Time to start using some dodgy Russian sites?

[Guest alex]

I've only once accused you of lying Fop and that's when you said you refused benefits even when you were ill. You'd happened to omit at the time that what had actually happened was you'd found employment. Which changed it somewhat as you were making out you were someone who just refused to take state handouts regardless of the circumstances. I know that's what you're getting and that again shows how you like to twist things.

[Fop 1]

I dont care about your privacy though, i care about my mate's income being eroded by piracy.

 

I know, you are a hypocrite.

 

But you can't use "legal and moral" issues in one breath/context and then ignore them in another, they are just as valid in both, only one context involves a very few and the other involves most anyone that uses the internet.

 

 

The question is therefore off topic and irrelevant to me, which is why i didnt focus on it. However, if you want my thoughts, i dont believe people who break the law can complain about losing privacy against law-enforcers. I believe its the same as when you are a criminal and get your phone tapped. If you are innocent, its a breach of privacy, if you are guilty then i dont see the problem. If this proposed change allows people to be identified by name who have not broken the law, then it would not be a passable law or action and wont be implemented.

Again you either simply don't understand what is going on (possible) or you are just being wilfully obtuse.

 

It's NOT like a phone tap, because everyone's phone isn't routinely tapped with people listening to see if you happen to be talking about something illegal (and noting down everything you talk about that IS NOT illegal).

 

Nor indeed to the sneak into your house and plant cameras to record anything you might be doing (Sony's root-kit), whilst additionally leaving a gaping hole in your houses security for anyone else that wants to may use.

 

 

Ironically a lot of the measures the Recording industry want, they won't even use/agree to use to track paedophiles and child porn on the net......... which again goes to show how much money talks when it comes to crushing peoples rights.

 

 

 

If you want a discussion on AIDS and access to medicines in the developing world, be my guest and start a thread on it setting out clearly what you think the issue is and what questions you have.

No point you'll just ignore it, as you know I'm right.

[Fop 1]

I've only once accused you of lying Fop and that's when you said you refused benefits even when you were ill. You'd happened to omit at the time that what had actually happened was you'd found employment. Which changed it somewhat as you were making out you were someone who just refused to take state handouts regardless of the circumstances. I know that's what you're getting and that again shows how you like to twist things.

As do you. Fun isn't it? Fact still remains I would be.

[Guest alex]

I've only once accused you of lying Fop and that's when you said you refused benefits even when you were ill. You'd happened to omit at the time that what had actually happened was you'd found employment. Which changed it somewhat as you were making out you were someone who just refused to take state handouts regardless of the circumstances. I know that's what you're getting and that again shows how you like to twist things.

As do you. Fun isn't it? Fact still remains I would be.

Can you point out where I've twisted things then?

[ChezGiven 0]

If you break the law, you have no right to privacy from law-makers investigating it.

 

I dont know the specifics of how this will be implemented but if they only investigate suspicious DL'ing then the law is right and your immature whingeing about it not being fair is just that.

 

Start the thread and i'll wipe the floor with you.

[Fop 1]

I've only once accused you of lying Fop and that's when you said you refused benefits even when you were ill. You'd happened to omit at the time that what had actually happened was you'd found employment. Which changed it somewhat as you were making out you were someone who just refused to take state handouts regardless of the circumstances. I know that's what you're getting and that again shows how you like to twist things.

As do you. Fun isn't it? Fact still remains I would be.

Can you point out where I've twisted things then?

As Chez might said start a new thread on it and I'll ignore it (although you're doing it in that very post - as I'm sure you're well aware ).

[Fop 1]

If you break the law, you have no right to privacy from law-makers investigating it.

 

I dont know the specifics of how this will be implemented but if they only investigate suspicious DL'ing then the law is right and your immature whingeing about it not being fair is just that.

 

Start the thread and i'll wipe the floor with you.

 

 

So recording companies have no rights then, as they have broken the law on several occasions.

 

So what is your argument then?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And again (outside the corporate suit world) the INNOCENT HAVE RIGHTS - I know I know it gets in the way of profits, it's still how it is.

Edited July 25, 2008 by Fop

[Guest alex]

I've only once accused you of lying Fop and that's when you said you refused benefits even when you were ill. You'd happened to omit at the time that what had actually happened was you'd found employment. Which changed it somewhat as you were making out you were someone who just refused to take state handouts regardless of the circumstances. I know that's what you're getting and that again shows how you like to twist things.

As do you. Fun isn't it? Fact still remains I would be.

Can you point out where I've twisted things then?

As Chez might said start a new thread on it and I'll ignore it (although you're doing it in that very post - as I'm sure you're well aware ).

You've basically just proven that you avoid answering straightforward questions there.

Edited July 25, 2008 by alex

[Fop 1]

You've basically just proven that you avoid straightforward questions there.

I've just proven I'm as annoying as you're trying to be.

[Park Life 71]

They say AIDS is now chronic, rather than fatal.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7523212.stm

 

 

Cat aids innit.

[Fop 1]

Start the thread and i'll wipe the floor with you.

I must admit I'd love to see you try and justify it morally. Much like I'd like to see you try and answer any awkward question.

[Guest alex]

You've basically just proven that you avoid straightforward questions there.

I've just proven I'm as annoying as you're trying to be.

Yes, having my point vindicated annoyed me no end. You should try it some time.

[Fop 1]

You've basically just proven that you avoid straightforward questions there.

I've just proven I'm as annoying as you're trying to be.

Yes, having my point vindicated annoyed me no end. You should try it some time.

See?

[ChezGiven 0]

If you break the law, you have no right to privacy from law-makers investigating it.

 

I dont know the specifics of how this will be implemented but if they only investigate suspicious DL'ing then the law is right and your immature whingeing about it not being fair is just that.

 

Start the thread and i'll wipe the floor with you.

 

*witters*

 

 

Its canny basic, I believe in the right of the artists to make money from the file outputs, no matter what the media. You obviously dont. End of discussion on the matter.

[Guest alex]

You've basically just proven that you avoid straightforward questions there.

I've just proven I'm as annoying as you're trying to be.

Yes, having my point vindicated annoyed me no end. You should try it some time.

See?

Not really, no. I was being deeply sarcastic. I think even you got that though.

[ChezGiven 0]

Start the thread and i'll wipe the floor with you.

I must admit I'd love to see you try and justify it morally. Much like I'd like to see you try and answer any awkward question.

You'll have to state what 'it' is first but am ready to answer any question you have. Start the thread or is that the sound of bottles chinking together?

[Fop 1]

If you break the law, you have no right to privacy from law-makers investigating it.

 

I dont know the specifics of how this will be implemented but if they only investigate suspicious DL'ing then the law is right and your immature whingeing about it not being fair is just that.

 

Start the thread and i'll wipe the floor with you.

So recording companies have no rights then, as they have broken the law on several occasions.

 

So what is your argument then?

 

 

Its canny basic, I believe in the right of the artists to make money from the file outputs, no matter what the media. You obviously dont. End of discussion on the matter.

 

 

 

 

You believe in oppressing and abusing anyone you want, including the vast majority of completely innocent people, to make a profit.

 

I know what you believe in, I'm just not going to let you get away with dressing it up as "moral and legal".

 

 

 

 

I believe that protecting the rights of the many innocent people should be put first way above profit (which is both moral and legal).

 

 

You're a hypocritical suit that won't answer questions, and I'm right.

[Fop 1]

Start the thread and i'll wipe the floor with you.

I must admit I'd love to see you try and justify it morally. Much like I'd like to see you try and answer any awkward question.

You'll have to state what 'it' is first but am ready to answer any question you have. Start the thread or is that the sound of bottles chinking together?

 

I already have, good try though, plausible deniability works sometimes.

 

 

You've basically just proven that you avoid straightforward questions there.

I've just proven I'm as annoying as you're trying to be.

Yes, having my point vindicated annoyed me no end. You should try it some time.

See?

Not really, no. I was being deeply sarcastic. I think even you got that though.

I just did.

[Park Life 71]

This could get tasty.

[ChezGiven 0]

What a load of shite fop, i saw that lovely comment the other day from a toon fan about the internet being full of people who put 'fact' in posts and whose need to appear 'right' borders on the insane. How many times have you just stated 'I'm right' in this thread without ever convincing anyone that you are?

 

Anyway, french lunch-break, see you in a couple of hours.

[Fop 1]

What a load of shite fop, i saw that lovely comment the other day from a toon fan about the internet being full of people who put 'fact' in posts and whose need to appear 'right' borders on the insane. How many times have you just stated 'I'm right' in this thread without ever convincing anyone that you are?

 

Anyway, french lunch-break, see you in a couple of hours.

 

 

The fact is recording company's have done a lot of illegal and morally iffy stuff in their attempt to impose their 1950's business model on a new century and new world (which by your own admission should mean they have NO right on this issue ).

 

 

The fact is a complete innocent person has every right NOT to have their privacy invaded, to be monitored, and indeed illegal dangerous software to be installed on their PC without their knowledge just in the pursuit of coporated greed (again the "artist" issue is a canard - as was shown in the recent EU royalties extension).

