You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Copying CDs you own to an iPOD deemed unlawful
- Thread starter hypnotoad1234
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
So those who steal from the evil RIAA are challanging them in a way that doesn't even effect the evil RIAA?
Not financially, no. However, it's a proverbial slap in the face to the RIAA every time they lose a nigh insignificant amount of money to a media pirate. It's a case of "Do you thumb your nose at me?!" "Yes I thumb my nose at thee!" and the like. It's a sign of disrespect and insult to the RIAA to download their music—a way of telling them they don't deserve the respect they demand for themselves, and yet give to nobody else.
Also, I won't dignify that question about the Japanese people being evil with a proper response, because asking it only shows you have no reading comprehension whatsoever. My answer to that is in this thread already. Go look for answers to make sure you're not asking anything redundant before asking a question. I won't dignify stupid questions any longer.
This all seems like a case of "Too Much Government".
If a radio station wants to decide it's playlist based on which company wants to pay them the most, shouldn't the radio station have the right to decide what they want on their private company? Besides, what's the difference from Sony paying 101.2 WXYZ $300 every time they play "Boogie Mamma" by the PopTarts or McBurgerDee's paying them $300 every time they play a commerical for their new sammich.
As far as prices on CDs at the retail level, I don't have enough info on this one... I mean, did they create the "artifically" high prices by forcing a retailer to sell the CD at $20, making a $5 profit to the retailer, even though the retailer would have been happy with $17/$3 profit? If so, that just doesn't make sence on the labels' part. If they created "artifically" high prices by selling CDs to retailers at higher prices... well, it's their product, why shouldn't they be able to set the price on it?
And, as far as the topic the article is really reffering to, I don't see why the labels can't say "Okay, we're charging $X to give you the lisense to sell this really popular song. And $x for this other, less popular song. However much you charge it up to you." Or even something along the lines of "Lisence for 0-499 Downloads $X. Lisence for 500-1999 Downloads $XX. Lisence for 2000-4999 Downloads $XXX." The, Apple and what-not (along with the consumers) can simply decide if they want to play this game.
Personally, I don't see why taxpayer dollars are being wasted on this. Instead of wasting money on this crap, why not use that money on something useful, like paying off the defecit or such. Too Much Government.
If a radio station wants to decide it's playlist based on which company wants to pay them the most, shouldn't the radio station have the right to decide what they want on their private company? Besides, what's the difference from Sony paying 101.2 WXYZ $300 every time they play "Boogie Mamma" by the PopTarts or McBurgerDee's paying them $300 every time they play a commerical for their new sammich.
As far as prices on CDs at the retail level, I don't have enough info on this one... I mean, did they create the "artifically" high prices by forcing a retailer to sell the CD at $20, making a $5 profit to the retailer, even though the retailer would have been happy with $17/$3 profit? If so, that just doesn't make sence on the labels' part. If they created "artifically" high prices by selling CDs to retailers at higher prices... well, it's their product, why shouldn't they be able to set the price on it?
And, as far as the topic the article is really reffering to, I don't see why the labels can't say "Okay, we're charging $X to give you the lisense to sell this really popular song. And $x for this other, less popular song. However much you charge it up to you." Or even something along the lines of "Lisence for 0-499 Downloads $X. Lisence for 500-1999 Downloads $XX. Lisence for 2000-4999 Downloads $XXX." The, Apple and what-not (along with the consumers) can simply decide if they want to play this game.
Personally, I don't see why taxpayer dollars are being wasted on this. Instead of wasting money on this crap, why not use that money on something useful, like paying off the defecit or such. Too Much Government.
Paying off the deficit doesn't give immediate profit, though. Remember, most financially-minded people seem to only think a year or two into the future at most. If something would take five or ten years to start turning a profit, they'll simply say "meh" and ignore it. These are the same right-wingers that I've had to argue against the practises of for the better part of this thread, I'll also point out.
Right-winger. Someone who conforms to the right-wing agenda of, generally, politics and policies. Simply, in terms of American conservatism, the right wing puts individual gain over that of the community, is hostile to anything that differs from the "traditional" norm, opposes governmental remedies for inequalities, and doesn't care about those affected by unrestricted governmental power (yes, that is a paraphrased Wikipedia citation, for the record; my point stands regardless). For that matter, one of the very first lines in that article says, "Fiscal conservatives who demand... reduced regulation of business activities..." (emphasis mine). I'd say reduced regulations would make a capitalist setting far less... ethical, simply because that's the only logical conclusion to draw.
Let's hear your definition, then. Hop to.
Let's hear your definition, then. Hop to.
No, that definition is pretty good. However, it only partly describes me, You apply the label, which covers many aspects of one's political and personal belief structure, to me based upon one aspect of the definition. That is either ignorance or narrowmindedness, I'll let you decide.
Now, go back to Wikipedia and look up Liberalism.
Now, go back to Wikipedia and look up Liberalism.
You apply the label, which covers many aspects of one's political and personal belief structure, to me based upon one aspect of the definition.
If you illegaly download copyrighted music (or any copyrighted material for that matter) then you are a thief, a liar and someone who cannot be trusted.
Pot, kettle, etc. Overgeneralization isn't fun when someone does it to you, then, eh? Oh wait, turnabout being fair play, the golden rule doing substantially less than discouraging the same... I'd say we've all covered this before. The only thing that's changed is that now I've opened up the avenue for the shemeless generalizations to agreeably go both ways.
