Re: Re: Re: Uh, the name is part of what they stand for
No matter what name they gave them self's people like you would have simply called them the "Pirate Party" in an attempt to discredit them anyway.
You are going to spout the same rubbish regardless but by naming them self's the Pirate Party they remove some of the power of the name to be used to mock. It even forces people like you to have to engage is a debate on the meaning of the term pirate and where it comes from.
You are arguing semanticist of a name you'd have other wise been hurling as an insult.
Names come to reflect what they are used to name not the other way around. "The President of the United Sates" is a title that was originally intended to be modest, almost insultingly so, to keep egos in check. President is now a title that is used by any number of world leaders and carries a vastly different meaning than when it was first used.
So while you spin your wheels over something that is effectively meaningless because your upset they took your insult away from you they will get on with doing what they want to do.
You can build a gun at home using other tools that really don't cost that much anyway.
"As for 3d printers within the manufacturing industry, I've only seen them in the prototyping sectors."
3D printing wouldn't be disruptive to the industry if it was purely something that was going to be used by the industry. It would just represent a change from subtractive to additive manufacturer in cnc like machines. Which does not make sense for everything and won't happen until it's cheap enough and effective enough that it makes economic sense to switch for relevant processes. Any change to 3D printing for industrial scale use is just a case of adding something to the tool set.
But that's not what is happening, 3D printing is not just a new industry tool. What makes it disruptive is putting an increasingly powerful manufacturing tool in the hands of consumers. It's not going to threaten all manufacture but even just looking at the current technology is able to do there are areas of manufacture that would be in trouble if 3D printers come in to common wide spread use. Niall example of the toy industry is a good one in that regard. Lego is based on manufacturing relatively simple bits of plastic, something a 3D printer could start to do at home.
Hell Lego might want to get the jump on this by creating vending like machines, drop a bit of money on and it will dump out a given number of blocks that are kept in stock by a 3D printer. All you need to do is keep it topped up with one bulk transport item. It could even on demand provide ANYTHING Lego makes.
There is a wealth of "simple" manufacturer that 3D printing might be able to compete with even in it's current state. What it can compete with will only widen as the technology advances and as costs come down it will become more wide spread.
The potential for disruption due to 3D printing is huge. If it will ever actually live that is another matter but it would be a safe bet that those who might be effected are well aware of it and will do there best to see that it doesn't.
The propaganda against 3D printing is already starting and you'll see more and more of it as the filed advances. The main one at the moment is "OMG YOU CAN PRINT GUNS!" but fully expect to see exactly the same crap we've seen over the last 30 years to do with copyright and piracy be brought up again.
I mean honestly, what's happening due to the lobbying of the entertainment industry is going to look like god damn child's play if 3d printing ever advances enough to threaten some sectors of the manufacturing industry.
While I agree that 3D printing as is is not the end point but I don't see how the underlying concepts and goals are going to be fundamentally different in the future.
The concept of creating a local physical copy of a plan using some form of additive manufacturer is literary the same concept as underpins star treks replicators. The only difference between a replicator and a 3d printer is a matter of how effectively the technology is able to realise that concept.
We will follow this as far as technology will allow because where ever it ends up it's going to have some level of use and I for one look forward to see how it develops :)
If there is a demand for that and innovation is not being strangled by the legacy players it will be filled. I personally see no reason why streaming services couldn't have a front end internet radio type of thing attached where a DJ uses the songs available on the service and you'd be able to do things like pause your stream and jump to an artists page if you happen to hear something you like and want to listen to more.
I think the only reason this isn't already happening is likely to be that streaming licensing is different to radio licensing and internet radio licensing is current being screwed over by the legacy industry so it can't compete with radio.
There should be nothing inherent in "active" services that prevent what you are looking for being done. It just can't happen while the legacy industry is stacking the deck against it.
Most artist on labels fail to make back their advance and those artist make up a tiny percentage of people who make music. So the chances of making a million in the old system is tiny only a very few very lucky artist where ever able to do that in the first place.
Under the new system we don't really know if millions can be made and I don't personally remember any one claiming that you would. Either way we've are going to find that out, we know for a fact new systems for content, including music, can raise backing of over 1 million and that's a good sign that that level of money maybe able to be made for the right, lucky, people.
What important about all this is that under the old system it was near imposable to make a living. What people forget is that even if you made it to a label you most likely ended up in debt. With out the labels help you'd be lucky to be able to make making and playing your own music a long term job.
Under the new system more people are making more money than ever while doing so. It's comparable to the rise of the middle class, we are past the point where you either end up rich or poor from making music and just like the middle class it's the best result for most people.
These are not the same thing. I know a number of people heavily and actively involved in the UK punk/diy scene as both bands promoters and label owners and each and every one of them would say the same.
Those scenes where never about making money they where about a community supporting a given group of artist because they loved the music those artist produced. What's wonderful about the disruption in the music industry is that the new model, the new way of doing things, is more aligned with the ethos those scene where built on. More people are starting to be able to make more money with out compromising the predicables of those scenes.
You are legally allowed to make a copy of your content for your own use. Then the industry lobbied for a law that made breaking digital lock illegal even for the purpose of perfectly legal copying. This law makes no sense, you take something the public does a lot of that they have a legal right to and you find a way to criminalise that behaviour with out actually making the outcome illegal. It puts people in a dissonant position where the out come of what they want to and are used to doing is legal but a rather arbitrary road block has been put in place that makes it imposable to do with out breaking the law.
What that lead to is the fact that most people ignore the digital locks rule which for the most part undermine respect for those kind of laws.
So why do it? To catch pirates? well that makes no sense since all you are doing is adding an extra "crime" that no one really is going to bother to pay attention to. I don't know of a single case where an end user or a pirate has been pulled up purely on breaking of digital locks in places that such laws exist.
What it does do how ever is something very interesting. It allows the people who make content to make any new ways of viewing that content illegal. If some one comes along with a new technology or idea that the industry dose not like all they have to do is change their DRM in such a way that it locks out that use. Which then makes it illegal and that is something that we've seen happen.
The industry is lobbying for new laws that let them control innovation because they then can make anything they don't like illegal instead of having to compete with it.
Ya there is no reason at all that you'd want to apply the same principles that bittorrent uses to share files to the bittorrent file it's self for the same reasons! it's madness that clearly has no benefit what so ever other than the one you need to confirm your views about bittorrent use.
By your logic ISP are responsible for what happens on their network, maybe more so because they are taking money to provide the service. With out the ISP's no one would be downloading pirated content.
And yet, strangely, we realise that punishing the ISP for user behaviour on the service they provide is idiotic... well we mostly do there are a number of people who would like to use this pretty much self same argument to force ISP to police their networks.
If I want to provide a wifi hotspot because, well, I'm a good person who wants to share I shouldn't be held liable if some one uses that to infringe any more than an ISP should.
I've always hated the guy, I feel sorry for him given the US is trying to do but this move with megabox is going to cause a lot more harm than good.
Dotcom is in a place that other music start ups would kill to be and could with megabox has a chance to use the publicity and interest to gain traction for any number of new models. Instead we are going to get what is going to be, well, a clusterfuck frankly, that is going to undermine other music start ups and tar the idea of new models for music with "but he had to steal ad view from other sites to afford it, music then can't be free!" stupid but since when do we expect the copyright lobby to be anything but?
There's no need to look, they are seemingly content to act in a way that may be damaging to the ad views of other sites. The only reason to replace 15% rather than add 15% is that it's 1) easier 2) will minimise the noticeable impact of doing it so in the hopes of getting higher adoption. The ethics of it are deeply questionable as is even with out anything else. Which actually means I'm not going to be surprised if something else is found.
I was excited about this while I was under a false impression of how it was going to work. As it is I have issues with them replacing other peoples ads. If they want to go down this root why not an browser extension that adds a small tool bar with ads in it? I've got no issue with the idea of adding extra adds to my browsing to help support artists I'm listening to I guess but, injection? it's seems to be an move designed to minimise impact with a few to increasing adoption but likely at the expense of other people.
What I thought was going to happen was a effectively a spotify/myspace/bandcamp mix. You can stream music from the site or an application that comes with ads that can be removed for a small subscription and the artist would get paid based on number of plays. It wouldn't be much but it would be something. Then the site could be used as to sell downloads to the fans.
You know there are a number of bands that I wish hadn't put out as many albums as they did because a lot of them sucked. Then when you go see them live you get the good stuff diluted by the crap and every one turns in to bitter "I liked them better back in the day" types.
My point is that quality not quantity is what I want from a given band. When there are more people making more music than any other point in history there is a lot more quality (and a lot more crap but there's always crap) music to pick from. I don't need to rely on the few bands in a genre who got the golden gate keeper ticket for the production of new content for that kind of music any more.
You are seeing a falling off in how often artist are producing albums and you are making the assumption that the rate of production as it was was a good thing and utterly failing to provide any proof that is the case. Lets just step back for a second and look at why there has been a drop in production from major bands shall we?
What you are forgetting is that most see a tiny return on sales if they are seeing a return at all. It's the labels who benefit the most from album sales and it's the labels not the artists who set the number of albums that the artist "owes" the label in the contract which I'm pretty sure that also comes with a term.
So the upshot is basically that since the labels made most of their money from album sales they want as many albums from an artist as they can get as quickly as they can get them. If an artist doesn't feel like it? tough, you either have to buy out the contract or you make a album.
The change you are seeing in the major artist is again being driven by the labels contracts. Seeing how ablums are being devalued new label contracts are mostly, so called, 360 deals, where the label gets a cut of ever damn thing the artist does. Since the money in now in tours and merch big arits are, like it or lump it, having to do more tours and sell more merch as part of their contracts.
So what conclusion can we draw for that? Well, firstly people tend not to get bored with the stuff that made them love a band, at the very lest the turn over rate in albums was never driven by the demand of fans it was driven by the demand of labels. You still do need new content and bands still need to have produced enough content to tour on before being able to tour but the rate at which you have to do that is drastically lower than the rate at which the labels, who's money came from albums, wanted to.
So given we are seeing a shift of value to the performance we'll start to see the demands of the market playing a bigger role in the rate of production. Frankly I get the impression labels are going to be pushing for the smallest investment they can get away with in new content as it provides less return. Still the point is rate of product in terms of market demand was inflated by the labels and we are going to see something much truer to what people actually want in the future.
Next most bands and musicians are always writing, it's just what they do. I am one, not very good admittedly, and I never stop throwing ideas around. It's very rear that an idea work out and gets developed and even more rear that it produces a good song at the end of it but still creating music is something I enjoy so it happens. I know a large number of bands and musicians some who are always on tour and the same goes for them.
Point I'm making is that bands, especially bands who are independent or big bands who have favourable contracts, now have more of a choice in how much content they want to produce. If bands are not throwing albums and EPs out the door as often as they used to it's likely, in part, that they never wanted to produce at the old rate.
Over all content production is up even if individual output is down. That individual output is at a label level is now more driven by actual market demands and more in control of the people who create it.
Ya 'cus in the past when recording was hugely expensive and high quality required either a huge personal investment or selling your soul to a record label artist who are just interested in recording could walk up unknown to a a studio and spend as much time as they like recording their work.
Then once they had recorded an album they could just let the label go out and sell it. No need to work even if the label was taking your small cut from those sales to repay the lone they made you take out when you signed a contract.
