# Off-Topic Discussion > The Lounge > Tech Talk >  >  Omg Limewire Legal?

## Seeker

Thought I would share this with you guys, I found it both amusing and horrifying at the same time.

Stopped by the local Wal-Mart during lunch today, my wife wanted a certain Beatles CD for Christmas.  I walked up to the register and while the lady was ringing it up, the conversation went something like this:

Lady:  Say, do you have a computer?
Seek:  Yes, I do.  (I was expecting some kind of sales pitch)
Lady:  You ever heard of Limewire?
Seek:  Yes, I&#39;ve heard of it.
Lady:  You need to buy it, then you can download every song the Beatles have written for free
Seek:  Er, isn&#39;t that illegal?
Lady:  No, you are sharing songs with other people that have bought the software
Seek:  Oh, OK, thanks.  O_o

Hmm, if I was her supervisor, I would have dinged her on a couple of points. 

1) Advising the customer to do something illegal
2) Advising the customer to do something that will hurt sales.

Funny, tragic event.   ::rolllaugh::

----------


## Jr_Worley

Lmao, thats great

i personally stopped downloading music because the sentence for getting caught is up to 
5 years in prison and up to 150k a illegal song downloaded.

----------


## docKnubis

oh my goodness i posted a topic about this a while back the same thing happend to me 
guess where
walmart&#33;

... maybe walmart owns limewire?

----------


## LucidDreamGod

I got a warning about copywright through peer to peer downloading, almost thought I was going to have a fine or something to pay, and limewares legal?, I wonder if Roms are legal?

----------


## Tsen

That&#39;s why I use Bittorrent, preferably with an anonymous proxy thrown in the mix.  When you join in on a torrent with 100+ seeds it becomes VERY difficult to track anybody&#39;s IP down, and with a good proxy in the mix, you&#39;re pretty much safe.  Limewire&#39;s the root of all evil anyways.  And the root of most viruses too, coincidentally.

----------


## Wolffe

> That&#39;s why I use Bittorrent, preferably with an anonymous proxy thrown in the mix.  When you join in on a torrent with 100+ seeds it becomes VERY difficult to track anybody&#39;s IP down, and with a good proxy in the mix, you&#39;re pretty much safe.  Limewire&#39;s the root of all evil anyways.  And the root of most viruses too, coincidentally.
> [/b]




I wouldn&#39;t say so o.O Anyone using one of those GUI interface things can see your IP&#33; Agreed about Limewire though

----------


## Umbrasquall

Limewire recruits at our school. They have posters up in the engineering building and hold info sessions.

----------


## LucidDreamGod

> That&#39;s why I use Bittorrent, preferably with an anonymous proxy thrown in the mix.  When you join in on a torrent with 100+ seeds it becomes VERY difficult to track anybody&#39;s IP down, and with a good proxy in the mix, you&#39;re pretty much safe.  Limewire&#39;s the root of all evil anyways.  And the root of most viruses too, coincidentally.
> [/b]



ya I was using something else when I got caught like utorrent, but now I&#39;m afraid to even try bittorrent I&#39;ve already been warned

----------


## TweaK

> I got a warning about copywright through peer to peer downloading, almost thought I was going to have a fine or something to pay, and limewares legal?, I wonder if Roms are legal?
> [/b]



ROMs are legal up to 24 hrs if you do not own the original copy, and they are legal for life if you do own original copies of the games.




> I wouldn&#39;t say so o.O Anyone using one of those GUI interface things can see your IP&#33; Agreed about Limewire though
> [/b]



What he means is that in a torrent with hundreds of leechers/peers/seeders/etc, your IP is just one amongst a hundred. It&#39;s like.. If you commit a crime alone, you&#39;re bound to get caught. If you commit a crime with 500 people, the chance _you_ (individually) will get caught is a lot smaller. M I RITE?

----------


## Kaniaz

It&#39;s illegal, guys, you&#39;re all filthy thieves. Limewire (why is that so popular) or not. Same thing happened to me though, kids thought it was legal...for some...god knows what reason. Wait, people buy Limewire? And all it is is a P2P interface? Limewire should have their asses kicked.

----------


## Ynot

> It&#39;s illegal, guys, you&#39;re all filthy thieves. Limewire (why is that so popular) or not. Same thing happened to me though, kids thought it was legal...for some...god knows what reason. Wait, people buy Limewire? And all it is is a P2P interface? Limewire should have their asses kicked.
> [/b]



for all you&#39;s using limewire......dump it......use frostwire instead
frostwire = limewire without the DRM checks

but really, torrents are better anyways
but if you must - use frostwire

----------


## Yes

Would it technically be a sin to download music?

----------


## Slogan

I don&#39;t consider downloading music as theft. Music is art and should be shared.
Programs, which can be worth &#036;1000+ I consider illegal to download, mainly because for most programs, you can get a different program that can do the exact same things free but I guess not everyone is a fan of Linux...
Nevermind...

----------


## Jess

> Would it technically be a sin to download music?
> [/b]



Yes Yes, yes it would.

----------


## LucidDreamGod

I download music all the time, I guess thats not much diffrent from roms, also got limewire free didn&#39;t know you had to buy it  :tongue2: .

----------


## MSG

The limewire software is legal and free, (open source too I think). However, downloading copyrighted material with limewire is illegal. It&#39;s okay to have the program itself, which is why the limewire company thing hasn&#39;t gotten in trouble yet.

As for the pay thing, there was this company that used nostalgia ads to get people to pay 50 dollars for mp3rocket (a limewire mod). My uncle sadly fell for it, because they said it was legal. I was able to talk him into cancelling the charge on the credit card though.

As for stealing music being right or not, of course it&#39;s not right, but the only reason I do it is because, well, it&#39;s easier and cheaper. If the RIAA ever told me to delete my music collection, I would have no problem doing it.

----------


## Umbrasquall

> I download music all the time, I guess thats not much diffrent from roms, also got limewire free didn&#39;t know you had to buy it .
> [/b]



Roms are legal if you own the actual game. That is, if you make the copy yourself.

----------


## irishcream

eek, i hate anything like that...

One, i don&#39;t want to get caught.
two, it&#39;s always full of viruses and adware and stuff...i rent cd&#39;s from the library, and copy them, or just buy them outright.

Depends on how old the album is.

----------


## Tsen

Yeah, Limewire&#39;s virus-ridden.
Seriously, though--bittorrents.  If you join a good site (like Kraytracker, my personal favorite), you&#39;ll never get viruses.  The community is almost entirely trustworthy, and if somebody finds a virus, they notify the community and the torrent is removed.  That almost never happens though.
As a plus, Kraytracker doesn&#39;t host anything the RIAA has rights over, so I just buy CDs that the RIAA could work itself into a tizzy over (or download them elsewhere if I really don&#39;t want to waste the money), and download the rest.  So basically, the RIAA can&#39;t do jack squat about any of the music on my hard drive, despite that ~80% is downloaded from torrents.

----------


## Jess

I heard SoulSeek is good for music.

----------


## LucidDreamGod

> Roms are legal if you own the actual game. That is, if you make the copy yourself.
> [/b]



is it possible to get caught with illegal roms?

----------


## PenguinLord13

> That&#39;s why I use Bittorrent, preferably with an anonymous proxy thrown in the mix.  When you join in on a torrent with 100+ seeds it becomes VERY difficult to track anybody&#39;s IP down, and with a good proxy in the mix, you&#39;re pretty much safe.  Limewire&#39;s the root of all evil anyways.  And the root of most viruses too, coincidentally.
> [/b]



I too use bittorrent. Great tool for illegaly d-loading stuff. What anonymous proxy do you use though (and how fast does it get)?

Anyways, I highly doubt that limewire downloading is legal, that walmart person was an idiot. Anyways, why pay for limewire when there&#39;s so much other P2P software with no viruses, which I have heard limewire has a lot of. Sounds like the new version of Kazaa.

----------


## Tsen

I actually don&#39;t have one set up at the moment, since I&#39;m at Utah State University, so I&#39;m required to use the USU Proxy Server in order to connect to the internet, and they monitor traffic to a certain extent to look for P2P users.  
Instead I&#39;m currently satisfying myself with downloading the shared libraries of everybody I&#39;m connected to on the LAN network.  There&#39;s a LOT of people on there, too.  I know for sure that everybody in my dorm&#39;s computers are LAN&#39;d together, but I think Jones Hall next door is connected too...
Either way, it rocks.  Both for stealing shared libraries, and for playing system link X-Box games and the like--just plug the XBox into the wall in your room, and have somebody else do the same in theirs and you&#39;re golden.

----------


## Umbrasquall

Yeah, the college dorm LAN network setup works because the entire network is your hub. Try using someone&#39;s computer to sign into XBC and then have your XBOXs set up the same way as a LAN game and all of the systems will be able to play online in the same room.

----------


## zxc

Something just happened where it is now legal to download things that you can&#39;t purchase anywhere, such as old rare games, I forgot what it is but it got passed.  I used Limewire a few years ago but my computer got filled up with viruses, I now have a better way of getting music.

