Profitability is not an entitlement for anyone. If a grocery store, gas station, or restaurant is not making a profit, it finds new means to make money or it shuts down. Look into either option, please.
And once again, you've managed to miss the point. The POINT is that if people don't agree with a law, they won't follow it. Remember that society ultimately dictates the law: If they want it changed, it eventually gets changed, one way or another.
"Illegal downloading rips off musicians."
Wrong. It rips off labels, which in turn rip off musicians. I don't engage in file-sharing myself, since my contempt for labels has reached the point that I basically don't listen to label music at all anymore, but I fully applaud those that do. It's certainly preferable to seeing the same people donating MONEY to the scum-suckers.
It might...since he's attempting to be a "professional musician" but isn't making money, I can't imagine where his income to keep his home would potentially be coming from.
No one is rationalizing ripping off anything, since no one is ripping off anything. I'm simply sending you the objectively true message: You lost. Roll with the tide or drown.
Horse shit, if you'll pardon my French. The labels continue to take 100% the artists' royalties until their upfront is paid back, now and forever. The labels don't lose nearly what the artist does.
"That business model isn't old or dead, it stil exists everywhere in the world and has for thousands of years."
WHAT??? Remind me again, what sort of licensing scheme did Francesco da Firenze use? What were his iTunes royalties?
"the law is finally catching up."
Protip: If 500 million people want something, no law is going to stop them. Remember who is ultimately in charge.
I also bought his album right after the "Dear Lily" video came out, and I don't even like rap to begin with. But cleverness like his deserves the support.
The **AAs are engaging in DDoS against sites like the Pirate Bay, and this is sending them a clear message in response. They are outnumbered.
What would you detractors propose as a method to fight the industry's DDoS attacks? Just sitting back and complaining on a blog a little more? Some of you have been doing that for a decade now, and note that it hasn't accomplished a hell of a lot.
The RIAA, MPAA, et al need to be taught that they can be fought on their own ground.
Same thing I was thinking. I can only assume that this man became a writer by sending in proofs of purchase from packages of Pop Tarts. He should taken about that seriously.
Once again, you're attempting to compare theft and copyright infringement. It just doesn't work.
A more correct analogy would be if you owned a restaurant, and a competing restaurant across the street opened. You suspect that you may be losing some business to the competing restaurant, yet you have no idea how much...and unlike with your wallet analogy, you may actually be BENEFITTING. File-sharing is much the same.
I especially like the point about identity theft. If I use your identity, I'm in no way depriving you of using it also. So therefore, it must be ok.
This is why I don't use or recognize the term "identity theft." Your identity is not being stolen, your MONEY is being stolen, either directly from your bank account or line of credit. Note the deprivation of ownership.
If I use your credit card, I'm not preventing you from using it too. It's true that I'm using up some of your credit limit, but that's just like a music sharer eating into an artists revenue.
Actually, it's not just like that, given that the first is a tangible loss and the latter is not.
There's a difference between using someone's credit card without permission and completely using up his credit (therefore directly costing him money) versus a completely non-quantifiable theoretical "loss" based on downloads without purchase. The reason I say "non-quantifiable" is because you have absolutely NO way of knowing how many people who download would not have purchased if denied the opportunity to download, how many would download AS WELL AS purchase, or how many would download and influence acquaintances to purchase based on positive feedback.
No matter what pro-industry propaganda and spin you want to put on it, calling copyright infringement "stealing" is tantamount to calling abortion "murder" when it's not illegal ("murder" being defined as the UNLAWFUL taking of a human life).
Theft is theft, and copyright infringement is not. Period.
Boston police incident involving Aqua Teen Hunger Force
Yeah, I remember that, too. They kept insisting on calling it a "hoax," and insisted that the two "perpetrators" knew that morons would mistake Lite Brites for bombs. It was embarrassing.
On the post: Comic Book 'Pirated' On 4Chan, Author Joins Discussion... Watches Sales Soar
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Judge Orders Limewire To Shut Down; Limewire Pretends It Can Still Exist
Re: Re: LOL
And the John Paul Jones definition of rationalizing: anyone that makes a valid point that proves his irrationality.
On the post: Judge Orders Limewire To Shut Down; Limewire Pretends It Can Still Exist
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Judge Orders Limewire To Shut Down; Limewire Pretends It Can Still Exist
Re: Re: Re: Prohibition
"Illegal downloading rips off musicians."
Wrong. It rips off labels, which in turn rip off musicians. I don't engage in file-sharing myself, since my contempt for labels has reached the point that I basically don't listen to label music at all anymore, but I fully applaud those that do. It's certainly preferable to seeing the same people donating MONEY to the scum-suckers.
