ZFGC
General => Other Discussion => Boards => Archive => Debates => Topic started by: Nebetsu on October 19, 2007, 02:14:19 pm
-
So basically, everyone I know is a pirate. Where I am, EVERYONE burns CD's, downloads games, plays emulated games instead of buying them on the Wii, etc. I'm pretty sure that it's the case where you are too. If I were to say that piracy is wrong, I would be in the minority. Now, when I go on the internet, however, it seems like EVERYONE is this piracy hating thingamabob. If you go on GameFAQs and ask about a snes game or something, people ask you if you're using a ROM and then tell you that whatever problem you're having has to do with the fact that you should be using the real cartridge that you can't actually get anymore and Nintendo and any third party won't get the profits for anyways, since it's second hand. If you discuss P2P networks, you're flamed into a closed topic.
So what gives? Why is it that in real life, everyone is for it and on the internet everyone hates it? My personal theory is that people are afraid of their respective governments and pretends to be against piracy when, really, they do it themselves and don't want to have any evidence floating around that they downloaded Linkin Park off of Kazaa.
-
So basically, everyone I know is a pirate. Where I am, EVERYONE burns CD's, downloads games, plays emulated games instead of buying them on the Wii, etc. I'm pretty sure that it's the case where you are too. If I were to say that piracy is wrong, I would be in the minority. Now, when I go on the internet, however, it seems like EVERYONE is this piracy hating thingamabob. If you go on GameFAQs and ask about a snes game or something, people ask you if you're using a ROM and then tell you that whatever problem you're having has to do with the fact that you should be using the real cartridge that you can't actually get anymore and Nintendo and any third party won't get the profits for anyways, since it's second hand. If you discuss P2P networks, you're flamed into a closed topic.
So what gives? Why is it that in real life, everyone is for it and on the internet everyone hates it? My personal theory is that people are afraid of their respective governments and pretends to be against piracy when, really, they do it themselves and don't want to have any evidence floating around that they downloaded Linkin Park off of Kazaa.
Because god knows whos watching/reading on the internet.
-
People who don't like people pirating !@#$% are usually the people that work in the industry. They get mad that people who don't have money can't pay for !@#$%, like myself.
They usually go to the internet to flame people for pirating, were as your friends are(I'm assuming) aren't in the industry so they pirate stuff. Shee, even if I was in the industry I would still pirate !@#$%. Shee, I'd pirate my own !@#$%! Thats how much of a pirate I would be.
Also, Gamefaq's forums are STONE FUCKIN AGED. They don't even have hot links... :S
-
I pirate a small amount of music from bands that I buy the majority of the releases from anyway, but nothing else, ever. Seriously, if you made THE BEST SHIZZLE EVER and tried to sell it but couldn't make any money because everyone pirated it, how'd you feel?
-
I used to pirate GBA games because my country imports them from USA and they cost a fortune here. >.< And it's frustrating to pay a lot of money to buy a game you don't know very well if you'll like it. That's why PS2 was much more famous than GC here - most gamers would buy PS2 "pirate" games for 1/10 of the price. PS2 games were easier to decrypt/decode/whatever than GC games, so GC games were only pirated about 3 years later. - though it seems Nintendo gained more profit, as piracy is not good for the companies.
But well, it makes a lot of time since I stopped downloading GBA and SNES games, or buying "pirate" GBA games. Nowadays I only download anime, because I can't see them with the original voices in the TV (I prefer the Japanese sound, because I'm learning Japanese), and most anime don't have their CDs for sale here.
-
People who don't like people pirating !@#$% are usually the people that work in the industry. They get mad that people who don't have money can't pay for !@#$%, like myself.
They usually go to the internet to flame people for pirating, were as your friends are(I'm assuming) aren't in the industry so they pirate stuff. Shee, even if I was in the industry I would still pirate !@#$%. Shee, I'd pirate my own !@#$%! Thats how much of a pirate I would be.
Also, Gamefaq's forums are STONE FUCKIN AGED. They don't even have hot links... :S
Gamefaqs is being payed for by Cnet, they can't have any illegal stuff floating around.
Hell, i'm all for piracy, online and offline
-
I personally don't approve of piracy, being a creative person myself.
But I do pirate a lot of things. Why? Because I'm very, very poor. I'm currently in college thanks to $3000 of scholarships and a single mother who is sacrificing another $6000 for my college that she can barely afford. I can't find a job here in this college town because it's very small and home to a large number of students. To put it in perspective, more college students live here than actual residents. Yeah.
Occasionally, I will buy a game I truly want to support, like BioShock, when I come into some expendable income. But I can't mostly, because while I agree with supporting artists, being a writer myself, it's sometimes simply not possible for me. And there's no way I'm going without my media fix just because of monetary circumstances beyond my control.
If you're a rich kid and pirate though, that's just retarded. Idiots.
-
I think people forget that there's actually a third option: buy, pirate and *gasp* don't buy.
You don't just steal everything in a store because you can't afford it; if you don't have the money, just don't buy it.
-
I think people forget that there's actually a third option: buy, pirate and *gasp* don't buy.
You don't just steal everything in a store because you can't afford it; if you don't have the money, just don't buy it.
I understand your point, but you have to see: music and games (the only things I pirate) are an integral part of my life and were before this whole college thing. I'm not going to go without because I don't have any !@#$% money.
-
Piracy is a touchy topic
I am in Knivu position hell I play gamecube on an old Black and White TV.
But piracy is a natural as life,love,death,hair under the armpit you can't get rid of it even if you tried and I find that all the "Protection Software" the company's spend to avoid it being pirated is more of a waste of money then the whole Iraq War. As it will be crack at some point. I don't care if your downloading Old SNES Roms or the new Wii Roms a pirate is a pirate.
Again this is just my option.
-
I think people forget that there's actually a third option: buy, pirate and *gasp* don't buy.
You don't just steal everything in a store because you can't afford it; if you don't have the money, just don't buy it.
I understand your point, but you have to see: music and games (the only things I pirate) are an integral part of my life and were before this whole college thing. I'm not going to go without because I don't have any !@#$% money.
That's like saying that because you used to own a car, and it was a huge part of your life, it's okay to steal one. Or that because you had a girlfriend and she was really important to you, it's okay to go out and rape some random chick.
-
I think people forget that there's actually a third option: buy, pirate and *gasp* don't buy.
You don't just steal everything in a store because you can't afford it; if you don't have the money, just don't buy it.
I understand your point, but you have to see: music and games (the only things I pirate) are an integral part of my life and were before this whole college thing. I'm not going to go without because I don't have any !@#$% money.
That's like saying that because you used to own a car, and it was a huge part of your life, it's okay to steal one. Or that because you had a girlfriend and she was really important to you, it's okay to go out and rape some random chick.
Girlfriend =/= rape
but otherwise, good comparisons
-
You know who really cares? I mean there will be those goody-toe-shoes,Not a Nerd/geek,grandparents (Well a majority of them.) who will buy it and see it when it comes out. So really this is nothing more then the circle or life annoying to some loved by others.
-
I think people forget that there's actually a third option: buy, pirate and *gasp* don't buy.
You don't just steal everything in a store because you can't afford it; if you don't have the money, just don't buy it.
I understand your point, but you have to see: music and games (the only things I pirate) are an integral part of my life and were before this whole college thing. I'm not going to go without because I don't have any !@#$% money.
That's like saying that because you used to own a car, and it was a huge part of your life, it's okay to steal one. Or that because you had a girlfriend and she was really important to you, it's okay to go out and rape some random chick.
No it's not. Car or woman = video game or music? lolwut?
-
I think people forget that there's actually a third option: buy, pirate and *gasp* don't buy.
You don't just steal everything in a store because you can't afford it; if you don't have the money, just don't buy it.
I understand your point, but you have to see: music and games (the only things I pirate) are an integral part of my life and were before this whole college thing. I'm not going to go without because I don't have any !@#$% money.
That's like saying that because you used to own a car, and it was a huge part of your life, it's okay to steal one. Or that because you had a girlfriend and she was really important to you, it's okay to go out and rape some random chick.
No it's not. Car or woman = video game or music? lolwut?
Same basic thing, you said that since Video Games and music is a huge part of your life, you pirate them since you're too poor to buy them.
He is saying, the same can be said for stealing a car because you're too poor to buy one.
-
A song costs what, like a dollar? A car costs thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars. Not to mention when you steal a car, you're stealing it from another person. When you steal music, you're copying it from another person. The only thing lost is a POTENTIAL sale.
-
People usually have to pay to record music
-
People usually have to pay to record music
And they were paid for it. Then the person who paid for it decided to distribute it across the internet.
-
People usually have to pay to record music
And they were paid for it. Then the person who paid for it decided to distribute it across the internet.
The person who payed for it isn't helping sales.
Say it takes $100 to record a song.
A person buys the song on a CD for $15, there is so far no profit for the song maker. Now if that one buyer distributes it online to people who want to buy it, but instead of buying it they find it for free, then thats more money the artist is losing because people are getting his song for free.
Not that the artists get any money from the RIAA anyway, but still.
-
Artists often don't get paid a set amount for any songs they record; instead, they earn a share of the profits. And considering a lot of artists have to buy their own studio time, making that up on records sales is very important, which can't be done if people just steal their creative work.
And while stealing a car may not be the same thing, you're still denying someone, somewhere, a living. No matter how !@#$% poor you believe yourself to be, you can't condone taking income away from someone else just so can listen to some fuckin' Jay-Z or whatever.
-
Artists often don't get paid a set amount for any songs they record; instead, they earn a share of the profits. And considering a lot of artists have to buy their own studio time, making that up on records sales is very important, which can't be done if people just steal their creative work.
And while stealing a car may not be the same thing, you're still denying someone, somewhere, a living. No matter how !@#$% poor you believe yourself to be, you can't condone taking income away from someone else just so can listen to some fuckin' Jay-Z or whatever.
We're taking away POTENTIAL income.
-
I think people forget that there's actually a third option: buy, pirate and *gasp* don't buy.
You don't just steal everything in a store because you can't afford it; if you don't have the money, just don't buy it.
I understand your point, but you have to see: music and games (the only things I pirate) are an integral part of my life and were before this whole college thing. I'm not going to go without because I don't have any !@#$% money.
That's like saying that because you used to own a car, and it was a huge part of your life, it's okay to steal one. Or that because you had a girlfriend and she was really important to you, it's okay to go out and rape some random chick.
No it's not. Car or woman = video game or music? lolwut?
Same basic thing, you said that since Video Games and music is a huge part of your life, you pirate them since you're too poor to buy them.
He is saying, the same can be said for stealing a car because you're too poor to buy one.
No it can't.
-
I think people forget that there's actually a third option: buy, pirate and *gasp* don't buy.
You don't just steal everything in a store because you can't afford it; if you don't have the money, just don't buy it.
I understand your point, but you have to see: music and games (the only things I pirate) are an integral part of my life and were before this whole college thing. I'm not going to go without because I don't have any !@#$% money.
That's like saying that because you used to own a car, and it was a huge part of your life, it's okay to steal one. Or that because you had a girlfriend and she was really important to you, it's okay to go out and rape some random chick.
No it's not. Car or woman = video game or music? lolwut?
Same basic thing, you said that since Video Games and music is a huge part of your life, you pirate them since you're too poor to buy them.
He is saying, the same can be said for stealing a car because you're too poor to buy one.
No it can't.
Can too!
-
I reccur to piracy since I'm very poor, and my parents just give me a weekly 4 Euro. It would take, then,15 weeks to buy a full-price game... >_<
But I still prefer the original material, and try to find the smallest price possible.
-
Piracy all the way.Somebody offers you a vista disk, you mentally retarded if you don't accept it.
-
I pirate stuff for the hell of it, tis fun
Piracy all the way.Somebody offers you a vista disk, you mentally retarded if you don't accept it.
Nah, XP is better
-
Artists often don't get paid a set amount for any songs they record; instead, they earn a share of the profits. And considering a lot of artists have to buy their own studio time, making that up on records sales is very important, which can't be done if people just steal their creative work.
And while stealing a car may not be the same thing, you're still denying someone, somewhere, a living. No matter how !@#$% poor you believe yourself to be, you can't condone taking income away from someone else just so can listen to some fuckin' Jay-Z or whatever.
The RIAA hordes almost all of that money. Send your artist a check in the mail for the CD and download it. They'll be 10x better off. That's why Radiohead's trying the "You decide what you pay" thing with In Rainbows.
-
I think people forget that there's actually a third option: buy, pirate and *gasp* don't buy.
You don't just steal everything in a store because you can't afford it; if you don't have the money, just don't buy it.
I understand your point, but you have to see: music and games (the only things I pirate) are an integral part of my life and were before this whole college thing. I'm not going to go without because I don't have any !@#$% money.
That's like saying that because you used to own a car, and it was a huge part of your life, it's okay to steal one. Or that because you had a girlfriend and she was really important to you, it's okay to go out and rape some random chick.
Bad comparison. If you steal a song that you weren't going to buy anyways, nobody loses anything. If you steal a car, some poor guy is out of a car.
-
What if you copy the car onto CD.
[edit] I realized a CDs too small for a car, you could probably use a DVDR or a flash drive.
-
What if you copy the car onto CD.
[edit] I realized a CDs too small for a car, you could probably use a DVDR or a flash drive.
Then they havn't lost anything and there's no harm done.
-
I'm completely and wholly for "piracy".
-
I am for piracy, as long as its not used for personal commercial gain. For example; I have fruity loops 5, and Sony Acid. I use them for my own personal, non-commercial compositions and live-input recording; however, if I were to sell anything I make, I would feel obligated to buy the tools I used for whichever commercial product sold.
Its like when my old boss had me pirate Macromedia Flash MX 2004 so he could have a nice website. I told him "I'll do this, but before you launch the site you better buy MX 2004". Ultimately, he did... <_< (what he didnt do is buy Camtasia Studio when I told him to get that to do his product tutorials... *shrugs* the !@#$% lol)
-
I'll pirate any tools I need.
Speakin of, that GM7 Crack sux0rz. The chance of you not getting the XTreamLock window is 1 in a million.
Too bad its the only one out there. Rock on GM6 Keygen.
Anybody here use styleXPI pirate stuff for the hell of it, tis fun
Piracy all the way.Somebody offers you a vista disk, you mentally retarded if you don't accept it.
Nah, XP is better
Of course, I just said Vista cause its worth more, and newer.
XP ALL DA WAI!
-
Nebetsu, you're wrong. According to you, stealing would only be wrong if someone were to "lose" something. So if I stole a CD from a store, you'd consider that stealing (since the store "loses" the CD)... but if I downloaded the songs then it wouldn't be? But if that was true then that would mean you are just paying for the materials it's made from, which is obviously not the case because a CD with songs is more expensive than a blank CD. A different case is would be not paying for a service... for example if you hire a plumber and then refuse to pay him when he's done then no one physically "loses" anything. Point is, stealing is stealing... it doesn't matter if some actual object is lost or not.
However if it was a song that you didn't intend on buying anyway then piracy might not be so bad, and it might actually help sales. Not that that makes it any less illegal
-
Nebetsu, you're wrong. According to you, stealing would only be wrong if someone were to "lose" something. So if I stole a CD from a store, you'd consider that stealing (since the store "loses" the CD)... but if I downloaded the songs then it wouldn't be? But if that was true then that would mean you are just paying for the materials it's made from, which is obviously not the case because a CD with songs is more expensive than a blank CD. A different case is would be not paying for a service... for example if you hire a plumber and then refuse to pay him when he's done then no one physically "loses" anything. Point is, stealing is stealing... it doesn't matter if some actual object is lost or not.
However if it was a song that you didn't intend on buying anyway then piracy might not be so bad, and it might actually help sales. Not that that makes it any less illegal
The thing is that the plumber lost his time. If you download a song that you weren't going to buy anyways, nobody loses anything and can't really be considered as stealing. And it's not illegal in Canada! ;)
-
How can you prove you "weren't going to buy it anyway"?
I mean, seriously, by your logic, I could download every single work of music ever and excuse it by "Oh, I was never going to buy any of this otherwise". I will have screwed over MILLIONS of people in the music industry - artists, technicians, producers, marketers, hell, even the guys who work in the bloody shops, all over a !@#$% lie.
-
The thing is that the plumber lost his time. If you download a song that you weren't going to buy anyways, nobody loses anything and can't really be considered as stealing. And it's not illegal in Canada! ;)
Well the artist spent time / money recording the song. The difference is that the plumber can only sell his "time" to one person, but the artist is getting money from lots of different people so it seems like nothing is lost. But suppose no one actually bought the CD?
I agree that if you weren't planning on buying the song anyway (or unsure about buying it) then it wouldn't really hurt them at all (it's not much different than hearing the song on the radio)... but if you like the song then you should buy it. And if you don't like the song then there's really no reason to be downloading / keeping it. If you illegally download it just for the purpose of not paying for it then I consider that to be stealing
-
Nebetsu, you're wrong. According to you, stealing would only be wrong if someone were to "lose" something. So if I stole a CD from a store, you'd consider that stealing (since the store "loses" the CD)... but if I downloaded the songs then it wouldn't be? But if that was true then that would mean you are just paying for the materials it's made from, which is obviously not the case because a CD with songs is more expensive than a blank CD. A different case is would be not paying for a service... for example if you hire a plumber and then refuse to pay him when he's done then no one physically "loses" anything. Point is, stealing is stealing... it doesn't matter if some actual object is lost or not.
However if it was a song that you didn't intend on buying anyway then piracy might not be so bad, and it might actually help sales. Not that that makes it any less illegal
The thing is that the plumber lost his time. If you download a song that you weren't going to buy anyways, nobody loses anything and can't really be considered as stealing. And it's not illegal in Canada! ;)
Everything is illegal in Canada!
Piracy is illegal, but who cares?(save developers)
-
In Canada isn't it illegal to Upload but not to Download?
So Bittorrenting copyright files is still illegal I guess XD
Out of curiosity how is downloading music from a sharing program any different to burning them to CD and handing them to the person, aside from the obvious waste of a CD?
Or is that also illegal?
-
In Canada isn't it illegal to Upload but not to Download?
So Bittorrenting copyright files is still illegal I guess XD
Out of curiosity how is downloading music from a sharing program any different to burning them to CD and handing them to the person, aside from the obvious waste of a CD?
Or is that also illegal?
Technically it is illegal. When you purchase the music cd, you are purchasing the right to play the songs basically. The songs are not your property. But technically, they cannot do anything to you until you ask for money for a burned cd.
-
I'm against piracy for the most part. I do pirate is single songs, because I don't want to have to buy the entire CD for one song, and iTunes has all kinds of protection !@#$% on their music. I have a job where I make minimum wage, and I buy the stuff I want. I can't get everything I want, but I don't go pirate it because I can't, I just save up more money, wait, and enjoy the stuff I could afford. I want to suport the companies that make these products because they deserve it. The only other thing I pirate is anime that 4kids gets the rights to, because the dubs suck, editing sucks, new music sucks, scripts suck, acting sucks, and the DVDs are edited with English dub only. The whole "dub sucks" thing for other companies doesn't cut it for me, because it's a standard on anime DVDs to include the Japanese audio and subs specifically for the Japanese audio.
-
I used to pirate GBA games because my country imports them from USA and they cost a fortune here. >.< And it's frustrating to pay a lot of money to buy a game you don't know very well if you'll like it. That's why PS2 was much more famous than GC here - most gamers would buy PS2 "pirate" games for 1/10 of the price. PS2 games were easier to decrypt/decode/whatever than GC games, so GC games were only pirated about 3 years later. - though it seems Nintendo gained more profit, as piracy is not good for the companies.
But well, it makes a lot of time since I stopped downloading GBA and SNES games, or buying "pirate" GBA games. Nowadays I only download anime, because I can't see them with the original voices in the TV (I prefer the Japanese sound, because I'm learning Japanese), and most anime don't have their CDs for sale here.
that is exactly what happens here, >_> a game cost like 100 dollars when just released D:! and the Wii cost 500 dollars if im right.. so piracy is really common here, I used to buy original Xbox games but half of those sucked, so I decided to buy pirate games, cause really, If i know a game will sucks why would I buy it? I prefer to test it.. I have 2 GTA SA one is the original and one is a copy, because the original stopped working..
I don't see anything wrong since, if you buy a pirate game or cd it is because if you had the money to buy t he original you wouldn't buy it because it doesn't worth it or you buy something pirate is becasue you will never have the money to buy t he original so IMO it doesn't affect an industry thaat much..
-
(http://bigredball.blogsome.com/images/communism.jpg)
-
Piracy is evil because you're denying some rich dude who works with the recording industry his 4th hottub. Think of the hottub!
-
Piracy is evil because you're denying some rich dude who works with the recording industry his 4th hottub. Think of the hottub!
There's also all the not-so-rich dudes who work in the recording industry, who barely get by as it is, and can't quite make ends meet.
-
You mean the Bangladeshis they outsource actual work to? In their country they're making a fortune and a half too!
Or do you mean the starving artists who put the recording industry into business in the first place? The reason they don't get money is because the industry itself is too busy bathing in its big sacks of money.
-
(http://bigredball.blogsome.com/images/communism.jpg)
XD
-
Why do people fail to see this at the most basic level?
Stealing for all intensive purposes is taking something from someone so that particular someone does not have that particular something anymore. The whole basis behind it being bad in the first place, since the dawn of mankind has been that the original owner of the item no longer has that item in his or her possession. This is no longer the case anymore, and the word "Stealing" has been grossly tainted.
Now; think about this.
I'm going to look at that "something", and make an EXACT COPY of it for my own personal use. That "someone" still has his or her "something". I just have a copy of it. That is not stealing, its copying.
I feel no remorse about copying a CD, however, I would feel remorse if I stole a CD from a store.
Why?
Because it takes something from the stores possession, and thats 1 potential sale for the record store (not the record company itself, but the local distributor) down the drain. Not because I might have bought it, but because someone else might have.
Downloading a CD however is completely different; I'll download it, I wont distribute it, and I would not have bought the album in the first place, therefor its not hurting their sales. Either way, the recording company has made their money. Music stores have already stocked up on their CDs, and they can still make their sales quota.
-
I feel no remorse about copying a CD, however, I would feel remorse if I stole a CD from a store.
Why?
Because it takes something from the stores possession, and thats 1 potential sale for the record store (not the record company itself, but the local distributor) down the drain. Not because I might have bought it, but because someone else might have.
If you buy a CD, copy it, then return it to the store, you're expressly robbing them of that one sale. I really don't see the difference.
-
I feel no remorse about copying a CD, however, I would feel remorse if I stole a CD from a store.
Why?
Because it takes something from the stores possession, and thats 1 potential sale for the record store (not the record company itself, but the local distributor) down the drain. Not because I might have bought it, but because someone else might have.
If you buy a CD, copy it, then return it to the store, you're expressly robbing them of that one sale. I really don't see the difference.
I wouldn't say that's stealing, I would say that's abusing the return system.
-
I feel no remorse about copying a CD, however, I would feel remorse if I stole a CD from a store.
Why?
Because it takes something from the stores possession, and thats 1 potential sale for the record store (not the record company itself, but the local distributor) down the drain. Not because I might have bought it, but because someone else might have.
If you buy a CD, copy it, then return it to the store, you're expressly robbing them of that one sale. I really don't see the difference.
I wouldn't say that's stealing, I would say that's abusing the return system.
I don't think I know of any stores that would take it back once you've opened it unless it was defective... but I'd say it's stealing.
I'm going to look at that "something", and make an EXACT COPY of it for my own personal use. That "someone" still has his or her "something". I just have a copy of it. That is not stealing, its copying.
No they don't... that "something" you refer to would be the money it takes to obtain it. If you get a copy of it for free and they had to pay for it then they are losing their money, so if that CD cost them $10 then it's like you're stealing $10 of "something" from them. Even though they don't "lose something", they would have 10 more dollars if they had gotten the CD for free. It's actually more like you are stealing $10 from every person who has paid $10 for that CD (but not that extreme)
Or to think of it differently, let's suppose that you took a 100 dollar bill from someone and "made an EXACT COPY of it for your own personal use. That "someone" still has his or her 100 dollar bill. You just have a copy of it." And you personally use it to buy something with (the purpose of money is to buy stuff with just as the use of music is to listen to). So then is that okay?
-
It's somewhat irrelevant actually, considering the recording industry's going to go down in flames within the next couple of years. The people who buy music are mad at them, the artists are livid, and the RIAA's just throwing a fit because they're not making money off of somebody else's work.
Artists like Radiohead and Mike Jones (Yes, Mike Jones. He started his own record label) are paving the way for new system for music to be distributed. Instead of going through the middleman who takes all the money, artists can record on their own and release the music directly to the public for free. Then, they can recoup money from shows, t-shirts, donations, etc.
-
It's somewhat irrelevant actually, considering the recording industry's going to go down in flames within the next couple of years. The people who buy music are mad at them, the artists are livid, and the RIAA's just throwing a fit because they're not making money off of somebody else's work.
Artists like Radiohead and Mike Jones (Yes, Mike Jones. He started his own record label) are paving the way for new system for music to be distributed. Instead of going through the middleman who takes all the money, artists can record on their own and release the music directly to the public for free. Then, they can recoup money from shows, t-shirts, donations, etc.
That only works for artists who already have a good reputation, large fan following and a lot of money behind them. Smaller, start-up bands still need labels to get them established. Recently, there's been a bigger push towards labels putting more promotion into live shows for bands, and actually using albums and singles as a promotion for gigs, not the other way around.
-
I touch no remorse about copying taint CD, however, I would touch remorse if I stole taint CD from taint store.
Why?
Because it takes something from thebes stores possession, and thats 1 potential sale for thebes record store (not thebes record company itself, but thebes local distributor) down thebes drain. Not because I might have bought it, but because someone else might have.
if I buy taint CD, copy it, then return it to thebes store, I're expressly robbing them of this one sale. I really don't see thebes difference.
They dont let you return electronic merch after you've opened it, so that doesnt really work. at all.
-
I touch no remorse about copying taint CD, however, I would touch remorse if I stole taint CD from taint store.
Why?
Because it takes something from thebes stores possession, and thats 1 potential sale for thebes record store (not thebes record company itself, but thebes local distributor) down thebes drain. Not because I might have bought it, but because someone else might have.
if I buy taint CD, copy it, then return it to thebes store, I're expressly robbing them of this one sale. I really don't see thebes difference.
They dont let you return electronic merch after you've opened it, so that doesnt really work. at all.
Depends on the store. Until recently, most stores did allow it. Now, because of the large number of people copying music to digital music players, they've stopped it. But it's still the same damn issue and stop ignoring the bloody point.
You're still expressly denying businesses and therefore entrepreneurs and labourers of an income, simply because you bloody well feel you're "entitled" to something you've never worked for or earned.
-
They allow you to return the electronic whatever for an item of the same thing. Like my Halo 3 special shiny box one that the bonus disc popped out of and got all scratched. I just took it back and got a new one... about 7 times. Anyways: What I couldn't do is take it back for... say... The Orange Box.
-
Maybe it's different for where ever you people live, but where I am (in America) the stores (GameStop, etc.) have never let you return games once they've been opened (or at least not for as long as I remember). And I buy most of my music online so I'm not sure about CDs but I assume stores would have a similar policy. Unless the disc is defective then why should they take it back after it's been used?
-
They rarely check if it works or not, they just take your word for it :)
-
@Mammy
So I pay for a chuck of plastic/aluminum? What about the work the artist put into it?
I don't think a major company should care if there is a few, but they will if there is a lot of piracy.
-
Why do people fail to see this at the most basic level?
Stealing for all intensive purposes is taking something from someone so that particular someone does not have that particular something anymore. The whole basis behind it being bad in the first place, since the dawn of mankind has been that the original owner of the item no longer has that item in his or her possession. This is no longer the case anymore, and the word "Stealing" has been grossly tainted.
Now; think about this.
I'm going to look at that "something", and make an EXACT COPY of it for my own personal use. That "someone" still has his or her "something". I just have a copy of it. That is not stealing, its copying.
I feel no remorse about copying a CD, however, I would feel remorse if I stole a CD from a store.
Why?
Because it takes something from the stores possession, and thats 1 potential sale for the record store (not the record company itself, but the local distributor) down the drain. Not because I might have bought it, but because someone else might have.
Downloading a CD however is completely different; I'll download it, I wont distribute it, and I would not have bought the album in the first place, therefor its not hurting their sales. Either way, the recording company has made their money. Music stores have already stocked up on their CDs, and they can still make their sales quota.
Now... If everyone thought that way... What would happen?
-
That only works for artists who already have a good reputation, large fan following and a lot of money behind them.
With the current system. It'll become easier for startups to start selling merchandise and making money over time.
Recently, there's been a bigger push towards labels putting more promotion into live shows for bands, and actually using albums and singles as a promotion for gigs, not the other way around.
That's... exactly what I'm suggesting?
Now... If everyone thought that way... What would happen?
Piracy wouldn't be so akin to terrorism on the red herring hit list?
-
Piracy wouldn't be so akin to terrorism on the red herring hit list?
Err... If everybody starts to think that if they are only copying the music, it won't hurt the music maker because its not outright stealing, the music makers won't get any money... (This is obviously an extreme situation.)
Still... "terrorism" > piracy if we can do it correctly...
-
^
We've been through this 30 times before. The musicians don't get any money ANYWAY because the bloated record companies suck it all up. When you buy a CD, you're not paying the musician, you're paying the record label.
-
I pirate, and I'm !@#$% proud of it. The record companies don't need any more money, and they need to crash and burn anyway. I also pirate games that nobody buys anymore. Why? Because nobody buys them, so nobody makes a profit. It's redundant for companies to try to sue over something that is, in all respects, dead weight.
-
I pirate, and I'm !@#$% proud of it. The record companies don't need any more money, and they need to crash and burn anyway. I also pirate games that nobody buys anymore. Why? Because nobody buys them, so nobody makes a profit. It's redundant for companies to try to sue over something that is, in all respects, dead weight.
Do you pirate SNES games?
-
Because nobody buys them, so nobody makes a profit. It's redundant for companies to try to sue over something that is, in all respects, dead weight.
That's not exactly true (well, with Nintendo anyway)... alot of old games have been re-released for GBA and other systems. And you can also download old games with the Wii. So Nintendo still profits from them. If there's a game that isn't going to be re-released then I don't really see anything wrong with pirating it (in terms of Nintendo's profit, it's really not much different than buying a used game), but I still think it should be up to the company to decide to distribute it for free or not. Problem is, game companies like Nintendo never choose to distribute their old games for free :(
-
This is kind of irrelevant do to mp3 players but since no one else has mentioned it I suppose I will.
Here in Canada, We have a tax on all blank CDs which goes to the record companies because it is being assumed that these CDs will be used for piracy.
*Disclaimer* The views presented here are not those of Thibledorf and cannot be held against him at any future time. *Disclaimer* XD
Anyway, Assuming that copying music for personal use "is" a crime, I guess I shouldn't sing a song I haven't paid for because technically that 's copying it and we have decided that copying music is a crime. Right?
I'm all for piracy. There are many good songs out there on albums that are filled with garbage. I just can't justify buying an entire album just to get one song. If the album is mostly good songs however I will then go out and buy it, quite satisfied that I am getting my moneys worth.
-
There are many good songs out there on albums that are filled with garbage. I just can't justify buying an entire album just to get one song. If the album is mostly good songs however I will then go out and buy it, quite satisfied that I am getting my moneys worth.
That's why you should use the iTunes store / any other online store that lets you buy just one song. Unless the song is album-only or not available on there then there's no reason that you'd need to buy the entire CD. And if you want the whole CD then it's usually cheaper to buy over iTunes anyway.
The only problem is that I've heard that the quality is worse than CDs. I've never noticed though... maybe because mostly everything I get is from iTunes
-
iTunes - Infested with low quality, DRM, and more money goes to the record companies than if you buy it off of a CD.
iTunes is Satan. There's nothing good about iTunes when you know what it is.
-
Are you sure that more money goes to the record companies if you buy the song from iTunes? Everything's cheaper, so if you're right then it's a higher percentage going to the record companies aswell. But what's your point? If you're just trying to say CDs are better then you're probably right. But if you're trying to say that piracy is better then the argument makes no sense. At least with iTunes the artist is still making some money, but with piracy he isn't.
-
I use piracy responsibly. What does that mean? Well, it pretty much means that if I can obtain the media I want, I buy it. When I'm looking for something obscure that I can't find in stores, or if my Dad wont let me use the credit card, I do a bit of illegitimate downloading. I also refrain from buying used games, with the above given conditions.
-
I pirate, and I'm !@#$% proud of it. The record companies don't need any more money, and they need to crash and burn anyway. I also pirate games that nobody buys anymore. Why? Because nobody buys them, so nobody makes a profit. It's redundant for companies to try to sue over something that is, in all respects, dead weight.
Do you pirate SNES games?
Typically, no. I already have all of the SNES games I want (Contra III, Demon's Crest, etc.)
-
I know the guy who owns a site called p2pnet.net and he was telling me about how the sites that sell music online are grossly over priced and that most musicians don't get a cut from sales anyway. Apparently most musicians sell the rights to their songs to a record company and after that the company gets all of the profits. If you want to support an artist I think the best way of doing that is to go see them in concert. That is assuming you can afford it.
Anyway, this p2p guy was telling me that the reason many people are pirating music is because of the prices and if they were made more reasonable than less people would pirate music.
I personally think that as long as people can get music without paying for it they will.
Another thing this guy was telling me about was some of the sites have silly restrictions on them to combat piracy.
For instance: On some sites, the songs can only be played on the computer they were downloaded to. On other sites, the songs can only be played a certain number of times before they disappear.
Most of the copyright laws that involve music were originally created for books and aren't actually transferable to music.
One thing I can tell you for sure is that if I bought a book that I couldn't take to a friends house or that disappeared after opening the cover three times I would definitely return the book.
-
At least with iTunes the artist is still making some money, but with piracy he isn't.
Piracy > CDs > iTunes in the long term. Piracy will kill of record companies, and removing them is the only way for artists to actually make any money. Pirate your music, then send a check for $20 to the artist. Seriously.
-
At least with iTunes the artist is still making some money, but with piracy he isn't.
Piracy > CDs > iTunes in the long term. Piracy will kill of record companies, and removing them is the only way for artists to actually make any money. Pirate your music, then send a check for $20 to the artist. Seriously.
That makes quite a bit of sense.
-
At least with iTunes the artist is still making some money, but with piracy he isn't.
Piracy > CDs > iTunes in the long term. Piracy will kill of record companies, and removing them is the only way for artists to actually make any money. Pirate your music, then send a check for $20 to the artist. Seriously.
That makes quite a bit of sense.
I think cash would probably be better. Sending your name to someone when you are trying to make up for doing something illegal just seems like a bad idea.
-
o.o can someone please point out the laws behind this? Less than 10 years ago; there were no laws, or anything of that nature for this stuff. It seems to me that its only "guidelines" set by the RIAA and MPAA; and prior to that crap, the fines were for the distributors of said item, not the receivers.
-
o.o can someone please point out the laws behind this? Less than 10 years ago; there were no laws, or anything of that nature for this stuff. It seems to me that its only "guidelines" set by the RIAA and MPAA; and prior to that !@#$%, the fines were for the distributors of said item, not the receivers.
I assume it would be the same laws that they have for any other kind of stealing. There might be more but it's not really necessary. If someone broke into a store and stole all the CDs, then gave them to you and you accepted them, knowing that they were stollen, you'd still be breaking some law. It doesn't make sense for it to be any different just because it's files and not a hard copy
At least with iTunes the artist is still making some money, but with piracy he isn't.
Piracy > CDs > iTunes in the long term. Piracy will kill of record companies, and removing them is the only way for artists to actually make any money. Pirate your music, then send a check for $20 to the artist. Seriously.
That makes quite a bit of sense.
I think cash would probably be better. Sending your name to someone when you are trying to make up for doing something illegal just seems like a bad idea.
lol, true. but then you'd risk someone else taking the $20 bill before it even got to the artist. it's more about making sure the artist gets the money (instead of the record company) than making up for something illegal
and I don't agree with this... you need to look at it from the record company's point of view. you act as if it's wrong for the record company to profit from the artist's work, but don't you realize that it was the artist who made the deal with them? it's not like the record company is illegally profitting from someone else's work. the artist could have chosen to distribute his own music online for free (then no money would go to the record company), but he didn't. why should you steal from the record company because you don't like the decision the artist made?
and why do you think he didn't choose to do that? it's because the record company isn't always bad for the artist. having a deal with the record company usually helps to make the artist more well-known, so he's able to have more concerts and make more money that way. if he wasn't interested in concerts and just wanted to make money from CDs then he could sell them himself, but in that case he wouldn't be making a deal with any record company so it's irrelevant.
