Maybe Tommy Lee isn't so crazy after all.....

ultmetal wrote:

I went into a big chain bookstore and started photocopying all the books and magazines I wanted to read. They told me I wasn't allowed to do that. I said, "why? I'm not stealing, I'm just making copies." Then security grabbed my ass and showed me the door.

Were they cute?

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

ultmetal wrote:

I went into a big chain bookstore and started photocopying all the books and magazines I wanted to read. They told me I wasn't allowed to do that. I said, "why? I'm not stealing, I'm just making copies." Then security grabbed my ass and showed me the door.

Were they cute?

rawr! wrote:

Eyesore wrote:

Only young people offer up such stupid arguments. At best it's semantics, the exploitation of words defined centuries before things such as digital downloading were ever conceived. At worst, it's ignorant justification for being a new-age thief.

words change in meaning century to century (and this is documented by the dictionary), your word just doesnt happen to mean what you wish it meant. if you think an in depth explanation of philosophical divergence is "a stupid argument" then i guess theres nothing more i can do for you. if you cant see the obvious validity of alternatives to capitalistic based views of thought and ownership, thats a personal failing, not a problem of mine. i have no problem seeing how capitalism works and how the theory of intellectual property makes capitalism easier, i didnt think itd be very difficult for someone else to comprehend both sides of the issue.

also, to counter your argument, plenty of older people, especially philosophers, disagree with thought/art commotidization, so your statement that "only young people offer up such stupid arguments" is fallacious in yet another way. whoops.

redbroyer wrote:

rawr! wrote:

if people treated music like art for once instead of commoditizing it and reducing it to a product the situation would be far different.

like sculptures or paintings that sell for hundreds, thousands, or millions of dollars?

or perhaps poetry or books that are works of art that sell much like music for $5, $10, or significantly more?

i've had this intellectual property discussion at work many, many times. intellectual property is seen as something for the masses, until it's YOUR intellectual property that is taken and used without your permission.

yes, pictures of art, like sculptures or books, that rich people (or anyone else) would pay outrageous amounts for should be free for the public. like libraries. (oh no, not free copyrighted material!) there is a difference between personal enjoyment and other uses---like making a car advertisement---(though many other uses would be absent in a noncapitalistic society), for one clarification, but i offer my art for free to people that dont offer to pay for my creative time as compensation for my efforts. i am an artist from a family of artists and i dont think it makes a difference whose art we are talking about: thought/art commoditization is simply invalid. it can be convenient, and help serve interests and systems, but at the end of the day its all make believe and needs to be subject to a revolution. the revolution has already begun, with a whole generation realizing that intellectual property is clearly not the same as physical property and shouldnt be treated as such.

James B. wrote:

did I read that government doesn't consider downloading music as theft

yes, you did. i cant speak for other governments, but the united states government considers illicit music uploading/downloading as copyright infringement because it ISNT theft. not by the legal definition or dictionary definition, anyway, just by people trying to equate two things they see as similar when clear differences exist. you guys can level whatever metaphors you want, but that doesnt somehow make it literally true.

ultmetal wrote:

It's pretty simple, If you takes something that does not belong to you without paying for it when payment is expected, you are stealing.

making a copy of a file isnt taking something that doesnt belong to you. i dont know how much more clear i can be on that. the file belongs to you, its your file, not anyone elses. as ive covered in previous posts, whether or not a person or group of people can own all manifestations of a certain idea is a philosophical question, not a matter of common sense. and, as ive also covered, it is a place where millions, if not billions, of people disagree. as for the second part, payment can be expected for tons of different things, that doesnt automatically mean payment is owed. you can go to a church service and then not put anything in the offering plate when its a church whose pastors salary is directly taken from collections. there may be the expectation from members that you support the pastor, after all he DID preach for you and do whatever else during the service to make everything happen. you got something for free when other people wanted you to pay, are you a thief?

exact33 wrote:

rawr! wrote:

ultmetal wrote:

rawr! wrote:

copyright infringement (downloading music) isnt theft---

Sure it is. You took something that wasn't yours (in this case a MP3 of a song) and put in on your computer without paying for it. That's theft.

