Now granted, I wasn't there : I heard about it second or third hand from student union representatives.
But you are trying to tell me that they demanded attendees sign a pledge that they would be in support of the rally(which is strange in one way, first that the people who are going to this rally are probably going to agree in the first place, and secondly, I don't think I've ever seen a protest group demand anything successfully in this way --- people who show up just don't sign, and do what they want.) The University, in my opinion, and I could very well be wrong, was not preventing the meeting on the grounds that it was preventing dissent, indeed the meeting itself was dissent, peaceful or not.
"...Every sane person, regardless of their culture, wants the right to express their own opinions..." I wish. from the dozens of aol users I know who just couldn't give a rats ass about aol censoring them to the people who have to be always politically correct (lest they offend someone) to the hundreds of other examples i've run into, people, as a rule, want to be opressed. at least in Canada/the United States. When given a choice between a government that will not opress them, and one that will tax them less(ie pay them more) they will invariably vote the later. This is why say a third of the people I have dealt with at my job have wanted to make sure that there is censorship controls on the internet terminals we have.
The liberal government here in Canada right now is spending billions of dollars on pre-election last minute suprise initiatives in key non-liberal voting areas. There's millions of dollars going into this city(Regina) to dig a big hole, that will be filled with water, begin to stink, and need to be redug in 10 years. Do you think any person in this city in their right mind is going to vote against the complete destruction of the charter of rights and freedoms that the past 5 liberal anti-terror bills has created, and this tradition?,of course not. people, here, at least, want censorship(to protect the children), want no freedom of expression, preferring instead to stick with expert opinion, and generally want a police state, to protect them. And yes, there are threats out there to be protected from(gangs, etc), but to suggest that what the people want is not protection from them, or not protection from them if it means loss of freedom is in sheer contradiction with the state of affairs. or do you disagree? in an ideal world, you would be right, but unfortunately, I sure as hell don't live in that world.
In defense of islam
At my job I see the 12-14 year old crowd who universally use MSN and who's parents think that MSN IS the totality that is referred to as 'internet chat'(and vice versa), and I wonder that perhaps, there are things worth perserving although to the unindoctrinated they may seem uninteresting. Sure, linux has MSN clients. but for how long? How long until it is illegal under the DMCA, or worse law, to write a MSN 'chat' client? and then how long after that until the youth of, for example, the united states all have been brainwashed by Microsoft commercials that internet chat IS MSN?, and that no other kind of internet chat is internet chat, and worth using?
Granted, MSN may be a particularily useful program, but don't you think the reason it's popualrity might be because it comes by default on every computer that you can buy, and every computer that you will probably use, growing up?
Or you could go with a relatively standard
protocol with free clients like say, IRC, or *gasp* email. or whatever the next generation will come up with.
Au contraire, if there were no 'right' or 'wrong' most if not all of the past and current genocides taking place today could never happen - they all have social-political-religious significance.
Take for example, your example of the nazi's and their horrible destruction of the jews(despite breaking godwins law). The nazis who were involved with this did so with a purpose: to rid the world of jews. This is, in their eyes the 'right' thing to do. Bush is so obvious in his doing the right thing that he's going to kill tens if not hundreds of millions of people towards this goal(Doing the Right Thing).
No, this does not mean future genocides under secularism would not happen. And no, I'm not going to offer a solution to your problem (the enrons, genocides) but not thinking critically about the problem solves nothing. Genocides would have happened, provided the means to do so, anyway, without secularism(spanish inquisition much?).
Also, I'm not sure if businesses have ever been as rosy as you paint them. Feel welcome to prove me wrong, but business 100, and 200 years ago was much, much more harsh to its workers than they are these days. And you can thank Unions for that. While we are slowly slipping back, we still have a good deal going for us. Due to minnimum wage laws in my country i only work for a third of minnimum wage. without this minnimum wage I'd probably be making practically nothing. Communism made a good deal of sense in the climate the communist manifesto was written in, due to the mass-scale exploitation of the working class.
By the way, I am prophet themusicgod1, and I judge. What makes me a judge? That I say I am, nothing more, nothing less. I am, I exist, and I judge that I am, I exist, and a great deal of other things, including everything in this post. I could very well be wrong, and both of us know it.
