xyrec

The area where the dragon from dragon slayer is at, is back in there. When you defeat the dragon, the way you escape is to come through that door from the inside, after which you can go back and fourth through it.

O.o when did this hostility towards high alchers come in? Personally, I like being able to get what an item is worth instead of a fraction of it by selling it too a store that buys for less and less as you try to sell the item. I don't have the patience to sit and sell at stores, and server hop when the price gets too low. I just wanna be able to spend a rune and get the cash. Not to mention there arn't even specialty shops for every type of craftable item. I agree that there is too much money in the game, but do you guys want almost no money in the game? Personally I'd like to be able to afford to buy new items every once in a while, which would never happen if they took high alch and low alch out because it'd take 5 times longer to earn the same amount of money and nobody would wanna drop their prices.

I've done plenty of quests that were pains, but as far as actual difficulty, I'd have to say Desert treasure, the monsters you have to face in it are reeaaallllyyy strong. The ones at the end of recipe for disaster are pretty tough but not as bad. So my vote goes to desert treasure, but Mourning's end part 2 and Recipe for disaster are very close.

Personally I think Jagex has gone overboard on trying to suck money out of the economy. I would dare say that a person could easily spend 50 mil making a top of the line house, if not more. That is ridiculous in my opinion. With most skills, any person can work on it and eventually get better at it. With construction, you HAVE to have money, and to build anything decent, you HAVE to spend a lot. I thought the prices of adding monsters to dungeons, new rooms, redocorating, plank prices and relocation were expensive...then I went to buy some limestone when I hit 33 construction so I could make stone fireplaces, and I looked at the price of marble, gold leaf, and those magic crystal thingies and nearly fainted. Irl marble is not THAT rare, and gold leaf is just gold that has been slowly thinned out by being pressed between rollers. It's not that much more espensive than regular gold because the real value is the gold itself, not the process of making it into leaf. Why should it cost 325k for 1 marble fireplace or 130k for a rug? I have some other minor gripes with construction like not being able to choose placement of furniture, or not being able to add and remove doors(which has made attempting to lay out how I want my house in advance, a nightmare and will result in my house being funky shaped). However I like the skill itself for the most part. Having your own little part of runescape is kinda nice. However....I just can't excuse the prices of some things. It destroys the continuity of the game by making certain items cost wwaaayyy more than they should. The cloth they introduced for construction is a perfect example. They're 650 each but you use the same darned cloth for a poop colored brown rugs as the most expensive rug you can have. Also, at 650 each, they're many many times the cost of a piece of silk, which can be bought in al kharid for a few gp, yet silk is a far more rare, expensive, and desirable fabric than some random type of cloth like wool or cotton. As I mentioned before, the prices of gold leaf and marble are off the wall as well. I can understand the high prices of adding new rooms. Even the expense of dungeon monsters makes sense because who would want to trap and transport a hell hound for cheap? Construction is expensive (although that begs the question of why the starter rooms are so cheap, but the higher rooms are ridiculously expensive when they're the same size and they're all empty when added), irl building an addition to a home or a new home is over 80 dollars per square foot now(2000 square foot house = 160grand not including property). So anyway, my point is that while carpentry is a good skill, it could've been better and I think it would have been if Jagex had focused more on making it a fun reward for the more advanced players, than on trying to suck every last dime out of the RS economy. In my opinion, you shouldn't sacrifice continuity and game balance in one area to make up for another shortcoming somewhere else.

If you mean the dragon scimitar, yes, you need to complete the monkey madness quest to wield it. It's a rather difficult quest so be prepared before trying to tackle it.

Desert treasure is a very hard quest, I did it with signifigantly higher stats than yours and some of the monsters beat the tar out of me, all that kept me alive was super sets and sharks, i spent like 150k doing desert treasure between sharks, super sets, super restore pots and other supplies. If you do what the quest guide says, you should be fine with the legends demon though.

If you didn't know, a dueling ring is just an enchanted(with lvl 2 enchant) emerald ring. You can probably make some yourself.

I did the bonus part of rag and bone man anyhow. I guess it is supposed to be 216 though, so that answers my question.

