____twoism

Lens Larque wrote:

Waterbagel wrote:

Lens Larque wrote:If one knows they can afford to pay for it they should. If you are poor as fuck for whatever reason music should be available at the taxpayer's expense.

Only problem with that is that it starts to ruin any incentive to buy it in the first place.
Or, at least, getting it for free starts to outweigh the choice of buying it even if you can afford it. Unless we're talking about a sort of "music welfare system", which.. well.. I feel like that'd be just about impossible to enstate/enforce!

Ruining the incentive is, i guess, my point. The character or irresponsibility--if you know that you can afford it, you should, and there I meant exchange for it. But if a person or family cannot afford an mp3 dl or vinyl to enrich their lives because of many car payments or a housing payment and food payments, there should also be not unlike "food stamps" some kind of music benefit. This new office will cost millions of additional tax-dollars. And it is called sometimes a public library.

I do wonder though, if people started using the library to check out CD's and rip them more often, wouldn't this essentially have the same impact as piracy?

Think of all the new artists one might encounter. 12 copies of Hammertime on CD. And then some Emma Kirkby work that is OOP and no one is serving it online because it is too obscure, possibly because anyone wise enough to own an Emma Kirkby disc isn't as much of an asshat to distribute the property illegally online, and the ones who do have often built a website championing the giving of classical works to the poor and buying a mediafire subscription. How did the disc get there? The owner came all over it and donated it to your local library.

Lens Larque wrote:And it is called sometimes a public library.

lol'd.

I guess "stealing music" is just like "stealing someone's idea" (like blueprints for a new, yet un-patented device); you haven't physically taken anything from them, but you've still stolen something without their consent.

Economies must exist for the betterment of all.

I wonder what this means for buying music second hand. I guess if you sell a CD, should you not delete the files you ripped from it? Otherwise, you'd be "stealing" it too, I guess.. Seeing as, without ownership of the CD, you no longer own the right to have possession of the files. Hmm.

That way, for two people to own the music, they'd both have to "support the artist" (quotes used to detract from "but it doesn't support the artist, the man, etc." arguments) by buying the CD. Can't just share.

You are paying money to the second hand store that pays other companies and their employees.


This money is then funneled directly to WARP Records and into Boards of Canada's sports pockets

Waterbagel wrote:I wonder what this means for buying music second hand. I guess if you sell a CD, should you not delete the files you ripped from it? Otherwise, you'd be "stealing" it too, I guess.. Seeing as, without ownership of the CD, you no longer own the right to have possession of the files. Hmm.

That way, for two people to own the music, they'd both have to "support the artist" (quotes used to detract from "but it doesn't support the artist, the man, etc." arguments) by buying the CD. Can't just share.

That's the whole reason I've never looked at it like that. Opinions are never consistent as to what's wrong/right in a situation where nothing is literally being stolen, but instead copied and not paid for.

Mexicola wrote:I give up. It's like talking to a pedantic 12 year old.

Welcome to the club. I gave up long ago. He's the internet equivalent of that person who seems to think he's won a debate by having the loudest voice. If you enter into a debate with your mind completely made up in the first place then you're not debating anything, you're just arguing.

The Friendly Stranger wrote:

Mexicola wrote:I give up. It's like talking to a pedantic 12 year old.

Welcome to the club. I gave up long ago. He's the internet equivalent of that person who seems to think he's won a debate by having the loudest voice. If you enter into a debate with your mind completely made up in the first place then you're not debating anything, you're just arguing.

Welcome to the internet.

You started the "debate" with your first post in the thread. The only thing I challenged in my first post was the concept of "music that is downloaded for free is being paid for in one way or another, making other people money except for the artists" because I find this erroneous, as the money you spend on your computer and internet connection has nothing at all to do with the money you spend/don't spend on music. This is completely discretionary and it's one of those arguments that assume everyone to be exactly the same, which is the reason why I elaborated my process of piracy in the second post.

There are those online who would have belittled your post with so much ad hominem and so many insults, riddled with the worst language known to mankind. If I have appeared to have even a remotely "loud voice" to you then you must be very, very new to the internet.

You stated nothing that persuaded me from my view. The day you can truthfully tell me "Hey! Corruption in the music industry no longer exists, free trials for every album exist in high quality and nobody has been fined 50,000 dollars for downloading 12 songs, or had a school project video removed from YouTube for "copyright infringement"!", I'll gladly change my views entirely. That doesn't exist though. Send the moderator a message expressing your distaste for me or something and ask to have me banned if I'm bothering you all so much with my opinion. If this is what it effectively is at this point, I have no interesting sitting here on a forum having a discussion with a bunch of people who hate my guts.

motion to lock thread?

Rodheh wrote:
Welcome to the internet.

You started the "debate" with your first post in the thread. The only thing I challenged in my first post was the concept of "music that is downloaded for free is being paid for in one way or another, making other people money except for the artists" because I find this erroneous, as the money you spend on your computer and internet connection has nothing at all to do with the money you spend/don't spend on music. This is completely discretionary and it's one of those arguments that assume everyone to be exactly the same, which is the reason why I elaborated my process of piracy in the second post.

There are those online who would have belittled your post with so much ad hominem and so many insults, riddled with the worst language known to mankind. If I have appeared to have even a remotely "loud voice" to you then you must be very, very new to the internet.

You stated nothing that persuaded me from my view. The day you can truthfully tell me "Hey! Corruption in the music industry no longer exists, free trials for every album exist in high quality and nobody has been fined 50,000 dollars for downloading 12 songs, or had a school project video removed from YouTube for "copyright infringement"!", I'll gladly change my views entirely. That doesn't exist though. Send the moderator a message expressing your distaste for me or something and ask to have me banned if I'm bothering you all so much with my opinion. If this is what it effectively is at this point, I have no interesting sitting here on a forum having a discussion with a bunch of people who hate my guts.

1. If your mind is made up then why the unnecessary hostility?

2. Just because we are on the internet does not mean we have to act like children. Twoism is one of the few forums where we can discuss things objectively - let's keep it that way.

3. Your opinion is valid - but equally so is someone elses. If you don't see eye to eye, move on the discussion, otherwise it end ups going round in circles.

4. No one hates your guts, don't be a martyr

I don't mean for this to be a hostile post, though it probably looks that way. No one wants you banned man, just try to agree to disagree and then we can all get along and all have an interesting conversation.

Rodheh wrote:You started the "debate" with your first post in the thread. The only thing I challenged in my first post was the concept of "music that is downloaded for free is being paid for in one way or another, making other people money except for the artists" because I find this erroneous, as the money you spend on your computer and internet connection has nothing at all to do with the money you spend/don't spend on music. This is completely discretionary and it's one of those arguments that assume everyone to be exactly the same, which is the reason why I elaborated my process of piracy in the second post.

I agree with your point but only partially, and the computers=piracy argument was something that I also found problematic with the article.

Cost of computer - irrelevant to piracy
ISP - also irrelevant, unless you are willingly paying through the nose for bandwidth, although even this is debatable as movie streaming services (and similar) are equally likely to be using it up as any piracy.
Subscription to newsgroup service - very relevant to piracy. Artist gets nothing.
Subscription to file sharing service - Same as above.
Subscription to Spotify (or similar) - also extremely relevant to this particular discussion as the owner of Spotify has made himself very rich while paying the artists an absolute pittance.

I don't think anyone here is going to stand up and say, hand on heart, that all record companies are good guys. We all know of plenty of tales of the artist getting screwed by "the man".

The problem with boycotting record labels is that for many bands it is the only way they can exist. A lot of unambitious electronic artists can get by as bedroom part-time musicians with little or no ill effects. For a band who build their career through being a collective of musicians playing live, holding down a regular job *and* making the band work is near impossible. For a start employers simply won't let you take the time off to tour Europe for three weeks. Bands like this need labels. As fans you hope they choose ethically sound ones, but many don't get the choice... and the choices are getting less and less as labels (both major and indie) feel the pinch and get more conservative in their signings.

fujee wrote:

Rodheh wrote:
Welcome to the internet.

You started the "debate" with your first post in the thread. The only thing I challenged in my first post was the concept of "music that is downloaded for free is being paid for in one way or another, making other people money except for the artists" because I find this erroneous, as the money you spend on your computer and internet connection has nothing at all to do with the money you spend/don't spend on music. This is completely discretionary and it's one of those arguments that assume everyone to be exactly the same, which is the reason why I elaborated my process of piracy in the second post.

There are those online who would have belittled your post with so much ad hominem and so many insults, riddled with the worst language known to mankind. If I have appeared to have even a remotely "loud voice" to you then you must be very, very new to the internet.

You stated nothing that persuaded me from my view. The day you can truthfully tell me "Hey! Corruption in the music industry no longer exists, free trials for every album exist in high quality and nobody has been fined 50,000 dollars for downloading 12 songs, or had a school project video removed from YouTube for "copyright infringement"!", I'll gladly change my views entirely. That doesn't exist though. Send the moderator a message expressing your distaste for me or something and ask to have me banned if I'm bothering you all so much with my opinion. If this is what it effectively is at this point, I have no interesting sitting here on a forum having a discussion with a bunch of people who hate my guts.