in that case, taking a picture of a building and putting it on your computer without paying for it is theft as well. making a copy of something is not the same thing as taking something. if we could make a million copies of a sandwich and feed a bunch of people that were about to starve to death, are they stealing the original sandwich even though the person owning that sandwich could still go ahead and eat it whenever he likes? by your logic here, yes. the government doesnt recognize music downloading and uploading as theft and it seems kind of silly to put it in that category in general speech when nothing is being removed (physically, digitally, or in any sense) and nobody is being deprived of the property in question---key elements of the definition of "theft" if you go to the dictionary. whether or not music in general, as opposed to specific physical/digital copies, "belongs" to someone is a philosophical quagmire where absolute statements are beyond tenuous. you can try to make a persuasive argument as to why certain ideas, manifest or not, should be magically regarded as belonging to someone, but the entire theory of ownership youre working with is just a bunch of bullsh*t. its arbitrary and theres no good reason it should be followed in place of another, (especially if another has greater utility and speaks more to the personal ideals of adherants, such as freedom or community). if you want to use the word "theft" in a way the dictionary doesnt jive with just to make downloading look bad or to try to compare it to the socially unacceptable act of stealing, that just opens up the game for me to bend words as well. perhaps i could say paying for music is theft on the part of those receiving funds because art and ideas cant realistically be doled out or hoarded like physical objects because they are transcendent in many important ways.

The great lengths people go to justify downloading music illegally never ceases to amaze me. It is really quite simple - want to listen to the music? Buy it. If you like mp3s - buy them. If you like cds - buy them. If you like records - buy them. A label/band is being deprived of their property when you take it without their permission. They have put in the time, effort and expense to create the product, and they justly hold ownership over how and when it can be distributed and to whom. You are removing the owners (by contractual mutual agreement between the artist and label) ability to control and determine how a resource is to be used, which meets the definition of theft.

i wish you actually addressed my arguments instead of spouting off the standard bs. ill break this down into a couple sections for you.

1. sometimes buying is impossible. this could be in terms of finances, in terms of physical availability, or in terms of personal or moral values. the third one is somewhat important here, but none of these are the real issues.

2. NOBODY is "being deprived of their property when" illegal music uploading or downloading takes place. thats a simple fact. making a copy of something is not the same as taking something. you have in no way made any convincing arguments as to why they should be treated the same.

3. one of the main issues here, as ive said many times, is the fact that intellectual property is a nonexistent/imaginary connection that lots of people simply dont believe in, especially the majority of anarchists. im not a slave to capitalism and i refuse to act like one. i think i pretty much covered all the options in my original post arguing for my position. you have a bunch of bullsh*t rhetoric that comes out to "less freedom" and i to "more freedom" in some very particular and important ways. ive already explained the ways and talked about how its nothing but philosophy. it has nothing to do with whether or not someone wants something for free or whether or not someone is lazy or whether or not artists feel entitled to be payed for their work. it comes down to philosophy. your philosophy is weak, my philosophy is gaining traction because people are seeing that your philosophy is weak, and thats pretty much as far as we can go with it. sure, the establishment will sit around collecting dust and trying to bust people for years and years more, but capitalism is failed experiment and all the suffering and death will hopefully lead to change.

exact33 wrote:

rawr! wrote:

Troublezone wrote:

Those that think downloading (without paying the artist) "isn't stealing" are the ones that put us in the position we're in now. Even though some of the record labels were greedy... at least there was an industry and music stores.

wrong, its capitalists that have put us in the position we are in right now. if we had a system where artists had the services and accomodations (be it a matter of funding or direct interfacing) they needed to make their art and the output was always free, the material would be flowing and everyone would be happy. but capitalism isnt about everyone being happy, its about the strong taking advantage of the weak, and everyone using each other. many people who download still buy, be it albums, dvds, shirts, show tickets, or whatever else, so the model of music automatically needing to cost the art consumer money just for a band to get by even in this failing experiment of capitalism is ludicrous, as well. many bands, as im sure you are all aware, purposely offer all their material for free.

if people treated music like art for once instead of commoditizing it and reducing it to a product the situation would be far different.

and where exactly does one get the resources for recording? They just dont grow on trees. Someone has to build, maintain and improve the resources. where is the money for that coming from? If artists pay for the recording themselves and want to give it out for free as art - go right ahead. Its their choice. I, however, like being paid for my talents and abilities so i can make economic choices for my family. I dont want to do all the work and have someone come and in take it without me being compensated for it. Socialism and many of the other systems are ideal - until you run out of other peoples money.

money is not a necessary convenience. artists can, in alternative systems to capitalism, record without cost. no money. artists nowadays do it sometimes, too. however, as i clearly pointed out in the latter part of my post, there are all sorts of different ways to raise revenue without requiring payment for music, as a practicality in the world people like you force us to live in. donations, shirts, show tickets, etc. this is assuming it is correct for artists to make the fans to pay for the music they make....thats a big assumption and could be the subject of a whole nother thread. but in the end, you have no real reason to blame ME for capitalisms failing artists just because i think intellectual property is invalid. its YOUR system, not mine. if you want change, how about backing a system that works.

Dude. Shut up.

exact33 wrote:

rawr! wrote:

exact33 wrote:

The great lengths people go to justify downloading music illegally never ceases to amaze me. It is really quite simple - want to listen to the music? Buy it. If you like mp3s - buy them. If you like cds - buy them. If you like records - buy them. A label/band is being deprived of their property when you take it without their permission. They have put in the time, effort and expense to create the product, and they justly hold ownership over how and when it can be distributed and to whom. You are removing the owners (by contractual mutual agreement between the artist and label) ability to control and determine how a resource is to be used, which meets the definition of theft.

i wish you actually addressed my arguments instead of spouting off the standard bs. ill break this down into a couple sections for you.

1. sometimes buying is impossible. this could be in terms of finances, in terms of physical availability, or in terms of personal or moral values. the third one is somewhat important here, but none of these are the real issues.

2. NOBODY is "being deprived of their property when" illegal music uploading or downloading takes place. thats a simple fact. making a copy of something is not the same as taking something. you have in no way made any convincing arguments as to why they should be treated the same.

3. one of the main issues here, as ive said many times, is the fact that intellectual property is a nonexistent/imaginary connection that lots of people simply dont believe in, especially the majority of anarchists. im not a slave to capitalism and i refuse to act like one. i think i pretty much covered all the options in my original post arguing for my position. you have a bunch of bullsh*t rhetoric that comes out to "less freedom" and i to "more freedom" in some very particular and important ways. ive already explained the ways and talked about how its nothing but philosophy. it has nothing to do with whether or not someone wants something for free or whether or not someone is lazy or whether or not artists feel entitled to be payed for their work. it comes down to philosophy. your philosophy is weak, my philosophy is gaining traction because people are seeing that your philosophy is weak, and thats pretty much as far as we can go with it. sure, the establishment will sit around collecting dust and trying to bust people for years and years more, but capitalism is failed experiment and all the suffering and death will hopefully lead to change.

kinda like how people who steal spout off the same lame excuses while trying to justify themselves. As to your points:

1. If you cannot afford it, pass on by. My wantlist has a ton on it and I cant afford to go out and buy it all at once so I am patient until a trade or some cash comes around. Its really not that hard. I dont like that Frontiers charges so much for a cd so a lot of times Ill find a copy used. If a physical copy is not available, buy the download. most newer material is available for purchase digitally. As for the third point - not much I can say if you prefer to steal from others.

you have done NOTHING to show that downloading is stealing. i, on the other hand, have pointed out reasons why copying is distinct from theft/stealing, and have also appealed to 1. us law, and 2. the dictionary. obviously you will go on calling it what you want, but you merely have unfounded accusations whereas i have defended philosophical positions. i wish this was a debate instead of one person with arguments and a bunch of people with failed rhetoric. apparently "lame excuses" is code for "explicated and defended positions". maybe you should try some.

Quote :

2. You are depriving someone of their property when you make decisions on how it is to be used.

this is an anti-intellectual property argument, thanks for agreeing with me for once! intellectual property tells people what they can and cant do with things THEY OWN THEMSELVES based on the claim that someone can have the right to the manifestation of an intangible idea. you still havent managed to work your way up to building a philosophical argument for intellectual property, but at least youre pointing out why it sucks. once again, the burden of proof is on YOU to show why copies of something that have completely different origins, existences, and implications in the world should be called equal to an original and be treated equally.

by downloading something, i am not in any way affecting the property of any other person on the entire planet. i am not preventing anyone from doing anything, there is no deprivation going on. why? because the physical property belongs to me. just because the arragement of the physical property that is mine was created by someone else doesnt mean they get to tell me what i can or cant do with it. if i went to your house and built a collage out of your cds, would that collage be mine just because i created it? no, theyre your cds and you get to decide what is done with them. and youd have every right to be pissed off that i was messing around with stuff that physically belonged to you.

