Do you download music illegally?

[classicrawker]

As for the overpricing argument: if I were selling something of my own, I would like to have the right to charge whatever the fuck I wanted for it. If you're not ok with it, go to somebody else, but don't tell me you have the right to my product or that I'm ripping you off.

Why can you not be told that you are ripping people off if you charge too much for a product? Because you have the liberty to charge what you like? Well you do but that don't mean no one else has a right to look at a thing and judge it's value.

You have every right to judge its value and if you think it is overpriced not purchase it....what you don't have the right to do is judge it to be overpriced and say fuck it then I am going to steal it and then claim you were driven to this behaviour by the big bad record industry or greedy artists............which as you Brits like to say is utter bollocks.

Again I use my Stones analogy...when tickets for this past tour went on sale I judged them to be too expensive and a ripoff and was not going to go...they later released $85 tickets which I felt was more than fair for the product they were offering so I bought tickets for both shows....I did not try to find a way to ripoff the promoter becasue I thought his ticket prices were toop expensive...

I download, but I will freely admit that it's morally wrong and there is no moral justification for it.

As for the overpricing argument: if I were selling something of my own, I would like to have the right to charge whatever the fuck I wanted for it. If you're not ok with it, go to somebody else, but don't tell me you have the right to my product or that I'm ripping you off.

See I don't agree with you illegally downloading but I respect the fact that you know it is wrong and you don't try to come up with excuses as to why it is o.k. to justify it and make yourself feel better about stealing..........

Edited October 25, 2013 by classicrawker

[Guest Len B'stard]

As for the overpricing argument: if I were selling something of my own, I would like to have the right to charge whatever the fuck I wanted for it. If you're not ok with it, go to somebody else, but don't tell me you have the right to my product or that I'm ripping you off.

Why can you not be told that you are ripping people off if you charge too much for a product? Because you have the liberty to charge what you like? Well you do but that don't mean no one else has a right to look at a thing and judge it's value.

You have every right to judge its value and if you think it is overpriced not purchase it....what you don't have the right to do is judge it to be overpriced and say fuck it then I am going to steal it..............

The way i see it mate, the day you rip me off you forfeit the right to moan when i rip you off back. It's sort of like a fight, you can't smack someone in the mouth and then whinge when they do it back.

[GivenToFly]

As for the overpricing argument: if I were selling something of my own, I would like to have the right to charge whatever the fuck I wanted for it. If you're not ok with it, go to somebody else, but don't tell me you have the right to my product or that I'm ripping you off.

Why can you not be told that you are ripping people off if you charge too much for a product? Because you have the liberty to charge what you like? Well you do but that don't mean no one else has a right to look at a thing and judge it's value.

You have every right to judge its value and if you think it is overpriced not purchase it....what you don't have the right to do is judge it to be overpriced and say fuck it then I am going to steal it..............

The way i see it mate, the day you rip me off you forfeit the right to moan when i rip you off back. It's sort of like a fight, you can't smack someone in the mouth and then whinge when they do it back.

You're being ripped off when you're misinformed or in any way not offered what you were under the impression you would be offered. Selling you watered down whiskey, that's ripping you off, or selling you something on the internet, taking the money off your card and then not delivering, that's ripping you off. But when you know ahead of the transaction itself what you would be buying and what the price is, how are you being ripped off then? There's not cheating involved, no lying. Where's the rip off?

[classicrawker]

As for the overpricing argument: if I were selling something of my own, I would like to have the right to charge whatever the fuck I wanted for it. If you're not ok with it, go to somebody else, but don't tell me you have the right to my product or that I'm ripping you off.

Why can you not be told that you are ripping people off if you charge too much for a product? Because you have the liberty to charge what you like? Well you do but that don't mean no one else has a right to look at a thing and judge it's value.

You have every right to judge its value and if you think it is overpriced not purchase it....what you don't have the right to do is judge it to be overpriced and say fuck it then I am going to steal it..............

The way i see it mate, the day you rip me off you forfeit the right to moan when i rip you off back. It's sort of like a fight, you can't smack someone in the mouth and then whinge when they do it back.

You're being ripped off when you're misinformed or in any way not offered what you were under the impression you would be offered. Selling you watered down whiskey, that's ripping you off, or selling you something on the internet, taking the money off your card and then not delivering, that's ripping you off. But when you know ahead of the transaction itself what you would be buying and what the price is, how are you being ripped off then? There's not cheating involved, no lying. Where's the rip off?

Well said..They are not ripping you off Sugar as you know the price before you buy the music. If you don't like the price you walk away.....the record companies are not forcing you to buy their product so how can they be ripping you off?

[Guest Len B'stard]

As for the overpricing argument: if I were selling something of my own, I would like to have the right to charge whatever the fuck I wanted for it. If you're not ok with it, go to somebody else, but don't tell me you have the right to my product or that I'm ripping you off.

Why can you not be told that you are ripping people off if you charge too much for a product? Because you have the liberty to charge what you like? Well you do but that don't mean no one else has a right to look at a thing and judge it's value.

You have every right to judge its value and if you think it is overpriced not purchase it....what you don't have the right to do is judge it to be overpriced and say fuck it then I am going to steal it..............

The way i see it mate, the day you rip me off you forfeit the right to moan when i rip you off back. It's sort of like a fight, you can't smack someone in the mouth and then whinge when they do it back.

You're being ripped off when you're misinformed or in any way not offered what you were under the impression you would be offered. Selling you watered down whiskey, that's ripping you off, or selling you something on the internet, taking the money off your card and then not delivering, that's ripping you off. But when you know ahead of the transaction itself what you would be buying and what the price is, how are you being ripped off then? There's not cheating involved, no lying. Where's the rip off?

So you're saying its only a rip off if you dont know you're being ripped off? So if im dying of thirst and theres only one guy with a glass of water and he puts a price of half a million quid on it thats not a rip off because no ones lied to me?

You're just plain wrong there GTF, with your definition of a rip off, look it up, selling something for an over-priced amount is ripping someone off, regardless of whether you are aware it's a rip off.

Edited October 25, 2013 by sugaraylen

[wasted]

Have u had a go on kinect for xbox thats more earth shattering than any pop record since elvis.

Music should be free from your isp or aol. You might pay more but you should have unlimited access to everything on demand.

[dalsh327]

The technology on being able to do this in the first place is to blame.

The recording industry was busted for price gouging and had worked together on gouging customers. They were acting as a cartel.

People who work on music and film deserve to be compensated, but to me this should have been worked out back when they were rolling out CD burners and the ability to convert music files should have been handled at the time.

[J Dog]

The technology on being able to do this in the first place is to blame.

The recording industry was busted for price gouging and had worked together on gouging customers. They were acting as a cartel.

People who work on music and film deserve to be compensated, but to me this should have been worked out back when they were rolling out CD burners and the ability to convert music files should have been handled at the time.

I seriously don't think the industry was prepared for the internet. It caught them off guard. I don't know how, but it's like they never saw it coming.

Another thing is, after getting over on fans for so long, once people saw a chance to get them back they jumped on it. Tom Petty said one time, they get you with the 20$ cd's, then they get you with crazy concert ticket prices, then parking, then merchandise, even the damn beer. So when people saw a chance to get something for free, it's like hey, they have made stupid big money off of me for a long time, now I can even it out a little bit, they're rich anyway.

Edited October 25, 2013 by J Dog

[tryinharder]

Technically I do because I would accept a bootleg from someone who did. Only for a band who I'm smitten with for the novelty of owning a rare item. But too chicken and sympathetic to the artists et al who produce the finished product to undermine the reward for their efforts. I would not duplicate it for others though unless they are real close and into the same band as much as I am. It doesn't cost that much to buy an album or song off the internet. Why be an asshole?

Edited October 25, 2013 by tryinharder

[classicrawker]

As for the overpricing argument: if I were selling something of my own, I would like to have the right to charge whatever the fuck I wanted for it. If you're not ok with it, go to somebody else, but don't tell me you have the right to my product or that I'm ripping you off.

Why can you not be told that you are ripping people off if you charge too much for a product? Because you have the liberty to charge what you like? Well you do but that don't mean no one else has a right to look at a thing and judge it's value.