1. If your mind is made up then why the unnecessary hostility?

2. Just because we are on the internet does not mean we have to act like children. Twoism is one of the few forums where we can discuss things objectively - let's keep it that way.

3. Your opinion is valid - but equally so is someone elses. If you don't see eye to eye, move on the discussion, otherwise it end ups going round in circles.

4. No one hates your guts, don't be a martyr

I don't mean for this to be a hostile post, though it probably looks that way. No one wants you banned man, just try to agree to disagree and then we can all get along and all have an interesting conversation.

Unnecessary hostility? If I've come off as hostile I apologize and I didn't intend for that. Of course someone else's opinion is just as valid as mine or anyone else's. I would have moved on from this discussion however people started targeting me specifically. I'm sorry, but that was bothersome.

Your post doesn't look hostile to me. None of this, from what I've seen, is even bordering on hostility. That's also literally the last thing I want on here, but if taking an unpopular stance inevitably results in stupid, insulting assumptions then the posts I may make in response could come off as hostile. I'm just being serious as this is a serious issue to me and I've said all that needs to be said from my part.

For the record I don't view anything that Rodheh has said in this thread as hostile and I'm not sure how anyone could see it that way. I just can't see any weight in his arguments and I don't have the time or energy to discuss it when I'm going to run into 3,951 words (yes that's how much you've written in this thread Rodheh) of 'common room' rhetoric. I have more important things to do with my time.

there is no weight



6010

Rodheh wrote:
Unnecessary hostility? If I've come off as hostile I apologize and I didn't intend for that. Of course someone else's opinion is just as valid as mine or anyone else's. I would have moved on from this discussion however people started targeting me specifically. I'm sorry, but that was bothersome.

Your post doesn't look hostile to me. None of this, from what I've seen, is even bordering on hostility. That's also literally the last thing I want on here, but if taking an unpopular stance inevitably results in stupid, insulting assumptions then the posts I may make in response could come off as hostile. I'm just being serious as this is a serious issue to me and I've said all that needs to be said from my part.

Some of the things you write come off as quite austere in my opinion. Sorry if I interpreted your posts wrong. It's also good to be passionate about this, it's refreshing. All I was trying to say is try and not think people are targeting you, if you're going to say something against the majority opinion then be prepared for some criticism. It's good you want to voice your opinion and be passionate about it but don't think that people are trying to get personal. It's a debate, we're all friends here right?

fujee wrote:

Rodheh wrote:
Unnecessary hostility? If I've come off as hostile I apologize and I didn't intend for that. Of course someone else's opinion is just as valid as mine or anyone else's. I would have moved on from this discussion however people started targeting me specifically. I'm sorry, but that was bothersome.

Your post doesn't look hostile to me. None of this, from what I've seen, is even bordering on hostility. That's also literally the last thing I want on here, but if taking an unpopular stance inevitably results in stupid, insulting assumptions then the posts I may make in response could come off as hostile. I'm just being serious as this is a serious issue to me and I've said all that needs to be said from my part.

Some of the things you write come off as quite austere in my opinion. Sorry if I interpreted your posts wrong. It's also good to be passionate about this, it's refreshing. All I was trying to say is try and not think people are targeting you, if you're going to say something against the majority opinion then be prepared for some criticism. It's good you want to voice your opinion and be passionate about it but don't think that people are trying to get personal. It's a debate, we're all friends here right?

It's alright, and I know I come off very stern in a lot of my posts but unfortunately that's just how I am as a person.

I expect criticism but if everything is going to turn into a four page debate about something we're never going to agree on then it's just stressful and a waste of time. I become more volatile because of this. If it's bothered anyone then I apologize, but I don't think it warrants any of the judgmental remarks that have been made in the past couple pages.

Rodheh wrote:It's alright, and I know I come off very stern in a lot of my posts but unfortunately that's just how I am as a person.

I expect criticism but if everything is going to turn into a four page debate about something we're never going to agree on then it's just stressful and a waste of time. I become more volatile because of this. If it's bothered anyone then I apologize, but I don't think it warrants any of the judgmental remarks that have been made in the past couple pages.

OK, time to reciprocate I feel.

Rodheh - I apologise. I was overly harsh. I certainly don't want anyone to leave or feel they can't express their own opinion, which is every bit as valid as the next person's. While we may disagree, I should defend your right to express yourself. After all, the reason I love this place is because of the tolerance and respect we as a group collectively show one another. My own standards slipped with my comment. My apologies to you sir.

I guess, like a family, sometimes feelings run high and things get said which in the cold harsh light of day are regretted. Doesn't mean I don't love you guys like brothers.

Come here - gimme a hug man (N.B. man-hug optional)