What I understand, freedom of expression is guaranteed in the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights "Article 19
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression ; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of fronteirs." [emphasis added]. So if there is any nation that is not a part of the United Nations, sure, imposing these restrictions on the freedom of the government of these nations would be imposing their own beliefs on these other cultures. This does not sound like what these people are doing, however. There is no excuse whatsoever for government censorship by any government who is a member of the United Nations(this means you, China, United States of America, and Canada).
Sure, one may argue that the United Nations may be unnecessary, outdated, completely irrelevent or otherwise, but as it stands today, we are obligated to fufil our part of the bargain, despite how sometimes we may disagree with it, or alternatively, decline membership to the United Nations and become a Rogue State, with none of the protections to you that The Declaration provides.
These guys sound down-right nuts, though. If a dictator is willing to kill thousands of his own people, what makes you think they won't assasinate you, if you actively mess with them? Kudos to their efforts.
"Can you imagine how popular XM radio would be if you could go online and set up a playlist of ANY music you want (and none that you dont) and listen
to it from you car?"
that cannot happen, the way they have XM radio set up currently. all listeners get all feeds, and if you had an amount of feeds equal to the amount of listeners, their allready not-very-large-bandwidth would have to be split more-or-less equally amongst all of them, which means shit-audio quality for everyone. Course in a perfect world, you could stack infinite many symbols (and therefor have infinite many different listeners interpreting specific symbols) in one Hz(or less) of frequency worth of bandwidth, so mabye i shouln't be pointing this out.
And in a perfect world XM wouldn't exist(because it is heavily underfunded by the RIAA, who wouldn't be around ina perfect world either)
We must purge ourselves of the music from the past 25 years that we treasure. We must find it in our hearts to not listen to it, and to let it away from our lives, lest the riaa continue to influence us in any way. I havn't listened to my records in almost 4 months, and while i have a playlist of 6 cds i'm working that down. But this is what we must do! The RIAA must be destroyed, and the way to do that is to not let them into our minds, and not allow them to inspire us beyond the obligatory them pissing us off.
actually it's true. the average age in north america at least is going up, and it is the youth that these people rely on for their livelyhoods. keep this in mind, people...
* people are actively pissed off at the riaa and are on to their bullshit? I hate the riaa, and you should to.
* the riaa's repetoire is starting to suck ?(personally, there are some bands *cough cold play* that i don't mind, but...I still refuse to listen to them from the above bullet. however some people seem to think that the riaa's *music* sucks. )
* that when you buy a cd you don't own the cd you gain a liscence to it, or *whatever*....perhaps listening to music is about to get too legally complicated and some people simply would want to opt-out of music alltogether? wait for it, if this isn't happening yet.
* while related to the ecconomy, there are indicators (the average) wages may be going down(due to free trade with third world nations, and other anti-labour factors), and when I work for 2$/hour I simply cannot afford to work for 20 hours to afford a 40$ CD. It just makes no sense.
Still making more than minnimum wage? Count your blessings.
* the boomers have allready got all the music they need. my parents have like 500 CDs/records. they don't really need more, and my mom is happy with her full collection of elton john material. if elton releases another album, i'm sure she'll buy it, but he's only going to release so many. Sure while building this collection my parents probably bought 2 per week or so...but you only have to build the collection once. then what? where's your revenue, RIAA? i'd take my grandparents music, if it didn't suck, and if they had any...what happens in 100 years (slave state forbidding) when there's enough good music in the family collection of middle class north americans that you don't *have* to buy any more music, and the only music that is sold is really new and interesting stuff by the rogue cards like DJ Danger Mouse (as mainstream as that was), porn on beta, or negativland? it's going to happen sooner or later, if they keep selling music at that rate.
then what? oh wait musicians like me will be what's needed because we aren't trying to exploit you for profit, we aren't creating crap and selling it....if we do create crap it doesn't make an impact, and if we don't we have made the world's music collection better. aww.
Causes? Who cares about causes? The riaa, all their member companies, and everyone who works for them, needs to be burnt at a stake, and urinated on. 10% loss of their revenue is a great thing for musicians and the people as a whole, and must be celebrated!
It will be 'getting pretty old by now' when they stop sending SWAT teams into dorm rooms and kids bedrooms, suing people for outlandish amounts of money, taking away basic civil liberties, and threatening to use their political and economic forces to cut off all original artists from being able to play at all.
