Latest on MJJC

A humbling reminder about illegal downloads ...

It won't stick. They'll prove a point and then let her off easy. No way will the general public allow this.

*Furthermore, I don't believe that file-sharing has greatly harmed anyone. I'm not saying it hasn't decreased revenue somewhat, but remember, the industry was forced into providing digital downloads instead of doing so early on. They fought Apple and their pricing, when it proved successful (and they still fight Apple). Their reluctance and own stubbornness has probably cost them much more, and they are passing the blame to file-sharing. That's within their right, I guess, and an easy out, but it doesn't make it true.

The bottom line is the majority of music being downloaded is probably music that people likely wouldn't buy anyways. I'm not condoning it or justifying it, but I do not believe the industry is being hit as hard as they claim because of it.
 
Superstition said:
It won't stick. They'll prove a point and then let her off easy. No way will the general public allow this.

*Furthermore, I don't believe that file-sharing has greatly harmed anyone. I'm not saying it hasn't decreased revenue somewhat, but remember, the industry was forced into providing digital downloads instead of doing so early on. They fought Apple and their pricing, when it proved successful (and they still fight Apple). Their reluctance and own stubbornness has probably cost them much more, and they are passing the blame to file-sharing. That's within their right, I guess, and an easy out, but it doesn't make it true.

The bottom line is the majority of music being downloaded is probably music that people likely wouldn't buy anyways. I'm not condoning it or justifying it, but I do not believe the industry is being hit as hard as they claim because of it.
Click to expand...

i don't agree with you. why has this become a complicated discussion? it's very simple. it's stealing.

why has it become ok, suddenly, to steal ANYthing? why, somehow, do people get up in arms, call the police, get serious, sue, etc. when anything is stolen..EXCEPT music?

people can't live without music. so what do they do? make the artists suffer for it. now if there is a way for people to get artists paid, at the convenience of the listener, then i'm down for it. but i'm never down for stealing. people simply should have a conscience about this, instead of a long discussion about it.

the irony of all this is that it takes a lot of time and effort for me to set up Kazaa or whatever it is..i never got into it. it was something that was sorta over my head. it's actually easier for me to either buy the song, or just see it on youtube. and i'm sure youtube has something in the way of a deal with aritsts. the idea of making the effort to find people to give songs away to, is a strain of energy for me. again, in privacy, i find it easier to privately look at youtube and suggest that other people go get the songs for themselves. or, for that matter, THEY can look at youtube. what's wrong with that? it's actually more convenient to stay above board, than it is, to not do so. to me, it's just a matter of people stealing, just because of the lure of the forbidden...or..just because they can. if stealing wasn't an issue, it probably would be too boring for them to do it, and they woudn't do it. it's just a shame. and, yes, i'm passionate about it. why not reward artists for their effort to bring joy into your life, rather than hurt them for it? and if you don't like the music...why do you download it? lol
 
Last edited:
vncwilliam said:
i don't agree with you. why has this become a complicated discussion? it's very simple. it's stealing.

why has it become ok, suddenly, to steal ANYthing? why, somehow, do people get up in arms, call the police, get serious, sue, etc. when anything is stolen..EXCEPT music?

people can't live without music. so what do they do? make the artists suffer for it. now if there is a way for people to get artists paid, at the convenience of the listener, then i'm down for it. but i'm never down for stealing. people simply should have a conscience about this, instead of a long discussion about it.

the irony of all this is that it takes a lot of time and effort for me to set up Kazaa or whatever it is..i never got into it. it was something that was sorta over my head. it's actually easier for me to either buy the song, or just see it on youtube. and i'm sure youtube has something in the way of a deal with aritsts. the idea of making the effort to find people to give songs away to, is a strain of energy for me. again, in privacy, i find it easier to privately look at youtube and suggest that other people go get the songs for themselves. or, for that matter, THEY can look at youtube. what's wrong with that? it's actually more convenient to stay above board, than it is, to not do so. to me, it's just a matter of people stealing, just because of the lure of the forbidden...or..just because they can. if stealing wasn't an issue, it probably would be too boring for them to do it, and they woudn't do it. it's just a shame. and, yes, i'm passionate about it. why not reward artists for their effort to bring joy into your life, rather than hurt them for it? and if you don't like the music...why do you download it? lol
Click to expand...

I said I don't condone it (although I certainly don't condemn it either). It is what it is. What I do take issue with is the industry saying they are missing out on several hundred million or billions of dollars because of file sharing, when I don't believe that to be true. The judgement in this case shows how out of touch the industry is. Like I said, I know they're trying to prove a point, but come on.

Your last sentence sums it up well. If you don't like the music, why do you download it? Because they can. If they couldn't, people simply wouldn't buy it. Guess what? Either way, the record company made nothing. And you know what? I buy WAY more music now that there is file sharing. All those videos "illegally" uploaded to Youtube... many have caught my eye. Some of the music shared via stream on here (that are probably being streamed at the dismay of the industry) have prompted me to buy some stuff.

And you use Youtube? Ever go on there and watch some videos that were later taken down, or are still up without the permission of the owner of the content? Guess what, there's not really a difference between a video uploaded to Youtube that infringes on someone's copyright, or downloading a song. What if the industry said they are losing out on millions of dollars because of peple watching Youtube videos instead of purchasing music or videos, or buying cable TV to watch the subscription content? Would you cease using Youtube?

You do see this whole gray area here when it comes to what the record companies are saying, right? I'm not saying illegally downloading isn't stealing, but when it comes to streaming, Youtube and what the record companies claim to be losing out on... it's really not so cut and dry.
 
Well, regardless, I'm trying to be a better person when it comes to this stuff. I've started to get back into buying CDs (for what it's worth at this point) and buying single songs off of iTunes if I find/want them. I never used Kazaa or anything like that, but I have found easier ways over the past several years to get music illegally, but I'm trying to limit it now to just songs I can't find legally.
 
Superstition said:
I said I don't condone it (although I certainly don't condemn it either). It is what it is. What I do take issue with is the industry saying they are missing out on several hundred million or billions of dollars because of file sharing, when I don't believe that to be true. The judgement in this case shows how out of touch the industry is. Like I said, I know they're trying to prove a point, but come on.

Your last sentence sums it up well. If you don't like the music, why do you download it? Because they can. If they couldn't, people simply wouldn't buy it. Guess what? Either way, the record company made nothing. And you know what? I buy WAY more music now that there is file sharing. All those videos "illegally" uploaded to Youtube... many have caught my eye. Some of the music shared via stream on here (that are probably being streamed at the dismay of the industry) have prompted me to buy some stuff.

And you use Youtube? Ever go on there and watch some videos that were later taken down, or are still up without the permission of the owner of the content? Guess what, there's not really a difference between a video uploaded to Youtube that infringes on someone's copyright, or downloading a song. What if the industry said they are losing out on millions of dollars because of peple watching Youtube videos instead of purchasing music or videos, or buying cable TV to watch the subscription content? Would you cease using Youtube?

You do see this whole gray area here when it comes to what the record companies are saying, right? I'm not saying illegally downloading isn't stealing, but when it comes to streaming, Youtube and what the record companies claim to be losing out on... it's really not so cut and dry.
Click to expand...

you say 'what if'? the question is, why isn't the industry destroying youtube? i saw some vids on there, yes, but they are sponsored by advertisers, and that's what makes it convenient for the listeners, and pays the artists. and indeed, if youtube is doing something wrong, like you said, the vid gets taken down, and it's not available to me. forget the grey area stuff. like i said, i simply steer clear, and if someone makes me aware, i get away from it. it's not that hard, to me. i never understood the idea of not condoning something nor condemning something at the same time...

edit: after leaving this post, and going back to the main board, there was an ad at the top of the page, under the browser..a legit ad for Weird Al Yankovic's new single, 'Craig's List'. naturally, Weird Al peaked my interest, so i clicked on the arrow that told me to watch the vid. and guess where i ended up? yep. youtube. obviously, the industry and youtube have a good relationship. and Al is aware of it.

it's simple. put yourself in the shoes of the victim of theft. what would you do? would you talk about grey areas, then?
 
Last edited:
haha i say. artists making millions off of stupid cds that aren't worth $20. sorry but if i dl a cd and i like it, i buy it. if i don't, i delete it from my itunes. it's as simple as that.

every song, w/ the exception of the recent ar rahman downloads i just got, i have on my itunes i have on cd form. if it's good enough to bump in the car, it's good enough to purchase

but im sick and tired of artists whining over songs. it's not hard to record a song. it's not expensive to press a cd. and if u think artists work 'hard' then whatever. sue a person who actually works a nine to five and busts their ass....artists are too busy drinking cristal and making it rain. it's lame
 
Deaf Farter said:
haha i say. artists making millions off of stupid cds that aren't worth $20. sorry but if i dl a cd and i like it, i buy it. if i don't, i delete it from my itunes. it's as simple as that.

every song, w/ the exception of the recent ar rahman downloads i just got, i have on my itunes i have on cd form. if it's good enough to bump in the car, it's good enough to purchase

but im sick and tired of artists whining over songs. it's not hard to record a song. it's not expensive to press a cd. and if u think artists work 'hard' then whatever. sue a person who actually works a nine to five and busts their ass....artists are too busy drinking cristal and making it rain. it's lame
Click to expand...

that's very unfortunate you think that way. how do you know an artist doesn't work hard? Gwen Stefani said that her dry spells are very hard. why do people not mind hurting other people, but do mind if they are on the short end? you are hurting the artist. it shouldn't matter how much money the artist makes.

pardon mwa but, lol..that sounds like envy.

i've busted my ass on nine to fivers, but i didn't feel the need to take it out on music artists.

i'm curious, so so def, you said in the Raymone Bain thread that no one should play possum with the law, but here, you say it's ok to do illegal downloads?
 