Oh and for the record...
Wikipedia said:Broadly speaking, liberalism seeks a society characterized by freedom of thought for individuals, limitations on the power of government and religion (and sometimes corporations), the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market economy that supports private enterprise, and a system of government that is transparent. This form of government favors liberal democracy with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law, and an equal opportunity to succeed. Liberalism rejected many foundational assumptions which dominated most earlier theories of government, such as the Divine Right of Kings, hereditary status, and established religion.
Liberalism. First paragraph. The only real real difference of opinion that I hold against that is the "supports private enterprise," but then again, limitations on the power of government also imposes limitations upon the sorts of shenanigans the RIAA can impose (namely, that they can't get bullcrap made into law as per their MO). So really nothing's truly lost with my arguments, especially given that there's a distinction between "supporting private enterprise" and "squashing everything else but private enterprise." My objections are mainly the latter. There's also the case of, " It advocates laissez-faire capitalism, meaning the removal of legal barriers to trade and cessation of government-bestowed privilege such as subsidy and monopoly" (emphasis mine).
What were you having me look up that was so radically and fundamentally different from what I've been arguing for, again?
You saying that I'm a "right-winger" because I have a belief or two that is common with "right wingers" is about like saying a plane is a bird because they both fly and have wings.
Calling someone who illegally downloads copyrighted material a thief is pretty much on spot:
(From Dictionary.com) "Thief: a criminal who takes property belonging to someone else with the intention of keeping it or selling it"
Calling someone who illegally downloads copyrighted material a liar, well, that's pretty much spot on. I bet if you look at the user agreement for pretty much any ISP, that agreement says that you, as the user, agree not to partake in illegal activities using their service. By illegaly downloading music, you are breaking that agreement.
Which brings me to my third point, someone who illegally downloads music from the internet cannot be trusted. They'll take what they want when they want - regardless of what it does to others as long as they feel it's advantageous to them - just as you have shown when you illegally download copyrighted music just because you'd have to put extra effort into getting it legally.
Your failure to comprehend does not impress me. In order to have an economy that supports private enterprise, you have to protect an individual's (or a company's) right to create a product and sell that product as they see fit. To break down liberalism, it's small government. Basically, it's only the goverment's place to be involved in affairs that force citizens to be harmed by other citizens (or other countries) against their will.
Example, If Wal*Mart wants to start paying their employees $0.20 an hour and only hire straight white males, that's up to Wal*Mart. No one is *forced* to shop there and no one is *forced* to work there. Idealy, Wal*Mart would succeed or fail based on what they choose to do.
Now, if Wal*Mart wants to come into a community and buy an empty lot in the center of a quiet neighborhood - then the government has a right to get involved to determine if Wal*Mart will have a substantial negative effect on it's potential neighbors.
As this applies to this particular case, the government need not be involved - no one forces you to want or buy music. It's not a necessity of life in any way, shape or form, so if an evil corperation wants to charge $100 for a CD, then the customer gets to choose if they want to buy or pass on that purchase - and that evil company gets to sink or float based upon the decisions of the people.
Private decisions between companies can be made between them. As long as these decisions don't unwilling effect others (pollution, etc) then the government can stay out.
Calling someone who illegally downloads copyrighted material a thief is pretty much on spot:
(From Dictionary.com) "Thief: a criminal who takes property belonging to someone else with the intention of keeping it or selling it"
Calling someone who illegally downloads copyrighted material a liar, well, that's pretty much spot on. I bet if you look at the user agreement for pretty much any ISP, that agreement says that you, as the user, agree not to partake in illegal activities using their service. By illegaly downloading music, you are breaking that agreement.
Which brings me to my third point, someone who illegally downloads music from the internet cannot be trusted. They'll take what they want when they want - regardless of what it does to others as long as they feel it's advantageous to them - just as you have shown when you illegally download copyrighted music just because you'd have to put extra effort into getting it legally.
Your failure to comprehend does not impress me. In order to have an economy that supports private enterprise, you have to protect an individual's (or a company's) right to create a product and sell that product as they see fit. To break down liberalism, it's small government. Basically, it's only the goverment's place to be involved in affairs that force citizens to be harmed by other citizens (or other countries) against their will.
Example, If Wal*Mart wants to start paying their employees $0.20 an hour and only hire straight white males, that's up to Wal*Mart. No one is *forced* to shop there and no one is *forced* to work there. Idealy, Wal*Mart would succeed or fail based on what they choose to do.
Now, if Wal*Mart wants to come into a community and buy an empty lot in the center of a quiet neighborhood - then the government has a right to get involved to determine if Wal*Mart will have a substantial negative effect on it's potential neighbors.
As this applies to this particular case, the government need not be involved - no one forces you to want or buy music. It's not a necessity of life in any way, shape or form, so if an evil corperation wants to charge $100 for a CD, then the customer gets to choose if they want to buy or pass on that purchase - and that evil company gets to sink or float based upon the decisions of the people.
Private decisions between companies can be made between them. As long as these decisions don't unwilling effect others (pollution, etc) then the government can stay out.
I seem to recall you indirectly calling me a thief and a liar and an untrustworthy person just because I download music. I am arguably the former, but the latter two are words that describe me about as well as "devout Catholic" or "Buddhist" or "Iraqi terrorist" (no offense to any of the groups I mentioned; I was merely making a point). Frankly, I've lost patience with this.