1) The above-mentioned relationship between the main RIAA members, news(cnn), radio(clear channel), government(DMCA much?), and concert venues(clear channel). Now I can't trust anything I read, see or hear from the news, because It's obviously slanted if not outright bias(cnn). I Can't listen to the radio, becuase it's the same 15 songs, with 4:1 commercials in between. If the anti-terror laws hadn't killed most of the freedoms in north america, the media-machine would have, and more concert venues being owned means less and less orginal artists are even going to be able to start out...where would raves be held if it's illegal to rave anywhere but a preordained clearchannel concert venue, who don't think the revenue potential for holding a rave is worth holding one for? (ie, 12 year old raver chicks may not have enough cash, or whatever)
2) They harm artists. No one has collectively done more harm to artists than the RIAA, except mabye their umbrella group. And worse still, it's not as if they are sorry for it, or trying not to...they are pushing full forward with iconification (turn yourself into a publicly traded stock, like david bowie, or a brand name, like nsync or celine dion)
, dehumanization ( i'm a goth! i'm a punk! sure you've seen them ).
3) They treat you like a consumer YOU are nothing but a source of income to them.
4) mostly due to #1, co-opting of forces of real change for profit. how many che shirts have you seen floating around? rage against the machine? how many otherwise bright young revolutionaries have taken the RIAA path to rebellion? There is a need right now for real radical change, not more sexist, racist, angsty, outdated pop metal counter-reactionary thought saying as loud as possible 'enslave us! we can't think for ourselves! we are worthless, do what you want to us and throw us away!'
5) the RIAA is trying to destroy the free distrobution of information(p2p), and all unregulated thought(piracy), the internet as a whole(as it infringes their divine right of profit). Metallica, under the guise of the RIAA broke one of the applications on my computer, and there has been plans underway to completely destroy anyone's computer who shares files, and there have been laws in the states at least created to put loopholes in existing crime laws for them to do this with.
6) exploitation of women. sex sells, and the RIAA knows this.
7) they sue moderately poor people for millions of dollars, which would effectively kill said people.
8) High CD prices. when i make only 2$ an hour i can't afford a 40$ cd, ok? And honestly, even if they lower the prices, i've lived too much of my life
9) Regulation on content. the RIAA regulates things against moderately insane christian standards of violence, sexuality, religion, poletics, etc.
A) They try to put YOU to mental sleep. thinking? why think? why try to think? No one ever accomplished anything by thinking! communism is evil! don't help out your fellow man! just shut up, shop, and watch television, and work your crummy 2$/hour job, and be happy about it. because hey, you have plenty to be happy about, considerring you can only afford mabye two cds a year if you don't eat for a week..and hell mabye one of those two discs might have something you like on it.
B) Their attempts to plug the analog hole, and regulate media this may be the most frightening aspect of the riaa, and the one we should all be boycotting them for. They see a future where all media is regulated, all music is paid for per-listening, and the only people who can create and listen to culturally significant artifacts are those liscenced to do so. When listener's liscences start to pop up, and start to be mandatory as a means of getting a job(people allready filter what movies they are going to see or video games they are going to watch based on arbitrary ratings given to said gam
"much less financial incentive for musicians"
Good, speaking as a musician. I say we should drown out the rats that are in the business to rip people off, and to make money. I hope that there will be much less 'financial incentive'. Musicians should be, and will inevidibly be concerned about music, not money. And while I disagree to the grandparent post, I hardly think he's a Dumbass, the law seems a little shady, and it is reasonable to doubt either way.
Do you believe anything else you see on television? Why is it when an patriotic artist with something to say (that the united states promotes violence, as a macroscopic entity, for various reasons), when it turns out that he created an illusion to do so, is shocking somehow?
Slashdot Mirror
Now granted, I wasn't there : I heard about it second or third hand from student union representatives.
