Have you thought about WHAT the government is going to block? Yes, some parents are intelligent and won't put this on their kids, but most parents are dumb as FUCK! I mean, really, they had kids in the modern age- they can't be that smart in the first place. The real point, though, is that I don't want the government telling the majority of America's children what is wrong and what is right.
I can think of hundreds of sites for kids which would no doubt be kept of the.kids.us server. With the current people in power, kids will not have access to any information that supports liberal/left leaning causes. I don't want the government deciding what kids hear about sex (let me tell you, I learned about sex at nine, not thirteen- and this is the way of the modern generation growing up), homosexuality, the practices (past and present) of the US Government, religion, natural rights and freedoms, and socially acceptable practices- among a hundred other things.
Freedom of information is neccessary, even for kids. I don't trust the people currently in charge of my government (who I did not elect because at the time I was too young, but have since come of voting age and am registered for the next election) to provide this. Free access is neccessary. It's not my job to not post or view porn on the internet just in case some stupid yuppy's kid happens upon it. It's the parent's responsibility to monitor what the child is viewing. If you don't have the time to keep half an eye on your kids a couple hours a day so they can use the internet, you shouldn't have kids! Freedom should not be sacrificed so that people can be negligent.
Don't fall for the 'oh, this isn't a big deal' trap. Do you want the government telling children what to think of hax0rs? Or Copy protection? Or Microsoft? I thought not.
"You're not satisfied with your job? Kate, why didn't you tell me? There's a support group for that, it's called everyone. They meet at the bar." - Drew Carey
Ancient Chinese saying... "You can't get fucked if you don't spread your legs" (ok, I just made that up). The artists have everything spelled out in front of them, and if they don't understand it it's their own fault for not seeking out counsel. If they get fucked, it's because they see the dollar signs in their eyes and not the realities of engaging in business.
Actually, that's not true. More likely, they don't know what they're signing. There is also the issue of coercion- you know, "sign this or sign nothing."
Obviously, because the potential reward is so great. Those are issues that the business world looks at every day -- "How can I get the greatest reward for the least risk?" How much risk are you willing to tolerate? It depends on the potential reward.
You wouldn't put up with that kind of abuse at McDonald's. Why? Too much risk for too little reward. BUT... if you had the potential to be the next U2... ok, then you're probably willing to take on a LOT more risk. But ultimately you, as the band, decide whether or not to take it on, not the record company.
And if you have misjudged your greatness, then you pay the same price that every failed entrepreneur has paid.
What a capitalist view of the world. The fact is, artists who are out there to make money, as a rule, suck. There are exceptions, but these exceptions are rare. It isn't like a job at McDonald's- flipping burgers is not art. I am generally a pragmatic person, but I'm sorry, music is different. And, to clarify it for you, I wouldn't take that kind of abuse anywhere. Most of the people signing these contracts are blind- the contracts are generally written in such heavy language(as they are prepared by the record company's lawyers) that even if the artist were to go through it on their own, they probably wouldn't understand the full potential.
It's not about my greatness, it's about the market. Some great acts have been dropped due to low sales, and some really shitty bands make a lot of money. It is impossible to predict whether or not a band will be successful.
Ever hear of bankruptcy? If an album fails, then the record company may be looking at one of three options: 1) pursue every penny and push these out of work musicians into bankruptcy (and get nothing), 2) negotiate a settlement with them and get pennies on the dollar (repaid over many, many years), or 3) write it off as a bad debt and reduce their amount of taxable income.
I'm willing to bet that option 3 happens a lot more often than 1 or 2.
And BTW, the record companies DO invest, they have potential to lose their money as well as increase it. It's only because they are big enough that they have figured out how to minimize risk on their part. They have the gold, so they make the rules. Don't like it? Then don't do business with them.
Bankruptcy is not a threat to a major record company. It is more likely that they will make their money back on the artist, but not by much, or a few thousand short. The problems you've mentioned in the first two paragraphs don't apply to labels like Virgin, they apply to the smaller Indie labels, who often go under.
As for not doing business with them, that is quite impossible. To get, for example, an Eels CD, I have to go through Dreamworks, their label. I could bypass the whole system and DL the music online, but this still wouldn't deliver my $ to Eels. It's what we call a monopoly- a corporation or group of combined corporations(RIAA) owning an unfair percentage of the market, allowing them to make their own rules. Only a fraction of the existing bands are signed to smaller labels.
Isn't competition a wonderful thing? That's the beauty of capitalism. If one company or group of companies gets too greedy, well there's always somebody waiting in the wings to eat their lunch.
So, what have the Indie labels done? They've reduced the amount of risk that the artists take on, but they have also reduced the potential reward. Again, if the artist feels that he/she has real talent, and is willing to take on much more risk, then they can step up from the Indie label.
Actually, Capitalism is pretty damn ugly. And you've demonstrated why. Music made for money produces crap(see the recent Green Day album, boy bands, REM as of late, etc.). When a band steps from Indie to major, it's often viewed as a sad tragedy- and for good reason. These moves often produce mass-marketed crap music that may as well just not exist.
Indie labels offer fair deals to artists, at a trade of fame. If the artist is intelligent, they realize that the possibility of being on TRL one day isn't really worth making LESS money than they would with a major label. That's right, LESS money.
Oh, so some musicians with the big labels DO make big money... I've got a dozen people here telling me that they don't!
So, somebody out there is proving that capitalism works. Taking on a great amount of risk is not a guarantee of success (more a guarantee of failure, that's why it's called "risk"), but when that increased risk pays off, it pays off big.
The guarantee of success is for the record company. The gaurantee of failure is for the artist. The record companies do NOT risk their money. They can pump enough records with glitzy advertising to make up for the losses both in ads and overall failure of a band considering they don't squeeze it out of the artist and then keep the $ they've made on record sales.
I won't deny there are a handfull of musicians living the life, but does that really mean capitalism works? I don't think that.001% of a market making it is success. I didn't say everyone lives the life. I said A FEW people live the life. And that number actually has been shown relatively accurate- I can drudge up the evidence and links if you really need it.
The fact is, capitalism fails in this case. The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer. Capitalism has had a lot of great successes. This is not one of them.
Answer me this, then... The record company gives you an advance of $1 million to produce the album. You spend every penny. So, if the album sells 5 copies, total, who has lost money? The band or the record company?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Record company? Give? You're funny. The record company LOANS that money to the artist, and then forces them to pay it back. And if you can't pay it in your lifetime, your next of kin will. The truth is that if you fail, you enter a state of indentured servitude to your record company.
No, it's called "ripping off." You know why? Most artists get FUCKED. Many end up in debt, between the cost of recording an album and everything else that goes into it. It's all usually calculated into their 'salary,' so if the artist flops, they have to pay for it.
If I were to release an album on a major record label with a typical contract and sell 50,000 copies, I would lose money(considering that it was an expensively produced album-which most are these days). If I hadn't gotten an aggressive percentage of ticket and paraphenelia sales(which most artists don't) and then decided to put on a good show for my fans, the record company I'm signed to would make a lot of money, the venue would make a fair deal, and I wouldn't make hardly any- because tour costs would fall on me.
You see, major record companies don't take risks with artists. They don't invest. They are gauranteed to make back their money, even if an artist fails. The artist pays the cost of their failure, and ends up indentured to the record company.
Now, Indie labels(Fat Wreck Chords, Matador, Hopeless, A-F Records, etc.) take risks. They release CD's at reasonable prices. They don't fuck the artists with the contracts. They don't make shit off of concerts, because they don't charge much for them. But the bands of Indie labels aren't living rock and roll dreams with big houses. The truth is, there's a handful of people living that life. A lot of them own their own labels, or they're experienced enough in the business to force major record companies to give them fair contracts.
I don't know, personally I hold every to the same ideals. How can you make exceptions for corporations? A person's responsibility is first to the human race, not to shareholders.
Do you hold yourself to the ideals you have for other people, or are you different, so you don't have to measure up to those pesky standards you judge others by?
