If the record companies can point to the hole in their inventory where the file I (hypothetically) got USED to be, I'll confess to theft.
Oh, but wait. Are they talking about not getting a hypothetical $0.99 for something that cost them $0.00 to produce? Sorry, I'm just a dumb boy who doesn't find the theft in this. Especially since the hypothetical track sucked so bad. They wouldn't have given me my $0.99 back, would they?
Re: Re: Re: I wrote this but it got moderated (maybe it is nonsense?)
Good alt. taste there. Gillian Welch, Sara Jarosz...these aren't really the people most filesharers and music labels are talking about, but they are people who would never have gotten a penny from me sans filesharing.
As a proof-of-concept, I obtained the entire Welch/Rawlings back catalog (before Harrow and the Harvest, which I did purchase) and then sent them money...and I figure it was more money than they would have received if I had bought two copies of every album. So...am I a pirate, Mr. Lowery?? If so, I'm comfortable with the fact that I haven't hurt, by my piracy, the people who produce the music I like to listen to.
Plesse see the attached Notyce of Legall Actione. My barristers wyll be requiring of you (Wm. Shakspear) 100,000 pounds sterling for each production of the following entertainments:
Hamlet, Richard II, Henry V,...
Sygned, by God's Grace,
Estate of Raphael Holinshed
We can only hope for Lowery to ultimately prove as enlightened as Cnut was. Though I expect his failure to become a multi-millionaire will be blamed on you damn pirates.
Should it be our goal, in structuring media distribution, to ensure that "artists" (many of whom make crappy, totally derivative, unoriginal noise, by my own standards) all make a million dollars. I, for one, will not be sad to see rock stars with enough money to pay for totally trashing hotels at every stop, and to buy enough drugs to short circuit their own productivity.
More importantly, should it be the goal of any real "artist" to achieve the rarified level of "ROCK SUPERSTAR" and multi-millionaire?? Because that's been the carrot the labels have used for years. Not "we'll help you make your music, promote it and you'll make some money" but "we'll take all your contract bonus in recording and A&R fees, neglect to promote your music and pay you a pittance per sale BUT!! You MIGHT become Led Zeppelin!"
Maybe the reason Mike's arguments against Spotify don't hold water is that they aren't arguments against Spotify at all.
Now it all makes sense!!
Hell, I even really like Pandora because making up your own track lists and only listening to stuff you already have heard is so...so...early 21st century, you know?
The only downside is that I keep discovering new artists whose music I want. Lowery must really hate that because, you know, internets.
Oh dear, another one that didn't get the memo? You didn't see it? It was, like, a piece of paper, with a bold header!
What did it say? Ummm..."getting an education and then taking a job you're overqualified for". I think that was it. Part of it, yeah. And you won't get 'rich' but the work will be easy and you'll still have a lifestyle that kings from 200 years ago would kill for. "Lowered expectations..." Yeah.
Sometimes it seems, at least over the last few years, that "fame" is the only criteria for being on TV or in movies, and "greater fame" the only goal. I mean, when getting a role on a 3rd tier reality show because you were once 2rd runner up in a Bachelorette series is considered a "career in show business", it's clear that fame is the only currency...not talent, not the ability to actually, you know, DO something, but only 'being known'. I mean, born with enough money to do anything she wanted, Paris Hilton could think of no higher goal than to become famous.
It's a weird phenomenon, but perhaps Carreon is convinced that becoming more famous is an unalloyed good.
It may very well be as simple as the legal status of "neutral tool-providers" vs. that of "neutral tool providers with enough money to retain rabid attack-dog lawyers".
Re: Don't be surprised if the public doesn't agree with your anything goes attitude!
"Big Search"??? LMFAOPMPSTC!!!
I guess you're a 'creator' too, Bob. I like the technique...just take a real world effect you don't like and explain it by a shadowy, corrupt corporate "Big Strawman".
Project much?
Also, I'm sure Big IP is perfectly happy to let 'the people' control their own creations as long as they (and their paid shills *ahem*) get to control the money-making ones.
My first thought was of the poor starving artists, and how all that money would (of course, by the logic of the copyright maximalists) result in a veritable explosion of creativity, art and music.
Which things are almost impossible to find now, in this artist-depriving, pirate-riddled world.
lol. I thought the same thing but I've been conditioned by example after example to just assume my poor thought processes and pathetic analytical tools (logic, reason, empirical testing) were inadequate to understand the absolute legal necessity of otherwise completely opaque statements. (never mind that the legalisms creating said necessity are often as batshit insane as the response)
Teka, your summary is perfectly analogous to the actual content of the shakedown letter.
