>Proposal noted and promptly ignored by Emily, and the rest of
>the world.

so because there are many Sanduskys out there...we should allow pedophilia??? i dont understand this logic

>Emily stole 11,000 MP3s. She'd be in prison until the sun
>burns out.

i thought you said it wasn't stealing...make up your mind

>No , they are COPIES!!!! Copies are NOT THE ORIGINAL!!! If you
>think it's semantics then you're a wors-er person even than
>Emily is.

agree to disagree

>>and for fun...name another industry where unauthorized
>copies
>>are allowed to exist (dj drama anyone????)
>
>YOU AREN'T ****ALLOWED*** TO DOWNLOAD MP3S YOU DIDN'T PURCHASE
>AT ALL RIGHT NOW. AND DJ DRAMA WAS SELLING HIS UNAUTHORIZED
>COPIES OF THE MUSIC.
>
>SEE , SELLING COPIES IS A CRIMINAL OFFENSE.
>DOWNLOADING MP3S IS IS A CIVIL VIOLATION OF COPYRIGHT LAW.
>
>Is that just semantics too? (I hope the all caps made it seem
>like I was yelling.)

valid point of distinction (selling)

>So violating the law, like you say, is just legal BS? Sounds
>like Emily thinks that too.

my point is...i'm talking morally. i'm not talking about the law. the law is DICTATED by the major companies. law & morals do not have to overlap. it use to be illegal for blacks to marry or read or be free...


>Not paying for a meal isn't against a criminal law violation -
>it's a civil law. And , just like with MP3s, you can be SUED
>for it. This provides a lot of cases on The People's court.
>(This and bad haircuts.)

my point is "who does it though??". exactly.

>And did you not see where the music industry has been suing
>people for download unauthorized MP3s?

like 5 people lol. how come they not going after google? rapidshare? you know the government arrests striking railroad employees for striking because its a regulation of trade??? how arent these companies profiting from "illegal copying" being charged with regulating trade and facilitating theft... again...name another instance where the government stands idly by??? its only because musicians are isolated and poor! smfh


>No, YOU "have internalized societies assumption that " MUSIC "
>SHOULD cost money. that aint absolute truth"

no i have internalized that what i have created is mine and i can give away MY stuff or i can sell my stuff. but people do not have the right to demand access to my work.

is that hard to understand? name another place where the creator doesnt control his work.

>Face it, you've got no solution to this - you just feel it's a
>moral injustice.

i never said i had a solution (beyond education) and i said it was morals the whole time. the whole section i quoted was solely about morals and how this is the 1st time people have said we will accept something morally wrong (illegal DLing...because there is no policing).

less than 1,000 musicians made more than 75k last year... think about that. less than 1000 albums sold more than 10,000 copies. thats a staggering amount of theft fam. you really think that aint a problem?

smh

paz