Hackers, Crackers, Jackers, Modders Good or Bad

[Coral]

Recent case: UK Game-Sharers Being Sued; Peter Moore Says Bad Idea (http://kotaku.com/5041010/uk-game+sharers-being-sued-peter-moore-says-bad-idea)

I say sue as many as they can, even if it doesnt go through. I liked those videos that used to play before movies, about people not stealing cars, bikes, candy from babies, but how they would steal movies. There needs to be more risks involed for file sharing and the sort.

What do you guys think? Jail the hackers and theives? or let them have anything they want?

[blokeymon]

You steal something, you should get prosecuted. Simple as.

The punishment should fit the crime though.

I download music and movies and, if I like them, I buy them, hence having almost 600 original DVDs.

I downloaded a copy of Photoshop, cos I simply cannot afford several hundred, just for putting my boss's face onto a horse's arse.

But my games? I buy each and every single one of the buggers. I don't own a single copied game (save for the Amigas, but they were given to me), and I own thousands.

I'd happily pay a small fine for Photoshop, but the fact is I spend more than enough on films and games to balance.

People who rip and copy to make money, they need to die in fires.

[Blinger101]

Uhh, first we need some definitions:

Hacker: Genuine person only interested flaws in the system, not necessarily exploiting them. Hackers typically only go after high profile people (think CIA), but have since gone quiet. No need to worry about them.

Cracker: Little kids with nothing better to do than steal code and use it for themselves. These are the ones you have to worry about getting into your computer. These types are also referred to as 'Script-Kiddies'. These little bastards typically ruin your fun in online gaming as well.

Jacker: Don't know too much on this.

Modders: Those who like to customize the content that is given to them. No need to worry about these either, unless you have a Modding-Cracker (think Halo 2).

Since digital distribution is the way of the future, it seems pointless in going after these people now. Eventually the big companies are going to realize that digital is the way to go. Yes, stealing is still stealing, but going after them like this is in bad taste as, IMO, suing your customers isn't really good karma.

[Coral]

Lets refer to Jackers as people who create programs and viruses designed to infect peopels computers to get at their personal information, just spread further, or advertise **** you dont want.


I like the idea of if you find out someone has stolen your product, you ask them to pay for it in a polite letter. If they refuse you sue them for 5x the value of the product, or whatever it takes to cover the cost of you suing them. Blinger they arent your customers if theyre stealing. Its not like going after someone who buys 5 cds, and downloads a few individual songs, its going after people who download all their music. Apparently, file-sharing got really obnoxious recently — 691,000 downloads of Operation Flashpoint by Codemasters in one week alone.

Thats disgusting. Charge them, if they refuse, sue em, and jail the really bad ones.


Modders dont get sympathy from me, because its their modding that allows fake games to be played on consoles and handhelds. I hate seeing people with a DS or PSP, asking them what games did they buy with it and hearing them say none. I just got an R4 or whatever and downloaded like 25 games.

[Blinger101]

I guess you got a point about them not being customers. But, in all fairness, almost everyone I know who downloads games (piracy) DO EVENTUALLY buy the legit versions. This is usually because they find out they can't go on multiplayer due to anti-piracy checks.

[Rensa]

I don't anyone's arguing that game pirates aren't guilty. The current uproar lies in the way that this group of companies has gone about prosecuting them.

[Coral]

I don't anyone's arguing that game pirates aren't guilty. The current uproar lies in the way that this group of companies has gone about prosecuting them.

Yea but asking them to pay 50 bucks for the game, when they really could just sue them for a lot more doesnt seem fair to them. With digital distribution on the rise, if things like this arent ironed out soon then itll get worse. Id bet that half the PS2 population last gen got the system and modded it and never had to buy a real game.

[Blinger101]

Yea but asking them to pay 50 bucks for the game, when they really could just sue them for a lot more doesnt seem fair to them. With digital distribution on the rise, if things like this arent ironed out soon then itll get worse. Id bet that half the PS2 population last gen got the system and modded it and never had to buy a real game.

Didn't I already say something to that effect?

Ah whatever. The point still stands. Suing them hardcore for something they could just be fined with is not cool. It only hurts their image. And I stand by my statement.