You have every right to judge its value and if you think it is overpriced not purchase it....what you don't have the right to do is judge it to be overpriced and say fuck it then I am going to steal it..............

The way i see it mate, the day you rip me off you forfeit the right to moan when i rip you off back. It's sort of like a fight, you can't smack someone in the mouth and then whinge when they do it back.

You're being ripped off when you're misinformed or in any way not offered what you were under the impression you would be offered. Selling you watered down whiskey, that's ripping you off, or selling you something on the internet, taking the money off your card and then not delivering, that's ripping you off. But when you know ahead of the transaction itself what you would be buying and what the price is, how are you being ripped off then? There's not cheating involved, no lying. Where's the rip off?

So you're saying its only a rip off if you dont know you're being ripped off? So if im dying of thirst and theres only one guy with a glass of water and he puts a price of half a million quid on it thats not a rip off because no ones lied to me?

You're just plain wrong there GTF, with your definition of a rip off, look it up, selling something for an over-priced amount is ripping someone off, regardless of whether you are aware it's a rip off.

I still don't think you understand our argument mate...........Record companies are not ripping you off as you know what CD's cost and you have the choice to buy it or not. It is a luxury and is not essential for your survival so you don't have to buy it if you feel it is a ripoff..you rlife is not effected if you don't buy a CD as you can live without it.

That brings us to your example...you are not comparing apples to apples here. In the case of the water that is something you need to live so it would be understandable you would be outraged if someone try to gouge you for water...in the case of CD it is a luxury you can live without so you don't need to buy it if you think it is a ripoff...

But in either case I don't think you have a right to steal from the person just that gouging for a life essential is morally wrong............

Society in general would not condone gouging of a life essential in time of cruisis but most people would give shit if someone wanted to gouge you for a music CD.......

Surely you can see the difference?

Edited October 25, 2013 by classicrawker

[bran]

The technology on being able to do this in the first place is to blame.

The recording industry was busted for price gouging and had worked together on gouging customers. They were acting as a cartel.

People who work on music and film deserve to be compensated, but to me this should have been worked out back when they were rolling out CD burners and the ability to convert music files should have been handled at the time.

exactly. when napster came out they could have used the technology in their favor, instead they made enemies. they wanted to stick to the old way, and continue to gouge people.

people who download buy music, i love the physical copy. i like reading the notes and the lyrics, cover art and the like. i also like helping support smaller bands and labels so i can continue to hear their music.

it is pretty sad when a band puts their own album onto something like spotify and then the label takes the album down and calls anyone who listened to spotify thieves.

[username]

The technology on being able to do this in the first place is to blame.

Bullshit. That's like saying the technology of guns is to blame for murders committed with them. People have a choice on whether or not they use an available technology.

People need to accept that they are responsible for their own actions.

Edited October 25, 2013 by username

[Chewbacca]

I do, but I buy the album afterwards.

[classicrawker]

I do, but I buy the album afterwards.

but not everyone who illegally downloads buys the album afterwards which is one of the reasons record labels are in the shitter and artists now make most of their money touring and very little selling CD's or legal downloads

Edited October 25, 2013 by classicrawker

[bran]

I do, but I buy the album afterwards.

but not everyone who illegally downloads buys the album afterwards which is one of the reasons record labels are in the shitter and artists now make most of their money touring and very little selling CD's or legal downloads

and not everyone who downloads would ever buy the album anyway, it goes both ways.

[classicrawker]

The technology on being able to do this in the first place is to blame.

The recording industry was busted for price gouging and had worked together on gouging customers. They were acting as a cartel.

People who work on music and film deserve to be compensated, but to me this should have been worked out back when they were rolling out CD burners and the ability to convert music files should have been handled at the time.

I seriously don't think the industry was prepared for the internet. It caught them off guard. I don't know how, but it's like they never saw it coming.

Another thing is, after getting over on fans for so long, once people saw a chance to get them back they jumped on it. Tom Petty said one time, they get you with the 20$ cd's, then they get you with crazy concert ticket prices, then parking, then merchandise, even the damn beer. So when people saw a chance to get something for free, it's like hey, they have made stupid big money off of me for a long time, now I can even it out a little bit, they're rich anyway.

