<!--QuoteBegin-Quaunaut+Feb 4 2005, 08:19 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Quaunaut @ Feb 4 2005, 08:19 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Thats most of the music out there. I don't know about you, but if I'm gonna support something, I'm not gonna go support some obscure unused nigerian file type <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> That thing doesn't even support .sid! (<!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->)
<!--QuoteBegin-AllUrHiveRblong2us+Feb 6 2005, 03:36 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AllUrHiveRblong2us @ Feb 6 2005, 03:36 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> 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. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Guys I've figured it out, he's just extremelly cheap <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> edit: yeah I too support alternative business methods.
<!--QuoteBegin-AllUrHiveRblong2us+Feb 5 2005, 10:36 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AllUrHiveRblong2us @ Feb 5 2005, 10:36 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> 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.
6. 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. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> 1. Seeing how that's the legal way to do things, yes, it is more logical to stop listening to music than to steal it, if the true mission of the illegal act is to lower prices on music. However, both you and I know the true reason for stealing music is not to lower music prices, but merely to get something for nothing.
2. I'm confused here: you say it's wrong for a company to legally pay an artist only a certain amount, but it's okay to illegally pay a company nothing? That's absurd.
I don't think you're really understanding what I mean when I say "authorized". The artists agreed to be paid only a certain amount for their work. It's not stealing when the company pays them that amount, even if you, totally outside of the contract, feels the amount is too little. Should the artists get paid more? I'm not sure. Did they agree to be paid the "small" amount they receive? Yes. Where are you getting the idea that artists are being fooled into these contracts? Are all artists lemmings?
3. Then do so. Pay the people who pay the artists. It's that simple. But really, don't try to act morally superior when you're stealing music. Please.
4. I never said that legal = right. However, in this case you are in the wrong. What you are doing is both illegal and immoral. There's no debate here.
5. If the artist weren't being paid the money they were promised, they could sue for the damages in court. If they were, I'd side with them to get the money they deserve. But the fact is they're complaining about money they were never promised! I don't care about that.
No, as long as the artists are being paid what they were promised, and the music company is being paid, I don't care where my money goes in the company. Does that mean I never investigate where my money goes? No. It's just that in this instance, I don't care. I leave the majority of the auditing to the IRS.
6. You sidestepped the question. If you're pointing fingers at other and stating that, as a consumer, "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", then you must hold that same standard for everything you buy. Not just clothes - everything. If not, then you're being just as irresponsible as you claim me to be. I say this because you didn't state that you consider not investigating who receives payment from <i>music sales</i>, but rather from <i>every sale</i>. Perhaps you generalized in mistake, I'm not sure. You'll have to explain that with your reply.
I think it's not so much immoral as unethical. I like to make the distinction between the two. The fact of the matter is that the whole music distribution machine is just that, a machine. It is artificial and therefore in my mind the laws that surround it doesn't come under morals, which I think is something more emergent from societal norms. Ethics is something a certain group of people agree on, it could be based on morals but it's still artificial.
Also I don't think downloading is stealing. I can never be really convinced of this. Downloaders get value for free, this is true. However, they do not take away value from the musician. Stealing is getting something and the one being stolen from actually loses something. What is happening is that the musician is being stifffed, not being stolen from.
<!--QuoteBegin-ZeroByte+Feb 6 2005, 02:18 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (ZeroByte @ Feb 6 2005, 02:18 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I think it's not so much immoral as unethical. I like to make the distinction between the two. The fact of the matter is that the whole music distribution machine is just that, a machine. It is artificial and therefore in my mind the laws that surround it doesn't come under morals, which I think is something more emergent from societal norms. Ethics is something a certain group of people agree on, it could be based on morals but it's still artificial. (1)
Also I don't think downloading is stealing. I can never be really convinced of this. Downloaders get value for free, this is true. However, they do not take away value from the musician. Stealing is getting something and the one being stolen from actually loses something. What is happening is that the musician is being stifffed, not being stolen from. (2) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> 1. I'm not sure if I can make the distinction. It's unethical because it's morally wrong. I mention the legal aspect of it because I find in this case the law is moral. The distribution machine is not a machine, it is an organization made of people by people. Just because it's a big company doesn't mean that the individual isn't important, nor deserving of theft. It's morally, ethically, legally wrong to steal from an individual.
Main Entry: steal Function: transitive verb Inflected Forms: stole; sto·len; steal·ing Etymology: Old English stelan : to take or appropriate without right or consent and with intent to keep or make use of —see also ROBBERY, THEFT
We're beginning to fight over definitions here. This is not good territory.
A song must be purchased by the listener or for the listener for the listener to have the right to listen to the music. Otherwise, the listener can enjoy the music without paying the amount required. This is stealing, because the listener is using the product without the owner's consent (and that consent is given via a purchase). Downloading music is stealing, no matter the rationalization used.
EpidemicDark Force GorgeJoin Date: 2003-06-29Member: 17781Members
edited February 2005
If someone create a derivative product, is that stealing as well? Morally and ethical? Well, you dont get to decide for us. Face it, it's not that simple as that.
<!--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-->A song must be purchased by the listener or for the listener for the listener to have the right to listen to the music<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> The right to have it on a stored media.
<!--QuoteBegin-AllUrHiveRblong2us+Feb 5 2005, 10:31 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AllUrHiveRblong2us @ Feb 5 2005, 10:31 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--> Hah the only reasons I ever buy CDs are: 1) Its a present for someone else. 2) Its VERY VERY VERY CHEAP
I'm pretty damn sure you don't give a damn where the money goes to, it sure as hell isn't the biggest concern in my mind. And again, that doesn't justify stealing. No comment on whether I do or don't.
And for those who complain about CD prices, order them online - save a lot of money.
AllUrHiveRblong2usBy Your Powers Combined...Join Date: 2002-12-20Member: 11244Members
<!--QuoteBegin-MedHead+Feb 6 2005, 01:11 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MedHead @ Feb 6 2005, 01:11 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> 1. Seeing how that's the legal way to do things, yes, it is more logical to stop listening to music than to steal it, if the true mission of the illegal act is to lower prices on music. However, both you and I know the true reason for stealing music is not to lower music prices, but merely to get something for nothing.
