i'm going to say i'm going to use it for one thing then secretly use it for another purpose without telling you
and then i'm going to publish your dna and draw conclusions from it which aren't necessarily flattering
also, when i publish this detailed info about your dna without your permission and without telling you, i'm going to do it in such a way that it is easy to figure out that it is your dna i am using
you have committed the graver transgression, no matter how silly or zany someone's else's beliefs
it wounld't have hurt the researchers to simply ask the native americans permission, simply as a matter of obvious and simple due course that a kindergartener would understand the rationale for
the native americans might even have given their permission beforehand (no matter what they base their objections on after-the-fact), simply because you asked nicely
when you don't grant people simple social common decency, their positions harden and they get angry at you
a little niceness goes a long way in this world, and its a shame not enough people understand that
anyone you only share stuff on the internet with: they are just an acquaintance, not a friend
and if you insist that such acquaintances really ARE your friends, then you are a shallow person who has no real true friends, whether you realize it or not
lose facebook and gain real friends and real depth of character. or continue with the empty mask and the fake charade and the pointless surface level chatter and call that a "life". your choice
rights DO have responsibilities. and if people don't act responsibly, freedoms disappear
i'm not even talking about government. i'm talking about the natural limits on your freedoms. for example: listen to any music you want, at any volume. but at 3 AM, you are impinging on your neighbor's freedom to get a good sleep
in other words: freedoms exist in tension with other people's freedoms. freedoms don't exist in a vacuum. in reality, plenty of things people call a freedom, actually hurt other people and impinge on THEIR freedoms. such that no evil law, but a NATURAL LIMIT exists on what you are free to do before you wind up hurting other people's freedoms. for example: drive as fast as you want... until you kill someone in a car crash. for example: throw your trash wherever you want... and destroy someone else's ability to enjoy nature. for example: piss wherever you want, until you ruin someone's flowerbeds. for example: take all the drugs you want... until your an addict who can't feed or clothe themselves and society has to take care of you
the problem is that a lot of people have childish conception of what freedom is, and that some of what they consider freedom is actually just a desire to have license to do something that they either knowingly (and don't care) or ignorantly do and hurt other people's freedoms in the process
so every freedom you have requires responsible use, absolutely, every single one
or you will lose your freedoms. not out of government fascism or whatever, but just out of your neighbor being pissed off that HIS freedoms are being crushed (again, not by government but by you ignoring his freedoms) and throwing your stereo out the window because you won't let him get any sleep
this is the truth, and plenty don't understand it, even though it is completely accurate: the biggest defiler and destroyer of your freedoms on this planet is no government, it is actually other people (specifically, irresponsible people). everyone reading these words have had their freedoms trampled on BY OTHER PEOPLE, to a larger extent than any other violation and transgression against them by any government, ever. almost on a daily basis, irresponsible people limit your freedoms, in big ways and small ways. the freest nation on this earth is the nation with the LARGEST NUMBER OF RESPONSIBLE PEOPLE, no matter what the government is like
so i don't understand why you think "rights have to be balanced with responsibilites" is some sort of waffle
when in reality that statement is one of the most truthful things you can say about freedom conceptually
nothing is above mockery. if you mock something and that provokes a violent reaction, the one doing the mocking has done a social service: identified dangerous people
anyone who would do violence just because of a word or an image they don't like is a threat to us all, muslim or nonmuslim
you are blind and dishonest if you do not accept that proportionally, there are a lot more muslim fundamentalist wackjobs than {fill-in-the-blank} fundamentalist wackjobs
the reason why is oil: saudi arabia's wahhabi fundamentalists get lots of money from oil, and this funds madrassas all over the middle east and pakistan. and iran's theocrat's get lots of cash from oil to shore up their insanity too (but is already losing sway with shiite young folk in iran nonetheless)
the best method to drain the pool of muslim fundamentalists in this world is to stop using oil, and thereby stop funding the reactionary kingdom of saudi arabia, stop funding the theocracy of iran
by your logic, every bomb that falls on muslim lands since 9/11 is islam's fault
i don't agree with that logic, i'm merely using your own way of thinking
how about this: the usa shouldn't bomb anyone, and no muslim should mass murder. that's what i think. do you agree?