But you are trying to tell me that they demanded attendees sign a pledge that they would be in support of the rally(which is strange in one way, first that the people who are going to this rally are probably going to agree in the first place, and secondly, I don't think I've ever seen a protest group demand anything successfully in this way --- people who show up just don't sign, and do what they want.) The University, in my opinion, and I could very well be wrong, was not preventing the meeting on the grounds that it was preventing dissent, indeed the meeting itself was dissent, peaceful or not.
email here How do i avoid thee, LF? or see for Yourself Lameness filter sucks. skcus retlif ssenemeL
"...Every sane person, regardless of their culture, wants the right to express their own opinions..." I wish. from the dozens of aol users I know who just couldn't give a rats ass about aol censoring them to the people who have to be always politically correct (lest they offend someone) to the hundreds of other examples i've run into, people, as a rule, want to be opressed. at least in Canada/the United States. When given a choice between a government that will not opress them, and one that will tax them less(ie pay them more) they will invariably vote the later. This is why say a third of the people I have dealt with at my job have wanted to make sure that there is censorship controls on the internet terminals we have.
The liberal government here in Canada right now is spending billions of dollars on pre-election last minute suprise initiatives in key non-liberal voting areas. There's millions of dollars going into this city(Regina) to dig a big hole, that will be filled with water, begin to stink, and need to be redug in 10 years. Do you think any person in this city in their right mind is going to vote against the complete destruction of the charter of rights and freedoms that the past 5 liberal anti-terror bills has created, and this tradition?,of course not. people, here, at least, want censorship(to protect the children), want no freedom of expression, preferring instead to stick with expert opinion, and generally want a police state, to protect them. And yes, there are threats out there to be protected from(gangs, etc), but to suggest that what the people want is not protection from them, or not protection from them if it means loss of freedom is in sheer contradiction with the state of affairs. or do you disagree? in an ideal world, you would be right, but unfortunately, I sure as hell don't live in that world.
nt
and your country agreed to it, which means you are bound by it. period.
Do you really expect an awnser this question?
fair enough. We can only, then hope, that they turn their inspection of censorship onto themselves, and their nation.
although that might make it a little more challanging than they will be willing to accept.
In defense of islam
At my job I see the 12-14 year old crowd who universally use MSN and who's parents think that MSN IS the totality that is referred to as 'internet chat'(and vice versa), and I wonder that perhaps, there are things worth perserving although to the unindoctrinated they may seem uninteresting. Sure, linux has MSN clients. but for how long? How long until it is illegal under the DMCA, or worse law, to write a MSN 'chat' client? and then how long after that until the youth of, for example, the united states all have been brainwashed by Microsoft commercials that internet chat IS MSN?, and that no other kind of internet chat is internet chat, and worth using? Granted, MSN may be a particularily useful program, but don't you think the reason it's popualrity might be because it comes by default on every computer that you can buy, and every computer that you will probably use, growing up?
Or you could go with a relatively standard protocol with free clients like say, IRC, or *gasp* email. or whatever the next generation will come up with.
Au contraire, if there were no 'right' or 'wrong' most if not all of the past and current genocides taking place today could never happen - they all have social-political-religious significance.
Take for example, your example of the nazi's and their horrible destruction of the jews(despite breaking godwins law). The nazis who were involved with this did so with a purpose: to rid the world of jews. This is, in their eyes the 'right' thing to do. Bush is so obvious in his doing the right thing that he's going to kill tens if not hundreds of millions of people towards this goal(Doing the Right Thing).
No, this does not mean future genocides under secularism would not happen. And no, I'm not going to offer a solution to your problem (the enrons, genocides) but not thinking critically about the problem solves nothing. Genocides would have happened, provided the means to do so, anyway, without secularism(spanish inquisition much?).
Also, I'm not sure if businesses have ever been as rosy as you paint them. Feel welcome to prove me wrong, but business 100, and 200 years ago was much, much more harsh to its workers than they are these days. And you can thank Unions for that. While we are slowly slipping back, we still have a good deal going for us. Due to minnimum wage laws in my country i only work for a third of minnimum wage. without this minnimum wage I'd probably be making practically nothing. Communism made a good deal of sense in the climate the communist manifesto was written in, due to the mass-scale exploitation of the working class.
By the way, I am prophet themusicgod1, and I judge. What makes me a judge? That I say I am, nothing more, nothing less. I am, I exist, and I judge that I am, I exist, and a great deal of other things, including everything in this post. I could very well be wrong, and both of us know it.
University of Toronto != Canadian Government
The University itself may have its own problems with censorship, but at least get the organization right.
What I understand, freedom of expression is guaranteed in the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights
"Article 19
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression ; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of fronteirs."
