If you look at Fox News, or any of the other conservative news stations, they will say hes far left because they'd rather you vote for him than for Kerry or Gephart, the real far left.
Dean is actually a moderate, but thats what I want because I'm an independent, not a liberal.
What the hell are you talking about socialist? Dean is the most moderate out of all the others, would you rather have a true socialist like Hilary Clinton, Al Sharpton, Dick Gephart?
Dean is moderate, he didnt raise taxes, read his viewpoints and ideas before you assume just because hes a democrat thats hes a socialist.
Bush is more socialist than Dean! Bush is the one providing welfare to Africa, Bush is the one who wants to spend all our money on rebuilding the middle east.
Talk about socialism, go talk to George Bush and teach him how to be a real conservative.
Howard Dean has the balls to be pro P2P?? If he has the balls to make a move such as this, I will vote for him on principle.
It seems these other politicians are spineless, but if he has the guts to do this, he deserves to be President.
Re:Jobs dont have to be enjoyable.
on
Working Hard?
·
· Score: 1
not really. you can live without teachers.
Without teachers you need parents who convince you to teach yourself. Either way you still need someone, and alot of people arent smart enough to learn to teach themselves, or they arent mature enough.
so you have never had a job have you ? give it a few years in a shitty enviroment and tell me that.
I'm poor, I'll work any job in any enviornment because I must survive somehow. Stop being a wuss and do your job.
so when did i advocate being greedy ? i never said a damn thing about being greedy. you seem to think that the best way to live life is being a work-whore, i disagree, and YOU DONT UNDERSTAND that. its simple, to me working constantly to help people who by and large wont help themselves is fucking retarded. i want to enjoy life, you know travel, do things that i want to do when i want to do them and how i want to do them, working in a field you love wont change the fact that your not doing it on your own terms. sombody else is telling you what to do.
Why not travel around the world helping people and doing things for the world? Stop being greedy and selfish, this world isnt about you, this world doesnt care if you get to do what you want to do when you want to do it. Learn your role in this world, know your place here and do your best to play the role you are supposed to play.
actually going out and doing things dramatically effects who you will meet. having a million dollars and being alone is just as fucking pointless as working your whole life and being alone. i'm glad you accept that your life is going to be lonely and pointless. congratulations!
Meeting more people does not mean meeting better people. You cannot control who you will meet just like you cannot control the weather.
I see it like this, if I'm going to be alone I'm going to be alone no matter what I do or how much money I have, and if I'm not going to be alone, I'm going to not be alone no matter what I do or how much money I have.
Why? Because just like the weather, other peoples opinion of you is not under your control. Stop worrying about people and do your job, if you worry too much about what people think about you, and dedicate your life to making people like you, you'll be even more of a loser than a person who dedicates their life to their job. Why? because while both may end up alone, one will at least be able to say they did something with their life, the other will have wasted their life trying to change fate.
Whys its eminems decision? Once one person buys his creation its a sale, Eminem cannot conntrol what the purchaser does with it becuase Eminem no longer owns it.
Why do these rules apply when the RIAA purchases Eminems music, but it doesnt apply to the public domain when we purchase eminems music?
Listening to you claim that digital music sharing has killed the RIAA's business model reminds me of earlier claims about how the dot-coms would crush all traditional business models, which in turn reminds me of even earlier claims about how computers would reduce paper use.
Yeah and it will, just not overnight like people thought.
I never said the RIAA will be killed overnight, but its clear to just about everyone that the RIAA's model is outdated.
The RIAA is a powerful political lobby as well as a business association, and it represents big music distributors and producers. It's really unlikely that they will go the way of the dinosaur or that they will lose all influence.
They have enough money to survive, but considering their current approach which is to sue everyone including their supporters, I dont see them lasting another 5 years.
People shouldn't get lost in the rhetoric. Sure the RIAA regularly screws consumers and musicians, but its member companies are the ones responsible for album production, marketing, distribution, merchandising, etc. Yes, we can find an online alternative for each of these things, but will it be as pervasive? None of the independent bands or labels relying solely on the Internet have reached the critical mass of Britney Spears... and little Britney would still be living in a trailer if it were up to her to finance an album and tour by herself.
Why do we need fake musicians like britney spears? You are right no real musician has reached the level of britney spears, but thats because the RIAA has a monopoly on marketing, britney spears is not a musician, that chick doesnt even write her own songs. Britney should be living in a trailer, she doesnt have any talent, and if you support an industry which hires people based on looks instead of their artistic talent, you dont understandthe music industry.
Britney would never be able to finance and tour by herself because she has no talent, Someone like Michael Jackson however would be able to tour and finance himself because he does have talent, Michael Jackson was making music even before all of these marketing features existed, he was a star even as a kid, he had talent, and even if no one signed him and no one marketed him everyone would have known who he was.
Online music sharing would make a great complement to existing distribution and marketing channels, but as a complete and total replacement, it won't happen until every last music consumer decides they don't want to go to a physical store to buy a physical CD.
60 million is a big number, I'd say the majority of consumers have already decided. Sure theres still older people, and maybe a few million young people who prefer CDs, but the majority of people dont.
Hows that any different? In a public performance someone can take out a tape recorder and copy it, or they can listen to it and not copy it. Its just like the net.
Britney deserves to be living in a trailer, she has no talent. Micheal Jackson even without record company marketing support has enough talent to go on tour, Britney would not becsause shes not a musician.
Listening to you claim that digital music sharing has killed the RIAA's business model reminds me of earlier claims about how the dot-coms would crush all traditional business models, which in turn reminds me of even earlier claims about how computers would reduce paper use.
Yeah and it will, just not overnight like people thought.
I never said the RIAA will be killed overnight, but its clear to just about everyone that the RIAA's model is outdated.
The RIAA is a powerful political lobby as well as a business association, and it represents big music distributors and producers. It's really unlikely that they will go the way of the dinosaur or that they will lose all influence.
They have enough money to survive, but considering their current approach which is to sue everyone including their supporters, I dont see them lasting another 5 years.
People shouldn't get lost in the rhetoric. Sure the RIAA regularly screws consumers and musicians, but its member companies are the ones responsible for album production, marketing, distribution, merchandising, etc. Yes, we can find an online alternative for each of these things, but will it be as pervasive? None of the independent bands or labels relying solely on the Internet have reached the critical mass of Britney Spears... and little Britney would still be living in a trailer if it were up to her to finance an album and tour by herself. Online music sharing would make a great complement to existing distribution and marketing channels, but as a complete and total replacement, it won't happen until every last music consumer decides they don't want to go to a physical store to buy a physical CD.
60 million is a big number, I'd say the majority of consumers have already decided. Sure theres still older people, and maybe a few million young people who prefer CDs, but the majority of people dont.
Assume you mean the reception, that's okay because you 'pay' for it by watching ads.. Everyone who's watching the tv with you is paying by watching the ads as well.
P2P has Ads also (or in theory it could have them at least)
So whats profit have to do with this? Nothing.
What I'm saying is the business model needs to adapt so people can share music and musicians can get paid.
The RIAA doesnt want us to be distributor because then they lose control over the musician.
Ok, but when you use freenet, waste or any other private network, why is it the RIAA thinks they can sue people, even when people design networks to be private, like direct connect.
Doesnt it violate their own rules to sue these networks? I can understand Kazaa, Kazaa is public, but Waste, Direct Connect, and Freenet (well freenet is debateable) are private.
Just like your house is designed to be private, so what gives the RIAA the right to break into private networks and try to spy on people? Its like installing video cameras in your house.
The same way Kazaa, Grokster, Napster and others make money off consumers distribution. Advertisements and other little things.
Do the calculations, artists would actually make more money off this system than the current system because they'd still own their copyrights and would take in 100% of the profits made.
Currently artists dont profit at all off distirbution and record sales unless they sell 500,000 records, in the new system even if you sell 1000 records you'd get something because you'd still own the copyright.
Why does the RIAA limit our ability to distribute? Because they know they wont be needed if we become the distributor.
This isnt about Artists or Consumers, its about the RIAA protecting their business. P2P is distribution, free distribubtion. The RIAA however wants control over distribution.
I'm not saying we should have a right to sell mp3s we didnt make, I'm saying we the people should distribute music, and musicians can profit from this in a number of ways.
Why do we need the RIAA to buy copyrights from musicians, distribute musicians music, and then make all the money from CD sales, when we can distribute the music, the musicians can keep the profits, and we can gain enhanced fair use rights.
Slashdot Mirror
If you look at Fox News, or any of the other conservative news stations, they will say hes far left because they'd rather you vote for him than for Kerry or Gephart, the real far left.
Dean is actually a moderate, but thats what I want because I'm an independent, not a liberal.
What the hell are you talking about socialist? Dean is the most moderate out of all the others, would you rather have a true socialist like Hilary Clinton, Al Sharpton, Dick Gephart?
Dean is moderate, he didnt raise taxes, read his viewpoints and ideas before you assume just because hes a democrat thats hes a socialist.
Bush is more socialist than Dean! Bush is the one providing welfare to Africa, Bush is the one who wants to spend all our money on rebuilding the middle east.
Talk about socialism, go talk to George Bush and teach him how to be a real conservative.
Dean is a moderate who has the balls to speak his mind, but when he was a governer his actions were very moderate.
He almost reminds me of Clinton.
Howard Dean has the balls to be pro P2P?? If he has the balls to make a move such as this, I will vote for him on principle.
It seems these other politicians are spineless, but if he has the guts to do this, he deserves to be President.
not really. you can live without teachers.
Without teachers you need parents who convince you to teach yourself. Either way you still need someone, and alot of people arent smart enough to learn to teach themselves, or they arent mature enough.
so you have never had a job have you ? give it a few years in a shitty enviroment and tell me that.
I'm poor, I'll work any job in any enviornment because I must survive somehow. Stop being a wuss and do your job.
so when did i advocate being greedy ? i never said a damn thing about being greedy. you seem to think that the best way to live life is being a work-whore, i disagree, and YOU DONT UNDERSTAND that. its simple, to me working constantly to help people who by and large wont help themselves is fucking retarded. i want to enjoy life, you know travel, do things that i want to do when i want to do them and how i want to do them, working in a field you love wont change the fact that your not doing it on your own terms. sombody else is telling you what to do.
Why not travel around the world helping people and doing things for the world? Stop being greedy and selfish, this world isnt about you, this world doesnt care if you get to do what you want to do when you want to do it. Learn your role in this world, know your place here and do your best to play the role you are supposed to play.
actually going out and doing things dramatically effects who you will meet. having a million dollars and being alone is just as fucking pointless as working your whole life and being alone. i'm glad you accept that your life is going to be lonely and pointless. congratulations!
Meeting more people does not mean meeting better people. You cannot control who you will meet just like you cannot control the weather.
I see it like this, if I'm going to be alone I'm going to be alone no matter what I do or how much money I have, and if I'm not going to be alone, I'm going to not be alone no matter what I do or how much money I have.
Why? Because just like the weather, other peoples opinion of you is not under your control. Stop worrying about people and do your job, if you worry too much about what people think about you, and dedicate your life to making people like you, you'll be even more of a loser than a person who dedicates their life to their job. Why? because while both may end up alone, one will at least be able to say they did something with their life, the other will have wasted their life trying to change fate.
Yeah but I dont care about the corperate side of Open Source.
I support Open Source because it improves the world for everyone. I believe information should be free and not controlled by capital.
Actually no I support open source. I'd be happy if all information were owned by the world.
The problem is, its not profitable and I'd be out of a job as all open source companies would force all our jobs to india.
The RIAA doesnt make alot of money from Live performances. Thats how the musicians get money, the RIAA makes money on CDs.
When you dont buy CDs you are taking the RIAAs cut.
So when you buy an Mp3, what are you buying? The Music? or what?
Whys its eminems decision? Once one person buys his creation its a sale, Eminem cannot conntrol what the purchaser does with it becuase Eminem no longer owns it.
Why do these rules apply when the RIAA purchases Eminems music, but it doesnt apply to the public domain when we purchase eminems music?
Well I'm saying people are moving on, they dont want or need discs anymore.
Kinda like people dont use floppys anymore now.
so why cant artists sell the rights to the public domain when we buy their CDs?
Say a million of us buy Eminems CD, shouldnt his work be public domain? his art isnt worth much more than that.
If thats true the RIAA has no reason to sue. I mean no one using P2P would ever think about buying a CD.
So why should music companies own the music?
Listening to you claim that digital music sharing has killed the RIAA's business model reminds me of earlier claims about how the dot-coms would crush all traditional business models, which in turn reminds me of even earlier claims about how computers would reduce paper use.
Yeah and it will, just not overnight like people thought.
I never said the RIAA will be killed overnight, but its clear to just about everyone that the RIAA's model is outdated.
The RIAA is a powerful political lobby as well as a business association, and it represents big music distributors and producers. It's really unlikely that they will go the way of the dinosaur or that they will lose all influence.
They have enough money to survive, but considering their current approach which is to sue everyone including their supporters, I dont see them lasting another 5 years.
People shouldn't get lost in the rhetoric. Sure the RIAA regularly screws consumers and musicians, but its member companies are the ones responsible for album production, marketing, distribution, merchandising, etc. Yes, we can find an online alternative for each of these things, but will it be as pervasive? None of the independent bands or labels relying solely on the Internet have reached the critical mass of Britney Spears... and little Britney would still be living in a trailer if it were up to her to finance an album and tour by herself.
Why do we need fake musicians like britney spears? You are right no real musician has reached the level of britney spears, but thats because the RIAA has a monopoly on marketing, britney spears is not a musician, that chick doesnt even write her own songs. Britney should be living in a trailer, she doesnt have any talent, and if you support an industry which hires people based on looks instead of their artistic talent, you dont understandthe music industry.
Britney would never be able to finance and tour by herself because she has no talent, Someone like Michael Jackson however would be able to tour and finance himself because he does have talent, Michael Jackson was making music even before all of these marketing features existed, he was a star even as a kid, he had talent, and even if no one signed him and no one marketed him everyone would have known who he was.
Online music sharing would make a great complement to existing distribution and marketing channels, but as a complete and total replacement, it won't happen until every last music consumer decides they don't want to go to a physical store to buy a physical CD.
60 million is a big number, I'd say the majority of consumers have already decided. Sure theres still older people, and maybe a few million young people who prefer CDs, but the majority of people dont.
Hows that any different? In a public performance someone can take out a tape recorder and copy it, or they can listen to it and not copy it. Its just like the net.
Excuse the poor formatting.
Britney deserves to be living in a trailer, she has no talent. Micheal Jackson even without record company marketing support has enough talent to go on tour, Britney would not becsause shes not a musician.
Listening to you claim that digital music sharing has killed the RIAA's business model reminds me of earlier claims about how the dot-coms would crush all traditional business models, which in turn reminds me of even earlier claims about how computers would reduce paper use.
Yeah and it will, just not overnight like people thought.
I never said the RIAA will be killed overnight, but its clear to just about everyone that the RIAA's model is outdated.
The RIAA is a powerful political lobby as well as a business association, and it represents big music distributors and producers. It's really unlikely that they will go the way of the dinosaur or that they will lose all influence.
They have enough money to survive, but considering their current approach which is to sue everyone including their supporters, I dont see them lasting another 5 years.
People shouldn't get lost in the rhetoric. Sure the RIAA regularly screws consumers and musicians, but its member companies are the ones responsible for album production, marketing, distribution, merchandising, etc. Yes, we can find an online alternative for each of these things, but will it be as pervasive? None of the independent bands or labels relying solely on the Internet have reached the critical mass of Britney Spears... and little Britney would still be living in a trailer if it were up to her to finance an album and tour by herself. Online music sharing would make a great complement to existing distribution and marketing channels, but as a complete and total replacement, it won't happen until every last music consumer decides they don't want to go to a physical store to buy a physical CD.
60 million is a big number, I'd say the majority of consumers have already decided. Sure theres still older people, and maybe a few million young people who prefer CDs, but the majority of people dont.
No ones talking about selling MP3s. See thats what you dont understand, the RIAA's business model is dead, the RIAA is not needed anymore. PERIOD.
Kazaa, Grokster, Napster and all these other services can PROFIT, thats right PROFIT off of us sharing mp3s.
Musicians can get a share of the PROFIT, and get paid for their work.
Whos missing here? Happy consumers, happy musicians, wait, no RIAA influence!
Thats the key.
Assume you mean the reception, that's okay because you 'pay' for it by watching ads.. Everyone who's watching the tv with you is paying by watching the ads as well.
P2P has Ads also (or in theory it could have them at least)
So whats profit have to do with this? Nothing.
What I'm saying is the business model needs to adapt so people can share music and musicians can get paid.
The RIAA doesnt want us to be distributor because then they lose control over the musician.
Ok, but when you use freenet, waste or any other private network, why is it the RIAA thinks they can sue people, even when people design networks to be private, like direct connect.
Doesnt it violate their own rules to sue these networks? I can understand Kazaa, Kazaa is public, but Waste, Direct Connect, and Freenet (well freenet is debateable) are private.
Just like your house is designed to be private, so what gives the RIAA the right to break into private networks and try to spy on people? Its like installing video cameras in your house.
When you use Waste or Freenet they arent supposed to know who to sue.
The same way Kazaa, Grokster, Napster and others make money off consumers distribution. Advertisements and other little things.
Do the calculations, artists would actually make more money off this system than the current system because they'd still own their copyrights and would take in 100% of the profits made.
Example1
Example2
Currently artists dont profit at all off distirbution and record sales unless they sell 500,000 records, in the new system even if you sell 1000 records you'd get something because you'd still own the copyright.
Why does the RIAA limit our ability to distribute? Because they know they wont be needed if we become the distributor.
This isnt about Artists or Consumers, its about the RIAA protecting their business. P2P is distribution, free distribubtion. The RIAA however wants control over distribution.
I'm not saying we should have a right to sell mp3s we didnt make, I'm saying we the people should distribute music, and musicians can profit from this in a number of ways.
Why do we need the RIAA to buy copyrights from musicians, distribute musicians music, and then make all the money from CD sales, when we can distribute the music, the musicians can keep the profits, and we can gain enhanced fair use rights.
When I invite a group of people over and share my TV I still have possession of my TV.
When I share music via radio, I still own my radio.
When I share music via the computer, I still own the CD and computer.
When you play a DVD on your TV and you and your 100 friends watch it, hows it any different than sending that DVD to your 100 friends via the net?