MY actions are MY fault, and YOUR actions are YOUR fault
but i see too much of this: "the guy who shot up innocents or suicide bombed or drove airplanes into buildings who are from muslim lands: that's your fault"
when you say that your actions are my fault, then what you are saying is that you don't have any responsibility. and when you don't have any responsibility, then yes: the usa is in charge. BECAUSE YOU ABDICATED YOUR RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR OWN ACTIONS WITH YOUR OWN WORDS
and then you, my friend, are the enemy of peace, and the enemy of the teachings of islam. is it that islam teaches you have no responsibility for what happens in your land? does islam teach that muslims have no leadership? i don't believe that. but that's what YOU are saying about islam. you just don't understand the full implications of saying "what i do is your fault"
you take accountability for the actions of muslim fanatics, you clean up house, and then we talk. i take full responsibility for bombs falling on muslim lands. that's how leadership works. now you lead too
until then, until i see some muslims taking responsibility for their own atrocities, until i see someone who takes repsonsibility for what they do by their hand, that emanates from their own land, then there is no talking to you possible, only more death, for both of us. because you won't stand and deliver
who want us to accept completely far out bullshit as fact, but plain as day obvious common sense requires citations and research study (that we're going to do for them, apparently) before they accept common fucking sense
yeah dude: weed doesn't impair you mentally. that's why SO MANY PEOPLE USE IT RECREATIONALLY. you know, because it has NO MENTAL EFFECT WHATSOEVER </sarcasm>
"Hell the current strongest medical-quality bud barely gives me a buzz."
oh i see. so you just smoke it for the pretty haze it puts in your car
what an ignorant low iq douchebag
hey, asshole: smoke all the weed you want. you have my blessing
JUST DON'T FUCKING DRIVE UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ANYTHING, YOU IGNORANT TWATSTAIN
tell me how many people would watch a movie for free at home rather than pay at a cinema (versus how many watch it for free at home... and would never pay at a cinema, that's the twist ain't it matey?)
is it 90%? is it 10%? give me a number
well whatever it is, i say this: no % gives hollywood the right to rape our rights and freedoms, to try and control the internet (which it can't anyways), just so they can squeeze a few more drops of blood out of us. and the % is SMALL anyways! probably single digits. my whole point is, even if it's 99%, that gives hollywood no right to make a business model out of the impossible (controlling the internet)
this is the new (aka, old, 1920-1980) financial universe hollywood needs to function within: cinema house only. excuse me while i play the world's smallest violin: that's an extremely lucrative universe
the golden age of hollywood: it was all cinema houses. before the vcr/ dvd, it was all cinema houses. gone with the wind? jaws? avatar is just about to come out on dvd, but it has already made a massive profit, ON TOP OF A MASSIVE PRODUCTION COST, all in the cinema house
so i think hollywood will do just fine darling, and your entire argument has been rendered defeated
the insane communist business model i am advocating is the same as broadcast tv or fm radio: give it to people for free, and make it up in increased attention which you capitalize on ancillary means (here, concerts instead of vinyl records). your assumption is that the guy who will listen to an mp3 for free is the same guy who will buy it if he can't get it for free. if he can't listen to it for free, he won't listen to it at all: this is the impoverished culture angle i am getting at
look: television was supposed to kill the cinema house in the 1950s, in the 1980s, the vcr was supposed to kill the cinema house. now, in the 2010s, the internet is suppose to kill the cinema house
oh sure, the internet killed the dvd, but from the 1950s through the 2010s, people have been going to the movies to constantly growing profits. watching iron man 2 on your 17 inch monitor in your basement by yourself just doesn't compare, even with all the crying babies and cellphones. and even on your 60 inch hd lcd with 5.1 dolby: you're by yourself. oh you have your friends over? they want to watch what you want to watch when you want to watch it and are always available on a moment's notice?
there's something about an audience that oos when you oo, aahs when you aah, and shrieks when you shriek, that heightens your movie going experience. meaning: hollywood, even if they gave away their content for free, will always have cinema house revenue: there's no need to control digital content to make money, ever
music: live gigs
books: movie tie-ins, personalized content, readings, endorsements, etc
no one, NO ONE needs to control digital distribution to make cash, and there will ALWAYS be cash to be made
so stop defending the dying distributors with your antiquated reasoning and let the artist and the consumer experience a golden age of internet distribution. you can't control it, so stop trying
television was supposed to kill the cinema house
on
ACTA Treaty Released
·
· Score: 1
in the 1950s
in the 1980s, the vcr was supposed to kill the cinema house
now, in the 2010s, the internet is suppose to kill the cinema house
oh sure, the internet killed the dvd, but from the 1950s through the 2010s, people have been going to the movies to constantly growing profits
watching iron man 2 on your 17 inch monitor in your basement by yourself just doesn't compare, even with all the crying babies and cellphones. and even on your 60 inch hd lcd with 5.1 dolby: you're by yourself. oh you have your firend sover? they want to watch what you want to watch when you want to watch it and are always available on a moment's notice?
there's something about an audience that oos when you oo, aahs when you aah, and shrieks when you shriek, that heightens your movie going experience
meaning: hollywood, even if they gave away their content for free, will always have cinema house revenue: there's no need to control digital content to make money, ever
music: live gigs
books: movie tie-ins, personalized content, readings, endorsements, etc
no one, NO ONE needs to control digital distribution to make cash
there was a little old lady who used to stand on 42nd street and eighth avenue handing out little pamphlets about how the devil was always trying to corrupt you via external means (i love picking up religious literature from the kooks in times square to analyze their words for entertainment value: reference timecube.com). according to her screed, one way was by putting a microchip in a grain of rice you would eat, another way from a stranger shaking your hand in such a way that 666 would be formed in the curl of their fingers, evil eyes, etc.
anyway, one day on the way to the port authority bus terminal i went into a store right near the little old lady to get a yogurt and a can of diet soda. the total came to $3.34, and i gave him a $10. the guy was insistent on me taking my receipt. i went outside and thought i would take another pamphlet from the old lady to see if she had updated her shpiel. randomly and without intent, i gave her my receipt as i took her pamphlet
my receipt that said $10 minus $3.34 change: $6.66
i never saw that little old lady again
coincidence? or was i AN UNWITTING TOOL OF THE DEVIL
but in the end, this hobbles and impoverishes the islamic world, because you have essentially banned freedom of thought in your culture, which is the only means by which social and technological progress occurs. the muslim world has money because they have oil. but the world is moving past oil. eventually, the muslim world will find that oil doesn't pay anymore, and that nothing else in their sphere of influence pays anything either, and they will sink into poverty
a culture is rich when the ideas the culture cherishes are rich. but if your culture values extreme obedience to unquestionable static ideas, you will have a poor culture (unless its artificially propped up by things like natural resources, as is the current situation). either the moderate muslims effectively control and shut up the large number of fundamentalists in their midsts, or the future of the muslim world is poverty and violence. that's the simple truth
there are fundamentalists in every culture and religion, and every culture and religion in the world has a problem with fundamentalist assholes running around insisting on regimented obedience to unquestionable ideas and ready to do violence if no one listens to them. but you are blind and intellectually dishonest if you don't see that the muslim world has a greater than average amount of such fundamentalists. and the key point: they are funded by the petrodollars
therefore, it is the moral duty of the rest of the world to move off of oil as an energy source, in order to drain the well of muslim fundamentalists dry. there is the pollution argument, the national security argument, the limited resources argument, but to me, the most compelling argument for getting off oil is the humanist argument: there is direct connection between using oil and funding muslim fundamentalism in this world. this is the crucial realization everyone must understand: the best way to fight muslim fundamentalism, better than wars, better than idea exchange, better than political maneuvering: move off of oil as a fuel source
stop using oil, on a personal level and a national policy level, every country in the world. or we will all suffer more, in the wider world and the muslim world, due to the braindead fundamentalist assholes running around
there is no need for distributors any more, so lets remove that red herring
then they make money off of ancillary means: concert gigs, advertising and promo, personalized content, etc
their artistic product is merely advertising, and it is given away for free. to not give it away for free is to simply hobble your own advertising
in this way there is money to be made, and there is no need to control (what can't be controlled anyways)
"I'll admit that intellectual property kills culture a little bit. Right after you admit that unbridled sharing kills culture a lot more."
unbridled sharing is a cultural ferment which maximizes cultural production in quantity and quality. so no, what you are asking me to admit is the opposite of the actual truth. un bridled sharing is the ultimate expression of a maximized cultural output
your problem is you think that money has to be made for culture to be made. this fails to understand what motivates artists, it is also fails to understand the role seed money plays in the production of culture: when you invest in money into a movie, you WILL be paid back via ancillary means (the cinema house) and you WILL make a profit (assuming its good product) and there is no need to try to control consumer behavior. imagine fucking that
on your rights, on your freedoms, and on the richness of your culture
not by artists, but by an entrenched oligopoly of a dying distribution network (replaced by the internet)
the proper response to this declaration of war is not via legal means. all legal means have been corrupted bought and sold by entrenched corporate interests
the proper response is complete subversion of all media on the internet
we can't beat them in the legal arena. not because our legal arguments are inferior. indeed, they are superior. but we can't compete on the same playing field in terms of financial influence over our legislative bodies
so we will instead starve these assholes to death by destroying all of their sources of income: complete ubiquity of their media on the internet, free and higher quality (no DRM) than their locked up bullshit that only punishes the common man (it certainly doesn't punish pirates)
let the war being: tens of millions of poor, technological sophisticated, and media hungry teenagers versus a couple thousand lawyers
it's going to be a rout and we're going to win this war, by destroying these corporate interest that impoverish our culture and imperil our rights and freedoms by draining their finances
it is no longer good enough to merely ignore this bullshit. it is incumbent upon anyone with a sense of morality to outright destroy media corporations for the crimes they are inflicting on our cultures
no story, no art, is ever original. it all borrows or reinvents or reinterprets something that came before. and if the thread of our cultural output is artificially taxed strained and stamped out for demands for cash, then all of us, all of our lives, are less rich for that
maybe content creators would understand that parodies like this downfall clip actually create interest in the original, and are really just a form of advertisement. instead, imagine all the culturally relevant art that we will never see and can never see the light of day because a greedy selfish system would rather lock art behind lock and key, where it earns no cash, rather than let it get out there and bloom, and create more art, and create more COMMERCE
art, music, movies, all creative output has the unique property of being richer when it is allowed to flow freely and freely intermingle. why do we have to lead less rich cultural lives only because some fucking trolls in the bank vault can't see that? that if there were no such thing as intellectual property, the ancillary streams they could tap in the free flow of cultural output would be richer sources of cash than their feeble and failed approaches to control what they cannot and will never be able to control?
if you took new york city apart from the rest of the country, the same statistics would apply as compared to other cities
and if you included hong kong in chinese numbers or singapore in malaysian numbers, the same statistics would apply as compared to whole countries
hong kong and singapore are parasitically arranged with their surrounding countries that allows them to be more freewheeling, their security guarranteed from afar
additionally, i think if you went to singapore, you'd find it to be one of the most regimented hidebound places you'd ever go to. you don't need rules when your culture is a straightjacket
hong kong though is nice. it also has corruption, crime and mafias
no seriously, they consider their sacred text to be intellectual property you can't view without their permission (because they charge their members hundreds of thousands to view it)
i'm not joking, they really do this, and what blows my mind is that there are suckers out there who do work years of their lives to find out details of a bad sci fi story
google could have so easily gone the traditional "sacrifice all your values for the pursuit of money route", but they actually showed they have principles and a backbone
google, you've earned my loyalty and respect. integrity: what a rare and wonderful concept
as for china considering censorship requests to be state secrets: well of course it does. just like the church of scientology considers its sacred texts to be intellectual property. i mean, if you're going to be a controlling asshole, at least be true to the concept to the inevitable extreme of absurdity, right?
wikileaks: get that list of censorship requests. google, give that list up: you've already burned your bridges
oh, and btw: fuck you censorial controlling assholes. you are clearly on the losing side of history. i look forward to your inevitable demise
overintellectualizing and deducing vague ominous things from this pointless bit of fluff
and the historically myopic who bemoan the death of some (mythological) era of human behavior that in reality is clearly inferior in terms of quality of life to the present
Slashdot Mirror
i'm going to say i'm going to use it for one thing then secretly use it for another purpose without telling you
and then i'm going to publish your dna and draw conclusions from it which aren't necessarily flattering
also, when i publish this detailed info about your dna without your permission and without telling you, i'm going to do it in such a way that it is easy to figure out that it is your dna i am using
do you object to any of that?