Truth is that most recording artist out side the few megastart see very little income from music sales. In fact a lot end up owing the record label money. Touring is how musicans have always had to make their money, it wasn't so long ago that bands where often making more money selling their CD at shows by being the merchant than the artist.
What today offers is cheap low cost recording where some one who's talented can set up a home studio and produce high quality content while not being forced to go in to debt and retaining the rights to those songs.
Yes it maybe true that the product of that labour has sharply lost it's value but given that most never saw any return on that value under the old system most are still coming out ahead.
A musician who wants to make a living has to tour, that has always been the case. The value of recordings may have dropped but labels used to suck up that value anyway. Only now you don't need a label so what value there is, including the rights to your songs, can remain with you.
"I don't want them to fail, but they are buggy whip companies and they will fail if they don't adapt"
FTFY since you missed out the key point that allows for the holding of the a views you seem to presume must have two mutually exclusive ideas. The whole point of this blog post is that deals with labels will get better as they are forced to adapt to viable indie competition as a line for success.
The labels that don't adapt to that new reality will fail and deservedly so.
I'm also from Liverpool, too young to remember what happened but it's been, sadly, an deeply embed aspect to living in the city. The city has never been really allowed to morn the tragedy because the people involved and the families of the day have been forced to fight these lies all the while being accused of playing up being victims.
What I guess some readers of this site won't fully understand is the context of the relationship between the city and the rest of the country. There has often been a very strained relationships between the North and the South and Liverpool has often been at the centre of that due to strikes and riots and other things. I mean there was an actual idea brought up in Thatcher's cabinet about effectively abandoning the city. I don't think it was ever seriously considered but the fact such a thing could be talked about about one of the biggest cities in the country gives you some idea of issues.
There was basically a sterotype that every one in liverpool was a theft and benefit scrounger. We had as much as that as any other major city that was going through a very bad period of depression but you can imagine the pain that having that sterotype being used to try and blame the victims of this disaster caused. They accused people of looting the dead... a shitty paper, incompetent police and fucking conservative members of parliament colluding to tell the world that fiction to hide their own mistakes... using and re-enforcing a false and deeply negative image of the city by dragging the victims and their families through the mud.
The Borg where adapted to phasers, it was only by modifying the phasers in random ways that they could remain even slightly effective. Bullets where not something they would have ever faced in their fight with the federation so they wouldn't have thought to set up to defend against them so it would take longer for them to adapt the drones to counter them. How ever once the drones had adapted there would be nothing you can do with bullets that would make them effective again. It was a one trick pony so to speak...
On the post: WIPO Scared Of The Pirate Party; Won't Give It Observer Status Due To Objections Despite Meeting Criteria
Re: Re: Re: Uh, the name is part of what they stand for
You are going to spout the same rubbish regardless but by naming them self's the Pirate Party they remove some of the power of the name to be used to mock. It even forces people like you to have to engage is a debate on the meaning of the term pirate and where it comes from.
You are arguing semanticist of a name you'd have other wise been hurling as an insult.
Names come to reflect what they are used to name not the other way around. "The President of the United Sates" is a title that was originally intended to be modest, almost insultingly so, to keep egos in check. President is now a title that is used by any number of world leaders and carries a vastly different meaning than when it was first used.
So while you spin your wheels over something that is effectively meaningless because your upset they took your insult away from you they will get on with doing what they want to do.
On the post: Teenage Engineering: If Our Parts Are Too Expensive, Here's How To Print Your Own
Re: Re: Re:
"As for 3d printers within the manufacturing industry, I've only seen them in the prototyping sectors."
3D printing wouldn't be disruptive to the industry if it was purely something that was going to be used by the industry. It would just represent a change from subtractive to additive manufacturer in cnc like machines. Which does not make sense for everything and won't happen until it's cheap enough and effective enough that it makes economic sense to switch for relevant processes. Any change to 3D printing for industrial scale use is just a case of adding something to the tool set.
