Illegal File-Sharing

[top25]

who the hell voted no. Why are they here anyway. This forum is called FILE SHARING TALK

Maybe it's the RIAA/MPAA there's spys that try to get in everywhere they can not just these forums. ps.If the admins could see who voted no,they could you know give them the boot hehe because they blew there cover by voting.

[Busyman]

who the hell voted no. Why are they here anyway. This forum is called FILE SHARING TALK

Maybe it's the RIAA/MPAA there's spys that try to get in everywhere they can not just these forums. ps.If the admins could see who voted no,they could you know give them the boot hehe because they blew there cover by voting.

Click the number. It shows everyone.

[Busyman]

No shit. What we should be discussing is the moral/ethical and ecomomic reasons why copyright (and other intellectual property laws) exist in the first place.

if it was legalised, the artists would get very little.

Do you have any evidence for this? Or is it something you just take for granted.
Many artists get very little with the current system.

http://www.negativland.com/albini.html
(if you find this link questionable, then I apologize)

If dling becomes legalized, where do they get their money from?

Maybe the same way they made money before records were even invented!?!
(By playing live for those who are a bit slow.)

But I still believe that should copyright laws not exist, users would still purchase recorded music assuming:

(a)It is very convenient and easy to purchase and use.
(b)The product is fairly priced
(c)Sufficiently advanced technology is used that is ahead of what can be obtained on the rip-off market. I don't mean copy protection, I mean advanced technology - currently I would imagine that would be something equivalent to blu-ray (but smaller and more durable). Something like that would more convenient than CDs and much better quality than a lossy format like MP3.

Right now, the music (and movie etc) takes advantage of the large market inefficiencies due to the government-enforced monopoly they are granted. Perhaps once the inefficiencies are removed, they will be kept more honest - they might actually have more incentive to listen to the customers and produce a better quality product for a fairer product, eliminating the need for p2p distribution.

I know that as an artist, I much prefer the internet for distribution - I've made more money and had much more exposure than I would have with the traditional music industry route. Virtually all of the artists I know support p2p.

Those of you who say it shouldn't be legalized because you think that the artists won't make any money, should state the reasons why they still justify downloading. (Apart from the few that already have and apart from those who don't download illegally.)

So if you were offered a hefty music contract froma major label. you'd turn it down and stay with the p2p route.

Mmk.

I'd rather have the major contract.

Many artist out there that support free p2p of their music are either not popular, have made their money, or simply don't care about making money.

To say it's wrong to sell my stuff and that it's right for someone to steal it is mainly justified in the eyes of those who want to keep stealing.

I like getting free music but what I like and principle are two different things.

[top25]

Maybe it's the RIAA/MPAA there's spys that try to get in everywhere they can not just these forums. ps.If the admins could see who voted no,they could you know give them the boot hehe because they blew there cover by voting.

Click the number. It shows everyone.

Thanks

[GepperRankins]

No shit. What we should be discussing is the moral/ethical and ecomomic reasons why copyright (and other intellectual property laws) exist in the first place.



Do you have any evidence for this? Or is it something you just take for granted.
Many artists get very little with the current system.

http://www.negativland.com/albini.html
(if you find this link questionable, then I apologize)

If dling becomes legalized, where do they get their money from?

Maybe the same way they made money before records were even invented!?!
(By playing live for those who are a bit slow.)

But I still believe that should copyright laws not exist, users would still purchase recorded music assuming:

(a)It is very convenient and easy to purchase and use.
(b)The product is fairly priced
(c)Sufficiently advanced technology is used that is ahead of what can be obtained on the rip-off market. I don't mean copy protection, I mean advanced technology - currently I would imagine that would be something equivalent to blu-ray (but smaller and more durable). Something like that would more convenient than CDs and much better quality than a lossy format like MP3.

Right now, the music (and movie etc) takes advantage of the large market inefficiencies due to the government-enforced monopoly they are granted. Perhaps once the inefficiencies are removed, they will be kept more honest - they might actually have more incentive to listen to the customers and produce a better quality product for a fairer product, eliminating the need for p2p distribution.

I know that as an artist, I much prefer the internet for distribution - I've made more money and had much more exposure than I would have with the traditional music industry route. Virtually all of the artists I know support p2p.

Those of you who say it shouldn't be legalized because you think that the artists won't make any money, should state the reasons why they still justify downloading. (Apart from the few that already have and apart from those who don't download illegally.)

So if you were offered a hefty music contract froma major label. you'd turn it down and stay with the p2p route.

Mmk.

I'd rather have the major contract.

Many artist out there that support free p2p of their music are either not popular, have made their money, or simply don't care about making money.

To say it's wrong to sell my stuff and that it's right for someone to steal it is mainly justified in the eyes of those who want to keep stealing.

I like getting free music but what I like and principle are two different things.

i'd go on a label if they let me upload. that's if i was make music like mr 1337 wishes he was.


anyway, remember limp bizkit, and moby?

[horia]

no , I don't think that legalising them is a good thing because if we legalise sharing music who will buy cds with music?? the artists won't have enoungh money to earn a decent living
in the other hand legalising sharing of music will make only dedicated artists get CDs on the market and all the rubbish will dissepear because if u listen to the MP3 downloaded u will see that it's not wirth buying the cd ...

[deuce6000]

I find it hard to believe that many people would say no considering most of us are probably cheap bastards

[krapper]

Whatever research paper you're doing, it would be biased data to be taking polls on a mainly pro-filesharing forum.
Try it on some more neutral, and more diverse (age and region wise) areas to get more statistically accurate results.

[okili]

i think it should be legalized, but i'm not sure

[delimare]

File sharing is my most prized hobby! If they legalized something like this, I would be bored out of my mind…