|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Hell: An excuse for downloading music illegally?!
|
Pegasus*
Shipmate
# 5779
|
Posted
In addition to which, I don't think deception is what is at issue here. The issue is theft.
--------------------
Not a Proper Christian™
Posts: 533 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sienna:
What about the origination of the file being downloaded? The copyright notices, etc. are pretty clear, so, if you're not being deceptive by downloading, aren't you profiting from someone else's illegal act, namely whoever distributed the file to begin with? And they quite possibly purchased the original file with no intention of abiding by the notice, which is deceptive.
And because I'm just following this down various trails, is it okay to buy bootleg DVDs and software from the guy on the corner, even if you know they're bootlegs?
Sienna
It is true that distribution without permission is illegal - it is an offence in its own right.
If you don't know bootlegs are just that, then you may get off with a warning, but I wouldn't depend on it. Strict liability again, but the precise consequences vary according to the exact laws.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Siena
Ship's Bluestocking
# 5574
|
Posted
Well, Papio distinguished sneaking into a movie theater and seeing a movie you haven't paid for from from downloading music you haven't paid for by saying that sneaking into a movie theater is deceptive, hence the deceptiveness disgression. Besides, if we're talking about whether downloading music is right or wrong, it's possible for it to be wrong for other reasons besides theft....
Papio, when you buy bootleg DVDs, you're depriving the holder of the copyright of profits from the sale of the property, and you're depriving anyone who had a right to royalties from the sale of their share of the royalties....unless you want to try to make the argument that people only buy bootleg copies of DVDs they'd otherwise do without entirely.
Sienna
--------------------
The lives of Christ's poor people are starved and stunted; their wages are low; their houses often bad and insanitary and their minds full of darkness and despair. These are the real disorders of the Church. Charles Marson
Posts: 709 | From: San Diego, California, USA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
irreverentkit
Apostle's Amanuensis
# 4271
|
Posted
Intellectual property is in fact, property. It may not be tangible (sorry you all didn't like my produce/gasoline examples), but it is still property under the law.
If you don't pay for use of it, the person who owns it is deprived of his or her legal income from it, which they would have gained had you BOUGHT it instead of STEALING it.
There are plenty of MP3s out there that the artists offer for free. There is a lot of shareware out there that the programmers offer for free (check out snood.com, my personal fave). It is their choice to share with the rest of the world, to relinquish their right to profit from their creations.
But until they do, the right to use that intellectual property belongs to the copyright holder.
There is no moral high ground for people who download music illegally. Why not just say you steal music and be honest about it?
Posts: 1010 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rain Dog
Shipmate
# 4085
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by irreverentkit:
Intellectual property is in fact, property. It may not be tangible (sorry you all didn't like my produce/gasoline examples), but it is still property under the law.
Well your examples were frankly pretty shit - none of them looked at intellectual property as I pointed out. Find appropriate parralels if you don't want them shot down...
quote:
There are plenty of MP3s out there that the artists offer for free. There is a lot of shareware out there that the programmers offer for free (check out snood.com, my personal fave). It is their choice to share with the rest of the world, to relinquish their right to profit from their creations.
But until they do, the right to use that intellectual property belongs to the copyright holder.
Erm yes - we're all aware of that (previously discussed around Linux)
quote:
There is no moral high ground for people who download music illegally. Why not just say you steal music and be honest about it?
I don't think anyone is arguing that depriving an artist of income is wrong - it's just that some of us feel that many artists have been helped by P2P and that cultural knowledge of various musics has been enhanced by it. As I've previously stated I never keep mp3s or burn them into CDs since I'd rather support the artist than do that. If I were a thief I should stop doing that, stick to my murky principles and never buy a CD again, just freeloading forever more.
[ 05. June 2004, 21:56: Message edited by: Rain Dog ]
Posts: 620 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rain Dog
Shipmate
# 4085
|
Posted
Doh! I meant "depriving artists of income is right" not wrong
Posts: 620 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
irreverentkit
Apostle's Amanuensis
# 4271
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rain Dog:
As I've previously stated I never keep mp3s or burn them into CDs since I'd rather support the artist than do that. If I were a thief I should stop doing that, stick to my murky principles and never buy a CD again, just freeloading forever more.
Others have not said this. And there are plenty of other people in the world who don't pay, who do keep their files and who do burn their CDs and insist that somehow they are right to do that because the music industry is corrupt.
I am not a musician. But I was a professional writer for 20 years, and my husband is a programmer. We trade in intangibles. They are our goods for sale. Just because you can't touch them, or because you think that the industry that handles them is corrupt does not make them any less our stock in trade.
Posts: 1010 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Papio.:
RooK - if you don't agree with me, please say why. Cheers.
Papio, before I made this statement you seemed to by saying that there was nothing wrong with downloading illegal MP3s. This is just clearly not so, because the concept of intellectual property is a well-established one. The rights of those owning a song include not letting anyone "sample" it without buying a CD. Sure, it seems like a stupid business model that will probably fail, but that's what our society has agreed upon, and consumers don't have a say about it. Go to iTunes and behold the high-quality bounty, with free samples.
Referring to GoAnneGo's raw downloads numbers for songs, I'd like to point out that companies drool unabashedly at TV commercials that are anywhere near that kind of audience size. A radio station with that kind of listenership would be getting its ass kissed belovedly by the record companies. At the risk of becoming too Purgatorial, I'd like to suggest that the music companies spending who-knows-how-much to ineffectually stanch this tide of free advertising have their business model all fucked up. It shouldn't be about creating prepackaged bits of artistic property for sale; it should be about entertaining and charming people out of their money.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Go Anne Go
Amazonian Wonder
# 3519
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
quote:
Originally posted by Papio.:
RooK - if you don't agree with me, please say why. Cheers.
Papio, before I made this statement you seemed to by saying that there was nothing wrong with downloading illegal MP3s. This is just clearly not so, because the concept of intellectual property is a well-established one. The rights of those owning a song include not letting anyone "sample" it without buying a CD. Sure, it seems like a stupid business model that will probably fail, but that's what our society has agreed upon, and consumers don't have a say about it. Go to iTunes and behold the high-quality bounty, with free samples.
Thank God, I finally feel like someone's read what I wrote.
quote:
Referring to GoAnneGo's raw downloads numbers for songs, I'd like to point out that companies drool unabashedly at TV commercials that are anywhere near that kind of audience size. A radio station with that kind of listenership would be getting its ass kissed belovedly by the record companies. At the risk of becoming too Purgatorial, I'd like to suggest that the music companies spending who-knows-how-much to ineffectually stanch this tide of free advertising have their business model all fucked up. It shouldn't be about creating prepackaged bits of artistic property for sale; it should be about entertaining and charming people out of their money.
Free advertising? Free advertising? All these downloads aren't free advertising! And just when you started to seem smart enough to tie your own shoes, too. While the "older" generation do tend to go buy CDs after sampling (or not buying the CD if they don't like it), 20 million illegal copies made a day of something isn't "free advertising." It is the equivalent of taking a book and xeroxing off an exact copy for free and handing it to someone, and repeating it 20 million times using who knows what combination of how many different books (it isn't the same song being downloaded 20 million times). They might buy an original copy, but then again if they have an MP3 player and not a CD player (as most of the 'kids' I know these days do) then why would they buy the CD at all? So the business moves from selling vinyl to selling 8tracks (remember those?) to selling cassettes to selling CDs and then the market got ahead of itself as the consumers wanted MP3s before the companies could sell them and apparently the markets abhor a vaccuum. Advertising gets people to buy something - illegal downloads take revenue away from artists. Yes, it also takes it away from record companies with evil business models, but that's nothing new. "Record companies are evil" is just an excuse used by people to justify their illegal copying. If they truly didn't want to support the record company, they would do a lot of things differently. Taking money away from record companies just sets artists free without a dime to.....generally wind up waiting tables somewhere if they haven't already made their millions on royalties.
The record companies are trying to staunch this tide because their bottom line is affected - end of story. As you yourself pointed out, you might not like the business model but that's what society has given us. Personally, I think the business model sucks and find it exciting that the the internet gives us the ability for artists to take better control over their careers and music.
Frankly, I don't really know a basic corporation anywhere that isn't based on exploiting the worker - this was the whole appeal of communism and if I recall correctly it was also a large part of the appeal of the intital dot com boom, but I digress. If you don't want to support the company, then you don't support that company, but you don't steal from it. That makes you to my mind even more exploitive than the company, because not only are you exploiting the hard work of others, you're not compensating them in any way shape and form for it, you're just stealing.
And Papio, I'll tell you for the gazillionth time (and no doubt you'll repeat yourself again anyway) - part of the horrid business model that no one likes except companies that are trying to sell you something is that before, you would have bought the CD to see if you liked it. You still might not have liked it, but you'd already have bought it. Now, through your sampling, you haven't bought it, and thus you've deprived someone of money. Maybe you wouldn't have bought the CD every time, but I'm willing to bet that if you look back through your CD collection there's CDs in there that had you used your P2P sampling, you would not have bought. But you bought them anyway. Because this is no longer happening, you're depriving someone of income. And again, I'll say, there's legal ways to sample the songs or even the whole CD, so why not just use those?
[How about you spend some time in the Styx practicing UBB before I get really testy?]
[ 06. June 2004, 03:28: Message edited by: RooK ]
--------------------
Go Anne Go, you is the bestest shipmate evah - Kelly Alveswww.goannego.com
Posts: 2227 | From: Home of the 2004 World Series Champion Red Sox | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Go Anne Go:
Thank God, I finally feel like someone's read what I wrote.
See, now, this just makes you look stupid. Perhaps if you actually engage with what I'm writing you might not have to get as shrill as you do next...
quote:
Free advertising? Free advertising?
For those intelligent enough to recognize it, yes, that's exactly what it could be.
quote:
"Record companies are evil" is just an excuse used by people to justify their illegal copying.
I hope you're not saying this to me. I said they're stupid, not evil. I'm also saying that you're stupid, and lacking the requisite panache to be evil.
quote:
The record companies are trying to staunch this tide because their bottom line is affected - end of story.
Wow. Did you figure that out by yourself, or were you taught that in one of your 3.5 degrees?
The situation reminds me of how much the Big Three auto makers screamed bloody murder when evil "under-priced" imports caused their profits to spiral down the tube. They must have spent billions on lobbyist groups to crank up import duties. The amusing thing was that people were actually buying the imports, despite the hardships, because all the domestic vehicles were complete shit in comparison. They didn't pull themselves out of that slump until they started making products of comperable quality. My point? Now that consumers can buy single songs without wasting money on stuff they don't like, record company profits are going to spiral downward anyway, and their current desperation is just a waste of their money. Still, scape goats are handy - just don't expect me to care when they arbitrarily mention losses in the same sentence with illegal downloads.
quote:
Frankly, I don't really know a basic corporation anywhere that isn't based on exploiting the worker...
<Pardon me while I tune out marxist rant. I've got toenails to clip.>
...you're just stealing.
Again, are you referring to me? I'm paying for my downloads, thankyouverymuch. I just don't particularly care how the low-quality, spyware-ridden, hacker-infested P2P systems effect the music market. I agree that it's wrong, and wouldn't disagree with making those found guilty pay the buck-per-track plus some punitive fine. I'm arguing that it's a waste of time.
Of course, considering that you're resorting to arguing that record companies have a right to trick people into paying for something they don't actually want as a legitimate business model, wasting time appears to be one of your degrees.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Go Anne Go
Amazonian Wonder
# 3519
|
Posted
quote:
Free advertising? Free advertising?
quote:
For those intelligent enough to recognize it, yes, that's exactly what it could be.
Sure, I suppose it could be. Much the same way you could be an intelligent human being. As in if you got a brain transplant. The simple fact is that while certain forms of downloads from legitimate websites are used as advertising, p2p file sharing networks aren't advertising.
quote:
"Record companies are evil" is just an excuse used by people to justify their illegal copying.
quote:
I hope you're not saying this to me. I said they're stupid, not evil. I'm also saying that you're stupid, and lacking the requisite panache to be evil.
Since I've never actually aspired to be evil, I'm reassured that you think I won't be. "Record companies are stupid" is also an excuse used by people to justify their illegal copying. That and fools who don't know advertising from theft.
quote:
The record companies are trying to staunch this tide because their bottom line is affected - end of story.
quote:
Wow. Did you figure that out by yourself, or were you taught that in one of your 3.5 degrees?
Strangely enough, I brought it up because everyone else seems to keep wondering why the record companies want to take down the P2p networks. Because it effects their bottom line. Big fat suprise, but people seem to fail to comprehend this!
quote:
The situation reminds me of how much the Big Three auto makers screamed bloody murder when evil "under-priced" imports caused their profits to spiral down the tube. They must have spent billions on lobbyist groups to crank up import duties. The amusing thing was that people were actually buying the imports, despite the hardships, because all the domestic vehicles were complete shit in comparison. They didn't pull themselves out of that slump until they started making products of comperable quality. My point? Now that consumers can buy single songs without wasting money on stuff they don't like, record company profits are going to spiral downward anyway, and their current desperation is just a waste of their money. Still, scape goats are handy - just don't expect me to care when they arbitrarily mention losses in the same sentence with illegal downloads.
This has to be the dumbest analogy you've come up with yet. The car issue was about price, and then quality on a fungible every day consumable, and the net effects of product dumping and trade law/policy. This is about maximizing revenue on an intangible good. Record company profits will most likely increase as they respond accurately to what the market wants. At the moment, they don't know musically what the market wants, but when they find/create the next big wave (punk/latin/hip hop/boy bands/the re-birth of Ozzy/Kiss/Britney) they do need to be poised to make money on it.
quote:
Frankly, I don't really know a basic corporation anywhere that isn't based on exploiting the worker...
<Pardon me while I tune out marxist rant. I've got toenails to clip.>
...you're just stealing.
quote:
Again, are you referring to me? I'm paying for my downloads, thankyouverymuch. I just don't particularly care how the low-quality, spyware-ridden, hacker-infested P2P systems effect the music market. I agree that it's wrong, and wouldn't disagree with making those found guilty pay the buck-per-track plus some punitive fine. I'm arguing that it's a waste of time.
Of course, considering that you're resorting to arguing that record companies have a right to trick people into paying for something they don't actually want as a legitimate business model, wasting time appears to be one of your degrees.
I'm sorry, at what point did I say that? I'm all for iTunes and better consumer choice. I, too, have paid plenty for one hit CDs where the rest of them sucked. I'm just perpetually suprised that people seem to think that the music company business model is something new. It is one of the reasons why there are separate albums and singles charts. People buy books they think will be good, which turn out to suck after the opening chapter. It's one of the reasons Microsoft tried to bundle explorer in with its OS. You may think I'm stupid and a time waster, but you're obviously pig-ignorant as to how the real world works.
[You fucked up your code, AGAIN? Is there anything simple enough for you to learn, besides corporate dogma?]
[ 06. June 2004, 20:47: Message edited by: RooK ]
--------------------
Go Anne Go, you is the bestest shipmate evah - Kelly Alveswww.goannego.com
Posts: 2227 | From: Home of the 2004 World Series Champion Red Sox | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Joykins
Shipmate
# 5820
|
Posted
I'm following this debate with interest because my husband is an independent musician with his own label, who does most of his marketing online.
As in the debate here, indie musicians' opinions are divided on the topic of illegal downloads. Some view it as expanding their fan base, while others see it as lost sales.
I asked my husband what he thought and he seemed most bothered by, get this, the deterioration in sound quality that happens when one person rips an mp3 from a cd (lowering the bit rate or some such thing) and sets it up on a P2P. ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
His label did experiment with free downloads. The downloads were posted, and a totally optional "click to donate to support this project" was set up. He got hundreds of dollars in donations.
Joy
Posts: 350 | From: Maryland, USA | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
One last chance, GoAnneGo, to see if you can manage to follow my point without just resorting to your mantra. After this, I'm probably just going to start insulting you recreationally.
quote:
Originally posted by Go Anne Go:
The simple fact is that while certain forms of downloads from legitimate websites are used as advertising, p2p file sharing networks aren't advertising.
ad·ver·tise
v.tr.
To make known; call attention to.
How's that for a simple fact? How hard would it be to release low-bitrate versions of songs into the wild on P2P, with a tag soundbyte mentioning where they can buy a high-quality version? I'm guessing... pretty fucking easy. And it would be advertising, and it would be free. If you could have rubbed the minimum number of braincells together to think of it. I really have to stop assuming you can get subtle suggestions.
quote:
This has to be the dumbest analogy you've come up with yet.
And yet, you seemed to miss the point of it - the fundamental point that fighting P2P isn't going to be worth the trouble. Tell us honestly: considering the time and money spent on "cracking down" on P2P, how much actual return on investment do you think it has earned?
quote:
I'm sorry, at what point did I say that?
Here: quote:
Originally posted by GoAnneGo:
And Papio, I'll tell you for the gazillionth time (and no doubt you'll repeat yourself again anyway) - part of the horrid business model that no one likes except companies that are trying to sell you something is that before, you would have bought the CD to see if you liked it. You still might not have liked it, but you'd already have bought it. Now, through your sampling, you haven't bought it, and thus you've deprived someone of money. Maybe you wouldn't have bought the CD every time, but I'm willing to bet that if you look back through your CD collection there's CDs in there that had you used your P2P sampling, you would not have bought. But you bought them anyway. Because this is no longer happening, you're depriving someone of income.
quote:
People buy books they think will be good, which turn out to suck after the opening chapter.