I definitely agree that we have problems, but how can you compare ours to theirs? Up until recently, I would say that our government acts on what most of the people want (both in Canada and the States). They do this because of democratic elections...if they make too many people hate them, they're not going to get elected next time. The government of China doesn't have to deal with this little problem, because they can just shut down opposing views to theirs, and it isn't a democratic-republican(The U.S. and Canada aren't democracies) system. There isn't a people's representation.
The point of the censorship is not to close off the outside world, just stuff the g' determines is inappropriate.
Don't know much about Chinese history, do ya? The country did in fact close off the outside world, for about 200 years. And that mentality still exists.
Why don't we sell playboys and such to 6 yr olds now? While the g' in China is not just censoring from 6 yr olds the same ideas apply.
No. Censorship from an age group for reasons of responsibility, innocence, etc. is not the same as barring all people from information. And we aren't just talking about porn, here- we are talking about information.
Further, this is not something the people of China want. There is a huge force against the oppression common in China today. All kinds of people are doing their best to cause change, maybe even a revolution.
This is not the same kind of censorship we talk about here in North America. Censorship from information involving homosexuality(not porn, just information, support, all that), differing opinions on Chinese politics, information on all sorts of human rights violations occuring in their own country- this is the information being denied the people of China. And they want access to it.
In China, people 'disappear.' One day, the police will come to their house, take them, make some excuse to any family...later, they deny that they ever took them. This is not a 'culture difference.' This is a problem.
...because the Detroit Free Press did an article today about how Comcast was CONTINUING to do this. Hunh. Glad to hear that they won't be screwing us- not that they don't already with high prices and a rarely working network.
I disagree. While pirating won't end, it will be greatly diminished. There's a word for people like your friend: assholes.
Most of the world of music piraters are not assholes. I personally don't pirate music that is easily available, only things like B-sides on singles. I only own around 40 or so pirated songs, and some of them are actually from artists who support their music being available for free (and aren't signed to record companies who disagree), and so some of it isn't even technically 'pirated.' If I could find these songs on a respectable, easy-to-use, transferrable service, I would use it.
My best friend refuses to buy CD's for more than 12 dollars. In the punk world, that's not so hard, but outside of that, it can be a challenge. So he, too, downloads music for free. While I find this practice disagreeable, he is still willing to buy any good CD's for the price he believes to be understandable.
If the record companies would just be more reasonable, people like us would pay for music that we otherwise feel we must pirate to keep in budget.
As for having 100 hours of music...I own around 300 CD's. At an average running time of 45 minutes(most of my CD's are actually over well over 60 and I own no singles for the above described reason, but I'm being generous), that's 13500 minutes of music. 13500/60= over 200 hours of music. And in a year, I listen to every single one.
People who pirate music regardless are assholes, plain and simple. They're far worse than people who steal CD's from record stores- when you steal a CD, the money that would go to the artist and the recording company still does, it's only the store who's being gipped.
For one, while you are a minor, your parents can legally do things to you as your guardian which could not be done legally between other citizens. negative physical reinforcement(i.e. spanking) is legal in America, and there is a general suspension of privacy rights.
This same set of rules extends to schools, but only to a limited degree. Video cameras and other intrusive security measures in high schools are legal because the school is allowed to act as the parent- to a degree.
And then there are laws specific to youth which restrict various rights of free expression and other things, such as laws preventing you from getting tatoos/piercings until you are 18. These laws are not usually US laws, but rather state-to-state variations.
Further, curfew laws are a restriction of general rights which would obviously never be placed on the adult population. These laws are passed by the same reasoning as those in the article- it is considered to be for the safety of both the minors and the general population. It's a cop out answer, but whenever laws for minors are questioned, this argument wins the case for keeping them in place.
Witholding names from the media when is actually a legal protection of youth. If an individual under 18's name is ever printed in a paper or mentioned on the TV news, it is either in violation of that right(which is more likely- I've seen this often be the case), or the parents and the minor have agreed that it is for the best to release the information to the media.
So, minors don't have the same rights, but they do have rights. Like I said, this particular case is saved by the idea that it is for the 'safety of the minors and the general population.'
I love anonymous coward posts. Their tendency towards being both insightful and constructive...it just brightens my day to know that I can be insulted by someone with bad grammar and not be allowed to know who it is.
Hey - that's a Quebec Provincial Law. The GOC didn't create Bill 101. The Province du Quebec did. It's there so that Quebecois culture (yes- very different from France) does not get assimilated into the Anglo culture.
I do understand the purpose of the law. However, it is national. There are other provinces with large French speaking populations, but it is my personal belief that the Canadian government is more interested in holding onto what it has than protecting anyone's culture, heritage, or history.
What you're suggesting is bankruptcy. It's silly to think that one province can support itself without the help of the rest. Think of it- What would Minnesota do if it became it's own country?
Tell that to the guy who started this thread, a citizen of Quebec, who was stating his support of the province's secession. Or tell that to the 43% of Canada that has said it in fact supports Quebec becoming its own nation (as quoted from recent national polls conducted by the Canadian government). Or tell that to OVER HALF of Quebec, as indeed over half of its citizens want to secede. Also note, there's a lot more in Quebec than there is in Minnesota, industry-wise. It's also over twice the size of Minnesota. Now, Alaska becoming its own state, that's a better comparison. Even though Alaska is still smaller and less populated than Quebec.
I don't want to be physically seperated from the rest of the country, as would happen if Quebec became independant.
That is a problem. Have there been no proposals by your government or the people of Quebec as to a way to solve this?
And before some wiseass says "Join the US!" let me just say that the US is a festering cesspool of political corruption, racial bigotry, media censorship, and environmental destruction, and I want no part of it.
I agree entirely.
And regarding signs, not all French speaking people live in Quebec. Ever heard of Acadians?
Yes. I simply don't believe that the Canadian government cares, as they aren't a threat or anything. One thing I've learned from being a U.S. Citizen, the government cares only about making laws for those who it feels could somehow damage it, such as by seceding. Until people are trying to free New Brunswick, no one is going to care.
No, actually. It IS a bilingual province. Otherwise it wouldn't be a requirement for many jobs there to be bilingual, as it is.
As for the Acadians, do you think the Canadian government really cares? New Brunswick is not threatening independence. I was also speaking of other national laws which are designed specifically to cater to Quebec.
We all know that those signs are marketing for the hotels as much they are promoting "Unity" and that jazz. Is that disrespect?
Yeah, probably, but when's the last time you heard of someone getting arrested for "disrespecting the flag." If these laws were truly enforced, they never would have considered that legislation a year or so back to ban burning flags specifically.
If the U.S. Government ever charged an individual or corporation with anything so broad as "disrespecting the flag," civil rights groups would be there with a court case prepared in ten seconds or less. I mean, this is America. That's how it works.
I'm American, and like many other Americans, I respect the idea of a free Quebec.
I also have French-Canadian ancestry, which makes me more so than others here a believer in the formation of a new country. Besides, it makes sense for Quebec to be its own nation. Then the Canadian government will stop making laws such as those requiring all signs to be in French and English essentially designed to please the people of Quebec so that they don't secede. If the world thought of Quebec as you have just described it, the Canadian government wouldn't work so hard to keep it.
Maybe, in its eternal attempt to squash the hopes and dreams of college students everywhere, the US government will drop the drinking age back down to 18 like it used to be, and put a 56k cap on bandwidth for people under the age of 21.
And it would probably be just as successful(not at all, that is).
Don't blame the son for the sins of the father. I mean, it's not like Colin has ever won any awards. Besides, I'm looking forward to another youthful, attractive actor appearing in hundreds of horrible movies (like Big) before going into films that are garaunteed to win an Oscar.
Hey! Now they can make sequels to all of Tom's best films, starring his son! I can just see it now. "Insomniac in Islip," "You've Got Text Message," and, of course, "Toy Story 16."
Slashdot Mirror
Have you thought about WHAT the government is going to block? Yes, some parents are intelligent and won't put this on their kids, but most parents are dumb as FUCK! I mean, really, they had kids in the modern age- they can't be that smart in the first place. The real point, though, is that I don't want the government telling the majority of America's children what is wrong and what is right.
.kids.us server. With the current people in power, kids will not have access to any information that supports liberal/left leaning causes. I don't want the government deciding what kids hear about sex (let me tell you, I learned about sex at nine, not thirteen- and this is the way of the modern generation growing up), homosexuality, the practices (past and present) of the US Government, religion, natural rights and freedoms, and socially acceptable practices- among a hundred other things.
I can think of hundreds of sites for kids which would no doubt be kept of the
Freedom of information is neccessary, even for kids. I don't trust the people currently in charge of my government (who I did not elect because at the time I was too young, but have since come of voting age and am registered for the next election) to provide this. Free access is neccessary. It's not my job to not post or view porn on the internet just in case some stupid yuppy's kid happens upon it. It's the parent's responsibility to monitor what the child is viewing. If you don't have the time to keep half an eye on your kids a couple hours a day so they can use the internet, you shouldn't have kids! Freedom should not be sacrificed so that people can be negligent.
Don't fall for the 'oh, this isn't a big deal' trap. Do you want the government telling children what to think of hax0rs? Or Copy protection? Or Microsoft? I thought not.
"You're not satisfied with your job? Kate, why didn't you tell me? There's a support group for that, it's called everyone. They meet at the bar." - Drew Carey
Ancient Chinese saying... "You can't get fucked if you don't spread your legs" (ok, I just made that up). The artists have everything spelled out in front of them, and if they don't understand it it's their own fault for not seeking out counsel. If they get fucked, it's because they see the dollar signs in their eyes and not the realities of engaging in business.
.001% of a market making it is success. I didn't say everyone lives the life. I said A FEW people live the life. And that number actually has been shown relatively accurate- I can drudge up the evidence and links if you really need it.
Actually, that's not true. More likely, they don't know what they're signing. There is also the issue of coercion- you know, "sign this or sign nothing."
Obviously, because the potential reward is so great. Those are issues that the business world looks at every day -- "How can I get the greatest reward for the least risk?" How much risk are you willing to tolerate? It depends on the potential reward.
You wouldn't put up with that kind of abuse at McDonald's. Why? Too much risk for too little reward. BUT... if you had the potential to be the next U2... ok, then you're probably willing to take on a LOT more risk. But ultimately you, as the band, decide whether or not to take it on, not the record company.
And if you have misjudged your greatness, then you pay the same price that every failed entrepreneur has paid.
What a capitalist view of the world. The fact is, artists who are out there to make money, as a rule, suck. There are exceptions, but these exceptions are rare. It isn't like a job at McDonald's- flipping burgers is not art. I am generally a pragmatic person, but I'm sorry, music is different. And, to clarify it for you, I wouldn't take that kind of abuse anywhere. Most of the people signing these contracts are blind- the contracts are generally written in such heavy language(as they are prepared by the record company's lawyers) that even if the artist were to go through it on their own, they probably wouldn't understand the full potential.
It's not about my greatness, it's about the market. Some great acts have been dropped due to low sales, and some really shitty bands make a lot of money. It is impossible to predict whether or not a band will be successful.
Ever hear of bankruptcy? If an album fails, then the record company may be looking at one of three options: 1) pursue every penny and push these out of work musicians into bankruptcy (and get nothing), 2) negotiate a settlement with them and get pennies on the dollar (repaid over many, many years), or 3) write it off as a bad debt and reduce their amount of taxable income.
I'm willing to bet that option 3 happens a lot more often than 1 or 2.
And BTW, the record companies DO invest, they have potential to lose their money as well as increase it. It's only because they are big enough that they have figured out how to minimize risk on their part. They have the gold, so they make the rules. Don't like it? Then don't do business with them.
Bankruptcy is not a threat to a major record company. It is more likely that they will make their money back on the artist, but not by much, or a few thousand short. The problems you've mentioned in the first two paragraphs don't apply to labels like Virgin, they apply to the smaller Indie labels, who often go under.
As for not doing business with them, that is quite impossible. To get, for example, an Eels CD, I have to go through Dreamworks, their label. I could bypass the whole system and DL the music online, but this still wouldn't deliver my $ to Eels. It's what we call a monopoly- a corporation or group of combined corporations(RIAA) owning an unfair percentage of the market, allowing them to make their own rules. Only a fraction of the existing bands are signed to smaller labels.
