Yuku free message boards

An off colour rummor is spreading far and wide around the internet. That the big music corps around the world have found a way to get back at all the "criminals" who have been "stealing from them" using the internet. Apparently the music companies will begin finding people who use programs like Kazaa, Morpheus and Grokster by means of their internet providers (AOL, Netscape, Yahoo, MSN etc.). Then they will look at the number of files you have downloaded and are sharring with others. If the number is sufficient you will be trialed as a criminal and perhapse face six months in prison. And the music companies will start this new type of tracking system...this Thursday. July 3rd...Tommorow!

Now I know what you're thinking: "I use Kazaa wich gives me the option of not sharring my files with anyone." Good idea, the music companies wont be able to track you if you don't share with others. But what happens when all the Kazaa users think that way and prevent sharring with eachother? Most download programs relly on the P2P method wich means if no one is sharring files there's no way of getting said files. This was the music industries big plan from the start.

To my fellow download program users, I believe that our days are numbered. This is it. But if we're going out we might as well go out with a bang.

Who do the record producers think they are? Calling us thieves? The record companies charge you $18 for a CD that costs them 7 cents to make and then go to congress and complain that we're stealing. Most music artists don't care too much about downloading their music....there are a fair few who do. Those who do should invest into those incripted disks that cannont be burnned. But correct me if im wrong but don't the artists make enough money doing concerts, going on tour, booking appearances, marketing and signing onto soundtracks? It's not the artists who are most upset, they aren't the ones loosing money for it. For once they get all the money that goes towards their fame...it's the record companies that can't stand loosing.

It's not like music's the only thing you can get off these kinds of software: How about that funny skit on Connan 'O' Brien that they won't ever rerun again? Or that hillarious commercial from the UK that they won't let broadcast in North America? Best example would be the parody song you hear on the radio or (To a lesser extent) Mad TV that cannot be found in stores because it has no record labell? There's a reason why Kazaa let's you categorize your search from video, music, software, image etc; because there's more to gain than just music.

I don't see why the music industry doesn't try to capatalize on this idea: Why don't the record companies produce their own download software where you can find tunes from each of their artists? Than at the end of the month you're billed for the ammount of songs you downloaded completely? We already pay for our internet access we may as well pay for another necessity.

The whole problem with this is that customers may like one song by a particular artist and they hate everything else about them. No one want to buy the whole album just to hear one song. So we proceed to download our favorite songs off the internet and burn them onto a disk with some of our other favorite songs from artists we only like for that one song. If record companies want to put an end to that so they get paid but consumers don't have to buy the whole album why don't the record companies make a place (Like a library) where people can rent or borrow a music track and after a week or so they bring it back. Why not I ask? We already have the option to rent movies and video games. We don't have to buy books but rather borrow them from a library, we even get to rent cars from a dealership now and then. Why is it we can rent a bullodzer for installing our own pool but we can't rent a CD to borrow one track?

Of course I do understand what the music people are so upset about. I know what im doing is wrong but as of yet there is no convenient method to get music. I'd like to get paid for my work and not have someone take advantage of it. But there is a sollution out there where both sides of the argument can come to an agreement. The problem is that the side that's against it has all the money and power making them more influential. In any sense im glad in a way that the music biz is shutting us down...now only they could bite the bit and become as generous and laid back as the movie industry.




Respond to this and other Editorials in the discussion forum. pub37.ezboard.com/fnextgenerationconsoles80644frm15.showMessage?topicID=3.topic

I don't have a problem with cloning. I'm sensible enough to know that outbreaks of "evil clones" only happen in the movies. Any argument that cloning will just lead to stolen identities and stolen lives has been influenced by too many Arnie movies. Should we come to the point in science where we can clone people, a clone will not kill the original being and then "become" the original. That's an idiotic sci-fi myth meant to scare you into distrusting the future, technology, and science. You think HAL from Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A space odyssey just had a nasty computer virus?

