"I believe his point was that the industry ripped off the black atrists. He can correct me if I'm wrong. They stole from the black artists for profit. A much more serious "offense" than sharing."
Um, so now you call that "stealing"? By your arguments, nothing physical was taken, those black artists should have just found a new business model.
"Oh, and if you have a service to sell, go for it. But don't spam us in your posts. Buy some ad space. Otherwise it just looks like you're trying to advertise for free. Hmmm..."
Actually, if you had bothered to read about DRUMS you would see that I'm not selling anything -- it's simply a suggestion for one possible positive step forward.
Do you think it's fair for hack artists to flood the market with poor products, repetitive products, derivative products"
Absolutely, perfectly fair -- are you suggesting that some offical authority should be deciding whose work is good enough to be released to the market?
"In the early days of rock&roll, it was common practice to take the work of a black musician, have a white artist cover it, so that it would sell more copies to a captive audience"
And so your point is that those black artists should not have been compensated?
Aren't you the person who says it's ok to *sell* copies of any author's work, including brand new releases by independent DIT'ers, pocketing all the cash for yourself?
Regarding the notion of "Supporting Independent Music" I hereby plug:
CDBaby, a good service, with good music, run by good people.
A little while ago, I happened to whip up a best of CDBaby site (selections based on their editor picks, and here presented via my PHP/ASP app Andromeda).
Probably the most wrong I've ever been is when I thought that each generation was more intelligent and open minded than the previous one. Maybe TV really does rot your brain. Or all that soda pop and twinkies.
the patronizing is getting tiresome, so good night iminplaya, the last word is yours...
The fact remains that you just hide behind your anonymous identity and heckle. You'd make a much stronger case if you at least put a little bio behind your comments.
(ps, I do hope that you don't feel like your life is crap -- seriously)
Sweet lord, anything but that! I repent! I REPENT!
Look, Weaselmancer, you're the one who misread my post, and made the mistake of thinking that I was calling another post bullshit. Nope, I simply noted that there was plenty of bullshit from both sides, and pointed over to what I think may be a helpful soultion.
But if you insist, we can keep going back and forth, if that's really what you think will help to improve the situation.
So basically what your saying is, regardless of what you may actually plan on doing with that information, you should automatically be considered suspicious and investigated? Its like assuming that someone is guilty of being a terrorist until proven otherwise.
And should the FBI have investigated more about certain flight students who only wanted take-off training, but not landing training?
Or should that likewise have been left uninvestigated?
Furthermore, how exactly would you prove someone to be a terrorist without investigating their activites? Would you only investigate after the fact?
How I feel about P2P has nothing to do with this, it is a straw man fallacy. If I'm all for it, or completely against it, it has nothing to do with the RIAA failing to make royalty payments.
In other words, you're unwilling to answer?
So again, which part of his post is bullshit?
I didn't say that his post was bullshit, I said that there are plenty of bullshit arguments coming from both sides, and there are.
The real question is what constitutes a practical step forward, and to that end, I've proposed DRUMS.
I've read it over a few times, and I'm still not seeing where he says that.
I didn't say that he said this, but we may as well jump to the core issue, right? So, I'll ask you again: is unrestricted unregulated file-sharing just ok?
Again, I invite you to quote a false claim he is making.
And I invite you to quote me claiming that he was making a false claim.
"What we REALLY need is for some court ruling to take all those fucking provisions, and declare them illegal. THEN when the RIAA cries about "artists" being deprived of money due to file sharing, I might give a rat's ass about their bullshit argument."
Plenty of bullshit argument from both sides.
I've been working on an idea that I think can be a step forward for both sides...
Slashdot Mirror
Um, so now you call that "stealing"? By your arguments, nothing physical was taken, those black artists should have just found a new business model.
Actually, if you had bothered to read about DRUMS you would see that I'm not selling anything -- it's simply a suggestion for one possible positive step forward.
Absolutely, perfectly fair -- are you suggesting that some offical authority should be deciding whose work is good enough to be released to the market?
"In the early days of rock&roll, it was common practice to take the work of a black musician, have a white artist cover it, so that it would sell more copies to a captive audience"
And so your point is that those black artists should not have been compensated?
Aren't you the person who says it's ok to *sell* copies of any author's work, including brand new releases by independent DIT'ers, pocketing all the cash for yourself?
If file-sharers were instead opting to get new music from new authors who chose to share, that would be a different story.
And if it puts the RIAA "out of work" it'll put independents "out of work" too.
That's the problem here -- cheering on file-sharing just because "the RIAA sucks" is *also* going to wind up having a similar impact DIY independets.
Good, yet more tools to make it even harder for authors to make a living?
Imagine a post-RIAA world, do you still think it's perfectly cool to copy their stuff and give nothing in return?
fwiw, I've been putting some work into what I think can be a new approach to the file-sharing situation, I call it DRUMS.
CDBaby , a good service, with good music, run by good people.
A little while ago, I happened to whip up a best of CDBaby site (selections based on their editor picks, and here presented via my PHP/ASP app Andromeda).
dont sleep in the clothes that you cook in
I suggest right-clicking the link and saving-as (to your local drive) if you want to give it a look.
And it is amazing, but my computer goes into deep churn for a long while before it finally opens.
the patronizing is getting tiresome, so good night iminplaya, the last word is yours...
This is the most wrong you've been. Don't be a drone.
(ps, I do hope that you don't feel like your life is crap -- seriously)
Sweet lord, anything but that! I repent! I REPENT!
Look, Weaselmancer, you're the one who misread my post, and made the mistake of thinking that I was calling another post bullshit. Nope, I simply noted that there was plenty of bullshit from both sides, and pointed over to what I think may be a helpful soultion.
But if you insist, we can keep going back and forth, if that's really what you think will help to improve the situation.
blah blah blah, what are you so afraid of?
Well isn't that "evidence" just the result of some other investigation of somebody who isn't a terrorist yet?
And should the FBI have investigated more about certain flight students who only wanted take-off training, but not landing training?
Or should that likewise have been left uninvestigated?
Furthermore, how exactly would you prove someone to be a terrorist without investigating their activites? Would you only investigate after the fact?
I'm sure we're all grateful for your efforts to police what we discuss.
In other words, you're unwilling to answer?
So again, which part of his post is bullshit?
I didn't say that his post was bullshit, I said that there are plenty of bullshit arguments coming from both sides, and there are.
The real question is what constitutes a practical step forward, and to that end, I've proposed DRUMS.
I've read it over a few times, and I'm still not seeing where he says that.
I didn't say that he said this, but we may as well jump to the core issue, right? So, I'll ask you again: is unrestricted unregulated file-sharing just ok?
Again, I invite you to quote a false claim he is making.
And I invite you to quote me claiming that he was making a false claim.
And again, your contention that it's ok if you decide to make and sell copies of others' work isn't going to fly, even here on Slashdot.
Let's cut to the chase.
Is unrestricted unregulated file-sharing just ok?
Plenty of bullshit argument from both sides.
I've been working on an idea that I think can be a step forward for both sides...
Yes: "Yes and No"
Alternatively, I could have said:
"1 and 0"
"true and false"
"on and off"
Note that I don't mean to say "Yes AND No" (or "1 AND 0") because then, clearly the answer would have to be "No".
Short proof: YES and NO