money in http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r14395751 en Fri, 04 Dec 2009 02:57:25 EDT Fri, 04 Dec 2009 02:57:25 EDT Re: money http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14409572 broadbander :
I am VERY education. I own a business, two homes, one worth $750,000 and the other worth $450,000
Farrell: You do not talk to me like that!! I work too hard to deal with this stuff!! I work too hard!! I'm a Division Manager in charge of 49 people!! I drive a Dodge Stratus!! ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14409572 Wed, 21 Sep 2005 00:42:25 EDT Re: money http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14408960 fiberguy : Wow! The pickin's are certainly there today.

First off, maybe it is YOU who should grow up. I post quite a few posts on this board; I don't live on it. I do make long, lengthy, and often substance filled posts. Just because I don't go back, re-read every word, proof read them, spell check them 100% doesn't mean I am not educated. I am VERY education. I own a business, two homes, one worth $750,000 and the other worth $450,000; I would say I am at or above in middle class. I didn't get here without an education, little boy. It does, however, show that when someone like you has can only attack someone on the basis on a few typos, that your intellect is ranked more in the childish category rather than the grown up and educated category. For gawd sakes, this is a message board not a book. I think typos are acceptable I am HARDLY the only one that has them in their posts. If you want to read something typo free then go buy a book and even then I have seen typos in published books at before too.

Second, while you were busy proof reading my message for words misspelled, you failed to grasp my very messagebut not just in one message, rather TWO messages! GP also tried to accuse me of the very same thing you did on music and national security. Please QUOTE MY POSTS where I stated specifically that stealing music would hurt national security. It's completely obvious that you failed to even read the very message that you so cleverly TRIED to one-up me on, and I remind you - you failed. I will not repost or reply to explain the point to you again. Take some time and actually read the post and answer your own comment. I know it's probably not your "thing" to actually read... but seriously, if you want to be part of a conversation, open your ears, or in this case, your eyes, and read!

Clown school? Didn't know they existed, however, you know what they say,... a skunk smells his own scent first!

Honestly? Your post didn't even deserve a reply. However, for pure entertainment value, I felt that you needed to be ousted for this one. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14408960 Tue, 20 Sep 2005 23:12:03 EDT Re: money http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14408233 SRFireside : Well maybe the world wants to worship the almighty dollar, but that doesn't mean you have to play that game completely. That's why I have no problems sharing certain tracks from certain CD's on P2P, regardless of EULAs. That's why when a buddy wants to make a copy of a CD I have no probs. Just because "they" say it has to be done a certain way doesn't mean you have to play along with it.

I mean where in the world would I be able to go in order to purchase a pristine copy of the music I love AND be able to share the joy? If I simply followed the you-have-to-agree-to-our-terms road then essentially the only option for me is to just download the songs and not buy the CD. Now the artist truly suffers. So no thank you. I'll unwrap my CD and ignore the "warning" labels. I feel this is better for me, other music fans, and the artist. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14408233 Tue, 20 Sep 2005 21:34:49 EDT Re: money http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14407996 Thaler :
said by SRFireside See Profile :

What the manufacturer intends to happen to the CD is a moot point once they get their money (and royalties) from you if you ask me.
True, but by purchasing the CDs/iTunes/etc., you have agreed to the terms set forth by EULA/copyright indefinately. It's a crappy deal, but hey...they agreed to it. Don't sign your soul away to the devil if you're not expecting to pay.

said by SRFireside See Profile :

Also keep in mind mp3's are not digitally perfect copies.
True, most things you find off the P2P channels are ripped by a crack midget. Two things, however:

1. More experienced audio-crazy rippers either use lossless compression algorythms, or variable-rate MP3 encoding, as to get a perfect/near-mint copy of the song.

2. CDs/MP3s are vastly superior to the old days of piracy, as you do have a perfect master from which to duplicate. Records/tapes were all analog, and would suffer degradation from the very first play. Not to meantion, making copies of copies sucked in those days, as you'd keep losing quality w/ every generation rip. Now comes the MP3, perform a File -> Copy, and you have a 100% identical copy.

said by SRFireside See Profile :

So again it's back to what do you feel is the right thing. You have admitted to using P2P to try new music (and subsequently buy) so apparently P2P isn't wrong to you.
No, I don't think P2P technology is a "super huge evil demon", like the **AAs. The people who abuse said technology...that's a different matter.

And I personally would think that using P2P to "sample" would fall under already established fair-use laws. When you buy a CD, you're allowed to let a friend borrow it, listen to it, play it for him, etc. There's nothing different between asking a friend for a CD and hopping on the P2P channels to listen to said same CD. It's a different approach, but they both have the same goal.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14407996 Tue, 20 Sep 2005 21:04:29 EDT Re: money http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14406490 SRFireside : I guess the dissension lies in the concept of the EULA implied when getting a CD. All it states is unauthorized duplication is prohibited. So now we're back to what's authorized and what's not. We both know of the exceptions to a copyright holder's exclusive rights so is authorization necessary in these instances? Now we are on the track regarding fair use and whether or not it applies. So essentially the "agreement" between customer and vendor is not nearly as cut and dry as "You buy it you can listen to it, but you can't make copies."

What the manufacturer intends to happen to the CD is a moot point once they get their money (and royalties) from you if you ask me. As long as I am not profiting from the material then they got everything required by law. Also keep in mind mp3's are not digitally perfect copies. While to many ears it's close to CD quality it's still a compressed, lossy format with only a few benefits over ferric oxide cassette tapes (namely no degradation the more you replay it).

So again it's back to what do you feel is the right thing. You have admitted to using P2P to try new music (and subsequently buy) so apparently P2P isn't wrong to you. You do say it's wrong to abuse it like what you see some friends do. I'm down with that too. Sounds a lot like what I preach to my stepdaughter regarding P2P. All these thoughts on "art isn't a commodity thus there is no solid value" and "sharing music is lying to artists" tend to be more philosophical. In the end artists are indeed being compensated and make a living from their craft and people are either paying or not. Since we still have a music industry apparently the former is still the majority. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14406490 Tue, 20 Sep 2005 17:45:30 EDT Re: money http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14405471 Thaler : I dunno. I kinda try and do the simplified blockhead approach, so that my ideas are easily digested. I've seen friends who have burnt buttloads of CDs, don't intend to pay a dime, and will continue to do so until, A.) the artist becomes broke, or B.) someone sues their happy ass. Thus is the nature of living by good graces - there are a lot of people who don't have them, lol.

Basically, how the situation breaks down to me is this:

Company A (RIAA and the bands whom have aflliated/signed under them) makes product X (the tunes!). Company A, being a greedy son-of-a-B, releases their product, under certain stipulations that customers concede to follow by purchasing. (copyright laws/fair use terms/EULAs, etc.) Among these terms is the agreement that won't begin duplication of said product. Company A later rolls in dough, but eyes people who are now sporting home-made, perfect copies of product X, and gets pissed. Soon after, lawyers are involved, squeezing money out of unauthorized product X duplicate users (and dead grannies w/o a PC alike) and getting Company A's second fleet of BMWs.

We can argue 'till the cows come home that Company A is greedy, their aggreements suck, and for the most part, should rot in hell. However, somewhere along the lines of their customers/agreements, someone broke their word. (ie. lied) What's up for personal interpretation is wether making copies off said breach-of-contract material is moral or not, seeing as how the manufacturer is pretty clear they never intended for outside duplication. As for myself, doing such wouldn't sit well with me, as it feels like the endorsement of immoral acts.


So, that's my grand macro simplified view of things, take of it what you wish. I'll still use P2P to sample songs regardless of what the industry would have me belive my fair use rights are. And to those of you, downloading GBs of songs, and have no intentions of supporting the artist/musician, I'd like to personally slap you with a fish. :)

said by SRFireside See Profile :

You can shake your head all you want, but you can't change a person's personal ethics just simply saying they are wrong.
True, but a few staples of morality are what I've seen...or at least hope, are commonplace. No killing, no stealing, and staying honest are among the more commonplace ethics between the various schools of thought, without going into much more detail. If you do know of a culture/civilization that doesn't have something to say about killing, stealing, and lying, I'd love to hear. :)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14405471 Tue, 20 Sep 2005 15:37:09 EDT Re: money http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14405137 SRFireside : Okay lets straighten a few things out. This is starting to get ugly. What seems to be happening here is a battle over what is considered ethic and unethical in P2P. But before we explore that lets take a look at the legality of file sharing. For one there really is no precedent that shows individual users sharing music is copyright infringement. Not one case has gone to court. No verdict has been made. For companies, yes. But that's another matter altogether considering they are profiting from their endeavors.

Lets further explore this by looking into Fair Use. There are four factors that go into determining what is considered fair use:

1 - Is what's going on for profit. File sharers are doing just that. Sharing files. No money is made.

2 - Nature of the copyrighted work. We're talking about music, which is a medium where you can reproduce an IP just by using your own voice. Remember boys and girls copyright is on the song. Not the recording.

3 - The amount of the work used. This doesn't apply here. It more applies to when someone makes a derivative work that is very much like a copyrighted work (Hip Hop artists taking a groove from an original song, muzak, remixes, etc).

4 - The effect on the market. No proof that P2P is affecting the market in any substantive way.

This is not even delving into other portions of copyright law like how you can't collect royalties twice on something (you share music from a CD you bought royalties have already been paid). Also there is a section saying no action can be taken against copying based on non-commercial use of a digital medium.

So far the RIAA is rolling forward with a single grey area in copyright law where it says "sales and distribution" by saying it's infringement when you distribute regardless of any sales. However this conflicts with some fair use elements if you dig deeper. Until the courts really make this decision it is still a very big question on calling sharing music infringement.

Now that we have this out of the way all that's left is each individual's moral thoughts on the issue. You feel it's wrong to trade music? Fine. Don't do it. Many people feel it's wrong to have sex before marriage while others don't. You can shake your head all you want, but you can't change a person's personal ethics just simply saying they are wrong.

I support file trading so long as it's not abused. That's my position. The nutcase who boasts downloading gigs of music a night in my opinion is wrong. They aren't buying albums later on. They aren't doing it for the love of music. Just bragging rights. That's where I draw the line. If you guys are going to continue to argue over what line you draw this thread will just go on in perpetuity because no matter how much you try you the other person believes what they believe. Lets just leave it at that. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14405137 Tue, 20 Sep 2005 14:50:28 EDT Re: money http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14405100 broadbander :
It is, essentially, an agreement of sorts to buy music.
Explain logically, with respect to the arguments I made already debunking the notion philosophically.

The time for barter on agreements and terms is before a transaction, not after.
The artist is not who a purchaser is contracting with. They are contracting with the distributor/seller of the CD. Who I'm buying from does not change what I'm buying.

Now, that said, from the downloader's perspective, I have no contract with that distributor when I download a file, so I cannot be violating one. I never entered into the agreement with them. And if I upload my file that I have downloaded from wherever, then again, I am not breaking that contract. It is possible that the first upload was a breach of some contract (regardless of how valid and logical that imposed contract is). This may be true, depending on the particular circumstances of that initial upload.

I don't know if people who work for labels or independent record stations (who are the ones who generally distribute material in the first place) have a particular contract that says they will not upload a series of sounds into a particular file. Contracts have little to do with morality anyway.

You either buy the product, with terms and agreements set forth by the vendor, or you take your business elsewhere, which I do.
Right. I buy indie music as well, but I do so to support artists and their way of life, not as a reaction against the mainstream music industry. Those who DL files are taking their business elsewhere; to free distributors who happen to charge real cost-of-product; zero.

It seems pretty damn clear to me that the majority of bands who have agreements w/ RIAA never intended for their works to become freely avaliable.
I've explained why artists intent is irrelevant to the morality of downloading and uploading.

when I enter into agreements
I didn't enter it, only those who purchase CDs and then upload them entered it (not sure how I feel yet, an interesting assertion though, good thought). The majority of music made available online is most likely not done so from ripped CDs, but from promo CDs and within labels own employment infrastructure.

that P2P isn't so much "stealing", but rather lying
This is an interesting take I have never heard and seems well-reasoned. I'll have to think about it.

Society progresses naturally throughout time, and its rather closed-minded to play "world police" and demand that everyone model themselves after "the best society". If people feel their society sucks, they will change it.
I assume you opposed the Iraq War then? :D

Another spot we differ a bit, but that's for another thread. :p]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14405100 Tue, 20 Sep 2005 14:46:40 EDT Re: money http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14404927 Thaler :
said by broadbander See Profile :

When I buy a CD, I am paying for the physical CD.
There's your first mistake. Like it or not, in today's society, you're paying for a license to play said music. Nobody really "owns" music - we're paying for the right to use it under the terms of fair use. It is, essentially, an agreement of sorts to buy music. And with any agreement one makes, you can't pick & choose what you will follow, after you have agreed to said terms.

said by broadbander See Profile :

Maybe certain particular artists don't want me hearing or seeing their work for free. However, their want does not make my act immoral.
I dunno. If an artist submitted their art under copyright laws, such that I am agreeing to the terms I said above...and then turn around and break my agreements "because they suck", I would be in the wrong. The time for barter on agreements and terms is before a transaction, not after. Should I not like how the current "paying for the rights to play" system works, (which I detest) then I shouldn't enter into such agreements. This is where recording broadcasts, indy artists, etc. all come in.

Buying music under today's methods is a package deal. You either buy the product, with terms and agreements set forth by the vendor, or you take your business elsewhere, which I do.

said by broadbander See Profile :

P2P distributes an artist's expression.
Well, then let those artists put their tracks out digitally. It seems pretty damn clear to me that the majority of bands who have agreements w/ RIAA never intended for their works to become freely avaliable.

said by broadbander See Profile :

Imagine a regime. They are evil...
...then imagine you enter into a contract with the leader of said regime. And then you decided to break terms with your contract when it best suited you. Again, nomatter how evil RIAA is, by buying their CDs, you have agreed to their terms in today's copyright laws.

When you strike a deal, verbally or otherwise, knowing that you won't live up to your agreements, that is lying, and again, wrong. True, today honesty is about as disposable as toilet paper, but when I enter into agreements, I live up to the terms of my obligations...or rid myself of entering into said agreements altogether.

I guess I do now have an agreement, that P2P isn't so much "stealing", but rather lying to the current day copyright holders for your own gain. Again, this might just be me, but lying in any way, shape, or form is wrong IMHO. If one honestly were seeking copyright reform, the best and ethical way would be writing letters, and expressing your opinon by not purchasing (or downloading) music. Violating copyright laws only fuels the copyright holders' position for further enforcement of their "property".

And while we're in tangentville...

said by broadbander See Profile :

Shouldn't they kill the puppies and save the vast majority of suffering the regime inflicts?
Why should I be the one to impose upon someone else's regime? Sure it can sound downright hellish to me, but that's the way of life they're accustomed to, and real change can only be started from within. Sure, waiting for people to overthrow a suppresive regime might take longer than militarily going in and rooting out "the problem", but then it would be their own society's natural development, and not just our will imposed upon them.

Society progresses naturally throughout time, and its rather closed-minded to play "world police" and demand that everyone model themselves after "the best society". If people feel their society sucks, they will change it. Going in there and forcibly causing artificial change only opens up a whole new can of worms, for which the imposers are to blame.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14404927 Tue, 20 Sep 2005 14:21:53 EDT Re: money http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14404614 broadbander : The nature of art makes it impossible to be stolen. Only produce can be stolen. Art is no more a product than what I am saying right now is. Art is extensionally the same as words. I can't steal words from someone.

When I buy a CD, I am paying for the physical CD. I am also being duped into paying far more than the real capital value of that CD. I am not paying for the sounds the CD generates. Those sounds are not product. I may THINK I'm paying for those sounds, because they're what I want to hear, but I'm not. I'm paying for the CD and the idea of those sounds. P2P allows people to pay for what they want and they pay the cost-of-production for it ... zero dollars and zero cents. And any right-minded economist would say "right on, that's how the system works, if innovation allows it, its supposed to happen."

Maybe you're right. Maybe certain particular artists don't want me hearing or seeing their work for free. However, their want does not make my act immoral.

I am a journalist.

Certain Congressman would appreciate it if I didn't write down certain things they said. But I still write it down and report it. Am I preforming an immoral act?

Certain private citizens say things that I hear and then research on and report using various sources. Am I preforming an immoral act if they don't want me to report on what they said?

P2P distributes an artist's expression. You cannot own an expression or a sound. You CAN own the profit made from an expression or a sound, and THAT is what copyright laws were produced to protect, one's right to exclusive REAL, MEASURABLE profit on their particular expression. The irony of this whole situation is it is the RECORD LABELS violating the original spirit of copyright by exploiting the profits of particular artists.

If artists do not want to be heard, they shouldn't speak out loud (aka record digitally in the first place).

Even if it IS stealing (which I will not concede, but for the sake of your personal feelings, let's say hypothetically), it is still not inherently wrong ...

take this example ...

Imagine a regime. They are evil. The regime kills thousands of its citizens every day. The regime steals wealth from the hard working and funnels it into other countries. No free expression is allowed. Let us imagine, that in order to overthrow the regime, a group of revolutionaries must destroy their capital building (for whatever reason). However, the regime is guarded by a wall of puppies. In order to get in and overthrow the regime, the revolutionaries must kill the puppies. What should they do?

Shouldn't they kill the puppies and save the vast majority of suffering the regime inflicts?

I would say yes. And I'm a vegetarian!

Now, I have explained in several ways how file downloading is not immoral and may, in fact, be a pro-actively moral act. The record labels are part of an outmoded market that innovative technologies are making moot. The point of the capital system is not to feed people or generate capital, exclusively. It is meant to continue innovation and progress to improve the lives of the majority of people, not ensure the well-being of the few. Thusly, from an economical standpoint, file-sharing is just.

Artists will continue to make art regardless of who shares their files, and, if they want total control over their expression, they should either keep it to themselves or only perform live (like they did for thousands of years) and ban recording devices from their shows. I am not violating the artists ability to create an expression by downloading materials. If that artist were really an artists and cared for the expression they were making, they would continue to make that expression regardless of the capital they are generating. The audience gives charity to an artist for something essentially worthless. A sincere artist is grateful for anything.

Philosophically, one cannot own a sound or expression. Art is not a product (as I proved in several ways in an earlier post) and cannot be owned. The file information is not was is owned, because copies of files are not the original file.

If corrupt profits from artworks ceased to exist, art would improve. Even if file-sharing is "stealing," it may not be intrinsically wrong, at least from a utilitarian perspective, as the results of their collapse, or at the very least, restructuring, could be good for artists and the majority of consumers.

Economically, philosophically and I'd say even ethically file-sharing is A-ok.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14404614 Tue, 20 Sep 2005 13:31:51 EDT Re: money http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14404350 Thaler :
said by broadbander See Profile :

I wouldn't go that gallery. I'd just download photos of the artwork off of the Internet and write the artist an e-mail telling him/her I appreciated what he/she was trying to get across.
Ugg, you have to go and make a neat lil' theretical example into a complex one. Fine then. Say that the art in question wasn't avaliable anywhere else, but this control-phreak gallery. What then? Wait for someone ELSE to break the laws for you and then download, or smuggle out photos yourself and assist in further pilfering? Either way, I'd find it hard-stressed to say that you're acting with any sense of morals.

said by broadbander See Profile :

My main premise remains the same. DEMAND determines the value of a product. If, by some INNOVATION, a product becomes free then well, the product is no longer able to be profited on and the economic market changes. That's how capitalism is supposed to work.
This isn't "innovation", this is thievery begetting theivery. Just because you weren't the first one to slap unauthorized copies of the tracks, doesn't make you any less guilty for "getting while the getting's good".

Again, write it off as innovation, the system sucks, etc...but it boils down to this: the artist, through RIAA, has released their music via an agreement for compensation via CD costs, per-track-downloads, etc. If you don't like their methods, then don't steal their product.