But that's not what is happening, 3D printing is not just a new industry tool. What makes it disruptive is putting an increasingly powerful manufacturing tool in the hands of consumers. It's not going to threaten all manufacture but even just looking at the current technology is able to do there are areas of manufacture that would be in trouble if 3D printers come in to common wide spread use. Niall example of the toy industry is a good one in that regard. Lego is based on manufacturing relatively simple bits of plastic, something a 3D printer could start to do at home.
Hell Lego might want to get the jump on this by creating vending like machines, drop a bit of money on and it will dump out a given number of blocks that are kept in stock by a 3D printer. All you need to do is keep it topped up with one bulk transport item. It could even on demand provide ANYTHING Lego makes.
There is a wealth of "simple" manufacturer that 3D printing might be able to compete with even in it's current state. What it can compete with will only widen as the technology advances and as costs come down it will become more wide spread.
The potential for disruption due to 3D printing is huge. If it will ever actually live that is another matter but it would be a safe bet that those who might be effected are well aware of it and will do there best to see that it doesn't.
On the post: Teenage Engineering: If Our Parts Are Too Expensive, Here's How To Print Your Own
Re:
I mean honestly, what's happening due to the lobbying of the entertainment industry is going to look like god damn child's play if 3d printing ever advances enough to threaten some sectors of the manufacturing industry.
On the post: Teenage Engineering: If Our Parts Are Too Expensive, Here's How To Print Your Own
Re: Re: Re:
The concept of creating a local physical copy of a plan using some form of additive manufacturer is literary the same concept as underpins star treks replicators. The only difference between a replicator and a 3d printer is a matter of how effectively the technology is able to realise that concept.
We will follow this as far as technology will allow because where ever it ends up it's going to have some level of use and I for one look forward to see how it develops :)
On the post: Out With The Old, In With The New: How Innovation Has Completely Changed The Music Business
Re: Something I miss
I think the only reason this isn't already happening is likely to be that streaming licensing is different to radio licensing and internet radio licensing is current being screwed over by the legacy industry so it can't compete with radio.
There should be nothing inherent in "active" services that prevent what you are looking for being done. It just can't happen while the legacy industry is stacking the deck against it.
On the post: Out With The Old, In With The New: How Innovation Has Completely Changed The Music Business
Re: Still Waitring
Under the new system we don't really know if millions can be made and I don't personally remember any one claiming that you would. Either way we've are going to find that out, we know for a fact new systems for content, including music, can raise backing of over 1 million and that's a good sign that that level of money maybe able to be made for the right, lucky, people.
What important about all this is that under the old system it was near imposable to make a living. What people forget is that even if you made it to a label you most likely ended up in debt. With out the labels help you'd be lucky to be able to make making and playing your own music a long term job.
Under the new system more people are making more money than ever while doing so. It's comparable to the rise of the middle class, we are past the point where you either end up rich or poor from making music and just like the middle class it's the best result for most people.
On the post: Out With The Old, In With The New: How Innovation Has Completely Changed The Music Business
Re: Re: Sooner The Better
"INDIE/DIY/PUNK scene"
These are not the same thing. I know a number of people heavily and actively involved in the UK punk/diy scene as both bands promoters and label owners and each and every one of them would say the same.
Those scenes where never about making money they where about a community supporting a given group of artist because they loved the music those artist produced. What's wonderful about the disruption in the music industry is that the new model, the new way of doing things, is more aligned with the ethos those scene where built on. More people are starting to be able to make more money with out compromising the predicables of those scenes.
On the post: Crime Inc. Inc., The Business Of Hyping The Piracy Threat
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What that lead to is the fact that most people ignore the digital locks rule which for the most part undermine respect for those kind of laws.
So why do it? To catch pirates? well that makes no sense since all you are doing is adding an extra "crime" that no one really is going to bother to pay attention to. I don't know of a single case where an end user or a pirate has been pulled up purely on breaking of digital locks in places that such laws exist.
What it does do how ever is something very interesting. It allows the people who make content to make any new ways of viewing that content illegal. If some one comes along with a new technology or idea that the industry dose not like all they have to do is change their DRM in such a way that it locks out that use. Which then makes it illegal and that is something that we've seen happen.
http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20120313/11281118092/why-anti-circumvent ion-laws-are-evil-hollywood-gets-to-veto-dvd-jukebox-despite-complete-lack-infringement.shtml
The industry is lobbying for new laws that let them control innovation because they then can make anything they don't like illegal instead of having to compete with it.
On the post: Yes, There Are Many, Many, Many, Many Legal Uses Of BitTorrent
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ya there is no reason at all that you'd want to apply the same principles that bittorrent uses to share files to the bittorrent file it's self for the same reasons! it's madness that clearly has no benefit what so ever other than the one you need to confirm your views about bittorrent use.
On the post: Copyright Trolls Still Arguing That Open WiFi Is 'Negligent'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Case Law
Fair enough, clearly I was wrong.
On the post: Copyright Trolls Still Arguing That Open WiFi Is 'Negligent'
Re: Re: Re: Case Law
And yet, strangely, we realise that punishing the ISP for user behaviour on the service they provide is idiotic... well we mostly do there are a number of people who would like to use this pretty much self same argument to force ISP to police their networks.
If I want to provide a wifi hotspot because, well, I'm a good person who wants to share I shouldn't be held liable if some one uses that to infringe any more than an ISP should.
On the post: Megaupload Farce Stirring Up Backlash Against Copyright Overreach
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Dotcom is in a place that other music start ups would kill to be and could with megabox has a chance to use the publicity and interest to gain traction for any number of new models. Instead we are going to get what is going to be, well, a clusterfuck frankly, that is going to undermine other music start ups and tar the idea of new models for music with "but he had to steal ad view from other sites to afford it, music then can't be free!" stupid but since when do we expect the copyright lobby to be anything but?
On the post: Megaupload Farce Stirring Up Backlash Against Copyright Overreach
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Megaupload Farce Stirring Up Backlash Against Copyright Overreach
Re: Re:
What I thought was going to happen was a effectively a spotify/myspace/bandcamp mix. You can stream music from the site or an application that comes with ads that can be removed for a small subscription and the artist would get paid based on number of plays. It wouldn't be much but it would be something. Then the site could be used as to sell downloads to the fans.
On the post: So What Can The Music Industry Do Now?
Re:
My point is that quality not quantity is what I want from a given band. When there are more people making more music than any other point in history there is a lot more quality (and a lot more crap but there's always crap) music to pick from. I don't need to rely on the few bands in a genre who got the golden gate keeper ticket for the production of new content for that kind of music any more.
You are seeing a falling off in how often artist are producing albums and you are making the assumption that the rate of production as it was was a good thing and utterly failing to provide any proof that is the case. Lets just step back for a second and look at why there has been a drop in production from major bands shall we?
What you are forgetting is that most see a tiny return on sales if they are seeing a return at all. It's the labels who benefit the most from album sales and it's the labels not the artists who set the number of albums that the artist "owes" the label in the contract which I'm pretty sure that also comes with a term.
So the upshot is basically that since the labels made most of their money from album sales they want as many albums from an artist as they can get as quickly as they can get them. If an artist doesn't feel like it? tough, you either have to buy out the contract or you make a album.
The change you are seeing in the major artist is again being driven by the labels contracts. Seeing how ablums are being devalued new label contracts are mostly, so called, 360 deals, where the label gets a cut of ever damn thing the artist does. Since the money in now in tours and merch big arits are, like it or lump it, having to do more tours and sell more merch as part of their contracts.
