I just bought this Zen Xtra 60gb. I put movies, homework and all kinda neat stuff on it, and we have fun with it at school. We got this big-**** projector that we use for movies during free time.
Oh yeah, the Zen cost 200€. A mini in the same damn store cost 250€. Do the math.
AllUrHiveRblong2usBy Your Powers Combined...Join Date: 2002-12-20Member: 11244Members
<!--QuoteBegin-Quaunaut+Feb 5 2005, 12:14 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Quaunaut @ Feb 5 2005, 12:14 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Oh, and I hate to tell you this AllUrHive, but $30,000 equipment for the CHEAPEST soundboard isn't cheap. In fact, it costs more than most people's cars. Why? For high quality sound making. Yeah. Artist doesn't pay for that. Nor do they pay for the fact that even to businesses buying in INSANELY large bulk, a CD still, at lowest, costs about 8 cents per? Then we talk of burning time required, in which someone must make sure the operation of the machine works, who definately needs to get paid more than minimum wage to make sure the 500+ CDs he is supposed to make sure go out PERFECTLY are okay, so we don't get **** off. Or the countless artists that use *eachothers* things for things such as sampling, or helping eachother with their own stuff. Or background people. Or programmers for the music programs.
Yeah, lets pay just the artists, and let 90% of the entertainment industry fall into the ocean. Thats a real smart one man. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> 1)since when are all mixing boards 30,000 dollars? If that were the case, no small venue would be able to afford musical equipment beyond a couple mics, but most places have mixers and other musical equipment, because they don't cost as much as cars!
2)I can make a phone call, get a few people together, and go cut an album for 40 dollars right now, just by driving ten minutes. I have heard other albums that have been recorded at this place, and the quality does not suck. There are ways of making music that do not cost thousands. Artists do NOT need a huge conglomerate backing them in order to make music.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->That's how this glorious system works! The executives, recording studies, and engineers who produce the albums, all of which who worked hard to get where they are, deserve to be paid absolutely nothing for their hard work - but the artist? Oh yeah - they need to be paid all the money they can get!<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yeah they worked hard, they worked hard fleecing you and me and artists out of their money.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->In fact, they need to get paid more than the executives! And the executives - they shouldn't care! This is music, for crying out loud! This isn't a business contract - wait - what's that? They made a contract? The artists agreed to these wages they're receiving? Wow.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Do you think all of these artists even understood what they were signing? And how many do you think signed simply because they saw no other choise to get their music out to the public? Just because they agreed to it doesn't mean they're still not being ripped off.
<!--QuoteBegin-HWGuy in a Can+Feb 4 2005, 09:39 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (HWGuy in a Can @ Feb 4 2005, 09:39 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I'm sorry about that. I'm just annoyed at freeipod threads that still plague forums that I go to. I swear, Ipods have become a status symbol that everyone wants. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Also known as a "scene."
I have a Zen Micro thingy-ma-bob, and I love it dearly. Primarily because of the number of people I know with IPod mini's, and more importantly with 1gb less space than I have.
And I love reading the music downloading arguments, keep it up. The two sides as far as I can see are:
1) If you dload music you are scum. 2) I dload music because I think artists should get more money. By giving them no money, it improves their lives a great deal.
Classic, keep it up <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
What a musician has to say about the whole thief thing.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I got a chance to ask Tweedy about all this before a concert in Oakland, California ... What struck me most was his clarity. He was a man called to a war that he couldn't believe had to be fought. Yet it isn't ideology that drives him. It's common sense.
"Music," he explained, "is different" from other intellectual property. Not Karl Marx different - this isn't latent communism. But neither is it just "a piece of plastic or a loaf of bread." The artist controls just part of the music-making process; the audience adds the rest. Fans' imagination makes it real. Their participation makes it live. "We are just troubadours," Tweedy told me. <b>"The audience is our collaborator. We should be encouraging their collaboration, not treating them like thieves."</b><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As for myself, I think I'm more against the thought of the RIAA et al. freezing technological progress in the name of their monopoly. Impeding potential new avenues for human progress just because they want to make more money.
As for the whole starving artist thing, arts is darwinian. Survival of the fittest. People will more likely give money to the acts that they think deserve their money. Now say that I do polka music. And since I live in asia there are not many people who even <i>know</i> about polka. Now, I could resign myself to starvation and all but in these modern times we have the internet, P2P and all that. What if I could harness it to reach audiences in say... alabama. I now have a larger audience and hence a better chance of surviving.
The whole stealing thing however, is more difficult to understand. Not that I'm saying there are people who don't have concrete stances on this matter but my stand is that it is more complex than people make it and that blatantly labelling filesharers as thieves is close minded. I'd gladly discuss this further but right now it's 4 am and my head is kinda swimming and is in no mood for logical arguments.
[edit] On a more topical note, I thought the iPod was the best before reading through this thread. But now, if I could get me an mp3 player (not cause of lack of want but means) I would seriously look at the alternatives. That Zen Xtra does indeed look nice.