Your reasoning of "well, the option to steal is there, so it's okay to take it" is invalid, nomatter how much you'd like to free-think it. Hell, guns are readily avalible, does that make it okay should I feel the need to blow someone away?

Yes, stealing via P2P currently is easy, readily avaliable, etc. That still isn't justification for doing so. Honestly, for someone bringing up such new thoughts and ideas to the subject, I would think you'd be able to stand back and see the big picture of your actions, rather than point-by-point "reasoning" the means by which you steal.

said by broadbander See Profile :

Hopefully, those record execs will just have to get real jobs.
True, just like the artists. Look at today's world, where we'll put saving a quarter by shopping at Walmart over the cost of supporting businesses w/ better ethics. I, for one, believe that living off the good graces of fans would be a disaster, and there would soon be no insentive at all to produce art, save for the recreational warm fuzzies involved.

It's kinda hard to feed yourself off good intentions alone. Artists should be able, through some extention of copyright or something, to guarantee that they'll have their next meal, somewhere to live, and God forbid, a family of their own. :uhh:]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14404350 Tue, 20 Sep 2005 12:52:23 EDT Re: money http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14403852 broadbander :
I guess what I'm saying is just about everything you said I agree on, except the value of art.
As a musician, I personally agree, but for the sake of an argument about money and the market, it doesn't. Of course, I love art and music and for me there is an amazing value. When I pay an artist I am being a patron of the arts, not a purchaser of a product, but somehow saying "hey man, what you're doing is excellent and I know that the system we happen to work within doesn't really allow for you to do what you do with ease, so here is something for your artwork." But that something is more a charity than a capital-driven exchange of goods.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14403852 Tue, 20 Sep 2005 11:38:55 EDT Re: money http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14403805 SRFireside : I'm going to have to say that at least art does have value. It's not a commodity value that is quantified by physical worth over other items. It's entertainment value and artistic value. So for some it's like going to a movie, which has value to people who want to enjoy themselves for the duration of the movie (notwithstanding complaints over high ticket prices). For others it's deeper and the music touches them on an emotional level. For many people that in of itself has value as well.

I guess what I'm saying is just about everything you said I agree on, except the value of art. I don't think artists are paid by our good graces. I believe art is valued and as such artists deserve to be paid for it. Copyright law was a way to help promote artists so they can continue creating art in a world that was increasingly attempting to exploit what others value. Granted the law is being exploited by the very people the law was meant to protect artists from. But that's another rant for another time. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14403805 Tue, 20 Sep 2005 11:29:58 EDT Re: money http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14403659 broadbander :
Are you going to smuggle in your camera, take pictures of the art you like, and then justify yourself with "I wasn't going to buy it anyways", "the museum operators suck", "the gift shop is overpriced", etc.?
I wouldn't go that gallery. I'd just download photos of the artwork off of the Internet and write the artist an e-mail telling him/her I appreciated what he/she was trying to get across.

There are independant bands who are wanting to give their music away
I know. I'm in one and have been for years.

My main premise remains the same. DEMAND determines the value of a product. If, by some INNOVATION, a product becomes free then well, the product is no longer able to be profited on and the economic market changes. That's how capitalism is supposed to work.

Art will continue to be made regardless of copyright laws and if people are copying it and distributing it because art is NOT product. Art being made is not contingent on profit. Art's existence is not dependent on the demand side. However, labels willingness to mass market that art as glossy product is contingent on it. The art is not the product. The product is the idea (or image) of the art that the label is marketing. If the labels dissolved and no profit could be made, artists would still make art (music, poetry, whatever) and I would argue it would be FAR better without the guiding hand of a corrupt industry not concerned with art but selling what is worth essentially nothing.
________
The labels are holding on to an outmoded business model. Imagine if we all still had to pay the same amount (plus inflation) for any given product. Think of how expensive computers would be?

Cost of production, thanks to P2P is now zero, and thusly, the market will treat it like its worth zero dollars. Art is essentially worthless. When people pay for art, they pay out of their good graces (from an economics standpoint). Its not about record labels just being corrupt, its about them having a business model that the market is making obsolete. That's what progress is and that's the point of capitalism. With the right models, consumers ideally pay no more than cost of production for a particular product (i.e. for THAT particular piece of information, for THAT particular CD).

In fact, Marx would probably side with the record labels here. He'd say "but they deserve more than just cost of product, they deserve compensation, labor time value for the studio time they paid for and the hard creative work they put into this piece!"

Any of the hardline conservatives here (FIBERGUY) care to defend their positions in bed with Marx?

Hopefully, those record execs will just have to get real jobs.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14403659 Tue, 20 Sep 2005 11:01:38 EDT Re: money http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14402371 bent :
said by kdandaoc See Profile :

do not insult us by insisting that this is about law, not money.
No, it's not about law, it's about right and wrong. Copyright and wrong. And that absolutely makes it about money. Money that you owe me for taking the product of my labors, the music I made by playing my fingers bloody for years, and making it available for free to anyone with an internet connection.
--
I don't have to be faster than the bear, I just have to be faster than you.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14402371 Tue, 20 Sep 2005 03:31:39 EDT Re: money http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14401987 doctrine :
said by fiberguy See Profile :

said by G_Poobah See Profile :

"This would weaken out economy and hurt national security" !

I win! I win!.. hahaha, the bet was that someone would bring up that terrorist win if we weaken the copyright laws!

What in the hell does national security have to do with copyright law?
Here's an idea. Go complete high school and get your diploma and when you grow up, let's talk.

You did NOT win. First, I said NOTHING about terrorism. Funny, it must be on YOUR mind because it was National Security which was one my mind. Terrorism isn't the only threat facing America today, yesterday, or tomorrow.

Second, it was not copyright law that I said would weaken our economy, care to re-read? It said that a weak America with no financial control would hurt our security. But of course, in your world, bombs, weapons, and the military all grow on trees, right? If financial stability is not held in our country, or ANY country, the economic structure fails, governments can't operate effectively, and secuirty is hurt.

Of course, if you have complted the 12th grade where most schools teach civic and economics, you would understand this.

So, in a childish way... "You don't win! You don't win! hahahaha"
What irony - you tell a poster to complete high school when you use "loose" instead of "lose" and misspell words in almost all of your posts. Did you finish high school? I'm thinking you probably went to clown college. Does releasing albums nobody wants to buy hurt national security? This is the number one reason record sales have been down. Maybe you should send some record execs to Gitmo. It must be nice to live in a fantasy world where the RIAA exists for the good of America.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14401987 Tue, 20 Sep 2005 01:00:23 EDT Re: money http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14400974 Thaler :
said by kdandaoc See Profile :

Furthermore, since countless people such as OJ Simpson, and Jeffery Skilling (Enron)have proven that money buys verdicts, do not insult us by insisting that this is about law, not money.
Again, it also has something to do about personal ethics too, IMHO. True, the legal system has been "bought out" on occasions such as the ones you meantioned, but that still doesn't give me the right to start breaking them myself.

said by kdandaoc See Profile :

Plain and simple, the RIAA quashes musicians that want honest exposure, and extorts money from fans of the people it allows through.
It extorts the ignorant (as many businesses do) music fans, but with some information and "wake-the-f***-up juice", they will realize that they're in a plethora of choices besides the **AAs. Your average music consumer has been lulled into accepting that 1-2 good music tracks per CD is acceptable, and that (insert same punk/rap/hip-hop/etc. spin-off style) artist is the next best thing since sliced bread. Ask your average music listener today to take a step back, and they'll realize that they've been listening to the same rehash crap for years...simply with a new/different artists' name on the circulation.