[emphasis added]. So if there is any nation that is not a part of the United Nations, sure, imposing these restrictions on the freedom of the government of these nations would be imposing their own beliefs on these other cultures. This does not sound like what these people are doing, however. There is no excuse whatsoever for government censorship by any government who is a member of the United Nations(this means you, China, United States of America, and Canada).
Sure, one may argue that the United Nations may be unnecessary, outdated, completely irrelevent or otherwise, but as it stands today, we are obligated to fufil our part of the bargain, despite how sometimes we may disagree with it, or alternatively, decline membership to the United Nations and become a Rogue State, with none of the protections to you that The Declaration provides.
These guys sound down-right nuts, though. If a dictator is willing to kill thousands of his own people, what makes you think they won't assasinate you, if you actively mess with them? Kudos to their efforts.
"Can you imagine how popular XM radio would be if you could go online and set up a playlist of ANY music you want (and none that you dont) and listen to it from you car?"
that cannot happen, the way they have XM radio set up currently. all listeners get all feeds, and if you had an amount of feeds equal to the amount of listeners, their allready not-very-large-bandwidth would have to be split more-or-less equally amongst all of them, which means shit-audio quality for everyone. Course in a perfect world, you could stack infinite many symbols (and therefor have infinite many different listeners interpreting specific symbols) in one Hz(or less) of frequency worth of bandwidth, so mabye i shouln't be pointing this out. And in a perfect world XM wouldn't exist(because it is heavily underfunded by the RIAA, who wouldn't be around ina perfect world either)
Best comment under this thread so far. So good in fact, there's nothing really more to say beyond it.
We must purge ourselves of the music from the past 25 years that we treasure. We must find it in our hearts to not listen to it, and to let it away from our lives, lest the riaa continue to influence us in any way. I havn't listened to my records in almost 4 months, and while i have a playlist of 6 cds i'm working that down. But this is what we must do! The RIAA must be destroyed, and the way to do that is to not let them into our minds, and not allow them to inspire us beyond the obligatory them pissing us off.
actually it's true. the average age in north america at least is going up, and it is the youth that these people rely on for their livelyhoods. keep this in mind, people...
* people are actively pissed off at the riaa and are on to their bullshit? I hate the riaa, and you should to.
* the riaa's repetoire is starting to suck ?(personally, there are some bands *cough cold play* that i don't mind, but...I still refuse to listen to them from the above bullet. however some people seem to think that the riaa's *music* sucks. )
* that when you buy a cd you don't own the cd you gain a liscence to it, or *whatever*....perhaps listening to music is about to get too legally complicated and some people simply would want to opt-out of music alltogether? wait for it, if this isn't happening yet.
* while related to the ecconomy, there are indicators (the average) wages may be going down(due to free trade with third world nations, and other anti-labour factors), and when I work for 2$/hour I simply cannot afford to work for 20 hours to afford a 40$ CD. It just makes no sense. Still making more than minnimum wage? Count your blessings.
* the boomers have allready got all the music they need. my parents have like 500 CDs/records. they don't really need more, and my mom is happy with her full collection of elton john material. if elton releases another album, i'm sure she'll buy it, but he's only going to release so many. Sure while building this collection my parents probably bought 2 per week or so...but you only have to build the collection once. then what? where's your revenue, RIAA? i'd take my grandparents music, if it didn't suck, and if they had any...what happens in 100 years (slave state forbidding) when there's enough good music in the family collection of middle class north americans that you don't *have* to buy any more music, and the only music that is sold is really new and interesting stuff by the rogue cards like DJ Danger Mouse (as mainstream as that was), porn on beta, or negativland? it's going to happen sooner or later, if they keep selling music at that rate. then what? oh wait musicians like me will be what's needed because we aren't trying to exploit you for profit, we aren't creating crap and selling it....if we do create crap it doesn't make an impact, and if we don't we have made the world's music collection better. aww.
Causes? Who cares about causes? The riaa, all their member companies, and everyone who works for them, needs to be burnt at a stake, and urinated on. 10% loss of their revenue is a great thing for musicians and the people as a whole, and must be celebrated!