[Lucas]

Digital distribution will never take over until the industry matures enough to handle it. Sure, the technology is already there, but the maturity isn't. As such, we wait.

Hackers are a necessary evil. They are needed to keep the balance of power between consumer and company. Most companies will rob you blind of your rights if they get the chance. Hackers exist to keep those folks in line. When itunes came out, I thought it was the greatest thing ever. Then DRM ruined it. We thought it was the labels forcing DRM on the downloads...turns out it was Jobs. Should I pay retail price for something that will only pay on Apple products that I don't use? No. But hackers give me the tools to strip that rights infringing DRM off my rightfully purchased music and play it wherever I damn well please. Now, thanks to that resulting outcry, Amazon has a growing music store that I can purchase music from with no DRM whatsoever. I have no issue with them and buy everything commercially available legally from Amazon outright, or from itunes then strip the DRM.

I've lost count how many times I downloaded an album to try, then bought it. I wouldn't have bought it had I not had the chance to illegally download it. You can't hear my kind of music on mainstream radio, or TV. Radio is owned by conglomerates and live TV performances never sound representative of the album. I download it first. If I like it, I'll buy it. If I don't, I'll delete it because it wasn't worth keeping anyway. Should all the people who bought a CD and ripped mp3s to play on their ipod be considered criminals because the record industry thinks they should buy a separate mp3 version of the album as well? That's bullsh*t, but without hackers, that's the kind of bulldog mentality labels would take with their customers.


As for movies, I rarely run into an instance where I needed to pirate a commercially available movie. I'll just buy the DVD, if it's available UNLESS it was released in another country and region codes prevent me from being able to play it. Then I pirate in protest. Usually the release will make it here eventually, but if it doesn't, I have no moral issues with pirating something they wouldn't let me play anyway. I bittorrent a lot of TV shows that won't ever appear commercially (but buy them if/when they do). Companies would love to make that illegal if they could. They tried to make the VCR illegal upon release. Yet illegal piracy has helped home video releases as well. Fansubbers are technically illegal, but they generate interest in anime that would have likely never seen light of day in America otherwise. Tiny Toon Adventures wasn't worth releasing on DVD in Warner's opinion, but the thousands of illegal YouTube videos uploaded and the resulting millions of views finally showed them there is a market for classic 90's cartoons. Would we have gotten them otherwise? Doubtful.

Remember when Windows Vista launched with a built in kill switch Microsoft could use if they found "un-certified software" on your machine? Hackers took care of that. Many people bought the release, then download the crack to make their machines safe from the conglomerate again.

As for games, I buy everything legit. I always have. Yet once I've bought something, I'll do whatever the hell I want with it. I cracked my PSP with custom firmware. I admit it. I could play every retail release without paying a dime, but I don't because of my own conscious. Games aren't like music. Like books, once you've read/played it, you're going to feel less obligated to buy it in many instances. I know this, so I refrain. BUT, once I've bought that UMD, I will occasionally load a backup of the title on the memory stick and play it off that for the sake of helping loading times. Sony says that's illegal. I say, "I bought it--bite me".

Yet hackers also do a great service for all gamers. I've talked about the Virtual Console's limitations before. What would the world do without illegal emulation projects like MAME? Thousands of classic arcade games not seen as commercially viable would be dropped into the anals of time and forgotten. Pac-Man was once seen as one of those titles. MAME changed that perception and now Namco nickles and dimes us for every retro title they have the rights to, but there will be some that are always commercially unavailable thanks to copyright claims. They will never be sold again, so I feel totally legit pirating them because I'm not hurting anyone's bottom line to do it.

Companies have got to realize that things like DRM only exist to punish the people who actually bought the product and is more likely to drive them to hackers and piracy in frustration of the violation of their rights. Pirates were never going to buy it anyway because they are crooks. Hackers keep those greedy companies in check. As long as they serve me, I'm glad to give them all my money. No profit = no future games. Yet somebody has got to be there to kick their ass when they step out of line.

[AzureNightmareX]

Digital distribution will never take over until the industry matures enough to handle it. Sure, the technology is already there, but the maturity isn't. As such, we wait.

