quote:
Kolak had this to say about (_|_):
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)).
You ruined the joke! Bastard.
quote:
Karnaj had this to say about Optimus Prime:
What Reynar said is probably the most convincing argument for file sharing. The sanctity of the artists' intellectual property is not only breached by the file sharers, but by the record label when it exploits the work in the name of profit.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.
Karnaj! I said something addressed to an earlier point you made! At least say I'm stupid so I know people read my posts!
quote:
Lenlalron had this to say about John Romero:
You ruined the joke! Bastard.
No, YOU ruined the joke! Bastard.
/me wonders when Lyinar is gonna bitch at him for that post, 'cause he's in the mood for a nice argument.
quote:
And I was all like 'Oh yeah?' and Lenlalron was all like:
Karnaj! I said something addressed to an earlier point you made! At least say I'm stupid so I know people read my posts!
My apologies. I didn't see it. 
Anywho, you're not stupid. Just unrealistic. Should they try to pass any anti-piracy laws, people will just go back to using older machines that are unaffected by any measures that they may take. Any measure they try will be circumvented. That was my original point:
More technology; more fluidity. It's almost impossible to control someone with technology. They can just use new technology to get around yours. It is a vicious cycle, and it is almost impossible to break.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
quote:
Kermitov had this to say about Tron:
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.
Point 1: Yeah, I'd love to too.
Paragraph 2: Didn't get their what? Their money? I don't get that point.
Paragraph 4 (Assuming those two lines between are one paragraph): True, yes. But unless it's directly downloaded from the company ITSELF, then you throw in the medium of the downloader. That'll get another cut. It probably will NOT get a greater profit margin.
Line after it: I agree.
Paragraph five: Taking more risks is a good thing. They would still have to pay for the band for the songs, though. So, it would cut losses. But would it cut that much?
Eh, bad music is, but, bad is a very ambiguous word. Bad to you probably means 'not pleasing to the ears', while bad to record companies means 'Dosen't sell'.
Sure, a music cd isn't what could be considered, "high end", but neither is a single track. If I look up songs to download, I'm looking just to download that particular song, not the entire album it came from.
Yeah, that doesn't necessarily make it right, but when you don't want the entire cd and the particular song you want off it isn't a chart topper (meaning NO single), I don't see a problem with downloading it off the 'net.
As for the argument that royalty money is insignificant: bullshit. Several years back, I saw that Madonna, for example, made $40 million a year in royalties alone. Even if her endorsements are worth more, that's not chump-change.
Which still begs the question of why it's up to the thieves to determine the proper disposition of someone else's property. Seems pretty damn silly to me. Just because you don't like the way something is packaged does not give you the right to steal it.
What would you say to someone who walked through the grocery store opening packages and trying things on the odd notion that "try before you buy" is some kind of basic human right? Even if they ended up spending more in the grocery store than a) the damage was worth, and b) they would have otherwise, most people would characterize that behavior as "wrong."
Or, if someone had a big bag of M&Ms--even more than they could possibly consume alone--it is still not okay to steal them just because they refuse to share. The property in question is theirs, and they have the right to determine its disposition. Even offering them a profit beyond what they'd get by not sharing does not obligate them to share.
So we are still left with a series of lame rationalizations for theft. It's irrelevant whether the music industry or the artists or anyone else makes more money due to file sharing. It's their right to determine the distribution of their property. It doesn't matter whether you can't afford to buy as much as you'd like; it's not your right to own software, music, or anything else you can't afford legally.
It's even funnier how the thieves get indignant about others "taking the moral high ground," as if that's even an insult. The implication is that people who don't steal have no right to consider themselves better than those who do. Beyond the fact that that's utter bullshit, there is the opposite side of the coin: those who steal implicitly place their own needs above those of others, demonstrating their sense of superiority. After all, it's the thieves who know what's best for the music industry, right?
Wrong.
In the discussion of what makes a good person, I think it fairly obvious a better case can be made for those who respect others' property and make an effort not to take what doesn't belong to them than the opposite.
That's what this discussion is really about. What kind of deceitful behaviors should be condoned by society?
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
We must need more Kagrama. Maybe some Ruvyen and Parcelan too.
quote:
Bloodsage had this to say about pies:
[QB]Ah, the traditional argument that if you want something, it must be your right to have it, so therefore stealing is okay simply by virtue of the fact you can't afford something.
Not sure if it was directed at me or not... but that's not what I mean. I accept the fact that what I'm doing is wrong.
quote:
As for the argument that royalty money is insignificant: bullshit. Several years back, I saw that Madonna, for example, made $40 million a year in royalties alone. Even if her endorsements are worth more, that's not chump-change.
Madonna is an established artist recording on her own label, Maverick Records. Metallica, same situation... actually most of the music I listen to is from labels owned by the artist. That I don't have a problem with as profit is profit in that situation.
All the rest of the stuff you say I agree with totally... Except....
try before you buy is common in the art industry... you would expect to be able to look at a painting before you buy it. You wouldn't go see a movie you hadn't seen a trailer for right?? Would you buy the CD of a band you had never heard? I generally don't. [ 11-27-2001: Message edited by: Kermitov ]
[ 11-27-2001: Message edited by: Reyolen ]
quote:
Bloodsage had this to say about dark elf butts:
Ah, the traditional argument that if you want something, it must be your right to have it, so therefore stealing is okay simply by virtue of the fact you can't afford something.As for the argument that royalty money is insignificant: bullshit. Several years back, I saw that Madonna, for example, made $40 million a year in royalties alone. Even if her endorsements are worth more, that's not chump-change.
Which still begs the question of why it's up to the thieves to determine the proper disposition of someone else's property. Seems pretty damn silly to me. Just because you don't like the way something is packaged does not give you the right to steal it.
What would you say to someone who walked through the grocery store opening packages and trying things on the odd notion that "try before you buy" is some kind of basic human right? Even if they ended up spending more in the grocery store than a) the damage was worth, and b) they would have otherwise, most people would characterize that behavior as "wrong."
Or, if someone had a big bag of M&Ms--even more than they could possibly consume alone--it is still not okay to steal them just because they refuse to share. The property in question is theirs, and they have the right to determine its disposition. Even offering them a profit beyond what they'd get by not sharing does not obligate them to share.
So we are still left with a series of lame rationalizations for theft. It's irrelevant whether the music industry or the artists or anyone else makes more money due to file sharing. It's their right to determine the distribution of their property. It doesn't matter whether you can't afford to buy as much as you'd like; it's not your right to own software, music, or anything else you can't afford legally.
It's even funnier how the thieves get indignant about others "taking the moral high ground," as if that's even an insult. The implication is that people who don't steal have no right to consider themselves better than those who do. Beyond the fact that that's utter bullshit, there is the opposite side of the coin: those who steal implicitly place their own needs above those of others, demonstrating their sense of superiority. After all, it's the thieves who know what's best for the music industry, right?
Wrong.
In the discussion of what makes a good person, I think it fairly obvious a better case can be made for those who respect others' property and make an effort not to take what doesn't belong to them than the opposite.
That's what this discussion is really about. What kind of deceitful behaviors should be condoned by society?
Well, ya can't argue with that. But, Sage, look where society is...
"What kind of deceitful behaviors?"
Well, we (Americans) elected Clinton twice didn't we? So, most Americans think what he did was alright, he stole, lied and cheated, but he was voted for 2 terms.
Is Napster wrong? Sure, ok
Is it a great way to get cool songs not released on singles or a good way to look for new artists? Hell yes
If people want to fileshare, fine, there's no way anyone is going to stop it
quote:
Reyolen had this to say about Reading Rainbow:
Sage, it's not a black and white issue because there are different levels of things that are bad, and this one is only minorly bad and is not really the same as stealing. Think about it. They're not LOSING anything, so how is it stealing? Stealing their copyright? I didn't sell to anyone, claim it was mine, or even give it away to anyone. They have not lost any money from MY downloading that song, at all, end of story. If they didn't lose anything, material or otherwise, how is it stealing? It may very well lower profits a bit, BUT that's not stealing, it is like a friend letting you listen to his song 24/7, whenever you want, like loaning it to you. Think of it that way. it may be illegal, but not all things illegal are truly wrong, as you pointed out with the speeding. Also, how can you not compare this to a library? It's much the same, except you can't give those books away.
Heh...what i've been trying to say.
Kudos to ya
quote:
The Otaku Penguin had this to say about Captain Planet:
Well, we (Americans) elected Clinton twice didn't we? So, most Americans think what he did was alright, he stole, lied and cheated, but he was voted for 2 terms.
It's funny how well he did as President though...
And Reyolen, the "different levels of Bad" thing was what I was trying to say this entire time, but you said it better than me, heh...
Stealing a 747, and stealing an MP3 are not anywhere near the same level (these things are why I dislike the analogies people tend to use)...
It's a digital media that is easily copied. People are placing too much value into the media of the thing instead of the thing itself. You feel that it's not stealing because you haven't physically taken something away from anyone. You've just copied it.
When you buy a CD you get a pretty package and a shiny plastic disc. However, that's not what you are paying for really. What you are paying for is a license to listen to the songs on that CD. You don't own the songs, you just own a shiny plastic disc.
It's going to be interesting in the future when we can easily copy non-digital things. These arguements will be about real physical things instead of just bits on a disc.
With all that said, I do share MP3s with a few friends, because I want them to hear a song I like or they want me to hear one. As it stands right now I own a CD with every song I have in MP3 form except 1 and that one is on it's way to me from Amazon as I type this.
I won't try to justify my actions... I know it's not right, but I try and make it right by buying the CDs for myself and my friends when I can.
quote:
Reyolen had this to say about Matthew Broderick:
not really the same as stealing. Think about it. They're not LOSING anything, so how is it stealing? Stealing their copyright?
You certainly are stealing something.
There are two parts to commerce: supply and demand.
Stealing physical goods is attacking both halves of the equation.
With digital media, the supply is effectively infinite, but demand still isn't. By stealing the music, you're lowering demand without giving them their due compensation for that demand that is now being filled by their property.
It is blatantly theft, there's no ambiguity about it.
The bottom line: you have no right to that music except by buying it. You take it anyway. You've engaged in theft.
QED.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
Although this is going against the way the 'American Way', take responsibity away from the ones who have the problem and put it onto the bloated and bogged down goverment. Anyways that is quite enough goverment, copyright, blah blah blah for me today. Enjoy.
ph3r the French
quote:
Bloodsage wrote this then went back to looking for porn:
To amplify Drysart's point a little: taking something you don't own, against the law, and without compensating the owner, certainly qualifies as theft in my book. Regardless whether the object is physical.The bottom line: you have no right to that music except by buying it. You take it anyway. You've engaged in theft.
QED.
quote:
Reyolen stumbled drunkenly to the keyboard and typed:
Alright, say you go to the library. You check out a book. This means you're no longer going to buy it, because you read it from the library. This in essense is stealing profit from the book companies.
You don't get to keep the book from the library, and there's only one book to go around. (This is addressed in many parts of law, actually. It's legal to install one piece of software on two different computers if they'll never both be used at the same time, unless your license outlines otherwise. It's often referred to as a book analogy.)
You could (in theory) keep your MP3s forever, and there's no limit to how many different people can have a copy of the same data at once.
Also, some libraries have CDs available for checkout.
quote:
Reyolen stumbled drunkenly to the keyboard and typed:
So, is checking out a book STEALING? Should it be illegal?
Keeping the book sure is.
quote:
Reyolen stumbled drunkenly to the keyboard and typed:
Or taping a show, or recording off of the radio?
VCRs were almost illegal, you know. It went all the way to the Supreme Court and it was permitted by a 4-5 vote, only because the main use of VCRs was what's called "time-shifting". Recording a show so you can watch it at a more convenient time.
Technically, it is illegal to keep whatever you've recorded off the airwaves after you've watched it.
It was argued by some that Napster fell under the same exemption of "fair use" that VCRs fell under, except with "Space shifting" instead of "time shifting"... meaning you were shifting your CDs to a medium that you could use to access them at any time from different places.
However, the main difference was that while the primary use of VCRs was fair use, the primary use of Napster was illegal. (Why do you think Napster suddenly became a ghost town after the illegal part was disallowed?) [ 11-27-2001: Message edited by: Drysart ]
I don't have MP3s on my computer. I don't download them because a)I'm too lazy to do it, b)I like having a physical copy of something, and c)I think it's wrong to copy and keep MP3s.
Do I object to people down loading MP3s? Not if they erase them after they listen to them once or twice. I figure that's alot like going into one of the music stores that lets you listen to a CD before you buy it, to see if you like it. If you keep the MP3, then I have a problem with it.
Why do I have a problem with it? Well, as Drysart said:
quote:
Now suppose, thanks to Napster, that the album only sells 1 million copies (which is what Maradon's statement was implying). That's only $15m. If you think the record company's going to settle for less of a cut so the artists still get $1m, you're mistaken. They're going to take their 96% (which would leave the artist with only $500k), or, more likely they'll have to take more of a cut because the album is selling in less volume while the amount spent to publicize the album hasn't decreased. So it ends up hurting the artist more than the record company, percent-wise.
Record companies don't know who downloads what, they only know what's selling. Every time you don't buy something, it looks less worthwhile to the record companies. So, they don't ship as many CDs, or put as much effort into getting a new album from the artist. That artist loses the other chances for income that are created by having a huge hit (remember, albums go gold/plat based off of sales, downloads don't count). Downloading instead of buying can have a bad impact on their career as well as their direct income.
Look at it this way: Becoming a recording artist is alot like going into the Olympics for the U.S. You don't get paid jack, but everyone else is making money off of you. (news, broadcasters, advertisers, Visa, ect.) Now, if you do really well, and get the gold, THEN you can cash in for the big bucks. Product indorsement, training vidoes, lecture tours, and maybe even a career as an entertainer. But if you DON'T get the gold (or at least silver/bronze), you never see the big cash.
It's the same with the recording biz. The people buying the music are the judges. If you don't buy the stuff you like, their sales will never "get the gold", and they will never see the real rewards.
Now, as to how easy it is to steal MP3s. Yes, it's easy, alot easier than going out and buying the CD. Just a couple of clicks, and while you get another Mt Dew, your computer snags the songs you want. It's quick, it's easy, it's pushbutton sin.
But, If you made it possible for people to HONESTLY do it for a fee, would they? Would they turn to pushbutton virtue in place of pushbutton sin?
Before you say "no", take a moment to notice how many posters are subscribed to this board. Yah, getting the comics a week early is nice, but alot of us do it because we want to support the board. I think it would be the same way with recording artists. Sure, the problem will still be there (just as the board will allways get the occasional LordVladDracul), but alot of people would be willing to pay for it.
(Note: I'm not saying anything bad about people that are not subscribed. Lack of cash is nothing to be ashamed of, and I dont' feel somehow better than anyone that is not subscribed to EC.)
So, I wish the record companies would hurry up and get some kind of "pay for downloads" system set up and running. It wouldn't stop the problem, but it would regain some of the losses, as well as helping them keep better track of who's hot with the internet crowd.
[ 11-27-2001: Message edited by: Palador ChibiDragon ]
Ok, I'm done.
quote:
Palador ChibiDragon had this to say about Reading Rainbow:
My views:I don't have MP3s on my computer. I don't download them because a)I'm too lazy to do it, b)I like having a physical copy of something, and c)I think it's wrong to copy and keep MP3s.
Do I object to people down loading MP3s? Not if they erase them after they listen to them once or twice. I figure that's alot like going into one of the music stores that lets you listen to a CD before you buy it, to see if you like it. If you keep the MP3, then I have a problem with it.
Why do I have a problem with it? Well, as Drysart said:
[QUOTE]Now suppose, thanks to Napster, that the album only sells 1 million copies (which is what Maradon's statement was implying). That's only $15m. If you think the record company's going to settle for less of a cut so the artists still get $1m, you're mistaken. They're going to take their 96% (which would leave the artist with only $500k), or, more likely they'll have to take more of a cut because the album is selling in less volume while the amount spent to publicize the album hasn't decreased. So it ends up hurting the artist more than the record company, percent-wise.
Record companies don't know who downloads what, they only know what's selling. Every time you don't buy something, it looks less worthwhile to the record companies. So, they don't ship as many CDs, or put as much effort into getting a new album from the artist. That artist loses the other chances for income that are created by having a huge hit (remember, albums go gold/plat based off of sales, downloads don't count). Downloading instead of buying can have a bad impact on their career as well as their direct income.
Look at it this way: Becoming a recording artist is alot like going into the Olympics for the U.S. You don't get paid jack, but everyone else is making money off of you. (news, broadcasters, advertisers, Visa, ect.) Now, if you do really well, and get the gold, THEN you can cash in for the big bucks. Product indorsement, training vidoes, lecture tours, and maybe even a career as an entertainer. But if you DON'T get the gold (or at least silver/bronze), you never see the big cash.
It's the same with the recording biz. The people buying the music are the judges. If you don't buy the stuff you like, their sales will never "get the gold", and they will never see the real rewards.
Now, as to how easy it is to steal MP3s. Yes, it's easy, alot easier than going out and buying the CD. Just a couple of clicks, and while you get another Mt Dew, your computer snags the songs you want. It's quick, it's easy, it's pushbutton sin.
But, If you made it possible for people to HONESTLY do it for a fee, would they? Would they turn to pushbutton virtue in place of pushbutton sin?
Before you say "no", take a moment to notice how many posters are subscribed to this board. Yah, getting the comics a week early is nice, but alot of us do it because we want to support the board. I think it would be the same way with recording artists. Sure, the problem will still be there (just as the board will allways get the occasional LordVladDracul), but alot of people would be willing to pay for it.
(Note: I'm not saying anything bad about people that are not subscribed. Lack of cash is nothing to be ashamed of, and I dont' feel somehow better than anyone that is not subscribed to EC.)
So, I wish the record companies would hurry up and get some kind of "pay for downloads" system set up and running. It wouldn't stop the problem, but it would regain some of the losses, as well as helping them keep better track of who's hot with the internet crowd.
Ok, I'm done.[/QUOTE]I see your point, but, in theory, you COULD copy and share these files if you changed some of the things that had to do with it, as you said, so it's not as morally wrong as you might think, as anyone who tapes a show has no moral problems with it. (at least MOST people who do don't.) I'm not saying that stealing is right or even keeping mp3s is right, though I have some right now. You could say, "What are you going to do about it" and while that could work, if you actually want to try to convince someone that they are not all right you have to debate issues, and if all you can say is "I can do what I want, they can't stop me" then you're sort of proving you can't debate your issues. (or you don't want to.) The point is, should I be losing sleep over this?
quote:I see your point, but, in theory, you COULD copy and share these files if you changed some of the things that had to do with it, as you said, so it's not as morally wrong as you might think, as anyone who tapes a show has no moral problems with it. (at least MOST people who do don't.) I'm not saying that stealing is right or even keeping mp3s is right, though I have some right now. You could say, "What are you going to do about it" and while that could work, if you actually want to try to convince someone that they are not all right you have to debate issues, and if all you can say is "I can do what I want, they can't stop me" then you're sort of proving you can't debate your issues. (or you don't want to.) The point is, should I be losing sleep over this?
Drysart impressed everyone with:
VCRs were almost illegal, you know. It went all the way to the Supreme Court and it was permitted by a 4-5 vote, only because the main use of VCRs was what's called "time-shifting". Recording a show so you can watch it at a more convenient time.Technically, it is illegal to keep whatever you've recorded off the airwaves after you've watched it.
It was argued by some that Napster fell under the same exemption of "fair use" that VCRs fell under, except with "Space shifting" instead of "time shifting"... meaning you were shifting your CDs to a medium that you could use to access them at any time from different places.
However, the main difference was that while the primary use of VCRs was fair use, the primary use of Napster was illegal. (Why do you think Napster suddenly became a ghost town after the illegal part was disallowed?)
First, it is illegal to check a book out of the library, copy it, and keep it for your own. Which is what filesharing equates to.
Second, it is perfectly legal to lend a friend your CD, or to invite him over and play a song for him. Which is closer to the way libraries operate. It is not, however, legal to make a copy for your friend, or for him to copy the CD you lent. See above.
You see: the "but libraries do it" argument is specious.
So what's the next ridiculous rationalization for theft?
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
This is the Sesame Street/Readers Digest version of this thread.
Some people DL MP3's, they do not see what is so wrong with doing so.
Some people don't DL MP3's, they think it's wrong.
I doubt any views will change.
quote:
Reyolen had this to say about Jimmy Carter:
The point is, should I be losing sleep over this?
Maybe. Don't forget, record companies are losing money due to this, but can't stop it due to people's right to privacy (can't search their computers). They may decide to throw alot of money behind working around that, and I know some software companies would like to as well.
Stealing MP3s may not be a big thing (and as far as guilty/sinful pleasures goes, it's not), but the fallout from it could turn nasty.
That having been said, I'm not going to go door to door and preach the evils of file sharing. The real world has more important things to worry about.
quote:
Drysart had this to say about Pirotess:
You certainly are stealing something.There are two parts to commerce: supply and demand.
Stealing physical goods is attacking both halves of the equation.
With digital media, the supply is effectively infinite, but demand still isn't. By stealing the music, you're lowering demand without giving them their due compensation for that demand that is now being filled by their property.
It is blatantly theft, there's no ambiguity about it.
If I had no intention of purchasing the CD, or no possibility of purchasing a song since it is not available on any other format but MP3, I have not attacked the demand either.
And yet I HAVE purchased quite a few CDs ONLY because I heard the music first and wanted the album.
For me, listing to an mp3 and is the same as listening to the radio, except I get to the listen to the music I want to when I want to (time shift) and avoid all the DJ jibber-jabber.
Many people wouldn't hear certain bands or songs without this, and wouldn't be interested in buying certain CDs before hearing them on mp3squote:
Reyolen had this to say about Pirotess:
Kanid made another very good point I forgot to mention, because i was trying to think of some new things to bring to the table, whehter I did or not I triedMany people wouldn't hear certain bands or songs without this, and wouldn't be interested in buying certain CDs before hearing them on mp3s
So?
A thug may never hear an Alpine car stereo until he steals a nice car . . . but that doesn't justify the theft.
A kid may have no interest in baseball cards, until he steals a collection, which then starts a lifelong obsession where he spends thousands buying more . . . but that doesn't justify the theft.
You don't have any particular right to hear new bands, or listen to music you can't afford. Sorry, even the Constitution only guarantees the pursuit of happiness, rather than its attainment.
I'm sure many thieves derive personal pleasure from the fruits of their illegal activities. I hardly think that justifies the crimes.
And, as pointed out before, it's not the thieves' job to tell others what may or may not be in their best interests. That's the fundamental issue:
You've no right to decide for the software or music industries what is best for them.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Bloodsage had this to say about Punky Brewster:
You've no right to decide for the software or music industries what is best for them.
But don't we, as consumers, do that very thing by deciding whether or not we want to buy something?
Business is not ethical, or moral, or sometimes even legal. It's all about how much money you can make, and that's it.
Most often, how much money you make hinges directly on how the consumers perceive your company, or how well you respond to their needs and/or wants.
In our case, the software industry is selling MP3 software and hardware very well, because that's what the people want. Ethics, legality, and morality be damned, is what they all say when they do this.
The record industry is against this majority, and is purposefully conducting poor business practices and bitching about it. A previously dastardly industry(yes, they conduct unethical business practices as well) is now seen as a moral champion.
Too bad morality doesn't sell. Sure, they ain't going out of business. But they are losing money, and the bottom line of business is money.
And, in this respect, ethics, morality, legality are moot, and we have our justification for MP3 trading.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
quote:
Kanid had this to say about Reading Rainbow:
If I had no intention of purchasing the CD
But you obviously wanted the song since you downloaded it to listen to.
Just because you can't or don't want to pay for the CD doesn't nullify the fact that there IS demand, you're just not willing to play by their terms.
It's the same thing as saying that stealing someone's car is ok because you had no intention of buying it from them or because you couldn't afford your own.
quote:
Kanid had this to say about Reading Rainbow:
For me, listing to an mp3 and is the same as listening to the radio, except I get to the listen to the music I want to when I want to (time shift) and avoid all the DJ jibber-jabber.
Those are the reasons they ALLOW music on radio. The inconveniences of commercial radio have easily accessible alternatives: Radio's not on-demand. If you want it on-demand, you can buy the CD. Radio's got jocks and spot sets. If you don't want jocks and spot sets, you can buy the CD.
And it's only time shifting if you only listen to your recording of it once.
quote:
Karnaj had this to say about Reading Rainbow:
In our case, the software industry is selling MP3 software and hardware very well, because that's what the people want. Ethics, legality, and morality be damned, is what they all say when they do this.The record industry is against this majority, and is purposefully conducting poor business practices and bitching about it. A previously dastardly industry(yes, they conduct unethical business practices as well) is now seen as a moral champion.
Too bad morality doesn't sell. Sure, they ain't going out of business. But they are losing money, and the bottom line of business is money.
And, in this respect, ethics, morality, legality are moot, and we have our justification for MP3 trading.
What the hell point were you trying to make with this?
That because the record industry makes money, stealing from them is justified? Didn't we cover that a few pages ago?
That the majority is right by virtue of the fact they're the majority? That music should be put into imminent domain just because some people want it that way? That reeks of facism and communism.
Basing your judgement of the sanctity of property ownership based on morality or mob rule is sad, opportunistic, and goes against everything the American way is based on. By saying "I can take it because I want it" is, in essence, saying "fuck the artists. fuck the sound engineers. fuck the store owners. fuck those people that are working, nay, spending their lives making and distributing this music for me. fuck the people who promoted it so I know about it. fuck the people that have invested and risked their money that they earned so that it could be made. me want to listen to music but me a cheapass who doesn't want to pay."
If you think you're somehow helping the artists by screwing over the record companies, please point me to someone who has used the Internet as a distribution channel for their music and are successful enough at it to make a living off their music.
Point me to a "pay the artists" site thats managed to collect more than a couple hundred dollars over a several month period for people who compensate the artists on the much ballyhooed honor system. [ 11-28-2001: Message edited by: Drysart ]
quote:
Drysart thought this was the Ricky Martin Fan Club Forum and wrote:
What the hell point were you trying to make with this?
The point I was making is that we, as consumers, do dictate what is good for the music industry or not. We dictate it every time we buy a CD, watch a music video, and even download an MP3. This is what we want.
If the music industry cannot cater to their consumers needs, then they deserve to go lose. Ethics and morality have no place in the modern business world. It's all about the money. Right now, consumers are forcing a paradigm shift in the music industry because they've circumlocuted a way of paying for their products.
Some companies are taking advantage of this circumlocution. These companies will survive in the forseeable future. Unless the music industry does something to the same effect, they will continue to lose money.
The only viable solutions I see are very broad, sweeping, and time-consuming. If the music industry does not implement these solutions, then they are justifying their own downfall by failing to adhere to a prime business principle: "The customer is always right."
If they want to keep people as customers, they have to re-think their strategy. Maybe it's time for a new recording medium. Maybe it's time for a Congressional ban on MP3 compression technology.
Regardless, it's time for the recording industry to not whine about the situation, and fix the situation. Taking on Napster was a good start. Now, they have to follow through.
Otherwise, their continued apathy is the justification for continued MP3 sharing. If they choose not only to provide this particular service, but to force their competitors off the map, the consumers will get it from somewhere else.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
quote:I didn't say anything about the music industry's best intersts. Anyway, how can you be so sure that this hurts the music industry so much? Just because some people lose money doesn't mean that it's file swapping's fault. You can't compare this to stealing a car or something, because people are not directly losing much from this. They may be losing from this, but they are also gaining when people hear songs, they want the CD for that band. I doubt you can find every song by a certain band, or even every one you like unless they are popular, so this is much like copying songs from the radio, only it is much more wide spread and the songs are more accessable. In theory, this could become exceptable later on just as radio and tape recording has become, and the government may even step in and make a profit from it, as the music industries and artists might. I really wouldn't have a problem paying for access to download these songs, but as someone said above that wouldn't work because someone will always make a free system. It may not be right, but alot of things you do in life can be considered wrong. When you waste and don't recycle paper, when you pick up that 10 off of the ground and keep it (even if you could never find the person who owned it,) when you blow people off or when you act cruely. You said before speeding isn't a crime the same as stealing is, well, this mp3 swapping, in my mind, is a lesser stealing, because it isn't a direct loss from anyone, it's a loss of profit, not a loss of earnings, slightly different. Many other things can cause a loss of profit and are not considered stealing (not saying file swapping isn't stealing to a lesser extent though) I'm not even saying I'm right in this debate, just trying to show you all the other side, (because I do download music, as I said)
Bloodsage stumbled drunkenly to the keyboard and typed:
So?A thug may never hear an Alpine car stereo until he steals a nice car . . . but that doesn't justify the theft.
A kid may have no interest in baseball cards, until he steals a collection, which then starts a lifelong obsession where he spends thousands buying more . . . but that doesn't justify the theft.
You don't have any particular right to hear new bands, or listen to music you can't afford. Sorry, even the Constitution only guarantees the pursuit of happiness, rather than its attainment.
I'm sure many thieves derive personal pleasure from the fruits of their illegal activities. I hardly think that justifies the crimes.
And, as pointed out before, it's not the thieves' job to tell others what may or may not be in their best interests. That's the fundamental issue:
You've no right to decide for the software or music industries what is best for them.
quote:
Kolak had this to say about Jimmy Carter:
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))
No, I'm pointing out that neither Dem or BW or Sol or anyone else has the right to tell people to stop discussing something they wish to discuss or berate those still discussing it by constantly saying how pointless it is, just because those people are done with the topic.
Lyinar Ka`Bael, Piney Fresh Druidess - Luclin
As for the library thing, it's not necessarily true you won't go out and buy the book. There are many times I've enjoyed something I happened to check out so much that I went and bought the book to have it for my own. This kind of "preview" helps, because I like to buy in hardback when possible, and to spend so much on a hardback book I don't even like is a waste.
Lyinar Ka`Bael, Piney Fresh Druidess - Luclin
quote:
Kolak stumbled drunkenly to the keyboard and trolled out the following:
/me wonders when Lyinar is gonna bitch at him for that post, 'cause he's in the mood for a nice argument.
Wow are you looking to start a flame fight, Kolak? What purpose could that possibly serve? Folks are, commendably given the track record of threads, debating the issue plenty nicely and you want to get into an argument?
Now I have done some bone-headed things in the past, and I've flamed folks for what they've said...but I can't remember ever trolling for trouble. If you want to pick a fight why don't you go out and punch the first person you come to? Shoot you're looking for trouble, right? Why not get it alllll out of your system? Or does trolling on a forums board make you feel intelligent? Or tough? Make you feel...I dunno...important? Or have you just plain not paid attention to how people handle folks who go around begging for trouble?
Quoting one of my favorite lines from a (relatively) recent movie: "Some m*therf*ckers are always trying to ice skate uphill." That's you. Want a fight, don't hide it as being noble. Just start a thread to pick a fight and take your lumps as you get them. Don't troll in good threads, and don't make other people like me disrupt the good debate vibes going. Makes me look bad, and it sure doesn't win you any cool points.
*shakes his head*
sigpic courtesy of This Guy, original modified by me
*bounces around excitedly*
I checked Amazon and I never saw it! Maybe I just missed it. Thank you soooooooooo much. That's such a great compilation.
Lyinar Ka`Bael, Piney Fresh Druidess - Luclin
quote:
Rowyl impressed everyone with:
Final Fantasy IV: Celtic Moon [Import] (at Amazon)
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000058AB1/ref=pd_sim_music/104-6762572-4063104
Wow, looks interesting. I think I'm going to put that on my christmas list. [ 11-28-2001: Message edited by: Chalesm ]
In the beginning the Universe was created.Douglas Adams, 1952-2001
Lyinar Ka`Bael, Piney Fresh Druidess - Luclin
.
