I havn't bought a cd in like 10 years
In what way is this DST?
he's debating if he made a wise choice or notUltrafunkula wrote:
In what way is this DST?
Music piracy is a serious issue ultra.
There is no excuse for piracy.
Many people though have extensive music libraries and would have to spend many hundreds of dollars/euros to get those songs on their ipods if they payed.
Sooner or later they'll abolish piracy completely. Have fun while it lasts.
Kinda agree this isn't really DST though.
Many people though have extensive music libraries and would have to spend many hundreds of dollars/euros to get those songs on their ipods if they payed.
Sooner or later they'll abolish piracy completely. Have fun while it lasts.
Kinda agree this isn't really DST though.
inane little opines
It's an age old argument and it's been done to death on forums. Nobody is going to change, just let it go.
Depends if he bought a Limp Bizkit or Danzig album.
Merged.
Stupid merge. O well, it's a good case as to why EE mods should stay in EE.
whys it a stupid merge? you made a topic about music piracy, there was already a 4 page thread on it. cry moreMacbeth wrote:
Stupid merge. O well, it's a good case as to why EE mods should stay in EE.
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
It really wasn't anything thought provoking or debate worthy mac. Its been done to death, the answer why people do it is simple. Ultra is fine as a mod.
Wait wait, there is a law against downloading 'digital content off the internet'. So downloading 'digital content' from iTunes is breaking the law too? FYI, downloading is NOT against the law, nor breaking it. However unauthorised file sharing is.FEOS wrote:
Is there a law against downloading digital content off the internet? Yes.
Therefore, doing so is breaking the law.
Are you and a bunch of others here trying to rationalize/justify breaking said law? Yes.
There's no biting here. You're violating the law, plain and simple. Regardless of what you or I think of the law, it's still the law. And you broke it. And then you get all high and mighty in trying to justify/rationalize your breaking of the law, like you're actually doing a good thing.
You're not. You're just breaking the law.
So technically if I were to download a file and not seed a single byte, I am not actually breaking the law. In practive however you always seed a little bit even if you don't want to. Which automatically makes you a file-sharer which is in terms breaking the law. The downloading part is not.
Every thread here is a copy of a thread already here. If someone didn't report it then fuck off.
And even then, it's not criminal unless the dollar value is over a certain (very high) amount. It's purely a civil matter in the general case.RDMC wrote:
Wait wait, there is a law against downloading 'digital content off the internet'. So downloading 'digital content' from iTunes is breaking the law too? FYI, downloading is NOT against the law, nor breaking it. However unauthorised file sharing is.FEOS wrote:
Is there a law against downloading digital content off the internet? Yes.
Therefore, doing so is breaking the law.
Are you and a bunch of others here trying to rationalize/justify breaking said law? Yes.
There's no biting here. You're violating the law, plain and simple. Regardless of what you or I think of the law, it's still the law. And you broke it. And then you get all high and mighty in trying to justify/rationalize your breaking of the law, like you're actually doing a good thing.
You're not. You're just breaking the law.
So technically if I were to download a file and not seed a single byte, I am not actually breaking the law. In practive however you always seed a little bit even if you don't want to. Which automatically makes you a file-sharer which is in terms breaking the law. The downloading part is not.
When was the last time someone was thrown into jail for downloading Metallica? Hint: Never.
Nobody ever downloaded metallica.
Either read the context of the necrothread you're quoting or don't quote. Otherwise, you just look stupid.RDMC wrote:
Wait wait, there is a law against downloading 'digital content off the internet'. So downloading 'digital content' from iTunes is breaking the law too? FYI, downloading is NOT against the law, nor breaking it. However unauthorised file sharing is.FEOS wrote:
Is there a law against downloading digital content off the internet? Yes.
Therefore, doing so is breaking the law.
Are you and a bunch of others here trying to rationalize/justify breaking said law? Yes.
There's no biting here. You're violating the law, plain and simple. Regardless of what you or I think of the law, it's still the law. And you broke it. And then you get all high and mighty in trying to justify/rationalize your breaking of the law, like you're actually doing a good thing.
You're not. You're just breaking the law.
