Holy shit! Tis horrible...

[lazygamer]

No yah see, lack of loyalty is what causes the lack of respect for profit margins and a company's right to success. All this creates the piracy.

People who pirate don't understand the concepts of Linux or true independent artists. For example, I woulden't buy, let alone download bullshit by the Backstreet boys. That is becuase I greatly depise them. Whereas other stuff that I like, I have no feelings of loyalty towards the company. Sure im screwing the artist, but my money woulden't give him much anyways.

As a matter of fact, many artists might get NOTHING from me even if I buy their CD. Read that article Doc posted. Imagine if there was a big drop in record sales, the company woulden't let their bands disappear, those bands still make them big profits. They would simply pay them less profits and put them in debt more.

Maybe im just a pirate trying to justify my ways, or maybe I have some valid points. Im sure Doc agrees with me though.  

[Doctor V]

quote:Originally posted by lazygamer:
CORPORATE HATRED BREEDS PIRACY!!!

Anyone ever heard of Afric Simone?  Great musician.  I was in a chat room a few months back, and some guy from hungary told me about it.  Then he offered to send me a couple of MP3s.  I dled them and listened to the music for the first time.  Ramaya, Hafanana.  I really liked the music, and it prompted me to think about buying the CDs, I'd like a hard copy.  But, of course, my dislike of the RIAA prevents me from doing that.  I feel that if I give money to them, it will just go to the lobbists who will try to push laws that will punish me.  I'm not about to give money to people who will use it against me.  But if it wasn't for the corporate hatred, I'd probably buy the CD.

As it stands I have 2 mp3s from Afric Simone.  I'm already a criminal for that.  I could delete them from my hard drive, and never listen to them again unless the RIAA shapes up.  But that could be a long time, maybe forever.  Will my not deleteing the tracks hurt anyone?  No, of course not, nobody loses anything from them being on my hard drive.  Will deleteing them hurt anyone?  Yes, I won't be able to listen to them anymore.  So why should I delete them, that would be illogical, right?  Do I deserve 2 years in jail and a $20,000 fine for this?

[Doctor V]

And I see double standards.  Why is it that when a kid dls an mp3 he is thought of as a nasty criminal who should go to jail, yet when the record companys collude, which is illegal, everyone just accepts it as natural, and ok.  So, its ok for large companys to break the law to screw over billions, yet not ok for a kid to break a law that hurts noone at all?

Why has everyone clearly avoided my point about collusion?  Do you know what collusion is, do you know that its a crime?  Because the labels collude, artists are stuck with the same crap deals no matter what lable they go with.  The labels have eliminated competition by for the artists by agreeing with eachother no to give the artists better deals.  Illegal.  Also they collude to all offer cd at the same high prices.  This eliminates competition and screws the customers.  Illegal, right?  But nobody here thinks the label's executives should go to jail, suits arn't supposed to go to jail right?

Collusion is illegal.  Collusion is wrong.  Collusion defys capitalism.  And collusion is the only reason this issue even exists!

I heard talk that the reason were are getting the DRM shoved up our asses is because of the pirates, and that they are the real bad guys, and that the content cartel is just doing whats natural, and that we should just be good and if we don't like all this just not buy the cds.  --Thats Exactly What They Want You To Think!!!  I wouldn't be surprised if I heard those words from Hillary Rosen itself.  Whats next, will people really go to jail for reading ebooks aloud?  Adobe dosn't permit their ebooks to be read aloud because of copyright.  Would you guys actually support sending someone to jail for doing it?!?!?!?!?

I don't mean to offend anyone as I notice people on the forums are divided over this issue.  Lets all think about this with an open mind.

[lazygamer]

Hmmm I didn't know that was illegal. So maybe this is why capitalism has such a bad name, because it's the equivalent of when countries like China twist around Marxism into fake communism.

Why hasn't this monopolistic grouping been sued yet though?

[voidmain]

Well, I am one that believes that two wrongs do not make a right. I will do my part by not purchasing CDs or downloading ripped CDs. I will not put myself or my family in jeopardy by breaking a law, even if it is stupid. You can do your part by not purchasing CDs. But I believe you have to be partly to blame by downloading ripped CDs for the new DRM/Palladium hardware coming out, which does effects me. Together  maybe things will change.

[Doctor V]

I agree entirely, what we have in most of the western world is really fake capitalism.  I think the reason they have not been sued is because for one because they have alot of money and a lot of power, and two, nobody really know what goes on behind closed doors, it would be really hard to prove anything.

another point, the situation is rediculous.  CD are being sold at likr 50-100 times what it costs to make them.  I know companys need profits and all, but this is rediculous.  If the lables competed against eachother CDs might cost 2 dollars or less, and the artists would be millionaris.

[Doctor V]

You could use that exact same arguement against cassette tapes, or even the printing press.

IMO, ripping CDs is not wrong.  The world would be better off with CD ripping and file sharing than without it.

They said that the printing press was wrong.
They said that FM radio was wrong.
They said that cable TV was wrong.
They said that cassette tapes wrong.
They say that file sharing is wrong.

Each step in the list of new techs gives the public more of an ability to spread information, and every time it was fought heavily against.  Society is better for having the printing press, think if those in power had their way way back when it was invented and there was no publication today.  And the issue we are faced with today is no different.  This new technology will benefits society, it not be stopped, and in 20 years people will all look back and think how ridiculous this file sharing offosition was.

[voidmain]

[ November 28, 2002: Message edited by: void main ]

[voidmain]

I don't believe I ever said that ripping CDs is wrong. After all, I am against DRM CD-ROM drives and Palladium. It prevents me from ripping CDs that I have legally purchased for my own personal use. It's distributing those ripped files to millions of other people that I believe is wrong. Correct me if I am wrong but there have been court cases in the past that have basically determined that you are allowed to make backup copies of copyrighted material for your own personal use.

Like it or not, those artists made an agreement and signed a contract with a record label. The label *is* providing a service. Sure maybe they are doing some illegal things to make higher profits. Sure they may be robbing the artists blind. That's the artists problem. If they don't like it they should pool together and start their own label and do right. Maybe the artists are happy with their agreement, in which case you are not helping/hurting the label or artist, but merely breaking a law. If the artists want their music spread via file sharing then they need to GPL their music and not sign a contract with a label.

And many artists share in the blame. Take Garth Brooks for instance (ick). He made a campaign against reselling legally purchased CDs. He said the "poor" artists suffer when you do this. That takes it a step beyond. Now that is something that I believe is TOTALLY fooked. If I pay $15 for a CD, I'm sorry, but I have the right to sell that CD for $5 if I don't like it. Garth can kiss my posterior.

Like I said, we are against the same people, just for different reasons, and I might be against a few more people than you are.

If you really feel the way you do about liking the artist and hating the record company so much then you might consider sending the artist an anonymous donation of whatever the CD cost that you "obtained". It would still be illegal but you would feel better. If you do not do this then I would have to put you in with the category that I am against.

[ November 28, 2002: Message edited by: void main ]

[Calum]

doctor v i didn't mean anything personal against you, and i wasn't flaming anybody.

when some people are talking about something on the forums and i think of something to say then i will say it. often i will quote the thing that made me think of saying it.

another thing i am a bit sick of is when people get pissed of just because somebody quotes them in their reply.

anyway, much good discussion seems to have springboarded from what i said, amongst other things so good. that's what i was after.

don't take it personally, i didn't mean to give the impression that that's how it was intended.

[flap]

quote:Originally posted by void main:
It's distributing those ripped files to millions of other people that I believe is wrong.

Yes; sharing is wrong. Sharing means you're a "pirate".

[voidmain]

quote:Originally posted by flap:
Yes; sharing is wrong. Sharing means you're a "pirate".

It does if what you are sharing is illegal to share. It doesn't if what you are sharing is not illegal to share (like GPL software). I don't know if you were being facetious there or not.

[ November 29, 2002: Message edited by: void main ]

[flap]

Well I hope the sarcasm was obvious, but I don't really know what you mean by "wrong". Not doing something because you want to avoid the risk of prosecution is different from not doing it because you feel it's ethically wrong.

Unless of course you believe that it is inherently unethical to break the law, in which case I don't understand the point of view.

[voidmain]

I said I believe it is wrong, as in ethically wrong. You were correct when you said it is pirating if the files you are sharing are being shared illegally. And you are correct in that they are two different things.

I believe when agreements are made between two parties and copyrights are placed on something, it is the copyright holder's right to do what he/she wants with it. If they don't want me to listen to their music without paying for it that's fine. If I like it I will pay for it. If I don't I wont.

Now there are plenty of groups out there who have not made an agreement with a label and want their music shared. Even if they have that music copyrighted they can still say it is ok to share their music, they are the copyright holder, they determine how it is distributed. There is a wealth of this type of music out there, some of it as good or better than anything you hear from a major record label. It's much like the difference between GNU software and proprietary software. I don't like Microsoft software so I choose not to purchase or use it. I like VMware so I purchased it. I use Linux which can be distributed freely. Every piece of Linux code that I am aware of has a copyright but the copyright holder's licence states that the software can be distruted/shared, and that the source code must be included with the software.

It's a two way street. I can't on one hand say it is not ok to close up GPL code and sell it without the source, breaking the license of the copyright holder. And on the other hand say it is ok to share proprietary software (or music) which breaks the proprietary software (or music) copyright holder's license. That would be extremely hypocritical.

Obviously it's more of an ethical issue with me than a legal one. I have broken many laws, in fact I once had my license taken away for too many speeding tickets. But I can sit here with a straight face and tell you I have not once in my life downloaded a pirated MP3. Maybe it's because I too am a musician and have a CD. Of course my CD is not proprietary and it can be downloaded for free off of the net. The songs on that CD are copyrighted though. And if another group were to take those songs and record them with a major label they will have a law suit on their hands. That's what copyrights are all about. To protect your right to use your work however you want. Copyrights are a good thing. Without them, people would have less incentive to create.

But hey, it's just my opinion. Opinions are like ass holes, everybody has one and they all stink.

[ November 29, 2002: Message edited by: void main ]

[lazygamer]

quote:I said I believe it is wrong, as in ethically wrong.

Ethics? What's that?  

Well, I believe in stupid morals and smart morals...