how-to block ads
|
|
Uniqs:
275 |
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
 stetVolitar Prime
join:2002-03-08
Warren, MI | What Customers? said by main page:
Apparently, customer alienation is a price the RIAA is willing to pay.
The people running these "supernodes" and those who are running these high volume sites aren't customers to begin with. They're not buying anything. They are just stealing it all and giving it all away for free.
I have no problem with the RIAA going after them any more then I'd have a problem with the SPA going after someone publicly running a pirated software service.
--
Hey everyone! I'm a WEB HOG! | | |
|
 tcp1Premium
join:2000-04-17
Herndon, VA
 ·Verizon FiOS
| Pick a better word. I'm tired of this abuse of language.
Copying songs is not "stealing". 90% of the songs I've downloaded I *cannot* buy, or would not ever buy.
When someone steals something, they take something from something else and then that person can't use it - and is out a loss.
You (and the music industry's) use of the word "steal", and much worse "pirate" (anyone on kazaa have swords and rum, making people walk the plank and going 'yo ho ho'? I doubt it.) serve only one purpose - to inflame, and to enforce some holier-than-thou self-rigteous moral stance on this issue.
If you're going to call file traders "thieves" ('cuz lord knows, YOU'VE never engaged in any civil disobedience or even jaywalked, mr. Upright Citizen!) please use the same degree of amplified verbage to describe how the music company is a monopoly and overcharges. How about when we talk about CDs, we don't talk about selling, but "gouging" and "extorting".
Only a simple mind will take a complex argument and call it simple. This is not a simple issue; it is not "simply stealing". 90 million people have downloaded kazaa/morpheus.. If 90 million people simply were morally corrupt, as you and the record industry would charge, I dont think those 90 million people's neighbors (hmm, 2 neighbors per person, that's 180 million neighbors - hey, that's EVERYONE!) would sleep well at night, because they'd DEFINITELY break into their house to STEAL (thats REAL stealing) just because they CAN.
Grow up, or develop some intelligence.. Either that or stop trolling. | |
| said by tcp1:
You (and the music industry's) use of the word "steal", and much worse "pirate" (anyone on kazaa have swords and rum, making people walk the plank and going 'yo ho ho'? I doubt it.) serve only one purpose - to inflame, and to enforce some holier-than-thou self-rigteous moral stance on this issue.
im not going to get into the whole endless filesharing debate. personally i don't download music very often at all, and when i do it is totally legal music ... but that's just me.
But as to your argument that "pirate" is a word that is only being used to inflame, well you might want to check the dictionary, because for years now it has included just this type of activity.
pirate
\Pi"rate\, n. [L. pirata, Gr. ?, fr. ? to attempt, undertake, from making attempts or attacks on ships, ? an attempt, trial; akin to E. peril: cf. F. pirate. See Peril.] 1. A robber on the high seas; one who by open violence takes the property of another on the high seas; especially, one who makes it his business to cruise for robbery or plunder; a freebooter on the seas; also, one who steals in a harbor.
2. An armed ship or vessel which sails without a legal commission, for the purpose of plundering other vessels on the high seas.
3. One who infringes the law of copyright, or publishes the work of an author without permission.
Pirate perch (Zo["o]l.), a fresh-water percoid fish of the United States (Aphredoderus Sayanus). It is of a dark olive color, speckled with blackish spots.
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
You should take your argument up with Webster's, because they decided 6 years ago to include this term as a description of just what you say it doesn't cover. Almost any educational institute does consider them the standard on proper use of vocabulary, and i really doubt the RIAA paid em off 6 years to include that  | |
 KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| Basically, Webster took the media and industry use of the term Pirate and put it in their Dictionary, because it had come into common usage.
I wonder what it says under Hacker? Probably the same kind of thing, a negative, false, definition I imagine. | |
| reply to martissimo
If Microsoft can't keep the Windows XP Corporate Edition off the p2p networks and/or stop users from distributing it, what the heck makes the RIAA think they will be able to save Britney Spears from being passed around? | |
| reply to stet
I actually run a supernode, and I dont share ANY songs at all. | |
| reply to Sunburn
Bingo BIGDOG ! ! !
After 9-11 yes there is a security fear and the RIAA is using it to their advantage. But sooner or later they will push to far and get smacked down.
Go to Best Buy..... Some soundtrack albums are as much as the DVD for the movie ! ! ! !
DVD's are doing well because the $20 price for a movie with the features of DVD is WORTH IT.
$12-18 for a MUSIC CD with filler is NOT worth it. Needless to say CD is actually OLD technology and MP3's are NOT CD quality, real audiophiles will go out and buy the real thing.
I'm just curious to see how far they are willing to go
P2P isn't going anywhere. For every P2P they shut down, three more crop up. And then...there's always IRC to fall back on  | |
 nanofeverLiberal Democrats, You Know We're Right
join:2001-08-19
Modesto, CA | reply to tcp1
said by tcp1:
(anyone on kazaa have swords and rum, making people walk the plank and going 'yo ho ho'? I doubt it.)
Arrggg Matey, Share fake Spidey-man svcds on my 'node and yur be walking the plank , ARG! | |
 Hayward K A R - 1 2 0 CPremium
join:2000-07-13
Key West, FL
kudos:1 | reply to tcp1
said by tcp1:
Pick a better word. I'm tired of this abuse of language.
Copying songs is not "stealing".
Look the word up ...taking something that does no belong to one or one has no right to... that IS stealing
quote:
When someone steals something, they take something from something else and then that person can't use it - and is out a loss.
Another complete fallacy, something can be stolen without denying use to the original source. (as in illegal duplication of something)
If you duplicate someones credit card and use it you are certainly stealing, however the owner still has their card to use, same if you copy someones house key, etc..
--
»haywardm.com (Hayward's Key West) | |
tcp1Premium
join:2000-04-17
Herndon, VA Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| Nice try and clever, but incorrect.
If you steal my credit card number, I no doubt will be out a loss.. You're running up a bill that I'll have to pay.
If someone copies my house keys, there's no crime committed until they break into my house and take stuff, so that's a lousy example too.
If someone came up with a technology that could replicate say, food, or medicine, by simply making unlimited copies of it -- would that person be stealing from the supermarket if he replicated products and gave them to friends or neighbors?? I don't think so, personally - but it's not quite cut-and-dry, nor is file sharing.
The music companies can't have it both way. If they claim that you are not purchasing a song to do with what you want, but a LICENSE to -play- that song, then if I damage a CD, I should only have to pay for the media to replace it, right? I know from experience that even Microsoft will send you media if you're a licensed user and that media becomes unusable. Maybe I'll try calling Vivendi about that CD I left on the dash last weekend -- since I purchased a -license- to listen to that music, they'll probably only charge me $1.50 for new media, right? Sure.
Also, please explain to me how downloading a song that I -cannot- buy at the store is "stealing". (Lord knows I'm not downloading britney-pop and Eminem.)
Please also explain your blind rationale in defending record companies.. Why? What's in it for you - and why do you think you're taking the moral high ground.
My complaint is to the people (like yourself) who only provide the following explanation against file sharing: "Stealing is stealing, and stealing is illegal."
Rebelling from your country is illegal, happy July 4th. Hope you've never jaywalked, either.
You need to understand that if you blindly follow something simply due to "law" that you're an automaton, likely with no mind of your own -- and that breaking such "law" may technically make you a criminal, but when 90 million people break a law..
***SOMETHING IS VERY WRONG..*****
I don't believe that something is that 90 million people are corrupt, immoral people. I think people now realize that the music companies have been offering their product at a price that no longer fits in the market. I have no doubt that if the music companies DID charge a REASONABLE (not $3.00) fee to download a song, the "piracy" issue would be IRRELEVANT.
However, they seem too stuck in the past and not willing to look past their own nose to do that. The same goes with people like yourself, who take a simplistic approach to this, and seem to have some strange idea in your mind that you're some moral soldier defending The Right Way of Doing Things (TM).
Keep telling yourself that, and if you think you're protecting artists, that's another joke. Why do you feel the need to give your hard earned money away to record executives for no reason? What's moral and right about that?
As for the dictionary, my whole point is that words have become bastardized from poor common use. The only reason "pirate" came to have its common meaning was through inflammatory talk.. And there is no way you can convince me that a term that was used for centuries to described ARMED ROBBERS should be used for 13 year old kids downloading mp3s. | |
Hayward K A R - 1 2 0 CPremium
join:2000-07-13
Key West, FL
kudos:1 | said by tcp1:
Nice try and clever, but incorrect.
If you steal my credit card number, I no doubt will be out a loss.. You're running up a bill that I'll have to pay.
Not if you report it in a reasonable time frame.... the big bad evil credit card company is... just like the big bad evil record companies. It's still illegal.
quote:
If someone copies my house keys, there's no crime committed until they break into my house and take stuff, so that's a lousy example too.
You have a point but again the same applies to music... no crime in copyying it, BUT as soon as you do something with it, like open P2P redistributining it... then yes crime committed.
quote:
The music companies can't have it both way. If they claim that you are not purchasing a song to do with what you want, but a LICENSE to -play- that song, then if I damage a CD, I should only have to pay for the media to replace it, right? I know from experience that even Microsoft will send you media if you're a licensed user and that media becomes unusable.
On this I would agree with you.... however are you willing to register by serial number every recording you buy, and have it trace back to you if you misuse it?.... didn't think so.
--
»haywardm.com (Hayward's Key West) | |
| If I let other people listen to my music, that ive made copies of, how is that any different from say.....a sports bar paying 34.95 for a fight on Pay Per View, then letting 200 people watch it for free? If that was treated the same way the RIAA wants to run things, shouldnt the bar charge 34.95 to every person who is watching the event? I don't see it that way...
