[Cretaceous Bob]

Originally Posted by yoav

so in your logic if you pay to see a movie in a movie theatre, you've actually purchased the rights to see it again, as many times as you want, for free?

That doesn't even come close to being analogous.

I'm saying if you own a DVD, you have the right to see what is on that DVD as many times as you want.

Originally Posted by hercircus

HOWEVER, as a musician I could care fucking less if someone was stealing my music, in fact I would just be happy that people wanted to hear my music.

But that's your choice. It's a good thing too, because even if that wasn't your preference yoav would steal it anyway. Fuck you, he says.

Originally Posted by yoav

yes i do know that, the point was that you're renting a seat in the theatre, you're paying for distribution, not art.

you say that you 'can' make a copy, it's only legal to make a backup, and to restore that backup, you can't copy a song from a cd to your ipod for listening on your ipod, that's illegal. you need to own the copyrights to do that. it's considered theft of a digital copy. there's no such thing currently as 'owning the art' you either own the copyrights, or you own a copy.

i think we all see the conflict and how the current system impedes the consumer's rights.

bob is suggesting that there should be the concept of 'owning the art' which i believe is impractical and has implications like when you pay for a movie in a movie theatre according to his logic, you've purchased a copy of the movie, and if you play a cd in your house with your friends/family, that they havn't purchased the right to the art.

i'm suggesting that a musician releasing a cd, while has benefits, also has implications, the same as releasing a song on the radio has implications that it will be taped onto cassette. and pointed out that in the current system you never buy the art but instead the medium, or distribution method.

Yoav, you have ignored everything I have said and blathered the same nonsense you've been talking this entire time, steadfastly refusing to address any of my points.

You are a sad, disgusting, despicable person, who will contort his thinking into any way necessary to justify theft.

You have admitted that there is ownership of art. You had to admit it to not make yourself look like a giant fucking asshole by saying I can profit off of KATG.

It doesn't matter what you believe other than that; by believing there is ownership of art, it is possible to steal art.

You want to destroy all of artists' rights, just because the consumer was slightly inconvenienced. And yet you're not anti-art.