We Must Not Allow The Riaa To Do This!!!

[natural tickler]

I'm not even going to comment about the simplicity of natural tickler's logic on this one....

Psycho, if you wanna use MIRC, then go to mirc.com and download the program. Then you can use sites like Packetnews.com to search IRC for whatever files you want. It will take you a little while to learn how to use IRC, but mirc.com has a bunch of pages that show you how to use it.

why not, because the truth is told? Yes, you are stealing, period. If people are gonna do nothing but download for free, then why in the hell make an album then, knowing you not gonna make what you should, because peopleare too damn cheap to pay $20 for a CD. I agree with Psycho that 150,000 is ridiculous- and it is very ridiculous, so yes I say fight about that, but some people should pay the price for stealing, not at that amount though. Simple enough for you?

 

[MrMacphisto]

natural tickler...

First of all, I CAN'T be sued for using IRC. All morality aside, that must mean that, in a legal sense, downloading music from that program must be ok. Now, when you speak of morality, which is worse: me downloading an album, or a corporate oligopoly deciding that CD prices should remain high so that executives get to keep their ridiculous salaries? I'd say what I and millions of others are doing pales in comparison to the deeds of corporations and governments. Maybe it's only partially justified, but I don't have any crisis of conscience on this issue. If pirating hurt these artists so badly, why would new artists continue to crop up and still tour the world? Tours are very expensive, but these musicians and promotional companies must still be making mad profit to be able to stick around.

Besides, CDs are becoming a thing of the past. More and more people are listening to mp3s on their computers. If record companies want to have a better alternative to pirating, they should let people download songs for like $1 a song. There are services like that on the net, but the only reasons they aren't more popular are that a lot of people still have dial-up connections and usually the service charges a lot more than a $1 a song.

 

[Neutron]

Now I See Why...

Psycho wouldn't know the difference between what is illegal and what isn't...

However, using the car analogy is ignorant at best, car toys aren't COPYWRITED material, and therein lies the difference.

I just cut a 1000 dollar check to the record companies to support their hunting down criminals.

Tron

 

[MrMacphisto]

Neutron

Must be nice to have 1,000 dollars to spare for such a petty cause, but I'm willing to bet you're bluffing. If you actually can afford to waste that much however, I can see why you don't mind the industry's oligopoly. Of course, you realize that you'd have to contribute at least $100,000 to really make a difference in helping these companies dig themselves out of the PR mess they're in from suing grandmothers and 12 year olds. I suppose your signature says everything needed to understand your viewpoint....

 

[venray]

Actually it is not grandma and the 12 yo kid being sued, It's those that have really abused it that the companies have gone after first. As for a "pr mess", it's only those that are/were illegally downloading copyrighted materials that are in disagreement with what the record companies are doing.

The rest of us applaud them.


Ven

 

[MrMacphisto]

Good idea Venray... Go ahead and assume that everyone other than the downloaders themselves agrees with you. Great technique: a lot of politics works this way. You don't need a poll to prove the popularity of your viewpoint, you can just declare that everyone agrees with you. Let me ask you this: If, indeed, the record companies have public support on this technique of theirs, then why are so many people setting up boycotts of the industry itself? I can't speak for the majority of people, but neither can you. We can say that a lot of people hate what the companies are doing, and apparently, a lot of people either approve or don't care. Until you find an accurate poll (which is very difficult these days) on this issue, then I don't think any statements about the majority's opinion of corporate executives suing average citizens can be hypothesized.

 

[AphxA]

Although it is true that downloading an album off the internet is stealing money from an artist. But you have to look at it from all angles. Like lime said, what if you buy an album and it turns out to be be a waste of money. Is it worth shelling out the 20 bucks for one or two singles? You should be able to download a few songs to listen to them to see if its worth buying an album. There are alot of artists out there that are highly overpayed. They put out a terribe album, and then you go out, buy the album and find the album to be disappointing.

 

[Oddjob0226]

Back in the 1980s it was the line "Home taping is killing music". Yeah.

Honestly, file sharing got me to BUY more CDs than usual. Becuase of music I heard off the Internet, I bought CDs from Dizzy Gillespie, Johnny Cash, Ann Margret, Pink, Miles Davis, David Bowie, Flogging Mollies and numerous soundtracks. And I have a few more on my "to get" list. After sampling a few free songs, I bought entire albums. Mo' rons.

 

[Psycho]

Re: Now I See Why...

Psycho wouldn't know the difference between what is illegal and what isn't...

However, using the car analogy is ignorant at best, car toys aren't COPYWRITED material, and therein lies the difference.

I just cut a 1000 dollar check to the record companies to support their hunting down criminals.

Tron

LOL well TRON you have proven your stupidity once again. Anything that has a patent on it has been copywrited buddy. I thought you would just assume that I had patented the cars in the anology above but I guess some are just dumb. So read it again except add that I patented the cars before selling them. LOL I bet your bluffing about the 1000 dollars to the companies too, but if you want to support the bankrupting of families go to it.

Venray you are also wrong when you say it is only people who are "seriously abusing" it that are being sued. When you say this I assume you mean people that have downloaded a gross amount of music. Well they pick random IPs that have downloaded copyrighted material and of course people that have downloaded more are more likaly to be sued first. Make no mistake though they will not stop untill everyone who has downloaded 1 copyrighted song or more in the past three years will be sued. There is a story about a 12 year old girl living in new york housing projects that download 69 songs over the three year period that was sued. Im not shure but I think the least number of songs someone they sued has had was 32. Also you are wrong about "only poeple who have downloaded songs are against them suing people" becuase if you read this thread there are numerous people who have said that they disagree with downloading, but they dont think that the RIAA should sue families out of their futures.

oh and Nina says meow[Yep and Oddjob is right about the damn recording tape thing.]

Psycho