Today I finished my last quest. Previously I had thought that the max number of quest points was 215 and a new quest was just added yesterday that gave 2. That should make the total 217, but when I finished "In Aid of The Myreque" today, my total is only 216. Is this correct or is there some way to get an extra quest point that makes the total 217?

I think the generally accepted number is 1/5000 or 1 in 5000 odds of getting a chain every time you kill one. However, that doesn't mean if you kill 5000, you WILL get one. Like someone said, you could get one on your first try or kill 20k and never get one. It's all just chance and it's totally random.

This is apsolutely, positively, the dumbest thing Jagex has ever done. Not only is this a huge annoyance to a lot of players, it is totally unecessary. I'm sure the majority of people who have accounts here do not use the same pass for their rs character and if they do, it's their problem to deal with. Why inconvenience hundreds of players because of this crap? Fortunately for me, my forum name is not the name of my main so after finding out about this utter bull, when I logged into my main, all was fine. But then I thought....what about that account I made out of boredom by this name on f2p. I go to log in it, and it's locked. I don't think I even set personal details, or recovery questions for that account since I use it so seldom but dangit, there goes like 250 total level and like 70k worth of stuff i had accumulated on there.

Yes, it has to be the full set(including the weapon, which are all 2 handed weapons) or they're just plain old armor or weapons. I think the repair cost is actually 330k for the full set and if you repair the items when they arn't fully broken, it charges you less in proportion to the damage. If they're barely damaged, they won't cost much to repair. If they're almost broken, they'll cost nearly 330k to repair.

It varies, but most people can get all 4 pouches in less than 2 hours. I think it took me about an hour. Just plan on 3 hours so when it takes less, you'll feel better about it. :-P

.....The update message on the runescape site explains it perfectly. Now when people on free servers mine essence, it will be regular essence. On P2P, if the person is over lvl 30 mining, they will get pure essence. The regular essence will only be able to be runecrafted into the elemental runes. Pure essences will be able to be made into any of the runes, including chaos, cosmic, nature, and death. This isn't even in the right thread(it's a question, not a rant), could a mod please relocate it or lock it, one of the two?

Well good luck in your new endeavors but I can't say that I really understand. I don't think I'll ever completely quit runescape, I'm sure I'll just continue playing in spurts and then taking breaks as I have been. I can't imagine just giving up on it after all the thousands of hours of my free time I've invested in it. If I'd put that time into a college degree for instance, I could be graduated by now. To me, it'd be like building a project car and then deciding when I'm close to finishing that I'm tired of it, and just pushing the car off of a cliff. I think that's why a lot of people want to sell their characters when they move on even though it's against the rules. They don't want to feel like they just poured all the time down a rat hole. Also, WoW doesn't really seem superior to me. The graphics are a lot better from what I've seen but no MMO really has that good of graphics when compared to console games and such. To me, the improvement in graphics isn't worth 50 dollars plus 15 bucks a month. Runescape's graphics are actually pretty poor but you have to keep in mind that it's a java game and it's actually pretty good for what it is. The game doesn't eat up all my system's resources(even for a 3 year old computer) so I can multi task, and it's contained within a window, rather than going full screen, which makes multi tasking much easier. While you probably loose a lot of the kids you just end up with immature adults and worse, people who think the game IS their life and take it way too seriously. Some friends of mine play and one of them got kicked out of his clan because he was busy with finals and couldn't be on as much to make runs. That and I don't think the changes runescape has gone through were for the worst. I was very resistent to rs2 when it first came along as well but I've eventually grown accustomed to it. There have been discussions before about how rs2 makes things too easy but I don't see repetitive clicking that makes you go through mice faster than toilet paper as being related to the difficulty level. Ah well, that's my two cents on the matter. Best of luck.

He said his friend died because of a stupid random event, which I can see that Jagex still hasn't fixed in the several months I haven't been playing because I had to drop to dial-up. C'mon Jagex, get with the program, tele random events should come AFTER you teleport. I wonder how many people have been pked or died from monsters because of teleport random events. Jagex must think nobody is ever in a hurry. I know I for one always have time to stop and participate in their stupid random events. *rolls eyes* Why can't idiots just stop botting so we can get rid of random events all together.

I'm just throwing my two cents in here and I don't have time to read all 6 pages so excuse me if someone has already covered this. Runescape is not a historical game, it is a fantasy theme. That means it is based on a period, but not 100% period specific. How much they deviate from the target period is at their own discretion. I've played a game before that tries to be hyper realistic and at times it can kill the fun of the game. I mean if I want reality, I can just walk out my front door. I play a game to do and see things I can't do irl. Just because a game is "based on" the dark ages but has cannons, doesn't mean it's an anachronism. Here's a perfect example. On that game there was talk of having plated armor removed because the setting was in the dark ages and such armor was very uncommon at that time. I personally liked using armor and felt like it balanced my fighting style well, it was probably the only thing that kept my character alive through most fights. Now they wanted to remove something I liked, all because it didn't "fit the period" however they were basing their period on dark ages europe. The game world is all original, not based on the real world at all, has over a dozen sentient races that are non human including enormous subterranean spiders, big magic casting plants, goblins, humanoid people with gray skin, large noses, and large ears, a version of those people that can breath underwater, an underwater race that are like enormous squids, small furry flying creatures that can cast powerful magic. In addition there are crossbows, widely available coal, a smithable metal that doesn't exist in the real world, and more anachronisms. So why in the world would plate armor that doesn't match the time period matter? The dark ages were largely the DARK ages because of the effects of catholocism on europe where learning was stiffled. That wouldn't have any effect on the game world and many of the races in the game are quite a bit smarter than humans so wouldn't it make sense for more technology to be present in the game? That is the sort of illogical nitpicking that actually steals fun from games. Why would a game be more fun if it's more realistic? That's only your preference and if you truly like that kind of game, I'm sure you can find something out there. Runescape shouldn't have to be reshaped just to suit the whims of a small group of people. Runescape is the way it is, because Jagex wants it that way. You can't expect them to change it to suit your wants any more than you can expect a game developer for game consoles to rewrite their game and package you a new copy because you didn't like how they made the game.

No, we don't have to do that, the people there just don't know how to farm. They arn't needing more farm land in addition to what they're already using. What happens is the farm land dries up, becomes infertile, and they have to find a new place to farm so they burn down forest to get a new spot. Ages ago, they figured out that certain crops take things from the soil, and other crops put things back into the soil. To take care of this issue, they do something called crop rotation. In the US, if you drive past a farm during any of the warm months of the year, you will always see something growing. They grow soybeans early in the year, corn in the summer, and wheat in the fall, if I'm not mistaken. Because they don't usually do these things, farm land in places like Africa and South America just withers after maybe a couple of farming seasons. Also, in Africa, they suffer from a lot of drought which some scientists say is the direct result of the effects that our(the industrialized nations of the world) pollution has on their atmosphere, meaning that we should feel obligated to help them. If they could implement a massive system for irrigation, pumping water from the ocean and seperating out the salt and other things so that it can be used to water crops, and if someone would teach them proper farming methods, they could grow a lot more food and at least come close to feeding all their people. Only that takes a lot of money, which most countries arn't willing to cough up. There is a reason that only 2% of the population in the US grows, raises, or catches the food that the other 98% eats. Not to mention, there are vast tracks of land all over the US that arn't even being used. If it was all utilized, they could easily produce twice as much food yearly as they do now. Oh and we're also to the point in scientific advancement where we can genetically engineer plants to grow more produce, and survive better in tougher environments. The only problem is that they can't be certain what effect there genetically engineered plants might have on the things that eat them, or on the environments they're introduced to. However, science just keeps advancing more and more, so it's only a matter of time before we have a fool proof way of making plants that are perfect for farming in any conditions so that we can feed the whole world. For some reason you seem to think that the increase in population matters. It doesn't matter how big the population gets, as long as it doesn't exceed the Earth's capability to support them, and it hasn't. Easter Island isn't a very good example because not only is it a tiny island, it had a huge population for a totally isolated, itty bitty island. The planet earth isn't even close to that overpopulated in comparison to the amount of usable land that exists. Who said anything about eating less? What they need to do is grow more and waste less. When I was working in a grocery store, they threw away untold tons of food. From a single store. There are thousands of grocery stores in the US alone. One day I witnessed them puncturing holes in the bottom of milk jugs and letting the milk pour down into a floor drain. They probably threw away 50 or 60 gallons of milk just because it was past the sell by date. That was just the dairy department, at that one time of the day. They throw food away in all departments at all times of the day. Medicine is no different. They simply need to make more of it. It isn't that hard to make things like anti-biotics, vaccines and other simple pills that we've had for years, that could make huge differences in the lives of poor people round the world. The US could easily have provided enough medication for the entire world, possibly for years, with the money it has thrown at Iraq. That's really sick. The countries that are doing the most damage to our planet arn't the poor ones like some of those in Africa. It's the big industrialized countries that are doing most of the raping of the planet so giving money to help people in places like that has nothing to do with killing the planet. Even if it was kiling the planet, how do you sleep at night. Those people are suffering agonies that I'm willing to bet you've never known. If you had ever known what it feels like to be starving to death or dieing of a painful disease like parasite infection or a horrible fever, you probably wouldn't be so callous. Besides, humans don't have to destroy the planet. We could just as easily take care of the planet and survive, but to do that we'd have to change pretty much our whole way of doing things. If there's anyone else who doesn't want to make stupid comments like a major flu being Earth's way of cleansing itself of our presence, please feel free to comment on the original topic.

The world isn't overpopulated. There is plenty of food and medicine, it just never reaches the places it's needed the most. We don't need a flu to decrease the world's population. We need everyone to work together to solve the problems. People might not doubt you if you provided some evidence. You seem to be assuming that we should know about this, but if the media here doesn't cover it, people don't find out, it's that simple. A massive earthquake could sink all of california, and if the government stopped the news agencies from covering it, nobody on the east cost of the US would know anything was wrong for days. If it really happened the way that you say, post some links to news articles or something. Don't just make a claim that people here obviously have never heard anything about and then get mad when everyone is skeptical. Anyone can make up anything on the internet and no one would be know the difference. Most of these people have dealt with all manner of frauds online so you can't expect them to just believe anything that people say on the internet. People were eager to believe that chiquita bananas contained flesh eating bacteria and that people were dieing right and left when a fake email circulated there for a while. Yet that was a total fake.

That's assuming that they had insurance on the stuff. I hope for their sakes that they did. It'll still hold up whatever they were doing a lot even if they do have insurance because on a case that big there will have to be an investigation, and most insurance companies love to drag their feet as long as possible, like as if they're hoping you might forget they owe you money. My aunt's house burnt down and it took nearly a year to get her money from the insurance company. As far as the personal items, yeah, the insurance can't replace those, but you can set a reasonable monatary value on them, above what the actual item is worth. My aunt did that for the pictures they lost, some antique furniture, and an accordian that belonged to an long deceased relative of ours that came over with our family from europe. Also a friend of mine had their basement flood during a storm and all they lost basically was sentimental stuff. None of it had any monatary value. However the insurance paid them for their sentimental losses as well. Anyway, even if they get money from insurance, they gotta go buy back all their equipment, and get more cd's and other merchandise made which takes time. I don't know anything about this band but I sure feel for them. Being robbed blind must totally wreak.

Would you say that dawn of the dead is better than the resident evil movies? The most recently that I watched a movie I hadn't seen before was Star Wars Episode III so it's been a while. The last movie I watched though was the matrix. I somehow ended up watching the second one before it. Probably tomorrow I'll watch the third one. I've seen all of them before though, just reruns for me.

Ok. Going from that verse, so long as you do one or the other you'll be fine? This is why I find religion to be a bit on the 'bs' side of things. I must've read close to 30 ways of being able to get into heaven and they all can't be right since s lot of them have conflicting information. *shrug* First of all, it doesn't say "do this to get into heaven", more like, do this to avoid being destroyed for good and never being able to know god's majesty again. Second, there is no super special way to get into heaven, or please god or whatever you think you're accomplishing. Just because the bible says that you should do this, it doesn't mean that you're getting a go straight to heaven card if you do that. Also, why can't there be more than one "way" or thing you have to do. When you say 30 different ways, are you talking about all within christianity? Many cultures believe in some sort of heaven like afterlife for certain people, so of course those would conflict. If you're talking about all within christianity, it's be helpful if you were specific. As far as I've ever seen, most bible "contradictions" are either misinterpretations of what the bibles says, outright lies, or narrow minded perspective of the analysis of the scriptures. I've seen "contradictions" before where they say something like "the bible says thou shalt not kill but then at (scripture) it says 'it's better to kill a man' so the bible is contradicting itself" when the actual scripture says something like "it's better to kill a man than to kill a pregnant woman" or something that would actually made sense if they gave the whole scripture. They take things out of context all the time. So far I've never seen a "contradicion" that held water when you actually research it and think about it clearly.

Honestly, I hate 9/10ths of Eminem's music but I like him because he's so funny. I love most of his music videos just because of the zany humor. As far as the rest of rap goes. I don't like much of it so I only listen to it occasionally. I see that a lot of them are just major gold diggers, riding the wave of fame that other people started. That makes me dislike most rap, some of it is acceptable. What I really can't stand is "gangster rap" that in any way encourages youth to live that life style. People that promote such horrific behavior and corrupt the thinking of the youth of our world are criminals in my opinion. Because of the things they hear in music their view of the world becomes jaded and they end up thinking things, like for instance that the only way they'll ever get anywhere is to join a gang because no one will hire them at a real job. Also that when they stand up for themselves that they need to do so in a violent way in order to gain respect, or that to survive they have to join a gang so that they arn't just fighting for themselves. If they're just rapping about various gang related parts of their past in a way that doesn't glamorize it, it's one thing. However promoting all of that just makes me sick to my stomach.

The reason there is makeup, is because people want to look more like what is considered better looking. Better looking is relative because people have varying ideas about what better is but regardless, there is typically in every culture a set of unspoken standards as to what is beautiful, and what is ugly, that is usually accepted by most of the population. Then those who do not meet that standard, but want to meet that standard will do things such as wear makeup or get plastic surgery to make themselves closer to that standard. Their reasons for that trying to meet that standard can be a wide variety of things. Some do it just to be admired for their beauty. Others do it to draw attention to themselves. They may want to draw attentoin just for the satisfaction of being noticed or to attract a mate or sexual partner. In the case of a sexual partner...have you ever wondered why the most popular color of lipstick is red, in varying shades, and women use pink blush on their cheeks? It's because normally when a woman is aroused, her lips grow larger and take on a reddish color or a deeper red than usual. Also the cheeks become flushed and pinkish. This look of arousal tends to seem more attractive to men. I suppose this would also apply to a homosexual attraction but in general they apply it to heterosexual attraction. If you think I'm lieing about this, I'm not, I've read about it and seen it in specials about the human body on tv. Is it wrong for men to wear makeup? Not any more than a woman. If the man wants to look closer to that standard of beauty then he has every right to use makeup as a means of doing so. It's because people have screwed up perceptions of homosexuals. I seriously doubt that most homosexual men wear makeup, even the effeminate ones. That's more of a metrosexual thing and a metrosexual can be straight or homosexual. Also, it's because historically men have been the ones in a position of more control. Men had the power and thus didn't have to try and please the women, the women had to try and please the men. That is probably one reason why makeup was invented in the first place and since the men didn't need it, they didn't use it and it has become stigmatized as something that only women do. In thus manner, a stereotype was born. Anyway, my overall opinion of cosmetics in general is that they arn't needed. Personally I prefer natural beauty over fake beauty any day. I don't have anything against makeup though because it makes people feel better about themselves and that's what is most important. I just wish people could learn to feel better about themselves without cosmetic surgery or makeup.

Eehhh, I don't think musicians should just make music for the sake of making music. It's just that the music industry seems more centered around the almighty dollar than anything else nowadays. You're right, it is their choice, but it doesn't make it the right choice. I'm not trying to compare musicians to mass murderers, but it was Hitler's choice to persecute jews and attempt to conquer the world. Did it make it right for him to do so just because it was his choice? I'm not saying musicians should be our slaves either, sitting around making music for our entertainment with no pay. I think I said somewhere in my post that I see nothing wrong with people who are career musicians. Without musicians we wouldn't have music to enjoy. Yes, stealing is stealing but that doesn't mean that all stealing is somehow the same thing. Murder is also murder, but would you try to compare murder cases? If someone gets into a fight with another person, and ends up accidentally killing that person it's murder. However if a serial killer stalks someone, then abducts them and later torture them to death, it's also murder. Would you try and compare the two as if they were the same? They're both a case of murder but are far from the same. That's the difference between downloading and ordinary theft. With downloading, you arn't actually taking anything from that person. When you download a song, 5 bucks doesn't just vanish from the musician's bank account. Imagine if we lived in the future when they have scanners and machines that can create matter like on star trek. Then lets just say you happen to be poor but have these two things. So lets say for example that you want a watch, but can't afford one. You then go and break into someone's house(without damaging anything), use your scanner to scan their watch, then take the data back to your home and use it to make yourself a new watch just like theirs. Nothing was actually taken from the owner of the watch and they lost none of their posessions or money. But did you actually steal their watch? In a way, yes. Now can you imagine anyone actually complaining because someone got a free watch at no expense to them? That statement really isn't fair at all. Sometimes there is no place to work, and no way to go out and gather or hunt for food. If you had a starving family and your only way to feed them and keep them alive was to steal, can you honestly say you wouldn't do everything you had to, to take care of them? Robinhood was essentially stealing from the rich. The taxes were going to the king, who was "the rich" and unlike in a normal government, he was using the money on himself, instead of using the taxes to do things to build up his kingdom and make it better for the peasants. Anyway, the reason I used the example of Robinhood is because I was stating examples of situations where people could reasonably rationalize stealing. Family starving, you do what you have to, to take care of them. Rich taxing the poor to the point where they can't even afford the taxes and yet demanding even more tax, take action and relieve the burdens of the poor. Downloading does not cause money to be taken away from musicians. Who said they were ever going to get that 15 dollars? People rarely download things that they would have paid for if they couldn't have downloaded it for free. Well you're right. However I'm not attempting to argue whether or not they have the right to do that. Having the right to do something doesn't mean you should do it. Respecting a person's rights is part of caring about them. People who don't steal, don't steal because they care about someone other than themselves and thus don't want to harm others in any way, it's that simple. Respecting the rights of others is only one aspect of the actual reason why some people don't want to steal. I'm not trying to deny that they own it or have rights to control what is done with it. Most of what I said in my post is related to the true nature of these various points, not the text book, hard, cold facts and info. Yes, musicians have a right to say what people do with their songs but why would anyone want to deny someone the joy of listening to your music? That is where my point of view is coming from. That's a totally different thing. Using something for your own enjoyment is not the same as using it to make money. Downloading a song to listen to is different than downloading several songs and putting them on a cd, claiming it is your music, then trying to sell it to people. Maybe our definitions of hurting someone are different but I don't see something like that as hurting. That makes no sense at all. Laws are always based on the morals of the people who they are supposed to govern(at least in theory). Right now things like abortion, homosexual marriage, and right to die are things that they have tried to and in some cases, succeeded in, making laws against and they're all moral issues. Murder is illegal because it's morally objectionable. Rape is illegal because it's morally objectionable. Stealing is illegal because it's morally objectionable(we already discussed why it's morally objectionable). Morals HAVE to play a part in the law making process. Otherwise, what way of choosing the laws would there be? Throwing darts at a board? You can't just say "they own the song" because the song is just an arrangement of sounds. What they own is that arrangement of the sounds, not the sounds themselves. It's not the same as owning a tv. It's like owning the patent on the design of the tv. People tamper with patents all the time. That's how there are always off brands of everything and they're only slightly different. They took the original design and changed it just enough that it isn't what was originally patented and then sell their version. Copyrights are different than patents though....I'd have to review the fine points of copyright law but I don't think copyrighting covers the changing of copyrighted material, only reproduction and use. Maybe Amazon does get permission but I find it to be highly unlikely considering the hundreds, if not thousands of different cd's they sell. Either way, lots of people have streams on their websites and think that it somehow isn't illegal like downloading, when in reality it is just as illegal. What else? Perhaps the topic that we're discussing? Copying copyrighted material. If you do anything other than watch the movie, it's considered illegal. If you copy the dvd onto your computer so that you don't need the disc with you to watch it, you just commited a crime. I still don't know for sure if I was right about the law working that way but I think you misunderstood me. I wasn't saying that you can't watch movies, read books or listen to music. I was saying that it seems from the way the laws are set up, that you can't do those things if you haven't personally paid for the right to use them. Like for instance if you go to a friends house and watch a dvd there, that your friend bought, it would be illegal because you didn't pay for the right to watch that movie. How is watching a movie you haven't paid for at a friend's house any different than making a copy of his movie and then watching it at your house instead? Even if that isn't how the law works, the logic makes no sense. Sure they have a right to make money. After all, everyone needs money to buy the things they need or even things they want but don't need. That example is not at all like downloading and it isn't basically what you do to musicians when you download music. All their money isn't taken, none of it is taken. If anything they just don't get as much money but that would be a rare situation because people don't just download things they would've bought if they couldn't download it. It's also different because people need food, but they don't need music. If you had a magical spell to make your own food and you conjured up all your food just like the brands from the store instead of going to the store then you would be doing harm to the store because you had to go buy the food otherwise. Without food you starve. The stores stock food because they know you need it and if they bought food and stocked it but then nobody bought it because they were making the same thing at home, then the store would go out of business. Music is different, it isn't a necessity. So just because someone downloads it doesn't mean they would have had to pay for it otherwise. Yes, that's true. That's why I wish people wouldn't pay so much money for music, they're just willingly cheating themselves. The consumer should set the price, not the seller, because the consumer will pay how much they can afford, wheras the seller will set the price as high as he thinks he can, and still sell the product or service. This is part of why we have inflation. If people as a whole would just refuse to buy things that are overpriced the seller would reduce the price but none of us seem smart enough to do that. Gas is way higher in price than it should be, yet people still pay the price. If we just flat out refused to pay that much, they would lower the price. However, nobody wants to go without gas for however long it takes to strongarm the oil companies into lowering the price. So we just stupidly pay too much and line the pockets of exxon executives while making their share holders very very happy. Yes, it's their choice to buy the cd, but much of the reason why people buy those cd's is what you yourself mentioned, propaganda. They dazzle people with the larger than life way that they portray all these musicians. Watch a recording of an old N'sync concert and you'll see countless girls screaming like they just won a million bucks or passing out just because Justin Timberlake looked at them while he was singing. What in the heck has he ever done that makes him that great? You were wrong when you said "If they can't afford it, they don't buy it." Many people buy cd's that they can't afford to buy because they need the little money they have for other, more important things, and all that propaganda is exactly why they do it. The reason I brought capitalism into this is because it is what allows them to do this. Don't get me wrong, I don't have anything against capitalism, but without capitalism they couldn't do that. In a communist country(i dunno what the term to refer to the style of economy in a communist country is) the government says how much you can charge for your products or services and how much money you're allowed to make. In capitalism you can charge as much as you want and make as much money as you want. Even if you do it in a devious way that isn't illegal but nonetheless devious. We agree here, I very much dislike the way they portray various things in rap. However not all rap musicians, or musicians in general horde their wealth. P. Diddy donated money and trained for months to run a marathon to raise even more money that was donated(to inner city schools). Yep, that's true, but I have trouble thinking very highly of someone who doesn't want to share their art. After all, what's the point in even making art if you don't want anyone to enjoy it, or at least only people who pay you to enjoy it? Can you imagine making a statue, setting it up after being paid for making it, and then still charging admission to see it? I suppose someone could do that but it would be awefully odd, and music is no different. Once again, yes they are in the same category of crime but not the same thing. I know you weren't trying to flame me and I appreciate your response which you obviously put thought into rather than the drive by flaming that most people do. Thank you for that.