You're simply rehashing something we've debated to death by adding a new spin on the illegality aspect of it. You bring nothing new to the debate whatsoever with this. The only thing you've even come within an ocean's breadth of accomplishing is bringing up the concept of an ISP and thus one more rule that's broken, but again, I refer to every single argument we've both made about the issue of legality.
The legality of it has been debated to death. Bring only new arguments to the table, or get out of this thread. I think Noam Chomsky put it best, "Just because you changed the format of what you are saying doesn't mean you have anything worthwhile to say."
Your overgeneralizations sicken me. You're essentially calling me someone who'd walk freely into someone's home and lift their belongings like some sort of real-life RPG. You're calling me a kleptomaniac with no regard for the concept of intellectual property or even a basic understanding of the law. I'm offended by how short-sighted and (I do not use the word lightly) patently stupid you are by doing this. Had you said it any more directly, I'd label it outright as libellous.
This coming from the person who's had to be reminded on no fewer than two occasions of basic facets of my arguments, who has failed to understand anything beyond snippets of what I say more times than I care to count? You call me incapable of comprehension? Here's something to note: This only confirms that you can do nothing but spout nonsense.
Protecting someone's right to create and sell a product as they see fit is fine. Very few systems of government would challenge this, and a capitalistic setting like North America works hard to protect it. I have not once in this entire thread stated that works should simply be lifted freely without regard to their creators, except to say that the RIAA does exactly this with their unethical dealings.
You say that only the government should be involved in affairs that force citizens to be harmed against their will. The RIAA does this, not only to the artists with their essentially enforced contracts, but to the public, when they declare what can only be called an inquisition and change the laws to their benefit. They change the laws to allow only them any say on any matters they so wish. I will admit that only the government should have the place to declare this a deplorable state of affairs, but when the government is having such a love affair with the likes of the RIAA, it's obvious that the government cannot be trusted to make sound decisions based on what's right for the people they claim to serve. Rather, in doing so they place themselves above the people they serve, which makes no better than the English monarchs who lived under the Divine Right of Kings.
Protecting a private enterprise's right to do business is a rather routine thing, made possible simply by the very copyright laws you seem to be convinced I have no regard for. However, giving them subsidies and allowing monopolies to be formed does not "protect" anything. All it does is allow a precious few individuals to gain more power than they should have, and to destroy anyone who dares enter the same field as them. This is not protection in the slightest. Protecting them means not letting people run them out of business. It does not mean disallowing competition for the largest and most established brand names by all but other large and established brand names.
Totally forgetting that WalMart destroys countless small businesses just by existing in a community in the process. Their business practises have been time and again branded as those of "corporate thugs." Quite a fitting crowd you seek to defend, then, the RIAA and WalMart, among presumably other unethical and corrupt corporations.
This is just being absurd. Hyperbole does not become you. I suppose you also oppose equal wages for illegal immigrants, in that case?
Again, you overgeneralize simply to make yourself sound like your arguments bear weight. I too had toyed with bringing up this argument for the opposite effect, the very effect which anyone of intelligence can draw from the observation, but in the end passed it off as a childish hyperbole.
The problem with the $100 CD scenario is that if the RIAA decides to charge that much for it, the cost of a single CD becomes intensely prohibitive. People simply wouldn't buy it. Therefore as a debate tactic, it's meaningless. You'd need a more reasonable extreme. At the most, a $50 CD serves well for my example. Now, we take our RIAA-price-tagged $50 CDs and flood every music store with them, using the RIAA's deep advertising pockets to drown out "indie" bands that sell their CDs at a non-ludicrous rate in terms not only of sheer advertising but of shelf space. With that taken care of, only the most diehard fans of these "indie" bands (the word is just not aesthetically pleasing to me, hence quotation marks) buy their product, and the rest are forced to make the very decision you said—to buy an overcosted CD, or live without music.
Again, I point you to the parallel arguments I made about American music when discussing why I download what I download—accessibility. Overpriced domestic music simply isn't feasible, even for people who drop $50 or more just for one new PS2 game without flinching. Prices add up. The chokehold on the music economy from such a sudden, drastic price increase would simply kill the market... for a little while. After that, buyers would simply creep back in after being inundated by the RIAA's propaganda and the market would return to a state of normalcy, except for a sizeable chunk of previous buyers: the ones that had decided to become music pirates instead of pay ludicrous amounts of money.
This effect is partly how it is right now. Even paying $20 or whatever for a CD, you only really want one or two songs. Something like iTunes is no solution—efficient breach and all if you're going to be downloading as opposed to buying a disc. Let's be more than generous and assume that $5 of this price goes to the artists. The other $15 goes to, mainly, the RIAA and the person selling the CD. If prices were to be raised as you said, to $50 as I said, the artists probably would not see more than a dollar or two in increase per CD.
You make an off-the-cuff comment such as "the decisions of the people" without regard to the fact that corporations like the RIAA have a stranglehold on popular culture. People are sheep. They follow popular culture religiously (a celebrity fixation, to be precise), and for this are easily led to believe that all's right with the way things are now. The RIAA, to them, really is a victim in this whole debacle, and the media pirates are nothing but kleptomaniacs. Most simply don't want to pay a ridiculous price and take advantage of the opportunity. Some who download RIAA-copyrighted music take advantage of the moral high ground. The one commonality though, is that they don't want to be led like sheep into supporting a regime that benefits nobody but those at the top, and as such take abuse from the flock when they seperate.
I have three words that would greatly benefit in helping to stop your habit of saying something I've already said many times before: Learn To Read.
Calling someone who illegally downloads copyrighted material a liar, well, that's pretty much spot on. I bet if you look at the user agreement for pretty much any ISP, that agreement says that you, as the user, agree not to partake in illegal activities using their service. By illegaly downloading music, you are breaking that agreement.
You're simply rehashing something we've debated to death by adding a new spin on the illegality aspect of it. You bring nothing new to the debate whatsoever with this. The only thing you've even come within an ocean's breadth of accomplishing is bringing up the concept of an ISP and thus one more rule that's broken, but again, I refer to every single argument we've both made about the issue of legality.
The legality of it has been debated to death. Bring only new arguments to the table, or get out of this thread. I think Noam Chomsky put it best, "Just because you changed the format of what you are saying doesn't mean you have anything worthwhile to say."
Which brings me to my third point, someone who illegally downloads music from the internet cannot be trusted. They'll take what they want when they want - regardless of what it does to others as long as they feel it's advantageous to them - just as you have shown when you illegally download copyrighted music just because you'd have to put extra effort into getting it legally.
Your overgeneralizations sicken me. You're essentially calling me someone who'd walk freely into someone's home and lift their belongings like some sort of real-life RPG. You're calling me a kleptomaniac with no regard for the concept of intellectual property or even a basic understanding of the law. I'm offended by how short-sighted and (I do not use the word lightly) patently stupid you are by doing this. Had you said it any more directly, I'd label it outright as libellous.
Your failure to comprehend does not impress me. In order to have an economy that supports private enterprise, you have to protect an individual's (or a company's) right to create a product and sell that product as they see fit. To break down liberalism, it's small government. Basically, it's only the goverment's place to be involved in affairs that force citizens to be harmed by other citizens (or other countries) against their will.
This coming from the person who's had to be reminded on no fewer than two occasions of basic facets of my arguments, who has failed to understand anything beyond snippets of what I say more times than I care to count? You call me incapable of comprehension? Here's something to note: This only confirms that you can do nothing but spout nonsense.
Protecting someone's right to create and sell a product as they see fit is fine. Very few systems of government would challenge this, and a capitalistic setting like North America works hard to protect it. I have not once in this entire thread stated that works should simply be lifted freely without regard to their creators, except to say that the RIAA does exactly this with their unethical dealings.
You say that only the government should be involved in affairs that force citizens to be harmed against their will. The RIAA does this, not only to the artists with their essentially enforced contracts, but to the public, when they declare what can only be called an inquisition and change the laws to their benefit. They change the laws to allow only them any say on any matters they so wish. I will admit that only the government should have the place to declare this a deplorable state of affairs, but when the government is having such a love affair with the likes of the RIAA, it's obvious that the government cannot be trusted to make sound decisions based on what's right for the people they claim to serve. Rather, in doing so they place themselves above the people they serve, which makes no better than the English monarchs who lived under the Divine Right of Kings.
Protecting a private enterprise's right to do business is a rather routine thing, made possible simply by the very copyright laws you seem to be convinced I have no regard for. However, giving them subsidies and allowing monopolies to be formed does not "protect" anything. All it does is allow a precious few individuals to gain more power than they should have, and to destroy anyone who dares enter the same field as them. This is not protection in the slightest. Protecting them means not letting people run them out of business. It does not mean disallowing competition for the largest and most established brand names by all but other large and established brand names.
Now, if Wal*Mart wants to come into a community and buy an empty lot in the center of a quiet neighborhood - then the government has a right to get involved to determine if Wal*Mart will have a substantial negative effect on it's potential neighbors
Totally forgetting that WalMart destroys countless small businesses just by existing in a community in the process. Their business practises have been time and again branded as those of "corporate thugs." Quite a fitting crowd you seek to defend, then, the RIAA and WalMart, among presumably other unethical and corrupt corporations.
Example, If Wal*Mart wants to start paying their employees $0.20 an hour and only hire straight white males, that's up to Wal*Mart. No one is *forced* to shop there and no one is *forced* to work there. Idealy, Wal*Mart would succeed or fail based on what they choose to do.
This is just being absurd. Hyperbole does not become you. I suppose you also oppose equal wages for illegal immigrants, in that case?
so if an evil corperation wants to charge $100 for a CD, then the customer gets to choose if they want to buy or pass on that purchase - and that evil company gets to sink or float based upon the decisions of the people.
Again, you overgeneralize simply to make yourself sound like your arguments bear weight. I too had toyed with bringing up this argument for the opposite effect, the very effect which anyone of intelligence can draw from the observation, but in the end passed it off as a childish hyperbole.
The problem with the $100 CD scenario is that if the RIAA decides to charge that much for it, the cost of a single CD becomes intensely prohibitive. People simply wouldn't buy it. Therefore as a debate tactic, it's meaningless. You'd need a more reasonable extreme. At the most, a $50 CD serves well for my example. Now, we take our RIAA-price-tagged $50 CDs and flood every music store with them, using the RIAA's deep advertising pockets to drown out "indie" bands that sell their CDs at a non-ludicrous rate in terms not only of sheer advertising but of shelf space. With that taken care of, only the most diehard fans of these "indie" bands (the word is just not aesthetically pleasing to me, hence quotation marks) buy their product, and the rest are forced to make the very decision you said—to buy an overcosted CD, or live without music.