----------


## Ynot

> now have a better way of getting music.
> [/b]



realising that music doesn&#39;t end in .exe ?   ::wink::

----------


## Tsen

Double lol--one at the .exe, and one at the fish slap dance in your sig

RE zxc--that&#39;s called abandonware, and its been legal for a while...

----------


## zxc

> Double lol--one at the .exe, and one at the fish slap dance in your sig
> 
> RE zxc--that&#39;s called abandonware, and its been legal for a while...
> [/b]



Oh, I just found out about it a few days ago.  And for me, music ends in .rar  ::wink::  .

----------


## Bayside

I can personally say I&#39;ve never gotten any viruses or spyware after about three years use of Limewire.  Except, that one time, when I got a little too cocky, and tried to download an older game, that isn&#39;t available anywheres near where I live....  But as music goes, I&#39;ve downloaded over 3000 songs and never got any viruses/spyware.

But if the RIAA ever see this....  I never downloaded a single thing, and Limewire is a horrible, horrible program.  I swear&#33;  >.>

I still buy CD&#39;s anyway, because I like to listen to the official versions of songs, with the best quality, and it&#39;s just nice to be able to say "Oh yeah, I have that CD".  Plus, I like to support my favourite artists, but I&#39;m not going to go out and buy a whole album because I like one or two of their songs.

----------


## MSG

> And for me, music ends in .rar  .
> [/b]



There will come a day when you just finish up a several-day download, but realise that the archive is encrypted.

----------


## Tsen

Yeah, I avoid .rar&#39;s because some trackers require that the initial upload be in a locked archive.  Usually the password is pretty obvious (like the URL of the tracker), but it&#39;s best to avoid that entirely.
And I buy CD&#39;s too, especially when I&#39;m really fond of a band.  I have bought all of Flogging Molly&#39;s CDs, for example, and several Real McKenzies ones (I even had to go WAY out of my way to find those McKenzie CDs...)
Usually, though, if I want to support a band I go to their concerts.

By the way, just a note:  Abandonware is only legal if the company has more or less renounced their copyright.  I think the original Doom is that way now, but I&#39;m not entirely sure.  Either way, typically only games produced by companies that have gone bankrupt or otherwise been disbanded are considered abandonware--just because it&#39;s old and not sold in stores doesn&#39;t mean it&#39;s legal.  The original TIE Fighter game, for example (which is one of my favorites), is no longer sold in stores, but is not legal to download because LucasArts still holds and maintains the copyright to it.

----------


## Cyclic13

Is downloading music a sin (ie. illegal)? 
Perhaps, right now in the U.S. it is, because the record companies have the power to sway lobbyists to make laws in their favor. However, in no way, does that mean that it is innately wrong to do so.

In Japan, for instance, did you know they have CD rental stores normally conjoined with video/dvd rental. If you rent like 9cds the 10th one is free. They will ask you, would you like to rent them for one day? two days? one week? You could rent 10cds and come back in an hour, no problem. People do it all the time. The industry is geared towards NOT buying it&#33; Thats because Sony music or Toshiba EMI don&#39;t have the clout necessary to overide public concensus and change the laws like they do in America. 

However, when it comes to the video game industry, you better believe you can&#39;t copy games. Hell, you can&#39;t even RENT a game at a rental store in Japan. Most video game companies started in Japan so you better believe they have the power to change the laws. On top of that games are monopolized so they charge more than double the price america does for a game. 

Does that mean America is ass-backwards for allowing rental video games? or Japan for allowing rental of music CD&#39;s?

Why would either industry (including movie) fear having a rental-like or free preview system? If you truly like it you&#39;ll buy it to show your respect and support to the artist/actor/company right? 

The answer is quite simple. In actuality, all those industries fear from free promotion is eventual loss of revenue and in turn their power...by creating, selling, and promoting- utter wastes of time.

I think, people should be left up to their own devices in deciding whether to buy a cd/game/movie or not. This digital age gives the power back to the people instead of the big companies looking out for their own self-interests. Now, If you like the artist, movie, or game company, then you will do what is necessary to see that there is another album, or sequel, its only natural. Granted, you are more than welcome to be self-rightous by not downloading music or movies by saying its wrong. However, you only help to protect the big companies that churn out shite music or movies (like &#39;The Core&#39; or &#39;Stealth&#39 :wink2: , and keep real independant artists and movies down. I would say dime-a-dozen pop music should be downloaded guilt-free as incentive to produce better music, and any independant artist with actual talent be given all the support of the fans. As an artist I wouldn&#39;t care if someone downloaded my music without paying for it... because- any promotion, is good promotion. That is, unless there isn&#39;t anything behind the music worth promoting. Then, all downloading an album does is, expose the one-hit wonders who lack anything more than a catchy melody on one of their songs when the rest of them are complete shite. Losing their power is what these big record companies really fear...and they should...because they are no longer able to pull one over on the public so easily anymore.

----------


## Kaniaz

Ooor you just aren&#39;t paying for the music. And that&#39;s stealing. Yeah.

----------


## Tsen

Well, whad&#39;ya know.  I was wrong, zxc was right.  Effective Nov. 26th, all commercially unavailable software is legal as abandonware.  There are catches, but I&#39;m too lazy to read through all the legalese.  Basically, the law was designed to legalize recreations of old software for obsolete hardware.  It is NOT legal if the software is commercially available in a form that does not require obsolete hardware as a requisite for access, though.  Basically, it means that MAME emulators for phones and all that, and DOS emulators for PCs are (mostly) legalized.

----------


## Cyclic13

> Ooor you just aren&#39;t paying for the music. And that&#39;s stealing. Yeah.
> [/b]



Stealing is in the eye of the beholder as I stated...

----------


## GestaltAlteration

It it were just the snotty record dealers (The ones that are snotty, at least) I wouldn&#39;t much care. But the artists of the music themselves are being majorly cheap shotted. 

    Is downloading illegal music a sin? Yeah, and I&#39;m guilty of it too. ><

----------


## bradybaker

I download. I acknowledge that it&#39;s stealing.

However, the only ones that really feel the effects are the major artists (Rolling Stones, Metallica, etc) and the record labels.

Since, 99.9% of my downloads are indie bands, I have a hard time feeling too bad about it. I&#39;ve been to 15 concerts this year where I purchased 10 t-shirts and 3 albums. All that money goes to the artists directly.

So, the moral of the story is; download if you want, but support your favorite artists&#33;

----------


## dsr

First of all, here are the facts about LimeWire. The Gnutella network consists of over 2 million PCs throughout the world that are connected over the Internet. As a p2p network, its technical (and legitimate) purpose is for users to share files with each other. Not copyrighted intellectual property, just files. However, Gnutella is often (mis)used for sharing music, movies, and software that certain companies claim (usually correctly) to be illegal. LimeWire is simply a GUI frontend to the Gnutella network. While some alternative programs are probably better, I will refer to usage of Gnutella as "LimeWire" for the purpose of this post.

Is LimeWire illegal? No, using the program in and of itself is not illegal. It&#39;s a piece of free (as in speech) software licensed under the GNU General Public License. Is using LimeWire to download copyrighted material that you did not pay for illegal? Very often, yes. Is it unethical? That depends on your views. Most artists don&#39;t receive more than 10% of the profits from their music because publishing companies tend to take advantage of up-and-coming talent (note that the latter clause is strictly an opinion). You are hurting the big corporations much more than the artists by pirating music. It might be more ethical to pirate the music and send the artist a few bucks over PayPal than to purchase the album legally and throw the fruits of the artist&#39;s toil into some wealthy executive&#39;s pocket. Is breaking the law unethical or a sin merely for breaking the law? God only knows (if your religious beliefs accommodate the phrase).

Arguments certainly can be made in favor of the piracy route. For example, you might find you like a certain artist from sampling his/her music at your own leisure, and then you end up buying several albums that you wouldn&#39;t have otherwise. Also, many publishing companies employ digital rights management and other horrible misuses of technology to restrict your freedom to use legally purchased music. Whether or not this infringes upon the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 I know not, but it can prevent users of free operating systems (e.g. GNU/Linux) from obtaining music legally, practically asking them to resort to piracy. Lastly, the RIAA and friends aren&#39;t any more ethical than the pirates themselves. They have sued the families of several dead people, among other things.

If you choose to pirate music, understand that you are breaking the law. I myself don&#39;t pirate music, but then again I don&#39;t listen to a lot of music. In the end it comes down to what you feel is right. If you want to take the nihilist route, abide by your own ethical beliefs and screw the law. If you believe it is more ethical to abide by the law, obey it and have the peace of mind that you won&#39;t be sued or incarcerated. On that note, adieu.

----------


## Cyclic13

Well put. wraped things up nicely

----------


## Unicorn

Here in Canada, it is still NOT illegal to download, meaning there&#39;s no such law that states it&#39;s illegal. Hell, i even remember there was a judge in Quebec that clearly said _downloading_ copyrighted media from the internet is NOT illegal, that was some 2 years ago. But of course, _sharing_ the downloaded material is clearly illegal.

I believe this situation will not last forever, the RIAA and movie industry are constantly pressuring the government to do something about it. But in the meantime, i do download a lot of stuff, mainly Indie-music, then buy the record if i like it.

----------


## Kaniaz

I don&#39;t really understand how pirates can argue their case on any moral ground at all. "We are taking things without paying for them". OK, so they&#39;re overpriced, but this is the point: you aren&#39;t being forced to buy music. So you don&#39;t buy it if it costs too much, then they get the point when revenues go into a freefall.

But instead everyone pirates it, the RIAA finds a pretty great reason to get pissy, _then_ &#39;pirates&#39; have the audacity to be offended, surprised and horrified when the RIAA starts suing people up the wazoo for "goodness me, that&#39;s a lot of money&#33;". Uh, yeah, because when you break the law you get sued. Weird isn&#39;t it?

*DISCLAIMER:* I pirate music and I have no intention of paying back the artists (which kind of undermines the &#39;it&#39;s for sampling&#33;&#39; scenario since it just doesn&#39;t work). At least I don&#39;t think I&#39;m on some sort of moral high ground.

----------


## Unicorn

> *DISCLAIMER:* I pirate music and I have no intention of paying back the artists (which kind of undermines the &#39;it&#39;s for sampling&#33;&#39; scenario since it just doesn&#39;t work)[/b]



Well, speak only of yourself.   ::angry::

----------


## deathly_hallow

Weird Al Yanchovic sings about this topic in his song called "Don&#39;t Download This Song", of course I went and did it anyway...

----------


## Cyclic13

Kaniaz, you said you dont understand how pirates can argue. As I said before, doing said acts is only considered a &#39;pirate&#39; in the countries with said laws against &#39;pirating&#39;.  However, I would say we made pretty good cases to the contrary, if I do say so myself. Someone has yet to refute my point about different countries allowing different things. Which country is in essence right? I&#39;m american but I live in Japan. Currently, Japan doesn&#39;t have anything against downloading music. Does that mean I apply myself to Japanese or American law? Would I be extradited to the U.S. because I am a citizen? The answer is no. I highly doubt U.S. law applies worldwide, otherwise countries like Thailand and Phillipines which sell bootleg DVDs and such would already have been cracked down upon. The U.S. isn&#39;t the &#39;end all, be all&#39; in moral standards and rules so just because one person, or country for that matter, believes it&#39;s wrong doesn&#39;t in turn make it wrong.

The U.S also railroaded it&#39;s pointless anti-marijuana campaign across the globe at the beginning of the 20th century. Strong-arming countless countries to follow suit. Japan being one of them. (sidenote: did you know that a simple small marijuana possession charge in Japan can have you see significant jailtime?) Most japanese have the idea that marijuana is an injection drug the likes of heroine. They also believe every american owns a gun. The level of naivety of the japanese people, and propaganda they have been spoonfed since birth is staggering. However, I digress. 

My point being, do the laws created mean something is innately wrong? Undeniably, no.  

Of course, you would have to be a fool not to follow the &#39;When in Rome, ...&#39; mentality, but I think the idea of eventual free music, is a great one. Definitely not criminal. Music is supposed to be about sharing a feeling, not making money, anyway. If someone truly made music they would know this to be true. Greed should not be a factor in making music. If the music is good, money will follow naturally. For example, the band &#39;Smashing Pumpkins&#39;, released about 40 songs for free available only on the internet just prior to retiring as thanks to the fans. Now, that&#39;s definitely understanding the idea of true music.

----------


## wasup

Well some people do it as a profession... I bet they realized that music is about sharing a feeling... but the feeling wouldn&#39;t be able to get &#39;shared&#39; anyways if the person wasn&#39;t getting money.  People need money, and a lot of them don&#39;t have time to make CDs just so people can pirate for free.  I download... a lot... but huge bands really aren&#39;t suffering too much... they are still incredibly rich.  As someone else said... concerts and the such is where they get a lot of their money.  

About your point... there is no "right" country anyways, it&#39;s just their laws.  

I don&#39;t think many people realize that MOST musicians work really hard to get money... there are not a lot of huge bands who everyone buys records from.  

I download music and everything, but definitly don&#39;t agree with the statement that "music is something to be shared because its art&#33;  They should give it for free&#33;"  Well, for one, artists sell their work.  People don&#39;t give away paintings.  Secondly, if music was all free... do you REALLY believe that there would still be a huge amount of music flooding to be ABLE to be downloaded?  I doubt it... not a lot of people have time to make music, not to mention it costs money to profesionally record their music.

----------


## MSG

Guys it&#39;s simple

Johnny makes a song and says "You can have my song if you pay one dollar"

Billy says, "Oh I&#39;ll just get it from somewhere else then" and gets a copy from Sandy.

Johnny gets mad and tries to ruin the system in which Billy is getting free copies of Johnny&#39;s music from.

The bottom line: You are not paying for something that costs money

----------


## Cyclic13

With all due respect ataraxis, you are preaching to the choir. 

You make it sound like the artist suffers for their craft. Well they do. However, they suffer despite the monetary setbacks, not for the reasons you may think. Making art isn&#39;t a chore or task assigned to you by a superior like a 9 to 5 job. It is our escape, our vacation from the drudgery of it all. An artist sacrifices their time and money for their craft because it is as much a necessity and part of them as eyesight or hearing. 

If you haven&#39;t taken the time to check out my signature, I do make music, have loads of equipment, and am in a sh*tload of debt as a result. The lack of possibilty of professional success or financial freedom from making music doesn&#39;t waver my desire or resolve to make the music. Oh, and by the way, people do give away or sell paintings for super cheap...it&#39;s called prints. I know many artists that do that. and that IS what real art is about. I&#39;m sorry, but it is. Did Mozart die a pauper, or living it up like P.Diddy? Did that stop him from making his music? Hell no. And, who of the two is the true artist? That goes without saying.

Anyone with jaded views of fame or fortune while making their music or art will have it show in their work because their intentions lie not with their art, and they will find themselves fighting an impossible uphill battle. The point is to have fun and try and share it, and hope that perhaps one day, if you have talent, you will be pushed into the &#39;Limelight&#39;, pardon the pun. There is no use speculating on what else an artist might think because I assure you if they think differently they aren&#39;t true artists.

----------


## Kaniaz

OK, so you&#39;re telling artists what you think art is and how _dare_ they even pretend to be true artists because they don&#39;t give things away for free etc? That&#39;s great.

----------


## Ne-yo

That&#39;s a pretty bold statement SolSkye. Humor me for a second, I&#39;m just curious what exactly is a real artist?

----------


## TweaK

> I don&#39;t really understand how pirates can argue their case on any moral ground at all. "We are taking things without paying for them". OK, so they&#39;re overpriced, but this is the point: you aren&#39;t being forced to buy music. So you don&#39;t buy it if it costs too much, then they get the point when revenues go into a freefall.
> 
> But instead everyone pirates it, the RIAA finds a pretty great reason to get pissy, _then_ &#39;pirates&#39; have the audacity to be offended, surprised and horrified when the RIAA starts suing people up the wazoo for "goodness me, that&#39;s a lot of money&#33;". Uh, yeah, because when you break the law you get sued. Weird isn&#39;t it?
> 
> *DISCLAIMER:* I pirate music and I have no intention of paying back the artists (which kind of undermines the &#39;it&#39;s for sampling&#33;&#39; scenario since it just doesn&#39;t work). At least I don&#39;t think I&#39;m on some sort of moral high ground.
> [/b]



Right. And while all that is correct, you know the RIAA has the biggest trouble getting some granny to pay because she pirated tons of music just because she said "Someone broke into my network and downloaded all the music", right?

----------


## Cyclic13

Kaniaz, they are free to do whatever the hell they please they just won&#39;t be true artists, regardless of talent,  just a bastardized version of one. You can attempt to rationalize or argue it til your blue in the face, it doesn&#39;t change the reality of it. You&#39;d think you&#39;d know when to concede. 

Oh, and Ne-Yo (original name, by the way) an artist is exactly what I stated above. Did I stutter, or would you like it in fewer words?

----------


## wasup

For giving away paintings and stuff... I&#39;m talking about originals.  No one is very impressed with a van gogh PRINT anyways... 

And you&#39;re generalizing here... acting as if ALL musicians don&#39;t care about money.  Well I had this guy helping me learn how to play an instrument, and he played all the time to get money.  How old are you?  As an adult he had to pay for gas, mortgage, food, etc.  He&#39;s an amazing musician, and you are saying the fact that he wants money doesn&#39;t make him a "true" artist.  Obviously he won&#39;t just QUIT playing if he isn&#39;t making a lot of money... but some people DO need and DO play for money, you know.

----------


## Cyclic13

I&#39;m not talking about Van Gogh. Nice way of deflecting the fact I had a point.

I know a guy, you know a guy. We all know guys. Thats good. 

I think you are misunderstanding my point. Of course it would be nice to receive money for your craft, and I have. However, to worry about money as your motivation to continue pursuing art would not make you an artist by default, no matter how talented you were, was what I was saying. That&#39;s not generalizing, that&#39;s a fact. 

Definition: Art is a result of human creativity which has some perceived quality beyond its usefulness, usually on the basis of aesthetic value or emotional impact.

No where in there does it say monetary value.

----------


## Ne-yo

> Oh, and Ne-Yo (original name, by the way) an artist is exactly what I stated above. Did I stutter, or would you like it in fewer words?[/b]



First thanks for pointing out my originality on my screen name  ::goodjob2::  
Yeah I read that crap you put up there and if that&#39;s your definition of a real artist you need to re-evaluate the entire concept. How old are you anyway?

----------


## Cyclic13

We aren&#39;t at that point yet. Probably, older than you.

----------


## Ne-yo

> Probably, older than you. [/b]




I doubt it.

----------


## Cyclic13

Wow, you can ask meaningless questions and think you are better than other people without having said a damn thing, how eloquent of you. Funny how delusions of grandeur work. Now, go watch the matrix and be quiet, son.  ::roll::

----------


## Ynot

I&#39;m just a thieving bastard
but at least I&#39;m honest

----------


## Cyclic13

Oh, hey Ynot, whats up? Speaking of which, thanks for that site with all the tv shows and what not. Thats an awesome site.  :wink2:

----------


## Ne-yo

> Wow, you can ask meaningless questions and think you are better than other people without having said a damn thing, how eloquent of you. Funny how delusions of grandeur work. Now, go watch the matrix and be quiet, son. [/b]



LOL..whatever man, I made my point.

----------


## wasup

> art·ist     /ˈɑrtɪst/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ahr-tist] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
> noun
> 3.	a person whose trade or profession requires a knowledge of design, drawing, painting, etc.: a commercial artist.
> 4.	a person who works in one of the performing arts, as an actor, musician, or singer; a public performer: a mime artist; an artist of the dance.[/b]



That is artIST.  An artist WORKS for a living.  You are wrong, by wanting money, they are not "not" artists by default.  There is a difference in art... being something of aesthetic value, and an artist a man or woman who WORKS in these fields or has the PROFESSION.  

You weren&#39;t SPECIFICALLY talking about van gogh, but that was why my example worked so well.  You said "people give out prints for free&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;111"  Prints are crap... you said artists (note: van gogh is an artist) give away prints for free.  As I said, van gogh, an artist, a "print" of starry night is worth nothing.  



They are looking for money to continue pursuing their craft because they need money to live.  Do you even live in the 21st century? (hint: rhetorical question).  People need money, and they don&#39;t have time to spend hours wailing on guitar and making albums with their buds for the sake of fun or aesthetic beauty.  That is why the question how old are you is important.  You must not understand that people have to take up another profession OR sell their stuff.  Stop living on your parents money, or stop your other job, and then try living as an artist and saying "A PERSON ISN&#39;T AN ARTIST BECAUSE HE WANTS TO GET MONEY."  Some people don&#39;t have other jobs, how do they make money otherwise?

----------


## Cyclic13

Mr. Anderson (Ne-Yo): Which was absolutely nothing but asking meaningless questions. So, go ahead and have the last word because you&#39;re pathetic enough as it is.




ataraxis:
We can just agree to disagree, I made some fundamental points that were grounded that have yet to really be dealt with. What about the Mozart thing? Are you saying P.Diddy is an artist? I would say over half the stuff he &#39;made&#39; was stolen or sampled. Yet people aspire to be like that. Sorry, but that&#39;s jaded. 

I know many selfless upcoming artists who promote themselves without so much as a dime to hopefully further themselves artistically, and I know other people who do it as a profession, as well. Hell, my girlfriend works as manager of a piano bar, playing piano, and teaching piano on the side. She doesn&#39;t play piano for the sole purpose of money, though. She does it, first and foremost, because she likes it. She wouldn&#39;t have gone through the university to do so, if she didnt like it somewhat. Of course if she didn&#39;t have money coming in she would have to do something else, but thats beside the point. The point is, if it became only for the money she would cease to be a true artist, as anyone would. 

True art comes from your heart and if your heart stops caring for the very thing that it&#39;s attempting to create and looks outwardly for gratification, then it can&#39;t possibly do anything but go through motions that have been done before. Rehearsed routine. Not originality. That&#39;s when it ceases to be true art. Like most pop music which follows a set formula and lacks any creativity. That was my point.

It seems people apparently missed it, or selectively choose to ignore it numerous times in order to play devil&#39;s advocate...

----------


## wasup

> Ne-Yo: Which was absolutely nothing but asking meaningless questions. So, go ahead and have the last word because you&#39;re pathetic enough as it is.
> Sorry, I was talking to Mr. Anderson over there.
> [/b]



Yes I deleted my post right after that one ... I thought you were talking to me at first  :tongue2:

----------


## Ne-yo

You need to get your facts right before you start assuming how naive any particular culture is. You obviously know nothing about Japan.

----------


## Cyclic13

Obviously, you have never lived there because it is you who have no idea. I&#39;ve traveled to Japan 6 times, I&#39;ve been living here almost 3 years (in April), and studied japanese for 6 years and achieved level 1 profiency (the highest level). Even translate documents for fun. So please, do us all a favor and shut your ignorant mouth and go back to watching Naruto for your ideas of Japan.

Pfft. Funny that you have to go back through my posts to try and find something to argue about...pathetic.

----------


## Ne-yo

nihongo ha dokode manabare mashitaka? soshite nihon no dokoni sumaremashitaka? donna taipu no ongaku wo tsukurimasuka? nihonde ichiban takai yama no namaewo oshiete kudasai.
ato nihon de mottomo popura na terebi bangumi ha nandesuka?

----------


## Kaniaz

> I&#39;m just a thieving bastard
> but at least I&#39;m honest[/b]



Yeah, this is pretty much the point I had in mind.

*P.S.* ha-ha @ impotent rage in this thread. Could it get any more pathetic than such arguments as "it&#39;s OK in some countries" (like the Holocaust was all by the book in Hitler&#39;s time, sorry Godwin), or my personal favourite, "you just don&#39;t know when to stop&#33;". I cried. They were not tears of joy.

----------


## FreshBrains

Since this thread basically turned into a "Lol I downlaod musik hear" thread, does anyone know of a good source for bootlegs? I&#39;ve found some on the Brain Damage podcast site, but only for Pink Floyd related stuff. I was looking for some of The Who&#39;s concerts (NOT LIVE AT LEEDS) and, as it turns out, searching for two common words on Google doesn&#39;t do much good.  ::?:

----------


## Wolffe

> nihongo ha dokode manabare mashitaka? soshite nihon no dokoni sumaremashitaka? donna taipu no ongaku wo tsukurimasuka? nihonde ichiban takai yama no namaewo oshiete kudasai.
> ato nihon de mottomo popura na terebi bangumi ha nandesuka?
> [/b]



漢字で書いてください！  :smiley:

----------


## Ne-yo

> 漢字で書いてください！ 
> [/b]



Sure wolffe Kanji Desu ka? You got it  ::goodjob2:: 




*SolSkye:*  

You are a liar you don&#39;t know any Japanese at all do you? And I didn&#39;t mention anything that was all that difficult for a reply. I bet you never even been to Japan. Like I said earlier I proved my point - case close.

----------


## FreshBrains

NERD RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGE&#33;

----------


## Ne-yo

I don&#39;t have to pretend anything bakayarou&#33;

----------


## Ne-yo

> The fact that you even tried to pick a stupid japanese battle proves your lack of true knowledge. I&#39;ve ran into your type and saw them all the time in school. Probably some loser otaku. and it&#39;s not exactly pretend. It would appear on a test as &#39;know-it-all&#39;... or in other words... you.
> [/b]




Shitta = Knows

Kaburi = Pretend 

get it right dummy&#33;

No one in in Japan would&#39;ve translated it the way that you have which further lets me know that you never spent time there or you would know.

----------


## Ne-yo

How are you going to argue with a Native Japanese Speaker? I was born and raised in Japan you freaking idiot so don&#39;t come at me with some B.S. stating that you know more about my culture than I do because you&#39;re just making yourself out to look more and more like an A**hole.

----------


## Cyclic13

Look, it was you who started these stupid attacks, made stupid assumptions, and stated a multitude of false stuff about me first. Even though, everything I said about Japan is true. I never said all japanese people, I said most. If you really are japanese obviously you got off the island, so you dont have that island mentality that most do but based off of your reaction you definitely have the japanese pride. Regrettably, I assure you most japanese people living in japan are ignorant and naive, as hell. Naturally, you wouldn&#39;t feel it being a native, but I guarantee you they have so many stupid stigmas surrounding foreigners and foreign countries it&#39;s sickening. Do you like nattou? Do you have a gun in America? WOW, you can hold chopsticks&#33;&#33; the endless list goes on and on...blah, blah, blah... If you dont know this stuff having been raised there, then you need to curb the japanese pride and do a reality check because it&#39;s there. But I need not explain myself further. Sorry, but your credibility is already sh*t in my book. You were the instigator of this pointless drivel, and as I said, I&#39;m done. You lose. Grow up, son. 

Also for the record...Since you apparantly never learned the english in Japan it&#39;s a &#39;know-it-all&#39;. For when people call it to you again.  :wink2: 


And I never said I wasn&#39;t an asshole. I am one. I have no sympathy for stupidity, or people trying to feign a semblance of intelligence, such as yourself. Better to be an asshole, than pathetic...

----------


## Lord Toaster

UM I think we&#39;re a little off-topic here, Ne-yo and Solskye - it seems to have turned into a battle between you to see who knows better japanese.... who cares&#33;?&#33;
 :Off topic:   :Off topic:   :Off topic:

----------


## Ne-yo

Well as long as we agree on something Neither one of use could give a Rat&#39;s Ass about the other and You are an Ass hole.  ::goodjob2:: 


*EDIT:*

----------


## Kaniaz

I wonder if anyone ever uses the report button. I never do, actually.

----------


## MSG

This thread is so funny

BACK TO THE TOPIC

An adult that I know got scammed with one of those nostalgia ads... he was lured into buying this program "Mp3rocket" which is basically just Limewire (which is open source) with a changed name. He payed 50 bucks for it and the company said it was legal. I don&#39;t blame him, but what the fuck, how can companies get away with this?

----------


## Wolffe

> This thread is so funny
> 
> BACK TO THE TOPIC
> 
> An adult that I know got scammed with one of those nostalgia ads... he was lured into buying this program "Mp3rocket" which is basically just Limewire (which is open source) with a changed name. He payed 50 bucks for it and the company said it was legal. I don&#39;t blame him, but what the fuck, how can companies get away with this?
> [/b]



Rofl thats so aweful :/ I guess thats yet another reason would turn to pirating. If they cant even trust the apparently legal methods, why bother? Heh


Ne-yo: ありがとうございます。漢字と平仮名と片仮名を読む事は好きですよ。  ::D:

----------


## TweaK

す。漢字がとうございま片仮名をとざい読むと仮名とあり事すとうござい

----------


## Kaniaz

す。漢字と平仮 漢字&#33;

----------


## wasup

私が訳者を使用もできる私を見なさい

BTW, why do people pay for pirating programs?  Can&#39;t you just... pirate them?

----------


## Ne-yo

> Ne-yo: ありがとうございます。漢字と平仮名と片仮名を読む事は好きですよ。[/b]



どれぐらい日本語を勉強しましたか？日本には行ったことある？
ところで俺は普段はこんなに無礼だったりはしないんだけど、ばかな人には我慢ができないんだよ  ね。
ウルフイーみたいなクール奴もいてよかった。
じゃ、また

----------


## Cyclic13

Ne-Yo, I should&#39;ve guessed you were japanese because you asked how old someone was in the first two questions, just like most japanese people. It&#39;s funny how you attempt to hold onto this one shred of hope in a false reality that Japan isn&#39;t ignorant anymore as basis for your slander. Honestly, you don&#39;t know the truth of it. You aren&#39;t a foreigner. Just because Japan opens it doors to foreigners doesn&#39;t make them educated in how to communicate with them. And, I never said all, just a large majority. At times I would love to go home, but right now I have the obligation of my own business here that can&#39;t have me leave or I&#39;d already be gone. Or at the very least get out of Aichi. (It truly is, the armpit of Japan) 

It&#39;s a shame you don&#39;t like the music, you probably wouldn&#39;t understand it anyway. Most japanese don&#39;t truly respect their own history enough as it is. They just spout all this japanese pride, then turn around and do something hypocritical to it like, mimic american hip hop style, or attempt to put english in their &#39;music&#39;. We have had more of a response to our music in America than Japan. Considering there is a heavy japanese element of the shakuhachi, that&#39;s quite odd. I believe, stagnation, and a lack of variety of good music is the source of the problem. But hey, at least we try and incorporate some of Japan&#39;s true identity into our music. Thats a hell of alot more than today&#39;s lame cookiecutter JPOP for sure. 

Instead of showing your lack of musical exposure, spouting bile, and jacking this thread lets keep it in PM if you must be a child and continue.  ::roll:: 







> BTW, why do people pay for pirating programs?  Can&#39;t you just... pirate them?
> [/b]



I believe USB key would be the culprit in my case. Trust me I tried everything. It sucks. I&#39;m talking about Logic 7 Pro for Mac   :Sad:

----------


## wasup

Or go torrents all the way... they have that for mac probably.

----------


## Cyclic13

They don&#39;t. They do have it for PC but not Mac. It&#39;s high end music making software, I tried everything I could find. Eventually ended up realizing I had to buy it and did. Oh well, Did you know if you make music on pirated software the software companies can take the rights to your music since you didn&#39;t technically make it legally? That makes me feel a little more justified having bought it in the end.

----------


## becomingagodo

Lime wire crashed my computer

----------


## dsr

To sum up my original post (which seems to have triggered this thread to go off-topic), pirating music (or any other copyrighted intellectual property) is illegal in many countries. However, the publishing companies get hurt more than the artists, smaller artists can get their name out (also known to Kaniaz as "the sampling excuse"), and the RIAA doesn&#39;t seem any more ethical than the pirates themselves (read my previous post on page 3). If you consider breaking the law unethical merely because it is called a law then don&#39;t pirate music (at least here in the U.S.) If you want to be ethical in that you don&#39;t hurt the artists but you don&#39;t really care about the law, you could always download music and send money via Paypal to the artists that you like. That way, the money enters their pockets, not some wealthy executive in a publishing company. That being said, if I pirated music I doubt I would really do that.  :Oops:  I think the two most compelling arguments in support of piracy in my point of view are the following:

1. Price tags only should go with tangible products. A music publishing company doesn&#39;t have to sell their music in digital form; they can sell albums on CDs. Likewise, a software company doesn&#39;t have to offer instant downloads; they can sell their software on CDs. Why should billion dollar companies be allowed to put a price on intangible products, when they can just as easily sell their products on physical media? If I tried to sell an intangible product without calling it music, video, or software, I would be sent to jail for starting a pyramid scheme&#33;

2. Publishing companies often implement digital rights management, which can make it physically impossible for users of free operating systems to play legally-downloaded music. I wonder if DRM that forces customers to use proprietary software violates some antitrust act in the U.S. Probably not, but it certainly doesn&#39;t seem like it should be legal.





> They don&#39;t. They do have it for PC but not Mac.
> [/b]



Pardon me? The official Bittorrent client itself runs on Mac OS X; BitTyrant, the Azureus-based client that downloads 70% faster than any other Bittorrent client, runs on Mac OS X; Transmission, an awesome streamlined Bittorrent client, runs on Mac OS X; etc. Almost every Windows program either also runs on Mac OS X or has a FOSS equivalent. And for the few that don&#39;t (namely certain FPS games), there&#39;s always Wine (yes, you can compile it for Mac OS X).

----------


## Wolffe

> 1. Price tags only should go with tangible products. A music publishing company doesn&#39;t have to sell their music in digital form; they can sell albums on CDs. Likewise, a software company doesn&#39;t have to offer instant downloads; they can sell their software on CDs. Why should billion dollar companies be allowed to put a price on intangible products, when they can just as easily sell their products on physical media? If I tried to sell an intangible product without calling it music, video, or software, I would be sent to jail for starting a pyramid scheme&#33;
> [/b]



I was thinking this very same thing when mulling over the topic the other day. How stupid is it to sell MP3s? They&#39;re from an infinite source, etc. yet once we buy this data, we can&#39;t copy it to whoever we like, which is quite moronic from a non-commercial point of view. It&#39;s like selling tap water as some kind of perfectly legitimate trade or something equally as stupid.

----------


## dsr

Great minds think alike&#33; At least tap water is a tangible product. Selling the right to play an mp3 file is like selling the right to drink water. Well, a more realistic example would be selling the right to procure water from a river that you intend to distill and then drink. I mean, if drug companies are allowed to patent non-synthetic drugs that can be obtained in nature, who knows what will happen next? Maybe Poland Springs will patent H20.  ::shock::

----------


## ♥Mark

Why are you all so fixed on making up excuses? You&#39;re taking people&#39;s work for free. It&#39;s against the law, and it is technically stealing. Just accept it and move on. If you&#39;re so concerned about being labeled a thief, then don&#39;t steal stuff.





> I wonder if Roms are legal?
> [/b]



They&#39;re not. It&#39;s copyright infingement.





> ROMs are legal up to 24 hrs if you do not own the original copy, and they are legal for life if you do own original copies of the games.
> [/b]



Wrong. That&#39;s just a myth made up by ROM sites. It&#39;s basically the copyright equivalent of the five second rule.





> Roms are legal if you own the actual game. That is, if you make the copy yourself.
> [/b]



Wrong. Take a look at your manuals. It&#39;s been specifically mentioned in almost every console game&#39;s manual since the SNES days that unauthorized copying of games is strictly illegal.





> Definition: Art is a result of human creativity which has some perceived quality beyond its usefulness, usually on the basis of aesthetic value or emotional impact.
> 
> No where in there does it say monetary value.
> [/b]



You&#39;re right, it _doesn&#39;t_ mention monetary value. Therefore, that which is sold isn&#39;t inherently not art. And weather or not you regard it as "true art" is inconsequential. The fact is that they&#39;re asking you to pay for it and you didn&#39;t.

