 james
join:2001-02-26
CWCville USA | reply to guhuna
Re: hell ya. Bad argument. I have a car, I should be able to run over whoever I want with it!
A better point would be that copyright enforcement is not beneficial to either the artist or the consumer. The only people getting rich off the current copyright scheme are the middle men who contribute nothing. They USED to contribute by promoting bands and distributing their content, but now all that can be done by the average computer savy child. |
|
| said by james:Bad argument. I have a car, I should be able to run over whoever I want with it! A better point would be that copyright enforcement is not beneficial to either the artist or the consumer. The only people getting rich off the current copyright scheme are the middle men who contribute nothing. They USED to contribute by promoting bands and distributing their content, but now all that can be done by the average computer savy child. Very well said.... |
|
raduque
join:2006-07-03
Corpus Christi, TX | reply to james
Bad analogy! This is more like the city doing something to the roads to prevent you from moving out of the lane you're in because there's a chance you might hit somebody on the side of the road.
Streets are open and free. It's up to you to follow or break the law and use the streets in a considerate way.
The same should be said of the SERVICE you are PAYING FOR. |
|
 Combat ChuckToo Many CannibalsPremium
join:2001-11-29
Erie, PA
1 edit | reply to james
said by james:The only people getting rich off the current copyright scheme are the middle men who contribute nothing. Wrong, they contribute the ability to absorb risk and knowledge of the market.
If this weren't so bands wouldn't sign contracts with them.
--
Mooooooo!!! |
|
 jester121Premium
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL | reply to james
Good thing there's no pirated software available as .torrents... 
It's not just about music and movies.  |
|
james
join:2001-02-26
CWCville USA | Yeah  Poor Adobe Photoshop became the standard for photo editing because of all that damned piracy! I wonder how many people actually paid for photoshop while they were learning on it and screwing around.
I downloaded a pirated copy of S.T.A.L.K.E.R. and loved it, then I saw it on Steam and bought it.
I downloaded a pirated copy of Maya and have been learning how to use it, supposing I get good at 3d modeling and actually make money with it. I will then spend the money for a license (mostly because the penalty for corporate users is pretty bad).
Small amounts of piracy can be very good for a product. I'm not saying everyone should get everything for free, I'm just saying it's not as black and white as the lawyers are trying to make us think.
I make an exception for those who charge "customers" for the pirated product. Those are what the definition of Pirate SHOULD be. Anyone sharing for free shouldn't be punished, everyone knows sharing is caring 3 . |
|
Reviews:
 ·Comcast
| reply to james
Bad argument. I have a car, I should be able to run over whoever I want with it!
A better point would be that copyright enforcement is not beneficial to either the artist or the consumer. The only people getting rich off the current copyright scheme are the middle men who contribute nothing. They USED to contribute by promoting bands and distributing their content, but now all that can be done by the average computer savy child.
You totally missed the point. I think the whole problem stems from the fact that comcast limits and caps your data. This whole post would not have been an issue if they named their service "limited hsi". |
|
 ReformCRTCSupport Your Independent ISP
join:2004-03-07
Canada | reply to raduque
Freedom would include freedom to obey, or break, any law. |
|
