This p***es me off

goudabuddha,

Quote:

---

Actually, the original purpose of Napster was for starting-out singers to be able to post their music for people to hear, and hopefully it would get around to a record exec and that person would get signed. Then people started putting on CDs that they recorded and Napster got in a whole mess of trouble.

---

That's a load of rubbish and you know it. Before Napster was sued, it advertised things like "Find Any MP3" and "Free music for all." >99% of the music traded on Napster was copyrighted material, and when they got caught, they instantly changed their purpose and claimed they had no control or connection with these people who were misusing the service. You aren't fooling anyone with that unsigned artist nonsense.

mike,

"Will I buy the album? Probably. Would I have otherwise? No."

Excellent, but Napster is not authorized by the people that own the material.

"If Napster increased it by 10,000% I doubt the copyright holders would complain"

You'd think so, but in actuallity, Napster was harming music sales, and so the copyright owners did complain. And rightfully so.

Quote:

---

Of course there's loss to the seller. If you steal a CD on Napster, the owner of the material loses $15 (or whatever the price) in gross sales.

---

ARRRRGHHHHH Are you BLIND man?!? I said it as politely as I could, PLEASE READ THE THREAD PROPERLY BEFORE YOU REPLY.

I HAVE been over this. Opportunity cost is what you're talking about, and if there's no opportunity there is NO COST. Give me strength!

You are totally missing the point about a reasonable system and a practical, legal system. I AM NOT saying the system needs to be changed! Listen and repeat after me: "Harry is not saying the system needs to be changed."

It is not reasonable to restrict the sales of goods only to those whose desire for the goods exceeds a particular boundary of willingness to pay. It is reasonable to price goods with no variable costs at a variable rate, dependent on the value of that product to the consumer. This, however, is totally impractical. Thus we have an unreasonable system, because no other system is practical.

Quote:

---

You cannot break the law when you disagree with it, nor can you have a system based on something like that.

---

Oh yes you can. It is perfectly possible to break the law. In some cases that is the reasonable thing to do. The law is fallible. The law's primary objective is not to be ethical.

Quote:

---

That's a load of rubbish and you know it. Before Napster was sued, it advertised things like "Find Any MP3" and "Free music for all." >99% of the music traded on Napster was copyrighted material, and when they got caught, they instantly changed their purpose and claimed they had no control or connection with these people who were misusing the service. You aren't fooling anyone with that unsigned artist nonsense.

---

I said that was the original purpose. Their purpose changed.

Quote:

---

You'd think so, but in actuallity, Napster was harming music sales

---

I've forgotten how they said they proved that. Could you refresh my memory?

Quote:

---

in actuallity, Napster was harming music sales

---

Prove it. Go on. Personally I have found Napster to be invaluable in finding new music that interests me. I buy a lot of music. I have a lot of mp3s. Most of the music I own I first discovered on mp3; believe me, the vast majority of the stuff I have on mp3 I'm never going to hear on the radio or on MTV, or anything like that. It was my main source of new material and new interest. I have downloaded entire albums on mp3, listened to them, then gone and bought the CD. Don't try and tell me I've harmed the music industry by using Napster, because it's not true.

I agree 100% with you, Harry. I've bought several albums as a result of first sampling the tracks that I got off Morpheus.

I don't normally buy a huge amount of music, because I live out of the way of any decent music shops, so it costs me £4 (train fare) every time I want to buy anything. That sort of surcharge is excessive for my miniscule income, so I rarely buy things.

However, the last time I went I bought a DVD, and I have a couple of albums I plan on buying as well.

Harry

"I AM NOT saying the system needs to be changed"

Yes, you are. Right now, the system does not allow for people to break the law, regardless of reasonable or unreasonable. The system imposes penalties for people who break the law, in any circumstance. If you want people to break the law without penalty, then you want to change the legal system. If you want people to break the law, but respect the fact that they will suffer penalty, then you don't want the system changed.

"It is not reasonable to restrict the sales of goods only to those whose desire for the goods exceeds a particular boundary of willingness to pay."

Yes, it is. That is one of the very fundamental concepts in capitalism. If I do not wish to sell to you, or if I do not wish to sell something to you at a price that is acceptable to you, then I am not forced to. And you cannot steal it from me. You simply have to learn to exist without my product until you decide to purchase it under my terms.

"Thus we have an unreasonable system, because no other system is practical."

What's your point? You cannot break the law and avoid consequence, reasonable or not.

goudabuddha,

"I said that was the original purpose. Their purpose changed."

It changed, but you cannot merely change your slogan and be done with the problem. Your service faciliates and openly accepts illegal activity, and as a result, it has been ordered to control the flow of music. Napster, with all of the filters in place, is what it should have been when it started if it had hoped to avoid legal trouble.

"I've forgotten how they said they proved that. Could you refresh my memory?"

If it is possible to obtain a fully functional and complete product without having to pay for it, people will use that method. People will not lawfully purchase another copy, because they have in their possession the complete deal. You said yourself that you have six gigs of MP3s; how many of them did you purchase legally?

Harry Again :P

"I have downloaded entire albums on mp3, listened to them, then gone and bought the CD"

Lovely, but there's no control over that. You get the complete deal, and there isn't anything stopping me from downloading a thousand MP3's and burning them to CD's. I suspect that the vast majority of MP3's stolen over the Internet do not incite sales.

Quote:

---

If it is possible to obtain a fully functional and complete product without having to pay for it, people will use that method. People will not lawfully purchase another copy, because they have in their possession the complete deal. You said yourself that you have six gigs of MP3s; how many of them did you purchase legally?

---

That isn't proof, that is a logical explaination. I wanted proof. You obviously have none. And I'll have you know that 85% of the tracks I have were purchased legally. The other 15% are by the same artists I already had to see if I wanted to buy another CD by them.

"That isn't proof, that is a logical explaination. I wanted proof."

Well, all I can offer is an explanation, and I think it fits pretty well. I don't have proof, although I'm sure that marketing staff for the record companies would have some real statistical proof. I don't have that proof, all I have is that theory. Do you dispute my theory?

"I'll have you know that 85% of the tracks I have were purchased legally."

And 15% were stolen. What is your point?

Quote:

---

Do you dispute my theory?

---

Yes, I do, because you have no proof to back that theory up, and I have yet to think of a way that a record company could come up with statistics that would prove people don't buy albums specifically because of Napster and the like. How would you propose that one would do that?

"because you have no proof to back that theory up"

That's what makes it a theory, and not a fact. Do you believe my theory is flawed?

"How would you propose that one would do that?"

What on earth do you think a marketing department does?? They take everything, right down to the most insignificant detail and stick it in computers. Everything from competitors sales, domestic and foreign sales, regional sales, catagorical and subcatagorical sales, localle sales, days of the week, days of the month, months of the year, year in a decade, sales of unrelated products, everything. They then spend their entire lives in front of computers thinking about how everything affects the sale of their product. These people make a killing spending weeks on end looking at perhaps one statistical fact.

They know how many of their songs are being traded on napster, how many of the competitors', what sales were like before napster, after, during, and all the other factors that you could possibly come up with, and then they present an incredibly detailed report on what is harming sales, and what can be done about it.

Marketing can prove that the sky is red, or that cows bark, if they wanted.

Quote:

---

Yes, you are

---

No, I'm not. Disagree all you want, you're entitled to your opinion, but I know my own mind and I know that I'm not.

Quote:

---

If you want people to break the law without penalty, then you want to change the legal system.

---

This is how things are already. The vast majority people who break copyright laws aren't prosecuted. The system gets sidestepped, in both ethical and inethical ways. You are talking about the law. I am talking about reality. They are very different.

Quote:

---

That is one of the very fundamental concepts in capitalism. If I do not wish to sell to you, or if I do not wish to sell something to you at a price that is acceptable to you, then I am not forced to.

---

Why not, if there is no cost to you? Is that an reasonable system? No it is not, it is not reasonable to deny someone something they want just because you can. You may think there is a cost, and that's fine, that's your opinion but don't try to refute this on the basis that there is a cost because that will be false logic. This statement that I make is based on the assumption that there is no cost to the producer, and you may well debate that but I am here and now preempting a pointless and issue-confusing response on your part.

It is reasonable to withold a product if there is cost involved to the producer. It is not reasonable if there is not a cost involved.

I don't think there is a cost, because the only cost ny form of piracy, be it music, software or whatever (I'm not talking about piracy on the high seas here), is opportunity cost. The procucer loses the opportunity to sell you that product. If the opportunity doesn't exist in the first place, there is no cost.

Quote:

---

Lovely, but there's no control over that. You get the complete deal, and there isn't anything stopping me from downloading a thousand MP3's and burning them to CD's. I suspect that the vast majority of MP3's stolen over the Internet do not incite sales.

---

What has control got to do with it? You were proposing that mp3 distribution harmed music sales, the owner's control is not relevant to the possible harm caused.

Given that the average Napster user might collect 20 albums' worth of mp3s over the course of a year (that's a conservative estimate), are you suggesting that this constitutes $300 of lost revenue per user? Consider that those users who download the most are probably kids, with very limited income. How much do you think they can actually afford to pay for music in a year, bearing in mind that (almost) nobody's income goes solely on music? The opportunity to sell a product to someone who is beyond their budget is simply not there.

Quote:

---

Marketing can prove that the sky is red, or that cows bark, if they wanted.

---

Maybe it can even prove that mp3s harm music sales.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by HarryW
Maybe it can even prove that mp3s harm music sales.

---

Go Harry! :D

PS: Marketing CANNOT prove the sky is red, because it's bloody obvious that it isn't...although since you're blind at not being able to read Harry's earlier comments they wouldn't have much trouble with you ;)

I'm done arguing with you. You talk an awful lot for someone who never says anything.

can't you just hook up your cd-player headphone jack to the line in on your computer and play your cd player while recording on line-in on your computer??

harry

"No, I'm not. Disagree all you want, you're entitled to your opinion, but I know my own mind and I know that I'm not."

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, I'm just stating my evaluation of your position. You are saying that the law should allow peopl to go without penaly if they break a law, in certain cases. Is that right?

"Why not, if there is no cost to you?"

There is cost to me, though. If I don't sell to you, I lose profits from that. It's probably a good idea for me to sell to as many people as I can, maximizing my profits. But if I choose to minimize my sales, however costly this may be to me, that's my choice, and you are not at liberty to circumvent that decision.

"No it is not, it is not reasonable to deny someone something they want just because you can."

It may not be reasonable or capitally wise to do so, but it's legal.

"What has control got to do with it?"

There has to be control over something, you can't just hope everyone does the right thing. It isn't enough to say, "Okay, we'll let you drive cars, but only if you promise not to kill anyone." It isn't enough to trust people, because not everyone will abide by the honourable rule. You have to create laws, and you have to enforce them.

"Given that the average Napster user might collect 20 albums' worth of mp3s over the course of a year (that's a conservative estimate), are you suggesting that this constitutes $300 of lost revenue per user?"

That's very elementary statistical analysis. But you have to assume this, because that's worst damage that someone can do to abuse the system, if he downloads 20 albums in a year.

"The opportunity to sell a product to someone who is beyond their budget is simply not there."

Alright, fine. Create a Napster with a control so that only impoverished people can use it. Collect Income Statements or something before they are allowed access to it. With an open system, such as Napster, anybody, not just poor people, can use it. There has to be control over it.

Oh for goodness' sake. Will you please listen to me? I am not, I repeat not saying the law should be changed, I am not saying the system should be changed, I am not saying anything of the sort. Look, here is what I said, in the post of mine that you just (supposedly) read:

Quote:

---

I AM NOT saying the system needs to be changed! Listen and repeat after me: "Harry is not saying the system needs to be changed."

---

How am I supposed to make myself any clearer? If you can't understand me when I say it like this how on earth do you expect anybody to take your opinion seriously?

Quote:

---

There is cost to me, though. If I don't sell to you, I lose profits from that. It's probably a good idea for me to sell to as many people as I can, maximizing my profits.

---

No, there isn't, and I've totally explained this several million times already. It's called opportunity cost. Do you understand this term? It's very simple. Really. If you've ever done any kind of basic business study you will have come across it. In order for an opportunity to be lost it has to be there in the first place!

Quote:

---

But if I choose to minimize my sales, however costly this may be to me, that's my choice, and you are not at liberty to circumvent that decision

---

Oh but I am. I can copy your information. It's illegal but it's perfectly possible. You seem to be hung up on legality when what you should be concerned with is reality. Law is all theory, it's clumsy, and it's primary function is social order. People can break laws, they do it all the time. I do it all the time. I don't go around beating people up or stealing their VCRs or anything like that, but I occasionally break the speed limit when it's safe to do so, if I'm cycling along a busy road I may cycle on the pavement, I drank long before the legal age, I occasionally indulge in soft drugs like many other perfectly normal members of society, I download mp3s, I view material that the courts in this country would regard as obscene and illegal. According to the letter of the law I am a criminal on many counts, but in reality I am not a wanted man, people don't cross the street to avoid me, I am (pretty much) a perfectly normal human being.

Nobody lives their lives exactly to the letter of the law, because the law makes demands that are reasonable in most circumstances but unreasonable in some circumstances. Nobody lives their entire lives in the situations where it is reasonable, unless they have a very short life.