----------


## dsr

> Why are you all so fixed on making up excuses? You&#39;re taking people&#39;s work for free. It&#39;s against the law, and it is technically stealing. Just accept it and move on. If you&#39;re so concerned about being labeled a thief, then don&#39;t steal stuff.
> [/b]



I&#39;m not sure if this is directed at my first two posts, but I will reiterate that I myself do not pirate music; therefore, stating my views does not constitute "making up excuses" because I have committed no unlawful act that I am justifying. While I agree with you that downloading copyrighted material without permission is stealing in many countries (apparently not Canada), the issue is not as cut and dry as organizations like the RIAA lead us to believe. Read my first and second posts. That is why I am playing devil&#39;s advocate in this thread. I dislike the "Just accept it and move on" attitude because it shows how close minded our society is. Mark, I am not putting you down, and I completely respect your opinions; I just want you to realize that there isn&#39;t one right way of looking at an issue. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, too.

----------


## ♥Mark

> (apparently not Canada)
> [/b]



Yeah, I&#39;m not sure where he pulled that from, but it&#39;s completely false. Copyright applies here in Canada, too.




> I dislike the "Just accept it and move on" attitude because it shows how close minded our society is.
> [/b]



Come again? Please explain to me what&#39;s wrong with admitting what you&#39;re doing and accepting it for what it is.

----------


## Cyclic13

> Pardon me? The official Bittorrent client itself runs on Mac OS X; BitTyrant, the Azureus-based client that downloads 70% faster than any other Bittorrent client, runs on Mac OS X; Transmission, an awesome streamlined Bittorrent client, runs on Mac OS X; etc. Almost every Windows program either also runs on Mac OS X or has a FOSS equivalent. And for the few that don&#39;t (namely certain FPS games), there&#39;s always Wine (yes, you can compile it for Mac OS X).
> [/b]



I meant they don&#39;t have the cracked version of the program I was looking for on Mac BitTorrent. Of course you can download the full uncracked version of the program without a problem. However, without the USB key it&#39;s pretty useless...





> You&#39;re right, it _doesn&#39;t_ mention monetary value. Therefore, that which is sold isn&#39;t inherently not art. And weather or not you regard it as "true art" is inconsequential. The fact is that they&#39;re asking you to pay for it and you didn&#39;t.
> [/b]



What I think may be inconsequential in the grand scheme of things, but is pertinent to the discussion at hand. Perhaps it&#39;s hard to see if you view the world in absolutes, but that doesn&#39;t change the reality of gray areas that exist in any given situation. 

Who cares if I didn&#39;t pay for music? I&#39;m well aware of that &#39;fact&#39;. I&#39;m not interested in the pointless morality question posed when one chooses to download music. To me, that isn&#39;t the topic in question for the thread. It&#39;s about putting a price tag on that which shouldn&#39;t have a price. Be it, charging money for free software that enables music downloads, or charging money for the very idea of the music itself. 

All I was trying to state in my previous explanations that continually gets misinterpreted was, art inherently has no price tag. Any artist that thinks or presumes so isn&#39;t an artist. 

Ultimately, the audience decides whether or not to give money for said artwork. As I said before, the true worth of the art (especially to an artist) isn&#39;t in the public response, or lack-there-of. At least for all intents and purposes, it shouldn&#39;t be. The reason for that is, something that is popular now may not be 5-10 years down the road or vice-versa. The ability to tap into the vein of the times is in no way connected to creativity or talent. Just as, receiving money for music has no connection to the actual talent of the artist. Presumably, one would think someone with actual talent be automatically pushed forward, however we have pop culture and lowbrow flippants to continually prove us quite the contrary.

----------


## ♥Mark

> What I think may be inconsequential in the grand scheme of things, but is pertinent to the discussion at hand. [/b]



Actually, it doesn&#39;t. In case you haven&#39;t noticed, you aren&#39;t the universe&#39;s grand judge that decides what is art and what is not. It&#39;s a blurry line at times. Weather you deem something should be without cost is irrelevant if your only reason is that "it should be like that". Ideally, I&#39;d agree, but as it seems, painters, musicians and such all like to eat and have houses, too.




> Who cares if I didn&#39;t pay for music? I&#39;m well aware of that &#39;fact&#39;. The Morality of choosing to download music, isn&#39;t the topic in question for the thread. It&#39;s about putting a price tag on that which shouldn&#39;t have a price. Be it, charging money for free software that enables music downloads, or charging money for the idea of music itself. [/b]



I never brought up the issue of morality nor did I question your morals.

I think videogames are art and that they should be free as well. Curse Namco and Square Enix and Nintendo and Red Storm and Konami and Blizzard and Rockstar and all the other developers and their thousands of employees for wanting to make a living off of it&#33;




> I&#39;m sorry, but viewing the world entirely in absolutes gets you no where, and serves no purpose in this discussion. For that kind of debate, May I suggest the religion/spirituality section, to which you find so engaging?
> [/b]



I&#39;m sorry, but I have no idea why you&#39;re saying this.




> All I was trying to state in my previous explanations that continually gets misinterpreted was, art inherently has no price tag. Any artist that thinks or presumes so isn&#39;t an artist. 
> [/b]



Maybe you should take your own advice and stop thinking in absolutes. Some people want to charge for their art so that they can, you know, live.




> Ultimately, the audience decides whether or not to give money for said artwork. 
> [/b]



Indeed. Just as I decide weather or not I want to pay for something in the store or not. I get to decide if it&#39;s worth my money, but then again, the one who makes it gets to set the price. So what? That&#39;s how it works. Ideally, food should be free. I hate the idea of paying for food, don&#39;t you? Everyone should be entitled to good food, not just people that can afford it. But sadly that&#39;s not how it is. People have to work to make that food and they need to survive as well. With our current system, _someone_ has to pay for it.




> As I said before, the true worth of the art (especially to an artist) isn&#39;t in the public response, or lack-there-of. At least for all intents and purposes, it shouldn&#39;t be. The reason for that is, something that is popular now may not be 5-10 years down the road or vice-versa. The ability to tap into the vein of the times is in no way connected to creativity or talent. Just as, receiving money for music has no connection to the actual talent of the artist. Presumably, one would think someone with actual talent be automatically pushed forward, however we have pop culture and lowbrow flippants to continually prove quite the contrary.
> [/b]



While there are no flaws in your idealism, the fact is that people still have to live. In today&#39;s world, it&#39;s prerequisite that you make money in order to sustain a modern life style. Some people work at the office, some sell their paintings. This has nothing of anything to do with the merit any piece of art is given. Indeed, some "commercialize" and forget what it&#39;s all about. I agree that it should spawn from a desire to make art rather than for financial gain, but there&#39;s certainly nothing wrong with selling one&#39;s work, either. You said it yourself, "receiving money for music has no connection to the actual talent of the artist". So talented people make creative art and sell it.

In any case, it&#39;s not about what&#39;s true art and what is not. They made something and they want you to pay for it. Because you think it&#39;s something that they shouldn&#39;t charge for it on the grounds that "art should be free" doesn&#39;t matter because you don&#39;t get to decide for them.

----------


## Cyclic13

Yea I agree with you, you can edit your post because I deleted that one part before you responded...


In any event, despite one&#39;s need to make a living or put food on the table, in no way does that mean receiving money for whatever vested efforts they put forth become a necessity. Ethically, yes it would be unfortunate, if someone found it satifying to create a video game, and it is an original game, and they end up starving to death for their efforts. However, that ridiculous video game company analogy you used was beside the point. The cruelty or fairness of the world isn&#39;t what we are talking about here. I hate to keep bringing up the same analogy but people continue to miss the point. Mozart ended up a poor, starving man, lying in a gutter but that didn&#39;t stop him from creating the works he did, did it?

As I said numerous times before. If one&#39;s sole intent is to make money then no matter how popular, or unpopular the game (artwork) may be, the very essence of what they were setting out to do has been tainted. The item may be catchy, cool, or may even have some talent in there but thats besides the point. Intention, in this case and most cases, is everything. Results are meaningless. Unfortunately, that&#39;s not preaching absolutes. Of course, anyone at any time is more than welcome to do whatever they see fit in order to help them sleep at night. They could market a long piece of sh*t as a hotdog for all I care. Although, that doesn&#39;t change what it is, in essence.

While what people may find aesthetically pleasing is subjective, the idea of artwork coming from the artist&#39;s heart isn&#39;t. Anything created by other motivating factors is nothing more than a completed task, at best. Not artwork. For example, a steaming load that is pushed out after a long bout of constipation may provide the person with aesthetically pleasing feelings coupled with a sense of relief. However, that would be unquestionably far from being labeled, Artwork, wouldn&#39;t you say? Or, is that where we enter more shades of gray, or rather, brown in this case?

----------


## ♥Mark

It really doesn&#39;t matter exactly what art is and is not. I&#39;m not interested in trying to come up with an exact definition. If you&#39;d like to discuss that, though, I&#39;d suggest starting a new thread.

----------


## Cyclic13

If you don&#39;t want to talk about it, don&#39;t give [email protected] responses to people&#39;s posts...

----------


## Kaniaz

I like this thread. At least people aren&#39;t as entirely assured of their own moral high ground like I see so painfully in other forums. Society can be closed minded, I agree, but it can also be so self-righteous that a lot of people simply won&#39;t admit that there is something very fishy - and very close to stealing, if not the same thing - about pirating.

