To download mp3s or not to download?

[somethingforkaty]

This is a discussion continued on from this thread: sfkforthenovice.proboards1.com/index.cgi?board=1&thread=1091712672&action=display&start=150

Some of the latest comments on this discussion in the past thread were:

singing said:

And? Real fans support the band. I'm not saying I'm hardcore because I bought it, I'm just saying I appreciate this is how they earn an income.

ferris said:

i also think it's showing that you appreciate that the music worth the 25$.

Shwatta said:

There are other ways to support a band.

Troy said:

is there? IS THERE?!

^{*Dan checks rule book on supporting bands*}

darn it he's right! like bands get more profits from sales of gig tickets than cds...but owning a cd is pretty cool.

ferris said:

yeah but if you don't buy the albums then why should everybody else? and if everybody else doesn't buy the records then why would they make them? and if they don't make the records who would go see them do a gig? and if they don't do gigs then you can't support them at all can you? infact there would be no music for anybody.

so if you want music buy it.

that kinda sounds like a teachers lecture on why you shouldn't cheat on an exam... it's boring and tedious.. but i'm sorry.. it's true too. even if all the money from records goes to record companies.. we still need the record companies to put the records out. much as we love to hate them.


{edit - typo}

Tiberius said:

Although I’d always buy the album of a band I love (unless it had Copy Protection Shit), allow me to play the role of devil’s advocate as a counterpoint to the previous post.

Would there really be no music if record companies didn’t exist? Wouldn’t people still create music for the love of it as a means of expression? And wouldn’t they be able to distribute their music via the internet and via playing it live at gigs? They wouldn’t make as much as money as they would under the present system and they might have to do it more as a hobby than a viable career, but… there would still be music.

ferris said:

you're right.. it wouldn't be the death of music.. but they'd have to keep their day jobs.. that'd make it very hard to tour. you'd be stuck listening to the music in your own city... don't get me wrong.. i like listening to local stuff.. but if i couldn't go to those big concerts with my favourite bands from overseas.. or even the little ones.. i'd be pretty bummed. i don't want to have to fly for 20 hours just to see a band i like play.

plus they'd have less time and oppourtinity to write music. they'd also have no reason to record.. so we would only have the live stuff to download off the internet - and only if someone records it, and that's usually not the best quality. and besides that, if you do have to keep your day job anyway, why not just play in your bedroom instead.. it's easier.. less energy consuming (for when you have to get up in the morning to go to work)...?
and it could possibly make gigs very expensive events...

music has been a part of society since the cave men. not buying it wouldn't kill it. but it might make it harder for us to listen to it so conveniently.


having said all that, yeah.. i do borrow stuff from people to put onto my computer (effectively the same as downloading it), but if i listen to it a lot i do go buy it. someone else said they use it sort of as a screen, to figure out what they like so they can buy it.. i do that. but if i like it i buy it. eg - the first sfk music i had was a burnt copy of echolalia. i went out a few weeks later and bought 3 of their albums.

singing said:

And? Real fans support the band. I'm not saying I'm hardcore because I bought it, I'm just saying I appreciate this is how they earn an income.

somethingforkaty said:

An important point has been missed. You don't just walk into Kmart and take a few bottles of coke because you believe it's your right.

Nor do you walk into an art gallery and start taking random paintings off the wall.

This is their art, something they worked hard on, created, and spent a shit load of money producing.

You don't have a right to simply steal it without paying for it - simple as that.

People don't see it as stealing because it's not the same as walking into a CD store and physically taking a CD and not paying for it - but it is the same thing, having the same consequences - you obtaining something illegally you should have paid for.

You have no right to demand that Something for Kate or any other band for that matter put so much time, effort and MONEY into a CD and then give it to you for free. And then, have the hide to try and suggest that they are some sort of money hungry capitalists for expecting people to pay for their music and being disappointed when people are stealing it?

[somethingforkaty]

Guest-Aemon said:

Let me add some shades of grey to this b&w argument. The Kmart analogy holds true in some circumstances, such as with the John Butler Trio, who are on their own independent label and have a distribution deal with Shock. To download JBT albums is stealing from the artist, as the majority of the profits go to them.

Sfk are different. Their share of every album sold is less than a dollar. If you dispute that go look it up. It's a fact. Thus the theft is more like walking into Kmart and taking (for whatever crazy reason) some carpet trimmings. To the band, it's inconsequential.

