"The RIAA Took My Baby Away" - http://www.nothingnice.com
http://upl.silentwhisper.net/uplfold...0/20050321.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

<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

No Soy Pancho Villa



Edited By XxEl_PeCaDoRxX on 1115426396

[color=#000000][quote:post_uid0="XxEl_PeCaDoRxX"]No Soy Pancho Villa[/quote]
<span style='font-family:Kartika'>[color=pink]<span style='font-size:12pt;line-height:100%'><s>

[quote:post_uid0="kester-"]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!!!!11OMGBBQdubya tee eff[/quote]
I been having it.

The album sure is badass.

- Your tags are awsome.



Edited By XxEl_PeCaDoRxX on 1115442993

[quote:post_uid0="Virtual Fighter"]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.[/quote]
[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

[color=#961309]No, museum costs money. I went to MOCCA and it costed $13 for the entrance fee.

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

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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), Eminem--averages out to 4 out of 5 stars, Dr. Dre--3.5 out of 5 stars.

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?

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

[quote:post_uid0="Virtual Fighter"]

Quote:

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![/quote]
YES. =)

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



Edited By XxEl_PeCaDoRxX on 1115602756

[quote:post_uid0="Virtual Fighter"]So, run that limewire and stick ti to the man.[/quote]
<span style='font-size:7pt;line-height:100%'>true.DAT</span>

Quote:

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?"

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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?

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

[color]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?

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.[/color]

[quote:post_uid0="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.[/quote]
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?

[quote:post_uid0="Shauku"][quote:post_uid0="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.[/quote]
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?[/quote]
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=#961309]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%.

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.

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.

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.

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]"

[color=#000000]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.

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?

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.

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"

"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.

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.

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.

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

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

[quote:post_uid0="joe"]
Sure, i'll quit[/quote]

BUWHAHAHAHA YOU SUCK



Edited By Virtual Fighter on 1115706220

Joe isn't worth my time.


I pwned him so bad his titty blew up.


Thread closed.



Edited By Virtual Fighter on 1115706260