On another note, I was reading a blog review on the iPod shuffle some time ago. I thought it was funny when the reviewer said that he was happy to move away from another flash memory based player to the iPod shuffle cause of all the digital rights restrictions on his previous player. From the frying pan to the fire!
<!--QuoteBegin-AllUrHiveRblong2us+Feb 5 2005, 11:03 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AllUrHiveRblong2us @ Feb 5 2005, 11:03 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Yeah they worked hard, they worked hard fleecing you and me and artists out of their money. (1)
Do you think all of these artists even understood what they were signing? (2) And how many do you think signed simply because they saw no other choise to get their music out to the public? (3) Just because they agreed to it doesn't mean they're still not being ripped off. (4) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> 1. Tell me how they're doing so? Are they forcing you to purchase the music? If you don't like the price, don't listen to the product. Stealing music to force prices to fall is not only illogical, it's wrong. The ends don't justify the means.
2. Does that matter? They signed it. If they were worried, they should have had a lawyer look over the document. It's not my fault they were stupid. They deserve no money for being stupid.
3. Excuse me? The first part of your post is lauding the low prices of albums ("I could cut an album for 40 bucks") and then you claim that there's "no other choice"? Can't have it both ways. Cut an album for $40, distribute on BitTorrent and P2P networks. Ta-da! Music's out to the public.
4. They agreed to the deal. There is no illegal activity being done in the deal - you just don't <i>think</i> that the artists are getting enough. You also <i>think</i> that the executives are getting too much. But in this capitalistic world, there is no limit to what a person can receive financially. There is no ceiling where a person can earn this much, and no more.
The artists are making much more than I ever will. Does that mean I need to steal from the artists, because it's a "crime" that they make more than me? No: I have no say in what they can or can't make. That's not my business. As long as everything is legal, it's acceptable.
<!--QuoteBegin-Epidemic+Feb 5 2005, 05:05 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Epidemic @ Feb 5 2005, 05:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Labelling copyright violations as stealing is a blatant disregard of the circumstances and leads to misconceptions and colourful generalisation. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> To label it otherwise would be a "blatant disregard" of the definition of stealing.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Though I hate this thing, and the fanatics it has spawned, you have to hand it to Apple, for their marketing and design departments ability to seduce the technologically ignorant and affluent in this country.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Kinda like how Microsoft seduced the technologically ignorant into buying PCs instead of macs? I for one find this situation extremely ironic; the only way it could be better was if Microsoft made a portable mp3 player before the iPod, but it got run into the ground by iPod......hmmm....
EpidemicDark Force GorgeJoin Date: 2003-06-29Member: 17781Members
<!--QuoteBegin-MedHead+Feb 5 2005, 11:06 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MedHead @ Feb 5 2005, 11:06 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> 2. Does that matter? They signed it. If they were worried, they should have had a lawyer look over the document. It's not my fault they were stupid. They deserve no money for being stupid. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> They werent stupid, but however they were disadvantaged. Also stupid people is a fact of life, it wouldnt hurt you not to rack them down further than their already unfortunate circumstances.
EpidemicDark Force GorgeJoin Date: 2003-06-29Member: 17781Members
edited February 2005
<!--QuoteBegin-MedHead+Feb 5 2005, 11:07 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MedHead @ Feb 5 2005, 11:07 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Epidemic+Feb 5 2005, 05:05 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Epidemic @ Feb 5 2005, 05:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Labelling copyright violations as stealing is a blatant disregard of the circumstances and leads to misconceptions and colourful generalisation. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> To label it otherwise would be a "blatant disregard" of the definition of stealing. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Hey, tell that to the poor farmer who stole the bread to feed his family. Dont take this as a comparison, but however the many pitfalls of generalisation.
<!--QuoteBegin-Epidemic+Feb 5 2005, 05:12 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Epidemic @ Feb 5 2005, 05:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Hey, tell that to the poor farmer who stole the bread to feed his family. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> But, that would be stealing too. Stealing is stealing, at least for me. You steal $10, you steal $10,000,000, you're still wrong. You steal a car, you steal a song, you're still wrong.
EpidemicDark Force GorgeJoin Date: 2003-06-29Member: 17781Members
edited February 2005
<!--QuoteBegin-MedHead+Feb 5 2005, 11:15 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MedHead @ Feb 5 2005, 11:15 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Epidemic+Feb 5 2005, 05:12 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Epidemic @ Feb 5 2005, 05:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Hey, tell that to the poor farmer who stole the bread to feed his family. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> But, that would be stealing too. Stealing is stealing, at least for me. You steal $10, you steal $10,000,000, you're still wrong. You steal a car, you steal a song, you're still wrong. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Not the value you put in it. My point is, you copy a song, you dont steal it. It's violation of the international copyright treaty. <- dot
AllUrHiveRblong2usBy Your Powers Combined...Join Date: 2002-12-20Member: 11244Members
edited February 2005
<!--QuoteBegin-MedHead+Feb 5 2005, 05:06 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MedHead @ Feb 5 2005, 05:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-AllUrHiveRblong2us+Feb 5 2005, 11:03 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AllUrHiveRblong2us @ Feb 5 2005, 11:03 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Yeah they worked hard, they worked hard fleecing you and me and artists out of their money. (1)
Do you think all of these artists even understood what they were signing? (2) And how many do you think signed simply because they saw no other choise to get their music out to the public? (3) Just because they agreed to it doesn't mean they're still not being ripped off. (4) <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> 1. Tell me how they're doing so? Are they forcing you to purchase the music? If you don't like the price, don't listen to the product. Stealing music to force prices to fall is not only illogical, it's wrong. The ends don't justify the means.
2. Does that matter? They signed it. If they were worried, they should have had a lawyer look over the document. It's not my fault they were stupid. They deserve no money for being stupid.
3. Excuse me? The first part of your post is lauding the low prices of albums ("I could cut an album for 40 bucks") and then you claim that there's "no other choice"? Can't have it both ways. Cut an album for $40, distribute on BitTorrent and P2P networks. Ta-da! Music's out to the public.
4. They agreed to the deal. There is no illegal activity being done in the deal - you just don't <i>think</i> that the artists are getting enough. You also <i>think</i> that the executives are getting too much. But in this capitalistic world, there is no limit to what a person can receive financially. There is no ceiling where a person can earn this much, and no more.
5)The artists are making much more than I ever will. Does that mean I need to steal from the artists, because it's a "crime" that they make more than me? No: I have no say in what they can or can't make. That's not my business. As long as everything is legal, it's acceptable. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> 1)I'd say in this case the ends do justify the means. And how is it illogical? Explain to me how it is. If everyone joined in with me and stole the music, it would definately force some kind of drastic change in the way music is sold and the way the music industry is organized, that's just common sense. Just because there are still people who buy music (thus foiling my plan) doesn't mean that I can't make a statement and have it be called "illogical"
2)Yes, people who make business mistakes ought to die of starvation. People who misunderstand things deserve to be chwed up and spit out. Up with capitalism! Social darwinism yay! How is me stealing from record companies for making decisions I don't like and think are socially unwise different from record companies who steal from artists who make unwise decisions?
3)I did not say there was no other choice, I said that many artists think there is no other choice. Although of course there is a limit to the success you can acheive in the current musical/economic climate without being backed by a conglomerate label, but this isnt always the way things were, and it is possible that this can change again.
4)Well then I say the same to you sir. You <i>think</i> that I'm moraly reprehensible and you <i>think</i> that the way the current system is set up is fair, but in this capitalist world there is no limit to the amount of money that can be stolen in legal ways by business men etc etc.
5)Obviously I steal because I am jealous of musicians. And it is your business what they can or can't make. You buy their products, you have a responsibility as a consumer to make sure your money is spent in wise and positive ways. Simply spending money on an album without realising who will get your money is irresponisible and foolish.
Microsoft is a software developer, they didn't make the hardware. The simple fact that Apple's computers sucked during the past decade while PC technology just advanced and grew cheaper kind of paved the way for a PC dominated market today.
Edit:
To the person justifying stealing music:
That's all you're doing. You wouldn't buy the music even if 100% went to the artist, you're just rationalizing your behavior.
AllUrHiveRblong2usBy Your Powers Combined...Join Date: 2002-12-20Member: 11244Members
edited February 2005
<!--QuoteBegin-Rapier7+Feb 5 2005, 05:29 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Rapier7 @ Feb 5 2005, 05:29 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> To the person justifying stealing music:
That's all you're doing. You wouldn't buy the music even if 100% went to the artist, you're just rationalizing your behavior. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Tell that to my cd collection. I've legitimately bought plenty of music, but it's been music where I know and approve of where the money is going.
Artists get more money through shows, right? I'd rather download the music and go to the shows if the band is good.
Though I download mostly because I can't afford it. The bands I like are all foreign bands, so I'd be paying $40+shipping for each CD I want to buy. I can't afford that. I've considered sending <i>donations</i> to the band, though.
In the end, however, it sort of boils down to this: I don't really care. I don't like any non-foreign bands enough to buy entire albums and I wouldn't consider it stealing because they haven't <i>lost</i> anything. They still have the CD in the store, they still have the rights to their songs. I wasn't going to buy the CD anyway, so they haven't lost a profit.
EpidemicDark Force GorgeJoin Date: 2003-06-29Member: 17781Members
<!--QuoteBegin-Rapier7+Feb 5 2005, 11:29 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Rapier7 @ Feb 5 2005, 11:29 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Microsoft is a software developer, they didn't make the hardware. The simple fact that Apple's computers sucked during the past decade while PC technology just advanced and grew cheaper kind of paved the way for a PC dominated market today.
Edit:
To the person justifying stealing music:
That's all you're doing. You wouldn't buy the music even if 100% went to the artist, you're just rationalizing your behavior. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> You know the weather next week?
