no comparrison buddy.

 

none

 

zero

 

NO.

ok sorry pal, what i meant was people will find a way to smuggle drugs. and people will continue to find away to download songs

Comparing downloading songs to smuggling is beyond shooting your argument down. Soriano doesn't have to talk anymore and he wins if you keep at it.

people die over and from drugs therefor that is a completely different issue.

 

the problem with "piracy" is the feds can and will trace your IP and ISP to snag you.

the problem with "piracy" is the feds can and will trace your IP and ISP to snag you.

If they care enough, that is.

well they will keep on "catching" about 100 traders a month just to keep the fear of it in the news

 

as a wise man once said...

 

Do you feel lucky? Well do ya punk?

 

as for me i dont...

There is, however, a difference between those people and people that I know that download: those people shared files, most everyone I know doesn't make that mistake. So technically, they aren't "traders". They are more like free-loaders.

another thing is, i dont see how they can sue a user. shouldnt they sue the company instead of the users? like they did napster? can anyone please clarify this.

been there done that.

 

it just gets annoying and i dont want to worry about one day having a large bill to pay to these bastards,

 

it is all opinion and choices.

 

i choose not to steal music anymore and Jesus has nothing to do with my decision

another thing is, i dont see how they can sue a user. shouldnt they sue the company instead of the users? like they did napster? can anyone please clarify this.

these programs have Legal uses. therefor the companies can not be shut down. the end users just abuse the technology to do piracy of copyrighted materials.

 

so its all our fault

i download from people I know thru AIM

that sucks. no one EVER reads the fine print or the "please accept these terms to continue" i guess thats what lawyers are for!

i download from people I know thru AIM

yea but, where do your sources get THEIR songs from?

from others....we got a file-sharing name.....and they get songs that they rip off cds.

nice to see theres always an alternative. thats what i meant by people will always find a way to download songs.

its a beautiful thing.

the real beauty comes in the fact that I actually spend more money when I download music, usually.

 

You see, I download music from someone, and then enjoy the music, and decide to go buy their cd(s) and/or go pay to see them in concert. They actually make more money from me, than they would if I just heard a song on the radio or didn't hear it at all.

 

On that same token, there is no reason for me to buy a cd by a band if they only have 1 good song. I don't even know where to go by singles, and often times, the only good song or two aren't singles, but are lesser-known tracks. Also, downloading mp3s are a good way to make your own mixes.

the real beauty comes in the fact that I actually spend more money when I download music, usually.

 

You see, I download music from someone, and then enjoy the music, and decide to go buy their cd(s) and/or go pay to see them in concert. They actually make more money from me, than they would if I just heard a song on the radio or didn't hear it at all.

 

On that same token, there is no reason for me to buy a cd by a band if they only have 1 good song. I don't even know where to go by singles, and often times, the only good song or two aren't singles, but are lesser-known tracks. Also, downloading mp3s are a good way to make your own mixes.

I'm a big fan of the mix cd. Every year we make a new Cincinnati Bengals mix for gamedays and general driving around acting like asses. The core of the mix is always "Welcome to the Jungle," "Eye of the Tiger," a couple of songs from Passion and the Glory, the Monday Night Football theme (no idea why) and "We Ready."

 

Mix Cd's ROCK HARD!

another thing is, i dont see how they can sue a user. shouldnt they sue the company instead of the users? like they did napster? can anyone please clarify this.

I don't want to make another really bad comparison, but it fits somewhat.

 

Those programs are file-sharing devices, not illegal files, just files. You choose to use it to download illegal MP3's, suing them is dumb. Here comes the bad part: this is like suing the gunmaker for a person shooting you. You're basically saying it's not the person's fault for using the gun that way, it's the person who made the gun's fault.

 

Please...

 

So, if someone gives you a way to break laws you automatically have to use it? No, you don't. It's something called free will. Try it.

this is like suing the gunmaker for a person shooting you. You're basically saying it's not the person's fault for using the gun that way, it's the person who made the gun's fault.

 

Please...

well, sorry to burst your bubble but sadly, america is ran that way. having trouble spending time with your family? then sue your boss. you unexpectedly become fat? sue a fast food joint. sadly in america thats who gets sued. its not your fault but you will get sued.

 

 

and also, it makes no sense what you said because napster users didnt get sued and and kazaa users are. and they were doing it at "free will" like you said

There is, however, a difference between those people and people that I know that download: those people shared files, most everyone I know doesn't make that mistake. So technically, they aren't "traders". They are more like free-loaders.

So if I take your car, am I just sharing it? Better example, if I copy your term paper, am I just sharing it? Sharing is bogus, it's stealing.

 

Just so you all know, this really isn't directed at anyone in particular.

another thing is, i dont see how they can sue a user. shouldnt they sue the company instead of the users? like they did napster? can anyone please clarify this.

I don't want to make another really bad comparison, but it fits somewhat.

 

Those programs are file-sharing devices, not illegal files, just files. You choose to use it to download illegal MP3's, suing them is dumb. Here comes the bad part: this is like suing the gunmaker for a person shooting you. You're basically saying it's not the person's fault for using the gun that way, it's the person who made the gun's fault.

 

Please...

 

So, if someone gives you a way to break laws you automatically have to use it? No, you don't. It's something called free will. Try it. good points

this is like suing the gunmaker for a person shooting you. You're basically saying it's not the person's fault for using the gun that way, it's the person who made the gun's fault.

 

Please...

well, sorry to burst your bubble but sadly, america is ran that way. having trouble spending time with your family? then sue your boss. you unexpectedly become fat? sue a fast food joint. sadly in america thats who gets sued. its not your fault but you will get sued.

 

 

and also, it makes no sense what you said because napster users didnt get sued and and kazaa users are. and they were doing it at "free will" like you said Napster users don't get sued now because it switched over to a 99 cent fee per song.

 

Also, just because people sue the coorporations doesn't make it right. So, if rape becomes "okay" and not individual's fault but the victim's fault, does that make it okay for me to do it if it becomes "culturally accetpable" (which fat people suing McDonald's isn;t, it's a laughingstock)?

the whole mcdonalds thing is insane.

 

That's why it is about simple morals. Would you want someone copying YOUR term paper or stealing your milk or whatever it is. It is still stealing and stealing is always wrong.

Well, the interesting thing about the McDonald's cases is that they're totally blown out of proportion. For one fatty who gets 1.5 million dollars because McDonald's "shoved food down their throat and made them order two Supersizes of everything," there's loads of these cases that get laughed out of court. But, who do we hear about? The one winner in a hundred. And they always fail to give you the fact that this isn't so.

 

Also, do they report when McDonald's then counter-sues the so-called victim in a different court, ruled by different (non-wacky) judges and win all that money back? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO...

the point is there should be 0 winners out of 100 man. Like those smoking lawsuits, which are certainly not blown out of proportion.