Hackers are a necessary evil. They are needed to keep the balance of power between consumer and company. Most companies will rob you blind of your rights if they get the chance. Hackers exist to keep those folks in line. When itunes came out, I thought it was the greatest thing ever. Then DRM ruined it. We thought it was the labels forcing DRM on the downloads...turns out it was Jobs. Should I pay retail price for something that will only pay on Apple products that I don't use? No. But hackers give me the tools to strip that rights infringing DRM off my rightfully purchased music and play it wherever I damn well please. Now, thanks to that resulting outcry, Amazon has a growing music store that I can purchase music from with no DRM whatsoever. I have no issue with them and buy everything commercially available legally from Amazon outright, or from itunes then strip the DRM.

I've lost count how many times I downloaded an album to try, then bought it. I wouldn't have bought it had I not had the chance to illegally download it. You can't hear my kind of music on mainstream radio, or TV. Radio is owned by conglomerates and live TV performances never sound representative of the album. I download it first. If I like it, I'll buy it. If I don't, I'll delete it because it wasn't worth keeping anyway. Should all the people who bought a CD and ripped mp3s to play on their ipod be considered criminals because the record industry thinks they should buy a separate mp3 version of the album as well? That's bullsh*t, but without hackers, that's the kind of bulldog mentality labels would take with their customers.


As for movies, I rarely run into an instance where I needed to pirate a commercially available movie. I'll just buy the DVD, if it's available UNLESS it was released in another country and region codes prevent me from being able to play it. Then I pirate in protest. Usually the release will make it here eventually, but if it doesn't, I have no moral issues with pirating something they wouldn't let me play anyway. I bittorrent a lot of TV shows that won't ever appear commercially (but buy them if/when they do). Companies would love to make that illegal if they could. They tried to make the VCR illegal upon release. Yet illegal piracy has helped home video releases as well. Fansubbers are technically illegal, but they generate interest in anime that would have likely never seen light of day in America otherwise. Tiny Toon Adventures wasn't worth releasing on DVD in Warner's opinion, but the thousands of illegal YouTube videos uploaded and the resulting millions of views finally showed them there is a market for classic 90's cartoons. Would we have gotten them otherwise? Doubtful.

Remember when Windows Vista launched with a built in kill switch Microsoft could use if they found "un-certified software" on your machine? Hackers took care of that. Many people bought the release, then download the crack to make their machines safe from the conglomerate again.

As for games, I buy everything legit. I always have. Yet once I've bought something, I'll do whatever the hell I want with it. I cracked my PSP with custom firmware. I admit it. I could play every retail release without paying a dime, but I don't because of my own conscious. Games aren't like music. Like books, once you've read/played it, you're going to feel less obligated to buy it in many instances. I know this, so I refrain. BUT, once I've bought that UMD, I will occasionally load a backup of the title on the memory stick and play it off that for the sake of helping loading times. Sony says that's illegal. I say, "I bought it--bite me".

Yet hackers also do a great service. I've talked about the Virtual Console's limitations before. What would the world do without illegal emulation projects like MAME? Thousands of classic arcade games not seen as commercially viable would be dropped into the anals of time and forgotten. Pac-Man was once seen as one of those titles. MAME changed that perception and now Namco nickles and dimes us for every retro title they have the rights to, but there will be some that are always commercially unavailable thanks to copyright claims. They will never be sold again, so I feel totally legit pirating them because I'm not hurting anyone's bottom line to do it.

Companies have got to realize that things like DRM only exist to punish the people who actually bought the product and is more likely to drive them to hackers and piracy in frustration of the violation of their rights. Hackers keep those greedy companies in check. As long as they serve me, I'm glad to give them all my money. No profit = no future games. Yet somebody has got to be there to kick their ass when they step out of line.

/thread

[thegamecubist]

Modders dont get sympathy from me, because its their modding that allows fake games to be played on consoles and handhelds. I hate seeing people with a DS or PSP, asking them what games did they buy with it and hearing them say none. I just got an R4 or whatever and downloaded like 25 games.

But what about modders who want legit games? I plan on getting a moddisk/flip top for my PS2 so I can finally play some Initial D. I'd love to purchase a Japanese system, but they're expensive to import. At what point do you draw the line?

But modders who just pirate ****? **** 'em.

[Lucas]

But what about modders who want legit games? I plan on getting a moddisk/flip top for my PS2 so I can finally play some Initial D. I'd love to purchase a Japanese system, but they're expensive to import. At what point do you draw the line?


I see no issue with that. Region codes are the most pointless thing in the market today, next to DRM. If a company can't release a game domestically due to copyright claims--fine. But why put code on the disc that limits potential foreign customers from importing the product? It serves no purpose, and is the one thing that should be dead in this HD age. The world will soon share one video format. What use are region codes today other than appease some Japanese third party executive who claims, "If you aren't Japanese, you can't play our games!"?

[Blinger101]

Lucas, make love to me. Seriously. That was the best damned post about why hackers are good (well, the lesser of evils).

[Coral]

DRM wouldnt exist if it wsnt for this big problem in the first place. Look at record sales today. 10 years ago, someone with a number one song would easily sell 10million+ records. Now theyd be lucky to break 3, after 4 number ones.

[JValone]

DRM wouldnt exist if it wsnt for this big problem in the first place. Look at record sales today. 10 years ago, someone with a number one song would easily sell 10million+ records. Now theyd be lucky to break 3, after 4 number ones.

On the flip side, being able to download music has given thousands of artists who would have otherwise wallowed in obscurity the opportunity to actually be heard. Very few people will pay $15-20 up front for an obscure artist/band but the popularity many smaller acts have gained over the net have allowed them to continue doing what they enjoy. I would argue that none of them have lost sales because it's incredibly unlikely anyone would take a chance on them with no prior knowledge, the free "sample" got their foot in the door.

I also believe that part of story behind the sales decline of chart-topping artists has to do with how diverse the musical landscape has become. The internet has allowed people to find genres and artists they otherwise would have never heard of and they're supporting those people instead of Rihanna, Jay-Z, whatever. I don't think that's really a bad thing either, the pie is just more spread out and in the end we have more choices.

It's also important to note that popular music has become, ironically, more and more popular to loathe as the years pass which has no doubt hurt certain individuals who sit atop the charts regularly.

Defending DRM is a fool's errand anyway, it does absolutely nothing to stop the people it supposedly intends to target because *surprise* they are already savvy enough to download programs illegally to strip the tech as Lucas has noted. All it does is inconvenience the honest customer who just wants to listen to the album they legally purchased without being nickeled and dimed any further.

[Coral]

On the flip side, being able to download music has given thousands of artists who would have otherwise wallowed in obscurity the opportunity to actually be heard. Very few people will pay $15-20 up front for an obscure artist/band but the popularity many smaller acts have gained over the net have allowed them to continue doing what they enjoy. I would argue that none of them have lost sales because it's incredibly unlikely anyone would take a chance on them with no prior knowledge, the free "sample" got their foot in the door.

I also believe that part of story behind the sales decline of chart-topping artists has to do with how diverse the musical landscape has become. The internet has allowed people to find genres and artists they otherwise would have never heard of and they're supporting those people instead of Rihanna, Jay-Z, whatever. I don't think that's really a bad thing either, the pie is just more spread out and in the end we have more choices.

It's also important to note that popular music has become, ironically, more and more popular to loathe as the years pass which has no doubt hurt certain individuals who sit atop the charts regularly.

Defending DRM is a fool's errand anyway, it does absolutely nothing to stop the people it supposedly intends to target because *surprise* they are already savvy enough to download programs illegally to strip the tech as Lucas has noted. All it does is inconvenience the honest customer who just wants to listen to the album they legally purchased without being nickeled and dimed any further.

Um, I dont think its 3 million people listening to Rihanna and then the rest not, and listening to random indie artists and garage bands. Its 3 million people who buy it, and 10 million who download it for free.


You cant weight stealing content with the personal benefit of you hearing some band you may never of heard of before. And I highly doubt that those people go out and buy those artists cds. If youre so against drm, buy the physical cd, but dont be a douche and put it on the web for others to have access to.

[HGW XX/7]

Um, I dont think its 3 million people listening to Rihanna and then the rest not, and listening to random indie artists and garage bands. Its 3 million people who buy it, and 10 million who download it for free.


You cant weight stealing content with the personal benefit of you hearing some band you may never of heard of before. And I highly doubt that those people go out and buy those artists cds. If youre so against drm, buy the physical cd, but dont be a douche and put it on the web for others to have access to.

