Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Thoughts?

i download every chance i get. if i like the albums that i download, i go out and purchase them. if i dont like the albums, i just delete them.

i just listened to the advance copy of CunninLynguists- Dirty Acres. Incredible album. I'll buy it when it comes out.

Originally posted by Healing Artisan
i download every chance i get. if i like the albums that i download, i go out and purchase them. if i dont like the albums, i just delete them.

i just listened to the advance copy of CunninLynguists- Dirty Acres. Incredible album. I'll buy it when it comes out.

If everyone did it that way...I don't think there would problem. Hardly anyone does it that way, so there is a problem.

If I was an artist, this is how I would want my fans to buy my stuff...here it first and then purchase it IF they liked it. You can get samples of songs at a few stores like FYE. (However, a sample isn't good enough, I would like to listen to a whole song first...)

I don't see anything wrong with it.It is stealing and if the person gets caught well that person will know better.I would not do it myself but that is me.jm

It's factually equal to robbing from a store, and anyone who says differently just because it's significantly less possible to get caught, is dumb.

The adage of "I can't afford music/movies/anything copyrighted." is bs also.

The easier it is made to legally own things, the more people try to weasel. If only I had the power I'd slap some kind of legal penalty on every one of them.

-AC

Downloading Songs is mainstream and a part of life and it's socially accepted.

Of course I refuse to download any of my Utada Hikaru's music. Anyone who does any different should be shot. (Just joking.......but not really)

I own all of her Albums.

Bliss.

Anata wa wakarimasu ka.....

That's one cool thing about underground music. Bands tend to make their shit downloadable, and they're happy that someone is actually listening to it, and passing it around. So in that type of situation, yes, I'd download it.

However, when it comes to mainstream, why bother?

I download a lot of stuff. I know it's stealing, but I don't really care. Though I will buy CDs for my favourite bands and I'll also buy my favourite films.

I'd rob a shop if I could get away with, I'd rob a bank and I do download.

Originally posted by SelphieT
That's one cool thing about underground music. Bands tend to make their shit downloadable, and they're happy that someone is actually listening to it, and passing it around. So in that type of situation, yes, I'd download it.

However, when it comes to mainstream, why bother? what do you mean why bother?

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It's factually equal to robbing from a store, and anyone who says differently just because it's significantly less possible to get caught, is dumb.

The adage of "I can't afford music/movies/anything copyrighted." is bs also.

The easier it is made to legally own things, the more people try to weasel. If only I had the power I'd slap some kind of legal penalty on every one of them.

-AC

Is it lonely up there on your pedestal?

Originally posted by InnerRise
Downloading Songs is mainstream and a part of life and it's socially accepted.

Yeah, and the next thing you know, people will be fu*king animals. Where do we draw the line?!!!

Originally posted by Devil King
Yeah, and the next thing you know, people will be fu*king animals. Where do we draw the line?!!! Umm....hate to break it to you playa but people are already doing that. ermm

Anata wa wakarimasu ka.....

whats with the Anata wa wakarimasu ka?

I don't care.

Originally posted by InnerRise
Umm....hate to break it to you playa but people are already doing that. ermm

Anata wa wakarimasu ka.....

WHAT!

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It's factually equal to robbing from a store, and anyone who says differently just because it's significantly less possible to get caught, is dumb.

The adage of "I can't afford music/movies/anything copyrighted." is bs also.

The easier it is made to legally own things, the more people try to weasel. If only I had the power I'd slap some kind of legal penalty on every one of them.

-AC

Nah.

It's a victimless crime, like punching someone in the dark.

Originally posted by Grinning Goku
Is it lonely up there on your pedestal?

WOW! You brought roflcakes to the party!!! Thanks man!!!

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It's factually equal to robbing from a store, and anyone who says differently just because it's significantly less possible to get caught, is dumb.

The adage of "I can't afford music/movies/anything copyrighted." is bs also.

The easier it is made to legally own things, the more people try to weasel. If only I had the power I'd slap some kind of legal penalty on every one of them.

-AC

what are we playing 'count the fallacies'?

Ooo.

Aaa

A lot of people say that the artists have enough money anyway, but actually it's the poor bastard studios that tend to lose out from piracy, and a lot of them have a surprisingly rocky time financially, meaning unemployment, market uncertainty etc.

And it is stealing, yes, though the problem with all these anti-piracy adverts that make a direct link to stealing is that they are psychologically mis-directed. The reason people tend to not look at it that much like theft is because it is stealing that does not deprive the original product. If you steal, say, a car, the crime is that not only did you not pay for the car, but that the owner of the car is deprived of it. Doesn't happen with downloading tracks; effectively you created a new product rather than taking one from anyone.

I'm not saying it's not wrong, but people do think about it differently for that reason. A lot of British DVDs these days are prefaced with an irritating advert that says things like "You wouldn't steal a car etc. so why steal music?" and it's useless; virutally no-one wull equate the two activities for the reason I mention above.

All that said about the companies losing out... it's clear that the culture of how music works is changing. Companies offering cheap direct downloads are doing the very sensible thing, but it's possible we are approaching a future where information can be transferred so easily that trying to keep something like recorded music as a saleable commodity will become impossible. That might just be how it is.

Originally posted by Grinning Goku
Is it lonely up there on your pedestal?

He's not alone, I agree with him wholeheartedly on this matter. He's absolutely correct in every sense of the word.

The problem is internet Providers are selling even cheaper packages with faster speeds, and if you think of how many people have at least DSL 2000 nowadays, no one can tell me they use this to JUST open webpages quicker. Everyone I know downloads illegal stuff be it movies music or PC games.

Personally I think downloading Movies is silly, camcorder rips are crap quality and the cinema experience, even though it costs a bit is unbeatable.

Music and Games, ok its illegal & stealing but lets face it, the majority of people do it.

Originally posted by Bicnarok
Music and Games, ok its illegal & stealing but lets face it, the majority of people do it.

Which makes it moral

Originally posted by Healing Artisan
what do you mean why bother?

Well if you want to listen to the "latest hits", they are everywhere, so it's not like you have to download them to listen to them.

I used to be big into downloading, not much anymore, mainly because I no longer have an ipod.

Originally posted by Bicnarok
The problem is Internet Providers are selling even cheaper packages with faster speeds, and if you think of how many people have at least DSL 2000 nowadays, no one can tell me they use this to JUST open webpages quicker. Everyone I know downloads illegal stuff be it movies music or PC games.

Personally I think downloading Movies is silly, camcorder rips are crap quality and the cinema experience, even though it costs a bit is unbeatable.

Music and Games, ok its illegal & stealing but lets face it, the majority of people do it.

I do not steal ANY music, movies, or other data. I have a download speed of 7MBps.(with power boost)

I don't even use stolen study materials to study for my certifications.

My point is, I have the fasted Internet available in my area and all I do is surf the web with it. Sure I have downloaded a few things that were very large but they were just game demos and software demos.

