P2P programs legal in Canada

[Cold Killer]

Exactly. You know what? That arguement about people downloading denying the profit from the music they recieved is garbage. If I couldn't download it, I wouldn't buy it. Simple as that. That's why my music collection is measured in Gigs, not CDs.

All of you who say that you're merely testing the music before you buy it or some such story are still taking advantage of the music industry.

/waits for people to start telling me how the music industry is really really evil

 

[Ice]

The music industry isn't evil. The prices they set are ridiculous though. They want a large market: teens. A lot of people I know, myself included, are poor as hell and do not have a job. How the hell are we supposed to justify buying two semi-decent songs and ten ****ty ones for almost 20 dollars? Oh, fine, 15.

 

[Bhruic]

All of which is beside the point. When you dl a song, you are committing copyright infringement. Copyright infringement is not stealing. Two separate crimes. There is no justification for calling copyright infringement stealing. Any more than you'd call making a photocopy in a library stealing (to use the judge's analogy). If you want to argue that copyright infringement is wrong, go nuts. However, drop the idiotic "stealing" routine, it just makes you look stupid(er).

Bh

 

[ecale3]

So let me get this straight Cold Killer. Its okay for the music industry to take advantage of all the consumers and rake in billions of dollars to do it, but if we take advantage of the ability to HEAR WHATS ON THE DAMN CD so we don't get hosed for twenty bucks to listen to two good songs we are in the wrong and should be taught a lesson in virtues? Your logic is so painfully stupid it hurts me, it physically causes me pain to think on such a retarded level.

 

[Ice]

Ecale: 1
CK: Nada.

 

[Cold Killer]

The music industry isn't evil. The prices they set are ridiculous though. They want a large market: teens. A lot of people I know, myself included, are poor as hell and do not have a job. How the hell are we supposed to justify buying two semi-decent songs and ten ****ty ones for almost 20 dollars? Oh, fine, 15.

Who says you're supposed to? You can't afford it, you shouldn't be listening to it.

I am falling behind in my Web Page Design class because I do not have OS 10.2, which is required to use the Dreamweaver demo. I could easily download it from gnutella or get my uncle to burn me a copy, but I would rather keep my integrity intact. I cannot afford an OS upgrade. Therefore, I will not have one. I don't understand your apparent need to have all these CDs when you can't afford them.

So let me get this straight Cold Killer. Its okay for the music industry to take advantage of all the consumers and rake in billions of dollars to do it, but if we take advantage of the ability to HEAR WHATS ON THE DAMN CD so we don't get hosed for twenty bucks to listen to two good songs we are in the wrong and should be taught a lesson in virtues? Your logic is so painfully stupid it hurts me, it physically causes me pain to think on such a retarded level.

I guess you showed me. It's obvious now that two wrongs make a right. I don't know how I didn't see it before.

[edit]
Just in case my last statement wasn't noticeably sarcastic enough:
NO, what the music industry is doing is obviously WRONG.
YES, what you are doing is obviously WRONG as well.

YOUR logic, that "oh, they're doing wrong, so it's ok for us to do wrong to them too" is idiotic.
[/edit]

 

[unixman]

The original intent (before lobbists perverted it) was to foster artistic creativity. The language says that a copyright is to be granted for a limited time only. It wasn't meant to allow corporations to create a monopoly on creative works and certainly not on algorithmic methods. Just think where we would be if one was allowed to patent and/or copyright the works of Newton's Calculus or Pythagoras' theorms. A copyrights for a short period is reasonable. Letting people sit on them for as long as they please to create artificial monopolies on information is clearly just a basis for monitary greed.

Bringing your false sense of morality into the argument is simply amusing. Right and wrong are terms used by those that need to feel secure in thier simple minded place in the world. Morality isn't absolute; it is relative. This is, of course, typical of Americans. They need to feel superior in believing they are right.