Not even close. I guarantee you that number of people downloading is probably less than or equal to the number of sales.

[Coral]

Not even close. I guarantee you that number of people downloading is probably less than or equal to the number of sales.

As far as Im concerned that makes no sense because millions of people didnt just stop listening to music, and millions of people didnt just stop liking "mainstream" music and start liking other things. Buying CDs and Tapes was a big thing for me and my friends while growing up. While I still do it, thats not the case with 90% of my friends anymore, and they know of and listen to most mainstream music.

[Rensa]

Rob Fahey's article post this last week (which someone posted... can't remember who now, was it Nismo?) is probably the best and most eloquent argument I've seen in this issue. It covers exactly why it's the wrong approach and doesn't crap on. Go have a look for it.

[Smokey]

Um, I dont think its 3 million people listening to Rihanna and then the rest not, and listening to random indie artists and garage bands. Its 3 million people who buy it, and 10 million who download it for free.
You're thinking wrong. As has been said, the internet is a huge place, and previously obscure artists are hitting it big nowadays, stealing some support from mainstream artists. People only have so much to spend on music, after all.


You cant weight stealing content with the personal benefit of you hearing some band you may never of heard of before. And I highly doubt that those people go out and buy those artists cds. If youre so against drm, buy the physical cd, but dont be a douche and put it on the web for others to have access to.

People do buy the CD once they've seen whether it's worth the purchase or not. People like to have tangible proof that they own something, and in the case of music, that's CDs. Another thing you probably haven't thought about: the vast majority of bands that I like can't be found in Best Buy, Circuit City, Walmart, or other electronics stores. Some small shops that are entirely devoted to music and things that are directly related to music have a bit wider selection, but the only way I can get most of that music is to go online and download it. Sometimes, I can buy the CD online, but that's not the case sometimes. Case in point, many people download their music because they can't find a CD they can purchase.

[Coral]

You're thinking wrong. As has been said, the internet is a huge place, and previously obscure artists are hitting it big nowadays, stealing some support from mainstream artists. People only have so much to spend on music, after all.


Im not thinking wrong, youre wishfully thinking. Its safe for me to claim that mainstream songs are illegally downloaded a lot more than obscure songs. Its upto you to show me and anyone else who these obscure artists are that are being downloaded so much. Also once theyre that popular theyre no long obscure, and at the end of the day, its all still illegal downloads.



People do buy the CD once they've seen whether it's worth the purchase or not. People like to have tangible proof that they own something, and in the case of music, that's CDs. Another thing you probably haven't thought about: the vast majority of bands that I like can't be found in Best Buy, Circuit City, Walmart, or other electronics stores. Some small shops that are entirely devoted to music and things that are directly related to music have a bit wider selection, but the only way I can get most of that music is to go online and download it. Sometimes, I can buy the CD online, but that's not the case sometimes. Case in point, many people download their music because they can't find a CD they can purchase.

Again more wishful thinking, except now youve gone to the point of thinking the downloading of obscure must is on the same level of mainstream stuff. And not having a physical copy has nothing to do with wanting to have the actual cd, as you can just create your own with the mp3s, and its not like games where if you lose the file youll have to redownload a large file. Again, all of that has nothing to do with the point that if we dont pay for it we shouldnt be downloading it.

[Smokey]

Im not thinking wrong, youre wishfully thinking. Its safe for me to claim that mainstream songs are illegally downloaded a lot more than obscure songs. Its upto you to show me and anyone else who these obscure artists are that are being downloaded so much. Also once theyre that popular theyre no long obscure, and at the end of the day, its all still illegal downloads.

It only makes sense that with the rise of previously unheard-of acts and the decline of mainstream acts, the two are interlinked somehow. Besides, the burden of proof is on you. You're the one that claimed that Rihanna is being downloaded by 10 million people. Prove it. Also, of course artists that were once obscure are no longer obscure with the advent of the internet. That was the point.


Again more wishful thinking, except now youve gone to the point of thinking the downloading of obscure must is on the same level of mainstream stuff. And not having a physical copy has nothing to do with wanting to have the actual cd, as you can just create your own with the mp3s, and its not like games where if you lose the file youll have to redownload a large file. Again, all of that has nothing to do with the point that if we dont pay for it we shouldnt be downloading it.

