Your real problem in the end is that you will take the time to make what you consider great music, and it will only be heard by a handful of people because there is just so much junk out there, that they have stopped looking for it.
I got an idea! Why don't we just make a tag on youtube and call it "good music"? What's that? Good music is completely subjective? Oh, that's right.
So, what we need, really, are a way to determine popular music and a way to recommend music to a user based on their unique tastes. Well, torrents have already taken care of the first need. It's easy to see the most popular music by seeing what is being seeded the most. (because people won't share things they don't like) As for the second need: There are a handful of music suggestion services already.
So, looks like the internet has got this covered already.
I, personally, don't torrent my music, instead I use a all-you-can-stream service (currently Rdio) which handles both quite impressively. I am not willing to pay for digital music, but I *am* willing to pay someone for the service of helping me sort through the different types of music out there to find new music I will like.
It isn't the great stuff rising to the top, it's the sewage rising to cover everything.
As opposed to now, when the major labels just market the hell out of the sewage to drown out the talented musicians?
See, without the music, the rest of it is nothing. It is the product.
Hahahaha, talk about missing the forest for the trees. You are at the same time completely correct and horribly wrong. It's actually quite impressive.
Don't worry, baby bird, I'll feed you. :)
You are correct that it is the music that is valuable. You are also correct that music is the product. You are horribly, tragically wrong in the fact that you think music and a recording of that music is the same thing. Do you know what musicians create? Yup, music. Do you know what the recording industry creates? Recordings of music. Musicians have never been in the recording business, they make music. They outsource the creation and distribution of recordings to a third party: The record labels. We, the fans, bought these recordings because it was the easiest way to hear our favorite musicians' music. We paid because we knew it costs money to press thousands of CDs and to ship them all over the country.
Now we have the internet, we have digital music. Musicians still make music, but they no longer need to outsource the creation and distribution of recordings. It is so low cost to create a copy of the recording and distribute that recording that people are being *sued* to make them stop doing it for free. Read that again. Why would any sane musician sign over the rights to their creative works to a middleman when there are *strangers* willing to do it for *free*? .
Until you understand what people really want, you cannot understand the rest of the reasons why Nina has it so wrong.
You can't be serious. It's obvious what people want. It's not hypothetical, it's reality. The only people who are blind to it are people like you.
I didn't intend for my comment to be a strawman. In fact, you are the one who mentioned hating the people who would want to pay to have dinner with you.
You can still love your fans and spend your time wisely to satisfy the most of them, or you could be forced to whore your time out to richer individual fans to try to make a living.
... Wait, are you being serious? You are saying that an artist would have to go out of their way to eat dinner? I was under the impression that people ate meals on a daily basis. If I offered to pay you $500 to eat at the same table as you, you would turn it down? Did you fall an hit your head recently? Further, if you're so concerned with leveling the financial playing ground for your fans, why do you want to charge for your art? Do you not love the fans without disposable income?
Great artists love their fans by writing, playing, and producing the very best original music they can.
I actually agree with you here. So, um, where does suing them for spreading your art come in?
Just remember to keep your radio off, not watch TV, and certainly don't go see a movie. All of those support the RIAA.
I don't know if you're an idiot or you made a typo. but keep in mind that the RIAA and the MPAA are separate organizations.
But, since you brought it up, I, for one, do not listen to the radio or watch (much) TV, and I very rarely *go* to see a movie.
If you keep using it, you have failed.
I'd like to see the reasoning, if any, that you used to come up with this.
Listen only to independent acts, ones with no record label deal, ones getting no airplay, no nothing.
I want to revise my earlier comment. There is no longer any doubt about whether or not you are an idiot. There are several labels that do not belong to the RIAA. Being on a label does not immediately mean that those bands are anti-fan. Further, "no nothing" is a pretty vague requirement, isn't it?
Low levels of very secret, very hush-hush file sharing won't bother anyone.
So, you belong to the camp that believes because you can't see it, it must not exist, eh? Just because something is hidden does not mean it is small.
and is sucking in people who otherwise wouldn't take anything without paying in their normal lives.
Allow me to educate you. Find a song on your computer. Any will do. Next, click on it. Now hit Ctrl+C. Now hit Ctrl+V. Have you taken something without paying? So, it's clear the act of copying isn't taking without paying. Next lesson. Highlight some text in this comment. Hit Ctrl+C. Now open a txt file on your computer. Now press Ctrl+V. Did you just take something without paying? So, copying something on a remote server and putting it on a local one isn't taking without paying. So, how is copying a song on a remote server and putting it on a local machine taking without paying?
Does Dan Brown have a lower value because his work is shared too much? Yes, hordes of people buy his books - and that hordes of people lend his books to at friend too. Meanwhile libraries stock them by the dozen. Is all this decreasing his value?
No, of course not. But from a middleman perspective, you aren't concerned with Dan Brown's value, you're concerned with his book's price. Without a middleman making decisions, it all becomes sane again.
Do TV networks renew the shows with the lowest Neilsen ratings?
No, but TV is on a totally different system than music and books. TV still banks on a captive audience. This will eventually lead to their downfall, but that's a different discussion for a different day.
Sharing only increases the value of the creator of the content-- not the distributer. (Obviously) To use the field analogy again, they to put up a wall and they don't care if the wall blocks sunlight and causes the commons to wither-- as long as they can still control who sees it. (Better still if they can get the money upfront before the bastard sees he's paid to walk in a withered field!) Further, they'd cream their collective pants if they could scorch the rest of the earth so the only (withered) grass left was theirs. They don't care about the value of the creator or their effect on society at large-- only the bottom line.
The opposite is true: works do not become less valuable the more they're shared; they become more valuable the more they're shared. What on earth are they talking about when they say that sharing dilutes the value of the work?
I think the reason you don't understand them, and they you, is because you are talking about two different things entirely.
You see a commons and think "If this field were infinitely large, then everyone in the world could fit on it and there'd be room to spare!"
They see a commons and think "If I put a wall around it, it will be way easier to make people pay to get on it."
People concerned with dilution aren't worried about the value of a work, but of the ability to squeeze every bit of money out of it.
Clearly you don't understand what you are talking about. Solitary confinement isn't mentally stressful because you get bored, you fool. They could give him every channel there is for 24hrs a day. Do you know what it is like to be completely isolated from the rest of humanity? You have no clue. He gets to talk to people for 3 hours a *week*. I would tell you to try it, but aside from deliberately stranding yourself on a deserted island, you'd never be in the position where you lost the control to puss out when you did get bored.
I agree with you. We should ignore all the studies, all the psychologists, the governments and the people who have lived through being a prisoner of war who say it absolutely *is* torture. Some anonymous guy on the Internet says it's not torture, so it must not be.
Nope, because this is also been reviewed in many other countries with the same results.
Do you see how many of the people here defending Manning keep posting those pretty blue words that back up what they are claiming. Well, they're not just eye candy, my friend, but some sort of citation to back up their claims! Now, one can't help but notice that your post, while attempting to refute the other statements, is not adorned with pretty blue words. You might as well type "nu-uh!" in response without them. That's more free advice.
Everyone tries to make it sound like Manning is being kept in some hole in the ground, not fed, waterboarded twice a day, and left to fend for himself for food, fighting with the prison rats for scraps from the garbage pile from the officer's mess. It just isn't the case.
No has said anything of the sort. This would be a textbook example of a stawman.
The rest of it is BS, everyone knows it
I assume "everyone" doesn't include all the people (including doctors) who object to his treatment? In fact, can you please explain to me your definition of "everyone", because it seems to me that by the very fact that we are having this discussion that you are wrong.
but because it's a "wikileaks" thing, all the bleeding hearts are out whining about the torture
This has nothing to do with wikileaks. Manning is being held in solitary confinement. Without being convicted. Without even going to trial. *This* is why our hearts bleed, because people like you are defending our government as it shits on the Constitution. Wikileaks is a separate matter.
Now, I have a question for you, Mr. Coward. Give us a little background on yourself. I don't need specifics, obviously. I would just like to know what type of man would defend these actions without actually thinking about the consequences.
You said he did not break the law because it said a military member was allowed to inform anyone who could get the information out. I was interested because when I *defend* Manning in a conversation, this point is bound to come up.
Now you say he did go outside the guidelines of the law, but it's a bad law, so it should be ignored. Do you see how you have contradicted yourself?
While I wouldn't go so far as to say every member of Congress is corrupt, I also agree that the law is naive in thinking that telling a government officials about the wrongdoings of the government will guarantee that knowledge will be used to thwart those wrongdoings.
Since you have switched paths from "not illegal" to "illegal but bad law" i should point out that civil disobedience often results in accepting the punishment for the protested law to bring light on the issue. (Google "martyr") Thus, using the "it's a bad law" is unlikely to get him out of jail anytime soon.
I'm not saying I think it is right, but I just re-read both the DoD Directive (pdf!) and the Applicable US Code 1034 and can't find anything that says a member of the military can leak to the general public.
If you could be so kind as to point out your source, that would be awesome.
Once again, to prevent any unneeded anger, I don't agree with the law, but I can't see a way around it, either.
I can't tell if you don't grasp the concept because you can't, or because you don't want to.
He is 100% innocent. How do I come by this number, you wonder? Well, he hasn't gone to trial. Thus, he is presumed innocent. Any deviation from 100% innocent before proven guilty deviates from the Constitution. You know, that thing that protects your right to say stupid, un-American shit on the internet. Yeah, that thing.
The chance that he didn't steal secrets? Well, they "caught" him because a self-described "hacker" turned him in after allegedly having an Instant Messenger conversation with Manning and "fearing for his family's safety". Is that the type of "proof" you feel is iron-clad?
On the post: Interview With Nina Paley: The More You Share, The More Valuable Your Works Become
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Marketing?
I got an idea! Why don't we just make a tag on youtube and call it "good music"? What's that? Good music is completely subjective? Oh, that's right.
So, what we need, really, are a way to determine popular music and a way to recommend music to a user based on their unique tastes. Well, torrents have already taken care of the first need. It's easy to see the most popular music by seeing what is being seeded the most. (because people won't share things they don't like) As for the second need: There are a handful of music suggestion services already.
So, looks like the internet has got this covered already.
I, personally, don't torrent my music, instead I use a all-you-can-stream service (currently Rdio) which handles both quite impressively. I am not willing to pay for digital music, but I *am* willing to pay someone for the service of helping me sort through the different types of music out there to find new music I will like.
It isn't the great stuff rising to the top, it's the sewage rising to cover everything.
As opposed to now, when the major labels just market the hell out of the sewage to drown out the talented musicians?
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week
Re: Re:
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week
Hardest button to button
On the post: Interview With Nina Paley: The More You Share, The More Valuable Your Works Become
Re: Re: Re: Re: Obscurity vs. Piracy
Hahahaha, talk about missing the forest for the trees. You are at the same time completely correct and horribly wrong. It's actually quite impressive.
Don't worry, baby bird, I'll feed you. :)
You are correct that it is the music that is valuable. You are also correct that music is the product. You are horribly, tragically wrong in the fact that you think music and a recording of that music is the same thing. Do you know what musicians create? Yup, music. Do you know what the recording industry creates? Recordings of music. Musicians have never been in the recording business, they make music. They outsource the creation and distribution of recordings to a third party: The record labels. We, the fans, bought these recordings because it was the easiest way to hear our favorite musicians' music. We paid because we knew it costs money to press thousands of CDs and to ship them all over the country.
Now we have the internet, we have digital music. Musicians still make music, but they no longer need to outsource the creation and distribution of recordings. It is so low cost to create a copy of the recording and distribute that recording that people are being *sued* to make them stop doing it for free. Read that again. Why would any sane musician sign over the rights to their creative works to a middleman when there are *strangers* willing to do it for *free*? .
Until you understand what people really want, you cannot understand the rest of the reasons why Nina has it so wrong.
You can't be serious. It's obvious what people want. It's not hypothetical, it's reality. The only people who are blind to it are people like you.
On the post: Interview With Nina Paley: The More You Share, The More Valuable Your Works Become
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Marketing?
You can still love your fans and spend your time wisely to satisfy the most of them, or you could be forced to whore your time out to richer individual fans to try to make a living.
... Wait, are you being serious? You are saying that an artist would have to go out of their way to eat dinner? I was under the impression that people ate meals on a daily basis. If I offered to pay you $500 to eat at the same table as you, you would turn it down? Did you fall an hit your head recently? Further, if you're so concerned with leveling the financial playing ground for your fans, why do you want to charge for your art? Do you not love the fans without disposable income?
Great artists love their fans by writing, playing, and producing the very best original music they can.
I actually agree with you here. So, um, where does suing them for spreading your art come in?
On the post: Interview With Nina Paley: The More You Share, The More Valuable Your Works Become
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Marketing?
If you hate your fans, you shouldn't complain when they decide to pirate your stuff instead of supporting you.
On the post: Not Many French Users Scared Away From File Sharing By Hadopi
Re: Re:
I don't know if you're an idiot or you made a typo. but keep in mind that the RIAA and the MPAA are separate organizations.
But, since you brought it up, I, for one, do not listen to the radio or watch (much) TV, and I very rarely *go* to see a movie.
If you keep using it, you have failed.
I'd like to see the reasoning, if any, that you used to come up with this.
Listen only to independent acts, ones with no record label deal, ones getting no airplay, no nothing.
I want to revise my earlier comment. There is no longer any doubt about whether or not you are an idiot. There are several labels that do not belong to the RIAA. Being on a label does not immediately mean that those bands are anti-fan. Further, "no nothing" is a pretty vague requirement, isn't it?
I dare you to try :)
I'm holding out for you to double-dog dare me.
On the post: Not Many French Users Scared Away From File Sharing By Hadopi
Re: Re:
So, you belong to the camp that believes because you can't see it, it must not exist, eh? Just because something is hidden does not mean it is small.
and is sucking in people who otherwise wouldn't take anything without paying in their normal lives.
Allow me to educate you. Find a song on your computer. Any will do. Next, click on it. Now hit Ctrl+C. Now hit Ctrl+V. Have you taken something without paying? So, it's clear the act of copying isn't taking without paying. Next lesson. Highlight some text in this comment. Hit Ctrl+C. Now open a txt file on your computer. Now press Ctrl+V. Did you just take something without paying? So, copying something on a remote server and putting it on a local one isn't taking without paying. So, how is copying a song on a remote server and putting it on a local machine taking without paying?
You've got to think. I know, it's scary.
On the post: Interview With Nina Paley: The More You Share, The More Valuable Your Works Become
Re: Re: Goals.
No, of course not. But from a middleman perspective, you aren't concerned with Dan Brown's value, you're concerned with his book's price. Without a middleman making decisions, it all becomes sane again.
Do TV networks renew the shows with the lowest Neilsen ratings?
No, but TV is on a totally different system than music and books. TV still banks on a captive audience. This will eventually lead to their downfall, but that's a different discussion for a different day.
Sharing only increases the value of the creator of the content-- not the distributer. (Obviously) To use the field analogy again, they to put up a wall and they don't care if the wall blocks sunlight and causes the commons to wither-- as long as they can still control who sees it. (Better still if they can get the money upfront before the bastard sees he's paid to walk in a withered field!) Further, they'd cream their collective pants if they could scorch the rest of the earth so the only (withered) grass left was theirs. They don't care about the value of the creator or their effect on society at large-- only the bottom line.
On the post: Interview With Nina Paley: The More You Share, The More Valuable Your Works Become
Goals.
I think the reason you don't understand them, and they you, is because you are talking about two different things entirely.
You see a commons and think "If this field were infinitely large, then everyone in the world could fit on it and there'd be room to spare!"
They see a commons and think "If I put a wall around it, it will be way easier to make people pay to get on it."
People concerned with dilution aren't worried about the value of a work, but of the ability to squeeze every bit of money out of it.
On the post: Interview With Nina Paley: The More You Share, The More Valuable Your Works Become
Re:
I assume this means you're done calling people out for ad hominem copmments, right?
On the post: Not Many French Users Scared Away From File Sharing By Hadopi
Re:
On the post: Press Realizing That Treatment Of Bradley Manning Is Indefensible
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Press Realizing That Treatment Of Bradley Manning Is Indefensible
Re: Re: Re:
Case closed.
On the post: One Mentally Deranged Shooter Is No Reason To Throw Out The First Amendment
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Press Realizing That Treatment Of Bradley Manning Is Indefensible
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Press Realizing That Treatment Of Bradley Manning Is Indefensible
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nope, because this is also been reviewed in many other countries with the same results.
Do you see how many of the people here defending Manning keep posting those pretty blue words that back up what they are claiming. Well, they're not just eye candy, my friend, but some sort of citation to back up their claims! Now, one can't help but notice that your post, while attempting to refute the other statements, is not adorned with pretty blue words. You might as well type "nu-uh!" in response without them. That's more free advice.
Everyone tries to make it sound like Manning is being kept in some hole in the ground, not fed, waterboarded twice a day, and left to fend for himself for food, fighting with the prison rats for scraps from the garbage pile from the officer's mess. It just isn't the case.
No has said anything of the sort. This would be a textbook example of a stawman.
The rest of it is BS, everyone knows it
I assume "everyone" doesn't include all the people (including doctors) who object to his treatment? In fact, can you please explain to me your definition of "everyone", because it seems to me that by the very fact that we are having this discussion that you are wrong.
but because it's a "wikileaks" thing, all the bleeding hearts are out whining about the torture
This has nothing to do with wikileaks. Manning is being held in solitary confinement. Without being convicted. Without even going to trial. *This* is why our hearts bleed, because people like you are defending our government as it shits on the Constitution. Wikileaks is a separate matter.
Now, I have a question for you, Mr. Coward. Give us a little background on yourself. I don't need specifics, obviously. I would just like to know what type of man would defend these actions without actually thinking about the consequences.
On the post: Press Realizing That Treatment Of Bradley Manning Is Indefensible
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You said he did not break the law because it said a military member was allowed to inform anyone who could get the information out. I was interested because when I *defend* Manning in a conversation, this point is bound to come up.
Now you say he did go outside the guidelines of the law, but it's a bad law, so it should be ignored. Do you see how you have contradicted yourself?
While I wouldn't go so far as to say every member of Congress is corrupt, I also agree that the law is naive in thinking that telling a government officials about the wrongdoings of the government will guarantee that knowledge will be used to thwart those wrongdoings.
Since you have switched paths from "not illegal" to "illegal but bad law" i should point out that civil disobedience often results in accepting the punishment for the protested law to bring light on the issue. (Google "martyr") Thus, using the "it's a bad law" is unlikely to get him out of jail anytime soon.
On the post: Press Realizing That Treatment Of Bradley Manning Is Indefensible
Re: Re: Re:
If you could be so kind as to point out your source, that would be awesome.
Once again, to prevent any unneeded anger, I don't agree with the law, but I can't see a way around it, either.
On the post: Press Realizing That Treatment Of Bradley Manning Is Indefensible
Re: Re: Re:
He is 100% innocent. How do I come by this number, you wonder? Well, he hasn't gone to trial. Thus, he is presumed innocent. Any deviation from 100% innocent before proven guilty deviates from the Constitution. You know, that thing that protects your right to say stupid, un-American shit on the internet. Yeah, that thing.
The chance that he didn't steal secrets? Well, they "caught" him because a self-described "hacker" turned him in after allegedly having an Instant Messenger conversation with Manning and "fearing for his family's safety". Is that the type of "proof" you feel is iron-clad?
Next >>