2. I'm confused here: you say it's wrong for a company to legally pay an artist only a certain amount, but it's okay to illegally pay a company nothing? That's absurd.
I don't think you're really understanding what I mean when I say "authorized". The artists agreed to be paid only a certain amount for their work. It's not stealing when the company pays them that amount, even if you, totally outside of the contract, feels the amount is too little. Should the artists get paid more? I'm not sure. Did they agree to be paid the "small" amount they receive? Yes. Where are you getting the idea that artists are being fooled into these contracts? Are all artists lemmings?
3. Then do so. Pay the people who pay the artists. It's that simple. But really, don't try to act morally superior when you're stealing music. Please.
4. I never said that legal = right. However, in this case you are in the wrong. What you are doing is both illegal and immoral. There's no debate here.
5. If the artist weren't being paid the money they were promised, they could sue for the damages in court. If they were, I'd side with them to get the money they deserve. But the fact is they're complaining about money they were never promised! I don't care about that.
No, as long as the artists are being paid what they were promised, and the music company is being paid, I don't care where my money goes in the company. Does that mean I never investigate where my money goes? No. It's just that in this instance, I don't care. I leave the majority of the auditing to the IRS.
6. You sidestepped the question. If you're pointing fingers at other and stating that, as a consumer, "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", then you must hold that same standard for everything you buy. Not just clothes - everything. If not, then you're being just as irresponsible as you claim me to be. I say this because you didn't state that you consider not investigating who receives payment from <i>music sales</i>, but rather from <i>every sale</i>. Perhaps you generalized in mistake, I'm not sure. You'll have to explain that with your reply. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> 1)You still assume that I care what's legal or not, the fact is I don't. How does legality make any act of protest more logical? It does not, especially when what you are preotesting is a system backed up by law. And you have no right to question my motives.
2)If that legal amount is small to the point of immorality than yes.
Where are you getting the idea that all stealing is illegal and "unauthorized"? Even by definition stealing can be accomplished by contract if the stealing party does not have moral rights to what he is taking. You call all artists lemmings but are you telling me that you've never been convinced something was in your best interests when it was not? If you are then congratulations you're thesmartest person ever, but the rest of us tend to make mistakes, and when large corporations capitilize on those mistakes to make HUGE money at someone else's expense that is not right.
3)I would, if those people were paying the artist more than a pitance.
4)Obsiously there is a debate, if we are debating it. And evewn if you don't say that legal=right, you certainly say that legal=logical and contractual=right, both of which can certainly be wrong.
5)Well good for you, you just sit there wallowing in consumer apathy not giving a care about what happens in corporate america as long as it brings you what you need fast. Real smart move.
6)This argument is not about anything else but music sales, if it were I wouldn't be in it because yes, I don't keep such high standards for every product I buy, and I really doubt it would be possible to. Do I <i>try</i> to be responsible as a consumer? Sure. But is it possible to be in all occasions? I don't think it is possible to. And after you've generalized my opinion I think I'll spare you generalizing yours as I don't think it's a fair argument.
Why don't you guys all just move to Canada? <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> It's perfectly legal to download anything here, as long as you don't aid in its distribution. Ahh, Canada: Country of the Dirty Leechers.
well i am living proof that spoild brats don't all just but ipods. i saved up for about 2 months to get my 15gb 3rd gen ipod used of ebay (with a different pair of earbuds). as for downloading the songs, i work in a small pizza shop that sells the pepsi bottles with free itunes credits. What i did was put out a bucket for anyone who doesent want them. (i got about 20 songs this way). the rest i had from old CD's.
<!--QuoteBegin-AllUrHiveRblong2us+Feb 6 2005, 09:10 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AllUrHiveRblong2us @ Feb 6 2005, 09:10 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> 1)You still assume that I care what's legal or not, the fact is I don't. How does legality make any act of protest more logical? It does not, especially when what you are preotesting is a system backed up by law. And you have no right to question my motives.
2)If that legal amount is small to the point of immorality than yes.
Where are you getting the idea that all stealing is illegal and "unauthorized"? Even by definition stealing can be accomplished by contract if the stealing party does not have moral rights to what he is taking. You call all artists lemmings but are you telling me that you've never been convinced something was in your best interests when it was not? If you are then congratulations you're thesmartest person ever, but the rest of us tend to make mistakes, and when large corporations capitilize on those mistakes to make HUGE money at someone else's expense that is not right.
3)I would, if those people were paying the artist more than a pitance.
4)Obsiously there is a debate, if we are debating it. And evewn if you don't say that legal=right, you certainly say that legal=logical and contractual=right, both of which can certainly be wrong.
5)Well good for you, you just sit there wallowing in consumer apathy not giving a care about what happens in corporate america as long as it brings you what you need fast. Real smart move.
6)This argument is not about anything else but music sales, if it were I wouldn't be in it because yes, I don't keep such high standards for every product I buy, and I really doubt it would be possible to. Do I <i>try</i> to be responsible as a consumer? Sure. But is it possible to be in all occasions? I don't think it is possible to. And after you've generalized my opinion I think I'll spare you generalizing yours as I don't think it's a fair argument. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> 1. It makes it more logical if your reason behind the protest is change. You won't get as much respect doing something wrong as you will doing something right. But you and I both know you're not doing this to change public awareness of music prices.
2. This is where you and I will have to agree to disagree. I don't see such things as "white lies", or justifiable wrongs. Wrong is wrong, right is right. No excuses.
As for your confusion about the definition of stealing, I think it would be best to drop this part of the debate. You've misread the definition of "stealing" repeatedly, and arguing over definitions will get us nowhere.
As for the latter part of your second paragraph, I'd like to know how you consider your actions. Are you not taking advantage of anonymity on the Internet to commit theft? You keep pointing fingers at the RIAA for their actions, giving reasons for their actions, yet ignoring that you're doing exactly what you're condemnming the opposition of committing!