If it's not on the same level, it's approaching that point. Like has been said, these acts are no longer obscure because more people are taking notice of them and abandoning mainstream acts in favor of them. And yes, you can do that with MP3s; that's the rational thing to do. There are a lot of irrational people out there, though, and people like having proof that their property is actually theirs. Thus do they make the effort to buy something that they like, so that they can lawfully claim that it is theirs. And if you can not obtain that music lawfully due to corporate greed or an absence of said music in conventional areas, I think it is perfectly fine to download music "illegally".

It should be noted that the only people that are bitching about illegal downloads are fatcat labels and bands that no longer tour anymore and gain the majority of their revenue from record sales. David Draiman of Disturbed once made the comment that he personally didn't care whether someone pirated his music. He just wants to make music, and doesn't really make that much from record sales anyway. That attitude is shared by a majority of bands that tour regularly. Those bands that don't tour and those greedy record label bastards? **** them. They can die in obscurity for all I care. Obviously if bands can't tour anymore, their time has passed anyway.

[Coral]

I dont need to prove that something popular is popular. You need to prove that something unpopular, and obscure most likely for a good reason is becoming more popular.

Youtube is evidence enough as 95% of the videos with millions of views are mainstream acts. I know you really really want everyone to listen to random garage bands and Beethoven, but its not gonna happen. Sry kay? <3

[HGW XX/7]

What about bands like Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails who release their albums essentially for free online AND hard copies in stores. I don't see them whining, so why the hell should anyone else?

"Boo-hoo, I'm not making millions off of my CD's but I'm still making insane amounts more than that off of concerts and other merch."

CD's make money for the labels, if it went straight to the artists I'd have a problem with downloading music.

[Smokey]

I dont need to prove that something popular is popular. You need to prove that something unpopular, and obscure most likely for a good reason is becoming more popular.

If it was unpopular, we wouldn't be having this argument right now. Rihanna would be breaking ten million right now if not for new, previously unheard-of acts.

Youtube is evidence enough as 95% of the videos with millions of views are mainstream acts. I know you really really want everyone to listen to random garage bands and Beethoven, but its not gonna happen. Sry kay? <3

That stat is ********. Find a reliable source that says so and I might take it seriously. I'm talking a .org/.edu site, not stats.net.

Besides, it's not what I want. I'm not trying to convince you to listen to Amon Amarth, Pyramaze, Iced Earth, or any other bands. You're blindly disregarding the effect that non-mainstream bands are having on the music industry.

What about bands like Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails who release their albums essentially for free online AND hard copies in stores. I don't see them whining, so why the hell should anyone else?

"Boo-hoo, I'm not making millions off of my CD's but I'm still making insane amounts more than that off of concerts and other merch."

CD's make money for the labels, if it went straight to the artists I'd have a problem with downloading music.

Exactly. These bands that whine and bitch over illegal downloads don't need that money. Bands like Metallica that have been established for twenty-odd years get shitloads of money off of merchandise and stuff like that, but they're greedy and want to get a hold of every cent they can possibly get. Bands like that shouldn't be around anymore.

[Coral]

If it was unpopular, we wouldn't be having this argument right now. Rihanna would be breaking ten million right now if not for new, previously unheard-of acts.



That stat is ********. Find a reliable source that says so and I might take it seriously. I'm talking a .org/.edu site, not stats.net.

Besides, it's not what I want. I'm not trying to convince you to listen to Amon Amarth, Pyramaze, Iced Earth, or any other bands. You're blindly disregarding the effect that non-mainstream bands are having on the music industry.


Whatever smokey, debating with you is pointless because you cant look at anything logically. Respond to someone elses posts from now on.


Exactly. These bands that whine and bitch over illegal downloads don't need that money. Bands like Metallica that have been established for twenty-odd years get shitloads of money off of merchandise and stuff like that, but they're greedy and want to get a hold of every cent they can possibly get. Bands like that shouldn't be around anymore.[/QUOTE]

Thats so hilarious. You know, I put out a product and you steal it, so just because Im rich you should steal **** from me. If I complain I should stop making music, because smokey says so. Lol. :rolleyes:

[AzureNightmareX]

Oh coral, you're worse than Mike. You just don't know when to stop or when to shut up. Every single argument you presented has been rendered moot by the superior logic and reasoning of the people you're arguing against. You should just walk away from this thread before you make yourself look like a complete fool.

