how-to block ads
|
broadbander
join:2005-07-21
Brooklyn, NY
| reply to fiberguy
Re: money
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!! | |
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| reply to doctrine
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. | |
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
| reply to Thaler
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. | |
Thaler
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Encino, CA
| reply to SRFireside
said by SRFireside  :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 :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 :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. | |
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
| reply to Thaler
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. | |
Thaler
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Encino, CA
1 edit | reply to SRFireside
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 :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. | |
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
1 edit | reply to Thaler
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. | |
broadbander
join:2005-07-21
Brooklyn, NY
| reply to Thaler
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? 
Another spot we differ a bit, but that's for another thread.  | |
Thaler
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Encino, CA
| reply to broadbander
said by broadbander :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 :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 :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 :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 :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. | |
broadbander
join:2005-07-21
Brooklyn, NY
| reply to Thaler
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. | |
Thaler
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Encino, CA
1 edit | reply to broadbander
said by broadbander :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 :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 :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.  | |
broadbander
join:2005-07-21
Brooklyn, NY
| reply to SRFireside
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. | |
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
| reply to broadbander
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. | |
broadbander
join:2005-07-21
Brooklyn, NY
1 edit | reply to Thaler
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. | |
bent
not broken
Premium
join:2004-10-04
Loveland, CO
clubs:
 ·Comcast Formerly ..
| reply to kdandaoc
said by kdandaoc : 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. | |
doctrine
join:2002-04-26
Denver, CO
| reply to fiberguy
said by fiberguy :said by 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? 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. | |
Thaler
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Encino, CA
| reply to kdandaoc
said by kdandaoc :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 :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. | |
kdandaoc
join:2003-10-13
608052427
| reply to Thaler
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. | |
Thaler
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Encino, CA
| reply to stickfigure
said by 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. ...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? | |
Thaler
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Encino, CA
| reply to broadbander
said by broadbander :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.
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? ) 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. | |
|
