Are you really saying that it's okay to go down to the streetcorner and get stuff from the local street gang--as long as you're not the one who actually stole it?
That's fairly original.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Bloodsage had this to say about Optimus Prime:TOP,
Um, your buds sharing "backup copies" are breaking the law. You are allowed to make backup copies only for personal use.
You should look into copyright law a little bit. Not a slam, but rather an observation.
Trading music is not legal. If you want an MP3 of a song, you must obtain the song legally first. It's not that hard.
1) Noted, I will look into copyright laws a little more, maybe I'm at err here.
2) The backup thing was just a thought. An argument brought up in Emus/Roms things.
3) I still fail to see why it wouldn't be legal. Lets just agree to disagree m'kay?
"Ha! I kicked that guy in the shin and took his shoes, and I don't fucking care! And there's nothing you can do to stop shoe theft all over the world!"
"Why in the hell did you do that?"
"I wanted the shoes. There was no way to get them except kicking him in the shin and stealing them."
"But, it's not nice to hurt people, and you don't even need the shoes for anyth-"
"Don't you take the moral highground with ME, asshat."
So, really. Is it just me?
quote:
Delphi had this to say about Matthew Broderick:
Oh! To be part of this thread you must make a personal attack on someone...Peachis! .. Uhmm.. Your boobs are too nice! You must deform them or something to make all the other women feel better!
HUMOR DISCLAIMER
Yes this is true. Peachis your boobs are of to high quality to be viewed by us all i suggest a special second subscription option so you may view them only if you are worthy
HUMOR DISCLAIMER
Sig pic done with Microsoft paint, Work that doobie Pikachu.
quote:
Bloodsage had this to say about dark elf butts:
TOP,Are you really saying that it's okay to go down to the streetcorner and get stuff from the local street gang--as long as you're not the one who actually stole it?
That's fairly original.
If you don't KNOW it's stolen. How are you to be blamed?
How are you going to know if someone STOLE the song or actually bought the CD if you d/l something from Napster.
And one other thing I don't get. Are you saying it's wrong to POST the songs on the 'net or d/l them?
quote:
Black Wizard had this to say about Tron:
[QUOTE]
It's not a good thing. Never was, never will be. So...? Again, are you going to chide us? Going to thump us with a couple bibles? Track our IPs and send the RIAA after us? Guess what? If people know that they can get away with a crime, 100% positive, 98% will do it(Rough estimate). And, the fact that 99% of everyone else is getting away with it too only goads them on.Now, here's where you tell me how hot it's going to be in hell.
Hell? I don't believe in such things.
You're trying hard to be a martyr, but it just isn't going to happen.
Here's the point where I state categorically that those who do the right thing when no one is looking or they have little chance of getting caught are better people than those who don't.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
Now I see the disconnect.
Sharing music via the internet is illegal. Even if you own the CD. Buying a CD does not give one the right to make copies for friends.
Therefore, by posting the file on the internet, a crime is being commited. It is equally illegal to download the file, unless the person offering the file owns the rights to it.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:Don't care.
Bloodsage had this to say about pies:
Hell? I don't believe in such things.
quote:A martyr for whom? And as if you could 'slay' me. Guffah.
You're trying hard to be a martyr, but it just isn't going to happen.
quote:Taking the moral highground route, Sage?
Here's the point where I state categorically that those who do the right thing when no one is looking or they have little chance of getting caught are better people than those who don't.
Refer to my, 'Thump some bibles'. And get a good argument while you're at it.
quote:
Sentow impressed everyone with:
Maybe I'm not so fluent in English as I thought or something, but has anyone else read the thread kinda like this?"Ha! I kicked that guy in the shin and took his shoes, and I don't fucking care! And there's nothing you can do to stop shoe theft all over the world!"
"Why in the hell did you do that?"
"I wanted the shoes. There was no way to get them except kicking him in the shin and stealing them."
"But, it's not nice to hurt people, and you don't even need the shoes for anyth-"
"Don't you take the moral highground with ME, asshat."
So, really. Is it just me?
You know, I think the board, collectively, needs to stop using analogies, they're terrible. Sentow, kicking someone in the shin and stealing their shoes isn't even a decent analogy... Analogies would work if everything was black and white, but it's gray, sorry.
quote:
Sentow impressed everyone with:
Maybe I'm not so fluent in English as I thought or something, but has anyone else read the thread kinda like this?"Ha! I kicked that guy in the shin and took his shoes, and I don't fucking care! And there's nothing you can do to stop shoe theft all over the world!"
"Why in the hell did you do that?"
"I wanted the shoes. There was no way to get them except kicking him in the shin and stealing them."
"But, it's not nice to hurt people, and you don't even need the shoes for anyth-"
"Don't you take the moral highground with ME, asshat."
So, really. Is it just me?
That's kind of the way I see it, too. 
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Lashanna had this to say about Jimmy Carter:
You know, I think the board, collectively, needs to stop using analogies, they're terrible. Sentow, kicking someone in the shin and stealing their shoes isn't even a decent analogy... Analogies would work if everything was black and white, but it's gray, sorry.
Meaning what? That since you don't ever meet the person you're stealing from via filesharing it's somehow better?
You don't like the analogy? Tell us why it's not an apppropriate one. 
You keep saying it's not a black or white issue, but you haven't mentioned why. How is stealing music via the internet better than breaking into someone's car to do it?
~~~~
BW,
What's your fixation with the bible? Last I checked, I referenced it not at all.
You've admitted that stealing is not a good thing.
Is it your contention that people who steal are somehow just as good as those who don't? Or that stealing when no one is looking is just as appropriate as not stealing?
You'd make more sense if you had a point.
I have made a point: those who exercise self-control and personal responsibility by not stealing or lying (etc) are better than those who don't.
Who would you rather have for a friend: someone you thought would rob you blind if they got a chance to get away cleanly, or someone you could trust?
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
madcat@xirian:~ > df /dev/hdd1
Filesystem 1k-blocks Used Available Use% Mounted on
/dev/hdd1 12866144 7240708 4961320 59% /home/mp3
[root@stratofortress]# ps auxw|grep opennap
opennap 75804 0.0 2.6 7504 6648 ?? I 2:03AM 0:00.05 /usr/local/opennap/bin/opennap
[root@stratofortress]#
I download mp3's, and I even have a Napster-like server going.
(then again, I do buy most of the CD's I have mp3s from - so I'm up to about 1000 CD's right now heh)
quote:
Lashanna wrote this stupid crap:
You know, I think the board, collectively, needs to stop using analogies, they're terrible. Sentow, kicking someone in the shin and stealing their shoes isn't even a decent analogy... Analogies would work if everything was black and white, but it's gray, sorry.
Lots of things are grey. Not everything. Yes, Virginia, there is a right and wrong. If something is wrong, and I say, "Hey, that's wrong," I'm not taking the moral highground. I'm demonstrating what ought to be common knowledge for everybody.
Incidentally, I'm not going to whack anybody upside the head with a Bible.
These are the arguments I've seen in favor of Napster (If I missed one - and I probably did! - then I'd be grateful if you could repeat it for me):
~ We're stealing from RIAA and we don't give a fuck (ridiculous and immoral).
~ We're stealing from the musicians and we don't give a fuck (ridiculous and immoral).
~ We're NOT stealing from anybody, because everyone is still making a profit despite what we take (it's still theft).
~ Hey, everybody's doing it (ridiculous).
~ We wanted music that we couldn't get anywhere else (ridiculous).
~ Napster and its ilk are a potential venue for introducing music to new fans (valid point).
Except for that very last one, they're all, well, pretty moronic. There's no grey there at all.
Using Napster to get around paying for music against the wishes of the musician is theft.
And it's only a bad analogy to someone who doesn't agree with me
[EDIT] Had a couple more thoughts while checking the post (ow, my head hurts!).
If you were to listen to a few mp3s as a demo, and deleted them from your drive afterwards, then... I think that would be okay. [ 11-26-2001: Message edited by: Sentow ]
It's the people who, like I said, are downloading whole CDs worth of music with no cost to them that infuriate me.
Napster is not the Robin Hood of the Silicon Age
Whether or not something is "MORAL" isn't set in stone.
Morals vary IN EACH AND EVERY PERSON.
Some more than others.
quote:
Sentow had this to say about Captain Planet:
Napster is not the Robin Hood of the Silicon Age
You're right, because they got their asses kicked.
mIRC is the Robin Hood of the Silicon Age... without moral justification.
quote:
Kegwen Tabibito wrote this then went back to looking for porn:
Bad analogy earlier, but ya know what?Whether or not something is "MORAL" isn't set in stone.
Morals vary IN EACH AND EVERY PERSON.
Some more than others.
So, anyone who thinks theft is fine and dandy according to their "morals" should be able to break into your house at will and take whatever they want?
Sorry, but the relativistic arguments don't really work in practical terms.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Kegwen Tabibito had this to say about Pirotess:
Bad analogy earlier, but ya know what?Whether or not something is "MORAL" isn't set in stone.
Morals vary IN EACH AND EVERY PERSON.
Some more than others.
Sincerely believing in something doesn't make it right.
In other words, I don't care what the hell you THINK is moral. If you infringe on the basic rights of a person, it's wrong.
Almost everyone I've ever spoken to in real life about mp3's has done something similar. My brother and father have bought cd's from bands they would never have even considered, and still bought the cd's for the bands they knew they liked. The same goes for my friends who I've spoken with about this.
Now, I know that there are also many others who do the reverse, and download things instead of buying them like they would have otherwise. This is where the conflict comes in for me. Who outnumbers who: the ones who muy more when exposed to mp3's, or those who buy less?
That's where we have to turn to large-scale statistics, and unfortunately those statistics have been notoriously unhelpful for both sides of this conflict. They don't really give much of an indicator one way or the other. The record sales have grown by a fair bit, but not by as much as it might have. There are a thousand factors for the growth or depression of the music industry, and so it's hard to label which effect filesharing is having.
There are also purely positive benifits to filesharing as well. As I mentioned above, I've been able to find mp3's of many songs that have long vanished from store shelves. Without filesharing, I would never have been able to listen to Tom Lehrer, or certain Jethro Tull songs, or Harry Chapin, or many other artists whose music is no longer on store shelves. I believe preserving hard-to-find music is an admirable thing.
And as for the argument that "Theft is Theft", realize that if the people who generate more revenue outnumber those who take away revenue, then it's truly a victimless crime. For my case, the record companies (and the artists) get more money than they would have otherwise, and I get more songs and get to hear things I never would have heard. So, that just leaves the question of who outnumbers who, which is not as obvious as it might appear. That's an issue that only time will tell.
In the beginning the Universe was created.Douglas Adams, 1952-2001
quote:
Check out the big brain on Black Wizard!
I'm done with this thread. It was running on left over gasoline, now it's hoping for another hill so it can coast down. I could easily point out more flaws in Bloodsage's reply, but it's not worth my time anymore.
That's the last refuge of someone who can't think of anything useful to say.
You'd have done better just to leave silently, rather than admit to the world you couldn't formulate an intelligent reply.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
And as for the argument that "Theft is Theft", realize that if the people who generate more revenue outnumber those who take away revenue, then it's truly a victimless crime
I see where you're coming from, but I still gotta disagree. While the company is making a profit, they're still being denied the revenue which the lower percentage would have contributed.
4 - 2 + 4 = 6
4 + 4 = 8
quote:
Sentow had this to say about Matthew Broderick:
Snipped from Chalesm's post:I see where you're coming from, but I still gotta disagree. While the company is making a profit, they're still being denied the revenue which the lower percentage would have contributed.
4 - 2 + 4 = 6
4 + 4 = 8
Realize though, if filesharing generates more purchases than it loses, then the company gets more sales (Eg. 1,000,000 people buy when they wouldn't have, 500,000 don't buy when they would have. The company gets 500,000 extra sales)
Look at it this way. If you asked a record company: "Which would you rather have, 1 million total record sales and 1 million people who have the song, or 2 million total record sales and 50 million who have the song?" They would take the 2 million sales and the 50 million listeners: they get more money, and the record gets more publicity for future releases by that artist. If you asked the artist the same thing, they would give the same response: they get more money, and are more famous, the best of both worlds. 
Now the only question is if it actually works that way. A lot more research and data-gathering is going to have to be done before we can figure out who outnumbers who.
In the beginning the Universe was created.Douglas Adams, 1952-2001
[EDIT] Another (ahem) ex post facto thought.
What swayed me was the question which your post inspired. "Is it 'wrong' if the companies and artists are still in a superior situation than they would be otherwise, and are please because of it?"
If it was me, I wouldn't mind free filesharing if it did indeed come with those benefits. Though I'd still prefer to give my consent to the programs before they distributed my work.
Your logic is a lethal weapon, man [ 11-26-2001: Message edited by: Sentow ]
quote:
Chalesm had this to say about Cuba:
Realize though, if filesharing generates more purchases than it loses, then the company gets more sales (Eg. 1,000,000 people buy when they wouldn't have, 500,000 don't buy when they would have. The company gets 500,000 extra sales)
Perhaps, but it's not your decision to make how their music is marketed since it's their music, not yours.
Which means it's still wrong. Even if Napster increased their sales hundredsfold, if they didn't want it (they being the people who OWN the music) then it's wrong to do it.
I know it sounds callous and evil. Truth be told, yes, what I do is wrong, and yes, just because I don't do it often is no excuse for me to do it at all.
Sorry, guys, I know you think you're doing the right things in taking a stand against piracy, but I honestly don't think that nice words and tears for the world can do anything. Oh, don't get me wrong, you might convert a couple people to your way of thinking, and yes, that's a partial victory, but in the end I honestly don't think you'll acheive much by coming onto this message board and telling us we're sinners and horrible people for stealing.
But people gravitate towards free things. Every time one of our ISP's has a free promotion, people home in like sharks to blood. You tell them free music, they'll get it. Everyone likes free stuff. They have free samples at the supermarket. People LOVE coupons. And they like getting MP3's, because quite honestly, it can't be stopped at this stage in the game. It could be made illegal, and yes, a lot of people would be intimidated by that and stop it, but not everyone. Not by far.
I'm not trying to be mean, just trying to be honest.
quote:
Drysart had this to say about pies:
Which means it's still wrong. Even if Napster increased their sales hundredsfold, if they didn't want it (they being the people who OWN the music) then it's wrong to do it.
Funny thing is, Drysart, when you say 'they' you mean 'the people who own the music', and not 'the artist that made the music'.
Recording agencies own the music. I know that doesn't make piracy okay. But it's still kinda stupid to me. Shouldn't the artists be like books, and own the book but just have it published by a company?
Not trying to justify piracy here, but thinking the entire music industry is screwed up in this respect.
EDIT : In other words, I read the courtney love article, and agree, that's a pretty stupid way to do things. The artists should own the music, not the freaking CD companies. [ 11-26-2001: Message edited by: Khyron ]
quote:
Drysart had this to say about Tron:
Perhaps, but it's not your decision to make how their music is marketed since it's their music, not yours.Which means it's still wrong. Even if Napster increased their sales hundredsfold, if they didn't want it (they being the people who OWN the music) then it's wrong to do it.
That's very true. However, we have to ask why they are against it. And as they would readilly admit, it's because they believe that it will lower record sales. If the companies believed that it increased sales, they would most likely accept it with open arms. Hence why they need to do some research into the effect music sharing is having. There's not really a high moral reason record companies are against it.
I'm not saying that that justifies it, but it does tranform it from a crime of theft into something much harder to classify. Using the "stealing oranges" analogy from nuch earlier, it's as if you invented a machine which duplicated the oranges on the table, and after tasting several duplicates, you went and bought a crate of oranges. It would be a very strange vendor who would be against this. Can you really call that theft?
It's as if a thief broke into the warehouse and left 50 dollars for each 20 dollar Cd he stole. How is that classified? It's certainly unlike what's normally considered theft. [ 11-26-2001: Message edited by: Chalesm ]
In the beginning the Universe was created.Douglas Adams, 1952-2001
, I'll try to sum up a few things if I can.You see, those who justify using napster, and don't care? I think that's somewhat selfish. Why? Let me explain.
Remember my argument about how the 'bad' outpushes the 'good'? I posted it in page 3.
Well, If you alone, or even just your school was doing it, then, it wouldn't be as huge a problem. You probably's couldn't care, and things would be happy. But, take others into consideration. There are a LOT of people doing it.
Let my try to make another analogy:
Let's say there's a big, juicy, pleasing cake. Let's say it has, oh, seven flavors. There are two you like and seven you hate.
And it costs 15 bucks to buy a piece.
That's where things like napster are good. Seeing what kind of flavor a 'band' (piece), is, is a good result. It's still *wrong*, per se, but both sides benefit. If you do that, and then buy a piece, then, that's cool.
But, with those who use it in moderation, some will use it in extremes. They will just decide to try it out, and then they just take the rest of the songs, which is like taking a piece without paying. Then the owners of the cake have less cake to sell, in which the profits come down to the bands.
Even just 100,000 people doing the 'extreme' still represents a small yet significant chunk of earnings for them.
Karnaj: I don't think we have the technology to stop it. As I said earlier (Read my posts! They're somewhat okay! /selfbump), we need effective computer piracy laws and the means to enforce it.
I mean, fewer people would take the cake if they knew that they had any chance of getting caught.
Bah, it's early. If I sound discombobulated, forgive me.
quote:
Azizza wrote this then went back to looking for porn:
You are sitting at home one night and suddenly it hits you... An idea out of the blue. A moment of creativity that you have never experienced before. So you start writing. YOu give up most of your personal life. Your family takes a back seat.. And you just write.. Months later you are finished. You have written a story that millions would love.You take it to a publisher and they love it. After another month or two of revisions it is ready to be printed. The Fanfare and hype is huge. Everyone wants your book. You have a good deal with the Publisher. You are going to make tons of money.
But the checks are small. Sales are terrible.. At first you can't figure out why. Then you stumble across a copy of your book online for Download as an ebook.
No wonder it isn't selling. Everyone can get it for free.Yep that actually happened to someone. Read abouthim a while back. He loved napster and the programs like it, where people could get music and the such for free. Now he hates them and rightfully so....
Now I ask you all. How can you support a product who's sole purpose is to steal other peoples work and make sure they don't make any money off of it?
Artists dont make money from books or from albums, they make money from endorsements. Pepsi pays Britney Spears more money in a month then her album sales will EVER pay her.
Intellectual property is not worth a damn dime to the artists, there endoursements are. In fact all artists are now considered "work for hire" So if you sign with a record label, you no longer own your songs, the label does.
Books, now there you keep the rights to what you wrote. What percentage of writers actually make a compelete living from there books? I dont know but Id wager to guess its an extremely small number.
Is napster still stealing? Yea it's stealing. Is this a huge problem that is going to "ruin" the nation? No, please stop being such a reactionist. There are FAR larger problems with the industry.
Bottom line, the labels are only making 49 billion instead of there normal 50 billion per year, so they are crying like little girls. Labels control the artists so the artists will do what they are told when it comes to voicing their 'opinions' about file sharing. Artists do NOT make real money off of there albums.
I'm not gonna shed a tear if some tard from a label cant buy his 4th summer house because of napster
/rant off
quote:
Azizza had this to say about Optimus Prime:
Then you are actually in a Very small Minority.
I think if artist want to do this then great. They should put something in it like some demo software has. either low quality or won't work after so many days.
Oh and Dem your argument holds no water. If I steal one battery out of a 8 pack of batteries it is still theft.
heh...if they made it low quality, people could make it higher quality with software. media files can't be trialware, and if they made it into software people would be able to rip it out of it easily. it doesn't matter what they do, there's no way to stop it...
...well, i'm done here for now...
quote:
Azizza had this to say about Duck Tales:
Thank you.Now what they are losing is sales. People who would otherwise buy the CD/tape are now just getitng it for free. While it is true that this is not always the case it more often than not it.
they're not losing sales, they're just not gaining them.
quote:
Lyinar had this to say about Matthew Broderick:
Who put you in charge?
quote:
We were all impressed when Kolak wrote:
[QUOTE]Lyinar had this to say about Matthew Broderick:
[qb]Who put you in charge?
Who put YOU in charge?
:P
quote:
Lenlalron had this to say about (_|_):
Who put YOU in charge?:P
i'm not bossing anyone around, just making a point (unlike Lyinar the hypocrite(bossing BW around and telling him not to do what she's doing)) .
quote:
Demitri had this to say about Robocop:
Who put MY pants in the oven?
Who pissed in YOUR cheerios?(This is starting to sound like Who's line is it anyway!)
Seriously though... I'd rather download the song I want and send the artist a check directly...
I don't really see any way to do that though as if I told them what the check was for I'd probably get prosecuted by the RIAA for piracy. Why? Because they didn't get theirs.
You forgot "RIAA Stealing from the artists (Stupid and immoral)"
Well, I say RIAA what I mean is record labels.
The answer as I see it is easy though... charge the price of a CD in return for being able to download say... 20 songs, or the price of a double CD to download 40 songs. This would give them an even greater profit margin too since they didn't spend anything to cut this CD... but you can bet the artist would still only see his 3%.
I guess maybe that's not the point... mp3's are way too easy to share.
There's another point of view also... the RIAA seems to live off this image that they fight for the artists rights but You The Consumer(tm) never see anything that wont sell. You might like a lot of it but maybe not a lot of people will and that makes it an unacceptable risk for a record label. mp3's get rid of the overhead involved. It would allow record companies to still spend tons on big acts but it would also allow them to take more risks and it would allow YOU to hear something new instead of the same old brittney pop trash that sells great but has no substance... no soul.
Napster isn't killing CD sales... bad music is killing CD sales. [ 11-27-2001: Message edited by: Kermitov ]
Sure, what the record companies do may be legal, but does that make it right?
If you want to rid the world of filesharing, I submit that you'll have to empower the artists, and, in doing so, shake the recording industry to its very foundation.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