Uh-oh! Now she's after the book-sharing establishment - public libraries!!!
quote:
You may think I'm stupid and a time waster, but you're obviously pig-ignorant as to how the real world works.
No, I'm painfully aware that the "real world" is stuffed full of stupid, time-wasting people. Doesn't mean I have to agree with it.
So, I think I've finished explaining why I think P2P music-sharing is really only a minor issue. Don't bother trotting out any more revenues numbers that would make global-warming climatologists cringe uncomfortably. I recognize that you disagree, and that's fine, especially considering your background. But if you insist on trying to chase this around one more circle of witless repetition, I assure you that all future turns will be ugly.
Yeah, I know that sounds lamely threatening. Amusingly, seasoned Denizens will probably recognize it as one of my rare moments of being considerate.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nonpropheteer
6 Syllable Master
# 5053
|
Posted
The fact is that a service allowing us to pay for single downloadable tracks would never have been made available without the "illegal" file trading that blossomed. Were it not for bootleggers and the government's inability to control them, we would still have prohibition.
The American (indeed the world) public wants to be able to download individual tracks and avoid all that crap that record companies use to fluff up their sales and CD sizes. It is only through the efforts of those willing to take the risk that we gain freedom from corporate corruption and greed. I'm willing to risk 99 cents on an artist to find out if I am interested in their work, but I will never go spend $20 just for a test drive. Especially since most places will not let you return a used CD.
Thank you mp3 pirates, for making the record companies finally come around to giving me a true choice about the music I listen to.
Posts: 2086 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sarkycow
La belle Dame sans merci
# 1012
|
Posted
So the ends justify the means?
Argue all you want about whether the system is right, ethical, fair, good, what-have-you. Bottom line is that those who illegally download music are breaking the law. That's kinda given in the 'illegally' part.
So, Papio, argue all you want about whether the law is right or wrong. If you think it's wrong, and therefore that you're morally justified in breaking it, then you should also be ok about accepting the consequences. Just don't whine that it's really ok to break the law, and you shouldn't be punished for it.
Three pages of the same tedious whirligig whining and rebuttals. God it's boring.
Sarkycow
--------------------
“Just because your voice reaches halfway around the world doesn't mean you are wiser than when it reached only to the end of the bar.”
Posts: 10787 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
duchess
Ship's Blue Blooded Lady
# 2764
|
Posted
I won't post anymore except to say I am enjoying more and more how pro-capitalist bourgeois RooK is getting as Go Anne Go provokes him to hit that hockey puck into the goal tender. Yowza! ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
I will refrain though from anymore comments since I hate being 100% in agreement with him so I can say no more. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
Posts: 11197 | From: Do you know the way? | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rat
Ship's Rat
# 3373
|
Posted
Cycling on the pavement is illegal, because some people do it inappropriately and inconsiderately. But on a narrow country road that is packed with cars and empty of pedestrians the only sensible thing for a cyclist do to is hop up on the footpath. Everybody wins - the road isn't obstructed, the drivers don't get frustrated and overtake on a corner, and the cyclist doesn't get splatted.
Sure, if the police decided to come along and arrest you, you wouldn't have a leg to stand on, you are breaking the law and would just have to pay the fine. Does that make it morally wrong and worthy of vilification?
Luckily, the police generally have better things to do than run around arresting cyclists for behaviour that is harming no-one and benefiting everyone. It sounds like record companies would do well to follow their example, stop pouring money into fighting a losing battle against minor downloaders and make album tracks available to download as a loss-leader to encourage sales. Bearing in mind that someone who downloads a track and likes it will very likely not just buy that particular CD, but future releases by that band as well.
--------------------
It's a matter of food and available blood. If motherhood is sacred, put your money where your mouth is. Only then can you expect the coming down to the wrecked & shimmering earth of that miracle you sing about. [Margaret Atwood]
Posts: 5285 | From: A dour region for dour folk | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
From where I sit it seems that the genie is out of the bottle and the record companies really can't do a hell of a lot about it. Sure they can wave scary lawsuits around but that only alienates their customer base and makes people less likely to want to obtain music in the proper and legal manner.
Sure they've been getting away with obscene profit levels but that's really beside the point. This would have happened even if they weren't making obscene profits. The technology came along for p2p music sharing, and it caught the record companies napping, and now they're in a quandry over how best to do damage control.
Frankly I'm glad I'm not in their shoes. I think that 20 years from now there won't be any record companies; every artist will promote his own music and get paid directly. The record companies will go the way of the buggy whip manufacturers. They are becoming, and will soon be completely, obsolete.
No wonder they're so upset. Poor souls.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ian M
Shipmate
# 79
|
Posted
This idea that the Internet etc. will make the music and book publishing industries obsolete just doesn't go away, does it? And yet so far for books at least the Internet has just led to increased sales of paper books - and some electronic sales as well.
The problem is that if everyone's free to promote their own novel or songs, the choice gets so overwhelming that you're likely to end up with everyone plumping for the safest possible option (or you get companies set up to spot the talent, develop it and bring it to people's attention - ie. to publish it, in whatever form that may be).
Anyway, I've read all through this thread with the intention of contributing, but it's been done for me - just as the record companies used CDs (with their 'improved' technology) to make everyone re-purchase stuff they already owned on LP, so surely they now need to develop a better-than-CD download technology that they can have an exclusive on to promote proper quality recordings of their artists' work? After all, MP3s aren't even as good as CDs anyway... Or just make low-bit-rate files available really readily, and sell the MP3 versions.
It's frankly pathetic how long it's taken for record companies to get anything worked out with regard to electronic distribution of music files, and it's hardly surprising people have taken it into their own hands. But as/if people can get hold of stuff legally with ease and at reasonable prices, most will end up doing that.
Tactility is the only other thing they could consider - I still love LPs for the physical involvement you have with getting the record out, the space for artwork etc. on the sleeve; and CDs have some of that, and it helps one when considering what to listen to, rather than just having a long list of artists and tracks as when files have been bought over the internet.
I guess we could end up with MP3 download plugs in record shops and you could get given the 'album cover' at the same time; but would there be any equivalent for electronic purchases?
Ian
Posts: 332 | From: Surbiton, Surrey, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Go Anne Go
Amazonian Wonder
# 3519
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
One last chance, GoAnneGo, to see if you can manage to follow my point without just resorting to your mantra. After this, I'm probably just going to start insulting you recreationally.
Oh, like you haven't already?
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
quote:
Originally posted by Go Anne Go:
The simple fact is that while certain forms of downloads from legitimate websites are used as advertising, p2p file sharing networks aren't advertising.
ad·ver·tise
v.tr.
To make known; call attention to.
How's that for a simple fact? How hard would it be to release low-bitrate versions of songs into the wild on P2P, with a tag soundbyte mentioning where they can buy a high-quality version? I'm guessing... pretty fucking easy. And it would be advertising, and it would be free. If you could have rubbed the minimum number of braincells together to think of it. I really have to stop assuming you can get subtle suggestions.
And if you could only learn basic reading comprehension, and thus the difference between what *IS* and what *COULD BE.* I said p2p currently isn't advertising. You said it could be. Sure, it could, but it isn't. Dumbass.
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
quote:
Originally posted by Go Anne Go:
This has to be the dumbest analogy you've come up with yet.
And yet, you seemed to miss the point of it - the fundamental point that fighting P2P isn't going to be worth the trouble. Tell us honestly: considering the time and money spent on "cracking down" on P2P, how much actual return on investment do you think it has earned?
Actually, I think it has earned quite a bit. First of all, it gave people an actual incentive to use legal methods to download instead of illegal ones. Secondly, it did stop a number of people from using the networks or thinking about using it - what lawyers refer to as a "sand in the eyes" feature, sort of like all that small print disclaimer stuff you get on everything these days. The vast majority of it isn't enforcable, but if it prevents a lawsuit or something being used for an incorrect purpose than companies deem it worth it. While the crack down isn't to prevent consumers suing the music companies, it does stop at least some people from using p2p for illegal purposes for fear of being sued. Thus, money saved. P2P also needed to be cracked on for other reasons. While there are legitimate uses for P2P, interestingly the biggest problem on P2P is not actually music downloads any more. It is porn, and particularly child porn. And while the music industry has been most vocal about its crackdowns (which are aimed more at the little guy) the sex industry has profited more from the internet than anyone else. Sad (in my opinion) but true. And quietly, the sex industry is cracking down on Kazaa and others because of their copyrights being violated and their profits diminishing. And of course police forces are cracking down as well in order to prevent transfer of child porn.
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
I'm sorry, at what point did I say that?
Here: quote:
Originally posted by GoAnneGo:
And Papio, I'll tell you for the gazillionth time (and no doubt you'll repeat yourself again anyway) - part of the horrid business model that no one likes except companies that are trying to sell you something is that before, you would have bought the CD to see if you liked it. You still might not have liked it, but you'd already have bought it. Now, through your sampling, you haven't bought it, and thus you've deprived someone of money. Maybe you wouldn't have bought the CD every time, but I'm willing to bet that if you look back through your CD collection there's CDs in there that had you used your P2P sampling, you would not have bought. But you bought them anyway. Because this is no longer happening, you're depriving someone of income.
Papio wanted to know how he was depriving someone of money, I told him. Again, learn to read.
quote:
Go Anne Go:
People buy books they think will be good, which turn out to suck after the opening chapter.
quote:
RooK:
Uh-oh! Now she's after the book-sharing establishment - public libraries!!!
I'm hardly after the book-sharing establishment, and in fact I donated over $500 worth of books to my local public library on Saturday. What I'm pointing out is that the music industry business plan is hardly unique. I really think you need to get the concept of legal uses of copyrighted material straight before you get so freaking preachy. Of course, that would involve your being able to read.
[Clearly you can't read fuckwit, as you haven't bothered using Preview Post on your last 10 posts.]
[ 07. June 2004, 17:15: Message edited by: Sarkycow ]
--------------------
Go Anne Go, you is the bestest shipmate evah - Kelly Alveswww.goannego.com
Posts: 2227 | From: Home of the 2004 World Series Champion Red Sox | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Go Anne Go
Amazonian Wonder
# 3519
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
From where I sit it seems that the genie is out of the bottle and the record companies really can't do a hell of a lot about it. Sure they can wave scary lawsuits around but that only alienates their customer base and makes people less likely to want to obtain music in the proper and legal manner.
Actually, I think that it has more put people in a position to obtain music in a legal manner, once they finally wised up to offer it to them.
quote:
Sure they've been getting away with obscene profit levels but that's really beside the point. This would have happened even if they weren't making obscene profits. The technology came along for p2p music sharing, and it caught the record companies napping, and now they're in a quandry over how best to do damage control.
Frankly I'm glad I'm not in their shoes. I think that 20 years from now there won't be any record companies; every artist will promote his own music and get paid directly. The record companies will go the way of the buggy whip manufacturers. They are becoming, and will soon be completely, obsolete.
No wonder they're so upset. Poor souls.
Yup. Pretty much. I do think this is what is going to happen to the music industry, but I do also think that this particular fight they're fighting will help those individual artists when they're out there selling their songs.
[And again you fuck up worse than a newbie troll. Try the practice thread in the Styx.]
[ 07. June 2004, 17:18: Message edited by: Sarkycow ]
--------------------
Go Anne Go, you is the bestest shipmate evah - Kelly Alveswww.goannego.com
Posts: 2227 | From: Home of the 2004 World Series Champion Red Sox | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Go Anne Go
Amazonian Wonder
# 3519
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ian M:
This idea that the Internet etc. will make the music and book publishing industries obsolete just doesn't go away, does it? And yet so far for books at least the Internet has just led to increased sales of paper books - and some electronic sales as well.
The problem is that if everyone's free to promote their own novel or songs, the choice gets so overwhelming that you're likely to end up with everyone plumping for the safest possible option (or you get companies set up to spot the talent, develop it and bring it to people's attention - ie. to publish it, in whatever form that may be).
