Quote:
Originally Posted by dzagama
So, unless yoav's definition of "pirated" means, he ripped 14,200 tracks from CDs he purchased, or acquired through some monetary transaction, then he stole them; which you've said (over and over).
|
Given what he has argued, and given the nature of the original article, I am positive he is in support of acquiring art without owning paid copies of that art.
For example:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob
The fact is small artists still succeed because of record labels.
If your stupid, self-serving, hippie bullshit was true, every fuckin' band would be putting their shit online for free. But they're not. They're still on record labels, and they're still selling CDs for $20. Because they want you to fucking buy their music.
Saying that the minority of CD sales goes to the artist is completely pointless. Most of the price tag of canned corn at the supermarket doesn't go to the fuckin' farmer, and yet somehow I don't think he wants you to steal his shit either.
All of you ninnies are fighting a war against The Man on behalf of people who 1) never asked you to do so, and 2) do not agree with you.
As someone who follows unknown bands, I can tell you without question that bands without record label deals have a much harder time getting out there than bands with deals. Record labels are providing exposure for the bands you like, and you're thanking them by fucking them.
You're not entitled to art. No one owes you shit. If the artists do not give you their shit for free, you are a dick for taking it. End of goddamn story.
|
The above post is clearly anti-stealing.
He disagrees with me, though he tries to make record labels the main issue:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
|
But then he slips this bit in:
Quote:
Originally Posted by yoav
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.
|
Essentially, he is saying that ownership of art is an invention of The Man.
He is trying to hide behind the wrongs of the RIAA so that no one notices that he is forcefully ripping the rights of artists out of their hands. We see that is the case through him trying desperately to associate me with the RIAA, despite my very clear disagreements and dissatisfaction with the RIAA.
Yoav is trying to convince us to throw away something that is not wrong because someone used it wrongly. Ownership of art should not be thrown away because of the actions of the RIAA, just like we shouldn't tear up the Constitution of the United States of America because George Bush was a dickface.