md5 is all fine and good, but isn't it possible that two different machines ripping the same audio to MP3 can yeild a different md5 result? Different encoding methods, different bitrates, read errors, etc.
What would really be nice, if we took every politician who was sworn to uphold the constitution, examine their record for passing unconstitutional laws, and the ones that have not upheld the constitution as they have sworn, were fired.
irratability, anxiety attacks, nervousness, sweats, insomnia, cravings, severe constipation, and of course, extreme weight-gain from when you quit drinking diet coke or diet pepsi, you choice for non-caffinated carbonated beverages most places you go to buy beverages, is Sprite or 7-UP, thanks to the cola cartels (who also have an oligopoly). There often is no caffeine-free diet-cola or diet Sprite available, nor is there sparkling water, in America. No choice. No choice. Sounds like a job for David Boise.
the point here, mon ami, is NOT to demonize alchohol. It is to point out the hypocracy in the prohibition attitude, which DOES have puritan roots.
The hypocracy that alcohol (and caffeine, and cigarettes) is harmless, and other drugs are bad.
The point we're trying to illustrate here is that they're ALL bad - when misused. But the scale that is illustrated by the prohibition propaganda, is hypocritical. We're not saying that alcohol should be banned, we're saying that the other drugs SHOULDN'T be.
I drink a glass of red wine every day. I torch up a doobie once in a while as well.
stop the lies? You're the one spouting wine-industry propaganda, perverted to anti-american nationalism.
I know this because I live in California, and the wine-industry spews the same bullshit here, only they don't try to shoot down a nationality.
Alchohol is a poison. It is a waste product of fermentation. It kills bacteria, it kills brain cells in humans. (in my opinion tho- it just prunes the weak ones, leaving the strong ones behind to flourish.)
WHen I was in college, there was a student who died my first week there. He had a shot-glass he had stolen from the bar, in a pocket. Walking home from the bars, he passed out, fell, and the glass severed his femural artery. He bled to death in 60 seconds.
Two years ago, I had moved to a California college town. Some kid, recent college grad, was out celebrating graduation. He went back to his house, although he apparently had forgotten he had already moved out, was staying in a hotel to drive back home the next day, to start a $70k/yr job as a programmer. Since his house had been vacated, the owner was fumagating. The kid went under the tent, into the house, and fell asleep on the living-room floor. The pesticides killed him.
My son's grandfather was an alchoholic for 30 years. Worked a backhoe. Killed a co-worker because he was drunk on the job. Was involved in several minor traffic accidents, but somehow was never caught as DUI. Raped his daughters. Beat his wife. Unemployed for most of the 30 years. Died on the operating table after his 5th heart attack at age 55.
Maybe the first two could have happened from other drugs, maybe the last one could have happened with other drugs. But all of these happened with "harmless" alchohol.
I'm not saying that there are people who can tolerate moderate heroin use -
But I have seen, first hand, the horrors of alchohol addiction. Worse still, when someone destroys their life on Heroin, they tend to be abandoned, they tend to usually not take a family down with them.
I have seen whole families lives destroyed by this harmful drug. Yet I am not out calling for prohibiton on alchohol. Some people can tolerate it's moderate use, and not be addicted.
What is harmful, with regard to ANY drug, is the prohibition-attitude, thinking that they can clamp down on it and stop the behavior. Are they nuts? We can't even stop everyone from exceeding the speed limit! As a recovering heroin addict, wouldn't you be in deep do do if the only information on how to break your addiction to heroin, maybe some treatment or program, were considered by the anti-drug folks to be "too informative", and blacked out, by this law? Their solution for you: eventually you will be caught, thrown in jail - that's the cure for you. None of this publically funded methadone clinic crap. Just jail em all.
As a recovering internet porn addict, I can very confidently say that porn online should definately NOT be banned. I must rely on my individual will power to "keep clean". Not fascist government intervention. Otherwise, I'm not really keeping clean, am I? Someone else is doing the dirty work for me. Fuck that.
Okay, to simplify things - the term Monopoly has been misused in this case. If the "Big Five" as you say, have been colluding, as has been alleged, and even proven in court by the FTC, then it stands to reason that the RIAA is the mouthpiece of this collusion. Doesn't make it so, but they represent the colluding parties. They are a convenient entity to refer to when discussing the "collusion". Their stated policies DO tend to support record label collusion - do they not?