Isn't competition a wonderful thing? That's the beauty of capitalism. If one company or group of companies gets too greedy, well there's always somebody waiting in the wings to eat their lunch.
So, what have the Indie labels done? They've reduced the amount of risk that the artists take on, but they have also reduced the potential reward. Again, if the artist feels that he/she has real talent, and is willing to take on much more risk, then they can step up from the Indie label.
Actually, Capitalism is pretty damn ugly. And you've demonstrated why. Music made for money produces crap(see the recent Green Day album, boy bands, REM as of late, etc.). When a band steps from Indie to major, it's often viewed as a sad tragedy- and for good reason. These moves often produce mass-marketed crap music that may as well just not exist.
Indie labels offer fair deals to artists, at a trade of fame. If the artist is intelligent, they realize that the possibility of being on TRL one day isn't really worth making LESS money than they would with a major label. That's right, LESS money.
Oh, so some musicians with the big labels DO make big money... I've got a dozen people here telling me that they don't!
So, somebody out there is proving that capitalism works. Taking on a great amount of risk is not a guarantee of success (more a guarantee of failure, that's why it's called "risk"), but when that increased risk pays off, it pays off big.
The guarantee of success is for the record company. The gaurantee of failure is for the artist. The record companies do NOT risk their money. They can pump enough records with glitzy advertising to make up for the losses both in ads and overall failure of a band considering they don't squeeze it out of the artist and then keep the $ they've made on record sales.
I won't deny there are a handfull of musicians living the life, but does that really mean capitalism works? I don't think that
The fact is, capitalism fails in this case. The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer. Capitalism has had a lot of great successes. This is not one of them.
Answer me this, then... The record company gives you an advance of $1 million to produce the album. You spend every penny. So, if the album sells 5 copies, total, who has lost money? The band or the record company?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Record company? Give? You're funny. The record company LOANS that money to the artist, and then forces them to pay it back. And if you can't pay it in your lifetime, your next of kin will. The truth is that if you fail, you enter a state of indentured servitude to your record company.
No, it's called "ripping off." You know why? Most artists get FUCKED. Many end up in debt, between the cost of recording an album and everything else that goes into it. It's all usually calculated into their 'salary,' so if the artist flops, they have to pay for it.
If I were to release an album on a major record label with a typical contract and sell 50,000 copies, I would lose money(considering that it was an expensively produced album-which most are these days). If I hadn't gotten an aggressive percentage of ticket and paraphenelia sales(which most artists don't) and then decided to put on a good show for my fans, the record company I'm signed to would make a lot of money, the venue would make a fair deal, and I wouldn't make hardly any- because tour costs would fall on me.
You see, major record companies don't take risks with artists. They don't invest. They are gauranteed to make back their money, even if an artist fails. The artist pays the cost of their failure, and ends up indentured to the record company.
Now, Indie labels(Fat Wreck Chords, Matador, Hopeless, A-F Records, etc.) take risks. They release CD's at reasonable prices. They don't fuck the artists with the contracts. They don't make shit off of concerts, because they don't charge much for them. But the bands of Indie labels aren't living rock and roll dreams with big houses. The truth is, there's a handful of people living that life. A lot of them own their own labels, or they're experienced enough in the business to force major record companies to give them fair contracts.
I don't know, personally I hold every to the same ideals. How can you make exceptions for corporations? A person's responsibility is first to the human race, not to shareholders.
Do you hold yourself to the ideals you have for other people, or are you different, so you don't have to measure up to those pesky standards you judge others by?
I definitely agree that we have problems, but how can you compare ours to theirs? Up until recently, I would say that our government acts on what most of the people want (both in Canada and the States). They do this because of democratic elections...if they make too many people hate them, they're not going to get elected next time. The government of China doesn't have to deal with this little problem, because they can just shut down opposing views to theirs, and it isn't a democratic-republican(The U.S. and Canada aren't democracies) system. There isn't a people's representation.
The point of the censorship is not to close off the outside world, just stuff the g' determines is inappropriate.
Don't know much about Chinese history, do ya? The country did in fact close off the outside world, for about 200 years. And that mentality still exists.