Real innovation and talent is rarely found in the RIAA "music prodigies", and rarer still is a CD that isn't 90% garbage tracks. These are the main problems that RIAA should be concerned about in times of "sluggy sales", not the small percentage of people who are adamant in getting their music for free. There will always be pirates; what RIAA is hemmoraging out today is customers.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14400974 Mon, 19 Sep 2005 22:16:08 EDT Re: money http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14400779 kdandaoc : Since I started this, I might as well finish it!
To equivicate p2p to a common criminal act takes arrogance from some very hypocritical people. The same people barking about the legality of p2p are the same clowns that have no problem when it comes to breaking traffic laws such as speeding, following to closely, or jaywalking. Furthermore, since countless people such as OJ Simpson, and Jeffery Skilling (Enron)have proven that money buys verdicts, do not insult us by insisting that this is about law, not money. Plain and simple, the RIAA quashes musicians that want honest exposure, and extorts money from fans of the people it allows through.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14400779 Mon, 19 Sep 2005 21:47:24 EDT Re: money http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14399900 Thaler :
said by stickfigure See Profile :

Here's what I think, someone that downloads a CD likes it and then buys the CD is like the friend that borrows a CD, likes it and goes out to the store to purchase it. The person that downloads the song and never buys it, would be the same person to borrow a CD and either give it back when their done or hope you forget you gave it to them and keep it. Either way record company isn't getting any money out of them.
...wait, somehow I lost your track of thought here. Wouldn't situation A lead to the industry selling 2 CDs, whereas the digital pirate situation would lead to the industry selling 1?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14399900 Mon, 19 Sep 2005 19:59:43 EDT Re: money http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14399859 Thaler :
said by broadbander See Profile :

Unfortunately, no matter how much sense we make in these matters, some people just will not see past the "product to profit" doupoly they rules capital thinking, even in regard to information suppression.
I'd hardly call exercising moral and fiscal restraint to not purchase and/or steal the seasons of "The Simple Life" or the albums of "NSYNC" information suppression. :D

Many of the products people wish to digitally pilfer aren't even worth the HD space they occupy, IMHO; you wouldn't catch me dead making P2P bootleg copies of the latest garbage release which the industries would like to lable as "music".

Sure, I'll use P2P to prove to myself that the latest 'Diddy (there's no P anymore, right? :uhh:) album isn't worth bubkiss, should I so feel inclined, but that's as long as the garbage stays on my HD. If I amazingly find a CD with more than 4 songs I'd like to listen to, I buy it...but those instances are becoming rarer and rarer.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14399859 Mon, 19 Sep 2005 19:54:40 EDT Re: money http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14399809 Thaler :
said by G_Poobah See Profile :

Copyrights are VERY new, artificial controls on information. Up until just over 200 years ago, it was unheard of. Then the idea of a LIMITED (14 years) copyright was introduced for the benefit of the artist.
True, copyrights are relatively new, but it's not as though they are "mysteriously" applied w/o the developer's consent...the developer explicitly goes out of their way to get said bastardized copyright, so they can squeeze out every dime they can. Let's at least put the blame where it lies, not with the patent office, but with the developer getting and demanding these P.O.S.es that is the copyright today.

So, these designers are wishing to sell their product to the marketplace, with the stipulations attached w/ the copyright they've gone and procured. Are you going to tell me it's the "ethical" and "moral" right to tell this businessman to stuff it, jack their product, and say "no harm was done, I wasn't going to pay for it anyways, and they're bad people"?

No. If you don't like how business is run with people/companies you are dealt with, you use your free-market right to go elsewhere for your business. These aren't life necessities, as I have yet to find copyrights on food, water, shelter, etc., and so life will go on; either without the copyrighted thing for which you don't agree upon its terms, or using an alternative in which the terms of ownership are more acceptable.

Technically, Microsoft still "sells" Windows 3.1 and 95, even though these products are hideously out-of-date. "Selling" being losely used, as Microsoft doesn't actually sell the software, but they do demand that you pay licensing if you do use them. So here, is it the moral thing to tell big-bad-MS to go kiss off, install a bootleg copy, and write it off as "I wasn't going to pay for it anyways?"

Hell no. Scoot your ass over to Linux, kiss the very cubersome Microsoft copyrights goodbye, and maybe even slip your fav. Linux distro company a few bucks for working to a public good. School the companies that go for these insane copyrights with your wallet, not by doing another immoral act, and writing off two wrongs for a right.

said by G_Poobah See Profile :

Ask yourself, how is it that human civilization survived for 5000 years without these artificial copyright laws?
Hell, we did just fine w/o the internet until several years ago, and I'd probably have to cut you if you threatened to take it away. And correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the idea of a "free" society a rather new invention either, compared to human history?

These cubersome copyrights will come to pass in time, when people demand better from the companies that seek to file these damned things. However, "stealing for the greater good" is hardly the way to go, as you will simply justifiy the enforcement of these very same laws you wish to have repealed.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14399809 Mon, 19 Sep 2005 19:46:43 EDT Re: money http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14399684 stickfigure : Here's what I think, someone that downloads a CD likes it and then buys the CD is like the friend that borrows a CD, likes it and goes out to the store to purchase it. The person that downloads the song and never buys it, would be the same person to borrow a CD and either give it back when their done or hope you forget you gave it to them and keep it. Either way record company isn't getting any money out of them. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14399684 Mon, 19 Sep 2005 19:30:24 EDT Re: money http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14399624 Thaler :
said by broadbander See Profile :

If we are to have a system of ethics, it should be a logical, reasoned one.
And let's keep it pretty short and sweet. Yes, you can describe all-the-doo-dah-day that "its data", "they weren't going to buy it anyways", etc., but the plain and simple truth of it is: you're taking something that didn't belong to you.

Say you were at a museum, run by some rather shady opearatives, and don't allow you to photograph anything inside - rather, buy copies of the artwork at the gift shop. There is a big, honking, "No Photography Allowed" sign everywhere you go. Are you going to smuggle in your camera, take pictures of the art you like, and then justify yourself with "I wasn't going to buy it anyways", "the museum operators suck", "the gift shop is overpriced", etc.?

