tv-links.co.uk Shut Down

[Darth Mandarb]

First off, I completely disagree that CDs are too expensive. I'd say the average CD is about $15 - $25. I've easily drop more than that on a meal and not even think about it.

This is just a matter of opinion.  Selling something that cost 30 cents (to produce) for 15 dollars is robbery.  Plain and simple.  No matter the excuses used; promotions, distribution, advertising/marketing, blah blah blah it doesn't warrant such a rediculous mark-up.  It's not that I can't afford it.  I could easily if I thought it was a reasonable price.  I do not.  And I'm not alone.

I also think these companies are smart enough to realize the internet is a factor, which is why people can download music on-line for money.

In this regard, I completely disagree.  They offer up on-line music, sure, then they charge the same amount to download an album as if you bought the CD only you don't get any of the tangible materials, there's not even 1/100th of the distribution, the list goes on and on.  This is rediculous!!  You get far less for the same cost!  That's so stupid I can't think of adjectives worthy to describe it!

I don't think it has anything to do with their [lack of] smarts (which they do lack in my opinion).  It's their insatiable greed and their desire to keep lining their pockets through the ignorance and naivety of their consumers.  I, for one, will not contribute to that.

Now I don't honestly care about anyone else's perspective on this issue, in that, I live my life by my code, and you're free to live your life by yours. I'm just not going to cry over something being closed down, that I don't agree with.

I'm not going to cry over it either.  I'll just use one of the three that popped-up to take it's place 30 seconds after it was closed down or one of the other of a million that are still up and running.

I can afford DVDs and CDs, and I don't think their unreasonably priced (for the most part). As a programmer, I firmly don't like the idea of someone spreading around something I created to eek out a living, just because they can't afford to pay prices that are set by my rent, my car, and other things I need to survive.

As a programmer I agree.  I don't like the idea of my stuff being spread around freely.  However, there's nothing that I can do to stop it.  It's going to happen whether I like it or not.  So I simply don't lose sleep over it or make a silly attempt to stop it.

I look at it like this: No matter how idealistic people want to be about the subject, it's not going to stop.  No matter how much time, effort, and money is put into anti-piracy/stopping it, it's not going to stop.  No matter how many laws are put into place, it's not going to stop.  The more effort is put against it, the stronger it will get.

I don't know ... I guess it just amazes me how many people seem to like pissing in the wind!

[Nikolas]

First off, I completely disagree that CDs are too expensive. I'd say the average CD is about $15 - $25. I've easily drop more than that on a meal and not even think about it.

This is just a matter of opinion.  Selling something that cost 30 cents (to produce) for 15 dollars is robbery.  Plain and simple.  No matter the excuses used; promotions, distribution, advertising/marketing, blah blah blah it doesn't warrant such a rediculous mark-up.  It's not that I can't afford it.  I could easily if I thought it was a reasonable price.  I do not.  And I'm not alone.

I don't think that this is the case really. It's more a matter of ignorance, sorry Darth.

When "intellectual property" is involved there are two different phases going on. Music, software, games are such things.

Phase 1. Get your budget back.

Sure a CD costs 10 cent to get, and the whole packaging let's say that it costs another 20 so 30 cent all together.

But behind all that there is a huge budget that could very well be 10,000,000$ (for Michael Jackson). This involves videos (do you realise how much it costs to run a 4 minute video?), all artists involved, studio time, and equipement, producers, engineers, the band, living, running, concerts, advertising, etc. For big bands the 10,000,000$ is a small ammount.

For any company to be alive they need to make up that money VERY VERY fast, simply because pop music doesn't last. Result? The actual price behind the CD could very well be 5$ for the first month or so. Why? To make the budget. They can't afford not to. And since they are aiming at 5$, the actual price is 15-25$. Makes commercial sense.

In addition a company needs to make a living itself. It is offering hugely. you know why? Cause you want THESE bands, and THESE bands only (and not the unsigned). Because the company has made them appealing to you

Phase 2.

Budget is back, no problem. They need to gather more money for the next budget but that's not much of a problem. So the actual price behind the CD drops to 50 cents (to get a few more for the next budget). This is where the stealing begins. But actually CD prices drop to 2-3$ after a while.

What I still don't get is why not wait for the prices to drop?

Because once again the latest Britney mp3 IS not a necessity. Want toxic? Get it for almost free now. Nobosy else wants it! It will be dead free. Same with Harry Potter books.

What is SO urgent that you need to get it for free, bypassing the living of 100s of people involved in that creation of that CD?