 

 

The fact is I'm right and you know it, although you clearly don't like it.

[Park Life 71]

What a load of shite fop, i saw that lovely comment the other day from a toon fan about the internet being full of people who put 'fact' in posts and whose need to appear 'right' borders on the insane. How many times have you just stated 'I'm right' in this thread without ever convincing anyone that you are?

 

Anyway, french lunch-break, see you in a couple of hours.

 

 

The fact is recording company's have done a lot of illegal and morally iffy stuff in their attempt to impose their 1950's business model on a new century and new world (which by your own admission should mean they have NO right on this issue ).

 

 

The fact is a complete innocent person has every right NOT to have their privacy invaded, to be monitored, and indeed illegal dangerous software to be installed on their PC without their knowledge just in the pursuit of coporated greed (again the "artist" issue is a canard - as was shown in the recent EU royalties extension).

 

 

The fact is I'm right and you know it, although you clearly don't like it.

 

Most record companies don't give a rats arse about 'artists' tbf.

 

U2 still only get 11p a single and around a £1 an album iirc.

[Fop 1]

What a load of shite fop, i saw that lovely comment the other day from a toon fan about the internet being full of people who put 'fact' in posts and whose need to appear 'right' borders on the insane. How many times have you just stated 'I'm right' in this thread without ever convincing anyone that you are?

 

Anyway, french lunch-break, see you in a couple of hours.

 

 

The fact is recording company's have done a lot of illegal and morally iffy stuff in their attempt to impose their 1950's business model on a new century and new world (which by your own admission should mean they have NO right on this issue ).

 

 

The fact is a complete innocent person has every right NOT to have their privacy invaded, to be monitored, and indeed illegal dangerous software to be installed on their PC without their knowledge just in the pursuit of coporated greed (again the "artist" issue is a canard - as was shown in the recent EU royalties extension).

 

 

The fact is I'm right and you know it, although you clearly don't like it.

 

Most record companies don't give a rats arse about 'artists' tbf.

 

U2 still only get 11p a single and around a £1 an album iirc.

 

 

Exactly, the just use them as a good "argument".

 

The recent EU royalties case was a perfect example, it was portrayed as keeping Sir Cliff in zimmer frames (and it's very hard to argue with when you put it like that - which is of course exactly why it was put like that ).

 

But the reality of the matter is the royalty extensions would be going 90%+ into company coffers, with many artist the would be effected getting nothing at all.

 

 

Like I said PR only works when you don't understand it, like oil spills and seagulls.

[Walliver 0]

Whatever shine you put on it, downloading music illegally is stealing and I have no idea why people think it is acceptable.

 

I understand the Watford fan's point of view that he can't afford all the music he wants so downloads some to make up for that. What I don't understand is why he, and others like him, think he is entitled to (almost) unlimited music. It is purely greed. There is no need to own everything, just buy what you really like.

 

For those who say they want to try before they buy. This is what singles are for. This is why bands put songs on the radio, videos on music channels and why they have MySpace pages and YouTube channels. Fair enough, if someone like Radiohead says you can download their music for free, do it, but otherwise I can't see how it's okay.

 

Lars Ulrich clearly doesn't want you downloading his music for free. He wants the money he is due for it. Earlier in this thread someone mentioned financing his third Ferrari - I inferred that this poster felt Lars had enough money already and wouldn't miss a few sales (which is an argument I've heard quite a bit elsewhere). We live in a capitalist society and if someone wants to make lots of money then they're perfectly entitled to. Just because you're jealous - because they've got more talent than you or they've got more money than you - doesn't entitle you to make a personal gain at their expense. If you think someone's made a good album - give them the money for it. It may not cost much to produce, but as someone said earlier, you're paying for the craft and the talent that went into making the music, not the actual CD and case. If you want everyone to share everything for free, go live in a communist society. I'm not sure if that is what the title of this thread is about, but if it isn't then it should be.

 

Even if the majority of the money is going to people other than the artists they too have the right to make money. A lot of artists owe a lot of their success to good marketing campaigns.

 

Just because record companies have done bad things in the past (or are still doing them, I don't know) doesn't mean you can do bad things in return. Two wrongs do not make a right.

 

If they're putting spyware or whatever on their CDs, the simple solution is not to put the CDs in your computer. Obviously this limits you a little but I listen to almost all of my music completely using CD players and don't feel restricted. The bigger, and clearly harder, solution is to try and get something done and not just sit whining on a football forum about it.

 

I do not work for the NHS, or the drugs industry in any form.

[sammynb 2934]

What I said about Dan Brown, well this thread's got endless sequels written all over it.