The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Music should be free. If you don't want it 'stolen' then don't record it.
Old 20th November 2010
  #1741
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
Except that you don't actually have that.

You THINK you record in your garage at "super high quality" - but you don't. Depending on your gear and acoustics you can record at barely acceptable to fair quality. You can't come close to competing with professional studios. Sorry, you just can't.
I'll step aside from the "can't compete" argument... I can, but it's a pointless argument. The truth is, it doesn't matter. The quality I get at home is SIGNIFICANTLY improved:

- the acoustic treatment available to home studios is incredible, at a relatively low cost. Back then? Foam. Advantage - today.
- my DAW blows away the Fostex/Tascam reel decks that cost less... tape costs? Nope. I don't have to limit my creativity. Unlimited tracks. Advantage - today.
- the mixers that I could afford were very bad as well, now I work mostly without them... but even when I do, even a behringer cheapie is a significant improvement over my old fostex. Advantage - today.
- there are $100 microphones that blow away the quality of $500 microphones in the past. Advantage - today.
- the number and quality of low cost studio monitors is unequalled Advantage - today.
- my $500 drawmer channel strip is much better then I could have bought for a similar inflation adjusted price, significantly so Advantage - today.

Don't get me wrong... I like recording analog as well. But to be frank... the distribution model I'm speaking about is mp3. People like mp3. People don't care about the difference in sound quality between a Katy Perry song recorded on analog or pro tools. It sells, people like it. If you really think your work benefits from analog, go for it. But people don't care, to them there is no difference, as long as the song is good.

Quote:
As far a distributing anywhere in the world goes - what's the point if you don't get paid for your work? I've probably spent over $35,000 on recording gear so far to make a professional quality album. I'd like to be able to make some of that back.
I get paid for my work. I'm truly sorry if you don't.
Old 20th November 2010
  #1742
All your recordings go into profit?
Old 20th November 2010
  #1743
Quote:
Originally Posted by psalad View Post
I'll step aside from the "can't compete" argument... I can, but it's a pointless argument. The truth is, it doesn't matter. The quality I get at home is SIGNIFICANTLY improved:

- the acoustic treatment available to home studios is incredible, at a relatively low cost. Back then? Foam. Advantage - today.
- my DAW blows away the Fostex/Tascam reel decks that cost less... tape costs? Nope. I don't have to limit my creativity. Unlimited tracks. Advantage - today.
- the mixers that I could afford were very bad as well, now I work mostly without them... but even when I do, even a behringer cheapie is a significant improvement over my old fostex. Advantage - today.
- there are $100 microphones that blow away the quality of $500 microphones in the past. Advantage - today.
- the number and quality of low cost studio monitors is unequalled Advantage - today.
- my $500 drawmer channel strip is much better then I could have bought for a similar inflation adjusted price, significantly so Advantage - today.

Don't get me wrong... I like recording analog as well. But to be frank... the distribution model I'm speaking about is mp3. People like mp3. People don't care about the difference in sound quality between a Katy Perry song recorded on analog or pro tools. It sells, people like it. If you really think your work benefits from analog, go for it. But people don't care, to them there is no difference, as long as the song is good.
This is going badly off topic, so I'll just say that in a number of cases you're not really right - you simply were not looking at the right gear back in the day. Of course using the right gear would in some cases required working with actual bands that know how to play as a unit. Back in the '80s I could get gear for relatively cheap that now commands huge prices on the vintage market. Can we say $200 for an LA2A? Yes, we can. $100 for a Beyer M88? yup. Same for a Sennheiser 409. Used to get Unidyne IIIs (same as an SM57) for $15 every weekend at the flea market. Got my RCA 74 for $100.

http://danalexanderaudio.com/Outboar...entlocator.jpg

http://danalexanderaudio.com/Outboar...Street1980.jpg

http://danalexanderaudio.com/Outboar...treetPrice.jpg

Quote:
I get paid for my work. I'm truly sorry if you don't.
Hmmm. What was it that you said you do for a living again?

I do hope to get paid for my work. By selling records. (Once we take care of the damn pirates you're constantly sticking up for.) I used to get paid for my work - when bands actually were able to make enough money to afford technical support.

One other thing - unlimited tracks isn't necessarily an advantage. In fact in most cases it's a liability. You should read Mixerman's new book.

And one last thing - fiberglass insulation and 2x4s have been available since the '50s or before. Of course back then in order to apply them correctly you had to ACTUALLY LEARN SOMETHING ABOUT ACOUSTICS, which really haven't changed much in a long time.

So yes, now it's a lot easier for people who don't know what they're doing to buy a bunch of gear and start recording. Is this a good thing? It is if you sell gear.

Let's leave it at that for now - if you want to discuss it further we should take it to another section of the forum.
Old 21st November 2010
  #1744
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
Hmmm. What was it that you said you do for a living again?
There you go again, right on cue. heh

I'm saying I get paid for my music, John, in addition to my day job. Have you found your work on torrents?

Quote:
(Once we take care of the damn pirates you're constantly sticking up for.)
You're a funny dude! heh Good thing you're funny, otherwise I'd think people would actually take you seriously that I defend piracy.

Quote:
One other thing - unlimited tracks isn't necessarily an advantage. In fact in most cases it's a liability. You should read Mixerman's new book.
As far as mixerman goes.. er, no thanks, read enough of his work to enjoy some of it (and I respect his work), but I find myself in need of a shower after visiting his forum.

As far as tracks go, when I want a lot, it's an advantage. When I choose to limit myself to fewer tracks, that's my choice. I kinda prefer having my OWN choice about how I want to record and how many tracks I need. Crazy me.

Quote:
Of course back then in order to apply them correctly you had to ACTUALLY LEARN SOMETHING ABOUT ACOUSTICS
It's certainly great to understand acoustics, but it's even better if you don't have to spend time building stuff and can spend that time recording. I dunno about you... but I enjoy recording/writing/etc more than building bass traps.
Old 21st November 2010
  #1745
Quote:
Originally Posted by psalad View Post
I kinda prefer having my OWN choice about how I want to record and how many tracks I need. Crazy me.

'Crazy me' for preferring to choose how my tracks are consumed by the public, but anyway.....

You didn't reply if all your recordings at least paid for themselves.

BTW, I have found my work on torrents.
Old 21st November 2010
  #1746
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
'Crazy me' for preferring to choose how my tracks are consumed by the public, but anyway.....
Very extreme view you have there. Good luck finding someone to argue that.

Quote:
You didn't reply if all your recordings at least paid for themselves.
Difficult math... do you include all your music gear purchases in the equation? If so, probably not. The CDs I've sold pay for the manufacturing. My business has made a profit though in years past, though that's not really my focus now.

Quote:
BTW, I have found my work on torrents.
Yes I know, I was asking John.
Old 21st November 2010
  #1747
Lives for gear
 
sound_music's Avatar
 

[QUOTE=chrisso;6024924]You should watch this video Ian posted:
"Super Agent" Ari Emanuel on the Web's Impact on Entertainment [VIDEO]

[QUOTE]

required viewing for any future piracy discussions
Old 21st November 2010
  #1748
Quote:
Originally Posted by psalad View Post
Very extreme view you have there.
Serious or not?
I obviously find it hard to tell these days.


Quote:
Difficult math... do you include all your music gear purchases in the equation?
Yeah, plus man hours, ongoing running costs etc....
If you are selling something you have to regard it as a business.
It's OK to lose money by the way if you decide that's sustainable for you.
But many people, musicians, even other small business owners typically under estimate their outgoings and general financial health. These type of people completely remove their work hours in the financial equation, and You'll see people working 12 hour days, 7 days a week and not counting any of that into their budget.
You might find you are paying other people to consume your music.
Old 21st November 2010
  #1749
Lives for gear
 

Music should be free. If you don't want it 'stolen' then don't record it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso
You might find you are paying other people to consume your music.
There seems to be a lot of that around here, sadly.
Old 21st November 2010
  #1750
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
Serious or not?
I obviously find it hard to tell these days.
No, not serious... you were making a rather obvious point I thought...

Quote:
Yeah, plus man hours, ongoing running costs etc....
Then no, all considered, it's not profitable. As I said though, that's not why I do it.
Old 21st November 2010
  #1751
Quote:
Originally Posted by psalad View Post
I get paid for my work. I'm truly sorry if you don't.
Sorry, I mistook you for talking about your CD releases.
Old 21st November 2010
  #1752
Lives for gear
 
Gary Ladd's Avatar
Exclamation

Welcome to the future...

http://newyork.***************/que/msg/2072693369.html

Quote:
new york craigslist - 100 Gigs worth of music. or il full your mp3 player, ipod anything up - $50 (queens)
Quote:
i'll fill your ipod up. or any other mp3 player. of fill it with movies

* Location: queens
* it's NOT ok to contact this poster with services or other commercial interests

PostingID: 2072693369
dfegad

Old 22nd November 2010
  #1753
Gear Maniac
Quote:
Originally Posted by AwwDeOhh View Post
Your glass is certainly full!
(of something)

Why is it that the "new paradigm" or "new reality" or "new way" or "web2.0" or "future model" or "revolution".... ALL involve me being robbed? Does this not seem like a twisted viewpoint to anyone else?
Why am i the bad guy, when all i want is current laws to be enforced? That would kill any need for a "new paradigm"... which is interchangable with "no direct income" from your product.
without knowing you, I don't think you're a bad guy, but I don't know for sure if you're a good guy either.

but I do agree you're getting ripped off and you're question that "current laws" be enforced is an excellent one.

I believe it is possible that making music could become little more than a hobby for the wealthy, like much of the visual arts has become, a luxury!

because investment money continues to leave our business rapidly. OTOH,
I think that, however we land, a smaller percentage of those left will be jerks.

sh
Old 22nd November 2010
  #1754
Quote:
Originally Posted by shmasterer View Post
without knowing you, I don't think you're a bad guy, but I don't know for sure if you're a good guy either.

but I do agree you're getting ripped off and you're question that "current laws" be enforced is an excellent one.

I believe it is possible that making music could become little more than a hobby for the wealthy, like much of the visual arts has become, a luxury!

because investment money continues to leave our business rapidly. OTOH,
I think that, however we land, a smaller percentage of those left will be jerks.

sh
You are implying that simply because somebody is wealthy they are not a jerk.

In my experience the reverse is often true.

Also in my experience the already wealthy generally don't make very good music.
Old 22nd November 2010
  #1755
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by shmasterer View Post
...because investment money continues to leave our business rapidly. OTOH,
I think that, however we land, a smaller percentage of those left will be jerks...
What I've seen for over a decade is the incentive for really smart, gifted young people going into music rapidly vanishing unless they have a rich daddy. What used to be a meritocracy that could lift people out of poverty has become a fashionable lifestyle for the elite.
Old 23rd November 2010
  #1756
Here for the gear
 

saying that music should be free, and that musicians should find other ways to earn money is like telling farmers that the food they grow should be free, and that they should make money selling cookbooks or something.
Old 23rd November 2010
  #1757
That's true.
Actually it's already happening, farming is becoming so marginal, thanks in major part to the supermarket's buying power, many farmers already supplement income with guest accommodation. They call it 'farmstay'.
Old 23rd November 2010
  #1758
Gear Head
 
McLies's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
That's true.
Actually it's already happening, farming is becoming so marginal, thanks in major part to the supermarket's buying power, many farmers already supplement income with guest accommodation. They call it 'farmstay'.
maaaan this thread don't change, do it?

hi guys, how's it going in here with the chickens?

old paradigms, old aspirations, same old branded goods syndrome.


Hey, the really cool thing about the farmers is when they get totally sidelined by the 'labels' who con the i-plate eaters into downloading low bitrate formulaic terminator junk, is, they can at least produce some decent food for them and their families and friends and fellow 'believers'.

Hey, maybe that's a good idea for real musicians too. Just a thought.

Cash Farming to to pay the 'feed' bills is as stupid as pressing record to get rich.

Good food is good.
Good music is good.
Lifes to short and getting shorter.

Nothing else to say that I haven't said before on this thread and I can't see a good enough reason to repeat myself.

very best wishes, heh
Old 23rd November 2010
  #1759
Quote:
Originally Posted by cabal bell View Post
saying that music should be free, and that musicians should find other ways to earn money is like telling farmers that the food they grow should be free, and that they should make money selling cookbooks or something.
Hey, that's a great idea! Let's raid Safeway for Thanksgiving!
Old 24th November 2010
  #1760
Gear Maniac
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
You are implying that simply because somebody is wealthy they are not a jerk.

In my experience the reverse is often true.

Also in my experience the already wealthy generally don't make very good music.
what I was trying to say was that I believe, in the future there will be less money to be made in the music business, thereby only attracting people who really love music, who absolutely MUST be in the music business. These people are not (usually) jerks.

Trying to put a positive spin on it actually. OTOH, I agree with your point about it though and subsequent reply by Bob Olhsson as well. The other side being that only the wealthy will be able to afford to be in it.

Which supports my original point comparing it to what happened in the visual arts. (my wife is a pro art critic, she told me so). Walk into any 5 hip art galleries in NY or LA, chances are the paintings hanging there were made by Masters Degree level of artist, really! Those people are at least middle class. And how is the middle class doing these days? What does this say about the future of visual art?

This is my basic point to those who think music ought to be free. Fair enough, I'm a socialist at heart, a person who thinks health care should be free. But just as your Doctor and RN must be paid, so too must your guitar slinger, or he's gonna walk to the nearest Post Office and get a real paycheck. And the rest of us will be left alone in the dark to entertain ourselves.

sh
Old 24th November 2010
  #1761
Quote:
Originally Posted by shmasterer View Post
the future there will be less money to be made in the music business, thereby only attracting people who really love music, who absolutely MUST be in the music business.
I have a different take and fear.
Creative people are often creative in more than one way. A lot of talented musicians just love being creative, they don't necessarily only love music. So if other creative disciplines offer a decent lifestyle and a creative outlet, then there's a good chance talented creative people will bypass music altogether and become the contemporary painters you talk about.


Quote:
This is my basic point to those who think music ought to be free. Fair enough, I'm a socialist at heart, a person who thinks health care should be free.
Actually healthcare is never free. You either pay for it directly, or you pay through taxes. We could start paying for music through taxation, but I'd rather not go there.
Old 24th November 2010
  #1762
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 

Why are musicians, arguably among the worst paid members of industrial society, supposed to be the first to give up their property rights to the state?
Old 24th November 2010
  #1763
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson View Post
Why are musicians, arguably among the worst paid members of industrial society, supposed to be the first to give up their property rights to the state?
F*ck the State...... Why are they supposed to be the first to give up their property rights to the mob? (And I'm not talking about the Mafia.....)
Old 24th November 2010
  #1764
Lives for gear
 
in a blue field's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson View Post
Why are musicians, arguably among the worst paid members of industrial society, supposed to be the first to give up their property rights to the state?

ask a tough question, get a tough answer... (no disrespect meant btw bob, you're the man). are you suggesting that the amount a doctor or a scientist contributes to society is on par with the amount contributed by a whiskey-guzzling groupie-screwing musician, whose job, literally, is to PLAY? (like as in "play" instruments.) of course not all musicians are created equal, but then again when i look around i still see certain artists banking pretty hard... i'm just trying to say, if we gave the same incentive to everyone in society, that'd be socialism, and then no one would work hard; no one is going to school for eight - twelve years to become a musician (and if they are, they are arguably a bit silly in the head). the day Wyld Stallyns ushers in world peace with their music, i'm sure they'll make huge money; til then tho, you cant tell me the people who are actually working toward such tangible ends arent more deserving of the wealth.


another angle, for your consideration: anyone remember a lil' show called star trek? do you remember how they eat on star trek? they go up to a machine, say what they want, no matter how extravagant, and it materializes. when we build that machine, will we delay solving world hunger for the sake of all the poor bakers and waiters who no longer have work? ever see someone go to the bathroom on star trek? proly safe to assume they have a similar device that dematerializes their waste. when we devise the way to rid ourselves of the entire sewage system, not to mention what it will do for hygiene, will you be throwing up your hands saying "wait a minute! what about the plumbers? the poor poor plumbers! let's delay massive societal progress, for their sake!"? what about robots? we'll undoubtedly one day replace many, many workers of all varieties with robots. what then?
Old 24th November 2010
  #1765
Quote:
Originally Posted by shmasterer View Post
what I was trying to say was that I believe, in the future there will be less money to be made in the music business, thereby only attracting people who really love music, who absolutely MUST be in the music business. These people are not (usually) jerks.
there's a lot of people right now, that love music, who absolutely MUST make music, let me know who your favorite bands are here:
SoundClick - Free MP3 music download and much, much more.
Old 24th November 2010
  #1766
Quote:
Originally Posted by in a blue field View Post
ask a tough question, get a tough answer... (no disrespect meant btw bob, you're the man). are you suggesting that the amount a doctor or a scientist contributes to society is on par with the amount contributed by a whiskey-guzzling groupie-screwing musician, whose job, literally, is to PLAY? (like as in "play" instruments.)
sure, what price can you put on the joy you get from music? if you want that service, pay the price or do without.

Quote:
Originally Posted by in a blue field View Post
of course not all musicians are created equal, but then again when i look around i still see certain artists banking pretty hard...
same with doctors, farmers, cooks, etc... your point?


Quote:
Originally Posted by in a blue field View Post
i'm just trying to say, if we gave the same incentive to everyone in society, that'd be socialism, and then no one would work hard; no one is going to school for eight - twelve years to become a musician (and if they are, they are arguably a bit silly in the head). the day Wyld Stallyns ushers in world peace with their music, i'm sure they'll make huge money; til then tho, you cant tell me the people who are actually working toward such tangible ends arent more deserving of the wealth.
I'm lost on this point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by in a blue field View Post
another angle, for your consideration: anyone remember a lil' show called star trek? do you remember how they eat on star trek? they go up to a machine, say what they want, no matter how extravagant, and it materializes. when we build that machine, will we delay solving world hunger for the sake of all the poor bakers and waiters who no longer have work? ever see someone go to the bathroom on star trek? proly safe to assume they have a similar device that dematerializes their waste. when we devise the way to rid ourselves of the entire sewage system, not to mention what it will do for hygiene, will you be throwing up your hands saying "wait a minute! what about the plumbers? the poor poor plumbers! let's delay massive societal progress, for their sake!"? what about robots? we'll undoubtedly one day replace many, many workers of all varieties with robots. what then?
if you want to have this type of discussion about the values that should be important to us in the context of technological development, I strongly suggest reading this book "you are not a gadget" by jaron lanier? you should...

as a respected computer scientist, inventor and thinker, he offers his alternate views to "open culture" and the dangers of it in his new book...

This is probably the single most in depth and lucid analysis of everything that's gone wrong with the internet and "digital moaist" culture.

Book (Great Q&A wit the author at this link as well)
Amazon.com: You Are Not a Gadget: A Manifesto (9780307269645): Jaron Lanier: Books

Book On Tape/Audible:
iTunes Store

FREE Links to Podcast Interviews/Lectures:
London School of Economics: Public lectures and events - Download free podcast episodes by London School of Economics on iTunes.

RSA Events: Audio - Download free podcast episodes by RSA on iTunes.

RSA Events: Vision videos - Download free podcast episodes by RSA on iTunes.
Old 24th November 2010
  #1767
Lives for gear
 
in a blue field's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lives For Fuzz View Post
sure, what price can you put on the joy you get from music? if you want that service, pay the price or do without.
you can say this all you want, but the fact is, 9/10 people dont. people are talking animals who vanitize themselves with inconclusive science and made-up religion as being something more; anyone who believes that we exist in a society where anyone actually has morals or values on their mind, anything but money on their mind, is naive. you can yell at the animals until you're blue in the face telling them to grow some values and become human, and they will continue to just stare at you blankly, wondering what business this loud creature has interrupting their grazing and defecating and fornicating, in such a manner as though they are supposed to understand the language it is using to try to communicate. it just aint happenin'.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Lives For Fuzz View Post
same with doctors, farmers, cooks, etc... your point?
my point is that kanye west feels zero stress over piracy, kuz of how much he's getting paid. if you want to make mad loot as a recording artist, then enter the upper echelons by any means necessary. though the monetization is different, the scale is the same. we exist in a world where music is stolen, and at least for the time being, that's that -- if you want to rise above the piracy problem then become "good enough". (i put that in quotes because i'm no fan of mainstream music, i dont consider them to be good enough but apparently those who sign the checks do -- it's funny how though the industry has changed so much so rapidly, the concept of selling out has never budged.)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Lives For Fuzz View Post
I'm lost on this point.
the point is that someone who sits around getting high practicing twiddling their fingers across a fretboard doesnt deserve to be treated the same way as someone who busts their ass to save lives in a hospital or solve the secrets of the world. not all industries are created equal, and that lack of equality can arguably be justified by what those industries offer toward the progress of society, and to that end, music is at the very bottom of the pyramid.








i have never read that book, and am following your links now, but i do know this much: https://www.gearslutz.com/board/5549617-post388.html
history teaches us, over and over again, that when an industry implodes, you get retrained to do something else if you want to survive, no matter how much your blessed lil' heart may want to keep following your dreams. technology progresses in such a way that it makes peoples' lives easier/more bearable/less worried about survival, and the inevitable result of that is that jobs get displaced, which frees up workers to concentrate on the problems that are still not fixed. IMHO, art can take one for the team if it means more people start concentrating on important problems in the world, which makes those problems get solved faster, which logically and ideally leads to a better society.
Old 24th November 2010
  #1768
Quote:
Originally Posted by in a blue field View Post
history teaches us, over and over again, that when an industry implodes, you get retrained to do something else if you want to survive, no matter how much your blessed lil' heart may want to keep following your dreams.
but the issue here is not displacement as when TV displaced the film industry, legally - or when autos displaced horse & buggy, legally.