<!--QuoteBegin-CForrester+Feb 6 2005, 06:31 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CForrester @ Feb 6 2005, 06:31 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> In the end, however, it sort of boils down to this: I don't really care. I don't like any non-foreign bands enough to buy entire albums and I wouldn't consider it stealing because they haven't <i>lost</i> anything. They still have the CD in the store, they still have the rights to their songs. I wasn't going to buy the CD anyway, so they haven't lost a profit. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I think if you take it to the weird conclusion of economics, they may have even profited from your downloading cause now they've got your mindshare. Even if it doesn't have a tangible value, you have to valuate it anyway cause thats economics for you.
A question that begs asking though, would you pay for the contents of the afore mentioned CD if it was available through paid downloads? Say $10 for the whole caboodle?
<!--QuoteBegin-ZeroByte+Feb 5 2005, 05:48 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (ZeroByte @ Feb 5 2005, 05:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> A question that begs asking though, would you pay for the contents of the afore mentioned CD if it was available through paid downloads? Say $10 for the whole caboodle? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> If they offered an easy way to pay and it was available in Canada, of course. (I don't have a credit card, nor does anyone who might possibly lend me one. I'm thinking: PayPal or wire transfer.)
[EDIT:] And they let me preview every song on the album so that I'll know if it's worth my money or not.
<!--QuoteBegin-AllUrHiveRblong2us+Feb 5 2005, 05:27 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AllUrHiveRblong2us @ Feb 5 2005, 05:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> 1)I'd say in this case the ends do justify the means. And how is it illogical? Explain to me how it is. If everyone joined in with me and stole the music, it would definately force some kind of drastic change in the way music is sold and the way the music industry is organized, that's just common sense. Just because there are still people who buy music (thus foiling my plan) doesn't mean that I can't make a statement and have it be called "illogical"
2)Yes, people who make business mistakes ought to die of starvation. People who misunderstand things deserve to be chwed up and spit out. Up with capitalism! Social darwinism yay! How is me stealing from record companies for making decisions I don't like and think are socially unwise different from record companies who steal from artists who make unwise decisions?
3)I did not say there was no other choice, I said that many artists think there is no other choice. Although of course there is a limit to the success you can acheive in the current musical/economic climate without being backed by a conglomerate label, but this isnt always the way things were, and it is possible that this can change again.
4)Well then I say the same to you sir. You <i>think</i> that I'm moraly reprehensible and you <i>think</i> that the way the current system is set up is fair, but in this capitalist world there is no limit to the amount of money that can be stolen in legal ways by business men etc etc.
5)Obviously I steal because I am jealous of musicians. And it is your business what they can or can't make. You buy their products, you have a responsibility as a consumer to make sure your money is spent in wise and positive ways. Simply spending money on an album without realising who will get your money is irresponisible and foolish. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> 1. Because not everyone in the world steals. To be so deluded into thinking <b>everyone</b> is going to steal music (a crime) to "do good" is illogical. It would be far more logical to no longer patronize the music company.
2. They don't steal when the artists agree to the deal. Stealing is <b>unauthorized</b>.
3. So then the artists are stupid, because they couldn't see what a Natural Selection user saw? What every independant artist already sees? You want to give those people money?
4. No, I <b>know</b> it is morally wrong to steal. I think that's pretty evident to everyone, including you. The current system may or may not be fair, but it is legal, and causing illegal acts will earn you no respect, except among those who commit illegal acts (and that will get you nowhere). Once again, it is not stealing when it is authorized.
5. I know where my money is going - to the company that paid the artist and those responsible for making the album. Where do you think it goes?!
<!--QuoteBegin-CForrester+Feb 5 2005, 05:31 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CForrester @ Feb 5 2005, 05:31 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Artists get more money through shows, right? I'd rather download the music and go to the shows if the band is good. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Not if you want to see the band again. Record labels want to make money. If the way they make money is off CDs, and few people plan to purchase the CDs, then the record label makes no money, and drops the band.
Bye-bye high quality sound, bye-bye high quality concerts. Back to the garage they go!
<!--QuoteBegin-AllUrHiveRblong2us+Feb 5 2005, 05:31 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AllUrHiveRblong2us @ Feb 5 2005, 05:31 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Rapier7+Feb 5 2005, 05:29 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Rapier7 @ Feb 5 2005, 05:29 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> To the person justifying stealing music:
That's all you're doing. You wouldn't buy the music even if 100% went to the artist, you're just rationalizing your behavior. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Tell that to my cd collection. I've legitimately bought plenty of music, but it's been music where I know and approve of where the money is going. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Just out of curiosity, do you follow this ideaology consistently, or just with music? Do you make sure your clothing isn't made in sweatshops? Do you make sure your meat is free range and organic? Do you own a Mac? <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-MedHead+Feb 5 2005, 07:41 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MedHead @ Feb 5 2005, 07:41 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-CForrester+Feb 5 2005, 05:31 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CForrester @ Feb 5 2005, 05:31 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Artists get more money through shows, right? I'd rather download the music and go to the shows if the band is good. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Not if you want to see the band again. Record labels want to make money. If the way they make money is off CDs, and few people plan to purchase the CDs, then the record label makes no money, and drops the band.
Bye-bye high quality sound, bye-bye high quality concerts. Back to the garage they go! <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Then I suppose I'll be supporting garage bands, then.
<!--QuoteBegin-Epidemic+Feb 5 2005, 05:32 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Epidemic @ Feb 5 2005, 05:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Rapier7+Feb 5 2005, 11:29 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Rapier7 @ Feb 5 2005, 11:29 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Microsoft is a software developer, they didn't make the hardware. The simple fact that Apple's computers sucked during the past decade while PC technology just advanced and grew cheaper kind of paved the way for a PC dominated market today.
Edit:
To the person justifying stealing music:
That's all you're doing. You wouldn't buy the music even if 100% went to the artist, you're just rationalizing your behavior. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You know the weather next week? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> uh.... <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
AllUrHiveRblong2usBy Your Powers Combined...Join Date: 2002-12-20Member: 11244Members
<!--QuoteBegin-MedHead+Feb 5 2005, 07:39 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MedHead @ Feb 5 2005, 07:39 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> 1. Because not everyone in the world steals. To be so deluded into thinking <b>everyone</b> is going to steal music (a crime) to "do good" is illogical. It would be far more logical to no longer patronize the music company.
2. They don't steal when the artists agree to the deal. Stealing is <b>unauthorized</b>.
3. So then the artists are stupid, because they couldn't see what a Natural Selection user saw? What every independant artist already sees? You want to give those people money?
4. No, I <b>know</b> it is morally wrong to steal. I think that's pretty evident to everyone, including you. The current system may or may not be fair, but it is legal, and causing illegal acts will earn you no respect, except among those who commit illegal acts (and that will get you nowhere). Once again, it is not stealing when it is authorized.
5. I know where my money is going - to the company that paid the artist and those responsible for making the album. Where do you think it goes?! <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> 1)Because it is more logical to think everyone is going to stop listening to music?
2)Well I don't know, what you you call it when a record company totally rips off an artist with a contract? Business? I'm sorry, but there is no way you can make what record companies do seem right. And until it is right, no matter how authorized or legal it is, I will refuse to be a part of it. And jsut for the record, it can still be stealing when it is authorized. Stealing is defined as: To take (the property of another) without right or permission. So yes, one can still have the permission to take something without having rights to it, having won permissions unfairly and immorally. In this case it is still by definition stealing, although it is legal.
3)Yeah, some people are stupid, and some people are naive, but I want to give them money because of their musical talent and artistic value which is what music is all about.
4)Legality does not dictate what is right and wrong. Just because what record companies do is legal and what I do is illegal does not necessarily mean that they are in the right and I am not. For a law to seem moral you have to PROVE it is moral, not just say "The government says its ok so it must be right", and you have not proved to me that the business practices of record companies are fair and right. And until such time as you do my own personal morals take precendence over whatever laws I am breaking.
5)I think you misunderstood me here. You said that it was not your business how record companies pay artists because it's legal, and I responded saying it is your business because it is your money and you as a consumer have a responsiblity to make sure your money is spent wisely and simply putting it that "as long as they use my money legally I don't care" is a very iresponsible attitude. Instead of responding to this point, you thought I was calling you stupid or something.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Just out of curiosity, do you follow this ideaology consistently, or just with music? Do you make sure your clothing isn't made in sweatshops? Do you make sure your meat is free range and organic? Do you own a Mac?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually I am sure the clothing I buy isn't made in sweatshops, considering as I havn't bought any clothes for myself since my junior prom (when I bought my suit at good will). I've been about the same wait size since then, and I like sewing, so I just repair my jeans now, and once in a while I get socks for gifts. I'm weird like that.
Comments
and we have fun with it at school. We got this big-**** projector that we use for movies during free time.
Oh yeah, the Zen cost 200€. A mini in the same damn store cost 250€. Do the math.
The zen goes where-ever I go.
Ipod is not awesome.
Yeah, lets pay just the artists, and let 90% of the entertainment industry fall into the ocean. Thats a real smart one man. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
1)since when are all mixing boards 30,000 dollars? If that were the case, no small venue would be able to afford musical equipment beyond a couple mics, but most places have mixers and other musical equipment, because they don't cost as much as cars!
2)I can make a phone call, get a few people together, and go cut an album for 40 dollars right now, just by driving ten minutes. I have heard other albums that have been recorded at this place, and the quality does not suck. There are ways of making music that do not cost thousands. Artists do NOT need a huge conglomerate backing them in order to make music.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->That's how this glorious system works! The executives, recording studies, and engineers who produce the albums, all of which who worked hard to get where they are, deserve to be paid absolutely nothing for their hard work - but the artist? Oh yeah - they need to be paid all the money they can get!<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah they worked hard, they worked hard fleecing you and me and artists out of their money.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->In fact, they need to get paid more than the executives! And the executives - they shouldn't care! This is music, for crying out loud! This isn't a business contract - wait - what's that? They made a contract? The artists agreed to these wages they're receiving? Wow.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Do you think all of these artists even understood what they were signing? And how many do you think signed simply because they saw no other choise to get their music out to the public? Just because they agreed to it doesn't mean they're still not being ripped off.
Also known as a "scene."
And I love reading the music downloading arguments, keep it up. The two sides as far as I can see are:
1) If you dload music you are scum.
2) I dload music because I think artists should get more money. By giving them no money, it improves their lives a great deal.
Classic, keep it up <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
What a musician has to say about the whole thief thing.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I got a chance to ask Tweedy about all this before a concert in Oakland, California ... What struck me most was his clarity. He was a man called to a war that he couldn't believe had to be fought. Yet it isn't ideology that drives him. It's common sense.
"Music," he explained, "is different" from other intellectual property. Not Karl Marx different - this isn't latent communism. But neither is it just "a piece of plastic or a loaf of bread." The artist controls just part of the music-making process; the audience adds the rest. Fans' imagination makes it real. Their participation makes it live. "We are just troubadours," Tweedy told me. <b>"The audience is our collaborator. We should be encouraging their collaboration, not treating them like thieves."</b><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As for myself, I think I'm more against the thought of the RIAA et al. freezing technological progress in the name of their monopoly. Impeding potential new avenues for human progress just because they want to make more money.
As for the whole starving artist thing, arts is darwinian. Survival of the fittest. People will more likely give money to the acts that they think deserve their money. Now say that I do polka music. And since I live in asia there are not many people who even <i>know</i> about polka. Now, I could resign myself to starvation and all but in these modern times we have the internet, P2P and all that. What if I could harness it to reach audiences in say... alabama. I now have a larger audience and hence a better chance of surviving.
The whole stealing thing however, is more difficult to understand. Not that I'm saying there are people who don't have concrete stances on this matter but my stand is that it is more complex than people make it and that blatantly labelling filesharers as thieves is close minded. I'd gladly discuss this further but right now it's 4 am and my head is kinda swimming and is in no mood for logical arguments.
[edit]
On a more topical note, I thought the iPod was the best before reading through this thread. But now, if I could get me an mp3 player (not cause of lack of want but means) I would seriously look at the alternatives. That Zen Xtra does indeed look nice.
On another note, I was reading a blog review on the iPod shuffle some time ago. I thought it was funny when the reviewer said that he was happy to move away from another flash memory based player to the iPod shuffle cause of all the digital rights restrictions on his previous player. From the frying pan to the fire!
Do you think all of these artists even understood what they were signing? (2) And how many do you think signed simply because they saw no other choise to get their music out to the public? (3) Just because they agreed to it doesn't mean they're still not being ripped off. (4) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
1. Tell me how they're doing so? Are they forcing you to purchase the music? If you don't like the price, don't listen to the product. Stealing music to force prices to fall is not only illogical, it's wrong. The ends don't justify the means.
2. Does that matter? They signed it. If they were worried, they should have had a lawyer look over the document. It's not my fault they were stupid. They deserve no money for being stupid.
3. Excuse me? The first part of your post is lauding the low prices of albums ("I could cut an album for 40 bucks") and then you claim that there's "no other choice"? Can't have it both ways. Cut an album for $40, distribute on BitTorrent and P2P networks. Ta-da! Music's out to the public.
4. They agreed to the deal. There is no illegal activity being done in the deal - you just don't <i>think</i> that the artists are getting enough. You also <i>think</i> that the executives are getting too much. But in this capitalistic world, there is no limit to what a person can receive financially. There is no ceiling where a person can earn this much, and no more.
The artists are making much more than I ever will. Does that mean I need to steal from the artists, because it's a "crime" that they make more than me? No: I have no say in what they can or can't make. That's not my business. As long as everything is legal, it's acceptable.
To label it otherwise would be a "blatant disregard" of the definition of stealing.
Kinda like how Microsoft seduced the technologically ignorant into buying PCs instead of macs? I for one find this situation extremely ironic; the only way it could be better was if Microsoft made a portable mp3 player before the iPod, but it got run into the ground by iPod......hmmm....
They werent stupid, but however they were disadvantaged.
Also stupid people is a fact of life, it wouldnt hurt you not to rack them down further than their already unfortunate circumstances.
To label it otherwise would be a "blatant disregard" of the definition of stealing. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hey, tell that to the poor farmer who stole the bread to feed his family. Dont take this as a comparison, but however the many pitfalls of generalisation.
But, that would be stealing too. Stealing is stealing, at least for me. You steal $10, you steal $10,000,000, you're still wrong. You steal a car, you steal a song, you're still wrong.
But, that would be stealing too. Stealing is stealing, at least for me. You steal $10, you steal $10,000,000, you're still wrong. You steal a car, you steal a song, you're still wrong. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not the value you put in it. My point is, you copy a song, you dont steal it. It's violation of the international copyright treaty. <- dot
Do you think all of these artists even understood what they were signing? (2) And how many do you think signed simply because they saw no other choise to get their music out to the public? (3) Just because they agreed to it doesn't mean they're still not being ripped off. (4) <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
1. Tell me how they're doing so? Are they forcing you to purchase the music? If you don't like the price, don't listen to the product. Stealing music to force prices to fall is not only illogical, it's wrong. The ends don't justify the means.
2. Does that matter? They signed it. If they were worried, they should have had a lawyer look over the document. It's not my fault they were stupid. They deserve no money for being stupid.
3. Excuse me? The first part of your post is lauding the low prices of albums ("I could cut an album for 40 bucks") and then you claim that there's "no other choice"? Can't have it both ways. Cut an album for $40, distribute on BitTorrent and P2P networks. Ta-da! Music's out to the public.
4. They agreed to the deal. There is no illegal activity being done in the deal - you just don't <i>think</i> that the artists are getting enough. You also <i>think</i> that the executives are getting too much. But in this capitalistic world, there is no limit to what a person can receive financially. There is no ceiling where a person can earn this much, and no more.
5)The artists are making much more than I ever will. Does that mean I need to steal from the artists, because it's a "crime" that they make more than me? No: I have no say in what they can or can't make. That's not my business. As long as everything is legal, it's acceptable. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
1)I'd say in this case the ends do justify the means. And how is it illogical? Explain to me how it is. If everyone joined in with me and stole the music, it would definately force some kind of drastic change in the way music is sold and the way the music industry is organized, that's just common sense. Just because there are still people who buy music (thus foiling my plan) doesn't mean that I can't make a statement and have it be called "illogical"
2)Yes, people who make business mistakes ought to die of starvation. People who misunderstand things deserve to be chwed up and spit out. Up with capitalism! Social darwinism yay! How is me stealing from record companies for making decisions I don't like and think are socially unwise different from record companies who steal from artists who make unwise decisions?
3)I did not say there was no other choice, I said that many artists think there is no other choice. Although of course there is a limit to the success you can acheive in the current musical/economic climate without being backed by a conglomerate label, but this isnt always the way things were, and it is possible that this can change again.
4)Well then I say the same to you sir. You <i>think</i> that I'm moraly reprehensible and you <i>think</i> that the way the current system is set up is fair, but in this capitalist world there is no limit to the amount of money that can be stolen in legal ways by business men etc etc.
5)Obviously I steal because I am jealous of musicians. And it is your business what they can or can't make. You buy their products, you have a responsibility as a consumer to make sure your money is spent in wise and positive ways. Simply spending money on an album without realising who will get your money is irresponisible and foolish.
Edit:
To the person justifying stealing music:
That's all you're doing. You wouldn't buy the music even if 100% went to the artist, you're just rationalizing your behavior.
That's all you're doing. You wouldn't buy the music even if 100% went to the artist, you're just rationalizing your behavior. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Tell that to my cd collection. I've legitimately bought plenty of music, but it's been music where I know and approve of where the money is going.
Though I download mostly because I can't afford it. The bands I like are all foreign bands, so I'd be paying $40+shipping for each CD I want to buy. I can't afford that. I've considered sending <i>donations</i> to the band, though.
In the end, however, it sort of boils down to this: I don't really care. I don't like any non-foreign bands enough to buy entire albums and I wouldn't consider it stealing because they haven't <i>lost</i> anything. They still have the CD in the store, they still have the rights to their songs. I wasn't going to buy the CD anyway, so they haven't lost a profit.
Edit:
To the person justifying stealing music:
That's all you're doing. You wouldn't buy the music even if 100% went to the artist, you're just rationalizing your behavior. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
You know the weather next week?
I think if you take it to the weird conclusion of economics, they may have even profited from your downloading cause now they've got your mindshare. Even if it doesn't have a tangible value, you have to valuate it anyway cause thats economics for you.
A question that begs asking though, would you pay for the contents of the afore mentioned CD if it was available through paid downloads? Say $10 for the whole caboodle?
If they offered an easy way to pay and it was available in Canada, of course. (I don't have a credit card, nor does anyone who might possibly lend me one. I'm thinking: PayPal or wire transfer.)
[EDIT:] And they let me preview every song on the album so that I'll know if it's worth my money or not.
2)Yes, people who make business mistakes ought to die of starvation. People who misunderstand things deserve to be chwed up and spit out. Up with capitalism! Social darwinism yay! How is me stealing from record companies for making decisions I don't like and think are socially unwise different from record companies who steal from artists who make unwise decisions?
3)I did not say there was no other choice, I said that many artists think there is no other choice. Although of course there is a limit to the success you can acheive in the current musical/economic climate without being backed by a conglomerate label, but this isnt always the way things were, and it is possible that this can change again.