Last edited:
correction, vnc...playing possum w/ the raymone thing means don't act like u don't know someone's suing u as part of some master plan for a defense. some fans thought him not responding was a tactic...um a bit much

and gwen stefani has dry spells? doesn't she have a very lucrative line, harajuku lovers? i would know, i buy all my purses from her.

and i don't feel pitty for people like hova or bey who make more than they shouldfrom music. if anything, i support more independent artists who actually WORK for their craft.

audio tune and remixes bore me. people famous for no reason bore me even more. so sorry but i don't spend my money on crap.

if it's good, i buy it. download be damned, if it sucks, i delete it and voila, they've made no money from me and im not gonna burn their songs and sell it or listen to it. artists are guilty of making cds full of filler.

two good singles and the rest suck and it's the consumer who has to pay the price. so this is forcing them to make good music.

and envy? honey please, im not about ot kiss the ass of a celebrity who's got more fame than they deserve and who spends their money on crap. u want the money? u gotta earn it just like everyone else.
 
Deaf Farter said:
correction, vnc...playing possum w/ the raymone thing means don't act like u don't know someone's suing u as part of some master plan for a defense. some fans thought him not responding was a tactic...um a bit much

and gwen stefani has dry spells? doesn't she have a very lucrative line, harajuku lovers? i would know, i buy all my purses from her.

and i don't feel pitty for people like hova or bey who make more than they shouldfrom music. if anything, i support more independent artists who actually WORK for their craft.

audio tune and remixes bore me. people famous for no reason bore me even more. so sorry but i don't spend my money on crap.

if it's good, i buy it. download be damned, if it sucks, i delete it and voila, they've made no money from me and im not gonna burn their songs and sell it or listen to it. artists are guilty of making cds full of filler.

two good singles and the rest suck and it's the consumer who has to pay the price. so this is forcing them to make good music.

and envy? honey please, im not about ot kiss the ass of a celebrity who's got more fame than they deserve and who spends their money on crap. u want the money? u gotta earn it just like everyone else.
Click to expand...

Hova is a mogul. he has real talent.

i'm just curious as to why you even give 'crap' a listen, let alone download it?

so so def, MJ hasn't proven to do anything wrong, lawfully.

but there is no good way of putting a spin on stealing. either you are for the law or against it. and besides. you know, when people steal, it comes back to them, just like any other good or bad energy put out.

you can't say MJ is hedging the law(without real proof that he's doing it) and then, yourself do something against the law.

that's just plain hypocritical. there's no spin way out of it. no matter how much you hate the hip hop artist.

but one thing you are making me see. frustration makes people do things they shouldn't do. you're helping me see the possibilities with Raymone. that she's smart, but being frustrated will make her do unseemly things. it's why i posted my last post in the Raymone thread. the one where i say..'it's the economy mannnn'.

let's seee...GM is bankrupt. they make crappy cars. maybe i should go drive a hummer out of their lot for free.

lol..and by the way, u can't use the album excuse, because itunes is all about singles. so u don't have to worry about crappy filler on albums.
 
Last edited:
When I download a song, it's either:

A. I want a preview of the new album that's out. If I like what I hear, I delete it from my computer and go buy the cd.

B. It's a song I already have on CD, but can't listen to it anymore because the cd is damaged from use. Since I already bought the song, I have a right to download it if I wish.

C. It's a song not available in my location, or it's a rarity song.
 
Prince Of Pop said:
When I download a song, it's either:

A. I want a preview of the new album that's out. If I like what I hear, I delete it from my computer and go buy the cd.

B. It's a song I already have on CD, but can't listen to it anymore because the cd is damaged from use. Since I already bought the song, I have a right to download it if I wish.

C. It's a song not available in my location, or it's a rarity song.
Click to expand...

what gives you a right to a preview, when you can wait for youtube?

it's quite simple. there ain't no excuse for stealing, folks. if there is, then there is an excuse for stealing from you.

no matter how clever the method you use, it's like the remake of the song 'everybody plays the fool'. if you did it, it will be done to you. nobody is exempt. that thing people like to call karma.

so if you find something missing from your life, it's because you made sure something was missing from someone else's.
 
Last edited:
vncwilliam said:
Hova is a mogul. he has real talent.

i'm just curious as to why you even give 'crap' a listen, let alone download it?

so so def, MJ hasn't proven to do anything wrong, lawfully.

but there is no good way of putting a spin on stealing. either you are for the law or against it. and besides. you know, when people steal, it comes back to them, just like any other good or bad energy put out.

you can't say MJ is hedging the law(without real proof that he's doing it) and then, yourself do something against the law.

that's just plain hypocritical. there's no spin way out of it. no matter how much you hate the hip hop artist.

but one thing you are making me see. frustration makes people do things they shouldn't do. you're helping me see the possibilities with Raymone. that she's smart, but being frustrated will make her do unseemly things. it's why i posted my last post in the Raymone thread. the one where i say..'it's the economy mannnn'.

let's seee...GM is bankrupt. they make crappy cars. maybe i should go drive a hummer out of their lot for free.

lol..and by the way, u can't use the album excuse, because itunes is all about singles. so u don't have to worry about crappy filler on albums.
Click to expand...

what does mj have to do w/ this? you're teh one who brought itup. and hedging the law? it's called a stall tactic.

u wanna buy crappy music, please by allmeans, do it.

sorry but ur analogies make no sense. there's a difference between getting a song for free and stealing a car. i listen to a song, if i like it, i buy the cd. if not, i delete it. did they really lose that much money from me doing that? i think not.

how do i know a song is good unless i listen? not all songs on an album are released as singles. i have better ways to spend my money

and hova is a mogul? is that y his live nation deal is costinghim $100M cuz he can't sell tickets? or his club in vegas got closed cuz of lax customers?

im not frustrated at all. i fi like a song, i'll buy it. if the album is good, i'll get it. u thint they care that i previewed it first so long as i bought it? i think it's pathetic to have the backs of the 'artist' who, in all reality, are overpaid and overexposed.

even mj was against prosecuting fans for'stealing' music. it's crap. make good music and we'll buy it. don't and we'll just download the two songs that are good on ur album.

this is forcing the artist to make quality music. that's y lars and metallica lost so many fans. it's a punk ass move on their part. you're already overcharging people for ur cds and concerts and other items so this is where they can recoup theirmoney back.

i know hella jan fans woh didn't even buy discipline cuz they dl'd it and they didn't like it. if jan made an album they liked, they would've b ought it. she didn't so she lost their sales....and who listens to an album the ydon't like? not many i know of so of course, they deleted it from their itunes....jan's still a millionaire...right? so what's the big deal?

oh shall i go to gm and make a point by taking a car? a hummer is a hummer....ur comparing a car to a song...that's like me comparing slavery to not being able to go to rated 'r' movies...
 
vncwilliam said:
you say 'what if'? the question is, why isn't the industry destroying youtube? i saw some vids on there, yes, but they are sponsored by advertisers, and that's what makes it convenient for the listeners, and pays the artists. and indeed, if youtube is doing something wrong, like you said, the vid gets taken down, and it's not available to me. forget the grey area stuff. like i said, i simply steer clear, and if someone makes me aware, i get away from it. it's not that hard, to me. i never understood the idea of not condoning something nor condemning something at the same time...

edit: after leaving this post, and going back to the main board, there was an ad at the top of the page, under the browser..a legit ad for Weird Al Yankovic's new single, 'Craig's List'. naturally, Weird Al peaked my interest, so i clicked on the arrow that told me to watch the vid. and guess where i ended up? yep. youtube. obviously, the industry and youtube have a good relationship. and Al is aware of it.

it's simple. put yourself in the shoes of the victim of theft. what would you do? would you talk about grey areas, then?
Click to expand...

Youtube has millions and millions of videos, and they operate with a legal loophole: that being that the content doesn't have to be taken down until the owner of the content says they want it taken down. Yes, many videos have ad-support, but there are probably millions of videos currently uploaded that are not ad-supported and are infinging on copyright. Just because there are some legit videos on Youtube doesn't mean that there aren't infringing ones either. Universal, Sony... other companies have Youtube pages and they upload content they own to Youtube. What does that have to do with people at home ripping a DVD and uploading segments to Youtube without permission?

"Forget about the gray area".... Why? So you can ease your mind? You are basically saying you have an issue with downloading music, but no problem going to Youtube and watching the video someone ripped from a DVD and uploaded without permission. Unless you are saying you go out of your way to only watch ad-supported and legally uploaded Youtube videos, which I would find surprising.

As for not condoning or not condemning something at the same time.... it means I don't care. I see the arguments both for and against file sharing.
 
Prince Of Pop said:
When I download a song, it's either:

A. I want a preview of the new album that's out. If I like what I hear, I delete it from my computer and go buy the cd.

B. It's a song I already have on CD, but can't listen to it anymore because the cd is damaged from use. Since I already bought the song, I have a right to download it if I wish.

C. It's a song not available in my location, or it's a rarity song.
Click to expand...
totally what i do. it's the only way i couldv'e gotten the moon is walking by ladysmith black mabazzo. other than that, i usually buy cds.
 
Superstition said:
Youtube has millions and millions of videos, and they operate with a legal loophole: that being that the content doesn't have to be taken down until the owner of the content says they want it taken down. Yes, many videos have ad-support, but there are probably millions of videos currently uploaded that are not ad-supported and are infinging on copyright. Just because there are some legit videos on Youtube doesn't mean that there aren't infringing ones either. Universal, Sony... other companies have Youtube pages and they upload content they own to Youtube. What does that have to do with people at home ripping a DVD and uploading segments to Youtube without permission?

