also in NM: carlsbad caverns and the place where they buried all the ET cartridges
Re:you know it's true
on
All The Rave
·
· Score: 0
"Said just like someone who has never created ANYTHING of his own."
WRONG
I create
I just don't charge people for it!
besides, i never said COPYRIGHT=EVIL, or PATENTS=EVIL
COPYRIGHT=GREED, and it always will, BY DEFINITION
if you happen to think GREED=EVIL (a concept that I didn't even bring up) then it seems you're kinda undermining your own argument
copyright doesn't "promote" anything - NECESSITY is the mother of invention, NOT "patents" OR "copyright"
if you want to continue arguing whether or not GREED=EVIL (which is what the debate has REALLY evolved into) then fine by me. that doesn't change the fact that COPYRIGHT IS GREED, BY DEFINITION
PERIOD!
you know it's true
on
All The Rave
·
· Score: 0, Troll
and even if you are tired of hearing it, it doesn't make it any less true:
ALL COPYRIGHT = GREED
and copying music is NOT stealing in any sense of the word "stealing"
besides the laughingly alarmist "'work of art'/album a thing of the past??" crap and completely getting the last part wrong (how could it be a MORE SUBSTANTIAL impact to artists that write their own music, since artists that don't wouldn't be getting writing royalties AT ALL in the first place??) -- there were a couple of things that I found pretty interesting:
#1: "shifting to a singles-based model" - HIGHLY interesting, since as far as I knew singles sales have been slowly declining for a long time now. like, steadily declining for a LONG time. personally, it has always appeared to me due more to the big labels dislike of singles than to consumers'. at least as long as I've bought music, the big labels here in the US have never seemed that eager to promote singles. as far as I knew, the big labels hated singles (not enough money)!
here in the US, people really only stopped buying singles because companies stopped offering them for sale! everyone loves a good song, and lots of people will buy a good single they like (the record companies' problem is, lots of people people WON'T buy a good album even if it has a good single on it)
and what things like napster proved, and iTunes confirms, is that people ALWAYS like a good single (and maybe the big companies shot themselves in the foot trying to shut down the format out of greed in the first place)
which brings me to #2:
"labels, artists and songwriters are vying for nickels and dimes from 99 cent downloads" - first of all, the economy sucks and they should be thankful consumers are buying any music from them PERIOD
but seriously, the "artist's representatives" are complaining about making money they WEREN'T GETTING IN THE FIRST PLACE?
obviously these consumers WEREN'T PURCHASING the album those songs were on anyway, because if they had, they wouldn't have bought them from apple!
but the "artist's representatives" claiming LOST REVENUE?? from SALES?? because people aren't going to buy the album they WEREN'T GOING TO BUY ANWYAY??
so, the article was interesting because it made me think, but weird because it made me think more and more that it got most of it wrong
was napster just the start of a "singles renaissance"? (I think so, and I hope so)
it's a better deal than they get from the majors if for nothing else than they don't get ripped off for the cost of promos, cut-outs, and defects this way
------------
GOD record companies SUCK
he didn't "sample" anything - he wanted to copy (as in imitate) a bassline, consulted a so-called "expert" who told him it was a generic riff
and the real kick in the pants, of course, is that the jury knows even less about "sampling", "riffs", and "music" than that "expert"
PLUS, dre's lawyer expects their verdict will be thrown out due to inconsistencies
sampling is right and good
people who sue over something sampled are only JEALOUS because they are afraid that the person who sampled them will make more $$$ then they did
and if you think, "well without the original work in the first place that thief wouldn't have been able to sample anything..." that's fine, but you still have that original work ANYWAY - it's not like any "stolen" riffs DISAPPEAR from the "original", never to be heard on it again
(of course, I realize that many people may actually feel that way about works that have been sampled, but tons more songs are "ruined" that way by inclusion in commercials, bumpers, etc)
and if you REALLY want to stretch it by saying you shouldn't be able to base your work on someone else's (or, expand their work) then FORGET IT - EVERY idea is based on another idea in SOME way
(and anyway, if you really do believe that, you can't argue it anyway! I just made that argument, and by your own beliefs you can't "steal" MY argument):)
Slashdot Mirror
"p.s. in the interest of non-fairness I'll post this "note to moderators" as an ANONYMOUS COWARD, just so you don't check MY posting history"
....."to "share" is FAIR USE and is absolutely permitted under law!
What law is this?"
TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 1 > Sec. 107.
"to "share", BY DEFINITION, is NOT "stealing"!!
This is true, its copyright infringement in this case."
WRONG
it is NOT copyright infringement
"COPYRIGHT IS GREED, PERIOD
Well until mankind phases out money, what incentive is there to make music if any joe-blow can pirate it and not pay a dime?"
that's not an argument saying copyright isn't greed, that's a statement proving copyright IS greed
there is and has only ever been a single incentive for ANY kind of art, and guess what it is
remember, the saying isn't "copyright is the mother of invention"
or "greed" for that matter
honestly, do you think we should still pay the family of the inventor of the bucket today, if that's what "copyright law" said to do?
oh, that's right, you're not really interested in the law - sorry!
"don't share any copyrighted files. What a great idea to reduce the risk of being sued! Why didn't I think of that!"
OOPS! let the cat out of the bag on that one, didn't ya?
to "share" is FAIR USE and is absolutely permitted under law!
to "share", BY DEFINITION, is NOT "stealing"!!
no matter how much it gets modded down, my message is always proven in the end:
COPYRIGHT IS GREED, PERIOD
the only debate at this point is whether one feels greed is good or bad
also in NM: carlsbad caverns and the place where they buried all the ET cartridges
"Said just like someone who has never created ANYTHING of his own."
WRONG
I create
I just don't charge people for it!
besides, i never said COPYRIGHT=EVIL, or PATENTS=EVIL
COPYRIGHT=GREED, and it always will, BY DEFINITION
if you happen to think GREED=EVIL (a concept that I didn't even bring up) then it seems you're kinda undermining your own argument
copyright doesn't "promote" anything - NECESSITY is the mother of invention, NOT "patents" OR "copyright"
if you want to continue arguing whether or not GREED=EVIL (which is what the debate has REALLY evolved into) then fine by me. that doesn't change the fact that COPYRIGHT IS GREED, BY DEFINITION
PERIOD!
and even if you are tired of hearing it, it doesn't make it any less true:
ALL COPYRIGHT = GREED
and copying music is NOT stealing in any sense of the word "stealing"
PERIOD
"Don't make a mistake, our founding fathers were England's anarchists."
OH YEAH? Anarchists own slaves??
besides the laughingly alarmist "'work of art'/album a thing of the past??" crap and completely getting the last part wrong (how could it be a MORE SUBSTANTIAL impact to artists that write their own music, since artists that don't wouldn't be getting writing royalties AT ALL in the first place??) -- there were a couple of things that I found pretty interesting:
#1: "shifting to a singles-based model" - HIGHLY interesting, since as far as I knew singles sales have been slowly declining for a long time now. like, steadily declining for a LONG time. personally, it has always appeared to me due more to the big labels dislike of singles than to consumers'. at least as long as I've bought music, the big labels here in the US have never seemed that eager to promote singles. as far as I knew, the big labels hated singles (not enough money)!
here in the US, people really only stopped buying singles because companies stopped offering them for sale! everyone loves a good song, and lots of people will buy a good single they like (the record companies' problem is, lots of people people WON'T buy a good album even if it has a good single on it)
and what things like napster proved, and iTunes confirms, is that people ALWAYS like a good single (and maybe the big companies shot themselves in the foot trying to shut down the format out of greed in the first place)
which brings me to #2:
"labels, artists and songwriters are vying for nickels and dimes from 99 cent downloads" - first of all, the economy sucks and they should be thankful consumers are buying any music from them PERIOD
but seriously, the "artist's representatives" are complaining about making money they WEREN'T GETTING IN THE FIRST PLACE?
obviously these consumers WEREN'T PURCHASING the album those songs were on anyway, because if they had, they wouldn't have bought them from apple!
but the "artist's representatives" claiming LOST REVENUE?? from SALES?? because people aren't going to buy the album they WEREN'T GOING TO BUY ANWYAY??
so, the article was interesting because it made me think, but weird because it made me think more and more that it got most of it wrong
was napster just the start of a "singles renaissance"? (I think so, and I hope so)
it's a better deal than they get from the majors if for nothing else than they don't get ripped off for the cost of promos, cut-outs, and defects this way ------------ GOD record companies SUCK
he didn't "sample" anything - he wanted to copy (as in imitate) a bassline, consulted a so-called "expert" who told him it was a generic riff
:)
and the real kick in the pants, of course, is that the jury knows even less about "sampling", "riffs", and "music" than that "expert"
PLUS, dre's lawyer expects their verdict will be thrown out due to inconsistencies
sampling is right and good
people who sue over something sampled are only JEALOUS because they are afraid that the person who sampled them will make more $$$ then they did
and if you think, "well without the original work in the first place that thief wouldn't have been able to sample anything..." that's fine, but you still have that original work ANYWAY - it's not like any "stolen" riffs DISAPPEAR from the "original", never to be heard on it again
(of course, I realize that many people may actually feel that way about works that have been sampled, but tons more songs are "ruined" that way by inclusion in commercials, bumpers, etc)
and if you REALLY want to stretch it by saying you shouldn't be able to base your work on someone else's (or, expand their work) then FORGET IT - EVERY idea is based on another idea in SOME way
(and anyway, if you really do believe that, you can't argue it anyway! I just made that argument, and by your own beliefs you can't "steal" MY argument)
another example of why democracy and capitalism are incompatible
there's only one way you can have both at the same time: one's vote is inversely proportionate to their wealth
the more money you are worth, the less your vote should be
it's the ONLY way a true democracy will ever work under capitalism