you don't even need to do that

limewire set the download folder to my music

itunes set the default music location to the same folder

just install using the default option on both and you automagically have all your music indexed by itunes

you just need to start the program

What is the problem some of you have for paying the price someone has set for their goods? You can double talk and over-rationalize some vague justification for just taking what you want(because you can), but its still stealing.

So what happens when you want a new PS3? Do you walk into Best Buy and tell them you'll buy it after you try it?

There was a guy on torrentfreak who commented on an article that he felt the way movie theaters should work is that you wait until after the movie is over to pay. If you liked the movie and felt it was worth the money you paid. If not you didn't.

When asked he felt this should be the same for everything. You should be able to take a car, drive it for a couple of years and then decide it met your standards and pay for it. You should be able to order food, eat the full mean and then decide if it was good enough for you to pay for. If you bought a book and didn't like it you should be able to return it for a full refund. The guy was amazing and he really thought that by doing it this way it force businesses to put our higher quality products.

well, it is not like sony makes ONE PS3 and then sells it over and over again

with music .. an artist make it once .. and expects to get paid for life for that work he put in ?

fuck that , get a real job

somebody working at mc donalds can not just work once for an 8 hour shift, video tape it , and then use that for the rest of his days ?

whats the difference

artists are OVER paid, they have too much money as is .. why give them even more ?

and save me the crap about struggling artists . they are struggling because their music sucsk not because of piracy :1orglaugh

Metallica has to be one of the first and greatest examples of this that I can think of.

"MONEY GOOD, NAPSTER BAD!" I miss those cartoons.

Here is why artists get paid over and over again for the thing they created: they created something that is lasting. If you make a record and it sucks and nobody buys it, 20 years from now you will not be getting paid for it. A McDonald's employee makes a burger, it gets eaten and it is gone. they have to make another. You can't buy a big mac and eat it over and over again and again and nobody is going to go pay to see a McDonald's employee work (which is what you are doing when you pay to see a concert live).

If you make a record that has a lasting impact and people are still buying it 10, 20, 30 years after you made it why shouldn't you get paid for it? Artists are paid what they earn. Yes, there are some who sign big contracts and never live up to them and are overpaid, but most of them who have millions of dollars have that money because people plunk down their hard earned money to see them.

Answer me this: If a chef comes up with a bunch of great recipes and builds a kick ass menu around it and then opens up a restaurant using those recipes then they hire managers to run the place and they just step back and let it all work should they only get paid for the first batch of customers through the door? Ten years later if they still own the restaurant and the restaurant is still using those recipes should then not get paid? that is what a record it. You record it, it goes out and if it sells you get paid. Over the years if it continues to sell the distributor pays someone to make more copies of it and they sell them. You deserve to be paid for that.

of course nothing stops you from selling your stuff if it also available for download for free on the torrents

open source companies like red hat do it all the time.

your trying to defend government granted monopoly control

if a restaurant in your example was the only place you could get chicken i would object to that too.

He doesn't have enough data to come to any meaningful conclusions.

I guess you really are that dumb.

but with a Big Mac I actually receive a product .. with music I don't .. the same music I can listen to for free on the radio ? I now have to pay for ? why ?

back in the day everybody would just record their favorite songs from the radio and that way you could play them again when they wanted to ..

with buying music , you basically buy the right to listen to it when you want, you are not paying for the music itself but for the option to listen to it when it pleases you , ..



well, the question is , why should you ? as you pointed out yourself artists can make more then enough money from live concerst and merchandise ..

and I think it is better for them to just focus on that .. if you really like a certain artist and he is in town to give a concert you just might want to go and buy some tickets and go watch him live

if you did not get the oppurtunity to listen to his music in the first place you would not have gone .. concert revenue is at an all time high ?? why is that do you think ? maybe because more people listen to music now that it is free ?

free music is here now , and it is here to stay .. look at spotify , grooveshark ..




is this Chef making his food only once ? you contradict yourself .. you make the argument that a Big Mac can not be sold more than once because once somebody eats it is gone and you have to make a new one if you want to sell more

so how about this chef then ?

the rest of his customers will not be getting any food ? or what ? aslong as he is making NEW food he should get paid .. artists are not making anything new at all

some of them make one Big Mac and then expect to get paid forever ,

I'm not going to debate you about monopolies, torrents or any of that stuff.

I was simply pointing out to him why musicians get paid over and over again for work done once. It is the same thing as a guy who creates recipes for a restaurant and sells them over and over again or a guy who creates a formula for a drug for a pharm company and he gets a piece of the action every time it is sold.

Every job out there isn't this way, but part of creating art, especially art that can be duplicated easily and distributed over and over again is that you can get paid for it over and over again.

First off, with the radio, they almost never play the full album. They play a few singles and nothing more. Growing up I recorded my favorites songs off the radio too. And if I wanted the rest of the album I had to go buy it because they didn't play it on the radio. That has changed to a certain degree now with sites like grooveshark etc. You are correct, you don't own the music when you buy it, but you have the right to listen to it as much as you want for the rest of your life. When you listen to it, you consume it. With art you can consume it over and over again and again and it is still there for you to enjoy. With a big mac you can only consume it once.





Are concert revenues at an all time high? I'm not so sure of that. I read every day about artists canceling shows. There was a story just the other day that Britney Spear's promotion team is selling tickets dirt cheap and giving them away so that she doesn't play to buildings that are only 75% full. Sure. there is a lot of money for good, popular bands to make money on the road. But why should they be forced to do that for the rest of their lives? That is not an easy existence. You are away from family and friends for extended periods of time and in a different city every day. It isn't nearly as glamorous as it seems.

You have the option not to buy the much. As you said with Spotify and Grooveshark you can listen for free. Nobody is forcing you to buy the download of the song or buy the CD. But if you do, I think the artist should get a cut of the profit. If the artist isn't worthy of a cut of the profit than who is?






Here is what I meant, but failed to say correctly. The guy that created the big mac cashed checks for decades from big mac sales even though he personally was not making the big macs. The same with the chef. He created the recipes, the restaurant is using them and he is getting paid for it even though he personally isn't in the kitchen cooking.

so how about other art then ? like paintings ..why is not illegal for google images to have photos of paintings ? I can enjoy any famoust painting I want .. print it out on high quality paper and hang it up in a frame in my living room .. all 100% legal ..

and euhm ? "rest of your life" ? you mean untill they change formats ?

if I own a casette with music I now want to put on my ipod .. can I go to the record company and ask them for a free download after I have proven that I have bought it ? NO you can not ..

not that I have actually tried, but I doubt any record company is giving out this lifetime guarantee .. once the format you bought the music in becomes obsolute they want you to buy a new copy in the new format




well, nobody wants to go to her concert .. I bet that gets reflected in the amount of "illegal" downloads there are for her music .. nobody is listening to her crap anymore .. so yeah nobody is buying concert tickets for her shows


thanks for proving my point

lol why should a factory worker be forced to work for the rest of his life ? life can be tough , deal with it ; .. if you choose to become an artist because you can't be bothered to get a real job then that is your problem .. no sympathy here

sure he can get a cut from sales, thats not the argument here, but if you want to go there, how about the record companys themselves? they are the real thieves ripping of artists with bad deals ... to some research on that .. and see what kind of money the record company makes compared to the artists




I doubt Jim Delligatti is still cashing checks on every Big Mac sold.. have any proof to back that up ?

but even if he is , wich I doubt, they are actually selling a real product .;

Maybe I have misunderstood you. Are you advocating that all music should just be free? That a band should record a record and then just put it out there for free and make all of their money off of touring?

You just proved my point about double talking. You've obviously never created anything and tried to sell it.

It's not up to you to decide how much or little an artist makes. It just sounds like you have sour grapes about people with talent that can make money from their art.

Except your not doing that

your not defending the right to sell your work

you can do that even if the content is virtually in the public domain

your trying to defend the ability to stop other people from selling your content

if an artist puts all their shit out under CC-SA the content equivalent of GPL they can still sell their shit over and over again.

They just don't take that right to do the same thing away from other people .



But why does it have to be that way

like i said you can still sell your shit over and over again even if you put everything under CC-SA (GPL)

that the point your trying to prove a point with an argument that is still true even if every artist was FORCED to put their shit out under CC-SA.

I am not advocating that, i am just pointing out that your argument justifies that too because even taking away all copyright control doesn't prevent you from selling your shit over and over again.

Instead of dishing all of this technical bullshit about fair use rights and time shift and copies, can't we just say that paying an artist for his work is based on an honor system? You're paying them because you enjoy putting their imagery/music into your fucking eye/ear holes.

The problem is no one has honor, when they know they won't be punished.

Oh, but wait. The money doesn't actually go to them. It goes to the "evil" record companies. There's always something with you idiots.

You are correct. If you create something you can sell it over and over again even if it is out there for free. Music and movies prove that every day. You can get just about any record or movie for free on a torrent site if you want it yet millions still choose to pay for them every day. I am not arguing that that is not that case. I am arguing that if the product continues to sell that the artist should be paid for it. If an artist released an album 20 years ago and people are still buying it, the artist should get paid for it. They should get paid for life from any sales of the album and Commander thinks otherwise.

no he is not he is saying their not ENTITLED to be paid for life

there is a huge difference

as you just pointed out you can sell your shit over and over again even if it given away for free everywhere.

remember he is responding to these statements

the difference is that if you take a physical product and try it before you buy it that product can't be sold

that inventory is gone while you try it

as you acknowledged you can still sell your shit over and over again even if it given away for free everywhere legally.


funny thing is you see the flaw in the logic when it used to make a counter arguement
but you don't see it in your own arguement.

you do realize that what the CC liciencing model is all about don't you

http://www.jonathancoulton.com/store/downloads/


no evil record company to object to in the CC-SA model
your attempting to rationalize your demand for monopoly control

it not necessary open source proves that.

As per normal you are reading too much into this. He simply said that he felt artists should not get paid for life for something they create once. Of course later on in the thread when I pointed out that if a band recorded an album and 20 years later people are still buying it they deserve to be paid for that and he agreed so maybe he means something different, maybe he changed his mind. I don't really know what you are talking about here. If a person puts their record up for sale and people buy it over and over again they ENTITLED to be paid for it so long as people are buying it. It doesn't matter if it is also available for free. If someone goes to itunes and buys their album they should be paid for it. If someone wants to use their song in a movie or TV show or commercial they should either be paid for it or at the very least have to give their approval and agree not to be paid if they don't care. That is it. That is all I am saying.



There is no flaw in my argument, yet there is in the argument posted by the person I mentioned. You see it is very simple. If a movie is available for free online and you watch it (never mind if you legally or illegally downloaded it) and then you choose to pay to go see it in the theater you have made the conscious effort to pay for something that you already have gotten for free. That is very different from going to the movie theater walking in and watching the movie then deciding you don't like it and not paying.

This, as per normal, has very little to do with my original point which is that if you make a record and people buy the record you should be paid for it no matter how long ago it was when you made it.

did you even read your own statement
he agreed with you when you put the condition of an actual sale happening

your interpretation of what he was saying contridicts your conversation with him

he is objecting to free alternatives being taken down, from having the choice to try before he buys taken away from him

btw his arguement is even more anti copyright than mine
i believe i should have a right to use the torrents as a radio station BECAUSE canada has a piracy tax which provides greater compensation then the liciencing fees paid for radio broadcast.(on a per person basis)





this is where you cross the line he is complaining about

your arguing that they have a right to sell it forever, fine you can do that cc-sa

but then you demand that they can only do it if they GET PERMISSION

like i said your arguement justifies selling your shit over and over again

your trying to use it to justify taking that right away from other people.

if i bought a car i could sell to someone else, i could rent it out, i could even provide a service for a fee (taxi cab/limo service) all without every getting PERMISSION from the car manufacturer.


but as i pointed out your trying to make too points

1. that they should have a right to keep selling their stuff
2. the right to prevent people who don't have PERMISSION from doing what they want with it

I have no problem with the first

if every artist was forced to release their stuff under CC-SA you would still have that right.

however nothing you said justifies the second arguement.

I'm not going to argue with you over this. I made an agreement with myself to not get swept into your ring of bullshit and I only made a few responses here because I didn't want to be completely rude and ignore you.

1. You are reading a lot into what he wrote and assuming a lot. I want to hear what he means from him - not you.

2. If a band records a record and people are willing to buy it they should be paid for that. It doesn't matter if the album was originally recorded a week, a month, a year or a decade ago.

3. If you want to use a band's music in a TV show or movie or some kind of commercial endeavor that you are going to make money on then you either need to pay them for it OR get their permission to use it for free.

That is it. That is all I have been trying to say. That is what I believe and I don't really care if you agree with it or not.

i am not the person putting words in his mouth
he specifically said

in addition to him saying it was ok to sell cd (physical product)

and you responded with

no where in any of his post did he advocate that all music should be free
advocating that the pirate sources should be left alone is not nor will it ever be the same as advocating that everything must be free

musicians can still sell their shit even if the pirate sites are left completely untouched

and i pointed out all your analogies and arguments only justify the 2nd point not the 3rd

if you want to compare piracy to stealing nothing justifies the 3rd
it can't because the second you buy a physical good you have the right all kinds of things with that product WITHOUT the permission of the creator.


It only when you get into the weird IP world that you need to get permission and those weird EXTRA rights are balanced by concept of fair use.

wow that your response to me pointing out how insane stupid your statement was

care to explain how your unfounded claim that the didn't have enough data validates your insane argument that 1000 people will NEVER buy a song EVER for every one person who does.