"Forget about the gray area".... Why? So you can ease your mind? You are basically saying you have an issue with downloading music, but no problem going to Youtube and watching the video someone ripped from a DVD and uploaded without permission. Unless you are saying you go out of your way to only watch ad-supported and legally uploaded Youtube videos, which I would find surprising.

As for not condoning or not condemning something at the same time.... it means I don't care. I see the arguments both for and against file sharing.
Click to expand...

the difference is just what u said. the companies work with youtube. they don't work with file sharers. and, the difference is , what u also said. if youtube finds out it's illegal, they take it down. it's a hard job with millions of vids. it's one thing to accidentally run into a vid that is illegal on youtube. it's another thing to actively seek file sharing. and yes..so far..all the vids i have seen had an ad on the side. it's hard for me to even listen to a song that sucks, let alone download it for free. (so Jabz..i'm not owned.). i have a small listening list, and i hate remixes, so most likely, i haven't watched something that's stolen.

i'm not deliberately seeking out something to steal.

yeah..i don't like grey areas. and one thing you keep avoiding discussing. what if it was you that was the victim of theft, Superstition?
 
Last edited:
i doubt that the theft is so severe that these artists cannot eat or afford to live...it's pathetic for them to complain on a large scale about how much this is hurtin gthem. sorry but put out good music.

what's their excuse for lax concert sales? they gonna blame that on downloads, too?

the majority of people i know only download to preview an album. if they like it they get it. if not, they just saved themselves $20 and that's awesome cuz the last thing an 'artist' would want is for someone to purchase their work and not be satisfied
 
vncwilliam said:
the difference is just what u said. the companies work with youtube. they don't work with file sharers. and, the difference is , what u also said. if youtube finds out it's illegal, they take it down. it's a hard job with millions of vids. it's one thing to accidentally run into a vid that is illegal on youtube. it's another thing to actively seek file sharing. and yes..so far..all the vids i have seen had an ad on the side. it's hard for me to even listen to a song that sucks, let alone download it for free. (so Jabz..i'm not owned.). i have a small listening list, and i hate remixes, so most likely, i haven't watched something that's stolen.

i'm not deliberately seeking out something to steal.

yeah..i don't like grey areas. and one thing you keep avoiding discussing. what if it was you that was the victim of theft, Superstition?
Click to expand...

Those advertisements you see on the side -- Youtube makes all of the money from them, not the artist. So a video of a Bad concert, or The Legend Continues -- Michael or Sony doesn't receive a penny from it -- the money from the ads on the page all go to Youtube. That's why you always see ads because that's how Youtube makes its money, not the artist.

Some artists/companies post songs/videos for promotional purposes (such as Michael's official videos), but they don't make direct money from posting it. It's simple to tell when an artist/company posts it -- just read who posted it, lol.

Yes, sometimes you see an ad from an artist like Weird Al, but Weird Al or whoever paid Youtube to post the ad.

If you're listening to songs not posted by the artist/company, then it's technically listening to an uploaded song w/out the artists permission, which is exactly what 'file sharing' is. So you're basically listening to songs for free so that you don't have to buy them; if the artist didn't post them, then that's what you'd consider stealing. And if the artist did post it, it's for promotional purposes, and you're still not buying it but still listening to it for free, so the artist again loses since like a file sharer, you won't buy the music. Again, those ads on the side, the artist makes zero money and it all goes to Youtube.

And several artists have posted albums and music online for fans to file share. Likewise musicians and companies sent Youtube cease and desist letters. It's a two-way street.
 
JoeyMJFan said:
Those advertisements you see on the side -- Youtube makes all of the money from them, not the artist. So a video of a Bad concert, or The Legend Continues -- Michael or Sony doesn't receive a penny from it -- the money from the ads on the page all go to Youtube. That's why you always see ads because that's how Youtube makes its money, not the artist.

Some artists/companies post songs/videos for promotional purposes (such as Michael's official videos), but they don't make direct money from posting it. It's simple to tell when an artist/company posts it -- just read who posted it, lol.

Yes, sometimes you see an ad from an artist like Weird Al, but Weird Al or whoever paid Youtube to post the ad.

If you're listening to songs not posted by the artist/company, then it's technically listening to an uploaded song w/out the artists permission, which is exactly what 'file sharing' is. So you're basically listening to songs for free so that you don't have to buy them; if the artist didn't post them, then that's what you'd consider stealing. And if the artist did post it, it's for promotional purposes, and you're still not buying it but still listening to it for free, so the artist again loses since like a file sharer, you won't buy the music. Again, those ads on the side, the artist makes zero money and it all goes to Youtube.

