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
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 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
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 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
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
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.