Reply With Quote
If there's nothing wrong with you downloading it for free, why did you buy it later?
I guess if you listen to people with their panties in a bunch.
If there's nothing wrong with you downloading it for free, why did you buy it later?
Fundamentally speaking, if you are taking something that you don't have the right to take, then you are stealing.
Your powers of deduction are fundamentally unsound.
Many reasons. For example:
Because I liked a song and decided to purchase the whole album.
Because I felt like the author(s) did a good job and wanted to reward them.
Because I had an overall interest in supporting the company that made the product.
I've done stuff like that even with complimentary items. Definitely not as rare as you think it is.
I'm not taking anything. I'm copying something for my own personal use.
If you can find all the songs, why wouldn't you just download the entire album for free?
Have you ever paid later for a downloaded song you didn't like?Because I felt like the author(s) did a good job and wanted to reward them.
Because I had an overall interest in supporting the company that made the product.
I've done stuff like that even with complimentary items.
I didn't imply it was rare.Definitely not as rare as you think it is.
I wanted to ask why questions to the person that paid later.
Luckily that person was you.
That you didn't pay for.
You're stealing.
At whose expense?
Your argument basically boils down to "it's wrong because it's wrong." That's the kind of intellectual laziness that gets SOPA/PIPA type legislation passed.
lol yes you did. You said "Let me know when someone that downloads a song for free goes back and buys it later."
Actually, I take it back, that statement doesn't imply it is rare. It implies that it NEVER HAPPENS.
It must be nice to live an all sin free life. I'm sure you never share.
I've done it.
I've done it with movies and television shows, too.
There have of course been plenty of times I've downloaded something for free and NOT gone back to buy it later, but trying to get around paying for something isn't typically my motivation in the first place. In addition to general impatience, the vast majority of the things I've downloaded have been because it/they were not available yet, not available in my area, or not available in the format I wanted them.
It costs money to produce music.
I'm starting to wonder if you realize that it's called a music business.....not a music charity.
If someone is wanting $1 for their song and you download it somewhere else for free, you are stealing it. There is no fundamental way around that.
Already answered in my previous post.
Sure. Even more so back then when you couldn't purchase individual songs.
Yeah, those apparently are pretty common excuses/rationalizations for illegal downloads.
BTW, I have no problem with policing copyright infringement.
I simply disagree with the equation of every copy being equal to a lost sale.
And they get their money if they produce something I like. I reject the idea that I should have to pay for something in order to hear it, without knowing if I'm even going to like it or ever have any interest in listening to it again.
Most artists think that way too. You mistakenly think you're speaking on behalf of a bunch of upstart musicians. In reality, you're just parroting the tired arguments of label executives, their parent companies and their shareholders.
Music itself has never been in better shape than it is right now. I couldn't give a about the people who make money limiting access to art.
Then there's also the levels of force that go into such enforcement... and that's where this thread originally started at.
I agree. Despite the tangent, it really doesn't matter how you feel about piracy... This legislation far exceeds its stated purpose.
Supreme Court Says Congress May Re-Copyright Public Domain Works
Congress may take books, musical compositions and other works out of the public domain, where they can be freely used and adapted, and grant them copyright status again, the Supreme Court ruled Wednesday.
In a 6-2 ruling, the court said that, just because material enters the public domain, it is not “territory that works may never exit.” (.pdf)
The top court was ruling on a pe ion by a group of orchestra conductors, educators, performers, publishers and film archivists who urged the justices to reverse an appellate court that ruled against the group, which has relied on artistic works in the public domain for their livelihoods.
...
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/201...ight-decision/
^ I read that earlier. I think the SCOTUS isn't necessarily wrong, but Congress really ed up. What else is new?
(beer)
ed-up implies that they got the result they didn't want...
lol nope.
didn't imply that I live an all sin free life either.
didn't even imply that I've never illegally downloaded something.
I think it's hilarious the lengths people are going to to try to justify stealing.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