The RIAA has probably done the wrong thing in becoming some sort of international scapegoat: pursuing people who don&#39;t have any money to the ends of the earth when they download songs has created this whole "sticking it to the man" mentality. Not really from anyone here, but in the pirating/P2P world in general.

They could have tackled it a lot better. They could&#39;ve lowered prices. Unfortunately, because pirating exists, they&#39;ve got another option: sue everyone as much as they can and hope the problem goes away. I think if pirating had (somehow) not existed, the RIAA would&#39;ve been forced to finally get more fair on the deal and people would be able to buy albums without paying out of the arse. In the end, I think they will end up lowering prices, getting more fair and stop sticking up artists as much as they currently do, but piracy is certainly working to prolong this change. 

I&#39;m not saying buy their stuff RIAA&#39;s stuff. Don&#39;t. But if you pirate it, you&#39;re sticking the artist up more than the RIAA ever could (they don&#39;t even get the money to distribute) and it gives them an excuse for a drop in sales, something other than the inevitable real reason which is that it costs too much.

----------


## ♥Mark

> If you don&#39;t want to talk about it, don&#39;t give [email protected] responses to people&#39;s posts...
> [/b]



You&#39;ll notice that I actually didn&#39;t respond at all to what you define as art. It&#39;s beside the point and not related to the discussion, hence my suggestion of a new thread.

----------


## 3FLryan

It&#39;s a double-edged sword.  Yeah, I have pirated music before, because my friends told me I should download such-and-such.  But say I love the songs, and tell everyone I know about them.  Some might pirate, some might buy the real CD, some might not do anything.  Now let&#39;s say me and a bunch of people really like this band, that we never would have heard anyway, so we go to a bunch of their concerts and buy their T-shirts, etc.  All because of a few pirated songs.  If morality is not the issue here, then it must be demonstrated that pirating music has injured the music industry and hurt the lives of artists.  I&#39;m just not sure something like that can be proved, and it may even be the opposite.

----------


## blade5x

That lady is about 5 years to late (initial post).

----------


## TweaK

Wait, Seeker - that was you?

----------


## skuruza

> Would it technically be a sin to download music?
> [/b]



your name says theanswer.

i agree with kaniaz. THIEVES&#33;

----------


## Ynot

> i agree with kaniaz. THIEVES&#33;[/b]



I&#39;ve said this before, but.......

I think the main problem, is the lack of insentive to buy CD&#39;s

When was the last time you bought a cd and were actually happy with the purchase?
it costs too much for what they are
an &#39;album&#39; can be as little as 45 mins of songs (usually with a lot of filler tracks - skits and other misc crap)
all the screwy copy protection means it&#39;s hit & miss as to whether you can rip cd&#39;s to your computer
some older cd players are defeated by copy protection, and can&#39;t play the disc

in all honesty, by and large, you are buying a defective product

This is where I have great respect for independant Punk labels
when you buy one of their cd&#39;s
you discover the cd insert cover is actually a wacking great big poster
with other goodies stuffed inside the case (stickers, freebies, etc.)

Who remembers Daft Punk&#39;s Discovery?
underneath the CD, was a credit-card sized thing with a key
the key could be used on their website to get lots of goodies

thats how you combat piracy
make buying the music more worthwhile
not crippling the cd to any player over 3 years old, or any other devious, under-hand tactic

Give the buyer something more than just the music
because the music&#39;s available freely online at full quality with no copy protection / DRM

----------


## Ne-yo

You are so right Ynot.

Could it be possible that we may not need the labels? That maybe music fans and artists can find their own ways of connecting with each other? And maybe, instead of a few hundred millionaires, we might have thousands and thousands of musicians making a decent living? Could that be possible?

----------


## tiddlywink101

Media should be made cheaper, a true artist produces their art to share with the world not to make money (although they still need a decent living)

----------


## Cyclic13

> Media should be made cheaper, a true artist produces their art to share with the world not to make money (although they still need a decent living)
> [/b]



Thank you for seeing my point. I was worried everyone just liked arguing for the sake of argument, without actually having made art themselves. Speculating and postulating on how an artist should think with an artist. Funny stuff.

----------


## wasup

> Thank you for seeing my point. I was worried everyone just liked arguing for the sake of argument, without actually having made art themselves. Speculating and postulating on how an artist should think with an artist. Funny stuff.
> [/b]



I&#39;m an artist....

----------


## hellopotato

if downloading music is a sin...

i should most definitely be in hell right now.

but i&#39;m atheist so maybe not...eh thats another story altogether.

----------


## Kaniaz

> Speculating and postulating on how an artist should think with an artist. Funny stuff.[/b]



Ah, so because I&#39;m not an artist, I&#39;m not allowed to say things like, "Gee, you&#39;re a bit of a bastard if you think you can tell another artist whether or not they&#39;re valid and/or an artist in your eyes based on the price of their work". Sorry if I haven&#39;t got my head in the same gruelling, money-minded gutter like that&#33;

----------


## Cyclic13

> I&#39;m an artist....
> [/b]



Nice, I definitely wouldn&#39;t have pinned you the type. Thats cool, though. That means, You point of view gains more credence, and I can respect your views a little more. I still stand by what I said earlier as far as intention determining the title of the individual, though.

If you don&#39;t mind me asking, What kind of art do you do ataraxis? If you have anything for viewing/listening, I&#39;d like to check it out.






> Ah, so because I&#39;m not an artist, I&#39;m not allowed to say things like, "Gee, you&#39;re a bit of a bastard if you think you can tell another artist whether or not they&#39;re valid and/or an artist in your eyes based on the price of their work". Sorry if I haven&#39;t got my head in the same gruelling, money-minded gutter like that&#33;
> [/b]



You are completely misquoting and misunderstanding my point. I&#39;m not the one labeling who or what they are, and/or telling them what they can or cant do. It is as irrefutable as night is to day, that wherever their true intentions lie determines who or what they are. They can choose to be artists, or businessmen. The results may seem similar on the surface but they are two different things entirely and more likely than not the end product will suffer as a result. I honestly don&#39;t understand why you fail to see that simple truth.

----------


## Ynot

Bugger, Kanaiz
you deleted your post
Making mine not so funny
 ::blue::

----------


## MSG

> Nice, I definitely wouldn&#39;t have pinned you the type. Thats cool, though. That means, You point of view gains more credence, and I can respect your views a little more. I still stand by what I said earlier as far as intention determining the title of the individual, though.
> 
> If you don&#39;t mind me asking, What kind of art do you do ataraxis? If you have anything for viewing/listening, I&#39;d like to check it out.
> [/b]



http://a-l-e-x-.deviantart.com/

----------


## Ynot

You know what might be interesting?

You&#39;re a fairly successful artist
with a loyal fan-base of a few thousand

how would _you_ prevent financial lose through un-paid listenings?

----------


## Kaniaz

> Bugger, *Kanaiz*
> you deleted your post
> Making mine not so funny[/b]



And also spelled incorrectly&#33;





> how would you prevent financial lose through un-paid listenings?[/b]



By dreaming terrible things every night about people who pirate my music.





> You are completely misquoting and misunderstanding my point. I&#39;m not the one labeling who or what they are, and/or telling them what they can or cant do. It is as irrefutable as night is to day, that wherever their true intentions lie determines who or what they are. I honestly don&#39;t understand why you fail to see that simple truth.[/b]



Funny, &#39;cause I&#39;d say that all you&#39;ve written is lovely long fluid prose which basically boils down to "OK, so I&#39;m not labelling anyone, but they&#39;re not artists [because they&#39;re businessmen]".

Yeah, right. I think I&#39;m done here.

----------


## wasup

MSG has got it about right, but a lot of that stuff is old and a lot is crappy (however I am proud of some of the stuff in there).  I am actually pretty good with pencil, I&#39;ve realized in my art class.  

Here&#39;s a recent graphite drawing I did.  It&#39;s finished now, but this was an earlier picture of the unfinished drawing.  If you&#39;re interested later I can post the finished work.  


It&#39;s a perspective drawing (vanishing point at bottom... so its a distorted portrait) of some guy named rupert murdock.  I just picked his picture out to draw because it had great lighting and exposure of details/features to it, but I just found out the name later.  I have some other art projects, but none are really that great.

----------


## MSG

> I&#39;m not the one labeling who or what they are, and/or telling them what they can or cant do.
> [/b]



Hahahahahahahahhahahahahhaah

Yes you are&#33;

You&#39;re the one saying what is true art and putting people down for the simple fact that they choose to sell their product rather than give it away for that warm feeling in their heart that they get for being an "artist".

It&#39;s unfortunate that warm feelings in your heart can&#39;t put food on the table, but life&#39;s life I guess, and people make different choices. It&#39;s just simply not your job to tell people whether or not what they&#39;re doing is art, and all you&#39;re doing, is putting down people who make commercial music. Perhaps it&#39;s because you&#39;re jealous, or you&#39;ve been turned down by labels before? I don&#39;t know your history and it&#39;s not my job to label you, but I&#39;m just saying, what you&#39;re saying is childish, and you&#39;re serving to do nothing but to make a fool out of yourself.

