ggw
Joined: December 16, 2001 at 06:01 AM UTC
Posts: 14237
Re: Top 100 Singles of 2003
January 06, 2004 at 06:43 PM UTC
#
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
I am sure some bands would rather someone not hear thier music at all if they arent going to buy it. but i bet some bands would take the exposure in turn for some concert sales/support/buzz or something.
dont you think.
Absolutely. That's why so many bands put mp3s on their sites.
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
plus, you cant stop me from downloading music, so therefore, i wont really try to justify it to you ;)
ding, Ding, DING.
Since your chance of getting caught is so low, there's really nothing wrong with it. Right?
ggw
Joined: December 16, 2001 at 06:01 AM UTC
Posts: 14237
Re: Top 100 Singles of 2003
January 06, 2004 at 06:53 PM UTC
#
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
now THATS stupid logic! way to go, i knew you could outdo me :)
"a rhetorical question is one asked solely to produce an effect (especially to make an assertion) rather than to elicit a reply" I was summarizing the logic behind your statement that you don't need to justify it since you can't be stopped. Obviously it worked, as you were readily able to identify the "stupid logic" in such an argument.
flawd101
Joined: Unknown
Posts: 0
Re: Top 100 Singles of 2003
January 07, 2004 at 11:37 PM UTC
#
but album art comes on cool paper!!!!
and its funner when you get them signed.
Richard D Taylor
Joined: Unknown
Posts: 0
Re: Top 100 Singles of 2003
January 08, 2004 at 05:17 AM UTC
#
Excellent list of songs. The only glaring omission that I definitely would have added would be Keane's "This is the Last Time", which I thought was the best single of 2003. That band is definitely one to watch (I think their debut is coming out this spring in the U.K.)…
ggw
Joined: December 16, 2001 at 06:01 AM UTC
Posts: 14237
Re: Top 100 Singles of 2003
January 08, 2004 at 03:12 PM UTC
#
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
no what you were doing, my good friend, is putting words into my mouth.
when i say "i dont need to justify it to you" it doesnt mean "i dont think it is wrong"
So you are admitting you're wrong to steal music?
ggw
Joined: December 16, 2001 at 06:01 AM UTC
Posts: 14237
Re: Top 100 Singles of 2003
January 08, 2004 at 03:47 PM UTC
#
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
what we are arguing is a question of morals (since we can all agree that its illegal), which isnt really a thing to prove right or wrong.
Are you saying there are no moral "wrongs?"
ratioci nation
Joined: November 22, 2002 at 06:01 AM UTC
Posts: 4463
Re: Top 100 Singles of 2003
January 08, 2004 at 03:49 PM UTC
#
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Are you saying there are no moral "wrongs?"
only seeing a Roman Polanski film
ggw
Joined: December 16, 2001 at 06:01 AM UTC
Posts: 14237
Re: Top 100 Singles of 2003
January 08, 2004 at 03:52 PM UTC
#
Originally posted by pollard:
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Are you saying there are no moral "wrongs?"
only seeing a Roman Polanski film
You have learnt well, Grasshopper.
ggw
Joined: December 16, 2001 at 06:01 AM UTC
Posts: 14237
Re: Top 100 Singles of 2003
January 08, 2004 at 04:17 PM UTC
#
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
this is a pretty boring conversation with you just asking random questions.
but, i will humour this once more.
I am suggesting that morals are not right or wrong. different people have different morals. and some of them are popular enough for us to say that they are "morally right" . But that is a generalization and not specific to everyone.
so a moral wrong? no. not by definition. but society does make them.
we could do this all day couldnt we? but i am bored with you kind of.
Well advocating that there are no moral wrongs is a clever solution. Of course, it's completely indefensible since, if you universalized that position, it would just mean pure chaos. I mean, killing, raping, etc… could all just be seen as societally mandated morals, not "wrong" by definition under your construct. Therefore, each person would be right to do whatever one wanted.
But since you're bored with the questions, I'll just state what is pretty obvious to even a small child – taking something that doesn't belong to you is wrong (we could call it "bad" if you prefer).
There are plenty of legitimate arguments for why the music industry/record labels suck, and there are plenty of strong, legitimate arguments about why artists and labels should offer downloads of their music (and many do), but none of those arguments have any real bearing on the fact that stealing somebody elses property is wrong.
I just get a kick out of hearing the tangled logic people use to justify or excuse the practice.
sonickteam2
Joined: Unknown
Posts: 0
Re: Top 100 Singles of 2003
January 08, 2004 at 04:20 PM UTC
#
if you just like to put everything in a neat little "right/wrong" package as taught to you in school or something. Thats fine. I am wrong.
But i dont feel bad about it, i dont feel like a bad person. and i am not going to stop doing it.
and i find your logic just as stupid as mine ever was or will be. pretty simple as that. see, we're both still happy and nothing's changed. except we've both wasted our time and others. :) I think I'll go steal some music and rape some children now !
sonickteam2
Joined: Unknown
Posts: 0
Re: Top 100 Singles of 2003
January 08, 2004 at 04:26 PM UTC
#
and just so you know. When someone buys a CD and then sells it to Record and Tape traders, Soundgarden, DCCD etc. Said store is paying to buy the CD back and then when YOU buy it from them, they do not give any money to the label. So, although, you are paying money for the CD, you are not buying it from the person who owns it. But if it makes you feel better cause you paid for it or because someone did once, or because you bought it from a store, then fine.
like i said before, whatever helps you sleep at night. but its no different.
ggw
Joined: December 16, 2001 at 06:01 AM UTC
Posts: 14237
Re: Top 100 Singles of 2003
January 08, 2004 at 04:37 PM UTC
#
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
and just so you know. When someone buys a CD and then sells it to Record and Tape traders, Soundgarden, DCCD etc. Said store is paying to buy the CD back and then when YOU buy it from them, they do not give any money to the label. So, although, you are paying money for the CD, you are not buying it from the person who owns it. But if it makes you feel better cause you paid for it or because someone did once, or because you bought it from a store, then fine.
like i said before, whatever helps you sleep at night. but its no different.
So, you're saying two wrongs make a right? Since the property owner doesn't get paid a second time when his used CD is sold again, then it's okay that he doesn't get paid at all when you download?
LOL
I liked your earlier excuse better:
my only thing is, if i couldnt download music, then would i buy more? nope. cause i just dont have enough money.
Why don't you extend that logic to everything?
If I couldn't steal jewelry, then would I buy more? Nope, because I just don't have enough money.
If I couldn't steal computers, then would I buy more? Nope, because I just don't have enough money.
Could we insert anything into that statement? Or is it only music that it is okay to steal when we have exhausted our means for paying for it?
ratioci nation
Joined: November 22, 2002 at 06:01 AM UTC
Posts: 4463
Re: Top 100 Singles of 2003
January 08, 2004 at 04:52 PM UTC
#
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
do you buy used CDs? i know a lot of people on here do. The same ones that bitch about downloading. All i am saying is that YOU are doing the exact same thing when you buy used CDs. so unless you dont eve buy used CDs and you buy all of your music at full price, then you are stealing music too. you are just spending money to steal and i am not. haha.
and i will extend that logic to everything. I rent DVDs and copy them too. and i stole 5 cars when i was in Canada, too. it pays good money you know.
obviously you think buying a used car is the same thing as stealing a car