Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Would you buy Beatles music from the iTunes store if you could?

Would you buy Beatles music from the iTunes store if you could?

  • Yes

    Votes: 28 26.4%

  • May do

    Votes: 22 20.8%

  • Probably not

    Votes: 14 13.2%

  • No

    Votes: 42 39.6%
  • Total voters
    106
I've never bought any Beatles music and I've never bought music from the iTunes music store, either. Perhaps, in 15 years, things will progress enough that I'll be satisfied with the quality. ;)
 
student_trap said:
i'd buy it if i bought anything from the itunes music store, i prefer actual cd's, and they tend not to cost much more! 128 is far to low a bitrate when its your only copy!
Click to expand...

I feel the same way. I never buy full albums from iTunes. I only buy a select song from, say, a soundtrack when I only want just that one song. So I wouldn't buy anything by the Beatles (I do own a lot of their albums) for that reason, not because of what went down with Apple.
 
My god.. I thought I was the only one on the planet that wasn't a Beatles fan. I love all you haters!!! <hugs>
 
No I just downloaded all their albums illegally. That pedo Michael Jackson isn't getting a cent of my money.
 
I've never really understood the gestalt of The Beatles, perhaps I'm just too young. The music is catchy but doesn't move me. But heck, I know people are really devoted to the band. I think if fans love the music and want it, they should buy it @ 99 / song. Just not my cuppa tea, so to speak.
 
With 142 of their best in the music library, there is no need for anything else from the greatest band of 'em all.
 
Melkor said:
No I just downloaded all their albums illegally. That pedo Michael Jackson isn't getting a cent of my money.
Click to expand...

Yes, combat illegal activity with illegal activity. :rolleyes:
 
Edge100 said:
...like Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, or Gandhi. Bloody criminals, the lot of them. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Er, but they didn't steal anything to make their points. Civil disobedience, I believe is the term.
 
bousozoku said:
Yes, combat illegal activity with illegal activity. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...


I'm not trying to 'combat illegal activity' lol. I don't care who wants to give that guy money as long as it's not me.
 
devilot said:
Er, but they didn't steal anything to make their points. Civil disobedience, I believe is the term.
Click to expand...

Is that what they called it when they through the lot of them in jail?

I believe its just symantics. A crime is a crime. If the law is unjust, that is a completely different question.
 
Edge100 said:
...like Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, or Gandhi. Bloody criminals, the lot of them. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

That's a ridiculous analogy. There's no legitimate comparison between political activists and those who steal a product for their own personal gain.
 
Melkor said:
That pedo Michael Jackson isn't getting a cent of my money.
Click to expand...

bousozoku said:
Yes, combat illegal activity with illegal activity. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

A minor point I know, but Michael Jackson wasn't actually convicted of being 'a pedo' - or of any illegal activity.
 
Brize said:
That's a ridiculous analogy. There's no legitimate comparison between political activists and those who steal a product for their own personal gain.
Click to expand...

I agree. The point was made that it is wrong to fight illegal activity with illegal activity, and I disagree with that statement on principle.

However, those people ALL did things that were illegal. Whether their actions were "right" or "wrong" just depends on what side of the table you sit.

Moral relativism is a slippery slope.
 
jholzner said:
Well, they broke the law...which is illegal activity.
Click to expand...

Spot on.

"Right" and "wrong" isn't the same as "legal" or "illegal". Which is why modern democracies have constitutions, which establish what is "right" and "wrong", and laws, which establish what is "legal" and "illegal".

The laws must always be in line with the constitution, implying that "right" and "wrong" come before "legal" and "illegal", and that things that are "legal" MUST be "right", which is why we have constitutional law courts that determine whether the laws are "right" or "wrong".

In this case, the above mentioned individuals (Parks, King, Mandela, and Gandhi) all broke the law, in that their actions were "illegal". But the laws governing these actions were deemed to be "wrong", and now their actions are "legal".

Stealing music is currently "illegal". Unless someone successfully makes the case that this law is "wrong", therein lies the difference.

Confusing "legal" and "illegal" with "right" and "wrong" is, I think, a HUGE problem in the western world right about now.
 
Edge100 said:
I agree. The point was made that it is wrong to fight illegal activity with illegal activity, and I disagree with that statement on principle.
Click to expand...

Okay, I'm with you now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back