The riaa took my baby away

[Virtual Fighter]

"The RIAA Took My Baby Away" - http://www.nothingnice.com
http://upl.silentwhisper.net/uplfolders/upload0/20050321.gif

I think the RIAA should stop crackign down on "illegal" downloading of music.

Let me tell you something about music - It's an art. Art cannot be stolen (And before you say "OMG BUT U LIKE SAY RIPPING IS STELLING U HIPOCRIT", there's a different between plagerism and "illegal" downloading)

A painter wouldn't be pissed if you take a peek at his painting before it was done, or if you took a snapshot of it once it was at a museum.
It's the painter's art, and art is meant to be enjoyed, not priced and sold.

I remember reading an article of my favortite guy, Ian Mcaye, who is an owner of a Record Lable from Washington DC called "Dischord", they're well known for their politically enfused hardcore sounds. He is also in many bands, like what used to be Minor Threat, and currently in Fugazi and his side project The Evans.

Now, he knows what's going on. He was quoated as saying:

"IAN: Oh, I'm happy to have them download the music, it doesn't bother me at all, because that's why I made the music, because I want people to hear it, that's it, that's the point. And obviously, someone selling it? They're fliped. But that would just be another example of the sort of avarice and greed that exist in this music world.

Yeah, if someone's selling downloads and collecting money for our songs I would be unhappy about that but if they're trading it I don't mind, obviously if I make a thousand records or CDs or whatever, I like to sell a thousand. I don't need all the plastic. Obviously I would like people to support us, that'd be great. But at the end of the day, I'd rather people hear the music. You know I don't own any Bob Dylan music, well actually I think I do, but you know when I was growing up I didn't, but I certainly knew his music because of the radio, I didn't pay for that."


I like Fugazi and Minor Threat, and most other DC hardcore group. The thing is, THEY DON'T SELL THEM IN STORES. The only way I COULD listen to the music is if I borrow it from my brother and burn a copy or get it off an illegal dowloading service.

I've downloaded some Fugazi off limewire, it's great.

The whole music industry now days is prepetuated by greed. For 30 minutes worth of recording, they will sell a CD for $15, which costs $0.50 to press, yet costs $10 more than a Tape, will run up to $26,000,000 if it goes double platinum. Now, why the greed?

Is the artist doing this becuase he wants the music to be heard by millions, or because the artists wants that 26 million?

I think what illegal downloading is doing is great. Maybe from this we'll get some actual artists who want to do this for the music, not the money.


Hell, I know alot of artists signed to major lables who write messages on their CDs saying "Pirate this album", ATDI style.



So, run that limewire and stick ti to the man.



Edited By Virtual Fighter on 1115855555

[Angel-Eyes]

meh, ares is better



but you're right, illegal downloading has boosted the music industry

[ACE4004]

Lets GO LINUX !!!

[XxEl_PeCaDoRxX]

SoulSeek owns everyone.

[Virtual Fighter]

And plus, i'm jack fliping poor. I wanted to buy the new Evan's abum, but I didn't have enough.

fliping music industry. >=(

[SolidSnake76]

same here VF, theres a bunch of R&B albums i wanna get and i dont have money to even buy a bootleg tape.

F the RIAA

[ACE4004]

<span style='font-family:Kartika'><span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%'><s>i could rip it for you.</s></span></span>

<span id='ME'><center>ACE4004 whips out Slimehore</center></span>



Edited By ACE4004 on 1115422921

[Virtual Fighter]

double you tea eff?

[XxEl_PeCaDoRxX]

No Soy Pancho Villa



Edited By XxEl_PeCaDoRxX on 1115426396

[Dark_Paladin_X]

This is (in a way) serious. There's some artists out there who are so strongly against it. They copy protect their CDs. I've been seeing it more lately. Honest.

PS. Ares is the best.

[Angel-Eyes]

^ *highfive* about the ps

[marvel911]

I still buy albums if I really want them, though I usually download songs to preview it them first. However I think artists have reasons to be upset if people burn their entire album.

[ACE4004]

[color=#000000]No Soy Pancho Villa
<span style='font-family:Kartika'>[color=pink]<span style='font-size:12pt;line-height:100%'><s>

[Angel-Eyes]

without illegal downloading of music, I wouldnt have been able to get the gorillaz new album early

demon days....and I am defiantely gonna buy it once it comes out

btw it POWNEFZERS MYLIF3!!!!11OMGBBQWTF

[KensDestruction]

im not sure about the download

spyware is Evil ahahahah

[XxEl_PeCaDoRxX]

without illegal downloading of music, I wouldnt have been able to get the gorillaz new album early

demon days....and I am defiantely gonna buy it once it comes out

btw it POWNEFZERS MYLIF3!!!!11OMGBBQWTF
I been having it.

The album sure is badass.

- Your tags are awsome.



Edited By XxEl_PeCaDoRxX on 1115442993

[asshole]

HAHAHAH!
Good one!

Let me tell you something about music - It's an art. Art cannot be stolen (And before you say "OMG BUT U LIKE SAY RIPPING IS STELLING U HIPOCRIT", there's a different between plagerism and "illegal" downloading)

A painter wouldn't be pissed if you take a peek at his painting before it was done, or if you took a snapshot of it once it was at a museum.
It's the painter's art, and art is meant to be enjoyed, not priced and sold.
[color=#000000][color=green]That analogy is completely wrong.

One is a piece of artwork that someone creates that is put into a museum for people to view for free.

The other is music that someone creates, puts on a CD, and sells. If you walk into a music store, pick up a CD, and leave without paying for it, then it's illegal. The same is said for the internet. You're obtaining music files illegally without paying for them, essentially STEALING their music. And not just that, but typically when you download something, it goes into a Shared folder, so other people can upload it. So not only are you stealing the music, you're distributing it to other people. And btw, art CAN be stolen. The definition of "steal:"

steal
v. [b]stole, sto

[Virtual Fighter]

[color=#961309]
That analogy is completely wrong.

One is a piece of artwork that someone creates that is put into a museum for people to view for free.

No, museum costs money. I went to MOCCA and it costed $13 for the entrance fee.


The other is music that someone creates, puts on a CD, and sells. If you walk into a music store, pick up a CD, and leave without paying for it, then it's illegal. The same is said for the internet. You're obtaining music files illegally without paying for them, essentially STEALING their music. And not just that, but typically when you download something, it goes into a Shared folder, so other people can upload it. So not only are you stealing the music, you're distributing it to other people. And btw, art CAN be stolen. The definition of "steal:"

So what if we "steal" music? Music is so over priced that I would rather steal if than have to pay $14 for 30 minutes worth of sound. The only bands that are against illegal downloading are poopty corperate whores who might have originally gone into this to make music but the greed of the millions of dollars have overpowered them.

You've got your eminems, and your Dr. Dres, your metalllicas and your 50 cents who all are against illegal downloading. All these names have something in common, they're all filthy fliping rich. And, their music isn't even that good.

[quote]
steal
v. stole, sto

No, museum costs money. I went to MOCCA and it costed $13 for the entrance fee.

It's still not the same thing. For a museum, you're paying one fee to come in contact with the work of many people. When it comes to music, you're paying separate "fees" in order to purchase and listen to the albums of separate artists.

Your analogy would only work if music stores charged a general fee just to enter, then you listen to all the music you want.

So what if we "steal" music? Music is so over priced that I would rather steal if than have to pay $14 for 30 minutes worth of sound. The only bands that are against illegal downloading are poopty corperate whores who might have originally gone into this to make music but the greed of the millions of dollars have overpowered them.

You've got your eminems, and your Dr. Dres, your metalllicas and your 50 cents who all are against illegal downloading. All these names have something in common, they're all filthy fliping rich. And, their music isn't even that good.