Not liking the price of an item is not an excuse to steal it mate.........same with your logic that you already spent so much money on the artists CD's, concerts, merchandise etc. that they owe you something. They already delivered the goods to you when you bought it so they don't owe you anything more.........they are selling a luxury entertainment item not a life essential so they are not gouging you as you have a choice to buy their product or not.

I do, but I buy the album afterwards.

but not everyone who illegally downloads buys the album afterwards which is one of the reasons record labels are in the shitter and artists now make most of their money touring and very little selling CD's or legal downloads

and not everyone who downloads would ever buy the album anyway, it goes both ways.

So what is your point? does that make it o.k. for them to illegally download something becasue they never intended to buy it? it is still stealing.............you are really grasping at straws now mate......

[bran]

The technology on being able to do this in the first place is to blame.

The recording industry was busted for price gouging and had worked together on gouging customers. They were acting as a cartel.

People who work on music and film deserve to be compensated, but to me this should have been worked out back when they were rolling out CD burners and the ability to convert music files should have been handled at the time.

I seriously don't think the industry was prepared for the internet. It caught them off guard. I don't know how, but it's like they never saw it coming.

Another thing is, after getting over on fans for so long, once people saw a chance to get them back they jumped on it. Tom Petty said one time, they get you with the 20$ cd's, then they get you with crazy concert ticket prices, then parking, then merchandise, even the damn beer. So when people saw a chance to get something for free, it's like hey, they have made stupid big money off of me for a long time, now I can even it out a little bit, they're rich anyway.

Not liking the price of an item is not an excuse to steal it mate.........same with your logic that you already spent so much money on the artists CD's, concerts, merchandise etc. that they owe you something. They already delivered the goods to you when you bought it so they don't owe you anything more.........they are selling a luxury entertainment item not a life essential so they are not gouging you as you have a choice to buy their product or not.

I do, but I buy the album afterwards.

but not everyone who illegally downloads buys the album afterwards which is one of the reasons record labels are in the shitter and artists now make most of their money touring and very little selling CD's or legal downloads

and not everyone who downloads would ever buy the album anyway, it goes both ways.

So what is your point? does that make it o.k. for them to illegally download something becasue they never intended to buy it? it is still stealing.............you are really grasping at straws now mate......

my point being the company losses being blamed on downloading is overrated, just because someone downloads does not mean the label or the artist lost money, since a lot of people would never buy the album anyway.

like i said the study done by the british a few years ago showed people who download music also buy music at twice the rate as people who dont. you would think after a decade since napster the music industry would learn that.

the music industry is the way it is because of themselves. they started pushing shit on people, started going for the one hit to sell a 15 dollar album, and fill the rest of the album with shit, and still expected people to sit and take it.

once again what you see as stealing i do not, i see sharing. we can go about this over and over. i feel whatever i do with my property is my own business.

so what about buying used cd's? is that stealing as well?

Edited October 25, 2013 by bran

[J Dog]

The technology on being able to do this in the first place is to blame.

The recording industry was busted for price gouging and had worked together on gouging customers. They were acting as a cartel.

People who work on music and film deserve to be compensated, but to me this should have been worked out back when they were rolling out CD burners and the ability to convert music files should have been handled at the time.

I seriously don't think the industry was prepared for the internet. It caught them off guard. I don't know how, but it's like they never saw it coming.

Another thing is, after getting over on fans for so long, once people saw a chance to get them back they jumped on it. Tom Petty said one time, they get you with the 20$ cd's, then they get you with crazy concert ticket prices, then parking, then merchandise, even the damn beer. So when people saw a chance to get something for free, it's like hey, they have made stupid big money off of me for a long time, now I can even it out a little bit, they're rich anyway.

Not liking the price of an item is not an excuse to steal it mate.........same with your logic that you already spent so much money on the artists CD's, concerts, merchandise etc. that they owe you something. They already delivered the goods to you when you bought it so they don't owe you anything more.........they are selling a luxury entertainment item not a life essential so they are not gouging you as you have a choice to buy their product or not.

I'm not defending, it's stealing no doubt about it. I'm just saying that's how a lot of people look at it. They're rich rockstars, they won't miss my 20 bucks.

[classicrawker]

The technology on being able to do this in the first place is to blame.

The recording industry was busted for price gouging and had worked together on gouging customers. They were acting as a cartel.

People who work on music and film deserve to be compensated, but to me this should have been worked out back when they were rolling out CD burners and the ability to convert music files should have been handled at the time.

I seriously don't think the industry was prepared for the internet. It caught them off guard. I don't know how, but it's like they never saw it coming.

Another thing is, after getting over on fans for so long, once people saw a chance to get them back they jumped on it. Tom Petty said one time, they get you with the 20$ cd's, then they get you with crazy concert ticket prices, then parking, then merchandise, even the damn beer. So when people saw a chance to get something for free, it's like hey, they have made stupid big money off of me for a long time, now I can even it out a little bit, they're rich anyway.

Not liking the price of an item is not an excuse to steal it mate.........same with your logic that you already spent so much money on the artists CD's, concerts, merchandise etc. that they owe you something. They already delivered the goods to you when you bought it so they don't owe you anything more.........they are selling a luxury entertainment item not a life essential so they are not gouging you as you have a choice to buy their product or not.

I do, but I buy the album afterwards.

but not everyone who illegally downloads buys the album afterwards which is one of the reasons record labels are in the shitter and artists now make most of their money touring and very little selling CD's or legal downloads

and not everyone who downloads would ever buy the album anyway, it goes both ways.

So what is your point? does that make it o.k. for them to illegally download something becasue they never intended to buy it? it is still stealing.............you are really grasping at straws now mate......

my point being the company losses being blamed on downloading is overrated, just because someone downloads does not mean the label or the artist lost money, since a lot of people would never buy the album anyway.

like i said the study done by the british a few years ago showed people who download music also buy music at twice the rate as people who dont. you would think after a decade since napster the music industry would learn that.

the music industry is the way it is because of themselves. they started pushing shit on people, started going for the one hit to sell a 15 dollar album, and fill the rest of the album with shit, and still expected people to sit and take it.

once again what you see as stealing i do not, i see sharing. we can go about this over and over. i feel whatever i do with my property is my own business.

so what about buying used cd's? is that stealing as well?

Whether they would buy the album or not it is still stealing mate and most likley they would not buy the album because they got it for free..........and does it really matter how much money labels are losing? they, and the artists, are still losing money due to illegal downloads............

And you keep saying labels "started pushing shit on people"..no they didn't as you don't have to buy their product.........and you can basically preview just about any album you want on line now so your excuse that you can't hear it before hand is moot and besides not liking something or how much it costs is not an excuse to steal it............

Yeah we can go around and around but as long as you and others keep throwing shit against the wall trying to find and angle to justify stealing music through illegal downloads I will respond. Because basically there is no excuse for stealing.........

As long as you feel you are justified why do you care what I think?

[classicrawker]

The technology on being able to do this in the first place is to blame.

The recording industry was busted for price gouging and had worked together on gouging customers. They were acting as a cartel.

People who work on music and film deserve to be compensated, but to me this should have been worked out back when they were rolling out CD burners and the ability to convert music files should have been handled at the time.

I seriously don't think the industry was prepared for the internet. It caught them off guard. I don't know how, but it's like they never saw it coming.

Another thing is, after getting over on fans for so long, once people saw a chance to get them back they jumped on it. Tom Petty said one time, they get you with the 20$ cd's, then they get you with crazy concert ticket prices, then parking, then merchandise, even the damn beer. So when people saw a chance to get something for free, it's like hey, they have made stupid big money off of me for a long time, now I can even it out a little bit, they're rich anyway.

Not liking the price of an item is not an excuse to steal it mate.........same with your logic that you already spent so much money on the artists CD's, concerts, merchandise etc. that they owe you something. They already delivered the goods to you when you bought it so they don't owe you anything more.........they are selling a luxury entertainment item not a life essential so they are not gouging you as you have a choice to buy their product or not.

I'm not defending, it's stealing no doubt about it. I'm just saying that's how a lot of people look at it. They're rich rockstars, they won't miss my 20 bucks.

fair anough JDog...and I agree as I have heard the same tired arguments before from people trying to justify illegally downloading music or asking for copies of Slash's offical release instant live CD's a few years ago.

I think Kid Rock sums it up the best in this video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpCADfZD-eg

[bran]

The technology on being able to do this in the first place is to blame.

The recording industry was busted for price gouging and had worked together on gouging customers. They were acting as a cartel.

People who work on music and film deserve to be compensated, but to me this should have been worked out back when they were rolling out CD burners and the ability to convert music files should have been handled at the time.

I seriously don't think the industry was prepared for the internet. It caught them off guard. I don't know how, but it's like they never saw it coming.

Another thing is, after getting over on fans for so long, once people saw a chance to get them back they jumped on it. Tom Petty said one time, they get you with the 20$ cd's, then they get you with crazy concert ticket prices, then parking, then merchandise, even the damn beer. So when people saw a chance to get something for free, it's like hey, they have made stupid big money off of me for a long time, now I can even it out a little bit, they're rich anyway.

Not liking the price of an item is not an excuse to steal it mate.........same with your logic that you already spent so much money on the artists CD's, concerts, merchandise etc. that they owe you something. They already delivered the goods to you when you bought it so they don't owe you anything more.........they are selling a luxury entertainment item not a life essential so they are not gouging you as you have a choice to buy their product or not.

I do, but I buy the album afterwards.

but not everyone who illegally downloads buys the album afterwards which is one of the reasons record labels are in the shitter and artists now make most of their money touring and very little selling CD's or legal downloads

and not everyone who downloads would ever buy the album anyway, it goes both ways.

So what is your point? does that make it o.k. for them to illegally download something becasue they never intended to buy it? it is still stealing.............you are really grasping at straws now mate......

my point being the company losses being blamed on downloading is overrated, just because someone downloads does not mean the label or the artist lost money, since a lot of people would never buy the album anyway.

like i said the study done by the british a few years ago showed people who download music also buy music at twice the rate as people who dont. you would think after a decade since napster the music industry would learn that.

the music industry is the way it is because of themselves. they started pushing shit on people, started going for the one hit to sell a 15 dollar album, and fill the rest of the album with shit, and still expected people to sit and take it.

once again what you see as stealing i do not, i see sharing. we can go about this over and over. i feel whatever i do with my property is my own business.

so what about buying used cd's? is that stealing as well?

Whether they would buy the album or not it is still stealing mate and most likley they would not buy the album because they got it for free..........and does it really matter how much money labels are losing? they, and the artists, are still losing money due to illegal downloads............

And you keep saying labels "started pushing shit on people"..no they didn't as you don't have to buy their product.........and you can basically preview just about any album you want on line now so your excuse that you can't hear it before hand is moot and besides not liking something or how much it costs is not an excuse to steal it............

Yeah we can go around and around but as long as you and others keep throwing shit against the wall trying to find and angle to justify stealing music through illegal downloads I will respond. Because basically there is no excuse for stealing.........

As long as you feel you are justified why do you care what I think?

im having a debate i feel totally justified, the music industry has got enough money out of me the last decade that is for sure

as for previewing an album that may be true, yet some labels have taken down artists music from youtube and things like spotify and then labeled people thieves who viewed and listened.

the artist is getting screwed over by the labels all the time.

[Guest Len B'stard]

As for the overpricing argument: if I were selling something of my own, I would like to have the right to charge whatever the fuck I wanted for it. If you're not ok with it, go to somebody else, but don't tell me you have the right to my product or that I'm ripping you off.

Why can you not be told that you are ripping people off if you charge too much for a product? Because you have the liberty to charge what you like? Well you do but that don't mean no one else has a right to look at a thing and judge it's value.

You have every right to judge its value and if you think it is overpriced not purchase it....what you don't have the right to do is judge it to be overpriced and say fuck it then I am going to steal it..............

The way i see it mate, the day you rip me off you forfeit the right to moan when i rip you off back. It's sort of like a fight, you can't smack someone in the mouth and then whinge when they do it back.

You're being ripped off when you're misinformed or in any way not offered what you were under the impression you would be offered. Selling you watered down whiskey, that's ripping you off, or selling you something on the internet, taking the money off your card and then not delivering, that's ripping you off. But when you know ahead of the transaction itself what you would be buying and what the price is, how are you being ripped off then? There's not cheating involved, no lying. Where's the rip off?

So you're saying its only a rip off if you dont know you're being ripped off? So if im dying of thirst and theres only one guy with a glass of water and he puts a price of half a million quid on it thats not a rip off because no ones lied to me?

You're just plain wrong there GTF, with your definition of a rip off, look it up, selling something for an over-priced amount is ripping someone off, regardless of whether you are aware it's a rip off.

I still don't think you understand our argument mate...........Record companies are not ripping you off as you know what CD's cost and you have the choice to buy it or not. It is a luxury and is not essential for your survival so you don't have to buy it if you feel it is a ripoff..you rlife is not effected if you don't buy a CD as you can live without it.

That brings us to your example...you are not comparing apples to apples here. In the case of the water that is something you need to live so it would be understandable you would be outraged if someone try to gouge you for water...in the case of CD it is a luxury you can live without so you don't need to buy it if you think it is a ripoff...

But in either case I don't think you have a right to steal from the person just that gouging for a life essential is morally wrong............

Society in general would not condone gouging of a life essential in time of cruisis but most people would give shit if someone wanted to gouge you for a music CD.......

Surely you can see the difference?

I think you misunderstand how rip offers pull off their rip offs, its not a life necessity no but they know its something people want and would've, at least back then, paid over the odds for the item cuz they couldn't get it nowhere else, they bank on that, of course its not a life necessity but how does that make it any less a rip off? Even if i didnt buy them and they just sat on the shelf overpriced, its still a rip off isn't it?

So you're saying its no longer a rip off if you accept it, why , cuz you could just not buy it at all? Right...and why would you do that? Cuz its a rip off.

[classicrawker]

As for the overpricing argument: if I were selling something of my own, I would like to have the right to charge whatever the fuck I wanted for it. If you're not ok with it, go to somebody else, but don't tell me you have the right to my product or that I'm ripping you off.

Why can you not be told that you are ripping people off if you charge too much for a product? Because you have the liberty to charge what you like? Well you do but that don't mean no one else has a right to look at a thing and judge it's value.

You have every right to judge its value and if you think it is overpriced not purchase it....what you don't have the right to do is judge it to be overpriced and say fuck it then I am going to steal it..............

The way i see it mate, the day you rip me off you forfeit the right to moan when i rip you off back. It's sort of like a fight, you can't smack someone in the mouth and then whinge when they do it back.

You're being ripped off when you're misinformed or in any way not offered what you were under the impression you would be offered. Selling you watered down whiskey, that's ripping you off, or selling you something on the internet, taking the money off your card and then not delivering, that's ripping you off. But when you know ahead of the transaction itself what you would be buying and what the price is, how are you being ripped off then? There's not cheating involved, no lying. Where's the rip off?

So you're saying its only a rip off if you dont know you're being ripped off? So if im dying of thirst and theres only one guy with a glass of water and he puts a price of half a million quid on it thats not a rip off because no ones lied to me?

You're just plain wrong there GTF, with your definition of a rip off, look it up, selling something for an over-priced amount is ripping someone off, regardless of whether you are aware it's a rip off.

I still don't think you understand our argument mate...........Record companies are not ripping you off as you know what CD's cost and you have the choice to buy it or not. It is a luxury and is not essential for your survival so you don't have to buy it if you feel it is a ripoff..you rlife is not effected if you don't buy a CD as you can live without it.

That brings us to your example...you are not comparing apples to apples here. In the case of the water that is something you need to live so it would be understandable you would be outraged if someone try to gouge you for water...in the case of CD it is a luxury you can live without so you don't need to buy it if you think it is a ripoff...

But in either case I don't think you have a right to steal from the person just that gouging for a life essential is morally wrong............

Society in general would not condone gouging of a life essential in time of cruisis but most people would give shit if someone wanted to gouge you for a music CD.......

Surely you can see the difference?