That being said, I'd like to point out some of the benefits to cloning. Say for example you need a kidney transplant, and finding a proper/willing donor would prove to be difficult. If you had a clone, you could take one of his/her kidneys! It would be a perfect match without much tracking. Cloning has the potential to revive animal species that humans drove to extinction; and save the endangered animals, too. Gay couples, vying for the role of parents, can even choose to mesh their DNA to produce a child that is truly their own.

With so many benefits to cloning it's hard for me to find something to protest about it. I'm sorry to say that I found a few things.

First off, humans already had a long and bloodstained history of oppressing those who were different from them. Be it the colour of their skin, the country that they live in, the faith they believe in or the people they find most attractive...humans have never seen eye-to-eye with one another on everything. It's a cynical point to make, sure, but it's safe to say that there are some people who just don't like the idea of cloning. You have to wonder how far some people will go* to make a stand against something. The people who have problems with cloning, and any other type of living being for that matter, that's their twisted problem. I personally don't see a problem with cloning, but it may mean a whole new onslaught of profiling and generalizations for generations. I don't know about you, but if I could stop all the racial crimes of the past before they started, I would. I'd rather have the people living the world now live in peace and tolerance than watch the world go through segregation again. When it comes to cloning, we have a chance to stop it before it starts; as heartless as that may sound.

Some people will think my first thought on cloning is far-fetched. That no one will ostracize a clone because it'll be hard to tell the clone apart from the original. That's when the paranoia sets in. Will societies adopt the pod-people theory with clones? If some people will think that all clones will be evil and try to steal the lives from the original...then they'll believe anything. "Don't trust your neighbors. They may be a CLONE"

The other point I can make against cloning is on the psychological point of view; I'm sure you've all heard this one before: If you had a clone of yourself, what makes you think it'll be exactly like you? Physically, sure...you'll be CLONES. But what about intellectually? Mentally, you'll be two different people. Your clone, like you, will be raised from infancy-- Except some of the things you grew up will not be available to your new you. I was born in the late 80's, and I didn't have SprongeBob or a PC in my home from the get-go. A clone of yourself will be raised in a different time than what you were raised in, with different comforts and restrictions. Sure, having the influence of a TV show may not make you who you are...but aren't you just a little upset that kids aren't watching the same shows you watched at your age? Or playing with things you never had growing up? Ever think to yourself that the best video games, music and TV shows were the old-school ones and that today's kids don't know what they're missing? It brings into question wether it was the circumstances you were raised under, or feelings you had from when your heart started ticking, that made you who you are. Infants, born without knowing what kind of hate and injustice inhabit the world, will form opinionated views on everything from culture to justice. Then again, genetics and natural instincts often drive your life for you and give you a sense of what you can and can't do. The point is that a clone of you might not be you, a clone will be an entirely different person--and some people will feel a little offended that someone that's supposed to be their exact double won't act the way they do.

The pros for human cloning should be enough to warrant strong feelings in support of it. But both history and human nature present sound arguments against it. Sure, those cons have been spawned from cynical views about life, but they're a lot more concrete than the argument that cloning is unethical. Some silent oppositions of cloning are against the idea only because they don't like the idea of playing God with someone's life. Wake up and smell the judicial system! You think cloning is the first time humans ever tried to do something that only 'God could do'? Humans have based modern times doing what God never intended for us to do (God never intended for humans to fly...but we sure showed him with Airplanes, didn't we?). At least with "playing God-cloning,” we'd be creating life instead of what we do with"playing God-execution.”

The points in both support of, and against cloning, are too well balanced to have my thoughts on the matter stray too far into one boundary. As if my opinion mattered on such a thing. My point is that both sides to the arguments have their strong points. And only through a clear understanding of both the points (Against and for the idea), will we as a societies be able to make a decision that benefits for the majority.






*And have gone

Respond to this and other Editorials in the discussion forum. pub37.ezboard.com/fnextgenerationconsoles80644frm15.showMessage?topicID=3.topic