So what conclusion can we draw for that? Well, firstly people tend not to get bored with the stuff that made them love a band, at the very lest the turn over rate in albums was never driven by the demand of fans it was driven by the demand of labels. You still do need new content and bands still need to have produced enough content to tour on before being able to tour but the rate at which you have to do that is drastically lower than the rate at which the labels, who's money came from albums, wanted to.
So given we are seeing a shift of value to the performance we'll start to see the demands of the market playing a bigger role in the rate of production. Frankly I get the impression labels are going to be pushing for the smallest investment they can get away with in new content as it provides less return. Still the point is rate of product in terms of market demand was inflated by the labels and we are going to see something much truer to what people actually want in the future.
Next most bands and musicians are always writing, it's just what they do. I am one, not very good admittedly, and I never stop throwing ideas around. It's very rear that an idea work out and gets developed and even more rear that it produces a good song at the end of it but still creating music is something I enjoy so it happens. I know a large number of bands and musicians some who are always on tour and the same goes for them.
Point I'm making is that bands, especially bands who are independent or big bands who have favourable contracts, now have more of a choice in how much content they want to produce. If bands are not throwing albums and EPs out the door as often as they used to it's likely, in part, that they never wanted to produce at the old rate.
Over all content production is up even if individual output is down. That individual output is at a label level is now more driven by actual market demands and more in control of the people who create it.
Not a bad place to be in my view.
On the post: So What Can The Music Industry Do Now?
Re:
Then once they had recorded an album they could just let the label go out and sell it. No need to work even if the label was taking your small cut from those sales to repay the lone they made you take out when you signed a contract.
Truth is that most recording artist out side the few megastart see very little income from music sales. In fact a lot end up owing the record label money. Touring is how musicans have always had to make their money, it wasn't so long ago that bands where often making more money selling their CD at shows by being the merchant than the artist.
What today offers is cheap low cost recording where some one who's talented can set up a home studio and produce high quality content while not being forced to go in to debt and retaining the rights to those songs.
Yes it maybe true that the product of that labour has sharply lost it's value but given that most never saw any return on that value under the old system most are still coming out ahead.
A musician who wants to make a living has to tour, that has always been the case. The value of recordings may have dropped but labels used to suck up that value anyway. Only now you don't need a label so what value there is, including the rights to your songs, can remain with you.
On the post: Once Again: Just Because You Can Go Indie, Doesn't Mean You Need To
Re: Re: Re:
FTFY since you missed out the key point that allows for the holding of the a views you seem to presume must have two mutually exclusive ideas. The whole point of this blog post is that deals with labels will get better as they are forced to adapt to viable indie competition as a line for success.
The labels that don't adapt to that new reality will fail and deservedly so.
On the post: Partisan Piracy: Conservative Filmmakers Accuse Obama Supporters Of Uploading Their Film To Youtube
Re: Sad
On the post: How UK Police Attempted To Misuse Official Databases To Smear Disaster Victims
Re: Common Knowledge
What I guess some readers of this site won't fully understand is the context of the relationship between the city and the rest of the country. There has often been a very strained relationships between the North and the South and Liverpool has often been at the centre of that due to strikes and riots and other things. I mean there was an actual idea brought up in Thatcher's cabinet about effectively abandoning the city. I don't think it was ever seriously considered but the fact such a thing could be talked about about one of the biggest cities in the country gives you some idea of issues.
There was basically a sterotype that every one in liverpool was a theft and benefit scrounger. We had as much as that as any other major city that was going through a very bad period of depression but you can imagine the pain that having that sterotype being used to try and blame the victims of this disaster caused. They accused people of looting the dead... a shitty paper, incompetent police and fucking conservative members of parliament colluding to tell the world that fiction to hide their own mistakes... using and re-enforcing a false and deeply negative image of the city by dragging the victims and their families through the mud.
On the post: When Captain Picard Loses Patience With Your Cable Service, You Need To Run A Tighter Ship
Re: Re: Re:
I love being a geek :)
Next >>