Page: 1 
luketabor
Show profile
Link to this post
Just curious, why don't you use bittorrent?
I realize that the corporations get most of the money from content purchases. I don't think that is an excuse to not make the purchase.
And yet you still feel entitled to benefit from the product they produce? I have no love for the RIAA and their tactics, but luckily almost all of the music I enjoy comes from non-member labels so I have no moral quandries when it comes to buying CDs (which I do, a lot). But even if that wasn't the case, if I choose not to do business with someone on principle I believe I have to accept the flipside which is that I don't get whatever it is they are making.Of COURSE it's a good reason to not make the purchase. I cannot, in good conscience and on good principle, purchase a product provided by a company that uses lawsuits as a major revenue source
I think you overestimate how hard it is. I've used Bittorrent exactly three times ever: SXSW2005, SXSW2006, and SXSW2007. Each year a version of Bittorrent seemed to be available that was lots of numbers more than the previous year's version, so I upgraded each time. I try to be a good netizen by uploading at least as much as I download, but that does take ages on a home connection where I get up to 200kbytes/s down but only 12kbytes/s up. That's all the "worrying about torrent stats" I ever did. I'm guessing that all this "only let you in if you're sharing blah much" crap I sometimes hear about is only for the copyright-violation torrent groups.Quote by jaw2ek:Could I bittorrent just to get freely available material (such as SXSW)? Sure. But to be honest, A part of me can't be bothered setting it up and having to worry about my torrent stats, etc.
I don't even know what that means.Quote by urbancontra:Sure I can benefit from the product. I don't feel bad about pursuing other avenues at all. I didn't say I was lawful good here.
No, the RIAA don't own anything. Surely you've worked this out by now, the RIAA are a lobbying trade group whose MEMBERS are the labels. That's a pretty fundamental difference.The RIAA doesn't DO anything but secure their own interest. They don't make anything. The own the rights to something that was made FOR them.
Notice that I only used stealing in quotes? That means I was quoting, not using that word myself. I've heard the "copyright infringement is not theft" argument at least 50 quadrillion times, thanks, I know all about it. And the reason you should give them your money is extremely simple. You obviously want the music (or why waste bandwidth on it?) and thus I imagine you must have some modicum of respect and support for those making it. Those people have decided (by signing with a label) that they want to be recompensed through CD sales etc. Doesn't matter what you think about the label in question, the artist wants you to pay them. By not doing so you are directly going against their wishes. As someone who actually creates stuff for a living myself, you can imagine how I feel about people who want to benefit from what I create without respecting my wishes (whatever they might be).Why should I give them my money? I don't give two shits about their racket. I'm not depriving anyone of their property (you did use the word "stealing", which you have to know by now that it's not).
Domestic terrorism? Oh please, if you haven't just broken some subclause of Godwin's Law it needs an amendment.Do yourself a favor and stop funding domestic terrorism.
![[Image: http://biomoose.com/pics/bug.gif]](http://biomoose.com/pics/bug.gif "http://biomoose.com/pics/bug.gif")
Quote by urbancontra:@radish: You have tons of completely valid points that I tried to avoid. Yes, freeloading is morally reprehensible, but I never claimed any moral high ground, and I couldn't in this case if I really cared to take morals in consideration. I'd love to pay for the music I listen to, but I'm just not going to with the current distribution channel. If your band has signed to a label that is an RIAA member, you're simply not going to see the 50 cent profit that my sale would generate.
Implying that the artists I listen to would vanish without the RIAA, though, is simply fallacious. If they didn't join an independent label, an alternative distribution channel (i.e. MagnaTune) would certainly spring up in the place of the major labels.
The domestic terrorism quip was certainly in jest, but it's not far from the truth. It is completely valid to say that the RIAA's purpose is to protect their artists, and I can respect that, but I can't repsect that they get rich while the artist stays poor, and I can't respect their assault on their own customers. They claim that they are being damaged by piracy while ignoring the hard data that clearly shows that piracy isn't the problem. I glossed over your paragraph because it commits this fallacy. It's an argument based on inference and doesn't take any DATA into consideration. We all learned in economics 101 that the lower the price something is, the more people will tolerate crap. People will choke down anything if they don't have to pay for it. They just have to invest their time (and they can still listen to it while they play Halo and do bong hits). The RIAA is quite obviously using this argument as a front for their greed. They're clamping down on consumers' rights and hampering technological process. They're trying to kill internet radio, a medium that actually provides them with an effortless marketing channel, for God's sake.