Hell no.

That museum has clearly established that these are the ways that they care to perform business, and you've violated the shady museum operator's business by your actions. As despicible as the museum-natzis might be, you haul your ass to another museum with less restrictions, better business ethics, etc., and spend your time where the museum fully accepts photography, duplication, etc.


I know their system sucks, and I know "they only pay the artist X% percent", etc. You know what you do about people/companies whom you don't like business plan? Don't use their product. There are independant bands who are wanting to give their music away (and rock too), there are your public air waves that you have the established right to record off of, and/or you can realize that the end music product these days is inferior, and not worth owning anyways. These are the steps I have personally undertook, as I fall under the category of people who hate how the "industry" treats its artists and customers, and I have yet to find many CDs worth owning.

I don't understand how one could honestly look me in the face, and tell me that their P2P CD bootlegging is fair, just, and honest, when it's plain as day that the very same product costs X amount, through Y kind of media. Douse yourself in as much "creative thinking" as you like, but using P2P to build a permemant music collection w/o a single iota to pay is still stealing, even if you are stealing from the devil himself.

Two wrongs, my friend.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14399624 Mon, 19 Sep 2005 19:21:53 EDT Re: money http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14399538 fiberguy :
said by G_Poobah See Profile :

"This would weaken out economy and hurt national security" !

I win! I win!.. hahaha, the bet was that someone would bring up that terrorist win if we weaken the copyright laws!

What in the hell does national security have to do with copyright law?
Here's an idea. Go complete high school and get your diploma and when you grow up, let's talk.

You did NOT win. First, I said NOTHING about terrorism. Funny, it must be on YOUR mind because it was National Security which was one my mind. Terrorism isn't the only threat facing America today, yesterday, or tomorrow.

Second, it was not copyright law that I said would weaken our economy, care to re-read? It said that a weak America with no financial control would hurt our security. But of course, in your world, bombs, weapons, and the military all grow on trees, right? If financial stability is not held in our country, or ANY country, the economic structure fails, governments can't operate effectively, and secuirty is hurt.

Of course, if you have complted the 12th grade where most schools teach civic and economics, you would understand this.

So, in a childish way... "You don't win! You don't win! hahahaha"]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14399538 Mon, 19 Sep 2005 19:12:16 EDT Re: money http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14399462 G_Poobah : "This would weaken out economy and hurt national security" !

I win! I win!.. hahaha, the bet was that someone would bring up that terrorist win if we weaken the copyright laws!

What in the hell does national security have to do with copyright law?
--
Grand Poobah]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14399462 Mon, 19 Sep 2005 19:03:20 EDT Re: money http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14399357 fiberguy :
said by G_Poobah See Profile :

Copyrights are VERY new, artificial controls on information. Up until just over 200 years ago, it was unheard of. Then the idea of a LIMITED (14 years) copyright was introduced for the benefit of the artist. However, today, this concept of copyright has been bastardized, and needs to be coplelete reverted. You say I'm over-reacting, I say absolutely not.
Wow... and how old is our country again? Seems like 200 years is a grand majority of our existance. Stop living in a global world. It's aparent you don't like the U.S. and it's out to get you. Woudl you like some money to buy a ticket out? I'd paypal it to you RIGHT NOW.

We the people make the laws in our country. Though the legal system is not perfect, it's much better than many other forms of governments. I'd love to see you move to another country, experience their rath, and then wish you could come back... and all becuase you can't have music without buying it.

Why should the government say who owns what for how long? You advocate that the government state that your work is only yours for 14 years? Get real! I guess for that matter, Bart Simpson should be public ware now, and so should all the movies that are still making money today that are 14 years old. I guess E.T. should be free now too right?

What exactly is your platform. What exactly do you want? A weak America where there is no financial control? This would weaken out economy and hurt national security. I know, it's hard for you to comprehend how an entire system of rule works and the impact that goes with each decision, but let me make it easy for you - it didn't work before so it was changed! That's why it's not like it was 200 years ago.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14399357 Mon, 19 Sep 2005 18:51:40 EDT Re: money http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14399288 fiberguy :
said by s :

Your right!

I will stop listening to the radio, TV and going to Movies!
I will not read the paper or news online.

The only way to make this stop is to stop supporting the ones who make the stuff for us to buy, it's brilliant!

From now on I will only listen to music I make, Movies I make news I make and Books I write. It will be FUN!
This would work if the majority agreed with you, and it's obvious, they don't. Those that are upset by all of this usually have something to loose - like the ability to share music for free. I bet it's also the same group that bitches about banner ads on website and call them annoyances, you know, those things that keep a site free? Then when the banners are removed and the site becomes pay, again, people bitch. Funny how things work.

Again, I know I am not the popular voice here, but that's probably those that know better wouldn't be here wasting their time.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14399288 Mon, 19 Sep 2005 18:43:05 EDT Re: money http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14398957 broadbander : Ah, Poobah, you are arguing for an informed historical perspective and I am arguing for an informed philosophical perspective. Sadly, most argue for a capital perspective. People are putting the end-all value on the possibility of capital, not on the value of free information in democracy. Unfortunately, no matter how much sense we make in these matters, some people just will not see past the "product to profit" doupoly they rules capital thinking, even in regard to information suppression.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14398957 Mon, 19 Sep 2005 17:54:47 EDT Re: money http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14398591 G_Poobah : For all those who say 'it's stealing' and 'it hurts the artist' etc, etc, I say maybe you are all asking the wrong question. Maybe the question shouldn't be 'is it stealing or is it copyright infringement', rather the question should be 'is copyright a just law'?

Copyrights are VERY new, artificial controls on information. Up until just over 200 years ago, it was unheard of. Then the idea of a LIMITED (14 years) copyright was introduced for the benefit of the artist. However, today, this concept of copyright has been bastardized, and needs to be coplelete reverted. You say I'm over-reacting, I say absolutely not. One of the absolute tenets of democracy is an 'educated populace'. Without an educated populace, there can be no democracy. The copyright laws as they exist today work to suppress the expression of ideas, the exchange of information, and ultimately lead to a fascist state, not democracy.

Ask yourself, how is it that human civilization survived for 5000 years without these artificial copyright laws? How is it that mankind advanced through the renaissance without copyright? What benefit, if any, does the SUPPRESSION of ideas bring to society? If laws exist to benefit mankind, then the definition of an unjust law is one that doesn't benefit mankind, and that is todays copyright laws. Rol them back to the original 14 year period. No extensions, no exceptions.
--
Grand Poobah]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14398591 Mon, 19 Sep 2005 17:04:39 EDT Re: money http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14398028 broadbander : But your Ps and Qs aren't in order.

If we are to have a system of ethics, it should be a logical, reasoned one.

Here is your conclusion ...