Touring is how bands like SFK make money. It makes far more sense to go to a few shows if you want to support an artist than to buy their album. Crunch the numbers and you'll see it yourself.

Yes, in theory p2p d/l is a bad thing, but mostly for the record companies. It's a great thing for artists. We'll see that in ten years.

Troy said:

i didn't say to stop buying cds. i'm a big cd buyer (109 originals on last count, i hate burnt cds), i was just AGREEING with the fact that you can support an artist other than just buying a cd.

somethingforkaty said:

400+ and counting

Evidently yes, there are many ways to support an artist. Just because there is it does not justify stealing music because you bought a few T-Shirts.




Surely your joking right?

A bottle of Coke may cost say $2.50. ALL of this money will not go to Coca Cola - some of it must cover production and distribution of the actual product. If Coke only made $0.50 a bottle does this mean that since you don't believe it's a worthwhile profit to them that you simply have the right to it for free?

Does it not work the same way producing an album? Do you have any idea how much it would cost to record an album, distribution, advertising, press releases, film clips and everything else? The record company must recoop the money they have invested in the band. They need some kind of incentive to invest this money [which is a LOT of money] because there would be times that they wouldn't get it back. This is getting repaid, and making a profit if the artist does considerably well. They are not a charity - they are a business.

You don't know for a fact that they only earn $1. Rumour has it that most artists only earn that much but there is no way that you could possibly know how much exactly. Even if they DID, Something for Kate have sold at least 200,000 CDs which makes a staggering $200,000. Does this figure still seem insignificant to you?

Your argument about touring is even more confusing. Crunch the numbers? You're kidding again right? The same process happens. Do you really think the band takes home what the ticket price is or something? It costs a lot of money [again] to put on a tour, hotels, travel, general expenses, staff etc. If Something for Kate were only getting a small share of ticket sales for their concerts [which they probably are], would you then again decide that it's nothing to them so you should get the right to see the concert for free?

But hey, they must sell heaps of t-shirts ... so those capitalist bastards should just be happy with that, then invest their OWN money [because they are so rich and all] into making a CD ... then give it away for free! Yes, who said writing/recording and sweating out amazing art and music for 6 months was worth anything ... least of all money! Lucky they are such considerate people ... without making any money from consistant album sales they should probably all be out working 9-5 jobs just so that they can afford to eat which wouldn't enable them to write at all. But hey that's not my problem!

Better yet, what if they just get someone else with lots of money to give them the money to record! Hmm I know, a record company! Don't tell them they won't be getting a single thing out of it and that they won't even get the money they spend back ... cause hey as long as YOU get the CD for free who gives a fuck right?

"It's a great thing for artists. We'll see that in ten years."
Sorry I didn't realise that you had a TIME MACHINE. I also didn't realise that you have never recorded an album in your life, but are the self-elected spokesman for whats good for artists and what isn't.

Nothing personal against you or anyone else ... just my opinion on this subject.

Shwatta said:

It entirely comes down to how guilty you feel about downloading music. I see you guys (most) have morals, I the other hand have little or no problem from downloading stuff (i say stuff, because i get a shitload of movies/tv episodes) purely because i gain financially from it.

I am literally saving myself hundreds of dollars a month by downloading stuff that i would want to buy, and i dont feel guilty at all. The only means to which i can make it all seem just, is that i am not the only one doing it.....

Anyone that is purely against downloading anything at all because they believe it is stealing, are naive tools who need to wake up to our century.

The next ten years, people's internet will only get faster and our means to electronically steal with grow stronger. There is no way to stop it.

ferris said:

dude, we're* not being completely self-less here saying that we don't believe in stealing music. we want to be able to keep getting music. we like bands to be able to write, record, distribute and tour their music. there are selfish motives too. we're just saying that we think it's stupid to think that stealing music is ok, and that bands don't suffer from it. - and if bands suffer, we suffer 'cause we don't get the music we want.

so maybe in the magical future artists will be having a lovely time with the fairies bringing them everything they need to live and make music and flying them around the world and putting the records on the net for us to download for free and we'll all be happy and have every thing we want for nothing.

but in the real future.. i just don't see it happening like that.

if it was easy to steal coke and everyone did it and no one got caught, coke would stop making coke. they'd be pretty stupid not to. i mean, why make something if people wont buy it and will steal it instead?

you can't get something for nothing. it's a rule. it just doesn't happen.. ask the scientists, ask the business people, ask the philosophers, ask absolutely any intellegent person and i'm pretty sure they'd agree.

so if everyone thinks they can get music for nothing, they shouldn't be shocked if they can't get it at all later on.


*note that when i say "we" i mean "me", but i think i'm probably speaking for others here too - if not, feel free to argue.. it's what we're here for

pinstripeme said:

that's a pretty sad statement/outlook.

i'm positive this statement isn't 100% true. in this world there are generous/charitable/good hearted people out there who will give and contribute without hoping for something in return

[somethingforkaty]

ferris said:

ah, i found it

this is kind of a long rant, but interesting. adam duritz does have a record contract and does tour a whole lot (most of his life) and does make, market and distribute albums.. so he's probably got a better idea than any of us.

06.19.03 (2) - Still in Vienna
Just a little response to some of your responses:

Someone said it's different making an album than going to work because not everyone has the opportunity to derive endless profits/royalties from one piece of work but that's not really true. Of course everyone has the opportunity; it's just extremely hard to make any one thing that lasts like that. But isn't that true of all original thinking or invention? Your logic suggests we should do away with the idea of patented invention entirely. Should you get your light bulbs for free or did Edison deserve his royalties? How about the guy who invented the dishwasher or the power window for your car or that cool mop that squeezes the water out for you or those strips that make your breath minty? People come up with ideas all the time and the truly original useful ones often make them fortunes. Do they not deserve the money just because you didn't think of their ideas yourself? I think you would be discouraging a lot of mankind's progress with this type of thinking.

Have you ever taken the time to think of how many band's original pieces of work you passed by every time you decided to buy a Counting Crows album? Think about that and then consider how hard it is to come up with something that lasts forever or even lasts long enough to be noticed. What band had a medium sized hit this year and will be never heard from again? Think of someone. Whoever they are, they are in the top 2% of the music made this year. The rest you will never even hear of.

But your other point is that we don't go to work each day like you do. What do you think I am doing right now? What have I been doing for the past year and a half? I've been touring of course, trying to promote this album. Sometimes we make money touring, but a lot of the time, you're just making enough to break even while you try to keep your album alive. It's the reason we've lasted as long as we have. We tour and tour and tour and tour. We tour for at least a year and a half on every record and believe me, it's work, and without it, we might be one of those bands you don't notice anymore.

What else was there? Oh yeah, who leaks the music? It could be tons of people but I can almost guarantee you it's not the people you think are hypocritically criticizing the leaks. There's no way it's the band unless you hear about them doing it on purpose as a publicity stunt. I told you we've lost 50% of our earnings in the last few years and no one in their right mind does that on purpose unless they do it for the publicity. It may be someone at the record companies but it's no one near the top unless they've got a grudge. They're the ones losing their jobs over this and if you've ever been fired, you know that's not all that much fun. It could easily be, and most likely is, someone lower at the companies or at the radio stations, or in the media. There are literally thousands of copies sent to local record company branches and reps all over America and the world which are then sent to radio station programmers, concert promoters, journalists, television bookers and god knows who else, all in the intere st of getting people excited about the upcoming album and tours. Since the web is worldwide, all it takes is for 1 single person to put it out there and it's everywhere in an instant. Whoever had the idea that only the single is released is partially right, but that only applies to more singles oriented music. For a band like Counting Crows or Radiohead, that wouldn't apply. You might even be sending it out to solicit opinions on singles choices. You certainly are sending it out to be reviewed. So everyone would be getting the whole album in all likelihood.

Some of you complain that artists are getting millions of dollars in cell phone ring tone fees, of all things. Well, what may seem like a lot of money when taken in total can't be very much when you boil it down because I haven't noticed a penny of it and I'm sure there are people out there with Mr. Jones on their phones. Music has been around for a long time and however much money that is, it's divided up between a lot of songs. Anyways, it's still just royalties being paid for someone's original work.

You complain that if the record companies are losing money, it's because they pay ungodly sums in royalties to artists you hate. Well, Mariah Carey aside, royalties are paid for records sold. You may hate these artists, but someone likes them and they are buying their records. People are allowed to like whatever they like, and although I'm not crazy about all the trends in music all the time or all the bad business deals, the fact remains that neither of these things is doing the real damage or changes the fact that people simply do not want to pay for what they can get for free. You talk about how your life is unfair compared to some artists, but everybody gets the same chance in life unless you've been seriously discriminated against, which is a different situation. The thing about this profession is that it is extremely difficult and extremely rare to succeed at it.

You're all very interesting. I didn't know about the VAT tax being different for music than for all other forms of art. That's strange. Thanks for telling me that.

And I don't really think you should get down on each other if someone changes their opinion after hearing something I say or something anyone says. What's the point of communicating at all if you aren't at least conscious of the possibility that someone may listen and be affected by what you say? It seems to me it's much more important and, in the end, braver to be the kind of person who can change what they think. No one's right all the time.

Wow. It's 7:30. I should get some dinner. All night drive to the Southside festival tonight. Tomorrow I get to see Brendan Benson and then Radiohead. Yahoo!



Adam.CountingCrows.com

[somethingforkaty]

ferris said:

damnit.. that one's good, but now i've found the better one. it's so much to read.. i doubt any of you will read them anyway.. but here it is.

06.19.03 - Vienna, Austria
I've just been reading a few things some of you wrote about Lars Ullrich and the other members of Metallica and it kind if disturbed me so I thought I'd throw my two cents in. This is an issue that seems to piss people off but I generally think of Counting Crows fans as pretty thoughtful so hopefully you'll at least think about what I have to say before reacting.

It's easy to look at music piracy as a kind if "Robin Hood" thing where it's harmless because you're somehow only stealing from rich people and it's also easy to think that the little theft you commit is so small that it makes no difference in the big picture but I don't think either one of these things is true and here's why. As for the second part, well the simple fact is that sales are down almost 50% in the record business since napster came along and it will only get worse.

The first part is a little more complicated, but how would you feel if you went to work each week and did your job like everybody else, but somebody took half your pay for no reason other than the fact that they could? Would you think it was fair even if they said it was because they had decided you made too much money? How much worse would it be if you knew that your career would probably only last a few years, if it even lasted that long? Let me put it to you this way. Have you ever considered the fact that the way musicians are paid is one of the only truly fair and honorable pay systems out there? I'm not going to argue with you that there are a lot of people out there making more than they deserve. A lot of people get paid a pretty high salary whether they do a fair amount of work or not. But it doesn't work that way for us. We make money only two ways.



1) We get a percentage of every record sold
2) We get a percentage of every ticket sold


In the first case, you get a record and in the second case, you get a show. What I'm trying to say is: there is NO money we get for which YOU do not receive something in return. How is that unfair to you? You may think cd's are too expensive. Maybe they are, but they cost a lot of money to make sometimes and they cost a shitload of money to promote, market, and, lest we forget, pay the crooked radio stations to play. I personally wish they cost a little less, but the fact is that the record companies are having trouble staying afloat as it is so you can't really expect them to lower prices too much when they can't get their shit together to make money as it is. Either way, our percentage is pretty small and it only gets smaller when nobody pays for it.

Which brings me to the last point. It's very easy to take shots at us for being "greedy capitalists" but I'm not sure what that means. This is a capitalist society but that doesn't have to mean greed and you know it. It just means if you want something, you have to pay for it. I don't think that's terribly unfair. You go to the market, you buy an apple, you pay for it with money, and somewhere down the line, a farmer doesn't starve. That's a Norman Rockwell way of looking at it but it's all the same. In any case, this has been going on for hundreds and thousands of years. People always find a way of devaluing art and I don't think that's a good thing. Because what are you really saying? You're saying Saran Wrap is worth money, and TV's are worth money, and cars are worth money, and gas is worth money, and cell phones are worth money, and condoms contact lenses and guns and ammo are worth money, but art and music..those aren't worth anything. They aren't worth anything at all and I'm not going to pay for them.

So, I know piracy is unstoppable and nothing I say is going to change that. But Lars was brave because he knew everyone would hate him for what he said, but he also knew he was right and so he said it anyways. It may not be what you want to hear and therefore I'm sure it's going to piss a few of you off but it's the way I feel. It's the way we all feel, to be honest. Most just won't tell you. I really do want you to enjoy what we do and I want you to get the most out of it you can. I want you to come and take pictures and I want you to come and tape shows. I want you to hang out afterwards and talk to us and get your shit signed if that's what you want and that's what I feel like doing that night. I would like you to have it all and have a blast. But I don't want you to rip me off, and I want even less for you to rip me off and then tell me I deserve it, just because you found a way to steal without getting caught.