 

[Ice]

Hell, I don't care if I'm right or wrong in this music debate. I'll do what I want to do. If you think that I'm less than you because of your high minded ideals, then cheers to you, CK.

Remember the Twilight Zone episode where a man kept saying every evil person would become a foot tall at a certain time? And it happened to him? I don't know why, but reading CK's posts (and a few others) I keep seeing this episode in my mind.

 

[Cold Killer]

The original intent (before lobbists perverted it) was to foster artistic creativity. The language says that a copyright is to be granted for a limited time only. It wasn't meant to allow corporations to create a monopoly on creative works and certainly not on algorithmic methods. Just think where we would be if one was allowed to patent and/or copyright the works of Newton's Calculus or Pythagoras' theorms. A copyrights for a short period is reasonable. Letting people sit on them for as long as they please to create artificial monopolies on information is clearly just a basis for monitary greed.

Is this first part of your message even directed at me? If so, what the hell does it have to do with the argument? I'm talking about the morality of what every person who pirates music is doing, not about the nature of the industry that they're doing it to!

Bringing your false sense of morality into the argument is simply amusing. Right and wrong are terms used by those that need to feel secure in thier simple minded place in the world. Morality isn't absolute; it is relative. This is, of course, typical of Americans. They need to feel superior in believing they are right.

You're damn right it isn't absolute. To kill a person can be both right and wrong, under certain circumstances. However, I am discussing a very particular set of circumstances in which a person intentionally infringes copyright law (thank you Bhruic) in order to take advantage of an industry. Are you trying to say I'm making some sort of blanket statement there?

By the way, I'm not American.

Hell, I don't care if I'm right or wrong in this music debate. I'll do what I want to do. If you think that I'm less than you because of your high minded ideals, then cheers to you, CK.

I don't consider my ideals to be very high-minded at all. I just consider yours to be down in the dirt.

 

[Bhruic]

CK - Unfortunately your argument has completely broken down. Let's highlight:

Yep, it's been the talk of the school where I live... I still refuse to partake in the practice as I believe it to be wrong, regardless of any court decision.

I said to think of a way to do it without BREAKING THE LAW AND STEALING.

I am discussing a very particular set of circumstances in which a person intentionally infringes copyright law (thank you Bhruic) in order to take advantage of an industry.

Now, first off you admit that it's not illegal, thanks to the court ruling, but you still consider it to be "wrong". Then, you try to argue that someone is "breaking the law", when obviously their actions have just been clarified as legal. And finally, you try acknowledge that it is considered "copyright infringement", not stealing, at which point you cannot argue that "stealing" is wrong.

Summation: The legal findings of the court have concluded that copyright is NOT being infringed by p2p file sharing. Therefore, no illegal activity is taking place. Therefore, you have no argument against it, other than your own personal beliefs, and you cannot use those as any sort of evidence in an argument against other peoples beliefs.

Therefore, your argument is entirely without merit.

Bh

 

[Cold Killer]

CK - Unfortunately your argument has completely broken down. Let's highlight:

Yep, it's been the talk of the school where I live... I still refuse to partake in the practice as I believe it to be wrong, regardless of any court decision.

I said to think of a way to do it without BREAKING THE LAW AND STEALING.

I am discussing a very particular set of circumstances in which a person intentionally infringes copyright law (thank you Bhruic) in order to take advantage of an industry.

Now, first off you admit that it's not illegal, thanks to the court ruling, but you still consider it to be "wrong". Then, you try to argue that someone is "breaking the law", when obviously their actions have just been clarified as legal. And finally, you try acknowledge that it is considered "copyright infringement", not stealing, at which point you cannot argue that "stealing" is wrong.

Summation: The legal findings of the court have concluded that copyright is NOT being infringed by p2p file sharing. Therefore, no illegal activity is taking place. Therefore, you have no argument against it, other than your own personal beliefs, and you cannot use those as any sort of evidence in an argument against other peoples beliefs.