My luck is, if I ever downloaded something illegal, I would be caught the first time, no joke. (I don't really believe in luck but I have no idea what to call it except for "bad luck.)

Originally posted by Bicnarok
the cinema experience is unbeatable.

Really? I despise going to the movies. If I had it my way, you'd watch all the new releases at home on your television or you could go to the theater. (just like a pay-per-view deal) Personally, I'd never set foot in another smelly, crowded, sticky, impersonal movie theater ever again, if I didn't have to. As it is, I almost never go. And on the rare occasion I'm forced to go to the theater, I never make it through a movie I don't care about without falling asleep.

Oddly enough, if I want to see the movie, I'm fine. (I'd still rather watch it at home though) I guess I'm just not into experiencing movies as a member of a crowd.

I just saw a thread about downloading comics in the comics section all the kids down there seem to think it's O.K. to do and a victimless crime.

Originally posted by Grinning Goku
Is it lonely up there on your pedestal?

I prefer to think of it as "Free from Idiots".

Originally posted by Schecter
what are we playing 'count the fallacies'?

Everything's a fallacy to you, I don't even take it seriously when you use the word anymore.

Ha Ha Haaaaaa...repetitive parts.

Originally posted by Backfire
It's a victimless crime, like punching someone in the dark.

I suppose rape is victimless if it's in the dark, or not a crime at all in your opinion, haha.

Originally posted by Da Pittman
Is it less of a crime than stealing a car, IMO it is but it still is a crime.

It's not less of a crime. It's stealing for the exact same reasons that stealing a car is stealing. People perceiving it as less severe doesn't make it so.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I prefer to think of it as "Free from Idiots".



Everything's a fallacy to you, I don't even take it seriously when you use the word anymore.

Ha Ha Haaaaaa...repetitive parts.



I suppose rape is victimless if it's in the dark, or not a crime at all in your opinion, haha.



It's not less of a crime. It's stealing for the exact same reasons that stealing a car is stealing. People perceiving it as less severe doesn't make it so.

-AC

I agree totally it's theft, plain and simple!

Yes, Whirly.

Hello.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Yes, Whirly.

Hello.

-AC

I am unsure who this Whirly is but thank you for the greeting.

Hello.



-AA

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri

Everything's a fallacy to you, I don't even take it seriously when you use the word anymore.

Ha Ha Haaaaaa...repetitive parts.

doesnt matter if you take it seriously. the fact remains that your post was almost completely rooted in *ahem* fallacy

so your point seems to be that digital copies of intellectual property should be held in the same regard as physical property. fair enough. point i was making was that your mode of expressing that opinion in that particular post was very dodgy.

Not that they should, that they are by law and people seem to think this isn't the case just because it is so easy to do and get away with.

You found the expression dodgy, sorry to hear that.

-AC

Albums are not as "Buyable" now days now that I can easily hit limewire, type the song I want, and bam! I can listen to some hot shit.

But seriously though, their should at least be a way to make both parties fair. I mean, artist have been pissed off over the years about having their music downloaded because that creates little money. Back then in the 80's, artist tend to sale millions of albums. Now days, it's like "WTF? why did I buy this if I can just download it."

I think it is a joke now days among hip hop. I mean, we have two rappers using their record sales as a big competition on who could sale TEH MOSTEST!!!111".

....However, I am not quiet sure about how to solve such a problem. I mean, it is very common. We have the ipod, why hasn't apple been sued by artist yet? If downloading music is so serious, why can't the cops take the ipods away and arrest the owner of it.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Not that they should, that they are by law and people seem to think this isn't the case just because it is so easy to do and get away with.


-AC

like this kid

Originally posted by HueyFreeman
I usually save a series of books on a ten dollar flash drive and sell it on ebay for 30-40

Dexter Morgan started this thread and the kids responses are unbelievable!!!

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Not that they should, that they are by law and people seem to think this isn't the case just because it is so easy to do and get away with.

wrong. they are not viewed in the same regard as physical property.
similar in the respect that its illegal to steal, but the penalty is laughably lenient compared to theft of physical property.

(disclaimer: thats not a justification for theft of digital intellectual propery, but rather just an observation/correction.)

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You found the expression dodgy, sorry to hear that.

-AC

well, i felt that it was because it was, factually.
btw, when you use the word 'factually' i get the same happy tingly feeling that you get when i use 'fallacy'. lets get together and whisper those words in eachothers ears.

Originally posted by JacopeX
Albums are not as "Buyable" now days now that I can easily hit limewire, type the song I want, and bam! I can listen to some hot shit.

But seriously though, their should at least be a way to make both parties fair. I mean, artist have been pissed off over the years about having their music downloaded because that creates little money. Back then in the 80's, artist tend to sale millions of albums. Now days, it's like "WTF? why did I buy this if I can just download it."

I think it is a joke now days among hip hop. I mean, we have two rappers using their record sales as a big competition on who could sale TEH MOSTEST!!!111".

....However, I am not quiet sure about how to solve such a problem. I mean, it is very common. We have the ipod, why hasn't apple been sued by artist yet? If downloading music is so serious, why can't the cops take the ipods away and arrest the owner of it.

Err, stuff is just as 'buyable' as it was before. Moreso, I'd say, what with digital downloads and iTunes and stuff like that.

And your little thing about iPods is rather irrelevant there. People buy music off of iTunes or take the music off their CDs they own already to put on iPods. Neither of which are illegal acts as they've purchased the music.

Originally posted by Lana
Err, stuff is just as 'buyable' as it was before. Moreso, I'd say, what with digital downloads and iTunes and stuff like that.

And your little thing about iPods is rather irrelevant there. People buy music off of iTunes or take the music off their CDs they own already to put on iPods. Neither of which are illegal acts as they've purchased the music.

Exacly lala

Originally posted by Lana
Err, stuff is just as 'buyable' as it was before. Moreso, I'd say, what with digital downloads and iTunes and stuff like that.

depends on what you are looking for

Much of the music I listen to is unavailable for purchase, and when it is, it is through internet orders or ebay, and being paranoid as i am, I don't necessarily want to order stuff online.

Originally posted by inimalist
depends on what you are looking for

Much of the music I listen to is unavailable for purchase, and when it is, it is through internet orders or ebay, and being paranoid as i am, I don't necessarily want to order stuff online.

So it is available, readily, you just don't like how it's available.

This would make it YOUR problem. The music is buyable, you just don't want to, for some irrational reason.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
So it is available, readily, you just don't like how it's available.

This would make it YOUR problem. The music is buyable, you just don't want to, for some irrational reason.

-AC

actually, no, the vast majority of it is not available

and yes, I agree with the personal responsibility part

Isn't this illegal?

Originally posted by Dexter_Morgan
Thoughts?
Most everyone does it, really. I do too because it's simple and it's fast.

It's simple and fast to steal a Porsche.

Interested? If, of course, ease and speed are your reasons for theft.

-AC

My thoughts? I don't really do it because I don't particularly believe in stealing, really.

Originally posted by Critic
My thoughts? I don't really do it because I don't particularly believe in stealing, really.


