said by russr :

Why did they put it there in the first place?

said by yock :

P2P apps are a sure-fire money maker. As long as there is free music, movies, and software to be downloaded you'll see underhanded attempts to make money off of the greed of others.

said by yock :

All of this still doesn't justify illegally obtaining those works illegally.

said by MarkH :

The labels in their ultimate wisdom though have decided that the music you want to buy will no longer be available to buy, basically they have deleted the album from their catalogue, if you can't find a copy in a second hand music store, do you a)download illegally, or b)go without in future?

said by Winerin :

You're right. If my rare collectable car is stolen and I can't find one to buy, I should just go out and steal one.

Funny, I download music, games, and videos. I'm not dumb. I know it's not right. I don't even try to justify it. It's just the internet make obtaining what we want much more easily and with the sense of being anonymous.

said by MarkH :

I'm not trying to justify stealing, I'm explaining the circumstances that I feel breach of copyright is justified. A huge difference between taking something physical that has material worth as opposed to obtaining a collection of 0's and 1's with no actual physical presence other than the storage medium I transfer those said 0's and 1's to.

said by yock :

How in the hell is it any different? What difference does it make whether you steal a CD from the store, or burn the content onto your own CD? The fact remains that you're paying for what is on the CD, and less the CD itself. This justification bullshit-argument is EXACTLY why the industry is cracking down so hard. People have this notion that they're justified in IP theft because they wouldn't have bought the CD anyway. You have ZERO rights to obtain someone Else's hard work without paying for it, unless they specifically provide that work to you for free. The court's lack of understanding of digital media is no excuse for the moral and ethical travesty you're committing by not compensating your favorite artists for their hard work.

That makes me sick.

said by MarkH :

I admit, I obtain the works illegally.........

said by yock :

The distributor of the copyrighted material is causing harm through lost profits from sales. The person who downloads this material is guilty of receiving stolen property.

said by fundamentalz :

I'm not really debating the morality, but the legality. The ruling stated that it was not considered larceny, because the merchant is not being deprived of a physical good. It is simply copying a set of 1's and 0's.

A number of years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt with a man named Dowling, who sold "pirated" Elvis Presley recordings, and was prosecuted for the Interstate Transportation of Stolen Property. The Supremes did not condone his actions, but did make it clear that it was not "theft" -- but technically "infringement" of the copyright of the Presley estate, and therefore copyright law, and not anti-theft statutes, had to be invoked.

said by not a flame:

I also download music and movies myself, but eveytime I hear a story like this i can't help but to reminded myself of the old saying "there is no honor among thieves."

said by osme :

I remember posting in the last news story about Exeem, saying there was spyware or adware in it, and the fanboys flamed me. Well, how's that, cocksuckers?