Why don't we sell playboys and such to 6 yr olds now? While the g' in China is not just censoring from 6 yr olds the same ideas apply.
No. Censorship from an age group for reasons of responsibility, innocence, etc. is not the same as barring all people from information. And we aren't just talking about porn, here- we are talking about information.
Further, this is not something the people of China want. There is a huge force against the oppression common in China today. All kinds of people are doing their best to cause change, maybe even a revolution.
This is not the same kind of censorship we talk about here in North America. Censorship from information involving homosexuality(not porn, just information, support, all that), differing opinions on Chinese politics, information on all sorts of human rights violations occuring in their own country- this is the information being denied the people of China. And they want access to it.
In China, people 'disappear.' One day, the police will come to their house, take them, make some excuse to any family...later, they deny that they ever took them. This is not a 'culture difference.' This is a problem.
...because the Detroit Free Press did an article today about how Comcast was CONTINUING to do this. Hunh. Glad to hear that they won't be screwing us- not that they don't already with high prices and a rarely working network.
Wow, a state with good consumer laws, civil rights for gay people, and a generally intelligent governor.
Too bad I can't find anywhere in that state to attend college.
I disagree. While pirating won't end, it will be greatly diminished. There's a word for people like your friend: assholes.
Most of the world of music piraters are not assholes. I personally don't pirate music that is easily available, only things like B-sides on singles. I only own around 40 or so pirated songs, and some of them are actually from artists who support their music being available for free (and aren't signed to record companies who disagree), and so some of it isn't even technically 'pirated.' If I could find these songs on a respectable, easy-to-use, transferrable service, I would use it.
My best friend refuses to buy CD's for more than 12 dollars. In the punk world, that's not so hard, but outside of that, it can be a challenge. So he, too, downloads music for free. While I find this practice disagreeable, he is still willing to buy any good CD's for the price he believes to be understandable.
If the record companies would just be more reasonable, people like us would pay for music that we otherwise feel we must pirate to keep in budget.
As for having 100 hours of music...I own around 300 CD's. At an average running time of 45 minutes(most of my CD's are actually over well over 60 and I own no singles for the above described reason, but I'm being generous), that's 13500 minutes of music. 13500/60= over 200 hours of music. And in a year, I listen to every single one.
People who pirate music regardless are assholes, plain and simple. They're far worse than people who steal CD's from record stores- when you steal a CD, the money that would go to the artist and the recording company still does, it's only the store who's being gipped.
For one, while you are a minor, your parents can legally do things to you as your guardian which could not be done legally between other citizens. negative physical reinforcement(i.e. spanking) is legal in America, and there is a general suspension of privacy rights.
This same set of rules extends to schools, but only to a limited degree. Video cameras and other intrusive security measures in high schools are legal because the school is allowed to act as the parent- to a degree.
And then there are laws specific to youth which restrict various rights of free expression and other things, such as laws preventing you from getting tatoos/piercings until you are 18. These laws are not usually US laws, but rather state-to-state variations.
Further, curfew laws are a restriction of general rights which would obviously never be placed on the adult population. These laws are passed by the same reasoning as those in the article- it is considered to be for the safety of both the minors and the general population. It's a cop out answer, but whenever laws for minors are questioned, this argument wins the case for keeping them in place.
Witholding names from the media when is actually a legal protection of youth. If an individual under 18's name is ever printed in a paper or mentioned on the TV news, it is either in violation of that right(which is more likely- I've seen this often be the case), or the parents and the minor have agreed that it is for the best to release the information to the media.
So, minors don't have the same rights, but they do have rights. Like I said, this particular case is saved by the idea that it is for the 'safety of the minors and the general population.'
Right, like we want Texas. They can be free for all I care. I mean, Jesus, look at the people they produce.
Besides, There are a lot more people in Quebec who are pro-liberation than there are in Texas. But if they wanna secede...let 'em!
I love anonymous coward posts. Their tendency towards being both insightful and constructive...it just brightens my day to know that I can be insulted by someone with bad grammar and not be allowed to know who it is.
If that is accurate, then my numbers must be incorrect...sorry.
It is still close.
