donnysblog.com— Sarcastic article which uses figures from the RIAA to show that one month of downloads from ThePirateBay is 5 times greater than the 2005 Gross Domestic Product of France!
May 19, 2006View in Crawl 4
@datagodThe French "discovered" North America, way before anyone else did, dude.Jacques Cartier, 1534. A mere 42 years after Columbus touched down in the Carribean.History, you should check it out some time.
@actorboyEver heard of fair use laws? People have a right under law to make backups for personal use. Really, DRM is infringing on our rights, because of the DMCA, which says if you have to get around DRM to make a backup, it's illegal. Why should companies who use DRM to screw their customers get special priveleges over companies that don't use DRM? The fact that lossless copies are now possible is irrelevant, the times and technology have changed, the RIAA needs to suck it up and make money legitamately.
@ spoopI'm a working actor and I am not rich. Money from re-sales have more than once been the way I've paid rent. You are correct in that the amount that goes to artists is unfair, but it's better than nothing. Not to mention that as long as companies can claim losses from pirating, it's harder for artists to push back to get a higher percentage. The companies will continue to claim they can't pay more because they are losing money. I do appreciate your consideration of the artists in this, but help us by purchasing what you listen to and watch, and leave it up to our unions to fight this fight.
My (joking) point was that the European pioneers who moved here turned into successfull North Americans, while the rest were too lazy to bother.I never said Europeans did not explore...instead of me reading history why don't you read my post?
@actorboyYou clearly didn't read my full sentance where I said "that are not tied to computers specifically". Obviously the definition was written because of people thinking it's real piracy. As thespacepope said, we are stuck with the definition, even if it was poorly linked, so you can't judge the real meaning if the definition is wrong.
15charmaxwtf: I think the drug trafficing analogy to bittorrent would work like this: while piloting a boat, you pick up a kilo, while going through the bay you give everyone who asks a joint, while picking up other drugs.
I can't justify paying for something as immaturial as music. I can't justify paying $20 to have the "right" to listen to music when I want to. It just doesn't make financial sense to me. It also doesn't make sense to me that they are trying to restrict (DRM) that right that I payed $20 for. The fact that I couldn't choose how to listen to the music I payed $20 for is obsurd.I'd pay $20 to go to watch the artist play their music. That's a great experience. You get out of the house, socialize, and have a good time. That is an experience that isn't the value of a CD, I'm sorry.A CD is not worth twenty 99 cent McChicken sandwiches, that's a lot of dead chickens for the right to listen to music. (Either the lives of chickens are too cheap or CD's are too expensive)
flawlessMay 19, 2006
@datagodThe French "discovered" North America, way before anyone else did, dude.Jacques Cartier, 1534. A mere 42 years after Columbus touched down in the Carribean.History, you should check it out some time.
spoopMay 19, 2006
@actorboyEver heard of fair use laws? People have a right under law to make backups for personal use. Really, DRM is infringing on our rights, because of the DMCA, which says if you have to get around DRM to make a backup, it's illegal. Why should companies who use DRM to screw their customers get special priveleges over companies that don't use DRM? The fact that lossless copies are now possible is irrelevant, the times and technology have changed, the RIAA needs to suck it up and make money legitamately.
actorboyMay 19, 2006
@ spoopI'm a working actor and I am not rich. Money from re-sales have more than once been the way I've paid rent. You are correct in that the amount that goes to artists is unfair, but it's better than nothing. Not to mention that as long as companies can claim losses from pirating, it's harder for artists to push back to get a higher percentage. The companies will continue to claim they can't pay more because they are losing money. I do appreciate your consideration of the artists in this, but help us by purchasing what you listen to and watch, and leave it up to our unions to fight this fight.
skatingroxMay 19, 2006
Jesus christ. There's nothing like a bunch of diggers to turn a harmless technological article into an international political debate/flamewar.
datagodMay 20, 2006
My (joking) point was that the European pioneers who moved here turned into successfull North Americans, while the rest were too lazy to bother.I never said Europeans did not explore...instead of me reading history why don't you read my post?
smilyMay 20, 2006
@actorboyYou clearly didn't read my full sentance where I said "that are not tied to computers specifically". Obviously the definition was written because of people thinking it's real piracy. As thespacepope said, we are stuck with the definition, even if it was poorly linked, so you can't judge the real meaning if the definition is wrong.
ericmoritzMay 21, 2006
15charmaxwtf: I think the drug trafficing analogy to bittorrent would work like this: while piloting a boat, you pick up a kilo, while going through the bay you give everyone who asks a joint, while picking up other drugs.
ericmoritzMay 21, 2006
I can't justify paying for something as immaturial as music. I can't justify paying $20 to have the "right" to listen to music when I want to. It just doesn't make financial sense to me. It also doesn't make sense to me that they are trying to restrict (DRM) that right that I payed $20 for. The fact that I couldn't choose how to listen to the music I payed $20 for is obsurd.I'd pay $20 to go to watch the artist play their music. That's a great experience. You get out of the house, socialize, and have a good time. That is an experience that isn't the value of a CD, I'm sorry.A CD is not worth twenty 99 cent McChicken sandwiches, that's a lot of dead chickens for the right to listen to music. (Either the lives of chickens are too cheap or CD's are too expensive)