Because it's high in alcohol? I've drunken beers with an ABV of as high as 25% - higher than any brewed sake I've seen. Because it's not carbonated? The beer the Sumerians drank wasn't carbonated. Because it's made with rice instead of barley malt? You might want to stop by the Anheuser-Busch breweries sometime. Because it's drunken warmer? So are the stronger beers. The only real justification that you have for calling sake a wine is because everyone else calls it a wine. A good comparison here is with the tomato. Yes, the tomato is used and subjectively feels more like a vegetable. That doesn't make it actually a vegetable.
Do you also think malt liquor is actually liquor?
Um, I have somewhere around 140GB of music, most of it 192kbps MP3. That's only been controlled by lack of effort most of the time, being unable to access Soulseek at school, and disk space. And I haven't had the chance to get to a library with music CDs and go to town on their collection since I bought a new hard drive.
Yeah, I listen to all of it, at least a few times, and I like to have it all available in case I want to listen to it again out of the blue (which happens frequently).
I can't agree with your comments. The FCC is a necessity. Just like the ESRB and the MPAA (at least for the sake of rating movies).
If it weren't for the FCC, who would stop you from figuring that a station sucked (which most do) and just taking over their airwaves with your own transmitter?
The airwaves belong to the people, and it has to be regulated. The FCC is also there to make sure that the radio stations do the best they can for the public with those airwaves. If you believe that you can better serve the public than an existing station, you may petition the FCC to give that frequency to you. If you can show that you can do a better job of serving the public, they will give it to you.
Where is it established that the airwaves belong to the people, or that the purpose of the radio should be to serve the public? The purpose of a radio station is whatever the purpose of the individual owners is. There's no such thing as "the public," only individual citizens.
I'm not interesting in arguing politics per se - the problem is that the federal government has been spiraling out of control since the beginning of the 20th century. Where does the Constitution authorize this in any way, shape, or form? Individual states, it seems to me, should be able to form their own communications commissions. But an FCC is crossing the bounds. What on earth does the radio have to do with the "general welfare"? Aren't there better things for us to spend our time and money on? Like, poverty and crime?
I realize this is an absurd argument, but where's the line between this and, say, forming a federal commission to stop tall people from sitting in front of short people at movie theaters? That bothers me a hell of a lot more than pirate radio. What about people talking too loudly in a restaurant? Sometimes I can hardly hear the people I'm with.
The difference between the FCC and the ESRB and MPAA is that the latter two are not government entities. They don't have unlimited powers - all games and movies are rated and censored as agreed upon by all parties...if a given party doesn't agree, they don't have to deal with them.
Why don't we forget what's in the books at Congress for a second?
Payola is clearly constitutional.
The FCC is clearly NOT constitutional.
It's funny how everyone hates the FCC when they try to censor the latest "extreme" shock jock. Yet now they're beloved, because, you know, they're helping the little guy. Damn the man!
The FCC *is* the man. If it didn't exist, you'd see more variety on the airwaves, not less. Regulations only hurt the consumer.
Anything that restricts speech in any form for any reason other than protecting the population from the threat of force is wrong.
This really isn't accurate, unless you have an extremely narrow view of the term "popular artists." This article is a little old, but the problem still exists, and no one can say Albini doesn't know what he's talking about.
The truth is that it's hard to make money on a major label unless you go multi-platinum. This is why you see the lesser acts touring CONSTANTLY; it's the only way they can make money. If you can get distribution it's far easier to make money on an indie for a group that's not likely to sell ten million discs.
Slashdot Mirror
Simple Joe and Jane don't buy Windows upgrades - they get whatever comes with their computer.
Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.
Because it's high in alcohol? I've drunken beers with an ABV of as high as 25% - higher than any brewed sake I've seen. Because it's not carbonated? The beer the Sumerians drank wasn't carbonated. Because it's made with rice instead of barley malt? You might want to stop by the Anheuser-Busch breweries sometime. Because it's drunken warmer? So are the stronger beers. The only real justification that you have for calling sake a wine is because everyone else calls it a wine. A good comparison here is with the tomato. Yes, the tomato is used and subjectively feels more like a vegetable. That doesn't make it actually a vegetable. Do you also think malt liquor is actually liquor?
Whisky is essentially distilled beer.
Um, I have somewhere around 140GB of music, most of it 192kbps MP3. That's only been controlled by lack of effort most of the time, being unable to access Soulseek at school, and disk space. And I haven't had the chance to get to a library with music CDs and go to town on their collection since I bought a new hard drive.
Yeah, I listen to all of it, at least a few times, and I like to have it all available in case I want to listen to it again out of the blue (which happens frequently).
I can't agree with your comments. The FCC is a necessity. Just like the ESRB and the MPAA (at least for the sake of rating movies).
If it weren't for the FCC, who would stop you from figuring that a station sucked (which most do) and just taking over their airwaves with your own transmitter?
The airwaves belong to the people, and it has to be regulated. The FCC is also there to make sure that the radio stations do the best they can for the public with those airwaves. If you believe that you can better serve the public than an existing station, you may petition the FCC to give that frequency to you. If you can show that you can do a better job of serving the public, they will give it to you.
Where is it established that the airwaves belong to the people, or that the purpose of the radio should be to serve the public? The purpose of a radio station is whatever the purpose of the individual owners is. There's no such thing as "the public," only individual citizens.
I'm not interesting in arguing politics per se - the problem is that the federal government has been spiraling out of control since the beginning of the 20th century. Where does the Constitution authorize this in any way, shape, or form? Individual states, it seems to me, should be able to form their own communications commissions. But an FCC is crossing the bounds. What on earth does the radio have to do with the "general welfare"? Aren't there better things for us to spend our time and money on? Like, poverty and crime?
I realize this is an absurd argument, but where's the line between this and, say, forming a federal commission to stop tall people from sitting in front of short people at movie theaters? That bothers me a hell of a lot more than pirate radio. What about people talking too loudly in a restaurant? Sometimes I can hardly hear the people I'm with.
The difference between the FCC and the ESRB and MPAA is that the latter two are not government entities. They don't have unlimited powers - all games and movies are rated and censored as agreed upon by all parties...if a given party doesn't agree, they don't have to deal with them.
Why don't we forget what's in the books at Congress for a second? Payola is clearly constitutional. The FCC is clearly NOT constitutional. It's funny how everyone hates the FCC when they try to censor the latest "extreme" shock jock. Yet now they're beloved, because, you know, they're helping the little guy. Damn the man! The FCC *is* the man. If it didn't exist, you'd see more variety on the airwaves, not less. Regulations only hurt the consumer. Anything that restricts speech in any form for any reason other than protecting the population from the threat of force is wrong.
No one has any Beatles, except allofmp3.com.
This really isn't accurate, unless you have an extremely narrow view of the term "popular artists." This article is a little old, but the problem still exists, and no one can say Albini doesn't know what he's talking about.
The Problem with Music
The truth is that it's hard to make money on a major label unless you go multi-platinum. This is why you see the lesser acts touring CONSTANTLY; it's the only way they can make money. If you can get distribution it's far easier to make money on an indie for a group that's not likely to sell ten million discs.