What we see here IS THE DIRECT RESULT OF "GOVERNMENTAL OVERSIGHT AND REGULATION", YA MAROON.
Jebus. WHAT, in this story, suggests MORE of would be better?? AT&T flat out refused to correct a well-intended amendment to the "free relay calls for deafies" giveaway, and they were allowed to do so DESPITE your so-desirable "governmental oversight and regulation" because the political actors involved were paid off with campaign support and donations.
Giving the government more of any power only allows them to sell their services off more. The libertarians you so lamely mock in your post would say, "Do away with the giveaway in the first place." Sure, it's only tens or hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars wasted (or should I say "unfairly siphoned into the coffers of an existing Big Corp"?), but add up enough similar frauds and waste and you're talking about generations of Americans paying off the debt from your beloved oversight and regulation.
You're either a)trolling b)stupid c)lying or some combination thereof.
AT&T was NOT being asked to "monitor the content of phone calls" which you then bogusly conflate with ISPs monitoring the content of internet browsing. Nothing remotely similar to what you state, but you then rush off, trailing straw, to make a completely invalid point. Not impressive.
AT&T were simply being asked to confirm that the people trying to use the (very profitable) relay-call system were US-based. Easy to do, but when they were ordered by the gov't to do it, they somehow were unable to figure out how to do it. So the revenue stream of tax dollars continued, and this is no more or less than fraud.
Your lecturing, condescending tone is made even more offensive by the fact that you are, as stated, trolling, stupid or lying. An ugly thought process in there regardless, and I'm guessing the rationalization involves a paycheck amirite?
On the post: David Lowery Wants A Pony
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: boys will be boys
Oh, but wait. Are they talking about not getting a hypothetical $0.99 for something that cost them $0.00 to produce? Sorry, I'm just a dumb boy who doesn't find the theft in this. Especially since the hypothetical track sucked so bad. They wouldn't have given me my $0.99 back, would they?
Would that be theft on the musicians' part?
On the post: David Lowery Wants A Pony
Re: Re: Re: I wrote this but it got moderated (maybe it is nonsense?)
As a proof-of-concept, I obtained the entire Welch/Rawlings back catalog (before Harrow and the Harvest, which I did purchase) and then sent them money...and I figure it was more money than they would have received if I had bought two copies of every album. So...am I a pirate, Mr. Lowery?? If so, I'm comfortable with the fact that I haven't hurt, by my piracy, the people who produce the music I like to listen to.
On the post: David Lowery Wants A Pony
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I wrote this but it got moderated (maybe it is nonsense?)
What will be next? Correct spelling? Punctuation??
On the post: David Lowery Wants A Pony
Re: Re: According to Lowery
Plesse see the attached Notyce of Legall Actione. My barristers wyll be requiring of you (Wm. Shakspear) 100,000 pounds sterling for each production of the following entertainments:
Hamlet, Richard II, Henry V,...
Sygned, by God's Grace,
Estate of Raphael Holinshed
On the post: David Lowery Wants A Pony
Re: Re: Holding back the tide?
Also, get off his lawn.
On the post: David Lowery Wants A Pony
Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh, ye naive technocrats
More importantly, should it be the goal of any real "artist" to achieve the rarified level of "ROCK SUPERSTAR" and multi-millionaire?? Because that's been the carrot the labels have used for years. Not "we'll help you make your music, promote it and you'll make some money" but "we'll take all your contract bonus in recording and A&R fees, neglect to promote your music and pay you a pittance per sale BUT!! You MIGHT become Led Zeppelin!"
NOT a model whose loss I will mourn.
On the post: David Lowery Wants A Pony
Re: Re: Re: Re: I just went on my own Masnickian rant
Or we sue each other. Narrow indeed is the path, my friends...
On the post: David Lowery Wants A Pony
Re:
Now it all makes sense!!
Hell, I even really like Pandora because making up your own track lists and only listening to stuff you already have heard is so...so...early 21st century, you know?
The only downside is that I keep discovering new artists whose music I want. Lowery must really hate that because, you know, internets.
