You may want to learn what you are actually talking about before you post.
There is a difference between IAS, TAS and ground speed. Learn the difference. Once you know that, then, learn what keep the friggen thing in the air. DOh! What a concept!
You might bother to read what the engineers have to say on the subject. If they are so wonderful, how come they have one of the highest fatal crash rates of any aviation vehicle. Doh! Hate it when facts shatter your fantasy.
I personally think that with some research, they can be made much safer. Just the same, they still have serious issues with wind. AFAIC, tilt rotor heads and variable pitch rotors will allow for wind corrections. In fact, somewhere, I even read that people were looking into such thing. The problem is, we're no longer talking about a lowend $10,000 craft or a nice one fo $20,000. Once you start into the $30,000 or more range, you can get a very safe and reliable older airframe (152, 172, various 140-180 pipers, etc), which will have a more useful load and probably a couple of more knots for boasting purposes. For about $18,000 - $35,000, you can get a fairly nice plane and chances are very high that it will have a proven safe track record AND be more more useful in less than ideal weather.
So, if you're going to spend the money, which are you going to purchase? For most that are serious about flying, I would think the choice is obvious. Having said all that, I would love to see a reliable ans safe gyrocopter hit the market which has all of the safety features rolled into one. I suppose it's possible that patent and design-dollar issues are preventing this from happening anytime soon. Oh well.
At any rate, the current state of gyrocopters are far from the current list of crediable known saftey improvements which are currently possible. Toss in the fact that pilots tend to be far less trained than real pilots, and they really are a death trap.
Do some searching on yahoo and google, and you'll find that there are many small companies trying various items here and there to help improve the safety record of these things. I'm not sure why we're not seeing more R&D money being pumped into them.
FYI, my father is a pilot since before I was born and I have recently starting studying for my written. I'm hoping to have my certificate within a year.
SOMEONE, PLEASE MOD THIS GUY DOWN. He's a troll. Look at how he starts his first sentence even.
Anyone that says gyrocopters can't stall, don't understand the physics involved. Period. hese things can and do fall out of the air because of a stalled rotor. Winds drive them from the air. Winds can flip these things. Basically, everythiing you're calling a troll would more accurately be called "FACTS!" You are greatly misleading people about the true dangers of these things.
Gyrocopters are only moderately safe in near ideal weather conditions. Basically, the experts and engineers that have been working for fix the long, long list of fatal flaws with gyrocopters call you an lying SOB.
You are a troll, plain and simple and some mods were silly enough to reward you for your ignorance, foolishness, and lies.
I agree. Considering he has what, six or eight engines running, 30mpg sounds pretty impossible. Besides, most aviation vehicles are measured in gallons per hour and not mile per gallon because, based on wind, a gph rating would be all over the place. A gph rating is going to be fairly static.
I think the point is self explanitory. People are offering lies and invalid facts where are dangerous and requesting that mods mod down the factual dangers of these vehicles. On top of that, I'm taking the karma hit because of idiots that have no idea what they are talking about and mods are blindly following them.
Would some thoughtful mods care to please correct the moding that has gone on here in this thread? Please review my profile. I never troll. Period. In the mean time, I've been hammered hard by moderators for telling the truth and offering facts about gyrocopters. Please, don't mod this post up, rather, please correct the modds which others have done. As is, some very bad and dangerous information is being pushed forward. Basically, most everything in this thread which was modded down is correct and everything that was modded up is false.
MODS, PLEASE DO YOUR JOB AND MOD DOWN THE BAD STUFF AND MOD UP THE CORRECT/ACCURATE INFORMATION. MODS, PLEASE READ THIS THREAD WITH -1 SCOPE SO THAT YOU CAN SEE ALL OF THE GOOD AND VALID INFORMATION WHICH HAS INCORRECTLY BEEN HAMMERED BY OTHER CARELESS MODS. Once you read the entire thread, it's fairly easy to see that everything I've stated has been supported by facts offered by my self or others kind enough to add real value to the thread.
