The riaa took my baby away

[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][quoteost_uid0="XxEl_PeCaDoRxX"]No Soy Pancho Villa[/quote]
<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!!!!11OMGBBQdubya tee eff

[KensDestruction]

im not sure about the download

spyware is Evil ahahahah

[XxEl_PeCaDoRxX]

[quoteost_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

[asshole]

HAHAHAH!
Good one!

[quoteost_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

[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), 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?

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