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

Eyesore wrote:

S.D. wrote:

Eyesore wrote:

S.D. wrote:

The software you use to burn the CDR has more to do with it's compatibility in car stereos and other portable devices.

Ken can think whatever he wants (like that's ever been a problem).

And ignorance is bliss.

so evidently is being a prick.

Yes, I'm being the prick here. Sure.

Fine. you think I'm being a prick, I think you're being a prick. Not much change between us in 3 years. Guess it's how it's always going to be.

S.D. wrote:

Eyesore wrote:

S.D. wrote:

Eyesore wrote:

S.D. wrote:

The software you use to burn the CDR has more to do with it's compatibility in car stereos and other portable devices.

Ken can think whatever he wants (like that's ever been a problem).

And ignorance is bliss.

so evidently is being a prick.

Yes, I'm being the prick here. Sure.

Fine. you think I'm being a prick, I think you're being a prick. Not much change between us in 3 years. Guess it's how it's always going to be.

No. You think I think you're being a prick. If I really thought that, I'd call you a prick.

I simply think you're wrong about CDRs.

okay

Eyesore wrote:

No. You think I think you're being a prick. If I really thought that, I'd call you a prick.

Ha. Quote of the day!

BTW, you're all a bunch of pricks!

S.d. and eyesore both of you need to ask yourselves, what would this man do?

manny wrote:

S.d. and eyesore both of you need to ask yourselves, what would this man do?

He'd agree with me, of course.

Eyesore wrote:

manny wrote:

S.d. and eyesore both of you need to ask yourselves, what would this man do?

He'd agree with me, of course.

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.

Drivel. All of it. Just pseudo-intellectual blabbering meant to mask one simple thing: that what you're doing is wrong. It's all deflection and placing blame everywhere but where it belongs, which is at your feet.

Eyesore wrote:

Drivel. All of it. Just pseudo-intellectual blabbering meant to mask one simple thing: that what you're doing is wrong. It's all deflection and placing blame everywhere but where it belongs, which is at your feet.

Ken, he has a right to his viewpoint and it's not your place to tell him his thoughts are "drivel". I sure as hell wouldn't put up with it and he shouldn't either.

I'm glad he shared his views and I respect him for doing it. I don't agree with all of it...but he has a RIGHT to express them.

This board has some serious f*cking issues with people expressing divergent opinions and it's getting annoying. REALLY annoying.

S.D. wrote:

Eyesore wrote:

Drivel. All of it. Just pseudo-intellectual blabbering meant to mask one simple thing: that what you're doing is wrong. It's all deflection and placing blame everywhere but where it belongs, which is at your feet.

Ken, he has a right to his viewpoint and it's not your place to tell him his thoughts are "drivel". I sure as hell wouldn't put up with it and he shouldn't either.

I'm glad he shared his views and I respect him for doing it. I don't agree with all of it...but he has a RIGHT to express them.

Did I ever say he didn't have a right to express his opinion? I think it's drivel, just meaningless when it comes to the discussion at hand. Who are you to tell me that I can't have my opinion?

Quote :

This board has some serious f*cking issues with people expressing divergent opinions and it's getting annoying. REALLY annoying.

No offense, but this is quite hilarious coming from the person who A) bans people he has issues with under the guise of "people complaining in PMs", B) locks threads when he doesn't want to answer for his abusive actions, and C) totally deletes threads that have replies "expressing divergent opinions" to his own.

But sure, guess I'm being a prick again.

Eyesore wrote:

Drivel. All of it. Just pseudo-intellectual blabbering meant to mask one simple thing: that what you're doing is wrong. It's all deflection and placing blame everywhere but where it belongs, which is at your feet.

im not masking anything, im saying the moral question is at the crux of a PHILOSOPHICAL DEBATE. this is a meeting of concepts. the people on here seem completely oblivious to the fact that not everyone has sold their soul to capitalistic consumerism. there still exists a dialogue as to the validity of intellectual property, whether or not you have the capacity to recognize the components of that argument or the argument itself. is my post "pseudo-intellectual" because you dont understand it or because you dont agree with it? (do you have a problem with all philosophy or just philosophy that threatens your own?) im not afraid to dissent, im not afraid to do what you feel is morally wrong just because you wag your finger or call my arguments stupid and dont have the mind to grasp a world without your control. im not here to hand out moral imperatives, because there arent any. morality is an invention just like intellectual property, and people use it as a means to get what they want. i refuse subjugation, and i strongly encourage others to refuse subjugation as well.

we have encountered some really deep and divisive issues in tackling the idea of downloading music, and nobody in this thread seems to have done much thinking on them beyond passive acceptance. i say that because nobody has any arguments, just slogans and rhetoric. why should work=pay in specific ways? why should people get to own ideas? why is making a copy of something the same as depriving someone of that same something when youre not depriving someone of it? etc. there hasnt been much decent discussion, so far as ive seen. everyone is just in love with capitalism and thats pretty much the end of the story. i guess i cant expect much on a metal board with a bunch of people probably not used to actual rigorous examination of philosophical complexities, but this has just turned out to be a pointless grouping of opinions where the majority hasnt even had the ability to comprehend the contextual validity of the minority statement, which is pretty sad. like i said with my first address, any position you can have on the issue is arbitrary, but there are some real-life reasons why some positions are better than others.

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.

SOME?

when cd's cost approx $1,and prices were inflated, to at least $20 or $25 in the early 1990s, and then in the late 1990s-2002, I remember imports cost towards $30 to $50 ,
I'd say MOST record labels, distributors and record stores were GREEDY.

Thank gawd for napster for crushing fat cats ripping off the bands.

I download a lot, and until I started, I hadn't bought vinyl or cd's for YEARS.
I was burned enough times by shitty records that had only ONE good song I heard on tv or the radio.

Usually an older forgotten band, or an underground band that gets my interest from a download and they seem cool in interviews will get my money.

I stopped supporting price-inflated bands like the Big Four awhile ago (even if I do get curious) but they aren't hurting that much from downloading as fans still sell out their tours and buy their albums, even after they downloaded them.

Quote :

when cd's cost approx $1,and prices were inflated, to at least $20

CDs don't "cost" $1. When you get a single, non-special edition CD from the store or Amazon, a finished, produced, commercial CD of your favorite band, the complete package in your hand most likely cost between $5 and $8 to produce. All associated costs (production, mixing, artwork, layout, pressing, postage, etc) are worked into the price of that CD. Then the store/Amazon has to buy it at usually a 30% markup ($8 + 30% = $10.40 cost to the store), then the store will tack on at least another 30% ($10.40 + 30% = $13.52)...now, $13.52 is a long way from $20, but factor in that there was a time when people did in fact pay $20 for CDs without blinking and you get the $17.99 - $19.99 Cd prices.

Ken - as for CDRs vs. CDs. I don't care about science. I don't care that CDRs may have a shorter shelf life than "real" CDs. I don't care about dyes and degradation. I never tried to argue your so-called "facts" (that you no doubt picked up on the internet, seeing as how I doubt the amount of music you have bought qualifies as scientific training).

YOUR experience in buying tons of music has proven, to you, that you don't want CDRs...fine...whatever.

MY experience in buying the amount of music I have bought on CD since 1991 AND burning a ton of CDRs in the late 90s/early 2000's (including the original blue $h!++y ones) has proven, to me, that to my ears and for my purposes, I can neither see nor hear a difference between a silver pressed CDR and a glass-mastered CD since, as Shawn D. pointed out, 0's and 1's are all the same.

I'm sorry you have had bad experiences with CDRs. I have not.

You will begin to see a trend of independent bands pressing their own physical product (those who choose to do that) and utilizing commercially pressed CDRs that look and sound as good as any standard "real" CD. If you don't want to buy them, don't. But don't act like bands who chose this don't care about quality and are cheapskates and are trying to somehow rip people off. They are just trying to get their music out to people who may enjoy it...they're not out to trick anyone.

Quote :

but this has just turned out to be a pointless grouping of opinions where the majority hasnt even had the ability to comprehend the contextual validity of the minority statement

I was going to remain silent becuase I prefer to get along with others, but that statement rubbed me the wrong way. Insulting people that haven't even been part of your conversation is low. You basically just said that those of us who disagree with you are just too stupid or ignorant (not the words you used but behind your big words is that underliying sentiment). Just because someone hasn't come to the same conclusion as you doesn't mean they haven't looked at other views. I'm a conservative Christian and I have looked at other views yet I still believe what I believe. I may not be an intellectual like you (judging by your use of big words) but that doesn't mean I'm a blind ignorant slave who can't see other points of view. I do understand why you believe what you believe, I just don't agree. It has nothing to do with my inability "to comprehend the contextual validity" of your statement.

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.

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

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. 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.

Yeah Exact, but you are just a mindless sheep to the evil capitalist dogma who still holds on to the illusion of right and wrong.

Holy crap... I will never mention Tommy Lees name ever again! We should probably change his name too when someone write it in just like \"thebandthatshallneverbementionedagain\".

Phoenix Reign Drummer wrote:

Holy crap... I will never mention Tommy Lees name ever again! We should probably change his name too when someone write it in just like \"thebandthatshallneverbementionedagain\".

Tommy WHO?????

chewie wrote:

Phoenix Reign Drummer wrote:

Holy crap... I will never mention Tommy Lees name ever again! We should probably change his name too when someone write it in just like \"thebandthatshallneverbementionedagain\".

Tommy WHO?????

Tommy by The Who!

DallasBlack wrote:

chewie wrote:

Phoenix Reign Drummer wrote:

Holy crap... I will never mention Tommy Lees name ever again! We should probably change his name too when someone write it in just like \"thebandthatshallneverbementionedagain\".

Tommy WHO?????

Tommy by The Who!

rawr! is downloading this album as we speak, thumbing his nose at the man!!!

DallasBlack wrote:

Yeah Exact, but you are just a mindless sheep to the evil capitalist dogma who still holds on to the illusion of right and wrong.

my bad...

I guess I am really getting ancienty....

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.

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.

did you at least pay for the photocopies?