justification for the RIAA's subpeona's?

Trippy discussions of moral issues, conspiracy theories, the paranormal and other otherworldly phenomenon.

Moderator: Dracofrost

justification for the RIAA's subpeona's?

Postby TerraFrost » Mon Sep 13, 2004 1:35 am

despite claims of rampant piracy, the MPAA and the RIAA are continuisly posting record profits. does this mean that the MPAA / RIAA should just back off? well, perhapes. it does mean that the justification that they use - that they're losing money - is wrong. however, it seems quite possible that people are more likely to buy things that they liked when they pirated because of the potential legal consequences they may face. ie. people may sample a wide-variety of things through piracy, and without the RIAA subpeoning people (among other things), they might not buy it. however, since the RIAA is doing it, might people be more inclined to buy things that they wouldn't have otherwise bought?
TerraFrost
Legendary Guard
 
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 6:37 am

Postby ChatOmbre » Mon Sep 13, 2004 3:00 am

eh, actually, I've kept with my spending habits. I tend to horde my money, and rarely buy myself CDs. I have, however, been exposed to more types of music since the whole downloading thing came about.
Queen of the PointyShiney

"Too much ink is drawn to describe and define love. Why describe it and define it? Take my hand and let's just take a ride through it. Love is... Love is... Let's just go for awhile, leaving ourselves for each other." --Mike Smith
User avatar
ChatOmbre
Heroic Guard
 
Posts: 3519
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2003 7:41 pm
Location: somewhere over the rainbow

Postby shahmask » Mon Sep 13, 2004 4:48 am

where do u come up with these rediculous questions? they're not even really questions. u give so many supposisions that your question can't even be answered because even your supositions are rediculous.
User avatar
shahmask
Castle Guard
 
Posts: 508
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2003 4:07 am
Location: in the valley of silicon hills

Postby TerraFrost » Mon Sep 13, 2004 5:44 am

i think you missed the point of my post.

i presented a thought which people may or may not have considered, and thusly attempted to pave the way for a discussion.

the inclusion of the question mark wasn't intended to ask a question so much as it was intended to indicate that i was trying to inspire other thoughts from other people.

you, evidently (and correct me if i'm wrong), think that the subject isn't worthy of thought as the true state of things is obvious. not that that fact really changes anything, though. i mean, to a creationist (for example), creationism is obvious - however, it doesn't mean that it's right (just ask any evolutionist).

i suppose you may believe this subject to be a little different because it really *is* obvious (unlike creationism vs. evolutionism), but then again... who decides what really *is* obvious and what isn't? i'm gonna guess that it's the masses who do that. however, the masses are only aware of a thought after it has been publisized, sufficiently. so whom then decides the obviousness of *new* thoughts? obviouslly (lol), the individual considering the thought. of course, since no individual is infallable, i would recommend not dismissing thoughts such as these with such haste.

if you have any thoughts on that, too, feel free to post 'em :)
TerraFrost
Legendary Guard
 
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 6:37 am

Postby shahmask » Mon Sep 13, 2004 4:01 pm

well, u were trying to inspire thoughts, perhaps u can come up with a list of talking points instead of makeing suposition UPON supostion and then asking if u think this is true/right/etc. or not. not that this is the thread to be debating your or my posting strateegies/thoughts/etc. :) but, i guess since u say i misread your post/question/whathave u, i will perhaps consider your post. although, i don't feel like rereading it again and trying to pull out relevent thoughts.
User avatar
shahmask
Castle Guard
 
Posts: 508
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2003 4:07 am
Location: in the valley of silicon hills

Postby TerraFrost » Mon Sep 13, 2004 9:29 pm

well, thinking about it is completly optional, heh, but as for my making suposition upon suposition - i don't see it that way. i was trying to make a single supposition that cannot be made in a single sentance. consequently, i used several sentances.

now, i will grant that i could have made it more eloquent, but to be quite blunt, although i cared enough about it to make a post, i don't care enough about it to labor over it to make it as eloquent as it can possibly be, to the derelection of other things.

EDIT: and what's wrong with ridiculous suppositions, anyway? what's wrong with making questionable assumptions simply for the sake of argument? i once created a thread which attempted to discuss whether or not gay marriages should be legal IF the state sought population increases. was that a ridiculous supposition?

likewise, would a thread attempting to discuss what life would be like IF the germans had won world war 2 be making a ridiculous supposition?

i suspect your answers will be yes and no, respectively. if so, then i have to wonder - WHY isn't the second questions supposition ridiculous? it is a *completly* invalid supposition, whereas the first one is simply iffy. so why is it so easy to assume something that is undeniably false for the sake of argument when it is so tough to make an iffy assumption?

indeed, assuming an iffy assumption is true for the sake of argument is a LOT more productive than assuming an undeniably false assumption, for it can lead to formal *proofs* that things *can't* be this way. an demonstration follows:

All cats walk on four legs, and Bob walks on two legs (ie. he doesn't walk on four). So, for the sake of argument, assume Bob is a cat. If he's a cat, he therefore has four legs. However, because Bob is known to walk on two legs (and not on four), we have a contradiction. And thus concludes the proof, by contradiction, that Bob isn't a cat.
Last edited by TerraFrost on Mon Sep 13, 2004 10:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
TerraFrost
Legendary Guard
 
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 6:37 am

Postby ChatOmbre » Mon Sep 13, 2004 9:35 pm

I don't see anything wrong with what or how Terra posted.
Queen of the PointyShiney

"Too much ink is drawn to describe and define love. Why describe it and define it? Take my hand and let's just take a ride through it. Love is... Love is... Let's just go for awhile, leaving ourselves for each other." --Mike Smith
User avatar
ChatOmbre
Heroic Guard
 
Posts: 3519
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2003 7:41 pm
Location: somewhere over the rainbow

Postby shahmask » Tue Sep 14, 2004 5:09 am

i don't have a problem with a rediculous supposition. it's the way u piled them on and on. it makes for difficult conversation because they are piled on so high. if it's just 1 supposition, it's fine. your gay marriage and germans are both ok. even 1 or 2 more upon that would be fine. but your riaa thing is just so piled.
User avatar
shahmask
Castle Guard
 
Posts: 508
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2003 4:07 am
Location: in the valley of silicon hills

Postby Dracofrost » Tue Sep 14, 2004 5:57 am

Please, let's not argue over how other people are arguing and stay on topic. If you aren't going to reply to the initial post, don't reply at all.
User avatar
Dracofrost
Frost Drake
Frost Drake
 
Posts: 6683
Joined: Thu Dec 05, 2002 4:55 am
Location: Crossed into the Blue


Return to Twilight Zone

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron