[O97Bassist]

Hey everyone!
I was talking to my friend Ryan who i just found out is a Mac user and we were and since i recently switched i was asking him some questions and he kept bringing up this program "Poison" and all this stuff and he said i could get it from Version Tracker but i can't find it. What exactly is 'Poision' and where can i get it?

[Rickster]

Perhaps you're looking for Poisoned?

[CharlesS]

Poisoned is an app for illegally downloading music, opening you up to getting sued by the RIAA for much more money than you'll ever be able to pay.

Hope that helps.

[maxintosh]

Originally posted by CharlesS:
Poisoned is an app for illegally downloading music, opening you up to getting sued by the RIAA for much more money than you'll ever be able to pay.

Hope that helps.

Just don't share the music you download.

A girl I know was sued by the RIAA the day after her father died from cancer. She had downloaded about 5 songs. The settlement was for $15,000.

That was enough to convince our university to pass a resolution to refuse to cooperate with the RIAA by revealing any student information.

[moonmonkey]

Originally posted by CharlesS:
Poisoned is an app for illegally downloading music, opening you up to getting sued by the RIAA for much more money than you'll ever be able to pay.

Hope that helps.

Has anyone outside the US be done yet?

Out of interest.

[-Q-]

Originally posted by moonmonkey:
Has anyone outside the US be done yet?

Out of interest.

Not that I've read of any cases, but it looks like they're going to be soon.

[CheesePuff]

My friend uses Kazaa on his PC and has downloaded over 4,000 songs from it in the past year and he also shares all of the songs. He has yet to be notified by any authority or ISP about anything.

[James L]

"my gramma smoked a pack a day and lived until she was 98"

...so that makes it right? Your friend is a thief. Downloading music without paying the artist is the same as walking into a gallery and stealing a painting.

[maxintosh]

Originally posted by James L:
"my gramma smoked a pack a day and lived until she was 98"

...so that makes it right? Your friend is a thief. Downloading music without paying the artist is the same as walking into a gallery and stealing a painting.

If you steal the painting, then the owner no longer has it. If you download a song, then nobody is missing anything; another copy of the item was made. I'm not trying to justify it morally, but I get a little tired of people calling it "stealing" -- stealing implies that an object was taken from somebody's possession. Copyright violation, perhaps.

[HOMBRESINIESTRO]

Originally posted by maxintosh:
I'm not trying to justify it morally, but I get a little tired of people calling it "stealing" -- stealing implies that an object was taken from somebody's possession. Copyright violation, perhaps.

Correct: An important part of "stealing" is the breaking of somebody else's safekeeping and the creation of a new, not necesserily your, safekeeping.

[Freeflyer]

Not to get too far into the morality of it all, but I object to paying $16 for a cd of a minor artist, when the artist themselves get so little of that, and the majority of it goes to the record company so that they can pay the huge marketing costs of some teenage hotbody that's trading on looks and a very good recording engineer to pander to the tastes of a teenage generation.

I've been buying music for over 30 years, have a (legal) collection of some 800 cds (think about what that's cost me over the years) and the prices are kept artificially high to pay for marketing of artists that otherwise wouldn't be able to sell a few thousand records on talent alone. It's all about the image, while for me it's all about the music.

I honestly think that music downloading/pirating is one of the best things to happen to the music business in years, as it will force it to reconsider it's marketing strategy, and the internet allows independent music makers to sell and market their wares without having to cave to the corporate suits that would otherwise compromise the artistic integrity that they strive for.

Having worked in the music industry for several years, I've had the opportunity to talk to a number of artists on their views in this matter, including one friend who's sold over 10 million albums worldwide, and most of the artists are in favour of the new way of distributing music.

There are many studies showing that the music downloaders buy more new music than any other group. With the spread of clear channel radio with it's repetitive playlists of purely mainstream music, the opportunity to hear new music is moving increasingly to the internet. I will often hear about an artist I've never previously heard of, do an online search to download a few tracks and, if I like it, will then head to the music shop to buy albums. For me, music downloading has led to buying many new albums that I would otherwise never have heard, providing increased revenue to the recording artists and the industry.

Right, Climbs off soapbox.

J.

[Busemann]

Originally posted by James L:

...so that makes it right? Your friend is a thief. Downloading music without paying the artist is the same as walking into a gallery and stealing a painting.

Its more like going into a gallery and zerox a painting. You get a flawed digital copy, the original is retained, and the painter doesn't get paid. Now the real question is: would you buy the painting in the first place? If not, you wouldn't experience the artist and buy his later works, right?

I have discovered about all of the music i listen to today on P2P networks, but still buy at least a couple of albums a month. I would never have such a broad taste if it hadn't been for the internet.

[jerseyfreeze]

Originally posted by maxintosh:
Just don't share the music you download.

A girl I know was sued by the RIAA the day after her father died from cancer. She had downloaded about 5 songs. The settlement was for $15,000.

That was enough to convince our university to pass a resolution to refuse to cooperate with the RIAA by revealing any student information.

Yeah, the RIAA was targeting her and pounced immediately upon hearing her father had died. I know you don't think that, but if you write this way, that's what people start to think.

[Phat Bastard]

They can't touch me here in Canada. All of you downloaders should move here.

Originally posted by moonmonkey:
Has anyone outside the US be done yet?

Out of interest.

[maxintosh]

Originally posted by jerseyfreeze:
Yeah, the RIAA was targeting her and pounced immediately upon hearing her father had died. I know you don't think that, but if you write this way, that's what people start to think.

That's not the point. The point is, the RIAA is targeting random, every day and decent citizens. They're playing police. It might be breaking the law, but if so many people are doing it (think about speeding on motorways -- do speed limits really need to be as low as 55 mph?) then perhaps the law is flawed. Many of the laws in the US and elsewhere are flawed, that's why they're changing all the time. As someone pointed out, download music isn't breaking the law in every country.

I know very few people who *don't* download music. The price of CDs is absolutely outrageous. I have bought a bunch of stuff from iTunes though, 99c isn't too bad. But if I want to hear the latest Britney Spears song just to know what everyone is talking about, I don't exactly want to make an investment in that.

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by jerseyfreeze:
Yeah, the RIAA was targeting her and pounced immediately upon hearing her father had died. I know you don't think that, but if you write this way, that's what people start to think.

No, I think the idea he was trying to get across (and what I read in his post) was that she was in a really shitty position. I didn't see any grand conspiracy theories in there...

[Sarc]

Originally posted by Freeflyer:
what he posted

very well said

[James L]

Your concept of stolen seems to be stuck in the physical sense... i.e., if I am not actually taking something away from someone, or breaking in somewhere, then I must not be stealing.

right? wrong!

People are charged with intellectual theft often. People too often think because they d/l software or tunes that they aren't stealing. If the $$$ ain't hitting the programmer or musicians pocket, then you are stealing. I can't seem to figure out why that is such a hard concept for people to get.

Take the gaming market, for example. As people just download the disc images for Halo, or UT, or any other game, all it does is make the games more expensive for those of us that are honest. Even worse, as the $$$$ decreases to the game manufacturers, they will be less and less apt to even port games to the Mac.

Back to music, you could think of it this way. How do you think the artist pays his/hers mortgage? Eats? Pays the phone bills? Supports the wife and kids?

How? The artist makes music, which they then, through various means, offer to the public in return for a paycheck.

I've said it before, and I will say it again. If you don't pay for the latest version of Photoshop or the latest Billy Joel album, than you better be willing to sling your shovel for free all day too.

You can explain it anyway you want. If you don't pay someone for their work, then you are taking money right out of their pocket. This is why it is called theft.

Flame away!

[maxintosh]

It's not as if Jay-Z or Avril Lavigne are exactly begging for change in a subway station, and artists that don't make millions/billions a year would be thrilled to have their downloads being passed around. Downloading a song made by a billionaire is a little different than stealing a pack of cigarrettes from the local store, that will actually suffer from the losses.

There are two types of musicians: those that make a crapload of money, and those that only a few people know about.

Besides, famous artists have much bigger sources of income than their CDs. How much do you think Britney got paid to do the Superbowl half-time concert?? I'm sure it was enough to buy food and pay the bills.

I just have a hard time feeling too sorry for them.

[maxintosh]

Originally posted by James L:
Even worse, as the $$$$ decreases to the game manufacturers, they will be less and less apt to even port games to the Mac.

Right, because I'm sure Mac users pirate at a much higher rate than PC users.

There's a certain bone in me that resents paying $499 to a corporation that stomps and pisses on small businesses for Office v.X Pro. Though I did buy a legit copy of Office.

[James L]

Again, excuses:

"The artist already has money, therefore I am justified"

"Yeah, right, cuz PC users don't do it"

Britney Spears is an extreme, which I am sure you know. If you know anything about the music industry you know that artists can be on their second and third albums before they start making any significant dollars, and up until then they are often even on an "allowance" from the labels until things break. The label will recoup all costs for production, recording, video design, touring overheard, etc. Besides, how many artists get Superbowl appearances?

And besides, if they have reached that level, then they deserve the $$$. Whether or not the person who steals their product feels sorry for them is simply a statement about their morales, nothing else.

And, the answer to your second post is simple... if you don't want to buy Office... don't. If you want to use it, great! Pay for it as you did and use the product you rightfully own. If I don't want to go to a restaurant, I don't.

I'm sorry, but trying to justify theft of sotware or art by saying "the artist already has money" or "I don't like the way the company operates, so there" is a stretch. You are acknowledging that you are taking money out of their pocket by saying that.

[maxintosh]

Originally posted by James L:
Whether or not the person who steals their product feels sorry for them is simply a statement about their morales, nothing else.

Clearly we don't agree on the issue, which is fine But that statement is kind of amusing. You're sure judging a heck of a lot of people there. Many millions of people download music and the industry isn't collapsing because of it -- just changing, as pointed out earlier in the thread. Again, many musicians and industry researches think that the widespread downloading of music is actually increasing interest in the products.

Another example of how it's not so black and white: the radio. When an ad comes on the radio, what do you do? Many people change the station, instead of listening to the ad that funds the radio station that pays the artist. You're listening to the music for FREE, but by not listening to the ads and buying the products, you're lowering the rate the companies are willing to pay to advertise and therefore how much money the radio station makes/is able to pay their artists. Would you consider that stealing too?

People that download music aren't any more likely to walk out of a restaurant without paying the bill or leaving a nice tip. I always tip 20% unless the waiter/ress is rude

[SeSawaya]

steal MY music! PLEASE!

[James L]

I can definitely agree to disagree!

[brutal]

I Norway it's still legal to download music, but not share it though.

[ryju]

In Soviet Russia MUSIC STEALS YOU!

[O97Bassist]

well thanks for the great replies LOL i didn't mean to start a International WWIII but you know, keep it going

[maxintosh]

Originally posted by ryju:
In Soviet Russia MUSIC STEALS YOU!

In Soviet Russia, ROAD FORKS YOU!

Did somebody say Kruschev?