quote:The way that I like to predominatly listen to my music is live, and when I pay for a show, I am giving the artists a much higher proportion of the money I spend than if I buy a CD.
Going to a concert does not mean you can steal a shirt, sticker, CD, or any other product that you want to have.
------
It's one thing for you to listen to a song and then purchase it later, but do you honestly believe that everyone that illegally downloads music will eventually pay for it or that there won't be at least some negative consequences if the music industry were to say that filesharing is okay to do and that you don't have to pay for CDs?
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:But occasionally the previews offered by itunes suck, and there are even artists that do not offer their music through itunes.
iTunes isn't the only fish in the sea for pay per song downloads. And for the artists who don't offer their music through iTunes, go to Borders and listen to their album before you buy it - it's likely not out of your way, because Borders and BN stores crop up like mushrooms.
And Angio, You say that previewing music at a record store is inconvenient? You're already there buying albums, why not sample other bands while you're there? Or are you not ever in a music store buying albums, and you just download all your music illegally and for free?
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pH: And this justifies stealing music how?
Edit: to Ang...sorry, I can't spell your name.
-pH
I'm not saying that justifies it. Ideally, I wouldn't steal music. Ideally, all the music that was put out would be high quality and thoughful, and untalented hacks wouldn't make millions of dollars. But we don't like in that ideal world, and in order for me to break through the crap and get to the good stuff (which I am more than happy to support) I do some things that I ideally wouldn't do.
Posts: 441 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Demonstrocity: Convenient music is not a right.
As long as you are comfortable with the fact that you are a thief and a criminal, then I have no problem whatsoever with you continuing to break the law for your convenience.
Music sold for years without the option of illegal file sharing. It would continue to sell without it.
Then this is where we disagree. And just for reference, there has always been some forum where people shared music illegally, and there will always be one. Just like the Barenaked Ladies said, the only difference now is the technology, pirating music has always been around.
And as long as you are comfortable with being taken advantage of by a huge industry, and wasting your hard earned money, then I have no problem with you buying all your music legally.
To compare the pirating done pre-file sharing and post-file sharing is ludicrous. The two are so dissimilar in scope that comparison is worthless (but then, I'm used to thinking of anything associated with the Barenaked Ladies as worthless. ZING!).
This isn't me trying to crusade against file sharers. This is me trying to get file sharers to stop pretending that what they're doing is legal. Moral considerations aside, admit you're a criminal; it's that simple.
Then, having done that, don't be surprised or upset when the RIAA sues you for the tens of thousands of dollars in merchandise you've stolen.
Posts: 246 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is why I don't enjoy threads like this. Because I take it personally. Because it IS personal. An EMI/Virgin guy wrote my college recommendation. I AM a part of this evil, vast conspiracy that you're so valiantly battling through theft. It frustrates me that you refuse to put a FACE on this monstrous, terrible, gigantic industry that you find so distateful.
quote:The way that I like to predominatly listen to my music is live, and when I pay for a show, I am giving the artists a much higher proportion of the money I spend than if I buy a CD.
Going to a concert does not mean you can steal a shirt, sticker, CD, or any other product that you want to have.
------
It's one thing for you to listen to a song and then purchase it later, but do you honestly believe that everyone that illegally downloads music will eventually pay for it or that there won't be at least some negative consequences if the music industry were to say that filesharing is okay to do and that you don't have to pay for CDs?
In my experience, illegal file sharing has benefitted the state of music. Yes there are negative consequences, as people will abuse the system, just like any other one. But are those consequences worse than the consequences that the major labels system have incured on the state of music today? I don't think so.
In my perfect world, musicians would make all their money playing live shows, and all their music would be available for free in digital form. People would go see these shows if the artsits was talented enough to make it worth their money (which many of the people I listen to are). Yes the big performers out there would make ALOT less money than they do today, but I'm perfectly happy with that, becasue I also thing the talented people would make more money, as they would have a product of some value to offer.
Posts: 441 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:You're showing the weakness of your argument here. You cannot truely justify your actions so you resort to semantics. Good job.
You don't even resort to semantics, you simply dismiss everything and write, "blah blah blah".
quote:Now you're just misinterpreting what I said (probably purposefully). I in no way implied that you were stealing for the sake of stealing.
"I like to steal but can't admit it to myself so I couch my view in long-winded essays that dance around that very basic fact."
Sounds like an accusation that I like to STEAL not LISTEN TO MUSIC.
quote:You seem to believe that theft somehow makes you a pillar of morality. You seem to think that your justifications make you immune to rule of law.
You're not and you aren't.
No, No, and No. Why would anybody think that stealing in of itself makes them a pillar of morality? I simply said I did what circumstances required of me to listen to music. Now that I can actually listen to the music and pay the artists in an efficient manner, I do so. I do not have any P2P software on my computer at this time, but I do not think I was doing ANYTHING wrong when I used to.
quote: However, not downloading music does not prevent you from listening to it. You can turn on a radio and listen to music. You can browse all kinds of websites that clutter the internet and listen to music for free. Bands regularly post complete songs on their own websites, on MySpace and on their label's sites.
File sharing is not your only option. You could borrow the CD (without ripping it) and listen to it at home and then give the CD back to your friend who recommended that band and then go out and buy your own copy (or, on iTunes, the two or three songs you like).
You can go to concerts and pay for the band you want to see and get introduced to new ones by listening to the opening acts. You can go to music festivals and wander around finding all sorts of new songs. You can go to a bar and listen to all kinds of shitty underground bands that you'd never have heard of.
There are plenty of options out there. You're just taking the easiest one.
I think you would have done well to read my posts (both the one you responded to, and the subsequent ones) rather then breeze through one of them. Your comments here are not applicaple for that reason, seeing as how I DO do all the things you suggested.
quote: That makes you a lazy thieving bastard.
And here is another reason why, you are wasting everyone's time with name calling, and not only that you have completely misapplied that term by calling me that.
quote:Originally posted by Demonstrocity: Convenient music is not a right.
As long as you are comfortable with the fact that you are a thief and a criminal, then I have no problem whatsoever with you continuing to break the law for your convenience.
Music sold for years without the option of illegal file sharing. It would continue to sell without it.
Then this is where we disagree. And just for reference, there has always been some forum where people shared music illegally, and there will always be one. Just like the Barenaked Ladies said, the only difference now is the technology, pirating music has always been around.
And as long as you are comfortable with being taken advantage of by a huge industry, and wasting your hard earned money, then I have no problem with you buying all your music legally.
To compare the pirating done pre-file sharing and post-file sharing is ludicrous. The two are so dissimilar in scope that comparison is worthless (but then, I'm used to thinking of anything associated with the Barenaked Ladies as worthless. ZING!).
This isn't me trying to crusade against file sharers. This is me trying to get file sharers to stop pretending that what they're doing is legal. Moral considerations aside, admit you're a criminal; it's that simple.
Then, having done that, don't be surprised or upset when the RIAA sues you for the tens of thousands of dollars in merchandise you've stolen.
I've always acknowledged that the act of downloading music illegaly is... illegal. I don't dispute that. But as I've said before, I am not arguing technicality, I am arguing morality. And I don't personally believe that my actions are immoral. I know there are possible consequences to my actions, and I accept those, though they are so minimal (me living in canada and the fact that I don't share or download massive ammounts of music) that it almost never crosses my mind, and I am not remotely afraid.
Posts: 441 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Even with Limewire being sued theres always gonna be other forms of file sharing software out there like Bearshare, which is basically the same thing. Its gonna take more than just a bunch of lawsuits for this type of thing to stop.
Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SoaPiNuReYe: Even with Limewire being sued theres always gonna be other forms of file sharing software out there like Bearshare, which is basically the same thing. Its gonna take more than just a bunch of lawsuits for this type of thing to stop.
Maybe so, but I am sure the lawyers enjoy this method of dealing with things.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:But are those consequences worse than the consequences that the major labels system have incured on the state of music today?
How exactly have the major labels harmed the state of music? Sure, there is a lot of crap out there, and a lot of that crap makes millions of dollars, but that's also true of movies, books, sports, and many other things. But I'm not forced to pay for that stuff. If I don't like the artist, it's not like I have to buy it, and if I only like one or two songs, then I only spend a buck. I just don't see this horrible state of music that you claim exists as a result of the music labels.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Angio likes to paint violation of copyright as civil disobedience it seems.
Thing is, you can't be civilly disobedient in private. You need to make it public and bring the punishment you receive to the public eye. Breaking the law in private is just being a closet criminal.
But you seem not to mind breaking the law, so long as it's okay in your sense of morality - and fits into your "perfect world." Do you have a disregard for law in its basic form as an agreed upon social order, or just in this specific case?
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I was going to reply to your post, BlackBlade, but I realize that I'm right and you're wrong and all my reply would do is start a "Who's got the last laugh NOW!?" pissing contest and I'm bored and have better things to do.
posted
You're right, the same is true of movies, books, sports, and many other things, and I don't support those things just as much as I don't support the major record labels.
The only reason I download music is to sample it. If it is good and worth speding my money, I will then buy it, or support the musician in other forms (such as attending their shows and buying merchandise). As far as I'm concerned, I'm just being a discerning customer.
Posts: 441 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
in cases such as music downloading, people really don't aim to break the law, they just do whatever they feel is best for them, even if it does include breaking the law. However, the law wasn't designed to deal with each individuals morals.
Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: Angio likes to paint violation of copyright as civil disobedience it seems.
Thing is, you can't be civilly disobedient in private. You need to make it public and bring the punishment you receive to the public eye. Breaking the law in private is just being a closet criminal.
But you seem not to mind breaking the law, so long as it's okay in your sense of morality - and fits into your "perfect world." Do you have a disregard for law in its basic form as an agreed upon social order, or just in this specific case?
Here's a question. If you pull up to a stop light at 3 in the morning, and there are no cars for miles, and no pedestrians either, is it morally wrong to run the red light? I know it is technically illegal, but is it morally wrong?
EDIT: and it's not really civil disobedience, that's absurd. It's simply the boycotting of an industry whose practices I don't agree with. I know alot of people who don't buy nike or drink coke for similar reasons, are they cowards if they don't tell everyone about it!?
Posts: 441 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Angio also apparently eats slices of cake in a bakery before buying it, opens bottles of soda to taste before buying them in the supermarket, and makes movie theaters show him the entire feature before he pays for it (because trailers are just insufficient).
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: Angio likes to paint violation of copyright as civil disobedience it seems.
Thing is, you can't be civilly disobedient in private. You need to make it public and bring the punishment you receive to the public eye. Breaking the law in private is just being a closet criminal.
But you seem not to mind breaking the law, so long as it's okay in your sense of morality - and fits into your "perfect world." Do you have a disregard for law in its basic form as an agreed upon social order, or just in this specific case?
Here's a question. If you pull up to a stop light at 3 in the morning, and there are no cars for miles, and no pedestrians either, is it morally wrong to run the red light? I know it is technically illegal, but is it morally wrong?
My dad did that and got fined.
Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: Angio also apparently eats slices of cake in a bakery before buying it, opens bottles of soda to taste before buying them in the supermarket, and makes movie theaters show him the entire feature before he pays for it (because trailers are just insufficient).
If it were practical and easy to do that, I'm sure alot more people would. Wouldn't you?
Posts: 441 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Primal Curve: Well, I was going to reply to your post, BlackBlade, but I realize that I'm right and you're wrong and all my reply would do is start a "Who's got the last laugh NOW!?" pissing contest and I'm bored and have better things to do.
Tah tah.
Yes because you have clearly demonstrated that you are so willing to articulate your arguements, and all I do is resort to premature dismissal and name calling.
see you later alligator
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Would it be unethical for you to steal CD copies of albums you already own on cassette, or on record, or on CDs you once owned but lost?
Would it be unethical to buy bootleg ripped CDs from a guy on the street who bought one copy and made 1000 copies for those same reasons?
Is it the nature of the act that makes your attitude different - that you can click to get your music instead of actually buying from a guy selling illegal copies on the street or actually taking a physical product?
Just to throw a monkey wrench into a hypothetical question, to some of these, I'm going to say, "no, it wouldn't be unethical."
If I bought a cassette tape some time in the eighties, I probably wasn't aware I was buying any kind of license. I certainly didn't sign anything saying that I was purchasing a limited license to use the content of the media and not actual rights to the blah blah single user blah blah no redistribution...
Most likely, I thought I was buying music. I wasn't offered any other way to do it. I wasn't offered a guarantee that said "if your car's cassette player turns your music into confetti, we'll issue you a new copy on the media of your choice." Maybe if that had been made available, knowing my options, I would have done so. Though I suspect the average purchaser of music doesn't really consider the lifespan of the media they're purchasing or the likelihood that they won't be able to purchase hardware capable of playing that media in a decade. They just think they're buying music.
If I'm a fan of some ancient band whose label no longer sees fit to distribute their music in any form and the only way I can get a replacement for my chewed eight-track is to download music from a Peer-to-Peer network, would I feel justified in doing so?
Yes. Without question. Utterly.
If there is a current version available for a decent price, I'd probably prefer it. Though, again, the (shudder) "license" I'm buying is probably not one that's to my best benefit as an imagined purchaser of music; it's just all that's available to me. And as the battle between RIAA affiliates and peer-to-peer networks accelerates, those "licenses" are getting worse for legitimate purchasers. As anyone who got their computers crashed by Sony's security software can attest.
The Peer-to-Peer software model does have legitimate and worthy uses, uses which are significantly compromised by putting enormous security gateways all over the software. I'm going to venture a likely unpopular position and suggest that, while I don't approve of wholesale piracy, the value of P2P networks eclipses the perrogative of music companies to make a profit on every copy of their product "out there", and these not infrequently frivilous and vindictive lawsuits endanger something valuable that should be protected.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:You're right, the same is true of movies, books, sports, and many other things, and I don't support those things just as much as I don't support the major record labels.
Would you say that disliking the Yankees entitles you to sneak into a Mets game without paying if there are empty seats that wouldn't be paid for anyway? Or hating Tom Cruise entitles you to take a movie from a movie rental place without paying for it as long as you return it? Which brings up an interesting question in my mind. Is morality based on whether anyone notices?
In all honestly, I'm not as concerned with your stated justification for downloading songs. My problem is that it seems that most people use the justification you use, regardless of whether they even try to compensate the artist in any way whatsoever. At least you actually purchase the song if you like and listen to it.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Take it from me. Bootlegged CD's and Mixtapes usually aren't licensed. That's the whole point of them being bootlegged. The distributor can just burn a couple thousand and sell them all, and he won't get in trouble with the record label, because technically the CD doesn't even exist. So the whole bootleg CD analogy is just trash, sorry.
Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think you're oversimplifying. I wouldn't walk into a game for free, but I might borrow a friend's season passes and see a few games before I bought my own. I might not steal a movie from a rental store, but I might download that movie or lend it from a friend before I went a paid money to have my own hard copy. Morality is based on many things, in this case I would say it's an issue of "are you doing anyone significant harm by downloading songs". I believe the answer is no, if you operate by standards like mine. And of course, some people abuse this, just like people abuse any system, but that is inherent in any situation, and in my own opinion is outweighed in this case due to the good that can come out of having music freely available online.
Posts: 441 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Here's a question. If you pull up to a stop light at 3 in the morning, and there are no cars for miles, and no pedestrians either, is it morally wrong to run the red light? I know it is technically illegal, but is it morally wrong?
Here's the problem. While running a red light in your scenario may not actually affect anyone, you most certainly can't say that people should be allowed to run a red light whenever they think it's okay to do so, because not everyone is going to operate based on your standards. So, while there may be nothing morally wrong with your scenario, it's still necessary to outlaw running red lights at 3 AM with no cars or pedestrians within miles in order to prevent larger scale problems.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What if a band churned out one single that topped the charts for weeks. However, the rest of their CD was trash, so in a sense they are relying on that one song to get them any revenue. However, if everyone just downloaded that song, legally and illegally, they wouldn't get nearly as much money as they would have if people went and bought their CD. So of course they're going to sue. Morals dont mean anything in a situation like this, because the law ISNT BASED ON MORALS.
Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: Angio also apparently eats slices of cake in a bakery before buying it, opens bottles of soda to taste before buying them in the supermarket, and makes movie theaters show him the entire feature before he pays for it (because trailers are just insufficient).
Darn you for posting what I was going to, only first and better phrased! *shakes fist*
quote:Originally posted by Angiomorphism: If it were practical and easy to do that, I'm sure a lot more people would. Wouldn't you?
I wouldn't. But then, I don't download music illegally either. And I thought you've been claiming that you are morally in the right? Would that be true of FC's examples as well, in your opinion?
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Here's a question. If you pull up to a stop light at 3 in the morning, and there are no cars for miles, and no pedestrians either, is it morally wrong to run the red light? I know it is technically illegal, but is it morally wrong?
Here's the problem. While running a red light in your scenario may not actually affect anyone, you most certainly can't say that people should be allowed to run a red light whenever they think it's okay to do so, because not everyone is going to operate based on your standards. So, while there may be nothing morally wrong with your scenario, it's still necessary to outlaw running red lights at 3 AM with no cars or pedestrians within miles in order to prevent larger scale problems.
I agree with you. And I've said numerous times, I fully acknowledge that downloading music illegally.. is illegal. The only point I am trying to make is that in certain situaions (like with the red light example) there is nothing morally wrong with downloading that music. Can we agree on that? I just think that people tend to approach moral issues with a black and white mentality when in reality, they should be viewed in a shades of grey manner.
Posts: 441 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Angiomorphism: I call it being a discerning customer. If I bought a vaccum cleaner that I used, and then didn't like, would it be theft to return it?
(I might mention that I tend to delete the songs I download and don't like)
There are no laws against returning. Returns imply you made a purchase in the first place. You traded something of value and, as per the policy outlined by the merchant prior to sale, you traded back, possibly less a restocking fee.
Deleting the files you don't like doesn't change the crime committed.
You've clarified your position sufficiently for me, though: that you're not only a criminal, but an immoral consumer as well.
Posts: 246 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SoaPiNuReYe: What if a band churned out one single that topped the charts for weeks. However, the rest of their CD was trash, so in a sense they are relying on that one song to get them any revenue. However, if everyone just downloaded that song, legally and illegally, they wouldn't get nearly as much money as they would have if people went and bought their CD. So of course they're going to sue. Morals dont mean anything in a situation like this, because the law ISNT BASED ON MORALS.
In that case I'd be happy if the band didn't make money, maybe it will encourage them not to put out trash in the future.
Posts: 441 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think you're oversimplifying. I wouldn't walk into a game for free, but I might borrow a friend's season passes and see a few games before I bought my own. I might not steal a movie from a rental store, but I might download that movie or lend it from a friend before I went a paid money to have my own hard copy.
You changed my examples so that they are no longer relevant.
In any case, you say that you actually purchase the songs that you actually like. In my mind, that's not really as much of a problem as is the fact that many people use that excuse without actually following through on the purchasing part of it.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Demonstrocity: So, Angio, what happens if you download something to sample it and dislike it? Do you NOT buy the album?
'Cause that's unashamed, immoral, illegal theft.
I've said this a thousand times, and I'll say it again.
Copyright infringement like this is very different from stealing a tangible object like a loaf of bread. If I steal your bread, I have it and I don't. If I copy your CD, I have it and you still have it.
Using words like "theft" and "stealing" to describe copyright infringement like this is misleading propaganda at best, and dishonest obfuscation at worst.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Demonstrocity: You've clarified your position sufficiently for me, though: that you're not only a criminal, but an immoral consumer as well.
I'm sorry, but I just find this to be extremely hillarious. I think this is one of my favorite sentences of the day.
Posts: 441 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Angiomorphism: I call it being a discerning customer. If I bought a vaccum cleaner that I used, and then didn't like, would it be theft to return it?
(I might mention that I tend to delete the songs I download and don't like)
Thats like taking a bite out of a cookie and then throwing it away.
Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think you're oversimplifying. I wouldn't walk into a game for free, but I might borrow a friend's season passes and see a few games before I bought my own. I might not steal a movie from a rental store, but I might download that movie or lend it from a friend before I went a paid money to have my own hard copy.
You changed my examples so that they are no longer relevant.
In any case, you say that you actually purchase the songs that you actually like. In my mind, that's not really as much of a problem as is the fact that many people use that excuse without actually following through on the purchasing part of it.
Agreed, and I'm not trying to defend their position.
Posts: 441 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:ME: would it be unethical for me to download, via p2p applications, digital copies of albums which I already own on cassette? Or on records? Or on CD's? How about a digital copy of a cassette I owned, and paid for, but lost somehow, over the years?
How many times do I have to pay the same record companies and the same artists for the music?
quote:FlyingCow: If you have a cassette that you bought in 1986, there is only so much functionality you bought. At the time, you understood what you were purchasing and what its capabilities were. Now, though, in 2006, the cassette is lacking the quality and functionality that you want. So, instead of paying for a product that has increased quality and functionality beyond what you originally paid for, you feel justified in taking a product with increased quality and functionality at no personal cost. In essence, getting something for nothing.
This would be like taking a paperback copy of a book you have in hardcover without paying for it, or copying a friend's purchased ebook of a newly published book you already own so you can have searchable text and the convenience of storage.
That is ridiculous. The difference is that an mp3 is not a physical product. It costs nothing to produce. It is information. The only LOSS, to the artist or to the company that produced the music, would be if you hadn't already paid for the music. I already paid for the music.
There are no damages to the record company. Your argument is that I should pay for the music twice? Why? What for?
Is it your opinion that it would be illegal for me to rip my CD's (or cassettes) to mp3 for my own personal use?
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Demonstrocity: So, Angio, what happens if you download something to sample it and dislike it? Do you NOT buy the album?
'Cause that's unashamed, immoral, illegal theft.
I've said this a thousand times, and I'll say it again.
Copyright infringement like this is very different from stealing a tangible object like a loaf of bread. If I steal your bread, I have it and I don't. If I copy your CD, I have it and you still have it.
Using words like "theft" and "stealing" to describe copyright infringement like this is misleading propaganda at best.
The absence & presence of a product isn't what the law is about; the presence and absence of payment for that product is.
You take something that you're supposed to pay for, by law, without paying for it. I'll even dictionary quote it for you:
"Theft (larceny): a criminal taking of the property or services of another without consent."
Explain to me how the use of the word "theft" is misleading propaganda.
Posts: 246 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: Angio also apparently eats slices of cake in a bakery before buying it, opens bottles of soda to taste before buying them in the supermarket, and makes movie theaters show him the entire feature before he pays for it (because trailers are just insufficient).
What if only 1/10th of the cake tasted good and the other 9/10ths were moldy? If no two sodas tasted exactly the same your point would make sense. And finally, you can get a refund if you walk out within 30 minutes of the movie as long as you go to another movie. Also if movies consistantly were 7/10-9/10ths garbage and 1/10-3/10ths enjoyable, would people pay 10 bucks in some places to watch them? No they would probably download them from torrent websites....oh wait....
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: Angio also apparently eats slices of cake in a bakery before buying it, opens bottles of soda to taste before buying them in the supermarket, and makes movie theaters show him the entire feature before he pays for it (because trailers are just insufficient).
What if only 1/10th of the cake tasted good and the other 9/10ths were moldy? If no two sodas tasted exactly the same your point would make sense. And finally, you can get a refund if you walk out within 30 minutes of the movie as long as you go to another movie. Also if movies consistantly were 7/10-9/10ths garbage and 1/10-3/10ths enjoyable, would people pay 10 bucks in some places to watch them? No they would probably download them from torrent websites....oh wait....
What if they've never seen the movie.
Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I agree with you. And I've said numerous times, I fully acknowledge that downloading music illegally.. is illegal. The only point I am trying to make is that in certain situaions (like with the red light example) there is nothing morally wrong with downloading that music. Can we agree on that?
Yes, I agree with your position as well.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:And finally, you can get a refund if you walk out within 30 minutes of the movie as long as you go to another movie. Also if movies consistantly were 7/10-9/10ths garbage and 1/10-3/10ths enjoyable, would people pay 10 bucks in some places to watch them?
That's a weird policy. At my company, you can get a refund at any time for any reason. You can literally come out after the movie ended and say: That movie sucked. I want my money back.
We respond with: No problem, sir.
(off-topic, but just sayin')
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:And finally, you can get a refund if you walk out within 30 minutes of the movie as long as you go to another movie. Also if movies consistantly were 7/10-9/10ths garbage and 1/10-3/10ths enjoyable, would people pay 10 bucks in some places to watch them?
That's a weird policy. At my company, you can get a refund at any time for any reason. You can literally come out after the movie ended and say: That movie sucked. I want my money back.
We respond with: No problem, sir.
(off-topic, but just sayin')
That's interesting. Does your theater actually recoup these losses from the studio, or do you eat the losses? Do you advertise this policy?
Posts: 246 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: Angio also apparently eats slices of cake in a bakery before buying it, opens bottles of soda to taste before buying them in the supermarket, and makes movie theaters show him the entire feature before he pays for it (because trailers are just insufficient).
What if only 1/10th of the cake tasted good and the other 9/10ths were moldy? If no two sodas tasted exactly the same your point would make sense. And finally, you can get a refund if you walk out within 30 minutes of the movie as long as you go to another movie. Also if movies consistantly were 7/10-9/10ths garbage and 1/10-3/10ths enjoyable, would people pay 10 bucks in some places to watch them? No they would probably download them from torrent websites....oh wait....
I believe a "touche" is in order.
Posts: 441 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:And finally, you can get a refund if you walk out within 30 minutes of the movie as long as you go to another movie. Also if movies consistantly were 7/10-9/10ths garbage and 1/10-3/10ths enjoyable, would people pay 10 bucks in some places to watch them?
That's a weird policy. At my company, you can get a refund at any time for any reason. You can literally come out after the movie ended and say: That movie sucked. I want my money back.
We respond with: No problem, sir.
(off-topic, but just sayin')
Where is this theater?
Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: Angio also apparently eats slices of cake in a bakery before buying it, opens bottles of soda to taste before buying them in the supermarket, and makes movie theaters show him the entire feature before he pays for it (because trailers are just insufficient).
I don't think that's a fair comparison. If you eat one slice of a cake or taste a bottle of soda before buying it, no one else will buy that product either and you basically ruined it. If you download a song, your not preventing other people from getting the song also.
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