And several artists have posted albums and music online for fans to file share. Likewise musicians and companies sent Youtube cease and desist letters. It's a two-way street.
Click to expand...

well..first of all..i think we all went off topic. the op posted about what companies are taking citizens to court for. file sharing...in the deliberate sense..possibly profiting from it...distributing like a record company. the stuff that u know is a deliberate effort to steal. that's what im talkin about. as far as listening for free...companies can't survive if they don't put songs out there to be heard. listening to the radio, watching youtube..yes i know that's promotional. sometimes labels pay just so you can hear something for free for promo purposes. but u know when u r making a special effort to promote an artist, and profit from it, if ur not that artist.

the bottom line is, everybody knows when they are making a special effort to take from the artist without permission. i don't have to describe what i mean. i know people will hedge for arguments sake. if u r making a special effort to make an artist suffer(and a lot of people are) then you are stealing with intent..tech stuff aside...and u r contributing to a bad economy. and u can't be looked at as innocent if u suffer theft, urself. no matter how much u rationalize.

i believe in promotion. and i listen to that stuff for free. but i see the artists who promote their own stuff..and i listen to it for free..IF i like it. then i buy it. but it takes an effort to get into kazaa.

i just gotta say, if ur contributing to a bad economy, u can't just blame the president. ur actually hurting ur own country and ur fellow citizens and urself.(and u know the economy is already not in a good place, right now.) if u don't mind hurting urself, that's one thing, but to hurt other people won't benefit u, that's for sure. ur most likely to not prosper in life if u seek to take, and u will most likely prosper if u seek to give. again, i'm not talkin about artists who deliberately send stuff out to be kazzaed. i don't even know who those artists are. the ones i listen to for free, don't do that, but they do contribute to free youtube listening.

we all know when we are deliberately crossing the line. i don't have to go into semantics.

and we can't make the excuse that the record industry is big and it shouldn't be such a big deal. it all adds up. many people deliberately file sharing takes a lot from an artist.

most likely, bootleg copies, remixes, are of low quality anyway, and i skip them. the original vid and music is from the artist, and promotional, like u said. and i listen to it..only if i like it.

no lookin for an artist or someone to justify two wrongs making a right. i'm just sayin, if a company or person is contributing to the economy and u r taking from the company or person, without their permission, u r taking from the economy. it's all about me doing my part, and u doing ur part. that's all.

everybody is intelligent, they know when they are playing the slippery slope game, and coming up with clever arguments. but the boomerang rule applies to everybody. i'm just sayin, if u find urself lighter in ur own wallet, it's ur own fault, if u know in ur own heart, u r ok with this shit.
for the record, any artist, whose vid i viewed on youtube, they didn't give me permission to use kazaa and fileshare.

it ain't about the size of the company..where we should think it's ok, cus the company is too big to miss a 'small' theft. a theft is a theft. and big companies started out small. motown started in a small house. it ain't about size.

hell..people..lol...there are peeps on this board whose heads will explode if u take credit for their posted fan accounts of other fans' MJ sightings.... u can't see the harm that is in this file sharing thing?

can't we think of someone outside of ourselves with this?

we shouldn't try to hurt the industry that gives us what we love...music. we thihk we're only affecting the 'bad' songs. our actions can affect the consumption of the good songs. ur bad song can be someone else's good song. and ur consumption can be affected by whether or not u screw with something u can't do without. and that's not a dramatic statement. artists could find other ways to help themselves musically, and decide they are creatively hampered by people who steal from them, and it could affect the music, and, as a result, the consumer.
 
Last edited:
um i don't think we went off topic..ur trying to make people feel guilty for dowloading music even if it's just to check out the quality BEFORE PURCHASING and then someoen brought up how u watch stuff on youtube.....

if anything, comparing me dowloading a song to stealing a car is the worst comparison...or bringing up mj....it should be what superstition said...we can't dl music but we can watch things free on youtube?

personally i don't care. u shouldn't be able to buy a b ently cuz u made a song about an umbrella...it's just odd.
 
vncwilliam said:
well..first of all..i think we all went off topic. the op posted about what companies are taking citizens to court for. file sharing...in the deliberate sense..possibly profiting from it...distributing like a record company. the stuff that u know is a deliberate effort to steal. that's what im talkin about. as far as listening for free...companies can't survive if they don't put songs out there to be heard. listening to the radio, watching youtube..yes i know that's promotional. sometimes labels pay just so you can hear something for free for promo purposes. but u know when u r making a special effort to promote an artist, and profit from it, if ur not that artist.

the bottom line is, everybody knows when they are making a special effort to take from the artist without permission. i don't have to describe what i mean. i know people will hedge for arguments sake. if u r making a special effort to make an artist suffer(and a lot of people are) then you are stealing with intent..tech stuff aside...and u r contributing to a bad economy. and u can't be looked at as innocent if u suffer theft, urself. no matter how much u rationalize.

i believe in promotion. and i listen to that stuff for free. but i see the artists who promote their own stuff..and i listen to it for free..IF i like it. then i buy it. but it takes an effort to get into kazaa.

i just gotta say, if ur contributing to a bad economy, u can't just blame the president. ur actually hurting ur own country and ur fellow citizens and urself.(and u know the economy is already not in a good place, right now.) if u don't mind hurting urself, that's one thing, but to hurt other people won't benefit u, that's for sure. ur most likely to not prosper in life if u seek to take, and u will most likely prosper if u seek to give. again, i'm not talkin about artists who deliberately send stuff out to be kazzaed. i don't even know who those artists are. the ones i listen to for free, don't do that, but they do contribute to free youtube listening.

we all know when we are deliberately crossing the line. i don't have to go into semantics.

and we can't make the excuse that the record industry is big and it shouldn't be such a big deal. it all adds up. many people deliberately file sharing takes a lot from an artist.

most likely, bootleg copies, remixes, are of low quality anyway, and i skip them. the original vid and music is from the artist, and promotional, like u said. and i listen to it..only if i like it.

no lookin for an artist or someone to justify two wrongs making a right. i'm just sayin, if a company or person is contributing to the economy and u r taking from the company or person, without their permission, u r taking from the economy. it's all about me doing my part, and u doing ur part. that's all.

everybody is intelligent, they know when they are playing the slippery slope game, and coming up with clever arguments. but the boomerang rule applies to everybody. i'm just sayin, if u find urself lighter in ur own wallet, it's ur own fault, if u know in ur own heart, u r ok with this shit.
for the record, any artist, whose vid i viewed on youtube, they didn't give me permission to use kazaa and fileshare.

it ain't about the size of the company..where we should think it's ok, cus the company is too big to miss a 'small' theft. a theft is a theft. and big companies started out small. motown started in a small house. it ain't about size.

hell..people..lol...there are peeps on this board whose heads will explode if u take credit for their posted fan accounts of other fans' MJ sightings.... u can't see the harm that is in this file sharing thing?

can't we think of someone outside of ourselves with this?

we shouldn't try to hurt the industry that gives us what we love...music. we thihk we're only affecting the 'bad' songs. our actions can affect the consumption of the good songs. ur bad song can be someone else's good song. and ur consumption can be affected by whether or not u screw with something u can't do without. and that's not a dramatic statement. artists could find other ways to help themselves musically, and decide they are creatively hampered by people who steal from them, and it could affect the music, and, as a result, the consumer.
Click to expand...

Do you think file sharing has cost the record companies/artists as much as they say it has, and do you think nearly 2 million dollars for sharing 24 songs is a fair judgement?
 
Deaf Farter said:
um i don't think we went off topic..ur trying to make people feel guilty for dowloading music even if it's just to check out the quality BEFORE PURCHASING and then someoen brought up how u watch stuff on youtube.....

if anything, comparing me dowloading a song to stealing a car is the worst comparison...or bringing up mj....it should be what superstition said...we can't dl music but we can watch things free on youtube?

personally i don't care. u shouldn't be able to buy a b ently cuz u made a song about an umbrella...it's just odd.
Click to expand...

like i said..and even like superstition said..youtube is not the same thing..u gotta have a sample..and youtube provides that. the artists are behind that, save Prince. but i'm talking about giving an inch and taking a mile. you get a test drive for a car, too, before u decide to purchase it, or not.

it ain't about me making someone feel guilty..it's about putting urself in someone's shoes. i made a fair statement. the artists are giving u a listen..why take advantage of that, beyond reason? stealing is stealing. i stand by that. of course ur going to think that my comparisons are bad, cus ur ok with the file sharing. if it's not a bad thing, how come these people who do it, deny it, at first? they obviously know they're doin something they shouldn't. the potential for profiting from distributing is enormous, and of course people have done that. and the artists saw nothing from that. why give them the space to do stuff like that? by the way, i didn't bring up guilt, you did, so u must know something ain't quite right with doing this. if i wasn't saying something legit, then the question of guilt would never enter your mind, no matter what i said. and i'm not hurting u by making this statement. if anything i'm serving u, cus i'm speaking on behalf of the economy. YOUR economy. we are all interconnected. i think you know this. the state of California was looking all gloomy, talking about how they ran out of money. then a smile came to their face when they were reminded that the ENTERTAINMENT industry is a thirty eight billion dollar business in the state, still keeping the state afloat. so, if the people of that state decide to screw with that last vestige? not a good idea. but, of course, people are screwing with it. movies as well as music downloading piracy, bootlegging ad infinitum, and making profits from it. so you see..give an inch...they take a mile. starts with file sharing and goes from there. it's in peoples' nature. you see how the forbidden guy got caught downloading movies, by Fox.

youtube is our mtv. the artists understand that, and for the most part they are with that. why isn't it enough? we get a little free, so we want a LOT of free. that's my point. youtube has been enough for me. i don't see why it can't be enough for someone else. people have gone way beyond youtube, despite youtube being there. why would i wanna do something that may jeopardize my music enjoyment, altogether?

Superstition said:
Do you think file sharing has cost the record companies/artists as much as they say it has, and do you think nearly 2 million dollars for sharing 24 songs is a fair judgement?
Click to expand...

the companies said they're seeking settlements. they're trying hard to settle with people. they're just trying a wake up call, that's all.
 
Last edited:
^ Fox News, who Friedman worked for, is owned by the same company that owns 20th Century Fox, which distributed X-Men Origins: Wolverine, the film that Friedman watched. So, the question is really did he get fired for downloading an illegal copy of a movie, or did he get fired for downloading an illegal copy of THEIR movie?

After all, Fox News never had a problem with him slandering people. But that is beside the point. I have a feeling he wasn't fired so much for downloading a movie, but rather he was fired for downloading that particular movie.
 
Superstition said:
^ Fox News, who Friedman worked for, is owned by the same company that owns 20th Century Fox, which distributed X-Men Origins: Wolverine, the film that Friedman watched. So, the question is really did he get fired for downloading an illegal copy of a movie, or did he get fired for downloading an illegal copy of THEIR movie?

After all, Fox News never had a problem with him slandering people. But that is beside the point. I have a feeling he wasn't fired so much for downloading a movie, but rather he was fired for downloading that particular movie.
Click to expand...

well..the principal is, that he did the downloading that they didn't want him to do. and then again, you bring up my general point. he got just deserts for putting out negative energy, in any case.
 
im not guilty for a thing. if i like it, i buy it. if i don't, i delete it. plain and simple.

this judgement will NOT stand and all it shows is the big bad ass companies picking on the little man. as if sales aren't low enough, show us how lame u are and people really will start downloading.

sorry but music quality has gone DOWN prices have gone UP. who's fault is that? ours? if i wanna save a note on a lame cd, then a download will help me save that. maybe the artist should try actually putting out good music.

and most of these 'artists' don't make their money from their music. it's other things, that's y everyone has a clothing line, everyone has a fragrance...it's insane but it's how they make their money. most of the money goesback to the label...that's y they're suing.
 
Soso Deaf said:
im not guilty for a thing. if i like it, i buy it. if i don't, i delete it. plain and simple.

this judgement will NOT stand and all it shows is the big bad ass companies picking on the little man. as if sales aren't low enough, show us how lame u are and people really will start downloading.

sorry but music quality has gone DOWN prices have gone UP. who's fault is that? ours? if i wanna save a note on a lame cd, then a download will help me save that. maybe the artist should try actually putting out good music.

and most of these 'artists' don't make their money from their music. it's other things, that's y everyone has a clothing line, everyone has a fragrance...it's insane but it's how they make their money. most of the money goesback to the label...that's y they're suing.
Click to expand...

well that's my point. the artists are coming up with other ways, cus they're getting robbed via download. so..if ur lookin for good music and ur starving for it, ur not gunna get it, cus the artist figures ull steal it. lol

and i'm sorry...u can't be considered the 'little guy' if ur a thief. it's hard to feel sorry for a thief. u usually will always stay down in 'little guy' status, if u do things u shouldn't do.

and if the music sucks, then i don't listen to it. i just listen to sports or somn. then, when i find something good, i'll pay attention to it. usually, that way i find somn good, and i don't get frustrated enough to do somn underhanded. there's a lot of good music out there, if u know where to look.

u know why these artists are staying big? cus they are parlaying something negative into something positive. since when is singing about an umbrella a negative thing? and since when is what Hova is doing...relaying his troubled experiences into rhythm, a negative thing? and instead of stealing, they decide to parlay their success into a clothing line? what's wrong with that? it's better than stealing.

remember, Hova was once a 'little guy' in a little guy's hood. then he decided to do somn about it. now he's a big guy. i commend that. instead of sentencing himself to a whole life of stealing, he decided to do somn positive.
 
Last edited:
mr. hova was a crack dealer so he was never a lil guy....he was a predator then and he's pretty lame now. becomming too ambitious and doesn't realize the economy is struggling.

also, how can i know the music is good unless i listen first? we are teh little man cuz we don't make money off of this. we pay $20 for an album that took a month to record, $1 to make and not a lot to distribute...we're th eones getting screwed that's y they're wisingup and selling albums by the single...we can pick which songs to buy cuz the whole albums usually suck.

i don't feel sorry for artist putting out crappy clothing lables (wentz, lavinge, shady) and putting out crappymusic and dictating what the next trend will be. it's strange that a lot of celebs now have more staying power than they would've ten yrs ago. just strange.

people stopped buying music cuz music isn't the same anymore. teh quality is gone
 
ok, well..people are gunna think what they wanna think, but all i can say is, i've learned, that whatever negative energy i put out, comes back to me.

so i ain't gunna go out and steal from anybody, or justify stealin from anybody.

if the artist offers me a preview(which is, by the way, how i preview stuff) then i'll gladly enjoy it.

and i'm sure ur gunna not agree that this practice that u condone doesn't have a domino effect, such as the performance tax that is being a threat to free radio...but it does. ur gunna find that u will appreciate what u may end up losing, musically.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top