Therefore, your argument is entirely without merit.

Bh

I'm sorry, I didn't realize that P2P programs had been declared legal all across the United States as well. I've been addressing others as though they were citizens of the United States, unaware that it's now legal there also. If it's not, of course, then it would still be illegal.

Thanks to you, I changed my naming of the crime to "copyright infringement"- didn't you see? I consider anything against the law to be "wrong".

 

[cracwhore]

Morality isn't absolute; it is relative.

I love that Philosophy and live by it. Thank you UnixMan *hug*

Therefore, your argument is entirely without merit.

Bh

PWNED! Sorry CK, you need to go to college and take some Philosophy/Debate classes, otherwise the same **** is going to keep happening to you. That's why I just gave up on you and posted smiley faces. My head started to hurt when trying to make any sense from your posts. It's people like you that give mac users a bad name!

Besides, the 10.2 update can be had for $50. The student discount on 10.3 is also decent for what you get. If you're that "moral" to the point where you can't just borrow your uncle's 10.2 disc so you can get homework done, you are obviously a slave to morality. I think this qualifies as "one of those times" where doing something "imoral" isn't all that bad. If for one second, you can't just do what you have to do to succeed, then son, you aren't going anywhere in life.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3088241111&category=11231

pwned.

 

[DEFkon]

lol. since your fighting over the technical details of crime, it's intresting to note that that your actually far far better off actually stealing the cd from the store in terms of "seriousness of the crime". Isnt' the max fine for copyright infringment something like 250k per violation with 5+ years in jail?

so i mean the worst case scenario for getting busted making an "unauthorised copy" of a cd would be like 250K multiplied by the number of songs on it?!? 10 songs at 250K each.. 2.5 Million dollars + 50 years in jail?!

vs

walk into a store, blatently grabing the same CD, and walking out the door, and being caught? worst case: Get booked for petty theft(?), pay fine, maybe some community service, back on street in few hours.

So for all those silly folks arguing over symantics..your right... downloading illegally definetly is not theft. Theft is like someone firing a 9mm handgun at a Tank. "Copyright infringment" is like the tank firing back.

 

[Cold Killer]

PWNED! Sorry CK, you need to go to college and take some Philosophy/Debate classes, otherwise the same **** is going to keep happening to you. That's why I just gave up on you and posted smiley faces. My head started to hurt when trying to make any sense from your posts. It's people like you that give mac users a bad name!

Yeah, I can really see myself getting into college debate classes when I've not yet completed grade 11 High School.

Besides, the 10.2 update can be had for $50. The student discount on 10.3 is also decent for what you get.

Does ebay ship to Canada? Do I qualify for a student discount on Apple's products?

If you're that "moral" to the point where you can't just borrow your uncle's 10.2 disc so you can get homework done, you are obviously a slave to morality. I think this qualifies as "one of those times" where doing something "imoral" isn't all that bad. If for one second, you can't just do what you have to do to succeed, then son, you aren't going anywhere in life.

That's a fact that I realized and accepted from the beginning. I'm aiming low in life, and planning on failing in even that.

 

[unixman]

Is this first part of your message even directed at me?

Does everything revolve around you?

If so, what the hell does it have to do with the argument? I'm talking about the morality of what every person who pirates music is doing, not about the nature of the industry that they're doing it to!

Come down off your cross. Neither you nor the law define morality for the rest of us. Just because it's illegal doesn't make it "wrong" or that is should be illegal.

You're damn right it isn't absolute. To kill a person can be both right and wrong, under certain circumstances. However, I am discussing a very particular set of circumstances in which a person intentionally infringes copyright law (thank you Bhruic) in order to take advantage of an industry. Are you trying to say I'm making some sort of blanket statement there?

