iLounge

21

People justify it how ever they can. I don’t listen to or buy music that is under the control of the giant record labels shinriceface. That is not my concern.
Come to think of it, nor is whatever any of you guys think or do either. steal away!!

Posted by kebot1 on November 19, 2006 at 2:53 PM (PDT)

22

downloading music is NOT stealing!

If it was yourd be arrested and on trial and not being sued - so please I am getting fed up with idiots who think it is stealing your all buying into the RIAA crap they spew out!

They can sue you for breaking their copyright and thats it - so its not a crime its not stealing and its not the same as breaking into someones house (which by the way is very very very bad as its not just stealing its worse than that and here in the UK you can get a more severe sentance for doing that than just stealing!)

Posted by Laywerondemand on November 19, 2006 at 9:47 PM (PDT)

23

If the artist has confidence that his music is worth paying for, he’ll legaly host a website where it can all be downloaded for free, or for a few cents to cover the cost of bandwith.

Because we gladly pay $20-$50, to watch them perform in concert. Which is actualy a job, where as the actualy creation of the music is generaly conceived as self expression and the creation of art. Which most people are more than pleased to do for free.

Posted by Louis on November 20, 2006 at 2:27 PM (PDT)

24

What’s this bi7ch doing looking at this guy’s credit card bill anyway?

Posted by DSM on November 20, 2006 at 7:13 PM (PDT)

25

<<Because we gladly pay $20-$50, to watch them perform in concert. Which is actualy a job.>>

So writing music and selling CD’s isn’t part of that job? (in case you don’t know, the answer is ‘yes’. It is part of the job that you should get paid for.)

<< where as the actualy creation of the music is generaly conceived as self expression and the creation of art. Which most people are more than pleased to do for free>>

These are just about the most inane comments I’ve ever heard.

Posted by kebot1 on November 20, 2006 at 8:17 PM (PDT)

26

When napster was first around (the free version) I was on it all the time. By viewing people’s libraries and chatting with them I got turned on to a huge amount of music I would’ve never heard of. I actually when out and bought cds and vinyl of the stuff I liked, so in actuality those artists made more money because I got their songs for free. Record companies are totally stupid for not recognizing downloading as the free publicity it is.

Posted by joe blow on November 21, 2006 at 11:20 AM (PDT)

27

At least they would’ve saved a few thousand dollars on a DJ for their wedding.  With an $8,000 iTunes bill I’m SURE he has the “Electric Slide” and “We Are Family.”

Posted by kazimoto on November 21, 2006 at 12:14 PM (PDT)

28

yup, shoulda “stole” it… You people do realize, that out of that $8K only a couple of hundred bucks actually went to the artists. the rest is profits for RIAA.

Posted by stereomind on November 21, 2006 at 1:04 PM (PDT)

29

Here’s my take: Downloading music is not stealing, that’s a word the RIAA uses to make people feel guilty.  If I walk into the Louvre and take the Mona Lisa, that’s stealing.  If I walk in, take a picture then leave, that’s not.  I can take it home, frame it, hang it on the wall, and the Louvre is not out a thing.  No doubt about it, downloading is illegal, but then again, so is speeding.  How many people here do that?  Original copyright law says that I can make personal copies of copyrighted material for my own use.  The RIAA didn’t like that, so they had a special law written for them.  I don’t like the speed limit in my neighborhood, and I don’t like the RIAA’s law.

Posted by zdogggg on November 21, 2006 at 3:32 PM (PDT)

30

I would also like to point out that, to the best of my knowlege, not a single person has been fined for downloading music.  Every one of them also had the songs available for uploading, which of course is not “personal use”.  My assumption is the RIAA doesn’t want to go to trial againd copyright law for fear of losing, so they only go against distributers, not end-users.

Posted by zdogggg on November 21, 2006 at 3:39 PM (PDT)

31

As an independent musician, I don’t understand the feeling that people can take my music without paying for it.  It costs me money to produce that music, and I’d like to get something back for it.  I don’t mind providing a song or two for free, or parts of songs so people can get an idea of what the music sounds like, but I would like for people to buy the CD so I can make enough to afford to pay for that CD and maybe produce another one.  Downloading music without paying for it is the same to me as people taking a CD without paying for it-it costs me money out of my pocket. 
Since the big record companies are only interested in producing acts that will create an instant million selling CD, they aren’t going to sign-up the groups that are really doing interesting, creative things that appeal to a smaller niche audience.  So indie’s like me need the support of our fans, including paying for music they download.

Posted by oldjazzdude on November 22, 2006 at 10:49 PM (PDT)

32

Back in the 70’s and 80’s I used to record songs off the radio with my new-fangled cassette recorder and no one considered that stealing.  How is downloading a song off the net different?

Posted by The Toddfather on November 26, 2006 at 8:25 AM (PDT)

33

She was totally right and justified to dump him!
I understood the iTunes episode to be simply the straw that broke the camel’s back for her.  The article also mentions well over 1000 purchased “old-fashioned” media items, AND almost an entire year’s salary worth of credit card debt.  ALL that debt could NOT have come from iTunes alone.  Pirating those songs wouldn’t have made a bit of difference.
But when you marry someone, your finances and debts become your spouse’s (unless a prenup says otherwise, and even then its risky.)  She was right to look at his credit card statement, since after they marry it will become hers.
Does she want to end up working the rest of her life to pay off his debts, and the future debts this compulsive spender will pile up?
Excessive debt is an excellent reason to call off a wedding.

Posted by to the point on November 29, 2006 at 10:51 PM (PDT)

34

i assume this is how they got divorced…

lady: “What the!? u’re wasting 8k in Steve Job’s wallet, who’s so obvious that he’s already rich enough to be the top 100 richest man on earth!!
what about Vuitton purse and Gucci coat that u promised me?”

man: “well…i’ll work that out later…dun worry…”

then the lady started to look through all her husband’s transaction throughout the month and found another 43k outstanding balance…at first she thought that her husband actually already bought the LV bag and Gucci coat that he promised…however,.....

lady: “WTF!? another 43k for 300 dvd movie!!?? i’m going back to my parents…i can’t live with a slacker like u”

man: “it’s allright…i learned to be prepared…just like my daddy taught me how to handle 1st year marriage…eventhough things heated up sooner than he said, at least i already had another 600 hours of movies that i can gladly do while u’re not here”

lady: “i’m leaving u…forever!!”

Posted by Jacooztique on February 4, 2007 at 3:22 AM (PDT)