you have committed the graver transgression, no matter how silly or zany someone's else's beliefs
it wounld't have hurt the researchers to simply ask the native americans permission, simply as a matter of obvious and simple due course that a kindergartener would understand the rationale for
the native americans might even have given their permission beforehand (no matter what they base their objections on after-the-fact), simply because you asked nicely
when you don't grant people simple social common decency, their positions harden and they get angry at you
a little niceness goes a long way in this world, and its a shame not enough people understand that
someone you actually spend time with
anyone you only share stuff on the internet with: they are just an acquaintance, not a friend
and if you insist that such acquaintances really ARE your friends, then you are a shallow person who has no real true friends, whether you realize it or not
lose facebook and gain real friends and real depth of character. or continue with the empty mask and the fake charade and the pointless surface level chatter and call that a "life". your choice
rights DO have responsibilities. and if people don't act responsibly, freedoms disappear
i'm not even talking about government. i'm talking about the natural limits on your freedoms. for example: listen to any music you want, at any volume. but at 3 AM, you are impinging on your neighbor's freedom to get a good sleep
in other words: freedoms exist in tension with other people's freedoms. freedoms don't exist in a vacuum. in reality, plenty of things people call a freedom, actually hurt other people and impinge on THEIR freedoms. such that no evil law, but a NATURAL LIMIT exists on what you are free to do before you wind up hurting other people's freedoms. for example: drive as fast as you want... until you kill someone in a car crash. for example: throw your trash wherever you want... and destroy someone else's ability to enjoy nature. for example: piss wherever you want, until you ruin someone's flowerbeds. for example: take all the drugs you want... until your an addict who can't feed or clothe themselves and society has to take care of you
the problem is that a lot of people have childish conception of what freedom is, and that some of what they consider freedom is actually just a desire to have license to do something that they either knowingly (and don't care) or ignorantly do and hurt other people's freedoms in the process
so every freedom you have requires responsible use, absolutely, every single one
or you will lose your freedoms. not out of government fascism or whatever, but just out of your neighbor being pissed off that HIS freedoms are being crushed (again, not by government but by you ignoring his freedoms) and throwing your stereo out the window because you won't let him get any sleep
this is the truth, and plenty don't understand it, even though it is completely accurate: the biggest defiler and destroyer of your freedoms on this planet is no government, it is actually other people (specifically, irresponsible people). everyone reading these words have had their freedoms trampled on BY OTHER PEOPLE, to a larger extent than any other violation and transgression against them by any government, ever. almost on a daily basis, irresponsible people limit your freedoms, in big ways and small ways. the freest nation on this earth is the nation with the LARGEST NUMBER OF RESPONSIBLE PEOPLE, no matter what the government is like
so i don't understand why you think "rights have to be balanced with responsibilites" is some sort of waffle
when in reality that statement is one of the most truthful things you can say about freedom conceptually
nothing is above mockery. if you mock something and that provokes a violent reaction, the one doing the mocking has done a social service: identified dangerous people
anyone who would do violence just because of a word or an image they don't like is a threat to us all, muslim or nonmuslim
you are blind and dishonest if you do not accept that proportionally, there are a lot more muslim fundamentalist wackjobs than {fill-in-the-blank} fundamentalist wackjobs
the reason why is oil: saudi arabia's wahhabi fundamentalists get lots of money from oil, and this funds madrassas all over the middle east and pakistan. and iran's theocrat's get lots of cash from oil to shore up their insanity too (but is already losing sway with shiite young folk in iran nonetheless)
the best method to drain the pool of muslim fundamentalists in this world is to stop using oil, and thereby stop funding the reactionary kingdom of saudi arabia, stop funding the theocracy of iran
you're agreeing with me
i'm saying american bombs on muslim lands is my fault and i will work to stop it
so are you saying:
1. muslim bombers are my fault?
2. muslim bombers are your fault and you are going to fight the fanatics coming from your lands?
it's in your own best interest: muslim suicide bombers and other muslim fanatics kill more muslims than american bombs and guns by orders of magnitude
when a muslim mass murders, it's the usa's fault
by your logic, every bomb that falls on muslim lands since 9/11 is islam's fault
i don't agree with that logic, i'm merely using your own way of thinking
how about this: the usa shouldn't bomb anyone, and no muslim should mass murder. that's what i think. do you agree?
MY actions are MY fault, and YOUR actions are YOUR fault
but i see too much of this: "the guy who shot up innocents or suicide bombed or drove airplanes into buildings who are from muslim lands: that's your fault"
when you say that your actions are my fault, then what you are saying is that you don't have any responsibility. and when you don't have any responsibility, then yes: the usa is in charge. BECAUSE YOU ABDICATED YOUR RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR OWN ACTIONS WITH YOUR OWN WORDS
and then you, my friend, are the enemy of peace, and the enemy of the teachings of islam. is it that islam teaches you have no responsibility for what happens in your land? does islam teach that muslims have no leadership? i don't believe that. but that's what YOU are saying about islam. you just don't understand the full implications of saying "what i do is your fault"
you take accountability for the actions of muslim fanatics, you clean up house, and then we talk. i take full responsibility for bombs falling on muslim lands. that's how leadership works. now you lead too
until then, until i see some muslims taking responsibility for their own atrocities, until i see someone who takes repsonsibility for what they do by their hand, that emanates from their own land, then there is no talking to you possible, only more death, for both of us. because you won't stand and deliver
because i get angry at douchebags who don't consider driving under the influence a big deal?
who want us to accept completely far out bullshit as fact, but plain as day obvious common sense requires citations and research study (that we're going to do for them, apparently) before they accept common fucking sense
yeah dude: weed doesn't impair you mentally. that's why SO MANY PEOPLE USE IT RECREATIONALLY. you know, because it has NO MENTAL EFFECT WHATSOEVER </sarcasm>
"Hell the current strongest medical-quality bud barely gives me a buzz."
oh i see. so you just smoke it for the pretty haze it puts in your car
what an ignorant low iq douchebag
hey, asshole: smoke all the weed you want. you have my blessing
JUST DON'T FUCKING DRIVE UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ANYTHING, YOU IGNORANT TWATSTAIN
tell me how many people would watch a movie for free at home rather than pay at a cinema (versus how many watch it for free at home... and would never pay at a cinema, that's the twist ain't it matey?)
is it 90%? is it 10%? give me a number
well whatever it is, i say this: no % gives hollywood the right to rape our rights and freedoms, to try and control the internet (which it can't anyways), just so they can squeeze a few more drops of blood out of us. and the % is SMALL anyways! probably single digits. my whole point is, even if it's 99%, that gives hollywood no right to make a business model out of the impossible (controlling the internet)
this is the new (aka, old, 1920-1980) financial universe hollywood needs to function within: cinema house only. excuse me while i play the world's smallest violin: that's an extremely lucrative universe
the golden age of hollywood: it was all cinema houses. before the vcr/ dvd, it was all cinema houses. gone with the wind? jaws? avatar is just about to come out on dvd, but it has already made a massive profit, ON TOP OF A MASSIVE PRODUCTION COST, all in the cinema house
so i think hollywood will do just fine darling, and your entire argument has been rendered defeated
put their money?
in madrassas and charities all over pakistan
where do the theocrats in iran spend their petrodollars?
with your numerical analysis skills, you might consider a lucrative career in numerology. the challenging part is keeping a straight face ;-)
what changes is how you pay for your lunch
the insane communist business model i am advocating is the same as broadcast tv or fm radio: give it to people for free, and make it up in increased attention which you capitalize on ancillary means (here, concerts instead of vinyl records). your assumption is that the guy who will listen to an mp3 for free is the same guy who will buy it if he can't get it for free. if he can't listen to it for free, he won't listen to it at all: this is the impoverished culture angle i am getting at
look: television was supposed to kill the cinema house in the 1950s, in the 1980s, the vcr was supposed to kill the cinema house. now, in the 2010s, the internet is suppose to kill the cinema house
oh sure, the internet killed the dvd, but from the 1950s through the 2010s, people have been going to the movies to constantly growing profits. watching iron man 2 on your 17 inch monitor in your basement by yourself just doesn't compare, even with all the crying babies and cellphones. and even on your 60 inch hd lcd with 5.1 dolby: you're by yourself. oh you have your friends over? they want to watch what you want to watch when you want to watch it and are always available on a moment's notice?
