Club CDFreaks - Knowledge is Power - View Single Post - Why do people still continue to DL lossy crap and risk litigation?

*Crabbyappleton* · 31-12-2003

icey If you take a minute and read the reply I gave to golfnut, it says about the same thing as what you just wrote. But unfortunately, that wasn't my main point.

The point I am trying to make is I don't understand why people continue to risk litigation to create a portfolio of lossy product that is available for 99 cents a track. I just don't get it. Sorry.

The common excuse is it isn't worth buying. Fine I agree. Then stick to your guns and don't buy it. But, if you feel the need to download said product, wouldn't it be smarter to just buy the tracks for 99 cents? It can't be shared on the Net no worries. You obviously have money for a computer with an Internet connection and even money for an attorney.

Wait till you see the next round of folks sued that have been served after the RIAA gets their identity via a judges blessing. There ain't gonna be no 2500 dollar plea to avoid a court hearing. Cary Sherman already said that.

My guess is they are going to nail these morons to the wall. There is no other way to make the Internet safe for their precious content...and maximise profit. The courts have seen to that. Filesharing programs -legal. Verizon made supoenas possible only with a judges consent. Uploading-illegal. Solution. Crucify uploaders or those with files available for uploading via a shared file folder. Set an example. A horrific example. It's been all over the news and Internet.

Yet, I can invoke Kazaa lite to this day and see aprox 3 million users sharing 4 million gigs of files. Real smart.

I used to feel bad for folks that got sued and threatened with bankruptcy for the sharing of an MP3 with another on the Internet. You know, like the 12 year old honor student that lived in the housing project with her mom. It damn near gave the little girl a nervous breakdown.

But not any more. You have to be living in a spider hole to be ignorant of the consequences of such actions. Now, I feel as though somehow these scofflaws are part of the problem of getting the Music Industry to listen to us, the consumer and provide us with a quality product at a decent price. It provides them with an excuse, the Internet is killing them. Also, it causes more focus on annoying copyright protection schemes that cost both parties money and make our legal right to back up our investment more difficult. But guess who pays?

I do not work for the Music Industry-that I can verify by a glance at my paycheck and with a quick search on Google I can find no affiliation with the labels.

Hopefully as you stated, I just failed to engage my brain and am not truly ignorant. I pray that is the case. I did say I had a weak freakin' mind. Thanks for concurring.

31-12-2003	#11 (permalink)
Crabbyappleton CDFreaks Resident Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: The helm of the Black Pearl Posts: 1,795	icey If you take a minute and read the reply I gave to golfnut, it says about the same thing as what you just wrote. But unfortunately, that wasn't my main point. The point I am trying to make is I don't understand why people continue to risk litigation to create a portfolio of lossy product that is available for 99 cents a track. I just don't get it. Sorry. The common excuse is it isn't worth buying. Fine I agree. Then stick to your guns and don't buy it. But, if you feel the need to download said product, wouldn't it be smarter to just buy the tracks for 99 cents? It can't be shared on the Net no worries. You obviously have money for a computer with an Internet connection and even money for an attorney. Wait till you see the next round of folks sued that have been served after the RIAA gets their identity via a judges blessing. There ain't gonna be no 2500 dollar plea to avoid a court hearing. Cary Sherman already said that. My guess is they are going to nail these morons to the wall. There is no other way to make the Internet safe for their precious content...and maximise profit. The courts have seen to that. Filesharing programs -legal. Verizon made supoenas possible only with a judges consent. Uploading-illegal. Solution. Crucify uploaders or those with files available for uploading via a shared file folder. Set an example. A horrific example. It's been all over the news and Internet. Yet, I can invoke Kazaa lite to this day and see aprox 3 million users sharing 4 million gigs of files. Real smart. I used to feel bad for folks that got sued and threatened with bankruptcy for the sharing of an MP3 with another on the Internet. You know, like the 12 year old honor student that lived in the housing project with her mom. It damn near gave the little girl a nervous breakdown. But not any more. You have to be living in a spider hole to be ignorant of the consequences of such actions. Now, I feel as though somehow these scofflaws are part of the problem of getting the Music Industry to listen to us, the consumer and provide us with a quality product at a decent price. It provides them with an excuse, the Internet is killing them. Also, it causes more focus on annoying copyright protection schemes that cost both parties money and make our legal right to back up our investment more difficult. But guess who pays? I do not work for the Music Industry-that I can verify by a glance at my paycheck and with a quick search on Google I can find no affiliation with the labels. Hopefully as you stated, I just failed to engage my brain and am not truly ignorant. I pray that is the case. I did say I had a weak freakin' mind. Thanks for concurring. __________________ Vista frikkin' SUCKS!! Last edited by Crabbyappleton; 31-12-2003 at 21:10.