|
Limewire is great. Why contribute to these musicians, actors and actresses that already get paid way
too much? I think it is great to have somewhere where you can listen and download music for free. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
It is wrong. Stealing over the internet is just that: Stealing. No matter how you spin it, it is
stealing. As I have no moral regards I do not care that I'm doing wrong, but I know am I, it doesn't
stop me and I don't feel the need to justify my actions |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
NUffin wrong wit it m8 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
No, it's nothing but file sharing. I see no problem with it. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I feel no guilt. I'm using it right now. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Of course it is. I've just over two thousand seven hundred songs in my iTunes, and very very few of
them are paid for.
Does it bother me? No.
But LimeWire isn't the best way at all of getting music. It's very poor in comparison.
But as for your actual debate, Limewire is a perfectly legal program, as long as the files you are
sharing are royalty free. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Listening to music isn't wrong just because some record company executive who discovered the band 12
years ago thinks he should get paid for it.
Record companies have been screwing over their artists for years anyway. What's wrong with
eliminating record companies from the music industry? I thinks it's a great idea. Thanks to
Limewireâ„¢ music is going to be free (legally) in the very near future, paid for by advertising.
It's capitalism at its finest. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Limewire is file sharing, it's not different from sharing files on C.D's and Flashdrives with your
friends, only updated for the online world |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I have no sympathy with the music industry. I have ploughed enough money into them in the past and
been ripped off. They have charged well over the odds for CD's and now it is time to get my own
back. I will still buy a CD if I feel the artist deserves my money.
A decent artist can still make money from playing live and selling merchandise, if they are any good
they will not have to worry about money. Most of those who will suffer are the "pop stars" and
their cronies. Hopefully when the money disappears from the industry so will the vultures. Maybe
then music will return to the days when it was made for love and the art. No more Mariah,
Timberlake and Kanye. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Excellent points, mackenzie. The fact is that the RIAA and MPAA have been running around like
Chicken Little for decades. Back when recordable tape cassettes came out, they said the sky was
falling and it was the end of the recording industry. It wasn't. The same for videotape. The same
for CD-ROMs. The same for DVD-ROM. The same for the Internet. They're terrified that everything
that comes up is going to kill the industry.
You want to know what's going to kill the industry? Their outdated business practices and the fact
that they're terrorizing the people who pay their bills. Business works by adapting to the current
financial environment. They don't want to adapt, they want to run the same way they've run since
the 1960s and anything that threatens that, they attack with lawsuits.
The reality is, the RIAA and MPAA don't deserve to exist, they've lost out to the new paradigm that
doesn't require them. Good riddance to both of them. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Limewire is really no different than the much more ancient practice of recording music from the
radio onto a cassette, or taping a film onto a VHS. Even before the Internet age, most people
recorded films and music, which conceivably resulted in a loss of revenue for production companies,
actors and musicians. More than 27 years ago, the British Phonographic Industry was already
spreading visions of the apocalypse, claiming that "home taping is killing music." They were
worried, because the advent of cassettes meant that it was easy to record music. Whenever a new form
of technology appears, the music industry is, at first, frightened, but it does eventually find a
way to embrace it.
Perhaps if CDs were not so expensive, or if music recording companies, as well as individual artists
took a more innovative approach, they would not lose their customers to Limewire. They should
consider selling more of their songs over the internet, allowing customers to download each tune for
a reasonably small fee (perhaps $0.50 each). Given the option, many internet users would be willing
to support an artist they admire, by paying to download their individual song; most people these
days would certainly be more likely to do this than to go out to a local HMV and spend $25 on a CD,
full of songs that they don't fancy. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
So if I buy a CD and burn it for a friend is that wrong? Or if I record a song off the radio and
listen to it over and over is that wrong? It's the same thing, someone purchaced it and is giving
others access to it |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Who cares if it's wrong. It's free. If it's so wrong, why is it on your laptop? |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Nope, its called the one pound shop lol... |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
It's not like celebrities or record companies (the ones getting stolen from the most) need another
swimming pool or jumbo jet. |
| |
 Mark  04 May 2008 23:06
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sign In
For and Against Recent Activity