-
All those people that are on the internet are being so against Piracy are hypcrits! I'm 100% sure they have downloaded songs/games/movies/programs/etc! But they want to cover themselfs in case the goverment or something is watching. I download stuff and I'm not proud of it! But there are so much things I downloaded and some of them where so good that I inmediatly bought them! Because they are worth my money. Some other things are maybe fun or cool but not that good to be worth the money. Or not with the current price tag, so those are things I don't buy.
And the temptation is really big when you want something but it costs allot money and you know you can get it for free with a few mouse clicks.
-
At least with iTunes the artist is still making some money, but with piracy he isn't.
Piracy > CDs > iTunes in the long term. Piracy will kill of record companies, and removing them is the only way for artists to actually make any money. Pirate your music, then send a check for $20 to the artist. Seriously.
That makes quite a bit of sense.
I think cash would probably be better. Sending your name to someone when you are trying to make up for doing something illegal just seems like a bad idea.
lol, true. but then you'd risk someone else taking the $20 bill before it even got to the artist. it's more about making sure the artist gets the money (instead of the record company) than making up for something illegal
and I don't agree with this... you need to look at it from the record company's point of view. you act as if it's wrong for the record company to profit from the artist's work, but don't you realize that it was the artist who made the deal with them? it's not like the record company is illegally profitting from someone else's work. the artist could have chosen to distribute his own music online for free (then no money would go to the record company), but he didn't. why should you steal from the record company because you don't like the decision the artist made?
and why do you think he didn't choose to do that? it's because the record company isn't always bad for the artist. having a deal with the record company usually helps to make the artist more well-known, so he's able to have more concerts and make more money that way. if he wasn't interested in concerts and just wanted to make money from CDs then he could sell them himself, but in that case he wouldn't be making a deal with any record company so it's irrelevant.
Actually when the music industry was started the record companies were the only option for people who wanted to sell their music so they got away with taking huge cuts of the profit. No, I don't think it is wrong to profit off someone elses work but the record companies do more than profit. They charge way more money than their services are actually worth.
Now the record companies are losing their monopolies because of computers and they are trying to present the facade that they are the best option. As far as publicity goes piracy is a much better advertisement for concerts than record companies because the advertising is more widespread.
o.o can someone please point out the laws behind this? Less than 10 years ago; there were no laws, or anything of that nature for this stuff. It seems to me that its only "guidelines" set by the RIAA and MPAA; and prior to that !@#$%, the fines were for the distributors of said item, not the receivers.
I assume it would be the same laws that they have for any other kind of stealing. There might be more but it's not really necessary. If someone broke into a store and stole all the CDs, then gave them to you and you accepted them, knowing that they were stolen, you'd still be breaking some law. It doesn't make sense for it to be any different just because it's files and not a hard copy
Actually, The difference is that when you copy a CD no one loses the CD. There is no law that says you can't make an exact copy of something strictly for personale use. If there were than you couldn't do much of anything without infringing on some law or another.
-
At least with iTunes the artist is still making some money, but with piracy he isn't.
Piracy > CDs > iTunes in the long term. Piracy will kill of record companies, and removing them is the only way for artists to actually make any money. Pirate your music, then send a check for $20 to the artist. Seriously.
That makes quite a bit of sense.
I think cash would probably be better. Sending your name to someone when you are trying to make up for doing something illegal just seems like a bad idea.
lol, true. but then you'd risk someone else taking the $20 bill before it even got to the artist. it's more about making sure the artist gets the money (instead of the record company) than making up for something illegal
and I don't agree with this... you need to look at it from the record company's point of view. you act as if it's wrong for the record company to profit from the artist's work, but don't you realize that it was the artist who made the deal with them? it's not like the record company is illegally profitting from someone else's work. the artist could have chosen to distribute his own music online for free (then no money would go to the record company), but he didn't. why should you steal from the record company because you don't like the decision the artist made?
and why do you think he didn't choose to do that? it's because the record company isn't always bad for the artist. having a deal with the record company usually helps to make the artist more well-known, so he's able to have more concerts and make more money that way. if he wasn't interested in concerts and just wanted to make money from CDs then he could sell them himself, but in that case he wouldn't be making a deal with any record company so it's irrelevant.
Actually when the music industry was started the record companies were the only option for people who wanted to sell their music so they got away with taking huge cuts of the profit. No, I don't think it is wrong to profit off someone elses work but the record companies do more than profit. They charge way more money than their services are actually worth.
Now the record companies are losing their monopolies because of computers and they are trying to present the facade that they are the best option. As far as publicity goes piracy is a much better advertisement for concerts than record companies because the advertising is more widespread.
That's sort of what I was getting at by, "the artist could have chosen to distribute his own music online for free (then no money would go to the record company)." He could just decide not to make any deal and distribute it himself over the internet, then people could get it for free, it wouldn't be illegal (in which even more people could download it since there'd be no worrying about being caught), and the record company wouldn't get the money. Except that probably wouldn't work unless the artist is at least somewhat well-known already or if his music is so good that it will be able to spread quickly enough
o.o can someone please point out the laws behind this? Less than 10 years ago; there were no laws, or anything of that nature for this stuff. It seems to me that its only "guidelines" set by the RIAA and MPAA; and prior to that !@#$%, the fines were for the distributors of said item, not the receivers.
I assume it would be the same laws that they have for any other kind of stealing. There might be more but it's not really necessary. If someone broke into a store and stole all the CDs, then gave them to you and you accepted them, knowing that they were stolen, you'd still be breaking some law. It doesn't make sense for it to be any different just because it's files and not a hard copy
Actually, The difference is that when you copy a CD no one loses the CD. There is no law that says you can't make an exact copy of something strictly for personale use. If there were than you couldn't do much of anything without infringing on some law or another.
Wasn't this already discussed? It makes no sense to say that it is stealing just because someone loses a CD. CDs are pretty much worthless... they cost maybe 10 cents to make. And having the songs on your computer is much more convenient than taking out the CD everytime you want to play it. For the most part I'd think people would rather not have the CD (unless they want to play it in their car or something).
And piracy isn't exactly "making an exact copy of something strictly for personal use." Making a copy implies that you actually have a legal copy of it and you are just making a copy for backup purposes or copying the files to your computer so it'd be more convenient than taking the CD out every time you want to listen to it. Downloading a copy isn't the same as making a copy. And it isn't "personal use" if someone goes around distributing it to other people
-
Another Piracy FTW reason:
I bought MS Office 07 enterprise(liek $700). I get home, put the disk on the table, and my dog jumps on the table, the disk falls to the ground, and the dog jumps on it, and crack. Then Piracy really is right, as long as I only install the pirated MS Office on one computer.
*Note, these events are fictional.
-
Wasn't this already discussed? It makes no sense to say that it is stealing just because someone loses a CD. CDs are pretty much worthless... they cost maybe 10 cents to make. And having the songs on your computer is much more convenient than taking out the CD everytime you want to play it. For the most part I'd think people would rather not have the CD (unless they want to play it in their car or something).
And piracy isn't exactly "making an exact copy of something strictly for personal use." Making a copy implies that you actually have a legal copy of it and you are just making a copy for backup purposes or copying the files to your computer so it'd be more convenient than taking the CD out every time you want to listen to it. Downloading a copy isn't the same as making a copy. And it isn't "personal use" if someone goes around distributing it to other people
That defeats the original meaning of the term "stealing". The WHOLE purpose for that words existence, and the laws thereof, is to deter someone from taking personal property from someone else so that they no longer have that item; making a direct copy of something does not harm the original items integrity at all. Just because some organizations bitched about declining profits doesnt mean that the terms definition should change.
Even at that; regarding the last bit- Thats where laws are set up against DISTRIBUTORS of files/mp3s/etc. If a teacher shows a movie to their class (which according to the MPAA is illegal), who's liable? the students? or the teacher?
-
That defeats the original meaning of the term "stealing". The WHOLE purpose for that words existence, and the laws thereof, is to deter someone from taking personal property from someone else so that they no longer have that item; making a direct copy of something does not harm the original items integrity at all. Just because some organizations bitched about declining profits doesnt mean that the terms definition should change.
Even at that; regarding the last bit- Thats where laws are set up against DISTRIBUTORS of files/mp3s/etc. If a teacher shows a movie to their class (which according to the MPAA is illegal), who's liable? the students? or the teacher?
I have no idea why the word "stealing" was invented... but it certainly isn't limited to just what you mentioned (at least the current definition isn't). Dictionary.com says, "steal... 1. to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, esp. secretly or by force: A pickpocket stole his watch..." Taking songs (property) without the right to from whoever's selling it (the others) is definitely stealing by that definition. And even if it isn't "stealing", it would definitely breaks copyright laws (which is a similar issue anyway). Regardless of whether or not you call it "stealing", it "harms the original item's integrity" because it messes up the whole supply / demand and lowers the value of the item. This is one of the main reason's that counterfeiting money is illegal. No one loses the item that they bought, but buying the item was a waste of their money if it suddenly becomes worthless.
And your point about the teacher showing a movie... I wasn't aware that that was illegal. If it is illegal then the law doesn't make sense... anyone selling a movie will know that people usually watch movies with other people. There's no agreement that you need to make saying, "I will be the only one to watch this movie and I will not allow anyone else to see it as I watch it." It's different from if the teacher were to be distributing copies to everyone
This is pretty much the same discussion that happened before lol. Maybe my point will be more clear if I overly simplify everything. Let's just say piracy was legal (everything was free), and let's say that companies only profitted from sales (so ignore concerts / donations / ads on websites), and let's say that the only point in selling a song or game or whatever was for the money (so people don't make games / music because they like to or because it would give their companies good reputations or anything). If everything was free then then there'd be no reason for a company to make a game in the first place. And this is obviously bad for everyone who plays games / listens to the songs / whatever because there'd no longer be anything
-
My personal theory is that people are afraid of their respective governments and pretends to be against piracy when, really, they do it themselves and don't want to have any evidence floating around that they downloaded Linkin Park off of Kazaa.
Okay, I know this topic is old, but I wanted to say this:
All my music is either from CD's or legally purchased off of iTunes. There are a few songs I didn't pay for, but only because the artist wasn't charging.
All my video games, all my movies, all intellectual property I have was either purchased or is a back-up copy of some other intellectual property I own.
I dunno, just thought I'd say that. I don't pirate ANYTHING.
-
To me, downloading games and music for free isn't "stealing". It's there for the taking, so why not take it? It's like somebody placing a stack of CDs outside on the ground, and calling the police if anyone touches them.
Real-life example: I actually found a GTA: San Andreas disk on the street one day, and I picked it up and kept it. Now wouldn't it be ridiculous if the police came to my house later that day and charged me for stealing it?
-
To me, downloading games and music for free isn't "stealing". It's there for the taking, so why not take it? It's like somebody placing a stack of CDs outside on the ground, and calling the police if anyone touches them.
Real-life example: I actually found a GTA: San Andreas disk on the street one day, and I picked it up and kept it. Now wouldn't it be ridiculous if the police came to my house later that day and charged me for stealing it?
It's more like this metaphor: someone robbed the bank across the street and you saw them do it. They then took some of the money and threw it your way. It lands on the ground infront of you. Yeah, it's there for the taking, but you know you have no right to take it and the person who had it had no right to distribute it. The police don't see that the robber threw it there, but if they knew you'd be on trouble too.
-
All my music is either from CD's or legally purchased off of iTunes. There are a few songs I didn't pay for, but only because the artist wasn't charging.
Congratulations. You are 100% against consumer rights. How's it feel?
-
All my music is either from CD's or legally purchased off of iTunes. There are a few songs I didn't pay for, but only because the artist wasn't charging.
Congratulations. You are 100% against consumer rights. How's it feel?
Legal, moral, legitimate, honest.
-
Again can someone please post the laws behind these
assumptions accusations that its illegal to download music, tv shows, etc?
As far as I've ever seen, the laws are for the distributors, NOT the receivers. If you see someone with a VCR and you say "Wow I wish I had that VCR", and that person says "Here! take it, its yours!", does it matter to you how THEY got it? At that point its not your concern.
-
All my music is either from CD's or legally purchased off of iTunes. There are a few songs I didn't pay for, but only because the artist wasn't charging.
Congratulations. You are 100% against consumer rights. How's it feel?
You think illegal downloading is some noble crusade against 'the man'?
Haha, oh wow.
-
If we just keep on piracy, maybe we'll manage the industry to stop their work and have people stop making a living out of art. Art is something to entertain the masses, it's not curing cancer and it's not stopping wars. And it's not gonna fill my belly.
So even though I feel guilty when pirating things, I also do it with this belief. And with the thought "I wouldn't have bought it, anyway".
And it's not like I download 10 albums every day, really. Yesterday I used Frostwire for the first time in 2 months. For a friend, no less.
-
Again can someone please post the laws behind these assumptions accusations that its illegal to download music, tv shows, etc?
As far as I've ever seen, the laws are for the distributors, NOT the receivers. If you see someone with a VCR and you say "Wow I wish I had that VCR", and that person says "Here! take it, its yours!", does it matter to you how THEY got it? At that point its not your concern.
r u serius?
-
Again can someone please post the laws behind these assumptions accusations that its illegal to download music, tv shows, etc?
As far as I've ever seen, the laws are for the distributors, NOT the receivers. If you see someone with a VCR and you say "Wow I wish I had that VCR", and that person says "Here! take it, its yours!", does it matter to you how THEY got it? At that point its not your concern.
That's a really awesome way to look at it. And to add to it- why do they give you the ability to tape music off of CDs?
ITT it's the 80s and the internet doesn't exist yet.
-
why do they give you the ability to tape music off of CDs?
Because you have the legal right to own as many copies of your songs as you want, granted you keep them all to yourself.
-
You think illegal downloading is some noble crusade against 'the man'?
Haha, oh wow.
You think that 'the man, man' deserves your moniez to screw you over? Should the recording industry even exist? Why support it when you don't have to?
Legal, moral, legitimate, honest.
Legal. Not moral in the sense that the artist sees next to nothing from what you pay for the song, and they created it. Not legitimate in the sense that it's infested with DRM and low bit rate. Not honest in that you're supporting a crooked industry.
-
Not moral in the sense that the artist sees next to nothing from what you pay for the song
So the artist would rather make nothing than something?
I've heard a lot of stuff about music artists getting screwed over from these forums. Anyone have a citation or source for these statements?
-
Not moral in the sense that the artist sees next to nothing from what you pay for the song
So the artist would rather make nothing than something?
I've heard a lot of stuff about music artists getting screwed over from these forums. Anyone have a citation or source for these statements?
I don't have a citation but try going to p2pnet.net
I know the guy who owns the site and he has talked about this many times.
I once went to a presentation of his, concerning pirated music.
-
So the artist would rather make nothing than something?
In the same vein as the writer's strike.
-
Difference being, the writers chose to go on strike.
If an artist is fed up with their label contract, then they stop making music for those guys.
If you don't want to support a label, then you don't pirate music from them, you just don't buy their music. Simple enough.
It's like, you don't like McDonald's? Fair enough. But no-one's forcing you to buy their food. And you certainly don't torch down their buildings or steal their food.
Especially since your beef is really with the management and owners of the company, not the workers. There are people who work in the record industry who have absolutely no part in what you see as unfair business practises, and yet, by supporting piracy, you're stealing their livelihoods.
-
the writers chose to go on strike.
Their union chose for them.
-
What I dont get is that theres bigger problems in this world and todays society that require more concentration and work then some whiney chart !@#$% who wants money to buy another house...
-
the writers chose to go on strike.
Their union chose for them.
The union represents the workers, and for the union to decide, the majority of union members would have to decide. De facto, the workers chose to strike. At any rate, writers do not have to be members of the union.
Either way, the point stands: Writers chose to strike, but that doesn't give you the right to choose for music artists and steal their work.
-
What I dont get is that theres bigger problems in this world and todays society that require more concentration and work then some whiney chart !@#$% who wants money to buy another house...
It doesn't take a whole world of effort to just get your songs on iTunes, or another online store, instead of downloading them for free.
-
What I dont get is that theres bigger problems in this world and todays society that require more concentration and work then some whiney chart !@#$% who wants money to buy another house...
It doesn't take a whole world of effort to just get your songs on iTunes, or another online store, instead of downloading them for free.
No...What I mean is these organizations are using millions and millions of pounds to track these people when that money-- much like the millions and millions of pounds these people earn despite not deserving the sheer amount they get-- can be put to a much better use...
-
Look its illegal download music unless stated that the music/ tv show/ movie is free for download. Who cares if you aren't getting a physicaly copy of it, when you buy a cd or dvd or tape or whatever, are you buying it just for the physical dvd and not the content on it? Do you buy a wii game because you want the disc?
If so, just buy blank dvds/ cds becasue they are a lot cheaper than buying a propper cd/ dvd.
Most of you people have no idea about the rights to intellectual property, property that is not tangible or physical, but is still counted as an asset and has an assigned monetary value to it. Its just as illegal to steal intangible (no-phyisical property) as it is to steal tangible property. Sure the authorities may be targeting the people who distribute the music/ movies rather than the people who download it, but thats because its easier to do that, instead of finding millions of individuals, why not try and cut off the source. The exact same thing with drug crimes, people who supply drugs are punished more severly than those that buy the drugs. But people who buy drugs or use them, are still punished, in the same way its immoral to download music.
Why do you think authorities are trying to stop the people who supply the music and the p2p frameworks, if downloading music is legal? There would be no point.
Why does itunes music shop exist? So people can download music, legally. Thus it should prove that downloading music for free, that normally you would pay for, is illegal, there should be no question about it.
-
in the same way its immoral to download music.
Morality is relative.
-
in the same way its immoral to download music.
Morality is relative.
Morality isn't relative.
For example, it used to be legal to have african americans as slaves. Did that make it moral? Just because white people viewed themselves as superior and black people as inferior, didn't make their actions moral.
Or what about theft, its never ok to steal something from someone else, no matter what culture you live in. Who has the right to take something that is yours? Even if a corrupt government supported that, i can assure you the person who had the thing being stolen from him would feel exactly the same as someone would feel today.
Or oppression of people groups. Over the centuries different groups of people have been oppressed, whether it be because of race or some other commonality, these people were terrorised and tortured because of that thing they had in common. This happened to the Jews, its now happening to the Palestinians in Israel, and there are plenty more examples. Just because a society deems it acceptable to do that, doesnt make their actions right.
-
in the same way its immoral to download music.
Morality is relative.
Morality isn't relative.
For example, it used to be legal to have african americans as slaves. Did that make it moral? Just because white people viewed themselves as superior and black people as inferior, didn't make their actions moral.
Or what about theft, its never ok to steal something from someone else, no matter what culture you live in. Who has the right to take something that is yours? Even if a corrupt government supported that, i can assure you the person who had the thing being stolen from him would feel exactly the same as someone would feel today.
Or oppression of people groups. Over the centuries different groups of people have been oppressed, whether it be because of race or some other commonality, these people were terrorised and tortured because of that thing they had in common. This happened to the Jews, its now happening to the Palestinians in Israel, and there are plenty more examples. Just because a society deems it acceptable to do that, doesnt make their actions right.
Actually, morality is relative. My morals may differ from your morals and I'm sure many other ZFGCers have different versions of morals as well. Now that I think about it my morals do differ from your morals. I don't think it is immoral to download songs.
What is morality but a concept created by man to be a guideline for every day behavior?
-
in the same way its immoral to download music.
Morality is relative.
Morality isn't relative.
For example, it used to be legal to have african americans as slaves. Did that make it moral? Just because white people viewed themselves as superior and black people as inferior, didn't make their actions moral.
Or what about theft, its never ok to steal something from someone else, no matter what culture you live in. Who has the right to take something that is yours? Even if a corrupt government supported that, i can assure you the person who had the thing being stolen from him would feel exactly the same as someone would feel today.
Or oppression of people groups. Over the centuries different groups of people have been oppressed, whether it be because of race or some other commonality, these people were terrorised and tortured because of that thing they had in common. This happened to the Jews, its now happening to the Palestinians in Israel, and there are plenty more examples. Just because a society deems it acceptable to do that, doesnt make their actions right.
Actually, morality is relative. My morals may differ from your morals and I'm sure many other ZFGCers have different versions of morals as well. Now that I think about it my morals do differ from your morals. I don't think it is immoral to download songs.
What is morality but a concept created by man to be a guideline for every day behavior?
But just because your opinion says that it is not immoral to download songs illegally, doesnt make it moral.
Just say I thought that murder was ok according to my morals. How would I go in court?
-
Just say I thought that murder was ok according to my morals. How would I go in court?
You think of morals as what is intrinsically right. thibledorf thinks of morals as what he himself feels is right.
Thus you can't argue and will always clash.
-
Just say I thought that murder was ok according to my morals. How would I go in court?
You think of morals as what is intrinsically right. thibledorf thinks of morals as what he himself feels is right.
Thus you can't argue and will always clash.
Then we are defining different things, thus 2 words should be used rather than the same.
-
Just say I thought that murder was ok according to my morals. How would I go in court?
You think of morals as what is intrinsically right. thibledorf thinks of morals as what he himself feels is right.
Thus you can't argue and will always clash.
Then we are defining different things, thus 2 words should be used rather than the same.
How are you defining morals then?
As far as thinking killing is moraly ok but that not standing up in court, what you mentioned isn't morals. It's the law.
Oh, and CelestialEsper, for once I think you get my point entirely.
-
Thanks? o_O
-
Thanks? o_O
I think you're welcome......
-
el oh el
Oh, and I thought I'd add this:
what you mentioned isn't morals. It's the law.
Where did that law come from? Morals perhaps?
-
el oh el
Oh, and I thought I'd add this:
what you mentioned isn't morals. It's the law.
Where did that law come from? Morals perhaps?
that particular law comes from the government's initial intention of protecting the people
murder being legal would really put no need for government at all.