s
@cox.net
| reply to kdandaoc
Re: money
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! |
|
r81984
Fair and Balanced
Premium
join:2001-11-14
St John'S, NL | Just do not buy movie tickets, songs, or dvds. Instead download them for free from the glorious interweb. |
|
broadbander
join:2005-07-21
Brooklyn, NY
| reply to s
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. |
|
Thaler
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Encino, CA
| reply to r81984
said by r81984  :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. |
|
guitarzan
Premium
join:2004-05-04
Skytop, PA
 ·epix
| reply to broadbander
said by broadbander : 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 $$$ did the RIAA or it's signed acts contribute in aid to help hurricane Katrina victims? Or will they somehow find a way to sue them for downloading music when the power is out in New Orleans.?
--
Bass....the glue of rhythm and harmony...the heartbeat of the band.! Shaking the earth with deep,sonorous vibrations.The dark ominous thunder of an approching storm. |
|
stet
Volitar Prime
join:2002-03-08
Warren, MI
| said by guitarzan : When was the last time the RIAA held a concert for charity.? There was the Live 8 concert just a couple of months ago.said by guitarzan : How much $$$ 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. |
|
stickfigure
join:2002-06-11
El Cajon, CA
| reply to Thaler
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. |
|
guitarzan
Premium
join:2004-05-04
Skytop, PA
·epix
| reply to stet
said by stet :said by guitarzan : 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 : 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. |
|
Thaler
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Encino, CA
| reply to stickfigure
said by stickfigure :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. |
|
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
| reply to stickfigure
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. |
|
Thaler
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Encino, CA
| said by SRFireside :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. |
|
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
| said by Thaler :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. |
|
Thaler
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Encino, CA
| said by SRFireside :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. |
|
koolman2
Premium
join:2002-10-01
Anchorage, AK | reply to Thaler
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 |
|
Thaler
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Encino, CA
| said by koolman2 :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. |
|
broadbander
join:2005-07-21
Brooklyn, NY
| said by Thaler :said by koolman2 :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. |
|
Thaler
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Encino, CA
| said by broadbander :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. |
|
broadbander
join:2005-07-21
Brooklyn, NY
| 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. |
|
G_Poobah
join:2004-01-17
Schenectady, NY
| reply to Thaler
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 |
|
broadbander
join:2005-07-21
Brooklyn, NY
| 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. |
|
