The beauty of High School computer security...



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @belgariontheking said:

    I like this point.  I can't feel bad for downloading something that's aired on TV or the internet (legally) or the radio for free.

    Well, if you buy it legally after trying it out, sure.  Otherwise you are depriving the content creator of advertising revenue, so it's the same thing as not paying them. 

    I don't buy it.  They get the advertising revenue regardless of whether I actually watch/listen to it when it's on TV or the radio.  I can remove the commercials in many legal ways without downloading the show from the internet.  



  • @belgariontheking said:

    I don't buy it.  They get the advertising revenue regardless of whether I actually watch/listen to it when it's on TV or the radio.  I can remove the commercials in many legal ways without downloading the show from the internet.

    Advertising revenues are a product of how many people are watching at a given time.  If you are not watching, then you are theoretically reducing the amount of revenue the advertising brings in which is equivalent to taking the content without paying. 



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @belgariontheking said:

    I don't buy it.  They get the advertising revenue regardless of whether I actually watch/listen to it when it's on TV or the radio.  I can remove the commercials in many legal ways without downloading the show from the internet.

    Advertising revenues are a product of how many people are watching at a given time.  If you are not watching, then you are theoretically reducing the amount of revenue the advertising brings in which is equivalent to taking the content without paying.

    That's true, until the networks start figuring out how to account for internet views in the advertising model, which is only a matter of time.



  • @bstorer said:

    @morbiuswilters said:

    @belgariontheking said:

    I don't buy it.  They get the advertising revenue regardless of whether I actually watch/listen to it when it's on TV or the radio.  I can remove the commercials in many legal ways without downloading the show from the internet.

    Advertising revenues are a product of how many people are watching at a given time.  If you are not watching, then you are theoretically reducing the amount of revenue the advertising brings in which is equivalent to taking the content without paying.

    That's true, until the networks start figuring out how to account for internet views in the advertising model, which is only a matter of time.

     

    This argument is about supporting a dying system. Pretty soon content providers will be able to make money directly from us without the need for third perties like T.V. companies or record labels. Hell Prince sold an online album for 2 bucks each i think and made tons of money caz he made so much more money from each album sale than he would from more sales and less per sale by going though a recording company.

    Third parties will never dissapear but it will evolve soon into something more accessible...


  • @dlikhten said:

    This argument is about supporting a dying system. Pretty soon content providers will be able to make money directly from us without the need for third perties like T.V. companies or record labels. Hell Prince sold an online album for 2 bucks each i think and made tons of money caz he made so much more money from each album sale than he would from more sales and less per sale by going though a recording company.
     

    Prince's success does not imply the pending death of record labels.  Prince is an established artist.  How would this have worked if nobody's ever heard of the band?  Don't forget that a record company needs to do far more than put music on CDs and MP3s.  They have to market the artist.  That's part of the reason new bands get crappy contracts with recording companies.  Without a track record or name recognition, it's essentially a crap shoot.

    Also, don't discount these large companies.  They have more power than you or I, and they'll find niches to continue.  In fact, they'll likely use that power to turn those niches into ravines, and then charge you money to use their bridges.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    Advertising revenues are a product of how many people are watching at a given time.  If you are not watching, then you are theoretically reducing the amount of revenue the advertising brings in which is equivalent to taking the content without paying. 
    But if I'm watching over the air anyways, how are they going to know that I'm watching and thus count me into the advertising revenues.  You could say that watching OTA is stealing advertising revenue.

    In addition, what about radio?  They air the songs for free, and they can't tell that I'm listening, unless I call them up and tell them I am to win some prize.  What's the difference if I hear it on the radio or hear it on my computer?

     

    EDIT:  just saw that you said "Theoretically"  ... I think that makes the whole argument moot on both sides anyway. 



  • @bstorer said:

    @dlikhten said:

    This argument is about supporting a dying system. Pretty soon content providers will be able to make money directly from us without the need for third perties like T.V. companies or record labels. Hell Prince sold an online album for 2 bucks each i think and made tons of money caz he made so much more money from each album sale than he would from more sales and less per sale by going though a recording company.
     

    Prince's success does not imply the pending death of record labels.  Prince is an established artist.  How would this have worked if nobody's ever heard of the band?  Don't forget that a record company needs to do far more than put music on CDs and MP3s.  They have to market the artist.  That's part of the reason new bands get crappy contracts with recording companies.  Without a track record or name recognition, it's essentially a crap shoot.

