p2p with widest selection of music

[Schadenfroh]

link to SP2s EULA?

 

[n0cmonkey]

40 cds for $100

That's where I'll be gettiung my music after payday.

 

[Rudee]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
40 cds for $100

That's where I'll be gettiung my music after payday.

Too bad the artists are people I've never heard of.

 

[crazycarl]

Originally posted by: Rudee

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
40 cds for $100

That's where I'll be gettiung my music after payday.

Too bad the artists are people I've never heard of.

that's because you have bad taste in music

 

[konakona]

Originally posted by: JackBurton

Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey

Originally posted by: JackBurton

No it's not, it's copyright infringment.

Seriously dude, you know it is simply not copyright infringement. There is a difference between downloading SP2 and downloading Windows XP. Do you view both "copyright infringments" the same way?

What are we arguing about? I thought we were talking about the law. If we're talking about your own set of morals and ethics, then it's a pretty worthless argument. You'd be crazy to expect everyone else to agree with your own morals and ethics.

Don't give me this "you're own morals and ethics" bullsh!t. It's clear cut, one is free the other is not. Yes both may be illegal but there is a difference. Just like getting a speeding ticket and murdering someone. Both are illegal, but at completely different levels. It has nothing to do with "personal morals and ethics." I don't care what "morals and ethics" you have, EVERYONE can see a difference between downloading SP2 and downloading Windows XP. If you can't, then I need to stop this discussion right here because I'm not going to waste my time with someone that can't make that basic distinction.

so downloading music is like murdering people? wow, i am with BingBongWongFooey on this.

 

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: VanillaH

Originally posted by: JackBurton

Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey

Originally posted by: JackBurton

No it's not, it's copyright infringment.

Seriously dude, you know it is simply not copyright infringement. There is a difference between downloading SP2 and downloading Windows XP. Do you view both "copyright infringments" the same way?

What are we arguing about? I thought we were talking about the law. If we're talking about your own set of morals and ethics, then it's a pretty worthless argument. You'd be crazy to expect everyone else to agree with your own morals and ethics.

Don't give me this "you're own morals and ethics" bullsh!t. It's clear cut, one is free the other is not. Yes both may be illegal but there is a difference. Just like getting a speeding ticket and murdering someone. Both are illegal, but at completely different levels. It has nothing to do with "personal morals and ethics." I don't care what "morals and ethics" you have, EVERYONE can see a difference between downloading SP2 and downloading Windows XP. If you can't, then I need to stop this discussion right here because I'm not going to waste my time with someone that can't make that basic distinction.

so downloading music is like murdering people? wow, i am with BingBongWongFooey on this.

Serious dude, you know that's not what I'm saying. Don't try to be a funny guy.

 

[konakona]

i am not trying to be funny, i am just pointing out your analogy wasnt the most convincing one in the sense that illegally distiributing SP2 isnt any better than downloading music. you may think it is, i tend to disagree.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Rudee

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
40 cds for $100

That's where I'll be gettiung my music after payday.

Too bad the artists are people I've never heard of.

Expand your mind. Throw off the trappings of your top 40s lifestyle.

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

Originally posted by: JackBurton

Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey

Originally posted by: JackBurton

No it's not, it's copyright infringment.

Seriously dude, you know it is simply not copyright infringement. There is a difference between downloading SP2 and downloading Windows XP. Do you view both "copyright infringments" the same way?

What are we arguing about? I thought we were talking about the law. If we're talking about your own set of morals and ethics, then it's a pretty worthless argument. You'd be crazy to expect everyone else to agree with your own morals and ethics.

Don't give me this "you're own morals and ethics" bullsh!t. It's clear cut, one is free the other is not. Yes both may be illegal but there is a difference. Just like getting a speeding ticket and murdering someone. Both are illegal, but at completely different levels. It has nothing to do with "personal morals and ethics." I don't care what "morals and ethics" you have, EVERYONE can see a difference between downloading SP2 and downloading Windows XP. If you can't, then I need to stop this discussion right here because I'm not going to waste my time with someone that can't make that basic distinction.

Yes, of course I can make the distinction. But who am I, or who are you, to go around saying it's ok to break the law in one way and not another? Isn't that mild vigilanteism? My point is that by encouraging breaking the (same) law in one way but condemning it in another is essentially making the law irrelevant. At that point you're obviously not worried that much about following the law; you're worried about living according to your own morals. Your morals say it's ok to illegally copy something that is not charged for, but not ok to copy something that is sold for a profit. Many peoples' morals would say that it's not ok to illegally copy in either of those cases. My morals say that it's just fine (but obviously illegal -- do it at your own peril) to copy in either case. Yes, there is a distinction, but not everyone cares about that distinction, or treats it in the same way.

If you don't try reasonably to follow the law -- i.e. knowingly and willingly breaking it as you are suggesting -- then you don't have much right to condemn others for breaking it. If you begin to say that breaking it in one way is more "ok" than another, then you're getting into ethics and personal opinion, and IMO, it's a waste of time to try and argue about that.

 

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: VanillaH
i am not trying to be funny, i am just pointing out your analogy wasnt the most convincing one in the sense that illegally distiributing SP2 isnt any better than downloading music. you may think it is, i tend to disagree.

I'm simply pointing out there are different levels of illegality. I'm sure since you can justify downloading music, downloading Windows XP is ok too, right? Hey, SP2, music, Windows XP, Photoshop, all the same, right?

 

[CTho9305]

BBWF > you

 

[JackBurton]

If you don't try reasonably to follow the law -- i.e. knowingly and willingly breaking it as you are suggesting -- then you don't have much right to condemn others for breaking it. If you begin to say that breaking it in one way is more "ok" than another, then you're getting into ethics and personal opinion, and IMO, it's a waste of time to try and argue about that.

So you can not condemn a man for robbing a bank, right? Hey, I'm sure you've gotten speeding tickets, and frequently travel more than 1 mile over the speed limit, right? So since you are willfully breaking the law by speeding, you can not condemn another man for robbing a bank, correct? Does that make sense to you?

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

Originally posted by: JackBurton

If you don't try reasonably to follow the law -- i.e. knowingly and willingly breaking it as you are suggesting -- then you don't have much right to condemn others for breaking it. If you begin to say that breaking it in one way is more "ok" than another, then you're getting into ethics and personal opinion, and IMO, it's a waste of time to try and argue about that.

So you can not condemn a man for robbing a bank, right?

Incorrect! I can condemn him on moral grounds. I can't condemn him for being a felon because I've known some really great people who have come close to becoming felons, and -- I'm not much of a law breaker -- but I can see myself being tempted to do something felonious.

And sure, you could argue that there should be a distinction between, for example, misdemeanors and felonies, but in the end, that doesn't make much more sense to me than the distinction you drew (profit vs. no profit). No one PERFECTLY follows the law, and IMO, it's kind of lame to condemn someone else simply for breaking the law. Condemn them for being irresponsible or heartless or violent, sure.

Hey, I'm sure you've gotten speeding tickets, and frequently travel more than 1 mile over the speed limit, right? So since you are willfully breaking the law by speeding, you can not condemn another man for robbing a bank, correct? Does that make sense to you?

IMO, I can't condemn him for simply breaking the law, as I mentioned above. Also, as you suggested, everyone, including myself, breaks the law, and quite often really. I don't believe in following the law for the law's sake. I obey the laws that I think are sensible -- because my morals and/or logic agree with them. It's all about personal values, isn't it? I think it's ok (though usually pointless) to debate about values, and ok (and a bit less pointless) to debate about laws, but you can't really mix them or mistake one for the other (which is what I feel you are doing), because the discussion just loses any rules or logic. To me it's all about where you can draw the line between this and that, and when you're arbitrarily saying some law-breaking is ok and some isn't, it's impossible to draw a line that makes sense to anyone more than just yourself.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Copyright infringement is just a lack of respect for people. The actions don't affect the person performing them, so why should they care? If it did affect them though, I am sure they would be bitching and moaning like a little *twat*.

 

[JackBurton]

And sure, you could argue that there should be a distinction between, for example, misdemeanors and felonies, but in the end, that doesn't make much more sense to me than the distinction you drew (profit vs. no profit).

Well I'll stop the debate right here then. If speeding and murder are all the same to you, then I won't waste any more of my time debating with you.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: Lonyo
I don't use DirectConnect
And as said, SP2 is legal, and it's just a source for something which is free from Microsoft anyway. The full release is fine to post links to, even betas probably are (they are on the MSN beta network I believe).
Same as Top Gear is a free to view (on UK TV) show, and is not supported by advertising revenue, so posting links to Top Gear is OK.

Talking about stealing music, thinking it's legal to download SP2 from an unauthorized source... And let's not forget the quote in your sig from when you were defending downloading Doom 3. I guess you're both a pathological liar (you believe your own lies) and a thief. You still appear to be conspiring against the greater AT community.

For all the rest of you, downloading SP2 from an unauthorized source and downloading music from an unauthorized source are the same thing, copyright infringement. Some may or may not call that stealing. I do. Anyone who does either is a thief, and a piece of low life net trash.

I'm drawing the hard line against dishonesty on AT. I'm sick of seeing a thread a day about
A) Where to download music
B) Where to download games
C) How to get away with a fraudulent RMA

And the problem is, we have veteran members encouraging the new people to ask questions like this by giving them the answers they seek. That builds a negative image of AT, and just causes more of the same behavior to occur.