Kevin and alex allofmp3.com

[jshelly]

In an earlier episode of Diggnation. Kevin and Alex talked about this website called allofmp3.com FRKN awesome website. But i cant find out how to pay with my credit card..... it said its not available. If anyone has done this before please tell me how.

thanks diggnation for this great tip!

[logant]

That's because Visa doesn't allow it. Because it's not exactly legal.

[jshelly]

how do i add money to my account?

[logant]

how do i add money to my account?

I don't think you can. And don't do it, all it is Limewire, but you pay for it. It's not like the artist gets any money.

[masherscf]

You have to send cash. Good luck with that. Looks like your stuff paying .99 at itunes, like the rest of us.

[bird603568]

didnt they shut this place down?

[alexsk8ca]

I really don't get why people would pay for something that is "stolen" when they can just as easily "steal" it themselves for free. I'm not saying pirating is good, but if you are going to do it do it right.

[owine]

you can purchase a cash card from http://www.xrost.biz/ using any credit card (visa, mastercard, american express, diners, jcb) and then put the pin and claim code into allofmp3 and it works. in fact, you get your personal bonus plus a 10% bonus for using xrost. you can purchase the cards in denominations of $10, $15, $20, $30, $40, $60, $100. ive used this method a couple times and it works perfectly. no extra fees and you even get an extra bonus. i would suggest buying a $10 card, putting it in your account, and then filling up again only when your balance is 0.00. with their shutdown possible, you dont want to lose money you had in your balance,

[klitzy]

I am yet to understand why anyone would want to buy a cd for .99 cents?

If you are going to pirate it, why not do it for free?

Someone please explain this to me...

[owine]

I am yet to understand why anyone would want to buy a cd for .99 cents?

If you are going to pirate it, why not do it for free?

Someone please explain this to me...they have a great selection of tracks and discs. additionally, you select the quality you want whether it be wma, mp3, lame encoded mp3, aac, flac. its the ability to find nearly any track you want, select the quality you want, and pay by the megabyte instead of a set price for each track/disc. some albums have a 0:30 intro track which itunes would charge the full 0.99 for.

[ariastar]

I really don't get why people would pay for something that is "stolen" when they can just as easily "steal" it themselves for free. I'm not saying pirating is good, but if you are going to do it do it right.

It's throwing money away to pay someone else to steal for you. Which is stupid no matter what, even stupider than stealing it yourself.

[ariastar]

I am yet to understand why anyone would want to buy a cd for .99 cents?

If you are going to pirate it, why not do it for free?

Someone please explain this to me...

Because stealing is not ethical.

[klitzy]

Because stealing is not ethical.

Yeah...I know...Are you saying that paying not event 10% of retail price of a cd for the whole cd is ethical?

[originx]

Yeah...I know...Are you saying that paying not event 10% of retail price of a cd for the whole cd is ethical?


You tell them Klitzy!!

A cd costs about 3 cents to manufacture. That's pretty lame to sell them for 20 bucks. Go to concerts and buy tshirts instead.

[popltree2]

You tell them Klitzy!!

A cd costs about 3 cents to manufacture. That's pretty lame to sell them for 20 bucks. Go to concerts and buy tshirts instead.

Exactly! Artists see almost NO money from CD sales. I was at a Deathcab concert a few days ago and you bet your ass I would have bought a few shirts had I the money. Spend the 30 bucks on a ticket and the 20 bucks on a shirt. 50 bucks and you have yourself a memorable night, especially if you are seeing an artist and going to a venue that allows photography.

[vhalkirian666]

That's because Visa doesn't allow it. Because it's not exactly legal.

Actually it's more complicated than that...has anyone actually read what is going on...or just what the US media is saying?
Under Russian copyright laws they are legal to do what they are doing. In order for it to be illegal, current russian copyright laws will have to be changed in order for the site to be shut down...which is what the US Government and the RIAA are working to do right now...the fact that a single US entity has the power to go in an change another countries laws is astounding...if they have the power to do this...just what kind of political power do they hold here in the US..

The legal status of Allofmp3

Russian Copyright Law allows collecting societies to give out licenses for selling music without prior approval of every single right holder. A copyright owner however can ask to exclude music from these licenses on the condition that he can prove he owns the copyrights.

Allofmp3 has been licensed by the collecting society, Russian Organization for Multimedia & Digital Systems (ROMS). According to license № ЛС-ЗМ-02-36 the Internet-project www.allofmp3.com, has the right to use musical compositions by providing downloads. Under the license agreement Allofmp3 pays out fees (15% for all music) to ROMS for downloaded materials that are subject to the Russian Federation Copyright And Related Rights Law.

ROMS manages intellectual rights in the Russian Federation. All third party distributors licensed by ROMS are required to pay a portion of the revenue (15%) to the ROMS. ROMS in turn, is obligated to pay most of that money (aside from small portion it needs for operating expenses) to rights holders who have registered, both Russian and foreign. Recently Allofmp3 has also obtained a license from FAIR (Rights holders Federation for Collective Copyright Management of Works Used Interactively).

Russia is seeking admission into the WTO ie. World Trade Organization..the US has stated that their admittance hinges on the fact that allofmp3.com has to be shut down...or they will not be allowed admittance...
The fact that the US government is doing this is again..astounding...

Another quote...

"Artists and labels claim that they do not receive royalties from ROMS"

Right holders have to sign an agreement with ROMS to be able to collect their royalties. Probably artists and labels from outside Russia refuse to sign an agreement or are advised by their lawyers to refrain from addressing ROMS because this could be deemed as an acknowledgment of ROMS' position as a collection society.

"According to Section 2 of Clause 47 of the Law of Russian Federation on Copyright and Related Rights, any owner of copyright or related rights that has concluded an agreement with ROMS, has the right to demand due compensation according to the distribution performed by ROMS." See www.roms.ru/?fms=2


In the aforementioned press conference Allofmp3 explained that ROMS has offered labels to pay out the royalties. The labels have refused this offer. So the money is there waiting to be collected. Allofmp3 is considering paying original performing artists 5% according to their legality faq

Anyways...you can check out more info below...
http://music.allofmp3.com/press/centre.shtml?s=993&d=12886483

And for the RIAA to say that its all about the artists and the fact that "pirates" are stealing from them is BS...check the latest from the RIAA...
http://blogs.allofmp3.com/music_news/2006/12/10/riaa-petitions-for-less-royalties-for-artists-and-more-for-labels/

Here is why it only costs 3 bucks for a cd instead of 8-9 that iTunes charges...
Pricing model

Unlike some US-based music stores such as Apple's iTunes Music Store, AllOfMP3 charges for the volume of data downloaded, not for individual songs. As of August 13, 2006, the basic price for downloaded music is $0.03 per megabyte, increased from the previous $0.02 per megabyte set on January 15, 2005. As a basis of comparison, a typical four-minute, 128 kbit/s song downloaded from the iTunes Music Store would cost $0.99, whereas this same song at the same bitrate would cost $0.12 to download at AllofMP3.com.

This price is often reduced by a complicated system of discounts based on cumulative usage, promotions, and type of payment. These discounts can reduce the effective price of downloads by up to one third of the original cost.

[ariastar]

Klitzy, Origin, and Cody, like it or not, the law is the law on this one, and stealing is still wrong. I don't like the fact that a single pair of Jimmy Choo shoes can easily exceed my weekly income, but I am not going to go steal a pair just because they only cost a few dollars to make while being sold for several hundred up to a couple grand. In business, there has to be some incentive. Yes, the companies are rich and don't need to charge $20 for a CD to still make money, but would you suggest they give them to us for free? It's not always a nice world, but to try to enforce any sort or regulations on the prices would mean the government interfering with free enterprise. So the benefit to a $20-CD is the government not yet having (or practicing) the power to price-cap CDs.

Just use iTunes.

The ONLY time I pirate these days is either if what I want can't be found (such as something so obscure it can't even be found on eBay), or if I have bought a song/CD and lost it. For the latter, it's legal to make a back-up copy of a disk for your OWN use should you lose it, so I just consider this to be saving plastic I may never need to use. So the environmental benefit plays into it.

I'll admit I used to pirate left and right under the same mindframe or, "Well, the artist gets nothing anyway," or, "Well, they already make enough." That's beside the point.

[ariastar]

vhalkirian666, excellent post. While I agree that the US and the RIAA are trying to enforce OUR laws, I also agree that it's frightening for any one country to believe it should have absolute power over all others. However, the WTO is akin to a private club. You meet their criteria or you're not admitted.

[ariastar]

Oh, and back to Klitzy, Origin, and Cody. Don't try to justify this as it's legal in another country so it should be okay here. Female genital mutilation and murdering a female relative for besmirching the family honor may be legal in some countries, but you wouldn't dare pour acid on a girl's clitoris or cut her there, or murder your wife because someone accused her of looking at him wrong so it must have been sexual. You are in this country. You can't pick and choose which laws from other countries to follow to circumnavigate our laws and your own morals. You wouldn't want someone stealing your second car just because someone else thinks you don't really need it. So don't steal from the companies, no matter how greedy they are. Greedy or not, it's still wrong to steal.

[originx]

I forgot what I wrote. I don't condone the illegal downloading of music.

That's for jackasses and turd slingers. If Kevin and Alex do it, then that's up to them. I'm looking out for Klitzy cuz he's my bro.

As for torrenting a file, that's tantamount to the same thing as pirating.

You're all pirates and hacks if you're torrenting non-public files.

Just because it comes out on tv doesn't mean you can share that shit.

Klitzy rules!!

[ariastar]

I forgot what I wrote. I don't condone the illegal downloading of music.

That's for jackasses and turd slingers. If Kevin and Alex do it, then that's up to them. I'm looking out for Klitzy cuz he's my bro.

As for torrenting a file, that's tantamount to the same thing as pirating.

You're all pirates and hacks if you're torrenting non-public files.

Just because it comes out on tv doesn't mean you can share that shit.

Klitzy rules!!

Exception to torrenting: An old friend of mine would pay for Galactica on iTunes, but download a torrent to watch on the TV because the torrent quality was higher. But he still paid for it on iTunes.

[casework]

Exception to torrenting: An old friend of mine would pay for Galactica on iTunes, but download a torrent to watch on the TV because the torrent quality was higher. But he still paid for it on iTunes.

It's still illegal anyway you look at it. When you purchase a show, DVD, or CD, you don't own it, you purchase the rights to watch it - that's it.

[ariastar]

It's still illegal anyway you look at it. When you purchase a show, DVD, or CD, you don't own it, you purchase the rights to watch it - that's it.

At that point, the money has been made. If anything, you've just saved iTunes the bandwidth. You have the right to download it to your machine to watch once you've paid.

[originx]

At that point, the money has been made. If anything, you've just saved iTunes the bandwidth. You have the right to download it to your machine to watch once you've paid.


I don't know about rights and ownership and all that jazz, I'm no fancy city lawyer or nothing, but if he purchases it from iTunes and steals it from some other place, that's still stealing.

I walk into 7-11 and pay for a soda and walk out across the street to a grocery store and take a soda from them without paying it's still stealing. Just because I paid for it at 7-11 doesnt' mean I can just take a soda from some other place.

Does that make sense? In my head it does.

[ariastar]

I don't know about rights and ownership and all that jazz, I'm no fancy city lawyer or nothing, but if he purchases it from iTunes and steals it from some other place, that's still stealing.

I walk into 7-11 and pay for a soda and walk out across the street to a grocery store and take a soda from them without paying it's still stealing. Just because I paid for it at 7-11 doesnt' mean I can just take a soda from some other place.

Does that make sense? In my head it does.

Physical property and intellectual property are govorned by different laws. Physical property theft results in loss of actual property AND money and intellectual property theft has a loss of money. If you pay 7-11 for a soda and take it from another store, that other store is out the money AND property. If you pay iTunes for a show and download it from another site that is giving them away, that other site isn't losing anything and iTunes is still paid. With the torrent, downloading from a third-party site after paying for it from a legit site results in a loss to no one. Taking a soda from a third-party store without paying them but after paying another store results in a loss to the third-party store. Does this make sense?

[vhalkirian666]

Physical property and intellectual property are govorned by different laws. Physical property theft results in loss of actual property AND money and intellectual property theft has a loss of money. If you pay 7-11 for a soda and take it from another store, that other store is out the money AND property. If you pay iTunes for a show and download it from another site that is giving them away, that other site isn't losing anything and iTunes is still paid. With the torrent, downloading from a third-party site after paying for it from a legit site results in a loss to no one. Taking a soda from a third-party store without paying them but after paying another store results in a loss to the third-party store. Does this make sense?

That's another thing about the RIAA..they want you think that its stealing...i guess because it sounds worse than it really is...its not...it's a copyright violation. No one is breaking into the offices of the music companies and "stealing" the only copies of the music they produce. In fact a federal judge told the RIAA to stop referring to it as theft since it is a copyright violation and under a whole different sets of laws.

If you pay legally for a song from iTunes and then download the same song via bittorrent, then you have still violated the copyrights of the original owner...Having a copyright on something that you have created means that you get to decide how that material is distributed...

Another thing...
A defendant in one of the RIAA's many file-sharing lawsuit will be able to argue that the damages sought by the RIAA are unconstitutionally excessive. The defendant in question, Marie Lindor, was sued by Universal Music Group in early 2006 as part of the RIAA's legal campaign against file sharing. In all of the cases that have made it to court so far, the RIAA has sought statutory damages of $750 per song shared, an amount Lindor believes is excessive.

In his ruling, Judge David Trager gave Lindor leave to argue the excessiveness of the RIAA's $750 figure as part of her defense: "Lindor cites to case law and to law review articles suggesting that, in a proper case, a court may extend its current due process jurisprudence prohibiting grossly excessive punitive jury awards to prohibit the award of statutory damages mandated under the Copyright Act if they are grossly in excess of the actual damages suffered."

Lindor argues that the actual damages suffered by the RIAA are along the lines of 70 cents per song, not $750. The basis for her assertion is the 99¢ per track price for the majority of downloads and from that, the 70¢ the label receives. Even if the plaintiffs are able to prove infringement on the part of Lindor, she believes that the damages should be capped far below the record industry's figure.

Story link here...
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061110-8193.html

[casework]

Physical property and intellectual property are govorned by different laws. Physical property theft results in loss of actual property AND money and intellectual property theft has a loss of money. If you pay 7-11 for a soda and take it from another store, that other store is out the money AND property. If you pay iTunes for a show and download it from another site that is giving them away, that other site isn't losing anything and iTunes is still paid. With the torrent, downloading from a third-party site after paying for it from a legit site results in a loss to no one. Taking a soda from a third-party store without paying them but after paying another store results in a loss to the third-party store. Does this make sense?

Excuse me for being blunt, but that's a bullshit excuse, trying to walk around what you have already stated. Downloading without paying for that particular copyrighted/protected material = stealing, in the terms the RIAA enforces. It's that simple. If I purchase a CD, why is it illegal(according to copyright laws) to burn the CD for my friend? They're not losing anything... I paid for it, all I did was make a copy and share it with my friend. That's the basics of piracy, regardless of whether you agree or disagree with it. Why are DVD ripping programs illegal? Because you're not allowed to make copies of it, no matter what your intent. Even if you are just backing it up for personal use, it's still not allowed, according to DVD protections.

Whether it makes sense or not, those are the laws, and that is part of the reason why people disregard them so much. Not to mention the fact that, artists only get $ 0.11 at most from each song downloaded on iTunes. If it's their property and they deserve to be compensated for it, why is Apple and the record company taking such a big chunk? I realize that's how things work, and I'm not trying to refute that, but you've got to admit, it's really all just a bunch of bullshit trying to feed the major companies and little to no compensation is really given to the artist.

[originx]

Excuse me for being blunt, but that's a bullshit excuse, trying to walk around what you have already stated. Downloading without paying for that particular copyrighted/protected material = stealing, in the terms the RIAA enforces. It's that simple. If I purchase a CD, why is it illegal(according to copyright laws) to burn the CD for my friend? They're not losing anything... I paid for it, all I did was make a copy and share it with my friend. That's the basics of piracy, regardless of whether you agree or disagree with it. Why are DVD ripping programs illegal? Because you're not allowed to make copies of it, no matter what your intent. Even if you are just backing it up for personal use, it's still not allowed, according to DVD protections.

Whether it makes sense or not, those are the laws, and that is part of the reason why people disregard them so much. Not to mention the fact that, artists only get $ 0.11 at most from each song downloaded on iTunes. If it's their property and they deserve to be compensated for it, why is Apple and the record company taking such a big chunk? I realize that's how things work, and I'm not trying to refute that, but you've got to admit, it's really all just a bunch of bullshit trying to feed the major companies and little to no compensation is really given to the artist.


What he said.

[ariastar]

Excuse me for being blunt, but that's a bullshit excuse, trying to walk around what you have already stated. Downloading without paying for that particular copyrighted/protected material = stealing, in the terms the RIAA enforces. It's that simple. If I purchase a CD, why is it illegal(according to copyright laws) to burn the CD for my friend? They're not losing anything... I paid for it, all I did was make a copy and share it with my friend. That's the basics of piracy, regardless of whether you agree or disagree with it. Why are DVD ripping programs illegal? Because you're not allowed to make copies of it, no matter what your intent. Even if you are just backing it up for personal use, it's still not allowed, according to DVD protections.

Whether it makes sense or not, those are the laws, and that is part of the reason why people disregard them so much. Not to mention the fact that, artists only get $ 0.11 at most from each song downloaded on iTunes. If it's their property and they deserve to be compensated for it, why is Apple and the record company taking such a big chunk? I realize that's how things work, and I'm not trying to refute that, but you've got to admit, it's really all just a bunch of bullshit trying to feed the major companies and little to no compensation is really given to the artist.


If you burn a copy of a CD for a friend, you are preventing that friend from having to pay. When I buy something from iTunes, I am buying the right to DOWNLOAD that item for personal use. They still get my money.

This is how I posed this question to a legal community just now:

What is the name of your state? California

If I pay iTunes for a tv show, but a bit torrent site has a higher quality download, would it be immoral to download from the bit torrent site after paying for the episode at iTunes? This initially came up when a friend of mine would pay iTunes for episodes of Battlestar Galactica but would download a higher-quality torrent to watch on TV as iTunes has a low resolution. This came up again on a tech board I am on. I say that the money is being paid, but another person says it's still stealing, then gave the comparison of paying for a soda at 7-11 and going and taking it from another store justifying it by saying you paid for a soda at 7-11. I say that that soda comparison would result in a financial loss to the store from which a soda was taken, but that downloading a free torrent results in a loss to nobody if the originating source (iTunes) is paid in full in advance.

So would the legal professionals here say that, ethically, it's okay to download a higher-quality episode for a torrent site AFTER paying IN FULL to iTunes? Or, morally, are you obligated to take it only from iTunes?

I just don't see a loss resulting from this. Now, if someone were to download the torrent and NOT pay, I'd like to smack that person.

[casework]

If you burn a copy of a CD for a friend, you are preventing that friend from having to pay. When I buy something from iTunes, I am buying the right to DOWNLOAD that item for personal use. They still get my money.

This is how I posed this question to a legal community just now:

What is the name of your state? California

If I pay iTunes for a tv show, but a bit torrent site has a higher quality download, would it be immoral to download from the bit torrent site after paying for the episode at iTunes? This initially came up when a friend of mine would pay iTunes for episodes of Battlestar Galactica but would download a higher-quality torrent to watch on TV as iTunes has a low resolution. This came up again on a tech board I am on. I say that the money is being paid, but another person says it's still stealing, then gave the comparison of paying for a soda at 7-11 and going and taking it from another store justifying it by saying you paid for a soda at 7-11. I say that that soda comparison would result in a financial loss to the store from which a soda was taken, but that downloading a free torrent results in a loss to nobody if the originating source (iTunes) is paid in full in advance.

So would the legal professionals here say that, ethically, it's okay to download a higher-quality episode for a torrent site AFTER paying IN FULL to iTunes? Or, morally, are you obligated to take it only from iTunes?

I just don't see a loss resulting from this. Now, if someone were to download the torrent and NOT pay, I'd like to smack that person.
Morality does not equal legality. When Kevin told the story on Diggnation about downloading the CD then giving the band $20 in person, was that legal? No, not anyway you look at it. Was it moral? I think most people would say yes. Not only did he compensate the artist, but he gave them at least 4x as much as what they normally would have received.

Whether we're talking about CDs or DVDs, and whether we're talking about copying them, getting multiple files of the same material, or sharing them with friends, it's all the same thing, in the eyes of the law. Even if you're talking about purchasing something, then downloading a backup, it's still just as illegal as what you're jumping on people for doing. If it was legal, I would be able to rip my DVDs to my computer in case of fire, theft, or other damage, but according to the protections put in place on the DVD, I am not allowed to. I do not own the content. I pay for the right to watch/listen to the content, in the way in which it is provided to me by the manufacturer.

There's no gray line.

[originx]

Morality does not equal legality.

Whether we're talking about CDs or DVDs, and whether we're talking about copying them, getting multiple files of the same material, or sharing them with friends, it's all the same thing, in the eyes of the law. Even if you're talking about purchasing something, then downloading a backup, it's still just as illegal as what you're jumping on people for doing. If it was legal, I would be able to rip my DVDs to my computer in case of fire, theft, or other damage, but according to the protections put in place on the DVD, I am not allowed to. I do not own the content. I pay for the right to watch/listen to the content, in the way in which it is provided to me by the manufacturer.





Dude I was totally going to say that it's not an issue of Morality.

Okay Ariastar, here's the deal, if Microsoft released Vista with a new PC box and it came with a disk, you already paid for Vista. Then a friend of yours buys a new PC box but does not have Vista on a disc and asks you for a copy of yours, legally you would be breaking the law by giving them a copy. Even though you and they paid for it, it's the act of copying information that is illegal. So, morally, yeah, that's bs, because you both paid for Vista, but you can't share what is not yours.

Now however if we can get on the soapbox for a second and say that things should be different then let's do so.

[ariastar]

Dude I was totally going to say that it's not an issue of Morality.

Okay Ariastar, here's the deal, if Microsoft released Vista with a new PC box and it came with a disk, you already paid for Vista. Then a friend of yours buys a new PC box but does not have Vista on a disc and asks you for a copy of yours, legally you would be breaking the law by giving them a copy. Even though you and they paid for it, it's the act of copying information that is illegal. So, morally, yeah, that's bs, because you both paid for Vista, but you can't share what is not yours.

Now however if we can get on the soapbox for a second and say that things should be different then let's do so.


If I buy it for my personal use and use it to prevent someone else from paying, that's wrong. If I pay iTunes for a show for my personal use and I use it for personal use instead of giving it to someone... I'm not talking about buying something and giving it to someone else. You're confusing things.

And why the hell would I buy Vista?

[klitzy]

/Klitzy ends this pointless argument

**Pirate stuff if you want...Dont if you don't want

[vhalkirian666]

/Klitzy ends this pointless argument

**Pirate stuff if you want...Dont if you don't want

Best point made in this "discussion"...

[lunchbox170]

yeah, well put klitzy

[originx]

/Klitzy ends this pointless argument

**Pirate stuff if you want...Dont if you don't want



That's it, you're going down, Klitzy! To chinatown!!

Booya!

[ariastar]

Sounds like some people are butt-kissing the Klitzy-man.

[originx]

Sounds like some people are butt-kissing the Klitzy-man.



Was that a "crack" at me?!! Get it! Crack!!! Like ass crack!! Because you said
butt kissing...and it makes sense like kissing his butt crack.

Get it?!!

[ariastar]

Was that a "crack" at me?!! Get it! Crack!!! Like ass crack!! Because you said
butt kissing...and it makes sense like kissing his butt crack.

Get it?!!

Wow. I think my IQ just dropped a few points for that. But I'm still a genius, so it doesn't matter. :p

[casework]

You're confusing things.


But I'm not, so why aren't you responding to my posts?

[xibalba]

But I'm not, so why aren't you responding to my posts?

The same reason your posts in that other thread were basically ignored.

Moral or not it is gonna happen. They are never going to stop pirating so they might as well give up but the odds of that happening are what 0.

[casework]

The same reason your posts in that other thread were basically ignored.

Which is...? She can't easily refute my points or because she can't make me look like I'm 4?



Moral or not it is gonna happen. They are never going to stop pirating so they might as well give up but the odds of that happening are what 0.

I've never stated my stance on pirating. I am, however, using Aria's own logic along with the current laws against her argument. She's so quick to jump on people for pirating("I'd smack them in the face"), but then says downloading something is alright if you already bought it. There's no gray line and I'm trying to show that point to her, to which she doesn't want to listen.

[xibalba]

Which is...? She can't easily refute my points or because she can't make me look like I'm 4?
Both


I've never stated my stance on pirating. I am, however, using Aria's own logic along with the current laws against her argument. She's so quick to jump on people for pirating("I'd smack them in the face"), but then says downloading something is alright if you already bought it. There's no gray line and I'm trying to show that point to her, to which she doesn't want to listen.

Alot of people are like that don't wanna listen to reason and if they can't prove someone wrong what is said is ignored. Simply because it proves something they said is wrong.

Also
Do people still use the argument if you download it and delete it within 24 hours its not pirating?

[casework]

Do people still use the argument if you download it and delete it within 24 hours its not pirating?

Probably not as much... a lot of people who were that way were probably being honest, so things like iTunes and Amazon that allow you to listen to parts of songs has alleviated a majority of that, I'd assume.

[ariastar]

I am, however, using Aria's own logic along with the current laws against her argument. She's so quick to jump on people for pirating("I'd smack them in the face"), but then says downloading something is alright if you already bought it.

Versus buying it and not downloading it? The point it to buy it. And download it.

Pirating is downloading something without giving the proper people money for it.

How about this. I'm not IGNORING your posts, I'm just going to let these threads drop because you're frustrating me and pissing me off and I'd rather have fun on these boards rather than to come here expecting to be in an argument, as I've expected to happen for a few days now.

[casework]

Versus buying it and not downloading it? The point it to buy it. And download it.

Pirating is downloading something without giving the proper people money for it.

How about this. I'm not IGNORING your posts, I'm just going to let these threads drop because you're frustrating me and pissing me off and I'd rather have fun on these boards rather than to come here expecting to be in an argument, as I've expected to happen for a few days now.

Well I'm sorry that you do not possess the ability to come on a message board and discuss a topic without getting upset. I don't have malicious intent or anything against you - you bring up a point or are partaking in a discussion, and I respond with my take on the matter. I'm not harassing you or calling you names. I'm intelligently discussing a topic that was brought up, that you have been participating in. If you can't handle that, then I'm sorry.

Definition of piracy:

pi·ra·cy /Pronunciation[pahy-ruh-see]
2. the unauthorized reproduction or use of a copyrighted book, recording, television program, patented invention, trademarked product, etc

Reproduction or use. It doesn't say anything about sharing it, preventing sales, or monetary loss to a company. Piracy is the use of a product in a way not intended by the manufacturer.

[ariastar]

Well I'm sorry that you do not possess the ability to come on a message board and discuss a topic without getting upset. I don't have malicious intent or anything against you - you bring up a point or are partaking in a discussion, and I respond with my take on the matter. I'm not harassing you or calling you names. I'm intelligently discussing a topic that was brought up, that you have been participating in. If you can't handle that, then I'm sorry.

Definition of piracy:

pi·ra·cy /Pronunciation[pahy-ruh-see]
2. the unauthorized reproduction or use of a copyrighted book, recording, television program, patented invention, trademarked product, etc

Reproduction or use. It doesn't say anything about sharing it, preventing sales, or monetary loss to a company. Piracy is the use of a product in a way not intended by the manufacturer.



*sigh* When you pay the owner of something, or its authorized agent, you are paying for the right to reproduce something.

[casework]

*sigh* When you pay the owner of something, or its authorized agent, you are paying for the right to reproduce something.

Sorry hun, I'm not a ****ing idiot.

According to the DMCA:

Makes it a crime to circumvent anti-piracy measures built into most commercial software.

· Outlaws the manufacture, sale, or distribution of code-cracking devices used to illegally copy software.

http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/iclp/dmca1.htm

[ariastar]

Software or an item that has been paid for can be downloaded.

I'm tired of this, so just back off. I tried to let this die once, now I'm telling you to just BACK OFF instead of challenging me to reply and keep this going.

[casework]

Why are you being so aggressive? I'm just trying to have a discussion.

[klitzy]

Why are you being so aggressive? I'm just trying to have a discussion.

Because maybe she knows that its one big circle.....Your not going to change...until you find God(Just kidding). But yeah...Its just one big circle. She says x, you say y....And I say who the hell cares.

What goes on in your computer....Stays in your computer.....Until the RIAA comes :0

[vhalkirian666]

Downloading without paying for that particular copyrighted/protected material = stealing, in the terms the RIAA enforces.


That's not exactly true...if it was then the RIAA would have no problem with Allofmp3.com because the users of the site pay for the music they download.

Why are DVD ripping programs illegal? Because you're not allowed to make copies of it, no matter what your intent. Even if you are just backing it up for personal use, it's still not allowed, according to DVD protections.

Also not exactly true either...under the Fair Use laws you have a legal right to make backup copies of the DVD's that you own...The RIAA and the MPAA did not like this so...they got the DMCA passed which does not allow you to circumvent any copy protections to make those legal personal use backup copies....For all intents and purposes invalidating the Fair Use Laws...

Whether it makes sense or not, those are the laws, and that is part of the reason why people disregard them so much. Not to mention the fact that, artists only get $ 0.11 at most from each song downloaded on iTunes. If it's their property and they deserve to be compensated for it, why is Apple and the record company taking such a big chunk?

For one thing..most artists do not own the music they produce...and they only get $0.11 cents a song because that's the deal they made with the record companies...

I realize that's how things work, and I'm not trying to refute that, but you've got to admit, it's really all just a bunch of bullshit trying to feed the major companies and little to no compensation is really given to the artist.

The RIAA and the MPAA could care less about the artists and actors they represent...it all boils down to how much money that they can make at the expense of the artist's and actors they "represent".
See the following story...


RIAA petitions for less royalties for artists and more for labels.

Last week in USA RIAA petitioned a panel of federal government copyright judges to change royalty distribution ratio and lower statutory royalty rates so that songwriters would get less and labels would get more.

This road to more equality is paved with good intentions indeed. Last time labels and songwriters negotiated a ratio was 25 years ago. Since then technology and the market have changed considerably. Now labels are loosing money as CD sales decline while songwriter are actually getting more from ringtones and other innovative services.

According to The Hollywood Reporter RIAA's executive vp and general counsel Steven Marks commented that "Mechanical royalties currently are out of whack with historical and international rates…[RIAA] hope[s] the judges will restore the proper balance by reducing the rate and moving to a more flexible percentage rate structure so that record companies can continue to create the sound recordings that drive revenues for music publishers."

Is it that real musicians should get less for their work so that labels can continue to "drive revenues"?

yeah...sure looks like they have the artist best interests in mind...

[casework]

That's not exactly true...if it was then the RIAA would have no problem with Allofmp3.com because the users of the site pay for the music they download.


It's obviously not that simple. I could pay TorrentSpy for a membership, but that doesn't make their service legal(for downloading copyrighted material). Obviously the issue is more complex than that, and I think we both realize that. Allofmp3.com is also unique due to the fact that it is outside of the US.


Also not exactly true either...under the Fair Use laws you have a legal right to make backup copies of the DVD's that you own...The RIAA and the MPAA did not like this so...they got the DMCA passed which does not allow you to circumvent any copy protections to make those legal personal use backup copies....For all intents and purposes invalidating the Fair Use Laws...


How is it not true if the DMCA invalidates Fair Use? The bottom line is, the current laws do not allow circumvention of copyright protection.





For one thing..most artists do not own the music they produce...and they only get $0.11 cents a song because that's the deal they made with the record companies...



The RIAA and the MPAA could care less about the artists and actors they represent...it all boils down to how much money that they can make at the expense of the artist's and actors they "represent".
See the following story...



yeah...sure looks like they have the artist best interests in mind...
That was the point I was trying to make. So much of the piracy argument is for the rights of the starving artist, but the bottom line is, piracy hurts the big companies - not the little artists.

[originx]

Wow, you guys sure must love arguing.

*whistles down the hall*

[casework]

What's so wrong with having a debate over an issue? You guys act like you've never seen people argue about something in a civil manner using a thing called tact.

If forums are only meant for talking about what's your favorite type of chocolate or whether you prefer the 360 or PS3, then I must be sorely mistaken.

[originx]

What's so wrong with having a debate over an issue? You guys act like you've never seen people argue about something in a civil manner using a thing called tact.

If forums are only meant for talking about what's your favorite type of chocolate or whether you prefer the 360 or PS3, then I must be sorely mistaken.



Nah, I'm just saying that this got way over my head. I'm not a lawyer, I don't download stuff unless it is legal to download, and my fingers hurt from typing on the IRC chat.

[klitzy]

What's so wrong with having a debate over an issue? You guys act like you've never seen people argue about something in a civil manner using a thing called tact.

If forums are only meant for talking about what's your favorite type of chocolate or whether you prefer the 360 or PS3, then I must be sorely mistaken.

Yeah...But its not a discussion anymore...Its one big circle, now I am not even reading anymore but I am guessing that thats what it is unless you guys just keep agreeing with each other back and forth with 10+ lines of text to boost your ego than its a circle....