Quote:
Originally Posted by yoav
even shitty dane cooks can make it big via social networking. he used one of many more appropriate models for artists to get exposure and the only talent it required was internet access.
|
Did he self-publish his CDs, you stupid shit?
No he did not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by yoav
radiohead and merit are already starting to test the waters and so are other bands, even metallica admitted that they went after napster not because they were on that side of the fence, but because they felt there were other artists that were and felt the conversation/debate/war/whatever should have a strong voice on both ends to make real change and have real impact.
|
Who got Radiohead the exposure they have? Who hasn't gotten Merit the exposure they don't have? Hmmm....
Quote:
Originally Posted by yoav
there are tons of bands that have record deals and have a hard time getting exposure still, your argument doesn't hold, and you're comparing the system to a still new revolution in how we regard and manage the arts and creative thought.
|
That's a fucking stupid point, concocted by a stupid mind.
Of course bands that have record deals don't always succeed; that's because bands need to be good
and have a record deal to make name for themselves. But the fact is
good bands, the bands we
want to hear, are the ones that need record labels.
As I said, the only people who are revolting are thieves, not artists. There's a reason every time people mention free songs the same handful of bands is mentioned.
Because only a handful are doing it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by yoav
the concept that i can write a poem on my blog(mine's actually cc licenced but if it wasn't) and if i see you wrote a similar poem that afternoon and can prove you visited my site SUE you and take your money for STEALING my IDEA is ridiculous, and while I don't have all the answers, I don't think anyone does at this point, the system NEEDS to change. the concept NEEDS to change.
|
No, the system doesn't need to change.
You've decided the system
must give you free shit. Fuck you. You're owed nothing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by yoav
that change is taking place right now, the guys from thepiratebay.org are being sued, they just appealed and in sweden the pirate party won a seat in the EU. Most green parties also support filesharing as part of their platform. even the itunes store itself was a big step, the idea that you can buy just one song and choose the quality you want it as. take a look at what creativecommons.org is doing. and open source. it's all branches off the same movement.
it's not about stealing vs. not stealing at this point, it's about a renaissance in the arts to suit our current culture and technology. record companies aren't interested in art. they're interested in putting out infomercials and making a profit. you can get kicked out of university for writing an essay that's simliar to what someone else wrote even if you thought of it by yourself because our thoughts are restricted by the man, you're not free to express your thoughts. ideas are intangible and have no intrinsic value.
|
Guess what: artists are looking to make a profit too. If they
weren't, THEY WOULDN'T BE ASKING YOU FOR MONEY.
Why is it record labels are the
only industry vilified for making a profit? Everything you buy puts profit in somebody's hand. Welcome to capitalism, you socialist bitch. I hope Uncle Sam rapes you with his lawsuit-hard-on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by yoav
i counter this with the kind of person that's spending close to 30 grand on music would by higher bitrate files which cost more than 99c, and that the ipod has a feature where you can have way more songs on your computer and just sync the ones you want to take with you. storage space is irrelevant now, it's ubiquitous, they just found out how to fit 4TB into a square inch with carbon nanorods and iron atoms, the point was how they market storage space.
"hey average consumer, you could fit thirty thousand songs on this device" the next natural step for a comsumer, even one that doesn't pirate is to say "cool how do i get 30,000 songs?". they want you to fill up your ipod so when they bring out 40,000 song capacity you want and need it. which will be in a few months, did you buy your biannual 10,000 songs from the itunes store.
|
You're fucking insane. You're not owed 30,000 songs because you bought an iPod. You paid $250 for a
fucking iPod and
that's it. If you can't afford to fill it up with legally purchased songs, DON'T BUY A FUCKING IPOD.