What are your thoughts on downloading copyrighted stuff?

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri

You once argued that people shouldn't moan about paying for the Monarchy, dislike it or not, because it costs "peanuts". So what? I don't even want to pay peanuts, how little isn't of any concern, just like it doesn't matter if bands are losing a pound or a million, they're not gaining something they should be. Just like the Monarchy are gaining money they shouldn't be.

-AC

Actually, the monarchy makes the public money. Effectively you don't pay squat for them.

What I said was that the expenditure on the Monarchy is peanuts so is irrelevant anyway. But even if it was more, it doesn't matter as it's not your money. Common misconception that it is, but oh well. For that matter, even if it was yours, so what? Taxes get spent on stuff you don't like all the time, that's how it works.

And whilst the principle is different... it might not be any of the artists' money being lost anyway. It's money they never would have had anyway.

Originally posted by Alt. Account
I disagree, AC is right!! Copyright breaking is theft!

Originally posted by Alt. Account
👆 It is a simplistic argument i'll grant you. That though is the law, most of the time!!!! As a law student I know this.

Sorry... the KMC already has a resident "LAW STUDENT"; I don't think there's room for another. Can you dance around like a monkey or honk a horn like a clown? Err, wait.

Originally posted by Schecter
hahaha indeed starhawk was pathetic. not as pathetic as whirly, but still...

not that i think you're a sock. you're much more intelligent than those retards

🙂

What the hell is a Whirly

🙂

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Your first line- that people pay for what they downloaed- is irrelevant- read what I said again. Has nothing to do with whether they pay for it or not. Again- they only lose money if, otherwise, the person WOULD have paid for it. Evidence for that does not exist.

I see what you are saying, but you're not entirely correct. If they own the album without paying, the band deserve money for it, and they are not getting it.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Seriously- there's no decent evidence to analyse that issue at all.

The word 'should' is very vague, really. If you are talking about material loss, the only important word is 'would'. Are the artists losing out on any money that they otherwise would have got? Answer may very well be 'no', in which case there is no actual loss.

It's really simple. If someone owns something for free that they otherwise would have had to pay for, such is the case with illegal downloading, the band or artist make no money from it, as they should be doing.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Now, if we are talking about people having music they have no entitlement to... then that's fine, and I mentioned it earlier- but that's not theft, and the artists lost no money. People just own something unfairly. Very different.

It's not about losing money they currently own, it's about not gaining money they deserve.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Actually, the monarchy makes the public money. Effectively you don't pay squat for them.

Effectively? I wouldn't want to pay anything at all for them, ever. It doesn't matter how little or lot.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
For that matter, even if it was yours, so what? Taxes get spent on stuff you don't like all the time, that's how it works.

Yeah, necessary stuff. Not an archaic relic that has no relevant place here besides the idea that they still, in 2007, represent us, or the silly idea that people come over here to meet the Queen and she is somehow directly responsible for tourist revenue, but that's for another thread I suppose.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
What I said was that the expenditure on the Monarcy is peanuts so is irrelevant anyway. But even if it was, it doesn't mattter as it's not your money.

And whilst the principle is different... it might not be any of the artists' money being lost anyway. It's money they never would have had anyway.

This "It's money they would never have had anyway." is silly, because you are focused on losing in the sense of being taken away, not loss in the sense of not gaining.

-AC

What about people, like myself, who download albums they had when they were younger? I mean, I've already paid for it once. And it's not always a matter of me being irresponsible and loosing the physical album I bought. Sometimes it's because the album is worn out.

Yes, effectively- you pay nothing for the Monarchy. Zero. And what you consider taxes should necessarily be spent on differs from others. Some people think taxes shouldn't be spent on welfare, that it is not necessary, but they are so spent anyway. Again, that's how taxes work. It will be paid for things you don't want.

But let me make this simple- you don't pay for the Monarchy, ok? There is no way in which your tax money is funding them. So rest easy, you don't even have to worry about the taxation debate.

Meanwhile... you can talk about money people 'deserve'. But we are getting increasingly distant from theft. Nothing has been taken. Losing money you would never have had... is not theft. Not getting money you deserve.... is not theft. All of this is simply not what the word means.

Originally posted by Devil King
What about people, like myself, who download albums they had when they were younger? I mean, I've already paid for it once. And it's not always a matter of me being irresponsible and loosing the physical album I bought. Sometimes it's because the album is worn out.

The same applies overall. Reasons for doing so being more understandable or not.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Meanwhile... you can talk about money people 'deserve'. But we are getting increasingly distant from theft. Nothoing has been taken.

Besides the property of an artist without their permission, which is...theft, resulting in them not getting money they deserve.

-AC

No. it isn't. Call it theft all you like, but people not getting money they 'deserve' is not what the word 'theft' describes.

Significantly, they wouldn't get any money back if the crime was stopped,. They'd get nothing back at all, because no money- more accurately no value- has been taken. Often, anyway.

Originally posted by Devil King
What about people, like myself, who download albums they had when they were younger? I mean, I've already paid for it once. And it's not always a matter of me being irresponsible and loosing the physical album I bought. Sometimes it's because the album is worn out.

So long as it is not a different arrangement or recording, I believe that's actually perfectly legal. Couldn't swear to it. Certainly could not swear to it everywhere.

Originally posted by 2D_MASTER
Damn... nobody can "handle" AC.

It is easy to argue something when you are right...and you have "oodles" of time.

Originally posted by Devil King
What about people, like myself, who download albums they had when they were younger? I mean, I've already paid for it once. And it's not always a matter of me being irresponsible and loosing the physical album I bought. Sometimes it's because the album is worn out.

You wore out your Rodgers and Hammerstein collection, didn't you!

Originally posted by dadudemon
It is easy to argue something when you are right...and you have "oodles" of time.

Would you argue something if you weren't right and didn't have the time?

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
The same applies overall. Reasons for doing so being more understandable or not.

See, that's where I disagree with you. Before downloading, I'd probably bought three or four complete Elton catalouges, over the course of about 10 years.

The other side of that is what I did with Ben's Brother. I downloaded several tracks, and as soon as the album comes out, I'll buy it. (I know that's kind of going backwards in the discussion, but it's something I do)

Originally posted by Robtard
You wore out your Rodgers and Hammerstein collection, didn't you!

complete Elton catalouges

So, almost.

Originally posted by Devil King
So, almost.

Elton kicks ass though; I mean that in a non-gay way.

Originally posted by Robtard
Elton kicks ass though; I mean that in a non-gay way.

Reported.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
No. it isn't. Call it theft all you like, but people not getting money they 'deserve' is not what the word 'theft' describes.

Significantly, they wouldn't get any money back if the crime was stopped,. They'd get nothing back at all, because no money- more accurately no value- has been taken. Often, anyway.

I never said that was theft, I said it's a result of theft. Acquiring property, tangible or otherwise, that is not your property, without permission, is theft. This results in them not getting money they are owed.

It's not about money being TAKEN, it's about PROPERTY being taken which results in money not being gained.

-AC

Originally posted by Devil King
Reported.

For not being gay?

... It's like that now? Guess I won't be using any sarcasm anymore