Anyway, I've read all through this thread with the intention of contributing, but it's been done for me - just as the record companies used CDs (with their 'improved' technology) to make everyone re-purchase stuff they already owned on LP, so surely they now need to develop a better-than-CD download technology that they can have an exclusive on to promote proper quality recordings of their artists' work? After all, MP3s aren't even as good as CDs anyway... Or just make low-bit-rate files available really readily, and sell the MP3 versions.
It's frankly pathetic how long it's taken for record companies to get anything worked out with regard to electronic distribution of music files, and it's hardly surprising people have taken it into their own hands. But as/if people can get hold of stuff legally with ease and at reasonable prices, most will end up doing that.
Tactility is the only other thing they could consider - I still love LPs for the physical involvement you have with getting the record out, the space for artwork etc. on the sleeve; and CDs have some of that, and it helps one when considering what to listen to, rather than just having a long list of artists and tracks as when files have been bought over the internet.
I guess we could end up with MP3 download plugs in record shops and you could get given the 'album cover' at the same time; but would there be any equivalent for electronic purchases?
Ian
The thing about MP3s is that they don't sound at their best on CDs, they sound best on an MP3 player. Which you're right, doesn't have the tactile feel, which is why e-books haven't taken off yet. And self publishing leads to the "how do I find anything good?" issue. I have spent some time reading books submitted to an agent to see if the agent will take them and let me tell you, the most horrid published books you've read out there were a WHOLE LOT better than these. So how do you tell what you might want to read.
Future careers looking on the upswing: book reviewier, and some sort of "Google" type thing that helps sort out the good from the bad from the ugly. The way it currently stands, I think that paper books will continue to be the way for rather a long while - there's no substitue for flipping pages. But I think that the book industry will move more and more towards self publishing, similar to the music industry. That's where new forms of reviewing are going to become very crucial.
--------------------
Go Anne Go, you is the bestest shipmate evah - Kelly Alveswww.goannego.com
Posts: 2227 | From: Home of the 2004 World Series Champion Red Sox | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
quote:
Originally screeched by GoofAnneGoof:
Oh, like you haven't already?
Smeglick to English translation: Kick me.
OK.
Your clueless persistance with the exact same failed thrusts indicate that you are either insane, or an amazing world-class moron. Yes, I acknowledge that both P2P music sharing and jaywalking are illegal, I just don't care and I think it's a waste of resources to pursue. You have failed, again and again, to produce any reason why I should care or convincing argument about why it would be worthwhile.
So, if you've used the exact same argument already, and I don't agree - what non-functional little excuse of a neuron makes you think that saying the same stupid shit again is going to be convincing this time? Maybe you think that the added panache of totally fucking up the formatting such that your useless comments are buried in garble will make them more entertaining for me? Maybe having to fix the code on virtually every moronic post you make will warm me up to the idea of puerile litigation against 12-year-olds?
Guess what, you unfortunately-unspilled-blot-of-semen, that doesn't work very well. I hope you try this sort of arguing technique while you're working for the record companies, because your ineptitude will certainly hasten the end of this stupidity.
To summarize: Go clumsily fuck yourself with a rusty garden rake, you annoyingly shrill little felchdrip.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
NO
Shipmate
# 5477
|
Posted
[tangent]
My God, is there some sort of award for screwing up code about ten times on the same thread? ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
[/tangent]
Posts: 1250 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Go Anne Go
Amazonian Wonder
# 3519
|
Posted
Quite simply put, to apply RudE's arguments against himself, since I think Preview Post and UBB code are a big waste of time, I don't have to worry about them, and none of his apathetic little attacks are going to make me care either, although it tickles me muchly that he feels the need to go back and re-edit them!
--------------------
Go Anne Go, you is the bestest shipmate evah - Kelly Alveswww.goannego.com
Posts: 2227 | From: Home of the 2004 World Series Champion Red Sox | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nonpropheteer
6 Syllable Master
# 5053
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sarkycow:
So the ends justify the means?
Argue all you want about whether the system is right, ethical, fair, good, what-have-you. Bottom line is that those who illegally download music are breaking the law. That's kinda given in the 'illegally' part.
Sarkycow
Sometimes the ends do justify the means, especially when the law is being used to abuse people. While obviously p2p file sharing is not on the same 'injustice' scale as as some laws that have been passed, it is only by breaking laws (such as Rosa Parks did in the '60s) that an progress is made in the law. The consumer now has options. Options that the record lables never would have made available to them if they didn't have to.
With choices, the consumer has the power to decide how much of their money gets spent where.
I'm genuinely surprised that so many democratic/ socialist types would support laws that protect greedy, corrupt, price-gouging corporations. (*not putting that lable on you, specifically, Sarky... it just occured to me as I skimmed back through some of the posts.)
Posts: 2086 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
To G.A.G:
Fair enough. I never said you must use code correctly, just that you appeared stupid because of it.
What I'm wondering now is if you're this tense and bitchy because you can't get laid, or if you can't get laid because you're this tense and bitchy. It's probably one of those chicken-and-egg things though, right? Kind of like you failing to comprehend my points because you're stuck in your dogmatic little wheel, and you're stuck in your dogmatic little wheel because you fail to comprehend my points. Whatever. Keep on spinning that squeaky little wheel all you want, if it makes you feel better.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
Go Anne Go finds a new excuse for being incompetent.
{typo}
[ 07. June 2004, 22:02: Message edited by: Nightlamp ]
--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp
Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sarkycow
La belle Dame sans merci
# 1012
|
Posted
Me, I was just asking a question. Oh, and pointing out that disputing whether it's illegal or not is rather stupid. Arguing whether it's moral, right, good, what-have-you - these are infinitely better arguments to have.
Beyond that, I haven't got a dog in the fight.
Sarkycow
--------------------
“Just because your voice reaches halfway around the world doesn't mean you are wiser than when it reached only to the end of the bar.”
