Bargeld Posted August 27, 2003 Report Posted August 27, 2003 they get raided so cops can confiscate free bongs.
Evil Jin Posted August 27, 2003 Report Posted August 27, 2003 not all bongs cuase arabs use em we just dont put weed. plusses of bein an arab
Guest crossfire Posted August 29, 2003 Report Posted August 29, 2003 NO...cuz were all bunch of poor ppl. the main opposistion that i heard are either from ppl that are rich enough to afford to get rid of their guilt or those who already own the software...main arguments?? "man unlike yall i actually pay the artist" or "yall just gonna make the software more expensive for everyone in the future" furthermore i dont see the point of having mp3s if p2p is cracked down. i personally think that it is a waste of money to pay 15 -20 bucks for a single good song and 14 other lousy ones from an artist, so the best way to make sure that the artists get paid while you enjoy the stuff of your choice is to pay a small dl fee @ mp3.com. on the subjects of p2p being totally rooted out....it aint gonna happen besides if you're really desperate(ly cheap) you could always record it over your radio. oh btw haha....I think this is partly why the Chinese begand creating their own hardware... Mistrust of these western hardware monitoring methods. Who knows what sort of -*BAD WORD*- they stick into their little black boxes. i want to add that chinese walmarts sell bootlegged version just as they sell ramen noodles
madhaha Posted August 29, 2003 Report Posted August 29, 2003 A different kind of argument. Question: If p2p existed would you buy all the songs/movies you downloaded? Answer: of course not! But those are the figures that the industry figures are quoting. Question: If you like a movie/song you download do you still but it? Most people answer yes. So why the complaints?
Silk Posted August 30, 2003 Report Posted August 30, 2003 Because like you said in your post, MOST people not everyone who would buy it will not since P2P is easier.
yoyo111 Posted August 30, 2003 Report Posted August 30, 2003 not only because it is easier but also because it is free the convience is not olny what causes ppl to do it you have to remember that it is free that is the main reason for ppl doing it think about it you can download counter-strike or you can buy it that is a nother type of p2p not just music but there are many other ways that ppl can cheat the law because it is more cost effective at low risk and it is conveinet. the truth is that it is wrong because it is depriving but it is only questionable because of the number of ppl that do it and that is what the whole topic is about is it right or wrong
Guest 2pac Posted August 31, 2003 Report Posted August 31, 2003 -*BAD WORD*- it why buy it when you can download it for free and save your money so you can buy something else whats the point of buy -*BAD WORD*- thats free.
Bargeld Posted August 31, 2003 Report Posted August 31, 2003 -*BAD WORD*- it why buy it when you can download it for free and save your money so you can buy something else whats the point of buy -*BAD WORD*- thats free. Because stealing is illegal.
madhaha Posted August 31, 2003 Report Posted August 31, 2003 More importantly IF YOU DON'T PAY THEN THEY CAN'T MAKE MORE STUFF STUPID. "Wow, thats cool. Lets show them we care by making them live on the streets."
Guest 2pac Posted August 31, 2003 Report Posted August 31, 2003 Who gives a -*BAD WORD*- if it is illegal or not people here in us are illegal some of them. This is internet life people want happyness not bull shir from -*BAD WORD*-ing rich companys besides that no one gives a -*BAD WORD*- about the riaa.
madhaha Posted August 31, 2003 Report Posted August 31, 2003 I'm not thinking about RIAA. I'm thinking about the poor -*BAD WORD*-s that EARN A LIVING. Software development and movie making are pricey enterprises. I'm less convinved about music.
yoyo111 Posted September 6, 2003 Report Posted September 6, 2003 well first of all i belive both that people are going to steal regardless of wether it is right or wrong i also believe that if were simpler to buy a song than to just download it for free that it would be less taken advantage of. i am clearly not taking a side i am just pointing out the facts to show to people who are taking sides must i take a side it would probably be to not steal but i admi that i to have used p2p and only because it is convienent.
Bueshtak Posted September 9, 2003 Report Posted September 9, 2003 I dont really agree with it, because it does affect a lot of other people besides the musicians. Not that I don't use kazaa all the time...I just dont agree with it...ya... *looks around and runs*
Trained Posted September 9, 2003 Report Posted September 9, 2003 -*BAD WORD*- the musicians, if they really cared, and they wanted people to hear there music, and not be in it for just the money, then they shouldnt complain.. Im poor, well i do have a computer with net, but my dad pays that for the child support so BOOYA, btw, theres a crack in my wall, cause the tyrain that come by my house, i call that poor
Bargeld Posted September 9, 2003 Report Posted September 9, 2003 so, from the replies, I can make the !@#$%^&*umtion that:poor people (or underage folx who can't afford their own -*BAD WORD*-) = thieves.
