“Russian music site of questionable legality AllOfMP3 may well be close to breathing its last. Credit card companies Visa and Mastercard have stopped accepting credit card transactions for the site,” Mark Mulligan blogs for JupiterResearch.
“AllOfMP3 have persistently sailed as close the wind as is humanly possible and claim legality through some creative interpretation of Russian copyright laws that the music industry refutes,” Mulligan writes.
“Without going into too much detail, the dispute centres around the authority of the new media license granting body in Russia to grant license on behalf of record labels and also around the much smaller license fees paid compared with standard licenses. Though AllOfMP3 claim to be catering for a Russian audience, they have clearly got their sights set on a wider audience and indeed usage is driven from Western Europe and beyond,” Mulligan writes.
Full article here.
Here in St Petersburg Visa it is still trading as of an hour ago. It must be that they closed it for the US market.
You poor suckers are being bullied by your own laws
MW: Added, As in iTMS added another musicstore on the dead list.
AllOfMP3 ‘close to breathing its last’ as Visa and Mastercard stop accepting transactions
Hahahahahaha!!
Say that again, please. I haven’t had a good laugh all week.
AllOfMP3 ‘close to breathing its last’ as Visa and Mastercard stop accepting transactions
Hahahahaha! Oh good, thanks…
*crying*
Interesting interpretation, zerO. I think that the truth is that you and others that think that it’s OK to purchase from a company that clearly does not have the rights to sell (i.e. pirating) because you find it convenient. Therefore, you are rationalizing in your own mind that it is legal and OK. In reality, you are buying illegal bootlegged merchandise. It doesn’t make it any less legal because you are paying someone for it. That “someone” doesn’t have the rights to the music in the first place. That’s like me selling you the Brooklyn Bridge.
My comment should have said “It doesn’t make it any less illegal because you are paying someone for it.”
Remember, currently the only method for stripping off the Fairplay DRM is to burn to a audio cd and rip back into Mp3.
BlueRay DVD burners can’t burn audio cd’s.
Just imagine those becoming standard in consumer Mac’s.
Oh yea.
Jimbo, since when are you an expert (let alone even remotely well versed) in Russian Information Property Law? The entity who “has the right to sell” is declared solely at the discretion of the jurisdiction within which the transaction takes place.
Wrong, Cog.
Even if the Russian government (or any other government) authorizes theft, it’s still theft. Taking someone else’s property without their permission is theft, regardless of what anyone else says. The Russian government is starting to resemble nothing but organized crime. Perhaps when the Russian government becomes brazen enough to steal directly from the Russian people in broad daylight they will wake up to it, but by then it will be too late for them to do anything about it. Too bad. Ultimately, however, democracy depends on a people who love their freedom more than the acquisition of wealth or national “power.”
Cog you ignorant slut!
Learn the difference between what a former-communist-dictatorial-dinosaur of a country deems appropriate versus what the rest of the civilized world says. Russia will have to come onboard with standard international copyright treaties or else they will be left behind in the market place. Same thing will happen to China. Eventually.
Russia, China . . . what’s the difference? Thieves wrapped in flags, that’s all. If the WTO had any cajones at all, it would slap both of them with hefty sanctions, but that ain’t gonna’ happen, now is it?
Russia and its former dictatorship… The “USSR” tried to dictate to its people. We all which nation and its 260 million people now tries to dictate to the rest of the world, don’t we?
And in the Music industry, who tries to dictate its agenda?
Using “communism” as part and parcel in ultimate evil or as a buzzword does little, I’m afraid.
Capitalism is really no better, it’s just different people who get screwed in different ways… there is NO perfect government structure yet.
If Russia and China had ANYTHING to offer the world musically I might respect them a teeny-tiny bit. But since neither country has even an ounce of performing talent by Western standards, they have to STEAL it!
Here’s an idea, Comrades: Develop your OWN Madonna, your OWN 50 Cent, your OWN Rod Stewart, and then sell THEIR music for pennies, OK?
Thieving SOB’s!
I was looking for a song once and came across allofmp3. I was even going to buy it, until I realized what they were doing.
I’d rather pay the Russian’s for stolen merchandise than the record companies or the RIAA for the same stolen merchandise.
The U.S. has taken the concept of intellectual copyright to some dark places.
Pull your head out of your ass, gorufo! I’m sure there’s plenty of room, but de view is probably pretty bad.
If any of these AllofMP3 bitches bootleg my top-selling CD, Come Poop With Me, I’m going to sic my lawyers on them faster than Jacko invites kids to “ride de Magic Mountain” at Neverland Ranch.
Hey listen, I love humping as much as de next red-blooded American canine, but getting humped by scumbags is no picnic. And thievery makes my ballsack itch.
Jimbo thinks he’s full of knowledge, but he isn’t… Just look at all of the fancy words he tries to spit out in his post a few days ago about consumer reports.
Randian,
Look at the band Tatu. THey are russian and off of the hook. DOn’t be so ignorant.
I’d rather pay the Russian’s for stolen merchandise than the record companies or the RIAA for the same stolen merchandise.
Wow. That’s gotta be a candidate for Most Retarded Rationalization of the Year. So you have no problem with the concept of buying stolen property, as long as you like the fence.
Paying money to thieves can’t be justified. If you have no problem with piracy, grow a pair and do it yourself. I hear Limewire is full of good stuff.
Sorry, but I’m with AllofMP3 on this. I know they weren’t legal in the US, but THEY are the way digital music should be distributed. Choose my codec, choose my bitrate, and then download UPROTECTED mp3 files. It was a great site. DRM only punishes the honest person, not the pirate.
I just don’t see why ANYONE could justify following the RIAA in any way. Don’t give me the legality argument, is their bullying even remotely moral in any way? They’re scumbags and I won’t give them another dime unless I absolutely have to, or until they stop treating their customers like crap and let us have a DRM free product at a fair price.
You can call it illegal, yes you’re right. But I look at it as civil disobedience. I’m tired of marching like a sheep to corporations and the corporation led government. Be a sheep or fight back in any way you can, you decide if you want to be their lapdog.
Jimbo, Chubbawubba:
Actually, here you have demonstrated the major reason Americans are the butt of international jokes. Sovereignty is a very simple legal concept – the only laws that matter are the ones that apply in a given jurisdiction. Russia is not an American jurisdiction, so no matter what you say the “rest of the world” thinks, it is absolutely meaningless within Russia.
Of course, you’ve already discredited the independent and sovereign nation-state of Russia, explicitly dismissing their right to create and enforce laws different to those you personally accept. Thus, it is clear, you are completely uneducated and clearly not worth listening to in matters related or otherwise to law, intellectual property, monster trucks, navel lint, nipples…
For the record, the rest of the world doesn’t agree with US intellectual property law. In fact, we make a point of *not* extending copyright whenever Mickey Mouse is about to enter the public domain.
i hate it when people download illegally
So what? ALLOFMP3 will simply change the name with which they charge customers, or will use a third party like PayPal or some European equalevant.
intheshelter:
“I won’t give them another dime unless I absolutely have to, or until they stop treating their customers like crap and let us have a DRM free product at a fair price.”
– Well, they do let you have DRM free products by way of selling CDs and allowing you to burn and rip an iTMS purchase. It’s not necessarily the easiest method, but the option is still there which makes your argument rather pointless.
“I just don’t see why ANYONE could justify following the RIAA in any way.”
– At least the RIAA gives some money to the artists according to the contracts that the artists have agreed to. Keep in mind that you are punishing the artists in addition to the record labels. So how do you justify stealing from the artists?
“I’m tired of marching like a sheep to corporations and the corporation led government. Be a sheep or fight back in any way you can, you decide if you want to be their lapdog.”
– Yes, fight back at the artist’s expense. How truly noble of you. Don’t try to act like you’re rebelling for any noble cause other than that you are too lazy and too cheap to purchase the music yourself.
Oh please Realist, feel free to spare me the RIAA crap about “the artist”. You tool, the RIAA doesn’t give a crap about the artist. They are something to exploit, a cow to milk, and then the RIAA keeps as much money as they possibly can. Did you know they give their precious artist even less money for a digital download than they do a purchased CD?
If you honestly believe the RIAA cares about the artists then this is a pointless discussion with you.