That's all. Saw the Stones tonight. Still so cool after all these years. Wish you could all have been there. Really wish you could all have been there. I think, as far as the Vienna audience was concerned, we might have been selling fish. High point of the evening was when I decided to add "Friend of the Devil" into the set but only half the band got the memo. Guitars started "Friend of the Devil", drums and bass and organ started "American Girls". Now we know those songs can't be played well simultaneously. Not good. Not good at all. Really wish you could all have been there. Somehow it's fun when it's you guys. Not so fun last night.

Shit, it's light out. Gotta go. Don't hate me.

ad


Adam.CountingCrows.com

ferris said:

true, but if people have been good hearted and charitable to you, wouldn't you be a very nasty person if you refused to give something in return? i mean.. it's one thing not to expect something in return, it's another to refuse to give it. also, in that example, it doesn't have to be a direct something in return. if people are good hearted and generous to you, you've just gotta be good hearted and generous to others. if no one is generous to anyone, then no one will be generous to anyone else. make sense kind of? like if a person is never generous and never good hearted, who's gonna be nice to them?


[edit] also i think it's very different taking something that hasn't been offered to you without giving anything back.
artist don't do records out of generousity. they may do many other things out of kindness, but making records is not one of them usually. they might stand for hours signing things, or play a gig when they really should be recovering from illness in bed.. or tour places they know wont give them much profit. be grateful for that. don't be grateful that you can take something from them that they haven't offered to you.

[somethingforkaty]

pinstripeme said:

My post related to the concept/theory/premise that everyone always expects or wants something in return or as you put it: "you can't get something for nothing"

I disagree with the premise.

If I do something good hearted and generous, but it is not "returned"...that is not going to change the way I continue to behave and be generous.

everyone has the "gift" of freewill and by it's nature we all control our own. If someone chooses to be selfish or always act with the motive of personal gain, then that is their choice. Their behaviour will not change my own choices, ways and values.

My character is solid enough to not let others change me.

[sarahj]

I think any argument to support burning CDs/downloading MP3s is only a way of supporting your own self-serving behaviour. At the end of the day-people lose out by burning CDs, so there really is no argument.
But having said that, I have to admit I burn a lot of CDs. I own about 500-600 CDs, and probably around 150 of those are burned. These are mostly CDs I was interested in taking a listen to, but really wouldn't have purchased, even had I not been able to listen to it another way. If I do burn a CD I end up really enjoying, I will go out and buy it, usually along with other albums of that artist. So technically, no one is really losing any money...but I know that doesn't make it right. Other people out there don't spend a penny on CDs, therefore taking money away from the artists. But you can't really say that what they're doing is more wrong that what I'm doing, because we're doing the exact same thing. Stealing from a store on every 3rd visit and paying the other 2 times doesn't mean you're not stealing. And yeah, there are other ways to support a band, such as going to their shows. But how many people can say they've been to a concert by every single artist they own an album by?
This post is very hypocritical, I know. But my morals just aren't strong enough to get me down on this issue, to be quite honest.

[Tiberius]

On the issue of is it "theft" or not, I remember hearing on Triple J months ago, the lawyer for people in the States being prosecuted by RIAA saying that it wasn't theft because there's no physical object stolen. If you go into a store and take a CD that you haven't paid for, then that is theft because you've taken a physical product that can't be sold now because you've removed it from the shelves of the store. However, downloading a copy of a song wasn't theft he claimed because there's no physical loss resulting from doing so and the artist still has the same physical amount of stock left after you've download it.
Maybe he's just arguing semantics but it was an interesting way of looking at what is "theft" I thought.

[singingcirclesaway]

That's kind of stupid I think. I'm thinking of if you steal a piece of someones elses work, but then that's plagiarism. But then that's only if you claim it as your own, yeah? But yeah, that's stealing and it's not really a physical object.

[Tiberius]

Probably yeah, but a lot of post modern artwork is based on modifying the work of other people.

[OMG, I just attempted to use the words “post modern” legitimately in something that wasn’t a uni essay. Kill me now. Argh.]

So erm, how do you deal with remix albums from DJs? Is it plagiarism or is it a valid form of self-expression?

[amelia]

My post related to the concept/theory/premise that everyone always expects or wants something in return or as you put it: "you can't get something for nothing"

I disagree with the premise.

