Thank you, sir
this post bascially explains the same as my post (please see evolution theory AND fact), where I have referanced the late Dr. Gould's detained explaination of this vernacular trick.
I'm using the definitions OF THE EXPERTS as clarified by deceased Harvard paleantologist Steven J. Gould to clarify what is meant by "theory" of evolution by the scientific community with referance to this area of study.
These are not "MY" definitions.
Maybe next time you will click my link and notice my referances before making such rediculous arrogant accusations and trolling around like this.
Way too many people dissmiss the certainty of evolution because "theory" is in the name. Ronald Reagan was perhaps the most famous person to make this mistake, using the american vernacular refering to "theory" as somthing which is at a lower degree of confidence than a "fact". However within the scientific meaning of "theory of evolution", theory merely means the ideas which explain the facts. "Facts" can be considered to be the raw data which theories are built around.
Example: You walk into a dark room. It is your "theory" that someone has turned the lights out. It is a "fact" that is it dark. It is not a fact that someone has turned the lights out, even if your brother comes into the rooms and confessess to having done so. Facts are data, theories are explainations. A theory is NOT meant to mean "less than confident" fact.
So anyone who argues against evolution because it is "just a theory" is actually arguing semantics, and is making a fundemental gramtical error. There is no such thing as "just" a theory.
Oh actually EXACTLY what I mean is that the pron industry IS lobbying for this too. Just pointing out the irony in using porn as their demon when they in fact have the same interests.
This thread could go on forever about what is and isn't moral sexually, and even be quite progressive. But I think we're all missing the point.
Kiddie porn is perhaps the last great witch hunt. An excellent way to gain cheap political points. What economy? We'll get tough on child porn! A politicians wet dream, so to speak. All the benefits of a stand on a contriversial issue, none of the risks. The only opposing interest is perhaps free speech, but who wants to assert freedom at cost of perhaps looking like a pervert? The opposition becomes minimized.
We know this of course because, if it was a real problem, people would be asking why?. Take a de-sexualized example. Instead of being molested let's see these kids were, I dunno, being run down by the new Ford monolith or somthing. They wouldn't be out looking for blood and to destroy these vehicles. No, there'd be a recall and they'd find an engineering problem in the breaks or somthing and fix it.
This is how "Problem solving" works:
-Problem
-Cause
-Solution
But they don't want a solution really, not with all those easy votes out there.
At least here in Canada the voters didn't bite. I of course refer to Steven Harper's "Paul Martin likes Child Porn" press release. Such a blatent falacy of an accusation, it could have possibly cost Harper the election. People (Canadians anyways) do know when they're being treated like idtiots after all. Warmed the cockles of my heart.
P.S. BT may not be running for office, but they still have a political interest, just like a politician of "looking good".
Is it NOT ENOUGH that this company would be so utterly in bed with the republican party, to have the contracts terminated on the spot? Ok, maybe not, but apart from the anticdotal evidence (promising Ohio, staying in a business that isn't profitable to them) which suggests Diebold has no intention of providing honest election machines, why arn't other parties more critical of this scandal? Why isn't the public crying bloody murder? Why do the standards take forever to be formulated, why not just:
-Verifyable by all parties?
Ie - like the paper elections we have here in Canada. Why does it take a genious, or a tin foil hat wearing activist to point out that a sealed ballot box counted by only one partisan party isn't democratic at all? Why is this even a debate?
Actually, technically the magnetic south pole is aleady in Canada, witout a flip!
Seriously, think about it. The north arrow on your compass points to Canada because the pole is in that direction. However, north attracts south, not north. So when the north end of a magnet points to the north, it's actually pointing to the magnetic pole with a southerly charge! Ie - the one located in the Canadian arctic.
It's actually a case of science meeting semantics. A magnet or compass's "north" pole refers to the fact that it is the north seeking pole. Ie, the pole that will point to the northward direction. Therefore to the pole with the opposite magnetic charge, located on the end of the planet with the same name as the pole which seeks it.
So to summarize, the language defines north and south on the planet's magnetic field inversley as it defines all other magnetic fields. Think of that when on the I-95 in the Dakotas (was there this weekend - not much else do do).
Ya, so what? It IS the government's job to protect us from environmental problems. Be they terrorists or toxins in the environment. Blame schame, if they arn't prepared, they arn't prepared. Being prepared and responding to a situation IS their job. Recovering from natural disasters (should this facilitate one) IS what tax dollars should be for. This all seems pretty basic to me, why are you trying to make said reation sound ironic?
Besides, take 9/11. Sometimes massive disasters are a blessing to those in office.
In a democracy, being apethetic is dumb.
Law enforcement/government, whatever, I don't think there's that much of a differance in interests.
Otherwise - nice post!
-Sony Music will always sell televisions, radios, cameras.
Sony corporation is a large manufacturer of electronics as well as recordings. I didn't say it would colapse, but ya, I doubt that everyone will keep their job. And like many factory workers before them, that's not nessicarily a bad thing. On the contrary for sony to then move on to make that money in the electronics to play the music is EXACTLY what I'm advocating.
How the artist gets paid
Maybe they won't! For the recording itself that is. That's what I mean by "differant economic model". Maybe the incentive for finding music will increase, because the record contract model is obselete. This would likely force up the price of airtime on radio (IP, RF, or otherwise). A popular artist on radio could then sell the right to have future recordings at a radio station done at a higher price. A pay-to-record rather than a pay-to-play model. I don't know if it will work, but it could.
As for the writers, well naturally they would still get paid as a percentage of whatever the artist makes on a song. Or they could just outright sell the music. Will it be AS profitable? I didn't say it would. But again - so what? In fact, if more people can get more music more cheaply, that would force down the value of their service economically, regardless of the technology. Also - that's a good thing. They'll just have to keep competeing like everyone else in every other industry.
The core of my thesis is that if what you're doing is useful - then somehow, some way, you'll get paid for it. The correct model just has to be found (and the correct model WILL be found if the technology is allowed to be unrestricted). That and with unregulated technology, you'll get paid the appropriate ammount (as to being overpaid as with the current, broken model - which inversely works for everyone except the consumer). Yes the executives might be on the top of my list as "overpaid", but neither am I crying for the writers or people like you that are crying about what could happen to their paycheck.
Nobody gets hurt except the rich? Probably not, but I am ammused at the idea that the top of the ladder has been rendered obselete instead of the bottom for once. But then technology changes and people get hurt all the time. Doesn't mean music won't happen. If there's a market, then there's a market, then there's a market. People get hurt all the time by advancing technology, but they move on to better things (like said sony corp in your example).
Deal.
Well if I'm scared, in a more general way, then it's of People like you who are more concerned with their own personal interest, then the advancement of society and technology in a brave manner.
I wasn't making the point that a superiour product has been invented. I was making the point that markets don't colapse when people do things differantly.
-People should pay for anything that enrighes their life.
Why? If they don't need to that is. If technology provides that is. Isn't that the ultimate goal of automation? Make things available with as little human resources commited as possible? Maybe people will have to pay for people to sift through the crap to find anything that is good. A "DJ" service rather than record executives finding acts on their on fruition, because they can sell them after that. It's backwards to the current model, but hey, it could work.
Don't fear the technology. Figure out how to use it.
You're confusing the CPCC with the CRTC. And the point was that artists can be helped without the use of copyright law (as you assured was required), and heavy handege legislation.
Furthermore, I don't think it is an "economic problem". The market always adjusts, it just takes differant forms. Maybe there will be no place for fatass corporate record executives. Maybe the new real service will be finding the music that's any good in a sea of mp3s. As long as poeple want music, it will be made. That won't fail. Maybe most musicians will have working class wages, and we get more selection. I don't cry about that. No, today we're supposed to cry for the millionaires who can't keep their iron grip.
Furthermore, I didn't say the CRTC was into P2P. However they, along with CBC has promoted Canadian artists, so as that they have been looked for on P2P's more often. And these up-and-commers have the most to gain from P2P. Sure you can rip off the entire Britney Spears album, but good luck finding more then a few "Doctor" singles. Enough to leave you wanting more. Those who need promotion have the most to gain from P2P, the exact contrary of your former argument.
What will die is the ability of musicians to make a living.
How do you know that? With all the music flying round P2P, finding music will be a service with a value. Radio will come into this. It already has. Perhaps however with no monopolies the market will be much more wide upon, and artists which can independantly distrubute will find indpendent internet dj's to promote them. People with taste will gain notoriety. It can work, but it will be differant.
My guess however is that, due to your political bias', you fear change. "Bleeding heart" indeed. Oh yes, gearing public policy to help people that need help *gasp* how horrible!
A working class steelworker looses his job overseas to a korean. That's progress. An autoworker to a robot? Progress. A record executive to a P2P network. Oh, that's a new economic model which will destroy the ecomomic viability.
Bah, sorry if I balk on that one. Markets don't colapse as long as people want somthing. The differance is who's interest's you're looking out for. And as any good Republic - it's the rich and powerful.
We can talk about music, but this whole scenario is a sythtom of a greater trend.
We live in a society where technologcal development is supposed to make life better by audimating things. A technology has been developed that could - theoretically - completely audimate the music distribution process.
So why doesn't everyone get everything for free? Oh because we're so worried about the economic establishment, can it be viable blah blah blah.
Oh sure, maybe differant people will make the money, maybe not as much money will be made, but the job will be done. There will always be a market for music. Somehow, one way or another, really let's be serious. Sure the way we listen to it may change, or how much, when, what type. Music after all is culture, and culture changes with technology. We know this already, we can find many examples of it.
Do we fear this change? No of course not. If We were only to fear technology no progess would be made. Instead we blaze forward like we always have. If we start second guessing that technology makes life better, where do we stop? Might as well go back to the stone age. Sure, I believe in a Pandora's box, but we can't be second guessing ourselves as engineers.
So the center issue reamains, is our society really based on innovation and advancement, or is it like so many before it, merely based upon the control of power. The power of the record companies to gouge us for somthing we don't need (an obsolete distribution network). The power of Orrin Hatch to be re-elected thanks to campaign contributions from his corparte buddies which he has made a career in doing favours for.
So make up your mind. The bravery to ebrace innovation, or the cowardice in the protection of the powerful (Like the RIAA to ensure us our music).
Oh absolutely.
Remember, P2P is merely the bastion of Terrorists and Pornographers everywhere.
The irony of course being that while Kazaa is full of Porn, the pornography industry is more or less in the same boat as the RIAA. But I guess the religious right is too much of a political ally for the RIAA to also-(pardon the pun)- be be in bed with the Pornography industry .
-Make money how they choose
-Try to make money how they choose
Sure they can try all they want, but they are doing somthing for which we are not obligated to pay for whatsoever (see my analogy), there remains no RIGHT to make money there. Even if your'e merely "trying" and not expecting to.
Ya try all you want - within the context of a world where digital distribution exists. If it doesn't work within that context, find a way the works. Live preformances were a suggestion, not an edict thank you.
Arguing for that "right to try" is like me asking for cars to be illegal so that I may protect my "right to try" to make a living as a cart and buggy salesmen.
This is what's known as a FREE MARKET (not that I'm a free market fundementalist). So please don't argue "my sense of freedom".
No no no, get this straight, your freedom to make money is limited to activities that are actually economically valuable one way or another. I'm not advocating musicians be forced BY US to operate a certain manner. I'm stating the very obvious fact of life that musicians, just like everybody else *gasp* must operate as modern technology dictates is economically useful. Deny that, and well, you might as well tell me you should be getting paid to yes, mastrubate and eat corn chips. (re KITH anyone?)
P2P may change what is economically useful in the industry, and maybe artists will have to expand and not be strictly recorders, but then doctors have to use X-rays, construction companies have to use bulldozers ect ect ect. Those are the facts on the ground. If you're going to deny that technology shapes our lives - well then welcome to slashdot.
Legislating said marketplace to suit your own purposes - especially through your Utah-based friends. No, that's restricting freedom.
You can't? Bullshit... Look what the CRTC has done here in Canada to promote stuggling up and comming Canadian artists. The CRTC has never sold a single record.
Dont' need P2P? Ya sure, you don't. I don't need a car to get to work either, but it sure makes life easier.
Hate to break it to you, but the whole purpose of a technological evolving marketplace is to employ new technologies. It's not up to you "the artist" to write the rules, the rules are dictated by the technology.
Sure, don't use the tools, just don't blame your consumers when the way you do your business doesn't work.
I guess I'll just have to go back to being a minstral class-Beck
Stealing from your store?
What does your store sell? Maybe it's vegetables? Now they're not actually taking your vegetables, they're taking the seeds out of the ones you sold them, and using them to grow their own in vegetable gardens.
Is this stealing? I think not.
Still going to go get them with your "big fucking bat"? Maybe instead all you have to do is get the cops to do it for you, after you call in a favour from one of your Utah based Washington buddies.
That's exactly the method of thinking that the RIAA uses. That you have a RIGHT to make money how you choose.
Wrong.
I could cry all day that I don't get paid to masturbate and eat corn chips, but that doesn't make it economically viable either.
You want to get paid for somthing, you need a business model that works. Otherwise i'm not crying for you and your "rights". Not all music is done for crowds or live? Too bad! Maybe you're going to have to if you want some cash, welcome to the twenty first century.
I hope everyone one gets the double irony of that post.
Namely the conflict between the concepts of "freedom" and "wall".
I'm sure eventually we'll all end up in our "freedom cages".
I can hook you up, but not for long. Once this legislation gets passed, and all the software companies move up here, Real estate is going to skyrocket.
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you, sir this post bascially explains the same as my post (please see evolution theory AND fact), where I have referanced the late Dr. Gould's detained explaination of this vernacular trick.
Nooo....
I'm using the definitions OF THE EXPERTS as clarified by deceased Harvard paleantologist Steven J. Gould to clarify what is meant by "theory" of evolution by the scientific community with referance to this area of study.
These are not "MY" definitions.
Maybe next time you will click my link and notice my referances before making such rediculous arrogant accusations and trolling around like this.
Way too many people dissmiss the certainty of evolution because "theory" is in the name. Ronald Reagan was perhaps the most famous person to make this mistake, using the american vernacular refering to "theory" as somthing which is at a lower degree of confidence than a "fact". However within the scientific meaning of "theory of evolution", theory merely means the ideas which explain the facts. "Facts" can be considered to be the raw data which theories are built around.
Example: You walk into a dark room. It is your "theory" that someone has turned the lights out. It is a "fact" that is it dark. It is not a fact that someone has turned the lights out, even if your brother comes into the rooms and confessess to having done so. Facts are data, theories are explainations. A theory is NOT meant to mean "less than confident" fact.
So anyone who argues against evolution because it is "just a theory" is actually arguing semantics, and is making a fundemental gramtical error. There is no such thing as "just" a theory.
more information here
Well, that's the current political climate down here on earth. Much more interested in taking over earth. No money for NASA, how much did Iraq cost?
But don't worry, they'll find more money again once Bush is re-elected and Iran is the next big "terrorist threat".
Oh actually EXACTLY what I mean is that the pron industry IS lobbying for this too. Just pointing out the irony in using porn as their demon when they in fact have the same interests.
This thread could go on forever about what is and isn't moral sexually, and even be quite progressive. But I think we're all missing the point.
Kiddie porn is perhaps the last great witch hunt. An excellent way to gain cheap political points. What economy? We'll get tough on child porn! A politicians wet dream, so to speak. All the benefits of a stand on a contriversial issue, none of the risks. The only opposing interest is perhaps free speech, but who wants to assert freedom at cost of perhaps looking like a pervert? The opposition becomes minimized.
We know this of course because, if it was a real problem, people would be asking why?. Take a de-sexualized example. Instead of being molested let's see these kids were, I dunno, being run down by the new Ford monolith or somthing. They wouldn't be out looking for blood and to destroy these vehicles. No, there'd be a recall and they'd find an engineering problem in the breaks or somthing and fix it.
This is how "Problem solving" works:
-Problem
-Cause
-Solution
But they don't want a solution really, not with all those easy votes out there.
At least here in Canada the voters didn't bite. I of course refer to Steven Harper's "Paul Martin likes Child Porn" press release. Such a blatent falacy of an accusation, it could have possibly cost Harper the election. People (Canadians anyways) do know when they're being treated like idtiots after all. Warmed the cockles of my heart.
P.S. BT may not be running for office, but they still have a political interest, just like a politician of "looking good".
Is it NOT ENOUGH that this company would be so utterly in bed with the republican party, to have the contracts terminated on the spot? Ok, maybe not, but apart from the anticdotal evidence (promising Ohio, staying in a business that isn't profitable to them) which suggests Diebold has no intention of providing honest election machines, why arn't other parties more critical of this scandal? Why isn't the public crying bloody murder? Why do the standards take forever to be formulated, why not just:
-Verifyable by all parties?
Ie - like the paper elections we have here in Canada. Why does it take a genious, or a tin foil hat wearing activist to point out that a sealed ballot box counted by only one partisan party isn't democratic at all? Why is this even a debate?
Actually, technically the magnetic south pole is aleady in Canada, witout a flip!
Seriously, think about it. The north arrow on your compass points to Canada because the pole is in that direction. However, north attracts south, not north. So when the north end of a magnet points to the north, it's actually pointing to the magnetic pole with a southerly charge! Ie - the one located in the Canadian arctic.
It's actually a case of science meeting semantics. A magnet or compass's "north" pole refers to the fact that it is the north seeking pole. Ie, the pole that will point to the northward direction. Therefore to the pole with the opposite magnetic charge, located on the end of the planet with the same name as the pole which seeks it.
So to summarize, the language defines north and south on the planet's magnetic field inversley as it defines all other magnetic fields. Think of that when on the I-95 in the Dakotas (was there this weekend - not much else do do).
Loss of sex drive.
Ya, so what? It IS the government's job to protect us from environmental problems. Be they terrorists or toxins in the environment. Blame schame, if they arn't prepared, they arn't prepared. Being prepared and responding to a situation IS their job. Recovering from natural disasters (should this facilitate one) IS what tax dollars should be for. This all seems pretty basic to me, why are you trying to make said reation sound ironic?
Besides, take 9/11. Sometimes massive disasters are a blessing to those in office.
How is this insight?
The government should
In a democracy, being apethetic is dumb.
Law enforcement/government, whatever, I don't think there's that much of a differance in interests.
Otherwise - nice post!
-Sony Music will always sell televisions, radios, cameras.
Sony corporation is a large manufacturer of electronics as well as recordings. I didn't say it would colapse, but ya, I doubt that everyone will keep their job. And like many factory workers before them, that's not nessicarily a bad thing. On the contrary for sony to then move on to make that money in the electronics to play the music is EXACTLY what I'm advocating.
How the artist gets paid
Maybe they won't! For the recording itself that is. That's what I mean by "differant economic model". Maybe the incentive for finding music will increase, because the record contract model is obselete. This would likely force up the price of airtime on radio (IP, RF, or otherwise). A popular artist on radio could then sell the right to have future recordings at a radio station done at a higher price. A pay-to-record rather than a pay-to-play model. I don't know if it will work, but it could.
As for the writers, well naturally they would still get paid as a percentage of whatever the artist makes on a song. Or they could just outright sell the music. Will it be AS profitable? I didn't say it would. But again - so what? In fact, if more people can get more music more cheaply, that would force down the value of their service economically, regardless of the technology. Also - that's a good thing. They'll just have to keep competeing like everyone else in every other industry.
The core of my thesis is that if what you're doing is useful - then somehow, some way, you'll get paid for it. The correct model just has to be found (and the correct model WILL be found if the technology is allowed to be unrestricted). That and with unregulated technology, you'll get paid the appropriate ammount (as to being overpaid as with the current, broken model - which inversely works for everyone except the consumer). Yes the executives might be on the top of my list as "overpaid", but neither am I crying for the writers or people like you that are crying about what could happen to their paycheck.
Nobody gets hurt except the rich? Probably not, but I am ammused at the idea that the top of the ladder has been rendered obselete instead of the bottom for once. But then technology changes and people get hurt all the time. Doesn't mean music won't happen. If there's a market, then there's a market, then there's a market. People get hurt all the time by advancing technology, but they move on to better things (like said sony corp in your example).
Deal.
Well if I'm scared, in a more general way, then it's of People like you who are more concerned with their own personal interest, then the advancement of society and technology in a brave manner.
-Analogy doesn't fit
I wasn't making the point that a superiour product has been invented. I was making the point that markets don't colapse when people do things differantly.
-People should pay for anything that enrighes their life.
Why? If they don't need to that is. If technology provides that is. Isn't that the ultimate goal of automation? Make things available with as little human resources commited as possible? Maybe people will have to pay for people to sift through the crap to find anything that is good. A "DJ" service rather than record executives finding acts on their on fruition, because they can sell them after that. It's backwards to the current model, but hey, it could work.
Don't fear the technology. Figure out how to use it.
You're confusing the CPCC with the CRTC. And the point was that artists can be helped without the use of copyright law (as you assured was required), and heavy handege legislation. Furthermore, I don't think it is an "economic problem". The market always adjusts, it just takes differant forms. Maybe there will be no place for fatass corporate record executives. Maybe the new real service will be finding the music that's any good in a sea of mp3s. As long as poeple want music, it will be made. That won't fail. Maybe most musicians will have working class wages, and we get more selection. I don't cry about that. No, today we're supposed to cry for the millionaires who can't keep their iron grip.
Furthermore, I didn't say the CRTC was into P2P. However they, along with CBC has promoted Canadian artists, so as that they have been looked for on P2P's more often. And these up-and-commers have the most to gain from P2P. Sure you can rip off the entire Britney Spears album, but good luck finding more then a few "Doctor" singles. Enough to leave you wanting more. Those who need promotion have the most to gain from P2P, the exact contrary of your former argument.
What will die is the ability of musicians to make a living. How do you know that? With all the music flying round P2P, finding music will be a service with a value. Radio will come into this. It already has. Perhaps however with no monopolies the market will be much more wide upon, and artists which can independantly distrubute will find indpendent internet dj's to promote them. People with taste will gain notoriety. It can work, but it will be differant.
My guess however is that, due to your political bias', you fear change. "Bleeding heart" indeed. Oh yes, gearing public policy to help people that need help *gasp* how horrible! A working class steelworker looses his job overseas to a korean. That's progress. An autoworker to a robot? Progress. A record executive to a P2P network. Oh, that's a new economic model which will destroy the ecomomic viability.
Bah, sorry if I balk on that one. Markets don't colapse as long as people want somthing. The differance is who's interest's you're looking out for. And as any good Republic - it's the rich and powerful.
We can talk about music, but this whole scenario is a sythtom of a greater trend. We live in a society where technologcal development is supposed to make life better by audimating things. A technology has been developed that could - theoretically - completely audimate the music distribution process. So why doesn't everyone get everything for free? Oh because we're so worried about the economic establishment, can it be viable blah blah blah. Oh sure, maybe differant people will make the money, maybe not as much money will be made, but the job will be done. There will always be a market for music. Somehow, one way or another, really let's be serious. Sure the way we listen to it may change, or how much, when, what type. Music after all is culture, and culture changes with technology. We know this already, we can find many examples of it. Do we fear this change? No of course not. If We were only to fear technology no progess would be made. Instead we blaze forward like we always have. If we start second guessing that technology makes life better, where do we stop? Might as well go back to the stone age. Sure, I believe in a Pandora's box, but we can't be second guessing ourselves as engineers. So the center issue reamains, is our society really based on innovation and advancement, or is it like so many before it, merely based upon the control of power. The power of the record companies to gouge us for somthing we don't need (an obsolete distribution network). The power of Orrin Hatch to be re-elected thanks to campaign contributions from his corparte buddies which he has made a career in doing favours for. So make up your mind. The bravery to ebrace innovation, or the cowardice in the protection of the powerful (Like the RIAA to ensure us our music).
I suspect it a case of enteraintmenindustrycamapignfunddonationsitus. Can anyone confirm this?
Oh absolutely. Remember, P2P is merely the bastion of Terrorists and Pornographers everywhere. The irony of course being that while Kazaa is full of Porn, the pornography industry is more or less in the same boat as the RIAA. But I guess the religious right is too much of a political ally for the RIAA to also-(pardon the pun)- be be in bed with the Pornography industry .
You're splitting hairs.
-Make money how they choose
-Try to make money how they choose
Sure they can try all they want, but they are doing somthing for which we are not obligated to pay for whatsoever (see my analogy), there remains no RIGHT to make money there. Even if your'e merely "trying" and not expecting to.
Ya try all you want - within the context of a world where digital distribution exists. If it doesn't work within that context, find a way the works. Live preformances were a suggestion, not an edict thank you.
Arguing for that "right to try" is like me asking for cars to be illegal so that I may protect my "right to try" to make a living as a cart and buggy salesmen.
This is what's known as a FREE MARKET (not that I'm a free market fundementalist). So please don't argue "my sense of freedom".
No no no, get this straight, your freedom to make money is limited to activities that are actually economically valuable one way or another. I'm not advocating musicians be forced BY US to operate a certain manner. I'm stating the very obvious fact of life that musicians, just like everybody else *gasp* must operate as modern technology dictates is economically useful. Deny that, and well, you might as well tell me you should be getting paid to yes, mastrubate and eat corn chips. (re KITH anyone?)
P2P may change what is economically useful in the industry, and maybe artists will have to expand and not be strictly recorders, but then doctors have to use X-rays, construction companies have to use bulldozers ect ect ect. Those are the facts on the ground. If you're going to deny that technology shapes our lives - well then welcome to slashdot.
Legislating said marketplace to suit your own purposes - especially through your Utah-based friends. No, that's restricting freedom.
You can't? Bullshit... Look what the CRTC has done here in Canada to promote stuggling up and comming Canadian artists. The CRTC has never sold a single record. Dont' need P2P? Ya sure, you don't. I don't need a car to get to work either, but it sure makes life easier. Hate to break it to you, but the whole purpose of a technological evolving marketplace is to employ new technologies. It's not up to you "the artist" to write the rules, the rules are dictated by the technology.
Sure, don't use the tools, just don't blame your consumers when the way you do your business doesn't work.
I guess I'll just have to go back to being a minstral class-Beck
Stealing from your store? What does your store sell? Maybe it's vegetables? Now they're not actually taking your vegetables, they're taking the seeds out of the ones you sold them, and using them to grow their own in vegetable gardens. Is this stealing? I think not. Still going to go get them with your "big fucking bat"? Maybe instead all you have to do is get the cops to do it for you, after you call in a favour from one of your Utah based Washington buddies.
That's exactly the method of thinking that the RIAA uses. That you have a RIGHT to make money how you choose. Wrong. I could cry all day that I don't get paid to masturbate and eat corn chips, but that doesn't make it economically viable either. You want to get paid for somthing, you need a business model that works. Otherwise i'm not crying for you and your "rights". Not all music is done for crowds or live? Too bad! Maybe you're going to have to if you want some cash, welcome to the twenty first century.
I hope everyone one gets the double irony of that post. Namely the conflict between the concepts of "freedom" and "wall". I'm sure eventually we'll all end up in our "freedom cages".
I can hook you up, but not for long. Once this legislation gets passed, and all the software companies move up here, Real estate is going to skyrocket.