    Also, don't discount these large companies.  They have more power than you or I, and they'll find niches to continue.  In fact, they'll likely use that power to turn those niches into ravines, and then charge you money to use their bridges.

     

    Not questioninig their power. Their power is why we have the DMCA and such...

    HOWEVER think about it. It costs 20 bucks to buy an album of artist X. Why the fuck would I pay that much for an artist I never heard of. I am not inclined to try anything out for fear of wasting 20 bucks. And maybe that will be a week before I get sick of just listeneining to it...

    Yet if each artist just costs 2 bucks, hell thats 10 records I can try out. And I can see what other people rated that artist if its on some rateable website. Based on that I can find some artist thats new, never heard by me before, people who are similar to me like, and it costs 2 bucks, not that great? Well its ok I can live without 2 bucks. 10 records now is what, 200 dollars? Maybe 150 depending on how new the band is and where you buy it. Thats a week's worth of food spent on some music I can't even rip to my MP3 without worrying about the f-ing recording companies.



  • @dlikhten said:

    Yet if each artist just costs 2 bucks, hell thats 10 records I can try out. And I can see what other people rated that artist if its on some rateable website. Based on that I can find some artist thats new, never heard by me before, people who are similar to me like, and it costs 2 bucks, not that great?
    Okay, first of all, I'm unable to find any source claiming Prince released an album for $2.  Do you have a link for this?  I know he covermounted his latest album in the UK, and that he gave away copies of Musicology to concert goers.  But I see nothing about a $2 album.  The reason it matters is this: $2 is fine to sell an album from your own website, that you pressed and ship.  But when you start tying in a third party website with ratings and stuff, now you're back to the same thing.  You're still just trading Columbia Records for Amazon and iTunes, and those guys still gotta get their cut.  Sure, you're probably still charging less, but you're also not getting the same amount of marketing.  I know it seems like a great deal for you, but what about for everyone else involved?



  • @dlikhten said:

    HOWEVER think about it. It costs 20 bucks to buy an album of artist X. Why the fuck would I pay that much for an artist I never heard of. I am not inclined to try anything out for fear of wasting 20 bucks. And maybe that will be a week before I get sick of just listeneining to it...

    Yet if each artist just costs 2 bucks, hell thats 10 records I can try out. And I can see what other people rated that artist if its on some rateable website. Based on that I can find some artist thats new, never heard by me before, people who are similar to me like, and it costs 2 bucks, not that great? Well its ok I can live without 2 bucks.

    I would rather give $20 in support of a single artist I like rather than $2 to a bunch of mediocre artists in addition to the one I like.  That's why I download a few songs illegally first.  I justify it morally because I will buy the album if I like it and delete the downloaded tracks if I don't.

     

    @dlikhten said:

    10 records now is what, 200 dollars? Maybe 150 depending on how new the band is and where you buy it. Thats a week's worth of food spent on some music I can't even rip to my MP3 without worrying about the f-ing recording companies.

    I don't know where the hell you are buying records, but I rarely pay more than $7 for a CD.  I primarily use Amazon marketplace and their CD club thingy.  Of course, I've paid $100 for a CD that has been out-of-production for a few years and is very hard to get, but it was worth it to me.  Also, you can rip your CDs to any format imaginable without fear of legal consequences so long as you don't give the files away.  I've been doing this for over a decade and it's completely legal.



  • @bstorer said:

    @dlikhten said:

    Yet if each artist just costs 2 bucks, hell thats 10 records I can try out. And I can see what other people rated that artist if its on some rateable website. Based on that I can find some artist thats new, never heard by me before, people who are similar to me like, and it costs 2 bucks, not that great?
    Okay, first of all, I'm unable to find any source claiming Prince released an album for $2.  Do you have a link for this?  I know he covermounted his latest album in the UK, and that he gave away copies of Musicology to concert goers.  But I see nothing about a $2 album.  The reason it matters is this: $2 is fine to sell an album from your own website, that you pressed and ship.  But when you start tying in a third party website with ratings and stuff, now you're back to the same thing.  You're still just trading Columbia Records for Amazon and iTunes, and those guys still gotta get their cut.  Sure, you're probably still charging less, but you're also not getting the same amount of marketing.  I know it seems like a great deal for you, but what about for everyone else involved?