Exactly!!

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It's simple and fast to steal a Porsche.

Interested? If, of course, ease and speed are your reasons for theft.

-AC

punching babies is also simple and fast

I heard smoking weed is illegal, too.

Originally posted by Dexter_Morgan
Thoughts?

I basically stopped doing it sometime back, it is stealing in some form or other. I do think that CD's and DVD's are priced too high and the corporations are greedy pieces of shit, still though, they're not forcing you to buy their crap.

Porn being the exception though; I do download that and that is a victimless crime, since the porn companies are morally devoid (because I say so).

Originally posted by Devil King
I heard smoking weed is illegal, too.

Interesting point hmm

Originally posted by Schecter
punching babies is also simple and fast

Animal.

Originally posted by SelphieT
Interesting point hmm

There's no reason for weed being illegal. It's a plant that grows naturally upon our planet, doesn't kill or harm anyone (Even if it did, it'd be the person using). Stealing is theft, taking someone else's property without permission.

Though I'm not sure he even meant that.

-AC

Originally posted by SelphieT
Interesting point hmm I dig your qausi-lesbian signature

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
There's no reason for weed being illegal. It's a plant that grows naturally upon our planet, doesn't kill or harm anyone (Even if it did, it'd be the person using). Stealing is theft, taking someone else's property without permission.

Though I'm not sure he even meant that.

-AC

Theft being illegal was also an arbitrary judgment call at some point.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It's simple and fast to steal a Porsche.

Interested? If, of course, ease and speed are your reasons for theft.

-AC

Is it?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Theft being illegal was also an arbitrary judgment call at some point.

True, but it probably came down to "don't do to others what you wouldn't want done to yourself"... Weed being illegal when alcohol and smoking are, is rediculous.

Originally posted by Robtard
rediculous.

?

Expelarmis?

Exactly.

The two are entirely different areas.

"Don't do this to yourself! It's illegal!", "Don't do that to the other, unwilling person!".

-AC

Originally posted by Robtard
True, but it probably came down to "don't do to others what you wouldn't want done to yourself"...

Or it was people who were too weak to protect their stuff and bitched about it until it became a law, thus ruining it for the rest of us.

Originally posted by Robtard
Weed being illegal when alcohol and smoking are, is rediculous.

Yup.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Exactly.

The two are entirely different areas.

"Don't do this to yourself! It's illegal!", "Don't do that to the other, unwilling person!".

-AC

Exactly. Pople wish to justify illegal downloads, you can't it's theft.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Is it?


No, not unless you're stealing one from 20+ years ago... they have laser cut keys (like a Benz), which are nearly impossible to replicate, trying to hot wire one will most likely shutoff the ignition and fuel systems. To steal one, you really need high-end equipment.

what if the argument is: 'its wrong because its illegal', which seems where alot of this is going.

Originally posted by Robtard
I dig your qausi-lesbian signature

Gracias.


The smoking weed point. It's illegal here in the states, but that doesn't stop anyone, and lots of people don't find it a problem. I honestly don't like weed, and I'd rather download music anyday than smoke weed...

I dunno. Tis weird.

Originally posted by Robtard
No, not unless you're stealing one from 20+ years ago... they have laser cut keys (like a Benz), which are nearly impossible to replicate, trying to hot wire one will most likely shutoff the ignition and fuel systems. To steal one, you really need high-end equipment.

But in "gone in 60 seconds", it was like.... Gone in 60 seconds. That was a documentary.... Right?

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Exactly.

The two are entirely different areas.

"Don't do this to yourself! It's illegal!", "Don't do that to the other, unwilling person!".

-AC

No less arbitrary.

People smoke weed because they want to and find ways to avoid the laws.
People steal because they want to and find ways to avoid the laws.

Originally posted by Schecter
what if the argument is: 'its wrong because its illegal', which seems where alot of this is going.

What if indeed.......................

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
No less arbitrary.

People smoke weed because they want to and find ways to avoid the laws.
People steal because they want to and find ways to avoid the laws. #


Smoking I consider theft in the U.K. As my taxes go on treatment for smokers under the NHS if they stopped smoking my taxes could be spent on more research into cancer, rather than reaction and treatment of smokers ailments caused by smoking!!!!!!!

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
No less arbitrary.

People smoke weed because they want to and find ways to avoid the laws.
People steal because they want to and find ways to avoid the laws.

What's your point? They're both, illegal and people do them, yes. Someone smoking weed outside my house doesn't affect me. Someone smashing my window and stealing my TV does. Just like smoking weed outside Joanna Newsom's studio doesn't affect her, but if someone is stealing music they found in her studio, uploads it and then everyone steals it, she is being affected.

Weed being illegal is under the premise "We don't want you doing this to yourself.", which is up to the person.

Stealing involves others who probably do not wish to be stolen from.

That's the point, WHY they are illegal.

-AC

Originally posted by Alt. Account
But in "gone in 60 seconds", it was like.... Gone in 60 seconds. That was a documentary.... Right?

LoLi-pwnerz! You got me!

This is Whirly, right?

I'm illegally downloading Purple Rain as we speak, all while listening to my illegally downloaded version of The Pot, by Tool while figuring out how to pull off raping someone in the dark.

Going to be a good day.

Originally posted by BackFire
I'm illegally downloading Purple Rain as we speak, all while listening to my illegally downloaded version of The Pot, by Tool while figuring out how to pull off raping someone in the dark.

Going to be a good day.

I'm petitioning to ban fat men from L.A going to Montreal.

Gonna be a good day.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
What's your point? They're both, illegal and people do them, yes. Someone smoking weed outside my house doesn't affect me. Someone smashing my window and stealing my TV does. Just like smoking weed outside Joanna Newsom's studio doesn't affect her, but if someone is stealing music they found in her studio, uploads it and then everyone steals it, she is being affected.

Weed being illegal is under the premise "We don't want you doing this to yourself.", which is up to the person.

Stealing involves others who probably do not wish to be stolen from.

That's the point, WHY they are illegal.

-AC

you cannot switch the base of your argument like that. to justify your hardline stance on pirating, you quote the principle of a law as factual evidence. pirating is theft according to law, therefore its the same as stealing your neighbors car.

now when the topic of weed comes up, suddenly breaking the law is palatable.

so which is your stance based on? principles of general law or your own personal principles?

Originally posted by BackFire
I'm illegally downloading Purple Rain as we speak, all while listening to my illegally downloaded version of The Pot, by Tool while figuring out how to pull off raping someone in the dark.

Going to be a good day. jawdrop

You will go to hell......

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I'm petitioning to ban fat men from L.A going to Montreal.

Gonna be a good day.

-AC

Petitions don't do anything.

I can lose weight and go to Montreal.

You can't become non-gay, though.

Originally posted by BackFire
Petitions don't do anything.

I can lose weight and go to Montreal.

