Don't buy. Just don't pirate it either. try to live only with your no-names and regional acts, try to have a meaningful discussion with friends about bands they know nothing about, while they are talking between themselves about the new platinum albums out there, and you will realize that you turned off your social aspects entirely.
This is precisely what I've been doing since 2008. The best part of it is turning friends to bands that I've discovered, that they would probably have otherwise never heard of. As for any aquaintences that only listen to label garbage, that's their problem, not mine.
Meaning that it came from the industry to begin with?
Much of it, yes. Once it's in the public domain, however, it's no longer "tainted."
Not doubting you, but can I get an example?
Jamendo, Vodo, Magnatune are my major sources, and a few specific examples are Josh Woodward, Singleton, Tryad, and Pioneer One.
Are you talking about the SOPA proposals that were withdrawn by the authoras of the bill, or something else?
I'm talking about "This website has been seized by the authority of ICE, and your IP has been logged." I probably should have said "rerouting" instead of "blocking," but eh, semantics.
Why, because they were are resource for infringing content? Big surprise.
Infringing? I know of nothing "infringing" on the Internet Archive. They're primarily a source of public domain material.
Threatened? By who? What were the circumstances?
A certain country music writer, who will remain nameless, since I don't want to start it all over again (and I also can't prove it was specifically him). It involved him getting my phone number and leaving threatening voice mails at my home.
So you fight tooth and nail against something you have no stake in and has no meaning in your life? Interesting, why?
The content or industry that produces it have no real meaning to me. Trouble is, the industry's little decade-long hissy fit has rammifications that go well beyond access to its content.
Your industry has waged war against the public domain, which is where much of the art I enjoy comes from. Your industry has waged war with Creative Commons, which where pretty much the rest of the art I enjoy comes from. Your industry has pressured the government into DNS blocking websites that frequently aren't guilty of copyright infringement, has pressured foreign governments into big publicity, SWAT-style raids on foreign businesses that they apparently have no real case against (read: Megaupload), and has even declared the Internet Archive a "rogue website." And many of us - myself included - have been personally threatened just for taking contrary positions to the industry stance on the subject.
The trouble with your crowd is, you automatically think anyone who opposes your maximalism in any way is a "pirate." This is why the widespread opposition to SOPA blindsided you. You just keep going on and on about your alleged "rights," and "stealing," and "entitlement," when in reality most of us have moved past that a long time ago.
Lots of ground to cover here. A producer's cost in but one of a myriad of factors affecting price. But affect the price it will.
For the millionth time, consumers don't give a flying fuck about your sunk costs, nor should they. If you can't figure out how to produce/market/distribute something and market it a price that consumers like and you find profitable, that's your problem and your problem alone. Nobody owes you a living.
And good luck with your "revolution". I've seen the glassy-eyed stoners; unhygienic hippie chicks; effeminate, Communist pseudo-intellectuals; bums and other rabble on the cutting edge of your "movement". Quite frankly, it looks more like a bowel movement to me. So let me know when to expect to hear from the dictatorship of the proletariat.
This isn't 1971 anymore, Mr. Bunker, and the people you fight are pretty damn far from a fringe. More like a tenth of the world population.
Until then, I'll be here laughing at you.
Then you'll fight him. Then you'll lose to him. That's the order you will eventually become educated in.
Maybe instead of taking other people's stuff you could get a library card or simply do without.
What part of "I have never pirated anything" is your goofy ass having trouble with? Guy like art guerilla (and myself, for that matter) are your worst nightmare. We're the people who actually do without your so-called "art," and still fight you tooth and nail every step of the way. You have no leverage against us, but we can burn you to the fucking ground. Nice to meet you.
And why don't you tell all of your readers about how even you admit that copyright is "property" as that word is used in the U.S. Constitution, Mike? Please, tell everyone that you believe that. And given that even you believe that copyright is property under the Constitution, isn't it dishonest of you to then pretend that it's dishonest to say that it's property?
And where in the copyright clause of the Constitution is the word "property" used?
And you can pretend all day that the article was full of hatred, and but I don't recall Mike ever calling Mossoff a "fucking asshole," a "coward," or anything even similar.
If you actually go back and read the majority of Stephen King's works you'll find that in general his best works were written when he wasn't able to write full time, and was instead working various jobs from being a cashier at a convenient store to being a teacher.
An interesting point...I think generally, the best art is produced by someone with fresh life experiences. Not someone holed up in an ivory tower collecting checks.
In today's market, a Philip K Dick would probably be writing a blog at night and flipping burgers during the day. How sad is that?
Not sad at all. If an artist gets his work out there in any capacity, then I couldn't care less what his career choices or personal finances are like. It's none of my business.
But don't you realize? If he told us what he makes and where to buy it, we might STEAL it instead! Therefore, while complaining about his work being STOLEN, he refuses to tell anyone where to buy it, because then they might STEAL it!
Someone is sure to point out that Sato is only doing this after selling 10 million copies thanks to existing copyright laws, as if that somehow negates the effort he's making.
Amusingly enough, if he hadn't sold millions of copies, the naysayers would just as quickly say that he's only giving any the work because nobody wants it.
Have I missed something? Has anyone here ever denied anyone the ability to keep their work under copyright restriction?
Personally, I look forward to stories like this one, since I believe there should be less restriction to the dissemination and building upon of creative works. But if anyone else decides not to do similar with their own output, then that's their entitlement. Just as it's my entitlement not to read/watch/listen to their output as a consequence.
This is too funny...first you industry pole-smokers whine when your noise gets pirated, saying "If you don't want to pay for it, just go without it!" Now met with someone who is going without it, your response is akin to "Well, who cares? We didn't want your money in the first place! And we'll say the exact same thing to the thousands of people who start following you!"
"We don't care if she's a single mother who just swapped 24 songs that she liked online, we're going to destroy her life by forcing her to pay us millions of dollars! We have sympathy for her, she brought it on herself! How dare she like music! And if you disagree, then you're a FREETARD!"
2.Gross and persistent attitude of irresponsibility and disregard for social norms, rules, and obligations.
"We don't care if 500 million people worldwide engage in such acts, we won't allow it! Lock everything down! Everyone will just tolerate it if we cut off their internet connections, and they'll love us again!"
3.Incapacity to maintain enduring relationships, though having no difficulty in establishing them.
"Okay, we're going to pay your band $500,000 in advance, payable out of your royalties if you recoup at a normal 8% rate. You're really going places! Those other bands that have one hit and are never heard from again? That won't be you! You have a unique voice, just like every act we signed before you!"
4. Very low tolerance to frustration and a low threshold for discharge of aggression, including violence.
"Why won't Mike debate me, that stupid piracy apologist freetard Google Big Search Cookies shill?"
5. Incapacity to experience guilt or to profit from experience, particularly punishment.
"Why are hundreds of thousands of people DDOSing our official website right now? We never did anything wrong!"
6. Markedly prone to blame others or to offer plausible rationalizations for the behavior that has brought the person into conflict with society.
"It's sad that the millions of people worldwide protesting us care more about THIEVES that the UNDENIABLE RIGHTS of our roster of ARTISTS and CREATORS."
On the post: Next Time Someone Suggests Piracy Will Kill Music, Remind Them That Music Survived The Last Ice Age
Re: Re: Re:
This is precisely what I've been doing since 2008. The best part of it is turning friends to bands that I've discovered, that they would probably have otherwise never heard of. As for any aquaintences that only listen to label garbage, that's their problem, not mine.
On the post: MPAA & RIAA: If People Can Sell Foreign Purchased Content Without Paying Us Again, US Economy May Collapse
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Much of it, yes. Once it's in the public domain, however, it's no longer "tainted."
Not doubting you, but can I get an example?
Jamendo, Vodo, Magnatune are my major sources, and a few specific examples are Josh Woodward, Singleton, Tryad, and Pioneer One.
Are you talking about the SOPA proposals that were withdrawn by the authoras of the bill, or something else?
I'm talking about "This website has been seized by the authority of ICE, and your IP has been logged." I probably should have said "rerouting" instead of "blocking," but eh, semantics.
Why, because they were are resource for infringing content? Big surprise.
Infringing? I know of nothing "infringing" on the Internet Archive. They're primarily a source of public domain material.
Threatened? By who? What were the circumstances?
A certain country music writer, who will remain nameless, since I don't want to start it all over again (and I also can't prove it was specifically him). It involved him getting my phone number and leaving threatening voice mails at my home.
On the post: MPAA & RIAA: If People Can Sell Foreign Purchased Content Without Paying Us Again, US Economy May Collapse
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The content or industry that produces it have no real meaning to me. Trouble is, the industry's little decade-long hissy fit has rammifications that go well beyond access to its content.
Your industry has waged war against the public domain, which is where much of the art I enjoy comes from. Your industry has waged war with Creative Commons, which where pretty much the rest of the art I enjoy comes from. Your industry has pressured the government into DNS blocking websites that frequently aren't guilty of copyright infringement, has pressured foreign governments into big publicity, SWAT-style raids on foreign businesses that they apparently have no real case against (read: Megaupload), and has even declared the Internet Archive a "rogue website." And many of us - myself included - have been personally threatened just for taking contrary positions to the industry stance on the subject.
The trouble with your crowd is, you automatically think anyone who opposes your maximalism in any way is a "pirate." This is why the widespread opposition to SOPA blindsided you. You just keep going on and on about your alleged "rights," and "stealing," and "entitlement," when in reality most of us have moved past that a long time ago.
On the post: MPAA & RIAA: If People Can Sell Foreign Purchased Content Without Paying Us Again, US Economy May Collapse
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
For the millionth time, consumers don't give a flying fuck about your sunk costs, nor should they. If you can't figure out how to produce/market/distribute something and market it a price that consumers like and you find profitable, that's your problem and your problem alone. Nobody owes you a living.
And good luck with your "revolution". I've seen the glassy-eyed stoners; unhygienic hippie chicks; effeminate, Communist pseudo-intellectuals; bums and other rabble on the cutting edge of your "movement". Quite frankly, it looks more like a bowel movement to me. So let me know when to expect to hear from the dictatorship of the proletariat.
This isn't 1971 anymore, Mr. Bunker, and the people you fight are pretty damn far from a fringe. More like a tenth of the world population.
Until then, I'll be here laughing at you.
Then you'll fight him. Then you'll lose to him. That's the order you will eventually become educated in.
Maybe instead of taking other people's stuff you could get a library card or simply do without.
What part of "I have never pirated anything" is your goofy ass having trouble with? Guy like art guerilla (and myself, for that matter) are your worst nightmare. We're the people who actually do without your so-called "art," and still fight you tooth and nail every step of the way. You have no leverage against us, but we can burn you to the fucking ground. Nice to meet you.
On the post: This Is What's Wrong With The Music Industry: Musicians Have To Pay To Pay Themselves
Re:
On the post: Anyone Who Says Copyright Cannot Be Used For Censorship Has No Credibility
Re:
And where in the copyright clause of the Constitution is the word "property" used?
And you can pretend all day that the article was full of hatred, and but I don't recall Mike ever calling Mossoff a "fucking asshole," a "coward," or anything even similar.
On the post: This Is Not Transparency: TPP Delegates Refuses To Reveal Text, Refuse To Discuss Leaked Text
Re: Re:
On the post: This Is Not Transparency: TPP Delegates Refuses To Reveal Text, Refuse To Discuss Leaked Text
Re:
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
An interesting point...I think generally, the best art is produced by someone with fresh life experiences. Not someone holed up in an ivory tower collecting checks.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Why Does Copyright Last 70 Years After Death... But Licenses Expire At Death?
Re:
On the post: Copyright Enforcement Bots Seek And Destroy Hugo Awards
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why would they pay $25 a month to a pirate site when they can torrent shit for free?
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not sad at all. If an artist gets his work out there in any capacity, then I couldn't care less what his career choices or personal finances are like. It's none of my business.
On the post: Crime Inc. Produces Thoughtful, Nuanced Episode About Piracy (Haha, Just Kidding! Cue Scary Music)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Poor gatekeepers
It makes perfect sense!
On the post: Award-Winning Manga Author Opens Up His Work To Be Used By 'Anyone, Anywhere, For Anything,' Royalty-Free
Amusingly enough, if he hadn't sold millions of copies, the naysayers would just as quickly say that he's only giving any the work because nobody wants it.
On the post: Award-Winning Manga Author Opens Up His Work To Be Used By 'Anyone, Anywhere, For Anything,' Royalty-Free
Re:
Personally, I look forward to stories like this one, since I believe there should be less restriction to the dissemination and building upon of creative works. But if anyone else decides not to do similar with their own output, then that's their entitlement. Just as it's my entitlement not to read/watch/listen to their output as a consequence.
On the post: District Court: $675,000 For Non-commercially Sharing 30 Songs Is Perfectly Reasonable
Re: Re: Re:
Bed. Made. Lie.
On the post: So Many Similarities Between Copyright Law And Prohibition
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"We don't care if she's a single mother who just swapped 24 songs that she liked online, we're going to destroy her life by forcing her to pay us millions of dollars! We have sympathy for her, she brought it on herself! How dare she like music! And if you disagree, then you're a FREETARD!"
2.Gross and persistent attitude of irresponsibility and disregard for social norms, rules, and obligations.
"We don't care if 500 million people worldwide engage in such acts, we won't allow it! Lock everything down! Everyone will just tolerate it if we cut off their internet connections, and they'll love us again!"
3.Incapacity to maintain enduring relationships, though having no difficulty in establishing them.
"Okay, we're going to pay your band $500,000 in advance, payable out of your royalties if you recoup at a normal 8% rate. You're really going places! Those other bands that have one hit and are never heard from again? That won't be you! You have a unique voice, just like every act we signed before you!"
4. Very low tolerance to frustration and a low threshold for discharge of aggression, including violence.
"Why won't Mike debate me, that stupid piracy apologist freetard Google Big Search Cookies shill?"
5. Incapacity to experience guilt or to profit from experience, particularly punishment.
"Why are hundreds of thousands of people DDOSing our official website right now? We never did anything wrong!"
6. Markedly prone to blame others or to offer plausible rationalizations for the behavior that has brought the person into conflict with society.
"It's sad that the millions of people worldwide protesting us care more about THIEVES that the UNDENIABLE RIGHTS of our roster of ARTISTS and CREATORS."
Any of that sound familiar?
Next >>