It will be 'getting pretty old by now' when they stop sending SWAT teams into dorm rooms and kids bedrooms, suing people for outlandish amounts of money, taking away basic civil liberties, and threatening to use their political and economic forces to cut off all original artists from being able to play at all.
umbrella group misspelling
1) The above-mentioned relationship between the main RIAA members, news(cnn), radio(clear channel), government(DMCA much?), and concert venues(clear channel). Now I can't trust anything I read, see or hear from the news, because It's obviously slanted if not outright bias(cnn). I Can't listen to the radio, becuase it's the same 15 songs, with 4:1 commercials in between. If the anti-terror laws hadn't killed most of the freedoms in north america, the media-machine would have, and more concert venues being owned means less and less orginal artists are even going to be able to start out...where would raves be held if it's illegal to rave anywhere but a preordained clearchannel concert venue, who don't think the revenue potential for holding a rave is worth holding one for? (ie, 12 year old raver chicks may not have enough cash, or whatever)
2) They harm artists. No one has collectively done more harm to artists than the RIAA, except mabye their umbrella group. And worse still, it's not as if they are sorry for it, or trying not to...they are pushing full forward with iconification (turn yourself into a publicly traded stock, like david bowie, or a brand name, like nsync or celine dion) , dehumanization ( i'm a goth! i'm a punk! sure you've seen them ).
3) They treat you like a consumer YOU are nothing but a source of income to them.
4) mostly due to #1, co-opting of forces of real change for profit. how many che shirts have you seen floating around? rage against the machine? how many otherwise bright young revolutionaries have taken the RIAA path to rebellion? There is a need right now for real radical change, not more sexist, racist, angsty, outdated pop metal counter-reactionary thought saying as loud as possible 'enslave us! we can't think for ourselves! we are worthless, do what you want to us and throw us away!'
5) the RIAA is trying to destroy the free distrobution of information(p2p), and all unregulated thought(piracy), the internet as a whole(as it infringes their divine right of profit). Metallica, under the guise of the RIAA broke one of the applications on my computer, and there has been plans underway to completely destroy anyone's computer who shares files, and there have been laws in the states at least created to put loopholes in existing crime laws for them to do this with.
6) exploitation of women. sex sells, and the RIAA knows this.
7) they sue moderately poor people for millions of dollars, which would effectively kill said people.
8) High CD prices. when i make only 2$ an hour i can't afford a 40$ cd, ok? And honestly, even if they lower the prices, i've lived too much of my life
9) Regulation on content. the RIAA regulates things against moderately insane christian standards of violence, sexuality, religion, poletics, etc.
A) They try to put YOU to mental sleep. thinking? why think? why try to think? No one ever accomplished anything by thinking! communism is evil! don't help out your fellow man! just shut up, shop, and watch television, and work your crummy 2$/hour job, and be happy about it. because hey, you have plenty to be happy about, considerring you can only afford mabye two cds a year if you don't eat for a week..and hell mabye one of those two discs might have something you like on it.
B) Their attempts to plug the analog hole, and regulate media this may be the most frightening aspect of the riaa, and the one we should all be boycotting them for. They see a future where all media is regulated, all music is paid for per-listening, and the only people who can create and listen to culturally significant artifacts are those liscenced to do so. When listener's liscences start to pop up, and start to be mandatory as a means of getting a job(people allready filter what movies they are going to see or video games they are going to watch based on arbitrary ratings given to said gam
Do I know, or not know, that I don't know the awnser to this question? do you?
"much less financial incentive for musicians"
Good, speaking as a musician. I say we should drown out the rats that are in the business to rip people off, and to make money. I hope that there will be much less 'financial incentive'. Musicians should be, and will inevidibly be concerned about music, not money. And while I disagree to the grandparent post, I hardly think he's a Dumbass, the law seems a little shady, and it is reasonable to doubt either way.
"The only way to change that would be to"
You poor shelterred fellow. There are alternatives to violence-from-without, and if you cannot see them, I'm not even sure what I can say to you.
The situation is not that black and white, there are other ways of dealing with any situation then violence.
Do you believe anything else you see on television? Why is it when an patriotic artist with something to say (that the united states promotes violence, as a macroscopic entity, for various reasons), when it turns out that he created an illusion to do so, is shocking somehow?
don't believe everything you read, either d:
when my music turns up on iTunes, i'll *consider* buying in. P2P is not evil, or wrong. It is the solution.
We need someone to find random RIAA execs, and execute them.