You misunderstand yet again. Moral relativity means that what one person thinks is wrong or right isn't what someone else believes; thus, the entire concept of right and wrong is rather moot. Most countries make sedition a crime. Is questioning the actions of your governemt wrong? Gandi also intentionally violated laws. Was he wrong? Again, staying within the law doesn't make you any more right than being outside of it makes you wrong.

I don't consider my ideals to be very high-minded at all. I just consider yours to be down in the dirt.

Are you trying to make yourself out to be a elitest? If so, good job.

 

[unixman]

I consider anything against the law to be "wrong".

Comedy central. You should go live in a totalitarian state. They'd love you there.

 

[Cold Killer]

Does everything revolve around you?

You put nothing to seperate the first and second parts of your message, and you addressed me in the second part, throwing into question whether or not the first part was addressed to me as well. You could have put an "@CK" or somesuch thing.

Come down off your cross. Neither you nor the law define morality for the rest of us. Just because it's illegal doesn't make it "wrong" or that is should be illegal.

You misunderstand yet again. Moral relativity means that what one person thinks is wrong or right isn't what someone else believes; thus, the entire concept of right and wrong is rather moot. Most countries make sedition a crime. Is questioning the actions of your governemt wrong? Gandi also intentionally violated laws. Was he wrong? Again, staying within the law doesn't make you any more right than being outside of it makes you wrong.

I follow the law and consider what is outside of the law wrong and what is inside of the law right because our laws have been carefully developped over the course of human existence, and I feel that enough thought has been put into them to make them sound enough to take them as gospel. Laws in other times and in other places fall short of my expectations.

Are you trying to make yourself out to be a elitest? If so, good job.

If you found someone's ideals disgusting and said so, would you think that you were making yourself out to be an elitist?

Comedy central. You should go live in a totalitarian state. They'd love you there.

Totalitarian? What the ****!?

 

[unixman]

lol. since your fighting over the technical details of crime, it's intresting to note that that your actually far far better off actually stealing the cd from the store in terms of "seriousness of the crime". Isnt' the max fine for copyright infringment something like 250k per violation with 5+ years in jail?

so i mean the worst case scenario for getting busted making an "unauthorised copy" of a cd would be like 250K multiplied by the number of songs on it?!? 10 songs at 250K each.. 2.5 Million dollars + 50 years in jail?!

vs

walk into a store, blatently grabing the same CD, and walking out the door, and being caught? worst case: Get booked for petty theft(?), pay fine, maybe some community service, back on street in few hours.

So for all those silly folks arguing over symantics..your right... downloading illegally definetly is not theft. Theft is like someone firing a 9mm handgun at a Tank. "Copyright infringment" is like the tank firing back.

This really begs the issue of what this issue is really about. When the penalty for violating copyright law is harsher than armed robbery, you can only wonder who is writing the laws: our elected representatives or corporations.

 

[Derelan]

practicality kid, if i could get something otherwise unobtainable without any adverse consequences then you better believe i will.

communist!

 

[unixman]

I follow the law and consider what is outside of the law wrong and what is inside of the law right because our laws have been carefully developped over the course of human existence, and I feel that enough thought has been put into them to make them sound enough to take them as gospel. Laws in other times and in other places fall short of my expectations.

This is so historically incorrect it's absurd. Most laws are purely whimsical and reactionary. What can I say about a law that makes it illegal for a woman to be in public without a male escort. Purely the product of a male dominate culture? In almost near certainity, I can say yes. Is it a carefully crafted law developed over the course of human existence? Hell no, it's not.

If you found someone's ideals disgusting and said so, would you think that you were making yourself out to be an elitist?

I would not declare someone else's ideals disgusting without due cause. Namely, they would have to have no reason to believe what they do within any logical sense. Even then I would I not be so brazen.

Totalitarian? What the ****!?

A totalitarian state is such that the govenment controls all aspects of it's citizen's lives. Seeing as you believe the goverment must always be right in it's ultimate wizdom, I thought you would fit in quite well. Why think when it can think for you.