4)Well then I say the same to you sir. You <i>think</i> that I'm moraly reprehensible and you <i>think</i> that the way the current system is set up is fair, but in this capitalist world there is no limit to the amount of money that can be stolen in legal ways by business men etc etc.
5)Obviously I steal because I am jealous of musicians. And it is your business what they can or can't make. You buy their products, you have a responsibility as a consumer to make sure your money is spent in wise and positive ways. Simply spending money on an album without realising who will get your money is irresponisible and foolish. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
1. Because not everyone in the world steals. To be so deluded into thinking <b>everyone</b> is going to steal music (a crime) to "do good" is illogical. It would be far more logical to no longer patronize the music company.
2. They don't steal when the artists agree to the deal. Stealing is <b>unauthorized</b>.
3. So then the artists are stupid, because they couldn't see what a Natural Selection user saw? What every independant artist already sees? You want to give those people money?
4. No, I <b>know</b> it is morally wrong to steal. I think that's pretty evident to everyone, including you. The current system may or may not be fair, but it is legal, and causing illegal acts will earn you no respect, except among those who commit illegal acts (and that will get you nowhere). Once again, it is not stealing when it is authorized.
5. I know where my money is going - to the company that paid the artist and those responsible for making the album. Where do you think it goes?!
Not if you want to see the band again. Record labels want to make money. If the way they make money is off CDs, and few people plan to purchase the CDs, then the record label makes no money, and drops the band.
Bye-bye high quality sound, bye-bye high quality concerts. Back to the garage they go!
That's all you're doing. You wouldn't buy the music even if 100% went to the artist, you're just rationalizing your behavior. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Tell that to my cd collection. I've legitimately bought plenty of music, but it's been music where I know and approve of where the money is going. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Just out of curiosity, do you follow this ideaology consistently, or just with music? Do you make sure your clothing isn't made in sweatshops? Do you make sure your meat is free range and organic? Do you own a Mac? <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Not if you want to see the band again. Record labels want to make money. If the way they make money is off CDs, and few people plan to purchase the CDs, then the record label makes no money, and drops the band.
Bye-bye high quality sound, bye-bye high quality concerts. Back to the garage they go! <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Then I suppose I'll be supporting garage bands, then.
and bands?
and garage bands?
Edit:
To the person justifying stealing music:
That's all you're doing. You wouldn't buy the music even if 100% went to the artist, you're just rationalizing your behavior. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You know the weather next week? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
uh.... <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
2. They don't steal when the artists agree to the deal. Stealing is <b>unauthorized</b>.
3. So then the artists are stupid, because they couldn't see what a Natural Selection user saw? What every independant artist already sees? You want to give those people money?
4. No, I <b>know</b> it is morally wrong to steal. I think that's pretty evident to everyone, including you. The current system may or may not be fair, but it is legal, and causing illegal acts will earn you no respect, except among those who commit illegal acts (and that will get you nowhere). Once again, it is not stealing when it is authorized.
5. I know where my money is going - to the company that paid the artist and those responsible for making the album. Where do you think it goes?! <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
1)Because it is more logical to think everyone is going to stop listening to music?
2)Well I don't know, what you you call it when a record company totally rips off an artist with a contract? Business? I'm sorry, but there is no way you can make what record companies do seem right. And until it is right, no matter how authorized or legal it is, I will refuse to be a part of it. And jsut for the record, it can still be stealing when it is authorized. Stealing is defined as: To take (the property of another) without right or permission. So yes, one can still have the permission to take something without having rights to it, having won permissions unfairly and immorally. In this case it is still by definition stealing, although it is legal.
3)Yeah, some people are stupid, and some people are naive, but I want to give them money because of their musical talent and artistic value which is what music is all about.
4)Legality does not dictate what is right and wrong. Just because what record companies do is legal and what I do is illegal does not necessarily mean that they are in the right and I am not. For a law to seem moral you have to PROVE it is moral, not just say "The government says its ok so it must be right", and you have not proved to me that the business practices of record companies are fair and right. And until such time as you do my own personal morals take precendence over whatever laws I am breaking.
5)I think you misunderstood me here. You said that it was not your business how record companies pay artists because it's legal, and I responded saying it is your business because it is your money and you as a consumer have a responsiblity to make sure your money is spent wisely and simply putting it that "as long as they use my money legally I don't care" is a very iresponsible attitude. Instead of responding to this point, you thought I was calling you stupid or something.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Just out of curiosity, do you follow this ideaology consistently, or just with music? Do you make sure your clothing isn't made in sweatshops? Do you make sure your meat is free range and organic? Do you own a Mac?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually I am sure the clothing I buy isn't made in sweatshops, considering as I havn't bought any clothes for myself since my junior prom (when I bought my suit at good will). I've been about the same wait size since then, and I like sewing, so I just repair my jeans now, and once in a while I get socks for gifts. I'm weird like that.