Tapedecks and videorecorders anyone?

[Ciaccona]

Originally Posted by HobbyCore

You need to take a introductory course in debate, logic and ethics. Your statements are exemplary violations of all three subjects.

The credibility of the words NEVER depends on the spokesman! The ethics of a subject also should never depend on the number of people who engage in it, nor should it concern the debater if they've personally engaged in it.

Here's some cursory reading for your courtesy of wikipedia. Feel free to branch out to more reliable sources.

Ad hominem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Tu quoque - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think you're trying to imply some sort of conflict of interest when such a concept should not apply to open debate on a subject. Bias is an inherent part of any discussion, and the only thing that should matter is the subject at hand and not the backgrounds of the engaging parties.

Haha, I've had 10 years of Latin thus I do understand it pretty well and I did answer on your point already in my last post.

ok I'll express it as simple as possible so that you get it:

I don't think a person who recorded tapes from the radio or tv should now complain about anyone downloading music from torrents because in my opinion it's just as wrong.

On the credibility:

If you see a tv ad by a Hollywood actor protesting against animal cruelty and the use of animal skin for clothes and in the following show you see an interview with her wearing a leather jacket and a fur around the neck...

[Ciaccona]

Originally Posted by chrisso

Yes, this is easy to argue away.
Firstly, it was for the most part illegal back in the day.
Record and movie sales came under threat from the late 70's onwards.
There was plenty of publicized hullaballoo in the 80's about home taping, it's wrong to say there wasn't.
Back then music fans were interested in the packaging, liner notes etc, so many people did buy the albums they first heard on a friends cassette.
Also, people bought the albums, then got around to making tapes of them. In todays case, the free downloads are often available before the record is even released.
Same with movies.
I used to tape movies of the television.
But they were mostly shown three or more years after the initial cinema release. As above, scenes were re-edited/deleted, and the film was often peppered with annoying ads.
Copying and reselling of music and movies onto good quality digital media (CDR and DVDR) has always been illegal, and I've never had anything to do with it.
So the short answer is, no....it has always been illegal, and it has always effected music and movie sales, except now it's gone from a minor problem out of a few kids bedrooms to a mass market, on an industrial level as per The Pirate Bay.

Why is it completely tolerated in the society now when a famous artist talks about his beginnings when he used to exchange mixtapes of music with his friends etc.?

So, if taping a movie that's four years old is ok in your opinion, following your logic it would be fine to download all Led Zeppelin stuff.
Come on, these are 30 years old! ...
Also, you'd be fine with kids watching 4 years old movies online on site right?

Again, I don't argue for pirates, I'm doing the exact opposite.

[Batchainpuller78]

every post here stated reasons why there is a difference in downloading and making a copy to tape.
I think they are pretty valid points, apparently you cannot see that.
Try be a bootlegger in those days, then you really knew how it felt to be a criminal, and the action, material involved and means of distribution you just can't compare with having a file somewhere on a site where the whole of internet connected world can download it and make even more copies of that.
You are using a worldwide very expensive platform for illegal activities.

[Ciaccona]

[QUOTE=Batchainpuller78;4125834]every post here stated reasons why there is a difference in downloading and making a copy to tape.
[QUOTE]

pardon?
Did you even read all the replies?

[Ciaccona]

[QUOTE=Batchainpuller78;4125834]
Try be a bootlegger in those days, then you really knew how it felt to be a criminal, and the action, material involved and means of distribution you just can't compare with having a file somewhere on a site where the whole of internet connected world can download it and make even more copies of that.
QUOTE]

It's just as easy to record a movie.
Two clicks. And there's a wide offer of movies worldwide on thousands of channels as well.

[Batchainpuller78]

Just read the posts.

hmm try bootlegging vinyl or making tapes, you need tape recorders and actually for every copy you made you needed a physical medium, a cassette so making a thousand copies is using a thousand cassettes, a big difference in just a few mouseclicks and millions can download it to their pc... is it that hard to see? bitte bitte

as for led zep, their manager took care of people bootlegging, the story goes they even visited london recordstores and demanded the bootlegs would be handed over.

[chrisso]

Gotta agree with the batman.

[Ciaccona]

Originally Posted by Batchainpuller78

Just read the posts.

hmm try bootlegging vinyl or making tapes, you need tape recorders and actually for every copy you made you needed a physical medium, a cassette so making a thousand copies is using a thousand cassettes, a big difference in just a few mouseclicks and millions can download it to their pc... is it that hard to see? bitte bitte

as for led zep, their manager took care of people bootlegging, the story goes they even visited london recordstores and demanded the bootlegs would be handed over.

I wasn't talking bootlegs at all.
I see that it's harder to record a show compared to downloading
but what about all the other ways of copying that I referred to?

[Batchainpuller78]

Touche you got me on semantics, let's say I included in the term bootlegger not only people copying illegally taped shows or unreleased material but also officially released material from an artist that gets copied and sold without the artist or the record company seeing a dime from these copies.

still the same... copying for home use or private use was allowed on usually an inferior medium than the one it was released on.
As Beermaster noted taxation was on blanc discs as with cd recorders we could duplicate the material exactly.
If you were planning on buying the latest Led zep album in the 70's and would want to damage the artists and company in the same way as today...
well you needed to set up a very large tapecopying center in your basement and would need to find a way of distributing that to millions of people worldwide.. good luck with that. it's a huge difference.
not just a few mouseclicks.

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by Ciaccona

I wasn't talking bootlegs at all.
I see that it's harder to record a show compared to downloading
but what about all the other ways of copying that I referred to?

He wasn't talking about live shows.
Essentially the difference is buying or borrowing a record or movie, then recording them in real time onto solid media (like a cassette) with a tape deck.
So you need time, copying equipment and media to copy onto.

Compared with filesharing.....virtually no time involved and no media required.