So technically if I were to download a file and not seed a single byte, I am not actually breaking the law. In practive however you always seed a little bit even if you don't want to. Which automatically makes you a file-sharer which is in terms breaking the law. The downloading part is not.
The context was clearly in regard to dl'ing content and not paying for it, as well as unauthorized file sharing. But thanks for playing.
Edit: @ Senor - the issue isn't criminal vs civil, it's legal vs illegal.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
The only reason people don't commit victimless crimes is because of the inherant risk of being caught and punished.
There is no such risk in downloading music, thus it's done.
There is no such risk in downloading music, thus it's done.
Without debating the reasoning behind downloading things illegally, can we at least agree that most of the punishments set for piracy are pretty ridiculous in their severity?
It is against the law and it should not be broken, but this brings question if copy right laws are too stringent.
@Turq, yes I do think the punishments are too severe for such petty crimes.
Poor choice of words, however, the point of internet piracy was still understood.FEOS wrote:
"Is there a law against downloading digital content off the internet? Yes."
@Turq, yes I do think the punishments are too severe for such petty crimes.
It was part of a running conversation with Zimmer, aimed specifically at him, in the context of our debate. In that context, it is a perfectly fine choice of words. Again, digging up old posts absent the context of the surrounding thread then critiquing them is stupid.Phrozenbot wrote:
It is against the law and it should not be broken, but this brings question if copy right laws are too stringent.Poor choice of words, however, the point of internet piracy was still understood.FEOS wrote:
"Is there a law against downloading digital content off the internet? Yes."
@Turq, yes I do think the punishments are too severe for such petty crimes.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Indeed, I would argue that they are. Copyrights were probably never meant to be extended solely to protect a certain mouse and the corporation that owns it...Phrozenbot wrote:
It is against the law and it should not be broken, but this brings question if copy right laws are too stringent.
Context or not, that rhetorical question was very ambiguous. It implied that digital content from the internet was illegal if you read it literally, though clearly you were speaking of internet piracy? IJSFEOS wrote:
It was part of a running conversation with Zimmer, aimed specifically at him, in the context of our debate. In that context, it is a perfectly fine choice of words. Again, digging up old posts absent the context of the surrounding thread then critiquing them is stupid.Phrozenbot wrote:
It is against the law and it should not be broken, but this brings question if copy right laws are too stringent.Poor choice of words, however, the point of internet piracy was still understood.FEOS wrote:
"Is there a law against downloading digital content off the internet? Yes."
@Turq, yes I do think the punishments are too severe for such petty crimes.
If you think about it, any original idea of yours, was it truly original? As in, it was in no way influenced by someone else's idea? Our scientific progress is about building upon ideas to make them better, I see nothing wrong with being influenced greatly so much as to say "copy" someone else in a creative way either. We all do it to an extent.SenorToenails wrote:
Indeed, I would argue that they are. Copyrights were probably never meant to be extended solely to protect a certain mouse and the corporation that owns it...Phrozenbot wrote:
It is against the law and it should not be broken, but this brings question if copy right laws are too stringent.
Plagiarism is entirely different though.
Laziness and people are cheap. Look at Finray - he probably can't even afford a new pair of shoes, let alone AFI's entire back catalog.Macbeth wrote:
My favorite band released a new album. So I went to bestbuy and bought their CD. Bestbuy was having a sale and the CD came out to a grand total of $8. Without the sale the CD would have came out to $14.
$8 isn't a lot of money, I spent that same amount on breakfast. So since music is pretty damn cheap what excuse is there to pirating music aside from just not wanting to pay for it?
Then there is the "barely any money goes to the artists" excuse, as if these people are moral crusaders intent on making sure artists get their dues for the music they put out. Either way, it's because people are lazy and or cheap.
That being said, there are plenty of albums that you can't buy in stores like bootlegs and live performances that are floating around on the internet for people to download.
There's no such thing as a victimless crime. If there is no victim, there can't be a crime.jord wrote:
The only reason people don't commit victimless crimes is because of the inherant risk of being caught and punished.
There is no such risk in downloading music, thus it's done.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat