Originally Posted by SilentWalker

That's not the point. The point is people have infringed on copyrights. They have every right to take action. A wrong is still a wrong, no matter how big or small, even if everyone is doing it. We know it's wrong, and we still go ahead and d/l...so you can't complain if action is taken against you.

The punishment still needs to be in line with the crime. We don't cut off people's hands for stealing, or stone adulterers to death because those punishments are disproportional to the crime. Charging somebody more money than they're likely to make for the rest of their lives for copying a CDs worth of songs does not fit that crime.

Originally Posted by SilentWalker

I'm not going to lie, I d/l music of the net also. But that's only because I don't have a credit card. I'd gladly pay for my music as soon as I get myself a cc. Music is so cheap, like a buck a song off iTunes. Even if you only listen to it once...it's just a buck! And if you listen to it over and over again, it's priceless. I'd tell you, quite a bit of the music I listen to, you can put price tag on it.

Thing is, people are just lazy. They'd rather spend a hundred bucks on a pair of shoes that they might only wear once, or even a bag or whatever, but not a buck to buy a song? There really isn't any excuse.

I spend about $200/year on video games, $150/year on movies, and ~$100/year on collectibles and books (my other hobbies >_<). Yet based on how long I've been DLing/collecting MP3s and the amount I have, I'd have to pay $700/year to listen to music which is ridiculous especially since it's not even one of my main hobbies.

I think how people are listening to music has fundamentally changed but the pricing structure is still tied to the old business model/listening habits. Back in the 90s I got a good 85% of my music from MuchMusic, BET, and the radio, I only bought CDs for my favourite artists so I could listen to them over and over. Now, TV/Radio has been replaced with my MP3 player and it's completely unfeasible to treat MP3s the same as CDs because they haven't just replaced CDs, they've replaced all my music.

Most people don't even know that they're uploading songs when they participate in peer to peer services, its usually done automatically.

Originally Posted by Tailsnake

The punishment still needs to be in line with the crime. We don't cut off people's hands for stealing, or stone adulterers to death because those punishments are disproportional to the crime. Charging somebody more money than they're likely to make for the rest of their lives for copying a CDs worth of songs does not fit that crime.

Who're you to argue with the statistics? While we are still struggling with crime here in North America, the crime rate in Saudi Arabia is close to nil. Rape, murder, stealing, they're almost non-existant. And the quality of living in Saudi Arabia is extremely high. And you want to know something? The respect people have for each other there is really high compare to what we experience here. We stand for no-racism and no-discrimination, but it's still rampant as hell.

And by the way, when I mentioned stealing, I mean all forms of stealing, including piracy.

Apparently the western world is all about freedom, and you guys want freedom, but are not willing to work for it. And don't call me biased. I have no ties to the eastern world except my race, which is linked about 6 generations back to India. Other than that, my life totally westernised. I've lived in a western world all my life.

Originally Posted by Tailsnake

I spend about $200/year on video games, $150/year on movies, and ~$100/year on collectibles and books (my other hobbies >_<). Yet based on how long I've been DLing/collecting MP3s and the amount I have, I'd have to pay $700/year to listen to music which is ridiculous especially since it's not even one of my main hobbies.

I think how people are listening to music has fundamentally changed but the pricing structure is still tied to the old business model/listening habits. Back in the 90s I got a good 85% of my music from MuchMusic, BET, and the radio, I only bought CDs for my favourite artists so I could listen to them over and over. Now, TV/Radio has been replaced with my MP3 player and it's completely unfeasible to treat MP3s the same as CDs because they haven't just replaced CDs, they've replaced all my music.

It doesn't matter how much you consume. Music is not a quantitative thing (meaning you don't pay per play count). Just like you don't pay per times you wear a shoe. It takes money to make it. And you pay money to consume it. Everything has a market, and even though we may not agree with the prices, you still have to pay for it. Almost nothing in this world is free.

They don't care if it's a hobby or yours or not. You're a minority. And frankly, the market isn't geared towards minorities. People listen to music. People pay for it. And will continue paying for it. you don't have a right to cheaper or free music because you don't listen to it as often, or because it's too expensive for you. And if do happen to get it freely, deal with the possible consequences.

Originally Posted by Tailsnake

That judgement still worked out to $2250/mp3 which would be well over $50000 in this case for copying 24 songs.

Maybe I'm thinking of a different case, or maybe I'm just wrong. I thought there was a case where it was just thrown out, but couldn't find details via Google. So maybe I'm remembering it wrong.

Agreed with pretty much all your points, btw.

Originally Posted by SilentWalker

It doesn't matter how much you consume. Music is not a quantitative thing (meaning you don't pay per play count). Just like you don't pay per times you wear a shoe. It takes money to make it. And you pay money to consume it. Everything has a market, and even though we may not agree with the prices, you still have to pay for it. Almost nothing in this world is free.

Shirts probably cost less than a dollar to make, and in many places of the world the person who made that shirt probably got paid $0.15 for the time it took.

We're not saying that the t-shirt should be free, just that you shouldn't have to pay $50.00 for it, and IF someone were to steal it, they shouldn't have to pay 15 years worth of their income.

Just install PeerBlock, try to download some famous new movie through torrents and you'll see just how hypocritical these companies are. They seed the torrent (among others) just to track your ip. Someone should sue them for that.

Right now, I can quote my list:
LodgeNet Entertainment
QMD Software GmbH
Sony Network Taiwan
AT&T

and this is only when I decided not to download after 10 seconds.

Originally Posted by Afzal

Just install PeerBlock, try to download some famous new movie through torrents and you'll see just how hypocritical these companies are. They seed the torrent (among others) just to track you ip. Someone should sue them for that.

Right now, I can quote my list:
LodgeNet Entertainment
QMD Software GmbH
Sony Network Taiwan
AT&T

and this is only when I decided not to download after 10 seconds.

whhhhhhoaaaaaaaa

Originally Posted by SilentWalker

Who're you to argue with the statistics? While we are still struggling with crime here in North America, the crime rate in Saudi Arabia is close to nil. Rape, murder, stealing, they're almost non-existant. And the quality of living in Saudi Arabia is extremely high. And you want to know something? The respect people have for each other there is really high compare to what we experience here. We stand for no-racism and no-discrimination, but it's still rampant as hell.

And by the way, when I mentioned stealing, I mean all forms of stealing, including piracy.

Apparently the western world is all about freedom, and you guys want freedom, but are not willing to work for it. And don't call me biased. I have no ties to the eastern world except my race, which is linked about 6 generations back to India. Other than that, my life totally westernised. I've lived in a western world all my life.

You do understand the logical conclusion from what you've said would be to have the death penalty as the punishment for all crimes regardless of how small they are, right? If that's how you think we should deal with all issues then there's really no point arguing this point because you're beyond the reach of a logical argument. If not, then you agree that the crime needs to at least somewhat fit the punishment (even if we disagree on what a "fitting" punishment is).

Originally Posted by SilentWalker

It doesn't matter how much you consume. Music is not a quantitative thing (meaning you don't pay per play count). Just like you don't pay per times you wear a shoe. It takes money to make it. And you pay money to consume it. Everything has a market, and even though we may not agree with the prices, you still have to pay for it. Almost nothing in this world is free.

They don't care if it's a hobby or yours or not. You're a minority. And frankly, the market isn't geared towards minorities. People listen to music. People pay for it. And will continue paying for it. you don't have a right to cheaper or free music because you don't listen to it as often, or because it's too expensive for you. And if do happen to get it freely, deal with the possible consequences.

I don't think you got my point here. I'm not saying that we deserve cheaper music,they can price it at where they feel it's acceptable, but the market it speaking and it doesn't seem to be willing to pay the price they've set. Basic economics would state that the prices should drop (and seriously, if they didn't have piracy to demonize and blame they likely would've dropped prices by now).

For example, if the price of Gas instantly became $5/litre a black market for cheaper gas would likely pop up. The lesson to take from that black market existing isn't that people are cheap, it's that you've priced your product beyond what people are willing to pay.

The market has changed, I'm just saying that the music industry needs to at least attempt to adapt.