The oligopoly they command, may not be the market for music you see in the record stores. (though it can easily be argued that the promotional networks and distribution channels are pretty much blockaded). The place where choice is truly limited, is when an Artist decides to become a professional, and tries to find an outlet for their product - the RIAA companies are the only viable choices for them. For now. I believe that Napster is pretty much a dead-end as far as that goes. I believe that Napster's business model is to ally itself with the "big five" and be part of their closed distribution network. I believe that is their goal. This won't offer artists a choice. However, there ARE internet music outlets out there who are signing bands and distributing their music, and there are more established artists who are experimenting with a DIY approach (which I think is doomed to failure in the long run, once a certain volume of internet promotion develops).
I wonder why the market can't or won't settle this, because the RIAA does NOT have control over internet distribution. They ARE working on it, but they don't have it by a long shot - so I'm wondering why competitors have not sprung up to give artists a choice. Maybe there's something we're all missing - or maybe there's an opportunity for some "sucka VC's" out there.
No, that's not what he said at all. He was suggesting that AIDS is not a problem for society to solve, it's a problem for individuals to solve.
My point is, yes, an individual can solve it for himself, yay, you won't be exposed, but millions of others can not or will not behave the way you do, or want them to, and will catch this virus, and get sick, and tax our health-care system, and otherwise stress society as a whole. No man is an island. Sorry to break the news to you. Whether you feel you have an obligation to help these people or not, or even if you don't, you will be affected by this illness. Sorry. Okay - now just to be painfully clear here, I am not saying that you or I have a responsibility to help other people who bumfuck eachother. Got it? I never said that. What I'm saying is that when a large segment of the population catches a disease, gets sick over a period of ten years, and dies, it's a drain on our culture, it's a drain on our economy, and even if you ignore them, round them up put them in camps, or just exterminate them, you are still not immune to the negative effects - shortages of skilled labor, economic deflation, in extreme cases, - etc. Just watch, ten years from now, the heathen in Africa are going to be suffering so much from AIDS, there will be even more political turmoil than today. Rwanda was a tempest in a teaspoon. Populations are dropping, 23 million orphans is the current figure. Do you think American soldiers won't be involved in cleaning up and policing that? You think the world economy will not be affected? If you can't keep people from bumfucking eachother, how can you keep politicians from doing what they will inevitably do when Africa becomes a ripe and easy target for invasion? This is not because of immoral behavior, it's because of a virus. A plauge. A mindless, soulless piece of DNA and protien. It behaves the way it does for the same reasons salt causes water to stay liquid at a lower temperature. Chemistry. Physics. You may cite Darwinism, that's fine, but this is not Africa's problem. Soon it will be yours, no matter how many condoms you wear, no matter how many women you don't screw, no matter how many needles you don't stick in your arm. This has nothing to do with morals, right and wrong, etc. It has to do with the mistaken attitude that you can "take care of yourself" in this world, and not worry about anyone else. Right or wrong, it will come to bite you in your ass. Ignore them, Nuke them, Feed them, whatever. AIDS is coming to get all of us, in one way or another. Unless you are a worm, living off of volcanic fumes at the bottom of the ocean, you will be impacted.
Some people may consider pretty much anything to be a bug - including the lack of a telepathic interface.
Unless you have a well-defined specification, and the product meets it exactly, I've seen cases where end-of-lifed code has been dredged up years later to add silly features that were considered "bugs" by paying customers.
-I think downloading free MP3's is immoral, I don't do it. People who do it should be flogged. -I think downloading is okay, as long as I have a paid-for CD copy. -I think downloading is okay, as long as you listen once, and either delete it or buy the CD. -I think downloading is okay, never buy CD's, screw the man!
I'm betting we'll see a distribution like 15-14-70-1. Maybe that would help straighten this thing out. Numbers is what the marketeers speak.
being able to give anyone else who wants one, a free downloadable copy via the internet - I think most people will disagree with me, but I call that fair use.
Now, me charging for that copy, and making a profit (or making ad banner profit from people coming to my site to download the tunes), is probably not good. This is where, in my opinion, Napster is shady.
Heh, on Hatch's web site, he pays much homage to Reagan. Make the statement that the evening news is biased like that - imply that the record companies, are part of these large media conglomerates, which also control the news outlets. Which is why we have such biased news.