[Evil]

Because once again the latest Britney mp3 IS not a necessity. Want toxic? Get it for almost free now. Nobosy else wants it! It will be dead free. Same with Harry Potter books.

What is SO urgent that you need to get it for free, bypassing the living of 100s of people involved in that creation of that CD?

I really hate to get into debates like this. And Nikolas, I do agree with you on the CD costs.

However, if CDs and music become practically free after a few months, why not download it for free now? It'll be free in a few months anyway, and at least now it's hip. In a few months, people might mock the fact that I haven't listened to a CD yet. Price tag of free won't make up for that either.

But really, if the record companies stopped worrying about money and made some good music every so often, we wouldn't have this problem.

[Darth Mandarb]

I don't think that this is the case really. It's more a matter of ignorance, sorry Darth.

No need to apologize for having an opinion. 

I don't see it as ignorance.  At least, not on my part.

Because, as I said:

No matter the excuses used; promotions, distribution, advertising/marketing, blah blah blah it doesn't warrant such a rediculous mark-up.

They (or you, or anybody) can make all the excuses/explanations on the planet.  In the end it's my decision to pay (or not pay in this case) the prices they charge.

If the situation is as you say:

What is SO urgent that you need to get it for free, bypassing the living of 100s of people involved in that creation of that CD?

And they try to justify their prices by having to support the living of 100s of people involved in the creation of the CD ... well, given the reality of mp3 sharing and downloading they need to re-visit their business model.  There simply is no reason for "100s" of people to be involved in making one CD.  A 14 year old boy can produce a studio quality CD on his home computer these days.  It's just another excuse being used to continue the raping of their consumers.

It's all good man.  You see it your way, I see it mine.  But I must, again, point out the reality that:

No matter how idealistic people want to be about the subject:
It's not going to stop.

No matter how much time, effort, and money is put into anti-piracy/stopping it:
It's not going to stop.

No matter how many laws are put into place:
It's not going to stop.

This debate has been going on for a decade now.  The amount of "illegal" downloads has increased steadily despite all the hooplah against it.  Those the fight against it have, in my opinion, accomplished nothing.  All they've done is waste their time, money, and effort for no appreciable results.  Sure... they did arrest some old ladies and young boys and shut down one (of millions) of torrentz sites.  Way to go Crusaders!!

Spending millions of dollars to accomplish nothing ... yeah, that's business smarts right there!

[Nikolas]

Certainly a 14 year old cannot do what NIN, or Radiohead, or other big bands, or commercial even bands do. Proof: you want the big bands, not the 14 year old (who, chances are is free).

In the end, sure you may no accept the excuses and explanation, and is fine by me, but they are there and make sense. You stand your ground by commenting that you won't give in, you are not giving anti-arguments to what I've told you. I gave you a reasoning on the prices of the CDs. You found it an excuse.
Fair enough, there is obviously nothing I can do to change your mind, and really this "debate" is not about that really. I already knew that from the minute I replied to you. We've been there before, my friend

But, as you are, I'm also attempting to try and find any reasoning in what you say and the basic argument "I won't stop", is not even one.

The business model that doesn't work for you, actually works, let me repeat that. It made te music that YOU want to download. Without that model you no longer want the track. Bizzare huh?

Obviously DRM is rubbish, companies chassing pirates is rubbish, and obviously pricing and the whole situation needs to change. Radiohead are taking a step to the right direction in my opinion, I have plans for further ideas about it (promoting and selling of music), which involves something else. But I certainly am not dependant on getting published and hope to sell. Prefer to have my stuff for free out there.

Evil: The (ethical and ideal) difference is that if you buy it in the begining you give 13-15-25$ however back to the budget. If you get it later you give to their earnings. Practicaly free and legal is not illegal and totally free, right? I really really want the orange box (for PC), but am waiting a bit. I have to spend money elsewhere (and will post pics about it!) I don't really need it that bad so I have to take it for free. Furthermore I don't care if you all speak about it. A bit envious, yes, but nothing I can't handle...

[auriond]

The business model that doesn't work for you, actually works, let me repeat that. It made te music that YOU want to download. Without that model you no longer want the track. Bizzare huh?

I've been following the discussion with great interest, but this line caught my eye. Could you elaborate a little more on this, Nikolas? Because I'm assuming you're referring to the business model of record companies distributing and marketing the music etc., and therefore inflating the cost of one CD. You're saying that without this model, people wouldn't want to download the music anymore? Is that because people wouldn't be aware of the existence of the band, or what? Why wouldn't this alternative - artistes without record companies - work?

