Messages

It is outright theft, dude. You did not pay for it, you have stolen it.

Matter of opinion.  The person I got the mp3 file from shared it willingly.  That's not stealing.  Nor did I pay him/her for it, thus no copyright law was broken.  Symantics I know, but none-the-less true.

It's no different than walking into an unstaffed music shop and picking up anything you want - when there's no risk involved it suddenly doesn't seem like stealing!

Actually it's entirely different.

That does not make it right, or justifiable.

To you maybe.  This might come as a shock, but I don't live my life by other's opinions!

If somebody can point me to the law that says, "The obtaining of music mp3 from p2p networks (or any other source) for free is illegal" I would greatly appreciate it.  Until then, it's not stealing in my book.  You can argue against my point all you want with your points.  As far as I'm concerned neither point is more valid.

Now if they enact a law that says that ... I'll gladly and openly call myself a thief.  I won't stop downloading mp3 for free, but I'd capitulate to being a thief.

DISCLAIMER: Note that Darth didn't actually respond here ... remember, he's in hell/prison.

Now Matt ... you're just being REdiculous

Actually ... Darth can't reply anymore to this thread.  He's been arrested and is spending life in prison because he downloaded an mp3.

Oh ... and he's going to hell too.

Could you please just admit outright that you're happy to steal music from artists because it's easier than getting out your wallet?

I'll admit that I'm happy to download music for free as long as the cost of CDs is rediculously high. If I think the cost of something is justifiable, I get out my wallet.  CDs are overpriced, I have a way to get the music for [a lot] less money, so I do.  This isn't that complicated really.  I'm not "stealing" the music from the artist either ... I'm pretty sure they still have it.

Because it is outright theft, you know.

No, it's not.  If it were outright theft to download mp3 there'd be millions of us in jail.  And yet I am still walking the world free and downloading mp3 on a near daily basis with no intention of stopping.

I can't stand to see people trying to justify stealing music from musicians for the sole reason that it is EASIER TO DO SO THAN PAY FOR IT and pretend that what they are doing is not wrong.

Just because you think it's wrong doesn't make it so.  I think paying rediculous prices is wrong.  So I don't pay it.  There are millions of us downloading mp3 and that isn't going to stop no matter how much whining and complaining is done against it. 

If they want to sell more CDs they need to lower the costs.  If the do, they'll sell more and guess what?  Same amount of money in the profit margin (if not more).

We can argue about this until we're all blue in the face.  The truth of the matter is this:  Mp3 is free, easy, and not going away.  No matter what a few people in the "Biz" try to do to stop it, they can't.  They need to get on board, lower the costs, or suffer from slackin' sales.

Simple.

If you don't like the cost of CDs, you could always go without.

Yes I could.  But there is a very easy alternative which gives me the music at a much lower price.

If there were no mp3 available (or any alternative to CDs I mean) I might well go without.  However, were that the case, I might not realize just how badly they are ripping us off and might still be buying CDs.

Just offering an alternative to "I don't like the inflated cost of CDs, so I'm just going to download the music for free."

I would reply with, "I'm not going to buy CDs just to avoid people thinking my reason for not buying them is BS!".

I'm not downloading just because it's free.  I'm downloading because it's a much more reasonable price.  That IS my reason.  I'm not making it up   If there were a legal outlet for a price I find reasonable, I'd pay it.

I would like to clarify that I pay for Netflix ... it's something like 20 USD / month for unlimited 3-at-a-time service.  I can usually get about 9 DVDs a month for that cost.

Now ... if an mp3 site were to say "20 USD / month for unlimited song download" I would gladly pay that.  I'm not opposed to spending money, I'm opposed to spending too much money on something I consider to be over-priced.

I understand that I'm not the owner (the one selling the items) and I don't get to determine the price.  However, being that I disagree with the "raping" they do to their consumers with the costs, and the wide availability of a free alternative I choose to go the mp3 route as do millions of other consumers.

The record labels are foolishly fighting a losing battle.

BTW, Darth, just a short question (honest question nothing else...):

Why have you bought so many DVDs, but not any CDs? Or you already have CDs, just stoped buying any more? Isn't it the same thing? If nothing else, DVDs, seem to have more annoying things than CDs... Just wondering...

A valid question.

I think DVDs are, as with CDs, rediculously over-priced.  But I can't load up Limewire and get a DVD from it.  Plus ... I'm perfectly content having my mp3 only on my computer and listen when/if I want.  I don't want to watch my movies on the computer.

[Is it illegal question ...]

Very well put Rick!

Those are, essentially, the same things I'm opposed to as well.

They spend all that time and money to develop easily cracked/hacked copy protection.  It's futile.

I object to unskippable FBI warnings and lame-ass anti-piracy PSAs on my DVDs.  I have over 300 (bought and paid for) and everyone of them forces me to see an FBI warning about copying and a good portion of the newer ones force me to watch some stupid PSA about movie piracy.  I bought the thing and shouldn't be forced to watch this.

I object to how the "legal" mp3 download sites (I think iTunes does this) restrict the number of times you can burn the content to a CD?  That's beyond rediculous.  If I buy the thing I will have a copy of it on as many machines, CDs, whatever that I want.  I pay for it, it's mine.  Simple. 

I object to paying [roughly] 1 USD per song on "legal" download sites.  This is rediculous.  So for a full album you still pay the same as a CD only now you're not getting the actual CD??  How does this make sense?


Is it illegal question ...
I could be wrong, but I don't believe that downloading mp3 is illegal.  I believe supplying the downloads is.

The RIAA's real concern is that artists will come to realize that they don't need a monster company to promote their work and that they just need a good agent/publishist.  In a world where manufacturing and distribution are virtually free of cost there isn't much left for a big record company to do.

In a digital world artists, the really good ones, will make as much or likely much more that they would have in the old world.   Not only that there will be greater variety and it will be easier form artists to get started.  The winners and losers will be determined by us, the people, instead of a few of pin heads in the seats of power.

That's the kind of world I'd like to live in, how about you?

Spot on!  I've been saying this for years!  Artists can now use the internet to be heard/known.  They don't need the big record labels anymore.  I think, more than anything, it's this fact that has the record labels browning their shorts. 

["wrongly"]

So you admit that you  "wrongly" steal music because you don't like to pay for them. Just trying to clarify.

To clarify, it sounds more like you think I'm "wrongly stealing" music.  What I consider "wrong" is $15 for a CD.  A point I made abundantly clear and didn't try to hide.  Also, I didn't say "I don't like paying for them".  You're taking what I did say and putting into another context to prove a very weak point you're attempting to make.

Every time you download music illegally the price goes up to make up for the music you stole. It may not be that much but it does add up.

Your argument was that my downloading music causes the price of CDs to rise ... I asked for your source, you provided the following:

Not sure where you got your "facts" but your argument seems a tad ... band-wagon-ish

http://news.com.com/2100-1027-996205.html

Now ... I read it quickly, but I do believe that nowhere in that article does it say "downloading mp3 is raising the price of CDs to cover the cost".

Quick Google searches are never a good idea.

Rubacant - I admire your dedication to keeping at making BGs ... but you're stepping over the line here.  Calm down and focus on your own work.  If you don't agree with what Krysis says either ignore it, or reply maturely.  This is the "Critics" Lounge, not the "only tell me good stuff about my work" lounge.

So even if the musician actually does make money, you say it's okay to steal it because it costs to much? Thats ridiculous. Every time you download music illegally the price goes up to make up for the music you stole. It may not be that much but it does add up.

Wha ... ??

First off ... I never said it was okay to "steal".  I said I don't agree with the unncessarily high costs of CDs and am not going to buy them because of that.

Second ... I've been downloading mp3 for 10 years and the costs of CDs has stayed pretty much the same since then (if anything the cost has come down a bit).

Not sure where you got your "facts" but your argument seems a tad ... band-wagon-ish

Darth how many mp3s have you got?

I have a lot.

Here's the way I look at it:

All of the people involved in making the CD aside, the CD is nothing without the artist(s).  Yet the artists get dick from the sales of their CDs.  This is, basically, what I'm fundemantly opposed to.  This is why I pay big bucks and go to as many concerts as I can (I'm told that touring is where artists make their money).  So I do support the artists I care about.

Furthermore:

If an artist that I'm interested in listening to starts whining about mp3 downloads because last year they only made 10 million instead of 11 million dollars.  They are no longer an artist I care about anymore.  Ever since Metallica went on their "whining" campaign I've not listened to their music.  If all you're making music for is money then you aren't an artist I admire anymore.  I understand that a person needs to make money ... but I make a lot less than a million dollars a year and I live a VERY nice life-style.