I think you misunderstand how rip offers pull off their rip offs, its not a life necessity no but they know its something people want and would've, at least back then, paid over the odds for the item cuz they couldn't get it nowhere else, they bank on that, of course its not a life necessity but how does that make it any less a rip off? Even if i didnt buy them and they just sat on the shelf overpriced, its still a rip off isn't it?

So you're saying its no longer a rip off if you accept it, why , cuz you could just not buy it at all? Right...and why would you do that? Cuz its a rip off.

I never said you can't feel the prices of CD's are a ripoff only that it does not justify you stealing the content by downloading. In the past if you thought something was a ripoff before you even bought it why didn't you just walk away and not buy it?.....I am guessing it was because before downloading you had no easy way to steal the material...........

I think the price of some wines is a ripoff so you know what? I don't buy them but I sure as hell don't try to steal them because I don't like the price.................

So IMHO you are not getting ripped off because you chose to buy the CD despite feeling it was a ripoff before you even bought it but had no other easy way to get the material so you bit the bullet and paid the price. It was not liked you were mislead by some false promise. You knew the price and what you were buying, you felt the CD was a ripoff, yet you still made the decision to buy it. So nobody is ripping you off in that case as you were not mislead.........

It is obvious we will never agree and can go around and around on this subject forever so let's just agree to disagree Yes? if you are comfortable that you are justified in stealing other peoples work nothing I can say will ever change your mind...........

Edited October 26, 2013 by classicrawker

[classicguns4life]

I download everything illegally. Stuff I love, stuff I end up just wanting to try out. Its really terrible and I know full well that it isn't really right. For what its worth. I have the free version of Spotify, and since that has been around I tend to listen there, and if I like what I hear I then illegally download it. Before Spotify, I'd usually test it out with Youtube.

The way I justify it is, nearly all the stuff I download is stuff I would go to see live. So if the band ends up being in my area, I will pay to see them, and I say to myself "they're at least making my money from that, whereas they probably make nothing from me buying their CD". I don't know if its the right way of thinking or not, but it is just very much an easy way to get things. I go see them live and they get my money that way. I just see buying CDs nowadays as a total corporate thing and unnecessary. All of these artists leak and stream the stuff anyway for themselves, so I just feel they don't care either. Its sad that the last CD I remember buying was Chinese Democracy (I've definitely bought at least 5 since then but none are coming to mind). I know its terrible, but as long as I'm seeing people live and giving them money that way I do think I'm not horrible.

[Guest Len B'stard]

I never said you can't feel the prices of CD's are a ripoff only that it does not justify you stealing the content by downloading. In the past if you thought something was a ripoff before you even bought it why didn't you just walk away and not buy it?.....I am guessing it was because before downloading you had no easy way to steal the material...........

Yes but you were corroborating and agreeing with the post of someone who was saying that they fail to see where the rip off is, hence my explaining. As far as why not walk away and not buy it, well because i wanted it and that was the only place to get it and i wanted it that bad that i was willing to take a hit of however much it was overpriced by for the sake of having John Lydons or Dr Dre's or whoevers album. But yeah, if I could've gotten em for free I probably would have.

I think the price of some wines is a ripoff so you know what? I don't buy them but I sure as hell don't try to steal them because I don't like the price.................

Musical artists are a little more unique than types of wine though, aren't they? i mean you can get a cheap bottle of red that, although it's not the same it's close enough to serve its purpose. The same doesn't really work when EVERY album is over-priced, does it?

So IMHO you are not getting ripped off because you chose to buy the CD despite feeling it was a ripoff before you even bought it but had no other easy way to get the material so you bit the bullet and paid the price. It was not liked you were mislead by some false promise. You knew the price and what you were buying, you felt the CD was a ripoff, yet you still made the decision to buy it. So nobody is ripping you off in that case as you were not mislead.........

The presumption here being that there has to be a degree of misleading going on for something to be a rip off. Which is just wrong, look up the meaning of the phrase, you don't have to be ignorant to something being a rip off for it to be a rip off, thats ridiculous and shows a lack of understanding of what the term means. Basically you're saying that ignorance to the fact something is a rip off is what makes it a rip off when it's not, it's a rip off when you pay an unfair amount for a product, whether you know it or not is immaterial, where did you get this idea from?