Jaffy1

Yellow. Beer.

Bænd bi'kɒz fə'netɪks ɪz 'draɪvɪŋ mi: ɪn'seɪn. :blink:

Looks like a typo in the html. xD Fixed the mistake and credited you, thanks. :) Oh, and the topic was posted in the right place, no worries!

Just curious - are you able to make a living off of that? Well, obviously not for $2 an EP, but as far as I know most independent musicians rely on a combination of touring, merchandise and EP sales. There was this website(now it is renovated so I really cannot cite the source now), that explained this in a better way than I could. In order to make a living off of music, you'd have to have much more dedication than I personally have, and you would have to make many, many sacrifices. You won't be making the hundreds of thousands of dollars that the Top 40 Artists make, but enough to get by probably. But when pirated there is no such thing as receiving $2 an EP. xD

-760

Ah, I misunderstood your comparison then, sorry. I missed you referring to an actual CD. Still, that is a rather unlikely situation, isn't it? Anyhow, I don't think anyone will go after YouTube in that respect, since YouTube does fight copyright infrigmentation (e.g. mutes videos with certain songs in them).

Generally Maples in combination with herbs/coal works well. Since coal appears back to a decent price I'd put my bets on that.

I would and I have. I bought I Am Legend after watching a pirated version a number of times. Unless I'm watching on the tv out the back I prefer watching it off the pirated version though, I have issues with my DVD drive, and I just want to watch the movie; not watch 3 ads for other movies, an ad on how much better Blu-Ray is compared to DVD (even though you can't tell in the ad,) a few ads on how pirating this DVD is illegal even though it's a legal copy, and way too many little ads about the various companies who made the movie (advice, I don't give a [cabbage] who made it as long as it's good.) Every gig I've gone to because I pirated the artists' music beforehand and decided I enjoyed their music enough to go see them live, which I wouldn't have otherwise. On top of that, I own about 15 games I originally pirated I enjoyed enough to purchase and I wouldn't have bought them otherwise as I wasn't sure enough. The cases where I have pirated and not purchased something I would not have purchased the item if I had no other option. As far as it's affected the people who made it, it made no difference what-so-ever. They've only complained because someone tells them about all the money they've lost, then convince them to pursue those people with settlements. Bands such as Radiohead have actually testified against their own labels in court before. Although I admire that you do, many do not. I'm in no way on that sort of record labels' side, but that still doesn't mean illegal downloading is right. Legal downloading is perfectly fine, and with the artist's conscent I would assume downloading it is legal. If many artists wish for their music to be freely available I'm sure that a market for a legal download library can suffice in one way or another, and going back to what's been mentioned before, I agree that that should change. However the notion that illegal downloading at this time is theft simply remains, which is my reason for opposing it. I'm not sure about Australian DVDs, but the vast majority of the ones I've got don't have advertisementz (TV shows), and the few movies that do have advertisement that can be skipped with a single button. However I do agree that such "in-your-face" kind of messages on a legal copy of something are :thumbdown:

-758

[hide=Antispam] They aren't entirely the same, that's true. However, here are plenty of sites that do offer other people's music, tv shows and whatnot in return for payment. To avoid plagiarism you can credit a source a specific way, or in certain cases, buy the material. To avoid copyright infrigmentation you buy the music for your own personal use, or the right to play it (for example shops have to pay the owners of music to be allowed to play it when they are opened). The reason behind the rule may be slightly different, but that doesn't mean it is entirely different. In both cases the material belongs to someone else, and you have to pay for the right to play it, quote it, or own it in a sense. You may not take away the original, but the owners have the right to claim a fee for your using it in both cases. [/hide] At No_M0re, I don't mind you calling people "man", it just makes me feel odd since plenty of people seem to think there are no women on the internet. xD Anyhow, I can assume you hereby admit to randomly sharing your opinion with made-up prices for songs and whatnot? If your information is based on fact, finding credible sources isn't that hard, so for lack off it is safe to say you were not basing your claims on facts, but simply making things up? You claim to have read every word I said, yet you repeat the same futile questions while I have already provided a proper answer, and you repeat flawed statements without any arguments or even hint at evidence to back them up. Don't go round in circles now, go on and show us that support for your claims. Yeah I assumed you were a girl because of your avatar lol! I do have a fair knowledge of the costs though because of watching my friends and like i said my best mate is an engineer, pretty good one at that. I'm making things up to an extent, it isn't exactly 5k£ to bring out a song, but it is definately around that with no manager/company involved. I would say, for a good songwriter, including the time spent writing the song. If you don't want to accept that is credible that's fine, I don't mind. It's not really but it's a fiarly good estimate, gives an idea. Also I did read what you said, but it's all weird legal nonsense. I'm saying for my case how is it stealing? Surely you can see it's not really. Oh well I guess we both have pretty strong opinions on this :ohnoes: I don't have any evidence either because once again I'd say it's kind of self explanatory, or is it even possible to get evidence for my last post. Basically I don't think that I personally am stealing. ^In other words, you are wrong. Calling that source weird legal nonsense proves that much to be honest. You're not the only one that claims it isn't stealing, but the simple fact that you're downloading illegally means that you are. The source shows you perfectly that copying the original without taking it away is stealing, so please stop claiming you're not. xD Also, what you're saying is not self explanetory, because if it were there wouldn't be room for opposite opinions, now would there? Backing up something that is self explanetory should be very simple. If getting a song on the market is around 5.000 pounds including all the advertisement and whatnot, why do so many artists lack the money to do so? Getting 5K isn't that hard.. What is that based on? The fact that you think you know what you're talking about, or the fact that one random friend of yours may have hinted at that? I'm not going to claim I do know how much it costs, because I don't, but you made a statement about it, so I would like to see the validity of that. And even if, assuming every song costs 5K to create, do you honestly think that pirating that one song makes up for the creator's costs? Would you go to a concert to listen to one song? How much should an artist invest into a song, and how many songs should they create for you to steal before you pay to go to a gig? Now I'm not sure what kind of person you are, but surely you enjoyed some education with regard to backing up statements, and were taught to think critically? And I'm sorry, but saying"I know a lot about this subject so I am right" simply doesn't cut it, because everyone can say that too, and if they did it still wouldn't be true. Finally, to clarify part of the "weird legal nonsense" --> You claim copying the original is not stealing, then what is plagiarism again? That too is stealing, so you're suggesting you're as hypocritical as you claim record companies are? [/hide] I suggest you read the below again... and uh, how do you plagiarise without profitting off it in some way? Already proven that to be invalid. Because what you are saying is incorrect, and you fail to answer any critical question to explain yourself. That is nonsense, and you know it. Believing something should be different doesn't make it different. That also doesn't justify theft. And uh, how do people get to like bands without advertising? How do they get famous if no-one knows about them? I'm not asking for a link to everything, but when you come up with "factual" claims that are made up for whatever reason I think it's reasonable to ask what they are based on. Music videos for free mhm? I'm sure a random cheap camera and lacking choreography will go very far... And all you need is to spend money on an engineer and studio time? I'm no expert, but I am sure that a lot more is required. You also said that advertising isn't necessary, so if I just randomly spent x thousand pounds on making a song, and then put it on YouTube, following your logic this would happen: 1. "Loads of people" will somehow see my random video with music, and download it for free. 2. I will get "loads" of fans because people will share my song a lot. 3. How on earth do I get a gig then? 4. When does the money come into the picture? 5. I end up facepalming at having lost x amount of money, but the bright side is that a bunch of people got my song for free, and like to listen to it at times? It does make me wonder what kind of experience you have.. :rolleyes: Even if that were true you would still have stolen the music. You didn't buy the right to have it, and therefore you should not have it. If you were intregued enough by something you would have bought it, or heard a song on the radio and then may have chosen to buy it. Even if you didn't, the fact that you take what does not belong to you means you cheat the creators. Shops pay owners of music to be allowed to play it to their customers, that's just the way it works. By having it, and playing it, you owe them the money they are entitled to by the simple fact that it is theirs. That is how they lose. It does make a difference, because a huge amount of people pirate music (and movies/TV shows), and since that started the sales of music and movies went down by a significant amount. ^I've already explained that before as well. Would you buy the DVDs to a movie or TV show if you've already pirated it? Would you buy the CDs if you've already pirated the music?

They aren't entirely the same, that's true. However, here are plenty of sites that do offer other people's music, tv shows and whatnot in return for payment. To avoid plagiarism you can credit a source a specific way, or in certain cases, buy the material. To avoid copyright infrigmentation you buy the music for your own personal use, or the right to play it (for example shops have to pay the owners of music to be allowed to play it when they are opened). The reason behind the rule may be slightly different, but that doesn't mean it is entirely different. In both cases the material belongs to someone else, and you have to pay for the right to play it, quote it, or own it in a sense. You may not take away the original, but the owners have the right to claim a fee for your using it in both cases. [/hide] At No_M0re, I don't mind you calling people "man", it just makes me feel odd since plenty of people seem to think there are no women on the internet. xD Anyhow, I can assume you hereby admit to randomly sharing your opinion with made-up prices for songs and whatnot? If your information is based on fact, finding credible sources isn't that hard, so for lack off it is safe to say you were not basing your claims on facts, but simply making things up? You claim to have read every word I said, yet you repeat the same futile questions while I have already provided a proper answer, and you repeat flawed statements without any arguments or even hint at evidence to back them up. Don't go round in circles now, go on and show us that support for your claims. Yeah I assumed you were a girl because of your avatar lol! I do have a fair knowledge of the costs though because of watching my friends and like i said my best mate is an engineer, pretty good one at that. I'm making things up to an extent, it isn't exactly 5k£ to bring out a song, but it is definately around that with no manager/company involved. I would say, for a good songwriter, including the time spent writing the song. If you don't want to accept that is credible that's fine, I don't mind. It's not really but it's a fiarly good estimate, gives an idea. Also I did read what you said, but it's all weird legal nonsense. I'm saying for my case how is it stealing? Surely you can see it's not really. Oh well I guess we both have pretty strong opinions on this :ohnoes: I don't have any evidence either because once again I'd say it's kind of self explanatory, or is it even possible to get evidence for my last post. Basically I don't think that I personally am stealing. ^In other words, you are wrong. Calling that source weird legal nonsense proves that much to be honest. You're not the only one that claims it isn't stealing, but the simple fact that you're downloading illegally means that you are. The source shows you perfectly that copying the original without taking it away is stealing, so please stop claiming you're not. xD Also, what you're saying is not self explanetory, because if it were there wouldn't be room for opposite opinions, now would there? Backing up something that is self explanetory should be very simple. If getting a song on the market is around 5.000 pounds including all the advertisement and whatnot, why do so many artists lack the money to do so? Getting 5K isn't that hard.. What is that based on? And even if, assuming every song costs 5K to create, do you honestly think that pirating that one song makes up for the creator's costs? Would you go to a concert to listen to one song? How much should an artist invest into a song, and how many songs should they create for you to steal before you pay to go to a gig? If stealing their music is "good", why must they spend so much money on creating music without expecting anything in return? The fact that you think you know what you're talking about, or the fact that one random friend of yours may have hinted at that? I'm not going to claim I do know how much it costs, because I don't, but you made a statement about it, so I would like to see the validity of that. Now I'm not sure what kind of person you are, but surely you enjoyed some education with regard to backing up statements, and were taught to think critically? And I'm sorry, but saying"I know a lot about this subject so I am right" simply doesn't cut it, because everyone can say that too, and if they did it still wouldn't be true. Finally, to clarify part of the "weird legal nonsense" --> You claim copying the original is not stealing, then what is plagiarism again? That too is stealing, so you're suggesting you're as hypocritical as you claim record companies are?

Bad Jasper. Foei foei. The adjective I'll be kind enough to use is "Flemish"

In that case I apologize, guess I'm a tad too accustomed to trolling in a specific section of the rs forums. Anyhow, the link should work for you, as it works for me just fine. Here is a direct link to the pdf, if that helps. Must say I am intregued how you wish to discredit common university policy and laws though. xD

Bad music. Procrastination

The image of a potato. Essay

They aren't entirely the same, that's true. However, here are plenty of sites that do offer other people's music, tv shows and whatnot in return for payment. To avoid plagiarism you can credit a source a specific way, or in certain cases, buy the material. To avoid copyright infrigmentation you buy the music for your own personal use, or the right to play it (for example shops have to pay the owners of music to be allowed to play it when they are opened). The reason behind the rule may be slightly different, but that doesn't mean it is entirely different. In both cases the material belongs to someone else, and you have to pay for the right to play it, quote it, or own it in a sense. You may not take away the original, but the owners have the right to claim a fee for your using it in both cases. At No_M0re, I don't mind you calling people "man", it just makes me feel odd since plenty of people seem to think there are no women on the internet. xD Anyhow, I can assume you hereby admit to randomly sharing your opinion with made-up prices for songs and whatnot? If your information is based on fact, finding credible sources isn't that hard, so for lack off it is safe to say you were not basing your claims on facts, but simply making things up? You claim to have read every word I said, yet you repeat the same futile questions while I have already provided a proper answer, and you repeat flawed statements without any arguments or even hint at evidence to back them up. Don't go round in circles now, go on and show us that support for your claims.

[hide=Quotes avoiding spam] You're right, but that's okay. ;) It's giving me some amusement while I work on my thesis, and I don't mind playing with trolls at times. Must say I appreciate your wording though. :D At above post. Tl;dr version: Proof pl0x? Only saying "I am right" proves you're not, and if you need to know why it is theft, please refer to this post. "They suck" is not an argument. --> if it were: "You suck, therefore I am right. End of discussion" ? ;) Yes, taking something without paying for it is stealing. That so hard to comprehend? xD [/hide] I'm not a man, thank you. Again, this is the third time I'm asking you to back up your flawed statements with any proof. You can claim that you and other (non-intellectual?) people don't care about "intellectual property", but a thief wouldn't care that he stole someone else's money either, would they? You have stolen from artists, and they did lose because of it. Why do you think CD and DVD sales went down since the piracy business started blooming? Now I have shown you actual proof that according to law, copying other people's material ís stealing. You have claimed many things which I believe to be utter non-sense. If you fail to provide proof there is no reason to take anything you say seriously as such.

You're right, but that's okay. ;) It's giving me some amusement while I work on my thesis, and I don't mind playing with trolls at times. Must say I appreciate your wording though. :D At above post. Tl;dr version: Proof pl0x? Only saying "I am right" proves you're not, and if you need to know why it is theft, please refer to this post. "They suck" is not an argument. --> if it were: "You suck, therefore I am right. End of discussion" ? ;) Yes, taking something without paying for it is stealing. Claiming you would have leeched off of other people doesn't mean you're not stealing. It only means you would have been stealing another way.

Doesn't make it right. Because Cartman hates hippies we can just shoot all the new age hippies too then? South Park hates hippies, so it must be right to hate them? Yes it is theft. I don't understand what you're trying to say with that second bit. Copyright laws aren't laws? Why isn't it theft? Does that mean you believe plagiarism isn't theft either? So if I steal some nice expensive clothes from a store and decide they are comfy and I like the brand, then buy some clothes of the same brand in the same store, I didn't "theoretically" steal? =D> You don't need to pirate music to become aware of what's out there. Before piracy bands got gigs just fine, and to claim they are in any way dependant on them is just rediculous. I would asume you don't mean solely writing it, but also getting it out there? In that case, proof? If it really was so cheap, including advertising and the publishing of CD's, why do so many bands lack the money and ability to do so without a label?

I live because I was born, and I am alive because I have no reason to kill myself and no diseases that will result in my death. Bottom line, I guess I'm content with life? xD

[hide=Furah said] It's not even theft. Tell that to copyright laws. Your logic implies that things like plagiarism aren't theft either, yet they are. [/hide] Nice trolling. A random image would suggest you know you're wrong though. This link right here might show you how copying without taking things away is theft too. I even got the English version for you, but I'm guessing you have nothing to say that can discredit or counter what it says anyway. ;)

It's not even theft. Tell that to copyright laws. Your logic implies that things like plagiarism aren't theft either, yet they are.

Piracy still is illegal... Besides, the costs of making and providing the music is probably a lot higher than what you're willing to pay. As for YouTube, the owners of certain copyrighted music have had videos muted, or have advertisements appear next to videos with their content in them. Still, although their claim is preposterously high in my opinion, that doesn't justify the "theft" of their material. Legal downloading works for me.

Banned for no longer being purple </3 You, back to work now! <3:

Banned for only having one post. Welcome! :thumbsup: