Is Downloading Music Stealing? Not In My...

[ultramagna]

Originally posted by MagicNakor@5 July 2003 - 17:40

Theft is when a person intentionally and fraudulently takes personal property of another without permission or consent

Now isn't what you just said what we are all doing??? Music from an artist is personal property. I'm taking it without his consent (buy not purchasing it) and I'm passing it on to others. This is the exact same thing as software pirating. Company's victim of software pirating don't stand still allowing you to have their software without paying for it, do they??? They will sue the hell out of you.

I'm against those big bullies, but I can see why they've resorted to using such terms, because we wouldn't see the truth behind it if they didn't use those terms -- just as you are arguing now. But ya gotta admit. In the end. It's all the same thing. The property is just not ours until we pay for it.

Just continue not to buy their music and they will have to make it less expensive for the people to buy. That's all that can be done as long as file sharing exists.

[TIBZ]

Sorry, man, I believe recieving stolen property [with the foreknowledge of it's stolen origin] is still a crime. This is why you don't buy PlayStation 2's out of the back of a car

well umm how do u no for sure that the ps2 is stolen????

[mandagoShare]

What we are doing follows an alternate economic mode. Big busniess is unable to adjust to the possibilities of technology quickly enough to realize a profit. The internet was designed to facilitate the free exchange of ideas. A concept that is anthematic to copyright laws.

I am NOT getting somthing for nothing. I abide by the rules of this community I take what I want and in return I make available that which others want.

The RIAA would say that because they do not realize a profit from the exchange that exchange should not be allowed, but I have been to many gagage sales, pawn shops, second hand stores and swap meets do the CDs in these places constitute copyright violation? Sure you bet but the RIAA dosen't go after these folks

Sorry to go on different tangents

Here is the bottom line goods recieved in exchange for other goods is NOT theft.

The RIAA would like to scare you into being a thief.

You ARE stealing if you download without allowing uploads

[ultramagna]

The rule of thumb here is: Don't buy their music if you think it's too expensive. They are not forcing you to.

In the end, they will see what they have done and we all will be buying music at a fair price and file sharing will have no bearing, in fact, it will be totally legal, because everybody will still buy what they download and share .

[MagicNakor]

Personal property and intellectual property also have different meanings. Forget it, their brainwashing scheme's worked too well.

[AR8]

Originally posted by BlizZ@1 July 2003 - 21:08
If you buy a music CD, you're buying a CD with audio files in them. You're not buying an "audio file" and that's it.

So? A CD is a bunch of songs/audio files put on to a disc, so, even if you download one audio file, you are stealing a part of the CD, so it IS stealing... I'm sure you are saying this just so you feel better about downloading music

[yNd aznbnet]

B) You're only stealing if the tracks you download are 320kbps or above !!!!

[Switeck]

Irregardless of whether we're 'stealing' from them, they are stealing from us.

And I don't mean money.

They (RIAA/MPAA/BSA) are conspiring to destroy history itself, and they are using whatever money we give them to do so.

The patent and copyright extensions and more brutal enforcement laws they are always asking for serve to create a society that has totally lost access to past information.

A book/song/movie/tv show can only be preserved if it can be copied.

They are seeking to make this both illegal AND impossible for us to do so. (to hedge their bets.)

When libraries cannot stock their shelves with books, songs, movies, and tv shows (because of the huge costs/out-of-print materials) -- what remains to preserve a collective memory of history?

I am in no hurry to become a member of a soon-to-be-lost civilization.

[fearofthedark]

Originally posted by modit@3 July 2003 - 17:18
i am discovering more artists i like and am buying there products which i would never had thought of doing

Me too. I had 3 albums til I started downloading music. Now I have over 60. Only 25% of my mp3 colection isn't mine, and I will get round to buynig the Cds eventually. I use p2p to try before i buy most of the time. If I don't like it, I usually delete it after a while. Its people who hardly own any Cds and just download 1000s of mp3s who are the main thieves.

[TheDigable]

Just because something is in your opinion too expensive, does not make it your God given right to download it for free until it's cheap enough for you to afford. That's just silly. There's lots of stuff I can't afford.


The point of the matter however, is that music does not give you a MONEY BACK GUARANTEE if you're not satisfied with the product. Most other industries do. If I bought a bag of potatoes and 10 of the 15 potatoes were spoiled, I could return the bag. If I got a CD player, and I didn't like the way it functioned, I'd take it back for a refund. Hell, people take clothes back to the store....and that's clothes that they have already tried on(bathing suits excepted). So what the RIAA should do is give us a money back guarantee on our product or/and allow us to buy singles individually without the $7.00 price tag(that's not too expensive that's just plain assinine) attached to it...( I could most times do without all the shitty remixes).

Unfortunately, there will always be those who want everything for free...and, no matter how much RIAA tries to work with us and the artists, will still want everything for free. Why? Because they are freeloaders...and you can't reason with freeloaders.