Mandatory Sentencing
-
As I explained earlier, my opinion is that you're a garden variety Republican crank.
Now, I don't know which personal attack of yours you'd like me to respond to, but feel free to let me know so I can give it the due is so obviously deserves. Maybe it's the one about how I don't care when innocent people get raped or murdered because I don't think mandatory sentences set by politicians are such a good idea. Yes, what a point that was. That shouldn't subject you to derision at all.
Mandatory sentencing often results in grave injustices and long, costly sentences that aren't merited by the facts of the case, where a judge and jury could much better weigh the evidence in the case and sentence more accordingly, like in the case pointed out in the article.
This also goes back to what is traditionally a conservative idea - that policy makers must always be aware of the unintended consequences of their legislation. You may be creating bigger problems than you set out to solve. As with, in my opinion, mandatory sentencing.
-
More bullshit.
I never said all ad hominem attacks were fallacious. You said that to change the subject. I said you made those attacks toward me and you did. Now for gods sake stop tap dancing.
You were wrong, don't worry, woody will still love you.
I gave my opinion that mandatory sentences could probably stop a lot of violent repeat crimes.
And they exist because it too often liberal judges have preferred your ideology over public safety.
And one more time since you're such a fan of prevention maybe knowing there's an exorbitant consequence to committing a particular crime would make someone think twice before they committed one blithely.
Yes, as I said and you seem to have ignored, I think the drug laws are terrible.
Those who decide to break them are taking a big risk.
But rather to take up that particular issue you decided, as usual, to go down your little condescending dirt road of insults.
WSS
-
"So because I unfortunately overestimated your knowledge I went back and looked up ad hominem to make sure I was using it correctly.
Yes indeed attacking my character instead of responding to what I have to say is certainly an ad hominem attack."
Nice try. That's you a few hours ago, claiming that you went and checked to make sure you were using it correctly, and then explained the definition of the ad hominem fallacy: "attacking my character instead of responding to what I have to say is certainly an ad hominem attack." And then you said you were using it correctly. Now you're saying you didn't mean the ad hominem fallacy, just personal attacks in general. Even though we're talking about the use of fallacies. And then you accuse me of tap dancing. It's just funny.
Of course what I wrote about you being a crank was a form of personal attack. I am attacking your character. And you're attacking mine. Was there some dispute about that?
Except that I wasn't responding to something you said. I was making an observation about how no matter what the discussion we have you always bring it back to the same Republican tropes. Always. Which is why you're a garden variety Republican crank. You've abandoned what used to make you at least a little bit interesting in order to spend 85% of your time whacking your bugaboos with a stick. It makes for very boring conversation. No matter what the the topic, it always gets back to lazy poor people, trial lawyers, etc.
I'm telling you, man, you use these fallacies all the time. All the time. You even use them when you're in the middle of claiming that you don't use them, like above. And this is boring. We can get back to the subject if you like, or you can keep trying to deny that you do this all the time. I don't care.
I have no problem pointing out how big a crank you've become, nor do I apologize for it. Someone should point it out. In my mind, it's a completely accurate description. And if you don't believe me, stack all of your posts in a document and read through them. Really. You always, always want to bring it back to the same bullshit.
Now, about mandatory sentences...
You claim that particular crimes need stiff sentences to deter them. What crimes are you talking about, and which ones don't come with stiff sentences?
What's wrong with sentencing guidelines as opposed to mandatory sentencing? I'm for the former, but think the latter hamstrings the judicial system from being flexible enough when it needs to be flexible, like in this case. No one is talking about letting violent rapists and murders off easy because they had a rough childhood and cried in the courtroom.
-
Yes. One in government and one in economics. But those don't really teach you all that much.
Yes. One in government and one in economics. But those don't really teach you all that much.
are you currently in a career where one of those degrees is needed or used?
-
Yeah, they both help, but I wouldn't say I use what I learned in Political Economy of the Pacific Rim all that much, you know? Which isn't to say I didn't think college was useful. It was. But it was more about teaching you how to analyze and process information. Also had a lot of fun.
High school is for giving you the basic tools. College is to give you the ability to interpret the information. And grad school gives you the ability to bore the living shit out of people with it.
Or let's put it this way: one of my government professors was a DC lawyer/lobbyist for many years and had left to go back to teaching. He basically told everyone flat out, "Why bother studying government? If you want to understand government, take economics."
Which is (mostly) true. So that's what I did. I studied public finance and political economy.
-
gotcha
thank you
-
We're back to Heckbunker insisting on idiotic arguments about what the definition of a word is,
to avoid admitting anything bad about ObaMao.
"yawn" He's very boring, you know.
-
Selling opiate Scripts? Doc's can get dinged (fined, or lose their license in extreme cases) for patients that sell prescriptions. And that's when the Doc isn't "in on it"
I'm with Cysko. Let him marinate.
-
"So because I unfortunately overestimated your knowledge I went back and looked up ad hominem to make sure I was using it correctly.
Yes indeed attacking my character instead of responding to what I have to say is certainly an ad hominem attack."
Nice try. That's you a few hours ago, claiming that you went and checked to make sure you were using it correctly, and then explained the definition of the ad hominem fallacy: "attacking my character instead of responding to what I have to say is certainly an ad hominem attack." And then you said you were using it correctly. Now you're saying you didn't mean the ad hominem fallacy, just personal attacks in general. Even though we're talking about the use of fallacies. And then you accuse me of tap dancing. It's just funny.
Of course what I wrote about you being a crank was a form of personal attack. I am attacking your character. And you're attacking mine. Was there some dispute about that?
Except that I wasn't responding to something you said. I was making an observation about how no matter what the discussion we have you always bring it back to the same Republican tropes. Always. Which is why you're a garden variety Republican crank. You've abandoned what used to make you at least a little bit interesting in order to spend 85% of your time whacking your bugaboos with a stick. It makes for very boring conversation. No matter what the the topic, it always gets back to lazy poor people, trial lawyers, etc.
I'm telling you, man, you use these fallacies all the time. All the time. You even use them when you're in the middle of claiming that you don't use them, like above. And this is boring. We can get back to the subject if you like, or you can keep trying to deny that you do this all the time. I don't care.
I have no problem pointing out how big a crank you've become, nor do I apologize for it. Someone should point it out. In my mind, it's a completely accurate description. And if you don't believe me, stack all of your posts in a document and read through them. Really. You always, always want to bring it back to the same bullshit.
Now, about mandatory sentences...
You claim that particular crimes need stiff sentences to deter them. What crimes are you talking about, and which ones don't come with stiff sentences?
What's wrong with sentencing guidelines as opposed to mandatory sentencing? I'm for the former, but think the latter hamstrings the judicial system from being flexible enough when it needs to be flexible, like in this case. No one is talking about letting violent rapists and murders off easy because they had a rough childhood and cried in the courtroom.
"So because I unfortunately overestimated your knowledge I went back and looked up ad hominem to make sure I was using it correctly.
Yes indeed attacking my character instead of responding to what I have to say is certainly an ad hominem attack."
Nice try. That's you a few hours ago, claiming that you went and checked to make sure you were using it correctly, and then explained the definition of the ad hominem fallacy: "attacking my character instead of responding to what I have to say is certainly an ad hominem attack." And then you said you were using it correctly. Now you're saying you didn't mean the ad hominem fallacy, just personal attacks in general. Even though we're talking about the use of fallacies. And then you accuse me of tap dancing. It's just funny.
Of course what I wrote about you being a crank was a form of personal attack. I am attacking your character. And you're attacking mine. Was there some dispute about that?
Except that I wasn't responding to something you said. I was making an observation about how no matter what the discussion we have you always bring it back to the same Republican tropes. Always. Which is why you're a garden variety Republican crank. You've abandoned what used to make you at least a little bit interesting in order to spend 85% of your time whacking your bugaboos with a stick. It makes for very boring conversation. No matter what the the topic, it always gets back to lazy poor people, trial lawyers, etc.
I'm telling you, man, you use these fallacies all the time. All the time. You even use them when you're in the middle of claiming that you don't use them, like above. And this is boring. We can get back to the subject if you like, or you can keep trying to deny that you do this all the time. I don't care.
I have no problem pointing out how big a crank you've become, nor do I apologize for it. Someone should point it out. In my mind, it's a completely accurate description. And if you don't believe me, stack all of your posts in a document and read through them. Really. You always, always want to bring it back to the same bullshit.
Now, about mandatory sentences...
You claim that particular crimes need stiff sentences to deter them. What crimes are you talking about, and which ones don't come with stiff sentences?
What's wrong with sentencing guidelines as opposed to mandatory sentencing? I'm for the former, but think the latter hamstrings the judicial system from being flexible enough when it needs to be flexible, like in this case. No one is talking about letting violent rapists and murders off easy because they had a rough childhood and cried in the courtroom.
To the first part of your bitter rant, just imagine me rolling my eyes and making the jerk off motion with my hand.
To the second part any crime you believe should actually be a crime should carry a penalty.
And why arent guidelines better than mandatory sentencing?
Because, frankly, I don't trust all the judges, do you?
And while there are certainly grey areas I can't really say that on balance you're better off with judicial discretion.
And yes we really are talking about mandatory sentences to keep judges from letting child molesters out because they had what you call a rough childhood.
I think we all understand that many types of perversion have a high rate of recidivicy.
And since we are dealing in anecdotal evidence I'm sure you can find plenty of cases of repeat violent offenders.
Now I know your attention span doesn't allow you much leeway but let me give you this example:
I have a close friend whose daughter in college was busted for downloading songs from one of those share sites.
Yes we all know its illegal but, come on, it's not that big a deal right?
Well, if I recall correctly, the punishment was in the wall part of $3000.
Outrageous? Maybe.
Their attorney said that yes, they could fight it, but it would take a long time and probably cost just as much.
So I'd say that story should make anyone considering doing that a little bit less likely to do it.
Because, fair or not, the only way, or the best way, to avoid outrageous sentences is to refuse to participate in the crime in question.
WSS
-
"So because I unfortunately overestimated your knowledge I went back and looked up ad hominem to make sure I was using it correctly.
Yes indeed attacking my character instead of responding to what I have to say is certainly an ad hominem attack."
Nice try. That's you a few hours ago, claiming that you went and checked to make sure you were using it correctly, and then explained the definition of the ad hominem fallacy: "attacking my character instead of responding to what I have to say is certainly an ad hominem attack." And then you said you were using it correctly. Now you're saying you didn't mean the ad hominem fallacy, just personal attacks in general. Even though we're talking about the use of fallacies. And then you accuse me of tap dancing. It's just funny.
Of course what I wrote about you being a crank was a form of personal attack. I am attacking your character. And you're attacking mine. Was there some dispute about that?
Except that I wasn't responding to something you said. I was making an observation about how no matter what the discussion we have you always bring it back to the same Republican tropes. Always. Which is why you're a garden variety Republican crank. You've abandoned what used to make you at least a little bit interesting in order to spend 85% of your time whacking your bugaboos with a stick. It makes for very boring conversation. No matter what the the topic, it always gets back to lazy poor people, trial lawyers, etc.
I'm telling you, man, you use these fallacies all the time. All the time. You even use them when you're in the middle of claiming that you don't use them, like above. And this is boring. We can get back to the subject if you like, or you can keep trying to deny that you do this all the time. I don't care.
I have no problem pointing out how big a crank you've become, nor do I apologize for it. Someone should point it out. In my mind, it's a completely accurate description. And if you don't believe me, stack all of your posts in a document and read through them. Really. You always, always want to bring it back to the same bullshit.
Now, about mandatory sentences...
You claim that particular crimes need stiff sentences to deter them. What crimes are you talking about, and which ones don't come with stiff sentences?
What's wrong with sentencing guidelines as opposed to mandatory sentencing? I'm for the former, but think the latter hamstrings the judicial system from being flexible enough when it needs to be flexible, like in this case. No one is talking about letting violent rapists and murders off easy because they had a rough childhood and cried in the courtroom.
What's wrong with sentencing guidelines as opposed to mandatory sentencing? I'm for the former, but think the latter hamstrings the judicial system from being flexible enough when it needs to be flexible, like in this case. No one is talking about letting violent rapists and murders off easy because they had a rough childhood and cried in the courtroom.
Actually, much of the media did that last month with the Steubenville high school rapists.
-
"So because I unfortunately overestimated your knowledge I went back and looked up ad hominem to make sure I was using it correctly.
Yes indeed attacking my character instead of responding to what I have to say is certainly an ad hominem attack."
Nice try. That's you a few hours ago, claiming that you went and checked to make sure you were using it correctly, and then explained the definition of the ad hominem fallacy: "attacking my character instead of responding to what I have to say is certainly an ad hominem attack." And then you said you were using it correctly. Now you're saying you didn't mean the ad hominem fallacy, just personal attacks in general. Even though we're talking about the use of fallacies. And then you accuse me of tap dancing. It's just funny.
Of course what I wrote about you being a crank was a form of personal attack. I am attacking your character. And you're attacking mine. Was there some dispute about that?
Except that I wasn't responding to something you said. I was making an observation about how no matter what the discussion we have you always bring it back to the same Republican tropes. Always. Which is why you're a garden variety Republican crank. You've abandoned what used to make you at least a little bit interesting in order to spend 85% of your time whacking your bugaboos with a stick. It makes for very boring conversation. No matter what the the topic, it always gets back to lazy poor people, trial lawyers, etc.
I'm telling you, man, you use these fallacies all the time. All the time. You even use them when you're in the middle of claiming that you don't use them, like above. And this is boring. We can get back to the subject if you like, or you can keep trying to deny that you do this all the time. I don't care.
I have no problem pointing out how big a crank you've become, nor do I apologize for it. Someone should point it out. In my mind, it's a completely accurate description. And if you don't believe me, stack all of your posts in a document and read through them. Really. You always, always want to bring it back to the same bullshit.
Now, about mandatory sentences...
You claim that particular crimes need stiff sentences to deter them. What crimes are you talking about, and which ones don't come with stiff sentences?
What's wrong with sentencing guidelines as opposed to mandatory sentencing? I'm for the former, but think the latter hamstrings the judicial system from being flexible enough when it needs to be flexible, like in this case. No one is talking about letting violent rapists and murders off easy because they had a rough childhood and cried in the courtroom.
To the first part of your bitter rant, just imagine me rolling my eyes and making the jerk off motion with my hand.
To the second part any crime you believe should actually be a crime should carry a penalty.
And why arent guidelines better than mandatory sentencing?
Because, frankly, I don't trust all the judges, do you?
And while there are certainly grey areas I can't really say that on balance you're better off with judicial discretion.
And yes we really are talking about mandatory sentences to keep judges from letting child molesters out because they had what you call a rough childhood.
I think we all understand that many types of perversion have a high rate of recidivicy.
And since we are dealing in anecdotal evidence I'm sure you can find plenty of cases of repeat violent offenders.
Now I know your attention span doesn't allow you much leeway but let me give you this example:
I have a close friend whose daughter in college was busted for downloading songs from one of those share sites.
Yes we all know its illegal but, come on, it's not that big a deal right?
Well, if I recall correctly, the punishment was in the wall part of $3000.
Outrageous? Maybe.
Their attorney said that yes, they could fight it, but it would take a long time and probably cost just as much.
So I'd say that story should make anyone considering doing that a little bit less likely to do it.
Because, fair or not, the only way, or the best way, to avoid outrageous sentences is to refuse to participate in the crime in question.
WSS
To the first part of your bitter rant, just imagine me rolling my eyes and making the jerk off motion with my hand.
To the second part any crime you believe should actually be a crime should carry a penalty.
And why arent guidelines better than mandatory sentencing?
Because, frankly, I don't trust all the judges, do you?
And while there are certainly grey areas I can't really say that on balance you're better off with judicial discretion.
And yes we really are talking about mandatory sentences to keep judges from letting child molesters out because they had what you call a rough childhood.
I think we all understand that many types of perversion have a high rate of recidivicy.
And since we are dealing in anecdotal evidence I'm sure you can find plenty of cases of repeat violent offenders.
Now I know your attention span doesn't allow you much leeway but let me give you this example:
I have a close friend whose daughter in college was busted for downloading songs from one of those share sites.
Yes we all know its illegal but, come on, it's not that big a deal right?
Well, if I recall correctly, the punishment was in the wall part of $3000.
Outrageous? Maybe.
Their attorney said that yes, they could fight it, but it would take a long time and probably cost just as much.
So I'd say that story should make anyone considering doing that a little bit less likely to do it.
Because, fair or not, the only way, or the best way, to avoid outrageous sentences is to refuse to participate in the crime in question.
WSS
You seem to favor something more like Saudi Arabia, which has severe punishments for crimes like stealing, than our system. Obviously, punishments have to have a deterrent effect, and they have to punish those they don't deter. Again, no one is arguing that they shouldn't. But in my opinion, these punishments are best meted out by the judicial system, and not by politicians who end up upping the ante until the punishment system is often vastly out of whack with the crime, as with this case. You don't trust the judicial system because it may include liberal judges. Very well, I suppose. I trust it more than I do political interference. But this: " Because, fair or not, the only way, or the best way, to avoid outrageous sentences is to refuse to participate in the crime in question."
...Is also a false choice. We create the system we have. If we want to avoid outrageous sentences we can change the laws that provide for outrageous sentences. We can also not break the law. We don't have to live in a system that has outrageous mandatory sentences for small crimes.
PS - $3000 for downloads sounds about right to me. Then there are the people who the recording industry targets in order to make a public example and it's more like $250,000. That seems excessive. But you and I have talked about this before, and I think of the entire board we were the only ones on the page of "You're stealing." Perhaps because we're the ones on the intellectual property side, not the "I want to download it for free" side.
-
Fuck that, I download everything for free.
-
I think you are being a bit naive and saying that we can just change these laws!
Plus, correctly or incorrectly, Americans think the drug problem is a big big deal.
And we both know how unwieldy the legislative process can be.
But even in your extreme case of Saudi Arabia I suppose there are less of those crimes being committed, wouldn't you?
And I do think it's a choice.
For instance, you and I are at the airport having a beer and as you are about to board I ask hey heck could you take this package on the plane with you?
And do me a favor keep it on the hush hush.
There's probably not much chance I'm handing you a bomb or a brick of hash but it would be a pain in the ass if you were caught. So you probably wouldn't do it.
But seriously not many of these crimes are like the one in Les Miz.
If there were a thousand dollar fine for rolling through a stop sign in my neighborhood on the way home I'd come to a complete stop every time.
And I think that given the reality or compared with shoplifting stealing four or five tunes which would sell for 99 cents apiece 3 grand might be a little steep, no?
But yes I understand why they do it.
And yes I do and did agree with you about intellectual property.
I've spent almost 4 years try to track down the widow of Stan Rogers so I can use the song white squall.
There are plenty of manufactures who will make the discs without a release but this guy I think was a genius and his legacy should earn somebody at least a portion of a living.
Basically anything I would want to own I figure is worth paying for.
That way Elvis Costello keeps on recording.
I don't know if I really did this story but a couple years ago a few people in the audience were telling me how much they loved Limestone Cowboy. My Second solo CD.
The one drunk said to another drunk, right in front of me, it's great, yeah man I'll burn you a copy!
Ya gotta laugh.
WSS
-
To the first part of your bitter rant, just imagine me rolling my eyes and making the jerk off motion with my hand.
To the second part any crime you believe should actually be a crime should carry a penalty.
And why arent guidelines better than mandatory sentencing?
Because, frankly, I don't trust all the judges, do you?
And while there are certainly grey areas I can't really say that on balance you're better off with judicial discretion.
And yes we really are talking about mandatory sentences to keep judges from letting child molesters out because they had what you call a rough childhood.
I think we all understand that many types of perversion have a high rate of recidivicy.
And since we are dealing in anecdotal evidence I'm sure you can find plenty of cases of repeat violent offenders.
Now I know your attention span doesn't allow you much leeway but let me give you this example:
I have a close friend whose daughter in college was busted for downloading songs from one of those share sites.
Yes we all know its illegal but, come on, it's not that big a deal right?
Well, if I recall correctly, the punishment was in the wall part of $3000.
Outrageous? Maybe.
Their attorney said that yes, they could fight it, but it would take a long time and probably cost just as much.
So I'd say that story should make anyone considering doing that a little bit less likely to do it.
Because, fair or not, the only way, or the best way, to avoid outrageous sentences is to refuse to participate in the crime in question.
WSS
You seem to favor something more like Saudi Arabia, which has severe punishments for crimes like stealing, than our system. Obviously, punishments have to have a deterrent effect, and they have to punish those they don't deter. Again, no one is arguing that they shouldn't. But in my opinion, these punishments are best meted out by the judicial system, and not by politicians who end up upping the ante until the punishment system is often vastly out of whack with the crime, as with this case. You don't trust the judicial system because it may include liberal judges. Very well, I suppose. I trust it more than I do political interference. But this: " Because, fair or not, the only way, or the best way, to avoid outrageous sentences is to refuse to participate in the crime in question."
...Is also a false choice. We create the system we have. If we want to avoid outrageous sentences we can change the laws that provide for outrageous sentences. We can also not break the law. We don't have to live in a system that has outrageous mandatory sentences for small crimes.
PS - $3000 for downloads sounds about right to me. Then there are the people who the recording industry targets in order to make a public example and it's more like $250,000. That seems excessive. But you and I have talked about this before, and I think of the entire board we were the only ones on the page of "You're stealing." Perhaps because we're the ones on the intellectual property side, not the "I want to download it for free" side.
You seem to favor something more like Saudi Arabia, which has severe punishments for crimes like stealing, than our system. Obviously, punishments have to have a deterrent effect, and they have to punish those they don't deter. Again, no one is arguing that they shouldn't. But in my opinion, these punishments are best meted out by the judicial system, and not by politicians who end up upping the ante until the punishment system is often vastly out of whack with the crime, as with this case. You don't trust the judicial system because it may include liberal judges. Very well, I suppose. I trust it more than I do political interference. But this: " Because, fair or not, the only way, or the best way, to avoid outrageous sentences is to refuse to participate in the crime in question."
...Is also a false choice. We create the system we have. If we want to avoid outrageous sentences we can change the laws that provide for outrageous sentences. We can also not break the law. We don't have to live in a system that has outrageous mandatory sentences for small crimes.
PS - $3000 for downloads sounds about right to me. Then there are the people who the recording industry targets in order to make a public example and it's more like $250,000. That seems excessive. But you and I have talked about this before, and I think of the entire board we were the only ones on the page of "You're stealing." Perhaps because we're the ones on the intellectual property side, not the "I want to download it for free" side.
-
Question, does anyone steal music anymore? Between iTunes, Grooveshark, Pandora, and Spotify, I think there are definitely better alternatives to piracy for music needs. Can't say the same about television, though. Hulu's advertisements are ass. Netflix is alright. AMC, HBO and Showtime have the best shows, but to see them you have to pay hundreds of dollars for hundreds of other channels I couldn't give a shit about. Hopefully there's enough cash incentive for HBO to eventually switch from the lucrative cable and satellite contracts, but until they do so, I refuse to pay for their products because of the ridiculous pricing options.
-
I don't know anyone under 25 or 30 who would even think of paying for music. And that usually goes for movies too.
-
Question, does anyone steal music anymore? Between iTunes, Grooveshark, Pandora, and Spotify, I think there are definitely better alternatives to piracy for music needs. Can't say the same about television, though. Hulu's advertisements are ass. Netflix is alright. AMC, HBO and Showtime have the best shows, but to see them you have to pay hundreds of dollars for hundreds of other channels I couldn't give a shit about. Hopefully there's enough cash incentive for HBO to eventually switch from the lucrative cable and satellite contracts, but until they do so, I refuse to pay for their products because of the ridiculous pricing options.
Question, does anyone steal music anymore? Between iTunes, Grooveshark, Pandora, and Spotify, I think there are definitely better alternatives to piracy for music needs. Can't say the same about television, though. Hulu's advertisements are ass. Netflix is alright. AMC, HBO and Showtime have the best shows, but to see them you have to pay hundreds of dollars for hundreds of other channels I couldn't give a shit about. Hopefully there's enough cash incentive for HBO to eventually switch from the lucrative cable and satellite contracts, but until they do so, I refuse to pay for their products because of the ridiculous pricing options.
Yeah man. People steal music all the time, of course. It's the way the world is now. As a band you better make all your money on tour and as a movie you had better make your money in the theater or be Disney. Disney will fuck you up for stealing their movies.
-
I don't know anyone under 25 or 30 who would even think of paying for music. And that usually goes for movies too.
I don't know anyone under 25 or 30 who would even think of paying for music. And that usually goes for movies too.
And I know that the majority of people I met in college didn't steal music. Those who did were a bit smarter with PC's than the average student, but the average student who pirated things got caught and had their internet taken away. Typically this happened freshman year, and the behavior would taper off as most filesharers got caught by their sophomore year. What resulted was a bunch of law-abiding college students. Need music for a party? You could put out your iPod, but that might get stolen. Why not just leave a big computer out that's much harder to steal and put a grooveshark playlist together? It's free. In my college experience, media piracy was limited to the relatively few people who knew how to mask their traffic. I'm of the opinion that most people who pirate music are in high school and have little to no income.
-
The younger people in my office think buying music is so quaint - "You go on ITunes?" You know, like I'm still using a telegraph.
-
The younger people in my office think buying music is so quaint - "You go on ITunes?" You know, like I'm still using a telegraph.
The younger people in my office think buying music is so quaint - "You go on ITunes?" You know, like I'm still using a telegraph.
That doesn't mean they're pirating. I feel the same way about iTunes and iPods, they're dated. I could be wrong but I bet if you asked them how they got their music, you'll get a couple pandoras and spotifiers. Really, the free, legal alternatives out there are fantastic.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login