Illegal downloading

[Marian Schedenig 8,239]

Now when it comes to iTunes BS, it is ridiculous that there are restrictions for countries outside the USA. I don't know why they do that. Has anyone ever found an explanation as to why things are restricted?

Same reasons as theatrical movie releases, and Blu and DVD region coding: Different licensing deals for different regions. For DVD/Blu buyers, it means they have to either live with no or possibly technically inferior releases of some films, or invest in a region free player, which manufacturers are not allowed to sell (which is why there seems to exist exactly one model in the Blu world at the moment).

I have another problem with iTunes though: It's a Windows/Mac program. Why do they force me to buy Windows or a Mac computer to buy music? Amazon lets me buy music through a regular website. What's next, iSupermarket, where they construct the door in a way so you can only enter if you're carrying a piano?

I disagree with this. Even if you don't like it, you still listened to the score illegally.

Wrong. There is no such thing as "illegal listening".

[Brónach 1,302]

I disagree with this. Even if you don't like it, you still listened to the score illegally.

Wrong. There is no such thing as "illegal listening".

This.

I download stuff all the time. So what? If internet didn't exist I wouldn't know about that stuff in the first place. If some muisc isn't available to buy where I live, I'm so downloading it.

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

Now when it comes to iTunes BS, it is ridiculous that there are restrictions for countries outside the USA. I don't know why they do that. Has anyone ever found an explanation as to why things are restricted?

Worldwide distribution rights are usually more expensive.

Except there's a problem when you're applying these rules to iTunes exclusive musical pieces.

Let's take, for example, a television show. If you're in the United States, you can buy new episodes of a TV show on iTunes. Sometimes within a day of the show airing. Now, I can see all sorts of reasons why you would limit this to the U.S. at first. Foreign networks pay hefty fees to be allowed to air these shows. They then have to make back some of that money by attracting companies willing to advertise in the commercial blocks surrounding the show. This is how the network receives money. When they're selling advertising space on a long-running show (as opposed to a brand new series), they can charge more according to how well the show has been doing in the past. Having the episodes available through iTunes could undermine this (I'm going to leave people downloading the show illegally out of the equation - networks are actually working hard on making this redundant, with brand new shows airing in Europe subtitled and all within a week of the US broadcast, sometimes even within 24 hours).

Then there's money to be made off DVD sales. Again, there's the local distributer and retailers that make money off this property.

But here's the thing.

You take a television show, and it was always meant to be distributed this widely. There's a longstanding distribution chain counting on making money off the property. It was made for the purpose of going down this chain.

An exclusive bonus track, however - and I'm not just referring to iTunes either, but stuff like albums having bonus tracks only when you buy the physical CD at a certain store - may seem like a harmless marketing tool, but in fact just ends up pissing people off. And it's not like the infrastructure to get, say, the complete Casino Royale to my computer isn't there. I have iTunes. I have an account. Heck, I've bought stuff from the iTunes store before, so I know it works. Somewhere somebody thought it was worthwhile for people to be able to obtain the complete score to Casino Royale. And it wasn't even that expensive. I'd have bought it. If only they'd let me. If there's a special edition album only released in Japan I can go to Amazon.jp and order the damn thing and have it delivered to my doorstep. Why the hell can't I buy bonus tracks on iTunes then?

It's an interesting time in worldwide media distribution these days, really. But it's also one that can be rather frustrating.

Anyway.

That doesn't really answer your question at all, does it?

[Datameister 2,072]

Even if you don't like it, you still listened to the score illegally. What you're saying would be like stealing a food product, eating it and saying "Well I didn't like that, won't be buying it." You can't undo the listening just like you can't undo the eating. There are samples for a reason. Take a small taste, you don't like it, don't buy it. Want to take a plunge even though it doesn't blow your mind? Then buy it.

It's fundamentally different from stealing and eating a food product because in that case, you're taking a single physical commodity that took money to produce. Now that you've stolen that product, no one else can purchase it, and moreover, even if you ate it and then decided you didn't want it anymore, you still would have irreversibly consumed it. If you download a piece of music, decide you don't like it, and never listen to it again, the composer and musicians and engineers and so forth don't have to spend any more money than they would have otherwise; you don't cost them a cent, and because it's not a physical product, there's still just as much left for everyone else.

Now, I'm not saying that this is legal. I'm just saying that there's quite a huge difference between stealing food and illegally downloading a piece of music. It's the heart of the issue, really. When you pay for a legal download, some of the price is to recoup the cost of storing the music on a server somewhere, but most of it is just for the right to enjoy the music. (For an approximation of how much of the cost is for that right, compare the price on iTunes to the price for a physical CD.) The thing is, this issue is inherently complicated (in a moral sense) because I could easily invite a friend over to listen to a CD with me, one that I bought, and we'd both be legally experiencing what only I have paid for the right to experience. There's very little practical difference between that and both of us listening to the same music on adjacent computers with headphones, me from CD and him from an illegal download. And then there's very little practical difference between that and him listening to the illegal download somewhere else while I listen to my CD, and between that and us listening at different times.

Don't get me wrong, I've never been one to download much music. Most of what I've downloaded has been stuff that simply could not be purchased, and I tend to take an "if they won't let me pay them for it, I won't lose any sleep over it" attitude. I'll occasionally download an OOP album, but many of those can be bought used for ridiculously low prices anyway. If I illegally download an album that's still in print, which is quite rare, I generally either only listen to it once or end up buying it before too long. And I'm especially quick to buy releases from Intrada and La-La Land and FSM and whatnot, since they do such a great job for such a niche market, and they deserve all the financial support they can get.

EDIT: But this was really supposed to be about music that's not legally available in our regions, I guess. I'm fortunate in that this is almost never an issue for me, living in the US and all, but I think my attitude would be about the same as it is for unreleased material. I'm happy to pay money for the product if they'll let me, but if they refuse to do that and an alternate solution presents itself, I may take advantage of that. If they want to make money off of their product, they have to allow people to make that happen.

[crocodile 8,033]

Anyway.

That doesn't really answer your question at all, does it?

The thing is nobody is going anywhere in this thread, to be honest...

Karol

[King Mark 3,631]

Koray,lol.Your quite funny.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

I try.

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

Anyway.

That doesn't really answer your question at all, does it?

The thing is nobody is going anywhere in this thread, to be honest...

Karol

I had more, but I'd probably end up locking this thing or banning myself for veering off into the leathery footwear territory.

[Wojo 2,453]

We all pay for the internet, right? Whatever else we do while on the internet is just icing.

[Marian Schedenig 8,239]

It's fundamentally different from stealing and eating a food product because in that case, you're taking a single physical commodity that took money to produce. Now that you've stolen that product, no one else can purchase it, and moreover, even if you ate it and then decided you didn't want it anymore, you still would have irreversibly consumed it. If you download a piece of music, decide you don't like it, and never listen to it again, the composer and musicians and engineers and so forth don't have to spend any more money than they would have otherwise; you don't cost them a cent, and because it's not a physical product, there's still just as much left for everyone else.

And that's why each and every one of those

"commercials" is a big fat lie.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

So could the same thing be said for books? What if you read a copy of a brand new book online and don't pay a cent. The author is technically not losing a copy of the book, so it's okay to do so, right?

[crocodile 8,033]

We'll then... are libraries illegal?

Karol

[Koray Savas 2,251]

That's a good point. Libraries also have CDs.

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,489]

What about when we buy used books or anything for next to nothing. The author is not profiting.

[Wojo 2,453]

In all seriousness, piracy of a digital item is still theft.

The artists and technicians need to be paid for their efforts, and freely downloading their music hurts that.

That being said, what are we to do when the music we want is unavailable? Say we learn of a limited album a few weeks after it sells out at every online retailer. This leaves two ways to obtain it. Either buy a sealed copy from an eBay reseller or download it for free. If 3000 copies were pressed, the artists and technicians were paid for those 3000 copies. Giving double or more of the retail price to a private eBay reseller only benefits that individual; the label and musicians don't receive a dime from that transaction since they were already paid for the initial sale. In this case, I'm comfortable with Plan B.

But does that mean I'm going to wait for all limited edition soundtracks to sell out before making an attempt to "procure" it? Absolutely not.

I've never been faced with not being able to download a piece of music from iTunes or Amazon in my country, but if The System won't allow you to do things "by the book," you might have no choice than to go to Plan B.

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,489]

You shouldn't be able to listen to Predator, SpaceCamp or Poseidon Adventure if you didn't get it. It's your fault you weren't glued to your computer and didn't purchase within the 24 hours of availability. These releases are like Halley's Comet. You miss it, you're screwed.

[Wojo 2,453]

Libraries are not illegal because they buy the book up front. They then loan it to their members.

But you can't copy a library book, cover to cover, in a matter of seconds the way you can copy a CD. And if you do borrow dozens of library books to copy, just to save money, then power to you, you have more time than money, and you just have to read a lot of Xerox or PDF copies.

[crocodile 8,033]

The bottom line is many people have access to books for free.

You shouldn't be able to listen to Predator, SpaceCamp or Poseidon Adventure if you didn't get it. It's your fault you weren't glued to your computer and didn't purchase within the 24 hours of availability. These releases are like Halley's Comet. You miss it, you're screwed.

I hate that bit. I missed quite a few that way this year. And I would have purchased some of them. Unfortunately, I'm guilty of the greatest crimes of all - I actually have a life beside soundtrack world and a job. And there is simply no time to follow every thread on a forum or all the news. Impossible.

Karol

[Datameister 2,072]

So could the same thing be said for books? What if you read a copy of a brand new book online and don't pay a cent. The author is technically not losing a copy of the book, so it's okay to do so, right?

Again, my point wasn't that we should all go download stuff willy-nilly. I was simply pointing out the huge difference between stealing a costly physical product that someone else would have otherwise bought and making a copy at no expense to the creator or other customers. One is quite obviously wrong in the vast majority of circumstances; the other is a less serious offense that in certain cases can be morally (if not legally) permissible. And yes, downloading an illegal copy of a published book would be pretty much the exact same thing.

Marian, those commercials bother me for that exact reason. Illegal downloads can be a big problem for people whose livelihood comes from this industry, but directly equating that to stealing a handbag or DVD or whatever other physical objects they mention isn't going to convince people who've fully thought through the issue. Illegally downloading a copy of a digital file is fundamentally different than stealing a physical object, no matter what moral stance is being argued for.

EDIT: Also, thanks for addressing the library thing, Wojo. That's different altogether, and it makes perfect sense from legal and moral perspectives. The author/composer/musician/technician/publisher/whatever still makes the same amount of money by selling the product to the library. The library can then do whatever it wants with that without taking any legal or moral risks, as long as no copies are made.

[Wojo 2,453]

You shouldn't be able to listen to Predator, SpaceCamp or Poseidon Adventure if you didn't get it. It's your fault you weren't glued to your computer and didn't purchase within the 24 hours of availability. These releases are like Halley's Comet. You miss it, you're screwed.

All of those releases were limited. A specific amount of time and capital were required to be invested into preparing the media, creating the release, and distributing it, which was then calculated to become profitable based on a certain number of items sold. Once all those physical copies ran out, the people who did the investing and crafting, i.e. the label and musical people, got their cut. They have no way to get any more profit because they set their cap at 3000 copies or so. It's a balanced equation.

It doesn't matter if one CD now gets copied 30,000 more times or not, because the label and musicians are going to neither earn or lose money based on those illegal copies.

They will "potentially" lose money if -- and only if -- the license to re-issue/remaster/expand that soundtrack album is revisited, given to another label in several years, or the label turns to online sales. Sure, the people who bought one of those 3,000 copies feel mad because that album is now being traded for free on the internet. But that went up online for free on Day One. If they value their investment, they will treasure having a pressed CD, liner notes, and a classy jewel case, or even better, high quality cardboard, to store it in and show it off.

But it's just a guess that a limited soundtrack will re-emerge in another label's inventory in another few years. It's also a guess that the person who downloaded the "3001st copy" won't buy a re-issued formerly limited edition soundtrack when it re-emerges.

People were fuming that The Ron Jones box set went online in FLAC when all 5000 copies have not sold out. I'm mad too because I bought it and love it. The people who did that suck. But on the day that the 5000th unit sells out, and surviving boxes go for $500 apiece...don't look at me, I bought it.

Illegally downloading a copy of a digital file is fundamentally different than stealing a physical object, no matter what moral stance is being argued for.

As long as the people providing the service are paid for their efforts, it doesn't matter if you bought a physical object that goes home with you in a shopping bag, a digital file that lives in your download folder, or an intangible "experience" like watching a movie at the cinema or attending an amusement park.

Stealing a handbag is bad because it took someone's time and money to make the handbag, and the store is waiting to get an ROI for buying it so that you could buy it; stealing it brings the ROI to zero. It's not as if a "limited edition" handbag can be copied after the last unit sells out. Knockoffs on the black market are still a unique physical item that required time and money to make, even though their price infringes on the "good name" of the original.

If only one person illegally downloads the song, hates it, and deletes it, there's no damage done. We assume there will always be another sucker who buys first, listens later. But if everybody on Earth downloads before buying, regardless of whether they keep it or not, there is harm to the industry.

[Marian Schedenig 8,239]

In all seriousness, piracy of a digital item is still theft.

Seriously, no. At least going by Austrian/German law, theft is clearly defined, and "piracy" (a strange term in its own right) is NOT theft. I'm not saying distributing content without a license is not illegal, it obviously is - but it's a different type of crime. And that goes for *distributing* it, not for downloading. That's usually perfectly legal.

Libraries are not illegal because they buy the book up front. They then loan it to their members.

But you can't copy a library book, cover to cover, in a matter of seconds the way you can copy a CD. And if you do borrow dozens of library books to copy, just to save money, then power to you, you have more time than money, and you just have to read a lot of Xerox or PDF copies.

Books have been carrying copyright notes (including information that it's forbidden to copy more than excerpts) ever since I can remember. I don't know the details when it comes to libraries, but I could imagine that they pay some kind of fee for being allowed to lend out media in a big way.

The day will likely come when you can copy a book, cover to cover, within just a few seconds (either through some nifty new kind of device, or perhaps just because books will become purely electronic over the next few decades). It will be just one more area where copyright in its current form has become outdated and will have to be re-thought and updated.

[Wojo 2,453]

Marian, this is why I'm glad I'm not an attorney in today's complicated international world. Until the day happens when one nation rises up and places global law over all nations -- I think Lesotho will achieve this first -- there will always be gray regions where a freedom in one country is a felony in another. Want that music? Sorry, you have to move if you want it legally; otherwise, download it. If you think your cousin's hot, you may have to move if you want to hear wedding bells. Otherwise, don't get caught.

Libraries will always be protected because Ben Franklin pushed for them and he is beloved. Someone needs to take their unlocked iPod back to Franklin with their Delorean and put that on his list of great ideas.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

I have the leaked AOTC recording sessions, but those in this thread who have admitted to being opposed to "illegal downloading" are not allowed to have it. I hope the moral high ground has a nice view while the rest of us enjoy the music!

[Datameister 2,072]

[Wojo 2,453]

Good thing I don't want it.

[gkgyver 1,646]

It's by John Williams, and he's using themes from 30 year old movies, so who in this place would want it anyway?

[Trent B 337]

I have the leaked AOTC recording sessions, but those in this thread who have admitted to being opposed to "illegal downloading" are not allowed to have it. I hope the moral high ground has a nice view while the rest of us enjoy the music!

Nice lol.

[BTR1701 59]

d

At least in the U.S., copyright law is based on the principal that artists should be compensated by those who are enjoying their work.

Actually, paying the artist isn't the purpose of copyright in America. That's the purpose of copyright in Europe, but in America, the purpose for copyright is to "promote the progress of science and useful arts."

Theoretically, any use of copyright that doesn't promote innovation and creativity is unconstitutional.

What you're saying would be like stealing a food product, eating it and saying "Well I didn't like that, won't be buying it."

Except you're comparing scare goods (food) to infinite goods (digital music). When you eat something without paying for it, it's gone forever and you've deprived the owner of the physical object. When you make a copy of a song, you've deprived the owner of nothing. He/she still has exactly what they had before.

So could the same thing be said for books? What if you read a copy of a brand new book online and don't pay a cent. The author is technically not losing a copy of the book, so it's okay to do so, right?

Isn't that what a library is?

In all seriousness, piracy of a digital item is still theft.

Not according to the U.S. Supreme Court. The laws in your country may differ.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

In a way, but you pay a library a mebership fee to take the book home.

However if you read the book at the library itself....

[scallenger 487]

But many people read books at libraries. Why else would they have seating throughout them? Hell, some books are reference books that can ONLY be viewed at the library and not be checked out at all.

[BTR1701 59]

Libraries are not illegal because they buy the book up front. They then loan it to their members.

Yeah, they buy one copy of a book and loan it out hundreds of times. That's hundreds of lost sales to the publisher/author.

[Datameister 2,072]

Yes, but only one person has possession of it at a time. It's like loaning out a CD of yours without ripping it into iTunes or whatever. That's not illegal or immoral by any stretch of the imagination. Copyright law in reproducible works like music and books is all about giving the creator control over how many copies are out there, and ensuring that they get reimbursed for each copy. (Which I think is a very understandable and reasonable goal...it just gets so complicated with computers, haha.)

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Well if they're so worried about piracy, they shouldn't have invented CD ripping technology.

[BTR1701 59]

Copyright law in reproducible works like music and books is all about giving the creator control over how many copies are out there, and ensuring that they get reimbursed for each copy.

As I said elsewhere in the thread, that's what copyright law is "all about" in other countries, mostly Europe, but in America, copyright law explicitly *not* about giving authors control or reimbursing them. Per the Constitution, it's about the promoting progress and innovation.

[Datameister 2,072]

According to the all-knowing Wikipedia, you've missed a rather important second phrase to that part of the Constitution. The whole thing reads:

"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."

I was probably reaching to say that ensuring that they get reimbursed is part of the goal. That does happen, but copyright is really just about giving the creator the "exclusive right" to his or her creation. That means he or she can get reimbursed or not, but it's their call.

[crocodile 8,033]

In a way, but you pay a library a mebership fee to take the book home.

However if you read the book at the library itself....

I never paid any fee, you see...

Karol

[BTR1701 59]

According to the all-knowing Wikipedia, you've missed a rather important second phrase to that part of the Constitution. The whole thing reads:

"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."

I was probably reaching to say that ensuring that they get reimbursed is part of the goal. That does happen, but copyright is really just about giving the creator the "exclusive right" to his or her creation. That means he or she can get reimbursed or not, but it's their call.

Yes, but the moment those exclusive rights stop promoting innovation and creativity (or, as is so often the case these days, actually hindering it), they become unconstitutional. Unfortunately, our government doesn't seem to act in accordance with, or even care, what the Constitution says any more.

[Brónach 1,302]

In a way, but you pay a library a mebership fee to take the book home.

However if you read the book at the library itself....

I never paid any fee, you see...

Me neither. And it's a good analogy!

-Someone paid for the book/CD. And I guess public libraries use public money?

-The product is made available with no purpose of making profit, either via organization thing or the buyer of the CD himself.

-You take the book home or read it in the library / you download it.

The difference being, you don't prevent another person from listening to the CD while you still have it or risk damaging the CD you've just downloaded, and you can keep the CD forever.

[King Mark 3,631]

well downloading a c.d. is faster than going to the library ,borrowing the c.d. then ripping it in itunes

which is the same thing ,except the majority of people "against downloading" would probably copy a library c.d. with no problem whatsoever

[Brónach 1,302]

well downloading a c.d. is faster than going to the library ,borrowing the c.d. then ripping it in itunes

Oh, that depends. Sometimes you won't find what you're looking for in the Internet right away, or if you find it it was deleted, or it is 128 kbps and you don't want to listen to that, or you find an inferior release, or the internet conection fails after all, or... Who knows, there may be people who live right next to a library! xD

And a library won't have everything you're looking for at all.

[King Mark 3,631]

But at library you can make an identical cdr copy ,while online your likely to get a MP3 version only

Some library have LOADS of stuff.

[Wojo 2,453]

Copying a library CD into iTunes in the privacy of your own home is still illegal. It's just as illegal as laying a library book onto a Xerox machine and copying each page onto paper or scanning it into PDF.

The difference is that one action is quick and has become second nature to everyone. The other is extremely inefficient.

Copy that CD and now you don't buy a new copy from the publisher. The publisher loses a potential sale and claims a loss of profit.

[Brónach 1,302]

Copying a library CD into iTunes in the privacy of your own home is still illegal. It's just as illegal as laying a library book onto a Xerox machine and copying each page onto paper or scanning it into PDF.

The difference is that one action is quick and has become second nature to everyone. The other is extremely inefficient.

Copy that CD and now you don't buy a new copy from the publisher. The publisher loses a potential sale and claims a loss of profit.

What if you listen to that CD and give it back because you don't like it?

You know, with this stuff, the term "illegal" is spot on on occasion, but to me, in reality, sometimes feels a bit harsh to me.

Humans make innecesary stuff. Art is a brilliant, innecesary stuff most of the times. Breaking the law of a country relating to art seems nothing to me in comparison with breaking a law relating to actual necessary stuff. Which makes me question these laws from time to time. It's a huge part of me to question everything.

If I were a commercially published artist (I already write a lot of stuff) I wouldn't really mind people downloading my works. Add to that that a lot of people can't afford spending that much money on books, music, films, comics... Talking about comics, they are really expensive where I live, but the only way today to experience them the way they're are supposed to is getting the physical book one way or another.

I write too much for something this simple. I just mean "Okay, you say this is illegal, whatever, but that doesn't have to be always the case!"

[Wojo 2,453]

If you listened to the CD and gave it back because you didn't like it, then I trust you deleted the copy too, correct? No harm done. If you kept a copy "just in case you might like it later," you still broke the law.

"Necessary" functions are food, shelter, clothing, and the services required to facilitate them, such as heat, water, electricity, and waste removal. Yes, much of art is unnecessary. But many humans who make art do so for a living. It's how they make the money required to provide the "necessary" functions to themselves and their families: by selling "unnecessary" luxuries to people who can afford them.

People who can't afford luxuries shouldn't have luxuries. They should play with rocks, listen to bugs chirp, and watch rich people breathe. Trying to justify "oh, I only downloaded an unnecessary piece of art" is like trying to justify why you could steal dinner so long as you had bought breakfast earlier that day.

If you were a commercially published artist, it would have resulted from selling so many of your works that you made it big. "Selling" involves a transaction of money. If you didn't mind people downloading your works, you would be a stupid sorry fool, or you would have another job on the side and could afford to "give" away your creative efforts. And then you wouldn't be in the artistic business for the money and you would be an exception to the rule.

The people who make music don't "give" away their creative efforts. They "sell" them. Free copies made at the library or the newest pirate website are not ways to "sell" music.

[Brónach 1,302]

People who can't afford luxuries shouldn't have luxuries. They should play with rocks, listen to bugs chirp, and watch rich people breathe. Trying to justify "oh, I only downloaded an unnecessary piece of art" is like trying to justify why you could steal dinner so long as you had bought breakfast earlier that day.

I'm interested in this. If you're not going to pay for it anayway, what is the difference for the artist?

[Datameister 2,072]

Yes, but the moment those exclusive rights stop promoting innovation and creativity (or, as is so often the case these days, actually hindering it), they become unconstitutional. Unfortunately, our government doesn't seem to act in accordance with, or even care, what the Constitution says any more.

Now you're just being silly.

well downloading a c.d. is faster than going to the library ,borrowing the c.d. then ripping it in itunes

which is the same thing ,except the majority of people "against downloading" would probably copy a library c.d. with no problem whatsoever

I'd be curious to see some statistics that support this statement...that wouldn't be a very rational stance at all. As you said, they're exactly the same thing - it's just as illegal to rip the music from the library's CD and keep the files after you've returned it. (I've done this occasionally, too, but as with downloads, I pretty much either don't listen to the stuff or end up buying it legally.)

[Ollie 1,064]

I think the main thing is that doing what the FFShrine did is wrong.

Anything that is unreleased or OOP, well that's up to each individual as far as I'm concerned. And if you are given something in good faith from a composer / producer / friend, then you should be respectful and keep it to yourself.

And I'm not going to find fault with someone, using Steef as an example, who lives in another country and cannot purchase it, even though he wants to, and has to find it through other means.

[BTR1701 59]

Yes, but the moment those exclusive rights stop promoting innovation and creativity (or, as is so often the case these days, actually hindering it), they become unconstitutional. Unfortunately, our government doesn't seem to act in accordance with, or even care, what the Constitution says any more.

Now you're just being silly.

Yes, that's unfortunately the common response given these days to anyone who suggests that the government should actually abide by the fundamental law of the land.

[Datameister 2,072]

What terrible kind of world would we live in if it did that?!

[Hlao-roo 389]

People who can't afford luxuries shouldn't have luxuries. They should play with rocks, listen to bugs chirp, and watch rich people breathe. Trying to justify "oh, I only downloaded an unnecessary piece of art" is like trying to justify why you could steal dinner so long as you had bought breakfast earlier that day.

I'm interested in this. If you're not going to pay for it anayway, what is the difference for the artist?

I wonder if we're always so certain about what we are or are not going to pay for "anyway."