----------


## Cyclic13

> MSG has got it about right, but a lot of that stuff is old and a lot is crappy (however I am proud of some of the stuff in there).  I am actually pretty good with pencil, I&#39;ve realized in my art class.  
> 
> Here&#39;s a recent graphite drawing I did.  It&#39;s finished now, but this was an earlier picture of the unfinished drawing.  If you&#39;re interested later I can post the finished work.  
> 
> 
> It&#39;s a perspective drawing (vanishing point at bottom... so its a distorted portrait) of some guy named rupert murdock.  I just picked his picture out to draw because it had great lighting and exposure of details/features to it, but I just found out the name later.  I have some other art projects, but none are really that great.
> [/b]



That&#39;s cool, man. You have some talent, I&#39;d love to see more. I&#39;ve seen something strikingly similar before on the internet where the gentleman created an optical illusion 3D portrait which was bent inwards but seemed to jump out at you. CLICK HERE... to check it out






> Funny, &#39;cause I&#39;d say that all you&#39;ve written is lovely long fluid prose which basically boils down to "OK, so I&#39;m not labelling anyone, but they&#39;re not artists [because they&#39;re businessmen]".
> 
> Yeah, right. I think I&#39;m done here.
> [/b]



You&#39;ve been done for a while now...Now it&#39;s more like charred and burnt beyond recognition.






> Hahahahahahahahhahahahahhaah
> 
> Yes you are&#33;
> 
> You&#39;re the one saying what is true art and putting people down for the simple fact that they choose to sell their product rather than give it away for that warm feeling in their heart that they get for being an "artist".
> 
> It&#39;s unfortunate that warm feelings in your heart can&#39;t put food on the table, but life&#39;s life I guess, and people make different choices. It&#39;s just simply not your job to tell people whether or not what they&#39;re doing is art, and all you&#39;re doing, is putting down people who make commercial music. Perhaps it&#39;s because you&#39;re jealous, or you&#39;ve been turned down by labels before? I don&#39;t know your history and it&#39;s not my job to label you, but I&#39;m just saying, what you&#39;re saying is childish, and you&#39;re serving to do nothing but to make a fool out of yourself.
> [/b]



I don&#39;t quite understand what&#39;s so funny. Your failure to see my point doesn&#39;t make me a fool but rather the contrary. 

The artist is ultimately their own judge of character. They will know in their heart of hearts where their true intentions lie, and which of the two they really are. It&#39;s actually quite simple when you think about it. 

I don&#39;t know how that break down of mine has me labeling them? Any educated guess from a simpleton could tell you who&#39;s who in the current music scene. It&#39;s not a matter of labeling, it&#39;s a matter of fact.

And, to answer your inquiries about myself: Currently, we haven&#39;t made a real effort to reach out to record labels yet. Honestly, we&#39;ve just been building a solid understanding of our music, and having a wide array of material at our disposal. However, we will soon be working on a demo package to send off to record labels. How they will react is anyone&#39;s guess and I could care less either way.

----------


## Cyclic13

> WHITE PLAINS, N.Y. (AP)  A 16-year-old boy being sued by five record companies accusing him of online music piracy accused the recording industry on Tuesday of violating antitrust laws, conspiring to defraud the courts and making extortionate threats.
> 
> In papers responding to the record companies lawsuit, Robert Santangelo, who was as young as 11 when the alleged piracy occurred, denied ever disseminating music and said its impossible to prove that he did.
> 
> Santangelo is the son of Patti Santangelo, the 42-year-old suburban mother of five who was sued by the record companies in 2005. She refused to settle, took her case public and became a heroine to supporters of Internet freedom.
> 
> The industry dropped its case against her in December but sued Robert and his sister Michelle, now 20, in federal court in White Plains. Michelle has been ordered to pay &#036;30,750 in a default judgment because she did not respond to the lawsuit.
> 
> Robert Santangelo and his lawyer, Jordan Glass, responded at length Tuesday, raising 32 defenses, demanding a jury trial and filing a counterclaim against the companies that accuses them of damaging the boys reputation, distracting him from school and costing him legal fees.
> ...



It&#39;s about time the record companies got their balls in the ringer...go him&#33;   ::goodjob::

----------


## Merlock

MSG and Kaniaz are as technical as always, not seeing past their own noses.
Creativity and business do not mix; just like charity and greed do not mix - after all, artists create things and give them to the world, their true intentions are to share their creations, not to make a life aimed fully at profit.
Yes, art and the business associated with it need to go hand in hand in order for an artist to turn their creativity into their job as well (and thus turn their life into both a way to survive and a way to follow their heart) but SolSkye is stating the truth of the matter: when art and money come together in life, the latter mustn&#39;t overwhelm the former, otherwise the negative consequences will be quite obvious.

----------


## Cyclic13

Thank you&#33; Yet another person that hears the voice of reason.  ::cheers::

----------


## mollyrulz9999

I only used it to download 1 song for an internet radio show I WAS co-hosting, but my siste got hold of it and downloaded 50+ songs. I felt jealous and tried to match her, but my taste of music is different to hers (she likes soft rock/Indie and I like trance/electronica music) so I couldn&#39;t download as many Paul van Dyk and Daft Punk songs as her library full of music. That&#39;s it. I&#39;m gonna be uninstalling limewire. I already got the songs I like on my PSP anyway.  :wink2:

----------


## Neruo

> I download. I acknowledge that it&#39;s stealing.
> 
> However, the only ones that really feel the effects are the major artists (Rolling Stones, Metallica, etc) and the record labels.
> 
> Since, 99.9% of my downloads are indie bands, I have a hard time feeling too bad about it. I&#39;ve been to 15 concerts this year where I purchased 10 t-shirts and 3 albums. All that money goes to the artists directly.
> 
> So, the moral of the story is; download if you want, but support your favorite artists&#33;[/b]



I completely agree.

----------


## Seeker

OK guys, let&#39;s bring it a little closer to home.  Let&#39;s say we develop a series of LD mp3&#39;s and sell them from Dreamviews, profit to be split between Top Cola and the member that created the mp3.  

How would you feel to find it as a popular subject on demonoid?

----------


## Ynot

> OK guys, let&#39;s bring it a little closer to home.  Let&#39;s say we develop a series of LD mp3&#39;s and sell them from Dreamviews, profit to be split between Top Cola and the member that created the mp3.  
> 
> How would you feel to find it as a popular subject on demonoid?[/b]



I would feel two things

1.) happiness that the word is getting round and it&#39;s reaching the masses

2.) satisfaction in the knowledge that this is, yet again, proof that selling music alone is not viable anymore

There is no difference between buying or downloading a CD
(in some cases, you get a better product if you download it - no DRM / copy protection)

but for the sake of argument, we&#39;ll say there&#39;s no difference
you have a bought CD, and a downloaded CD, and they&#39;re exactly the same

so why buy it?

There is no reason to buy
except some arbitrary, whimsical notion that one is "right" and the other is "wrong"

fuck that - I&#39;ll make my own mind up of what&#39;s right & wrong, thank you

So.....
something that used to be a viable business, is now not viable

well bugger me, what a shame
times change
and so must your business model

I&#39;ve said it before,
but this is where I have great respect for the independent punk labels
I won&#39;t repeat what I&#39;ve said in other threads
but they "sell" you a whole heap of goodies (posters, stickers, exclusive stuff you can&#39;t get anywhere else)
They also give you a free CD

But just selling the music.....
It&#39;s not viable anymore

The same as it&#39;s not viable to manufacture things in developed countries anymore
The same as it&#39;s not viable to run a small family butchers

You have to provide a *service* for consumer&#39;s money
otherwise they won&#39;t pay you, they&#39;ll go elsewhere

Sell your Mp3 with a nice printed book of LD tutorials
properly done
professional looking
That&#39;s a service worthy of customer&#39;s money

----------


## Seeker

OK, we&#39;ll just let Top Cola keep 100% of the profits from your work then if it does not matter to you.  I also know there is no use arguing here, it&#39;s like religion.

----------


## Ynot

If you can explain to me how it&#39;s a viable business model
then I&#39;ll admit defeat

----------


## PenguinLord13

> OK guys, let&#39;s bring it a little closer to home.  Let&#39;s say we develop a series of LD mp3&#39;s and sell them from Dreamviews, profit to be split between Top Cola and the member that created the mp3.  
> 
> How would you feel to find it as a popular subject on demonoid?[/b]



I would feel highly honored to see that people are interested in it enough to go on bittorrent, and seed it there, because it means we&#39;ve done well. Anyways, most people do not download illegally, and for everyone who does, there will be some who actually buy it, so it is not like you&#39;re losing all your money.

----------


## RetepNamenots

> I would feel highly honored to see that people are interested in it enough to go on bittorrent, and seed it there, because it means we&#39;ve done well. Anyways, most people do not download illegally, and for everyone who does, there will be some who actually buy it, so it is not like you&#39;re losing all your money.[/b]



True. Bands like the Arctic Monkeys got started through P2P and torrent downloads, and from those they&#39;ve gained immense popularity. I don&#39;t think that illegal sharings bad anyway.

----------


## Cyclic13

any publicity is good publicity...

----------