Again, I point you to the parallel arguments I made about American music when discussing why I download what I download—accessibility. Overpriced domestic music simply isn't feasible, even for people who drop $50 or more just for one new PS2 game without flinching. Prices add up. The chokehold on the music economy from such a sudden, drastic price increase would simply kill the market... for a little while. After that, buyers would simply creep back in after being inundated by the RIAA's propaganda and the market would return to a state of normalcy, except for a sizeable chunk of previous buyers: the ones that had decided to become music pirates instead of pay ludicrous amounts of money.
This effect is partly how it is right now. Even paying $20 or whatever for a CD, you only really want one or two songs. Something like iTunes is no solution—efficient breach and all if you're going to be downloading as opposed to buying a disc. Let's be more than generous and assume that $5 of this price goes to the artists. The other $15 goes to, mainly, the RIAA and the person selling the CD. If prices were to be raised as you said, to $50 as I said, the artists probably would not see more than a dollar or two in increase per CD.
You make an off-the-cuff comment such as "the decisions of the people" without regard to the fact that corporations like the RIAA have a stranglehold on popular culture. People are sheep. They follow popular culture religiously (a celebrity fixation, to be precise), and for this are easily led to believe that all's right with the way things are now. The RIAA, to them, really is a victim in this whole debacle, and the media pirates are nothing but kleptomaniacs. Most simply don't want to pay a ridiculous price and take advantage of the opportunity. Some who download RIAA-copyrighted music take advantage of the moral high ground. The one commonality though, is that they don't want to be led like sheep into supporting a regime that benefits nobody but those at the top, and as such take abuse from the flock when they seperate.
I have three words that would greatly benefit in helping to stop your habit of saying something I've already said many times before: Learn To Read.
>The legality of it has been debated to death. Bring only new arguments to the table, or get out of this thread. I think Noam Chomsky put it best, "Just because you changed the format of what you are saying doesn't mean you have anything worthwhile to say."
Item #1: You know, you keep pretty much rehashing the same arguements as well. Perhaps a taste of your own advice would be well advised here.
>You're calling me a kleptomaniac with no regard for the concept of intellectual property or even a basic understanding of the law.
Well, what do you call it when someone takes the property of another person illegally and without their permission? You know, just because you justify a practice to yourself doesn't mean it's justified.
>This only confirms that you can do nothing but spout nonsense.
See Item #1
>The RIAA does this, not only to the artists with their essentially enforced contracts, but to the public, when they declare what can only be called an inquisition and change the laws to their benefit.
Unless you've missed it, we've established time and time again that there are other routes and methods for an artist to make their music without the RIAA. The RIAA forces no one to sign a contract who doesn't want to at the time they sign it.
As far as the laws the RIAA "makes" - would they have to "make" these laws to protect what *IS* their property if people didn't willfully and unlawfully steal it from them in the first place?
>Totally forgetting that WalMart destroys countless small businesses just by existing in a community in the process. Their business practises have been time and again branded as those of "corporate thugs." Quite a fitting crowd you seek to defend, then, the RIAA and WalMart, among presumably other unethical and corrupt corporations.
Can you point me to one single news story where Wal*Mart reps went into a small business and forced them to close?
No?
Oh, but you can point me to countless articles where small business close because the majority of their customer base decides to shop at Wal*Mart?
So it's Wal*Mart's fault that the small business customers made their own decision... Stupid Evil Wal*Mart. How dare they let the customers decide where to shop. I hereby propose a law that in order to shop at a Wal*Mart, you must present a people greeter with a receipt from another local small-business before you'll be allowed in.
>I suppose you also oppose equal wages for illegal immigrants, in that case?
I oppose wages for illegal immigrants period. How's that?
>the rest are forced to make the very decision you said—to buy an overcosted CD, or live without music.
Why is it that 'the rest" is forced to buy overpriced CDs or not have music? It seems to me that there are plenty of other choices there (Radio, Internet Radio, the Indy Music you mentioned, they could start their own bands, perhaps attend and support the local High School band/choir or, if they're lucky, support the local orchestra or such - and these are things I can come up with off the top of my head with little-to-no thought.)
>People are sheep. They follow popular culture religiously (a celebrity fixation, to be precise), and for this are easily led to believe that all's right with the way things are now.
Perhaps the sheep need an awakening, like $50-$100 mass produced CDs in order to change.
None the less, is someone less sheep-like when it comes to popular culture if they download the latest Brittany Spears or Jessica Simpson songs (are they even popular anymore?) vs, going to the store and buying the CD?
Item #1: You know, you keep pretty much rehashing the same arguements as well. Perhaps a taste of your own advice would be well advised here.
>You're calling me a kleptomaniac with no regard for the concept of intellectual property or even a basic understanding of the law.
Well, what do you call it when someone takes the property of another person illegally and without their permission? You know, just because you justify a practice to yourself doesn't mean it's justified.
>This only confirms that you can do nothing but spout nonsense.
See Item #1
>The RIAA does this, not only to the artists with their essentially enforced contracts, but to the public, when they declare what can only be called an inquisition and change the laws to their benefit.
Unless you've missed it, we've established time and time again that there are other routes and methods for an artist to make their music without the RIAA. The RIAA forces no one to sign a contract who doesn't want to at the time they sign it.
As far as the laws the RIAA "makes" - would they have to "make" these laws to protect what *IS* their property if people didn't willfully and unlawfully steal it from them in the first place?
>Totally forgetting that WalMart destroys countless small businesses just by existing in a community in the process. Their business practises have been time and again branded as those of "corporate thugs." Quite a fitting crowd you seek to defend, then, the RIAA and WalMart, among presumably other unethical and corrupt corporations.
Can you point me to one single news story where Wal*Mart reps went into a small business and forced them to close?
No?
Oh, but you can point me to countless articles where small business close because the majority of their customer base decides to shop at Wal*Mart?
So it's Wal*Mart's fault that the small business customers made their own decision... Stupid Evil Wal*Mart. How dare they let the customers decide where to shop. I hereby propose a law that in order to shop at a Wal*Mart, you must present a people greeter with a receipt from another local small-business before you'll be allowed in.
>I suppose you also oppose equal wages for illegal immigrants, in that case?
I oppose wages for illegal immigrants period. How's that?
>the rest are forced to make the very decision you said—to buy an overcosted CD, or live without music.
Why is it that 'the rest" is forced to buy overpriced CDs or not have music? It seems to me that there are plenty of other choices there (Radio, Internet Radio, the Indy Music you mentioned, they could start their own bands, perhaps attend and support the local High School band/choir or, if they're lucky, support the local orchestra or such - and these are things I can come up with off the top of my head with little-to-no thought.)
>People are sheep. They follow popular culture religiously (a celebrity fixation, to be precise), and for this are easily led to believe that all's right with the way things are now.
Perhaps the sheep need an awakening, like $50-$100 mass produced CDs in order to change.
None the less, is someone less sheep-like when it comes to popular culture if they download the latest Brittany Spears or Jessica Simpson songs (are they even popular anymore?) vs, going to the store and buying the CD?
Item #1: You know, you keep pretty much rehashing the same arguements as well. Perhaps a taste of your own advice would be well advised here.
Only out of necessity to drive what I'm trying to say into your head. If I didn't, you wouldn't have a clue what I'm trying to say—your confirmed lack of reading ability would render you unable to follow.
Well, what do you call it when someone takes the property of another person illegally and without their permission? You know, just because you justify a practice to yourself doesn't mean it's justified.
It still doesn't change that you called me a kleptomaniac without any regard for the concept of property. Just because I download foreign music doesn't mean I'll walk into somebody's home and make off with the family jewels. You, however, seem to equate the two as being hand-in-hand.
Unless you've missed it, we've established time and time again that there are other routes and methods for an artist to make their music without the RIAA. The RIAA forces no one to sign a contract who doesn't want to at the time they sign it.
As far as the laws the RIAA "makes" - would they have to "make" these laws to protect what *IS* their property if people didn't willfully and unlawfully steal it from them in the first place?
Yes, but then again, they make even less than the meagre amounts they make under the RIAA's regime, making it a necessity to sell out if they want anyone to hear the music they've spent their time and effort working on, and have it actually be their profession.
You're also a fool if you believe that music piracy is the reason the RIAA forces laws that only benefit them. They'd force the laws regardless, simply because it makes them more money. Again, you've been blind to my arguments time and again.
Oh, but you can point me to countless articles where small business close because the majority of their customer base decides to shop at Wal*Mart?
So it's Wal*Mart's fault that the small business customers made their own decision... Stupid Evil Wal*Mart. How dare they let the customers decide where to shop. I hereby propose a law that in order to shop at a Wal*Mart, you must present a people greeter with a receipt from another local small-business before you'll be allowed in.
I love how you're completely pro-big-business. Really, you have no concept that WalMart knows that people would rather shop at low prices where you can get everything cheaply in one store, as opposed to actually having a community with small businesses and the like. This is WalMart's very tactic, to shut out all other businesses except large chain stores like themselves, because they can get away with it. It forms a monopoly if left long enough.
But then again, one of the things we've established about you is that you seem to love monopolies, just because they're allowed to form, eh?
I oppose wages for illegal immigrants period. How's that?
Answering a rhetorical question gains you nothing. But hey, the illegal immigrants basically signed a contract saying that they'd work for lower than minimum wage, so who are you to go up against a contract? Last I checked, you seem to think that contracts are the be-all and end-all of business.
Why is it that 'the rest" is forced to buy overpriced CDs or not have music? It seems to me that there are plenty of other choices there (Radio, Internet Radio, the Indy Music you mentioned, they could start their own bands, perhaps attend and support the local High School band/choir or, if they're lucky, support the local orchestra or such - and these are things I can come up with off the top of my head with little-to-no thought.)
Learn. To. Read. I already covered how the indie bands would be squashed, that "radio tax" idea that the RIAA's supposedly toying around with would probably go through, and of course if you think under those price raises a dollar would get you an iTunes song, you're mistaken.
At least you admit you put little to no thought into it. Perhaps some thought should have been put into reading my post?
Perhaps the sheep need an awakening, like $50-$100 mass produced CDs in order to change.
None the less, is someone less sheep-like when it comes to popular culture if they download the latest Brittany Spears or Jessica Simpson songs (are they even popular anymore?) vs, going to the store and buying the CD?
I won't rehash something I've already said. Read my above post, and actually put more than "little to no" thought into it.
>It still doesn't change that you called me a kleptomaniac without any regard for the concept of property. Just because I download foreign music doesn't mean I'll walk into somebody's home and make off with the family jewels.
It is obvious that you have no regard for the property of at least one select group of others. How do I know you won't just randomly take what you want because you've justified in your own mind how you should be allowed to take stuff that belongs to others because you don't want to have to work harder to get it legally? People judge you by your actions - and you already said you take the property of others illegally because the legal method is too much to ask.
