It may be time for you to re-evaluate your management/legal team, Lars. Somehow, their collective wisdom failed to mentioned a few very key points.
1. Smile. Be happy. 1.4 million observed downloads of your music is the ultimate validation of what every radio station was wrong about...your music DOES appeal to a wide-scale audience. Good Job.
2. What are you doing to your own fans? Your average fan enjoys Metallica to the extent of spending, at least, $50, on the records...Is this not enough? Who are you to limit us? Your popularity and income DEPENDS on us... The fans. And yet, despite our investment in your catalogue, you will target ME? For liking your music enough to want to listen to it at work?
Screw the law, man. Metallica is NOT a secret...The people that like your music already own it. The people that don't already own the music don't like it and aren't likely to be inclined to download it. Wake up.
3. Until you guys stop making crappy grunge records, it's probably best to avoid irritating the fans you have left...I doubt there will be many new ones (Hey, hey, hey??? Here I go now??? C'mon man. Please silence Captain Caveman.)
4. Please rethink your use of the term "art" in reference to Metallica. At one time, there was art. Now, it's primarily poppy rubbish.
Artist defined: artist n : a person whose creative work shows sensitivity and imagination [syn: creative person]
Screaming something in retard really doesn't quite qualify as art...They make Ritalin for that.
"Gimme fuel, gimme fyah, gimme that which I desiyah,"
5. We apologise if you have no sense of humor about these matters. I mean...after releasing S&M? I figured that you guys were the funniest thing ever.
A lot of us are on call 24/7. By definition, this indicates that we have to be 'available' at all times. Similar to the role of a Firefighter, we are constantly available in the event of an emergency...we can take that to it's logical extreme. In addition to the 'on call' status, we also are required to spend the daylight hours (9-5) in an office. Now, tack on the after hours maintenace, upgrades, troubleshooting, back-ups and transfers that we are constantly called on to tackle.
Employers emphatically agree? LOL. Ask any employer in the free world...According to them? NONE of their employees do anything.
If anything, I manage to get about 32.5 hours of sleep per week anymore...I'd be curious to see how our fine staticians would react to the living arrangements of a struggling net geek.
**"...or at least, that was MY take on the article. One of the things about Katz that I like is many different people get many different impressions of what he meant, which is kind of kewl, IMHO."**
This is why I like slashdot. The snippet that I pasted above, from your earlier remarks, set me to thinking. My disposition toward Jon Katz is, generally, that of an adversary. I do not normally agree with his views or opinions, and I believe that this has probably (to some degree) closed my mind to the overall messages that he is attempting to get out.
For what is probably the first time in any of our lives, we have a form of media that is legitimitely *ours*. We submit what is news, comment on, critique, struggle and, occasionally, are a part of the story itself. Slashdot has taken the news and made it, for most, personal. Along with this new power of inclusion, we have been presented with Jon Katz. His role is, essentially, our role...only more formalized.
Bearing this in mind, I'd like to thank you. To disagree with someone because you have a different opinion is one thing. To disagree with someone on blind, stubborn "I don't like you" principle is sheer closed-mindedness. You have made me question whether my arguments with Jon Katz's opinions are based off of genuine thought or ignorant assumption.
I'm going to need to re-read a few things and check, but I'm fairly certain that my initial reading was done critically... Closed-mindedly. If this is the case, then you have been a great help.
I agree with you on mearly all of your points. Perhaps I didn't reference this instance clearly enough, so I will correct it now.
The issue that I took with Mr. Katz on that article and perspective was his angle of, "Take a kid to the movies day," in which he was recommending that you, as a stranger, escort a child or a near-child into an R rated film because the MPAA says that you can't. He took no regard to the interests of the parents that would, at least attempt, to educate their children responsibly.
What is boils down to (in example) was that he was asking you to take my unescorted 12 year-old child into a movie...with no interaction with or approval from me...the child's parent. As a parent, I am aware that the world itself will influence my child in ways that I could never hope to control. The best that I can do is to inform and educate them responsibly and hope for the best. But to see someone outright telling the general public to remove my right to so much as make that attempt to guide my child is ludicrous to me.
This is just one example of the many instances for which he has contrived juvenile, needless and potentially harmful solutions to trivial situations. If I wanted my 12 year-old son to see a movie I would take him there myself. It is MY role to determine what I feel is best for my child...Not Mr. Katz's.
I love slashdot, but...Damn. Enough with the pandering bullshit already. Somehow, I find it exceptionally difficult to accept being characterized as a victim. It seems a little bizarre to have some Geek-Friendly Geek-wannabe identify my 'plight' and attempt to offer guidance through these tumultuous times of strife. In reading the writings of Mr. Katz you'd almost have to accept the notion that Computer Users are oppressed...It's utter bunk. This is not the Civil Rights Movement of the sixties. We aren't fighting Communism, Aids, Rascism, Hunger or anything of actual global importance. Where is the oppression in a 12 year-old not being allowed to enter a rated R film without his parents? This is IMPORTANT?? Come off it. How valid is the opinion of a man who would advise you to expose children to things that their young minds may not be prepared to comprehend? How valid are the thoughts of a man that would have us go to such ridiculous extremes for so little...for nothing at all.
Couldn't you guys have selected a more relevant advocate for your/. audience?
The "Hellmouth" series was a relevant and insightful piece of writing. It was timely and did a lot of good toward opening the eyes of the media, officials and parents to the reality that stupid people do stupid things. It opened up a few eyes to the fact that a stereotypical geek does not kill...a homicidal geek, on the other hand, does. But, why does Mr. Katz believe that every issue at arises is another "Hellmouth" crisis? The answer is: Attention. His interest is not genuine concern. This is business to him. Mr. Katz seeks attention. Attention adds viability to his presence as a journalist which lends to his ability to earn greater sums for future works. It's artificial interest and it shows every time he offers us an issue and urges us to rip the system in response. It's Always The Same! We, as/. readers are repeatedly baited by nonsense issues. Repeatedly, we are offered these issues as crises that require radical action. Repeatedly, we are pandered to on the same nerve that he hit with the "Hellmouth" series. It's not working anymore.
It appears to me that Mr. Katz is missing several points here. He seems to have taken a stance that we have some voice in the going's on in film-makerland and that we are surrogate parents. He couldn't be more wrong.
"Hit them in their pocketbooks," says Katz. We cannot "Hit them in their pocketbooks." If a movie, or type of movie fails to make money (at the box office) then those types of film will cease to be in production. If a film company invests $50 Million in a motion picture and that film fails to earn back (at least) it's investment, then they will have learned their lesson...what point have you made? Do you think that a holdings company gives a rat's ass how many people have actually seen the film? No. They are interested in the final dollar intake. Point? Bootleg all you want. Scam your way in the door until your head spins. It doesn't matter; This (and any) genre of film exists because they are big money earners. Take away the money and you take away the film.
"Find a smart 13-year-old who wants to see something off-limits and take him to a movie..." Jon? Isn't it enough that our ever-loving government has determined parent's to be too irresponsible -too stupid- to raise their own children? The ratings system exists for a reason. Why would you even consider further usurping the ability of a parent to raise her or his child as they deem fit? If the parent of a twelve or a thirteen year-old kid doesn't want them exposed to cultural gems like, "Shut Your Fucking Face Uncle Fucker," is it your place to determine that they are mature and aware enough to handle it? Are you going to sit with that adolescent and properly explain the satire of the scenerio? Is it your right to potentially force an unprepared parent into a situation where they will have to deal with it? I'm not saying that you can protect kids or sheild them from anything... eventually, they will be exposed to it. But, I find it hard to believe that you would want to be the one who does the exposing. You might as well run a taxi service for them so that you can be the one who helped them get their first bag of tea.
I cannot answer for the militant censoring movement in theatres. As an adult (!) I have little to be concerned with... Perhaps that is the point, though. 'As an adult,' I have the right and the ability to do and involve myself with every aspect of any culture that I decide, 'As an adult,' to be a part of. This is not an issue of censorship or individual rights. "Ticket Booth Tyranny," is a step in the wrong direction. If you want change, try to put the decision back into the hands of those who are responsible for the results of those decisions...the parents and the children that those parents are raising.
Slashdot Mirror
It may be time for you to re-evaluate your management/legal team, Lars. Somehow, their collective wisdom failed to mentioned a few very key points.
1. Smile. Be happy. 1.4 million observed downloads of your music is the ultimate validation of what every radio station was wrong about...your music DOES appeal to a wide-scale audience. Good Job.
2. What are you doing to your own fans? Your average fan enjoys Metallica to the extent of spending, at least, $50, on the records...Is this not enough? Who are you to limit us? Your popularity and income DEPENDS on us... The fans. And yet, despite our investment in your catalogue, you will target ME? For liking your music enough to want to listen to it at work?
Screw the law, man. Metallica is NOT a secret...The people that like your music
already own it. The people that don't already own the music don't like it and aren't likely to be inclined to download it. Wake up.
3. Until you guys stop making crappy grunge records, it's probably best to avoid irritating the fans you have left...I doubt there will be many new ones (Hey, hey, hey??? Here I go now??? C'mon man. Please silence Captain Caveman.)
4. Please rethink your use of the term "art" in reference to Metallica. At one time, there was art. Now, it's primarily poppy rubbish.
Artist defined: artist n : a person whose creative work shows sensitivity and imagination [syn: creative person]
Screaming something in retard really doesn't quite qualify as art...They make Ritalin for that.
"Gimme fuel, gimme fyah, gimme that which I desiyah,"
5. We apologise if you have no sense of humor about these matters. I mean...after releasing S&M? I figured that you guys were the funniest thing ever.
A lot of us are on call 24/7. By definition, this indicates that we have to be 'available' at all times. Similar to the role of a Firefighter, we are constantly available in the event of an emergency...we can take that to it's logical extreme. In addition to the 'on call' status, we also are required to spend the daylight hours (9-5) in an office. Now, tack on the after hours maintenace, upgrades, troubleshooting, back-ups and transfers that we are constantly called on to tackle.
Employers emphatically agree? LOL. Ask any employer in the free world...According to them? NONE of their employees do anything.
If anything, I manage to get about 32.5 hours of sleep per week anymore...I'd be curious to see how our fine staticians would react to the living arrangements of a struggling net geek.
**"...or at least, that was MY take on the article. One of the things about Katz that I like is many different people get many different impressions of what he meant, which is kind of kewl, IMHO."**
This is why I like slashdot. The snippet that I pasted above, from your earlier remarks, set me to thinking. My disposition toward Jon Katz is, generally, that of an adversary. I do not normally agree with his views or opinions, and I believe that this has probably (to some degree) closed my mind to the overall messages that he is attempting to get out.
For what is probably the first time in any of our lives, we have a form of media that is legitimitely *ours*. We submit what is news, comment on, critique, struggle and, occasionally, are a part of the story itself. Slashdot has taken the news and made it, for most, personal. Along with this new power of inclusion, we have been presented with Jon Katz. His role is, essentially, our role...only more formalized.
Bearing this in mind, I'd like to thank you. To disagree with someone because you have a different opinion is one thing. To disagree with someone on blind, stubborn "I don't like you" principle is sheer closed-mindedness. You have made me question whether my arguments with Jon Katz's opinions are based off of genuine thought or ignorant assumption.
I'm going to need to re-read a few things and check, but I'm fairly certain that my initial reading was done critically... Closed-mindedly. If this is the case, then you have been a great help.
I agree with you on mearly all of your points. Perhaps I didn't reference this instance clearly enough, so I will correct it now.
:)
The issue that I took with Mr. Katz on that article and perspective was his angle of, "Take a kid to the movies day," in which he was recommending that you, as a stranger, escort a child or a near-child into an R rated film because the MPAA says that you can't. He took no regard to the interests of the parents that would, at least attempt, to educate their children responsibly.
What is boils down to (in example) was that he was asking you to take my unescorted 12 year-old child into a movie...with no interaction with or approval from me...the child's parent. As a parent, I am aware that the world itself will influence my child in ways that I could never hope to control. The best that I can do is to inform and educate them responsibly and hope for the best. But to see someone outright telling the general public to remove my right to so much as make that attempt to guide my child is ludicrous to me.
This is just one example of the many instances for which he has contrived juvenile, needless and potentially harmful solutions to trivial situations. If I wanted my 12 year-old son to see a movie I would take him there myself. It is MY role to determine what I feel is best for my child...Not Mr. Katz's.
That's all.
I love slashdot, but...Damn. Enough with the pandering bullshit already. Somehow, I find it exceptionally difficult to accept being characterized as a victim. It seems a little bizarre to have some Geek-Friendly Geek-wannabe identify my 'plight' and attempt to offer guidance through these tumultuous times of strife. In reading the writings of Mr. Katz you'd almost have to accept the notion that Computer Users are oppressed...It's utter bunk. This is not the Civil Rights Movement of the sixties. We aren't fighting Communism, Aids, Rascism, Hunger or anything of actual global importance. Where is the oppression in a 12 year-old not being allowed to enter a rated R film without his parents? This is IMPORTANT?? Come off it. How valid is the opinion of a man who would advise you to expose children to things that their young minds may not be prepared to comprehend? How valid are the thoughts of a man that would have us go to such ridiculous extremes for so little...for nothing at all.
/. audience?
/. readers are repeatedly baited by nonsense issues. Repeatedly, we are offered these issues as crises that require radical action. Repeatedly, we are pandered to on the same nerve that he hit with the "Hellmouth" series. It's not working anymore.
Couldn't you guys have selected a more relevant advocate for your
The "Hellmouth" series was a relevant and insightful piece of writing. It was timely and did a lot of good toward opening the eyes of the media, officials and parents to the reality that stupid people do stupid things. It opened up a few eyes to the fact that a stereotypical geek does not kill...a homicidal geek, on the other hand, does. But, why does Mr. Katz believe that every issue at arises is another "Hellmouth" crisis? The answer is: Attention. His interest is not genuine concern. This is business to him. Mr. Katz seeks attention. Attention adds viability to his presence as a journalist which lends to his ability to earn greater sums for future works. It's artificial interest and it shows every time he offers us an issue and urges us to rip the system in response. It's Always The Same! We, as
name it lumpy.
A reissue? I'm still trying to sell 4,000 of the first batch.
It appears to me that Mr. Katz is missing several points here. He seems to have taken a stance that we have some voice in the going's on in film-makerland and that we are surrogate parents. He couldn't be more wrong.
"Hit them in their pocketbooks," says Katz. We cannot "Hit them in their pocketbooks." If a movie, or type of movie fails to make money (at the box office) then those types of film will cease to be in production. If a film company invests $50 Million in a motion picture and that film fails to earn back (at least) it's investment, then they will have learned their lesson...what point have you made? Do you think that a holdings company gives a rat's ass how many people have actually seen the film? No. They are interested in the final dollar intake. Point? Bootleg all you want. Scam your way in the door until your head spins. It doesn't matter; This (and any) genre of film exists because they are big money earners. Take away the money and you take away the film.
"Find a smart 13-year-old who wants to see something off-limits and take him to a movie..." Jon? Isn't it enough that our ever-loving government has determined parent's to be too irresponsible -too stupid- to raise their own children? The ratings system exists for a reason. Why would you even consider further usurping the ability of a parent to raise her or his child as they deem fit? If the parent of a twelve or a thirteen year-old kid doesn't want them exposed to cultural gems like, "Shut Your Fucking Face Uncle Fucker," is it your place to determine that they are mature and aware enough to handle it? Are you going to sit with that adolescent and properly explain the satire of the scenerio? Is it your right to potentially force an unprepared parent into a situation where they will have to deal with it? I'm not saying that you can protect kids or sheild them from anything... eventually, they will be exposed to it. But, I find it hard to believe that you would want to be the one who does the exposing. You might as well run a taxi service for them so that you can be the one who helped them get their first bag of tea.
I cannot answer for the militant censoring movement in theatres. As an adult (!) I have little to be concerned with... Perhaps that is the point, though. 'As an adult,' I have the right and the ability to do and involve myself with every aspect of any culture that I decide, 'As an adult,' to be a part of. This is not an issue of censorship or individual rights. "Ticket Booth Tyranny," is a step in the wrong direction. If you want change, try to put the decision back into the hands of those who are responsible for the results of those decisions...the parents and the children that those parents are raising.
knot@illiterate.net