[climber]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

And the inability to form logical arguments concerning piracy.

As much as I find it wrong and immoral to download music that I did not pay for, IT IS NOT STEALING! At least not in the eyes of the law. If you steal something you can be charged with a crime and go to jail. Copyright infringement is a civil matter. Different court with different rules about proof, but most importantly instead of jail, or prison, you give up some money.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by Cipher13 

It's not "stealing" at all. It's not even similar. There is no deprivation of property.

It amazes me that otherwise intelligent people cannot grasp the concept of intellectual property. It reminds me of something that Einstein was supposed to have said once:

"I'm surrounded by f*cking idiots!"

I'm starting to get a glimpse of his frustration given the depth of ignorance regarding this whole sharing discussion.

Do any of you guys who support music stealing have any beachfront property? If so, put me on the calendar for the first week of March. The family will be coming down to party for spring break.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

And the inability to form logical arguments concerning piracy.

Uh…yes, your zero attempts at logic and reasoning in this thread have really shown me up. People in glass houses, amigo.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by finboy 

It amazes me that otherwise intelligent people cannot grasp the concept of intellectual property.

It amazes me that the people on my side of the debate are making rational arguments and all the people on your side keep talking about how amazed they are. If you want to refute my ideas, facts and logic will get you further than insults and preaching.

Anyway, as I've said before, I primarily deal in "intellectual property." I grasp the concept. I simply disagree with you as to whether or not piracy is necessarily wrong. It's undoubtedly wrong in some cases, but I have a lot of trouble calling something "wrong" when it benefits everybody (as piracy sometimes does).

[Cipher13]

Originally Posted by finboy 

It amazes me that otherwise intelligent people cannot grasp the concept of intellectual property. It reminds me of something that Einstein was supposed to have said once:

"I'm surrounded by f*cking idiots!"

I'm starting to get a glimpse of his frustration given the depth of ignorance regarding this whole sharing discussion.

Don't worry, those on our side of the fence are equally amazed, but I'm sure Einstein would be more convinced by our logical approach than your automatic, indoctrinated "Oh it's bad!" response.

[besson3c]

My opinion regarding piracy is extremely simple: if the owner does not want you pirating their stuff, doing so is wrong. Otherwise, I don't much care about what the studios and other players involved wish.

My opinion is similar in regards to bootleg recording concerts: some bands are cool with it, some aren't. It would seem very disrespectful to me to bootleg record a concert of a band that does not want their live performances recorded. To me, this gesture of respect trumps all other arguments about rights and morality.

[JoshuaZ]

TV stations offer many of the shows I like to watch online for free with ads. I would watch them online for free over downloading. Easier. Oh, but wait. I'm in Japan. My IP is outside the US of A. Clearly we can't be having non-americans watching Heroes.

And whats this? That DVD of that movie that came out a year ago? Can I rent it in Japan? Oh no. They're not releasing it for another 6 months. Whats this? X-Men 3 is out in the US and the rest of the world? Ohhhh no. I can't go see it because for some reason its not being released in japanese theaters (this really happened) for another 6 months. I guess I'll just pick up a copy of it in Vietnam two weeks later in full DVD quality. Whats this? My parents sent me a DVD for my birthday? Ohhhh it doesn't work on the two different DVD players I have in my apartment because its the wrong region. Speaking of which. My friend in Australia loves his PS2. I should send him one of these awesome Japanese games. Oh wait. It won't play. Its the wrong region code. Luckily the game is also out in America. I'll send him that copy. Ohhh, still wrong region code. Well, if he's lucky it will eventually be released. If he's lucky. (Nothing like an Aussie or Kiwi gamer to complain about release dates and region codes. They get the perpetual shaft. The Australia court ruled recently that region codes were illigial under Australian law. I'd import a Australian Wii in a heart beat if it was region free.)

So please, spare me the moral agruments about downloading. We as consumers need to fight for our right to use the products we buy. If it was up to the music industry, movie industry, TV industry, and game industry we as consumers would hardly have any choice. We could not move our music and movies to portable media, and we would have to call and activate our games (and deactivate them when we delete them)just to use them. We would have no way to back things up.

Heck, it would be moral offence for my high school orchestra conductor to cover a record, yes a big black round record, over to a CD. Why would he do something so wrong, so against morality, and so technically annoying? Because some of the best recordings he has are on record and are not available on CD. Heck, sheet music producers are harrassing webpages that have LEGAL copies of the ORIGINAL scores for music. I'm quite sure that the orginal score to Beethoven's 5th is public domain by now, but that doesn't stop the sheet music industry from sueing people. (Sheet music is frickin expensive. Its a racket when ponder how an industry that sells music thats in the public domain can continue to make millions a year. They would love nothing more than to sue every public school band or orchestra for photocopying sheet music for school uses.)

Lets not forget how the VCR was going to kill the american movie industry, and how the in the 70's the music industry used the EXACT same argments to complain that tape piracy would kill the music industry (clearly the fact that disco was going out as a sell had nothing to do with low sales in the same way the turn of the century saw the demise of certain pop band trends).

Anyways, enough of this venting. Have a nice day.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by JoshuaZ 

So please, spare me the moral agruments about downloading. We as consumers need to fight for our right to use the products we buy.

Unless I'm misreading, none of the examples that you mentioned in your post involve anything about you not being able to use a product you have bought. They all involve you not being able to share it with other people.

But by all means, fight for your "right" to party.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Unless I'm misreading, none of the examples that you mentioned in your post involve anything about you not being able to use a product you have bought. They all involve you not being able to share it with other people.

I think you missed a couple of examples (e.g., region coding). But besides that, sharing things is a legitimate use.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I think you missed a couple of examples (e.g., region coding). But besides that, sharing things is a legitimate use.

True. Regardless, your legitimate options are to buy or not to buy. The idea that you have a "right" to the content whether you buy or not is ridiculous.

[besson3c]

He may not have a right, but it is still good for consumers to be very vocal about their complaining when they think various companies have overstepped their boundaries. I do believe that there are limits as to what companies are allowed to get away with as far as how they conduct business with their customers, and that when they have gone too far it is often because customers have let their guards down.

Look at the whole iTunes Plus thing and how that has turned out... Score one for the customers!

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

He may not have a right, but it is still good for consumers to be very vocal about their complaining when they think various companies have overstepped their boundaries. I do believe that there are limits as to what companies are allowed to get away with as far as how they conduct business with their customers, and that when they have gone too far it is often because customers have let their guards down.

Look at the whole iTunes Plus thing and how that has turned out... Score one for the customers!

But does that include piracy?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

True. Regardless, your legitimate options are to buy or not to buy. The idea that you have a "right" to the content whether you buy or not is ridiculous.

That's a peculiar way of putting it. I don't think I ever said I had a right to the content.

[starman]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I don't have a right to see the content, perhaps, but I also don't feel any moral compunctions about seeing it if I can.

"seeing it if you can" is the same as "keeping it"?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by starman 

"seeing it if you can" is the same as "keeping it"?

It occurred to me after I wrote that that I don't quite think I was understanding what he was getting at, so I changed my post. I wasn't really thinking of keeping anything, though.

[drmcnutt]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I can and do sometimes teach people for free the same things I'm paid to teach other people. I don't have any less knowledge after teaching somebody, so it doesn't damage me to share just for the sake of sharing.

This problem with this example is that people don't make you share unwillingly. You CHOOSE to share. Now if people sat next to you and somehow learned what they needed through osmosis, you'll have to be some hell of a teacher for them to pay you for the same thing they can obtain for NOTHING. Somehow I think this would hurt your income at some point.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by drmcnutt 

This problem with this example is that people don't make you share unwillingly. You CHOOSE to share.

Oh, the information can be shared totally without my consent. In fact, former students often go on to do exactly that. Little upstarts, you know.

But the point was just that it does not cause me harm to give away intellectual property in the same way that it causes harm to give away physical property — intellectual property is a bottomless fountain, while physical things are finite by their very nature.

[Mastrap]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Piracy never directly costs money to anyone except the pirate's BitTorrent tracker. Piracy can be a problem if it cuts too deeply into your sales, but that isn't necessarily the case. The most active pirates probably wouldn't have ever bought the stuff, so this "potential profit" is nothing but a fairy tale in those cases.

Yes, they do. I am at a loss how you can say that there is no monetary loss involved. I personally know a ton of people who pirate music, you probably do too. And not just to preview it, they pirate music they like and keep it. The most people pirate only to preview or the most people who pirate would have never bought the music anyway is simply not true, it's a delusion and it's yet another bogus argument the pirate crowd uses to justify their behaviour.

[wallinbl]

Who cares what the specific word for it is? It's both wrong and illegal. There aren't any arguments for it - people just like to rationalize their behavior. That's true of any behavior.

The download before you buy argument fails because most people won't pay. Have you ever seen a retail store that lets you pay them later? No, because people would loot the place. Sure, you can make the argument that since it's a digital copy, they still have the original, but that does nothing to stop the hoards that downloaded it, decided not to pay, but are still listening to it. Since there is no way to realistically control that after the fact, people choose to control it before the fact. Since they created the product, they're free to decide when and how to sell it. It's not your right to dictate how you're going to buy it. That's simply not how the market works. Your only freedom is whether or not to buy it, not how.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Mastrap 

If I manufacture, say, cars and somebody steals every fifth car I make then I am losing 1/5th of my potential income
If I sell records and somebody pirates every fifth download then I am also losing 1/5th of my potential income.

How is that not the same? You are taking what is not yours to take.

Again, if someone wants to justify their actions, they will. Not amount of rational thought or common sense will change it.

Ever heard that about a person. That they lie so much that even they begin to believe them.

It's just a self defense mechanism.

The action itself isn't as bad as the denial of the action being bad IMHO.

I also love the "Oh if you don't agree with me then you are a moron and just don't "Get it" attitude too.

Great.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

My opinion regarding piracy is extremely simple: if the owner does not want you pirating their stuff, doing so is wrong.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

But does that include piracy?

I guess that depends? Like I said, I'm very particular about the wishes of the original software developer/musician/movie maker, but less so with the people that control this media (i.e. larger corporations), but that's just me...

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by wallinbl 

The download before you buy argument fails because most people won't pay. Have you ever seen a retail store that lets you pay them later?

That is why you get something like a mp3 that you can play for 2 days. If it's worth a darn you'll buy it. You can do this probably with some code signing deal were if the mp3 is modified in any way, it doesn't work. I'd say out of the top 10 CDs I listen to now I would have never heard of if i wasn't able to get the music first and listen.

So there ARE people that do do this, that have a conscience and DO buy music. You CAN tell the difference between a mp3 and a CD. And if you REALLY enjoy music and like it, you'll want the best quality version of it.

I do this above. I know me downloading those files is illegal. I make no excuse for it. I am doing wrong.

I am just sick of getting burned. I buy a lot of different styles of music, and I am likely to buy stuff I've never heard of because I have a "feeling" i'd like it.

Now I never get burnt, and I have a large collection of LEGAL music I can really get into.

BTW that isn't me justifying my actions. I still know what I am doing is wrong. And really shouldn't be doing it.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Mastrap 

Yes, they do. I am at a loss how you can say that there is no monetary loss involved.

Well, I put the math right in front of you, so you don't have to wonder how I came by my conclusions. What I said is that any monetary loss involved is not comparable to the monetary loss from a similar number of thefts, and that there is not necessarily any monetary loss involved at all. And again, I proved all this true with cold, hard numbers.

Originally Posted by Mastrap 

I personally know a ton of people who pirate music, you probably do too. And not just to preview it, they pirate music they like and keep it.

Yes, and I feel confident that 20 years ago, many of those people would have gotten it free on a cassette tape from the radio or a friend. And you know, I can see an argument that that's wrong as well, but the general consensus seems to be that it isn't so.

Originally Posted by Mastrap 

The most people pirate only to preview or the most people who pirate would have never bought the music anyway is simply not true

I have never claimed the former — I only said that's the case with me, and that I would buy much less stuff if there weren't so many things freely available.

I haven't seen any good reason to disbelieve the latter. This is true in music more so than other media, I think, but I even know many software developers who take the tack that "Pirates are not my customers; they're just some people I don't support who are hopefully doing free PR for me anyway." And that's absolutely true. I know a girl who has downloaded a couple of Britney Spears songs. Do you really think she would have bought an entire album or two (I'm not sure whether both songs are on the same one) otherwise? Think again.

[starman]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Well, I put the math right in front of you, so you don't have to wonder how I came by my conclusions. What I said is that any monetary loss involved is not comparable to the monetary loss from a similar number of thefts, and that there is not necessarily any monetary loss involved at all. And again, I proved all this true with cold, hard numbers.

Pfft. All you did was convince yourself that you're not a thief.

[Mastrap]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Well, I put the math right in front of you, so you don't have to wonder how I came by my conclusions.

Sorry, but I don't buy that. All you've put in front of me are a number of speculations, assuming that sometimes there might be no financial loss (that's not the point btw) or that the financial loss is relatively small (that's debatable). None of your points are proven, nor supported by credible research.

I don't get how anybody can argue that just because the financial loss is small it's ok to pirate. What difference does that make? Stealing a dollar is, morally, just as wrong as stealing a million. If the artist doesn't give permission to share his/her work then there is no argument. Don't do it.

[drmcnutt]

Are people really that poor on computers they can't afford a buck for a song? Gosh twenty years ago you had to buy the whole cassette ($9.99-14.99) to get even one song you liked. Now you can get it "free" using your computer ($$$), an internet connection($$$) and a digital player($$$) to play it. Smart economics those pirates have there-sheesh.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by Cipher13 

Don't worry, those on our side of the fence are equally amazed, but I'm sure Einstein would be more convinced by our logical approach than your automatic, indoctrinated "Oh it's bad!" response.

Yes, that's it. Automatic and indoctrinated. You sure showed me.

How about those beachhouses, folks? I really need to firm up my spring calendar, OK?

Actually, we could go for a condo on Central Park West at Christmas or New Years. Even if you're there, it's just us and the kids, so we'll be no trouble. And I'm sure that it's much better for overall social welfare if there are more people using your condo than fewer. I could probably come up with some references and an equation or two that justifies coming into your home any time I want to.

What's property, anyway, except some silly defintion created by rich people?

[voodoo]

The law says file sharing isn't stealing. Can't be much clearer than that.

V

[Kevin]

If nothing illegal is being done, why are these sites getting shut down?

[kc311v2]

RIAA, media distributors, lobbyists, and lawsuits. These are the same folk that are suing 80 yr old women and 10 yr old children.

On a slightly different note, I have no sympathy for the corporate conglomerates of arts and entertainment. I really wish we lived in a world without them. However, those opposed to these piracy services have a valid point--if artists FEEL they are not being fairly compensated for their ideas and creativity, it will have a drastic overall effect on how our content is created and published (writer's strike for instance). This will have a severe, negative impact on our economy, so while I do share some of the concerns expressed by the pro-piracy side, it is crucial that a compromise or solution is established before it gets out of hand, and our society no longer offers fair compensation for the arts. Both piracy fans and media distributors need to embrace concepts such as the iTunes Store, otherwise no compromise will be met.

One more thing--the idea of eliminating piracy is laughable, and as time goes on and technology becomes increasingly better, it's only going to get easier and become more popular. And here's one thing to consider--the YouTube phenomenon. People who upload and share their art are not being compensated, they just have an urge to share it and see people enjoy it. This is the future of arts & entertainment, as well as all things related to creativity and production.

[lavar78]

You guys should just wait and download the works that have fallen into the public domain. Oh wait, that doesn't really happen anymore...

[Mastrap]

Originally Posted by kc311v2 

And here's one thing to consider--the YouTube phenomenon. People who upload and share their art are not being compensated, they just have an urge to share it and see people enjoy it. This is the future of arts & entertainment, as well as all things related to creativity and production.

I respectfully disagree with you on that point. 99% of the stuff on YouTube, and comparable places, is only of interest to the creator, the creator's mom (or not, in some case) and his/her buddies. The stuff that really captures people's imagination requires talent and dedication. Following your dream, and actually becoming good at it, requires funding of some kind or other.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by starman 

Pfft. All you did was convince yourself that you're not a thief.

Wow, another riveting use of facts and logic by starman. Does this self-righteous schtick ever actually bring anyone around to your way of thinking, or is your position so weak that insults are all you have?

Originally Posted by Mastrap 

assuming that sometimes there might be no financial loss (that's not the point btw) or that the financial loss is relatively small (that's debatable). None of your points are proven, nor supported by credible research.

You think the assertion that 10*5000000-0*5000000=50000000 is contentious? Really?

Originally Posted by Mastrap 

I don't get how anybody can argue that just because the financial loss is small it's ok to pirate.

I never said that. It gets a bit frustrating when people ask me a question and then, when I answer it, they slam me for not answering a completely different question.

Originally Posted by Mastrap 

If the artist doesn't give permission to share his/her work then there is no argument. Don't do it.

If the artist wishes to keep his work private, he may do so and I'm not going to try to break into his house and take it. If the artist decides to take his work public, that's a different story and I will not be made to feel guilty for going over to my friend's house and listening to music that he owns just because I haven't paid for it.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

If nothing illegal is being done, why are these sites getting shut down?

You seem to be responding to a post that doesn't exist.

[Mastrap]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I will not be made to feel guilty for going over to my friend's house and listening to music that he owns just because I haven't paid for it.

I don't think anybody is trying to do that.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Mastrap 

I don't think anybody is trying to do that.

But it's the same reason: My friend wasn't given permission to share that music with me, I didn't pay for the music, so I'm not supposed to listen, right? Isn't that the rule? (Of course, I don't think this is true, and I also don't think it's the reason piracy is wrong. This is meant to illustrate that the reasoning given doesn't work.)

[Minion552]

I just came here by accident and saw some of the posts and thought to my self that some people could not be this dumb.

There is a huge difference between piracy and stealing well at least these days there is. First modern piracy is an act of downloading and using something from the internet that is copyrighted and by FBI warning not to be reproduced or sold for any reason. However there are loop holes in this.

Let me break it down Stealing is taking something that does not belong to you and by definition physical property for example (purse,clothes,money ect.)

Piracy by definition is taking and using something for personal gain like example downloading (software,music,movies,games) The difference is these items are made public though a means of media like the internet,Ipods,psp's,cameras ect.

So the difference and this is a federal law look it up is stealing and piracy are 2 different forms of taking things that do not belong to you one being a federal Felony (piracy) and one being a felony if the price of said item is $500 or more.

So to put it simple is that piracy and stealing even both being by law a crime both have different punishments one being a Federal fine of up to $100k and one under
$500 is community service and up to 90 days in jail not prison but local or state jails. Prison and jail are also different.

They are not going to put you in prison for stealing a loaf of bread but will put you in prison for stealing a copyrighted item like a movie. So by definition stealing and piracy are 2 different things hope this clears things up for some of you.

As far as Demonoid goes I do not think they should have been shut down by a foreign agency my personal thought was since it was an American based site it should have went to the American agency and that agency should have taken action.
It is ok for Germany to solicitation hate propaganda but is not ok to download crappy movies like kids seems strange to me thats all. Think Canada should keep their noses out of Americas problems and worry about their own

[ghporter]

Personal gain can be defined as "not having to pay for something because you can download it." Circular logic and involved arguments don't make downloading songs without paying for them any less wrong.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

You seem to be responding to a post that doesn't exist.

Not replying to a post at all. I was asking a question. If nothing wrong was being done, why are these sites illegal and being shut down?

[starman]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

But it's the same reason: My friend wasn't given permission to share that music with me, I didn't pay for the music, so I'm not supposed to listen, right? Isn't that the rule? (Of course, I don't think this is true, and I also don't think it's the reason piracy is wrong. This is meant to illustrate that the reasoning given doesn't work.)

No. You have a license to listen to that music in your own home/on your property. Since you're not taking a copy with you to listen to as you please, you're not breaking any law.

And it's sad that I have to spell this out for you.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Not replying to a post at all. I was asking a question. If nothing wrong was being done, why are these sites illegal and being shut down?

If there's nothing wrong with free political discourse, why are people jailed and tortured for it in China? If slavery is wrong, why was it legal for so long? Legality and morality are two separate worlds.

This is actually the crux of my argument here. In cases where no harm is done, I have trouble seeing that any great wrong has been committed. In cases where a little harm has been done, I can agree that it's bad, but I still think some of the histrionics make it out to be much worse than it is. In cases where people are just uselessly freeloading everything they own, well, they're losers.

Originally Posted by starman 

No. You have a license to listen to that music in your own home/on your property. Since you're not taking a copy with you to listen to as you please, you're not breaking any law.

Unless I have gotten misdirected somewhere along the way (and Mastrap, feel free to correct me if I have), that line of discussion wasn't about laws, but rather about not knowing how the artist feels about me sharing the music with some freeloader. Again, it isn't fair to expect every sentence I write to counter every argument you could conceivably make.

Originally Posted by starman 

And it's sad that I have to spell this out for you.

It's sad to me that you're so full of hate.

[PaperNotes]

Show me a musician worth paying money to and I'll buy a record. Recommend me someone who isn't going to keep drug dealers happy and go around saying our democratically elected leaders should be taken to the Hague and that we should "reason" with people like Osama. Recommend me someone who doesn't say we should save Africa yet spends more time with slut actresses and trying to squeeze in those five inch shoe lifts in like that Bono-parte guy from Ireland who doesn't pay taxes in his home country. Recommend me someone who isn't going to rap about how shooting and robbing makes you better off. Recommend me someone who isn't going to screw kids or hide his child raping ass in Thailand. Recommend me someone who isn't going to marry some dancer jackass and take drugs in front of her kids. Recommend me someone who has something original to sing about because I've heard it all before now and am very bored.

With the state that music is in and what we have learned about musically minded people it is no wonder so many people don't want to pay for music. They have a reason - why give money away to some a$$hole when you can keep it in your pocket? Throwing more money at them isn't going to make them any better. It's probably a good thing that they aren't as rich as they could be otherwise they'd go from megalomaniacs to Nu-Hitlers complete with those emo Hitler haircuts and new political parties.

[Cipher13]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

Show me a musician worth paying money to and I'll buy a record. Recommend me someone who isn't going to keep drug dealers happy and go around saying our democratically elected leaders should be taken to the Hague and that we should "reason" with people like Osama. Recommend me someone who doesn't say we should save Africa yet spends more time with slut actresses and trying to squeeze in those five inch shoe lifts in like that Bono-parte guy from Ireland who doesn't pay taxes in his home country. Recommend me someone who isn't going to rap about how shooting and robbing makes you better off. Recommend me someone who isn't going to screw kids or hide his child raping ass in Thailand. Recommend me someone who isn't going to marry some dancer jackass and take drugs in front of her kids. Recommend me someone who has something original to sing about because I've heard it all before now and am very bored.

Symphony X.

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by Cipher13 

Symphony X.

No. They're ugly. They need haircuts. They drink too much beer. They had their videos removed from YouTube so obviously don't want any promotion.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

If there's nothing wrong with free political discourse, why are people jailed and tortured for it in China? If slavery is wrong, why was it legal for so long? Legality and morality are two separate worlds.

WOW, just wow. To compare this with those thing. That required QUITE a spin. And a disrespectful one at that. You should know better than to pull something like this. Equating you theiving music or content with the plight of those tortured and treated poorly just amazes me. You actually think those two are valid? At all?

I could also go in your line of thinking and say "Well the NAMBLA doesn't think kid sex should be illegal, just like you don't think stealing music should be"

You know when you've lost your argument when you have to revert to using race cards and such comparisons to make you look right. This is one of the most ridiculous posts I have ever read on the matter.

[drmcnutt]

Oh I get it now Chuckit is a freedom fighter. Well now it makes sense. 500 years from now they'll recognize your efforts. Good show.

[drmcnutt]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

Show me a musician worth paying money to and I'll buy a record.

Throwing more money at them isn't going to make them any better.

So downloading and listening to their "thrash" for free is worthwhile? I guess your money is worth more to you than your time.

[PaperNotes]

You want the ultimate in irony here?

Music executives get sent music for free to listen to. Music from musicians they want to steal from other companies. Guess who uploads or leaks albums that aren't in stores yet?

Film producers, agents, actors etc get the latest movies sent to them for free on DVD. They're called screeners, which is a quaint name for a pirated movie, and then some exec's son or stoned movie star uploads them to torrent sites for a laugh.

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by drmcnutt 

So downloading and listening to their "thrash" for free is worthwhile? I guess your money is worth more to you than your time.

No it means them rich drug addicts shouldn't ****ing complain. What do they want? One more week's worth of coke? That's all piracy amounts to when you look at the numbers.