24 songs= $80,000 per song.

[Plow]

You really don't get that?

[guartz]

You really don't get that?

At first I thought you are covering up your fail by beginning to troll,

but I like to give people more credit then that,

So No, I don't understand what your point is.

[Plow]

If you disagree with the law, you fight it, you don't just ignore it and try to make bullshit justifications on message boards so you can not feel as bad about stealing all your music.


I'm not going to be drawn into the debate of rather or not it's a crime with a victim, because the economic impact speaks for itself.

[guartz]

Well if you dismiss the argument on a basis that it's irrelevant since only tangible actions are relevant, then you inadvertently dismiss your arguments for it as well. So for the sake of the conversation, what makes you believe it's theft? When I, and a few others have pointed out quite obviously that it's not, as you say, stealing.

[Plow]

It is their intellectual property. You have to pay for the rights to possess it. If you do not, you are stealing it.

[Beckwin]

an effective way to fight a law is to ignore it, actually. but you basically just said that because I think pot should be legal, I should set up shop in the middle of town with a bunch of big signs saying "hey BUY WEED HERE I HAVE TONS OF WEED FOR SALE"

again, plow being refuckingtarded.

and I wasn't comparing black suffrage to filesharing in terms of importance of freedoms; I was obviously demonstrating just how terrible Meteora's argument was when applied in parallel to other activities.

again, plow being refuckingtarded.

ronald jenkees is a perfect example of how free sharing allows for a genuine individual to get their music out to the masses and leading to the opportunity to support himself. pro-tip: when you watch/listen to his videos on youtube, he is not getting any sort of income. and without youtube, jenkees' music never gets any press nor does he get commissioned for the ESPN podcast. it literally took people sharing links and likely passing around mp3s for the guy to get in a position to earn any money from his music. of course it's not like making his music costs a whole lot anyway; like many other artists he could support his music with a quarterway-decent dayjob.

again, plow being refuckingtarded.

and meteora, you didn't give your two examples until after the fact, nice try at saving face though (as I called that you would). you are such a shitty poster that it makes me lawl. run along now and make some completely pointless posts in other topics.

[alt]

The argument that a free download does not necessarily equate to a lost sale DOES have some merit. Despite some posts in this thread.

There have been cases where the "download equals lost sale" theory has been totally rejected by the courts. Notably USA v. Dove.

However these arguments have been rejected based on the victim (RIAA) being unable to accurately determine the correct value of the loss caused them by the downloads. The courts found that while it is certain the victim sustained some loss of revenue, it is also certain that 100% of the illegal downloads did NOT equate to a lost sale. Which is what the RIAA was basing the argument on.

In the words of the court is USA v. Dove:
"This failed attempt has demonstrated that although there was an injury to the market, as in Chalupnik, the difficulty of determining each victim’s actual loss makes the collective injury inappropriate for MVRA restitution."

[Jefe]

and meteora, you didn't give your two examples until after the fact, nice try at saving face though (as I called that you would). you are such a shitty poster that it makes me lawl. run along now and make some completely pointless posts in other topics.

LOL, whatever helps you sleep at night, "brah." Take your pseudo intellectual bullshit to the spam.

[guartz]

Intellectual property has long been criticized as a misleading term. I think I understand why now. It's not actual property, like the name suggests, but rather a group of regulations coined under one phrase "intellectual property". Regulations, such as trademark and copyrights. Which, might I add, are artificially created government mandates.

Furthermore, stealing means that you deprive somebody of property. Copyright only gives you a limited and exclusive ownership to the idea, it's literally impossible to steal it.
Because that ownership doesn't actually exist in reality.

To give you an example of contrast between intangible ideas and actual property and why it's a natural right to own it.

Humans instinctively know they own themselves, hence the language, "god given right". We know this because come up to any person and demand their arms or legs, and instinctively they will answer "No, that's mine". From there, philosophers way smarter then you and I, logically proved ownership of property from labor/exchange, etc.

However, no such ownership can be proven with ideas. The only possible way to keep an idea yours, is to not tell anyone.

[Beckwin]

you of all people calling someone "pseudo-intellectual"

you flatly made the claim that filesharing was wrong because it was illegal, I called you on it, then afterward you tried to save face by mentioning that well, Jim Crow laws were wrong.

Might I suggest doing some more mod cocksucking so you can get "embarrassing meteora" a bannable offense? i mean it's worth a shot

[Beckwin]

However, no such ownership can be proven with ideas. The only possible way to keep an idea yours, is to not tell anyone.

we could get some thought police to make sure that people don't have thoughts they haven't paid for.

[Jefe]

you of all people calling someone "pseudo-intellectual"

you flatly made the claim that filesharing was wrong because it was illegal, I called you on it, then afterward you tried to save face by mentioning that well, Jim Crow laws were wrong.

Might I suggest doing some more mod cocksucking so you can get "embarrassing meteora" a bannable offense? i mean it's worth a shot

Please, I dare you to quote me where I said file sharing is illegal, go ahead I'll wait. That is, unless, you made it up like all your bullshit. And lol @ you for "calling me on it." Oh noez!

[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.

what is the means in which people download copyrighted material w/o the owner's permission? filesharing. you goddam know well what I mean.

you said "dl'ing copyrighted material is wrong because it's illegal"; I've been arguing against that whole idea. so now are you going to try and nitpick at word choice to save your ass? semantics, here we go!

[Jefe]

what is the means in which people download copyrighted material w/o the owner's permission? filesharing. you goddam know well what I mean.

you said "dl'ing copyrighted material is wrong because it's illegal"; I've been arguing against that whole idea. so now are you going to try and nitpick at word choice to save your ass? semantics, here we go!

No, no, no, no semantics don't try to weasel your way out. Go ahead and quote me on your original statement. I'm still waiting. You know you can't, you know why? Because as sad as it may sound, you're a fucking liar willing to make up bullshit to win an argument in some forum. You're a fucking hack man.

[Beckwin]

YOU SAID THAT COPYRIGHT VIOLATIONS WERE WRONG BECAUSE THEY ARE ILLEGAL. YOU MADE NO OTHER ARGUMENT AS TO WHY THEY WERE WRONG. you said any arguments and analogies to the contrary were nothing but attempts to make people doing something wrong feel better. I don't know how much clearer I can make this; now you're trying (badly) to set up a red herring to weasel your way out of this. again, here's your quote of stupid:

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.

[Kuya]

Please, someone get rid of meteora.

[Plow]

an effective way to fight a law is to ignore it, actually. but you basically just said that because I think pot should be legal, I should set up shop in the middle of town with a bunch of big signs saying "hey BUY WEED HERE I HAVE TONS OF WEED FOR SALE"

How the fuck do you think laws like that get changed?

Did you forget all about oh, I dunno, everything from Rosa Parks to Larry Flynt?

again, beckwin being refuckingtarded and bending over too far to sniff his own farts and placing his head directly up his ass

and I wasn't comparing black suffrage to filesharing in terms of importance of freedoms; I was obviously demonstrating just how terrible Meteora's argument was when applied in parallel to other activities.

How the fuck is petty theft even remotely comparable to human rights?

The scenario actually is, in a way, but not in the fucktarded self-important asshole model you tried to use it. I'll get to that in response to guartz.

again, beckwin being refuckingtarded and bending over too far to sniff his own farts and placing his head directly up his ass

ronald jenkees is a perfect example of how free sharing allows for a genuine individual to get their music out to the masses and leading to the opportunity to support himself. pro-tip: when you watch/listen to his videos on youtube, he is not getting any sort of income. and without youtube, jenkees' music never gets any press nor does he get commissioned for the ESPN podcast. it literally took people sharing links and likely passing around mp3s for the guy to get in a position to earn any money from his music. of course it's not like making his music costs a whole lot anyway; like many other artists he could support his music with a quarterway-decent dayjob.

Do you know why Ronald Jenkees is still able to put videos up on youtube, with ever-increasing quality, purchase studio time, new gear, etc. etc. etc. to continue making music that's better and better?

Because people buy his albums.

And guess what? It would be even better if the hundreds of thousands of people playing WoW that heard about him through neilyo videos actually went to buy the shit instead of immediately responding "where can I torrent this lawlz?!"


It's *almost* a nice strawman you built there, but nobody in the fucking world is trying to claim that artists that *choose* to distribute their intellectual property freely in order to gain publicity is a problem. Fuck off with that shit.


again, beckwin being refuckingtarded and bending over too far to sniff his own farts and placing his head directly up his ass

Intellectual property has long been criticized as a misleading term. I think I understand why now. It's not actual property, like the name suggests, but rather a group of regulations coined under one phrase "intellectual property". Regulations, such as trademark and copyrights. Which, might I add, are artificially created government mandates.

First off, that's your own personal take on it. If you don't think music, art, movies, etc. etc. deserve to have their own value beyond the price of materials to distribute it, well, I'd hate to be an artist in your world. Fuck, I'd hate to live there, seeing as there would be no such thing as a full time artists.

Furthermore, stealing means that you deprive somebody of property.

You are depriving them of the money they deserve for the rights to their product.

Copyright only gives you a limited and exclusive ownership to the idea, it's literally impossible to steal it.
Because that ownership doesn't actually exist in reality.

As a matter of fact, it does. The item we speak of is simply electrical signals inside a person's brain. They possess it, and they have the right to choose rather to share it with you, offer it to you for a price, or keep it to themselves.

You're directly infringing on their right to profit from their own work. The problem here is that you're literally viewing music, movies, etc., as if they don't require any effort or work to produce.

To give you an example of contrast between intangible ideas and actual property and why it's a natural right to own it.

Humans instinctively know they own themselves, hence the language, "god given right". We know this because come up to any person and demand their arms or legs, and instinctively they will answer "No, that's mine". From there, philosophers way smarter then you and I, logically proved ownership of property from labor/exchange, etc.

However, no such ownership can be proven with ideas. The only possible way to keep an idea yours, is to not tell anyone.

Which is *exactly* why all of these terms, rules, etc. exist: because it would fucking suck if they chose to keep it to themselves, let alone still couldn't gain the means to maintain a reasonable standard of living if they did share.

[Plow]

P.S. I downloaded music illegally yesterday, now I know what it was like to use the underground railroad.

[Beckwin]

Please, someone get rid of meteora.

and plow.

I mean he just got done chastising me for supposedly comparing filesharing to civil rights struggles (which I didn't; I merely demonstrated how a logical process fails in a parallel situation with extremity of situation added for effect), then goes right around and says I should take the same sort of public action as the civil rights movement to make filesharing legal/change copyright laws.

[Beckwin]

and jenkees selling any albums is reliant entirely on youtube and his stuff getting passed around the internet in other various forms. and him selling albums is great for him; goes back to my point that (enough) people will be willing to buy your music if they want to support a particular artist directly- buying merch and going to shows are other ways people show their support. just like the old days before copyright law/recorded media.