Downloading files is extensionally equivalent to stealing CDs.

Now, how is that the case?

You are not taking the product, and you are not costing anyone any money. The argument that this is stealing and based upon hypothetical gains, not physical losses.

There is no cost of production for a digital copy of something. In the end, demand determines price, not supply. If demand can get something for the price of zero, why wouldn't it be taken as such?

The solution here is for companies to innovate and come up with new ways of selling whatever. Maybe not even music or films.

The solution for artists is to go back to making a living the way they made a living for thousands of years ... performance and through the support of a community.

Most artists don't make their money in sales (been there, trust me). They make it on touring, merchandise and licensing. The institutions who file-sharing might make suffer are the bloated, outmoded and corrupt labels that have been working with immoral, outdated business models since the 1950s.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14398028 Mon, 19 Sep 2005 15:47:51 EDT Re: money http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14397921 Thaler :
said by broadbander See Profile :

Nothing has been physically taken.
True, it is a digital copy of itself, but you have to be pretty dense to not grab the big picture, and see that you are in essense, lifting a copy of the CD by downloading & keeping. The vendor of a product put it up, at some price, and didn't intend for it to be mass copied at convenience. By downloading it and burning it yourself, you would be, again, equivolent to walking up to a Tower Records and shoving that CD in your pants.

Just because you found a loophole in the distribution system doesn't make what you're doing legal, and most importantly to me, moral. If you're going to take a person's product that they're selling, and then not pay them...it's stealing, even if you caught them while they weren't looking.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14397921 Mon, 19 Sep 2005 15:35:47 EDT Re: money http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14397814 broadbander :
said by Thaler See Profile :

said by koolman2 See Profile :

People like your friend would never have bought the music anyway, so the RIAA wouldn't have lost anything.
...that still doesn't excuse thievery. If I bring a product out to market, and someone takes it...again, that's stealing.

Maybe it's just me, and my morality, but pilfering an unauthorized digital copy of a product is stealing, and wrong.
Its not thievery. There is no way to prove logically that it is extensionally equivalent to theft. Nothing has been physically taken.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14397814 Mon, 19 Sep 2005 15:23:00 EDT Re: money http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14397800 Thaler :
said by koolman2 See Profile :

People like your friend would never have bought the music anyway, so the RIAA wouldn't have lost anything.
...that still doesn't excuse thievery. If I bring a product out to market, and someone takes it...again, that's stealing.

Maybe it's just me, and my morality, but pilfering an unauthorized digital copy of a product is stealing, and wrong.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14397800 Mon, 19 Sep 2005 15:20:37 EDT Re: money http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14397611 koolman2 : People like your friend would never have bought the music anyway, so the RIAA wouldn't have lost anything.
--
"I wonder if other dogs think poodles are members of a weird religious cult." -Rita Rudner]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14397611 Mon, 19 Sep 2005 14:53:59 EDT Re: money http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14397158 Thaler :
said by SRFireside See Profile :

Also keep in mind they aren't nearly as big a group as you think (they certainly are the loudest though).
Oh, I most certainly do think they're in the minority, but I hate it when people post the "solution" to big, bad **AA, is to simply download (ie. steal) their products, until they come up with a more acceptable business model.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14397158 Mon, 19 Sep 2005 13:52:49 EDT Re: money http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14397072 SRFireside :
said by Thaler See Profile :

There is no excuse for those who use P2P to farm up their music collection, and have no intentions to purchase a damn thing.
Agreed. Just keep in mind those types of people have always been around. WAY before P2P. Also keep in mind they aren't nearly as big a group as you think (they certainly are the loudest though). Most people who trade music still buy albums. Forget the "boycott the RIAA" group because I don't think they really know what they are talking about. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14397072 Mon, 19 Sep 2005 13:40:08 EDT Re: money http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14396878 Thaler :
said by SRFireside See Profile :

More importantly there is precedent that states copyright infringement is not theft or stealing. U.S. vs. Dowling to be exact.
Screw legally, I'm talking morally. There is no excuse for those who use P2P to farm up their music collection, and have no intentions to purchase a damn thing. Complain about the product and the company policies all you want, but if its good enough for you to steal, its good enough for you to buy.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14396878 Mon, 19 Sep 2005 13:14:10 EDT Re: money http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14396800 SRFireside : More importantly there is precedent that states copyright infringement is not theft or stealing. U.S. vs. Dowling to be exact. So even if you equate sharing music to copyright infringement not only can you not define it as stealing scholastically but also legally. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14396800 Mon, 19 Sep 2005 13:02:31 EDT Re: money http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14396791 Thaler :
said by stickfigure See Profile :

Aqua, I have to say this is a pretty compelling argument showing sharing files is not equal to stealing.
What you are mentioning here is sampling, and that's fairly up for debate, IMHO. The pre-cut 15-30 sec playtime "samples" of "sample tracks" that stores present you don't do a shopper justice, honestly. Myself included, there are people who use P2P to see what a CD is all about, and if we like...we buy the damn thing. If I think it's a load of crap, I delete it. True, the music industry would like you to think that sampling as such is illegal...but it's no more immoral than listening to a CD that your friend has purchased. And honestly, if I did get caught, I'd be more than happy to take RIAA to court over my sampling habits.

On the flip side though, I do have friends who live by P2P, and have no intention to purchase CDs, even if they like the songs. Folks like these check the P2P networks, download (CD title here), burn it to CD, and then rinse-lather-repeat. Now that, is stealing. True, it boils down to nothing more than the free exchange of 0s and 1s...but it is still equivalent to walking into (Music Store Name here), putting the CD in your pants, and walking out.

So, again, while I have no beef with people who use the P2P channels to sample, the folks that use P2P soley to gather music w/o paying the artist are adding to the fuel to the **AA's anti-P2P fire.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14396791 Mon, 19 Sep 2005 13:01:00 EDT Re: money http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14396738 guitarzan :
said by stet See Profile :

said by guitarzan See Profile :

When was the last time the RIAA held a concert for charity.?
There was the Live 8 concert just a couple of months ago.
said by guitarzan See Profile :

How much $$$ did the RIAA or it's signed acts contribute in aid to help hurricane Katrina victims?
There is that New York for New Orleans concert PPV thing.
A PPV thing is not donated by the RIAA.All they are doing is donating it on behalf of the bands,that raised the money.How much money did the RIAA contribute directly out of its own millions.? Not a charity event,not a PPV event,They are not the ones giving personally in these 2 examples you cited.

How much money did the RIAA give from The RIAA's private bank account, as in Walmart gave millions from Walmart it self.Walmart didn't have a sale in order to donate funds.I forgot all that downloading caused the RIAA to lose millions.IMO the RIAA will sue people for sharing songs.What in the world made me think the RIAA itself will just "give" money to a just cause.?
--
Bass....the glue of rhythm and harmony...the heartbeat of the band.! Shaking the earth with deep,sonorous vibrations.The dark ominous thunder of an approching storm.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14396738 Mon, 19 Sep 2005 12:53:43 EDT Re: money http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14396608 stickfigure : Aqua, I have to say this is a pretty compelling argument showing sharing files is not equal to stealing.

"FICTION: File sharers are thieves.

FACT: Put at its simplest, to steal something is to remove it from its original owner without his or her permission, causing deprivation through loss. File sharing means exactly what it says. Sharing. Nothing is stolen and no one is deprived of anything. To the contrary, file sharers are exposed to music they may never have otherwise heard. Mp3s are inferior, compressed copies of original CD tracks meant primarily for portable devices. People who listen to mp3s frequently go out to buy the originals so they can be played on home stereo systems.

Moreover, no money changes hands and no profits are made or lost."

Also noted in that article, they state how file-sharing actually doesn't have an impact on sales which I feel reinforces the fact that file-sharing is not "stealing" anything. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14396608 Mon, 19 Sep 2005 12:38:03 EDT Re: money http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14396316 stet :
said by guitarzan See Profile :

When was the last time the RIAA held a concert for charity.?
There was the Live 8 concert just a couple of months ago.
said by guitarzan See Profile :

How much $$$ did the RIAA or it's signed acts contribute in aid to help hurricane Katrina victims?
There is that New York for New Orleans concert PPV thing.
--
I am of the stars.
I am called "Forever".
Eternity courses through my veins.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14396316 Mon, 19 Sep 2005 11:52:24 EDT Re: money http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14396208 guitarzan :
said by broadbander See Profile :

Record labels and product pushers (i.e. mainstream artists) don't care if you care about what they're saying, they just care if you're funding their corrupt lifestyles. They live in idiot fishbowls and do not belong to a community. Support yourself. If you love music, art, film, anything like this, you'll support the artists right down the block who could care less if you DLed their songs or not as long as you came to see them live.
The sharks in those fishbowls will turn on each other when their food supply dries up or will go belly up when the oxygen pump is turned off.? Hopefully both at the same time.

Local bands probably number into the thousands throughout the U.S on any given night.IMO it's much more enjoyable experience to get out and see them perform.Why sit at home and listen to a RIAA purchased cd by yourself, when you can go have a good time listening to local talent.? Plus there is the added benefit of actually talking to the band members.

When was the last time the RIAA held a concert for charity.? Most local bands, even if their music is not top 40 material will contribute their time and music to raise money to help people in their own community...IE children or adults needing a organ transplant or to help defray medical costs of people in need.When was the last time the RIAA did that for an unknown person living in your hometown.? How much $$$ did the RIAA or it's signed acts contribute in aid to help hurricane Katrina victims? Or will they somehow find a way to sue them for downloading music when the power is out in New Orleans.?
--
Bass....the glue of rhythm and harmony...the heartbeat of the band.! Shaking the earth with deep,sonorous vibrations.The dark ominous thunder of an approching storm.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14396208 Mon, 19 Sep 2005 11:33:03 EDT Re: money http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14396032 Thaler :
said by r81984 See Profile :

Just do not buy movie tickets, songs, or dvds. Instead download them for free from the glorious interweb.
Ugg. This is the complete opposite of what you should be doing, if you're protesting a company's policies. If you wouldn't buy from Walmart, due to ethical reasons, you would then be justified in stealing from them? Get real; two wrongs don't make a right.

Honestly, if you wish to stick it to the **AAs in their wallet, there's plenty of legal ways to do so, but minor sacrifices would be made.

1. Don't go seeing the same crappy movies - big loss there, I know.
2. Don't go paying $15-20 for a CD that you want 1-3 tracks for - It's your money, demand better content for your buck.
3. Enjoy free radio/TV - you don't have to buy into the advertisements, at least not yet, lol.
4. Seek legal alternatives to your entertainment - many indy bands/sites would welcome new listeners/watchers.

Again, just stealing your favorite song/movie off the internet "because they charge too much"/"treat customers like crap"/"smell funny"/etc. is no excuse. What the **AAs peddle isn't life-critical, nor are they forcing you to buy their crappy product. Exercise some financial muscle, and show them what you want/expect through your purchasing power.

Stealing a crappy product is still stealing; demand a better product.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14396032 Mon, 19 Sep 2005 10:58:15 EDT Re: money http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14395924 broadbander :
said by s :

Your right!

I will stop listening to the radio, TV and going to Movies!
I will not read the paper or news online.

The only way to make this stop is to stop supporting the ones who make the stuff for us to buy, it's brilliant!

From now on I will only listen to music I make, Movies I make news I make and Books I write. It will be FUN!
Take a page out of Ian Mackeye's, the greatest rock musician of the last decades, book and Do It Yourself

You don't need anyone to make your mind up for you or to make art for you. You can make it. You can engage in your own community of artists and meet people who appreciate ART. Artist's first and foremost care about the communicative dialogue that art introduces. Record labels and product pushers (i.e. mainstream artists) don't care if you care about what they're saying, they just care if you're funding their corrupt lifestyles. They live in idiot fishbowls and do not belong to a community. Support yourself. If you love music, art, film, anything like this, you'll support the artists right down the block who could care less if you DLed their songs or not as long as you came to see them live.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14395924 Mon, 19 Sep 2005 10:36:14 EDT Re: money http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14395860 r81984 : Just do not buy movie tickets, songs, or dvds. Instead download them for free from the glorious interweb.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14395860 Mon, 19 Sep 2005 10:24:39 EDT Re: money http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14395845 joshpo : BUT-- if enough people decide to fight these it will slow their progress to a crawl and wind up being too costly and inefficient to justify the bad press that they get for it. They should focus their attention on using the Grokster ruling to try to shutdown some of these companies at the source instead of filing 800 poorly researched lawsuits per month.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14395845 Mon, 19 Sep 2005 10:21:09 EDT Re: money http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14395777 anon : Your right!

I will stop listening to the radio, TV and going to Movies!
I will not read the paper or news online.

The only way to make this stop is to stop supporting the ones who make the stuff for us to buy, it's brilliant!

From now on I will only listen to music I make, Movies I make news I make and Books I write. It will be FUN!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14395777 Mon, 19 Sep 2005 10:11:37 EDT money http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14395751 kdandaoc : we all know that it takes money to make money...here's a clear case on how the riaa will win. they will have a prolonged stradegy that would send any working stiff to the poor house with legal fees. then these poor defenseless individuals will be forced into arbitration where they will have to make an agreement to pay these clowns. the real way to make the riaa suffer is to quit supporting radio stations and bands that subscribe to their ways of tyranny.death to the riaa]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14395751 Mon, 19 Sep 2005 10:06:20 EDT