You can't become non-gay, though.
jawdrop
ZOMG

Originally posted by Schecter
you cannot switch the base of your argument like that. to justify your hardline stance on pirating, you quote the principle of a law as factual evidence. pirating is theft according to law, therefore its the same as stealing your neighbors car.

now when the topic of weed comes up, suddenly breaking the law is palatable.

so which is your stance based on? principles of general law or your own personal principles?

I'm not switching anything, you've misinterpreted my argument.

I think it's wrong to steal because you are taking something that doesn't belong to you, from someone who doesn't wish to have it taken from them, most likely. If it was made legal I'd still maintain my stance.

I see no reason for weed being illegal, because there is none under the reasons they give, especially considering what else they allow to be legal. The legality isn't what makes either case wrong or right, since wrong or right are opinion.

By stealing being legal you would be saying the thieves in the world, who take from others unwillingly (With varying severity), could go about their business without consequence. It's not the same as weed, because legal or not, people do it without harming anyone else.

Laws in society, as I believe you once said, are based on how others in society are directly and unwillingly affected or what not, mostly. This doesn't apply to weed, it applies to stealing.

Your question is followed by giving me two answers, neither of which are the case here. I'm not saying it's bad cos it's illegal, legality isn't the issue. I'm simply saying it's stealing, and it is. It's theft, is it not? Wherein are you having a problem?

I say it is factually stealing because it is, like stealing a car is factually stealing, regardless of difference in severity. Legality is not why I feel stealing is wrong, I have reasons for stealing being wrong whether its legal or not.

My main stance for pirating being wrong is because I personally think it's shit to steal, for multiple reasons. You seem to have confused me arguing against people who do not think it's stealing because it's common and intangible, for me saying "It's wrong because it's illegal.", which isn't the case at all. It just also happens to be illegal.

If I lived in Canada I'd maintain the same stance, although that has a stupid downloading/uploading law anyway.

-AC

Originally posted by Robtard
LoLi-pwnerz! You got me!

This is Whirly, right?

What is a Whirly?

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I'm not switching anything, you've misinterpreted my argument.

I think it's wrong to steal because you are taking something that doesn't belong to you, from someone who doesn't wish to have it taken from them, most likely. If it was made legal I'd still maintain my stance.

I see no reason for weed being illegal, because there is none under the reasons they give, especially considering what else they allow to be legal. The legality isn't what makes either case wrong or right, since wrong or right are opinion.

By stealing being legal you would be saying the thieves in the world, who take from others unwillingly (With varying severity), could go about their business without consequence. It's not the same as weed, because legal or not, people do it without harming anyone else.

Laws in society, as I believe you once said, are based on how others in society are directly and unwillingly affected or what note, mostly. This doesn't apply to weed, it applies to stealing.

Your question is followed by giving me two answers, neither of which are the case here. I'm not saying it's bad cos it's illegal, legality isn't the issue. I'm simply saying it's stealing, and it is. It's theft, is it not? Wherein are you having a problem?

I say it is factually stealing because it is, like stealing a car is factually stealing, regardless of difference in severity. Legality is not why I feel stealing is wrong, I have reasons for stealing being wrong whether its legal or not.

My main stance for pirating being wrong is because I personally think it's shit to steal, for multiple reasons. You seem to have confused me arguing against people who do not think it's stealing because it's common and intangible, for me saying "It's wrong because it's illegal.", which isn't the case at all. It just also happens to be illegal.

If I lived in Canada I'd maintain the same stance, although that has a stupid downloading/uploading law anyway.

-AC

i understand: you feel that theft of any nature is wrong. thats your opinion and its certainly valid.
the problem i am having is that you define theft as an absolute concept, with no consideration of severity/damage. so when backfire downloads purple rain, he is on the same exact level as an enron executive robbing the public of billions of dollars. also, your claim that leniency on internet piracy enables all types of thieves is completely ludicrous.

Originally posted by Schecter
i understand: you feel that theft of any nature is wrong. thats your opinion and its certainly valid.
the problem i am having is that you use the law to define theft as an absolute concept, with no consideration of severity/damage. so when backfire downloads purple rain, he is on the same exact level as an enron executive robbing the public of billions of dollars. also, your claim that leniency on internet piracy enables all types of thieves is completely ludicrous.

Clearly I did address severity and damage. I believe all theft should be punished, but I do not feel someone stealing an album deserves to share the same jail time as a bank robber, that would clearly be ludicrous.

My claim was pointing out if all theft was legal, not suggesting internet piracy enables thieving everywhere.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Clearly I did address severity and damage. I believe all theft should be punished, but I do not feel someone stealing an album deserves to share the same jail time as a bank robber, that would clearly be ludicrous.

My claim was pointing out if all theft was legal, not suggesting internet piracy enables thieving everywhere.

-AC




Originally posted by Alpha Centauri

By stealing being legal you would be saying the thieves in the world, who take from others unwillingly (With varying severity), could go about their business without consequence.
-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I prefer to think of it as "Free from Idiots". -AC

But that's not the issue here, is it? Looks like you just seized the opportunity to come across as a condescending dick.

Originally posted by Grinning Goku
But that's not the issue here, is it? Looks like you just seized the opportunity to come across as a condescending dick.

I disagree, AC is right!! Copyright breaking is theft!

Let's not forget that a lot of the money made by the artists, doesn't even come from the music itself.

And as for the weed issue, me harming myself wasn't the point I was trying to make. It being illegal, but doing it anyway, was. But, lets not forget that weed isn't illegal because it's harmful. Weed is illegal because it's a threat to the established mechanics of our economy.

But this isn't about weed, so I'm sorry for bringing it up.

Originally posted by Schecter
My quotes and that

Yes? I was just saying that if stealing was legal thieves could go about their business without consequence. What's the problem?

Originally posted by Grinning Goku
But that's not the issue here, is it? Looks like you just seized the opportunity to come across as a condescending dick

Looks like you just seized the opportunity to be a weeping vagoina about something or other.

-AC

Originally posted by Devil King
Let's not forget that a lot of the money made by the artists, doesn't even come from the music itself.

And as for the weed issue, me harming myself wasn't the point I was trying to make. It being illegal, but doing it anyway, was. But, lets not forget that weed isn't illegal because it's harmful. Weed is illegal because it's a threat to the established mechanics of our economy.

But this isn't about weed, so I'm sorry for bringing it up.

As that Usher garak guy said, breaking copyright affects recording studios. Let's just remember it's not just music which is "stolen" online.

Originally posted by Devil King
Let's not forget that a lot of the money made by the artists, doesn't even come from the music itself.

And as for the weed issue, me harming myself wasn't the point I was trying to make. It being illegal, but doing it anyway, was. But, lets not forget that weed isn't illegal because it's harmful. Weed is illegal because it's a threat to the established mechanics of our economy.

But this isn't about weed, so I'm sorry for bringing it up.

Don't be sorry, it was an interesting comparison if you understood the point you were trying to convey, which I did.

Whirly, if you're actually going to civilly contribute, why not just stay here with one account?

Also, nobody is arguing that it isn't theft.