On the post: FBI & DEA Warn That IPv6 May Be Too Damn Anonymous
Re:
On the post: FBI & DEA Warn That IPv6 May Be Too Damn Anonymous
Re: Re:
What did it say? Ummm..."getting an education and then taking a job you're overqualified for". I think that was it. Part of it, yeah. And you won't get 'rich' but the work will be easy and you'll still have a lifestyle that kings from 200 years ago would kill for. "Lowered expectations..." Yeah.
Something along those lines anyway.
On the post: Why Do The People Who Always Ask Us To 'Respect' Artists Seem To Have So Little Respect For Artists?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I respect the artists and pay them for their work. So am I a pirate? Or just someone who hates, and has bypassed, the outdated dirtbags you shill for?
On the post: Why Do The People Who Always Ask Us To 'Respect' Artists Seem To Have So Little Respect For Artists?
Re: Re: Re:
Is that disrespectful??
Hope so.
On the post: Charles Carreon Keeps Digging: Promises To Subpoena Twitter & Ars Technica To Track Down Parody Account
Re:
Sometimes it seems, at least over the last few years, that "fame" is the only criteria for being on TV or in movies, and "greater fame" the only goal. I mean, when getting a role on a 3rd tier reality show because you were once 2rd runner up in a Bachelorette series is considered a "career in show business", it's clear that fame is the only currency...not talent, not the ability to actually, you know, DO something, but only 'being known'. I mean, born with enough money to do anything she wanted, Paris Hilton could think of no higher goal than to become famous.
It's a weird phenomenon, but perhaps Carreon is convinced that becoming more famous is an unalloyed good.
On the post: Dutch Appeals Court Says eBay Subsidiary Not Liable For Infringement By Users
On the post: Dear Hollywood: The 'Stakeholders' For Copyright Policy Don't Fit In A Room
Re: Don't be surprised if the public doesn't agree with your anything goes attitude!
I guess you're a 'creator' too, Bob. I like the technique...just take a real world effect you don't like and explain it by a shadowy, corrupt corporate "Big Strawman".
Project much?
Also, I'm sure Big IP is perfectly happy to let 'the people' control their own creations as long as they (and their paid shills *ahem*) get to control the money-making ones.
On the post: No, The RIAA Is Not Asking For $72 Trillion From Limewire (Bad Reporters, Bad)
Which things are almost impossible to find now, in this artist-depriving, pirate-riddled world.
On the post: No, The RIAA Is Not Asking For $72 Trillion From Limewire (Bad Reporters, Bad)
Re: Re: Re:
You think those things are filled with cowfodder?
On the post: Copyright Troll Demands $8,500 From Rarely Visited Lindsay Lohan Fansite
Re:
Teka, your summary is perfectly analogous to the actual content of the shakedown letter.
On the post: Feds Finally Realize That AT&T Has Been Enabling Scammers To Abuse IP Fraud... Financed By Taxpayers
Re:
Jebus. WHAT, in this story, suggests MORE of would be better?? AT&T flat out refused to correct a well-intended amendment to the "free relay calls for deafies" giveaway, and they were allowed to do so DESPITE your so-desirable "governmental oversight and regulation" because the political actors involved were paid off with campaign support and donations.
Giving the government more of any power only allows them to sell their services off more. The libertarians you so lamely mock in your post would say, "Do away with the giveaway in the first place." Sure, it's only tens or hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars wasted (or should I say "unfairly siphoned into the coffers of an existing Big Corp"?), but add up enough similar frauds and waste and you're talking about generations of Americans paying off the debt from your beloved oversight and regulation.
On the post: Feds Finally Realize That AT&T Has Been Enabling Scammers To Abuse IP Fraud... Financed By Taxpayers
Re: Re: Re:
You're either a)trolling b)stupid c)lying or some combination thereof.
AT&T was NOT being asked to "monitor the content of phone calls" which you then bogusly conflate with ISPs monitoring the content of internet browsing. Nothing remotely similar to what you state, but you then rush off, trailing straw, to make a completely invalid point. Not impressive.
AT&T were simply being asked to confirm that the people trying to use the (very profitable) relay-call system were US-based. Easy to do, but when they were ordered by the gov't to do it, they somehow were unable to figure out how to do it. So the revenue stream of tax dollars continued, and this is no more or less than fraud.
Your lecturing, condescending tone is made even more offensive by the fact that you are, as stated, trolling, stupid or lying. An ugly thought process in there regardless, and I'm guessing the rationalization involves a paycheck amirite?
Next >>