[MR EPIC]

Actually Azure that's not true. Just because some posts opposing Coral's line of thinking have been better written or worded in a superior way doesn't mean that the content was correct. Many here as I've seen are dancing around the simple fact that DLing music without paying for it is stealing and illegal. That's the bottom line no matter how fancy you word your post.

Coral 1
The rest of you guys 0

Next topic

[Lucas]

Whatever. Illegal or not, I have my own moral conscious and I won't download anything I haven't had the opportunity to try first. Since mainstream media refuses to allow me to "try" the kind of music I want through traditional means, I'll do it the illegal way. I've got as much video game music, lost movie soundtracks, and cartoon underscores as I do mainstream music. Almost none of that is even sold in the US, period. To import one 13 track album from Japan can cost as much as $60+. Should I not have downloaded that music, even if companies refuse to sell it to me?

Another thing you probably haven't thought about: the vast majority of bands that I like can't be found in Best Buy, Circuit City, Walmart, or other electronics stores. Some small shops that are entirely devoted to music and things that are directly related to music have a bit wider selection, but the only way I can get most of that music is to go online and download it. Sometimes, I can buy the CD online, but that's not the case sometimes. Case in point, many people download their music because they can't find a CD they can purchase.

Heh, Best Buy has stripped down their CD selection, and Wal-Mart's basically boils down to three things in this region: Redneck country twang, Christian Spiritual, and Latino. That's it. Amazon, mp3, or nothing.

[Smokey]

Whatever smokey, debating with you is pointless because you cant look at anything logically. Respond to someone elses posts from now on.

You're killing me here. No, seriously, you should do standup. Yes, there are laws stating that downloading without paying is illegal. These companies, however, are shooting themselves in the foot, as is any label and band that pursues legal action of this caliber against services or individuals. Rare is the occurrence that a person builds a cyber-version of the Great Library of Alexandria in terms of illegal downloads. Most of the time it amounts to a few albums. Should they be fined if caught? Sure, as long the fine is reasonable. Should they be penalized above and far beyond the cost of what they downloaded? Hell no.

Thats so hilarious. You know, I put out a product and you steal it, so just because Im rich you should steal **** from me. If I complain I should stop making music, because smokey says so. Lol. :rolleyes:

Just shut the hell up. Now. You're not even bothering to read the whole post. Bands that do nothing but rake in the profits from their albums they made fifteen years ago, their four "Best Of.." albums, and other merch and don't bother to tour or release new music should die out and deserve to be pirated. Obviously if they're simply sitting on their laurels and they don't care enough to provide the fans with what they want, they ought to be fine with the fans helping themselves. Bands that do, however, tour regularly, release new content, and ENTERTAIN people like they're supposed to don't need to worry about people pirating their stuff. Those few that do don't hurt them much, because they're doing new stuff all the time that rakes in more money than they lose. It's as simple as that.

Actually Azure that's not true. Just because some posts opposing Coral's line of thinking have been better written or worded in a superior way doesn't mean that the content was correct. Many here as I've seen are dancing around the simple fact that DLing music without paying for it is stealing and illegal. That's the bottom line no matter how fancy you word your post.

Coral 1
The rest of you guys 0

Next topic

Coral wins nothing. The only valid point he has made in this thread is that, yes, there are laws against downloading without paying. He's simply stating the obvious there. These laws, however, are corrupt and designed to benefit greedy bands that have died/should've died/deserve to die out a long time ago, and fatcat labels that ought to go die in a fire. The only people that are more successful in swindling the people like this are the oil companies.

[MR EPIC]

My point stands (obviously). :)

[HGW XX/7]

Except the difference between Metallica and oil companies, Smokey, is that I LIKE oil companies.

[Smokey]

Not even their old stuff? I mean, I realize they kinda suck now (well, almost ever since they Trujillo became the bassist), but still... At least Metallica used to be good. Oil companies were never good. Or rather the oil company execs.