are no caps. but you see where im going. piracy isnt as free as they claim.
further more all this drm nonsence and pay internet music stores like itunes only let you buy music in "safe" formats that only work with proprietary media players. also if your computer breaks down or you switch mp3 players your media that you bought will no longer work. also backing up your media becomes a hassel. i think the reason people arent catching on to this new technology, is because all their safe media restrictions make it suck. we show no trust for the music industry and they show no trust for us, and that creates a void. look at the responce to the friendlyness of that galactic civilizations game and the response of the people who bought it. thats what makes people want to buy a product.
-
If prices seriously dropped, I suspect people would continue to pirate, saying, "well, since the CD is only 3 dollars, they won't lose much if I DL this."
I doubt it some how. There would be some people who would continue but even with no internet these people would simply tape songs off of the radio or their friends anyway. The number of people who would buy things would go up however.
-
I started seriously pirating 3 years ago when I got into university. Before that I was at home on my parents *gasp* 56K dial-up connection. University had a much better internet connection, so I took advantage of it.
Considering all of the money I have saved over the years from pirating, I can't really say no to it anymore. Because there is software/games/movies that I want to use, but I really don't have money to buy them. What do I do? I find a way to use them anyway.
-
Sometimes there are bands/games/movies out there that are seriously hard to find. That might be a pretty lame excuse, but it's the only half-decent one I can think of at this time :p
Nah, I'm just a fkn leech, ask any of my friends :)
But I don't honestly intend to hurt anyone by my actions, and I know when folks like the RIAA and other organisations of the type say it's 'not' a victimless crime, a part of me sort of goes 'ya'know, they might just be right about that'. But then another, larger portion of my thought-process goes, 'are you REALLY going to buy that album/game/movie? Do you know how EASY and CHEAP it is to get, with just a miniscule amount of intelligence?' Very hard to resist something that's free, and with such a wider assortment of choces than most video stores, computer game retailers, or music outlets.
Still, most of the computer games and DVDs that I really like, I end up buying - copies are not truly substitutes for the originals.
To punish a person like the one in that article though, for a mistake that so many others of his generation are making, and then to ENCOURAGE him to drop out of his tertiary education to try and pay off the fine? That's just incredulous. And somehow, not so much... not in this day'n'age, sadly
-
Sometimes there are bands/games/movies out there that are seriously hard to find. That might be a pretty lame excuse, but it's the only half-decent one I can think of at this time :p
Nah, I'm just a fkn leech, ask any of my friends :)
But I don't honestly intend to hurt anyone by my actions, and I know when folks like the RIAA and other organisations of the type say it's 'not' a victimless crime, a part of me sort of goes 'ya'know, they might just be right about that'. But then another, larger portion of my thought-process goes, 'are you REALLY going to buy that album/game/movie? Do you know how EASY and CHEAP it is to get, with just a miniscule amount of intelligence?' Very hard to resist something that's free, and with such a wider assortment of choces than most video stores, computer game retailers, or music outlets.
To punish a person like the one in that article though, for a mistake that so many others of his generation are making, and then to ENCOURAGE him to drop out of his tertiary education to try and pay off the fine? That's just incredulous. And somehow, not so much... not in this day'n'age, sadly
BS dude, you download that crap without a second thought. You evil leech upon society. :p
-
Sometimes there are bands/games/movies out there that are seriously hard to find. That might be a pretty lame excuse, but it's the only half-decent one I can think of at this time :p
Nah, I'm just a fkn leech, ask any of my friends :)
But I don't honestly intend to hurt anyone by my actions, and I know when folks like the RIAA and other organisations of the type say it's 'not' a victimless crime, a part of me sort of goes 'ya'know, they might just be right about that'. But then another, larger portion of my thought-process goes, 'are you REALLY going to buy that album/game/movie? Do you know how EASY and CHEAP it is to get, with just a miniscule amount of intelligence?' Very hard to resist something that's free, and with such a wider assortment of choces than most video stores, computer game retailers, or music outlets.
To punish a person like the one in that article though, for a mistake that so many others of his generation are making, and then to ENCOURAGE him to drop out of his tertiary education to try and pay off the fine? That's just incredulous. And somehow, not so much... not in this day'n'age, sadly
BS dude, you download that crap without a second thought. You evil leech upon society. :p
lol ;)
well, yeh, but deeeeeeep down there's a part of me that questions..
I swearz! :p
-
If prices seriously dropped, I suspect people would continue to pirate, saying, "well, since the CD is only 3 dollars, they won't lose much if I DL this."
Doubt it. I'm so disgusted with the RIAA sueing anyone and everyone that they can that I buy used CDs only. The one time I did buy a new CD from a company that was part of the RIAA, I felt slightly sick for doing so.
If they were selling CDs for $3, though, that'd be cheaper than used CDs. And it would prolly mean that they'd done some serious fat-cutting. If they kept up the same business practices, I'd probably still go for used CDs (Which would experience a similar drop in price) but $3 is not a whole lot. If I felt like I were supporting the bands rather than corrupt businessmen, I could easily justify that.
-
i think the riaa is a terrorist organization. they arent actually using the legal system to enforce theese fines. their monitoring people's shared file lists which are broadcast by share programs (least they better be and not using spyware or their breaking privacy laws). then when they find a substantial number of their files being shared, they have theire little settlement department give them a call. then they use fear of being sued to get theese people to pay their outrageous fines, without the accused getting any legal support. this scare tactic is a form of terrorism that bypasses the legal system so that they can get more money from you. the legal system would probibly be more fair about it and youd have to pay a smaller amount. you would have to be stupid to accept theese settlements without having a lawyer on your side (which most people cant afford mind you, and the riaa knows this). you really arent legally bound to pay a corprately issued fine unless a judge orders you to. so if the riaa sends you a bill, send them a post card with a big **** off written on it. im just waiting for some disgrunteled geek to walk into riaa hq and start capping people with an uzi :D
-
It'd be interesting to see the outcome of a jury trial for one of these.
-
It'd be interesting to see the outcome of a jury trial for one of these.
has there ever been one?
-
Doubt it, they probably push for settlements, as in this case. >..>
-
They're scared of jury trials, IIRC. They try to get summary judgement if it goes to court. I think they've succeeded so far.
-
Nuke, your knowledge of the American legal system is inspiring. :rolleyes:
People like Kosh and TheCaptain are reasons why I have little sympathy for pirates. They don't give a damn about the legality of their actions. If it feels good (or cheap), do it.
Which in turn drives up prices for people like me who actually pay for things. Yes, $15 dollars for a CD is inflated, but if all pirating stopped, I suspect it might drop. Probably not as drastically as you would hope for, but perhaps a bit.
And I don't know this, but I speculate that a good part of the $15 dollars for a CD is not just for the RIAA. It costs money to package CDs. To advertise, perhaps. And some money goes to the artists - significantly less would if CDs cost $3.
Does anyone have a breakdown of the money that comes from a purchase of a CD? I think that would be very enlightening.
-
I think the problem is not that most CDs cost $15+, it's that they are not worth $15+. Would the recording industry actually put out music instead of an image, then at least some people (the ones who the RIAA is going to be able to stop from pirating, anyway) might buy more of it. But as it stands, I'm not wasting $15 on the latest pop star's album not because I can get it for free but because it sucks. It's an important factor in the "sales have dropped XX amount" nonsense that the RIAA and major labels themselves put out from time to time; it is based on only the factors they want to consider, not the ones that drive people like me to buy music (or not). And for the record, I don't pirate music. If I want to listen to the latest stuff, as someone else said, I'll turn on the radio. But I still think the RIAA is only hurting actual musicians through their copyright scare tactics.
EDIT: I still blame MTV.
-
This is what I don't get.
Several posters have said that they are angry with the RIAA because their music sucks. But why do you pirate it then? Are you admitting to liking poor-quality entertainment?
This isn't directed so much at you, StratComm, since you don't pirate.
-
This is what I don't get.
Several posters have said that they are angry with the RIAA because their music sucks. But why do you pirate it then? Are you admitting to liking poor-quality entertainment?
This isn't directed so much at you, StratComm, since you don't pirate.
I don't think you get it.
The RIAA is a vast conglomeration of labels publishing a vast amount of music.
