Fun Stuff > BAND
RIAA Wins $1.92 Million In File-Sharing Lawsuit
fish across face:
I've seen the list in other news articles. The only ones I remember are Guns n Roses songs. As Scandanavian (always have to think twice about the spelling) War Machine said upthread, the 24 are a sort of specified slice of thousands of downloaded songs, anyway.
fish across face:
--- Quote from: Ptommydski on 20 Jun 2009, 20:48 ---If you want to charge people to see you play music live - I can understand that. You're putting on a show. I understand why money changes hands in this situation. Likewise, if you make a record and decide to have it printed to vinyl or compact disc and you give it some artwork and it's a tangible thing which people can own if they like - I can still understand that. At the point where it's a bunch of ones and zeros which don't in any way diminish or prohibit either of the above, forget it. I've heard all the arguments under the sun. It's nonsense.
--- End quote ---
What's your evidence for the bit I've put in bold, btw?
Be My Head:
A piece of vinyl or a compact disc is just a bunch of particles, why should I pay for it?
Sox:
It's kinda self evident. When I download music, I am not diminishing profit from a performers live show or their stock of physical merchandise. When I download music, I am also not preventing an artist from performing live or selling merchandise in any way, shape or form.
I don't really see that why that statement needs evidence behind it.
E. Spaceman:
Just to illustrate it a little bit further.
Imagine these two scenarios:
1) I download a music album to my computer. I would not have bought this album if I had not been able to download it, no sale is lost, no property goes missing.
2) I steal a CD or vinyl froim a store.
Would you say these two are equivalent?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version