 BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | reply to james1
Re: Uhh, who cares about the damn soap? said by james1:said by BF69:So your logic is that if you wern't going to buy it you can steal it? No, his logic is that if you werent going to buy it, you can COPY IT. Your logic seems to be that making a copy of something is the same thing as stealing even though stealing means no one else can buy the item you stole. Once again
I want song so I PAY for it.
You want a song. You don't want to pay for it so you "copy".
So it's fair that I paid for the song and you got it for free just because you did not want to pay for it? Once again people like you have yet to explain the fairness of that.
See here's how it's supposed to go.
I want a song. I pay for it. I have it.
You want a song. You don't want to pay for it. You DO NOT get to have that song.
I'm not sure why some of you fail to see the logic in that. Only a thief without any morals or ethics wouldn't understand. |
|
| Well, in your scenario, you are the communist
1 person is smart
1 person is not!
We are all basically capitalist here. and the GOAL of capitalism is to get the MOST amount of goods, for the LEAST amount of cost. So, if you are PAYING for something you can get for free, by definition, you are not a capitalist, thus, you must be a commie!
--
The happiest countries are the most secular. The struggle AGAINST corporations is the struggle FOR humanity! |
|
 wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY | reply to BF69
said by BF69:I want a song. I pay for it. I have it. You want a song. You don't want to pay for it. You DO NOT Well said! |
|
BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
1 edit | reply to karlmarx
said by karlmarx:Well, in your scenario, you are the communist 1 person is smart 1 person is not! We are all basically capitalist here. and the GOAL of capitalism is to get the MOST amount of goods, for the LEAST amount of cost. So, if you are PAYING for something you can get for free, by definition, you are not a capitalist, thus, you must be a commie! I'm the communist? YOU people are the ones that expect everything handed out them for free. that's communism. |
|
|
|
| reply to karlmarx
said by karlmarx:...if you are PAYING for something you can get for free, by definition, you are not a capitalist, thus, you must be a commie! Translation:
If you are not paying for something because you took it for free, by definition, you are still a thief.
But as far as I'm concerned, that's between you and your conscience. Word games don't change the facts. (And just to be clear, I'm extremely anti-RIAA; but I'm even more so pro-honesty. Barring a matter of actual survival, stealing anything just makes you a POS. Just because the RIAA is also a POS doesn't make the thief any less a POS. Stealing from a thief (such as the RIAA) may be fair, but it's not honest. Steal all you want to, but just "man up" and admit it... at least to yourself.) |
|
| reply to BF69
said by BF69:So it's fair that I paid for the song and you got it for free just because you did not want to pay for it? Once again people like you have yet to explain the fairness of that. So if I grow my own apples are you going to complain that I'm getting free apples?
Sure, the grocery store will suffer because I'm buying less apples, but it's their decision if they decide to raise their prices and make you pay them because I feel like "copying" the apple. |
|
| reply to mod_wastrel
said by mod_wastrel:If you are not paying for something because you took it for free, by definition, you are still a thief. And I say if you're exploiting artists, lying about statistics and manipulating the market you're a thief. Here's a tip: the internet has made the middle-men and producers absolutely useless, and they're the ones who have been exploiting artists and shoving crap like the spice girls and boy-bands down our throats. Bands don't make money from CD sales or radio-play, that's just publicity for them so they can sell merchandise and seats in stadiums. |
|
 KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | reply to BF69
said by BF69:Once again people like you have yet to explain the fairness of that. You're trying to change the argument. Is it fair you had to pay and they got to copy it? No, not really.
However, *just because* they copied it doesn't mean that anything was stolen. That's the point. You can't count a loss that you never suffered.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
|
|
BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | reply to james1
said by james1:said by mod_wastrel:If you are not paying for something because you took it for free, by definition, you are still a thief. And I say if you're exploiting artists, lying about statistics and manipulating the market you're a thief. Here's a tip: the internet has made the middle-men and producers absolutely useless, and they're the ones who have been exploiting artists and shoving crap like the spice girls and boy-bands down our throats. Bands don't make money from CD sales or radio-play, that's just publicity for them so they can sell merchandise and seats in stadiums. So you're stealing for the good of the poor maligned artists being screwed over by the evil record labels? How noble of you. Pardon me if I don't believe you steal out of philithropic motives.
I mean how dare the labels spend millions of their dollars producing and promoting these artists and giving them millions of $ in advance with only small % chance of that investment actually returning results then have the balls to asked to be reimbursed and perhaps take a profit too? Those devils! |
|
BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | reply to james1
said by james1:said by BF69:So it's fair that I paid for the song and you got it for free just because you did not want to pay for it? Once again people like you have yet to explain the fairness of that. So if I grow my own apples are you going to complain that I'm getting free apples? No because those are your apples. Unless you are producing those songs yourself your argument is stupid. |
|
BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | reply to KrK
said by KrK:said by BF69:Once again people like you have yet to explain the fairness of that. You're trying to change the argument. Is it fair you had to pay and they got to copy it? No, not really. However, *just because* they copied it doesn't mean that anything was stolen. That's the point. You can't count a loss that you never suffered. No YOU are changing the arugment. Is stealing or copying or whatever the fuck you want to label it wrong? YES. Nuff said. |
|
| reply to BF69
said by BF69:I mean how dare the labels spend millions of their dollars producing and promoting these artists and giving them millions of $ in advance with only small % chance of that investment actually returning results then have the balls to asked to be reimbursed and perhaps take a profit too? Those devils! 99.9% of artists don't get "millions of $ in advance", and I guarantee the ones that do are a sure thing as far as the producers getting paid goes.
Piracy is as "bad" for artists as getting played on the radio. It's free and worldwide publicity (something the labels could never provide for the artists)! 90% of the bands I listen to I've heard of from being used in flash animations, internet radio and music download sites without the permission of the artist. But without that Piracy I wouldnt like or even know about any of those bands, so when they came to town I wouldn't buy tickets to their concert, I wouldnt order a tshirt from their website, I wouldn't order a CD from them even though I already have their songs on my computer because I want a better quality sound, I wouldn't buy posters... etc etc etc.
Bands used to have to PAY to get that kind of exposure, now they get it for free and the middle-men who did nothing but put up walls and act as gate-keepers and took the biggest cut of the pie are crying and trying to dig their way out of the grave they made for themselves by screwing artists and consumers for decades. GOOD F-ING RIDDANCE. |
|
KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | reply to BF69
Stealing is wrong.
Copying isn't always.
They aren't the same, but people try and make it like they are.
Taking an "unauthorized" picture of something isn't the same as actually taking the something.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
|
|
1 edit | reply to BF69
said by BF69:No because those are your apples. It affects you in the exact same way, I'm copying something and getting it for free while you have to pay the normal price. Is that fair?
said by BF69:Unless you are producing those songs yourself your argument is stupid. So, now you know how I feel about your argument that compares copying to stealing. They're different, so stop comparing them to other things.
Copying art is the same as copying art. It's not the same as stealing a car, it's not the same as me planting apples, it's not the same as anything.
The only argument that isn't stupid is "I think copying music/movies/paintings is good/bad because XYZ". Everything else is just idiocy and trolling.
So lets try that:
I think copying music for personal use is good because it gives bands worldwide exposure and if people like them enough they will want to buy Tshirts, Posters and buy memorabilia such as personally signed CDs made by the band themselves. As it is most of the money from CDs goes to middle-men who are no longer necessary.
I am 100% against people charging for pirated music because they are deriving a profit from the works rather than acting as free promoters.
Your turn. |
|
BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | said by james1:So, now you know how I feel about your argument that compares copying to stealing. They're different, so stop comparing them to other things. Appearntly you incapable of logical reasoning even when it's gift wrapped to you. Copying is stealing PERIOD. If you're that stupid to not see that there is ZERO point in further discussion with you. Do you understand what I just said or do I need to explain that as if you were a 5 year old with a mental handicap? |
|