Boo hoo hoo, you're breaking my heart. This is actually where your argument starts to fall apart....I'm surprised you reached it this early.

Who are you to make the claim that music is overpriced, and then continue stealing that music using that as an excuse?

If you go to the supermarket, a half-case of Coca Cola costs about $5-7 (around where I live.) That's about $.41-.58 cents per can. Now, if you go to a vending machine, that same can of Coca Cola now can cost $.75 or even a full dollar. Therefore, would you go to a vending machine in the street, break it open and steal a can of Coca Cola because "this coke is so overpriced that you'd rather steal it than pay a dollar for 20 seconds of liquid refreshment?" Uh uh.

The point of the matter is this: record companies set prices for CDs. Regardless of whether you think they're overpriced or not. They say "pay this amount of money and you get the music. If not, tough poop." EVERY other corporation does the same with their product. It's called PRICING. A company or store sets a price for their product, and you BUY it. Using "i think it's overpriced" as an alibi for stealing isn't going to hold up. So again, just don't complain when the RIAA comes a'knocking, because not only should you be prepared for it anyway, but you're also acknowledging here and now that you'd rather steal (and selfimplied, that you'd rather run the risk of being sued).

Oh and btw, about eminem, metallica, dre all not being that good.....I know how you absolutely LOOOOOVE allmusic.com and take everything they say at face value, so:
Metallica--averages out to 4 stars (out of 5) (http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&searchlink=METALLICA&uid=MIW020505081054&sql=11:dmpzefwkhgfj~T2), Eminem--averages out to 4 out of 5 stars (http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&searchlink=EMINEM&uid=CAW010505081058&sql=11:36120r5ay48i~T2), Dr. Dre--3.5 out of 5 stars. (http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&uid=CAW010505081100&sql=11:pkevadzkv8w8~T2)

You love using that site against me when you try to argue music with me on AOL. Kinda sucks now that I can use it against you, doesn't it?

What If I go into a commic store, read the comic book and walk out, it's not illegal, right?

Or If I go into the store, take pictures of every page and walk out, it's not illegel eigther, right?

As long as it's not in a plastic sleeve, which most comic books are nowadays. If it is, then it'd be the equivalent of walking into a music store, picking up a CD, ripping off the wrapper, and listening to the music/recording the music right there.

The music industry is all about money, now. Art is supposed to be appreciated, not sold. It's not the artists who set the price of their CDs, or their concerts, it's the industry and record lables. I'm a painter, I like to paint as well as do digital art on the computer. I don't do it for the money, I do it because I love it. If some money comes my way because ot it, that's fine. It should be about the music and not the money.

That's just your opinion, not a die-hard fact of life. And in this case, music is a type of art that is appreciated after it is sold. That's the key word there, ladies and gentlemen. Appreciate. You see, the whole gist of the system goes like this:

If you appreciate the music you like, then you shouldn't mind paying a fairly low price for the album. You should be saying "I appreciate your music, and I think you're so good, that I'll take $15 of my hard earned money, and use it, to purchase your music, because that's how highly I think of you as an artist." So if you want to talk about appreciation, then illegal downloading shows really NO appreciation for the artist, because anyone can do it. You're saying "Hey, I appreciate you so much that I'm going to download your music illegally instead of pay for it." It removes most of-, if not all of- the appreciation from the musical process.

After all, you pay money to go see a band live in concert. Why not pay money to listen to a band's CD? Because it's EASIER to just hit a button on your computer than to go out to the music store.

With all the downloading of music we are helping indie lables and indie artists who don't want to sell themselves out and be corperate bastards, selling their albums for rediculous amounts. We can see that today, were bands that weren't heard of alittle while back are getting great ammount fof attention.

Again, that stereotype that rich people who want money are automatically "corporate bastards," and that asking money for music is "selling out." And ridiculousness is in the eye of the beholder. You make the claim that music is over-priced and costs ridiculous amounts of money. I, on the other hand, don't mind dropping a fewbucks for a CD.

I've seen the cycle over and over. Some underground/less-known band starts getting a lot of attention, likely through bootlegging and downloading. They get a rather large fan base. They get so big that they're finally noticed by "the corporate bastards," as you so say, and are signed to a record deal. Next thing you know, they're making music videos on MTV and making all these appearances, and suddenly that fanbase splits in half, between the people that are like "man, flip them, they sold out," and the loyal fans, who don't mind dropping a fewbucks to listen to their music. Then some ####and starts getting a lot of attention, and the whole process repeats.

So you're saying that downloading helps less-known and indy bands. I'm saying that given a few years, you're going to be complaining about these bands, just because they start charging for their CDs. Because godforbid people want to earn money in the world.

The entire downloading has actually helped the music industry as a whole:
" In 1999 music sales were up 11% not down
Testimony of Hank Barry quoting a RIAA survey
Chief Executive Officer
Napster, Inc.
Before the Senate Judiciary Committee "

It's not like we're stealing fruit, or stealing TVs. This is an art which cannot held or seen, it's music.
No, it's more like stealing a comic book. Yes it's music, but it can still be stolen. Because you're acquiring it without the permission of the creator, which is the DEFINITION of theft.

If there was a way to get TVs, and dupliczate them and give them out for free, and gave them out, THEN it would be stealing, But this case has so many variables, the fact that the muscian says it's okay, the fact that it's an art form which shouldn't be priced, the fact it's HELPING the music industry and giving a leg up to indie artists everwhere, it's not black and white.

You're right, it's not black and white. However, the shades of greyscale are few.

First off, your argument that music shouldn't be priced is really getting old, becuase that's not a fact of life, it's your own opinion. And again, saying that music shouldn't be priced is like saying that comic books should be given out for free, and that marve| or DC comics are "corporate bastards" because they charge money for books that contain strips of drawings, which are an art. Regardless of your opinionated qualms about music and it being priced, there is a price for music, and you ultimately have two options: Pay the price for the music, or steal it and risk the consequences.

And as far as the musician saying it's okay or it's not okay, it doesn't make much of a difference. They can't track specific songs from specific artists to make sure they're not being downloaded, and that pretty much means "tough noogies" for everyone else.

Metallica, for instance, is against illegal downloading, but is actually FOR free downloading in some instances. For example, back when they released their St. Anger album, they had a CD key inside the case. This key would allow those people who BOUGHT their album to log into their website and download exclusive tracks of them during live shows, practices, never-released songs, etc. I must have downloaded a hundred or so songs from Metallica's own website--FOR FREE--and still hadn't reached the halfway point of the number of songs they had up.

So let's say they had 250 songs available for free download on their website. Add on the other 11 songs from the St. Anger album purchase. That's 261 songs, and god-knows-how-many hours of music to listen to. All for the low-low price of $15. Because godforbid you spend $15 on a band's CD.

Musicians can't do ANYTHING. They can't even join the RIAA, it's only record lables that can do that. Essentially, artists have no say in anything they ever do outside of an indie lable.

Actually, they can. The music label doesn't own everything of the band.

Take the above said example. Metallica was free to do that promotion on their own. Why? Becuase the music they had available for free download wasn't the record label's. Why? Becuase it was never included on any CD, it wasn't submitted for the label's approval. It was essentially still Metallica's own music, created by them, owned by them. Therefore, they can choose to do whatever they want with that music.

And a band can still put samples of their music up on their website. Go check out www.orangegoblin.com

They've got like a dozen songs and/or samples up for free listening on their site. Something they do on their own.

So AGAIN, there is a difference between a band putting a free download on their site, and downloading something illegally via a p2p.

What if the musician says it's okay? Kanye West said it was okay to download his music, and if you like it, you should buy his next record or something. Is it still illagal to downlaod his music? Yes. He has no say in what happens to him, his music or his records. He is the record industry's bitch.
He doesn't call the shots about his art, giant corperations do. Shouldn't he say what happens to his music?

So then, why doesn't he leave that record label? Not put out ANY more music while under that label, then when his contract is up, leave? That way he can join one of your "indie" labels and make music and do what he wants.

Oh yeah, I forgot. He wants to make money. I guess that makes him a "corporate bastard" as well.

Proclaiming you win based on "I win" arguments? I expected more from you. That's something that Karma, or dominicankid09 would do.
For shame.

I figured you'd see the joke in that....since last time we debated something, it was RAW vs Smackdown, and you had use a simple "i win argument" so you could try to shut me up and go clean up your room or something.

IT WAS A JOKE, you goofy bastard. So flip yo cooch.[/color]



Edited By Shauku on 1115567019

[Virtual Fighter]

It's still not the same thing. For a museum, you're paying one fee to come in contact with the work of many people. When it comes to music, you're paying separate "fees" in order to purchase and listen to the albums

of separate artists.

Your analogy would only work if music stores charged a general fee just to enter, then you listen to all the music you want.

You mean like the new ##### version of napster that has a 15 dollars a month fee for as many songs you can download? (Some hidden fees here ad there)

Point of story, in one case you can take the art home with you, in the other you just have to look at it.
z
Boo hoo hoo, you're breaking my heart. This is actually where your argument starts to fall apart....I'm surprised you reached it this early.

Who are you to make the claim that music is overpriced, and then continue stealing that music using that as an excuse?

If you go to the supermarket, a half-case of Coca Cola costs about $5-7 (around where I live.) That's about $.41-.58 cents per can. Now, if you go to a vending machine, that same can of Coca Cola now can cost

$.75 or even a full dollar. Therefore, would you go to a vending machine in the street, break it open and steal a can of Coca Cola because "this coke is so overpriced that you'd rather steal it than pay a dollar for 20

seconds of liquid refreshment?" Uh uh.

I'd rather steal soda than support Coca Cola, too. Coca Cola is even worse than the msuic industry because atleast musicians don't have sweat shops set up in south america where the workers get 5 cents per hour.

A better analogy would be the guy who sells oranges in the exit of the freeway.

The point of the matter is this: record companies set prices for CDs. Regardless of whether you think they're overpriced or not. They say "pay this amount of money and you get the music. If not, tough poop."

EVERY other corporation does the same with their product. It's called PRICING. A company or store sets a price for their product, and you BUY it. Using "i think it's overpriced" as an alibi for stealing isn't going to hold

up. So again, just don't complain when the RIAA comes a'knocking, because not only should you be prepared for it anyway, but you're also acknowledging here and now that you'd rather steal (and selfimplied, that

you'd rather run the risk of being sued).

It's also called a monopoly. They can have $50 for a CD because there is no competition. If every record lable is rasing their products, the money has be going somewhere and it's most likley not musician. Maybe if this

continues, the record companies wont be so greedy in raising their prices and will have music accesable to ALL.

It's not like the CDs cost so much to make, or that they cost so much to record. This is just greedyness at it's worse.

Let's use maddox's argument:

"Now look at CDs. How much does the average CD cost? I figure $14. For $14, you get a case, a paper jacket depicting the artist, and a CD. Which of these two mediums are most likely to be more difficult to

manufacture? How much does it cost for the plastic and coating of a CD? I've found that the plastic in a CD costs less than 3 cents to press. So how the hell is the extra $6 justified??? The CD jacket? Couldn't be,

most CDs I have only have a single piece of paper on the inside and the back. The case couldn't be what's costing us all the money, since the plastic in a CD case costs little more than the plastic in a CD. Take a look

at these figures:

For 500 C40-49:59 "Ready for Retail" Cassette Tapes with J-card + 4 panels costs: $983.00

For 500 "Ready for Retail" Compact Discs with 4 panels and tray card costs: $1725.00

What justifies the difference in almost $800 in price? The truth is that the music industry is greedy. They can charge us anything they want for music because they have enough money to buy the rights to an artist. The

price of CDs should have been drastically reduced by now, to at least the cost of a tape if not less, but it hasn't. That's why all the big shot executives poop a brick when people started distributing music in MP3 format

over the internet. Finally, people could get out of their web of bullpoop and only listen to music they wanted to listen to, at a user-established cost. Good I say, let them suffer. It's about time they got screwed like they've

been screwing us for all these years. "

Oh and btw, about eminem, metallica, dre all not being that good.....I know how you absolutely LOOOOOVE allmusic.com and take everything they say at face value, so:
Metallica--averages out to 4 stars (out of 5), Eminem--averages out to 4 out of 5 stars, Dr. Dre--3.5 out of 5 stars.

I never said their music isn't good or is sucky, I said them as human beings are sucky. They all have one thing common other than their sucky human being status: THey're all filthy rich and would rather flip off their

own fans than give that up.

You love using that site against me when you try to argue music with me on AOL. Kinda sucks now that I can use it against you, doesn't it?

That's only when we're debating music, not music industry or "ethics".

That's just your opinion, not a die-hard fact of life. And in this case, music is a type of art that is appreciated after it is sold. That's the key word there, ladies and gentlemen. Appreciate. You see, the whole gist

of the system goes like this:

Everything you've said is oppinion and not die-hard fact. The only difference is i've given some numbers while you've stuck to your "IT'S STEALING OMGUSUCK" argument.

If you appreciate the music you like, then you shouldn't mind paying a fairly low price for the album. You should be saying "I appreciate your music, and I think you're so good, that I'll take $15 of my hard earned

money, and use it, to purchase your music, because that's how highly I think of you as an artist." So if you want to talk about appreciation, then illegal downloading shows really NO appreciation for the artist, because

anyone can do it. You're saying "Hey, I appreciate you so much that I'm going to download your music illegally instead of pay for it." It removes most of-, if not all of- the appreciation from the musical process.

I can name artists out my ass who care more about their fans than their money. That's how it should be, after all, we're fans. The point of being a musician is to make yor fans happy, not take money from them by

chargin $100 to see them in concert from the 6th level seats.

They're fans, they're not money bnaks, they're supposed to love you, not buy your new fararri and private jet.

When researching stuff on Fugazi for napster, I found a really funny spoof on bands now days:

"After months of silence on the subject of Internet music piracy, the members of Washington, DC punk band, Fugazi spoke out against MP3 computer software at a press conference before a show at the MCI Center.

Opening up for Dr. Dre and Metalica on the Cash-Out 2000 Summer Tour, Ian MacKaye and fellowband mates had plenty to say about people who download music illegally on the Internet.

"We are here to talk about the number one reason why we are still driving around in a Ford Econoline Van: Napster. All you people who paid 120 dollars for 6th level seats should be angry at those who will in no doubt

be downloading this show on Napster tomorrow morning for free." Uttered an angry MacKaye. "I will do what ever it takes to force these people to pay us what we are owed and I haven't ruled out sending Emenem to

your house to annoy you with his nasal rapping until you pay up."

Singer/guitarist Guy Picciotto also added "While most fans are really cool about the shows, we don't want to resort to touring small clubs, and free shows to get people to like us. That's so Limp Bizkit."

Fugazi has elected not to take legal action on this matter, but has decided to charge 25 dollars for CDs and 50 dollars for t-shirts to make up for lost earnings. "Blame the computer geeks," chimed Brendan Canty, the

band's long time drummer.

In closing, MacKaye told reporters he just wanted to keep the lifestyle of all the other artists who fought against Napster, "Where's my f---ing money, you bastards!"