Aileron Posted September 9, 2003 Report Posted September 9, 2003 Well, sharing music should be illegal unless there is a means that one can find a way to not violate copywrite laws. However, this IS an indication for the music industry to wake up. Whether it is legal or illegal, file sharing IS compe!@#$%^&*ion from an economic standpoint. They could sue the Napsters and Kazaas all day long, but until they make their products able to compete with these sources, they will never rid themselves of the problem.
madhaha Posted September 9, 2003 Report Posted September 9, 2003 so, from the replies, I can make the !@#$%^&*umtion that:poor people (or underage folx who can't afford their own -*BAD WORD*-) = thieves. Only if you read the stupid posts as opposed to the ones using valid arguments.
Silk Posted September 9, 2003 Report Posted September 9, 2003 -*BAD WORD*- the musicians, if they really cared, and they wanted people to hear there music, and not be in it for just the money, then they shouldnt complain.. Most musicians are in it for the money because they have the talent and the skills to outperform other musicians in whatever genre they are in. Some take music up for a job like in the orchestra, choir, beats and etc. You wouldnt get what you hear today if they were not getting paid, most of them deserve the money they make because of the devotion they put into it and the risk too. I admit, i use kazaa because i cannot pay for cds all the time but whenever i scrounge up enough dough i do go buy a cd i like. But it is stealing and it is hurting the musicians since the ones that are in a big record label take their huge fair of the money made by the artists signed under them.
divine.216 Posted September 10, 2003 Report Posted September 10, 2003 Theft:1. (Law) The act of stealing; specifically, the felonious taking and removing of personal property, with an intent to deprive the rightful owner of the same; larceny. Please, stop the "thief" FUD. The RIAA is a conglomerate of corporations. The reason they are so violently opposed to file sharing has nothing to do with "protecting the artists." The RIAA and all it's member recording companies provide certain services to their artists: recording and distribution (marketing manufacturing etc.). The high cost of distribution and marketing of a band is what keeps many small recording companies out of the market, while at the same time allowing the large recording companies to exert further control over popular music (read: shove crappy music down our throats). File sharing presents, if not completely free, a drastically reduced means of distribution and marketing. This threatens the corporate music industry because the artists don't need them anymore. Legally, file sharing might be "wrong" -- but so is jaywalking, speeding, consensual sex with a 17 year old, underage drinking, mix taps, backing up software... Laws are not moral or ethical standards -- especially when you can write your own for a price. http://www.dontbuycds.orghttp://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/music-to-our-ears.php note: I guess it's only fair if I admit that I am a tad biased as I have been investigated and charged with file sharing by the MPAA (it was settled w/o any real punishment, except for a few stressful hours of yanking drives and stashing them).
Aileron Posted September 10, 2003 Report Posted September 10, 2003 True, the RIAA's motives are selfish. However, that does not in and of itself make it moral from an ethical standpoint. Their selfish interest could coincidentally agree with morality. They are also rich, but that doesn't do it either. Being rich in and of itself is not wrong. Thus, the "rich greedy corporation" arguement doesn't fly. They are rich. They are greedy. They are most likely raising the legal stir to stifle compe!@#$%^&*ion. However, that doesn't mean that their arguements are unsound. Face it, file sharing does not allow the individual who created the piece to recieve the payment he/she requests and (if your are not a communist) deserves. Whether the message is being sung by a sinner or a saint holds no consequence. Thus, file sharing is wrong, unless there is a way to do it with the permission of the person who wrote it. Basically, the compromise between economics (which clearly says that CDs have to go) and ethics is that someone should make a website were you could download songs off of them (most likely, but not necessarily, for a price), and they would pay the copywrite laws. This is essentially what they do over the radio.
Yupa Posted September 10, 2003 Report Posted September 10, 2003 the poll is not so good anyways there is nothing illegal about P2P
Bargeld Posted September 10, 2003 Report Posted September 10, 2003 there is nothing illegal about P2P then explain this: http://www.msnbc.com/news/963684.asp?vts=091020031215
madhaha Posted September 10, 2003 Report Posted September 10, 2003 P2P does not necessarily mean filesharing. Filesharing does not necessarily mean illegal filesharing. Priitk is working on a P2P phone program. Would this lead to the arrest of 261 people chatting on VOIP?
Recommended Posts