Downloading flying music?

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
You won't believe it because you just can't stand the thought that someone
might actually have a point. You can label me whatever you like, it
doesn't
give you a leg to stand on, nor does it change the fact that I'm not a
hypocrite, nor that I am not lying.

Everyone's a hypocrite. The only difference is in degree.

Am I a thief because I've downloaded a few dozen songs from the internet
from people who are making them available to me? In your eyes, perhaps. I
sleep comfortably, though, and can look in the mirror without flinching.

Psst: I spit on the sidewalk today, too.
No big surprise there. Why do you even bother to mention it?

Ohhh-kay, I'll explain it to ya', Pete. Listen up 'cause I won't repeat it:
I brought up the spitting on the sidewalk thing because I am not a "thief"
for downloading a few songs any more than I am a felon because I spit on the
sidewalk (which is against the law in my city). There is a difference in
degree that cannot be dismissed by hypocrites like you.

I happen to think that the quality of the songs downloaded from any on-line
source are great for sampling, only. To listen to them on burned CD on a
high quality system (even iTunes "legal" downloads) is like rubbing
fingernails on a chalk board, in my opinion. You get what you pay for. It
doesn't stop me from downloading a few tunes to listen to at work or
sampling a CD or two every now and then.

Someone who downloads gig's of songs and never buys a CD? He's a thief.
Someone who wants a sampling of a few "flying" songs and chooses not to buy
every single CD and downloads them for free? He's an aviation enthusiast
and nothing more.

--
Jim Fisher

"Jim Fisher" wrote in message
. ..
Everyone's a hypocrite. The only difference is in degree.

Then why bother using the word at all? By your definition, you might as
well have called me "a human being". Your intent was clearly pejorative,
and in that respect, I'm not nearly the hypocrite you are accusing me of.
Certainly, I have done none of the hypocritical acts you accuse me of.

Am I a thief because I've downloaded a few dozen songs from the internet
from people who are making them available to me? In your eyes, perhaps.
I
sleep comfortably, though, and can look in the mirror without flinching.

Rationalization is certainly a useful thing, I admit. You are still a
thief.

Ohhh-kay, I'll explain it to ya', Pete. Listen up 'cause I won't repeat
it:
I brought up the spitting on the sidewalk thing because I am not a "thief"
for downloading a few songs any more than I am a felon because I spit on
the
sidewalk

You're a thief and a felon. So what? Like I said, it's not like that's
some sort of newsflash.

(which is against the law in my city). There is a difference in
degree that cannot be dismissed by hypocrites like you.

As opposed to hypocrites like you? You keep using that word, as if it means
something, and yet you claim it means nothing. Why do you keep using it?

Someone who downloads gig's of songs and never buys a CD? He's a thief.
Someone who wants a sampling of a few "flying" songs and chooses not to
buy
every single CD and downloads them for free? He's an aviation enthusiast
and nothing more.

So if I take a single piece of gum from the display at the local 7-11
without paying for it, I'm not a thief, because I did not exceed your
arbitrary "minimum damage" criteria? All I was doing was seeing whether I'd
like that kind of gum, after all.

Very convenient for you, at least with respect to your sleeping at night.
You are, however, still a thief in most people's eyes, even if not your own.
Certainly in the law's eyes (which is all that really matters) you are a
thief.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
Ohhh-kay, I'll explain it to ya', Pete. Listen up 'cause I won't repeat
it:
I brought up the spitting on the sidewalk thing because I am not a
"thief"
for downloading a few songs any more than I am a felon because I spit on
the
sidewalk

You're a thief and a felon. So what? Like I said, it's not like that's
some sort of newsflash.

Actually, I take that back. I doubt that spitting on the sidewalk is a
felony offense in your city, in spite of your implication that it is. It's
much more likely it's a misdemeanor offense, making you a thief and a
small-time criminal.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
You are, however, still a thief in most people's eyes, even if not your
own.

Well, in your eyes, perhaps, which means precisely zip in my eyes. The law
damn sure doesn't see it that way.

You asked for citations supporting the fact that making copies and even
downloading music from "illegal" sources (which aren't illegal . . . yet)
for personal use is frowned upon only by the RIAA and you.

Those citations have rather embarrassingly negated your entire premise and
illuminated your profound ignorance of the law.

I hate it when that happens, don't you?

--
Jim "Arrr Matey" Fisher

"Jim Fisher" wrote in message
...
Well, in your eyes, perhaps, which means precisely zip in my eyes. The
law
damn sure doesn't see it that way.

The law certainly does see it that way.

You asked for citations supporting the fact that making copies and even
downloading music from "illegal" sources (which aren't illegal . . . yet)
for personal use is frowned upon only by the RIAA and you.

I did not. The citations I asked for were with respect to the question of
copying music from the radio. Nothing more, nothing less. They have
nothing to do with your use of file sharing software to violate copyright
law.

Those citations have rather embarrassingly negated your entire premise and
illuminated your profound ignorance of the law.

There have been no such citations, not with respect to copying music from
the radio, nor with respect to downloading music from the Internet. They
have not negated anything about my premise, never mind come close to
negating the entire premise. Nor have they revealed any ignorance on my
part of the law.

I hate it when that happens, don't you?

I wouldn't know. Tell me about it.

Pete