How about these "musicians" and "artists" come up with something original? Oh, I forgot... that's much too hard.
And that's why music of today generally sucks. I have to go back to 80s and 90s to find anything decent to listen to. Everything made after the 2000s is pure garbage, it's nothing but bubblegum pop shit.
I have some content that Wyden can talk about during his day-long filibuster.
First, read the whole of the US Constitution. Then, once that's done read the whole of the Bill of Rights and while you're at it, put emphasis on the parts of the Bill of Rights that the bill he's filibustering would threaten. And then finally, the book 1984 by George Orwell for just desserts.
That that person was a moron. Just because it comes from or approved by the USA doesn't mean that it's 100% safe.
Several anti-cholesterol drugs (Crestor, Lipitor, etc.) received FDA approval even though they have been seen to cause irreversible muscle damage and ALS-like symptoms. The same goes for hundreds of other drugs deemed to be safe by the FDA only to get pulled from the market because it was found to be killing people.
If you ask me, the music industry hasn't made anything remotely close to original or decent in the last twenty years. All of it has been nothing but cheap pop songs that last on the Top 20 List for maybe a week or two, and then... onto the next pop song craze. None of it will ever stand the test of time.
Owning a patent doesn't at all give you the right to go ahead and bash someone over the head with it or demand "protection money".
I understand that companies need to recoup their R&D costs by licensing out their patents to companies that choose to license the patent and paying royalties to the company that owns the patent. I have absolutely no problem with this, that's how patents are supposed to work. They are supposed to be licensed out and royalties are paid. But when you start doing the kind of shit that MPHJ and other patent trolls do, you step over the line and you become no better than a mob boss. "Pay up or you get cement shoes!"
A lot of these companies that patent trolls sue don't even get the chance to license the patents, they're simply swept into the court room.
Now if a company decides to not pay royalties and continues to use the patent without licensing it, then the owner of the patent has every right to file a lawsuit. But filing a lawsuit without even giving the third-party a chance to properly license the patent is when you quite simply become a patent troll.
I'll take that job! It'll be fun! I'll have all the fun I can have taking a gigantic red stamp to every piece of paper to come across my desk and stamping "FAIL!" on it.
But... did you pay for that copy? If the answer is no, then you legally do not have the rights to have that copy.
If you copy or take something that you do not have the permission or legal rights granted to you by the owner of that "item" then you have technically stolen that "item." Again, I understand that it is a copy but you don't have the legal rights to copy. In any civilized world, that would be considered to be theft.
Now, at one time or another I was once like you. I felt the same way about copying. I remember the old Napster days when I traded songs far and wide across the Internet. But when the lawsuits started happening I deleted all of my ill-gotten songs and started buying them instead to support those artists that made those songs.
If you look at the definition of the word theft, it reads as...
"the act of stealing; the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another; larceny."
In the case of piracy, though it may not be a physical item that you are taking, you are still wrongfully taking that item/property (though it may just be a copy of that item) that does not belong to you that you did not pay for.
That song or movie that you pirated belongs to someone else, it is not within your rights to take that without proper compensation to the person/entity that owns it.
This is theft if you go by the literal definition of the word "theft."
So by your logic, if a group isn't represented by a "big name record label" they aren't musicians? Biggest bunch of fucking bullshit I've seen a long time, and I've seen a lot of bullshit on the Internet.
This is my set of criteria that I use to describe a musician, it doesn't have to include all of the bullet points.
* A person who sings in band/group.
* A person who plays an instrument in a band/group.
* A band/group that comes together and makes *gasp* music.
* A band/group that people come to see and enjoy hearing their music.
Nowhere in that list is a bullet point that states that they have to be signed by some "big name record label" like EMI. You, jackass... fail.
I prefer to pay for music. not go to The Pirate Bay.
I don't use iTunes and anything that can be labeled as "iShit" but I do use Amazon.com's MP3 Music Store.
When I go there and get a song I get a DRM-free, high-quality, 256-bit (average) variable bit-rate MP3 file that I've seen spikes to full 320-bit. This isn't some badly encoded MP3 which believe you me, I've heard some badly encoded MP3s that was encoded by someone who obviously doesn't know his way around LAME.
There's still Amazon.com's MP3 Music Store. I've not heard anything bad happening to them. The fact that we get DRM-free, high-quality, 256-bit (average) variable bit-rate MP3 files that I've seen spikes to full 320-bit is absolutely great.
On the post: No Inspiration Without Payment: Ed Sheeran Sued For Two Songs Sounding Too Similar To Old Songs
Re:
And that's why music of today generally sucks. I have to go back to 80s and 90s to find anything decent to listen to. Everything made after the 2000s is pure garbage, it's nothing but bubblegum pop shit.
On the post: Burr & Feinstein Officially Release Anti-Encryption Bill, As Wyden Promises To Filibuster It
Re: Re: Here's some content...
I meant the reading of 1984 as a lesson on what NOT to do.
On the post: Burr & Feinstein Officially Release Anti-Encryption Bill, As Wyden Promises To Filibuster It
Here's some content...
First, read the whole of the US Constitution. Then, once that's done read the whole of the Bill of Rights and while you're at it, put emphasis on the parts of the Bill of Rights that the bill he's filibustering would threaten. And then finally, the book 1984 by George Orwell for just desserts.
On the post: iPhone Forensics Experts Demonstrate Basic Proof Of Concept That The iPhone Hack The FBI Says 'Doesn't Work' Actually Does Work
Re: Re:
On the post: Daughters Sue 'Big Bang Theory' Over Infringing Use Of Mother's 82-Year-Old Poem 'Warm Kitty'
On the post: Why Everyone's Totally Overreacting To Spotify's Privacy Policy (Which Isn't As Bad As You Think)
Windows 10...
On the post: Took Longer Than I Expected: Bill O'Reilly Yanks Video Games Into Charleston Massacre For No Reason At All
Keep blaming...
On the post: Here's A Serious Alternative To Big Pharma: Cuba
Re: Re: Why cuba model cant work in usa
Several anti-cholesterol drugs (Crestor, Lipitor, etc.) received FDA approval even though they have been seen to cause irreversible muscle damage and ALS-like symptoms. The same goes for hundreds of other drugs deemed to be safe by the FDA only to get pulled from the market because it was found to be killing people.
On the post: Jury Says Robin Thicke And Pharrell Infringed... Even If They Didn't Mean To: Told To Pay $7.3 Million
Re:
On the post: Years Of Brainwashing The Public Into Thinking Everything Creative Must Be 'Owned' Has Led To This New Mess
Somehow... I don't care.
On the post: Patent Troll Told That It Can't Sue The FTC For Merely Investigating Its Shakedown Scam
Re: (Parody)
I understand that companies need to recoup their R&D costs by licensing out their patents to companies that choose to license the patent and paying royalties to the company that owns the patent. I have absolutely no problem with this, that's how patents are supposed to work. They are supposed to be licensed out and royalties are paid. But when you start doing the kind of shit that MPHJ and other patent trolls do, you step over the line and you become no better than a mob boss. "Pay up or you get cement shoes!"
A lot of these companies that patent trolls sue don't even get the chance to license the patents, they're simply swept into the court room.
Now if a company decides to not pay royalties and continues to use the patent without licensing it, then the owner of the patent has every right to file a lawsuit. But filing a lawsuit without even giving the third-party a chance to properly license the patent is when you quite simply become a patent troll.
On the post: Second Apple v. Samsung Patent Trial Ends With A Partial Victory For Apple, But Far From What It Wanted
Re: Rock solid priorities. Sandstone to be specific
On the post: Investors Whine As T-Mobile Finally Forces Verizon Wireless To (GASP) Compete On Price
Still a ripoff...
On the post: TechCrunch Admits That Using Facebook Comments Drove Away Most Of Their Commenters
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
youtube.com###watch7-discussion
On the post: Cleveland Bus System Joins Over 100 Others In Being Sued For Patent Infringement For Notifying People If A Bus Is Running Late
Re: Re: Solution to patent reform
On the post: Guess What? Copying Still Isn't Stealing
Re: Re: It is still theft...
If you copy or take something that you do not have the permission or legal rights granted to you by the owner of that "item" then you have technically stolen that "item." Again, I understand that it is a copy but you don't have the legal rights to copy. In any civilized world, that would be considered to be theft.
Now, at one time or another I was once like you. I felt the same way about copying. I remember the old Napster days when I traded songs far and wide across the Internet. But when the lawsuits started happening I deleted all of my ill-gotten songs and started buying them instead to support those artists that made those songs.
On the post: Guess What? Copying Still Isn't Stealing
It is still theft...
"the act of stealing; the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another; larceny."
In the case of piracy, though it may not be a physical item that you are taking, you are still wrongfully taking that item/property (though it may just be a copy of that item) that does not belong to you that you did not pay for.
That song or movie that you pirated belongs to someone else, it is not within your rights to take that without proper compensation to the person/entity that owns it.
This is theft if you go by the literal definition of the word "theft."
On the post: RIAA Insists That, Really, The Music Industry Is Collapsing; Reality Shows It's Just The RIAA That's Collapsing
Re: Re: Re:
So by your logic, if a group isn't represented by a "big name record label" they aren't musicians? Biggest bunch of fucking bullshit I've seen a long time, and I've seen a lot of bullshit on the Internet.
This is my set of criteria that I use to describe a musician, it doesn't have to include all of the bullet points.
* A person who sings in band/group.
* A person who plays an instrument in a band/group.
* A band/group that comes together and makes *gasp* music.
* A band/group that people come to see and enjoy hearing their music.
Nowhere in that list is a bullet point that states that they have to be signed by some "big name record label" like EMI. You, jackass... fail.
On the post: Katy Perry Shows How The Problem With The Major Labels Is Economics, Not Piracy
Re: Re:
I don't use iTunes and anything that can be labeled as "iShit" but I do use Amazon.com's MP3 Music Store.
When I go there and get a song I get a DRM-free, high-quality, 256-bit (average) variable bit-rate MP3 file that I've seen spikes to full 320-bit. This isn't some badly encoded MP3 which believe you me, I've heard some badly encoded MP3s that was encoded by someone who obviously doesn't know his way around LAME.
On the post: Katy Perry Shows How The Problem With The Major Labels Is Economics, Not Piracy
Re: Re: Re:
Next >>