On the post: Fallacy Debunking: Successful New Business Model Examples Are The 'Exception'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Fallacy Debunking: Successful New Business Model Examples Are The 'Exception'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It might...since he's attempting to be a "professional musician" but isn't making money, I can't imagine where his income to keep his home would potentially be coming from.
No one is rationalizing ripping off anything, since no one is ripping off anything. I'm simply sending you the objectively true message: You lost. Roll with the tide or drown.
On the post: Fallacy Debunking: Successful New Business Model Examples Are The 'Exception'
Re: Re: Re:
Horse shit, if you'll pardon my French. The labels continue to take 100% the artists' royalties until their upfront is paid back, now and forever. The labels don't lose nearly what the artist does.
"That business model isn't old or dead, it stil exists everywhere in the world and has for thousands of years."
WHAT??? Remind me again, what sort of licensing scheme did Francesco da Firenze use? What were his iTunes royalties?
"the law is finally catching up."
Protip: If 500 million people want something, no law is going to stop them. Remember who is ultimately in charge.
On the post: Comic Book 'Pirated' On 4Chan, Author Joins Discussion... Watches Sales Soar
Re:
If you're not getting paid, it's your fault. Profitability is not an entitlement.
On the post: Dear Dan Bull: A Case Study In Musical Innovation
On the post: Gene Simmons Now Wants To Throw 'Anonymous' In Jail
Re:
Yeah...in 1982.
On the post: Judge Used Real Courtroom Cases To (Secretly) Audition For TV Judge Job; Quotes Yoda To Defendant
On the post: Denial Of Service Attacks On RIAA & MPAA Are A Really Dumb Idea
Re:
The **AAs are engaging in DDoS against sites like the Pirate Bay, and this is sending them a clear message in response. They are outnumbered.
What would you detractors propose as a method to fight the industry's DDoS attacks? Just sitting back and complaining on a blog a little more? Some of you have been doing that for a decade now, and note that it hasn't accomplished a hell of a lot.
The RIAA, MPAA, et al need to be taught that they can be fought on their own ground.
On the post: Literary Critic Blames Google For 'Undermining The Literary Tradition'
Re: Er...what?
On the post: Filmmaker Insists That Only People Whose Livelihood Depends On Copyright Really Understand It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Filmmaker Insists That Only People Whose Livelihood Depends On Copyright Really Understand It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
A more correct analogy would be if you owned a restaurant, and a competing restaurant across the street opened. You suspect that you may be losing some business to the competing restaurant, yet you have no idea how much...and unlike with your wallet analogy, you may actually be BENEFITTING. File-sharing is much the same.
On the post: Filmmaker Insists That Only People Whose Livelihood Depends On Copyright Really Understand It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is why I don't use or recognize the term "identity theft." Your identity is not being stolen, your MONEY is being stolen, either directly from your bank account or line of credit. Note the deprivation of ownership.
If I use your credit card, I'm not preventing you from using it too. It's true that I'm using up some of your credit limit, but that's just like a music sharer eating into an artists revenue.
Actually, it's not just like that, given that the first is a tangible loss and the latter is not.
There's a difference between using someone's credit card without permission and completely using up his credit (therefore directly costing him money) versus a completely non-quantifiable theoretical "loss" based on downloads without purchase. The reason I say "non-quantifiable" is because you have absolutely NO way of knowing how many people who download would not have purchased if denied the opportunity to download, how many would download AS WELL AS purchase, or how many would download and influence acquaintances to purchase based on positive feedback.
No matter what pro-industry propaganda and spin you want to put on it, calling copyright infringement "stealing" is tantamount to calling abortion "murder" when it's not illegal ("murder" being defined as the UNLAWFUL taking of a human life).
Theft is theft, and copyright infringement is not. Period.
On the post: Filmmaker Insists That Only People Whose Livelihood Depends On Copyright Really Understand It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's not about "tangible" vs. "intangible." It's about "taking" versus "copying."
Theft involves deprivation of ownership. If you are not deprived of ownership, nothing has been stolen from you. Period.
On the post: Filmmaker Insists That Only People Whose Livelihood Depends On Copyright Really Understand It
Re: Re: Cartoons
On the post: Filmmaker Insists That Only People Whose Livelihood Depends On Copyright Really Understand It
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Say it with me, kids: YOU CAN'T STEAL DIGITAL DATA.
On the post: Police Misunderstand Internet Meme: Warn People About Pedobear
Re: Re:
Yeah, I remember that, too. They kept insisting on calling it a "hoax," and insisted that the two "perpetrators" knew that morons would mistake Lite Brites for bombs. It was embarrassing.
Next >>