A large amount of music published, is cheap generic ****e aimed at cashing in on the trends of the time, devoid of originality and musical value. Any profits made are ploughed back into that. So people don't want to finance it when they buy what little, ovepriced, music there is which is of actual artistic value.
-
However, in any other, non-digital situation, you don't start stealing; you just leave the market.
IE, if a major shoe company owning conglomerate thingy overpriced all the shoes that it covered, you wouldn't start grabbing the few pairs that you do like. You just don't buy from that conglomerate.
Just because it is easy to pirate music, games, and movies doesn't mean you should.
-
So what your saying is that since all theft is equal all thieves deserve the same punishment surely? I can't really see it any other way than that. I should go to jail for the same duration as a person who stole cash from their workplace even though what I 'stole' is effectively of zero monetary value; if I could only have gotten it by paying for it in advance I would never have bought it in the first place.
i think a rule that's set out, with the consequences for breaking the rule CLEARLY known, should be taken seriously. people knew they could and would get in trouble for downloading music. end of story. they knew they'd get a fine, and that it wouldn't be $10.00. if a culture condemns thieves to having a hand cut off, there'll be a lot less thieves. is it fair to get your hand cut off for stealing an apple? hell no. but it works, doesn't it. and it's based on the principle that stealing is wrong
Need I also point out that access to a wider array of musical styles and types has increased the uptake of more music? People who'd never have heard of international artists or musicians who don't get a top ten hit actually find out about their music and buy CD's that they'd never have heard were it not free for a taster in the first place.
no, you may not. because frankly, that's irrelevant. that's like saying "i stole from him, but need i point out that my stealing his money is actually helping people". lol. that's trying to justify breaking the law. try doing that in court, with any law, whether it be as petty as stealing, or as serious as rape (i was actually HELPING her nationality, by giving her my American semen and allowing her to have pure blood in her offspring, and therefore help the entire race) or murder (killing him helped society, because not many people liked him).
-
i think a rule that's set out, with the consequences for breaking the rule CLEARLY known, should be taken seriously. people knew they could and would get in trouble for downloading music. end of story. they knew they'd get a fine, and that it wouldn't be $10.00. if a culture condemns thieves to having a hand cut off, there'll be a lot less thieves. is it fair to get your hand cut off for stealing an apple? hell no. but it works, doesn't it. and it's based on the principle that stealing is wrong
The only reason it's regarded as 'stealing' is because of the hubbub that the RIAA raises over the issue. The fact of the matter is, we have no idea how much money they're losing, and i'm yet to hear of the downloading/pirating of music forcing a pop-star to go and actually work for a living like the rest of us [that poor, poor soul]. It's a completely victimless crime, unless you consider a faceless mega-conglomerate to be the victim, and seeing that same "victim" screw over people that don't even own computers just makes me want to pirate even more!
no, you may not. because frankly, that's irrelevant. that's like saying "i stole from him, but need i point out that my stealing his money is actually helping people". lol. that's trying to justify breaking the law. try doing that in court, with any law, whether it be as petty as stealing, or as serious as rape (i was actually HELPING her nationality, by giving her my American semen and allowing her to have pure blood in her offspring, and therefore help the entire race) or murder (killing him helped society, because not many people liked him).
Downloading music is not raping someone. Downloading music is not murdering someone. The "crime" of downloading music is more comparable to stealing $5 from a Billionaire. There is no victim when you pirate music, it's all RIAA hype, and i'm thinking that the benefits outlined by Maeg [among others] somewhat outweigh the complete lack of harm. Sure, i'll conceed that it is actually a crime, and - like any other crime - if you're dumb enough to get caught, you should get fined. But there is no ****ing victim for cryin' out loud! Why should this kid have his future ruined because he "stole" $100 from some faceless conglomerate that rakes in Billions a year?!!
Anyway, i'm sure you'd be singing a different tune if the RIAA forced you to drop out of Uni because you'd downloaded $20 worth of Britney's latest hits... :doubt:
-
And I don't know this, but I speculate that a good part of the $15 dollars for a CD is not just for the RIAA. It costs money to package CDs. To advertise, perhaps. And some money goes to the artists - significantly less would if CDs cost $3.
I did a research paper on this subject. Admittedly it wasn't that great, as it was for a summer class, and I spent a weekend house-sitting a friend's place, and he had an Xbox with MGS2 on it...
But anyway, what I came away from that was the very clear impression that music artists get paid very little by the RIAA, and are basically forced to sign over nearly all the rights to the songs that they produce, if they want the RIAA to distribute them. Not that the artists are any happier with people who pirate, since they get nothing from that, either.
Short of the extremely popular and well-known pop stars, I've never really seen anything to contradict that. It is something that seems to get a minimum of attention, though - that is, how much the people that actually make the music get.
-
if the legal system thought of piracy as a major crime, theyd be busting down file sharer's doors and arresting people. the fact is that the riaa is taking the law in its own hands and using scare tactics to enforce a grey area in the law. making unfair judgements agaisnt people and imposing great restrictions on everyone else in a vain attempt to stop piracy.
However, in any other, non-digital situation, you don't start stealing; you just leave the market.
IE, if a major shoe company owning conglomerate thingy overpriced all the shoes that it covered, you wouldn't start grabbing the few pairs that you do like. You just don't buy from that conglomerate.
Just because it is easy to pirate music, games, and movies doesn't mean you should.
you cant really compair downloading mp3s to stealing physical merchandise. physical merchandise has a certain cost to manufacture, parts, materials, assembally, distribution and sales cost. now when you steal a physical item,you are robbing the store, they cannot make a profit on the item and they loose what it cost them to buy and display it. so people are loosing money because of you. all the effort that went into that item is wasted. now music isnt like that, no matter how much production cost is, once you got your master tape, you can make infinite copies of that tape for practically beans. the cost comes from presing and silkscreening cds, packaging them, printing those little booklets, and distributing them to the stores for sale. this is really all record labels do. so all youre really stealing when you download an mp3 is a customer, yourself. what the record labels dont want you to know is that theyre obsolete. the internet is a far more effietent way to distribute music. downloading music is like stealling shoes that somone magically replicated for free of of some stored design. the riia is pretending the digital revolution never happend and are trying to maintain a buisness model that is quite antiquated. if it refuses to evolve their buisness will fail. with the direction there going, it wont be lont till artists start questioning what there doing associated with those labels. of course the riaa is not going away untill they loose a long bloody battle.
-
However, in any other, non-digital situation, you don't start stealing; you just leave the market.
IE, if a major shoe company owning conglomerate thingy overpriced all the shoes that it covered, you wouldn't start grabbing the few pairs that you do like. You just don't buy from that conglomerate.
Just because it is easy to pirate music, games, and movies doesn't mean you should.
Is listening to music on the radio theft? Because, y'know, people don't give out shoes for a day free on the street, so it's not entirely an accurate analogy to make.
-
The pro-piracy arguments remain lunacy.
I'll start with Nuke, since he posted last.
Nuke, you are arguing that label companies deserve to suffer from piracy because they're obsolete. That's rediculous. Since when did something's obsolesence affect it's legal standing? Even if the RIAA is destined to die, it doesn't mean you should try to hasten it through illegal measures. It's up to the artists to decide they want to leave the RIAA. Not you.
When you download an mp3 instead of purchasing it (ie from some online music store or as part of a CD) you have taken away money from someone. You always are hurting the artist, be it Britney Spears or some obscure bagpipe/ska band. They are supposed to get royalties, either from CD sales or from sales of individual songs. When you download instead of paying, they have lost that royalty. Individually, that tiny bit of money won't make or break the artist. But if a million people do it, that maybe $.07 per song starts to add up.
And I think you can compare DLing mp3's to stealing physical merchandise. It costs money to design CD covers and printed material. It costs money to mint the CDs, then assemble the packaging. I don't know any of the figures, but it's not free. And when you make a million of them, it adds up. When you DL an mp3, you get the product without paying for it. That's one lost sale. And probably more, since the site you got it from will in all likelyhood continue to let others DL it.
I also take issure with this statement.
if the legal system thought of piracy as a major crime, theyd be busting down file sharer's doors and arresting people. the fact is that the riaa is taking the law in its own hands and using scare tactics to enforce a grey area in the law. making unfair judgements agaisnt people and imposing great restrictions on everyone else in a vain attempt to stop piracy.
First of all, there was a point in time when the American legal system was not overly concerned about lynchings of African-Americans. That didn't justify such terrible actions. I'm not saying file sharing is the same as lynching people. I'm just saying that there can be a disconnect from what our legal system is enforcing and what should be enforced.
Secondly, how is the RIAA "imposing great restrictions on everyone else"? And who do you mean by "everyone else?" Are they people who do not pirate?
On to Mefustae.
It's a completely victimless crime, unless you consider the artist who is losing money to be the victim
Quote fixed! :yes:
How childish must you be to believe your desires ("makes me want to pirate even more") justify your actions. That's not the way the world or our legal system works. Just because you want something doesn't make it right.
And yes, there is a victim. The artist loses money. They can lose a lot of money if many people pirate their works. How would you like to get mugged for a dime by ten thousand people? Is that any different from having a thousand dollars stolen from you by one person?
The kid's future isn't necessarily ruined, and even if it is, he did the crime, now he'll do the time. And since I don't pirate music, I don't have to worry about changing my tune. :lol:
----------
aldo - the shoe analogy is flawed, yes. :blah:
-
Note: the 'loses money' arguement implies that product would automatically be bought if not pirated (and is not once pirated).
-
I think it is safe to assume that if a product is being pirated there is a desire for it, meaning it would be purchased by the pirates if not pirated by them.
(Sorry about the grammar. :ick:)
-
I think it is safe to assume that if a product is being pirated there is a desire for it, meaning it would be purchased by the pirates if not pirated by them.
I don't. What about the try-before-you-buy attitude of wanting to hear a new bands' track before you spend a tenner on the cd? Or simple cost-effectiveness - I downloaded tracks off Weather Underground way before I bought it (2nd hand & cheap), simply because the CD was priced at a fairly extortionate £17.99 due to rarity. Even then I needed to DL the last track because the disk was scratched.
-
More and more bands are getting into the "try-before-you-buy" thing by having tracks on purevolume.com or their own myspace site. More and more there are alternatives to pirating...
-
But ONLY because the recording industry has been forced to come up with an alternative to illegal downloads. Remember that RIAA wanted to ban mp3 players and the like.
RIAA has continually attempted to strangle the market for downloading tracks whether legal or not. The fact that you can now buy them online is simply a response to the fact that people wanted mp3s and RIAA has now been forced to accept that option. Don't kid yourself into ever thinking RIAA would have done that without piracy of music over the internet.
-
More and more bands are getting into the "try-before-you-buy" thing by having tracks on purevolume.com or their own myspace site. More and more there are alternatives to pirating...
Because they have to. So piracy has driven up consumer choice, and as a result the downloaded music market is booming. Despite the ineptitude of some of the main companies involved.......
-
The only reason it's regarded as 'stealing' is because of the hubbub that the RIAA raises over the issue.
no. lol. your logic is so flawed it's going to be hard to reason with you. here let me put it simply. if the RIAA owns something, they can say what can and cannot be done with the said item. if they want to say that it's stealing to take something that belongs to them, then they can.
lol, that's like saying "it's against hte law to steal only because the government says it is"... yeah... what's your point lol
Downloading music is not raping someone. Downloading music is not murdering someone.
read what i wrote. i didn't say it was raping someone. i didn't say it was murdering someone. i said it was like someone trying to justify their actions (and i used the EXAMPLE (<--keyword) of a rapist or murderer justifying their actions).
The "crime" of downloading music is more comparable to stealing $5 from a Billionaire.
which, of course, is perfectly fine, right? no crime there, because the billionaire has money to burn... :doubt: :doubt: :doubt: it's only a crime when the person that's being stolen from actually suffers due to the loss.
Sir, your way of thinking is extremely scary. Thank God that you don't have a say in government, and with that reasoning, most likely never will
There is no victim when you pirate music, it's all RIAA hype, and i'm thinking that the benefits outlined by Maeg [among others] somewhat outweigh the complete lack of harm. Sure, i'll conceed that it is actually a crime, and - like any other crime - if you're dumb enough to get caught, you should get fined. But there is no ****ing victim for cryin' out loud! Why should this kid have his future ruined because he "stole" $100 from some faceless conglomerate that rakes in Billions a year?!!
why? because he broke the law. he broke a law that he KNEW was being cracked down on.
and if there's no victim here, then it wouldn't be against the law... just wanted to point that out... don't think you're some prodigy that knows the real truth that everyone's oblivious to: that laws are pointless, because they are never to protect people from becoming victims... get real.
Anyway, i'm sure you'd be singing a different tune if the RIAA forced you to drop out of Uni because you'd downloaded $20 worth of Britney's latest hits... :doubt:
no, because unlike some people, i'm not afaid to take responsibility for my actions. i don't try to cower and point fingers like a damn coward, when i know i broke the law.
-
I saw a few posts about the cost of producing CDs, they're little booklets or whatever.. which contributes to inflated CD prices.. it seems to me that if people are downloading music, legal or not, they don't care about the little booklets and the plastic case a CD comes in. So why is the record company still shelling out so much money to produce CDs in such a manner? Perhaps because it actually doesn't cost that much? Or they're stubborn? They could release it in .pdf format for download with CDs (legally, of course) but would people pay to download them? *shrugs* Just thought I'd point it out.
-
no. lol. your logic is so flawed it's going to be hard to reason with you. here let me put it simply. if the RIAA owns something, they can say what can and cannot be done with the said item. if they want to say that it's stealing to take something that belongs to them, then they can.
lol, that's like saying "it's against hte law to steal only because the government says it is"... yeah... what's your point lol
No, they can't. Even if you own something, you can't simply make up whatever crimes you like because someone takes it. If someone takes and uses my shovel that I bought from the general store, I can't sue them for copyright infringement or rape. :wtf:
The reason that 'piracy' and 'stealing' are used is because of the emotional responses that those terms entail.
The reason that stealing is a crime is because you are depriving the owner of property that they had in their possession. The reason that copyright infringement is a crime is to promote the creation of media whose value comes primarily from an abstract element.
-
(And, arguably, to ensure that credit is given where it's due when someone creates something.)
-
no. lol. your logic is so flawed it's going to be hard to reason with you. here let me put it simply. if the RIAA owns something, they can say what can and cannot be done with the said item. if they want to say that it's stealing to take something that belongs to them, then they can.
lol, that's like saying "it's against hte law to steal only because the government says it is"... yeah... what's your point lol
What WMC said.
read what i wrote. i didn't say it was raping someone. i didn't say it was murdering someone. i said it was like someone trying to justify their actions (and i used the EXAMPLE (<--keyword) of a rapist or murderer justifying their actions).
I was simply highlighting the fact that this "crime" of downloading music is in no way comparable to actual crimes like Rape and Murder, and as such your use of these crimes - even as a mere example - has no place in this discussion.
which, of course, is perfectly fine, right? no crime there, because the billionaire has money to burn... :doubt: :doubt: :doubt: it's only a crime when the person that's being stolen from actually suffers due to the loss.
Sir, your way of thinking is extremely scary. Thank God that you don't have a say in government, and with that reasoning, most likely never will
I'll agree, that analogy was indeed quite flawed, and I acknowledge that my whole line of arguement there was somewhat fallacious, and you're quite true that i'd never get into politics with this kind of reasoning, I mean, my reasoning makes sense half the time, and lord knows reasoning just doesn't belong in politics. :p
why? because he broke the law. he broke a law that he KNEW was being cracked down on.
and if there's no victim here, then it wouldn't be against the law... just wanted to point that out... don't think you're some prodigy that knows the real truth that everyone's oblivious to: that laws are pointless, because they are never to protect people from becoming victims... get real.
See, now you're just getting snippy. This is not a clear-cut case of being in direct contravention with the law as - how many have already pointed out - most that download music weren't going to buy said music anyway, so they're not actually stealing anything, as the companies are not actually taking a loss. It's a difficult thing to get your head around, but even you - o' great prodigy that can see past my fallacy - can understand that it is the packaging that costs money to produce, so the only way you can actually 'steal' this music is if you were dead-set going to buy it anyway, and chose to download it instead, as only then does the RIAA take a loss [and even then the logic is somewhat murky as to being against the law]. This then comes back around to RIAA overpricing which makes the chore of downloading music that much more barable an alternative to actually paying through your nose for a legit copy. Honestly, if you needed to just pay a fiver to get a legit, high-quality version of a CD, i'd expect far less people would bother with 'piracy', as it's a major pain in the arse to find a reliable, high-quality soundtrack on the net, as opposed to what the RIAA would have you believe.
You may not think it is 'right' to commit 'piracy', but the RIAA brought it on themselves, and does not the end always justify the means?
no, because unlike some people, i'm not afaid to take responsibility for my actions. i don't try to cower and point fingers like a damn coward, when i know i broke the law.
That's a very noble sentiment, but you're all talk. If your future was ruined over Tupac's latest jingle [as you can see, I know nothing of popular music :p], you'd be as pissed as this guy.
Edit: It's Christmas!! :D
-
The pro-piracy arguments remain lunacy.
I'll start with Nuke, since he posted last.
Nuke, you are arguing that label companies deserve to suffer from piracy because they're obsolete. That's rediculous. Since when did something's obsolesence affect it's legal standing? Even if the RIAA is destined to die, it doesn't mean you should try to hasten it through illegal measures. It's up to the artists to decide they want to leave the RIAA. Not you.
When you download an mp3 instead of purchasing it (ie from some online music store or as part of a CD) you have taken away money from someone. You always are hurting the artist, be it Britney Spears or some obscure bagpipe/ska band. They are supposed to get royalties, either from CD sales or from sales of individual songs. When you download instead of paying, they have lost that royalty. Individually, that tiny bit of money won't make or break the artist. But if a million people do it, that maybe $.07 per song starts to add up.
And I think you can compare DLing mp3's to stealing physical merchandise. It costs money to design CD covers and printed material. It costs money to mint the CDs, then assemble the packaging. I don't know any of the figures, but it's not free. And when you make a million of them, it adds up. When you DL an mp3, you get the product without paying for it. That's one lost sale. And probably more, since the site you got it from will in all likelyhood continue to let others DL it.
I also take issure with this statement.
if the legal system thought of piracy as a major crime, theyd be busting down file sharer's doors and arresting people. the fact is that the riaa is taking the law in its own hands and using scare tactics to enforce a grey area in the law. making unfair judgements agaisnt people and imposing great restrictions on everyone else in a vain attempt to stop piracy.
First of all, there was a point in time when the American legal system was not overly concerned about lynchings of African-Americans. That didn't justify such terrible actions. I'm not saying file sharing is the same as lynching people. I'm just saying that there can be a disconnect from what our legal system is enforcing and what should be enforced.
Secondly, how is the RIAA "imposing great restrictions on everyone else"? And who do you mean by "everyone else?" Are they people who do not pirate?
On to Mefustae.
It's a completely victimless crime, unless you consider the artist who is losing money to be the victim
Quote fixed! :yes:
How childish must you be to believe your desires ("makes me want to pirate even more") justify your actions. That's not the way the world or our legal system works. Just because you want something doesn't make it right.
And yes, there is a victim. The artist loses money. They can lose a lot of money if many people pirate their works. How would you like to get mugged for a dime by ten thousand people? Is that any different from having a thousand dollars stolen from you by one person?
The kid's future isn't necessarily ruined, and even if it is, he did the crime, now he'll do the time. And since I don't pirate music, I don't have to worry about changing my tune. :lol:
----------
aldo - the shoe analogy is flawed, yes. :blah:
you assume i care one way or another weather piracy should be legal or not. sence im a fan of the underground and never listen to big label music, which is an entirely different ballpark imho. the point i was trying to make is first of all that your anaolgy sucks. secondly, and more importantly that the predicament that the riaa is in right now, is because it didnt take the inititave to install a system of internet distribution before the rise and propagation of internet file sharing. then when they try to create such a system in the post napster world people are spoiled by pirate mp3s that they can use in anything as opposed to a "legal" format that is very restrictive and in many cases doesnt sound as good. seriously do any of the pay per download systems offer mp3 format? its the proprietary formats that make it very undesirable to use. had they put the system into effect earlyer it would have been considered more the norm. i look forward to the day where bands arise above the constraints of the record companies.
-
I buy what I consider worth listening to and don't listen to what I don't consider worth listening to. It works out for me.
-
*is too lazy to read long posts, and has lost interest*