3. Once again, the artists agreed to this. If you want to really help the artists, educate them, don't commit more wrongdoing.
4. I never said a contract is right, I said it is legal. Do not twist my words.
5. Thank you?
6. I see. So you don't hold yourself to the standard you claim I should hold. You spout off elitist drivel about how I'm a consumer sheep for not caring about the intricate details of the music industry, but you admit to not caring about the other facets of your life - which you claim I should do. I didn't generalize your agument - you did. You said in your purchases, you worry about where your money goes. You may have not meant to, but you did. Because it sounds like you made a mistake with the wording in the message, I won't continue to drive home this point.
AllUrHiveRblong2usBy Your Powers Combined...Join Date: 2002-12-20Member: 11244Members
<!--QuoteBegin-MedHead+Feb 6 2005, 03:38 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MedHead @ Feb 6 2005, 03:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> 1. It makes it more logical if your reason behind the protest is change. You won't get as much respect doing something wrong as you will doing something right. But you and I both know you're not doing this to change public awareness of music prices.
2. This is where you and I will have to agree to disagree. I don't see such things as "white lies", or justifiable wrongs. Wrong is wrong, right is right. No excuses.
As for your confusion about the definition of stealing, I think it would be best to drop this part of the debate. You've misread the definition of "stealing" repeatedly, and arguing over definitions will get us nowhere.
As for the latter part of your second paragraph, I'd like to know how you consider your actions. Are you not taking advantage of anonymity on the Internet to commit theft? You keep pointing fingers at the RIAA for their actions, giving reasons for their actions, yet ignoring that you're doing exactly what you're condemnming the opposition of committing!
3. Once again, the artists agreed to this. If you want to really help the artists, educate them, don't commit more wrongdoing.
4. I never said a contract is right, I said it is legal. Do not twist my words.
5. Thank you?
6. I see. So you don't hold yourself to the standard you claim I should hold. You spout off elitist drivel about how I'm a consumer sheep for not caring about the intricate details of the music industry, but you admit to not caring about the other facets of your life - which you claim I should do. I didn't generalize your agument - you did. You said in your purchases, you worry about where your money goes. You may have not meant to, but you did. Because it sounds like you made a mistake with the wording in the message, I won't continue to drive home this point. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> 1)If I get less respect, so be it, I'll get noticed more at least. Do you think we would have had this argument if I just said "I don't buy music"? I sincerely doubt it. And I don't think I'm doing anything "wrong" although I will freely admit that I'm doing something illegal. And once again, please do not tell me my motives, it is very offensive to be told that the principles I'm argueing here are not my own.
2)Well if wrong is wrong and right is right, then I am obligated to do whatever I can to not patronize these record companies, because they're WRONG (however legal).
I don't see how I've misread that, it's rather plain, but ok if you say so we'll drop it.
I don't really see how your response relates to the latter part of that paragraph (which was about artists making mistakes, not whatever you're talking about) but whatever. How do I consider my actions? I consider them more moral than the actios of recording incustries. But since you've already said that my stealing 10 bucsk from arecord company is akin to a record company taking millions of what the artist is entitled to (which by the way is not legally [since you hold so much stock in what is legal or not] the case, if BOTH of those were illegal) what I say will just go in one ear and out the other.
3)Yeah, I'll just walk up to Nelly at the next Grammys and give him a lecture on the economics of the machine he is a cog in. That ought to go over real well.
4)Well if it's not right, then why do you condone it?
5)I have never seen anyon so glad to be a capitalist tool.
6)I am obviously expected to keep track of every last product I buy. Well lemme tell you, it's impossible. There are some products where imformation on the way they are made is not readily available, and there are some products where an alternative is not readily available (gasoline for instance), but there are things I can cantrol, and the point is I TRY. I limit my spending on everything, I try my best to stay educated, I buy gas efficient cars (I wouldn't use my car at all if I was not in aline of work that required it). There some things where imformation is readily available, and an alternative is right at my fingertips. Music is one of these.
I sense that our argument has broken down some time ago to restatement of the same basic positions.
<!--QuoteBegin-AllUrHiveRblong2us+Feb 6 2005, 04:18 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AllUrHiveRblong2us @ Feb 6 2005, 04:18 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> 1)If I get less respect, so be it, I'll get noticed more at least. Do you think we would have had this argument if I just said "I don't buy music"? I sincerely doubt it. And I don't think I'm doing anything "wrong" although I will freely admit that I'm doing something illegal. And once again, please do not tell me my motives, it is very offensive to be told that the principles I'm argueing here are not my own.
2)Well if wrong is wrong and right is right, then I am obligated to do whatever I can to not patronize these record companies, because they're WRONG (however legal).
I don't see how I've misread that, it's rather plain, but ok if you say so we'll drop it.
I don't really see how your response relates to the latter part of that paragraph (which was about artists making mistakes, not whatever you're talking about) but whatever. How do I consider my actions? I consider them more moral than the actios of recording incustries. But since you've already said that my stealing 10 bucsk from arecord company is akin to a record company taking millions of what the artist is entitled to (which by the way is not legally [since you hold so much stock in what is legal or not] the case, if BOTH of those were illegal) what I say will just go in one ear and out the other.
3)Yeah, I'll just walk up to Nelly at the next Grammys and give him a lecture on the economics of the machine he is a cog in. That ought to go over real well.
4)Well if it's not right, then why do you condone it?
5)I have never seen anyon so glad to be a capitalist tool.
6)I am obviously expected to keep track of every last product I buy. Well lemme tell you, it's impossible. There are some products where imformation on the way they are made is not readily available, and there are some products where an alternative is not readily available (gasoline for instance), but there are things I can cantrol, and the point is I TRY. I limit my spending on everything, I try my best to stay educated, I buy gas efficient cars (I wouldn't use my car at all if I was not in aline of work that required it). There some things where imformation is readily available, and an alternative is right at my fingertips. Music is one of these.