Originally posted by Devil King
Let's not forget that a lot of the money made by the artists, doesn't even come from the music itself.

Nowadays record labels request bands sign over royalties, or a high percentage of them at least, of everything. Including merch and live show revenue, much more than previously, which is why a lot of artists are considering ditching labels for a while or a period of time, and self-releasing their material.

Only bands that can rely on raking in direct profit enough to finance their own releases could do this, though.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Whirly, if you're actually going to civilly contribute, why not just stay here with one account?

Also, nobody is arguing that it isn't theft.

-AC

I don not know anyone called Whirly

You're right though about downloading.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Yes? I was just saying that if stealing was legal thieves could go about their business without consequence. What's the problem?

-AC

oh, my bad. i thought you were addressing a point, especially since nobody suggested that theft should be legal.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
If you steal, say, a car, the crime is that not only did you not pay for the car, but that the owner of the car is deprived of it. Doesn't happen with downloading tracks; effectively you created a new product rather than taking one from anyone.


And that's the difference. Downloading a song won't make a musician late for work.

I think the main reason the artists get their panties in a bunch over this is because they view it more as someone giving them the finger as opposed to literally stealing. Besides, don't musicians want their music to be heard and enjoyed?

But all in all.......

Originally posted by Leo.M
I don't care.

Originally posted by Schecter
oh, my bad. i thought you were addressing a point, especially since nobody suggested that theft should be legal.

What?

Nah it was just more or less me rambling about theft in general, and the comparison between it and weed, or at least the legality of.

I wasn't aiming it at anything specific.

-AC

Originally posted by Alt. Account
What?

do they speak english in 'what'?

Originally posted by Alt. Account
I don not know anyone called Whirly



Then why did you respond? I didn't see him address your new name.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Besides, don't musicians want their music to be heard and enjoyed?

As if an artist is not entitled to being heard and enjoyed without being stolen from, and as if he or she being stolen from should just be thankful they're being heard.

Ridiculous argument. If someone stole a car you spend a long time working on, would you feel highly satisfied that at least it was your work they stole and are now enjoying? I doubt it.

Dumbest argument in the book really, besides the "I can't afford it." one.

-AC

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
And that's the difference. Downloading a song won't make a musician late for work.

I think the main reason the artists get their panties in a bunch over this is because they view it more as someone giving them the finger as opposed to literally stealing. Besides, don't musicians want their music to be heard and enjoyed?

But all in all.......

Not equal to someone stealing your car or kidneys, but it's still theft though... they want their music to be heard and enjoyed; they also want to make a living from it.

Originally posted by Devil King
Then why did you respond? I didn't see him address your new name.

Because he addressed me as Whirly earlier in the thread....


Obviously.

Originally posted by Schecter
do they speak english in 'what'?

Where is what? I'll look it up on Wiki.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
As if an artist is not entitled to being heard and enjoyed without being stolen from, and as if he or she being stolen from should just be thankful they're being heard.

Ridiculous argument. If someone stole a car you spend a long time working on, would you feel highly satisfied that at least it was your work they stole and are now enjoying? I doubt it.

Dumbest argument in the book really, besides the "I can't afford it." one.

-AC

bands like metallica, grateful dead, van halen, and many other have gained much of their popularity and success through bootleg trading and sales. its a form of exposure and publicity, which comes around and pays off ultimately. im not trying to suggest that the rule always applies, but rather am suggesting that yours doesnt either.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
As if an artist is not entitled to being heard and enjoyed without being stolen from, and as if he or she being stolen from should just be thankful they're being heard.

Ridiculous argument. If someone stole a car you spend a long time working on, would you feel highly satisfied that at least it was your work they stole and are now enjoying? I doubt it.

Dumbest argument in the book really, besides the "I can't afford it." one.

-AC

The two really aren't comparable. A song...a peice of digital information that can be replicated a million times with the push of a button, verses a one ton physical object.

Originally posted by Schecter
do they speak english in 'what'?

What?

English mother f*cker!


When people just complain about how it's illegal and stealing, it just makes me feel like downloading Metallica just to piss them all off. But, I don't.

I guess there really isn't a need for downloading, but it's obviously nice. But then again, so is a used CD store.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
The two really aren't comparable. A song...a peice of digital information that can be replicated a million times with the push of a button, verses a one ton physical object.

Intellectual theft is no different to physical theft.

Originally posted by Alt. Account
Obviously.

And that seems to be the part you take so much pleasure in. It is obvious. And for some reason, no one does anything. But, I'm guessing you take the most pleasure out of the fact that if the mods paid you any attention, they'd spend all their time deleting your accounts.

clearly he's not whirly. whirly is a bumbling idiot who posts stupid threads.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
The two really aren't comprable. A song...a peice of digital information that can be replicated a million tiems with the push of a button, verses a one ton physical object.

You're missing the point... they produced something and they're selling it. Just because a group of 100 people paid them for their "work", it doesn't give another group of 10 the right to take it.

Will the musician suffer horribly because he didn't gain an extra 10% (just a #) profit? No, still doesn't make it right though.

Originally posted by Schecter
bands like metallica, grateful dead, van halen, and many other have gained much of their popularity and success through bootleg trading and sales. its a form of exposure and publicity, which comes around and pays off ultimately. im not trying to suggest that the rule always applies, but rather am suggesting that yours doesnt either.

I'm not sitting here denying that downloading, illegal in this case, has had a positive effect on many bands, only a fool would attempt such a stance.

I just feel that in this day and age where acquiring music simply and legally, cheaply on top of that, is more and more common, people are just more and more lazy.

"I wanna try before I buy!", so listening posts and MySpaces are put to use.

"Stores cost too much.", so iTunes Store is created. Then it's "But I don't trust buying online.".

It just seems to me like most who illegally download just do not want to pay for what they want to own, which is bullshit.

Morally? As long as the music is bought and paid for in the end, I don't have too much of an issue. I think everyone should wait for the proper package, avoid leaks etc, but that's me. Ultimately, as long as it's paid for in the end, I don't care. It's just those people who bother me, the ones that continually make excuses.

Healing Artisan downloads illegally, but owns probably everything he has downloaded and like, legally, through purchase. I saw someone recently at a show buying the artist's CDs. He must have just had downloads or something, but he obviously liked it, showed up to the gig and actually bought the records too.

The easier it's made, the more excuses people make, which is what really does annoy me.

-AC

Originally posted by Devil King
And that seems to be the part you take so much pleasure in. It is obvious. And for some reason, no one does anything. But, I'm guessing you take the most pleasure out of the fact that if the mods paid you any attention, they'd spend all their time deleting your accounts.


I don't understand.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I'm not sitting here denying that downloading, illegal in this case, has had a positive effect on many bands, only a fool would attempt such a stance.

I just feel that in this day and age where acquiring music simply and legally, cheaply on top of that, is more and more common, people are just more and more lazy.

"I wanna try before I buy!", so listening posts and MySpaces are put to use.