there's something about an audience that oos when you oo, aahs when you aah, and shrieks when you shriek, that heightens your movie going experience. meaning: hollywood, even if they gave away their content for free, will always have cinema house revenue: there's no need to control digital content to make money, ever
music: live gigs
books: movie tie-ins, personalized content, readings, endorsements, etc
no one, NO ONE needs to control digital distribution to make cash, and there will ALWAYS be cash to be made
so stop defending the dying distributors with your antiquated reasoning and let the artist and the consumer experience a golden age of internet distribution. you can't control it, so stop trying
in the 1950s
in the 1980s, the vcr was supposed to kill the cinema house
now, in the 2010s, the internet is suppose to kill the cinema house
oh sure, the internet killed the dvd, but from the 1950s through the 2010s, people have been going to the movies to constantly growing profits
watching iron man 2 on your 17 inch monitor in your basement by yourself just doesn't compare, even with all the crying babies and cellphones. and even on your 60 inch hd lcd with 5.1 dolby: you're by yourself. oh you have your firend sover? they want to watch what you want to watch when you want to watch it and are always available on a moment's notice?
there's something about an audience that oos when you oo, aahs when you aah, and shrieks when you shriek, that heightens your movie going experience
meaning: hollywood, even if they gave away their content for free, will always have cinema house revenue: there's no need to control digital content to make money, ever
music: live gigs
books: movie tie-ins, personalized content, readings, endorsements, etc
no one, NO ONE needs to control digital distribution to make cash
increases your chances of killing me on the road
so yeah: you deserve to be locked up and have the key thrown away, asshole
why do you think that drunk/ stoned driving is anything but a very serious crime that deserves harsh punishment?
you need a serious attitude readjustment before you kill someone, you fucking ignorant twatstain
there was a little old lady who used to stand on 42nd street and eighth avenue handing out little pamphlets about how the devil was always trying to corrupt you via external means (i love picking up religious literature from the kooks in times square to analyze their words for entertainment value: reference timecube.com). according to her screed, one way was by putting a microchip in a grain of rice you would eat, another way from a stranger shaking your hand in such a way that 666 would be formed in the curl of their fingers, evil eyes, etc.
anyway, one day on the way to the port authority bus terminal i went into a store right near the little old lady to get a yogurt and a can of diet soda. the total came to $3.34, and i gave him a $10. the guy was insistent on me taking my receipt. i went outside and thought i would take another pamphlet from the old lady to see if she had updated her shpiel. randomly and without intent, i gave her my receipt as i took her pamphlet
my receipt that said $10 minus $3.34 change: $6.66
i never saw that little old lady again
coincidence? or was i AN UNWITTING TOOL OF THE DEVIL
absolutely true story
but in the end, this hobbles and impoverishes the islamic world, because you have essentially banned freedom of thought in your culture, which is the only means by which social and technological progress occurs. the muslim world has money because they have oil. but the world is moving past oil. eventually, the muslim world will find that oil doesn't pay anymore, and that nothing else in their sphere of influence pays anything either, and they will sink into poverty
a culture is rich when the ideas the culture cherishes are rich. but if your culture values extreme obedience to unquestionable static ideas, you will have a poor culture (unless its artificially propped up by things like natural resources, as is the current situation). either the moderate muslims effectively control and shut up the large number of fundamentalists in their midsts, or the future of the muslim world is poverty and violence. that's the simple truth
there are fundamentalists in every culture and religion, and every culture and religion in the world has a problem with fundamentalist assholes running around insisting on regimented obedience to unquestionable ideas and ready to do violence if no one listens to them. but you are blind and intellectually dishonest if you don't see that the muslim world has a greater than average amount of such fundamentalists. and the key point: they are funded by the petrodollars
therefore, it is the moral duty of the rest of the world to move off of oil as an energy source, in order to drain the well of muslim fundamentalists dry. there is the pollution argument, the national security argument, the limited resources argument, but to me, the most compelling argument for getting off oil is the humanist argument: there is direct connection between using oil and funding muslim fundamentalism in this world. this is the crucial realization everyone must understand: the best way to fight muslim fundamentalism, better than wars, better than idea exchange, better than political maneuvering: move off of oil as a fuel source
stop using oil, on a personal level and a national policy level, every country in the world. or we will all suffer more, in the wider world and the muslim world, due to the braindead fundamentalist assholes running around
there is no need for distributors any more, so lets remove that red herring
then they make money off of ancillary means: concert gigs, advertising and promo, personalized content, etc
their artistic product is merely advertising, and it is given away for free. to not give it away for free is to simply hobble your own advertising
in this way there is money to be made, and there is no need to control (what can't be controlled anyways)
"I'll admit that intellectual property kills culture a little bit. Right after you admit that unbridled sharing kills culture a lot more."
