They would have an *incredibly* difficult time selling any car that had a speed governor on it that limited it to 70mph top speed, and they areperfectly able to build such a car right this second and try to sell it. And the reason is, they know people want to speed on occassion, which is breaking the law.
I'm more inclined to think that it would cut off an enourmously large revenue stream for municipal and state government.
Those cops are not just enforcing the law out there. They are MAKING MONEY.
We're nearly to the point now that the people won't be able to overthrow a bad government.
You must be kidding. NEARLY?????
Just to name a few:
Central Intelligence Agency Federal Bureau of Investigation Homeland Security Department Internal Revenue Service National Guard Drug Enforcement Agency National Aeronautics and Space Agency
Do you have any idea how much moeny and power your government controls? Any idea how easily they could make any one of us disappear? How hard it would be to fight a monster that puts 4 Trillion dollars a year into the Army alone? How insane it is to think that your Handgun, Shotgun, Tek-9, AK-47, or any collection of explosives, could have any relevance to the product of hundreds of years of planning by some of the worlds most elite, intelligent and secretive people?
Do you even have any idea what your government is DOING right now?
It was Ben Franklin and the direct quote is the following: They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Thanks, but if we were to follow the political advice of Ben Franklin we'd be growing hemp and having black slaves pick it.
Banning guns is like forcing people to wear seatbelts.
Yes, I have the right to choose what I can do and how I do it.
But if it can be proved that by superceding that right, a substantial number of lives can be saved, then that right must be superceded.
In the case of guns it is the right to life. You claim that you have the right to protect your life. Too many lives can be saved by you ceding some of that right to the government. In case you dont know, you already have : block watch, police, firemen, national guard, the navy and the army are all examples.
Keeping that in mind, also remember that one liners like yours (" "Those who give up a few freedoms for security deserve neigther and loose both") have no place in logical arguments. They dont even PRETEND to give evidence.
Time after time it has been shown that the guns dont even end up protecting people anyways. And the need for guns is based on the proliferation of them... talk about a circular argument.
I'd rather be judged by twelve than carried by six!
This old saying, often featured in gansta rap songs like Fabulous' Respect and X-Raided's Trial by Fury, tries to portray situations as a black and white binary opposition in which defense is a necessary action, when rather the supposed (and likely debatable) life-or-death situation could be avoided with a decrease in the proliferation of weapons altogether! Regardless, it will take a lot more than slogans to convince me that killing a man is the right thing to do in ANY situation.
Can I just say that I too thought I'd pick up the game of Texas Hold'em poker (I was going to tell you what site but my better judgement says not to)
A few months later I'm out 150 dollars american and still getting emails all the time trying to entice me back. I just got 20 free dollars in my account from the company... I guess they realized I stopped playing so they're giving me another little "taste" to get me hooked. Unfortunately I'll probably go play it when I'm done here.
Online gambling is dangerous, people. Its too easy and its too much fun. Far, far worse than Evercrack, where at least 150 dollars will get you six months of play. I lost my money in a matter of days.
This thing is so stupid I am offended. Its just pointless drivel that isnt interesting and is just begging for attention. Essentially, the only thing that this site has to offer is that other people are reading it, and it is quite dubious whether anyone actually is.
It appears that this stupid site is based on journals that people write daily or something like that. We get involved by reading them. Heres today's:
OMG! I was actually recognized by a Spot fan at work yesterday! It was so surreal and uber awesome. She was very sweet and asked me tons of questions about The Spot. Makes me realize how fortunate I am - we all are - to be part of this amazing project.
Last night after work I came home and watched the season finale of FRIENDS with... my friends! It was a nice closure to the whole series. I had to tape Survivor and then watched it early this morning. All I can say is... that last lingering look from Tom - who glared coldly at Boston Rob - was priceless. I can't wait to see Boston Rob get his!!! Karma is a powerful thing! Season finale is this Sunday! Woo hoo!
I'm off from work today, and I've decided to head over to Ikea and buy a comforter for my bed! My room definitely needs some color. Carrie told me that Ikea has some great selections and even better prices, so... Burbank here I come.
Anyway, gotta hit the bucks right now for a Tazo Chai latte! Make it a super day!
Ok well if you didnt puke immediately upon reading the "OMG", you certainly did by the time she refered to Starbucks using hip urban slang. What is this? a tribute to the consumer lifestyle? "I watched TV, then bought some stuff, taped some TV, went shopping, Oh! gotta go buy some more stuff! see ya !!!!! OMG!!!! RTFM!!!" And there be a more boring thing to talk about ?
This is so far from being news, its a stupid attention grab and it'll be in the landfill in no time.
I agree with you on the point of literature and patents, but I dont think music deserves the same rights. The sole profitability of literature and patents is in their being protected by copyright. Without it, they are nothing. On the other hand music can be profitable in many ways, and while i think the rights to the works should be acknowledged, I'm not sure that it makes sense to extend those rights to RECORDINGS of the music.
These recordings are dependant on so many more things than just the talent of the author, whereas with literature and inventions this is not the case - the author is the sole source of talent. The number one thing involved here - even moreso than the music itself - is technology. The recorded music industry has its business model rooted in an immature state of the technology.
Its a business built on thin air- as soon as the technology would evolve the business would crumble. Now that the technology is becoming more complete, the business will evaporate.
As I've said before : All we can do is depend on the already existing large majority of musicians that dont do it for the money, do it for the music, and make a modest income.
Let natural selection take its course. People will support the musicians that they like, and the music that is based on fad and formula will stop being made because people arent willing to shell out the bucks for it. You are paying for a service - to be entertained - and people realize that musicians need money to make music.
Why do you think game companies are moving to consoles so quickly? It's much harder to pirate the fuck out of the games.
Actually, based upon the logic presented in your response, the console industry would be quite dead, since "naturally" people will opt for the free things instead of the expensive ones. Therefore game companies would be digging their own graves right now.
If you can get something for free you would otherewise have to pay for, it's natural to want it for free.
I've heard this from so many recording label apologists, and its stupid.
Your assumption about what is "natural" is totally unfounded. I, for one, can download any game I want, but if I'm not doing more than checking it out and making sure it works on the computer, I buy it. I bought Unreal 2k4 the day it was released, as well as Warcraft 3 and Civilization 2,3 both on release day. These are the only games I play. Why do I buy them? So that I get to see Civ4, War4, and Unreal2k4. But you deride this kind of "sampling" and then you make an assumption about what the "natural" instincts of majority of the samplees are? Thats fiddle-faddle in anyone's books.
Yes, there are costs involved with making music, and I understand that in order to have "musicians", they have to be able to make a living playing music. Lets look at some of those musiciains: Lets take a cross section of them by using, say, Australia. An Australian musician averages about 24k per year. (http://www.mca.org.au/m15240.htm)Thats not a lot. That number hasnt really changed in the last 20-30 years. You are trying to tell me that these people, who are making a meager but liveable income and are doing what they love to do, these people are in it for the money, and they need to maximize profits by eliminating file sharing. They only want people that have paid money to hear their gifts. WRONG. How would you even know what they want anyways?
At some point in the evolution of music from the orchestra to the turntable, a huge discrepancy became apparent between the costs and the revenues. Music companys to this day make tremendous amounts of money, and very little of it ends up in the artists pocket.
When did the role of law and morality become to ensure LARGE, if not ENOURMOUS profits for people who DISTRIBUTE music media? And for those few musicians that "make it big" (which for some may be to their detriment!), same question : when did law and morality's role turn into rewarding people who slap bandaids on their faces with huge cocaine addictions?
Is the point of the law to protect the musicians? to protect the music? Read the rest of this and then tell me : what, exactly, is the point of the law?
Fact is, musicians have been short circuiting the whole system. You know that musicians barely see any of the money made by their labels, but heres something you might not have thought of : they make the big bucks by taking sponsers.
Listened to any rap tunes lately? How about Nelly's "Air Force Ones", which Nike payed him millions upon millions of dollars to sing. Do you think Nike or even Nelly cares if that song gets passed around? Not in the least, in fact, without a doubt, Nike would welcome the infringement. Based on this, some might say the future of music look very grim, and neither file sharing nor record labels are helping the situation. All we can do is depend on the already existing large majority of musicians that dont do it for the money and do it for the music. Oh wait, maybe this wont be so bad...
I prefer "criminals," because legally and morally, that's what pirates are.
Or not... Criminals. ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR MIND? You cant even be prosecuted in a criminal court for pirating music. You have to be sued. This just went from stupid to idiotic.
By the way : Are you aware that you just labelled over 50% of the population criminals? Should we all be thrown in jail? We'll keep the spillover at your place.
Can we get this straight, whatever way you slice it or dice it, whatever way angle you approach it from, the campaign to brand copyright infringment as "THEFT" so that people like you would confuse it with criminal acts was a PROPAGANDA CAMPAIGN. Hey you bigwigs over at the RIAA : look! It worked!
Prediction : Your appeal to the morality of filesharing, on which your argument is based, will not go very far. *Your* interpre
Basically what you are saying is that a high stock price makes a company, and not the REALITY of a situation which is a company makes a high stock price. Its not just some fluke of nature that Intel has a huge share price : they have a highly desired and wellknown product on the market. When people stop buying it, and if Intel hasnt diversified, Intel AND ITS STOCK are dead in the water. Your logic is really fucked up.
The primary goal of advertising is to improve the stock portfolio of the company. Profits are nice, but investors are first looking for growth in the value of the shares they own. Advertising helps push the value of shares.
Uhh , what? First of all, that requires that the company be listed on the stock market.
Secondly, If a company doesnt make any sales, its going to fail. If a company is redlining, its stock is not going to rise. Therefore, the primary goal of any company is to make sales. Without sales, no stock, no company, unless of course the company was set up to dupe stockholders, which is always a likelihood. Therefore, advertising is directed at selling the product, and business magazines, newspapers, red books and any number of other publications are responsible for selling the stock. Stock doesnt sell itself.
Finally, I could hold a slice of lemon in each cheek and still instantly know the difference between a Bud and a Miller, let alone between one of those and a good beer.
Each beer company makes a large variety of different beers. They own many smaller companies and local brews too. There are many many hundreds of different kinds of beers. If you are trying to tell me each one of them tastes different for all people, I'm done talking with you.
I remember when I took those Psychology classes in college.
Hmm, that would be applicable if I had gotten this knowledge from college Psychology classes, but I didnt. I've only taken one, and it only served to reinfore everything I already knew. My main source for this was from a university Graduate level history class called "The History of Popular Culture", and its because of the unique and original thesis paper I wrote for that class called "A History of the use of Psychological Research in Advertising" which chronicled the beginnings of psychology through Freud-Watson-Skinner and others, into the Gestalt and MR experiments of the fifties and sixties, and on through the modern world of mental manipulation when all the research really came together.
The way the picture is displayed has nothing to do with the "hypnotic state." People sit in front of the television TO BE ENTERTAINED! They conciously settle into a very relaxed state -- that's why they sat in front of the television in the first place!
This is such a stupid thing to say I'm not even going to respond. You are clearly just guessing and have ZERO research or knowledge to back this up with.
If you become concerned about if "you" really made the choice (and weren't influence against your will), you'll surely go mad.
Id rather have honesty than sanity. And besides, getting over the concern is as easy as not watching television and not paying too much attention to other advertising.
The fact that some evil corp is influencing that decision in some minor way doesn't really concern me, since I don't think it's an important decision.
But what I just told you is that they arent really influencing your minor decisions, but are trying to get you just to buy in general, and to think in certan ways, for instance to associate ALL NEEDS with products. If you need something, theres a product to fill it an theres an advertiser to make you want it.
Even still, I cant believe you dont find it problematic that corporations are buying and selling your emotions so that they can be attached to products subconciously. Once every little product and action becomes "value added" in this way, what exactly are you left with? When you feel pain you think band-aid, when you feel sad you think ice-cream, when you feel tired you think television.
But even more so, the continual manipulation of your emotional responses in any way is detrimental. Your brain is constantly undergoing 're-wiring' as corporations make different associations in your brain. You dont even know what they are doing to your brain in the first place! So, furthermore, you have to trust them that those are THE ONLY associations they are making.
Let me make this ultra clear : In most cases there isnt even a point in guessing at what the associations they are making are, because its so deep and conveluted, so well-researched and advanced, that the lay person doesnt know a thing.
If you've got some better way to remove shit from asses, bring it on
Actually I do, its called, soap, water and YOUR HAND. (and if you are a real consumer purist you will have made your own soap =)
But thats not the point.
Heres the point:
The point is that you, like most other Westerners, would never even consider filling this need with anything other than a product.
90% of television marketing is not directed at consumers... The purpose of the Pepsi ads proclaiming "The Choice of a New Generation" is not to talk young, hip kids into drinking Pepsi. It's to convince investors that Pepsi is what the young, hip kids are drinking.
Are you kidding? The "New Generation" Pepsi campaign is held up as one of the best marketing campaigns ever conducted. It transformed Pepsi from a cheap knock off of Coke to one that captured almost 50 percent of Coke's market share. It moved it from being a minor, relatively unknown beverage to one that now commands a huge profit and changed the corporation that owns it into a multinational with many, many products. I assure you, the fact that they were able to capture such a huge marketshare with that campaign is not because their stock price rose.
Corporations have a great number of ways to drive up stock prices, but advertising campaigns will only do so when they are successful. Saying the sole purpose of 90% of campaigns is to push stock prices up is not only false but laughable.
I'm sure advertisers think they're trying to attatch an emotion to their product, but does anyone really feel emotional attatchment towards the brand of toilet paper they buy?
That is very far from the point. The point is to have subtly queue you, to motivate you towards a certain decision, to frame the product under certain emotional contexts that will guide your decision later. Its a subconcious thing.
the goal of advertising is to make you feel familiar with a product so when I go into a store and make the 3 second decision of what brand to buy,
True on both counts. On what level, its that 3 second *IMPULSIVE* decision that they are counting on, and the attachment of emotions to that product will shape that impulse. A product that you are subconciously emotionally attached to will be more likely bought.
Who cares if I choose Charmin over Scotts toilet paper? It's really a minor decision in life that shouldn't take much consideration.
Thats a closedminded statement. Who cares? The people that make BILLIONS AND BILLIONS OF DOLLARS selling you bathroom supplies. Thats who. It doesnt matter to you, and they know that. Thats what directing you to a certain product has to be either unconcious, or have a very good argument.
But I think what you've said begs this comment to be repeated : On many levels the goal of advertising is not to get you to buy a certain product, its to get you to buy. Its to get you to want, to NEED. Having you choose a *particular brand* of a product is not the primary goal in a lot of cases. Thats why television is so dangerous and people launch campaigns against it : there is a concious and directed effort to increase consumption by shaping your thinking while you watch television. Ever wonder why you even need toilet paper in the first place? Didnt think so.
I'd like to draw your attention to the fact that the model I showed you applies to all mediums, including billboards, and standard television just happens to be able to utilize it very well. You are always prone to advertisment, just far more so when watching the tely.
I am fairly confident that plasma and TFTs do not work that way, but I am also fairly confident that it works even better on HDTV (which, you'll have noticed, media companies have been pushing a lot)
The same " At no time is there every a picture displayed on the screen" thing is true for a computer monitor, do I turn into an zombie when I surf the internet too?
The Elaborative Likelihood Model is not limited to television, it can be induced in any environment with any medium. Television just happens to make it very easy.
If you would like some context for the model, I have posted a reply to another guy that contains some interesting information and gives a very basic understanding of beer commercials. Hmm I'll just quote it:
The primary goal of the advertising of almost every product is to get you to buy the product. What you are talking about is "differentiation", and that is a more difficult thing to induce in consumers. First and foremost is to make you want the product however. This is often done, as everyone knows, with sex and social hierarchies, portraying, for instance, beer drinking as fun and extroverted. They hit the chord that makes you think of sex, fun and friends, and they do it in a bar setting, focused on people drinking beer. BEER = fun friends and sex. oh by the way, BUDWEISER. Hmm.. how many different beers does Anhauser-busch make?? does it really matter whats on the label? Would you even be able to tell in a blind taste test? (no)
The fact that there is a product in commercials at all is just an excuse to brainwash. It doesnt really matter whats on the label, and if you want to go even further, it doesnt even matter what the product is. The more people buying ANYTHING = more profit for everyone = more GDP = stocks go up etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum.
Corporations are so big and own so many thing you cant help but give the largest ones money. For instance, if you have a thing of Kraft peanut butter in your fridge, you have given your money to Phillap Morris, one of the largest Tobacco companies in the world (and believe me, they know how to use advertising)
Then why don't I like any of the beers sold advertised during David Letterman's shows? I watch a lot of TV. If there was any truth to your gibberish whatsoever, I would automatically prefer Miller and Budweiser over my favorite mircro-brews... but I think they're shitty.
Excuse me, but your circumstantial evidence about what beer you like is hardly a rebuttal to my scientific and heavily researched evidence. I hardly ever read adbusters, I just happened to have stumbled across the "The product is you" campaign.
Behavioral psychology has been used in advertising for about 80 years now, with ever increasing succes. There are now hundreds of "consumer behavior" research facilities, and, quite literaly, every single advertising campaign now launched has undergone extensive psychological testing and is based in the psychological premises that these research facilities produce. You can find out more by reading a book, which obviously you havent. I have, and thats why what you say is meaningless garbage, and what I say is the start off point of interesting thoughts and conversation.
By the way, the answer to your question is something that wouldnt occur to you : The primary goal of the advertising of almost every product is to get you to buy the product. What you are talking about is "differentiation", and that is a more difficult thing to induce in consumers. First and foremost is to make you want the product however. This is often done, as everyone knows, with sex and social hierarchies, portraying, for instance, beer drinking as fun and extroverted. They hit the chord that makes you think of sex, fun and friends, and they do it in a bar setting, focused on people drinking beer. BEER = fun friends and sex. oh by the way, BUDWEISER. Hmm.. how many different beers does Anauser-busch make?? does it really matter whats on the label? Would you even be able to tell in a blind taste test? (no)
By the by, that quote is from "Psychology : The Science of Behavior" by Niel Carlson et. al. which I just so happened to have beside me because of my psych exam this morning.
You want to know whats wrong with television? Fine. Here it is:
A television screen works by scanning a picture onto a matrix of "dots", and a standard TV has 512 of these dots. At no time is there every a picture displayed on the screen, but rather each dot is sequentially scanned many times per second. The senses are able to correlate that data very quickly and form a picture. This is based on the Gestalt principle, which says that elements that are similar and congruent will be brought together.
The funny thing is, the way the picture is displayed seems to hypnotize people. Scientific studies have shown that, within about 10 seconds of watching TV, the brain slips out of alpha waves and into beta waves (like you're sleeping). The right half of the brain (the logical half) literally shuts off, and the TV engages the left, emotional half. This basically shortcircuits normal, rational thought, allowing for the television to establish subtle emotional reactions and attach them to whatever they wish, normally a product, maybe a politician, always an ideology.
In social psychology there is an effect known by the Elaborative Likelihood Model. This states : "persuasion can take either a central or a peripheral route. The central route requirs a person to think critically about the argument... at issue is the acutal substance of the argument, not its emotinal or superficial appeal. The peripheral route refers to attempts in which the change in the brain is associated with positive stimuli - like a sports star or musician - that actually have nothing to do with the substace."
Seeing as television naturally turns off the central route, advertisers literally have an interface into your brain. Famous adman Tony Schwartz said the key to advertising on television is striking "the resonant chord", meaning to get you to buy a product, or think about it next time you're shopping, you just have to hit that one key, attach that one emotion, and the sale is made. Adbusters has created a slogan based on this effect : "The product is you". Advertisers basically pay for the opportunity to strike that chord. You're emotions and ideals get really fucked up in the process.
It can be insidious. Product placement is a very real concern, because as you are in your "relaxing, disposable, laugh-filled" mood when watching Letterman, its very easy to make you think things you normally wouldnt, and have you make associations that are invalid. People like you are the perfect consumer, the perfect pawn, the perfect mark, because you have no idea what you are getting into when you flick on the idiot box.
I'll leave you with this quote, from a very wise man whose name escapes me at the moment:
"Be very careful with what you put into your head, because you'll never, ever get it out."
Slashdot Mirror
They would have an *incredibly* difficult time selling any car that had a speed governor on it that limited it to 70mph top speed, and they areperfectly able to build such a car right this second and try to sell it. And the reason is, they know people want to speed on occassion, which is breaking the law.
I'm more inclined to think that it would cut off an enourmously large revenue stream for municipal and state government.
Those cops are not just enforcing the law out there. They are MAKING MONEY.
So. Crime DOES pay. =)
WTF does how you vote have to do with the "Death of Science"?
There are a large number of Republicans out there who are involved in science and engineering.
Maybe its because Republican science is the science of death.
We're nearly to the point now that the people won't be able to overthrow a bad government.
.
:
You must be kidding
NEARLY?????
Just to name a few
Central Intelligence Agency
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Homeland Security Department
Internal Revenue Service
National Guard
Drug Enforcement Agency
National Aeronautics and Space Agency
Do you have any idea how much moeny and power your government controls? Any idea how easily they could make any one of us disappear? How hard it would be to fight a monster that puts 4 Trillion dollars a year into the Army alone? How insane it is to think that your Handgun, Shotgun, Tek-9, AK-47, or any collection of explosives, could have any relevance to the product of hundreds of years of planning by some of the worlds most elite, intelligent and secretive people?
Do you even have any idea what your government is DOING right now?
Could you?
It was Ben Franklin and the direct quote is the following:
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Thanks, but if we were to follow the political advice of Ben Franklin we'd be growing hemp and having black slaves pick it.
Banning guns is like forcing people to wear seatbelts.
Yes, I have the right to choose what I can do and how I do it.
But if it can be proved that by superceding that right, a substantial number of lives can be saved, then that right must be superceded.
In the case of guns it is the right to life. You claim that you have the right to protect your life. Too many lives can be saved by you ceding some of that right to the government. In case you dont know, you already have : block watch, police, firemen, national guard, the navy and the army are all examples.
Keeping that in mind, also remember that one liners like yours (" "Those who give up a few freedoms for security deserve neigther and loose both") have no place in logical arguments. They dont even PRETEND to give evidence.
Time after time it has been shown that the guns dont even end up protecting people anyways. And the need for guns is based on the proliferation of them... talk about a circular argument.
I'd rather be judged by twelve than carried by six!
This old saying, often featured in gansta rap songs like Fabulous' Respect and X-Raided's Trial by Fury, tries to portray situations as a black and white binary opposition in which defense is a necessary action, when rather the supposed (and likely debatable) life-or-death situation could be avoided with a decrease in the proliferation of weapons altogether! Regardless, it will take a lot more than slogans to convince me that killing a man is the right thing to do in ANY situation.
Can I just say that I too thought I'd pick up the game of Texas Hold'em poker (I was going to tell you what site but my better judgement says not to)
A few months later I'm out 150 dollars american and still getting emails all the time trying to entice me back. I just got 20 free dollars in my account from the company... I guess they realized I stopped playing so they're giving me another little "taste" to get me hooked. Unfortunately I'll probably go play it when I'm done here.
Online gambling is dangerous, people. Its too easy and its too much fun. Far, far worse than Evercrack, where at least 150 dollars will get you six months of play. I lost my money in a matter of days.
This thing is so stupid I am offended. Its just pointless drivel that isnt interesting and is just begging for attention. Essentially, the only thing that this site has to offer is that other people are reading it, and it is quite dubious whether anyone actually is.
:
It appears that this stupid site is based on journals that people write daily or something like that. We get involved by reading them. Heres today's
OMG! I was actually recognized by a Spot fan at work yesterday! It was so surreal and uber awesome. She was very sweet and asked me tons of questions about The Spot. Makes me realize how fortunate I am - we all are - to be part of this amazing project.
Last night after work I came home and watched the season finale of FRIENDS with... my friends! It was a nice closure to the whole series. I had to tape Survivor and then watched it early this morning. All I can say is... that last lingering look from Tom - who glared coldly at Boston Rob - was priceless. I can't wait to see Boston Rob get his!!! Karma is a powerful thing! Season finale is this Sunday! Woo hoo!
I'm off from work today, and I've decided to head over to Ikea and buy a comforter for my bed! My room definitely needs some color. Carrie told me that Ikea has some great selections and even better prices, so... Burbank here I come.
Anyway, gotta hit the bucks right now for a Tazo Chai latte! Make it a super day!
Ok well if you didnt puke immediately upon reading the "OMG", you certainly did by the time she refered to Starbucks using hip urban slang. What is this? a tribute to the consumer lifestyle? "I watched TV, then bought some stuff, taped some TV, went shopping, Oh! gotta go buy some more stuff! see ya !!!!! OMG!!!! RTFM!!!" And there be a more boring thing to talk about ?
This is so far from being news, its a stupid attention grab and it'll be in the landfill in no time.
You really are a fool.
Go read a book.
I agree with you on the point of literature and patents, but I dont think music deserves the same rights. The sole profitability of literature and patents is in their being protected by copyright. Without it, they are nothing. On the other hand music can be profitable in many ways, and while i think the rights to the works should be acknowledged, I'm not sure that it makes sense to extend those rights to RECORDINGS of the music.
These recordings are dependant on so many more things than just the talent of the author, whereas with literature and inventions this is not the case - the author is the sole source of talent. The number one thing involved here - even moreso than the music itself - is technology. The recorded music industry has its business model rooted in an immature state of the technology.
Its a business built on thin air- as soon as the technology would evolve the business would crumble. Now that the technology is becoming more complete, the business will evaporate.
As I've said before : All we can do is depend on the already existing large majority of musicians that dont do it for the money, do it for the music, and make a modest income.
Let natural selection take its course. People will support the musicians that they like, and the music that is based on fad and formula will stop being made because people arent willing to shell out the bucks for it. You are paying for a service - to be entertained - and people realize that musicians need money to make music.
Why do you think game companies are moving to consoles so quickly? It's much harder to pirate the fuck out of the games.
Actually, based upon the logic presented in your response, the console industry would be quite dead, since "naturally" people will opt for the free things instead of the expensive ones. Therefore game companies would be digging their own graves right now.
Yeah that reeeeeally makes sense.
If you can get something for free you would otherewise have to pay for, it's natural to want it for free.
I've heard this from so many recording label apologists, and its stupid.
Your assumption about what is "natural" is totally unfounded. I, for one, can download any game I want, but if I'm not doing more than checking it out and making sure it works on the computer, I buy it. I bought Unreal 2k4 the day it was released, as well as Warcraft 3 and Civilization 2,3 both on release day. These are the only games I play. Why do I buy them? So that I get to see Civ4, War4, and Unreal2k4. But you deride this kind of "sampling" and then you make an assumption about what the "natural" instincts of majority of the samplees are? Thats fiddle-faddle in anyone's books.
Yes, there are costs involved with making music, and I understand that in order to have "musicians", they have to be able to make a living playing music. Lets look at some of those musiciains: Lets take a cross section of them by using, say, Australia. An Australian musician averages about 24k per year. (http://www.mca.org.au/m15240.htm)Thats not a lot. That number hasnt really changed in the last 20-30 years. You are trying to tell me that these people, who are making a meager but liveable income and are doing what they love to do, these people are in it for the money, and they need to maximize profits by eliminating file sharing. They only want people that have paid money to hear their gifts. WRONG. How would you even know what they want anyways?
At some point in the evolution of music from the orchestra to the turntable, a huge discrepancy became apparent between the costs and the revenues. Music companys to this day make tremendous amounts of money, and very little of it ends up in the artists pocket.
When did the role of law and morality become to ensure LARGE, if not ENOURMOUS profits for people who DISTRIBUTE music media? And for those few musicians that "make it big" (which for some may be to their detriment!), same question : when did law and morality's role turn into rewarding people who slap bandaids on their faces with huge cocaine addictions?
Is the point of the law to protect the musicians? to protect the music? Read the rest of this and then tell me : what, exactly, is the point of the law?
Fact is, musicians have been short circuiting the whole system. You know that musicians barely see any of the money made by their labels, but heres something you might not have thought of : they make the big bucks by taking sponsers.
Listened to any rap tunes lately? How about Nelly's "Air Force Ones", which Nike payed him millions upon millions of dollars to sing. Do you think Nike or even Nelly cares if that song gets passed around? Not in the least, in fact, without a doubt, Nike would welcome the infringement. Based on this, some might say the future of music look very grim, and neither file sharing nor record labels are helping the situation. All we can do is depend on the already existing large majority of musicians that dont do it for the money and do it for the music. Oh wait, maybe this wont be so bad...
I prefer "criminals," because legally and morally, that's what pirates are.
Or not...
Criminals. ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR MIND?
You cant even be prosecuted in a criminal court for pirating music.
You have to be sued.
This just went from stupid to idiotic.
By the way : Are you aware that you just labelled over 50% of the population criminals? Should we all be thrown in jail? We'll keep the spillover at your place.
Can we get this straight, whatever way you slice it or dice it, whatever way angle you approach it from, the campaign to brand copyright infringment as "THEFT" so that people like you would confuse it with criminal acts was a PROPAGANDA CAMPAIGN. Hey you bigwigs over at the RIAA : look! It worked!
Prediction : Your appeal to the morality of filesharing, on which your argument is based, will not go very far. *Your* interpre
No, the "Pepsi Challenge" is the campaign that put them on the map.
Thanks for proving that you have no idea what you are talking about. Now I dont have to bother replying.
Basically what you are saying is that a high stock price makes a company, and not the REALITY of a situation which is a company makes a high stock price. Its not just some fluke of nature that Intel has a huge share price : they have a highly desired and wellknown product on the market. When people stop buying it, and if Intel hasnt diversified, Intel AND ITS STOCK are dead in the water. Your logic is really fucked up.
The primary goal of advertising is to improve the stock portfolio of the company. Profits are nice, but investors are first looking for growth in the value of the shares they own. Advertising helps push the value of shares.
Uhh , what?
First of all, that requires that the company be listed on the stock market.
Secondly, If a company doesnt make any sales, its going to fail. If a company is redlining, its stock is not going to rise. Therefore, the primary goal of any company is to make sales. Without sales, no stock, no company, unless of course the company was set up to dupe stockholders, which is always a likelihood. Therefore, advertising is directed at selling the product, and business magazines, newspapers, red books and any number of other publications are responsible for selling the stock. Stock doesnt sell itself.
Finally,
I could hold a slice of lemon in each cheek and still instantly know the difference between a Bud and a Miller, let alone between one of those and a good beer.
Each beer company makes a large variety of different beers. They own many smaller companies and local brews too. There are many many hundreds of different kinds of beers. If you are trying to tell me each one of them tastes different for all people, I'm done talking with you.
I remember when I took those Psychology classes in college.
Hmm, that would be applicable if I had gotten this knowledge from college Psychology classes, but I didnt. I've only taken one, and it only served to reinfore everything I already knew. My main source for this was from a university Graduate level history class called "The History of Popular Culture", and its because of the unique and original thesis paper I wrote for that class called "A History of the use of Psychological Research in Advertising" which chronicled the beginnings of psychology through Freud-Watson-Skinner and others, into the Gestalt and MR experiments of the fifties and sixties, and on through the modern world of mental manipulation when all the research really came together.
The way the picture is displayed has nothing to do with the "hypnotic state." People sit in front of the television TO BE ENTERTAINED! They conciously settle into a very relaxed state -- that's why they sat in front of the television in the first place!
This is such a stupid thing to say I'm not even going to respond. You are clearly just guessing and have ZERO research or knowledge to back this up with.
If you become concerned about if "you" really made the choice (and weren't influence against your will), you'll surely go mad.
Id rather have honesty than sanity. And besides, getting over the concern is as easy as not watching television and not paying too much attention to other advertising.
The fact that some evil corp is influencing that decision in some minor way doesn't really concern me, since I don't think it's an important decision.
But what I just told you is that they arent really influencing your minor decisions, but are trying to get you just to buy in general, and to think in certan ways, for instance to associate ALL NEEDS with products. If you need something, theres a product to fill it an theres an advertiser to make you want it.
Even still, I cant believe you dont find it problematic that corporations are buying and selling your emotions so that they can be attached to products subconciously. Once every little product and action becomes "value added" in this way, what exactly are you left with? When you feel pain you think band-aid, when you feel sad you think ice-cream, when you feel tired you think television.
But even more so, the continual manipulation of your emotional responses in any way is detrimental. Your brain is constantly undergoing 're-wiring' as corporations make different associations in your brain. You dont even know what they are doing to your brain in the first place! So, furthermore, you have to trust them that those are THE ONLY associations they are making.
Let me make this ultra clear : In most cases there isnt even a point in guessing at what the associations they are making are, because its so deep and conveluted, so well-researched and advanced, that the lay person doesnt know a thing.
If you've got some better way to remove shit from asses, bring it on
Actually I do, its called, soap, water and YOUR HAND. (and if you are a real consumer purist you will have made your own soap =)
But thats not the point.
Heres the point:
The point is that you, like most other Westerners, would never even consider filling this need with anything other than a product.
90% of television marketing is not directed at consumers ... The purpose of the Pepsi ads proclaiming "The Choice of a New Generation" is not to talk young, hip kids into drinking Pepsi. It's to convince investors that Pepsi is what the young, hip kids are drinking.
Are you kidding? The "New Generation" Pepsi campaign is held up as one of the best marketing campaigns ever conducted. It transformed Pepsi from a cheap knock off of Coke to one that captured almost 50 percent of Coke's market share. It moved it from being a minor, relatively unknown beverage to one that now commands a huge profit and changed the corporation that owns it into a multinational with many, many products. I assure you, the fact that they were able to capture such a huge marketshare with that campaign is not because their stock price rose.
Corporations have a great number of ways to drive up stock prices, but advertising campaigns will only do so when they are successful. Saying the sole purpose of 90% of campaigns is to push stock prices up is not only false but laughable.
Thank you very much for that, I did not realize I had my facts incorrect.
I'm sure advertisers think they're trying to attatch an emotion to their product, but does anyone really feel emotional attatchment towards the brand of toilet paper they buy?
That is very far from the point. The point is to have subtly queue you, to motivate you towards a certain decision, to frame the product under certain emotional contexts that will guide your decision later. Its a subconcious thing.
the goal of advertising is to make you feel familiar with a product so when I go into a store and make the 3 second decision of what brand to buy,
True on both counts. On what level, its that 3 second *IMPULSIVE* decision that they are counting on, and the attachment of emotions to that product will shape that impulse. A product that you are subconciously emotionally attached to will be more likely bought.
Who cares if I choose Charmin over Scotts toilet paper? It's really a minor decision in life that shouldn't take much consideration.
Thats a closedminded statement. Who cares? The people that make BILLIONS AND BILLIONS OF DOLLARS selling you bathroom supplies. Thats who. It doesnt matter to you, and they know that. Thats what directing you to a certain product has to be either unconcious, or have a very good argument.
But I think what you've said begs this comment to be repeated : On many levels the goal of advertising is not to get you to buy a certain product, its to get you to buy. Its to get you to want, to NEED. Having you choose a *particular brand* of a product is not the primary goal in a lot of cases. Thats why television is so dangerous and people launch campaigns against it : there is a concious and directed effort to increase consumption by shaping your thinking while you watch television. Ever wonder why you even need toilet paper in the first place? Didnt think so.
I'd like to draw your attention to the fact that the model I showed you applies to all mediums, including billboards, and standard television just happens to be able to utilize it very well. You are always prone to advertisment, just far more so when watching the tely.
I am fairly confident that plasma and TFTs do not work that way, but I am also fairly confident that it works even better on HDTV (which, you'll have noticed, media companies have been pushing a lot)
The same " At no time is there every a picture displayed on the screen" thing is true for a computer monitor, do I turn into an zombie when I surf the internet too?
:
The Elaborative Likelihood Model is not limited to television, it can be induced in any environment with any medium. Television just happens to make it very easy.
If you would like some context for the model, I have posted a reply to another guy that contains some interesting information and gives a very basic understanding of beer commercials. Hmm I'll just quote it
The primary goal of the advertising of almost every product is to get you to buy the product. What you are talking about is "differentiation", and that is a more difficult thing to induce in consumers. First and foremost is to make you want the product however. This is often done, as everyone knows, with sex and social hierarchies, portraying, for instance, beer drinking as fun and extroverted. They hit the chord that makes you think of sex, fun and friends, and they do it in a bar setting, focused on people drinking beer. BEER = fun friends and sex. oh by the way, BUDWEISER.
Hmm.. how many different beers does Anhauser-busch make?? does it really matter whats on the label? Would you even be able to tell in a blind taste test? (no)
The fact that there is a product in commercials at all is just an excuse to brainwash. It doesnt really matter whats on the label, and if you want to go even further, it doesnt even matter what the product is. The more people buying ANYTHING = more profit for everyone = more GDP = stocks go up etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum.
Corporations are so big and own so many thing you cant help but give the largest ones money. For instance, if you have a thing of Kraft peanut butter in your fridge, you have given your money to Phillap Morris, one of the largest Tobacco companies in the world (and believe me, they know how to use advertising)
Then why don't I like any of the beers sold advertised during David Letterman's shows? I watch a lot of TV. If there was any truth to your gibberish whatsoever, I would automatically prefer Miller and Budweiser over my favorite mircro-brews... but I think they're shitty.
Excuse me, but your circumstantial evidence about what beer you like is hardly a rebuttal to my scientific and heavily researched evidence. I hardly ever read adbusters, I just happened to have stumbled across the "The product is you" campaign.
Behavioral psychology has been used in advertising for about 80 years now, with ever increasing succes. There are now hundreds of "consumer behavior" research facilities, and, quite literaly, every single advertising campaign now launched has undergone extensive psychological testing and is based in the psychological premises that these research facilities produce. You can find out more by reading a book, which obviously you havent. I have, and thats why what you say is meaningless garbage, and what I say is the start off point of interesting thoughts and conversation.
By the way, the answer to your question is something that wouldnt occur to you : The primary goal of the advertising of almost every product is to get you to buy the product. What you are talking about is "differentiation", and that is a more difficult thing to induce in consumers. First and foremost is to make you want the product however. This is often done, as everyone knows, with sex and social hierarchies, portraying, for instance, beer drinking as fun and extroverted. They hit the chord that makes you think of sex, fun and friends, and they do it in a bar setting, focused on people drinking beer. BEER = fun friends and sex. oh by the way, BUDWEISER.
Hmm.. how many different beers does Anauser-busch make?? does it really matter whats on the label? Would you even be able to tell in a blind taste test? (no)
By the by, that quote is from "Psychology : The Science of Behavior" by Niel Carlson et. al. which I just so happened to have beside me because of my psych exam this morning.
You want to know whats wrong with television?
... at issue is the acutal substance of the argument, not its emotinal or superficial appeal. The peripheral route refers to attempts in which the change in the brain is associated with positive stimuli - like a sports star or musician - that actually have nothing to do with the substace."
:
Fine.
Here it is:
A television screen works by scanning a picture onto a matrix of "dots", and a standard TV has 512 of these dots. At no time is there every a picture displayed on the screen, but rather each dot is sequentially scanned many times per second. The senses are able to correlate that data very quickly and form a picture. This is based on the Gestalt principle, which says that elements that are similar and congruent will be brought together.
The funny thing is, the way the picture is displayed seems to hypnotize people. Scientific studies have shown that, within about 10 seconds of watching TV, the brain slips out of alpha waves and into beta waves (like you're sleeping). The right half of the brain (the logical half) literally shuts off, and the TV engages the left, emotional half. This basically shortcircuits normal, rational thought, allowing for the television to establish subtle emotional reactions and attach them to whatever they wish, normally a product, maybe a politician, always an ideology.
In social psychology there is an effect known by the Elaborative Likelihood Model. This states : "persuasion can take either a central or a peripheral route. The central route requirs a person to think critically about the argument
Seeing as television naturally turns off the central route, advertisers literally have an interface into your brain. Famous adman Tony Schwartz said the key to advertising on television is striking "the resonant chord", meaning to get you to buy a product, or think about it next time you're shopping, you just have to hit that one key, attach that one emotion, and the sale is made. Adbusters has created a slogan based on this effect : "The product is you". Advertisers basically pay for the opportunity to strike that chord. You're emotions and ideals get really fucked up in the process.
It can be insidious. Product placement is a very real concern, because as you are in your "relaxing, disposable, laugh-filled" mood when watching Letterman, its very easy to make you think things you normally wouldnt, and have you make associations that are invalid. People like you are the perfect consumer, the perfect pawn, the perfect mark, because you have no idea what you are getting into when you flick on the idiot box.
I'll leave you with this quote, from a very wise man whose name escapes me at the moment
"Be very careful with what you put into your head, because you'll never, ever get it out."
.