Quote :

The person who owns the music holds the right to distribute it for whatever price they feel they can get for it. You are taking away that property right when you download it for free - because they did not authorize you to use the material in the manner in which you are doing, violating their property rights. You can pretend that copyright doesnt exist, but that doesnt make it so.

you can pretend intellectual property rights exist, but that doesnt make it so. artists works are copyrighted as soon as they take some physical form, and the theory of intellectual property is that people who dont own my stuff can suddenly tell me what i can and cant do with it in some very specific ways. intellectual property rights are a violation of my tangible property rights! i choose to believe in rights that make sense and have the best purpose. tangible property rights are based on the notion of limited availability. if we could manifest an infinite amount of anything we want, property rights would become useless. intellectual property is NOT based on limited availability---anyone can implement an idea if they have the resources to do so, and they can implement that idea without taking away the original creator/inventors (or anyone elses) ability to implement the idea. (ergo, you were completely wrong in saying "You are taking away that property right when you download it for free" because my getting a copy of it for free does not prevent anyone from charging money for a different copy of it.) you have made no convincing arguments as to why i should let other people control the ones and zeroes on MY hard drive. why should i let someone violate my tangible property rights? (and this is for the sake of argument, i dont necessarily believe in property rights.) you have not given any philosophical foundation for your theory of intellectual property rights and you have thus far been extremely unconvincing.

Quote :

3. anarchists make it sound nice - eliminate the state, and authorities but when you ask 10 anarchists what they mean by anarchy, you are going to get 10 different answers.

youll get 10 different answers if you ask someone what they mean by most ANY form of popular government......anarchy, democracy, communism, etc. politics involve details, and details are divisive....whats your point?

Quote :

The reality is that anarchy, when played out in real life, boils down to might makes right. Plain and simple. you can dress it up in nice terms and thoughts but in the end, whoever has the biggest stick will win. Anarchists like to tout how evil capitalism is, but they offer no real solutions.

uh...every social and political system is "might makes right". anarchy, regardless, IS a solution insofar as its a vast improvement, and anarchists have created communities that have successfully thrived in the past. id say an elimination of state sponsored oppression, torture, killing, extortion, etc is a fair bit of progress! (and thats not all, of course.)

as for a solution to a wealth of other problems, such as poverty, untreated illness, starvation, most war, etc, an abandoning of capitalism (profit-oriented production, exploitation of workers, money, etc) would be an easy cure. humanity could progress without present limitations that prevent us from creating new technologies, cures for diseases, breakthroughs in understanding the nature of the universe, etc. (and, to note, one thing limiting all of those wonderful outcomes is INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LEGISLATION. thanks a lot for shitting on the world, eh?)

ultmetal wrote:

I went into a big chain bookstore and started photocopying all the books and magazines I wanted to read. They told me I wasn't allowed to do that. I said, "why? I'm not stealing, I'm just making copies." Then security grabbed my ass and showed me the door.

just because copyright infringement is illegal (and not theft) doesnt make it wrong. or should martin luther king, jr just burn in hell along with all those other evil people participating in civil disobedience.

Fat Freddy wrote:

Dude. Shut up.

i am astounded by such in depth understanding and overwhelming philosophical arguments! perhaps this is a debate after all!

Hey rawr,

Since you obviously have a lot of time on your hands... Try spending a year writing an album (and recording it with your own funds) and then give it away for free.

Individuals or businesses have a right to make a profit and prosper... No one needs to be told by a government or socialist minded person that they should give their work away for free just because of some crackpot ideas.

There is nothing wrong with capitalism it's the healthcare system that needs fixing. The concept of capitalism is that those that put in the time and hard work can have a rewarding payoff. Socialism wants to spread the wealth to undeserving parasites.

I didn't say anything about "sin" or burning in hell. Don't even care that people download MP3s. In my case, I'm usually just glad someone is diggin' on my music. I'm really not all that anal about this to tell you the truth. I do find it amusing that people will fight tooth and nail for their "right" to download music without paying for it, or at least try and justify why it's ok to do so. The only people who seem to get upset at someone calling it stealing are those who regularly partake in it's practice.

I download MP3s rarely to check out a new band. Usually, however, I'll just go listen on YouTube or something. If I like an artist, I feel the need to buy the product. I guess it's a sign of my age. I like the physical product. I feel like I own a piece of the band, a piece of the music, a piece of history. I worked my tail off as a teenager mowing lawns and raking leaves and was happy as a clam to run down to the local record and plop down my cash for a record. It's mine! I bought it. I hung out in the record stores and loved checking out the new releases that way. It was a cool experience, one that is ultimately gone. I've spent decades collecting music. I enjoy the collecting of it as much as the music itself at times. Nothing like scoring that rare record that you've been searching out for months or years.

My many teenage nieces and nephews don't think twice about loading up their MP3 players with music they didn't pay for. They even laugh when I suggest that they should pay for it. That's the current mentality. It's sad IMO. They won't ever have that experience that I had. Music to them is disposable. You listen to it until you are tired of it and throw it out for the next piece of crap corporate hit single.

MP3s are for sale legally at many sites. You can buy them, support the artists and labels that create the music, or you can just take them without paying for them. Call it "copyright infringement", "stealing", "Illegal downloading", "your right", "Intellectual properly" or whatever you want to label it. One supports the arts, the other takes from it. One is legal, the other is illegal.

That's my opinion on the subject.

Quote :

if people treated music like art for once instead of commoditizing it and reducing it to a product the situation would be far different.

So you don't think artists should make a living off their art?
What services do you offer society for free?

Quote :

My many teenage nieces and nephews don't think twice about loading up their MP3 players with music they didn't pay for. They even laugh when I suggest that they should pay for it. That's the current mentality. It's sad IMO. They won't ever have that experience that I had. Music to them is disposable. You listen to it until you are tired of it and throw it out for the next piece of crap corporate hit single.

MP3s are for sale legally at many sites. You can buy them, support the artists and labels that create the music, or you can just take them without paying for them. Call it "copyright infringement", "stealing", "Illegal downloading", "your right", "Intellectual properly" or whatever you want to label it. One supports the arts, the other takes from it. One is legal, the other is illegal.

Unfortunately kids today play follow the leader and do whatever their friends do... No one thinks for themselves or considers the struggling band or artist that made the music. If a band chooses to give their music away for free, then that's great! (but I think it's usually just a promotional thing at first)

I seriously wonder what some of you are like in person.

Troublezone wrote:

Hey rawr,

Since you obviously have a lot of time on your hands... Try spending a year writing an album (and recording it with your own funds) and then give it away for free.

when i record music, and i will, it will be free for those who want it for free. i create music using computers and instruments and have been in bands. ive recorded music outside of a formal studio (which required the purchase of a guitar, amp, computer, etc) and shared it for free, though it was not in final form, ie an album. i spend hours every week on creating music and dont have a problem with sharing it for free. i really dont understand what everyone is trying to do by telling me it would be different if i were the one supposed to make a buck. i should probably be offended at your collective (this isnt the first time its come up) judgement. as ive stated before, im not against bands receiving money for their effort, but i think it should be donations, not forcible pat-downs. my songs are free to hear, my poetry is free to read, my photography, digital art, and fractals are free to view. i think this is a necessary step in the evolution of humanity into something greater than we are today.

Quote :

If you want socialism or communism... there are plenty of countries you can take your pick from.

i want an abolition of church, state, and a restructuring of the economy to completely eliminate capitalism while replacing it with a moneyless, unpoliticized needs-dependent system. this is not presently found in any country save small anarchist communities.

Troublezone wrote:

Individuals or businesses have a right to make a profit and prosper... No one needs to be told by a government or socialist minded person that they should give their work away for free just because of some crackpot ideas.

what gives individuals or businesses the right to make a profit and prosper? your ideas are just as crackpot as anyone elses, its all completely arbitrary. what ive been trying to come back to in this thread is touchstones like utility. im talking about theories that, when put into practice, can save people from dying of starvation that capitalism has left out cold, for example. the fruits of capitalism are a world plagued with social and economic problems that largely didnt exist before things like government and intellectual property rights.

Quote :

There is nothing wrong with capitalism it's the healthcare system that needs fixing.

the healthcare system doesnt save all those lost in wars due to capitalism. the healthcare system doesnt prevent systematic poverty that is pretty much mandated by a system where people take advantage of one another instead of working towards a common goal---a system where an entire class of people is exploited for the profit of the small percentage of rich.

Quote :

The concept of capitalism is that those that put in the time and hard work can have a rewarding payoff. Socialism wants to spread the wealth to undeserving parasites.

a lot of socialists believe you should be compensated to the extent that you work, similar to capitalism. the twist is that profits arent stolen from the workers because the workers own the factories. instead of making $8 for something that sells for $40, youre making $35 or whatever. if you read about socialism and the goal of socialism, its all about working. that said, im not a socialist.

ultmetal wrote:

I didn't say anything about "sin" or burning in hell. Don't even care that people download MP3s. In my case, I'm usually just glad someone is diggin' on my music. I'm really not all that anal about this to tell you the truth. I do find it amusing that people will fight tooth and nail for their "right" to download music without paying for it, or at least try and justify why it's ok to do so. The only people who seem to get upset at someone calling it stealing are those who regularly partake in it's practice.

I download MP3s rarely to check out a new band. Usually, however, I'll just go listen on YouTube or something. If I like an artist, I feel the need to buy the product. I guess it's a sign of my age. I like the physical product. I feel like I own a piece of the band, a piece of the music, a piece of history. I worked my tail off as a teenager mowing lawns and raking leaves and was happy as a clam to run down to the local record and plop down my cash for a record. It's mine! I bought it. I hung out in the record stores and loved checking out the new releases that way. It was a cool experience, one that is ultimately gone. I've spent decades collecting music. I enjoy the collecting of it as much as the music itself at times. Nothing like scoring that rare record that you've been searching out for months or years.

My many teenage nieces and nephews don't think twice about loading up their MP3 players with music they didn't pay for. They even laugh when I suggest that they should pay for it. That's the current mentality. It's sad IMO. They won't ever have that experience that I had. Music to them is disposable. You listen to it until you are tired of it and throw it out for the next piece of crap corporate hit single.

MP3s are for sale legally at many sites. You can buy them, support the artists and labels that create the music, or you can just take them without paying for them. Call it "copyright infringement", "stealing", "Illegal downloading", "your right", "Intellectual properly" or whatever you want to label it. One supports the arts, the other takes from it. One is legal, the other is illegal.

That's my opinion on the subject.

i think something valuable has definitely been lost in the diminishing ability to have "the record store experience" and all that that entails. im not against buying music, im against being forced to pay for it. i think youve made some plenty valid points and my only issue with you is what i bolded. i dont feel that downloading music is not supporting the arts. getting a bands name and music out into the world and enjoying the art someone has created is definitely supporting the arts. just because youre not doing it with your wallet doesnt mean its not valid. i think an artist is most genuine when they want their music to be heard of and experienced by everyone interested completely regardless of the logistics. is it nice to recoup? sure! but that doesnt justify limiting expression. legality is arbitrary, and beyond that, oftentimes fickle. laws are generally just an expression of the power of those who have the ability to greatly influence society. "might makes right", as was said before. oh, but one more thing about this comment

Quote :

The only people who seem to get upset at someone calling it stealing are those who regularly partake in it's practice.

kind of like the only people who complain about about the water being shut off to their houses for public work are those with the water shut off to their houses. if someone isnt knowledgeable about the distinction, and especially if someone is unoffended by the lack of distinction, of course things will be the way they are. theres propaganda everywhere trying to convince people that copyright infringement is the same thing as stealing. id say thats evidence of a few things. 1. people want to brainwash us for their purposes, and they will sometimes succeed 2. a lot of people still disagree with their conclusion. perhaps not everyone is well versed in the philosophy of it all, but on the common sense level, people see a difference, and will continue to.

Troublezone wrote:

So you don't think artists should make a living off their art?

i never said that, i said specific ways of getting money out of people are invalid. i think capitalism should be abolished and that all artists should be given the resources to pursue and distribute their art by the community.

Quote :

What services do you offer society for free?

im open to pretty much anything. ive done lots of community service and devote a large bulk of my time to peer counseling and have for years. (that may sound soft, but ive literally saved lives, if that means anything to you. i have a background in psychology and life experiences that are invaluable.) these questions are getting very personal and a little strange feeling.

Troublezone wrote:

Unfortunately kids today play follow the leader and do whatever their friends do... No one thinks for themselves or considers the struggling band or artist that made the music. If a band chooses to give their music away for free, then that's great! (but I think it's usually just a promotional thing at first)

or maybe people realize the truth: art should be free, and intellectual property is a sham. i empathize with struggling bands, and i support them by buying music and shirts, going to shows, spreading the word, and most important of all, listening to their music, but their situation doesnt somehow make the former truths untrue.

Alllllll righty, this B.S. has gone far beyond stoooopid. THREAD LOCKED!