unbridled sharing is a cultural ferment which maximizes cultural production in quantity and quality. so no, what you are asking me to admit is the opposite of the actual truth. un bridled sharing is the ultimate expression of a maximized cultural output
your problem is you think that money has to be made for culture to be made. this fails to understand what motivates artists, it is also fails to understand the role seed money plays in the production of culture: when you invest in money into a movie, you WILL be paid back via ancillary means (the cinema house) and you WILL make a profit (assuming its good product) and there is no need to try to control consumer behavior. imagine fucking that
on your rights, on your freedoms, and on the richness of your culture
not by artists, but by an entrenched oligopoly of a dying distribution network (replaced by the internet)
the proper response to this declaration of war is not via legal means. all legal means have been corrupted bought and sold by entrenched corporate interests
the proper response is complete subversion of all media on the internet
we can't beat them in the legal arena. not because our legal arguments are inferior. indeed, they are superior. but we can't compete on the same playing field in terms of financial influence over our legislative bodies
so we will instead starve these assholes to death by destroying all of their sources of income: complete ubiquity of their media on the internet, free and higher quality (no DRM) than their locked up bullshit that only punishes the common man (it certainly doesn't punish pirates)
let the war being: tens of millions of poor, technological sophisticated, and media hungry teenagers versus a couple thousand lawyers
it's going to be a rout and we're going to win this war, by destroying these corporate interest that impoverish our culture and imperil our rights and freedoms by draining their finances
it is no longer good enough to merely ignore this bullshit. it is incumbent upon anyone with a sense of morality to outright destroy media corporations for the crimes they are inflicting on our cultures
the impoverishment of our culture
no story, no art, is ever original. it all borrows or reinvents or reinterprets something that came before. and if the thread of our cultural output is artificially taxed strained and stamped out for demands for cash, then all of us, all of our lives, are less rich for that
maybe content creators would understand that parodies like this downfall clip actually create interest in the original, and are really just a form of advertisement. instead, imagine all the culturally relevant art that we will never see and can never see the light of day because a greedy selfish system would rather lock art behind lock and key, where it earns no cash, rather than let it get out there and bloom, and create more art, and create more COMMERCE
art, music, movies, all creative output has the unique property of being richer when it is allowed to flow freely and freely intermingle. why do we have to lead less rich cultural lives only because some fucking trolls in the bank vault can't see that? that if there were no such thing as intellectual property, the ancillary streams they could tap in the free flow of cultural output would be richer sources of cash than their feeble and failed approaches to control what they cannot and will never be able to control?
if you took new york city apart from the rest of the country, the same statistics would apply as compared to other cities
and if you included hong kong in chinese numbers or singapore in malaysian numbers, the same statistics would apply as compared to whole countries
hong kong and singapore are parasitically arranged with their surrounding countries that allows them to be more freewheeling, their security guarranteed from afar
additionally, i think if you went to singapore, you'd find it to be one of the most regimented hidebound places you'd ever go to. you don't need rules when your culture is a straightjacket
hong kong though is nice. it also has corruption, crime and mafias
scientology did
no seriously, they consider their sacred text to be intellectual property you can't view without their permission (because they charge their members hundreds of thousands to view it)
i'm not joking, they really do this, and what blows my mind is that there are suckers out there who do work years of their lives to find out details of a bad sci fi story
google could have so easily gone the traditional "sacrifice all your values for the pursuit of money route", but they actually showed they have principles and a backbone
google, you've earned my loyalty and respect. integrity: what a rare and wonderful concept
as for china considering censorship requests to be state secrets: well of course it does. just like the church of scientology considers its sacred texts to be intellectual property. i mean, if you're going to be a controlling asshole, at least be true to the concept to the inevitable extreme of absurdity, right?
wikileaks: get that list of censorship requests. google, give that list up: you've already burned your bridges
oh, and btw: fuck you censorial controlling assholes. you are clearly on the losing side of history. i look forward to your inevitable demise
overintellectualizing and deducing vague ominous things from this pointless bit of fluff
and the historically myopic who bemoan the death of some (mythological) era of human behavior that in reality is clearly inferior in terms of quality of life to the present