I think the same should be with music. If I want to let people listen to the music that I payed for, I should be able to let them.
However, I should not be allowed to make copies of this music and sell it for profit, since THAT would be stealing from the profits the artist would of made.
--
Asked by CBS television if he would prefer bin Laden be killed rather than captured alive, he said: ``Oh, my goodness gracious, yes, after what he's done. You bet your life.'' | |
 roamer1sticking it out at you
join:2001-03-24
Atlanta, GA
| said by Shaggy2002:
a sports bar paying 34.95 for a fight on Pay Per View, then letting 200 people watch it for free?
Uhhh...that's also illegal (public performance of programming for which only "private home use" rights were granted. Sports bars, etc. pay MUCH more than $34.95 for PPV events, and pay more for cable/satellite programming in general.)
Now for my two cents...
For the most part it seems that file-sharing is rampant *not* because music is "free" that way, but largely because it's so easy to get music online (just download it, instead of having to go to a store and buy a CD, or worse, having to order a CD and wait on it to be shipped) and because the labels haven't come up with a way for people to pick and choose the songs they want to buy. If the labels would actually LISTEN TO THOSE WHO PURCHASE THEIR PRODUCTS (i.e., come up with a compelling method of distributing their product online -- their current attempts are a joke at best) instead of alienating them via bullying and trying to destroy constitutional rights (protection against unreasonable search and seizure) and rights granted by the SCotUS (fair use), I think there would be a win-win situation for everyone. I am perfectly willing to pay for music, but in most cases *not* under the labels' current distribution methods. (In other words, I don't buy CD's very often, and rarely download music either -- I just listen to streaming media.)
-SC
[text was edited by author 2002-07-15 15:49:24] | |
| So it makes a difference if a sports bar shows the fight, or if i invite 200 people into my home? Or is there an "in home limit" on the amount of viewers that can watch my own tv?
--
Asked by CBS television if he would prefer bin Laden be killed rather than captured alive, he said: ``Oh, my goodness gracious, yes, after what he's done. You bet your life.'' | |
roamer1sticking it out at you
join:2001-03-24
Atlanta, GA | said by Shaggy2002:
So it makes a difference if a sports bar shows the fight, or if i invite 200 people into my home?
There is no hard limit on "home performance" other than it must be in a residence (and you can't charge for admission.)
-SC
--
Atlanta Apt/Condo Cable & Broadband Info: »www.atlaptcable.info/ | |
 eberglarThanks for the memoriesPremium
join:2001-03-04
Bloomsbury, NJ | reply to TheShaz
said by TheShaz:
$12-18 for a MUSIC CD with filler is NOT worth it.
Neither is $50,000 for a BMW. Therefore, I don't drive one. And if I could steal one as easily as I can download music, I probably would.:) Let's not try to justify downloading copyrighted material because it is overpriced. If CD's were $5 each, I would still get most of my music through p2p because...well...you do the math. I'm not going to try and justify it, though. Try telling a judge that you stole that bimmer because you didn't like the price on the window.:)
--
War has been waged against us by stealth, and deceit, and murder. This nation is peaceful - but fierce when stirred to anger. (George W. Bush - 9/14/2001) | |
| that is completely different though,and I am sure that you know yourself that the supposed "millions" of people out there who trade music would not do that to a BMW. As for the legalities of doing it, I am sure almost everyone knows that is illegal. However, there is still not a direct, and accurate law written on the copying and trading of music files. Just because something is law though, doesnt always mean it is the best for the people. Back when they had prohibition and made alcohol illegal, they knew that people would still manufacture and drink it, and once they saw it with their own eyes, the government ended it. Maybe our government and RIAA should do the same with digital music and rethink their proposed "laws" against trading files, or simply making copies for your own use. Answer this, and honestly please. Say the goverment does infact outlaw all copying and trading of music files, to the point where every p2p is shut down and IRC is scanned for such activities. Do you think the music industry will finally see their cd sales start to increase again? I personally don't. I am sure you dont either.
What exactly makes something illegal? Because a few people in our goverment are persuaded by enough large companies to make it illegal? Didn't they try to make personal recorders, and VCR's and tape decks illegal years ago? Why is a law created? To protect people. What harm is trading and downloading mp3's really causing? Record sales are down, but that can not be directly attributed to music swapping. I personally think it has to do with the fact that most music out there is actually CRAP, the economy is not as great as it used to be, and people are just flat out sick of paying 20 dollars for one song they like. Now, if I hear a song on the oldies station, and say......"wow, i remember that song from when i was a kid" and download it, does that make me a "pirate" or classify the same as in a person who downloads the entire cd, burns them, and resells them? No, not at all.
--
Asked by CBS television if he would prefer bin Laden be killed rather than captured alive, he said: ``Oh, my goodness gracious, yes, after what he's done. You bet your life.'' | |
|