1-2USD Darth??  :o I might as well give my album away when it is ready! For I would be losing out overall from the costs of making it in the first place at that price. And I don't even have advertisers, mixers, producers etc to pay, or a record company taking a large cut!

I usually agree with you on many things Darth, but not today!

As I said, I bump heads with a lot about my feelings toward this!  No worries though!  I respect your opinions; even if we don't agree

But if you produce your own album and are releasing if yourself I'll pay you 15 USD for it!  At least you're getting all the money rather than the record company taking 14.999 and giving you a 10th of a cent for your cut.  As I said, I'm not cheap but I'm not going to line the pockets of the record labels who's pockets are lined too much as it is.  You can show me all the stats about producing a CD as you want (marketing, blah blah blah) I don't accept that all that ads up to 12-15 USD per CD.  If it really does ... then they need to find a way to lower their costs, to lower the cost for us.

Bottom line ... as long as mp3 is free and widely available, which it ALWAYS will be, they NEED to lower their costs.

[COLOSSAL]

I know this pisses off a lot of people here abouts but I don't buy CDs anymore.  MP3 is free and I can get whatever I want for free.

I'm not a cheap guy, but I refuse to pay 15 USD for something that costs them 30 cents to produce.  Until they DRASTICALLY lower the cost per CD (I'm talking 1-2 USD each) I'm sticking with my FREE mp3 downloads.

The whole RIAA, DRM, "fair rights" blah blah blah ... is such a COLOSSAL waste of time/resources which only serves to raise the cost of music.  And after 1 year of them busting their humps 10 hours a day, 7 days a week to create the latest greatest copy protection to screw over their consumers ... some 14 year old kid in his parent's basement cracks it in 10 minutes.  Total waste of time and money.

How these people can actually fight this "war" is beyond me.

[Forum Rules]

When you can be bothered to upload 2 actual in-game screenshots I'll unlock this thread.

Please review the Forum Rules.

Thanks for the update!

Darth and Geoffkhan: You both think we should do something about pollution (you apparently don't care about endangered species and all that, so let's limit the debate to pollution). Well, we all need to change our way of living. The pollution won't go away if we don't change things. It will grow worse. That's how this debate started. As simple as that. Case closed.

Come on now ... of course I care about endangered species.  I care about pollution.  I think that we have the brain power and technology to make the air cleaner (or at least slow it's worsening condition).

This opens up a whole other can of worms.

I recently bought a new car.  I looked into "hybrids" and the like.  While the prices were [surprisingly] reasonable the minimum wait period was 7 months.  That could possibly be a good thing if it means so many people are interested in getting them that the wait period is that long.  However ... if "hybrids" are so much better, why are they making so few of them?  It all goes back to oil and I'm NOT getting into a discussion about that

The point of that story is that while I would be willing to drive a less polluting car ... I can't put my life/job/career on hold for 7 months.  Reality simply doesn't work that way.

While I'm at home there are no lights on that don't need to be.  I don't run ceiling fans unecessarily.  I take as short of showers as I'm able to.  When I leave the house I power off everything that doesn't need to be running.

I think the reality of the situation is that people simply aren't going to stop living their lives to solve this problem.  What needs to happen, as I see it, is that technology needs to be developed to make our daily routines less impactful.

because when I (and those who agree with me) are proven right hundreds of years in the future nobody reading this will be around to hear me say, "I told you so"

This comment does not merit a reply, I think. I'm curious whether it fits Nacho's standards of reasonable and mature discussions.

And yet you replied to it   For clarification, I was just attempting to ligthen the "mood" in here a bit.

Seriously guys ... This doesn't need to turn into a "forum fight".

Let me tell you how I can calmly listen to opposing view points on this matter:

People base their beliefs and opinions on this matter from the scientific "facts" they perceive to be true.  For every scientific "fact" I've heard supporting the claim, I've heard an opposing "fact".  Just because you believe that your facts are right doesn't make them so compared to mine (and vice versa of course).

You believe what you want, I'll believe what I want.

Darth, I see where we're getting stuck here. We're concerned about making our own habitat uninhabitable and causing our global civilisation to collapse, not the ultimate destruction of the planet (which is quite a bit more difficult to do).

Roger that man ... and I totally agree that pollution is bad and we should make all efforts to stop it!  I certainly don't like breathing polluted air.

This is one of those debates that really isn't going to resolve itself ...

I'm not arguing/debating that we are polluting the planet by burning our resources.  I just don't believe it's "destroying" the planet.  Are species of fish/plants going extinct?  Yes they are.  Just as they have for billions of years.  The Sahara desert region of the planet used to be covered with plants and water ... now it's a desert.  Has been a desert for a LOT longer than we've been burning fossil fuels.

You can call it "fact" that we're destroying the planet.  That's fine if you truely believe it.  You can call me ignorant if you wish.  I have not seen ANY "facts" that we're killing the planet.  Are we polluting the air?  Sure.  Killing the planet?  Please ... THAT is ignorant.  The planet has survived impacts from humongous asteroids before.  Trust me ... we aren't "killing" the planet.

This is of course a moot point ... because when I (and those who agree with me) are proven right hundreds of years in the future nobody reading this will be around to hear me say, "I told you so"

It's ignorance to not accept this fact.

I appreciate your opinion.  However, I think it's ignorance to think that WE are causing it.  And I certainly wouldn't call it "fact".

It's happened before like it's happening now and we weren't around (as we are now) to cause it then.

As I said in my last post yes, we should be more concious of our resources (IE use less, conserve what we do have, etc) but for every scientific "fact" I've seen that states we're causing global warning I've seen scientific "fact" (evidence) that the exact same thing has happened (several times) through out our planet's history.

I might be willing to concede that we certainly aren't helping delay the inevitable! But are we causing it?  Nah ... I just don't think so.  I also think it's the height of ignorance/arrogance to think that we mortal humans could actually stop it from happening.  Mighty we may be ... but we can't stop the universal physics that have been working for billions of years.

Enjoy the ride while you can ... nature/physics/god whatever you want to call it has been pulling the strings for a lot longer than we've been around and will continue to do so long after we blink out of existence.

Looks pretty cool, I guess.

I love the saturation and color of the film.  Films based in distant history seem to lean towards that.  I'm trying to think of what the first movie to really use that style was.  First time I noticed it was "Gladiator."  (Fantastic movie, too.)

Saving Private Ryan ... that was the first time I really noticed the "washed out color" style.  Though I'm sure it's not the first time it was used.

The test is simply saying that if everybody lived like you do, one earth would not be enough. Do you disagree?

100% disagree yes.

Global Warming is just another scare tactic to keep us all afraid.

The end-all [ironic] result of global warming, or so the "experts" claim, would be another ice-age.

If you look at the earth in a "historical" sense ... 70,000 years ago the earth warmed up, melted some ice-caps, and then had an ice-age (which ended about 10,000 years ago).  Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe there were cars and electricity causing global warming 70,000 years ago?

The planet is on it's own cycle doing it's own thing.  It's going to keep on doing it as it wants.

The moon is slowly pulling away from earth (the moon is what keeps the earth's climate as steady as it is).  Each year it gets about an inch or two further away.  Thusly, each year the climate will be changing a bit more (tides, oceanic currents, shifting seasons, etc.).  The earth also wobbles on it's axis ... every so often (few millenia) it reaches a point where radical climate changes take place.  It's inevitable and has nothing to do with human life-styles.

Now ... do I think that we should be more energy conservative?  Stop burning fossil fuels? etc.  Yes, 100%.

But I just don't buy that my "footprint" is killing the planet.  That's silly.

CATEGORY ACRES
FOOD - 4.9
MOBILITY - 3.7
SHELTER - 5.2
GOODS/SERVICES - 8.2
TOTAL FOOTPRINT - 22
   
IN COMPARISON, THE AVERAGE ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT IN YOUR COUNTRY IS 24 ACRES PER PERSON.

WORLDWIDE, THERE EXIST 4.5 BIOLOGICALLY PRODUCTIVE ACRES PER PERSON.
   
IF EVERYONE LIVED LIKE YOU, WE WOULD NEED 4.9 PLANETS.

Oh no!!!  I'm destroying the planet!!!!

I'm causing hurricanes and global warming!!  I'm the devil.

Actually my life style doesn't harm the planet at all.