This is more true than you could imagine. Bands like metallica are charing insane prices for their material. The only difference between them and a small local band is what? Their music is any better?

The only difference is one doesn't care about their fans while another would do anything.

I really think Fugazi is the ultimate "flip you" to the record industry. They are really big in the indie scene, they care about their fans well being, their money and everything about them.
They are self sufficient and they know they don't need to treat their fans like poop to be big.

Here's a quote from an interview with Guy Picciotto:

"Regarding Napster - I can't really say that I am completely up on the whole thing regarding the RIAA lawsuit but our position on music file sharing is pretty basic. We are totally cool with it. As long as no one is

charging someone else for downloads of our stuff we are totally fine with people sharing files of our songs, even unreleased stuff and live tapes.

"We have always had an open camera, video and taping policy at our shows and as long as people are strictly sharing and trading, we are into it. We do have problems with people 'marketing' our stuff surreptiously and

charging for it and we discourage that in the limited way we can, but to us Napster is like home taping - the idea that it kills music only makes sense if your bottom line is per-piece profit. If you are into having your

music exposed to more people, (something mainstream radio would never do for us), Napster actually performs a service. Hope that makes sense. Thanks for the interest."

That's the model of how artists should be. They CARE about their fans enough to let them LIKE their music.If they get some money their way, that's the way everyone should be.

Here's some quotes from many different sources about napster:

"Napster could be a great way for people to hear your music who wouldn't have the chance to hear it on the radio."
Madonna, Rolling Stone, 9/28/2000

This is absolutly true. You'd be surprised how much Bob Dylan I found. I found all of his pre-70's albums. I went to Tower records yesturday and found NO Bob Dylan. No Bob Dylan! A LEGEND like Bob Dylan not

getting an availablity on such a place like TOWER RECORDS?

""We have just finished a tour, we played in Barcelona, the next day the entire performance was up on Napster and three weeks later when we got to play in Israel the audience knew the words to all the new songs

and it was wonderful. Digital music is just one of many things that contribute to an artist getting their message across. Of course it is going to change record companies are going to have to embrace it and change with

it and find different ways of getting revenue, maybe using Napster as a business model for their own on-line thing."
Colin Greenwood (Radiohead), NME, 9/28/2000

""Most people I know who use Napster listen to stuff they've never heard before. And then they get psyched and go out and buy the damn records. It's more like a sampler."
Ian MacKaye, Fugazi and co-owner of Dischord Records Salon.com, 1/8/2001

God damn I love Fugazi. But this is also true. 90% of all the stuff I download is new, unheard music to my ears. Should I buy this person's album? Let me give it a listen, if I like it, i'll buy it. If I don't, I won't. I won't even

listen to it, because why would I lsiten to something I don't like?

If I didn't have this option, I wouldn't but music period. It's too much of a gamble, all I would have to base on would be their singles, the reviews from my friends and dumb luck.

I would much rather support a band I really like and know I will like, than a band I have no idea what they sound like and if I am gonna buy their album if I am going to enjoy it, or am I gonna end up stomping on it.

""Napster: It is the future, in my opinion. That's the way music is going to be communicated around the world. The most important thing now is to embrace it, and that was the spirit by which we did this

co-promotion."
Dave Matthews (Dave Matthews Band), referring to his band's recent featured music promotion with Napster, Billboard.com, 2/9/2001

""We believe that the Internet and Napster should not be ignored by the music industry as tools to promote awareness for bands and market music."
Fred Durst (Limp Bizkit)

Even Limp Bizkit, which is the worst band in the world is for illegal downloading.

""We should think of (Napster) as a new kind of radio--a promotional tool that can help artists who don't have the opportunity to get their music played on mainstream radio or on MTV,"
Chuck D, New York Times, 4/30/2000

"The cool thing about Napster is that it...encourages enthusiasm for music in a way that the music industry has long forgotten to do."
Thom Yorke (Radiohead), 10/9/2000

"Most people I know who listen to a lot of MP3s will download a lot of different songs. And if they like the song, they'll go out and buy the album. The record company doesn't want me to say this, but out of the

millions of MP3 files that are out there, if someone chooses to download one of my songs or an album of mine, I'm very flattered."
Moby, Macaddict.com

"We're not afraid of the Internet. We think it's a very cool way to reach our fans. If a band sells 12 million albums, what are we supposed to say? Oh, maybe we could have sold 13 million if we had just been Internet

Nazis. Frankly, at a certain point, you have to say. Hey, let the people have the music."
Dexter Holland (Offspring), Inside.com, 9/15/2000

""Stealing our copyright provisions in the dead of night when no-one is looking is piracy. It's not piracy when kids swap music over the Internet using Napster. There were one billion downloads last year but music

sales are way up, so how is Napster hurting the music industry? It's not. The only people who are scared of Napster are the people who have filler on their albums and are scared that if people hear more than one single

they're not going to buy the album."
Courtney Love, NME, 6/29/2000

wow, even the women who pratically killed niravana, who tried to stop new material from being released, who sold Kurt Cobain's private notebooks is for napster.

Again, that stereotype that rich people who want money are automatically "corporate bastards," and that asking money for music is "selling out." And ridiculousness is in the eye of the beholder. You make the

claim that music is over-priced and costs ridiculous amounts of money. I, on the other hand, don't mind dropping a fewbucks for a CD.

Stereotype or not, you tell me one person in the head of a major record lable who hasn't gotten filthy fliping rich from signing musicians and whore their music.

So you're saying that downloading helps less-known and indy bands. I'm saying that given a few years, you're going to be complaining about these bands, just because they start charging for their CDs. Because

godforbid people want to earn money in the world.

Yeah, god forbid someone sells 13 million albums, at $13 a peice, making 69 million dollars. Because you know waht? Private jets are VERY important.

No, it's more like stealing a comic book. Yes it's music, but it can still be stolen. Because you're acquiring it without the permission of the creator, which is the DEFINITION of theft.

and if we DO get permission from the creator, and download maddona and offspring, and any other band that says it's okay to download their music, it is stil stealing? Yes, it is.

Then WHO'S PROPERTY IS IT? If musicians have no say in weather their music can be given away or not, then who owns their music? The record lable. They control these musician's LIVES.

First off, your argument that music shouldn't be priced is really getting old, becuase that's not a fact of life, it's your own opinion. And again, saying that music shouldn't be priced is like saying that comic books

should be given out for free, and that marve| or DC comics are "corporate bastards" because they charge money for books that contain strips of drawings, which are an art. Regardless of your opinionated qualms about

music and it being priced, there is a price for music, and you ultimately have two options: Pay the price for the music, or steal it and risk the consequences.

And anything you say against what I say, it too, an oppinion. No poop it's my oppinion, just how it's your oppinion. There's a difference, i'm doing a much better job at giving facts, statistics and quotes trying to prove

mine where as you've stuck to yoru "It's stealing, nuff said" argument which isn't holding up.

you're painting things as black and white. If you do it it's bad, if you don't, that's good. But it's not like that, there are many variables and in the end, illegal downloading comes up a light-grey shade.

The simple fact that when napster had it's hight in popularity the music industry was up 11%, and then once it ended it was down 3% should be enough to sway any oppinion.

We're not hurting these big corperate musicians, wer're HELPING THEM, as much as if pisses me off.

"A friend suggests there might be a connection between the closing down of Napster earlier this year and the sharp, unexpected downturn in record sales during the first half of 2001. According to SoundScan, a

company that tracks record sales, the industry's gross sales dropped 5.4 percent in the first half of this year.

Even taking into account the near death of the CD single, album sales still dropped 3 percent.

