Is LimeWire Legal? - DPChallenge Forums

02/13/2006 10:13:25 AM · #78

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

"Produce a witness statement explaining the loss. Produce any documents that were associated with the loss (insurance claims), or associated with your original purchases (bank statements showing purchases) or get a statement from the record store clerk or your mother confirming that you lost your vast collection one day. All valid forms of evidence."

That'd be nice, but very few receipts specify the item purchased. If I had every receipt for every CD I own it'd fill up a room in and of itself. (I own thousands.) The case in point, is that it is unreasonable to demand that someone show a receipt for a CD they bought 20 yrs ago. The lack of having said receipt should not be proof de facto of theft. That's like me walking into your house and saying "Do you have a receipt for that SONY DVD player? How about for that Revereware Copper pot? Sorry sir, we're going to have to take you in for questioning and book you for stealing unless you can provide receipts for these items in your home.

That's bullcrap...

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

"Mark Twain is copyright expired, Shakespeare wrote before the advent of copyright. I presume that the remainder of whom you speak are copyright expired."

My point is that the new laws are moving to INDEFINITE COPYRIGHTS. Which are a) unconstitutional b) illegal c) immoral. These copyrights prevent ANY future works entering public domain. In otherwords, the new Tom Clancy novel will still be under copyright in 1,000 yrs.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

"I cannot see how these kind of examples (which have nothing to do with copyright) have any value at all. "

[They weren't referencing copyrights, but rather patents, of which they are quite applicable.]

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

There are increasingly artists releasing iTunes only tracks - they like it because they have more reliable statistics for recovering their artist's fee. Why should you be the one to decide how they should release their music, or what terms they agree to? Did they ask you to download their music for free by way of protest?"

[ ROTFLMFGDAO...do you really think most of those artists even got a say. Some do. And yes, actually, some have asked their listeners to download their music in protest.

Now, let's flip this around. I have actually released a CD. Yup...I financed the release of an album. Guess what....RIAA got Congress to pass a law so that any time our album is played on internet radio they collect money from it. We never got a say. RIAA and the government negotiated our rights for us.

As for iTunes and the artists. I actually am an advocate that digital media is different than the analog recordings that RIAA has control over. And that all artists from the Beatles to NIN should have the rights to seperately negotiate their digital distribution agreements. In other words, they should be the one's receiving the $0.70 cents not RIAA.
]

Originally posted by "M":

The DMCA has not made ripping CDs illegal, this is still allowed under the Home Recording Act in the US.

Personal back-up copies are allowed. However some of the wording is prohibitive of ripping and using digital copies of CDs for commercial use. (Does not fall under the HRA) An exemption was giving to broadcast radio (as they basically threatened to stop playing RIAA's CDs if they tried).

Originally posted by "yanko":

then what about just going to the store and taking the stuff off the shelves?"

That's a physical object and can be stolen. Thoughts, ideas, music, etc can only have government established monopolies infringed. It's a trade violation NOT theft.

The theft of a TV prevents the owner's use. The copying of music does not do so. Now, let's put the above in real perspective. You build yourself an HDTV. And we throw you in jail for doing so. Welcome to Intellectual Property Rights.

ClubJuggle, and just for the record, I am very consistent in my stance, even regarding my photos. For personal, non-commercial use the only thing I ask is that you attribute authorship. (Now, to test this, someone took a photo of mine once and added an insult to me as an argument against free-use. No, I won't accept the use of my photo to degrade me but not on the grounds of copyright but rather on the basis of slander and libel.) If I have a photo that you really like and want to use as wall paper, I am fine with that.

02/13/2006 10:21:43 AM · #79

BTW...it's a fair chance I own as many CDs as the rest of the posters to this thread combined (though, if there is another DJ or radio disc jockey such may not hold).

Anyways, I own thousands of CDs. I buy many direct or one-step over from the artists in order to support them. I'm an avide collector and I have some really rare underground albums. Most of these are out of print. If anyone wants a copy they're welcome to (but don't expect me to make a copy for you...i just don't have the time). But I've had friends sit in my living room and burn of 50+ CDs. And I have no moral qualms. As nearly all of these CDs are unavailable. Many of the bands do not even exist and no new copies are being created for purchase. No one is losing any money.

I even have a few CD-Rs of rare albums (Evanescence's "Origins"). And as soon as it is re-released, I'll likely buy it. Cause I'm a collector. But I have no qualms with having a CD-R of an out-of-print album. Nor letting someone copy an out-of-print album that I own.

Why? Because I believe that said music belongs to humanity. The failure to make it available for purchase should not preclude it's retention within human culture.

Or simply put, what happens to a copyright when the holder of said copyright dies with no legal heirs? Now, as we're moving toward infinite copyrights this will create a situation where legally, said music is lost forever. Such a system seems foolish and incomplete to me. And that is just one of many failings in our current system.

- Saj

02/13/2006 12:14:32 PM · #80

Out of interest, which aspects of copyright law (even the new ones you speculate on offering "indefinite copyright") are unconstitutional? I'd have to double-check but I can't think of copyright coming up much in the US constitution.

You seem to be shifting your ground to issues of infinite copyright and suchlike - does that mean that you accept that if the artist is alive, well, produced his music int he last decade and DOESN'T want you freely copying his music that you might accept it would be wrong to take it against his will?

02/13/2006 01:04:08 PM · #81

Originally posted by "ganders":

My dear Ganders,

Please take a gander at the following, (and had you simply read my earlier posts it is all there in black & grey of DPC)

Constitution - Article I, Section 8:

"The Congress shall have Power .... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"

I am not making this up. This is actually the law of the Constitution. And in fact, one recent copyright law regarding bootlegging was judged unconstitutional by a judge for this very reason. Congress does not have the power to pass such laws.

So I ask you this: If there is a limit in the Constitution to the authority of Congress. And Congress passes an illegal law in clear violation. Which legality should the people hold to?

Now that is in reference to the "time limit" clause. Which, has gone from a few years to now exceeding the life time of a human being. With the intent that by the time said 150 yr term expires the copyright will be defined as an indefinite time period.

Second, the sole reason for copyrights & patens is to promote the "Progress of science & art". In it's current fashion, patents and copyrights are in fact being used to prevent the advancement of science and in some cases, even art. So we are questionably in violation of the second clause and headed for a clear violation of it. And even the first clause of intending reason is questionable at this time. (ie: everyone talks about how much "advanced energy patents" are owned by oil companies and left unused. See the point of the short-term paten was if you didn't use it quickly it became available to all. It was supposed to give you enough time to secure capital or investment for production. Then, it was expected free market would take over from there. Now, they're being used to protect markets.

(I've pandered you a bit here ganders because I am simply amazed by how common your post actually is. And it goes to show just how much fud and crud entities like RIAA & MPAA have fed the common people. You can't think of the copyright coming up much in the Constitution. When in fact, it is the Constitution that is the fundamental post in the entire copyright/patent structure.

And we are on the verge of losing an extremely vital property of the People for lack of knowledge and from sheer ignorance. And no, you're not any one out of the ordinary. You are in fact me, 10 yrs ago. Before I started researching the entire concept of IP. Before I read the Constitution, it's history, it's repeated abuses, it's change from intent, etc., etc. I used to be very very pro-copyright. Because I simply thought it was stealing. Then I learned and began to understand it's intent, purpose, and the current abuse of a relatively new concept.

I've become an outspoken critic for it's reform...in fact, a revolutionary. This is indeed a cause I am inherently willing to die for. Because my mind see the potential of slavery tied to the continued strengthening of this concept if not brought back into balance..

"does that mean that you accept that if the artist is alive, well, produced his music int he last decade and DOESN'T want you freely copying his music that you might accept it would be wrong to take it against his will?"

For non-commercial use, I believe in total freedom so long as attribution of authorship is made. (That's just my personal feelings on these matters.) Constitutional, I believe there is an allowance for a short-term exclusivity. However, I believe the affect must be the furtherance of art and idea. So where said rights interfere I believe intervention needs to be made. I also believe that such should be limited to luxury commodities. Let me explain. I believe Africa, which is in crisis, with millions dying is a good example. The drugs cost a fortune, but the actual manufacturing of some of these drugs is not as expensive as they are sold. Even for the U.S. with our Medicare/Prescription Drug crisis. Much of this could be alleviated by a simple passing of legislation to give Medicare an exemption and allow them to manufacture or contract with a company to manufacturer said drugs free of license.

Our energy crisis, how much advancement could we make toward alleviating this problem if all energy related patents were made accessible. People rant about the oil companies, about automobile companies, the damage to the environment and how we are killing our planet, global warming, etc. If this is really a big deal....then why not simply free up said patents. This way all the auto-makers can access the most efficient technologies. Why should Chrystler be the only one to use HEMI curved valve caps? Should the well being of humanity and the planet be jeopardized for mere greed. We are not talking about stealing. And idea can be devised by seperate people. Look how many were trying to fly? Should every airplane have to pay Orville and Wilbur? what about the many people who were really close to getting off the ground. Some of which had key ideas more advanced than the Wright Brothers? In fact, if we were to implement our current patent laws a 100 yrs ago. None of us would be flying or driving cars.

Furthermore, we are creating a very negative industry, that being companies who do no manufacturing nor even development. They simply try to acquire patents and then see what technologies are similar to the patents in order to sue them. We've actually created an industry of lawsuit. Companies who's entire economics is based on preventing other companies from manufacturing and inventing. That is a far cry from the original goal of the patent and copyright.

- Saj

02/13/2006 01:09:38 PM · #82

Now Ganders, I am going to challenge you one step further. As you did not even know the basis for copyrights nor aware of it's foundation in the Constitution. I am going to challenge you to throw out everything you currently know and feel regarding this issue. And start from the ground up. From the Constitution and also in review of whether past achievements could have happened under our current more stringent and expanded laws. Research what a copyright is...from where it is granted. On what basis. If it is granted, and by whom...where does the actual ownership derive.

Think about it, if the Constitution specifies the authority of the government (representative of the People) to give such right to the inventors and artists. Then, by the very nature, said right is not inherent to the inventor. If it were, it would merely recognize said ownership. The truth of the matter, is under the Constitution all thoughts, ideas, and said knowledge is seen as owned by the People as a whole. The idea and invention of the wheel is not seen to be owned by one individual but rather to be the property of Mankind as a whole.

With such understanding, this issue becomes very much different than as portrayed by RIAA.

02/13/2006 01:32:14 PM · #83

Another example of RIAA's double-sided greed:

Click Here

RIAA wants to make sure you clear all the music off of your iPod before selling it. Seems logical right? But explain to me this, when I download music to my phone I never receive a license. I have no proof of my ownership, at $1-$4 a ring tone. Now, if my phone is damaged I am out of luck I have no proof of ownership. The ownership is seen to be the music on the cell phone. Once gone, oops...no ownership.

Now, an iPod with music being sold is regarded as a no no by RIAA. I accept their rational under their position. But wonder how they can neglect to provide proof of ownership regarding ring tones, etc.

It's just another example of RIAA play both sides of the court to ensure their maximum profitability and control over the music industry. Sadly, all the laws are being passed in their favor.

iTunes, ringer tones, CD's, all of these should come with proof of ownership documentation. If the fone that Verizon sells you dies because it's defective, why should you lose the $100 in ringer tone investments you made? if RIAA is going to gripe that it's not about the CD (which costs less than a $1 to make) and that it's about the license. Then shouldn't they give you a license when you buy or download music?

BrennanOB

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

02/13/2006 01:42:01 PM · #84

A copyright used to require the signature of the secratary of state, among others, it was a right granted sparingly, and was intended to be dificult to get and short term. Today hundreds of copyrights are granted everyday, and such things as the genetic material of living creatures and plants, and methods of swinging on park swings have been granted protection. There isn't much funding so the fees from aplicants pay the salaries of the patent office, so their interest is in volume of items given licences.

In 2003 the supreme court extended copyrights past the 75 year mark to 95 years. Disney was the prime mover behind this extention, presumably becaues if they thaw out Mr. Disney from his cryogenic state, he would not be inclined to produce anymore work if the corporation that bears his name didn't own all the rights to his images. If the intent of copyright is to allow a creator to get the benefit of his creation why are we extending it out beyond a human life span? So it can better fit a corporation's life span perhaps?

Copyright laws are important but the abuse that they are being put to in he US, combined with the free trade policy with countries such as China where they recognise no such a concept as copyright or intelectual property, and are free to bring these illegally copies into the US to sell to us, is a one two punch that is not good for our economy.

02/13/2006 02:01:59 PM · #85

I always thought it quite comical that so many Disney films are based on stories not conceived by Disney Corp. And if unlimited copyrights existed the following movies would not:

Snow White & the Seven Dwarves
Sleeping Beauty
The Little Mermaid
Beauty and the Beast
Robin Hood
Peter Pan
Aladdin
Alice in Wonderland

And that's just a small sampling. So I think it's pretty ironic that Disney has been a spear-header of protecting it's rights (and making them unlimited in duration) while at the same time greatly benefitting from the creative thoughts and ideas of others.

ashoff

GE GE X5 Black

02/13/2006 04:06:08 PM · #86

Don't forget Lion King, which was totally ripped off of Tezuka's Jungle Emperor Leo. Something which the totally deny.(don't get me startedon that)

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

02/13/2006 04:29:39 PM · #87

Originally posted by ashoff:

Don't forget Lion King, which was totally ripped off of Tezuka's Jungle Emperor Leo. Something which the totally deny.(don't get me startedon that)

i did not know that....

jemison

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

02/13/2006 05:07:44 PM · #88

Originally posted by hsteg:

So who here actually BOUGHT photoshop?

NOBODY!!!

Contrary to what many here have claimed, none of them have "actually BOUGHT photoshop".

All one needs to do to verify this is to read the Licensing Agreement, which states:

"Legal notice:

Adobe products are not sold; rather, copies of Adobe products, including Macromedia branded products, are licensed all the way through the distribution channel to the end user."

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

02/13/2006 05:19:13 PM · #89

Originally posted by jemison:

Adobe products are not sold; rather, copies of Adobe products, including Macromedia branded products, are licensed all the way through the distribution channel to the end user."

Very true...

However, companies like RIAA like to play both sides. They tell you that you've only licensed the use of the music. But they never provide you a license. Thus, when your hard-copy is lost, stolen, destroyed or defective you find you have no license and no recourse.

If you are going to claim that you've merely licensed the use of said product. Than give me a license.

Unlike RIAA, I can re-install my copy of photoshop. In fact, as long as I have the license I can get a replacement CD to allow me to re-install my software program.

Please tell me how to do this with my CDs, DVDs, ringtones or downloads?

jemison

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

02/13/2006 05:39:32 PM · #90

Originally posted by theSaj:

Originally posted by jemison:
Adobe products are not sold; rather, copies of Adobe products, including Macromedia branded products, are licensed all the way through the distribution channel to the end user."

Very true...

However, companies like RIAA like to play both sides. They tell you that you've only licensed the use of the music. But they never provide you a license. Thus, when your hard-copy is lost, stolen, destroyed or defective you find you have no license and no recourse.

If you are going to claim that you've merely licensed the use of said product. Than give me a license.

Unlike RIAA, I can re-install my copy of photoshop. In fact, as long as I have the license I can get a replacement CD to allow me to re-install my software program.

Please tell me how to do this with my CDs, DVDs, ringtones or downloads?

I'm not interested in getting into the general debate going on here. Just wanted to make the specific, limited point that I made. Sorry.

FWIW, I have long held a love/hate relationship with situational ethics.

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

02/14/2006 06:34:47 AM · #91

Originally posted by theSaj:

Now Ganders, I am going to challenge you one step further. As you did not even know the basis for copyrights nor aware of it's foundation in the Constitution.

Actually I find that rather comical because the concept of copyright dates back further than your Constitution - further even than your country.

I mainly wanted you to quote that bit in the Constitution so you could try and defend your unConstitutional and positively (therefore) unAmerican desire to break the Constitutionally protected rights of "Authors and Inventors the exclusive Rights to their respective Writings and Discoveries".

I find it rather amusing that you seek to defend your position on indefinite copyright by hiding behind your Constitution but you're willing to disregard the exact same passage if it interferes with the copyright theft you wish to indulge in!

Matthew

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

02/15/2006 03:37:35 PM · #92

Originally posted by theSaj:

No - your analysis is not very good. I said that if accused of stealing music, you would need some evidence - not a receipt specifically, but something. If you have managed to buy some music, you would have to go to some effort to destroy all evidence that you had bought that music, and even then you could still swear a statement explaining how you came by the music and how all the evidence was destroyed. You only need to establish a more than 50% chance that you are telling the truth.

Originally posted by theSaj:

My point is that the new laws are moving to INDEFINITE COPYRIGHTS.

Then oppose the extension - but this does not justify opposing the system itself.

Originally posted by theSaj:

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
There are increasingly artists releasing iTunes only tracks - they like it because they have more reliable statistics for recovering their artist's fee. Why should you be the one to decide how they should release their music, or what terms they agree to? Did they ask you to download their music for free by way of protest?"