Yeah, like I'm gonna payfor tech support. That's like paying for sex. It's just wrong!
Oh, that's nice. Now, instead of having to pay the government to make laws I like, I can just pay someone to crack their digital signature.
Not at all bitter, are we?
Hey - that's a Quebec Provincial Law. The GOC didn't create Bill 101. The Province du Quebec did. It's there so that Quebecois culture (yes- very different from France) does not get assimilated into the Anglo culture.
I do understand the purpose of the law. However, it is national. There are other provinces with large French speaking populations, but it is my personal belief that the Canadian government is more interested in holding onto what it has than protecting anyone's culture, heritage, or history.
What you're suggesting is bankruptcy. It's silly to think that one province can support itself without the help of the rest. Think of it- What would Minnesota do if it became it's own country?
Tell that to the guy who started this thread, a citizen of Quebec, who was stating his support of the province's secession. Or tell that to the 43% of Canada that has said it in fact supports Quebec becoming its own nation (as quoted from recent national polls conducted by the Canadian government). Or tell that to OVER HALF of Quebec, as indeed over half of its citizens want to secede. Also note, there's a lot more in Quebec than there is in Minnesota, industry-wise. It's also over twice the size of Minnesota. Now, Alaska becoming its own state, that's a better comparison. Even though Alaska is still smaller and less populated than Quebec.
I don't want to be physically seperated from the rest of the country, as would happen if Quebec became independant.
That is a problem. Have there been no proposals by your government or the people of Quebec as to a way to solve this?
And before some wiseass says "Join the US!" let me just say that the US is a festering cesspool of political corruption, racial bigotry, media censorship, and environmental destruction, and I want no part of it.
I agree entirely.
And regarding signs, not all French speaking people live in Quebec. Ever heard of Acadians?
Yes. I simply don't believe that the Canadian government cares, as they aren't a threat or anything. One thing I've learned from being a U.S. Citizen, the government cares only about making laws for those who it feels could somehow damage it, such as by seceding. Until people are trying to free New Brunswick, no one is going to care.
No, actually. It IS a bilingual province. Otherwise it wouldn't be a requirement for many jobs there to be bilingual, as it is.
As for the Acadians, do you think the Canadian government really cares? New Brunswick is not threatening independence. I was also speaking of other national laws which are designed specifically to cater to Quebec.
We all know that those signs are marketing for the hotels as much they are promoting "Unity" and that jazz. Is that disrespect?
Yeah, probably, but when's the last time you heard of someone getting arrested for "disrespecting the flag." If these laws were truly enforced, they never would have considered that legislation a year or so back to ban burning flags specifically.
If the U.S. Government ever charged an individual or corporation with anything so broad as "disrespecting the flag," civil rights groups would be there with a court case prepared in ten seconds or less. I mean, this is America. That's how it works.
Feh. You're an idiot.
I'm American, and like many other Americans, I respect the idea of a free Quebec.
I also have French-Canadian ancestry, which makes me more so than others here a believer in the formation of a new country. Besides, it makes sense for Quebec to be its own nation. Then the Canadian government will stop making laws such as those requiring all signs to be in French and English essentially designed to please the people of Quebec so that they don't secede. If the world thought of Quebec as you have just described it, the Canadian government wouldn't work so hard to keep it.
Viva Quebec! And let's stay on topic!
I think the most amusing part of the article was this:
Even the animated paperclip that acts as a helper in some Microsoft software can be compromised and turned against the computer it is being used on.
NO! Clippy! What are you doing?!
Maybe, in its eternal attempt to squash the hopes and dreams of college students everywhere, the US government will drop the drinking age back down to 18 like it used to be, and put a 56k cap on bandwidth for people under the age of 21.
And it would probably be just as successful(not at all, that is).
Don't blame the son for the sins of the father. I mean, it's not like Colin has ever won any awards. Besides, I'm looking forward to another youthful, attractive actor appearing in hundreds of horrible movies (like Big) before going into films that are garaunteed to win an Oscar.
Hey! Now they can make sequels to all of Tom's best films, starring his son! I can just see it now. "Insomniac in Islip," "You've Got Text Message," and, of course, "Toy Story 16."