    Yeah, I find this to be quite questionable too.  I know Radiohead did something similar by allowing people to pay whatever they thought was fair and NIN is planning to do the same.  Prince is the guy who sued his own fans over sites that used photos of him because he believes photos of him are his own intellectual property.  I doubt he would release an album over the Internetz.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    I know Radiohead did something similar by allowing people to pay whatever they thought was fair and NIN is planning to do the same.
    I know NIN gave away some of their new music away for free and are charging for the rest.  I hadn't heard that it was going to be a pay-what-you-want system, but I haven't really been up on my NIN in, like, eight years.

    And again, these are high-profile artists with huge, established fan bases.  How does this scale down to a band like, say, Hey Rosetta!?  And they're not even complete unknowns.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    I don't know where the hell you are buying records, but I rarely pay more than $7 for a CD.  I primarily use Amazon marketplace and their CD club thingy.  Of course, I've paid $100 for a CD that has been out-of-production for a few years and is very hard to get, but it was worth it to me.  Also, you can rip your CDs to any format imaginable without fear of legal consequences so long as you don't give the files away.  I've been doing this for over a decade and it's completely legal.

    I thought he was referring to the DRM crap that some people are putting on CDs these days.  I think it was when I bought a foofighters CD that I first experienced this.  I could only rip it into wma and it wouldn't import into itunes.  The valiant effort of the record companies to alienate me as a music listener has lost them a foofighters customer.  Thank you, I'll download my foofighters now.   

    I tried using Linux to rip the CD, but it didn't work for the foofighters.  It did work for an Our Lady Peace CD that I have though.   



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    Yeah, I find this to be quite questionable too.  I know Radiohead did something similar by allowing people to pay whatever they thought was fair and NIN is planning to do the same.  Prince is the guy who sued his own fans over sites that used photos of him because he believes photos of him are his own intellectual property.  I doubt he would release an album over the Internetz.

     

    Damn I can't remember the name of the site for free music... Ill give it when I get home. It lets artists publish songs under GPL-like license. You can donate to artists, and they take a fixed fee of like 50 cents or something like that. Also artists get a share of revenue from advertising depending on how much they were downloaded i think. Love that service and I found a few good artists that way.



  • @belgariontheking said:

    I thought he was referring to the DRM crap that some people are putting on CDs these days.  I think it was when I bought a foofighters CD that I first experienced this.  I could only rip it into wma and it wouldn't import into itunes.  The valiant effort of the record companies to alienate me as a music listener has lost them a foofighters customer.  Thank you, I'll download my foofighters now.   

    I tried using Linux to rip the CD, but it didn't work for the foofighters.  It did work for an Our Lady Peace CD that I have though.   

     

    Thats what most are saying... Its so difficult to deal with this DMCA shit that people would rather do it illegally caz its easier, less headake, more portable, and cheaper all at the same time, and no quality loss! Usually illegal methods saccrifice something, but for music you only gain.



  • @belgariontheking said:

    I think it was when I bought a foofighters CD that I first experienced this.  I could only rip it into wma and it wouldn't import into itunes.
    If I recall correctly, that was the copy-protection that could be defeated by holding down Shift when inserting it into your computer.



  • @dlikhten said:

    Thats what most are saying... Its so difficult to deal with this DMCA shit that people would rather do it illegally caz its easier, less headake, more portable, and cheaper all at the same time, and no quality loss! Usually illegal methods saccrifice something, but for music you only gain.
    Except for being, y'know, illegal...



  • @bstorer said:

    If I recall correctly, that was the copy-protection that could be defeated by holding down Shift when inserting it into your computer.
    Alternatively one could use a liveUSB distro or a full blown install (mp3c is nice if you don't mind the ncurses interface).



  • @belgariontheking said:

    I tried using Linux to rip the CD, but it didn't work for the foofighters.  It did work for an Our Lady Peace CD that I have though.
    There's two types of copy protection on audio CDs - one is defeated by disabling autorun/autplay (or by holding shift when you insert the CD), the other one is defeated by using a black permanent marker to cover the second TOC on the CD, which confuses many CD-ROM drives (most CDs with this kind of protection have a distinct ring near the outer edge, you just need to cover 1-2 cm of the outer part of the ring - you'll lose access to the data track, but there isn't really anything you'd want there anyway).



  • @ender said:

    @belgariontheking said:
    I tried using Linux to rip the CD, but it didn't work for the foofighters.  It did work for an Our Lady Peace CD that I have though.
    There's two types of copy protection on audio CDs - one is defeated by disabling autorun/autplay (or by holding shift when you insert the CD), the other one is defeated by using a black permanent marker to cover the second TOC on the CD, which confuses many CD-ROM drives (most CDs with this kind of protection have a distinct ring near the outer edge, you just need to cover 1-2 cm of the outer part of the ring - you'll lose access to the data track, but there isn't really anything you'd want there anyway).
    Very Informative, and makes sense because the rip wouldn't fail until it was finishing the last track.  I'm unsure whether I want to try it and risk never playing the CD again.



  • @dlikhten said:

    Damn I can't remember the name of the site for free music

    Did you mean: Jamendo



  • @belgariontheking said:

    Very Informative, and makes sense because the rip wouldn't fail until it was finishing the last track.  I'm unsure whether I want to try it and risk never playing the CD again.
    If the ring is clearly visible, and you never go on it's inner side, the rip will not fail, and all tracks will play fine. If you're not careful enough, you can always carefully wipe the CD with alcohol and retry.



  • @ender said:

    @belgariontheking said:
    Very Informative, and makes sense because the rip wouldn't fail until it was finishing the last track.  I'm unsure whether I want to try it and risk never playing the CD again.
    If the ring is clearly visible, and you never go on it's inner side, the rip will not fail, and all tracks will play fine. If you're not careful enough, you can always carefully wipe the CD with alcohol and retry.
    I dunno... still sounds iffy.  You better rip the contents of the CD first, just to be on the saf-- oh, right.



  • I find it quite interesting how this thread turned around. Wouldn't the current topic of this thread be worth its own? 



  • @TheRider said:

    I find it quite interesting how this thread turned around. Wouldn't the current topic of this thread be worth its own?

    That's usually how they go. It's one of the quirks that makes this forum interesting. Splitting the topic out, though, just wouldn't be fun. Once it's in, there it stays -- until it's brought up again in the future.



  • @AbbydonKrafts said:

    until it's brought up again in the future.
    Don't say that!



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    Also, as a 16 year old, PeriSoft arguably could have done some odd-jobs and made the cash to buy the software legally.  I'm also going to assume that he wasn't destitute and spent plenty of money on movies, fast food and (if he's anything like most HS students) weed.
     

     Alas for me, I had no car and lived way out in the sticks, so odd jobs weren't a possibility. And my family didn't really have extra money - not that we were  starving, but we really didn't tend to get fast food or go to movies. There were plenty of other things more important than software (say, summer college programs or whatever) that I didn't do because we didn't have the cash. And no, I didn't smoke weed. I'm (was?) a dork who ended up hanging out on TDWTF forums; you think I wasn't a computer-attached loner? :P I had a computer, but it was a hand-me-down from my dad's business, which was basically worthless, so I couldn't even have pulled off a folk tale kind of thing and sold it so I could afford software...

     So, no, it didn't cost Adobe a sale. In fact, as you say, I now run a business which uses paid-for software, including Photoshop. The reason for that? I learned it inside and out when I was a kid...

    Are there situations in which the 'I wasn't going to buy it anyway' argument doesn't hold water? Absolutely. Video games are a pretty good example; I don't pirate games even if I'm not going to pay for them, because I *could* pay for them. I detest the RIAA (not because they won't let me download limp bizkit albums for free, but due to their stances on fair use and mandatory DRM) but that means I don't buy music, not that I pirate it. The issue is complex, but basically I let my moral compass guide me: If I snag a copy of a $45,000 nonlinear editing suite so I can make a video of my kid to show him when he's 10, I don't think I'm ripping off the company that made it. But if I rip off a copy of Powerstrip or Zoom Player for my home theater, I really am costing those developers money, and I don't want to do that.

    On a strict scale, the former is far worse than the latter, but I don't see it that way. 

     Regardless, (yes, this is a bad troll-feeding) copyright infringement != theft, whatever side of the moral fence you're on.



  • @belgariontheking said:

    Don't say that!

    Controversy doesn't die. It just gets buried for a little while until someone comes along with a shovel. Heck.. we can't even keep some of the more mundane threads down.



  • @AbbydonKrafts said:

    Heck.. we can't even keep some of the more mundane threads down.
    Much less stop old ones from being revived...  *snicker*



  • @ender said:

    the other one is defeated by using a black permanent marker to cover the second TOC on the CD, which confuses many CD-ROM drives (most CDs with this kind of protection have a distinct ring near the outer edge, you just need to cover 1-2 cm of the outer part of the ring - you'll lose access to the data track, but there isn't really anything you'd want there anyway).
     

    If you have a drive manufactured by Plextor, you can use "Single Session mode" to defeat this kind of protection.  Unfortunately, Plextor has discontinued all its own drives, and now only sells "re-badged" units (manufactured and designed by someone else, with Plextor's brand name slapped on them.)



  • @CodeSimian said:

    If you have a drive manufactured by Plextor, you can use "Single Session mode" to defeat this kind of protection.
    I've got an ancient Teac CD-R55S (4x12 SCSI CD-R), which seems to be immune to all kinds of copyprotections. Reads just about anything I put in (except for CD-RWs).



  • I think that's the exact same one I use all the time to grab my audio CDs. I clearly remember having grabbed a CD that indicated it was copy protected in its fine print. There was no sign of copy protection whatsoever when I grabbed it.



  • @PeriSoft said:

    Alas for me, I had no car and lived way out in the sticks, so odd jobs weren't a possibility. And my family didn't really have extra money - not that we were  starving, but we really didn't tend to get fast food or go to movies. There were plenty of other things more important than software (say, summer college programs or whatever) that I didn't do because we didn't have the cash. And no, I didn't smoke weed. I'm (was?) a dork who ended up hanging out on TDWTF forums; you think I wasn't a computer-attached loner? :P I had a computer, but it was a hand-me-down from my dad's business, which was basically worthless, so I couldn't even have pulled off a folk tale kind of thing and sold it so I could afford software...

     So, no, it didn't cost Adobe a sale. In fact, as you say, I now run a business which uses paid-for software, including Photoshop. The reason for that? I learned it inside and out when I was a kid...

    Are there situations in which the 'I wasn't going to buy it anyway' argument doesn't hold water? Absolutely. Video games are a pretty good example; I don't pirate games even if I'm not going to pay for them, because I *could* pay for them. I detest the RIAA (not because they won't let me download limp bizkit albums for free, but due to their stances on fair use and mandatory DRM) but that means I don't buy music, not that I pirate it. The issue is complex, but basically I let my moral compass guide me: If I snag a copy of a $45,000 nonlinear editing suite so I can make a video of my kid to show him when he's 10, I don't think I'm ripping off the company that made it. But if I rip off a copy of Powerstrip or Zoom Player for my home theater, I really am costing those developers money, and I don't want to do that.

    On a strict scale, the former is far worse than the latter, but I don't see it that way. 

     Regardless, (yes, this is a bad troll-feeding) copyright infringement != theft, whatever side of the moral fence you're on.

    Look, you can try rationalize it all you want, but it is still theft.  You are benefitting from the work of someone else without paying for it.  You can't just say "oh well, this program costs more than I'm willing to pay so I will just use it for free since I would not have purchased it".  I mean, you can say that, but don't try to lie and say it isn't stealing.  There are times when I engage in the same behavior, but I don't pretend it's anything less than theft.  Also, I said that there are plenty of times when I would look the other way if I was the IP owner in question.  Your experience with Photoshop is the perfect example of that: get 'em hooked early and they will pay for it when they have the cash, but that firmly remains the right of the IP holder to determine.  Just because it strikes me as a good business decision doesn't mean it overrides Adobe's property rights.  Large software publishers do this all the time, too, by giving discounts to students and free software to schools.  Once again, it is their property to give away, but Microsoft giving some school 1500 copies of XP for free doesn't mean I can just take a copy as well since they didn't get paid for those other copies.

     

    I'm tired of this argument.  You're going to do what you're going to do, but you are inherently incorrect about the issue of theft.  By choosing to spend you money on other things you are giving up the opportunity to own Adobe's software and if you go ahead and take it anyway, you are stealing from them.  You cannot eat your cake and have it too.  By deriving benefit from their work without paying them for it, you are hurting the company and when hundreds of thousands of people act just like you, it adds up to real big losses.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

     

    I agree with that point... However due to that exact point that you made many companies are going to the original computer model of: Let the software be free, and we will charge for services on it. You can download Savage 2 for free, you can even play it LAN for free. However if you want what s2games has to offer, then you pay them for the game and you get to use their online playing. You can't steal that unless you hack, and it won't be a permenent solution. Many independent game companies actually don't put copy-protection on their games because they know that people will pay to use the online features which is what the game was designed for (such as Sins of a Solar Empire for something recent).

     

    When users get "hooked" on the software, then they will buy it. HOWEVER if the price for the software is unreasonable, then users will steal it. Its like drugs, just caz I can be hooked on coke does not mean that I will buy it, I might wind up stealing it.

    Linux is free, and Red Hat makes tons of money.



  •  Name of the music service is Jamendo



  • @dlikhten said:

    I agree with that point... However due to that exact point that you made many companies are going to the original computer model of: Let the software be free, and we will charge for services on it. You can download Savage 2 for free, you can even play it LAN for free. However if you want what s2games has to offer, then you pay them for the game and you get to use their online playing. You can't steal that unless you hack, and it won't be a permenent solution. Many independent game companies actually don't put copy-protection on their games because they know that people will pay to use the online features which is what the game was designed for (such as Sins of a Solar Empire for something recent).

     

    When users get "hooked" on the software, then they will buy it. HOWEVER if the price for the software is unreasonable, then users will steal it. Its like drugs, just caz I can be hooked on coke does not mean that I will buy it, I might wind up stealing it.

    Linux is free, and Red Hat makes tons of money.

    I actually agree with quite a bit of this, but my original point wasn't which business model is more suitable for a particular publisher, but whether taking something you don't intend to buy is theft.  I do think too much time is spent on copy-protection schemes that only hurt paying customers.  I'm all for alternative models for selling software, especially if they benefit the producer and consumer more than the present models. 



  • @dlikhten said:

    Linux is free, and Red Hat makes tons of money.
    Windows is not free, and Microsoft makes a whole hell of a lot more money than Red Hat.  The whole Eric S. Raymond/"The bazaar is superior and eventually the cathedral will fall" mindset needs to face the fact that the old ways are the old ways because they made money.



  • @PeriSoft said:

    If I snag a copy of a $45,000 nonlinear editing suite so I can make a video of my kid to show him when he's 10, I don't think I'm ripping off the company that made it.

    So you're saying it's okay to steal a Porsche as long as you don't drive it over 55? Yes, I know you'd be actually depriving them of the raw materials in that case, but one car isn't going to impact a company of that size.



  • @Cap'n Steve said:

    So you're saying it's okay to steal a Porsche as long as you don't drive it over 55? Yes, I know you'd be actually depriving them of the raw materials in that case, but one car isn't going to impact a company of that size.

    That's pretty good, but I feel like there's a more accurate analogy out there.  Something like, "you think it's okay to break into your neighbor's house and sit on his couch when he isn't there?"  I mean, he's not using the couch, he has no way of knowing and you certainly aren't depriving him of his couch or really "using it up". 



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @lolwtf said:

    I wish people would stop feeding this BS to the public. If you never intended to buy the software(/music/etc) in the first place, it's not a lost sale.

    That's the most idiotic thing I've ever heard.  Do you actually think about this stuff before you open your mouth?  How can you even rationalize a statement like that?  "If I never meant to buy it, it's okay if I just take it because they wouldn't have had my money anyway."  That's theft, you're just desperately trying to justify your own behavior.  If you read what I wrote, I said I've committed plenty of piracy before and there are many times when I consider it to be a reasonable method of exploring new content.  But I still believe it is theft all the same.

    So who is this "theft" hurting in this scenario? Nevermind that I never said anything about it not being theft. The question is not whether it's theft. The question is why anyone should care.

    @morbiuswilters said:

    I justify it morally because I will buy the album if I like it and delete the downloaded tracks if I don't.
    Pot, meet kettle.



  • @lolwtf said:

    @morbiuswilters said:
    I justify it morally because I will buy the album if I like it and delete the downloaded tracks if I don't.
    Pot, meet kettle.
     

    At least morbius is not in denial about anything here...

    You OTH have a lot of learning/growing to do.


Log in to reply