The riaa took my baby away

[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]"