24 songs= $80,000 per song.

[510Meeze]

Not getting paid for money is a hard concept to grasp, yes. You're not making any sense.

fixed it.

[510Meeze]

thanks for agreeing with my entire premise.

the difference with radio/commercial venues is that they are using the music to get profits of their own. I have not argued saying that you can sell listens/copies of something you buy OR dowload/receive as a gift. the use for profit is a key difference in what you're talking about.

You shouldn't, without admitting you're in the wrong, have any music, movie, program, etc that you haven't paid for or received as a gift. That's all I'm saying, but people keep reasoning to themselves downloading songs for free isn't wrong because they would never buy a gold toilet or something...

[Headspace]

I've downloaded like 6 albums since page 2.

[Sunrider]

It had occured to me that if the internet had never come along, no KaZaA, no Napster, no BitTorrent, do you know what this discussion would be about?

Dubbing. We'd all talk about who dubs illegally, and the poor woman with kids that got caught and sued for dubbing 24 songs.

Dunno why, but it's funny to think about.

I've downloaded like 6 albums since page 2.

All three seasons of Darkwing Duck and about four gigs of porn here.

[guartz]

You shouldn't, without admitting you're in the wrong, have any music, movie, program, etc that you haven't paid for or received as a gift. That's all I'm saying, but people keep reasoning to themselves downloading songs for free isn't wrong because they would never buy a gold toilet or something...

Ah, so your value judgment is superior to their value judgement?

[510Meeze]

Ah, so your value judgment is superior to their value judgement?

The fact I know what I'm doing is wrong as opposed to those who don't think they are makes me superior. My values make me inferior to those who don't "steal".

Steal in parentheses so we don't go back to that argument again.

[Beckwin]

You shouldn't, without admitting you're in the wrong, have any music, movie, program, etc that you haven't paid for or received as a gift. That's all I'm saying, but people keep reasoning to themselves downloading songs for free isn't wrong because they would never buy a gold toilet or something...

gifts can't be received anonymously? giving is giving, whatever words you want to use to describe it is your deal; I chose gift because that drew parallels to commonplace sharing pre-internet filesharing.

[Plow]

If the recording industry would stop signing faggots like Jonas Brothers and signing musicians with actual talent who have good music to listen to, they wouldn't have a decline in sales.

People that listen to Jonas Brothers pay for it. People that listen to what you like don't.

He does not LOSE anything. He doesn't GAIN anything, but he doesn't lose a single cent. Just because I downloaded it for free does not mean that if the free option were not there, that I would have bought it. Free downloading /= intent to pay for a song. You cannot prove that, and that's why it's impossible to say that ____ artist is losing money because of free downloads.

I'm not sure how many other ways I can say this.

This is no stronger an argument than claiming God exists because nobody can prove he doesn't.

It's common sense, if the shit is readily available for free, people will stop paying for it, regardless if they would have paid or not.

[Beckwin]

you say it's common sense but I've paid for things I can get for free on numerous occasions. pretty sure I'm not the only one.

[Viena]

you say it's common sense but I've paid for things I can get for free on numerous occasions. pretty sure I'm not the only one.

You're certainly not the only one.

I've a lot of music I've never paid for, but I also have a lot of music that I bought because I really enjoyed it, even if I could have gotten it for free (or already had). Actually there's a lot of music I would have never bought (not even known of) if I didn't find it for free first.

[Jefe]

Lots of people trying to make themselves feel better, but dl copyrighted material w/o the holders' permission is illegal. End of story, and stop the bullshit "analogies," although those are good for a chuckle.

[Viena]

Lots of people trying to make themselves feel better, but dl copyrighted material w/o the holders' permission is illegal. End of story

I'll assume that the pics on your avatar/sig are used without the copyright holder's permission, therefore illegal. In that case, why are you using them?

Rather than the legal status of the matter, which almost everyone is well aware of, my guess is that the discussion is more about the moral side of the story.

[Beckwin]

Lots of people trying to make themselves feel better, but dl copyrighted material w/o the holders' permission is illegal. End of story, and stop the bullshit "analogies," although those are good for a chuckle.

wow, thanks for enlightening me. I totally didn't know that what I was doing was against the law. and because it's a law, it means it must be right! therefore my argument has no merit! of course, it's so easy! wow you're so smart

my god do you ever contribute anything worthwhile to any discussion?

[Kuya]

If not a rhetorical question, then allow me to excitedly answer: NO

[Beckwin]

here let's play mad libs with meteora's terriquote just to show how stupid he is:

Lots of people trying to make themselves feel better, but black people voting is illegal. End of story, and stop the bullshit "analogies," although those are good for a chuckle.

Lots of people trying to make themselves feel better, but the sale and consumption of alcohol is illegal. End of story, and stop the bullshit "analogies," although those are good for a chuckle.

Lots of people trying to make themselves feel better, but unwarranted wiretapping is legal. End of story, and stop the bullshit "analogies," although those are good for a chuckle.

Lots of people trying to make themselves feel better, but sodomy in Texas is illegal. End of story, and stop the bullshit "analogies," although those are good for a chuckle.


ad infinitum

[Cyn]

Even a lot of the actual artists hate the majors. They didn't get their sleazy reputations without a little work.

Personally I think it's fun to see them squirming as their iron grip on the music industry is deteriorating before their eyes. Most of the best music is independently distributed these days anyways, and the major labels are probably hurting the entire industry more than helping it.

[guartz]

The fact I know what I'm doing is wrong as opposed to those who don't think they are makes me superior. My values make me inferior to those who don't "steal".

Steal in parentheses so we don't go back to that argument again.

But that's my point. You saying that it is theft is your opinion. You'd have to go to great lengths to convince people that somebody is being deprived of property.

Once the song is published in a public domain, the idea of it, is now irreversible public. Nobody owns it, since there is a great distinction between ideology and physical property.

Now what IS happening IN reality, is that government imposed mandate of copyright is being violated. There is no stealing, no aggression, no moral crime being committed whatsoever.

However, people like you tend to put value on the publisher's ability to own monopoly and profit for their work. But that's all this is, a value judgment.

[Beckwin]

But that's my point. You saying that it is theft is your opinion. You'd have to go to great lengths to convince people that somebody is being deprived of property.

Once the song is published in a public domain, the idea of it, is now irreversible public. Nobody owns it, since there is a great distinction between ideology and physical property.

Now what IS happening IN reality, is that government imposed mandate of copyright is being violated. There is no stealing, no aggression, no moral crime being committed whatsoever.

However, people like you tend to put value on the publisher's ability to own monopoly and profit for their work. But that's all this is, a value judgment.

precisely.

to add on, think about the era before recorded music. my goodness, how did creative music artists make a living?!?!!?? there was a variety of ways:

-professorship/conservatory sponsorship
-touring
-possibly sales of sheet music? i'm not sure
-patrons
-having a day job

and there was nothing to stop Joe Nobody from playing someone's song at the local pub or at their church or in the neighbor's chamber.

[Khamsin]

-possibly sales of sheet music? i'm not sure

You could always just photocopy those, though. Or hand copy, if we're talking even before the mimeograph was invented. Although it was probably only done by people who wouldn't have paid for the sheet music in the first place, so the artist didn't really lose anything.

[guartz]

Actually, majority of composers made money by composing for hire (either for theater or private), teaching music, and of course, for performance.

Selling overpriced CDs and Digital Downloads is a phenomenon of the 20th/21st century, which is only sustainable it seems, due to copyright laws.