the displacement here is the result of rampant, unchecked theft, aided by technology, and without consequences.

it's no more complicated than that - what you are describing would have allowed TV to broadcast whatever they wanted without compensating any rights holders, just because they had the new technology - that obviously didn't happen and for good reason.

this is taking a little longer to sort out, but just as the wild west wasn't wild forever (and I'm sure it took longer to tame than many would hae liked) the same will be true for the internet.

the wild west is as good a history lesson as any as to how this all plays out in the end... lawlessness will not be the societal norm, unless you are living someplace like Nigeria.

if you want to be academic about the conversation, read Lanier's book and report back.
Old 24th November 2010
  #1769
Lives for gear
 
in a blue field's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lives For Fuzz View Post
but the issue here is not displacement as when TV displaced the film industry, legally - or when autos displaced horse & buggy, legally.

the displacement here is the result of rampant, unchecked theft, aided by technology, and without consequences.

it's no more complicated than that - what you are describing would have allowed TV to broadcast whatever they wanted without compensating any rights holders, just because they had the new technology - that obviously didn't happen and for good reason.

this is taking a little longer to sort out, but just as the wild west wasn't wild forever (and I'm sure it took longer to tame than many would hae liked) the same will be true for the internet.

the wild west is as good a history lesson as any as to how this all plays out in the end... lawlessness will not be the societal norm, unless you are living someplace like Nigeria.

if you want to be academic about the conversation, read Lanier's book and report back.

here is my response to this, and i know this is a bit indirect but i feel it's a point worth contributing -- we do not solve problems the minute solutions are presented, society feels the need to ease into them, to become ready for them, and the only reason is MONEY. the first video phone went on display at the world fair in the 60s, but we still dont have them. the reason? massive displacement of the communications industry.

now let's use an example of something that's illegal, like piracy: weed. there is literally no real reason for weed being illegal, the amount of ignorance required to believe that there is anything wrong whatsoever with smoking weed is easily on par with the amount of ignorance required to believe in phrenology, or that homosexuality is a mental disease (and what a coincidence, the same people who once tried to get us to swallow those lies are the same ones who want us to swallow the lies about weed) -- and yet it is not legal. the reason? money, that's it. the inability of big business to as yet maximize on profit from weed, and at the same time the straying of the markets from the legal drugs they sell you, which include speed and heroin in pharmaceutical guise, and alcohol. booze always has been and always will be directly responsible for like three of the top ten leading causes of death, and it is no exaggeration at all to call those doctor-pills speed or heroin, look up the molecular compounds, it's literally the same stuff you buy on the street. i can legally buy as much clean uncut speed and heroin as i want, so long as the establishment are the ones who profit from the sale. drug-free america, indeed. it's all about monetary displacement, nothing more.

and to me, piracy is no different than any of this. the only reason it's even considered "piracy" in relative terms is because of the refusal of those with the most money to implement methods that would make them have to downgrade from their mercedes SLs to CLs; they'd still be driving mercedes, but that's just how greedy they are. network neutrality would solve the problem of piracy, digital de-privatization of the art sector would solve piracy -- yet we're not doing it. Cash Rules Everything Around Me, plain and simple. there are solutions, here and now, to this issue, and they are simply not being implemented. you should be just as mad at the people who refuse to solve the problem for the sake of their bank accounts as those who participate in the act of theft, if not moreso. but of course, you already know this, after all you started the thread about this Who's Really Destroying Music? Take a Closer Look... - Digital Music News (great read btw, thank you)
Old 24th November 2010
  #1770
Quote:
Originally Posted by in a blue field View Post
network neutrality would solve the problem of piracy, digital de-privatization of the art sector would solve piracy -- yet we're not doing it.

cash rules everything around me, plain and simple. there are solutions, here and now, to this issue, and they are simply not being implemented.

you should be just as mad at the people who refuse to solve the problem for the sake of their bank accounts as those who participate in the act of theft, if not moreso. but of course, you already know this, after all you started the thread about this Who's Really Destroying Music? Take a Closer Look... - Digital Music News (great read btw, thank you)
agreed
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump