So we're back to the argument that theft is okay if the victim is rich? Since when? Stealing a Rolls Royce Silver Ghost from Bill Gates would be the financial equivalent of you losing a penny at a fast food restaurant, but that doesn't give you the right to steal it.
People who trade music are thieves. The more people who do it, the more the industry loses, and the more the industry will have to shell out in preventative technologies, and the more we honest consumers will be inconvenienced by those preventative technologies. Saying, "Oh, it's okay; it's not much and they can afford it," doesn't excuse the theft.
Karnaj:
It's not your call to judge the music industry's business practices. Nor is calling them poor business practices justified by the facts--I hardly consider an industry raking in billions in profit annually to be screwing up their business model. You may not like it, but that's an entirely separate issue.
And, yes, you have a vote: either buy CDs the way they are packaged, or go without. Stealing simply beacuse you don't like the business model or the packaging is ridiculous. I wish more wines were sold in 375ml bottles, but that doesn't give me the right to knock off a liquor store, does it?
Why all this blaming the victim? Since when does anything about the victim justify theft?
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
Personally, I don't care what the record industry does. I only pointed out that if they want to maximize their profit, they must take definitive action towards that end. Until they do, their relative inactivity towards the point is the justification.
If you don't want your stuff stolen, you lock your door. You don't just close it and hope for the best. You take measures to avoid or prevent it. Sure, it may not prevent a robbery, but at least you took measures against it.
That's what the RIAA needs to do. Lock their proverbial door. Throw a severe monkey wrench in the theft of their stuff. It might not stop it all together, but it will act as a deterrant.
Until they do, they're akin to someone who locks up an 80 karat diamond in their jewelry box, leaves it next to an open window, then acts incredibly surprised when it's stolen.
I like arguing. As long as I don't get called names. They make baby Jebus cry. 
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
Leaving you car unlocked and the keys in it may be stupid, but it doesn't justify the theft of your car. Stealing the car is still a crime, and still wrong.
Saying that theft is okay because the industry isn't "maximizing their profits"--according to whom, BTW?--doesn't make sense. Most people do not "maximize their profits"--is it okay to steal from them? And saying that lack of security justifies theft is tantamount to excusing all theft, since, by definition, theft only occurs where security is inadequate to prevent it.
Additionally, the point I was trying to make is that the additional security measures the industry is introducing impact not only the thieves, but also us law-abiding citizens. Copy-protection will mean I can no longer rip my CDs and listen to music skip-free as I jog (heretofore a perfectly legal activity). Sony's happy-fun "music management" software puts severe restrictions upon legal use of music by allowing MP3 files to be downloaded only to one device at a time.
The losers in all of this are the law-abiding, as usual.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Karnaj had this to say about dark elf butts:
Bloodsage,Personally, I don't care what the record industry does. I only pointed out that if they want to maximize their profit, they must take definitive action towards that end. Until they do, their relative inactivity towards the point is the justification.
If you don't want your stuff stolen, you lock your door. You don't just close it and hope for the best. You take measures to avoid or prevent it. Sure, it may not prevent a robbery, but at least you took measures against it.
That's what the RIAA needs to do. Lock their proverbial door. Throw a severe monkey wrench in the theft of their stuff. It might not stop it all together, but it will act as a deterrant.
Until they do, they're akin to someone who locks up an 80 karat diamond in their jewelry box, leaves it next to an open window, then acts incredibly surprised when it's stolen.
I like arguing. As long as I don't get called names. They make baby Jebus cry.
Game...set...match
See my reply.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
We were all impressed when Bloodsage wrote:
Hardly, geeze.See my reply.
My sentiments exactly.
Frankly, though, I'm stumped. I feel like we're coming up with new reasons to advocate the same thing, but we're getting nowhere.
So, I concede. Sorta.
Bloodsage, Drys, and all the others who are against music sharing, you are right. It's illegal, and that's wrong. So perhaps there is no "correct" or "legal" justification for it. (redundant, I know)
While I agree on that part, I still feel that there's something there...something that I can't quite formulate.
I suppose it revolves around personal standards, and majority rule. Let me try to clarify:
If the majority does something that was previously considered wrong, is it still wrong?
In Victorian times, sex was taboo. It was considered wrong to discuss at all. Today, sex is common in all media. Everyone's talking about it. Hell, on campus, it's ALL we talk about. And let me assure you, that none of us think it's wrong to talk about.
Sure, there are those who don't think it's appropriate at all. But they are no longer in the majority.
See the lines which separates right from wrong shifts as times change.
HOWEVER...
Certain things are always wrong. Theft being one of them. No arguments from me there. The thing is, right now, the majority of people do not consider the theft of music wrong. Their personal moral compasses are all in congruity. They simply do not see this as stealing.
I guess you call it an illegal justification. A paradox, if you will.
Bah, dammit. I just re-read what I wrote and it's not dead-on to what I wanted to say. But I think it's close as I'm gonna get.
Dammit. 
Welp, at any rate, good show all! Bloodsage especially. Can we argue about something else soon? I really enjoyed it.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
To prevent tyranny by the majority.
Simply because a lot of people do or think something doesn't mean it's a good thing to allow across society. 
'Sides, you might be quite surprised at how licentious Victorian society really was, underneath the repressed exterior . . . .
I do think that more than music industry profits are at stake, though. The odd notion that small comforts are a right, and that theft is justified any time personal gain outweighs personal cost is fundamentally destructive to society.
~~~
I'd be happy to argue anytime.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Bloodsage had this to say about Duck Tales:
'Sides, you might be quite surprised at how licentious Victorian society really was, underneath the repressed exterior . . . .I'd be happy to argue anytime.
1. Oh, I know. Libraries around here kick. Those crazy Victorians.
2. Mucho excellente. You're a good man, Bloodsage.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
Neither applies in this case. My use of an MP3 in no way prevents anyone from making a profit from the song. I have no intention of spending of ever again $15 for a CD just to hear 1 song. (I have in the past and it just makes me despise the recording industry and their deceitful sales tactics)
I could either wait to hear the song on the radio and record it on tape, record it from a friend's CD, or get it in MP3 format. All have the same result, just the latter is the easiest and fastest.
And what about songs that are not available for purchase at all? How can you "steal" something that isn't for sale and cannot be lost by my additional possession of it?
quote:
Illanae wrote this then went back to looking for porn:
Like all the hacked games and movies you own, you mean?
Nice attack, too bad I don't have any of either anymore.
Let me try to make an example more in line with what is actually occuring:
I like the Mona Lisa. I want a copy of it for myself to look at anytime I want. I don't steal the Mona Lisa, I take a picture of it and blow it up to the correct size. Now I have an exact copy of the Mona Lisa.
I can enjoy it, the original owner of the art still has it to sell, and no one was harmed in the making of my copy. [ 11-29-2001: Message edited by: Kanid ]
quote:
Check out the big brain on Reynar!
This thread needs to die
Yes, yes it does. I see it doing one of two things right now:
Getting flat out evil and nasty, or dying.
A grey area would be amazing.
quote:
Kanid thought this was the Ricky Martin Fan Club Forum and wrote:
Neither applies in this case. My use of an MP3 in no way prevents anyone from making a profit from the song. I have no intention of spending of ever again $15 for a CD just to hear 1 song.
Comparing an MP3 and an album is a bad comparison, for that reason.
The closest comparison is singles. $3 for one song. Oh, and by the way, one of the articles I linked earlier pointed out that since Napster arrived, the market for singles has gone TO SHIT. It's down 94% in the past 3 years, to the point where most stores don't even carry them anymore.
That MP3 you downloaded cost the music industry $3. No, it doesn't matter that you wouldn't have bought it if you'd had to pay $3 for it, because it's still theft even if they didn't lose anything physically by virtue of you having the MP3. You want the product, you obtained the product without paying the requested price for it.
quote:
Reyolen wrote this then went back to looking for porn:
but Kanid is right, if recording off of the radio is legal
It's not, unless you only listen to your recording once, then destroy it. And plus the radio station has paid a fee for the right to broadcast that music to people. None of the songs available on Napster or any other peer-to-peer file sharing program have had that broadcast fee paid.
quote:
Drysart had this to say about Punky Brewster:
That MP3 you downloaded cost the music industry $3. No, it doesn't matter that you wouldn't have bought it if you'd had to pay $3 for it, because it's still theft even if they didn't lose anything physically by virtue of you having the MP3. You want the product, you obtained the product without paying the requested price for it.
My copy of the song does not cost them anything, nor does it prevent them from making a hefty profit from it, similar to my copy of the Mona Lisa.
However, I've bought 6 CDs this year ONLY BECAUSE of MP3s I've listened to. This is 6 more CDs than I bought last year when I didn't bother downloading MP3s, and the exact same as the year before.
So the MP3s have been free advertising for the artists and they made their profit off me, a profit they would not have had otherwise.
quote:
Ja'Deth Issar Ka'bael had this to say about Duck Tales:
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*
one word: sarcasm.
NOTE: i'm not posting in this thread anymore. it's just too crazy. [ 11-29-2001: Message edited by: Kolak ]
It's called a discussion for a reason. If all you want to do is try to make yourself look tough by attacking Lyinar, please make a post about it and get yourself banned so that you won't clout up the boards anymore.
NOTE2: it was also the result of a 1L bottle of coke. and barely any sleep for the past few days weeks. if i would've realized what i said, before the 10mins i had to edit it, i would've edited everything out of the post.
the moral of this story? sarcasm + barely any sleep + 1L bottle of coke = BAD
NOTE3: Yes, this is my final post here. [ 11-29-2001: Message edited by: Kolak ]
Please make intelligent conversation or remove yourself from the thread.
quote:
Mr. Parcelan had this to say about (_|_):
Not much of an excuse, considering all you've done is try to flame Lyinar. Rather poorly, I might add.Please make intelligent conversation or remove yourself from the thread.
it isn't an excuse.
And it looks nothing like an apology.
So perhaps you should just learn your lesson and move on?
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Bloodsage wrote this then went back to looking for porn:
Well it certainly isn't a reason.And it looks nothing like an apology.
So perhaps you should just learn your lesson and move on?
you think i didn't?
sigpic courtesy of This Guy, original modified by me
[ 11-29-2001: Message edited by: Kolak ]
quote:
And I was all like 'Oh yeah?' and Kanid was all like:
Let me try to make an example more in line with what is actually occuring:I like the Mona Lisa. I want a copy of it for myself to look at anytime I want. I don't steal the Mona Lisa, I take a picture of it and blow it up to the correct size. Now I have an exact copy of the Mona Lisa.
I can enjoy it, the original owner of the art still has it to sell, and no one was harmed in the making of my copy.
Close, but the image of the Mona Lisa is more or less public domain. Let's try a somewhat different version.
Let's pretend that Woody, Azzy, Ukko, Zephy, Olethros, Fred, and any other EC artists that I've fogotten ( ) get together to make an art CD. They all put some of their best work onto this CD ROM, and start selling it. Any money they make is used to support the EC boards.
Now, you find that someone has purchased the CD ROM, and is posting the picutre files on the 'net. People can go there and download them for free. They may buy the CD after seeing what's on there, or they might just keep the files they downloaded. They may even burn themselves a copy of the CD using the 'loaded files. The person posting the files on the 'web has no say in the matter, they're just offering the artists' work for free.
Do you see anything wrong about this?
[edit: why the hell do I keep trying to spell image with 2 "m"s?] [ 11-29-2001: Message edited by: Palador ChibiDragon ]
quote:
Kanid impressed everyone with:
Music is played openly on radio stations and by DJs in nightclubs. It is publicly accessible, more like the Mona Lisa and unlike your "art CD" example.
You have not been listening to a thing we have said have you? Radio and Clubs are paying a Lot of money to be able to do that. They can not just go down to the local Sam Goodey and get a CD to play.
Your argument is still invalid.
quote:
Azizza stumbled drunkenly to the keyboard and typed:
You have not been listening to a thing we have said have you? Radio and Clubs are paying a Lot of money to be able to do that. They can not just go down to the local Sam Goodey and get a CD to play.
Your argument is still invalid.
You are incorrect in your assumption. DJs pay no fees, or anything at all whatsoever, to play music in night clubs or when contracted for parties. And they don't have commercials either.
quote:
Kanid had this to say about pies:
You are incorrect in your assumption. DJs pay no fees, or anything at all whatsoever, to play music in night clubs or when contracted for parties. And they don't have commercials either.
Commercial DJs often do pay fees. Smalltime DJs might not, but they're skirting the law. Public broadcast, by the way, is handled by ASCAP and BMI, not the RIAA.
quote:
My copy of the song does not cost them anything, nor does it prevent them from making a hefty profit from it, similar to my copy of the Mona Lisa.
And again up comes the argument that "they're rich and still making money, so it's ok to steal from them".
WRONG. Every time you listen to your MP3 of the song, you're re-justifying that you ripped off $3 from the recording industry. That song is a product. A commodity. The supply may be infinite, but the demand isn't. By having (and enjoying!) the MP3, you're confirming that you had a demand for their product, but since you've stolen it, now you're not going to buy it from them.
If you want to listen to their song, you should pay them what they've earned for the right to listen to it on-demand. If you don't want to pay, then you shouldn't have it at all.
quote:
However, I've bought 6 CDs this year ONLY BECAUSE of MP3s I've listened to. This is 6 more CDs than I bought last year when I didn't bother downloading MP3s, and the exact same as the year before.
How many MP3s did you download that you DIDN'T buy an album for? Does 3 times that number equal greater than 15 times 6?
You're trying to set up an argument that the ends justify the means, which from all the sales figures I've quoted earlier in the thread, can be torn apart easily. MP3s decimated the singles market, and haven't caused a noticable increase of the albums market (in fact, the albums market has slowed down). Your anecdotal purchase of 6 CDs doesn't prove anything overall.