Are these mega media monsters a bad thing? Why no! Reagan gave them to us! He deregulated the industry allowing these behemoths to form.
because the often misinterpreted Republican platform is about: less FEDERAL control, more LOCAL control. They are frequently seen pushing religious zealotry issues, because they believe that the amoral federal zombies in Washington are pushing satan's values onto their little hometown. They think that their local and state governments should decide issues like abortion, segregation, school prayer, etc. Not a bloated soulless federal government.
Of course, pork-barrelism plays both sides of the fence.
napster doesn't defend itself in this way, because it doesn't want to be a freely distributed piece of MP3 trading software forever. They want to be THE tool that the music companies adopt for electronic distribution. Money. 20 million users. That's a lot of seats. Remember why AOL bought Netscape? Seats my friend. Not technology. In the world of the internet, Asses are Assets, and I'm not just talking about pr0n.
I'm sure that the reason that payment mechanisms haven't been enabled is because it's easier to extort the RIAA companies that way.
Yes, we all "know" it's wrong. It's part of being a human, I guess, right? Knowing right from wrong? So if a person feels it is wrong, then they should go out and buy the CD, or otherwise compensate the artist. There's no need for this destructive and wasteful pinching down on our rights to make fair use copies, and that includes sharing with friends. If a person feels bad about getting a free copy of something that's truly worthy of compensation, then that person will compensate. Duh!
But nobody is being hurt by the copies of every Metallica MP3 I have sitting on my HD. I wasn't going to buy their shit before, and I'm still not going to buy their shit. But as for the Stevie Ray Vaughn MP3's I do feel that, even though he's dead, his music should be paid for. So I bought two of his CD's.
What the music industry doesn't seem to grok, is that at the current prices, CD's are selling to a limited market. This is one of the reasons why piracy is rampant. But if, instead of charging $20/CD, and selling 100,000 CD's you sell the music at a nickel a track, you probably cut the piracy in half (you can't eliminate it completely, you can try, but you will not be successful - why waste the effort=expense of trying, while at the same time pissing off your consumers with unweildy solutions?), you probably sell 20 million copies, when this thing gets going, you lose say half the CD gross on distribution and production, and you come out with the same amount of profit. Add to this, the fact that, if your product is good (and that's a pretty big IF these days), you'll still probably sell at least 20,000 CD's on top of that, because even though customers can download all the tracks for a nickel a piece, (or free if they want to go through the trouble to pirate it), there will still be a healthy demand for the final CD product - then you get an extra $400,000 out of the deal, plus happy customers, no costly legal hemming and hawing over piracy, and the most valuable gem of all: human culture is enriched, because everyone CAN have access to the music, and because the artificial scarcity is gone, the natural scarcity, of quality music, kicks in as the main incentive to buy - so the market forces the product to be better and better.
Look at it this way. Is it more, or less likely to happen, if an advanced civilization happens upon this gem of a planet, observes our culture to decide whether to blow us away and strip-mine the planet, or preserve us - based on our cultural value. If they listen to n*synch or brittney's spheres, we're dead meat.
shit. People. . . musicians will still make music, even if there is no way to make money off of it. True musicians make music, because it's part of being human. Dig?
A lot of what we currently call musicians will probably end up flipping burgers, or maybe doing the 2:00 Little Mermaid show at Disney Land, there will probably be a lot less music around. But my guess is that a much higher proportion of it will be of decent "quality". Hell, the art might even advance some - instead of the gross regression we've been seeing for the past 5 years. (some will argue 100 years - not me. Hail hail rock-n-roll)
Slashdot Mirror
md5 is all fine and good, but isn't it possible that two different machines ripping the same audio to MP3 can yeild a different md5 result? Different encoding methods, different bitrates, read errors, etc.
if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!
Maybe OOG could be a bit more historically accurate:
Turn off your caps-lock key, and take a hammer and chisel to that shiny colorful stone tablet in front of your face.
if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!
You would not be the first conspiracy theorist to draw that conclusion. In fact, there is quite a bit of evidence to support such a theory.
if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!
What would really be nice, if we took every politician who was sworn to uphold the constitution, examine their record for passing unconstitutional laws, and the ones that have not upheld the constitution as they have sworn, were fired.
if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!
um, we already DO have prison labor.
No death penalty for tax evasion, per se,
Forced abortions will NEVER happen in this country. NEVER. No matter how many Clintons (Hillary) are in the whitehouse.
if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!
irratability, anxiety attacks, nervousness, sweats, insomnia, cravings, severe constipation, and of course, extreme weight-gain from when you quit drinking diet coke or diet pepsi, you choice for non-caffinated carbonated beverages most places you go to buy beverages, is Sprite or 7-UP, thanks to the cola cartels (who also have an oligopoly). There often is no caffeine-free diet-cola or diet Sprite available, nor is there sparkling water, in America. No choice. No choice. Sounds like a job for David Boise.
if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!
the point here, mon ami, is NOT to demonize alchohol. It is to point out the hypocracy in the prohibition attitude, which DOES have puritan roots.
The hypocracy that alcohol (and caffeine, and cigarettes) is harmless, and other drugs are bad.
The point we're trying to illustrate here is that they're ALL bad - when misused. But the scale that is illustrated by the prohibition propaganda, is hypocritical. We're not saying that alcohol should be banned, we're saying that the other drugs SHOULDN'T be.
I drink a glass of red wine every day.
I torch up a doobie once in a while as well.
if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!
stop the lies? You're the one spouting wine-industry propaganda, perverted to anti-american nationalism.
I know this because I live in California, and the wine-industry spews the same bullshit here, only they don't try to shoot down a nationality.
Alchohol is a poison. It is a waste product of fermentation. It kills bacteria, it kills brain cells in humans. (in my opinion tho- it just prunes the weak ones, leaving the strong ones behind to flourish.)
if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!
WHen I was in college, there was a student who died my first week there. He had a shot-glass he had stolen from the bar, in a pocket. Walking home from the bars, he passed out, fell, and the glass severed his femural artery. He bled to death in 60 seconds.
Two years ago, I had moved to a California college town. Some kid, recent college grad, was out celebrating graduation. He went back to his house, although he apparently had forgotten he had already moved out, was staying in a hotel to drive back home the next day, to start a $70k/yr job as a programmer. Since his house had been vacated, the owner was fumagating. The kid went under the tent, into the house, and fell asleep on the living-room floor. The pesticides killed him.
My son's grandfather was an alchoholic for 30 years. Worked a backhoe. Killed a co-worker because he was drunk on the job. Was involved in several minor traffic accidents, but somehow was never caught as DUI. Raped his daughters. Beat his wife. Unemployed for most of the 30 years. Died on the operating table after his 5th heart attack at age 55.
Maybe the first two could have happened from other drugs, maybe the last one could have happened with other drugs. But all of these happened with "harmless" alchohol.
if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!
I'm not saying that there are people who can tolerate moderate heroin use -
But I have seen, first hand, the horrors of alchohol addiction. Worse still, when someone destroys their life on Heroin, they tend to be abandoned, they tend to usually not take a family down with them.
I have seen whole families lives destroyed by this harmful drug. Yet I am not out calling for prohibiton on alchohol. Some people can tolerate it's moderate use, and not be addicted.
What is harmful, with regard to ANY drug, is the prohibition-attitude, thinking that they can clamp down on it and stop the behavior. Are they nuts? We can't even stop everyone from exceeding the speed limit!
As a recovering heroin addict, wouldn't you be in deep do do if the only information on how to break your addiction to heroin, maybe some treatment or program, were considered by the anti-drug folks to be "too informative", and blacked out, by this law? Their solution for you: eventually you will be caught, thrown in jail - that's the cure for you. None of this publically funded methadone clinic crap. Just jail em all.
As a recovering internet porn addict, I can very confidently say that porn online should definately NOT be banned. I must rely on my individual will power to "keep clean". Not fascist government intervention. Otherwise, I'm not really keeping clean, am I? Someone else is doing the dirty work for me. Fuck that.
if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!
Okay, to simplify things - the term Monopoly has been misused in this case. If the "Big Five" as you say, have been colluding, as has been alleged, and even proven in court by the FTC, then it stands to reason that the RIAA is the mouthpiece of this collusion. Doesn't make it so, but they represent the colluding parties. They are a convenient entity to refer to when discussing the "collusion". Their stated policies DO tend to support record label collusion - do they not?
The oligopoly they command, may not be the market for music you see in the record stores. (though it can easily be argued that the promotional networks and distribution channels are pretty much blockaded).
The place where choice is truly limited, is when an Artist decides to become a professional, and tries to find an outlet for their product - the RIAA companies are the only viable choices for them. For now.
I believe that Napster is pretty much a dead-end as far as that goes. I believe that Napster's business model is to ally itself with the "big five" and be part of their closed distribution network. I believe that is their goal. This won't offer artists a choice. However, there ARE internet music outlets out there who are signing bands and distributing their music, and there are more established artists who are experimenting with a DIY approach (which I think is doomed to failure in the long run, once a certain volume of internet promotion develops).
I wonder why the market can't or won't settle this, because the RIAA does NOT have control over internet distribution. They ARE working on it, but they don't have it by a long shot - so I'm wondering why competitors have not sprung up to give artists a choice. Maybe there's something we're all missing - or maybe there's an opportunity for some "sucka VC's" out there.
if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!
No, that's not what he said at all. He was suggesting that AIDS is not a problem for society to solve, it's a problem for individuals to solve.
My point is, yes, an individual can solve it for himself, yay, you won't be exposed, but millions of others can not or will not behave the way you do, or want them to, and will catch this virus, and get sick, and tax our health-care system, and otherwise stress society as a whole. No man is an island. Sorry to break the news to you. Whether you feel you have an obligation to help these people or not, or even if you don't, you will be affected by this illness. Sorry.
Okay - now just to be painfully clear here, I am not saying that you or I have a responsibility to help other people who bumfuck eachother. Got it? I never said that. What I'm saying is that when a large segment of the population catches a disease, gets sick over a period of ten years, and dies, it's a drain on our culture, it's a drain on our economy, and even if you ignore them, round them up put them in camps, or just exterminate them, you are still not immune to the negative effects - shortages of skilled labor, economic deflation, in extreme cases, - etc. Just watch, ten years from now, the heathen in Africa are going to be suffering so much from AIDS, there will be even more political turmoil than today. Rwanda was a tempest in a teaspoon. Populations are dropping, 23 million orphans is the current figure. Do you think American soldiers won't be involved in cleaning up and policing that? You think the world economy will not be affected? If you can't keep people from bumfucking eachother, how can you keep politicians from doing what they will inevitably do when Africa becomes a ripe and easy target for invasion? This is not because of immoral behavior, it's because of a virus. A plauge. A mindless, soulless piece of DNA and protien. It behaves the way it does for the same reasons salt causes water to stay liquid at a lower temperature. Chemistry. Physics. You may cite Darwinism, that's fine, but this is not Africa's problem. Soon it will be yours, no matter how many condoms you wear, no matter how many women you don't screw, no matter how many needles you don't stick in your arm. This has nothing to do with morals, right and wrong, etc. It has to do with the mistaken attitude that you can "take care of yourself" in this world, and not worry about anyone else. Right or wrong, it will come to bite you in your ass. Ignore them, Nuke them, Feed them, whatever. AIDS is coming to get all of us, in one way or another. Unless you are a worm, living off of volcanic fumes at the bottom of the ocean, you will be impacted.
if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!
Some people may consider pretty much anything to be a bug - including the lack of a telepathic interface.
Unless you have a well-defined specification, and the product meets it exactly, I've seen cases where end-of-lifed code has been dredged up years later to add silly features that were considered "bugs" by paying customers.
if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!
In terms of unit sales, or even dollars if you prefer, what small fraction of the industry does the RIAA represent?
.
I'm guessing it's a marketshare similar in scope to Microsoft's. .
if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!
yeah, but what percentage of those 20 million are of legal voting age, and what percentage are 13 yr. old script-kiddies?
if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!
Why don't we have a /. Poll - just for kicks:
-I think downloading free MP3's is immoral, I don't do it. People who do it should be flogged.
-I think downloading is okay, as long as I have a paid-for CD copy.
-I think downloading is okay, as long as you listen once, and either delete it or buy the CD.
-I think downloading is okay, never buy CD's, screw the man!
I'm betting we'll see a distribution like 15-14-70-1. Maybe that would help straighten this thing out. Numbers is what the marketeers speak.
if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!
being able to give anyone else who wants one, a free downloadable copy via the internet - I think most people will disagree with me, but I call that fair use.
Now, me charging for that copy, and making a profit (or making ad banner profit from people coming to my site to download the tunes), is probably not good. This is where, in my opinion, Napster is shady.
if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!