"Stores cost too much.", so iTunes Store is created. Then it's "But I don't trust buying online.".

It just seems to me like most who illegally download just do not want to pay for what they want to own, which is bullshit.

Morally? As long as the music is bought and paid for in the end, I don't have too much of an issue. I think everyone should wait for the proper package, avoid leaks etc, but that's me. Ultimately, as long as it's paid for in the end, I don't care. It's just those people who bother me, the ones that continually make excuses.

Healing Artisan downloads illegally, but owns probably everything he has downloaded and like, legally, through purchase. I saw someone recently at a show buying the artist's CDs. He must have just had downloads or something, but he obviously liked it, showed up to the gig and actually bought the records too.

The easier it's made, the more excuses people make, which is what really does annoy me.

-AC

That sums up my feelings totally AC.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
As if an artist is not entitled to being heard and enjoyed without being stolen from, and as if he or she being stolen from should just be thankful they're being heard.

Ridiculous argument. If someone stole a car you spend a long time working on, would you feel highly satisfied that at least it was your work they stole and are now enjoying? I doubt it.

Dumbest argument in the book really, besides the "I can't afford it." one.

-AC

As I noted above, AC, the car comparison does not work because it quite blatantly is not the same thing- steal a car and the owner cannot use the car anymore. Download a music track and you've not affected anyone's ability to listen the music at all. Again, not to say that that therefore makes it right, but your comparison is poor and attempting to get a message across in that way will never wortk.

Similar to your line "I think it's wrong to steal because you are taking something that doesn't belong to you, from someone who doesn't wish to have it taken from them, most likely. If it was made legal I'd still maintain my stance."

The highlighted bit does not work well in a convo about digital piracy.


Worth noting that even a money equivalent value does not work when the property is not physical. You don't prevent the product being sold and there is a good chance that you would not have paid for the product if you were unable to pirate it, hence revenue is not being lost either.

So no-one has lost any product and very often no-one has lost any money. So it's all about the rights of a person to own something, which people really do not see in the same way as stealing a car- no way at all.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
The two really aren't comparable. A song...a peice of digital information that can be replicated a million times with the push of a button, verses a one ton physical object.

It doesn't matter. Not only is it still theft, but you are suggesting they should overlook the fact that they are being stolen from just because they are being enjoyed.

Would you? Forget about what kind of object it is, and answer the question. Would you overlook being stolen from if it meant your work would be enjoyed in the process?

-AC

It very much does matter, I feel, AC. it would be very unlikely to be happy with it iwith the car example. It's entirely possible to be happy with it with a music track, and that has actually happened.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
As I noted above, AC, the car comparison does not work because it quite blatantly is not the same thing- steal a car and the owner cannot use the car anymore. Download a music track and you've not affected anyone's ability to listen the music at all. Again, not to say that that therefore makes it right, but your comparison is poor and attempting to get a message across in that way will never wortk.

Similar to your line "I think it's wrong to steal because you are taking something that doesn't belong to you, from someone who doesn't wish to have it taken from them, most likely. If it was made legal I'd still maintain my stance."

The highlighted bit does not work well in a convo about digital piracy.

In that case my argument wasn't about the object being stolen, as you singularly failed to see. It was about the ridiculous argument that if your work is being enjoyed, you should overlook being stolen from.

I think we can agree that's quite bullshit.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Worth noting that even a money equivalent value does not work when the property is physical. You don't prevent the product being sold and there is a good chance that you would not have paid for the product if you were unable to pirate it, hence revenue is not being lost either.

So no-one has lost any product and very often no-one has lost any money. So it's all about the rights of a person to own something, which people really do not see in the same way as stealing a car- no way at all.

That wasn't what I was even discussing, if you read it.

I wasn't arguing object vs object, both theft, both different levels of severity, sure. I was arguing the idea that you should be thankful you're being heard even though it's at your own loss.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
It very much does matter, I feel, AC. it would be very unlikely to be happy with it iwith the car example. It's entirely possible to be happy with it with a music track, and that has actually happened.

You're not getting it.

I'm not saying it CAN'T happen. I'm saying his base stance of "You should be happy that you are being appreciated, even though it's through stolen means.", is stupid. As if that retracts from an artist's right to be bothered.

-AC

so what if i download a song to check out a band, come to the conclusion that they suck, and thus never buy the cd? does that mean i am a thief, as opposed to a scenario where i like it and then go out and buy it?

myspace only limits your selection to 4 songs, so thats hardly a reasonable solution imho.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It doesn't matter. Not only is it still theft, but you are suggesting they should overlook the fact that they are being stolen from just because they are being enjoyed.

Would you? Forget about what kind of object it is, and answer the question. Would you overlook being stolen from if it meant your work would be enjoyed in the process?

-AC

No.

Forget the enjoyment factor, the two still don't compare.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
In that case my argument wasn't about the object being stolen, as you singularly failed to see. It was about the ridiculous argument that if your work is being enjoyed, you should overlook being stolen from.

I think we can agree that's quite bullshit.

-AC

Not really; some people are absolutely fine with that.

I didn't singularly fail to see anything; you singularly failed to make an appropriate argument, is all.

Let's use a rape analogy. If someone steals a girls virginity. It has hurt her badly. She still has her vagina though. Just like downloaded music really.

Originally posted by Alt. Account
Let's use a rape analogy. If someone steals a girls virginity. It has hurt her badly. She still has her vagina though. Just like downloaded music really.

LOL RAPE

AC, you opened by saying that this is 'factually equal to robbing from a store'.

Well, aside from that being simply untrue in just about every possible sense, you are now basing your argument around an artist's right to be bothered.

Really, this just points to your original point not being of great quality.

Originally posted by Alt. Account
Let's use a rape analogy. If someone steals a girls virginity. It has hurt her badly. She still has her vagina though. Just like downloaded music really.

Originally posted by Schecter
so what if i download a song to check out a band, come to the conclusion that they suck, and thus never buy the cd? does that mean i am a thief, as opposed to a scenario where i like it and then go out and buy it?

myspace only limits your selection to 4 songs, so thats hardly a reasonable solution imho.

It's still stealing, so you're still a thief.

That's a lot different to people who download album after album, after album, keep them regardless of liking or loathing, and still pay for absolutely none of it.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Forget the enjoyment factor, the two still don't compare.

Why forget it? Because it devestates your argument? They may not compare in severity, but your argument is that people SHOULD be thankful for being heard even if it's illegally without reward, not that they can, but that they should.

Stupid argument, doesn't work.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Not really; some people are absolutely fine with that.

I didn't singularly fail to see anything; you singularly failed to make an appropriate argument, is all.

No, you really do not grasp the point.

Some people being fine with it is not the issue here, Ush. Quiero's argument is that stealing is ok because they should just be grateful they're being heard, which is bullshit.

Some may be grateful they are being heard either way, but it's not a default stance artists should take. The fact that someone is enjoying music they stole does not mean they have zero right to complain, does it?

-AC

Sure they can complain, but it's not actually impossible that Quiero is right, no matter how much you don't like it.