>Yes, but then again, they make even less than the meagre amounts they make under the RIAA's regime, making it a necessity to sell out if they want anyone to hear the music they've spent their time and effort working on, and have it actually be their profession.
Blah, Blah, Blah. The bigger the risk, the bigger the reward. Are you familiar with the concept? If one has good enough music, they can risk signing under the RIAA which will lower the artists' risk of failing - and thus lower the rewards if they succeed. They can go on their own and if they make it big, then they'll get to reap the larger rewards. If they fail, then all the money that the RIAA would have wasted on them, well, that artist would have wasted on themselves.
>You're also a fool if you believe that music piracy is the reason the RIAA forces laws that only benefit them. They'd force the laws regardless, simply because it makes them more money. Again, you've been blind to my arguments time and again.
Because, you know, the laws you are so concerned about where there before internet music piracy was so large.
And which laws exactly are you talking about, may I ask?
>Really, you have no concept that WalMart knows that people would rather shop at low prices where you can get everything cheaply in one store, as opposed to actually having a community with small businesses and the like.
Curse Wal*Mart for giving the people what they want! How dare they do any such thing. Next thing you know, the RIAA will allow free music downloads because it's what the people want.
Seriously though, It's pretty simple what the people want, why does it make Wal*Mart an evil company for creating and maintaining a business that caters to that desire?
>Answering a rhetorical question gains you nothing. But hey, the illegal immigrants basically signed a contract saying that they'd work for lower than minimum wage, so who are you to go up against a contract? Last I checked, you seem to think that contracts are the be-all and end-all of business.
If the immigrant is here illegally, then he/she needs to be deported. If a business signed a contract for that immigrant to work there, then the business needs to be fined/punished for illegally employment practices. And the large majority of such offenders do not create contracts - less paper work means less likely to get caught/fined.
>At least you admit you put little to no thought into it. Perhaps some thought should have been put into reading my post?
And yet, you only responded to a mere two of the examples that I gave where people can have music for free (or very little montary investment, at least.)
It is obvious that you have no regard for the property of at least one select group of others. How do I know you won't just randomly take what you want because you've justified in your own mind how you should be allowed to take stuff that belongs to others because you don't want to have to work harder to get it legally? People judge you by your actions - and you already said you take the property of others illegally because the legal method is too much to ask.
>Yes, but then again, they make even less than the meagre amounts they make under the RIAA's regime, making it a necessity to sell out if they want anyone to hear the music they've spent their time and effort working on, and have it actually be their profession.
Blah, Blah, Blah. The bigger the risk, the bigger the reward. Are you familiar with the concept? If one has good enough music, they can risk signing under the RIAA which will lower the artists' risk of failing - and thus lower the rewards if they succeed. They can go on their own and if they make it big, then they'll get to reap the larger rewards. If they fail, then all the money that the RIAA would have wasted on them, well, that artist would have wasted on themselves.
>You're also a fool if you believe that music piracy is the reason the RIAA forces laws that only benefit them. They'd force the laws regardless, simply because it makes them more money. Again, you've been blind to my arguments time and again.
Because, you know, the laws you are so concerned about where there before internet music piracy was so large.
And which laws exactly are you talking about, may I ask?
>Really, you have no concept that WalMart knows that people would rather shop at low prices where you can get everything cheaply in one store, as opposed to actually having a community with small businesses and the like.
Curse Wal*Mart for giving the people what they want! How dare they do any such thing. Next thing you know, the RIAA will allow free music downloads because it's what the people want.
Seriously though, It's pretty simple what the people want, why does it make Wal*Mart an evil company for creating and maintaining a business that caters to that desire?
>Answering a rhetorical question gains you nothing. But hey, the illegal immigrants basically signed a contract saying that they'd work for lower than minimum wage, so who are you to go up against a contract? Last I checked, you seem to think that contracts are the be-all and end-all of business.
If the immigrant is here illegally, then he/she needs to be deported. If a business signed a contract for that immigrant to work there, then the business needs to be fined/punished for illegally employment practices. And the large majority of such offenders do not create contracts - less paper work means less likely to get caught/fined.
>At least you admit you put little to no thought into it. Perhaps some thought should have been put into reading my post?
And yet, you only responded to a mere two of the examples that I gave where people can have music for free (or very little montary investment, at least.)
It is obvious that you have no regard for the property of at least one select group of others. How do I know you won't just randomly take what you want because you've justified in your own mind how you should be allowed to take stuff that belongs to others because you don't want to have to work harder to get it legally? People judge you by your actions - and you already said you take the property of others illegally because the legal method is too much to ask.
And yet you find it unreasonable that I assume you support big business as an ardent right-winger simply because of your posts here? Learn what a double standard is. As it stands, if I'm a rampant kleptomaniac, you are nothing but a pathetic right-winger, blinded by his own delusions of superiority. Nothing more.
Blah, Blah, Blah. The bigger the risk, the bigger the reward. Are you familiar with the concept? If one has good enough music, they can risk signing under the RIAA which will lower the artists' risk of failing - and thus lower the rewards if they succeed. They can go on their own and if they make it big, then they'll get to reap the larger rewards. If they fail, then all the money that the RIAA would have wasted on them, well, that artist would have wasted on themselves.
I see you can't fathom how people work. It's not surprising, given your rampant idealism, that you can't follow why artists routinely fail to make it on their own. It also manifests itself in your delusion that music quality has anything to do whatsoever with success. The only thing the RIAA does for an artist is mold them into what the RIAA can sell to the mindless masses. The music itself is nothing. The RIAA simply deals in the images of the band. It makes them appear a certain way, and sells this package. The music means nothing, because people don't want to have to judge someone based on music. They'd rather be told by the lords of popular culture what is "good," and form their "opinions" based on that.
Because, you know, the laws you are so concerned about where there before internet music piracy was so large.
And which laws exactly are you talking about, may I ask?
What, the laws that the RIAA have pushed in the past few years were there before internet music piracy was so large? Or are you referring to copyright law in general? Or are you just incapable of thought, and as such mock me with your inability to reason an argument out?
Curse Wal*Mart for giving the people what they want! How dare they do any such thing. Next thing you know, the RIAA will allow free music downloads because it's what the people want.
Seriously though, It's pretty simple what the people want, why does it make Wal*Mart an evil company for creating and maintaining a business that caters to that desire?
One can only hope. Again, though, you miss the point. However, given your overpowering right-wing mentality, I suppose you'd prefer if there was only one store that handles all sales of all goods throughout America, making the owners of said store easily some of the most powerful people in the country. A complete and total monopoly would be good, then, wouldn't you agree? Wouldn't you agree, then, that a total monopoly of all goods and services under one country would be ideal?
Oh wait, then the economy would be ruled by either one person or a small group of people. But hey, they'd have gone about it the legal way! WalMart and its ilk cater to desire, yes, but you're too stuck on your "big business is good" train of thought to realize why competition is good. WalMart basically has no competition from all but the other massive chain stores, of which there are too few to prevent collusion and the like.
If the immigrant is here illegally, then he/she needs to be deported. If a business signed a contract for that immigrant to work there, then the business needs to be fined/punished for illegally employment practices. And the large majority of such offenders do not create contracts - less paper work means less likely to get caught/fined.
But hey, the illegal immigrant signed a contract! You can't go back on a contract!
Seriously, get a grip. Your blind devotion is nothing short of pathetic. If you had any say in the matter, enforced contracts by monopolies would be the only business that would get done, the word of the people would mean nothing, and of course workers wouldn't have any say in their employment. You truly have no idea how unhealthy these business practises really are. I won't make any sort of conjecture into your business experiences or lack of same, but I can tell that you haven't seen firsthand what business along your ideals is truly all about, what business along your ideals really does. The only thing that matters to companies like WalMart and the RIAA are the profits by their executives and majority shareholders. The rest don't matter. They don't care about their employees, their clients, or even their customers past what money they can finagle out of them. They know that they can abuse the law to get more money for themselves, and do so. They hide behind nothing but technicality and bureaucracy, which of course you do nothing short of applaud. You don't stop to think about the effects this has besides "giving people what they want." You don't even begin to think that "what the people want" is dictated by the people who sell them their crap, because of the massive grip they have on the populace. Free-thinkers are of course punished for going against the herd! Free-thinkers aren't as willing to pay the big corporations for things, and hurt this supposedly great right-wing economy of yours. People who can think for themselves don't want to side with the big corporations that only serve themselves, without regard for anyone else, because these corporations do nothing bad according to the letter of the law. The letter of the law is the only thing that seems to matter to you anyway, so if it's not malum prohibitum then why argue against it? If it's not malum prohibitum then it can't possibly be malum in se! Then again, heaven forbid there be anything but monopolies and massive chain stores and RIAAs that give us our mass-market fix, because then we'd have to go about and make our own decisions about what we want!
Frankly, I don't care if you're right-wing or not, as long as you're not trying to shove it down my throat that "as long as it's not breaking the law, it's not wrong." Tell that to Cadbury, Hershey, and Nestle, who work cocoa farmers such that the farmers get about two cents per chocolate bar. The Ghana growers get about fifty cents per day. Tell that to coffee companies who pay African and South American farmers about 65 cents a pound (a price lower than during the 1930s depression) for coffee beans. All prices in Canadian dollars, so lower that by about 1/5 for US dollars. It's perfectly legal for all these companies to pay slave wages, of course. Because of the laws allowing it, how can it possibly be bad! Curse those companies for giving us what we want and hurting other people to do it!
Seriously, if you were any more blind, you'd make me sick.
And yet, you only responded to a mere two of the examples that I gave where people can have music for free (or very little montary investment, at least.)
And yet, you ignore the vast majorities of any paragraph I make that isn't only a sentence or two long. Why should I bother to show you any respect when I get nothing but ignorance and repetition from you? Why should I have to be the one setting the standard?
You seem to have a lot of negative thoughts and opinions about the way the world runs today. So what have you done to change things?
Oh...
You've illegally downloaded music off the internet. Good for you!
I won't dignify this insult to my intelligence. This has been discussed earlier in the thread. If you can't even remember back that far, then perhaps you shouldn't be arguing in the first place. As it is, if that's all you can come up with, then "Thank you and come again."
UncleBob said:I know we discussed it earlier. ... You're just rehashing the same old stuff over and over...
And yet you yourself bring up a topic that even you admit we've discussed earlier, trying to force the topic yet again, and complain when I rehash something? That's called hypocrisy, learn what that means. All it does is kill any semblance of credibility you claim to have. If you value any dignity you may still have left, you will simply stop posting in this thread and by doing so stop making a fool of yourself.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.