Your Views On Music Leaked Early?

[LToidKing]

We're capitalist pigs? Since when does paying for a service constitute idiocity?

If you want music, get it however you want.

Unfortunately, an Anachronistic state would never work. As much fun as it may sound, people need rules, need to be told what to do (to a certain extent). If true freedom was an actual aim of the general populous, we would slowly turn into nomads again, who were devoid of government and "evil capitalism", but were completely bound by however they found their food, water, and shelter.

For an insight (and I can't beleive I'm linking to a devout libertarian site), look at this article, entitled "Why Anarchy Won't Work" by Patrick K Martin.

If you don't like the rules, get out of the freaking country. There's no such thing as a free lunch. PERIOD.

All downloading music does is deny the ARTIST payment for their work. Sure, if everyone downloaded all their music, you would eventually shut down the "Evil" record companies, but then the production/sale of new music would stop, and there would be nothing new to download. In a worse-case scenario, downloading music DESTROYS music for the future.

America as a general rule wants its copyrights accepted world wide. That's why there's such a big stink about Chinese tech companies blatantly copying American electronics and selling them under a different name. However, I think in the case of getting an album off of iTunes, the artist is still seeing their money, so you're right, it doesn't really apply

[goodie]

This thread made me think of this funny picture:

[soundwave]

I feel that musicians and actors should get paid nearly as much as they do. It is my expressed opinion that a person shouldnt come home with more than 150-200 grand a year, its simply unneccessary, and I feel the rest should go to the government(not the officials themselves) or to charity. They don't deserve those big mansions and expensive cars anymore than the next guy.

[Doofus]

Then maybe "the next guy" should find a new line of work.

If you really don't think actors and musicians should be paid as much for their work as they are, then maybe you should stop seeing their movies, and listening to their music. Or better yet, get everyone else to stop.

[jaytee]

We're capitalist pigs? Since when does paying for a service constitute idiocity?

If you want music, get it however you want.

Unfortunately, an Anachronistic state would never work. As much fun as it may sound, people need rules, need to be told what to do (to a certain extent). If true freedom was an actual aim of the general populous, we would slowly turn into nomads again, who were devoid of government and "evil capitalism", but were completely bound by however they found their food, water, and shelter.

For an insight (and I can't beleive I'm linking to a devout libertarian site), look at this article, entitled "Why Anarchy Won't Work" by Patrick K Martin.

If you don't like the rules, get out of the freaking country. There's no such thing as a free lunch. PERIOD.

All downloading music does is deny the ARTIST payment for their work. Sure, if everyone downloaded all their music, you would eventually shut down the "Evil" record companies, but then the production/sale of new music would stop, and there would be nothing new to download. In a worse-case scenario, downloading music DESTROYS music for the future.

America as a general rule wants its copyrights accepted world wide. That's why there's such a big stink about Chinese tech companies blatantly copying American electronics and selling them under a different name. However, I think in the case of getting an album off of iTunes, the artist is still seeing their money, so you're right, it doesn't really apply

so, um how old are you (obviously not old enough to know about spell check)?
shall we go through this point by point?
first of all, i never once said that payment for a service was the equivalent of idiocy. you should try reading next time. furthermore, when you buy a cd you are not paying for a service, you're paying for a cd. like i said, if you really like the music, send a few dollars to the people that worked hard to make it, instead of the people that worked hard to screw over the people that made it.

next, do you know what anachronistic means? i can only assume you meant anarchist (and managed to bungle a total of 6 letters). in any case, i can tell you've never done a whole lot of reading on anarchism. yes, there are those that advocate a return to our primitive roots. However, a large portion of anarchist literature has come up with the idea that technology/high society and anarchism are not mutually exclusive. Furtherore, nobody said that the "aim of the general populus" was total liberty. That's the aim of the anarchists, because a large portion of the population has trained to think that there is nothing better for them.

moving on. Wow, you can link to a website that say anarchism won't work. for every one of those you link, i can link to ten that says anarchism will work. furthermore, i never said an anarchist society was a possibility (though i believe such a system will evolve in the future). i use anarchism as a value-set, a way to make my decisions.

and now we have the typical ignorant conservative response to anyone that challenges the status quo: "get out of my country." yea, that'll do a lot of good. where do you propose i live then? how do you propose i get there? then there's the fact that maybe i just happen to enjoy my geographical position, even if i don't agree with the politics it is involved in. this is honestly one of the worst arguments (i use the term lightly) that conservative levy against liberals, and all it serves to do is show that you have no idea what you're talking about. oh, and the free lunch? that has nothing to do with anything. i never said there was a free lunch, not to mention that it's a joke about economics (there is no such thing as a free lunch because of the oppurtunity cost of the lunch).

next, you fail to point out what's wrong with my original proposition that you should ideally download the songs, then send a few bucks to the people that actually worked on the album. furthermore, the major record labels shutting down would not stifle any music and in fact, it would probably allow for greater diversity and creativity in music because nobody is worried about what's selling. musicians don't need a record label bigwig to sustain themselves and their music. the bigwig needs musicians to sustain him.

your last point really isn't even germane to this discussion (though, i suppose your first ones about anarchism in general weren't either), but whatever. first of all, there are already laws about international copyright law, its not just some abstract thing that the US wants. furthermore, itunes really just rips off artists even more than usual. since there is no physical media to distribute, the prices are even further inflated beyond CDs and the artist sees an even smaller percentage of the profit.

now if you'll excuse me, i've got to go study. i hope this has made things a little clearer.

[soundwave]

Then maybe "the next guy" should find a new line of work.

If you really don't think actors and musicians should be paid as much for their work as they are, then maybe you should stop seeing their movies, and listening to their music. Or better yet, get everyone else to stop.

I think their work is fine and dandy, I just dont think their jobs are worth the millions and millions that they make.

[LToidKing]

Well, I see where you're coming from more now. And, since you're taking sides, the "liberal" thing to do (which you have done) is completely dismiss everything I've said because I said "anachronistic" when I meant "anarchistic". I believe I wrote this at 1:30 in the morning, and I had a crappy weekend, so that one slipped by me.

Hell, I don't even care about anarchy. It was a middle-school phase for me.

As for the quote I used, I remember what I was meaning to say

Personal property is a big right in my book. What's mine is mine, what's yours is yours. I may offer you mine, but you have no right to take mine without that permission.

Actually, someone with the "If you want music, get it however you want" mentality broke into my car this weekend and stole all my CD's. Is this an OK way to "get it"?

As for new music drying up with the downfall of big record companies, it's not the music that will dissapear, it's the distribution. Musicians go through big companies because they have the means to get their music out. Also, have you ever checked in to how much studio/mixing/production time and/or ProTools cost? To get the kind of sound that people are expecting of new music takes a LOT of money. Big Records, INC. has that kind of money.

EDIT: I have never bought a CD off of iTunes that was more than $9.99, unless it was a muli-cd compilation.

[jaytee]

Well, I see where you're coming from more now. And, since you're taking sides, the "liberal" thing to do (which you have done) is completely dismiss everything I've said because I said "anachronistic" when I meant "anarchistic". I believe I wrote this at 1:30 in the morning, and I had a crappy weekend, so that one slipped by me.

Hell, I don't even care about anarchy. It was a middle-school phase for me.

As for the quote I used, I remember what I was meaning to say

Personal property is a big right in my book. What's mine is mine, what's yours is yours. I may offer you mine, but you have no right to take mine without that permission.

Actually, someone with the "If you want music, get it however you want" mentality broke into my car this weekend and stole all my CD's. Is this an OK way to "get it"?

As for new music drying up with the downfall of big record companies, it's not the music that will dissapear, it's the distribution. Musicians go through big companies because they have the means to get their music out. Also, have you ever checked in to how much studio/mixing/production time and/or ProTools cost? To get the kind of sound that people are expecting of new music takes a LOT of money. Big Records, INC. has that kind of money.

EDIT: I have never bought a CD off of iTunes that was more than $9.99, unless it was a muli-cd compilation.

why the devil is the liberal thing to do dismiss everything you say based on a misspelling? thanks for making terrible generalizations.

me, i do care about anarchism, because its more than a middle school phase. did you ever even read any literature on it? judging by your next comment, i'd guess no, because most anarchists agree that people can still possess things based on use. if i'm occupying a house, then i have a right to stay there, a reasonable right to privacy, and an expectation that nobody will stay there without my permission. if i leave that house, however, to move elsewhere, i am no longer using it and someone else can have the right to live there. its all about cooperation and solidarity, and i think that if you do some reading, you'll find that a lot of the reasons you think things like that can't work are actually a direct by-product of the unfair capitalist system (this goes for your stolen CDs as well).

who's to say that we need a big company to distribute music. what does the ceo of sony have to do with distribution? nothing. the reason indie labels don't have the distribution power of major labels is due to a lack of funds, further proving the point that the capitalist system is unfair. if we were rid of capitalism, there is no reason why a single person recording on a boombox couldint distribute his music all over the place. for the record, yes, i do know what goes into producing a record, and frankly it doesn't take a lot of money to produce an amazing album. sgt pepper was recorded on a four track, for instance. especially now, with the abundance of fast computers and cheap programs for making music, virtually anyone can produce a professional sounding record, given they have some talent. it simply does not take a lot of money to produce a good album.

and i have no idea what your edit is supposed to prove. back to studying.

[LToidKing]

<sigh> I've gotta stop this.

We're both on separate sides of an issue. I have no clue what that issue is, and I think that's the problem. However, a wise old friend of mine once said, "fighting on the internet is like competing in the special olympics; even if you win, you're still retarded."

I have nothing to prove, and no way of convincing you of my way of thinking, because I don't even know what we're fighting about. Are we fighting about governments? Personal rights? Music? Who gives a crap? After all, who am I to say what you need to be "educated" about? I am not your leader (whom you would patronize as well), and I am not your parent. I'm just some guy that struck a chord about self-governance in a thread about music.

You are entitled to your way of thinking just as much as I am entitled to mine. Anarchy was a middle school phase FOR ME. Obviously, it was not for you, and that's your bag. Keep it up. Personally, I enjoy the capitalist machine rolling along, as the competition it develops has created my favorite nation. And some pretty freaking cool stuff.

And the edit was adressing this :

furthermore, itunes really just rips off artists even more than usual. since there is no physical media to distribute, the prices are even further inflated beyond CDs and the artist sees an even smaller percentage of the profit.

[mothis]

I agree with jaytee. Downloading music is ok in my book for a few reasons: A) Most people go buy the music that they've aldready downloaded. It's called try before you buy. Espicially sites like espew.com because they usually don't have all the songs by an artist but enough to give oyu a sense of their music. B) I hate all this RIAA BS about how music downloading is destroying music and hurting musicians. Musicians are being hurt by the RIAA and major record labels.

[Black Six]

me, i do care about anarchism, because its more than a middle school phase. did you ever even read any literature on it? judging by your next comment, i'd guess no, because most anarchists agree that people can still possess things based on use. if i'm occupying a house, then i have a right to stay there, a reasonable right to privacy, and an expectation that nobody will stay there without my permission. if i leave that house, however, to move elsewhere, i am no longer using it and someone else can have the right to live there. its all about cooperation and solidarity, and i think that if you do some reading, you'll find that a lot of the reasons you think things like that can't work are actually a direct by-product of the unfair capitalist system (this goes for your stolen CDs as well).

Here's my problem with this argument. Now, let it be known that I am by no means a well-read person when it comes to anarchy, this is just an observation of mine based on real life, not theory. There are a lot of people out there. A lot of them are stupid (in fact, 50% of the population is of below average intelligence ). While your arguments in favor of anarchy are all well and good, I'm sure there are many, many people who would not be able to fully grasp the concepts or would downright ignore them. That is why we have laws and law enforcement in our society. I'm not saying it's perfect, but a lot better than a total state of anarchy would be, in my opinion.

[jaytee]

Here's my problem with this argument. Now, let it be known that I am by no means a well-read person when it comes to anarchy, this is just an observation of mine based on real life, not theory. There are a lot of people out there. A lot of them are stupid (in fact, 50% of the population is of below average intelligence ). While your arguments in favor of anarchy are all well and good, I'm sure there are many, many people who would not be able to fully grasp the concepts or would downright ignore them. That is why we have laws and law enforcement in our society. I'm not saying it's perfect, but a lot better than a total state of anarchy would be, in my opinion.

i can't answer this in depth because i have to get to a final exam, but like i said earlier, you'll find that a lot of the reasons why people think anarchy wouldn't work are rooted in capitalism, not in human nature. furthermore, you have to realize that i am not talking about a state of general anarchy, i'm talking about an anarchIST society. the difference is night and day. whereas anarchy would just be a mess, anarchism is actually very organized, just in a way so as to eliminate power structures.

[Mr. Cool]

I dont think that downloading music is that bad. First aof all the artists are already making millions a year, so my five bucks isnt gonna matter all that much.However it is gonna matter to me because i only make around $400 a year seeing as I dont yet have a job. I feel kind of bad because I wouldnt want to have people getting my stuff for free, but i still download music. I also think that the RIAA is way to restrictive. I was reading things about how they want to make it illegal to even tell someone how to get music for free, which is just not fair. I find it funny to look at the legal disclaimers on site like kazaa, bittorent, and lymewire. Is funny how they say that they havent done anything wrong and we're doing things illegally if we share copyrighted music. This technically is true but its obvious they created these sites for illegal purposes and this is just their coverup.