[ ROTFLMFGDAO...do you really think most of those artists even got a say. Some do. And yes, actually, some have asked their listeners to download their music in protest.

Why are you ROTFLMFGDAO at my suggestion that people do make a choice when in the next breath you admit that there is a choice?

Originally posted by theSaj:

Now, let's flip this around. I have actually released a CD. Yup...I financed the release of an album. Guess what....RIAA got Congress to pass a law so that any time our album is played on internet radio they collect money from it. We never got a say. RIAA and the government negotiated our rights for us.

...

Originally posted by theSaj:

An exemption was giving to broadcast radio (as they basically threatened to stop playing RIAA's CDs if they tried).

So there is such a thing as a non-RIAA Cd? Why did you choose to release your CD through the RIAA?

Originally posted by theSaj:

ClubJuggle, and just for the record, I am very consistent in my stance, even regarding my photos.

Are you?

Originally posted by theSaj:

For personal, non-commercial use the only thing I ask is that you attribute authorship.

Attribution rights are part of copyright. Why non-commercial? Why can I not sell your photos? Why not use them in advertising and use them publicly, claiming them to be my own? Perhaps... because you have some interest in them that you want to protect? Maybe the same interests as an creator or owner?

How about the singer/songwriter who writes a great song and someone makes a copy at a gig. Should they be allowed to distribute the copy commercially as their own work? If "no", how would you stop them from doing that? Perhaps... something like by applying copyright?

Originally posted by theSaj:

(Now, to test this, someone took a photo of mine once and added an insult to me as an argument against free-use. No, I won't accept the use of my photo to degrade me but not on the grounds of copyright but rather on the basis of slander and libel.)

Slander & libel might help you obtain damages where there is an untruth involved, but what if the statement was accurate? What if they claimed the image as their own, or mashed it up to look ridiculous and then attributed it to you? Not libel or slander - nothing but copyright comes to your aid.

Message edited by author 2006-02-15 15:38:59.

Matthew

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

02/15/2006 03:40:27 PM · #93

Originally posted by ganders:

I find it rather amusing that you seek to defend your position on indefinite copyright by hiding behind your Constitution but you're willing to disregard the exact same passage if it interferes with the copyright theft you wish to indulge in!

Well said!

02/15/2006 04:12:39 PM · #94

Originally posted by "ganders":

Actually I find that rather comical because the concept of copyright dates back further than your Constitution - further even than your country.

Oh, I'm fully aware that the concept of copyright dates back before the birth of the United States of America. However, I am speaking regarding U.S. law.

Originally posted by "ganders":

I mainly wanted you to quote that bit in the Constitution so you could try and defend your unConstitutional and positively (therefore) unAmerican desire to break the Constitutionally protected rights of "Authors and Inventors the exclusive Rights to their respective Writings and Discoveries".

Nice...very nice. Okay, so I see an "Ad Hominem" & "Straw Man" but not a single argument or reference to anything I said.

Please, put forth your reasoning for your accusation of my stance being "unConstitutional" (as I believe I've clearly referenced the Constitution) and for it being positively unAmerican. From what I can see, you are trying to take the fact that the Constitution grants Congress authority to enact said legislation within certain confines to declare that all enactments of copyright are valid and any opposition to the current enactments are unConstitutional/unAmerican. Such is fallacious in it's reasoning.

Originally posted by "ganders":

my position is AGAINST "indefinite copyright" and such limit to the period of definition of copyrights is in fact mandated by the Constitution. So, you find may find it amusing. But I'm finding it rather sad that a) you're either accusing me for that which I have not supported or b) are accusing me for supporting specifically what is stated in the Constitution.

I've expressed my personal views and my views regarding the matter as specified by the Constitution. They do differ by the way.

However, copyrights are an agreement between to parties, the American People and the individual copyright holders. There are certain mandates in said agreement. If the copyright holders cease to recognize said mandates, how can they expect & demand the other party to uphold their end of the mandates.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

you would need some evidence - not a receipt specifically, but something. If you have managed to buy some music, you would have to go to some effort to destroy all evidence that you had bought that music, and even then you could still swear a statement explaining how you came by the music and how all the evidence was destroyed.

a) for all the ring tones I bought (about $100 worth), I receive no evidence whatsover of purchases. Yes, there were additional fees in a general category on my cell phone bill that can be related to a dozen different market areas.

b) so you're telling me if I just write and sign a statement swearing I had acquired said music legally but have no evidence to prove such, that THAT is enough to protect me legally? funny, I just have serious doubts such would hold up in court.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

Then oppose the extension - but this does not justify opposing the system itself.

a) I do oppose the extension (not that it does any good, but that due to the nature our government has degraded too)

b) if they become infinite, there is no longer Constitutional authority for Congress to pass said law. I will cease to recognize said law.

b) further opposition to the system is due to the numerous abuses of the system which have harmed my fair business dealings and stolen equity from me.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

Why are you ROTFLMFGDAO at my suggestion that people do make a choice when in the next breath you admit that there is a choice?

Yes, some have made a decision to list this music on iTunes. I'm all for it actually. However, many cannot. Furthermore, I provided a reason for my laughing in regards to royalty rights collection from online radio broadcasts.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

So there is such a thing as a non-RIAA Cd? Why did you choose to release your CD through the RIAA?

WE DID NOT! And that is exactly my point. We had no dealings what-so-ever with RIAA. However, they've utilized their lobbying funds to buy off numerous politicians. And thus, took our rights to negotiate away.

Now, if I have a bit of animosity toward RIAA's hypocritical cries of copyright "rights"...I guess that's to be expected.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

Are you?

Yes, I am...

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

After a reasonable time....sure...I believe they should be freely available.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

Should they be allowed to distribute the copy commercially as their own work?

No, not as their own work. As a work of another....after a short period of time. Yes.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

What if the statement was accurate? If they post a photo of mine, perhaps a sucky one, and say "This photo was taken by the Saj!" It is true. And thus, is fair game.

Now, if the posted a picture of me and said "This guy is a communist neo-Nazi kitten killing redneck." Then, I will request the site to be taken down...not for the use of the photo but for the false slander.

If they claim the image as their own then I have issue. And I have always stood by authorship attribution throughout ALL my debates on this topic.

If they distort and modify said photo, they should attribute authorship of the original to me and the derivation and modification to themselves. To distort and/or degrade an image and then attribute authorship without clarifying said image is not the original version can indeed be taken akin to slander and libel. It is attributing the changes to an individual which is false. However, authorship attribution to the original documents used in creating the secondary work should be stated.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

nothing but copyright comes to your aid

In our current system yes, which is why I support an alternative of said system. Then authorship and attribution clauses would also come to my aid. Furthermore, these would be indefinite to the extent possible. So they would continue to aid after the short-term commercial copyrights have expired. Yet, they'd also let free society continue to benefit from said works to the furthering of mankind.

kellian

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

02/15/2006 04:20:07 PM · #95

What I don't really understand is why theSaj's opinion on this issue causes so many people to jump on the 'stealing is stealing' bandwagon. That is way to black and white for me. I don't trust the motives of the people making these rules to automatically assume it's moral. Furthermore, theSaj is entitled to his opinion and his own morality on the situation. He niether requires nor wants, I'm assuming, people telling him that what he's doing is right or wrong.

For the record. I agree with theSaj. We've been getting ripped off for a long time with music purchases. I have no qualms about 'stealing' the occasional song. I find it much easier to swallow than paying $20 for an entire album when there's only one good song on the damn thing.

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM II

02/15/2006 05:18:56 PM · #96

Originally posted by theSaj:

Please, put forth your reasoning for your accusation of my stance being "unConstitutional" (as I believe I've clearly referenced the Constitution) and for it being positively unAmerican.

With pleasure.

You've repeatedly expressed your desire to disregard copyright law, despite the fact that you yourself have shown copyright to be enshrined in the US Constitution. Therefore, your position is unConstitutional.

The US Constitution is always held up as a sacred text of America, so to actively go against that text is, by definition, unAmerican.

Next?

:-)

CalamitysMaster00

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

02/15/2006 05:26:09 PM · #97

IF you are NOT paying for it, its illegal. Pirating....normally 500-2k per mp3 or pirated file. :)

faidoi

Pentax K10D

Pentax DA 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 AF

02/15/2006 05:27:00 PM · #98

Originally posted by kellian:

For the record. I agree with theSaj. We've been getting ripped off for a long time with music purchases. I have no qualms about 'stealing' the occasional song. I find it much easier to swallow than paying $20 for an entire album when there's only one good song on the damn thing.

That's why Apples' iTunes is such a good plan. Buy only the music you want.