I'm asking because I think indie bands are gaining more and more popularity these days. Have a look at the almost cult following of bands like The Arcade Fire. Artistes are also beginning to reject the control that record companies have over their music, preferring instead to market their music directly to their audience. Radiohead is one example of this, and I believe many bands are following in their footsteps. This would indicate that the business model of going through record companies is failing.

Certainly, right now the main issue is that getting signed means more exposure, since these record companies are the ones with the most money to spend on marketing and advertising and publicity stunts. I don't doubt that. But to change that, people just need to be shown where else to get good music, besides relying on record companies to tell them - not what music is good music - but what music is popular music.

[Nikolas]

auriond:

what I mean is that there are literally millions of free tracks, legally, from unsigned artists floating on the net. If one wants music they can go to myspace to the millions of pages and listen their hearts out.

But for some reason, pirates aim for those tracks that cost lots of money to produce, and the main reason for that is exactly the company behind it, the huge budget, and the promotion, otherwise it's not tons better than any track out there. So the actual business model, and the existance of the company behind the commercial tracks is what makes a track so appealing to pirates, while another small band, with the same music, wouldn't have the same faith.

Other than that, I know that the music industry is changing and it's about time. There isn't the need for huge budgets (but still a 14 year old wouldn't make it), but a 30 year old who knows a lot, could come close, and the Internet is aiding to the promotion with minimal money again.

What I was doing above was answering Darths comment that they need to change business plan: this plan works cause you are caught with it and want this music. Problem would be if you didn't want this music so no buy, but no piracy as well. That would truly be the end of the industry. right now you want it, but just rebel a bit...

EDIT:

For a small fact. I've made 5 recordings of classical (contemporary) tracks, and I'm thinking of sending them to radio stations in case they would like to play them.

So, in my head, I thought to make the best I can:

I contacted somebody (if he doesn't mind, I can name him) to make me the cover. Gave him pictures of me, and wanted to find an older photoshoot I had done with a photographer.

I also have someone to take care of the texts etc.

That is 3 people for you + me.

Now the orchestras were 25 people (strings) , 2 solo strings, me as a solo piano artists, 2 studios, and a string quartet. All different people.

So for the production of this semi-professional production CD, it actually took 25+2+1+3+4+3 people. This is... 35 or something. No promotion included. And all this, just to do a bit of decent work, and not make a copy of a crappy CD and send it over with handwritten "Nikolas Sideris" on a silver noname CD.

This is a real life example, which stands completely true. without any of the 35 people quality would reduce greatly, and without the musicians there would be no music to speak of. Maybe not a 100, but for a commercial CD imagine how many are needed, just to get the CD out.

[Gregjazz]

Where can I now watch my documentaries?

Luckily there are some other places, still not so great, but at least something 

http://www.freedocumentaries.org/

There are some politically-oriented ones here. this might not be exactly what you are looking for, but who knows...

[Darth Mandarb]

Certainly a 14 year old cannot do what NIN, or Radiohead, or other big bands, or commercial even bands do. Proof: you want the big bands, not the 14 year old (who, chances are is free).

I think you misunderstood me there.  What I meant was, as far as the production of the CD, the 14 year old can do that on his home computer.  He isn't the "band", just the one puttin' the CD together.  I have several CDs that I have bought for local bands that I support (Abruzzi Drive, Whirling Road, the Killer Flamingos just to name a few)  I bought their CDs (which without exception were recorded, mixed, produced on home computer setups) because I knew all the money was going directly to them.  There is no difference between their CDs and ones put together by "100s of people".

In the end, sure you may no accept the excuses and explanation, and is fine by me, but they are there and make sense. You stand your ground by commenting that you won't give in, you are not giving anti-arguments to what I've told you. I gave you a reasoning on the prices of the CDs. You found it an excuse.

I did give my anti-argument.  I've been stating my anti-argument through this whole thread and, to be honest, am a little sick of typing it over and over

This is a real life example, which stands completely true. without any of the 35 people quality would reduce greatly, and without the musicians there would be no music to speak of. Maybe not a 100, but for a commercial CD imagine how many are needed, just to get the CD out.

My example(s) above of local bands had, at most, 5 or 6 people doing the entire thing (only 1 if you don't count the band members)  and the quality was just as good as any commercial CD out there.  Once again, it's just another example (to my way of thinking) of how people just accept something as, "this is just how it's done" rather than considering a new [much needed] business model.

I refuse to accept this due to the experience (albeit rather limitted) that I've had with CD production.

But for some reason, pirates aim for those tracks that cost lots of money to produce, and the main reason for that is exactly the company behind it, the huge budget, and the promotion, otherwise it's not tons better than any track out there. So the actual business model, and the existance of the company behind the commercial tracks is what makes a track so appealing to pirates, while another small band, with the same music, wouldn't have the same faith.

Exactly the point I was making with:

It's ironic, in a way, that the rediculous prices they record labels charge is a result of the advertising/marketing they do to get those artists on their labels exposed and that that very exposure causes the downloading because more and more people know the music.  Cracks me up really.

I don't have any statistics (and don't really care enough to search for some) but I'd wager that CD sales haven't declined in recent years.  Those the buy CDs are still buying them or this raping wouldn't be continuing as it has for the last decade since mp3 came on the scene.

[radiowaves]

Well, actually what lot of you don't see is the actual process of doing quality recordings. Usually distributors etc have their own studio. Yes, band plays the music, but mixers make it sound good. An no, I don't think a 14 year old could do proffesional mastering, that sounds right on just about every device its played. If they can do it on home computer (which I highly doubt), then its fine, but its their decision. So why bands don't do home producing if 14 year olds can even do it?
I am also shure that good distribution costs lots of money too. But that does not excuse the amount of money they rip off from musicians. It should be at least 50-50%

[FSi++]

Nikolas:
I calmed down and what did I see? We look like a couple of those toys, you know, ones you have to pull some sort of a cord to hear them say pre-recorded message. Not that I ever even touched one, but still.
I say my arguments (probably missing helluva lot of your points), you read them and answer them while missing helluva lot of my points. Never actually checked that out, but apparently you've repeated yourself a couple of times (and, for the record, so did I).
Speaking of business models, information flows and such, this particular information flow model we've fallen into seems pretty useless to me. Maybe we could change it?

Everyone else:
This have a little connection to the whole tv-links.co.uk affair. Maybe someone should start a "copyrights discussion" topic that would grow popular, eventually become popular enough to be transferred to Popular Thread and become almost forgotten by everyone as any other thread there.

[Darth Mandarb]

This have a little connection to the whole tv-links.co.uk affair. Maybe someone should start a "copyrights discussion" topic that would grow popular, eventually become popular enough to be transferred to Popular Thread and become almost forgotten by everyone as any other thread there.

How much more can be said about tvlinks being shut down?

Anytime a thread touches [even lightly] the subject of mp3 it turns into this.  Just as anytime a subject touches on religion you get pages of debate.

[beating a dead-horse] Reality of the situation [/dead-horse]

It's all good (for me).  I still love you all

Oh and Nik - if you are ever selling your music (and it's something that I would want to listen to) worry not, I would gladly give you the money for it!  As long as the money goes to you of course

[Dualnames]

First of Nicolas I agree with you. And second of all to the rest you can do piracy at any grade and at any rate as long as it's not your enjoyment over others people hard work. Think before you download.

[MrColossal]

It costs my girlfriend probably 3 cents for a piece of paper. She then draws someone's portrait on it and sells it to them for 10 dollars... Frankly this is absurd and I'm going to start stealing portraits of myself from her from now on  until she charges me the proper price that I've arbitrarily set, not taking into account anything else but the single cost of a piece of paper!

Also, cars are expensive, and shoes too! These are all up for grabs now!

I loved TV links but then all their links upgraded to some new flash player and none of them worked in my Wii anymore... BOO!

[Darth Mandarb]

It costs my girlfriend probably 3 cents for a piece of paper. She then draws someone's portrait on it and sells it to them for 10 dollars... Frankly this is absurd and I'm going to start stealing portraits of myself from her from now on  until she charges me the proper price that I've arbitrarily set, not taking into account anything else but the single cost of a piece of paper!

Also, cars are expensive, and shoes too! These are all up for grabs now!

If your statement is/was directed at me:

That's a rediculous comparison to make.  Please re-read my posts before accusing me of "arbitrarily" this or "not taking into account" that ... as clearly, I'm doing neither.

Now I'm going to prepare dinner for the AGS forums.  Tonight, we'll be having Reality Sandwhiches.  I can tell some AGSers have never had them before.  

Yummmm...

[MillsJROSS]

It seems to me that the business model set by the industry is still working for the artist. You can argue all you want that not all your money is going to an artist, but most musicians the industry is backing and pimping, are filthy rich. If you're a good internet band, how much money do you think they're making. Even if there are a few who get by. I'm not saying we should measure an artists success by how much money they're making, but it just seems that we're arguing that this model isn't working, but it seems the artists are surviving.

Even if most of their money comes from tours, who do you think sets those tours up and advertises for them. Yes, not all of your money is going to the artists, it's going to a plethora of people who helped contributed. Yes, some of your money is going to be funneled into someone's pocket, who probably has almost nothing to do with the artist or music. The model is working for that guy, too.

I'm not arguing the system is perfect. I think if you can pay your bills and just be in a local band, you're doing well. I wouldn't steal from either business model, is all.

Of course, you're not going to stop downloading of free content. Arguably, the internet has just made this easy, it's not like it created a black market. Industry's have been dealing with stealing for as long as they've been selling products. You might as well argue that we shouldn't arrest people, because someone else will be doing the same crime in the future.

Frankly, the only thing I'm concerned about when I purchase music is whether or not I like the music. Now, if the industry was clubbing baby seals for every CD sold, I might refrain, but I've never felt that the industry was an evil entity. It's an entity run on the basis of making profit, and it's product is Music. It's like any industry, you're not going to get the greatest item in the world, but it will be dependable, and it will be consistently good. If I buy a Mrs. Smith's apple pie, I don't expect it to taste better than a homemade local pie shop's pie, but I know it will taste good.

I in no way think worse of people who download music, or watch tv shows online. It's just something I won't do. I do understand the logic behind stealing, to some degree. I just think it's flawed. I don't believe we are entitled to have something for free just because we don't agree with how that something is being produced or we don't like the person(s) producing it.

That's a rediculous comparison to make.  Please re-read my posts before accusing me of "arbitrarily" this or "not taking into account" that ... as clearly, I'm doing neither.

That's what I understood you to mean when I re-read your post. I thought his comment was rather correct. Of course, I don't much like reality sandwiches, so what do I know.

-MillsJROSS

[Darth Mandarb]

That's what I understood you to mean when I re-read your post. I thought his comment was rather correct.

Firstly: Could you (or anybody) please quote my post where I suggested a price for CDs in this thread?  I merely stated that they need to lower the prices.  Never suggested a price, arbitrarily or other.

Thanks.

Second: I clearly (on several occasions) stated that I know there is more to it than just the CD.  I, also clearly (and several times), stated that I disagree with these lame-ass excuses for ripping us off.  How is this, pray-tell, not "taking into account more than just the CD"?

Thanks.

[MillsJROSS]

Second: I clearly (on several occasions) stated that I know there is more to it than just the CD.  I, also clearly (and several times), stated that I disagree with these lame-ass excuses for ripping us off.  How is this, pray-tell, not "taking into account more than just the CD"?

Yes, it seems you're willing to concede that there are additional costs to CDs, but any cost you don't agree with becomes lame ass. While you may not be dismissing other costs, besides the CD, your posts do give the impression that you're not even willing to consider those arguments as discussion points. Regardless of your opinion on whether or not there should be any money spent on advertising and marketing, it's something the company DOES spend money on, and therefore SHOULD be factored into the cost of a CD.

I'm not in anyway condoning what the Industry is doing, or for that matter saying it's wrong, I'm simply saying that there is something they spent money on, and they need to get their money back.

Regardless of whether or not you think they charge too much for CDs, it's their right to charge whatever they want. They could add 2 dollars to every CD so that they can buy a herd of donkeys to ride around in their offices. It's their product, they are free to set the prices. Not everyone will be able to afford the prices. Just because it's charged a price we don't believe in, doesn't mean we're entitled to get it for free through other means.

I'm not going to reread all your posts to find any proof of what you said or what you didn't say. I had read your posts, and that's the impression I got, I apologize, if I mistook your previous posts. But, I did not think MrColossals comparison was "ridiculous." I, however, do think that dismissing excuses and calling them "lame-ass" is a horrible way to have a discussion. But I'd never say it was a ridiculous way to have a discussion.

-MillsJROSS

[Darth Mandarb]

Yes, it seems you're willing to concede that there are additional costs to CDs, but any cost you don't agree with becomes lame ass. While you may not be dismissing other costs, besides the CD, your posts do give the impression that you're not even willing to consider those arguments as discussion points. Regardless of your opinion on whether or not there should be any money spent on advertising and marketing, it's something the company DOES spend money on, and therefore SHOULD be factored into the cost of a CD.

You admit that I acknowledge the "reasons" but you don't understand that I don't agree with them and consider them to be "lame-ass" excuses?  What else am I supposed to do about this?  Flip-flop and go along just so the "righteous" don't get upset 'cause I refuse to buy CDs?  That doesn't make any sense at all.  As I consider all other people's opinions as their opinions, I'm pretty sure I'm entitled to mine.  Regardless of who does or doesn't agree with it.

Regardless of whether or not you think they charge too much for CDs, it's their right to charge whatever they want. They could add 2 dollars to every CD so that they can buy a herd of donkeys to ride around in their offices. It's their product, they are free to set the prices. Not everyone will be able to afford the prices. Just because it's charged a price we don't believe in, doesn't mean we're entitled to get it for free through other means.

I think this is something I'm aware of.  Since I already said:

I know it's not my product to manufacture, distribute, etc and I don't get to determine the cost of the product.  However, it is my money and I decide what I will spend it on.  They don't seem to grasp this concept.

Again, something I've adressed on more than one ocassion in this thread.  However, since ...

I'm not going to reread all your posts to find any proof of what you said or what you didn't say. I had read your posts, and that's the impression I got, I apologize, if I mistook your previous posts. But, I did not think MrColossals comparison was "ridiculous."

... You might not remember.

But, I did not think MrColossals comparison was "ridiculous." I, however, do think that dismissing excuses and calling them "lame-ass" is a horrible way to have a discussion. But I'd never say it was a ridiculous way to have a discussion.

First, you just did say it.  Second, I would say that to agree with somebody's statement that accuses me of saying something, but not being willing to re-read my posts to back it up when I refute it is a horrible way to have a discussion.  Just my opinion which, apprently, I'm not entitled to 'cause I download mp3 ** sob sob **

You know what ... this thread is going nowhere.

To those holy-crusaders of the mp3 debate.  I assure you you're wasting your time getting upset over this.  It's not going to stop.  But by all means keep on with the [lost cause, hopeless, pointless, go nowhere] quest!  Just like the incapable-of-forward-thinking record companies you have the right to continue wasting energy on a battle you'll never win!!

[Nikolas]

Darth, you know that I'm not after you to make you change your mind. And you know that I'm not crusder or saint, and that I did use TV-links myself.

I just want you to realise that there is no real reason behind piracy in any case really, because there are alternatives and it's not bread you're taking, it's mp3s. The only reason is that it's dead easy and that it's dead cheap (=free). Same with almost (<-almost, for anyone who would like to jump at me) other P2P lover, including myself, although I wouldn't call me a lover personally. I can't find an argument to back me up when I download a track or a short video or  something. There is no excuse but that I don't want to get my card out and pay the 1£ or something. Not even the quality of what I'm getting is not important.

I just want to see that in this thread, nothing else. It's not about right or wrong, it's not about anything. I just don't want to see people proclaiming that they pirate, or download stuff, because it's either
a. ethical (what? where?)
b. righteous (like above)
c. they are commenting or complaining about something (no you're not. You don't need to pirate in order to complain. you need to NOT buy, in order to show that you can withstand the siren call of the mp3s that they have so well packaged)
d. they can't do without. (mp3s? Michale Jackson, or NIN? Come on! It's not bread! It's mp3s)
e. They don't need me buying. They have tons already. (huh? did you check their last tax return maybe?)

That's all. The correct answer to 95% of the cases is:
f. Nothing. (It's just easy and free. No philosophy behind it)

Now, this 5% that I live outside, are the people behind the try before buy movement, who are actually doing something completely active, and in addition have a very specific role in what they do (try before you buy, but don't make money out of cracked software) which, they personally, follow like a "bibble" of sorts. I can accept that THEY, or demoniac, have a very specific ideology. Because they are donating their time and possible a huge fine and their freedom to do that. When you download the software, you don't abide to that philosophy, nor help really, nor complain loudly to the companies. None of that.

And yes, while I'm talking to you Darth, this is general, not only to you, as half of the things I put in the a-d list do not belong to you, nor half of the paragraphs I wrote.

Please keep in mind how much I like you Darth, and everyone in here, and this is just the debate and nothing special at all! AT ALL! This is for the shake of discussion really, not to persuade anyone to stop something that I have done in the past, and still do...

Mills, fast question: Have you used P2P in your life before? Just to prove that we are not preaching and all that. Just speaking our minds and the way we think (the 'we' comes a bit abusive... )