I don't care who I'm "hurting". The real damage is coming from a far more insidious source.
I just don't buy your "take it our leave it" argument. The fact is, there's other options whether you or I deem them despicable or not. Even if I didn't download music illegally, I would still be the rightful owner of a license to a band's music if I purchased their CD used and they wouldn't see a penny from me. Is buying used CDs or books morally reprehensible? Some would say so. I'm still on the fence.
I love art and I respect you infinitely for creating it. I just hope that your moral superiority would lead you to make a better choice than to work for an organization like the RIAA, and if you did and I enjoyed your material, I'd be happy to pay you for it. In fact, I'd send a check to your house. Whatever got you the most money.
That they are being 'damaged' is not a fallacy in the sense that they are getting less money than they would without 'piracy'. There are undoubtedly some number of people who would only have access to the music they acquire through 'piracy' by buying it were 'piracy' not an option. Sure some number of others would just do without, but that does not make it false. It only makes for weak rationalizations for acquiring music 'illegally'.They claim that they are being damaged by piracy while ignoring the hard data that clearly shows that piracy isn't the problem.
![[Image: http://imagegen.last.fm/lastfmblue/recenttracks/5/reverendtoby.gif]](http://imagegen.last.fm/lastfmblue/recenttracks/5/reverendtoby.gif "http://imagegen.last.fm/lastfmblue/recenttracks/5/reverendtoby.gif")
That makes sense, Peter.Quote by Peter:I'm guessing that all this "only let you in if you're sharing blah much" crap I sometimes hear about is only for the copyright-violation torrent groups.
I find it curious that your answer is NOT to use the better distribution methods that you go on about. So what you're saying is you hate the practices of these people (who I agree are about money and not artists or art), therefore everyone should download illegally. WTF does one have to do with the other? Please stop telling me that the answer to being ripped off by corporations is to rip off artists. The fact that you realize and are willing to accept the risks of illegal download shows that you can't make the connection of one to the other.Quote by urbancontra:-I cannot, in good conscience and on good principle, purchase a product provided by a company that uses lawsuits as a major revenue source.
-Hopefully this will jar artists into asking why they need a label to fuck them over when they can deal directly with a distributor. Labels are simply banks with really shitty return rates. Hopefully they'll die out. The internet is the new distribution method.
-That's how you sell records, not by scaring people into buying them.
-1) Obtain the material illegally. 2) Buy used!
I agree. I'm a high school chemistry teacher in a wealthy school district. Do you think my students are filling up their ipods with purchased music? Nope. Limewire, et al. Do they know the consequences of what they do? I doubt it. (Can't say I've tried to educate them about it either.) BTW, I'm sure they know its not legal, but they don't understand all of the income issues (pro and con) that surround it. I think young people see such things as some sort of "the internet is free and belongs to the people" sort of issue. Wake up! That ended a while ago.Quote by Radish:But in reality, the vast majority of people trading music just want to avoid paying for it. They see way to get something for nothing and jump at it.
I have to agree there. There is certainly a rise in artists that are doing there own thing with distribution. The fact that many of them drop what there doing when a major label comes calling shows how insidious it all is. Artists will do the dance when the big labels have the key to their big pay day, no matter how unfairly the revenue is shared. The RIAA and such has a chokehold on these people.Quote by urbancontra:Implying that the artists I listen to would vanish without the RIAA, though, is simply fallacious. If they didn't join an independent label, an alternative distribution channel (i.e. MagnaTune) would certainly spring up in the place of the major labels.
Don't get me started about celebrity-driven culture. It drives me nuts.Quote by John30_06:Who'd have ever thought entertainment was so damned important to humanity?
Quote by John30_06:You know, until this thread, I disliked you, urbancontra. Especially as it seemed lately you were hounding me. But, I've been thin-skinned lately also for no apparent reason than the planets.
I thought you were a snotnosed, shallow brat 2 miles wide and 2 inches deep. I'll admit to being wrong, after reading what you have to say here.
Well, maybe mostly wrong. Well hell....maybe mostly right.
![[Image: http://fukung.net/images/4310/AbortTheFetus.gif]](http://fukung.net/images/4310/AbortTheFetus.gif "http://fukung.net/images/4310/AbortTheFetus.gif")
This post was edited on 2007-03-20, 12:24 by