View Single Post
Old 18th July 2012
Originally Posted by emilision View Post
Re trite observations and repetitious arguments: just let me make one thing very clear, I am in no way defending modern tech-companies. If you want to make out that I am, knock yourself out.

Re modern pop-music: do you have any idea how much money the bands I just mentioned in my last post have made for themselves AND record labels? It's in the industry's interest to make music that good; it's actually more profitable!

Anyway, I do agree with the basic premises of most of what you're all saying, just not in terms of the majors from c. mid-90s-ish onwards…

All I'm worried about, is, NOW things are very different, AND it would be careless to sign up to legislation that might damage the world just to suit some anachronistic notions of "how things should be"…basically, an offense needs to be more creative; innovative even…of course time is running out, and the tech companies most certainly have the upper hand.
you need to understand the legislation first to make that determination. just because someone says that the sky is green and the grass is purple, doesn't mean you have to believe them.

always question anyone who creates a situation where you are asked to chose one set of rights (individual protections) over the other (freedom of speech)- this is simply a ploy to get you to give up rights, not defend the others.

it can't be said to many times the fallacy of that argument (in addition to being completely ingenious) is confusing the freedom of expression, with the illegal exploitation of that expression for profit.