Using a 911 dispatch system that can so easily be manipulated by outsiders is what is idiotic.
Actually, the article says that he made a call, but from some of the other wording of the article it's hard to tell. In all, this was probably a phone hack.
The article is pretty unclear as to the method. It nearly reads like this was a phone hack and at the same time they make it also seem like he was directly in control of the 911 system at the same time.
It's either poorly writen or the cops who reported the details somehow lost something in translation.
You'll think that until you end up being on the short end of the stick. It's nice to have the police show up and you getting a few round from a MP5 popped into your chest for trying to make heads or tails of the commotion. Don't think it won't happen sooner or later. I know if someone was beating in my door at 3 a.m. the first things I'm reaching for is a flashlight and my H&K 45.
Defacing a webpage is funny. Risking some unknown family's lives over a prank is just idiotic.
"Thou shalt not kill" does not mesh well with "Thou shalt kill aliens in copious numbers"
Jack Thompson, is that you? It's nice after all the screams of "Doom didn't teach the Columbine shooters to kill" we get some jackass who's trying to use a moral outlook (that spans well beyond just a religion)to feed a flamebait posting and getting modded up for it.
If playing a video game doesn't bring out the worst in people as Jack Thompson has proposed does, how does violence in a video game relate to the killing of a real human being?
If you're going to bash religion just try to take it out of the religious context first and you may find that you hold the same ideals. Or are you going to turn your back on these ideals just in an attempt to take a cheap shot?
First let me say that I realize that Taco and crew have put something solid together here but...
CmdrTaco: you don't really need to read any other tech news publications since it will contain the best of all those other websites.
Uh, bullshit? While I obviously have hung out here and posted a ton of stuff over the years, Slashdot simply is not a "best of the tech web" site.
Slashdot is fine for getting a the big tech news on the web in short order but most of us have long outgrown that. I consider Slashdot to be more the Discovery Channel of the web: If you have a mild interest in something it's great but once you get past the surface there's no meat for someone who wants to advance their knowledge on a certain subject. For example: I mostly read a lot of the astronomy stuff because it's a minor interest of mine, almost a hobby. Most of the stories I find here are good reading and sometimes I come into some new information but when I want to read a bit more into it I simply can't do that here. I have to go to the more specialised websites to do that. I don't know if others feel the same.
And that sad part of all of it is that reading the comments is even worse. I see tons of posts modded +5 Informative or Insightful and a reply 15 minutes later points out why the post is plainly wrong yet the correct post stays at a 0-2 mod. The more of these that I see and double check the facts myself the more I see erroneous information getting passed off around here with the validation of the moderation system. It gets even worse in the stories that often boil down to flame wars. Having a +5 Informative on a post that reads "[Bill Gates/RIAA/Linux/NASA/insert...] is teh fucktard!!!!oneoneone!!!" shows that something has gone wrong. By all means, have your opinion of it but it's just so easy to get modded up by taking a side instead of passing on fresh information or at least an explanation of your opinion.
Actually, the price is going to go up as my secret pipeline of prohibited hardware will be fully active. We're going to drain your stockpiles of booze^H^H^H^H^H hard drives.
What you percieve as controversy and clouding the issue is merely oil interests and republican interests screaming from hurt, because his documentary raised awareness and directed the public's awareness towards climate change, so in order to look less unethical those certain interests try to make climate change a muddy, political, partisan issue, which of course it is not.
When you have someone screaming that the sky is falling and it doesn't fall the way they claim it is not only does it put them in a bad light but the entire sky-is-falling movement. So when someone comes along with a realistic outlook and a practical plan for resolving the sky-is-falling issue you're going to have people turn their backs on you since Chicken Little burned their ass. These are the same people who were once willing to help who have no faith in "the lie" now. I've been involved in the environmental movement in a minor way for two decades now and it's a revolving door, mostly because of the propaganda.
I guess it must be easy just to blame a political party instead of looking to see the damage you're doing to your would-be supporters.
I've listened to environmentalist mouthpieces for years scream of the doom and gloom that awaits us and... well, it's just never happened.
This isn't to say that I've lost faith in the overall ideas involved in the movement. I do environmentalism on my own terms. I'm one hell of a lot more of a practicing environmentalist than Mr. Gore.
But go ahead, alienate some more environmentalists. Most of those will go back to their old ways once they see that their figurehead of a leader was just being an alarmist. Maybe some of them will fallow the practical version of environmentalism that doesn't use the government as a crutch and instead choose to be proactive. There are a ton of reasons to do the right thing. We don't need people pulling a false alarm. We could just be reasonable instead.
Maybe the non-fanatical thing just doesn't work with the infomercial generation.
These nit-pickings of yours are irrelevant to that point, and really show you have nothing to back up your point.
And what point would that be?
Or do you think I'm brushing off your posts because I don't understand them? Or maybe it's because I have a different point of view?
Frankly, I don't see where you're going with this but since you made a fairly limp attempt to squeeze your off-topic point of view into my post I'm guessing that your point doesn't really relate to what I have to say at all.
Oh well, this won't be the first time I've walked away from a Slashdot thread and simply shrugged my shoulders.
And as far as being one of those people who just lets things happen to them? What am I let happen? I'm supporting an artist. I'm not being robbed here.
Since the field is 3x wider, why are you suprised that the old entertainment industry isn't getting as much?
It's not that I'm saying your wrong about spreading the wealth but your 3x figure is way too high. Do you honestly think that we didn't have most of this 20 years ago too? I remember when prerecorded movies were expensive. You think 20 is high to pay for a DVD? That use to be the low end. We had games and they were just as expensive in adjusted price. Ring tones and texting? Are you kidding me? 5 bucks for a months worth of testing and how many ring tones can one download in a month. I bet the average teen isn't paying as much as they'd pay for a single CD or iTunes album as what they're paying for text and ringtones put together.
Entertainment is getting cheaper. Most of what you see as new entertainment existed before in some other form with the exception of cell phones and when cells weren't around just about every teen I knew had a separate phone line for their personal use. It cost nearly as much as a low end cell plan.
I would go as far as to say that entertainment is probably costing less today. A blank CD costs about 10% of what a blank cassette cost in the 80s. And that's without adjusted price and that's if you're not getting the freebie offers that most places run about once every two weeks.
And a portable player is no more expensive. I paid over 250 USD for my Sony Discman in the early 90s. I've seen them at WalMart for about 20 now.
Not to mention movie rentals. I remember when movies were 4 bucks a day to rent. 18 bucks a month for 3 movies at a time? And the selection that you have?
So yeah, now I am going to say that your 3x figure is way too high. To have the same entertainment today as what we had in the late 80s and early 90s is much cheaper today.
I can't justify paying for a dead guys music, that is overpriced, that I can't copy, and that has DRM, oh ya, and that I'll have to re-buy to play on a different format.
AFAIK there hasn't been a single successful (or unsuccessful case for that matter) when it comes down to making copies for personal use. I have never bought music that has DRM on it and frankly, it's a separate issue.
The whole point of the RIAA (really the record companies they represent) for me is that they filter the crap and let the good stuff through. Judging by the stuff on the radio, they have been doing a shitastic job.
That's where you're wrong. The point of the company is to produce a profitable product. It's the public's role to filter out the trash by voting with their dollars.
I'll laugh all the way to the bank with my free and legal music while you pay for overpriced crap.
That's fine. I certainly have nothing against the freebie stuff either as I have several albums from archive.org too. But at the same time I'm willing to pay for the commercial product if that's what the deal is.
it's just that it makes me want to vomit when someone is getting fucked in the ass by the RIAA and then sucks the RIAA's dick afterwards
I've done many more acts of good, than bad...and I've done much to clean up those bad things as well, as most people do. Not all, but most.
The majority of music thieves don't see their actions as bad or illegal. At least not until they get served a summons. This is the difference. And this trend is only increasing.
I remember a friend of mine going off on drivers while he was in the passenger seat when I was driving. I was calm and enjoying the drive. Most of the drivers were driving just fine, but he choose to focus and get bent out of shape by one or two of the drivers that we encountered along our 30 minute drive that were behaving "badly." I enjoyed the other 300 that weren't. That's realism my friend.
And what happens if one of those drivers wreck into you? It's easy enough to ignore those who break the rules until it become your problem.
Oh well, just keep thinking that way. I have no real desire to get through to you. You just keep turning a blind eye.
Truly, this isn't just about thumbing something at the RIAA, not for the long haul as far as the business model goes.
Really? But you said in the first post...
I didn't care if I didn't like the music, but I wanted to make a point to the RIAA
Anyway.
, I am tired of the RIAA, and despite what you think about the up and coming bands that get helped by the RIAA, are at the mercy of those contracts.
This happens to labels outside of the RIAA too. The only way to free yourself of this is to only deal with bands that are 100% indy or to get contracts that you can examine to see if they hold up to your standards. Being a fan of punk for many years (and even today) I have seen a ton of bands that credit their (non-RIAA) labels for helping them get things together and making their first real tours possible. Sure, some people get ripped off but others are treated well, and some of the labels that do treat their bands respectfully are RIAA labels. Once you look over the RIAA list of labels you start to understand that "indy" is kind of a sad joke. Well, that's if you consider RIAA labels to be anti or non-indy.
However, I doubt, as you say, you have held up to your own beliefs about how you would like to live your life, and been successful in all those areas completely, or perfectly.
I'll be honest with you, I'm not really as much of a "cause" person and my ideal are my own and I don't wear them on my sleeve. In fact, there are several ideals that I have that I really don't want to be associated with the "cause" because I find the people who agree with me on the ideology have a disturbing way of carrying themselves in public. I have friends who never knew for years about some of my habits because I don't mention them. Some of these are things that others feel the need to put on their t-shirts. I'm just not that kind of person.
So, have I ever failed? A bit, sure. But more often I have left some things behind because once I looked at it from different points of view I realized it had no serious value. I'd hate to take up the banner and be forced to explain myself if I decided that it was just nonsense after the fact. The best option is not to fly a banner at all in those cases.
a lack of faith in people for being able to good and honest. Perhaps you side with those who would jail the world before crimes were committed.
Ah, take a look around. Those crimes are being committed today. When you say I'm a cynic I personally think you're out of line. I'd be a cynic if this kind of thing (music for free, call it stealing for the sake of argument) weren't happening but it is and you know it as well as I do. If this wasn't an issue most people wouldn't have an issue with the RIAA at all since there wouldn't be a drove of lawsuits.
That's what it sounds like though. You have a low opinion of humanity.
I point out the pro-artist use of music labels and the fact that music theft is happening today and suddenly I have a low opinion of humanity? Get real.
It is cowardice to give up on integrity, and very disrespectful to give up on the integrity of others, and class me in with others who have failed, and call them, and myself by association of your argument, a hypocrite.
I made an honest question as to where this model was heading. If you take it as a personal insult that's your problem, not mine. I wonder if you give these rants to anyone who questions your motivation. Even if you do hold up to your oh-so-high standards of actually paying for music do you honestly think everyone else is going to?
Well, if you want to live in a world of corruption, and blame others for things they haven't done yet, that is your hell to live in.
Corruption? Because a band signs to a label without doing the right thing and getting a lawyer to look over the document you consider that corrupt? No one is holding a gun to anyone's head.
I do have a thousand friends. Ever since I joined MySpace I have friends from everywhere. Most of them are hot chics too! Wow, had I had known earlier...
What if the CD is up for sale and it's a birthday/holiday and you know the person has the music of the band, wouldn't you buy the CD as a present for them? Sale!
Let me play RIAA Devil's advocate here: What if they're already downloading that album on it's date of release? No Sale!
A teenager is spending (say) £50 a month on music. Now if they don't have to buy ANY music, are they going to start a bank account and save the £50 each month into it? No, they'll probably buy more stuff. Probably music, too. Sale!
If I'm already downloading this for free. No Sale!
There may be a lot MORE music (in number of tracks times the number of people who have those tracks) than the money being made would assume, but I don't see that the actual money being spend on entertainment is going to drop no matter what you do.
Because at some point not buying CD/DVDs becomes more of the norm. You're looking at it from an aspect of what is normal for you today. Find someone 10 years or so younger then you and find out what their spending habits are when they're your age. My 15 year old nephew has 20 times more music then what I had at his age... I probably owned 20 times more of it on CD (ie. music I paid for vs music he downloaded). No Sale! He isn't spending his cash on music. He spends it on DnD books and such. Tell me where the recording artist is making their due pay as he buys The Complete Potato Farmer V3.52342?
Kids can only wear so much, play so many games and buy so many DVD's and if the see bands stopping producing because nobody's buying, they'll buy from the band to keep them there because they want to be entertained.
There is enough stuff under the sun today to keep everyone on the face of this planet entertained for decades if not centuries. This isn't to say that there won't be some support but back when I was a kid (sonny!) we had little in the way of free entertainment in matters of recorded materials. I've been through a couple of decades of this and I can tell you the face of entertainment is changing quickly and money that use to flow because of it is starting to decrees. Once this trickle down starts to hit the artist in the pocketbook you're going to see less artists. And it will at some point.
You are thinking like an accountant, all that is important is the money. From the customer's POV, the money isn't important (else we wouldn't be giving it away), it's the ENJOYMENT we are looking for and all our money that isn't bound up somewhere else will be spent on it, because you can't take it with you when you go, so spend it.
Or if you're someone paying the bills, the money is important.
Again, the flow of money into entertainment is slowing. This directly relates to the number of artists and eventually could effect the quality of the "art". Scoff now but I've seen this happen in small markets that are economically on the down trend.
Slashdot Mirror
Using a 911 dispatch system that can so easily be manipulated by outsiders is what is idiotic.
Actually, the article says that he made a call, but from some of the other wording of the article it's hard to tell. In all, this was probably a phone hack.
A nation with armed dumbasses.
Nice troll, but I'd rather be armed than take my chances.
The article is pretty unclear as to the method. It nearly reads like this was a phone hack and at the same time they make it also seem like he was directly in control of the 911 system at the same time.
It's either poorly writen or the cops who reported the details somehow lost something in translation.
So the SWAT team got hacked LOL
You'll think that until you end up being on the short end of the stick. It's nice to have the police show up and you getting a few round from a MP5 popped into your chest for trying to make heads or tails of the commotion. Don't think it won't happen sooner or later. I know if someone was beating in my door at 3 a.m. the first things I'm reaching for is a flashlight and my H&K 45.
Defacing a webpage is funny. Risking some unknown family's lives over a prank is just idiotic.
"Thou shalt not kill" does not mesh well with "Thou shalt kill aliens in copious numbers"
Jack Thompson, is that you? It's nice after all the screams of "Doom didn't teach the Columbine shooters to kill" we get some jackass who's trying to use a moral outlook (that spans well beyond just a religion)to feed a flamebait posting and getting modded up for it.
If playing a video game doesn't bring out the worst in people as Jack Thompson has proposed does, how does violence in a video game relate to the killing of a real human being?
If you're going to bash religion just try to take it out of the religious context first and you may find that you hold the same ideals. Or are you going to turn your back on these ideals just in an attempt to take a cheap shot?
a rain of methane and ethane drizzling down, filling the moon's lakes and seas.
I'm guessing this is a non-smoking moon?
MIT OCW
I am including the firehose.
Posted anonymously because I saw what happened to the anti-kdawson posts to which I'm referring, which seemed awfully suspicious to me
Vee are miles from vhere anyvone can hear you scream. At least anyone who cares!
Muahahahahahaha
First let me say that I realize that Taco and crew have put something solid together here but...
CmdrTaco: you don't really need to read any other tech news publications since it will contain the best of all those other websites.
Uh, bullshit? While I obviously have hung out here and posted a ton of stuff over the years, Slashdot simply is not a "best of the tech web" site.
Slashdot is fine for getting a the big tech news on the web in short order but most of us have long outgrown that. I consider Slashdot to be more the Discovery Channel of the web: If you have a mild interest in something it's great but once you get past the surface there's no meat for someone who wants to advance their knowledge on a certain subject. For example: I mostly read a lot of the astronomy stuff because it's a minor interest of mine, almost a hobby. Most of the stories I find here are good reading and sometimes I come into some new information but when I want to read a bit more into it I simply can't do that here. I have to go to the more specialised websites to do that. I don't know if others feel the same.
And that sad part of all of it is that reading the comments is even worse. I see tons of posts modded +5 Informative or Insightful and a reply 15 minutes later points out why the post is plainly wrong yet the correct post stays at a 0-2 mod. The more of these that I see and double check the facts myself the more I see erroneous information getting passed off around here with the validation of the moderation system. It gets even worse in the stories that often boil down to flame wars. Having a +5 Informative on a post that reads "[Bill Gates/RIAA/Linux/NASA/insert...] is teh fucktard!!!!oneoneone!!!" shows that something has gone wrong. By all means, have your opinion of it but it's just so easy to get modded up by taking a side instead of passing on fresh information or at least an explanation of your opinion.
Actually, the price is going to go up as my secret pipeline of prohibited hardware will be fully active. We're going to drain your stockpiles of booze^H^H^H^H^H hard drives.
-Al "Scarface" Capone
What you percieve as controversy and clouding the issue is merely oil interests and republican interests screaming from hurt, because his documentary raised awareness and directed the public's awareness towards climate change, so in order to look less unethical those certain interests try to make climate change a muddy, political, partisan issue, which of course it is not.
When you have someone screaming that the sky is falling and it doesn't fall the way they claim it is not only does it put them in a bad light but the entire sky-is-falling movement. So when someone comes along with a realistic outlook and a practical plan for resolving the sky-is-falling issue you're going to have people turn their backs on you since Chicken Little burned their ass. These are the same people who were once willing to help who have no faith in "the lie" now. I've been involved in the environmental movement in a minor way for two decades now and it's a revolving door, mostly because of the propaganda.
I guess it must be easy just to blame a political party instead of looking to see the damage you're doing to your would-be supporters.
I've listened to environmentalist mouthpieces for years scream of the doom and gloom that awaits us and... well, it's just never happened.
This isn't to say that I've lost faith in the overall ideas involved in the movement. I do environmentalism on my own terms. I'm one hell of a lot more of a practicing environmentalist than Mr. Gore.
But go ahead, alienate some more environmentalists. Most of those will go back to their old ways once they see that their figurehead of a leader was just being an alarmist. Maybe some of them will fallow the practical version of environmentalism that doesn't use the government as a crutch and instead choose to be proactive. There are a ton of reasons to do the right thing. We don't need people pulling a false alarm. We could just be reasonable instead.
Maybe the non-fanatical thing just doesn't work with the infomercial generation.
Just as Bush & Cheney are the masters of terrorist/war FUD, Gore is the master of global warming FUD.
What? Not just a blind political party shill? Gasp! You must be new around here.
Yeah, the Wright brothers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomeansno
Wow, you certainly went out of your way to cover yourself there.
I never thought of it but Sinise would make a great McCoy. Is this really the rumor?
They should have made a big change, like Battlestar Galactica did, and made Kirk a women.
Shatner's not a woman? Damn, he had me fooled. I always thought he was just a very ugly woman.
I'm so very sorry if you feel that was off-topic. I feel the same way
Except for that your off-topic replies were to my original post, not the other way around. Who has the ADD here?
Hilarious. Oh well, sometimes you get in good debates with other slashdot readers, other times you get people with the attention span of a 4 year old.
I don't see a real debate with you. I guess that's why I have nothing to say. Again, shrug.
These nit-pickings of yours are irrelevant to that point, and really show you have nothing to back up your point.
And what point would that be?
Or do you think I'm brushing off your posts because I don't understand them? Or maybe it's because I have a different point of view?
Frankly, I don't see where you're going with this but since you made a fairly limp attempt to squeeze your off-topic point of view into my post I'm guessing that your point doesn't really relate to what I have to say at all.
Oh well, this won't be the first time I've walked away from a Slashdot thread and simply shrugged my shoulders.
And as far as being one of those people who just lets things happen to them? What am I let happen? I'm supporting an artist. I'm not being robbed here.
Since the field is 3x wider, why are you suprised that the old entertainment industry isn't getting as much?
It's not that I'm saying your wrong about spreading the wealth but your 3x figure is way too high. Do you honestly think that we didn't have most of this 20 years ago too? I remember when prerecorded movies were expensive. You think 20 is high to pay for a DVD? That use to be the low end. We had games and they were just as expensive in adjusted price. Ring tones and texting? Are you kidding me? 5 bucks for a months worth of testing and how many ring tones can one download in a month. I bet the average teen isn't paying as much as they'd pay for a single CD or iTunes album as what they're paying for text and ringtones put together.
Entertainment is getting cheaper. Most of what you see as new entertainment existed before in some other form with the exception of cell phones and when cells weren't around just about every teen I knew had a separate phone line for their personal use. It cost nearly as much as a low end cell plan.
I would go as far as to say that entertainment is probably costing less today. A blank CD costs about 10% of what a blank cassette cost in the 80s. And that's without adjusted price and that's if you're not getting the freebie offers that most places run about once every two weeks.
And a portable player is no more expensive. I paid over 250 USD for my Sony Discman in the early 90s. I've seen them at WalMart for about 20 now.
Not to mention movie rentals. I remember when movies were 4 bucks a day to rent. 18 bucks a month for 3 movies at a time? And the selection that you have?
So yeah, now I am going to say that your 3x figure is way too high. To have the same entertainment today as what we had in the late 80s and early 90s is much cheaper today.
I can't justify paying for a dead guys music, that is overpriced, that I can't copy, and that has DRM, oh ya, and that I'll have to re-buy to play on a different format.
AFAIK there hasn't been a single successful (or unsuccessful case for that matter) when it comes down to making copies for personal use. I have never bought music that has DRM on it and frankly, it's a separate issue.
The whole point of the RIAA (really the record companies they represent) for me is that they filter the crap and let the good stuff through. Judging by the stuff on the radio, they have been doing a shitastic job.
That's where you're wrong. The point of the company is to produce a profitable product. It's the public's role to filter out the trash by voting with their dollars.
I'll laugh all the way to the bank with my free and legal music while you pay for overpriced crap.
That's fine. I certainly have nothing against the freebie stuff either as I have several albums from archive.org too. But at the same time I'm willing to pay for the commercial product if that's what the deal is.
it's just that it makes me want to vomit when someone is getting fucked in the ass by the RIAA and then sucks the RIAA's dick afterwards
And who exactly would that be?
I've done many more acts of good, than bad...and I've done much to clean up those bad things as well, as most people do. Not all, but most.
The majority of music thieves don't see their actions as bad or illegal. At least not until they get served a summons. This is the difference. And this trend is only increasing.
I remember a friend of mine going off on drivers while he was in the passenger seat when I was driving. I was calm and enjoying the drive. Most of the drivers were driving just fine, but he choose to focus and get bent out of shape by one or two of the drivers that we encountered along our 30 minute drive that were behaving "badly." I enjoyed the other 300 that weren't. That's realism my friend.
And what happens if one of those drivers wreck into you? It's easy enough to ignore those who break the rules until it become your problem.
Oh well, just keep thinking that way. I have no real desire to get through to you. You just keep turning a blind eye.
Man, this stuff is nearly ten years old. It's not news.
Way to keep up with the latest in technology, Taco.
I'm sure it will be duped in a few more years again.
Truly, this isn't just about thumbing something at the RIAA, not for the long haul as far as the business model goes.
Really? But you said in the first post...
I didn't care if I didn't like the music, but I wanted to make a point to the RIAA
Anyway.
, I am tired of the RIAA, and despite what you think about the up and coming bands that get helped by the RIAA, are at the mercy of those contracts.
This happens to labels outside of the RIAA too. The only way to free yourself of this is to only deal with bands that are 100% indy or to get contracts that you can examine to see if they hold up to your standards. Being a fan of punk for many years (and even today) I have seen a ton of bands that credit their (non-RIAA) labels for helping them get things together and making their first real tours possible. Sure, some people get ripped off but others are treated well, and some of the labels that do treat their bands respectfully are RIAA labels. Once you look over the RIAA list of labels you start to understand that "indy" is kind of a sad joke. Well, that's if you consider RIAA labels to be anti or non-indy.
However, I doubt, as you say, you have held up to your own beliefs about how you would like to live your life, and been successful in all those areas completely, or perfectly.
I'll be honest with you, I'm not really as much of a "cause" person and my ideal are my own and I don't wear them on my sleeve. In fact, there are several ideals that I have that I really don't want to be associated with the "cause" because I find the people who agree with me on the ideology have a disturbing way of carrying themselves in public. I have friends who never knew for years about some of my habits because I don't mention them. Some of these are things that others feel the need to put on their t-shirts. I'm just not that kind of person.
So, have I ever failed? A bit, sure. But more often I have left some things behind because once I looked at it from different points of view I realized it had no serious value. I'd hate to take up the banner and be forced to explain myself if I decided that it was just nonsense after the fact. The best option is not to fly a banner at all in those cases.
a lack of faith in people for being able to good and honest. Perhaps you side with those who would jail the world before crimes were committed.
Ah, take a look around. Those crimes are being committed today. When you say I'm a cynic I personally think you're out of line. I'd be a cynic if this kind of thing (music for free, call it stealing for the sake of argument) weren't happening but it is and you know it as well as I do. If this wasn't an issue most people wouldn't have an issue with the RIAA at all since there wouldn't be a drove of lawsuits.
That's what it sounds like though. You have a low opinion of humanity.
I point out the pro-artist use of music labels and the fact that music theft is happening today and suddenly I have a low opinion of humanity? Get real.
It is cowardice to give up on integrity, and very disrespectful to give up on the integrity of others, and class me in with others who have failed, and call them, and myself by association of your argument, a hypocrite.
I made an honest question as to where this model was heading. If you take it as a personal insult that's your problem, not mine. I wonder if you give these rants to anyone who questions your motivation. Even if you do hold up to your oh-so-high standards of actually paying for music do you honestly think everyone else is going to?
Well, if you want to live in a world of corruption, and blame others for things they haven't done yet, that is your hell to live in.
Corruption? Because a band signs to a label without doing the right thing and getting a lawyer to look over the document you consider that corrupt? No one is holding a gun to anyone's head.
And again, others have done
I do have a thousand friends. Ever since I joined MySpace I have friends from everywhere. Most of them are hot chics too! Wow, had I had known earlier...
What if the CD is up for sale and it's a birthday/holiday and you know the person has the music of the band, wouldn't you buy the CD as a present for them? Sale!
Let me play RIAA Devil's advocate here: What if they're already downloading that album on it's date of release? No Sale!
A teenager is spending (say) £50 a month on music. Now if they don't have to buy ANY music, are they going to start a bank account and save the £50 each month into it? No, they'll probably buy more stuff. Probably music, too. Sale!
If I'm already downloading this for free. No Sale!
There may be a lot MORE music (in number of tracks times the number of people who have those tracks) than the money being made would assume, but I don't see that the actual money being spend on entertainment is going to drop no matter what you do.
Because at some point not buying CD/DVDs becomes more of the norm. You're looking at it from an aspect of what is normal for you today. Find someone 10 years or so younger then you and find out what their spending habits are when they're your age. My 15 year old nephew has 20 times more music then what I had at his age... I probably owned 20 times more of it on CD (ie. music I paid for vs music he downloaded). No Sale! He isn't spending his cash on music. He spends it on DnD books and such. Tell me where the recording artist is making their due pay as he buys The Complete Potato Farmer V3.52342?
Kids can only wear so much, play so many games and buy so many DVD's and if the see bands stopping producing because nobody's buying, they'll buy from the band to keep them there because they want to be entertained.
There is enough stuff under the sun today to keep everyone on the face of this planet entertained for decades if not centuries. This isn't to say that there won't be some support but back when I was a kid (sonny!) we had little in the way of free entertainment in matters of recorded materials. I've been through a couple of decades of this and I can tell you the face of entertainment is changing quickly and money that use to flow because of it is starting to decrees. Once this trickle down starts to hit the artist in the pocketbook you're going to see less artists. And it will at some point.
You are thinking like an accountant, all that is important is the money. From the customer's POV, the money isn't important (else we wouldn't be giving it away), it's the ENJOYMENT we are looking for and all our money that isn't bound up somewhere else will be spent on it, because you can't take it with you when you go, so spend it.
Or if you're someone paying the bills, the money is important.
Again, the flow of money into entertainment is slowing. This directly relates to the number of artists and eventually could effect the quality of the "art". Scoff now but I've seen this happen in small markets that are economically on the down trend.