Since this sudden decline in sales happened during the same period of time that court-ordered changes essentially gutted Napster, which was supposedly robbing the industry of millions of sales by allowing fans to

trade sound files for free on the Internet, my friend makes a provocative suggestion: Napster actually helped sell records. "

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin....163.DTL (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/08/05/PK220163.DTL)

Now, you might notice the "napster" thrown everywhere, but that's just because no other download service has gotten the popularity napster has. They can't say "bittorent" or "limewire", because those are just small fries compared to what napster was.

[quuote]And as far as the musician saying it's okay or it's not okay, it doesn't make much of a difference. They can't track specific songs from specific artists to make sure they're not being downloaded, and that pretty much

means "tough noogies" for everyone else.[/quote]

Gosh, so some big corperation is deciding what can and cant be done to MY music FOR ME? THat's fliped up. That's like sonmeone saying who can and can't view my DA, if it can or can't be put for a wallpaper. It should be ME who says what happens to MY art.


Actually, they can. The music label doesn't own everything of the band.

Take the above said example. Metallica was free to do that promotion on their own. Why? Becuase the music they had available for free download wasn't the record label's. Why? Becuase it was never included on any

CD, it wasn't submitted for the label's approval. It was essentially still Metallica's own music, created by them, owned by them. Therefore, they can choose to do whatever they want with that music.

And a band can still put samples of their music up on their website. Go check out www.orangegoblin.com

They've got like a dozen songs and/or samples up for free listening on their site. Something they do on their own.

So AGAIN, there is a difference between a band putting a free download on their site, and downloading something illegally via a p2p.

Again, there's a difference between choosing on your own wether you should buy this album based on what you like or don't like instead of going in blind, listening to thei best song and get 11 other crappy songs which isn't worth the $15.

They might be for a couple of this stuff, just so they won't seem like greedy assholes, but they still are getting huge sums of money for it.

Metallica is just one band, prety much only them were holding the band against Napster or wherever.


Let's step back alittle.

Here's what we know:

It's actually helping the record industry and there is a vast amount of people who are FOR their music beign downloaded because it is helping them get recognized in the world whie still not selling out and become another pawn in a big record lable's game.



If it's helping the record lable and everyone is winning, why the big fuss? It's a victimless crime with moer winnners than losers.Around Millions of millions compared to 4 losers in a metal band.

[marvel911]

Christ damn people. :Oo:

[Virtual Fighter]

Yeah. Don't you just hate it when people actually think instead of being mindless sheep, such as yourself?

[XxEl_PeCaDoRxX]

Everyone steals.

[Elena]

Ok, I read bits in parts here 'n there...and I don't strongly agree with either of you, which is why I qualify.

Ok, VF I see where ur coming from. But as you said artist barely get any of the money, so when you or I burn the CD's they get even less. The producers and label records make sure they get their money and if there is any left and and only then the artist gets their share. If this keeps going on prices will go up because labels will have to make up for the slack that because people are not buying...but instead bootlegging. If this continues we might lose more and more artists. Although, music is an art. People would like to get paid for their hard work. And although they may be bloody rich at the moment when the money stops coming in....they will soon become poor which is why artist are trying to tell ppl out there that they need to stop bootlegging by the bulk.

But, I do agree with one part of VF's arguement. Because of internet downloading it is making the artist wide-spread. Artist shouldn't get mad at this. They should get happy. I mean I never even thought of buying the Gorrilaz CD because I thought they were stupid. Then somone told me to download that song by them...uh Feel Good Inc. and I did. So now I'm planning to buy it. If it wasn't for the internet I probably would of never heard that song. And probably would of still though the band sucked.

I believe we should be able to download individual songs not whole albums.

If any of these points were made. Please don't kill me. I was just trying to put in my 2 cents.

[Virtual Fighter]

Ok, VF I see where ur coming from. But as you said artist barely get any of the money, so when you or I burn the CD's they get even less. The producers and label records make sure they get their money and if there is any left and and only then the artist gets their share. If this keeps going on prices will go up because labels will have to make up for the slack that because people are not buying...but instead bootlegging. If this continues we might lose more and more artists. Although, music is an art. People would like to get paid for their hard work. And although they may be bloody rich at the moment when the money stops coming in....they will soon become poor which is why artist are trying to tell ppl out there that they need to stop bootlegging by the bulk.

Umm.. no, the artists are actually benefitting by this in many ways.

The first was is that people are actually buying their albums more because of this, most people don't want the files, they want the album. Once they've gotten a taste, they go in hook line and sinker.

I've posted the facts of how when Napster was at it's highest point, the record industry was up 11%, and when napster died it was down 3%.

So, this proves illegal downloading actually helps the record industry.

Second, new artists are gaining popularity. The inflex of "the" bands and what seem like undergrounders are now gaining popularity and it seems that ROCK AND ROLL has rissen fromt he asshes of over produced, poopty ass rap rocl.

Third, it's deleting the rich bastard syndrome that's been going arond. Music is being geniuin again: People who care about the MUSIC and not the money.

But, I do agree with one part of VF's arguement. Because of internet downloading it is making the artist wide-spread. Artist shouldn't get mad at this. They should get happy. I mean I never even thought of buying the Gorrilaz CD because I thought they were stupid. Then somone told me to download that song by them...uh Feel Good Inc. and I did. So now I'm planning to buy it. If it wasn't for the internet I probably would of never heard that song. And probably would of still though the band sucked.

YOU THOUGHT GORRILAZ WERE STUPID? YOU GO DIE NOW!



I believe we should be able to download individual songs not whole albums.

I don't believe that.

For example, The mars volta's new album frances the mute is great, but each song individually is really wierd and won't turn on the consumer.

The songs are good if you ut them together, not seperate. If you lsiten to the album you'll get it, but if you just catch on little sound it'll sound liek when you walk into a wierd conversation and don't udnerstand what's going on.

I illegally downloaded the album. I thought it was great and now own the CD and the Vynle.

[Elena]

Well, ok...but as a former bootlegger. I know for a fact that once people buy the bootleg edition if they are not a die hard fan who truly loves the band they won't go buy the actual cd. I know this for a fact because I Used to go ask them
ME: So how do you like CD?
PERSON: It's good. I'm thinking of buying the actual CD.

2 months later
ME: So did you buy the CD?
PERSON: No, why? I have it already...



Edited By Elena on 1115600596

[XxEl_PeCaDoRxX]

But, I do agree with one part of VF's arguement. Because of internet downloading it is making the artist wide-spread. Artist shouldn't get mad at this. They should get happy. I mean I never even thought of buying the Gorrilaz CD because I thought they were stupid. Then somone told me to download that song by them...uh Feel Good Inc. and I did. So now I'm planning to buy it. If it wasn't for the internet I probably would of never heard that song. And probably would of still though the band sucked.

YOU THOUGHT GORRILAZ WERE STUPID? YOU GO DIE NOW!
YES. =)

BTW: Lets all start leeching off Virtual Fighters music on SLSK!



Edited By XxEl_PeCaDoRxX on 1115602756

[ledmonkey]

So, run that limewire and stick ti to the man.
<span style='font-size:7pt;line-height:100%'>true.DAT</span>

I'd rather steal soda than support Coca Cola, too. Coca Cola is even worse than the msuic industry because atleast musicians don't have sweat shops set up in south america where the workers get 5 cents per hour.
A better analogy would be the guy who sells oranges in the exit of the freeway.

You still avoided answering the question. In a more practical, public sense, would you go ahead and steal something openly just because you BELIEVE that it's "overpriced?"

It's also called a monopoly. They can have $50 for a CD because there is no competition. If every record lable is rasing their products, the money has be going somewhere and it's most likley not musician. Maybe if this continues, the record companies wont be so greedy in raising their prices and will have music accesable to ALL.
It's not like the CDs cost so much to make, or that they cost so much to record. This is just greedyness at it's worse.
Let's use maddox's argument:
"Now look at CDs. How much does the average CD cost? I figure $14. For $14, you get a case, a paper jacket depicting the artist, and a CD. Which of these two mediums are most likely to be more difficult to
manufacture? How much does it cost for the plastic and coating of a CD? I've found that the plastic in a CD costs less than 3 cents to press. So how the hell is the extra $6 justified??? The CD jacket? Couldn't be,
most CDs I have only have a single piece of paper on the inside and the back. The case couldn't be what's costing us all the money, since the plastic in a CD case costs little more than the plastic in a CD. Take a look
at these figures:
For 500 C40-49:59 "Ready for Retail" Cassette Tapes with J-card + 4 panels costs: $983.00
For 500 "Ready for Retail" Compact Discs with 4 panels and tray card costs: $1725.00
What justifies the difference in almost $800 in price? The truth is that the music industry is greedy. They can charge us anything they want for music because they have enough money to buy the rights to an artist. The price of CDs should have been drastically reduced by now, to at least the cost of a tape if not less, but it hasn't. That's why all the big shot executives poop a brick when people started distributing music in MP3 format over the internet. Finally, people could get out of their web of bullpoop and only listen to music they wanted to listen to, at a user-established cost. Good I say, let them suffer. It's about time they got screwed like they've been screwing us for all these years. "

You know what? You're exactly right.

If they wanted to, the music industry COULD charge $50 a CD, and no one could do anything about it. You're right, it IS unfair, and it IS bullpoop. It's also not fair that the speed limit on the main roads near my house is only 35 mph. It's also not fair that I only get 12-18 hours of work a week while other people get 24-30. It's also not fair that food costs money.

You know what that's called?

Life.

Life's not fair. Get used to it.

The simple fact of the matter is that it is THEFT. Regardless of how you try to argue it or how you try to justify it, it's theft, and that's a crime. So again, don't go crying when the RIAA sues you for illegal downloading, because you've got it coming....and your "it's overpriced," "it's unfair," "it's a monopoly" speeches and whatnot isn't going to cut it in a legal case.

So whether I think it's fair or not, if I go faster than 35 mph on my roads and get pulled over, I'm still breaking the law, and have to face the consequences. Whether I think it's fair or not, if i steal food that i think i shouldn't have to pay for, it's still breaking the law, and i have to face the consequences.

And whether you think it's fair or not, if you download music illegally, it's still breaking the law, and you will risk those consequences. However, it all boils down to the fact that life is not fair.

I never said their music isn't good or is sucky, I said them as human beings are sucky. They all have one thing common other than their sucky human being status: THey're all filthy rich and would rather flip off their
own fans than give that up.

Ummm....no you did not. You must obviously think that I'm too stupid to go back to the end of page 2 and look at your post.

In case you forgot, here is the EXACT context of your statement:

"You've got your eminems, and your Dr. Dres, your metalllicas and your 50 cents who all are against illegal downloading. All these names have something in common, they're all filthy fliping rich. And, their music isn't even that good"

So don't even try to tell me otherwise, because it's RIGHT THERE. And, in case you think of editing it to say otherwise after the fact, i've already screenshotted it.

Everything you've said is oppinion and not die-hard fact. The only difference is i've given some numbers while you've stuck to your "IT'S STEALING OMGUSUCK" argument.

How do numbers help prove your argument that music is an art form that should not be priced? They don't. You giving numbers on this and that, how much CDs cost compared to how much cassettes cost do nothing to the argument that I was referring to. You saying that music shouldn't be sold is an OPINION.

Me, on the other hand, giving the actual dictionary definition of the word steal, and then using it in context, IS in fact a die-hard fact.

I really think Fugazi is the ultimate "flip you" to the record industry. They are really big in the indie scene, they care about their fans well being, their money and everything about them.
They are self sufficient and they know they don't need to treat their fans like poop to be big.

That's the model of how artists should be. They CARE about their fans enough to let them LIKE their music.If they get some money their way, that's the way everyone should be.

This is absolutly true. You'd be surprised how much Bob Dylan I found. I found all of his pre-70's albums. I went to Tower records yesturday and found NO Bob Dylan. No Bob Dylan! A LEGEND like Bob Dylan not
getting an availablity on such a place like TOWER RECORDS?

I'm not quoting ALL of those celebrity quotes, but I can pretty much sum it all up in one analogy that you would most likely think has no relation to the subject at hand.

Napster, LimeWire, Kazaa, Morpheus, Acquisition, BearShare, etc....they're all p2p programs which allow a user to download music illegally. Even though artists are speaking out against the RIAA and are all pro-downloading, it doesn't make it any less illegal. It's all because of a select few that DON'T like the downloading. It's just as the old saying goes: a fewbad apples ruin the whole bunch.

Marijuana, PCP, shrooms....they're all illegal drugs. Now, even if high-ranking celebrities and respected people speak out against the fact that they're illegal, it doesn't make these substances any less illegal. It's all because of people that DON'T want these substances to be legal because they don't like the substance. Those fewbad apples are ruining the fun for everyone else.

Catch my drift?

Stereotype or not, you tell me one person in the head of a major record lable who hasn't gotten filthy fliping rich from signing musicians and whore their music.

That's why the music business is so successful: it's a way to get to a HUGE amount of money. And there's nothing wrong with that.

So AGAIN, the negative anti-rich-people stereotype continues. And again, ridiculousness is in the eye of the beholder. You claim that music prices are outrageous, while I don't mind dropping a fewbucks for a CD.

Yeah, god forbid someone sells 13 million albums, at $13 a peice, making 69 million dollars. Because you know waht? Private jets are VERY important.

Again, who are you? Who are you to criticize people for what they do with their money? If they want a private jet, and they have the money for a private jet, then they can buy a private jet. If they want a second house that's fully decorated, and have that money, then why not? Indulge yourself. You have some problem against people that are filthy rich?

and if we DO get permission from the creator, and download maddona and offspring, and any other band that says it's okay to download their music, it is stil stealing? Yes, it is.
Then WHO'S PROPERTY IS IT? If musicians have no say in weather their music can be given away or not, then who owns their music? The record lable. They control these musician's LIVES.

So far, I havn't heard anything like that in a RIAA vs victim court case, and frankly, it'd be interesting to see.

But again, the record label reference. You make it seem like all these artists are miserable, with the record labels telling them what to do.

Why don't all these artists that are pro-downloading all get together and form their own record label, in which they can do what they want with their own music? Wait until their contracts are up, and then do it.

Apparently they don't care that much.

And besides, did it ever cross your mind that some of those artist quotes were said just to get on their fans' good sides? "Give the people what they want," that's one of the foremost rules of showbiz and music making. Let people hear what they want to hear, and then they can do no wrong in their eyes.

And anything you say against what I say, it too, an oppinion. No poop it's my oppinion, just how it's your oppinion. There's a difference, i'm doing a much better job at giving facts, statistics and quotes trying to prove
mine where as you've stuck to yoru "It's stealing, nuff said" argument which isn't holding up.

Again, your numbers and quotes and research isn't doing jack to support your "music is art, and art can't be priced and sold" opinion. It really isn't at all, and it's holding up even less than my "it's stealing, nuff said" argument. Because despite all your numbers, and despite all your celebrity quotes, it doesn't change the fact that it's STILL ILLEGAL.

Even up to this point, your ENTIRE argument as been "Record labels completely own the artists, and control THEIR music, and CDs cost too much, and this and that, and it's not fair." That's pretty much your argument. "It's not fair," and "it's flipped up." And "It's not fair" doesn't quite hold up as well as a dictionary definition of what the fact of the matter is.

The simple fact that when napster had it's hight in popularity the music industry was up 11%, and then once it ended it was down 3% should be enough to sway any oppinion.
We're not hurting these big corperate musicians, wer're HELPING THEM, as much as if pisses me off.
"A friend suggests there might be a connection between the closing down of Napster earlier this year and the sharp, unexpected downturn in record sales during the first half of 2001. According to SoundScan, a
company that tracks record sales, the industry's gross sales dropped 5.4 percent in the first half of this year.
Even taking into account the near death of the CD single, album sales still dropped 3 percent.
Since this sudden decline in sales happened during the same period of time that court-ordered changes essentially gutted Napster, which was supposedly robbing the industry of millions of sales by allowing fans to
trade sound files for free on the Internet, my friend makes a provocative suggestion: Napster actually helped sell records. "

Ever take into account the following possibility?

"Gee, Napster got shut down. That's flipping stupid. Because of that, now I'm not gonna go out and buy their CDs, in a fit of childish boycott rage."

Metallica is just one band, prety much only them were holding the band against Napster or wherever.

Actually, it wasn't even Metallica who was holding back Napster. It was mainly Lars. And Lars Ulrich doesn't represent Metallica as a whole.

Notice that the entire time he was up there flapping his gums, you didn't hear ONE word or read ONE statement from Hetfield, Newstead or Hammet.

Just because one member of a band stands up and says something doesn't mean that it's the representative opinion of the band as a whole.

Let's step back alittle.
Here's what we know:
It's actually helping the record industry and there is a vast amount of people who are FOR their music beign downloaded because it is helping them get recognized in the world whie still not selling out and become another pawn in a big record lable's game.

If it's helping the record lable and everyone is winning, why the big fuss? It's a victimless crime with moer winnners than losers. Around Millions of millions compared to 4 losers in a metal band.

I will step back a little as well, and add to what we know:

Free music downloading from p2p programs has been deemed illegal, and continues to be illegal because of the record labels not getting kickbacks from the sharing of that music when they SHOULD be getting money from the selling of CDs (something that you think is greedy and not fair). This is despite artists publicly saying that they don't care, since the record labels tell the artists what they can and cannot do (something that you say is not fair). Yet people still continue to download music illegally, and instead of taking responsibility for their actions, they complain about the RIAA doing what the law says they're justified in doing (something you say is not fair), all because they're too cheapskate to drop $13 on a CD (a price that you think is over-priced).

So really, when we get down to it, the entire anti-RIAA argument is really just made up of stuff that people think is not fair, becuse they don't want to pay the amount of money that record labels are asking, because the record labels have too much money. That was pretty much the main argument I heard back in the day, too. That "they've already got too much money." When really, arguments of "they have too much money," and "it's not fair" hold up less than a bra made out of dental floss.

[Dan Hibiki]

Illegal downloading is bad. If you want to send a message to the music industry, or to the bands that don't seem to care much for their fans, then don't buy their material. The truth to the argument is as simple as that.

[alamgir]

You can put it this way, all the music artists want money. So for them it's like doing a job and not getting paid or at least not as much. They definetely don't deserve all the money they get though so maybe its a good thing a lot of people download music.

You can put it this way, all the music artists want money. So for them it's like doing a job and not getting paid or at least not as much. They definetely don't deserve all the money they get though so maybe its a good thing a lot of people download music.
Who are you to say that they don't deserve the money they have, or that they have too much money?

The money they receive is due to their FANS. The more people that buy their material and go to their concerts, the more money they make.

Therefore, you're trying to tell me that they don't deserve the money that they earned for having such a fan following?

[alamgir]

You can put it this way, all the music artists want money. So for them it's like doing a job and not getting paid or at least not as much. They definetely don't deserve all the money they get though so maybe its a good thing a lot of people download music.
Who are you to say that they don't deserve the money they have, or that they have too much money?

The money they receive is due to their FANS. The more people that buy their material and go to their concerts, the more money they make.

Therefore, you're trying to tell me that they don't deserve the money that they earned for having such a fan following?
Your right but professionals who save people's lives get payed a lot less. What i'm trying to say is that professionals such as doctors and firemen should get paid more since they do a lot more for people.

[Virtual Fighter]

[color=#961309]You still avoided answering the question. In a more practical, public sense, would you go ahead and steal something openly just because you BELIEVE that it's "overpriced?"

Hell yes I would. Why? Becuase people need to wise the flip up and know we're not paying $15 for 30 minutes worth of music and quit being greedy motherfliper and over pricing the music by like 900%.

You know what? You're exactly right.

If they wanted to, the music industry COULD charge $50 a CD, and no one could do anything about it. You're right, it IS unfair, and it IS bullpoop. It's also not fair that the speed limit on the main roads near my house is

only 35 mph. It's also not fair that I only get 12-18 hours of work a week while other people get 24-30. It's also not fair that food costs money.

You know what that's called?

Life.

Life's not fair. Get used to it.

poop, and just how they're pratically ROBBING me, i'm gonnd litterally ROB them and take their poop for free. What can they do about it? Pratically nothing.

You know what that's called?

Life.

Life's not fair. It's not fair i'm gonna download this album for free while you have to pay for it.

Get used to it.

The simple fact of the matter is that it is THEFT. Regardless of how you try to argue it or how you try to justify it, it's theft, and that's a crime. So again, don't go crying when the RIAA sues you for illegal

downloading, because you've got it coming....and your "it's overpriced," "it's unfair," "it's a monopoly" speeches and whatnot isn't going to cut it in a legal case.

Let's take an argument from your book:

And who are you? Are you the morality police?

That's your OPPINION. Just how I cant prove certain arguments on my position, you can't prove your argument and you don't even try to, yoou merely regerjitate the same old statements, words, lines.

Ummm....no you did not. You must obviously think that I'm too stupid to go back to the end of page 2 and look at your post.

In case you forgot, here is the EXACT context of your statement:

"You've got your eminems, and your Dr. Dres, your metalllicas and your 50 cents who all are against illegal downloading. All these names have something in common, they're all filthy fliping rich. And, their music isn't

even that good"

So don't even try to tell me otherwise, because it's RIGHT THERE. And, in case you think of editing it to say otherwise after the fact, i've already screenshotted it.

I said "even that good", as in not as good as you would like to think. NOT that they're sucky. So, you're still wrong.

And you might have got me there, I might have forgot I said that, but you know what? It doesn't even matter because that's just one gramical mistake I made. That's not gonna prove your point nor is it gonna prove my

point. It has nothing to do with the subject at hand, it is topicality.

It's like me starting a sub-debate about the nature of the word "regardless", it has nothing to do with anytihng and shouldn't be discussed.

How do numbers help prove your argument that music is an art form that should not be priced? They don't. You giving numbers on this and that, how much CDs cost compared to how much cassettes cost do

nothing to the argument that I was referring to. You saying that music shouldn't be sold is an OPINION.

See, the only difference is that mine is many arguments based on one position that illegal downloading should not be persecuted, where as you stick to one single argument, which is "it's stealing, nuff siad", based on

the con position.

There also is another difference, mine actually has some back up, where as yours is reiteration.

You've also side-stepped most obviouse arguments, like trying to prove it HURTS the music industry and trying to prove it's bad economically as well as "morally".
Because i've already proved it HELPED the recording industry and that everyone wins.

Illegal downloading services usually don't download like demons, they give back to the artists which they like. Look it:

[i]"

Your right but professionals who save people's lives get payed a lot less. What i'm trying to say is that professionals such as doctors and firemen should get paid more since they do a lot more for people.

[color=green]Alamgir: You're making it seem as if one single solitary system decides how much everyone gets paid. True, that the salaries of public servents, and teachers, and fire/police officials are determined by the government, but the salaries of people in record labels and artists are NOT.

The government can't just say "oh gee, record labels are making more than doctors, so we have to start paying them more." It doesn't work like that.

Hell yes I would. Why? Becuase people need to wise the flip up and know we're not paying $15 for 30 minutes worth of music and quit being greedy motherfliper and over pricing the music by like 900%.

Well at least you're being consistent. Stupid, but consistent.

Although, in my question, I wasn't referring to CDs. My question was, "In a more practical, public sense, would you go ahead and steal something openly just because you believe that it's overpriced?"

So....would you walk into a grocery and say "wow, $3.50 for a box of Fruity Pebbles? I'm not paying this poop," then pick it up and walk out? Go into a bicycle shop and say "$300 for this new Trek GSX? Flip that!" then jump on it and ride it out?

poop, and just how they're pratically ROBBING me, i'm gonnd litterally ROB them and take their poop for free. What can they do about it? Pratically nothing.
You know what that's called?
Life.
Life's not fair. It's not fair i'm gonna download this album for free while you have to pay for it.
Get used to it.

They're not robbing you. No one is FORCING you to go out and buy a CD. No one is FORCING you to listen to music. You're making your own choice to go out and buy a CD...that's not robbing you.

And btw, they....uh....CAN do something about it. It's called the RIAA suing you. You know....the thing you're complaining about in the first place.

Let's take an argument from your book:
And who are you? Are you the morality police?
That's your OPPINION. Just how I cant prove certain arguments on my position, you can't prove your argument and you don't even try to, yoou merely regerjitate the same old statements, words, lines.

How is the definition of theft an opinion? It's NOT an opinion, it's a straight up fact that can't really be argued. It has nothing to do with morality, it's a case of LEGALITY. A pretty simple one too.

Theft: taking or acquiring of material without permission of the owner or owners.

Record labels own the music. Downloading music via p2p is a case of acquiring that music without the permission of the record label. That, by DEFINITION, is theft.

There's no morality code, there's no opinion there. It's the flipping DEFINITION of theft. Therefore, how can you say "it's just your opinion, you can't prove it?" That'd be like me saying "2+2=4" and you saying "no, it's not, it's just your OPPINION"

I said "even that good", as in not as good as you would like to think. NOT that they're sucky. So, you're still wrong.
And you might have got me there, I might have forgot I said that, but you know what? It doesn't even matter because that's just one gramical mistake I made. That's not gonna prove your point nor is it gonna prove my
point. It has nothing to do with the subject at hand, it is topicality.
It's like me starting a sub-debate about the nature of the word "regardless", it has nothing to do with anytihng and shouldn't be discussed.

"Their music isn't even that good" isn't a case of you saying "i said they're not good people" nor is it a case of "they're not as good as you would like to think" (which really doesn't make any sense, since it's a relative concept).

If you wanted to say something else, why not just say it?

But point aside, it's not just me snagging you on a grammatical error. It's me pointing out a hidden message that you may or may not have intended to imply.

When I read the statement "You've got your Eminems, Dr. Dres, Metallicas and 50 Cents who are all against illegal downloading. All of these names have something in common, they're all filthy flipping rich, and their music isn't even that good," this is the message that I'm getting:

"Only filthy rich musicians whose music sucks are against the downloading."

That's pretty much the message that you're implying. And that's why I pointed it out.

Now, if that's not what you intended, just say so, and I'll drop the subject.

You've also side-stepped most obviouse arguments, like trying to prove it HURTS the music industry and trying to prove it's bad economically as well as "morally".
Because i've already proved it HELPED the recording industry and that everyone wins.

That's like saying that stealing someone's shotgun from their home is justified because they could not go out and kill a deer, which benefitted nature, and therefore helped all those in PETA.

My argument was NEVER that it hurt the music industry, my argument was that it's the definition of theft, and that it screws the record labels out of money.

Now, you DID prove that CD sales went up during the Napster era, and went down afterwards. However, that doesn't prove that the record labels that were being gyped gained money as well.

Now, take all those record labels and companies who own the artists that protested Napster. If you could prove that those labels and artists actually profitted from that increase in CD sales during the Napster era due to illegal downloading, it'd put a serious hurt in my argument. However, stating an 11% increase in overall sales during the Napster era says nothing about how the protesting labels/artists were affected.

So if you can find proof via research that Metallica/Dre/Eminem and their respective labels actually profitted during this 11% overall increase in sales, even during their protesting, then I really wouldn't have much of a response.

"DJ Danger Mouse remixed the vocals from Jay-Z's The Black Album and the Beatles' White Album and called his creation The Grey Album. He sent about 3,000 promo copies out, and was soon served with a cease-and-desist notice from EMI, who owns the rights to the White Album master. Danger Mouse complied with EMI's order, but Stay Free! (sponsors of the Illegal Art Exhibit) and other fans and activists continued distributing the record over the Internet. EMI sent legal threats to many of us as well but later backed down. Next, SONY/ATV -- who owns the rights to the Beatles' compositions -- stepped in and sent our internet service provider a DMCA takedown notice (3/1/2004). We secured legal representation from the EFF, moved our website to the Online Policy Group (a free-speech ISP), and responded to Sony with this letter. Fortunately, Sony also dropped the case and The Grey Album remains safely online."

Actually, it was theft until they dropped the cases.

You said that those who owned rights to the White Album and those who owned rights to Beatles compillations in general (EMI and Sony/ATV?) protested, and although Danger Mouse complied, fans and activists CONTINUED doing so. Illegally.

It seems to me that the only reasons they dropped their respective cases were that they couldn't possibly nab EVERYONE that continued distributing this material after the notices, and couldn't just go after certain ones.

Essentially, it seems to me that they gave up because it probably would have cost more money to pursue the case than to let it drop.

That's as if someone went into Circuit City, grabbed DVD player and ran out of the store, and the manager chased after him, and then gave up. Yes he gave up the case, but does that mean it wasn't a theft? No.

Whithout illegal downloading, this great (great!) peice of music would never see the grasp of daylight. (BTW, AMG gave is 4/5 stars)
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/_/id/5937152
Now, oddly enough, it's called the grey album, and with this, it gives my point of "it's not black and white, it's grey" a sense of irony.

That's like saying that without slavery, african-americans today wouldn't be so dominant in american sports, or something else along those lines.

Catch my drift? Saying that something illegal and/or morally wrong ended up spawning something beautiful doesn't justify the fact that it came from something ugly. In this case, the ends DON'T justify the means.

[quote]You'll probably come back with "But does that justify stealing?"
Well, it's not stealing. Because as you said:
steal Audio pronunciation of "stealing" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (stl)
v. stole, (stl) sto

[Virtual Fighter]

NJ, do you wanna quit?

Why would I want to quit? I don't give up at ANYTHING.

Why, do you wanna quit? You flipping quitter.



Edited By Shauku on 1115706119

[Virtual Fighter]

Sure, i'll quit

BUWHAHAHAHA YOU SUCK



Edited By Virtual Fighter on 1115706220

[Virtual Fighter]

Joe isn't worth my time.


I pwned him so bad his titty blew up.


Thread closed.



Edited By Virtual Fighter on 1115706260

I quit too,
Thread closed.
Fine, i'll quit now that you said you quit, becuase that means i don't really quit, i'm claiming victory now that you quit prematurely. Ha ha.

[Virtual Fighter]

Quiet, quiter!

I WIN FOREVER!

I PWNED JOE SO BAD HIS TITTY BLEW UP!

I SEEDDD HIS TITTTY BLEW UP!


closed.