VABills Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 Well i kinda have to agree with Bill in NYC about you and your sig. Only a douche does stuff like putting that stuff in the sig.To quote south park: Douche "It's hard to argue when you won't stop making sense" -Snow Patrol, the anthem for Holcomb's Arm "know how i know tom brady is gay? he ever so gently taps his center in the ass before each snap." ~Ramius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 Well i kinda have to agree with Bill in NYC about you and your sig. Only a douche does stuff like putting that stuff in the sig.To quote south park: Agreed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 Valentine's Day is coming.... I might have to infringe some panties from Victoria's Secret. Not sure what to get HER, though.... Perhaps an escape hatch of some sort. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 Just one in a never ending stream of disappointments I'm sure. Maybe you can impress her by stealing some stuff and telling her you actually only infringed it. Wow, the rumors are true, you really are an idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardFan Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 And you say other people are being babies. Nice I think you missed the point: no one cares. No one cared the first eight times you pointed it out. No one cares now. No one will care the next eight times you point it out.Wait I thought we were talking RIAA, not DTV. (and isn't it 800). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justnzane Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 Douche"It's hard to argue when you won't stop making sense" -Snow Patrol, the anthem for Holcomb's Arm "know how i know tom brady is gay? he ever so gently taps his center in the ass before each snap." ~Ramius there is a difference... i agree with Ramius's quote and i thought it was funny and two the Snow Patrol one is not a direct quote from H_A, and it was meant in jokingly manner . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 Wow, the rumors are true, you really are an idiot. Tell that to Saint Pete when you get to the pearly gaits. I didn't steal, I only infringed. Let me in. Call him a moron for not understanding the difference. Maybe you can get his job. It's cush. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 Tell that to Saint Pete when you get to the pearly gaits. I didn't steal, I only infringed. Let me in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokinandjokin Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 I don't understand what's wrong with paying $0.99 per song on iTunes. We all grew up paying $15 for CD's to be able to hear those 2-3 songs that were really worth it...But now it's not worth it to pay $3 to own those three songs???? I agree, free would be better, but I have a job. I have some expendable income and I love listening to music. I have no problem with $0.99 for a good tune. As for those of you bashing the labels and artists because nobody makes a full album anymore...Isn't that a function of the downloading generation??? Bands attempt to make that one "hit" that will be downloaded countless times and create the buzz, rather than focusing on putting out an incredible body of work that the album used to be...It's a cycle that feeds itself.... In this thread where people are patting themselves on the back for their civil debating, and blaming others for bringing hostility into it, how come nobody has addressed my issues that I posted five pages ago??? ^^^^^^^^^^^ Did we ever determine what is wrong with paying $0.99 per song? And those of you complaining that you have to download because albums aren't what they used to be: Isn't song downloading ruining the idea of a complete album and forcing bands to look for that one "ringtone" hit??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC-Bills Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 It's not theft. Theft involves physical property. If I steal something, I deprive someone else of the use (ie: if I take a CD from a store). Of course I do find it odd that I can go to Best Buy and steal 50 CDs from them and I'd get a much less harsh sentance than if I downloaded the same 50 CDs. Weird, no? Cw You need to re-read the definition of theft then. Theft is not tied to tied to physical property alone. Theft is tied to property which can include tangible items (CD's, etc) as well as intangible items (such as copyrights). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 You need to re-read the definition of theft then. Theft is not tied to tied to physical property alone. Theft is tied to property which can include tangible items (CD's, etc) as well as intangible items (such as copyrights). So you're saying the Supreme Court is wrong? http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/175 A number of years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt with a man named Dowling, who sold "pirated" Elvis Presley recordings, and was prosecuted for the Interstate Transportation of Stolen Property. The Supremes did not condone his actions, but did make it clear that it was not "theft" -- but technically "infringement" of the copyright of the Presley estate, and therefore copyright law, and not anti-theft statutes, had to be invoked. So "copying" is not "stealing" but can be "infringing." Of course John said pretty much the same thing in this thread, but hey, call it what you want - who needs to be accurate on the internet, right? CW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDawkinstein Posted February 8, 2007 Author Share Posted February 8, 2007 its funny that the only part of this thread i DONT regret contributing to is the page where i lost it on John_Adams. ive learned my lesson to not bother with this place during the offseason. enjoy your pointless pissing matches boys!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 So you're saying the Supreme Court is wrong? http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/175 A number of years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt with a man named Dowling, who sold "pirated" Elvis Presley recordings, and was prosecuted for the Interstate Transportation of Stolen Property. The Supremes did not condone his actions, but did make it clear that it was not "theft" -- but technically "infringement" of the copyright of the Presley estate, and therefore copyright law, and not anti-theft statutes, had to be invoked. So "copying" is not "stealing" but can be "infringing." Of course John said pretty much the same thing in this thread, but hey, call it what you want - who needs to be accurate on the internet, right? CW Fez, are you speaking about criminal or civil actions? The fine point between infringement and stealing seems acdemic to most minds, and not really worthy quibbling about unless it is something obsessive . This reference describes the threshold for criminal prosecution under copyright laws... http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#506 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beerme1 Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 enjoy your pointless pissing matches boys!! Normally I can keep up. But honestly right now, I cant keep track of who is pissing in whose bowl of Cheerio's (trademark infringement) and why anymore? I'm pretty sure though the monkees are gonna be flying around very soon. Very soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bartshan-83 Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 In this thread where people are patting themselves on the back for their civil debating, and blaming others for bringing hostility into it, how come nobody has addressed my issues that I posted five pages ago??? ^^^^^^^^^^^ Did we ever determine what is wrong with paying $0.99 per song? And those of you complaining that you have to download because albums aren't what they used to be: Isn't song downloading ruining the idea of a complete album and forcing bands to look for that one "ringtone" hit??? You are completely right here. I've talked about exactly this with friends before and all I can gather is that there is nothing wrong with paying $1 per song. The only hangup is that Scour, Napster and it's hundreds of current followers made people so spoiled that they (we, actually) expect that music should be free. There was never a transition from having to pay $17 per CD to getting anything you wanted for free. If 8 years ago when Napster et al. started popping up, songs started out at $1 a pop, no one would be complaining at all. But because everyone has been used to getting free music for so long, it's hard to make some people pay even a nominal (and dare I say fair?) price for music. $1 per song is great for singles as it allows you to get the hot songs for practically nothing while avoiding the sht albums that have 2 good songs and cost almost $20. People can't handle having something great placed in our hands. We get a sense of entitlement after awhile and can't look past the fact that what we have been given might not be fair and will refuse to budge even when presented with a reasonable alternative. It's human nature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardFan Posted February 10, 2007 Share Posted February 10, 2007 ... But because everyone has been used to getting free music for so long, it's hard to make some people pay even a nominal (and dare I say fair?) price for music.... People can't handle having something great placed in our hands. We get a sense of entitlement after awhile and can't look past the fact that what we have been given might not be fair and will refuse to budge even when presented with a reasonable alternative. It's human nature. [Oh, the thread is finally back on topic. ] True, and things are already moving that way. Moonves's (CBS Pres) keynote at the CEA addressed the RIAA's methodology and it's failure both monetarily and in PR. His approach is to accept the fact that your product is not secure and to go from there. CBS has partnered with Slingbox (founder was there and showed new product that is designed to let you grab a video segment and email it to a friend) and YouTube (kid who founded it talked also). CBS also has created an online community where a game is displayed online and surrounded with 6 - 10 webcams creating a virtual living room where a group can watch and talk about the game (demo was participants from last years NCAA BB final commenting on their thoughts during a replay of the last minute of the game). The idea came from Opie and Anthony's webcam community (had them there also). Don't believe you can rationaize piracy but it is a fact. The RIAA may win some battles but will lose the war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted February 10, 2007 Share Posted February 10, 2007 People can't handle having something great placed in our hands. We get a sense of entitlement after awhile and can't look past the fact that what we have been given might not be fair and will refuse to budge even when presented with a reasonable alternative. It's human nature. The problem, to me, is that I am not going to pay $1 for a song that I can't have full use with, this includes playing a song on my media player of choice, on multiple computers that I own, etc. That isn't a reasonable alternative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted February 10, 2007 Share Posted February 10, 2007 The problem, to me, is that I am not going to pay $1 for a song that I can't have full use with, this includes playing a song on my media player of choice, on multiple computers that I won, etc. That isn't a reasonable alternative. You have some great luck to win multiple computers! I've never even won one... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted February 10, 2007 Share Posted February 10, 2007 You have some great luck to win multiple computers! I've never even won one... typo, I meant to type own! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted February 11, 2007 Share Posted February 11, 2007 =bad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts