Favorite Files

No favorite files added yet

Recent Posts

1. Comment - Microsoft Slammed for Gay Rights Bill Reversal

   (Apr 22, 2005 - 5:24 PM)

   When did sex become something acceptable to talk about in the workplace? Isn't that covered as harassment? If I am not allowed to go in and talk about sleeping with women, gay individuals shouldn't be gong in and talking about thier conquests either. Hence sexual orientation should be a non-issue, and the workplace / corporate america should not get involved.

2. Comment - RIAA to Sue 405 More College Students

   (Apr 12, 2005 - 6:30 PM)

   But, why is realtime streaming different then file swapping if the intention is to record the data for personal use? Its just a different way to deliver the media. It is the same media delivered either way.
   
   Are you saying that if P2P networking is converted to realtime streaming, you'd support it?

3. Comment - RIAA to Sue 405 More College Students

   (Apr 12, 2005 - 6:21 PM)

   Ok, I get you on the reselling, for a profit, copyrighted material. That's bad, stealing someone elses intellectual property for your own profit is wrong, will always be wrong, and we can all agree we wouldn't want someone else selling our art / ideas for thier profit, no problem.
   
   I have to mention though, that VHS / Beta, Reel-to-Reel (tapes and the spools), floppy disks, optical disks, etc, and the personal cheap home use of those media were not addressed properly by the copyright laws as the media were invented.
   
   But the right to make copies for personal use for no profit has been protected for a long time. Anyone can read the FBI warning on a rented tape / CD, and see that it speaks of illegal distribution.
   
   So it seems we are argueing the legitimacy of how the media is distributed, and not that it cannot be legally copied for personal use. So at this point we have to ask the question, what makes tapeing something off the TV or the radio and recording something off the internet different? Why is is ok to do one and not the other? TV and Radio are free services, where if we tape it, we get it for free, same as the internet and DLing, the real difference being were not listening to commercials. TiVo and digital boxes allow you to do the same thing though, and they have been protected in court. If you record off of broadcast media (radio), that doesn't assure you listen to the commercials either. So the question stands, what is the difference?

4. Comment - RIAA to Sue 405 More College Students

   (Apr 12, 2005 - 5:34 PM)

   Once again off topic.
   Reselling something is different then personal use. Your good at changeing the argument to something everyone supports though, nice shot.
   As far as I'm concerned DLing music for personal listening is akin to listeing to the radio, or tapeing songs off of it, which was defended in court in the 70s.
   Next!

5. Comment - RIAA to Sue 405 More College Students

   (Apr 12, 2005 - 5:23 PM)

   You miss the point. Totally. Reproduction of art, and ideas is completely different then the sale and manufacture of finished goods.
   The fact that you would use such a straw man argument shows that you have no grounding in logic, and like most uneducated individuals you rely on "belief" and "faith" to argue your points.
   Stop trying to compare apples and battleships, material posessions created by material means through the processing and finishing of physical materials has nothing to do with shared media.
   The music companies deserve to get paid if we want thier CDs, and thier CD covers, and thier stupid little lyric sheets. But I have my own CDs, and I don't need your shiny packageing. Take it and shove it.
   Artists can make thier money the old fashioned way, by selling thier art directly to the consumers, through performance and showings. Then we wouldn't have these talentless individuals becomeing muillionares off of a CD with two good songs on it that gullible teenages beg thier parents to buy.
   Care to debate?