>Okay, let's go with number 1. HOW DO YOU PROPOSE YOU
>ACCOMPLISH THAT??? (Thee ? marks becuase its a vexing
>question.)

i propose that people pay for music before putting it on their devices. how do we accomplish that?? i think education is a good place.


>>and yeah...i'll even go so far to say people should be
>>prosecuted for illegal downloading
>
>Criminally? Or civilly? They're doing it civilly now - do you
>think they just need to sue 10,000 times more people and it
>would solve the problem?
>
>Do you propose we imprison people like Emily? Is that your
>workable solution?

nah...u aint gotta imprison em. what do people get for stealing fruit???

>1)There is no THEFT. Nothing is being STOLEN.
>
>People are making UNAUTHORIZED COPIES of something - but it is
>not theft. It's UN- AUTHORIZED COPIES. And you can be sued
>civilly for doing so. And selling un-authorized copies is a
>violation of criminal law so bootleggers are under a different
>law.
this is semantics. i'm no lawyer but i think i could argue the contrary. because digital files are EXACT...copies implies degradation. a digital "copy" is essentially the EXACT same thing as the original. there were music execs at the dawn of CDs who said "you realize we are selling our masters right?"

and for fun...name another industry where unauthorized copies are allowed to exist (dj drama anyone????)

>Apple implemented DRM on music downloads AND now offers a
>service whereby the allow people to pay a fee to basically
>legalize/authorize copies of downlaoded non-authorized music
>and giving them money back to the industry.
>
>Youtube pays licensing fee to some major media companies to be
>able to have content shared on the site. (That's why NBC clips
>are taken down (no agreement) but Sony properties are not (yes
>on agreement.))
>
>Or is part of your solution to implement DRM, legislate that
>all devices can only play DRM'd files, and to allow the music
>industry to filter content on all search engines as they see
>fit?
>
>That's basically what SOPA was. And it still would not have
>been effective - your have to have software installed on your
>devices to monitor what you are doing with the music.
>
blah blah blah...i'm no big business advocate. i'm advocating for the artists!
we supposed to take our moral cues from sony and apple. i'm talking bout people stealing music.

(i shoulda ended the conversation when you said nothing was being stolen... legal bs)

>>smfh
>>
>>cats is sheep. like homeboy said...it aint even free.
>>
>>and the fact u keep bringing up the stupid ass example shows
>>how little faith u have in what u say. either that or u
>have
>>no coherent argument
>
>Just give a SOLUTION my man. I think I heard it : Imprison
>people who STEAL MUSIC. (Wackenhutt industries will be on
>board FOR SURE!)
>
>And while all cats are cats, and some cats are sheep, not all
>sheep are cats. Q.E.D.

you wanna impress me...walk out the restaurant the next time u dont like the meal or tell the cabbie his ride was too bumpy.... otherwise yall are all....

>>*go research any of the montsanto cases and see the extent
>the
>>u.s govt will prosecute copyright/trademark violations when
>a
>>fortune 500 is involved. food is something people really
>>should be stealing...
>
>That's not a COPYRIGHT case. That's a PATENT case. But I'm
>glad STEALING one thing is okay, and stealing another is not
>to you.

well my point with montsanto is that peoples "property rights" are stringently enforced when its big business. and yeah stealing food is ok to me because food is like air and water homey...u die without it. smh. you have internalized societies assumption that food SHOULD cost money. that aint absolute truth

last thing...

i do music...have thousands of dollars in software....no cracks...paid for everything.

the free ones is out there for the taking

what would happen if everyone started stealing all software/???