As for buying CDs without DRM, have you heard of the fiascos by Sony and others as they’ve attempted to lock down their CDs too? I’m talking digital downloads, not CDs, and I’m avoiding buying anything with DRM sewn into it. If you want them to dictate what you do with YOUR music (yes, i know it’s technicially not yours, it’s just a license to play it) then let them lead you around by the nose. I’m sick of their shitty treatment and I’m not giving them your money any more.
I don’t mind paying for music, but I want it to be fairly priced and DRM free. If they can’t quit treating me as a customer like crap then no, I won’t pay them. Luckily I don’t buy any music anymore anyway. I’ve barely heard anything in 10 years worth buying.
You go ahead and swallow their “save the starving artist” campaign. It’s propaganda just like the “war on terror”. Pull your head out Mr. Noble!
Pity. I hate the RIAA scumbag gangsters. Anything they’re against, I will support.
Fuck The RIAA!!!
The enemy of my enemy is my friend…
Geez, super tim is still sore at me for lambasting his utter lack of knowledge the other day in the Consumer Reports story?!?! I believe i used all of those “big words” correctly, and merely schooled you on the subject of statistics. You clearly didn’t understand it beforehand, so I thought I’d give you a lesson before your professors made you look like a fool. Too late, I guess.
Next time I’ll try not to use such “big words” in my posts to you. That should make it easier for you to see where you are wrong. It’s nice to know that our high schools have prepared students such as yourself for the big life of the university.
The discussion above about sovereign nations is interesting and important, and you’ll note that I did not question the sovereignity of Russia. Russia had very lax laws about intellectual property rights, and allofmp3.com took full advantage of that. However, the Duma passed legislation in July 2004 that tightened up those laws. They were very concerned about joining the WTO at the time, and faced trouble on that front if they didn’t bring their IP laws into agreement with international norms. Those new IP laws were not scheduled to go into effect until September 2006.
So, the laws are in effect, but they are difficult to enforce. Also, no one really cares to enforce them. Russia is threatening to walk away from the table with the WTO due to some sticking points in agricultural trade talks, so that would mean they would have less reason to enforce. Also, the Duma is talking about rewriting Part IV of Russia’s Civil Code, which deals with copyright and IP laws. If that is done, the rewrite will supercede all previous IP laws.
So, there you have it.
“You tool, the RIAA doesn’t give a crap about the artist.”
– Hmm, I don’t recall every saying that I thought the RIAA cared about the artist. A quick check through my earlier post confirms that I in fact never said what you attribute to me. However, regardless of how much the RIAA may or may not care about the artists, the fact still remains that they do pay the artists something. For many artists, that something is all they have to live on. So go ahead and deprive them of that too if it makes you feel better about your “civil disobedience.”
“If you honestly believe the RIAA cares about the artists then this is a pointless discussion with you.”
– If you’re going to misquote me and argue against points that I have never made, then yes, the discussion would be pointless.
“I’m avoiding buying anything with DRM sewn into it. If you want them to dictate what you do with YOUR music”
– I agree. I’m completely against the concept of DRM myself. I never buy music that has DRM somehow attached to it. How this has anything to do with justifying copyright infringement, though, is beyond me.
“I don’t mind paying for music, but I want it to be fairly priced”
– yes, and I would like to pay less for gasoline too. This is yet another argument that does nothing to justify what you are doing. Just because I may not like the price of OS X, that doesn’t mean I can just steal it.
“I’ve barely heard anything in 10 years worth buying.”
– Ah, but it’s worth stealing. It’s funny how the value of something changes when you actually have to pay for it.
“You go ahead and swallow their “save the starving artist” campaign.”
– I’ll just rephrase your statement as, “strawman argument meant to deflect attention away from the fact that I’m justifying stealing from the artists along with the ones that actually do worthwhile work for the record labels.
For those that have argued against the RIAA (which I personally dislike) above, let me ask you this:
An artist writes, performs and records a song. Do you agree that the artist should be allowed to sell that song for as little or as much as they want to? If it’s too much, you just say “It’s not worth it” and you don’t buy, right? OK, so should the artist be allowed to say “I will sell you this song, but you are not allowed to copy it, or you can only copy it to 3 computers and your iPod.” Once again, you can say that it’s not worth it, or you can purchase it.
Now, there is no difference between the artist selling their works and having a store or an agent sell them. In this case, they license the RIAA or iTMS to sell. They still have the rights to their own stuff though.
So, as much as we all may hate the RIAA and their policies, they have the right to do what they are doing. If you don’t like the price or you don’t like the restrictions – don’t buy. It’s just that simple. When their restrictions cause them to stop selling, they will change their tune (pun intended). If you take it illegally because you are not happy with their policies, you are stealing. It’s that simple.
You might want to check YOUR facts dumbass! You also are the master of misquotes Mr. Strawman. I never said YOU thought the RIAA cared for artists. Rather the whole point of my argument is that the RIAA is a scumbag organization, it gets stronger each time a lemming like yourself pays for their product, and I don’t plan on supporting them.
Again, I never said I stole any music either. Geez you’re a tool and a lackey. I said I liked AllofMP3’s site, it’s the way music should be made available, and I wouldn’t give the RIAA any of my money. YOU inferred the rest.
You attempt to defuse my post by arguing little snippets for totally unrelated points. You’re too busy looking at the damn tree to see the forest and what is going on around you and the point of my post. This IS just like the war on terror argument because they use a narrow little sliver of an issue (war on terror/starving artist) to manipulate you into doing what they want. Yes, the artist may suffer slightly, but judging from what I see on TV they’re not hurting too much. If everyone quit paying the RIAA tax maybe artists will start to jump ship and an independent music distribution model can get going. One where the artist reap most of the rewards instead of the record companies’ cartel.
I don’t want to cheat the artist and I don’t want to steal or have anyone else steal. But until we put up a fight nothing will change. Nothing would have changed during the civil rights era if people hadn’t been willing to break the law a little to show that they weren’t going to take the injustice any more. Same thing here. The RIAA is corrupt and actually hurts artists income compared to the potential they would have without the RIAA stealing from them. I won’t give them money any more, period. If you want to continue to feed their machine then go ahead, but I’ve decided to wake up and resist the manipulation.
You’re right Jimbo, it is stealing. I’m not denying that. But sometimes you’ve got to be willing to resist a little and break the law in order change the status quo. It doesn’t have anything to do with paying for the music, I have no problem with that. It has to do with overcharging and onerous restrictions the RIAA imposes.
The simple fact is that thiefs will steal no matter what, but most people will pay for the music and get it legally if the terms are fair. But, they choose to punish the honest folk by overcharging and DRM in the thought that DRM will somehow prevent theives from stealing. It won’t happen and honest folk are unnecessarily restricted in their use. Lower the price, remove the DRM, and money will come rolling in. iTunes has been a perfect example. They are the first to start to get it right. Still too expensive, still has DRM (less annoying than most) but iTunes has taken off in part because of the ability to buy just what you want and thus pay less.
I know that it may seem that I’m advocating stealing, but I’m not. I’m advocating resisting the RIAA and not giving them your money. You notice they were reluctant to do anything online until they noticed people were stealing music. Then suddenly they changed their stance. Only by not paying them will you force them to change. They have no motivation to change unless people avoid giving them money. I’m not saying steal, I’m saying quit paying them anything. Don’t buy their stuff any more.
My understanding is that allofmp3 compensates artists but not the record companies. Whether that compensation is adequate to the artists, I have no way of knowing.
All I do know is that laws, at least in the U.S. are put in place to protect the rich and powerful’s immense wealth, not the little indie rock star guy’s wealth. So my advice is to question authority as often as necessary, they are not looking out for your best interests. Instead, they are looking after the interests of some fat, rich white guy usually.
intheshelter,
I’m sorry if the lack of coherency and the extraneous thoughts in your posts forces me to “argue little snippets,” but it’s necessary to show why your argument doesn’t hold imder inspection.
“Again, I never said I stole any music either.”
– Fair enough. But you clearly stated that you support allofmp3 and went on to justify why stealing is permissible, and implying that it is perhaps the moral thing to do. Fine. And I’m trying to show why that point of view is flawed.
“Yes, the artist may suffer slightly, but judging from what I see on TV they’re not hurting too much”
– Do you get all of your information and opinions from TV?
“If everyone quit paying the RIAA tax maybe artists will start to jump ship and an independent music distribution model can get going. One where the artist reap most of the rewards instead of the record companies’ cartel.”
– Nothing is stopping the artists from doing that right now.
“I don’t want to cheat the artist and I don’t want to steal or have anyone else steal. But until we put up a fight nothing will change.”
– So just to be clear, you like the layout and distribution method of allofmp3, but you would never suggest or condone using it because you are against cheating or stealing from the artists. Your way of fighting the RIAA would be to simply not buy music, but of course, not steal it either. Is this correct? I want to be clear on this because it sounds a lot like you’re saying that stealing is bad, but it’s okay if it’s for a good cause.
“But sometimes you’ve got to be willing to resist a little and break the law in order change the status quo.
…
I know that it may seem that I’m advocating stealing, but I’m not. I’m advocating resisting the RIAA and not giving them your money.”
– Would mind clarifying what you mean by “willing to…break the law.” Because if you’re not advocating stealing but simply not buying music, how exactly might it be necessary to break the law?
“The RIAA is corrupt and actually hurts artists income compared to the potential they would have without the RIAA stealing from them.”
– Is this a fact, or are you just trying to say it with enough authority that it sounds like a fact? I suppose you wouldn’t care to substantiate it would you?
“Still too expensive”
– Too expensive by your standards. The market suggests that many people think it’s a very fair price. Once again, the value that YOU place on something does not indicate the market value of something.
Again, you’re nitpicking and not seeing the forest. My obvious point (obvious to everyone but you I guess) is that you can either not buy their music, or yes, steal it. When I say I’m not advocating stealing I’m saying I’d rather they just quit buying, but I’d rather they do anything other than buy from the RIAA.
No, I didn’t not get all my information from TV, just the small portion I referenced where I see artist living in million dollar homes. Do you get all your information from the RIAA and George Bush? My question makes about as much sense as yours does!
“you clearly stated that you support allofmp3 and went on to justify why stealing is permissible”
I liked allofmp3’s options. I choose the format, the bitrate, and the price is affordable. That is what I liked. I also liked it because it gives the RIAA fits. As for permissible, I simply said that to me the time to make a choice between supporting the RIAA or opposing it has come.
Too Expensive:
“The market suggests”? And just how does it do that? Suggest I mean? Did it whisper in your ear? Hey, the Iraq war suggests we’re taking on the terrorist right in their back yard! Duh! The thing that does suggest to me that prices are too high, even on iTunes, is the fact that they are basically the same per song cost as CDs. These are the same CDs people copied because they were too expensive to begin with. The same CDs the RIAA said would go down in price after their were mainstream, yet never did. These prices are the same, yet there is no media, no physical distribution costs, no brick and mortar stores, etc. Yet the price is the SAME! It is too high. The thing that “suggests” this to me is the fact that I don’t like the prices, lots of people I know don’t like it, etc. Just because people are buying songs doesn’t mean that it’s not too expensive, it just means there is no other options, hence the description “cartel” when I reference the RIAA.
“Nothing is stopping the artists from doing that right now.”
No, nothing is. Nothing is stopping me from protesting the RIAA except draconian laws passed by corrupt politicians bought by the RIAA lobbyists either. Now, I still CAN protest this by stealing or not buying, but I risk the possibility of financial consequences if I do. Much like the risk artists would take by leaving the distribution cartel of the RIAA. See, it’s a vicious loop.
“‘m sorry if the lack of coherency and the extraneous thoughts in your posts “
Apparently it’s only incoherent to you because you’ve been the only one nitpicking. Which bolsters my point that you just don’t see the overall point of my post, and instead are dwelling on certain phrases. I can lead you to water . . . . .
All of what you say makes some sense up to a certain point. To me that point has been crossed. It is time to rebel and resist, even if that means “stealing” music as a way of being disobedient. I don’t WANT to steal, but I don’t want to get fleeced for the rest of my life either. If I do everything the way they want then nothing will ever change. Personally, I’m willing to avoid purchasing music any more. As I said, it pretty much sucks now anyway.
You still don’t get the big picture on this. You focus on the detail, but you’re missing my point that I don’t care any more, I won’t pay them. Either by not buying or stealing, but I wish everyone would just stop paying them a cent. That has been the point all along and it still stands. No amount of nitpicking line by line will change my viewpoint that the RIAA sucks, artists would be better served without them, they are vultures who would take every penny you have under the umbrella of “the artists” and I won’t pay them any more. It’s a viewpoint on how I will approach that marketplace from now on and you can’t prove my viewpoint wrong. It’s a stance I’m willing to take. You’d have about as much chance in saying that civil disobedience during the civil rights movement was wrong no matter what, even though it’s goals were to change something heinous. yes, technically they broke the law too, but just because it’s a law doesn’t mean that it’s right and I have the right to protest it by breaking it. I run risks, but I have the right to do that.
And for the trump card:
Argue all you want about the LAW, this phrase is the spirit of my argument. . . “The Nazi’s had pieces of flair they made the Jews wear”
Wave “the law” in my face all you want. I don’t care about the law. The laws are wrong and must be changed. Some times the only way to change the law is to disobey it, to refuse to conform.
Believe it or not, I consider myself to be a 39 year old conservative, but I am sick of being taken advantage of by big business. I will miss allofmp3 and their great offering. Illegal or not, it offered the choices that many want in digital media.
I wonder how many artists have received checks from allofmp3? It would really be interesting to know how they pay artists directly and go around their contractual arrangements with whatever record companies they are signed with. Sounds like a bunch of bull intended to remove the guilt any potential buyer of songs throught their site. I just happen to believe they are skimming money that belongs to someone else by simply selling what isn’t theirs through a foreign website safely out of the reach of US, and most other countries’ (at least advanced legal system countries) laws. I wonder if they’d care to open their books for examination if they claim to pay artists. Bet that won’t happen… hah!
As to what is a fair price for selling DRM’d music… what exactly should that price be? CD’s often sell for in excess of $15 US, unless they are past their popularity prime, and at least on iTMS there is a bit of a savings to the consumer, plus the ability to cherry-pick songs (worth quite a bit in my book.) Sure, the distribution costs are next to nothing at that point… but someone (Apple in this case) put together a workable system, so we pay a bit for convenience, and the labels get a little less than if they sold hard copies. What’s the big deal? Folks, you can always go to your favorite Wal-Mart for the cheap CDs (recent top 40 or bargain bin discounted old shit) or some specialty music store and pay much higher prices for the harder to get albums. Nobody’s forcing anyone to do anything. If you are inclined to steal, choices of how to buy aren’t going to stop you. Most folks who refuse to pay for any music unless, “it’s going to the artist” are probably the same ones who would steal my cds out of my car. I doubt the artist really matters to them.
Now, does Russian law really allow you to sell intellectual property or copyrighted artwork which belongs to me at whatever price you want to, and to whomever you want? So I live in the States, and all a Russian guy has to do is copy my work, and then he now owns it by going home to Russia? Some system. Hardly recognizable as anything but the way things were done in the lawless old west. What a bunch of crooks. Hard to really defend without being a crook yourself.
I wouldn’t doubt that allofmp3 doesn’t pay the artists despite what they say.
As for costs, Apple is making money on iTunes, maybe very little, but it’s not in the red on the service. The artist gets paid VERY little, much less than on traditional distribution methods because of RIAA contract changes. The only one making out well is the RIAA.
I think there is room to move the price down. Keep the Apple chunk the same, increase the artist share somewhat, and lower the RIAA share DRAMATICALLY. They will make that up in volume because folks will flock to a lower price. I think most people want to be pay for it and be legal, but the price is still too high.
“These are the same CDs people copied because they were too expensive to begin with… Yet the price is the SAME! It is too high.”
– It’s easy to confuse “protesting high prices” and “stealing because there’s little chance that I will get caught.” Just because people are stealing music, that does not necessarily mean that the price is too high. I assume you know the whole correlation versus causation argument, so I won’t bore you by explaining it here.
“The thing that “suggests” this to me is the fact that I don’t like the prices, lots of people I know don’t like it, etc.”
– What would be a price that you “like” and why is your opinion any more important that anyone else’s? Or are you saying that if someone thinks that $5.00 for a CD is too much, then they are justified to steal it, that is, as long as it’s in the form of a protest? See, the problem is, where do you draw the line? When will the price ever be something that everyone will agree is fair? And should everyone be allowed to steal if the price doesn’t match their personal preference?
“Just because people are buying songs doesn’t mean that it’s not too expensivei]
– and likewise, just because people are not buying songs, that doesn’t mean that they are too expensive.
“Apparently it’s only incoherent to you because you’ve been the only one nitpicking. Which bolsters my point that you just don’t see the overall point of my post”
– No, your point is quite clear, it’s just that your arguments are rather unconvincing, many of which don’t actually support your basic argument, namely, that stealing is an acceptable form of protest when the consumer feels he is being treated unfairly. Of course, I’m sure you would not grant everyone that same freedom to break the law whenever they feel slighted.
“It is time to rebel and resist, even if that means “stealing” music as a way of being disobedient. I don’t WANT to steal, but I don’t want to get fleeced for the rest of my life either.”
– The problem with that philosophy is that even if you are pretty reasonable and feel that, say, $5.00 for CD is a fair price, the person next to you may feel that anything over $1.00 is too high. Should they be allowed to steal also?
“Wave “the law” in my face all you want. I don’t care about the law. The laws are wrong and must be changed. Some times the only way to change the law is to disobey it, to refuse to conform.”[/]
– Sometimes disobedience works, but that doesn’t necessarily justify your situation. After all, terrorism is a form of protest too.
” “The Nazi’s had pieces of flair they made the Jews wear” “
– I’ll let Godwin’s law take it from here.
If you really want to protest against the RIAA while still supporting the artists, buy the CDs at the concerts. Granted, it’s not always the most convenient, but that way more money goes to the artists.
Jeez, how many posts have you wasted and you STILL misrepresent my argument.
I have not one said stealing should be allowed, or is right, or is justified (justified by whom?). YOU said all those things, then turned around and refuted your own statement. I’m not saying any of those things and you know it.
Let’s sum it up for you so you don’t f*ck it up any more.
The entire point of my argument is I liked allofmp3’s offering and it annoys me how the RIAA bullies any possible competition to their cartel distribution model. Soooooooo, I’m not going to pay the RIAA any more. They are crooks and bullies and I won’t support them. I’m also saying I can disobey the law while knowing that there may be consequences for that disobedience if I’m caught. It doesn’t make disobedience right, just that I can do it as a way to rebel against the RIAA tax.
As for Godwin’s law, . . . you need to get a life. It was making my point by making a little joke. A joke! Do you know what a joke is? Do you realize you’re the only one who hasn’t understood all of this, obfuscating and nitpicking my overall argument.
Jeez you must be the death of any party that you attend. You need to step back and see the big picture of what people say rather than nitpicking and misrepresenting what they say. You’re the person that everyone hates to talk to at work because it’s such a chore to carry on the conversation.
intheshelter,
Just out of curiosity what do you do for a living? Do your customers (or employer) pay you a set rate or do they just pay you what they feel like at the time?
dp:
Let’s not waste time going down that road. It also misrepresents what I’ve said, much like Realist.
Not only does it misrepresent my argument, but for it to be remotely apt I would have to be the only provider of my service, force my employer to pay whatever I say, change the terms of my employment at will, install spyware on your PC to force you to pay what I ask, install software on your computer that compromises security(rootkit) to force you to pay what I ask, buy politicians to pass laws that force you to pay what I ask, etc., etc., blah, blah, blah.
Apple. . . . Oranges
Forest. . . . Trees
Nice try.
Where are all the nice americans? The americans that are not expert on every topic all the time.
American’s? I don’t understand.
“I have not one said stealing should be allowed, or is right, or is justified (justified by whom?).”
– While you may not have stated those explicit words, that is the meaning of much of your post, whether you recognize it or not.
“I’m also saying I can disobey the law while knowing that there may be consequences for that disobedience if I’m caught. It doesn’t make disobedience right, just that I can do it as a way to rebel against the RIAA tax.”
– True, you are not physically prevented from disobeying, but if you admit that disobedience is not right (I’m assuming morally and ethically) then why do it? How does doing something that you know is wrong just to advance your own personal agenda make you any better than the RIAA?
“It was making my point by making a little joke.”
– Yes, I understood the reference. No, it was not funny. I’m sorry that you’re not a good comedian.
“You need to step back and see the big picture of what people say rather than nitpicking and misrepresenting what they say. You’re the person that everyone hates to talk to at work because it’s such a chore to carry on the conversation.
– If the supporting arguments don’t actually support the big picture, it makes the big picture rather meaningless.
I’ll grant your wish and end this debate with you. It has proven quite useless anyway, mostly due to your constant wavering of your stance. You go from saying that disobedience (implied meaning = stealing) might be necessary (“necessary” being the moral equivalent to “justifiable”) in order to advance a personal cause, and then say that you are against stealing, but that you can do it, but that it’s not right to do. You cite examples of civil disobedience producing good results, thus implying that disobedience can sometimes be the right thing to do, but then say that it is not the right thing to do. Quite frankly, your stance is so full of contradictions that you seemingly fail to recognize, so any further discussion would just be a waste of both your time and my time. If you want the last word, so be it.
I think this preference to download higher quality (bitrate) and full quality uncompressed wav files from a site like allofmp3 should send a message to the RIAA to let online music distributors to sell full CD quality files for close to but not the full price of a standard music CD that you would buy from a brick and mortar store.
Basically you would be buying the CD without the actual physical packaging and shipping costs that would add to the cost of a normal CD.
You will be getting a discount for buying a downloaded CD as opposed to a physical CD and they make money where the RIAA would have lost the sale to allofmp3 or, Limewire sites.
I know everybody wants music for a lot less than what the RIAA wants but, there needs to be a middle ground here and if iTunes sells a CD’s worth of music for $9.99 then, maybe make the uncompressed CD $12.99 and that will give the consumer a realistic alternative to buying lower quality music files.
But the way that this could work is if the uncompressed files were only available as a full CD and not a la carte.
I know people want individual files but, this would be the middle ground here.
We live in a society of convenience where we whould prefer to pay a little more to get what we want here and now instead of driving down the the store to get the same music.
Umm, just put 100 dollars into allofmp3 and it worked fine for me. I used a Mastercard and I live in Virginia.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”grin” style=”border:0;” />
Maybe they just haven’t really instituted it yet. Either way, I’m happy to say I still have plenty of allofmp3 usage left.
Realist why do you continue. You can’t win.
“While you may not have stated those explicit words, that is the meaning of much of your post, “
-Wrong
“you admit that disobedience is not right (I’m assuming morally and ethically) then why do it?”
-I’ve explained why several times already. If you’re incapable of understanding it then it does no good to repeat it.
“Yes, I understood the reference. No, it was not funny. I’m sorry that you’re not a good comedian.”
-No, you didn’t. Yes, it was. Yes, I am.
“- If the supporting arguments don’t actually support the big picture, it makes the big picture rather meaningless.”
-Wrong again. My supporting arguments do support my opinion. They have all along.
“due to your constant wavering of your stance”
-I’ve been consistent, you have supplied a parade of straw man arguments.
“”necessary” being the moral equivalent to “justifiable””
-Show me one place where necessary is defined as the moral equivalent to justifiable. You made up a definition to support your faltering argument.
“You cite examples of civil disobedience producing good results, thus implying that disobedience can sometimes be the right thing to do, but then say that it is not the right thing to do”
-Wrong again. You inferred it, I did not imply it. I said that sometimes may be necessary to break the law to work towards change. That does not equate to breaking the law as being the “right thing to do”. Again you misrepresent me to support a straw man argument.
“your stance is so full of contradictions”
-My stance is consistent and has been. Your straw man arguments have created inconsistencies in order to prove your non-existent point.
“If you want the last word, so be it.”
-It’s not the last word that I wanted. You could have had the last word if you’d just admitted that you’ve misrepresented my arguments since your first post, but your pride wouldn’t allow you to admit you made a mistake. I don’t care if you agree with me, I just don’t like being misrepresented, and you’ve done that from the start.
All I have to say re: “AllOfMP3 ‘close to breathing it’s last'” is:
Crap.
(I never used AllOfMP3, but I liked the thought of having it around.)
And all of you with your paper machete halos my response to you is:
Piss off!
So Trent Reznor couldn’t get the gold Egyptian cat statues on his personal jet fleet, whoopdie freakin doo dah to that. With AllOfMP3 now artists are getting paid exactly what I get paid for my duties at my job: DIDDLY SQUAT!
LOL!
(mindmelongdayatworknevermindmoveon)
I can’t read the link so maybe I’m commenting in ingorance but you just go through click and buy and then purchase an xrost card. No big deal!
As for those posters defending the status quo I have one point to make: So when you defend artists, the RIAA etc. don’t you dare make copies of your music and give it to friends, because that’s depriving artist and the RIAA from their cut of the pie. Frankly, after paying for over-priced music for far too long I’ve been happily downloading music from allofmp3. I also rent movies and rip them, and I also download movies and TV shows from torrent sites because I don’t think there should be copyright on works of art.
Likewise I don’t give a fig for the American system of slugging consumers everytime they breathe. I’m not being a hypocrite I’ll bust DRM any chance I get and I’m sick and tired of hearing about musicians bleating about being ripped off. You are ripped off by the record companies. The punters who go and see bands are more often ripped off paying prices that are charged.
If you believe in copyright don’t make copies of movies using Mactheripper and Toast, don’t make copies of music, don’t make copies of television shows or anything for that matter, because that defeats the whole purpose of intellectual property. The whole concept is based on the user paying through the nose. Honestly, I’m sick and tired of the whole system and I will consistently bust DRM any chance I get. I will purchase from DRM free sites at the best price going because I’m a consumer and I’ll get the best price I can.
Oh and for the record I spent over a decade and half in the entertainment industry (musician, promoter, and legal representative). Now I’m going back to my three movie downloads; and I’ve got four albums from allofmp3 that I haven’t had time to put into iTune and then into my ipod.
Where do you live where they force you to buy music or anything else of that matter?
Where I live if I can’t afford something or if I think something is too expensive my morals dictate that I do without.
Where I live musicians aren’t forced into performing or signing record deals. They do so of their own free will. There even those that go it alone.
Is it life, liberty and the pursuit of reasonably priced music?
Your right Apples and Oranges. Please don’t sully the struggles of those who fought for civil rights or any reasonable cause for the right to purchase cheap music.
dp,
I refuse to support an industry that consistently rips off consumers.
Just remember you can’t make copies of the music you purchased and then make copies for your friends. Cds or otherwise. That’s a breach of copyright. That’s if you are consistent in your support of copyright laws.
dp:
I simply tried to make your leading question “Do your customers (or employer) pay you a set rate or do they just pay you what they feel like at the time?” a bit more similar to the argument about the RIAA abuses. The comparison to what a customer of mine pays me isn’t the same as what I would pay the RIAA because I don’t treat MY customers like the RIAA treats me as a customer. That was the point of what I said, not that I am forced to buy music, but that if I, as a customer, buy music then I don’t have rootkits or spyware installed on my computer.
If I installed rootkits or spyware, if I bought off politicians to pass laws unfair to consumers, if I treated my honest paid customers like CRAP then I would not have any more customers. They would go somewhere else. Now, since I don’t have big cartel to coordinate how my product is sold and control the entire distribution channel my former customers could find a comparable service. Unfortunately the RIAA has effectively negated any other legal options in their market, so that leaves not buying the product or using sites like allofmp3. I choose not to buy. Luckily for me I don’t see anything worth buying so I’m not really missing out on anything, but many others are annoyed at the RIAA mandated system and they ARE going to allofmp3 because they are tired of being treated badly.
“Where I live musicians aren’t forced into performing or signing record deals. “
-Where is it that you live? Fantasyland? Most music artists that are trying to get going have little choice to sign crappy exploitive deals with RIAA cartel members. It’s either that or they go nowhere. They are sometimes ignorant of how much of their hard work is exploited by their new masters, or their hope is they make it big and then can dictate better terms on their next contract. No, you’re right, they aren’t forced, they just have no other options unless they want to give up on their dream entirely.
And, finally, please don’t play the high-handed card of saying I’ve “sullied” the struggles of anyone. You know as well as I do that I sullied nothing. If their struggle was that easy to belittle then it probably wasn’t much of a struggle at all. Using civil rights as an example was simply a way to show that others have broke the law to change something before, it’s not new. Revolutionary war, civil rights, the fight to unionize. There were laws broken in all those circumstances weren’t there? Was their cause suddenly wrong since they had to break the rules of the established system to move towards change? Since their struggle was worthwhile then some look back on it as acceptable civil disobedience. I did’t equate music with civil rights and you know it, so spare me that bleeding heart argument.
Everyone has to decide when they’ve reached the point where they don’t want to be abused by someone or something any more. I’ve reached that point with the RIAA. It’s not some life or death issue nor some noble cause, just something I’m tired of (and many others if this board is any indication) and I refuse to send them any more of my money. You don’t mind getting fleeced and treated badly? Then go ahead and pay the man. Me and many others on this board are tired of paying them for poor treatment.
intheshelter,
I’m with you on this issue. The entertainment industry companies are totally without morals and I refuse to subsidise companies whose main purpose is to rip off consumers. That’s why I will not support DRM or products that are massively overpriced. And if governments pass laws to support such practices then I’m against those laws.
Thank you AntiDRM!
Your honor, the defense rests!
On the basis of the available evidence I now award damages against the Plaintiffs… And as a special note to dp, make sure you don’t share any music with your friends because that’s a breach of copyright.
Not supporting DRM or products that are massively overpriced is within your rights. Stealing those same resources is not.
dp
You don’t seem to get what I’ve been saying. I’ll list them for you:
1 The laws are wrong
2. I will not support that are blatantly written to support the rights
of record and movie companies
3. If I reject these laws as wrong I do not view what I am doing as
stealing because it is these companies are stealing from
consumers.
A final note:
I have to assume that because you have consistently refused to address my point of sharing music with your friends (which is a breach of copyright laws…the laws that you support) that in actual fact you are doing this. That being the case you are pursuing a hypocritical argument. You can’t have it both ways. And I have to say that it is you sir/madam who is morally bankrupt. Q.E.D.
TESTIFY my brother!
So DP, is it your contention that the people who also broke laws for civil rights, and the revolutionary war, etc. were wrong too then? They did not have the right to do that and so just should have stuck with the status quo? Boy wouldn’t it be nice to go back to the good old days when we had separate drinking fountains for white and colored, wouldn’t it? You know it would still be that way if some people hadn’t said enough is enough.
Music is not civil rights, but if you’re going to deal in that sort of absolute then obviously we should still be vassals of Her Majesty the Queen!
AntiDRM,
Let’s look at your three points.
1 The laws are wrong
– I agree that many of the laws that support many of the practices of the RIAA are indeed wrong.
2. I will not support that are blatantly written to support the rights of record and movie companies
– Fair enough. And I support your right to do that.
3. If I reject these laws as wrong I do not view what I am doing as
stealing because it is these companies are stealing from
consumers.
– Here is where the disconnect occurs. I would be completely fine with your points if the only ones affected were the record companies. Instead, no matter how you look at it, you are also stealing from the artists as well, no matter how inconsequential of an amount you may think it is. So do you also have a justification for stealing from the artists? If not, then breaking one law to protest a different one makes no sense. Punishing one person, who is possibly also being victimized, in an attempt to protest a different entity is what I would consider to be morally bankrupt.
And for the record, I also feel that copying music for other people is a copyright infringement as well.
intheshelter,
“Show me one place where necessary is defined as the moral equivalent to justifiable.”
– Um, that is the very idea of “necessary.” If something is absolutely necessary to do, then even if it is unlawful, it is at least justifiable on a moral level. In other words, you have reasons to break the law because you believe that your moral beliefs supercede the unjust law. The part that gets easily confused is in determining whether something is necessary to do, because if it is not necessary to break the law, then the justification to do so is also eliminated.
“So DP, is it your contention that the people who also broke laws for civil rights, and the revolutionary war, etc. were wrong too then? They did not have the right to do that and so just should have stuck with the status quo?”
– He never said it was wrong, just like you never said it was the right thing to do.
DP is not saying that the civil rights issue was wrong, just that it is not an appropriate analogy because fighting for basic human rights is not the same as fighting for a better price.
Realist what is your problem? Yesterday you told me that I didn’t know what I really meant when i said something. Today you’re telling everyone what DP means? Wow, what amazing spiritual powers you have, you can see right into the mind of everyone here! What a joke.
The only disconnection I’ve seen is your inability to disconnect from your pride and admit you misprepresent people. I knew you couldn’t quit yesterday because your pride won’t let you. And my prediction is you still won’t quit. You “very idea of necessary” is a rationalization created to support your flawed argument. If what you said was true then you could show me where “necessary is defined as the moral equivalent to justifiable”, but you couldn’t so you try to define it again yourself. Another false definition. Just show me some reputable site, websters.com or something where they define necessary that way. You can’t. Here’s my challenge to you, show me where it is defined that way or drop it. I’ll bet you can’t find it defined that way and you can’t drop it, you’ll come back with some other false definition you invented.
As for what DP is saying, lets let him speak to that. I think your established penchant for telling everyone what they REALLY mean is quite obvious. You, and only you, seem to be the one who knows what people REALLY mean. What divine power graced you with this amazing ability?
And no, the civil rights analogy is not wrong. Nor is the Revolutionary War analogy. People decided some issue had reached the point where they would have to break the law to effect change. That is the analogy and it stands.
You’ve lost again.
The only reason why I replied again today is because AntiDRM brought something a little new to the discussion. Why I keep responding to you, I’m not really sure. Call it pride, whatever. I’m not really concerned with what you want to call it.
“Yesterday you told me that I didn’t know what I really meant when i said something.”
– No, I was trying to say that what a person says and what a person actually means are not always the same thing. Your words can carry a meaning that does not always align with your intended meaning.
“You “very idea of necessary” is a rationalization created to support your flawed argument. If what you said was true then you could show me where “necessary is defined as the moral equivalent to justifiable”, but you couldn’t so you try to define it again yourself. Another false definition. Just show me some reputable site, websters.com or something where they define necessary that way. You can’t. Here’s my challenge to you, show me where it is defined that way or drop it.”
– I was merely trying to put it into words that you could understand. Quite honestly, though, I’m not really sure why you keep attacking this subject. I think you will find that you probably are in agreement with me on this one idea if you only tried to understand what I’m saying.
I was never trying to make a specific point with that phrase. I was merely pointing out that you are trying to justify (prove or show to be just, right, or reasonable) why your position is in fact a reasonable one. One of your supporting arguments is that some things may be necessary (1. Absolutely essential or 2. Needed to achieve a certain result or effect) in order to create change. That’s fine. I agree with all of that.
Now by definition, breaking the law is unlawful, so your personal justification is not a legal one, but a moral one. Thus, you have justified to yourself why your position is a reasonable one to have, based not on what the law says, but on your own personal sense of morality. Again, that’s fine. That’s what we all do. Everything that we do, every decision that we make is justified in our own minds. We have reasons for making the decision that we make. If we feel that the decision was necessary, then that’s our justification for doing so.
If you disagree with any of this, then either you don’t feel you are justified in your position, or you don’t think your position is a reasonable one.
“As for what DP is saying, lets let him speak to that. I think your established penchant for telling everyone what they REALLY mean is quite obvious. You, and only you, seem to be the one who knows what people REALLY mean. What divine power graced you with this amazing ability?”
– I never said what he “means,” rather, I merely pointed out what he actually stated. You were quite adament about that yourself when it came to things that you stated.
“And no, the civil rights analogy is not wrong. Nor is the Revolutionary War analogy. People decided some issue had reached the point where they would have to break the law to effect change. That is the analogy and it stands.”
– The problem with using historical analogies is that the way that history is written often times taints the rightness or wrongness of it. For example, the Revolutionary War would probably have been recorded and remembered as a bad thing had they lost the war. The victors decide what is right and what is wrong. There are plenty of examples where people tried to make a change by breaking the law, but since they failed to make the desired change, they are remembered as criminals. So just saying that people have felt before that breaking the law was necessary doesn’t really add much to the discussion because there are many criminals and bad examples of people that have broken the law.
I called it. Back again, didn’t meet the challenge, but back again!
“I was trying to say that what a person says and what a person actually means are not always the same thing. “
-WRONG You’re words exactly were “While you may not have stated those explicit words, that is the meaning of much of your post, ” That is you telling me what I mean. So you DID tell me what I mean and you are once again wrong.
“If you disagree with any of this, then either you don’t feel you are justified in your position, or you don’t think your position is a reasonable one.
“
-Wrong again. I disagree with you defining things the way you want to support you misrepresentation of things I’ve said. I said it yesterday and I’ll say it again, I don’t care if you agree with me at all. I just didn’t like that you misrepresented my original positiion yesterday and if you could have just admitted that or even let it die then none of this would have happened. Since you seem to have a constant need to tell me what I really mean (see above) then you end up misrepresenting my opinion on this and that has been my objection to you all along.
“The problem with using historical analogies is that the way that history is written often times taints the rightness or wrongness of it.”
-You may have a problem with a historical analogy, but I don’t. People decided some issue had reached the point where they would have to break the law to effect change. That was the analogy and it still stands.
“there are many criminals and bad examples of people that have broken the law.”
-Isn’t anyone who breaks the law technically a criminal? Aren’t there good examples of of people who have broken the law to effect change? Again, none of this negates my analogy that in the past people have decided some issue had reached the point where they would have to break the law to effect change.
“I called it. Back again, didn’t meet the challenge, but back again!”
– Heh. It’s not like you’re exactly avoiding making a response either.
“You’re words exactly were “While you may not have stated those explicit words, that is the meaning of much of your post, ” That is you telling me what I mean. So you DID tell me what I mean and you are once again wrong.”
– If I had been trying to tell you what YOU meant, I would have said, “that is what YOU mean.” Instead, I referred to the meaning of your post, namely, the words that you decided to use to try to express your meaning.
“Wrong again. I disagree with you defining things the way you want to support you misrepresentation of things I’ve said.”
– So do you actually have a problem with how I related the word “necessary” with “justifiable?” If so, what part do you have a problem with?
1. You believe your position is reasonable, ie. justified.
2. You believe some things may be necessary to create change.
3. You believe your position is reasonable, in part because of the necessity of it in order to create a positive change.
4. The reasons for your position are based on moral values rather than what the law explicitly states.
“Again, none of this negates my analogy that in the past people have decided some issue had reached the point where they would have to break the law to effect change.”
– Fine. Then your analogy would also include terrorists that break the law trying to create change. Obviously you are not supporting those people, so all this analogy tells us is that people are willing to break the law if they feel it is important enough to do so. That alone has no bearing on the rightness or wrongness of it (as evidenced by the many examples in history) and adds nothing to the discussion.
“You’re words exactly were “While you may not have stated those explicit words, that is the meaning of much of your post, ” That is you telling me what I mean. So you DID tell me what I mean and you are once again wrong.”
Note the full sentence I made, including the part that you left out in your quote. “While you may not have stated those explicit words, that is the meaning of much of your post, whether you recognize it or not.“
Obviously you know what your own opinions are, so this phrase obviously does not mean that you don’t know what you actually think or intend to mean. Instead, I originally wrote that last part to indicate that what you may not recognize is how the words you are using may not reflect your intended meaning.
“It’s not like you’re exactly avoiding making a response either.”
-Yes, I keep responding because you keep misrepresenting my posts. If you could quit being deceptive I wouldn’t have to respond.
“I would have said, “that is what YOU mean.” ”
-You did say “that is the meaning of much of your post” Again, telling me what I mean.
“So do you actually have a problem with how I related the word “necessary” with “justifiable?”
-I consider your attempt to wrap everything around your made up definition of “necessary” as a non-issue to the point of my posts concerning the RIAA. You are the one who has made a definition of the word “necessary” as the lynchpin to your argument. My argument concerned the RIAA, YOU have been all over the place trying to disprove statement that you attribute to me that I have never said.
“That alone has no bearing on the rightness or wrongness of it (as evidenced by the many examples in history) and adds nothing to the discussion.”
-Wrong again, it does add something. It adds the point that people feel the need to break the law some times to change it. That does add something to the discussion. You may not agree with it, but it is a true statement (“as evidenced by the many examples in history”) and it does show that people often become so sick of being abused in some way or the other that they refuse to let people such as yourself wave “the law” in their face as a way to keep them in line.
Misrepresent. Creating arguments about false definitions. Telling people what they REALLY mean as opposed to what they’ve actually clearly stated. Your entire string of posts has been deception building on deception to try and mask that you obviously couldn’t understand the point of my initial post. Just give it a rest and stop all the fake arguments.
“Obviously you know what your own opinions are, so this phrase obviously does not mean that you don’t know what you actually think or intend to mean. Instead, I originally wrote that last part to indicate that what you may not recognize is how the words you are using may not reflect your intended meaning.”
-Considering you’ve misrepresented my opinion and statements throughout this you’re hardly one to judge my intended meaning. No one else had problems understanding my feelings about the RIAA, only you. I see the problem as you being unable to comprehend how your understanding of my statements differs from what I’ve said. I’ll be held accountable to my statements, not to your misunderstanding of them.
“I consider your attempt to wrap everything around your made up definition of “necessary” as a non-issue to the point of my posts concerning the RIAA. You are the one who has made a definition of the word “necessary” as the lynchpin to your argument.”
– Nope. You’re the one that keeps bringing it up, and I’ve merely been responding to your questions about it. All I said was that you feel that certain things may be necessary. Do you disagree with that?
For example:
“Nothing would have changed during the civil rights era if people hadn’t been willing to break the law a little to show that they weren’t going to take the injustice any more. Same thing here. “
– So basically, things changed only because people were willing to break the law a little. Had they not broken the law, nothing would have changed. In other words, breaking the law was necessary. Do you dispute that? All I said was that that was one of your arguments for your position. Do you dispute that?
“Wrong again, it does add something. It adds the point that people feel the need to break the law some times to change it. That does add something to the discussion. You may not agree with it, but it is a true statement (“as evidenced by the many examples in history”) and it does show that people often become so sick of being abused in some way or the other that they refuse to let people such as yourself wave “the law” in their face as a way to keep them in line.”
– Nowhere did I say that the legal system is the absolute authority on matters of right and wrong. I suppose I could shout out something here about misrepresenting and deception and so forth, but I won’t waste the time.
“Misrepresent.”
– Hmm, well you obviously are guilty of misrepresenting also, so let’s just drop that issue, mmkay.
“Telling people what they REALLY mean as opposed to what they’ve actually clearly stated.”
– Actually, you’ve got that backwards. I’m responding to what people say. Whether what they say accurately reflects what they actually mean, well, that is not really my concern.
“Your entire string of posts has been deception building on deception to try and mask that you obviously couldn’t understand the point of my initial post. Just give it a rest and stop all the fake arguments.”
– If you can’t handle your posts being picked apart (“nitpicking” as you might say), then perhaps you shouldn’t express them so quickly.
“I see the problem as you being unable to comprehend how your understanding of my statements differs from what I’ve said.”
– Um, I’ve repeatedly said that my understanding of what you write is possibly quite different than your understanding of what you write.
“You’re the one that keeps bringing it up, and I’ve merely been responding to your questions about it. All I said was that you feel that certain things may be necessary. Do you disagree with that? “
– You were the one who initially brought up the whole issue of what “necessary” means. You just asked me about it again. You just contradicted yourself.
“All I said was that that was one of your arguments for your position. Do you dispute that? “
-Yes, I dispute the fact that I said anything about the word “necessary”. You show right here that YOUR attempt to rephrase my argument is where the whole “necessary” thing came about. Again, you contradict YOURSELF.
“- Hmm, well you obviously are guilty of misrepresenting also, so let’s just drop that issue, mmkay. “
-No, I’ve been consistent in my opinion on the RIAA. You have been consistently misrepresenting me as shown in the two paragraphs above. YOU say that I brought up the definition of the word necessary, YOU then ask me if I agree with the definition. . CONTRADICTION OF YOURSELF. YOU say that it was “necessary” was one of my arguments, but I never said that. Again, one sentence later you CONTRADICT YOURSELF and try to rephrase my argument and inject the word “necessary” again. I have been completely consistent in my opinion of the RIAA, you have misrepresented me from your first post.
“I’m responding to what people say. Whether what they say accurately reflects what they actually mean, well, that is not really my concern.
“
-Nope, contradiction again. You said in an earlier post “While you may not have stated those explicit words, that is the meaning of much of your post,”. This is your statement and it clearly says that you are telling me what my meaning of my post is, but not based on my words. So whose words would they have to be in this argument if they aren’t mine. . YOUR WORDS. You haven’t responded to what I’VE said, you’ve responded to what you THINK my meaning was. In effect you have been arguing against something that only YOU have said.
“If you can’t handle your posts being picked apart (“nitpicking” as you might say), then perhaps you shouldn’t express them so quickly.”
-Again, no one else had problems understanding what I’ve said about the RIAA, only you. Perhaps YOU shouldn’t respond until you know what you’re talking about. When you misrepresent something I say, then pick it apart, you haven’t defused my argument, you’ve defused the fantasy argument you attribute to me.
“Um, I’ve repeatedly said that my understanding of what you write is possibly quite different than your understanding of what you write.”
-So if you can’t understand it are you bothering to reply to something you don’t understand correctly?
This whole time you’ve been arguing against arguments you’ve made up and attribute to me. It’s been like Abbot and Costello. I am really not trying to be mean when I ask this, but have you forgotten to take some medication or something? That is really the only possible reason I can fathom as to why you would keep telling me I mean something when that is clearly not what I mean, and then you argue against the fantasy argument YOU just created.
“You were the one who initially brought up the whole issue of what “necessary” means. You just asked me about it again. You just contradicted yourself.”
– Hmmm, and you never answered the question. I would hate to think that you are avoiding answering it.
“Yes, I dispute the fact that I said anything about the word “necessary”.”
– Do you know what a synonym is? Just wondering. Anyway, I never asked if you used the word “necessary.” Once again, do you dispute the position I outlined in the example I quoted and how I used the word “necessary” in that example? All I’m looking for is a one word answer, yes or no, to the question I’m asking, not a question that you make up.
“No, I’ve been consistent in my opinion on the RIAA.
– I said you were misrepresenting others. Do you want specific examples?
“YOU say that I brought up the definition of the word necessary”
– You asked me to define the word “necessary.” I never asked you to define it.
“YOU then ask me if I agree with the definition.”
– Since you asked for a definition and rejected my first two attempts, I then tried to reach a consensus on how it should be used in further discussion. How is that a problem?
“one sentence later you CONTRADICT YOURSELF and try to rephrase my argument and inject the word “necessary” again.”
– I gave you the opportunity to reject the way that I used “necessary” in that example. I rephrased the quote to show why I felt it was applicable to the example. If you don’t like the way it was used, tell me which part of this you reject or feel is untrue.
“
For example:
“Nothing would have changed during the civil rights era if people hadn’t been willing to break the law a little to show that they weren’t going to take the injustice any more. Same thing here. “
– So basically, things changed only because people were willing to break the law a little. Had they not broken the law, nothing would have changed. In other words, breaking the law was necessary. Do you dispute that? All I said was that that was one of your arguments for your position. Do you dispute that?
“
“When you misrepresent something I say, then pick it apart, you haven’t defused my argument, you’ve defused the fantasy argument you attribute to me.”
– I’ve asked for clarification for specific thoughts that you’ve expressed. To better understand your thoughts, I’ve asked whether you dispute my interpretations. So far those appeals for clarification have remained unanswered. (and changing the question doesn’t count)
“I am really not trying to be mean when I ask this, but have you forgotten to take some medication or something?”
-Hmm, I’m not the one shouting and calling people names.
“That is really the only possible reason I can fathom as to why you would keep telling me I mean something when that is clearly not what I mean, and then you argue against the fantasy argument YOU just created.”
– It’s not my fault if you refuse to answer my attempts at clarification.
