How about writers? Are they suppose to write a book and give it to you free? Can they only make money by reciting the book? How perfectly stupid. How about software designers? Are they supposed to create a product and give it away. How are they supposed to profit from their work? How are moviemakers to be paid if they must let you steal their work? Must we return to vaudeville and only pay for live performances. Times change, Dude. A recording is a performance and musicians deserve to be paid for their performances. You just want to steal, because have the morality of a cantaloupe. You believe that because technology makes it EASY to steal without being prosecuted, that it is somehow not thievery.
It has nothing to do with technology. It has to do with a work ethic, another thing you can't seem to understand. Have you ever worked a day in your life? Have you ever created anything? Can you not understand that stealing a persons work is wrong? Clearly not. You have the childish notion that advanced technology makes stealing OK.
Now you are simply repeating yourself, indicating that the argument is over. Come back when you have something new.
if they want. i dont care what they do. they can make money doing things that dont involve writing at all. i dont care really. they can be lawyers or teachers or carpenters. its not my concern. just like i dont care what happens to folks who used to pick corn. now they have combines or whatever. the corn pickers moved on and do something else. why do i care if they profit? why are you not whining about the autoworkers who lose jobs to robots? or the hosuewives who are no longer useful clotheswashers because they have machines now. you can make a movie and put it on youtube and make lots of money. not that i care if you make money or not. i dont see why we have to pay at all. we dont pay anything for broadcast tv or wikipedia or youtube, do we? hi five bro lets have lawyers record a defense of a client and be paid for that. wait. no profit in that? OH NO! lets have a mailman just record his route, delivering mail and sell that. no profit? oh no what will we do? i dont really want to steal, and i dont even really bother anyore, now that i use spotify. i stream movies via amazon and my roku box. the industry is realizing they need to change keep me happy. and keeping me happy is all that matters.
I say yes and no, some give it freely, some don't. I'll give the perfect example of this. RCA and FTD are making millions on Elvis to this day with merchandise from various bootleg sources, remixes, etc. Check out the FTD Label here and look at the prices, this is exactly why some steal these products, are any cd's worth around $50 a piece? Elvis In Person : FTD Special Edition 2 CD [Stereo] : Elvis Presley FTD CD
you are the fellas repeating that i am a thief. you dont seem to understand my position. my position is that a society where information is freely exchanged is a superior society. i would not make this argument about solid goods, unless those items were infnitely copyable. i would not argue that we should legalize stealing potatoes. then every poato farm would close and no more potatoes for anyone. my hope is that you can understand why those two things are different. if for example, i could make a potato, and then copy my potato for everyone, for free, then i wouldnt care if you stole it. i would have solved world hunger. please try to understand the difference between digital and physical possessions. do you think, for example, that if lived in a world where all we knew was communism, and i had an idea for a society of democracy and communism, that i should be able to sue if others stole my idea and started bettering their lives? why not, i am th eone who thought of it! i am the one who put my brilliant mind into it, and did all the work sorting it out, with all my delightful education and intelligence. would my idea by any less valuable for society for it being freely copied? no, kind sir, it would be far more valuable to society.
Here is the core of your dissonance and wavering argument. Apathy and ignorance. You don't know and you don't care. Perhaps it is time to reconsider your position. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: Now we have the descent into silliness. I know. This is your fundamental virtue.
They are not different. You refuse to recognize intellectual property as valid. You are wrong to do so. You fail to understand that creative people have to make a living, just as people who make "solid goods". But the law does. Your argument is that because it is easy to steal some media, you should be allowed to do so at the expense of its creators. To do so is wrong and produces victims. LaSalle has a far better point. The music companies with publishing rights and the record companies with recording and distribution rights may no longer be needed or have greatly diminished roles when technology can allow a creator to have more direct access to his audience. But depriving creators of words, art, music, and performance the right to make a living by legalizing piracy will result in those people finding other work, to the detriment of all literature, music, and drama. And it's just wrong. Why do you have such a problem with the concept of wrong?
Everywhere actors and actresses and musicians go, they expect free sh!t, but now I am supposed to give a rats ass about a rich musician, who has already sold out? Hell no, I'm concerned about the federal government taking over a platform for starving artists. It's the same sh!t we are seeing in this country, rob from the underprivileged, who bust their asses to serve the rich.