I sense that our argument has broken down some time ago to restatement of the same basic positions. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> 1. You posted inflammatory comments. You didn't expect to get a response? Please. You knew very well what you were doing. Besides, saying "I don't buy music" doesn't automatically mean "I download music". As for your motives, I can read you pretty clear here. It's rather ironic that you're complaining about taking offense when you started this debate by posting remarks made to offend.
2. Very well. Don't be a patron. Also, don't break the law, because in this case, the law is right. By stealing the music, you're wrong. Don't try to twist my words to fit your rationalizing.
There is nothing moral about theft. No debate. You are wrong.
3. You took everything I said and twisted it. Again.
4. Because the artist agreed to it. There was nothing illegal in the contract. If there was, I'd agree that it would need to be amended. But paying a person what they agreed to be paid is neither immoral or illegal.
5. You misunderstood my sarcasm for approval of your comments. I don't care what you say on this subject, because you don't even hold yourself to the high standards you set.
6. Do not point fingers at me about my choices for researching where my money goes if you're unwilling to pursue every aspect of your own finances.
You are right: I am frequently repeating myself. You are in the wrong here. You realized this some time ago, but you're still rationalizing your actions. Just like so many other thieves.
Well, I use the numbers to avoid cutting apart a post. Quoting individual sentences looks nitpicky (and often gets that way), and takes up a lot more space.
<!--QuoteBegin-MedHead+Feb 6 2005, 04:37 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MedHead @ Feb 6 2005, 04:37 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> By stealing the music, you're wrong. Don't try to twist my words to fit your rationalizing.
There is nothing moral about theft. No debate. You are wrong. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I feel that I ought to mention that what might be morally wrong to you might not be to him. Which is pretty much what this entire argument is about. Morals are just opinions and, therefore, are subjective.
AllUrHiveRblong2usBy Your Powers Combined...Join Date: 2002-12-20Member: 11244Members
<!--QuoteBegin-MedHead+Feb 6 2005, 04:37 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MedHead @ Feb 6 2005, 04:37 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> 1. You posted inflammatory comments. You didn't expect to get a response? Please. You knew very well what you were doing. Besides, saying "I don't buy music" doesn't automatically mean "I download music". As for your motives, I can read you pretty clear here. It's rather ironic that you're complaining about taking offense when you started this debate by posting remarks made to offend.
2. Very well. Don't be a patron. Also, don't break the law, because in this case, the law is right. By stealing the music, you're wrong. Don't try to twist my words to fit your rationalizing.
There is nothing moral about theft. No debate. You are wrong.
3. You took everything I said and twisted it. Again.
4. Because the artist agreed to it. There was nothing illegal in the contract. If there was, I'd agree that it would need to be amended. But paying a person what they agreed to be paid is neither immoral or illegal.
5. You misunderstood my sarcasm for approval of your comments. I don't care what you say on this subject, because you don't even hold yourself to the high standards you set.
6. Do not point fingers at me about my choices for researching where my money goes if you're unwilling to pursue every aspect of your own finances.
You are right: I am frequently repeating myself. You are in the wrong here. You realized this some time ago, but you're still rationalizing your actions. Just like so many other thieves. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> 1)That was a response to my comment, oh wait it wasn't. If you can read my motives, please enlighten me. I'd love to know what my point is here, because obviously I don't know and everything I've said up till is a hollow lie. When did you gain the ability to know my thoughts sir? You should share this gift with the scientific community instead of wasting it shattering my obviously meager arguments on a pitiful internet forum.
2)Once again, if there was no debate, we wouldn't be debating it. I will not agree with you that the law is right until you proved it to me, and you have not, sorry pal.
3)Well then what did you mean? What am I to do?
4)It certainly is if they were not fully aware of what they were agreeing to, or were under the false understanding that they were backed into a corner and had no other choice but to agree. I can agree to anything. I can agree to have someone slice my throat, does that make it right when they do it? Heck no.
5)Ok, if you jsut don't care then this point is dead.
NEW 5)Why do you hold me to godlike consumer standards when I would only hold you or anyone else to easily acheived ones? I expect people to be as responsible as they can be, this is the duty of every member of a capitalist society, without consumer responsiblity corporate america is allowed to run rampant, and if I am a theif for this, then I will call you irrisponsible and shirking your duties as a citizen.
I realised I was wrong? Damn there you go with that mind reading again, you should have your own phone service with those powers.
<!--QuoteBegin-CForrester+Feb 6 2005, 04:57 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CForrester @ Feb 6 2005, 04:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I feel that I ought to mention that what might be morally wrong to you might not be to him. Which is pretty much what this entire argument is about. Morals are just opinions and, therefore, are subjective. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> You're totally wrong here. You're thinking of opinions. I'm talking about Biblical morals. These are by which all are judged. Morals are definitely not opinions. Not subjective.
Despite all that, theft is not only immoral but illegal. Most USA laws (at least the older ones) are based on Biblical morals and principles, so it's no coincidence that what we're talking about here is both immoral and illegal.
But you're right Rellix, this is going too far, so I'm ending my side of the debate. I wanted to make sure AllUrHive was challenged, and I think I was successful. My intention wasn't so much to win the debate, as it was to show an opposing viewpoint.
<!--QuoteBegin-MedHead+Feb 6 2005, 06:03 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MedHead @ Feb 6 2005, 06:03 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-CForrester+Feb 6 2005, 04:57 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CForrester @ Feb 6 2005, 04:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I feel that I ought to mention that what might be morally wrong to you might not be to him. Which is pretty much what this entire argument is about. Morals are just opinions and, therefore, are subjective. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You're totally wrong here. You're thinking of opinions. I'm talking about Biblical morals. These are by which all are judged. Morals are definitely not opinions. Not subjective.
Despite all that, theft is not only immoral but illegal. Most USA laws (at least the older ones) are based on Biblical morals and principles, so it's no coincidence that what we're talking about here is both immoral and illegal. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Morals are opinions. In my eyes, if God exists, his opinions are still just that. Opinions. If he thinks that stealing is wrong, he can convince other people that stealing is wrong.
Just because the <b>law</b> says that theft is illegal doesn't mean that everyone <b>thinks so</b>. If they don't think that theft is wrong, they're not going to feel guilty about stealing. Any criminal who feels guilty about stealing something still believes that theft is wrong. Society has conditioned him to think that. If a criminal who steals something doesn't feel guilty about it, he believes that theft is not wrong.
Power does not make a moral any more or less of an opinion. Just because you have the power to do something to someone who doesn't agree with your morals doesn't mean that they're still not subjective.
EpidemicDark Force GorgeJoin Date: 2003-06-29Member: 17781Members
edited February 2005
<!--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-->Despite all that, theft is not only immoral but illegal. Most USA laws (at least the older ones) are based on Biblical morals and principles, so it's no coincidence that what we're talking about here is both immoral and illegal. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Of course if you want to stick your ears in the ground and be stubborn, there's nothing to do. I'm curious though as to which laws you refer, most of em can probably be found anywhere. Morals made christianity, not the other way around.
Most of what people would call moral is just the golden rule in disguise.
How come most religions and even atheists in general tend to agree what is moral and what is not? Because most of it is sensible rules that makes society work without too much friction, something you learn early in life in practice and by being told repetedly what is right and wrong.
However you can't impose on others the grey zones that your particular religion/belief system defined as morally right or wrong and expect to get agreement.
<!--QuoteBegin-Soylent green+Feb 6 2005, 09:50 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Soylent green @ Feb 6 2005, 09:50 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Most of what people would call moral is just the golden rule in disguise.
How come most religions and even atheists in general tend to agree what is moral and what is not? Because most of it is sensible rules that makes society work without too much friction, something you learn early in life in practice and by being told repetedly what is right and wrong.
However you can't impose on others the grey zones that your particular religion/belief system defined as morally right or wrong and expect to get agreement. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> That makes the most sense to me. Most Ethical rules that different religions have in common or overlap on are the ones that help keep society stable. If we didn't have them, or had rampant abuse of them, then a stable society could not exist.
I own a 40 gig iPod, I only have it about 3/4 the way full with 7.5k songs, my only beef with them is the battery time is kinda low. I don't use the white head phones cuz they not all that great , I use my ambience sound filtering set so that I can zone out unwanted noise.
The Creative Zen series is a very well crafted competitor to the iPod, yet only ONE of my friends has it. It has a longer battery life, more space per buck, and the battery is replaceable, unlike the iPod's, not to mention better sound quality (though that's more subjective than objective).
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I have a 20gig Creative Nomad Jukebox Zen series.
It goes everywhere I go. I love it! <!--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-->
(and yes I like them way better than iPods which Ive had expiriences with as well)
IPOD's have a very <b>aesthetic</b> appeal to them. I myself own a 20gig iPOD and I'm very pleased with it. They are slick and stylish and very user friendly, they are also backed by apple computers which in my opinion is very reliable. Sure they are pricey, and maybe there are other "better bang for the buck" mp3 players out there, however it's almost like comparing designer clothes to casual work clothes.
My mp3 player not so well know tho > <a href='http://www.dealtime.com/xPF-Soundhub_20_GB' target='_blank'>http://www.dealtime.com/xPF-Soundhub_20_GB</a>
AllUrHiveRblong2usBy Your Powers Combined...Join Date: 2002-12-20Member: 11244Members
edited February 2005
<!--QuoteBegin-Svenpa+Feb 10 2005, 02:31 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Svenpa @ Feb 10 2005, 02:31 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> My mp3 player not so well know tho > <a href='http://www.dealtime.com/xPF-Soundhub_20_GB' target='_blank'>http://www.dealtime.com/xPF-Soundhub_20_GB</a> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Another player with ogg vorbis playback, and from scandanavia! I was not aware such things existed! Much props.
Comments
That thing doesn't even support .sid! (<!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->)
Guys I've figured it out, he's just extremelly cheap <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
edit: yeah I too support alternative business methods.
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.
6. 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. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
1. Seeing how that's the legal way to do things, yes, it is more logical to stop listening to music than to steal it, if the true mission of the illegal act is to lower prices on music. However, both you and I know the true reason for stealing music is not to lower music prices, but merely to get something for nothing.
2. I'm confused here: you say it's wrong for a company to legally pay an artist only a certain amount, but it's okay to illegally pay a company nothing? That's absurd.
I don't think you're really understanding what I mean when I say "authorized". The artists agreed to be paid only a certain amount for their work. It's not stealing when the company pays them that amount, even if you, totally outside of the contract, feels the amount is too little. Should the artists get paid more? I'm not sure. Did they agree to be paid the "small" amount they receive? Yes. Where are you getting the idea that artists are being fooled into these contracts? Are all artists lemmings?
3. Then do so. Pay the people who pay the artists. It's that simple. But really, don't try to act morally superior when you're stealing music. Please.
4. I never said that legal = right. However, in this case you are in the wrong. What you are doing is both illegal and immoral. There's no debate here.
5. If the artist weren't being paid the money they were promised, they could sue for the damages in court. If they were, I'd side with them to get the money they deserve. But the fact is they're complaining about money they were never promised! I don't care about that.
No, as long as the artists are being paid what they were promised, and the music company is being paid, I don't care where my money goes in the company. Does that mean I never investigate where my money goes? No. It's just that in this instance, I don't care. I leave the majority of the auditing to the IRS.
6. You sidestepped the question. If you're pointing fingers at other and stating that, as a consumer, "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", then you must hold that same standard for everything you buy. Not just clothes - everything. If not, then you're being just as irresponsible as you claim me to be. I say this because you didn't state that you consider not investigating who receives payment from <i>music sales</i>, but rather from <i>every sale</i>. Perhaps you generalized in mistake, I'm not sure. You'll have to explain that with your reply.
Also I don't think downloading is stealing. I can never be really convinced of this. Downloaders get value for free, this is true. However, they do not take away value from the musician. Stealing is getting something and the one being stolen from actually loses something. What is happening is that the musician is being stifffed, not being stolen from.
Also I don't think downloading is stealing. I can never be really convinced of this. Downloaders get value for free, this is true. However, they do not take away value from the musician. Stealing is getting something and the one being stolen from actually loses something. What is happening is that the musician is being stifffed, not being stolen from. (2) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
1. I'm not sure if I can make the distinction. It's unethical because it's morally wrong. I mention the legal aspect of it because I find in this case the law is moral. The distribution machine is not a machine, it is an organization made of people by people. Just because it's a big company doesn't mean that the individual isn't important, nor deserving of theft. It's morally, ethically, legally wrong to steal from an individual.
2.
<a href='http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=steal' target='_blank'>http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=steal</a>
Main Entry: steal
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Forms: stole; sto·len; steal·ing
Etymology: Old English stelan
: to take or appropriate without right or consent and with intent to keep or make use of —see also ROBBERY, THEFT
We're beginning to fight over definitions here. This is not good territory.
A song must be purchased by the listener or for the listener for the listener to have the right to listen to the music. Otherwise, the listener can enjoy the music without paying the amount required. This is stealing, because the listener is using the product without the owner's consent (and that consent is given via a purchase). Downloading music is stealing, no matter the rationalization used.
Face it, it's not that simple as that.
<!--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-->A song must be purchased by the listener or for the listener for the listener to have the right to listen to the music<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The right to have it on a stored media.
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-->
Hah the only reasons I ever buy CDs are:
1) Its a present for someone else.
2) Its VERY VERY VERY CHEAP
I'm pretty damn sure you don't give a damn where the money goes to, it sure as hell isn't the biggest concern in my mind. And again, that doesn't justify stealing. No comment on whether I do or don't.
And for those who complain about CD prices, order them online - save a lot of money.
2. I'm confused here: you say it's wrong for a company to legally pay an artist only a certain amount, but it's okay to illegally pay a company nothing? That's absurd.
I don't think you're really understanding what I mean when I say "authorized". The artists agreed to be paid only a certain amount for their work. It's not stealing when the company pays them that amount, even if you, totally outside of the contract, feels the amount is too little. Should the artists get paid more? I'm not sure. Did they agree to be paid the "small" amount they receive? Yes. Where are you getting the idea that artists are being fooled into these contracts? Are all artists lemmings?
3. Then do so. Pay the people who pay the artists. It's that simple. But really, don't try to act morally superior when you're stealing music. Please.
4. I never said that legal = right. However, in this case you are in the wrong. What you are doing is both illegal and immoral. There's no debate here.
5. If the artist weren't being paid the money they were promised, they could sue for the damages in court. If they were, I'd side with them to get the money they deserve. But the fact is they're complaining about money they were never promised! I don't care about that.
No, as long as the artists are being paid what they were promised, and the music company is being paid, I don't care where my money goes in the company. Does that mean I never investigate where my money goes? No. It's just that in this instance, I don't care. I leave the majority of the auditing to the IRS.
6. You sidestepped the question. If you're pointing fingers at other and stating that, as a consumer, "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", then you must hold that same standard for everything you buy. Not just clothes - everything. If not, then you're being just as irresponsible as you claim me to be. I say this because you didn't state that you consider not investigating who receives payment from <i>music sales</i>, but rather from <i>every sale</i>. Perhaps you generalized in mistake, I'm not sure. You'll have to explain that with your reply. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
1)You still assume that I care what's legal or not, the fact is I don't. How does legality make any act of protest more logical? It does not, especially when what you are preotesting is a system backed up by law. And you have no right to question my motives.
2)If that legal amount is small to the point of immorality than yes.
Where are you getting the idea that all stealing is illegal and "unauthorized"? Even by definition stealing can be accomplished by contract if the stealing party does not have moral rights to what he is taking. You call all artists lemmings but are you telling me that you've never been convinced something was in your best interests when it was not? If you are then congratulations you're thesmartest person ever, but the rest of us tend to make mistakes, and when large corporations capitilize on those mistakes to make HUGE money at someone else's expense that is not right.
3)I would, if those people were paying the artist more than a pitance.
4)Obsiously there is a debate, if we are debating it. And evewn if you don't say that legal=right, you certainly say that legal=logical and contractual=right, both of which can certainly be wrong.
5)Well good for you, you just sit there wallowing in consumer apathy not giving a care about what happens in corporate america as long as it brings you what you need fast. Real smart move.
6)This argument is not about anything else but music sales, if it were I wouldn't be in it because yes, I don't keep such high standards for every product I buy, and I really doubt it would be possible to. Do I <i>try</i> to be responsible as a consumer? Sure. But is it possible to be in all occasions? I don't think it is possible to. And after you've generalized my opinion I think I'll spare you generalizing yours as I don't think it's a fair argument.
2)If that legal amount is small to the point of immorality than yes.
Where are you getting the idea that all stealing is illegal and "unauthorized"? Even by definition stealing can be accomplished by contract if the stealing party does not have moral rights to what he is taking. You call all artists lemmings but are you telling me that you've never been convinced something was in your best interests when it was not? If you are then congratulations you're thesmartest person ever, but the rest of us tend to make mistakes, and when large corporations capitilize on those mistakes to make HUGE money at someone else's expense that is not right.
3)I would, if those people were paying the artist more than a pitance.
4)Obsiously there is a debate, if we are debating it. And evewn if you don't say that legal=right, you certainly say that legal=logical and contractual=right, both of which can certainly be wrong.
5)Well good for you, you just sit there wallowing in consumer apathy not giving a care about what happens in corporate america as long as it brings you what you need fast. Real smart move.
6)This argument is not about anything else but music sales, if it were I wouldn't be in it because yes, I don't keep such high standards for every product I buy, and I really doubt it would be possible to. Do I <i>try</i> to be responsible as a consumer? Sure. But is it possible to be in all occasions? I don't think it is possible to. And after you've generalized my opinion I think I'll spare you generalizing yours as I don't think it's a fair argument. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
1. It makes it more logical if your reason behind the protest is change. You won't get as much respect doing something wrong as you will doing something right. But you and I both know you're not doing this to change public awareness of music prices.
2. This is where you and I will have to agree to disagree. I don't see such things as "white lies", or justifiable wrongs. Wrong is wrong, right is right. No excuses.
As for your confusion about the definition of stealing, I think it would be best to drop this part of the debate. You've misread the definition of "stealing" repeatedly, and arguing over definitions will get us nowhere.
As for the latter part of your second paragraph, I'd like to know how you consider your actions. Are you not taking advantage of anonymity on the Internet to commit theft? You keep pointing fingers at the RIAA for their actions, giving reasons for their actions, yet ignoring that you're doing exactly what you're condemnming the opposition of committing!
3. Once again, the artists agreed to this. If you want to really help the artists, educate them, don't commit more wrongdoing.
4. I never said a contract is right, I said it is legal. Do not twist my words.
5. Thank you?
6. I see. So you don't hold yourself to the standard you claim I should hold. You spout off elitist drivel about how I'm a consumer sheep for not caring about the intricate details of the music industry, but you admit to not caring about the other facets of your life - which you claim I should do. I didn't generalize your agument - you did. You said in your purchases, you worry about where your money goes. You may have not meant to, but you did. Because it sounds like you made a mistake with the wording in the message, I won't continue to drive home this point.
2. This is where you and I will have to agree to disagree. I don't see such things as "white lies", or justifiable wrongs. Wrong is wrong, right is right. No excuses.
As for your confusion about the definition of stealing, I think it would be best to drop this part of the debate. You've misread the definition of "stealing" repeatedly, and arguing over definitions will get us nowhere.
As for the latter part of your second paragraph, I'd like to know how you consider your actions. Are you not taking advantage of anonymity on the Internet to commit theft? You keep pointing fingers at the RIAA for their actions, giving reasons for their actions, yet ignoring that you're doing exactly what you're condemnming the opposition of committing!
3. Once again, the artists agreed to this. If you want to really help the artists, educate them, don't commit more wrongdoing.
4. I never said a contract is right, I said it is legal. Do not twist my words.
5. Thank you?
6. I see. So you don't hold yourself to the standard you claim I should hold. You spout off elitist drivel about how I'm a consumer sheep for not caring about the intricate details of the music industry, but you admit to not caring about the other facets of your life - which you claim I should do. I didn't generalize your agument - you did. You said in your purchases, you worry about where your money goes. You may have not meant to, but you did. Because it sounds like you made a mistake with the wording in the message, I won't continue to drive home this point. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
1)If I get less respect, so be it, I'll get noticed more at least. Do you think we would have had this argument if I just said "I don't buy music"? I sincerely doubt it. And I don't think I'm doing anything "wrong" although I will freely admit that I'm doing something illegal. And once again, please do not tell me my motives, it is very offensive to be told that the principles I'm argueing here are not my own.
2)Well if wrong is wrong and right is right, then I am obligated to do whatever I can to not patronize these record companies, because they're WRONG (however legal).
I don't see how I've misread that, it's rather plain, but ok if you say so we'll drop it.
I don't really see how your response relates to the latter part of that paragraph (which was about artists making mistakes, not whatever you're talking about) but whatever. How do I consider my actions? I consider them more moral than the actios of recording incustries. But since you've already said that my stealing 10 bucsk from arecord company is akin to a record company taking millions of what the artist is entitled to (which by the way is not legally [since you hold so much stock in what is legal or not] the case, if BOTH of those were illegal) what I say will just go in one ear and out the other.
3)Yeah, I'll just walk up to Nelly at the next Grammys and give him a lecture on the economics of the machine he is a cog in. That ought to go over real well.
4)Well if it's not right, then why do you condone it?
5)I have never seen anyon so glad to be a capitalist tool.
6)I am obviously expected to keep track of every last product I buy. Well lemme tell you, it's impossible. There are some products where imformation on the way they are made is not readily available, and there are some products where an alternative is not readily available (gasoline for instance), but there are things I can cantrol, and the point is I TRY. I limit my spending on everything, I try my best to stay educated, I buy gas efficient cars (I wouldn't use my car at all if I was not in aline of work that required it). There some things where imformation is readily available, and an alternative is right at my fingertips. Music is one of these.
I sense that our argument has broken down some time ago to restatement of the same basic positions.
2)Well if wrong is wrong and right is right, then I am obligated to do whatever I can to not patronize these record companies, because they're WRONG (however legal).
I don't see how I've misread that, it's rather plain, but ok if you say so we'll drop it.
I don't really see how your response relates to the latter part of that paragraph (which was about artists making mistakes, not whatever you're talking about) but whatever. How do I consider my actions? I consider them more moral than the actios of recording incustries. But since you've already said that my stealing 10 bucsk from arecord company is akin to a record company taking millions of what the artist is entitled to (which by the way is not legally [since you hold so much stock in what is legal or not] the case, if BOTH of those were illegal) what I say will just go in one ear and out the other.
3)Yeah, I'll just walk up to Nelly at the next Grammys and give him a lecture on the economics of the machine he is a cog in. That ought to go over real well.
4)Well if it's not right, then why do you condone it?
5)I have never seen anyon so glad to be a capitalist tool.
6)I am obviously expected to keep track of every last product I buy. Well lemme tell you, it's impossible. There are some products where imformation on the way they are made is not readily available, and there are some products where an alternative is not readily available (gasoline for instance), but there are things I can cantrol, and the point is I TRY. I limit my spending on everything, I try my best to stay educated, I buy gas efficient cars (I wouldn't use my car at all if I was not in aline of work that required it). There some things where imformation is readily available, and an alternative is right at my fingertips. Music is one of these.
I sense that our argument has broken down some time ago to restatement of the same basic positions. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
1. You posted inflammatory comments. You didn't expect to get a response? Please. You knew very well what you were doing. Besides, saying "I don't buy music" doesn't automatically mean "I download music". As for your motives, I can read you pretty clear here. It's rather ironic that you're complaining about taking offense when you started this debate by posting remarks made to offend.
2. Very well. Don't be a patron. Also, don't break the law, because in this case, the law is right. By stealing the music, you're wrong. Don't try to twist my words to fit your rationalizing.
There is nothing moral about theft. No debate. You are wrong.
3. You took everything I said and twisted it. Again.
4. Because the artist agreed to it. There was nothing illegal in the contract. If there was, I'd agree that it would need to be amended. But paying a person what they agreed to be paid is neither immoral or illegal.
5. You misunderstood my sarcasm for approval of your comments. I don't care what you say on this subject, because you don't even hold yourself to the high standards you set.
6. Do not point fingers at me about my choices for researching where my money goes if you're unwilling to pursue every aspect of your own finances.
You are right: I am frequently repeating myself. You are in the wrong here. You realized this some time ago, but you're still rationalizing your actions. Just like so many other thieves.
B. Where problems occur, there is money to be made as a middle man.
There is nothing moral about theft. No debate. You are wrong. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I feel that I ought to mention that what might be morally wrong to you might not be to him. Which is pretty much what this entire argument is about. Morals are just opinions and, therefore, are subjective.
2. Very well. Don't be a patron. Also, don't break the law, because in this case, the law is right. By stealing the music, you're wrong. Don't try to twist my words to fit your rationalizing.
There is nothing moral about theft. No debate. You are wrong.
3. You took everything I said and twisted it. Again.
4. Because the artist agreed to it. There was nothing illegal in the contract. If there was, I'd agree that it would need to be amended. But paying a person what they agreed to be paid is neither immoral or illegal.
5. You misunderstood my sarcasm for approval of your comments. I don't care what you say on this subject, because you don't even hold yourself to the high standards you set.
6. Do not point fingers at me about my choices for researching where my money goes if you're unwilling to pursue every aspect of your own finances.
You are right: I am frequently repeating myself. You are in the wrong here. You realized this some time ago, but you're still rationalizing your actions. Just like so many other thieves. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
1)That was a response to my comment, oh wait it wasn't. If you can read my motives, please enlighten me. I'd love to know what my point is here, because obviously I don't know and everything I've said up till is a hollow lie. When did you gain the ability to know my thoughts sir? You should share this gift with the scientific community instead of wasting it shattering my obviously meager arguments on a pitiful internet forum.
2)Once again, if there was no debate, we wouldn't be debating it. I will not agree with you that the law is right until you proved it to me, and you have not, sorry pal.
3)Well then what did you mean? What am I to do?
4)It certainly is if they were not fully aware of what they were agreeing to, or were under the false understanding that they were backed into a corner and had no other choice but to agree. I can agree to anything. I can agree to have someone slice my throat, does that make it right when they do it? Heck no.
5)Ok, if you jsut don't care then this point is dead.
NEW 5)Why do you hold me to godlike consumer standards when I would only hold you or anyone else to easily acheived ones? I expect people to be as responsible as they can be, this is the duty of every member of a capitalist society, without consumer responsiblity corporate america is allowed to run rampant, and if I am a theif for this, then I will call you irrisponsible and shirking your duties as a citizen.
I realised I was wrong? Damn there you go with that mind reading again, you should have your own phone service with those powers.
You're totally wrong here. You're thinking of opinions. I'm talking about Biblical morals. These are by which all are judged. Morals are definitely not opinions. Not subjective.
Despite all that, theft is not only immoral but illegal. Most USA laws (at least the older ones) are based on Biblical morals and principles, so it's no coincidence that what we're talking about here is both immoral and illegal.
But you're right Rellix, this is going too far, so I'm ending my side of the debate. I wanted to make sure AllUrHive was challenged, and I think I was successful. My intention wasn't so much to win the debate, as it was to show an opposing viewpoint.
You're totally wrong here. You're thinking of opinions. I'm talking about Biblical morals. These are by which all are judged. Morals are definitely not opinions. Not subjective.
Despite all that, theft is not only immoral but illegal. Most USA laws (at least the older ones) are based on Biblical morals and principles, so it's no coincidence that what we're talking about here is both immoral and illegal. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Morals are opinions. In my eyes, if God exists, his opinions are still just that. Opinions. If he thinks that stealing is wrong, he can convince other people that stealing is wrong.
Just because the <b>law</b> says that theft is illegal doesn't mean that everyone <b>thinks so</b>. If they don't think that theft is wrong, they're not going to feel guilty about stealing. Any criminal who feels guilty about stealing something still believes that theft is wrong. Society has conditioned him to think that. If a criminal who steals something doesn't feel guilty about it, he believes that theft is not wrong.
Power does not make a moral any more or less of an opinion. Just because you have the power to do something to someone who doesn't agree with your morals doesn't mean that they're still not subjective.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Of course if you want to stick your ears in the ground and be stubborn, there's nothing to do. I'm curious though as to which laws you refer, most of em can probably be found anywhere.
Morals made christianity, not the other way around.
How come most religions and even atheists in general tend to agree what is moral and what is not? Because most of it is sensible rules that makes society work without too much friction, something you learn early in life in practice and by being told repetedly what is right and wrong.
However you can't impose on others the grey zones that your particular religion/belief system defined as morally right or wrong and expect to get agreement.
How come most religions and even atheists in general tend to agree what is moral and what is not? Because most of it is sensible rules that makes society work without too much friction, something you learn early in life in practice and by being told repetedly what is right and wrong.
However you can't impose on others the grey zones that your particular religion/belief system defined as morally right or wrong and expect to get agreement. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
That makes the most sense to me. Most Ethical rules that different religions have in common or overlap on are the ones that help keep society stable. If we didn't have them, or had rampant abuse of them, then a stable society could not exist.
I'm not a rich kid
The Creative Zen series is a very well crafted competitor to the iPod, yet only ONE of my friends has it. It has a longer battery life, more space per buck, and the battery is replaceable, unlike the iPod's, not to mention better sound quality (though that's more subjective than objective).
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have a 20gig Creative Nomad Jukebox Zen series.
It goes everywhere I go.
I love it! <!--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-->
(and yes I like them way better than iPods which Ive had expiriences with as well)
weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
Another player with ogg vorbis playback, and from scandanavia! I was not aware such things existed! Much props.