<p>It’s funny how some people are so bent out of shape (asking about anonymizer programs? PLEASE, how paranoid are you?) just because of this incident.</p>
<p>The simple solution is to use file storage sites like RS, MU, MF, HF, or zShare. Join a WAREZ FORUM to get linked to files hosted on aforementioned sites.</p>
<p>And don’t forget to knock on wood.</p>
<p>It’s irrelevant whether you call it stealing or not. People are going to download music. End of story. </p>
<p>Trying to enforce your sense of morality isn’t going to work.</p>
<p>i dunno how people can feel bad about downloading something they wouldn’t buy in the first place. it costs absolutely nothing to reproduce, and no one takes a loss on it. if you download instead of buy, its still not a big deal, because its not theft. you didn’t take anything from anyone. its copyright infringement, which is only immoral in that its against the law. laws that are idealist and unnecessary and established by lobbiests and special interests, not by anyone who is remotely concerned with you.</p>
<p>lol yeah artists really don’t deserve compensation for their work. it sounds like someone is rationalizing their actions here . . .</p>
<p>spare me the RIAA lecture please. i’ve heard it before.</p>
<p>I see nothing wrong with it. Music is art, art should be enjoyed by everyone.</p>
<p>It could really cost you.</p>
<p>[Jury</a> awards $675K in Boston music downloading case - Boston.com](<a href=“http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2009/08/01/jury_awards_675k_in_boston_music_downloading_case/]Jury”>http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2009/08/01/jury_awards_675k_in_boston_music_downloading_case/)</p>
<p>
What about avid downloaders such as myself who later go on to purchase the music we truly appreciate? I agree that it’s no solution to run an industry on an honors system but you can’t deny that this type of music listeners exists and is rather large. Spend time on any music community (Rateyourmusic, Metal-Archives, Sputnikmusic, etc.) and you’ll find many people who have an expansive collection of music through downloading and yet they continue to spend thousands of dollars of music to show their appreciation.</p>
<p>That’s not much of an argument. It’s like robbing a bank and then promising later to return with some of the money–claiming “we’re even, right?”. Yeah, I know that copyright infringement isn’t theft and I even may be willing to agree that the current system/laws do not have the artists in mind. The fact remains that downloading music illegally does not allow musicians to be compensated for their work.</p>
<p>I would be really surprised if 1/4 of the people who get their music from WAREZ, etc., later legally bought 1/4 of their music.</p>
<p>People don’t illegally download copyrighted material to stick it to the media companies–that’s an after-the-fact rationalization. They do it because they want to watch movies, and listen to music, etc. without spending any money. This is not a principled stance.</p>
<p>either way, it seems clear to me that not downloading the music is more “right” than downloading the music. And also, that not downloading the music is neither wrong nor right.</p>
<p>It seems like people are saying that you must either buy the music or download it.</p>
<p>^ What’s the alternative?</p>
<p>well, you don’t have to listen to copyrighted music. actually doing that would be the most moral way to protest the RIAA</p>
<p>
[quote]
What about avid downloaders such as myself who later go on to purchase the music we truly appreciate? I agree that it’s no solution to run an industry on an honors system but you can’t deny that this type of music listeners exists and is rather large. Spend time on any music community (Rateyourmusic, Metal-Archives, Sputnikmusic, etc.) and you’ll find many people who have an expansive collection of music through downloading and yet they continue to spend thousands of dollars of music to show their appreciation.[/qoute]</p>
<p>i love sputnik</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is a beautiful example of the lengths that people will go to rationalize their behavior.</p>
<p>1) You’re right, what I call it is irrelevant. What the law calls it, however, is relevant, and the law calls it illegal.</p>
<p>2) The fact that everyone does it makes it OK? Really?</p>
<p>3) It’s not “my sense of morality.” It’s the law.</p>
<p>youtube is illegal then…
this is sick…
if my mom buy a movie and she watch it, should I pay to watch it again? no! if my friend get some music and want me to hear it, should I pay? no!
So why should it be illegal if my annonimus online friend is willing to let me hear the music that he gets from the CD he paid for?</p>
<p>^ He can let you listen, but he can not make you a separate copy. If you rent a movie from Blockbuster or something, you have one copy, and you (and anybody else with you) can watch that one copy as much as you want.</p>
<p>And yes, putting up music you don’t own onto YouTube is illegal, which is why they remove it if they catch you. Just because the quality is complete crap doesn’t make it legal. Downloading a legitimately uploaded one (by the recording label) is also disallowed.</p>
<p>It COULD cost us, but also don’t forget that this is only the 2nd case to ever go to court out of a the millions of people who obtain music via file sharing.</p>
<p>well youtube does its best to remove copyrighted material from its site.</p>
<p>i don’t know the law that well, but i think a few of those situations you are describing fall under fair use. i’m not defending the laws–I don’t know enough to defend them. actually, I hear that some of them are pretty bad.</p>
<p>i bet you couldn’t post this</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>with a straight face</p>
<p>1) There’s already a thread about this in College Life.
2) I’m not afraid to walk through the street just because there is a .000001% chance I get hit by a drunk driver. And I’m not intimidated by the RIAA’s fear-mongering.</p>
<p>so if my friend buy a CD, then it should be legal for him to copy songs from his CD to his own computer, right?
Then he just give the CD to me as a present, it couldnt be illegal right? now I own the CD, I could repeat the cycle.
what is the difference then… </p>
<p>to the youtube thing… it could be fine for me to listen cover versions of the original song…</p>
<p>As far as I know, the purpose of copy right and intellectual property things is to recognize your work. It is inicially used to kill plagiarism. If I wrote an research paper, then everyone could read it and uses the result for other research projects as long as he recognize that it contains my contribution, i.e. as long as he dont claim my result is his work… etc.
However even patents gets expired after some time… I believe it could be more fair to make copyright like that, new musics get a year or 2 unavailable online so artists sell their CDs and then it is free to everyone.</p>
<p>I don’t understand what this student at Boston University did that made him stand out from the millions of other people all obtaining their music illegally. According to the following article 65% of teenagers illegally share music. <a href=“http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/jul/12/music-industry-illegal-downloading-streaming[/url]”>http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/jul/12/music-industry-illegal-downloading-streaming</a></p>