Do not misunderstand me, I am not against the law and the enforcement of it (in general). I am pretty much content with the majority of the laws I live under. If I think a law is unreasonable, though, and I think I can get away with it, I will do what I think is reasonable.

Quote:

---

Alright, fine. Create a Napster with a control so that only impoverished people can use it. Collect Income Statements or something before they are allowed access to it. With an open system, such as Napster, anybody, not just poor people, can use it. There has to be control over it.

---

This is not about the 'impoverished', it's about anyone who lives on a budget. I can't buy all the music I have on mp3. I simply don't have the resources. If I like the music then I want to own it, and I will buy it, but only if I have the money to do so. Suggesting that someone with £5000 worth of mp3s has done the music industry out of £5000 is just silly, unless they have a lot more money than I do.

"It's illegal but it's perfectly possible."

It's also possible for me to get on a flight to Britain and beat you over the head until I drown myself in your blood. What the hell are we debating, if not the law?

"This is not about the 'impoverished', it's about anyone who lives on a budget"

Fine, but my point still stands.

"Suggesting that someone with £5000 worth of mp3s has done the music industry out of £5000 is just silly, unless they have a lot more money than I do."

But you DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO POSSESS IT. It violates the law, and the law is not unreasonable. You cannot have it, because you did not pay for it. You did no work to earn the music, you paid nothing for it, you take it for granted, and you do it because you can get away with it. You have no self-restraint, no discipline, no understanding of or respect for something that has grown out of hundreds of years of tradition, sacrifice, and moral development.

You steal because you want to, and because no one's going to stop you. Not only does this disgust me, it fills me with pitty for you.

Good grief. I'm not debating whether it's legal (I've got no idea what you're trying to prove), I'm debating whether it's ethical.

Quote:

---

you DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO POSSESS IT. It violates the law, and the law is not unreasonable. You cannot have it, because you did not pay for it. You did no work to earn the music, you paid nothing for it, you take it for granted, and you do it because you can get away with it. You have no self-restraint, no discipline, no understanding of or respect for something that has grown out of hundreds of years of tradition, sacrifice, and moral development.

---

1) The law is most certainly unreasonable in some cases, to deny that is plain dumb

2) I do it because there is no reasonable alternative. "Pay for it" you say. With what? How is someone who cannot afford to pay for any more music supposed to pay for it? "Then tough sh*t, you can't have it" you say. So I have no way of acquiring this when my having it would not deprive you of anything, since I can't buy it from you. Essentially you are keeping me from having it just because you can. This is supposed to be an ethical standpoint?

3) I have a very good understanding of it thank you very much, that's why I don't think I'm living in some fantasy land where the law equates with morality.

4) I have a healthy respect for the artists, and I will pay for the product as an when I am able to, but denying me the product until I am capable of paying is not productive. I (personally) will pay for it when I can, if I like it to the extent that I would buy it if the mp3s had been a trial thing. I do spend a significant amount of my disposable income on music.

5) I suspect my moral development is quite healthy in comparison to yours, since you seem unable to seperate what is legal from what is sensible and what is ethical.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by aknisely
But you DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO POSSESS IT. It violates the law, and the law is not unreasonable. You cannot have it, because you did not pay for it. You did no work to earn the music, you paid nothing for it, you take it for granted, and you do it because you can get away with it. You have no self-restraint, no discipline, no understanding of or respect for something that has grown out of hundreds of years of tradition, sacrifice, and moral development.

You steal because you want to, and because no one's going to stop you. Not only does this disgust me, it fills me with pitty for you.

---

the record labels have been stealing from me for years, with profits margins of sometimes 1000% or more, what am I stealing back? almost nothing compared to the billions they've stolen from hard working families.

If CDs were $2.50 a piece I wouldnt give a second thought to buying one, but until they lower the phenomenal prices I'll be happy to hear them whine louder, because they made $18 billion instead of $19 billion this year.

"I'm not debating whether it's legal (I've got no idea what you're trying to prove), I'm debating whether it's ethical."

What I find unethical is that you acknowledge that the law exists, and that you break the law, and you consistantly do so without fear of any consequence. It's incredibly childish, but from what Mike tells me, it appears to be the norm.

"The law is most certainly unreasonable in some cases, to deny that is plain dumb."

It isn't up to you to decide what laws are reasonable and which are not. You don't get to make that call.

"I do it because there is no reasonable alternative. "Pay for it" you say. With what? How is someone who cannot afford to pay for any more music supposed to pay for it? "Then tough sh*t, you can't have it" you say"

Precisely.

"I have no way of acquiring this when my having it would not deprive you of anything, since I can't buy it from you. Essentially you are keeping me from having it just because you can. This is supposed to be an ethical standpoint?"

It's an unreasonable situation. But it's my decision to be unreasonable if I want, and I still have the right to be protected from it. We all have to obey laws, however unreasonable they may seem. No one said that everyone is supposed to act in an ethical fashion all the time, and no one said that you should have a way out if someone does act unethically.

"I have a healthy respect for the artists, and I will pay for the product as an when I am able to, but denying me the product until I am capable of paying is not productive"

If the owner wishes to loan something to you, that's fine. In this case, the owner probably won't, and, as you say, tough ****.

"I suspect my moral development is quite healthy in comparison to yours, since you seem unable to seperate what is legal from what is sensible and what is ethical"

I honestly don't care what you believe to be ethical or moral. What concerns me is that you have little regard for the constancy of the law. You do not have the decency to ask whether or not your activity is alright with the owner, you simply go ahead and do it and choose to be completely blind of the consequences of your actions.

"the record labels have been stealing from me for years, with profits margins of sometimes 1000% or more"

It's not stealing. It's called capitalism. I can charge whatever I want for my product, and you have no right to take it from me for less. If you don't like it, go live in China or some other communist **** hole.

"almost nothing compared to the billions they've stolen from hard working families."

Has it ever occured to you that most of the money goes to hard working families?

"If CDs were $2.50 a piece I wouldnt give a second thought to buying one, but until they lower the phenomenal prices I'll be happy to hear them whine louder, because they made $18 billion instead of $19 billion this year."

That's your problem. You still don't have a right to steal.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by aknisely
"What I find unethical is that you acknowledge that the law exists, and that you break the law, and you consistantly do so without fear of any consequence. It's incredibly childish, but from what Mike tells me, it appears to be the norm."

What I find unethical is that record companies are charging $20 for a few songs.

"It isn't up to you to decide what laws are reasonable and which are not. You don't get to make that call."

Yes it is up to me, that's why the US is a DEMOCRACY.

"If the owner wishes to loan something to you, that's fine. In this case, the owner probably won't, and, as you say, tough ****."

"I honestly don't care what you believe to be ethical or moral. What concerns me is that you have little regard for the constancy of the law. You do not have the decency to ask whether or not your activity is alright with the owner, you simply go ahead and do it and choose to be completely blind of the consequences of your actions. "

Until someone comes to my house and arrests me for downloading MP3s, I'm just peachy. You're not even stealing from the artists, remember you are stealing from companies like AOL (owns Time Warner Music) who get about 75% of what you spend on a CD.

---

"Yes it is up to me, that's why the US is a DEMOCRACY"

No it isn't. It's up to the judges whom you elect. You have no say in what laws you choose to obey and which you don't.

"Until someone comes to my house and arrests me for ownloading MP3s, I'm just peachy."

That's the problem. You get away with it, without feeling any sort of guilt or remorse. The demise of honour.

"You're not even stealing from the artists, remember you are stealing from companies like AOL (owns Time Warner Music) who get about 75% of what you spend on a CD."

Does that make a difference?

Quote:

---

I honestly don't care what you believe to be ethical or moral. What concerns me is that you have little regard for the constancy of the law. You do not have the decency to ask whether or not your activity is alright with the owner, you simply go ahead and do it and choose to be completely blind of the consequences of your actions.

---

What a coincidence, I'm not losing any sleep over what you think is ethical or moral either.

I have little regard for the constancy of the law because morality cannot be evaluated and enforced through one sweeping set of rules and a 'repent or perish' attitude. Furthermore, I am most certainly not blind of the consequences, I am well aware of them. More precisely, most of the time nothing will happen as a result of them, except I get to hear some music and if I like it I'll buy it. Sounds like a horific situation doesn't it? How terribly unethical that is. I'm such a bad person.

Quote:

---

What I find unethical is that you acknowledge that the law exists, and that you break the law, and you consistantly do so without fear of any consequence. It's incredibly childish, but from what Mike tells me, it appears to be the norm.

---

It's not childish at all, I don't know where you got that from. It's just sensible. Are you telling me you never break the law? Do you believe the law should never be broken under any circumstances? Do you believe that the law is entirely ethical in all cases?

Quote:

---

It's an unreasonable situation. But it's my decision to be unreasonable if I want, and I still have the right to be protected from it. We all have to obey laws, however unreasonable they may seem. No one said that everyone is supposed to act in an ethical fashion all the time, and no one said that you should have a way out if someone does act unethically.

---

If you relly want to contradict me you're going to have to stop telling me it's illegal (duh, I know that) and start giving me reasons why it's unethical. So far you've said the owner loses the opportunity to sell it, but there is no opportunity to sell it in the situations I condone. So find another reason.

I say everyone is supposed to act in an ethical fashion all the time. It's not realistic, but it's a nice ideal, and it's perfectly possible. Why shouldn't everyone act ethically? Give me a reason.

Stop getting so hung up on what's legal and start worrying about what's realistic, practical, sensible and ethical. That is what really matters. They are supposed to be the reasons we have laws in the first place. Achieving those goals is more important than obeying the law. If you are going to get caught for doing something you perceive as ethical, then it becomes a tradeoff between the punishment for the crime and the loss of the ethical choice. The ethical choice most often becomes impractical and unrealistic, so you stick with the law even though you don't agree with it.

"No it isn't. It's up to the judges whom you elect. You have no say in what laws you choose to obey and which you don't."

Gee let's think of some bad situations that were protested against...civil rights, Vietnam war, slavery, leadership of the US by England...do you see my point? Those were laws and it doesn't mean they're right.

"That's the problem. You get away with it, without feeling any sort of guilt or remorse. The demise of honour."

Do the greedy record companies have any more honor? I don't think it's honorable to prevent what I can do with a CD I paid for. 20 bucks and I cant even listen to it on my computer. Ridiculous.

"Does that make a difference?"

Damn right it does.

i don't care if i'm doing what's legal, I'm doing what's right. It's NOT right to charge money for a CD and then say, duhh you can't copy it to your computer, or even listen to it on your computer. That's totally an uncalled for measure by the RIAA and is, IMO, Unethical.

Quote:

---

You have no say in what laws you choose to obey and which you don't.

---

Maybe in your robotic little world where everyone runs like clockwork to the system, but out here where the rest of us are, we make our own decisions. If you don't have the strength of character to know the difference between right and wrong without someone else telling you, that's a shame, but personally I do.

harry

"I have little regard for the constancy of the law because morality cannot be evaluated and enforced through one sweeping set of rules and a 'repent or perish' attitude"

The law does its best to satisfy the most number of people. There is no better way to do it.

"It's not childish at all, I don't know where you got that from. It's just sensible."

I don't know how to explain it, but there's a sense of doing what's decent and not taking things that don't belong to you. I don't know if you'll ever understand that.

"Are you telling me you never break the law? Do you believe the law should never be broken under any circumstances?"

I do my best not to break the law. And certainly, when I have, I don't pretend like I'm not doing anything wrong. I realize it, I understand it. I suffer consequences for it.

"Do you believe that the law is entirely ethical in all cases?"

No I don't. The difference between you and I is that I accept that I don't always agree with the law, and I do it anyway. Not because there are consequences attached to it, but because it's the right thing to do.

"Stop getting so hung up on what's legal and start worrying about what's realistic, practical, sensible and ethical. That is what really matters."

Are you saying the law doesn't matter anymore?

"Maybe in your robotic little world where everyone runs like clockwork to the system, but out here where the rest of us are, we make our own decisions."

And when your decisions conflict with the law, there are penalties attached to it. The law is not just a set of arbitrary rules that have no bearing on reality. The law is what is decided by the majority of society to be right.

I share your ideal of self-government and everyone making their decisions about what is moral activity and what is not. But it doesn't work on a massive scale. You need law, and you need the law to be obeyed.

"If you don't have the strength of character to know the difference between right and wrong without someone else telling you, that's a shame, but personally I do."

It so happens that I agree with the majority when it comes to the law. If you don't, you have to deal with it, and you are still expected to obey the law.

jpbtennisman,

"Gee let's think of some bad situations that were protested against...civil rights, Vietnam war, slavery, leadership of the US by England...do you see my point? Those were laws and it doesn't mean they're right."

Are you saying that copyright law is not supported by the majority?

"Do the greedy record companies have any more honor?"

All rich people are greedy, and have no honour? Is that what you're saying? You know, snobs are the loneliest people on earth.

"I don't think it's honorable to prevent what I can do with a CD I paid for. 20 bucks and I cant even listen to it on my computer. Ridiculous."

This sort of copy protection is not legal. But it isn't rediculous either. I understand why they are making very aggressive moves to protect their property. It's people like you who steal because you can.

"i don't care if i'm doing what's legal, I'm doing what's right."

Since when is stealing right? I'm going to come over and steal your car, how about that?

"It's NOT right to charge money for a CD and then say, duhh you can't copy it to your computer, or even listen to it on your computer. That's totally an uncalled for measure by the RIAA and is, IMO, Unethical."

