• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Do you think downloading MP3 files illegally should be punishable by jail time?

Should people be sent to jail for downloading music files illegally?

  • Yes

    Votes: 1 4.0%

  • No

    Votes: 24 96.0%
  • Total voters
    25
And since this is a debate, you'll need to show proof of that statement.
 
shuamort said:
And since this is a debate, you'll need to show proof of that statement.
Click to expand...

Scarecrow Akhbar is good with making statements, just not with proving them with anything other than "i say so"
 
shuamort said:
And since this is a debate, you'll need to show proof of that statement.
Click to expand...
I don't really need to prove that statement. It's pretty much self-evident. Only irrational people give away their livelihood. It's the amateurs and the incompetents that do it for free.

But if you wish to cop out and not address why the productive people, the real people, the people that make things the majority of others would wish to buy wouldn't produce their products for free, go ahead.

Hmmm....let's see...when I was 17 I thought of using LCD's to make a TV. Let's pretend for the moment that I knew enough electronics at the time to develop the idea, and that I had the financial resources to do so also. So let's pretend I go ahead and invest a quarter million dollars and make a prototype that works.

I show it to Sony, and because in your world patents don't exist, Sony simply reverse engineers it and with their resources they simply undercut any price my little company could reach and make billions.

In your world why the hell would anyone bother to invent anything? Give the real expenses of R&D, why would any company develop anything when the competition could reverse engineer it for pennies on the dollar and compete with complete freedom and a few advantages?

You whine that your question wasn't answered with enough proof to make you happy.

Tough.

You haven't even acknowledged that my question, asked several times now, even exists. Yet it's my question the explores the real reason behind patent, copyright, and trademark laws.
 

George Michael shuns music industry
Pop star George Michael is abandoning the music business to release his songs online for free instead.
Fans will be given the option to make donations online in exchange for downloading the tracks, and the proceeds will be given to charity.
Click to expand...

Hmm, Check and mate.
 
Irrelevent.

George Michael ranks as britains 10th richest musician with an amassed personal fortune said of between at 115 million dollars to over 200 million dollars in assets, real estate and currency. George owns several homes all over the world, one in Texas and one of London.


Of course, I'm showing proof, you're just rambling. Pony up or shut up.
 

No, you're not offering any proof at all. Micheal is an exception...an exception that was able to become the 10th richest muscian precisely because he took full advantage of intellectual property laws. You're not proving anything except that Micheal might be suffering from Tolstoyitis.

Name some of the artists that got as rich as little Georgie by giving away all their work for free.

Just one. But if you find someone, make sure that his wealth came from something he was giving away for free. Then your point will be made.

Until then, you're posting irrelevancies because you can't answer the question I asked.

You are going to have the courtesy to answer the pertinent question, aren't you?:roll:
 
And once again YOU'RE MOVING THE FIELD GOAL. Your arguments are becoming more and more transparently dishonest. You ask if any artists are giving away their intellectual property away for free. I show you that they are. You go off on a tangent about the artists' sexuality, I show how its irrelevent. Then you ignore your original request which was obviously adequately fulfilled and then ask for ANOTHER artist that's AS RICH as Britain's top 10 musician who has done the same and has gotten there by doing that. When your argument is proven to be a failure, you act like the argument is more nuanced than you originally claimed. I can :roll: right back at you and I am.




Scarecrow Akhbar said:
You are going to have the courtesy to answer the pertinent question, aren't you?:roll:
Click to expand...
Your question and points were asked and answered. Requests for proof of your points have gone unanswered. Let me roll my eyes right back at you now. :roll:
 
shuamort said:
And once again YOU'RE MOVING THE FIELD GOAL.
Click to expand...

Nope, ain't moving a thing, I'm waiting for an answer to my question. You haven't given one yet.

Of course, you can't give an honest answer and hold your position, so it's not big surprise that you won't answer a simple question. I won't hold it against you.
 
Ahh, gotcha. You're lying because you're losing. I'll keep that in mind.
 
shuamort said:
Ahh, gotcha. You're lying because you're losing. I'll keep that in mind.
Click to expand...

How can I be lying when you've yet to answer the question? When you bring up a real example of a real person that relies on revenues from his copyrights, patents, or trademarks, for his survival that gives away his product for free, then you'll have finally answered the question in a way the satisfies it's intent.

I know you can't do it, so you're getting emotional.
 
Do you think downloading MP3 files illegally should be punishable by jail time?
What do you guys think?
Click to expand...

I see downloading music no different than pressing record on the tape player when that song that was played 100 times comes on the air.I guarantee that if you look at any p2p and do a search, the majority of songs will be the same crap they play on the radio 100 times a day across the nation.

ATTENTION ****EN IDIOTS THAT INSIST ON CALLING THE RADIO STATION TO PLAY A SONG. THEY MAKE THESE THINGS CALLED CASSETTE TAPES YOU CAN BUY THEM IN ALMOST ANY STORE,YOU PUT ONE OF THESE THINGS IN YOUR TAPE RECORDER AND WHEN YOUR FAVORITE SONG THAT HAS ALREADY PLAYED 100 TIMES COMES ON, PUSH THE ****EN RECORD BUTTON ON YOUR TAPE RECORDER.QUIT CALLING THE RADIO STATION LIKE A ****EN RETARD ASKING FOR THE SAME SONG THAT WAS PLAYED A HUNDRED TIMES ALREADY.****!!!! That is why I listen to talk radio instead of music radio.

Back on topic,I also see music sharing no different that trading a cd or tape with a friend.
 
LOOK THE CONSTITUTION IS A SOCIALIST INSTRUMENT!!!

Don't believe me? Just ask Akhbar...

I said that the purpose, in America, for creating the artifice of property in the form of patents and copyrights was to help society by making invention and creativity more attractive.

Well, here's what the Constitution says about why Congress was empowered to create the artifice in America:

The Congress shall have Power ...
Clause 8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;


The Constitution clearly doesn't say:
The Congress shall have Power ...
Clause 8: To grant Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their work for the sake of protecting their financial interests;


Some people use the words "Socialist Gobledygook" far far too loosely. The founders, unfortunately, were not Socialists.
 
Because that's the most retarded statement. Once again, you've moved your fieldgoal because your arguement sucks.

Now, let's look at your statement up above here and see where there is absolutely no logical way to find such a person.

A person who has a copyright on something and expects to gain revenue on something they're giving away for free. You don't get a direct revenue on something that is free. Your argument is therefore retarded.

However, there are plenty of items that are given away for free that have copyrights on them. Go to most news websites. They're giving away their copyrighted material for free to its user in return for sales revenue by placing ads on their website.

I've given you other sites like boingboing.net which given away non-copyrighted material and manage to make a nice revenue from ad sales.

Of course, you'll move the fieldgoal again, not answer questions, claim things and not provide proof. But I've come to expect this from you now.
 

Yep, that's why I took on the handle Scarecrow is Great. So many people build strawmen out of what I say that they must really really love me.

I'm fully aware of what the constitution says in regards to patents and copyrights, yet you have to post what I didn't say and shadowbox with yourself.

While I'm in perfect alignment with the idea that copyrights and patents should exist forever in the hands of the originators and their heirs, like the title to a piece of land, I know full well that they expire in time. You may find evidence of my knowledge in my, albeit erroneous, assertion that the song Happy Birthday 2U was in the public domain. Clearly if I'd thought as you falsely claim I did, I would not only not use the term "public domain", I wouldn't be aware of it or it's meaning.

But getting back on track, you yourself point out that the Constitution permits the owners of patents and copyrights to benefit financially from their intellectual property for a period of time. And yes, the lapse of ownership into the public domain is a form of collectivism and thus infected with the moral disease of socialism.

Gobbledy-gook is spelled with two "b"s.
 
shuamort said:
A person who has a copyright on something and expects to gain revenue on something they're giving away for free. You don't get a direct revenue on something that is free. Your argument is therefore retarded.
Click to expand...

Okay, so you're admitting, without admitting that you're admitting, that people who use their minds for a living won't willingly give away the store for free, and then you're complaining you can't find any such people becuase there aren't any.

Naturally, my contention was that people need their copyrights and patents for income won't be giving it away, which is what you just said but you lack the backbone to admit you lost the argument.


Oh. So what you're really saying is that a person can pay to use certain copyrighted material because the copyright holder views that dispersion as an advertising expense.

And the funniest thing of all is that you say exactly that, and try to pass it off as an example of "free dispersal". :lol:

So I can tell you're just an empolyee somewhere. You never heard of loss-leader sales? Its where a grocery store will advertise something on sale at below cost that will bring many people into the store. The store knows full well the fifty cent loss on a gallon of milk will be more than made up by the people buying the other marked up items they'll also grab.

Well, at least we now know why you're confused on the matter of copyrights and patents.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Okay, so you're admitting, without admitting that you're admitting, that people who use their minds for a living won't willingly give away the store for free, and then you're complaining you can't find any such people becuase there aren't any.
Click to expand...
Really, is that why I brought up George Michael who did just that.


Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Naturally, my contention was that people need their copyrights and patents for income won't be giving it away, which is what you just said but you lack the backbone to admit you lost the argument.
Click to expand...
You lack the evidence to prove your argument. I've proven my points with actual facts. Go figure.


I'm saying that's ONE example. George Michael is another. See the difference?


Welcome to irrelevency. If you can't argue with proof you go non-sequitor? Mmm, kay.

I get it, you can't debate honestly. You don't address my points directly but go off on tangents. Herophant summed it up perfectly when he said in this thread:
Herophant said:
Scarecrow Akhbar is good with making statements, just not with proving them with anything other than "i say so"
Click to expand...
So, Akhbar. Once again I'm asking you to give PROOF to your claim as your anecdotes are just that. Anecdotes. I've given links to support my side. Your turn or you can just admit defeat. Your choice.
 
Back to the topic... it would seem that Sony at least is pushing for illegal downloading by pulling these stunts:

Basically, Sony is "protecting its copyright" by blowing up your computer by installing malware that opens up the computer to virii. This is what you get when you BUY a CD legitimately.

 
So you bring up the concept of loss leader sales, and when I correctly identify them by name and explain their purpose it's suddenly a non sequitur?

Gimme a break, it's clear you don't know what you're talking about.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
So you bring up the concept of loss leader sales, and when I correctly identify them by name and explain their purpose it's suddenly a non sequitur?

Gimme a break, it's clear you don't know what you're talking about.
Click to expand...
Loss leader sales have nothing to do with copyrights. I'm still waiting for your proof on your other claims.
 
shuamort said:
Loss leader sales have nothing to do with copyrights. I'm still waiting for your proof on your other claims.
Click to expand...

If you bothered to think about the posts that you read, you'd be able to understand just how ridiculous your statement was in the light of the discussion.
 
George_Washington said:
What do you guys think?
Click to expand...

Il imagine at least 40% of the population would have to be imprisoned in that case. I dont think it should be illegal anyway. If i copy and paste and article on here its not illegal so why should music be any different?
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
If you bothered to think about the posts that you read, you'd be able to understand just how ridiculous your statement was in the light of the discussion.
Click to expand...
So, no proof. Gotcha. Come back to the thread when you have proof.
 
Red_Dave said:
Il imagine at least 40% of the population would have to be imprisoned in that case. I dont think it should be illegal anyway. If i copy and paste and article on here its not illegal so why should music be any different?
Click to expand...

Actually, if you're copying copyrighted material it is illegal.

As you say, it's a matter of practicality, though they certainly tried to shut down Freak Republic for exactly that violation.

Though I'll revise my first sentence in light of the Freak Republic decision. Apparently the courts decided that certain usages are acceptable exceptions in view of "greater public benefit" or some such legalese. I haven't read the decision, I'm simply aware that Freak Republic did have a court battle over this and apparently won it some time ago. I do believe that a link to the source document on the web had to be provided, though.

But 40% of the population can add up to an enormous amount of lost sales.
 
shuamort said:
So, no proof. Gotcha. Come back to the thread when you have proof.
Click to expand...

So do you claim victory on all the debates you lose, or do you have a personal interest in misrepresenting this particular issue?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…