Death to iTunes

If you ever listened to their music, you'd know that had to find other ways to make money.

 

And the day I see Phil Knight in the bread line, I'll stop stealing shoes.

 

You don't think there's a huge market for questionable Nikes on eBay? There's a reason they're shipping from China.

But if you buy them, all the money will go directly to the Communist Party of China. That's why I don't do it.

 

But you will send money to the descendants of the Communist Party of Russia. Makes sense. They're a better class of commie.

 

Disney doesn't have much recourse. It's covered under the fair use portion of the law.

The issue with calling it stealing is that in order for it to be theft, you have to not only take it, you have to deprive the rightful owner of it. If I take your car, you don't have a car anymore. If I take the Little Mermaid, Disney still has every copy of the Little Mermaid that it had before. That's why it's called copyright infringement and not theft, although in this case it's just called fair use.

 

Again, I forgot to use the blue font. Sorry.

 

Honestly, I thought it was illegal.

Not that I cared or watch Little Mermaid. And not that I thought Disney was going to kick in my door.

And I'm not being a smart ass, just asking ... so what's the difference in recording something off cable vs. recording something off netflix (same movie)? Is the difference in the subscriber agreement? What makes the mediums different?

Or does Netflix just have a way to stop people and HBO doesn't?

 

I'm a relative luddite when it comes to downloading music. For one, I don't have/won't use an mp3 player. Hate those ear buds and am just too old/stubborn to change.

Now my question: Isn't getting music for free (or dirt cheap from Russia) online the modern equivalent of buying bootleg albums? Just asking ... because people have been "ripping off" the music industry for a long time, and it's survived.

I think they'll find a way to survive in an Internet world, too.


Now if you'll excuse me, I'll go put my "Electricity Assisted Windows Tour" LP on my turntable and rock out ...

 

I tried that. It was deemed stoner logic.

 

I am going to go steal that music and then I am going to read your newspaper stories on your websites for free. Or better yet, on someone's blog who has reposted it.

 

Newspapers pay reporters (poorly, very poorly) to write for them. They do this through (shrinking, ever shrinking) dollars from advertisers and subscribers. Reporters are compensated (again, poorly) for their work by their employer (the employer is frequently not compensated for the service they provide by newspaper website users, which is a problem discussed on a billion threads here, but the comparison doesn't wash to me).

Fundamentally I think if you're going to pirate music (which we've established you have no real problem with) you'd be better off just straight pirating it through a torrent site or something for free rather than giving even a small bit of money to this Russian mob service.

 

The newspaper comparison is tricky, since the business model for newspapers is to give everything away free.

And you're right -- if you're going to offer a defense for file sharing, go right ahead. I think there are some legitimate arguments to make there. Don't pay the mob for their pirating efforts and pretend it's somehow clever or honorable.