Posts: 10787 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
NO
Shipmate
# 5477
|
Posted
Oooooo - a full house of Hellhosts, all in a row. What do we win? ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posts: 1250 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sarkycow
La belle Dame sans merci
# 1012
|
Posted
The pleasure of us ripping some stupid poster a whole new asshole
--------------------
“Just because your voice reaches halfway around the world doesn't mean you are wiser than when it reached only to the end of the bar.”
Posts: 10787 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
NO
Shipmate
# 5477
|
Posted
Ahh, I see.
Do carry on ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
Posts: 1250 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sine Nomine*
Ship's backstabbing bastard
# 3631
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
What I'm wondering now is if you're this tense and bitchy because you can't get laid, or if you can't get laid because you're this tense and bitchy.
Have you thought about calling her "missy" yet?
Posts: 10696 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
NO
Shipmate
# 5477
|
Posted
Ah, Sine, but he has to go through the lesser insults, like "fucktard", first.
Posts: 1250 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mertseger
Faerie Bard
# 4534
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Norman the Organ:
Ah, Sine, but he has to go through the lesser insults, like "fucktard", first.
Actually, I thought "felchslurp" was his most inspired recent invention. Truly, I'd rather see RooK swinging for the fences than going through the rote -tards, and -wits and so forth even if doing so results in the occasional auger controversy.
[edit: spelling]
[ 07. June 2004, 22:22: Message edited by: Mertseger ]
--------------------
Go and be who you are:
The Body of Christ,
The Goddess of Body,
The Manifest Song of Faerie.
Posts: 1765 | From: Oakland, CA, USA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pyx_e
Quixotic Tilter
# 57
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sarkycow:
The pleasure of us ripping some stupid poster a whole new asshole
quote:
Originally posted by Norman the Organ:
Ahh, I see.
Do carry on
She was talking about you asshat, sheesh.
P
--------------------
It is better to be Kind than right.
Posts: 9778 | From: The Dark Tower | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I truly don't understand this "how do I find anything good?" problem y'all are touting. Like there isn't an ocean of trash, both in books and music, already? And that's why God made critics and book clubs. I just can't see as many drawbacks to the demise of the music publishing industry as y'all are fantasizing.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nonpropheteer
6 Syllable Master
# 5053
|
Posted
Have you ever been a member of a book club, MT?
They were created by the devil, not God.
Posts: 2086 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Hush.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Duo Seraphim*
Sea lawyer
# 3251
|
Posted
You know, all the debate about lost CD sales caused by illegal mp3 downloads ignores the revenue streams made by records companies and artists through licensing music for public performance eg radio, broadcasting, television commercials,lift music etc. Then there's inclusion of the sound recording or performance of a musical work in film scores, commercials, home videos, sheet music and so on.
In fact, given the "deductions" on an artist's royalty stream on CD sales, music licensing starts to look good for an artist.
And those revenue streams happen to be unaffected by the level of music downloads. Personally, I think the record companies will survive. There are certain economies of effort in their relationships with radio stations, cable etc and their ability to push and promote new talent.
I have some sympathy with the "promotion" and "try before you buy" arguments for illegal downloads. Doesn't make unlicensed downloads any less copyright infringement. That role can be played by legal sites like iTunes, which do this well.
Likewise all creators have the right to control the exploitation of the results of their intellectual effort. Right now, the imperfect legal way we do that is by the imperfect intangible property right of copyright vested originally in the author (or author's employer) and by performance right and by moral rights (right to be identified as author,(or not to be identified) and the right to object to derogatory treatment of a work, affecting one's reputation and honour as an author). Then there's the "diversity" argument: the question of the artist simply using the technology to promote and distribute their works, where the record companies won't - Prince being the outstanding example here.
Put bluntly copyright infringement is illegal, along with a whole other bunch of things, including speeding and murder. Legislation doesn't stop illegal things happening. I don't download illegal mp3s, because being caught might have adverse effects on my ability to practice law, and, given what I do to earn a buck, it would make me a hypocrite.
End of copyright jurisprudence 101 and Purgatorial argument. Returning you to your usual Hell service...
[die,typo,die]
[ 08. June 2004, 03:46: Message edited by: Duo Seraphim ]
--------------------
2^8, eight bits to a byte
Posts: 3967 | From: Sydney Australia | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
quote:
Yes, I acknowledge that both P2P music sharing and jaywalking are illegal, I just don't care and I think it's a waste of resources to pursue. You have failed, again and again, to produce any reason why I should care or convincing argument about why it would be worthwhile.
I think I will let this stand for me, too.
When has anybody claimed that P2P were legal?
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
This may not be more than a pointless interjection but the BBC News website has a line about publishers ignoring valuable e-book sale opportunities.
It is however attributed to an e-book seller so, once again it can be put down to vested interests. No surprise there.
Publishers (and e-book sellers) want to control the market, people who don't want to pay stacks of cash to acquire things legally when they feel they can get it free with little risk want the whole area levelled out so that the need or desire to copy illegally is reduced or removed and I'm sure that many copyright lawyers recognise the need for some change in the law because historically it takes technological advances to force changes in copyright law.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nonpropheteer
6 Syllable Master
# 5053
|
Posted
I look at it this way: Take the money out and get a better product.
Football was better before the first player was signed to a million dollar contract. I still enjoy watching college and high school ball better because those players want to be there even knowing that they may never recieve any reward or acknowledgement for their service.
Movies were better before stars began getting paid their "fair share" and they had to want to work for more reasons than just the money involved. Small theaters with underpaid actors still produce some of the best performances.
Music was and is still better from less popular, under-or-no paid bands.
Broadband and p2p are here to stay. Hopefully record and film companies are becoming a thing of the past and artists will end up in a position where they get paid directly from the consumer rather through a series of executives and accounts who all syphon off the fat. Then, we'll start seeing the re-emergence of good, imaginative, fresh, films and music.
viva la revolución!
Posts: 2086 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Go Anne Go
Amazonian Wonder
# 3519
|
Posted
Ah, go away for a day and see what I miss.
What I truly love is that what RooK and Papio claim to not care about, they'll spend hours ranting against me on here and speculating on my sex life. Hee hee hee! But claim not to care about whether or not / goes before or after some bit of code and RooK's knickers get all in a twist. Why? Because he feels compelled to go fix it. So it is obviously worth *his* time to go correct my typos, but not worth my time to go and get paid for pursuing copyright law. Which, given his ignorant statements about things in the public domain, libraries, and things that could constitute advertising but aren't (sort of in the way that one *could* build a railroad to the moon, but it isn't there right now), it is probably just as well that he stays out of it, as he's really uninformed in this field, not to mention unwilling to learn anything.
Here's what I don't get. RooK claims he doesn't care about it, and thinks it is a waste of time to pursue illegal measures. BUT he's willing to waste his time here arguing with me about it, AND he claims that his downloads are all legal, so there's something motivating him to do it legally, and judging by his general obnoxiousness, it isn't his undue respect for authority. So I'd love to know what it actually is. I'm not trying to be obnoxious here - I'm generally curious.
--------------------
Go Anne Go, you is the bestest shipmate evah - Kelly Alveswww.goannego.com
Posts: 2227 | From: Home of the 2004 World Series Champion Red Sox | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Go Anne Go
Amazonian Wonder
# 3519
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Papio.:
quote:
Yes, I acknowledge that both P2P music sharing and jaywalking are illegal, I just don't care and I think it's a waste of resources to pursue. You have failed, again and again, to produce any reason why I should care or convincing argument about why it would be worthwhile.
I think I will let this stand for me, too.
When has anybody claimed that P2P were legal?
P2P itself is quite legal. It is whether or not the materials being copied may be copied legally. If they can (public domain, permission of the copyright holder, etc) then there is no legal issue. If they cannot, and P2P is allowing the illegal copying, then there are damages for copyright infringement, which depending on a) the financial resources of the P2P network and b) the amount of illegal copying, may bring down the company with that particular system. Should P2P bring up a sort of system where only authorized marterials are copied, the record companies, porn companies, film companies and authors will leave it alone, and indeed I dare say embrace it more.
To analogize the issue, cars are legal. Hitting people with cars, speeding, driving without insurance, etc are illegal. But if you follow the laws, you're unlikely to have any legal problems.
[ 09. June 2004, 16:16: Message edited by: Go Anne Go ]
--------------------
Go Anne Go, you is the bestest shipmate evah - Kelly Alveswww.goannego.com
Posts: 2227 | From: Home of the 2004 World Series Champion Red Sox | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Go Anne Go
Amazonian Wonder
# 3519
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
This may not be more than a pointless interjection but the BBC News website has a line about publishers ignoring valuable e-book sale opportunities.
It is however attributed to an e-book seller so, once again it can be put down to vested interests. No surprise there.
Publishers (and e-book sellers) want to control the market, people who don't want to pay stacks of cash to acquire things legally when they feel they can get it free with little risk want the whole area levelled out so that the need or desire to copy illegally is reduced or removed and I'm sure that many copyright lawyers recognise the need for some change in the law because historically it takes technological advances to force changes in copyright law.
Well, this copyright lawyer and many others like her feel that one of the first changes in the law that needs to be made is that the length of copyright needs to be cut back a little. I would say any laws generally attributable to Disney Corporation and officially attributable to Sonny Bono (the "Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act" - yes, that Sonny Bono, of "I Got You Babe," formerly married to Cher) may be offically described as "Mickey Mouse" and a bad idea.
--------------------
Go Anne Go, you is the bestest shipmate evah - Kelly Alveswww.goannego.com
Posts: 2227 | From: Home of the 2004 World Series Champion Red Sox | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sine Nomine*
Ship's backstabbing bastard
# 3631
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Go Anne Go:
But claim not to care about whether or not / goes before or after some bit of code and RooK's knickers get all in a twist. Why? Because he feels compelled to go fix it. So it is obviously worth *his* time to go correct my typos
Actually, and I find it surprising you don't know this, fixing code is one of the primary hostly duties. They do it to make it easier for the rest of us to read posts by people who are too lazy or uncaring to use preview post.
Posts: 10696 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by G.A.G.:
BUT he's willing to waste his time here arguing with me about it, AND he claims that his downloads are all legal, so there's something motivating him to do it legally, and judging by his general obnoxiousness, it isn't his undue respect for authority. So I'd love to know what it actually is. I'm not trying to be obnoxious here - I'm generally curious.
I like arguing. Especially when I'm more adept at it than a supposedly professional arguer.
I prefer the high-quality, spyware-free, secure products and service I get from iTunes. I grew annoyed with P2P MP3s because they were generally low quality, and it literally infested my machine with spyware.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Go Anne Go
Amazonian Wonder
# 3519
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
quote:
Originally posted by G.A.G.:
BUT he's willing to waste his time here arguing with me about it, AND he claims that his downloads are all legal, so there's something motivating him to do it legally, and judging by his general obnoxiousness, it isn't his undue respect for authority. So I'd love to know what it actually is. I'm not trying to be obnoxious here - I'm generally curious.
I like arguing. Especially when I'm more adept at it than a supposedly professional arguer.
I prefer the high-quality, spyware-free, secure products and service I get from iTunes. I grew annoyed with P2P MP3s because they were generally low quality, and it literally infested my machine with spyware.
See, now that's a good reason, and nothing to do with the illegality or all of it. You should have brought that to the fore more in your arguments. You're not actually all that adept at arguing - your entire M.O. seems to be "I'm not going to put a decent arguement, I'm going to remain ignorant of the issue, and when called on this fact, I'm going to resort to name calling." I've watched guys like you advocate for clients. They usually wind up getting the judge pissed off at them, and this spells doom for their clients case.
--------------------
Go Anne Go, you is the bestest shipmate evah - Kelly Alveswww.goannego.com
Posts: 2227 | From: Home of the 2004 World Series Champion Red Sox | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