Absolutely right. But try to understand where they're coming from.

"Are you saying that copyright law is not supported by the majority?"

Of course it isn't supported by the majority! Even some of the artists themselves are calling it unethical to shut down napster, etc

"All rich people are greedy, and have no honour? Is that what you're saying? You know, snobs are the loneliest people on earth."

No...not ALL rich people are greedy and have no honor, but some are.

"This sort of copy protection is not legal. But it isn't rediculous either. I understand why they are making very aggressive moves to protect their property. It's people like you who steal because you can."

Is it going to make me run out and buy their CDs? Is ANYONE going to buy those CDs? No they will tape stuff of the radio if need be.

"Since when is stealing right? I'm going to come over and steal your car, how about that? "

Stealing is not right...but if I stole your car, you'd probably justify that.

"Absolutely right. But try to understand where they're coming from."

They're never going to get anywhere with this...there are hackers out there...

"Of course it isn't supported by the majority! Even some of the artists themselves are calling it unethical to shut down napster, etc"

Your friends from school and anyone who goes on television to get support of kids do not necessarily represent the majority. If copyright laws are not supported, why are they not being repealed by your Congress?

"Not ALL rich people are greedy and have no honor, but some are."

So then, there isn't any correlation between greediness and honour and wealth?

"Is it going to make me run out and buy their CDs? Is ANYONE going to buy those CDs? No they will tape stuff of the radio if need be."

It's a tactical, not to mention legal, error on their part, and they'll likely suffer from it.

"Stealing is not right...but if I stole your car, you'd probably justify that."

If I stole your car, would you be ok with that?

"They're never going to get anywhere with this...there are hackers out there..."

That isn't the point. Try to understand why they are doing this. Why they are risking prosecution for doing something like this.

Man, you guys are going a little overboard... too much to read.

Everyone breaks laws, some more than others. How many people speed? I do. Does that make me a criminal? I hope not. (Have you gone over the speed limit? Ever?)

Such lovely ethical issues. People have been debating this sort of thing for ages, and we still haven't figured it out.

As for something a little bit more on topic, making it impossible to rip a CD that I bought onto my own computer is highly biased, but not illegal.

It's quite possible that it'll be more hurtful for record companies to use this format than to do this than to allow songs to be downloaded off of Napster... besides, people will still find a way.

It's just a lot easier, ethically, for those who don't think too much of it. Like I think of doing 2 or 3 mph over the speed limit... I might get caught, but I don't think it's wrong.

Destined

"As for something a little bit more on topic, making it impossible to rip a CD that I bought onto my own computer is highly biased, but not illegal"

It violates the Audio Home Recording Act, 1992, which creates most of the applicable fair-use law with regard to audio recordings.

Ah, I am back and I have much to say.

Quote:

---

No it isn't. It's up to the judges whom you elect. You have no say in what laws you choose to obey and which you don't.

---

So now you're saying that the United States of America is not a democracy? You have no right to say anything like that about my country because you do not live in it.

Quote:

---

That's what makes it a theory, and not a fact. Do you believe my theory is flawed?

---

You have to be right about everything, don't you? Pompous jack@$$...

Quote:

---

"Then tough sh*t, you can't have it" you say" Precisely.

---

Well, wouldn't it be beneficial to the artist if their music was heard by a broader audience? Think about it, if an artist's album is downloaded, it would encourage that person to go an see a concert by that artist, which lets the artist make much more profit from that person. Also, it will encourage that person to buy future albums.

Also, it is written that if a law is very unreasonable to the masses, we have a right to break that law. For instance, if a law saying that all people must wear knee-high socks and somehow it passed through Congress, it is written in our Bill of Rights that we the people have a right not to obey that law because it is unreasonable. Obviously the masses believe that this is unreasonable so they are not following that law. In both instances consequences can and will be rendered on some people, but if enough people are breaking the laws, they will be deemed inefficient and be repealed by Congress. This has happened in the past: blacks protested segregation laws by ignoring them. Hundreds of them were arrested, but when the law enforcement had no where else to put the people, the laws were repealed because they were having a negative effect.

My point is that breaking this law is not unethical or immoral. Not all laws, but this law.

"Ah, I am back and I have much to say."

You have no idea how thrilled and excited I am.

"So now you're saying that the United States of America is not a democracy?"

Of course not. I'm saying that you, on your own, cannot select the laws that you choose to obey. You are expected to obey the law unconditionally. Harry is saying that there are situations in which it's permissible to disregard the law. I disagree with that.

"You have no right to say anything like that about my country because you do not live in it."

Why do I have to live in a country to comment on the democratic process therein? Furthermore, I have the right to say any damned thing I want. You do value freedom of speech in you democratic country, do you not?

"You have to be right about everything, don't you? Pompous jack@$$..."

This sort of thing doesn't add to the discussion.

"Well, wouldn't it be beneficial to the artist if their music was heard by a broader audience?"

Probably. But it isn't up to you to distribute the music for the copyright holder -- you are not authoized to do so.

"Also, it will encourage that person to buy future albums."

It may. It may also inhibit the artists' ability to produce future albums.

"Obviously the masses believe that this is unreasonable so they are not following that law"

The law is not an unreasonable one.

"My point is that breaking this law is not unethical or immoral. Not all laws, but this law."

Why? Do you actually dispute copyright law? Which, if any, elements, enacments, or codes do you dispute? Please cite titles and sections of the law with which you disagree, and we'll debate them. It's not really fair to say "I can break the law because I don't like it." I want to know why you don't like it.

I suspect you don't like copyright law because it inhibits your ability to get something for nothing.

So you think everyone should obey the law all the time then, because their own evaluation of what's sensible doesn't matter at all. You're saying that what's important is what the courts have decided is the right general case, and however far removed the individual case is from the general case, the law is never wrong because it was decided by lots of people?

Are you seriously saying there is no situation where it is appropriate to break the law?

You can carry on being the happy little robot you want to be, and you can stand on your pedestal and preach about what you're doing is the right thing, but I live in the real world and, like billions of others around the world, I make my own decisions based on what I think is right or wrong, I don't take my morals from a textbook.

Quote:

---

The law is not an unreasonable one.

---

In your opinion. The majority of the people seem to think that it is therefore they continue to disregard that law.

Quote:

---

I want to know why you don't like it.

---

Dear God, man, are you blind? Have you even been reading any of the posts in this thread? I've said that a hundred, I'm not goint to repeat it again. Scroll up.

Quote:

---

You are expected to obey the law unconditionally.

---

There has not been one person in history that has ever done that. This country would not have been founded if people obeyed laws unconditionally. That's a load of bs.

Quote:

---

It's not really fair to say "I can break the law because I don't like it."

---

That is NOT what I'm saying. I'm saying that if a law is unreasonable then the people have a right to disregard that law. I don't like that I have to pay taxes, but I follow the tax laws because I do not find them unreasonable.

Quote:

---

Excellent, you should read a few books on Japanese self-management, I hear it's very successful.

---

I believe that he just said that he doesn't take his morals and practices from a textbook so why do yuo find the need to tell him to go out and get one on how to manage himself?

Quote:

---

But in the western world, you'll do as you're told by everyone else.

---

Oh, so now I shouldn't have a mind or opinion of my own and do everything anyone tells me to? America was formed because the original colonies were expected to do this. This is real life, not fantasy-mindless drone land.

"In your opinion. The majority of the people seem to think that it is therefore they continue to disregard that law."

Where did this majority come from? How do you know that the majority of the people feel exactly the same way you do about copyright?

"Dear God, man, are you blind?"

No, I'm not. I just want a clarification. Could specify with which, and which parts, of the copyright legislation in the United States do you disagree? Check the Audio Home Recording Act, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Title 17 of the USC, etc.

"There has not been one person in history that has ever done that. This country would not have been founded if people obeyed laws unconditionally. That's a load of bs."

Then what exactly is the purpose of the law, if not to be obeyed?

"That is NOT what I'm saying. I'm saying that if a law is unreasonable then the people have a right to disregard that law. I don't like that I have to pay taxes, but I follow the tax laws because I do not find them unreasonable."

What you're saying is that if you disagree with the law, it's okay because you think it's unreasonable. Ordinarily, I'd go to jail or have to pay a fine for doing this, but hey, this is America where we don't have to obey the laws if we find them unreasonable.

This has absolutely no legal basis, and if you think it does, then I think it's you who has to get a grip on reality.

"I believe that he just said that he doesn't take his morals and practices from a textbook so why do yuo find the need to tell him to go out and get one on how to manage himself?"

It was just a suggestion. Sorry if it might cause you to learn something, or force you into our conformity factory. Don't have a cow, man.

"Oh, so now I shouldn't have a mind or opinion of my own and do everything anyone tells me"

Don't they teach you how democracy works in the United States?

Quote:

---

How do you know that the majority of the people feel exactly the same way you do about copyright?

---

The amount of people using Napster and the like is far greater than the amount of people who are so vehemently opposed to it, or so i have concluded from my own experiences.

Quote:

---

Then what exactly is the purpose of the law, if not to be obeyed?

---

You aren't hearing what I am saying. I completely agree that the majority of laws should be followed, but in cases when a law is unreasonable, counterproductive, useless, or irrelevant then the law does not have to be followed.

Quote:

---

This has absolutely no legal basis

---

Legality is not what's in question. I know perfectly well that it is illeagel. You can stop saying that. What's in question is if it's unethical, and I believe that it is not. You'll probably say something like "Breaking the law is unethical, the demise of honor, I pitty you" blah blah blah, but lawful does not translate into ethical.

Quote:

---

Don't they teach you how democracy works in the United States?

---

I guess Canadian democracy is different or something, because I have been taught that the purpose of democracy is to accomodate the largest nubmer of people. In this case it does not do that because it's accomodating the few record execs who are losing money because the people have side-stepped the law that doesn't account for them and are trying to accomodate themselves.

"The amount of people using Napster and the like is far greater than the amount of people who are so vehemently opposed to it, or so i have concluded from my own experiences."

I think the user count for Napster was somewhere around 40 million. That isn't a majority in the United States.

"I completely agree that the majority of laws should be followed, but in cases when a law is unreasonable, counterproductive, useless, or irrelevant then the law does not have to be followed."

Who decides what laws are unreasonable? Everyone has to follow the same code, whatever it is, or you have something like the Apartheid in South Africa. Someone has to decide which laws are good, which are bad, which are to be repealed, what new laws are to be made. You cannot make these decisions on your own.

"What's in question is if it's unethical, and I believe that it is not"

Okay. Did you bother to read Title 17, or any of the copyright acts I told you about? How do you know what copyright law is unless you read them?

"I guess Canadian democracy is different or something, because I have been taught that the purpose of democracy is to accomodate the largest nubmer of people."

Very good. Have a cookie!

"In this case it does not do that because it's accomodating the few record execs who are losing money because the people have side-stepped the law that doesn't account for them and are trying to accomodate themselves"

Then why hasn't your Congress repealed the law, if it isn't supported by the majority? If there actually is a substantial outcry as you describe, then copyright laws wouldn't be there.

Further, if this is what you think copyright law is, and what it is for, then I suggest you read Title 17 of the USC.

Quote:

---

That isn't a majority in the United States.

---

I wasn't comparing it to the population of the United States, I was comparing it to the amount of people who are opposed to it.
In that respect I believe that it is a majority.

Quote:

---

Then why hasn't your Congress repealed the law

---

Do you think that Congress cares about the people anymore? They're just a bunch of capitalists siding with the other capitalists. Long have been the days when the Congress was not corrupted by money.

Quote:

---

How do you know what copyright law is unless you read them?

---

Because I am not an imbecile. Yes, I have read them.

"I wasn't comparing it to the population of the United States, I was comparing it to the amount of people who are opposed to it.
In that respect I believe that it is a majority. "

I must have read that wrong. The majority of the people opposed to an idea are opposed to that idea? What the hell is that?

Anyways, the number of people required to make a majority is >50%.

"Do you think that Congress cares about the people anymore?"

Do you have a better way to make laws, other than resorting to your method of anarchy?

"Because I am not an imbecile. Yes, I have read them."

Really. Please cite some parts of Title 17 that you find most infuriating. If you need a copy of the USC to review, I can provide you with one.

I haven't read trough everything but can see there are disagreement between whether laws should equal ethics or ethics should equal laws.

I think aknisely is going against mainstream opinion voting for adapting to current laws. A healthy society evolves but there has to be resistance for evolution to be fruitful, so anyone contributing is contributing towards a common goal.

No one will ever be happy or content in a society like this but there is a struggle towards something better. There's a war between change and resistance, producing endless friction, a painfull process. So I wish not to participate in it but my will is not controlling my life for that matter.

I don't know how I should contribute into this conversation but I can tell you that nobody is "right" or "wrong" at least not in a objective sense. In a society I will never be content but unless something becomes a critical threat I will not change my course and continue downloading my mp3's without worrying about any ethical issues. To me ethics will never be rules, only tools.

Quote:

---

I must have read that wrong. The majority of the people opposed to an idea are opposed to that idea? What the hell is that?

---

No. In a comparison of those who are for file sharing services such as Napster and those who are opposed (such as yourself) the ones who are for it are the majority of all the people compared. I can't say it more clearly that that, dip.

Quote:

---

Anyways, the number of people required to make a majority is >50%.

---

Congratulations! That's worth a gold star!

Quote:

---

Do you have a better way to make laws, other than resorting to your method of anarchy?

---

I never said I did. I'm just saying that our Congress is easily corrupted by money.

Quote:

---

Really. Please cite some parts of Title 17 that you find most infuriating. If you need a copy of the USC to review, I can provide you with one.

---

I think you know where you can shove that copy of the USC. Just stick it right back in the drawer of your desk.

I'm offically done with this god-awful thread because it is caught in an infinite loop where I'll make a statement and you will contradict me with the same tired, pathetic retorts.

In conclusion, I acknowledge that what I am doing is illeagal and I will continue to do it because I find the law ethically and morally opposing to what I believe. I find nothing at all wrong with ignoring this law because I find it unreasonable, and they only way I will discontinue using p2p file sharing programs is if the feds break into my home and arrest for owning mp3s.

As for the issue of laws equaling ethics, that is total and complete bs. Laws such as the copyright law were made to protect the rich , greedy capitalists, not to maintain order and peace. Since these laws were not made for my benefit, I see no reason that I should follow them.

"No. In a comparison of those who are for file sharing services such as Napster and those who are opposed (such as yourself) the ones who are for it are the majority of all the people compared. I can't say it more clearly that that, dip."

That doesn't make a majority. That's merely the number of people who want a reform of the system. Naturally, people who are content with the way things are often don't voice their opinions.

"I never said I did. I'm just saying that our Congress is easily corrupted by money"

Well, unless you have a better idea of running your legislature, you're stuck with congress.

"I think you know where you can shove that copy of the USC. Just stick it right back in the drawer of your desk"

You've never read any copyright law. You haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about.

"I find nothing at all wrong with ignoring this law because I find it unreasonable"

If there were more people like you, the world would be a much better place with Skittles flying through the air.

"Laws such as the copyright law were made to protect the rich , greedy capitalists, not to maintain order and peace. Since these laws were not made for my benefit, I see no reason that I should follow them."

I hope you grow up soon. Anyone else want to talk, specifically about the copyright law itself.

Quote:

---

It just isn't your place to judge it [the law] so [wrong].

---

How many times are you going to say this? Please change the record. What you are saying to me just sounds silly. Okay so if you're cycling on a really busy road during rush-hour traffic, and there's noone on the pavement (that's a sidewalk to you :rolleyes: ), would you cycle on the road and risk getting run over by busy traffic as it surges past you, or would you get off the road and cycle on the pavement, breaking the law since it's illegal to cycle on the pavement (at least in this country it is)? In this situation, the law is counterproductive in an individual case. The law is not wrong in general, it's just wrong here. That law is not helping anyone, it's just forcing the cyclist to take an unnecessary risk in case a pedestrian should appear from nowhere.

I can understand where you're coming from, you are saying that the law is a necessary one and that everyone should stick to it no matter what, and that kind of system is the only practical way we can treat the law in an official capacity. So I am agreeing with you here, I am not disagreeing with the concept of laws and law-abidingness in principle.

Where I hold very different opinions is on what we can do to optimise this system. Surely, what is most desirable is that the legal system serves everybody equally reasonably and takes into account every individual case. Clearly this is not a tractable goal, or at least if it is then I have no idea how the legal system would have to be structured to achieve it. So in an official manner at least (ie. while constantly obeying every law) we cannot improve the way we keep society well ordered. However, in certain cases (like the cyclist example above) there will be clear paths available to an individual that are closer to what is most beneficial to society, but are prohibited by the law. In the above case, it is more reasonable for the cyclist to cycle on the pavement than and risk a pedestrian appearing from nowhere (not at all likely) and getting hit by the bike, than to have the cyclist cycle on the road alongside very busy, congested traffic, and risk huge personal injury should they be run over.

In certain cases, then, obeying the law is counterproductive to society, although in most cases obeying the law is productive to society. The only way we can improve this situation, making things work in a more reasonable way, is to act in a way that is more reasonable even if the law prohibits it. Society benefits from this action. In the case of the cyclist, the cyclist benefits a lot by removing the risk of being run over, the car drivers benefit by reducing the risk they will run over the cyclist, while the potential pedestrian now risks getting hit by the cyclist should a pedestrian magically appear from nowhere. The law is designed to protect the pedestrian, but in this case they don't need protecting, and society as a whole (being made up of the cyclist, the car drivers, the potential pedestrian and everyone else) benefits from the decision not to comply with the law.

In my opinion, society benefits from many cases of people downloading mp3s because (in many cases) there is no lost opportunity cost to the producer, although there is often an opportunity gained as they may not have bought the music if they hadn't heard it on mp3 first, and the consumer has the benefot of the music. The fact that the owner of the copyright did not make the decision themselves is regrettable, but since they don't know the situation as well as the individual involved it is more reasonable for that individual to make the decision, assuming they're not insane.

Society does not live according to the law. The law has a large effects on the rules that society imposes on itself, but the law is not the defining set of rules we use. The law is a good guideline and a godo thing to have. If someone makes a decision, though, it's not directly due to the law, it's because in their evaluation of the situation it is most sensible to comply with the law because that is the optimal thing to do in the individual case.

Of course, many people act on what is optimal soleley to them, and not to society as a whole. This is the driving force in many people for downloading mp3s, and if they do it for purely selfish reasons I cannot condone it, but this is not always the case.

Quote:

---

That law is not helping anyone, it's just forcing the cyclist to take an unnecessary risk in case a pedestrian should appear from nowhere.

---

I have a similar story. I was driving down a very busy highway and attempting to exit. Naturally, I slowed down to approach the exit. A few weeks later, I recieve a ticket in the mail -- I had apparently been caught speeding towards the exit. I pay the fine, and the next time I drive down the highway, I obey the speed limit to the strictest possible level, and I was nearly killed -- twice!

Your example about traffic doesn't really apply here, because you will not die if you don't have a particular piece of music.

Quote:

---

In my opinion, society benefits from many cases of people downloading mp3s because (in many cases) there is no lost opportunity cost to the producer.

---

I disagree with that. Your argument is that since it costs the record company nothing if you were to download the music, and you wouldn't have bought it anyway, there is no loss to the record company at all.

I would find this agreeable, if it was guaranteed that only throughout the time when you cannot afford the music would you retain a copy. What I mean by that is, as soon as you could afford to purchase a legitimate copy of the music, you would immediately do so and destroy your illegally obtained copy.

As well, opportunity cost is subjective. Let's say you are a little pressed for cash, but you want to listen to the new Brittney song. You download it. The next week, having worked overtime, you can now afford to purchase Brittney's new masterpiece. However, since you've already downloaded it -- despite the fact that you could now afford it -- you are not forced to purchase it in order to listen to it. The record company has now a loss of $20 in revenue.

Quote:

---

The law has a large effects on the rules that society imposes on itself, but the law is not the defining set of rules we use. The law is a good guideline and a godo thing to have.

---

The law is not a set of guidelines by which people are recommended to live. The law is the established set of rules that define, among other things, precisely what behavior is worthy of remand and liability. If it was generally accepted that the law was merely a recommendation, and unenforceable in any situation, lawlessness and anarchy will plague society.

I take the suggestion that I might consider downloading a Britney Spears song incredibly insulting, there was no need to bring things down to that level :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Your example about traffic doesn't really apply here, because you will not die if you don't have a particular piece of music.

---

I had a feeling you'd say this. It's the principle that I'm getting at. The point is that what the law says you should do is not always the best course of action. Not just for you, but for everyone.

Quote:

---

I disagree with that. Your argument is that since it costs the record company nothing if you were to download the music, and you wouldn't have bought it anyway, there is no loss to the record company at all.

I would find this agreeable, if it was guaranteed that only throughout the time when you cannot afford the music would you retain a copy. What I mean by that is, as soon as you could afford to purchase a legitimate copy of the music, you would immediately do so and destroy your illegally obtained copy.

...<snip>...

However, since you've already downloaded it -- despite the fact that you could now afford it -- you are not forced to purchase it in order to listen to it. The record company has now a loss of $20 in revenue.

---

Okay, it looks like we're getting closer to some sort of agreement here. I don't condone the things you're finding disagreeable here. So that's not really an issue. The only thing I'd change is that I don't see the need to delete the mp3 once you've bought the music. In my eyes it doesn't matter what format it's in, the point is you paid for the right to listen to it. Of course the music companies may see it differently, but I'm not very sympathetic with their opinion on that issue.

Quote:

---

The only thing I'd change is that I don't see the need to delete the mp3 once you've bought the music. In my eyes it doesn't matter what format it's in, the point is you paid for the right to listen to it.

---

That's entirely right, but that isn't the point of deleting the file. Deleting the file would make you purchase the music. Otherwise, you have no motivation for purchasing the music, and there is a loss of the price of the CD(s) that you've downloaded the file.

There still isn't anything forcing you to purchase the music once you have sufficient funds to do so.

Quote:

---

The law is not a set of guidelines by which people are recommended to live. The law is the established set of rules that define, among other things, precisely what behavior is worthy of remand and liability. If it was generally accepted that the law was merely a recommendation, and unenforceable in any situation, lawlessness and anarchy will plague society.

---

The law is a set of recommendations with potential consequences should you fail to comply. It is not intended as a recommendation, it is intended as a definition as you say, but in reality we run our lives by our own rules. Those rules are largely influenced by the law and by our personal ethics (people aren't legally obliged to donate money to charity, but they do because their ethics says that's the best thing to do).

People don't make decisions based solely on the law. The consequences of breaking the law are a factor, but the will not to do something in the first place is down to the individual's personal ethics.

Quote:

---

The law is a set of recommendations with potential consequences should you fail to comply.

---

That makes them rules, not recommendations.

Quote:

---

People don't make decisions based solely on the law.

---

Of course not, I never suggested anything of the sort. People must, however, make decisions that fall within the four corners of the law.

Quote:

---

That's entirely right, but that isn't the point of deleting the file. Deleting the file would make you purchase the music. Otherwise, you have no motivation for purchasing the music, and there is a loss of the price of the CD(s) that you've downloaded the file.

There still isn't anything forcing you to purchase the music once you have sufficient funds to do so.

---

Oh right, delete it when you can afford it. I was kind of assuming you'd buy it when you could afford it, which would remove the need to delete it.

As far as the forcing-you-to-purchase-it-once-you-can-afford-it'bit goes, well, that's what the law is for. It's relatively unenforceable though.

Quote:

---

As far as the forcing-you-to-purchase-it-once-you-can-afford-it'bit goes, well, that's what the law is for. It's relatively unenforceable though.

---

That's because there is no legal provision for allowing poor people to steal music in this fashion.

Quote:

---

That makes them rules, not recommendations.

---

Call them whatever you like, but they are external rules. They are not the rules you live by on a personal level. You don't make every decision based on whether it's legal or not. Or perhaps you do, I don't.

Quote:

---

Of course not, I never suggested anything of the sort. People must, however, make decisions that fall within the four corners of the law.

---

There is no 'must' about it. We are entirely capable of making decisions that fall outside the law, we just face potential consequenses if we do so. That's very different from having your behaviour dictated by the law.

Quote:

---

That's because there is no legal provision for allowing poor people to steal music in this fashion.

---

We already established this. What is your point?

[/quote]Call them whatever you like, but they are external rules. They are not the rules you live by on a personal level. You don't make every decision based on whether it's legal or not. Or perhaps you do, I don't.[/quote]

The law does not demand that you make particular decisions in a particular fashion. The law demands that your decisions are compliant thereto.

Quote:

---

There is no 'must' about it. We are entirely capable of making decisions that fall outside the law, we just face potential consequenses if we do so.

---

There is no definition of "must" beyond compliance with the law.

Quote:

---

We already established this. What is your point?

---

You said that forcing you to purchase music once you are able to is impossible. I said that it's because the law is not prepared to enforce such a thing, because there are no legal provisions for your whole scheme in the first place.

If you're going to submit to the "laws" of some of these pigs slipping Congress money under the table you go right ahead my friend but the rest of the world stands up for what they feel is unjust.

Stand up like a man and **** the law if you don't believe in it, if nobody stood up to anything, we'd be under British rule, the Wall of berlin would still be up and women would have no right to vote.

Citing my latter example, women in the 1920s stood up for what they believed in more than you do as a man in a modern society...you should be ashamed for being so submissive and wimpy.

Quote:

---

Citing my latter example, women in the 1920s stood up for what they believed in more than you do as a man in a modern society...you should be ashamed for being so submissive and wimpy.

---

What are you talking about? I agree with copyright laws.

Quote:

---

You said that forcing you to purchase music once you are able to is impossible

---

No, I said it was 'relatively unenforceable'.

Quote:

---

I said that it's because the law is not prepared to enforce such a thing, because there are no legal provisions for your whole scheme in the first place.

---

There is no 'scheme', I'm talking about my personal ethical opinion, and whether I have any objections, it's nothing to do with the law. Good grief. I wasn't talking about 'my scheme' either, I was talking about holding onto mp3s in general.

Quote:

---

The law does not demand that you make particular decisions in a particular fashion. The law demands that your decisions are compliant thereto.

---

You don't need to tell me this, I know this already. Do you have a point?

Quote:

---

There is no definition of "must" beyond compliance with the law

---

Err.. yes there is.