If I do something good hearted and generous, but it is not "returned"...that is not going to change the way I continue to behave and be generous.

everyone has the "gift" of freewill and by it's nature we all control our own. If someone chooses to be selfish or always act with the motive of personal gain, then that is their choice. Their behaviour will not change my own choices, ways and values.

My character is solid enough to not let others change me.

yeah, no, i don't dissagree. i'm just being vague. i think i'm trynna discribe karma or something. not karma exactly.. but something similar. anyway.. i don't want to debate that stuff. at the moment my veiw is that people live for themselves only. and that's not bad. because if we know what's best for us we'll live for everyone but ourselves. does that make sense? like the best thing for me is to be selfless? i'll feel the best and people will treat me best and.. yeah. like it's selfish but not at the same time. but yeah. all that's irrelevant. damnit being misunderstood sucks doesn't it?

anyways... back to the topic.

[amelia]

Tiberius said:

On the issue of is it "theft" or not, I remember hearing on Triple J months ago, the lawyer for people in the States being prosecuted by RIAA saying that it wasn't theft because there's no physical object stolen. If you go into a store and take a CD that you haven't paid for, then that is theft because you've taken a physical product that can't be sold now because you've removed it from the shelves of the store. However, downloading a copy of a song wasn't theft he claimed because there's no physical loss resulting from doing so and the artist still has the same physical amount of stock left after you've download it.
Maybe he's just arguing semantics but it was an interesting way of looking at what is "theft" I thought.

one of the things AD brought up (in the long journal entries i posted above) was that it's like saying that edison didn't deserve anything for the lightbulbs people sold that he invented. like we acknowlege that inventors can have patented idea, but when it comes to art.. creators desrve nothing.

here it is (he says things a lot more eloquently then i ever could):

Your logic suggests we should do away with the idea of patented invention entirely. Should you get your light bulbs for free or did Edison deserve his royalties? How about the guy who invented the dishwasher or the power window for your car or that cool mop that squeezes the water out for you or those strips that make your breath minty? People come up with ideas all the time and the truly original useful ones often make them fortunes. Do they not deserve the money just because you didn't think of their ideas yourself? I think you would be discouraging a lot of mankind's progress with this type of thinking.

[amelia]

sarahj said:

I think any argument to support burning CDs/downloading MP3s is only a way of supporting your own self-serving behaviour. At the end of the day-people lose out by burning CDs, so there really is no argument.
But having said that, I have to admit I burn a lot of CDs. I own about 500-600 CDs, and probably around 150 of those are burned. These are mostly CDs I was interested in taking a listen to, but really wouldn't have purchased, even had I not been able to listen to it another way. If I do burn a CD I end up really enjoying, I will go out and buy it, usually along with other albums of that artist. So technically, no one is really losing any money...but I know that doesn't make it right. Other people out there don't spend a penny on CDs, therefore taking money away from the artists. But you can't really say that what they're doing is more wrong that what I'm doing, because we're doing the exact same thing. Stealing from a store on every 3rd visit and paying the other 2 times doesn't mean you're not stealing. And yeah, there are other ways to support a band, such as going to their shows. But how many people can say they've been to a concert by every single artist they own an album by?
This post is very hypocritical, I know. But my morals just aren't strong enough to get me down on this issue, to be quite honest.

bring on the itunes store i say! we'll be able to buy one or two tracks from an album and then if we like it we can get the rest... guilt free. plus you can sample all the tracks as many times as you want before you buy them

[Tiberius]

Hawaiian said:

And also, the thing about MP3's that it isn't a physical object, therefore it isn't really stealing. You may not be taking a CD off a shelf but you are preventing one CD from being bought, which is like taking it off the shelf anyway. Whoever said that argument on Triple J is a moron is they legitamately thought that they could used that in defending burning whole CD's.

It was a lawyer who used that argument, and he was saying that it's not preventing a CD from being bought if there's no intension to purchase the CD existed in the first place and if the artist's/record company's stock of CDs remains untouched from theft.

[somethingforkaty]

But that really is just semantics. Who can really say what a persons intention was? If they indeed would never have bought it? It would be easy to go to court and simply claim that to get yourself out of trouble - and there is no way to prove otherwise.

[amelia]

also, just because the law isn't able to prove something is wrong, does that automatically mean that it isn't wrong? if the law says it isn't stealing then it isn't stealing? or maybe the law isn't absolute truth. like the bible (haha.. sorry.)