Simple fact is, if that article told the whole story, the accident and associated death rates would not be anywhere near as high as they are. The things are not safe. They CAN be made safer and I spoke of that fact as well as the various directions and efforts helping to make them safe. Yet, the fact remains, as is commonly used, these are very unsafe!
Except that helicopters can fly well, both against and with the wind. Gyrocopters can not. If a gyrocopter flies into too much wind, it can cause a rotor stall; but requires fairly high winds which would still be flyable by planes and helicopters. If you fly with a tail wind, you can EASILY lose lift AND forward momentum and fall from the air with a rotor stall.
Cross winds are also very dangerous for these things. Flipping or inverting a gryocopter is hardly unhead of. These things are dangerous and the statistics support this. As do the basic physics involved.
That's false. Most everything stated above, assumes zero wind conditions! Read on.
Wind, as I originally stated, is one of the most dangerous aspects of these crafts. If you fly with a tail wind, the effective lift is GREATLY reduced. Thusly, GREATLY increasing the chances of a single rotor stall. That means, ONE HALF OF THE ROTOR IS CREATING LIFT. THE OTHER HALF IS NOT! This means at best, you have little to no control and YOU CAN NOT AUTOROTATE! This also means, it's possible that you'll become inverted. This problem does happen. I could go on and on, but think about the facts and the physics involved.
GYROCOPTERS ARE DANGEROUS AND ARE ONLY FAIR WEATHER VEHICLES. Bad weather or moderate winds can drive these things from the air. This is why you don't see commercial vehicle using them. The reasoning is simple. It's not very often that you have ideal weather everytime you need to go somehwere by air.
Mods! Pull your heads out of your tail pipes!! This is not a troll! This is fact!
Bother to think about the FACTS that I offered. What happens when a wing stalls on a plane? What happens when a rotor stalls on a helicopter? What happens when the rotor stalls on a gyrocopter? I Can promise you, if you stall a rotor, close to the ground, YOU CAN NOT AUTOROTATE. That a simple fact of phsyics.
Please mods, do the right thing here. Use your head! Mod based on facts rather than the misinformed facts offered by the fool that insists these things are safe. They are not safe and the statistics of these things prove it.
MODS! PLEASE DO YOU JOB PROPERLY! GYROCOPTERS ARE DANGEROUS!!!
Yes, you can stall. You can often recover. The problem with these death traps is when you fly any wind. Wind is what makes these things so dangerous. Fly in 0 wind and blue skies, it's probably fairly safe and fun. Fly when there is wind and you're playing the odds, which are NOT in your favor. Check the statistics!
Wind kills idiots that believe these things are safe. Rotor stalls are fairly easy to create in these things. Stall a rotor and you tumble or flat out fall from the sky. With a stalled rotor, you CAN NOT FRIGGEN AUTOROTATE. Anyone that says otherwise is an absoluete moron!!!!
Because they are friggen death traps and the moderators are buying into his misinformation! Everything he stated is false.
Gyrocopters are dangerous. Very dangerous! And yes, they nto only stall, but FALL OUT OF THE FRIGGEN AIR! Autorotation is not always an option in a gyrocopter. This is exactly why some have looked into using things like depleated uranium in the rotor tips so that they can maintain enough energy in the rotors to widen the window where they can safely autorotate.
Simple fact is, gyrocopters are very dangerous and the dumb mods which are listening to this fool is doing a GREAT diservice to the readers and potential users of these crafts. They was wicked dangerous!
I wish mods would bother to read the thread before they moderate. There is some very bad information being present here. Gyrocopters are not safe. Period. Anyone that says otherwise is an idiot. Someone was kind enough to even offer a link in this thread supporting the dangers of these things. Everything I stated about gyrocopters is 100% factual. Please, mod correctly. Mods are pushing down correct and accurate information in exchange for a clueless troll that doesn't have the foggiest idea what he's talking about. The statistics speak for themselves! Gyrocopters are one of the most dangerous aviation vehicles available. Period! They are not safe and DO STALL! Furthermore, they require a fair amount of forward momentum to safely autorotate. Speed is easy to bleed of in these things. Which means, a safe autorotation, even in the best of situations, is not always possible. Furthermore, rotor stalls are a problem that even helicopters have to deal with.
Simple fact is, gyrocopters are f-n death traps and anyone that says otherwise is either an idiot or a fool. Everything I stated is 100% fact and supported by both physics and their associated accident statistics!
That's exactly right! The statistics exactly reflect dangers that I outlined. Anyone that thinks that gyrocopters are safer than GA planes are either idiots or fools.
The are death traps for ALL of the reasons I outlinned.
Please mod the ignorant grandparent post back down as it's completely wrong and not support by physics nor accident statistics.
That's exactly right. Which, in turn, begins to make a gyrocopter into a much more complex airframe. One of the big advatnages of the gryocopter is that it's so simple. Adding more complex parts to it requires more complex skills to comtrol. It also requires more money to purchase and maintain. Thusly, the associated complexity goes way. Which mean, in the end, you're much close to a working copter. As you rightly pointed out, you're suddenly close enough to be a copter that you may as well turn it into a copter.
I'm sorry, but you've been sadly misinformed. I did, however, make one mistake. I stated that the leaded edge could stall in a head wind, which is incorrect. It's the trailing edge which stalls in a high speed head wind.
MOD THIS POST DOWN BECAUSE HE IS COMPLETELY CLUELESS!
Nope! Gyrocopters are death traps and are not for the average civilian. When they first become popular, there were more objects falling from the sky than ducks during duck season.
The problem with them is that they stall rather easily and do not tolorate winds very well at all. A crosswind can flip one and a tail wind can stall you, causing you to fall from the air without enough lift to autorotate. Furthermore, if you fly directly into a headwind with enough speed, again, you will lose lift on the leading rotor, causing a rotor stall, causing your to flip and/or fall from the air. At low altitudes, this is a death sentence. You can also raise your angle of attack too much and stall. Again, bad news. Also, since the rotor head is a fixed angle, causing the rotors to travel parallel to the seat, it makes for a rough ride. This means, many people get motion sickness riding in these things
Over the years, various companies have been working to address these MANY problems. Some claim to be successful, just the same, they are no longer the cheap vehicle there were before. There are some modern gyrocopters which have pivoting rotor heads, power-assist rotors, variable pitch rotors, depleated uranium in the rotor tips, etc, etc, etc...al of which hope to address the various short comings of gyrocopters. Some even have ramjets on the rotor tips allow for STOL capabilities. Just the same, these are just as out of reach, price wise (and still in development last I heard), as the air car.
In your example, whereby you took a picture, a picture is in now way, shape, or form, going to deprive the artist from selling his painting. The size and quality does not compare. On the other hand, if you take a picture of your CD, it exactly matches what you're trying to make a point about. On the other hand, if you make a copy of the CD, you have exactly matched pretty much every aspect of the original and then using it for free, without paying the artist. This too, is illegal and is a *form of* theft. Just like copying that CD is a *form of* theft. Period. Copying music which you do not have a right to do so, is stealing. Doing so, makes you a thief. If we take you example, and exactly reproduce the artist's paintig so that even the artist can not tell the difference, he will rightly so claim you've stolen his work, or at a minimum, diluted the original's value. Either way, you've horribly wronged the artist. Same applies to CD's. It really doesn't matter if you consider it stealing, which it is, but the fact remains, it's something that only unethical people do.
Theft has nothing to do with payment.
Theft has everything to do with payment. Walk into a store and walk out with something you didn't pay for and argue with the store manager and police. Please let me know too so that I can laugh and point eith the police and the store manager while you insist that your theft has nothing to do with payment. LOL. That's insanely funny and foolish.
The store doesn't get their money, so they in turn raise prices to compensate. They pass that on to the consumer, who on average makes significantly less than those who are hurt by music piracy.
And the exact same thing applies to stolen music too. What was your point? The result of stealing CD's means that the RIAA has to put more filler crap onto CD's so that they can sell more CD's to make up for the profits that you've stolen. Likewise, the artist makes less money because you stole his work without paying him for it. This means that your theft is forcing all of other consumers to pick the cost.
How many times have you gone out and spent that hard-earned $15 on a CD from which you'd heard a couple of great singles, only to get home and find out that those were the only two songs on the entire disc worth two shits?
Well, I don't buy CD's, so the answer is simple. Beyond that, if you think it has a bunch of crap on it, DON'T FRIGGEN BUY IT! NO ONE IS MAKING YOU BUY CRAP! Worse, you can use common sense and not buy the CD. Worse still, if you actually wanted to be ethical, versus a thief, you could only buy the songs that you like an save some money at the same time. What a friggen concept.
t's civil disobedience.
That's complete BS! If you want to be civil disobedient, protest. Just because you are being disobedient, does not justify ripping off the artist nor stealing his works. Furthermore, breaking the law is breaking the law. Regardless of whatever lie you want to tell you self, illegal actions are still illegal and your are still hurting the artist. Want to do something that actually makes sense, stop buying their friggen music! Wow! What a concept. Furthermore, you argument is complete crap to begin with because in this day and age, you can buy songs by themselves. So, stealing songs and using that justification makes them even more scummy and dirty.
Take a picture of your CD and then your example will actually mean somthing. Go on. Take a picture of your CD and send it to your friends. That's the only way your example makes any sense.
Theft requires taking something to which you have no rights and have not paid for, especially when payment is expected. The only difference is here, in stead of a store lossing out, you're hurting and ripping off the artist.
Slashdot Mirror
You are a moron.
Feel free to stop breathing.
You may want to learn what you are actually talking about before you post.
There is a difference between IAS, TAS and ground speed. Learn the difference. Once you know that, then, learn what keep the friggen thing in the air. DOh! What a concept!
You might bother to read what the engineers have to say on the subject. If they are so wonderful, how come they have one of the highest fatal crash rates of any aviation vehicle. Doh! Hate it when facts shatter your fantasy.
I personally think that with some research, they can be made much safer. Just the same, they still have serious issues with wind. AFAIC, tilt rotor heads and variable pitch rotors will allow for wind corrections. In fact, somewhere, I even read that people were looking into such thing. The problem is, we're no longer talking about a lowend $10,000 craft or a nice one fo $20,000. Once you start into the $30,000 or more range, you can get a very safe and reliable older airframe (152, 172, various 140-180 pipers, etc), which will have a more useful load and probably a couple of more knots for boasting purposes. For about $18,000 - $35,000, you can get a fairly nice plane and chances are very high that it will have a proven safe track record AND be more more useful in less than ideal weather.
So, if you're going to spend the money, which are you going to purchase? For most that are serious about flying, I would think the choice is obvious. Having said all that, I would love to see a reliable ans safe gyrocopter hit the market which has all of the safety features rolled into one. I suppose it's possible that patent and design-dollar issues are preventing this from happening anytime soon. Oh well.
At any rate, the current state of gyrocopters are far from the current list of crediable known saftey improvements which are currently possible. Toss in the fact that pilots tend to be far less trained than real pilots, and they really are a death trap.
Do some searching on yahoo and google, and you'll find that there are many small companies trying various items here and there to help improve the safety record of these things. I'm not sure why we're not seeing more R&D money being pumped into them.
FYI, my father is a pilot since before I was born and I have recently starting studying for my written. I'm hoping to have my certificate within a year.
Cheers!
You seem willing to ignore that the risks are NOT the same. That's the point. That's the facts.
SOMEONE, PLEASE MOD THIS GUY DOWN. He's a troll. Look at how he starts his first sentence even.
Anyone that says gyrocopters can't stall, don't understand the physics involved. Period. hese things can and do fall out of the air because of a stalled rotor. Winds drive them from the air. Winds can flip these things. Basically, everythiing you're calling a troll would more accurately be called "FACTS!" You are greatly misleading people about the true dangers of these things.
Gyrocopters are only moderately safe in near ideal weather conditions. Basically, the experts and engineers that have been working for fix the long, long list of fatal flaws with gyrocopters call you an lying SOB.
You are a troll, plain and simple and some mods were silly enough to reward you for your ignorance, foolishness, and lies.
I agree. Considering he has what, six or eight engines running, 30mpg sounds pretty impossible. Besides, most aviation vehicles are measured in gallons per hour and not mile per gallon because, based on wind, a gph rating would be all over the place. A gph rating is going to be fairly static.
No one said that there were not risks associated with GA. Simple fact is, GA fixed wing planes are realiably safe. Just the same, gyrocopters are not.
I must say, it's afact that I didn't know and yes, I do find it to be interesting.
This is 100% accurate statement.
You can stall a plane at any speed.
I think the point is self explanitory. People are offering lies and invalid facts where are dangerous and requesting that mods mod down the factual dangers of these vehicles. On top of that, I'm taking the karma hit because of idiots that have no idea what they are talking about and mods are blindly following them.
It's annoying on many levels.
Would some thoughtful mods care to please correct the moding that has gone on here in this thread? Please review my profile. I never troll. Period. In the mean time, I've been hammered hard by moderators for telling the truth and offering facts about gyrocopters. Please, don't mod this post up, rather, please correct the modds which others have done. As is, some very bad and dangerous information is being pushed forward. Basically, most everything in this thread which was modded down is correct and everything that was modded up is false.
MODS, PLEASE DO YOUR JOB AND MOD DOWN THE BAD STUFF AND MOD UP THE CORRECT/ACCURATE INFORMATION. MODS, PLEASE READ THIS THREAD WITH -1 SCOPE SO THAT YOU CAN SEE ALL OF THE GOOD AND VALID INFORMATION WHICH HAS INCORRECTLY BEEN HAMMERED BY OTHER CARELESS MODS. Once you read the entire thread, it's fairly easy to see that everything I've stated has been supported by facts offered by my self or others kind enough to add real value to the thread.
THANK YOU.
Simple fact is, if that article told the whole story, the accident and associated death rates would not be anywhere near as high as they are. The things are not safe. They CAN be made safer and I spoke of that fact as well as the various directions and efforts helping to make them safe. Yet, the fact remains, as is commonly used, these are very unsafe!
Except that helicopters can fly well, both against and with the wind. Gyrocopters can not. If a gyrocopter flies into too much wind, it can cause a rotor stall; but requires fairly high winds which would still be flyable by planes and helicopters. If you fly with a tail wind, you can EASILY lose lift AND forward momentum and fall from the air with a rotor stall.
Cross winds are also very dangerous for these things. Flipping or inverting a gryocopter is hardly unhead of. These things are dangerous and the statistics support this. As do the basic physics involved.
it cannot stall.
That's false. Most everything stated above, assumes zero wind conditions! Read on.
Wind, as I originally stated, is one of the most dangerous aspects of these crafts. If you fly with a tail wind, the effective lift is GREATLY reduced. Thusly, GREATLY increasing the chances of a single rotor stall. That means, ONE HALF OF THE ROTOR IS CREATING LIFT. THE OTHER HALF IS NOT! This means at best, you have little to no control and YOU CAN NOT AUTOROTATE! This also means, it's possible that you'll become inverted. This problem does happen. I could go on and on, but think about the facts and the physics involved.
GYROCOPTERS ARE DANGEROUS AND ARE ONLY FAIR WEATHER VEHICLES. Bad weather or moderate winds can drive these things from the air. This is why you don't see commercial vehicle using them. The reasoning is simple. It's not very often that you have ideal weather everytime you need to go somehwere by air.
Mods! Pull your heads out of your tail pipes!! This is not a troll! This is fact!
Bother to think about the FACTS that I offered. What happens when a wing stalls on a plane? What happens when a rotor stalls on a helicopter? What happens when the rotor stalls on a gyrocopter? I Can promise you, if you stall a rotor, close to the ground, YOU CAN NOT AUTOROTATE. That a simple fact of phsyics.
Please mods, do the right thing here. Use your head! Mod based on facts rather than the misinformed facts offered by the fool that insists these things are safe. They are not safe and the statistics of these things prove it.
MODS! PLEASE DO YOU JOB PROPERLY! GYROCOPTERS ARE DANGEROUS!!!
Yes, you can stall. You can often recover. The problem with these death traps is when you fly any wind. Wind is what makes these things so dangerous. Fly in 0 wind and blue skies, it's probably fairly safe and fun. Fly when there is wind and you're playing the odds, which are NOT in your favor. Check the statistics!
Wind kills idiots that believe these things are safe. Rotor stalls are fairly easy to create in these things. Stall a rotor and you tumble or flat out fall from the sky. With a stalled rotor, you CAN NOT FRIGGEN AUTOROTATE. Anyone that says otherwise is an absoluete moron!!!!
Because they are friggen death traps and the moderators are buying into his misinformation! Everything he stated is false.
Gyrocopters are dangerous. Very dangerous! And yes, they nto only stall, but FALL OUT OF THE FRIGGEN AIR! Autorotation is not always an option in a gyrocopter. This is exactly why some have looked into using things like depleated uranium in the rotor tips so that they can maintain enough energy in the rotors to widen the window where they can safely autorotate.
Simple fact is, gyrocopters are very dangerous and the dumb mods which are listening to this fool is doing a GREAT diservice to the readers and potential users of these crafts. They was wicked dangerous!
I wish mods would bother to read the thread before they moderate. There is some very bad information being present here. Gyrocopters are not safe. Period. Anyone that says otherwise is an idiot. Someone was kind enough to even offer a link in this thread supporting the dangers of these things. Everything I stated about gyrocopters is 100% factual. Please, mod correctly. Mods are pushing down correct and accurate information in exchange for a clueless troll that doesn't have the foggiest idea what he's talking about. The statistics speak for themselves! Gyrocopters are one of the most dangerous aviation vehicles available. Period! They are not safe and DO STALL! Furthermore, they require a fair amount of forward momentum to safely autorotate. Speed is easy to bleed of in these things. Which means, a safe autorotation, even in the best of situations, is not always possible. Furthermore, rotor stalls are a problem that even helicopters have to deal with.
Simple fact is, gyrocopters are f-n death traps and anyone that says otherwise is either an idiot or a fool. Everything I stated is 100% fact and supported by both physics and their associated accident statistics!
That's exactly right! The statistics exactly reflect dangers that I outlined. Anyone that thinks that gyrocopters are safer than GA planes are either idiots or fools.
The are death traps for ALL of the reasons I outlinned.
Please mod the ignorant grandparent post back down as it's completely wrong and not support by physics nor accident statistics.
That's exactly right. Which, in turn, begins to make a gyrocopter into a much more complex airframe. One of the big advatnages of the gryocopter is that it's so simple. Adding more complex parts to it requires more complex skills to comtrol. It also requires more money to purchase and maintain. Thusly, the associated complexity goes way. Which mean, in the end, you're much close to a working copter. As you rightly pointed out, you're suddenly close enough to be a copter that you may as well turn it into a copter.
I'm sorry, but you've been sadly misinformed. I did, however, make one mistake. I stated that the leaded edge could stall in a head wind, which is incorrect. It's the trailing edge which stalls in a high speed head wind.
MOD THIS POST DOWN BECAUSE HE IS COMPLETELY CLUELESS!
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/magnetic/
Nope! Gyrocopters are death traps and are not for the average civilian. When they first become popular, there were more objects falling from the sky than ducks during duck season.
The problem with them is that they stall rather easily and do not tolorate winds very well at all. A crosswind can flip one and a tail wind can stall you, causing you to fall from the air without enough lift to autorotate. Furthermore, if you fly directly into a headwind with enough speed, again, you will lose lift on the leading rotor, causing a rotor stall, causing your to flip and/or fall from the air. At low altitudes, this is a death sentence. You can also raise your angle of attack too much and stall. Again, bad news. Also, since the rotor head is a fixed angle, causing the rotors to travel parallel to the seat, it makes for a rough ride. This means, many people get motion sickness riding in these things
Over the years, various companies have been working to address these MANY problems. Some claim to be successful, just the same, they are no longer the cheap vehicle there were before. There are some modern gyrocopters which have pivoting rotor heads, power-assist rotors, variable pitch rotors, depleated uranium in the rotor tips, etc, etc, etc...al of which hope to address the various short comings of gyrocopters. Some even have ramjets on the rotor tips allow for STOL capabilities. Just the same, these are just as out of reach, price wise (and still in development last I heard), as the air car.
No no no... that makes no sense whatsoever.
I think you missed the boat completely.
In your example, whereby you took a picture, a picture is in now way, shape, or form, going to deprive the artist from selling his painting. The size and quality does not compare. On the other hand, if you take a picture of your CD, it exactly matches what you're trying to make a point about. On the other hand, if you make a copy of the CD, you have exactly matched pretty much every aspect of the original and then using it for free, without paying the artist. This too, is illegal and is a *form of* theft. Just like copying that CD is a *form of* theft. Period. Copying music which you do not have a right to do so, is stealing. Doing so, makes you a thief. If we take you example, and exactly reproduce the artist's paintig so that even the artist can not tell the difference, he will rightly so claim you've stolen his work, or at a minimum, diluted the original's value. Either way, you've horribly wronged the artist. Same applies to CD's. It really doesn't matter if you consider it stealing, which it is, but the fact remains, it's something that only unethical people do.
Theft has nothing to do with payment.
Theft has everything to do with payment. Walk into a store and walk out with something you didn't pay for and argue with the store manager and police. Please let me know too so that I can laugh and point eith the police and the store manager while you insist that your theft has nothing to do with payment. LOL. That's insanely funny and foolish.
The store doesn't get their money, so they in turn raise prices to compensate. They pass that on to the consumer, who on average makes significantly less than those who are hurt by music piracy.
And the exact same thing applies to stolen music too. What was your point? The result of stealing CD's means that the RIAA has to put more filler crap onto CD's so that they can sell more CD's to make up for the profits that you've stolen. Likewise, the artist makes less money because you stole his work without paying him for it. This means that your theft is forcing all of other consumers to pick the cost.
How many times have you gone out and spent that hard-earned $15 on a CD from which you'd heard a couple of great singles, only to get home and find out that those were the only two songs on the entire disc worth two shits?
Well, I don't buy CD's, so the answer is simple. Beyond that, if you think it has a bunch of crap on it, DON'T FRIGGEN BUY IT! NO ONE IS MAKING YOU BUY CRAP! Worse, you can use common sense and not buy the CD. Worse still, if you actually wanted to be ethical, versus a thief, you could only buy the songs that you like an save some money at the same time. What a friggen concept.
t's civil disobedience.
That's complete BS! If you want to be civil disobedient, protest. Just because you are being disobedient, does not justify ripping off the artist nor stealing his works. Furthermore, breaking the law is breaking the law. Regardless of whatever lie you want to tell you self, illegal actions are still illegal and your are still hurting the artist. Want to do something that actually makes sense, stop buying their friggen music! Wow! What a concept. Furthermore, you argument is complete crap to begin with because in this day and age, you can buy songs by themselves. So, stealing songs and using that justification makes them even more scummy and dirty.
Wrong. On every account.
Take a picture of your CD and then your example will actually mean somthing. Go on. Take a picture of your CD and send it to your friends. That's the only way your example makes any sense.
Theft requires taking something to which you have no rights and have not paid for, especially when payment is expected. The only difference is here, in stead of a store lossing out, you're hurting and ripping off the artist.