Heh, on Hatch's web site, he pays much homage to Reagan. Make the statement that the evening news is biased like that - imply that the record companies, are part of these large media conglomerates, which also control the news outlets. Which is why we have such biased news.
Are these mega media monsters a bad thing?
Why no! Reagan gave them to us! He deregulated the industry allowing these behemoths to form.
if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!
because the often misinterpreted Republican platform is about: less FEDERAL control, more LOCAL control. They are frequently seen pushing religious zealotry issues, because they believe that the amoral federal zombies in Washington are pushing satan's values onto their little hometown. They think that their local and state governments should decide issues like abortion, segregation, school prayer, etc. Not a bloated soulless federal government.
Of course, pork-barrelism plays both sides of the fence.
if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!
napster doesn't defend itself in this way, because it doesn't want to be a freely distributed piece of MP3 trading software forever. They want to be THE tool that the music companies adopt for electronic distribution. Money. 20 million users. That's a lot of seats. Remember why AOL bought Netscape? Seats my friend. Not technology. In the world of the internet, Asses are Assets, and I'm not just talking about pr0n.
I'm sure that the reason that payment mechanisms haven't been enabled is because it's easier to extort the RIAA companies that way.
if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!
Here's the deal though;
Yes, we all "know" it's wrong. It's part of being a human, I guess, right? Knowing right from wrong? So if a person feels it is wrong, then they should go out and buy the CD, or otherwise compensate the artist. There's no need for this destructive and wasteful pinching down on our rights to make fair use copies, and that includes sharing with friends. If a person feels bad about getting a free copy of something that's truly worthy of compensation, then that person will compensate. Duh!
But nobody is being hurt by the copies of every Metallica MP3 I have sitting on my HD. I wasn't going to buy their shit before, and I'm still not going to buy their shit.
But as for the Stevie Ray Vaughn MP3's I do feel that, even though he's dead, his music should be paid for. So I bought two of his CD's.
if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!
And here's the REAL idiocy:
(dead horse: "hey! quit it man! that hurts!)
What the music industry doesn't seem to grok, is that at the current prices, CD's are selling to a limited market. This is one of the reasons why piracy is rampant. But if, instead of charging $20/CD, and selling 100,000 CD's you sell the music at a nickel a track, you probably cut the piracy in half (you can't eliminate it completely, you can try, but you will not be successful - why waste the effort=expense of trying, while at the same time pissing off your consumers with unweildy solutions?), you probably sell 20 million copies, when this thing gets going, you lose say half the CD gross on distribution and production, and you come out with the same amount of profit. Add to this, the fact that, if your product is good (and that's a pretty big IF these days), you'll still probably sell at least 20,000 CD's on top of that, because even though customers can download all the tracks for a nickel a piece, (or free if they want to go through the trouble to pirate it), there will still be a healthy demand for the final CD product - then you get an extra $400,000 out of the deal, plus happy customers, no costly legal hemming and hawing over piracy, and the most valuable gem of all: human culture is enriched, because everyone CAN have access to the music, and because the artificial scarcity is gone, the natural scarcity, of quality music, kicks in as the main incentive to buy - so the market forces the product to be better and better.
Look at it this way. Is it more, or less likely to happen, if an advanced civilization happens upon this gem of a planet, observes our culture to decide whether to blow us away and strip-mine the planet, or preserve us - based on our cultural value. If they listen to n*synch or brittney's spheres, we're dead meat.
if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!
My 2nd cousin is a farmer. He sez, you can't even buy a loaf of bread for what you can sell a bushel of wheat for.
That's the fact, jack.
if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!
shit. People. . . musicians will still make music, even if there is no way to make money off of it. True musicians make music, because it's part of being human. Dig?
A lot of what we currently call musicians will probably end up flipping burgers, or maybe doing the 2:00 Little Mermaid show at Disney Land, there will probably be a lot less music around. But my guess is that a much higher proportion of it will be of decent "quality".
Hell, the art might even advance some - instead of the gross regression we've been seeing for the past 5 years. (some will argue 100 years - not me. Hail hail rock-n-roll)
if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!
um - perhaps Gore is better at managing his emails than you think. The deletions were ve-ry convenient for him. . .
IMHO, he should have used a kewl nick like "jafac" or something.
if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!