“- Hmmm, and you never answered the question. I would hate to think that you are avoiding answering it. “
-HAHAHAHA! So you ADMIT tht you are the one asking the question all the time about the definition of the word “necessary”?! Again, I’m not avoiding it, the word “necessary” was never part of my original post about the RIAA, so why should I discuss it. You’re the one obsessed with the word, it has nothing to do with posts, so why address it all.
“- Do you know what a synonym is? Just wondering. Anyway, I never asked if you used the word “necessary.” Once again, do you dispute the position I outlined in the example I quoted and how I used the word “necessary” in that example? All I’m looking for is a one word answer, yes or no, to the question I’m asking, not a question that you make up.”
-Again, the word “necessary” has nothing to do with my original post, so why should I address it? It’s your fixation, not mine.
–“- I said you were misrepresenting others. Do you want specific examples?”
No, this whole thread was caused by your misrepresentation of my original posting. If you didn’t make stuff up then this thread would not have happened. YOUR misrepresentation has been the issue from the start. I have not misrepresented you, you have misrepresented me.
“- Since you asked for a definition “
-I did not ask for a definition, you supplied your home grown definition to support your argument. Your exact words were””necessary” being the moral equivalent to “justifiable””. I simply said your definition was fake and if you wanted to use your were going to have to show me some reputable place the defined it the same as you. I did not ask for a definition, I asked you to show me a site that agreed with your definition! You couldn’t do it.
“I gave you the opportunity to reject the way that I used “necessary” in that example. I rephrased the quote to show why I felt it was applicable to the example. If you don’t like the way it was used, tell me which part of this you reject or feel is untrue.”
-Why do I even need to address it? It has NOTHING to do with my post about the RIAA. The way you use the word “necessary” is totally irrelevant and replying to it would only draw me off into one of your straw man arguments. Since my post did not even use the word “necessary”, and your replies regarding the word “necessary” have no relevance to my post, why should I address the word at all?
“In other words, breaking the law was necessary. Do you dispute that? All I said was that that was one of your arguments for your position. Do you dispute that?”
-Yes, I dispute that it is one of the arguments for my position. It’s one of YOUR misrepresentations of my argument, true, but it was never my argument. I said breaking the law MAY be necessary. Go look back in the posts, I’ll wait. Geez, you tool! What is your obsession with “necessary”?
“- I’ve asked for clarification for specific thoughts that you’ve expressed. To better understand your thoughts, I’ve asked whether you dispute my interpretations.”
-How many times have I used the word misrepresentation in reference to your posts. Obviously I think your posts have been wrong in interpreting my statements about the RIAA. Can’t you see that?!
“-Hmm, I’m not the one shouting and calling people names.”
-Hmmmm, I haven’t shouted (it’s called capitalizing for EMPHASIS) and considering your continued false statments I think I’m entitled to call you just about anything. You try to take the moral high road in your first post and you have spewed nothing but falsehoods ever since.
“It’s not my fault if you refuse to answer my attempts at clarification.”
-You aren’t clarifying, you’re attempting to build straw man arguments one step a time, and I see it a mile away and I don’t participate. If you want to talk about what I have said then do it, but mind numbing discussion about “necessary”, “necessary”, “necessary” have nothing to do with my post.
I’ll even repost my original post. Show me where I say necessary in this. . . .
Sorry, but I’m with AllofMP3 on this. I know they weren’t legal in the US, but THEY are the way digital music should be distributed. Choose my codec, choose my bitrate, and then download UPROTECTED mp3 files. It was a great site. DRM only punishes the honest person, not the pirate.
I just don’t see why ANYONE could justify following the RIAA in any way. Don’t give me the legality argument, is their bullying even remotely moral in any way? They’re scumbags and I won’t give them another dime unless I absolutely have to, or until they stop treating their customers like crap and let us have a DRM free product at a fair price.
You can call it illegal, yes you’re right. But I look at it as civil disobedience. I’m tired of marching like a sheep to corporations and the corporation led government. Be a sheep or fight back in any way you can, you decide if you want to be their lapdog.
Where is the word “necessary” in my post? It’s not there is it? So it’s not there, it has nothing to do with my post, so why should I discuss it? I never said the word “necessary” so I don’t see why defining that word has anything to do with my post.
Why the obsession with it? Why do I need to answer anything about it if it is not relevant to my original post? Why? Can you even answer why you are obsessed with that word?
“I have not misrepresented you”
– So you are positive that you never misrepresented my thoughts or misinterpreted what I said? Interesting. I can seriouly list so many examples of this. Would you like to see them?
“I asked you to show me a site that agreed with your definition! You couldn’t do it.”
– Aside from the fact that you took the entire phrase out of context, do you actually disagree that often times people justify the things that they do if they feel it was necessary to do it?
Do you disagree with this sentence, “If something is absolutely necessary to do, then even if it is unlawful, it is at least justifiable on a moral level.” Because if you don’t disagree with it, then why debate it? What part don’t you agree with?
“I said breaking the law MAY be necessary”
– That is why I carefully inserted the word “may” and other similar qualifications when trying to make sense of your position. I’m not sure how you missed all of those. Do a simple search and you will see all the times where I said “may be necessary.”
“Obviously I think your posts have been wrong in interpreting my statements about the RIAA.”
– I never disputed how you felt about the RIAA. I’m not sure where you got that from. I would hate to think that you are misrepresenting me.
“Why the obsession with it? Why do I need to answer anything about it if it is not relevant to my original post? Why? Can you even answer why you are obsessed with that word?”
– You don’t see how it is relevant? Then tell me specifically how my use of the quoted example is inappropriately using the word “necessary.” If you can tell me why “necessary” is inappropriate, then i will drop the word altogether.
“Hmmmm, I haven’t shouted (it’s called capitalizing for EMPHASIS)”
– Acutally it’s commonly understood as shouting in internet fora. Do you want a link?
“You aren’t clarifying, you’re attempting to build straw man arguments one step a time, and I see it a mile away and I don’t participate.”
– Actually that would be considered a slippery slope. Anyway, that’s not my intention. If you can’t answer simple questions about your beliefs, I’m not sure how they can hold up. Sure, not answering questions may prevent people from misapplying what you say, but it also prevents your arguments from being taken seriously.
– To be quite honest, I never was obsessed over it. I never asked to have it defined. You’re the one that seems to think that my entire argument rests upon that one word. That is why my questions that you refuse to answer are not about when or where you said the specific word “necessary.” It’s the thought that I’m interested in. Should I use the words crucial, essential, basic, or required instead? Seriously, it’s not the word I’m interested in, it’s the thought.
I’m sorry that you don’t understand what it means or how it is related to your argument.
As for the relevancy of certain words with your stance, if you can disagree with any of these three questions, then I will gladly take back anything about “necessary” having anything to do with your position.
For example:
“Nothing would have changed during the civil rights era if people hadn’t been willing to break the law a little to show that they weren’t going to take the injustice any more. Same thing here. “
–
So basically, things changed only because people were willing to break the law a little.
– Do you disagree with that?
Had they not broken the law, nothing would have changed.
– Do you disagree with that?
In other words, breaking the law was necessary (or crucial) for the change to take place.
– Do you disagree with that?
Why do I feel that these questions are the leading steps to another straw man argument. It’s what I’ve been trying to avoid all along because it’s a no win situation. I don’t win because I’m not arguing my point, I’ll end up arguing something totally irrelevant to the RIAA. You don’t win because you’re not addressing my feelings towards the RIAA.
My opinion doesn’t fall apart because I don’t answer these questions, it’s just that I have chosen not to follow these leading questions because they are irrelevant. They are leading questions that will stray from my original point so why address them at all?
Yea, anyway…..I love AllofMp3.com
Will continue to use it, like I have for the last year and a half, until I no longer can.
Which BTW isn’t today, because I just used a Mastercard to add some more cash. So the “last breath” bit is a little misleading.
Good arguments above, all of them, but I like my combination of iTMS, AllofMp3 and Bit Torrents and will continue to “shop” that way for as long as I can.
No matter how you look at it I spend EXPONENTIALLY more on music, movies and videos than I had before any of these technolgies existed.
That might not fly with those of you on the higher moral ground regarding this issue, but I sleep at night just fine.
Enjoy!