As I say, I am grasping the point just fine. You just keep obscuring yours with bad analogy.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Why forget it? Because it devestates your argument? They may not compare in severity, but your argument is that people SHOULD be thankful for being heard even if it's illegally without reward, not that they can, but that they should.

Stupid argument, doesn't work.


Who said I was arguing? I never made an assertion (about enjoyment), I asked a question.

You can't compare them, because one is physical and the other isn't.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Looks like you just seized the opportunity to be a weeping vagoina about something or other.

-AC

Not really. But you're entitled to your retarded opinion.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
AC, you opened by saying that this is 'factually equal to robbing from a store'.

In that they are both stealing, both illegal. Both theft.

Poorly communicated, on my part.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Well, aside from that being simply untrue in just about every possible sense, you are now basing your argument around an artist's right to be bothered.

Every possible sense except the fact that they are both stealing, which was my point against people who, even on this site, do not consider it theft, but consider store theft to be theft.

It was poorly communicated, which I can accept responsibility for.

My argument is not about being bothered, slow yourself down and realise the relevant points being made. Quiero is suggesting that an artist has no right to complain because they should just be thankful they are being heard, regardless of some being happy either way, it is not a good point.

Artists are not robbed of a right to complain just because someone is enjoying their work that they stole.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Really, this just points to your original point not being of great quality.

Like your perceptive ability then.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Quiero's argument is that stealing is ok because they should just be grateful they're being heard,


I never once said that.

Thanks, Goku. Wasn't aware of that 'til you just told me.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Sure they can complain, but it's not actually impossible that Quiero is right, no matter how much you don't like it.

As I say, I am grasping the point just fine. You just keep obscuring yours with bad analogy.

Do you actually believe that artists, in general and without exception, should be thankful they are being heard, regardless of whether it is by stealing or not?

Because his implication is just that. That an artist shouldn't complain because they are being enjoyed.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Who said I was arguing? I never made an assertion (about enjoyment), I asked a question.

You can't compare them, because one is physical and the other isn't.

And as always you are chickening out of answering a question.

So are you suggesting that one of them ISN'T stealing? Or just that they are different cases of severity?

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I never once said that.

It was your implication and excuse.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It's still stealing, so you're still a thief.

That's a lot different to people who download album after album, after album, keep them regardless of liking or loathing, and still pay for absolutely none of it.

still stealing? but what if i immediately delete it?
and yes, many people just download thousands of songs with no intention of paying. agreed. lets put that aside and not blur the point.

you are basically saying that if i download it illegally and then pay for it, you're fine with it (you did say that). why should i pay for something which clearly sucks? why is my status as 'thief' dependant on what i do after the fact? i should feel obligated to buy some shitty cd which i have sampled and absolutely loath, so that im not a thief?

Eve saying they are both stealing is very dodgy, AC. They certainly are not covered under the same laws, and it has very few of the same effects as stealing. Stealing from a store- even stealing music from a store- is conceptually different to pirating movie tracks in a great deal of ways, including legally.

Once more- my perceptive ability is 100% fine, thanks. Reading everything you say- mistakes and all- loud and clear. For example- didn;t say anything remotely like that they would be robbed of a right to complain. Simply said that Quiero might be right and the complaining artists might be wrong.

Originally posted by Schecter
LOL RAPE

shifty

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Do you actually believe that artists, in general and without exception, should be thankful they are being heard, regardless of whether it is by stealing or not?

Because his implication is just that. That an artist shouldn't complain because they are being enjoyed.

-AC

I believe that is possible. Not judging it one way or another.

And as I say in my opening post- information exchange is going to become so easy in future that this is the way it may simply have to be. The entire way we understand the way music is distributed and the idea of recorded music as a commercial phenomenon might will be on the way out.

Originally posted by Schecter
still stealing? but what if i immediately delete it?

It's still stealing.

Originally posted by Schecter
you are basically saying that if i download it illegally and then pay for it, you're fine with it (you did say that).

Not fine with you stealing it, morally. Just more accepting of the situation than if you were to JUST steal it without then giving the artist any reward for it.

Originally posted by Schecter
why should i pay for something which clearly sucks? why is my status as 'thief' dependant on what i do after the fact? i should feel obligated to buy some shitty cd which i have sampled and absolutely loath, so that im not a thief?

Because in my opinion, if it's worth your time, it's worth your money. I think people SHOULD pay for all the music they own, but if it's only going to be damage limitation (And it is, realistically), then at least pay for everything you like.

Your status as thief isn't dependant on what you do, you're a thief regardless, from the second you steal it. My point was that I have less to argue if it is ultimately paid for.

-AC

Morals aside, how is it not stealing? You're taking someone else's work that they're selling to make a living for free/without permission.

Does this "it's not stealing" also apply to books? If I download a book without permission, it that okay because it was digital and not physical?

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Eve saying they are both stealing is very dodgy, AC. They certainly are not covered under the same laws, and it has very few of the same effects as stealing. Stealing from a store- even stealing music from a store- is conceptually different to pirating movie tracks in a great deal of ways, including legally.

Once more- my perceptive ability is 100% fine, thanks. Reading everything you say- mistakes and all- loud and clear. For example- didn;t say anything remotely like that they would be robbed of a right to complain. Simply said that Quiero might be right and the complaining artists might be wrong.

Accordint to law in the U.K.

It's theft.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It's still stealing.



Not fine with you stealing it, morally. Just more accepting of the situation than if you were to JUST steal it without then giving the artist any reward for it.



Because in my opinion, if it's worth your time, it's worth your money. I think people SHOULD pay for all the music they own, but if it's only going to be damage limitation (And it is, realistically), then at least pay for everything you like.

Your status as thief isn't dependant on what you do, you're a thief regardless, from the second you steal it. My point was that I have less to argue if it is ultimately paid for.

-AC


so then you are morally accepting of theft. (conditionally )

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri

Morally? As long as the music is bought and paid for in the end, I don't have too much of an issue. I think everyone should wait for the proper package, avoid leaks etc, but that's me. Ultimately, as long as it's paid for in the end, I don't care. It's just those people who bother me, the ones that continually make excuses.

not that i normally use such absolutist sucker punches, but its appropriate here, imho

The word 'theft' might appear in the wording of the law used, but it's a different law, and it doesn't actually fit traditional definitions of the word 'theft' which involve someone being deprived of something.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
And as always you are chickening out of answering a question.

So are you suggesting that one of them ISN'T stealing? Or just that they are different cases of severity?


Different cases of severity. In fact, so different they don't even belong on the same plain.

A brand new car: anywhere from 20k to a million.

A song on itunes: a buck.

Yeah...let's clump grand theft auto and petty theft together.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri

It was your implication and excuse.


No, that's just you adding to my post what you see fit. I was asking an honest question.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Eve saying they are both stealing is very dodgy, AC. They certainly are not covered under the same laws, and it has very few of the same effects as stealing. Stealing from a store- even stealing music from a store- is conceptually different to pirating movie tracks in a great deal of ways, including legally.

Right, so how does that remove from the fact that they are both considered stealing by law?

Both are theft.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Once more- my perceptive ability is 100% fine, thanks. Reading everything you say- mistakes and all- loud and clear. For example- didn;t say anything remotely like that they would be robbed of a right to complain. Simply said that Quiero might be right and the complaining artists might be wrong.

What basis do you have for suggesting Quiero may be right, and the artists may be wrong, then?

Originally posted by Ushgarak
And as I say in my opening post- information exchange is going to become so easy in future that this is the way it may simply have to be. The entire way we understand the way music is distributed and the idea of recorded music as a commercial phenomenon might will be on the way out.

I'm not discussing the changes in musical distribution, I'm well aware the way music is distributed is changing, that much has become very apparant from what Radiohead and soon Oasis etc are/will be doing.

My point is, why are you saying it's possible for an artist to appreciate being enjoyed despite being stolen from? I never denied that, my argument was against Quiero's implication that they seemingly should be grateful by default, not that they CAN be.

That perception thing, you see.

-AC

Originally posted by Ushgarak
The word 'theft' might appear in the wording of the law used, but it's a different law, and it doesn't actually fit traditional definitions of the word 'theft' which involve someone being deprived of something.

When you're taking something for free; that you would normally pay for, you are depriving someone of something.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
The word 'theft' might appear in the wording of the law used, but it's a different law, and it doesn't actually fit traditional definitions of the word 'theft' which involve someone being deprived of something.

Intellectual theft is still theft.

It's also stealing gain rather than a product i'll grant you that. So it's depriving people of renumeration for services, in the case of what we are talking about entertainment rendered. In this way it's like Rape you're getting what you want, keeping the item of entertainment intact and not having to pay for the dinner and courtship rituals involved in normal sexual relationships. I guess you're right, it's more like Rape than normal theft.

Well I really think you should not be as certain as you are about saying they are boith stealing by law. First of all that is not true universally, and secondly even where it seems to be true, close analysis shows it really... is not. It's more about copyright violation, very different.

Secondly- well, I am unsure why I need a basis other than what he says is not automatically totally unreasonable. Music is not fundamentally a commerical product, that is just the way it has developed. Heck, much of the commercisliation of music was 100% about the distribution of media to hear it on... and the basis for that no longer exists.

So I feel that a justification for music being commerical is probably needed and quiero would be entitled to not accept such a justiciation.

And- again, perception just fine, what I said all along, certainly worried about yours though- once more, I am saying he may be right. You certainly aren't making anything close to a case to make out he is certainly wrong. It's eminently believable that complaining artists may be in the wrong.

Originally posted by Robtard
When you're taking something for free; that you would normally pay for, you are depriving someone of something.

Exactly, missed this as I was posting!

Originally posted by Schecter
so then you are morally accepting of theft. (conditionally )



not that i normally use such absolutist sucker punches, but its appropriate here, imho

I don't think it is ever ok to steal, and nothing I said in those quotes suggests otherwise. I said I have less of an issue if it's ultimately paid for, not that I am ok with the stealing part, just than I see less reason to sit here and debate when ultimately it's achieving a respectable end, not that I COULDN'T get into a moral debate about the part of it I don't condone.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Yeah...let's clump grand theft auto and petty theft together.

Stop being a weasel. I clearly agreed they were different cases, speaking in terms of severity, but not in terms of theft, as they both are.

Do you think illegally downloading music is stealing? Yes or no? Honest question.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
No, that's just you adding to my post what you see fit. I was asking an honest question.

Then let's answer.

Of course artists want to usually be heard and enjoyed. So now what?

-AC

Originally posted by Alt. Account
Intellectual theft is still theft.

Ignoring your entirely ludicrous analogy to rape, that statement of yours is misleading. If it boils down to 'intellectual theft is the same thing as stealing in the sense AC used at the start of the thread' then... no, it's not. At all.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Well I really think you should not be as certain as you are about saying they are boith stealing by law. First of all that is not true universally, and secondly even where it seems to be true, close analysis shows it really... is not. It's more about copyright violation, very different.

Secondly- well, I am unsure why I need a basis other than what he says is not automatically totally unreasonable. Music is not fundamentally a commerical product, that is just the way it has developed. Heck, much of the commercisliation of music was 100% about the distribution of media to hear it on... and the basis for that no longer exists.

So I feel that a justification for music being commerical is probably needed and quiero would be entitled to not accept such a justiciation.

And- again, perception just fine, what I said all along, certainly worried about yours though- once more, I am saying he may be right. You certainly aren't making anything close to a case to make out he is certainly wrong. It's eminently believable that complaining artists may be in the wrong.

Copyright violation is theft.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Do you think illegally downloading music is stealing? Yes or no? Honest question.


Yes.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Then let's answer.

Of course artists want to usually be heard and enjoyed. So now what?


I never "implied" anything. I'm direct in all my questions.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Well I really think you should not be as certain as you are about saying they are boith stealing by law. First of all that is not true universally, and secondly even where it seems to be true, close analysis shows it really... is not. It's more about copyright violation, very different.

Secondly- well, I am unsure why I need a basis other than what he says is not automatically totally unreasonable. Music is not fundamentally a commerical product, that is just the way it has developed. Heck, much of the commercisliation of music was 100% about the distribution of media to hear it on... and the basis for that no longer exists.

So I feel that a justification for music being commerical is probably needed and quiero would be entitled to not accept such a justiciation.

And- again, perception just fine, what I said all along, certainly worried about yours though- once more, I am saying he may be right. You certainly aren't making anything close to a case to make out he is certainly wrong. It's eminently believable that complaining artists may be in the wrong.

He clearly implied that the artists should be grateful, not that they can, that they should be. I don't believe THAT is true. I believe if, by choice, you do not care that you are being stolen from as long as you are being enjoyed, up to you, but the assumption should not be "I'm enjoying your work either way, you shouldn't be moaning.".

Why would artists be in the wrong for complaining that someone illegally acquired their copyrighted material, without them receiving benefit?

There are reasons for the existence of such organisations as F.ederation A.gainst C.opyright T.heft.

Copyright Theft.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
He clearly implied that the artists should be grateful, not that they can, that they should be

Wrong.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Wrong.

Ok then, so let's clear it up instead of you dodging every question I ask.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I never "implied" anything. I'm direct in all my questions.

You asked if musicians want their music to be heard and enjoyed, the answer is most likely yes. So now what?

Here's why I am pretty certain you were implying what I said:

Were you unaware that this is the stance most musicians take; wanting their music to be heard and enjoyed? Did you not know that before asking? I'm pretty sure you believed all musicians want that, and I'm pretty sure you "knew" that, so the only reason for asking such a question would be to justify another stance, in this case; illegally downloading music.

If it was an honest question as you claim, that would mean you genuinely were unaware and alien to the concept of musicians wanting to be heard and enjoyed, which I find very hard to believe.

-AC