Posted by Zer0: I agree with MSFT on some of his points
about Microsoft, etc. (although they have more than enough money to go
around).. but the problem is.. the artists (meaning the musicians) hardly
see any money from CDs anyway, and in fact would never get rich on the
sale of CDs alone. Most of the profit is eaten up by distrubuters, packagers,
producers, P.R. people, lawyers, and record executives. The executives
themselves, as well as some producers, and maybe a few actual musicians
make up the entity known as RIAA. Because under current law, NO band signed
to a label owns the copyright to the material they play... even if they
wrote it. Signing to a label basically boils down to you selling all of
the rights for the material that you create to the record company in exchange
for their backing your CD, tour, recording costs, etc. And as of a change
in copyright law a few years ago, musicians who sell their rights to a
record company will NEVER get them back, well maybe if they buy them back
at some highly inflated price 25 or 30 years down the road. As far as I
know, the old law was that after 35 years, the rights were returned to
either you or the holders of your estate, but now that is no more. -0
Posted by
MSFT: contrary to a few posts here nobody is
trying to shut down the MP3 industry. the main problem is copyright infringement.
all artists regardless of how established they are are entitled to collect
the royalties off the sale of their work. if it is your perception that
you'll do them no harm if you just pilfer a few albums off the internet
and they are being greedy when they object to deadbeats that distribute
their work then my friend that makes you a common thief. the problem with
peer to peer networks is that they cannot be regulated on account of the
absence od a central server has lead to a serious problem of copyright
infringement. not only the music industry is being affected but other software
giants like microsoft for example, whose windows xp is being distributed
over p2p networks,are being affected. copyrighted works are being shared
and lots of revenue is being lost.
Posted by
ritalin: please people, im not insulting anybody
but lets stay on topic! antiguy did not create the article to talk about
tax cuts! again no offense.
Posted by
pick: Let's see: most big businesses are not
evil and are actually run by people who care. Enron and WorldCom are exceptions
to the rule. If you give a trustworthy company a tax cut, it will create
new jobs and (hopefully) give their employees a good pension/insurance
plan. Yes, some CEOs receive obscene compensation, but they run a company.
Running a company isn't easy...it's like running a country. They work insane
hours, are under excessive pressure and are usually the reason why a company
prospers. Some rich people aren't so bad either. Bill Gates may be worth
$60 billion but he gave $24 billion dollars to help sick children around
the world. And Lori, the Democrats had plenty of opportunities before 1994
to regulate business and they didn't do it. A president, an officer who
doesn't have the power to enact legislation, can't regulate business by
himself. That is the simple fact.
Posted by
Max: Lori's right, we should raise corporate
taxes especially since they are owned by those nasty stockholders(average
americans). Let's hike corporate taxes make they lay off employees, ruin
the economy and then we can have a true socialist government where everyone
can be equally as miserable! Where do these idiots come from?
Posted by
??: JTF don't waste your time argueing with
that Lori person she's a tool who gets all her facts from the Democratic
National Committee and The New Republic, the same idiots who called a 6.7%
increase in Medicare a "cut". She is obviously too young to remember Jimmy
Carter who gave us double diget inflations, interest rates and unemployment
and also that it was JFK who first used tricle down economics not Reagan.
But she forgets the biggest fact of all it was the Congress ran by Democrats
that gave us 8 major recessions and the skyrocketing national debt! Congress
are the ones who appropriate not the President anyone who knows the basics
of the Constitution would know that but not Lori she thinks that FDR, Truman,
Wilson and LBJ are Republicans or is just too stupid to realize that lame
comment she was feed was a lie. Either way you can't trust a thing she
says because most of it's propaganda and bullshyt put out by the DNC.
Posted by
Just The Facts: For the sake or argument Kennedy sent
the first "advisors" into Viatnam. Love that lame thing about the unemployment
lines and 401K's.. where do you gets this stuff? Is there a liberal form
of Druge out there? Lori, come on use real arguements and real facts! If
you are under 25 and not liberal then you are heartless. If you are over
25 and not conservative then you are brainless!
Posted by
Just the Facts: WWI - Wilson, WWII - FDR, Korea - Truman,
Viatnam - LBJ, Gulf War - Bush... Seems to me there is only on person on
that list where a war STARTED under a Republican. Way to check your facts!
That's sounds like something lame Dashel would say. Democrats lie so much
they don't even realize it.
Posted by
Lori: I disagree that corporations should receive
greater and greater tax cuts so that they can pay their CEOs obscene amounts
of money for running the companies into the ground and then jumping ship
with their golden parachutes. Take, for example, Haliburton which basically
stole away its employees retirement plans, (with the exception of Dick
Cheney who received a nice comfy retirement package). All the little people
who worked hard to make the company what it was are now standing in the
unemployment line, their lives ruined because their 401ks are down the
toilet due in part because the Republican Congress vetoed legislation put
forth by Bill Clinton to regulate big business and the accounting industry.
Don't tell me I don't bother to check all the facts. Maybe we look to different
sources of information for our facts. By the way, I suppose it's just coincidence
that there has been war and recession during the tenure of almost every
Republican Administration in the history of the United States.
Posted by
aG: Lori, I never thought I'd be sticking
up for GW, who in fact increased social spending over what was spent under
Clinton. But I am hardly in the top 1% and I got a decent taxcut. In fact
under Bush's "tax scheme" the poorest 1/3rd of American families no longer
have to pay federal income tax, just the payrolls takes like So. Sec and
Medicare. That evil 1% are the ones who pay 1/3rd of ALL federal income
taxes. So let's talk about fair here. They are the ones who invest and
create jobs for the other 99%. The numbers are freely available from the
Congressional Budget office if you want to look them up to get beyond the
rhetoric of both sides and get to the truth. The Democrats know this as
well as the Republican's but it makes for good sound bites to voters who
don't bother to get ALL the facts. Clinton's economic policies ended in
1995, after that he had to battle congress to get what he wanted and got
very little of it. Remember when the government was shut down over Clinton
vetoing all of the appropriation bills? Clinton never heard of let alone
proposed a balanced Budget until Congress forced it on him. Clinton in
his last 6 years in office did not push one major policy item, he more
or less signed or vetoed what congress gave to him. Not that the agenda
of the Congress was any better than his agenda which gave the GOP their
major victory in 1994. The biggest credit for economic boom of the 90's
goes to the technology sector which soared during the decade, that had
very little to do with government intervention but with advances in technology
and computers going mainstream with the public instead of a small minority
of private PC and business clients. In fact you can trace the current recession
to two major events where Clinton pulled the rug out from under the computer
and bio tech industries. Go back and look at the dates and how the stock
market fell after the Clinton justice department sued Microsoft and then
when Clinton announced he was going to give away the gnome program! The
economy was already heading for a correction, you see economy's do go in
cycles, but these actions just brought it on swifter. The early 90's recession
is owed to two major factors. The tax reform act of 1987, where most of
the investment tax benefits were eliminated, thus slowing down investment
for that "evil 1%" drastically and also caused a crash on Wallstreet. The
other factor was the 1990 budget deal, with Bush Sr and the Democrats in
Congress hiked taxes across the board, that just deepened the downturn
that was already underway after the "evil 1%" were hit starting with tax
year 1988 following the 87 reform act. It takes up to 24 months for any
tax policy to really be felt in the economy at large. And look at the numbers;
redistribution of wealth is a fallacy that doesn't work because it's not
logical. In fact, during Clinton's years in office the rich got richer
and the poor got poorer. I think both parties could do a lot more to help
the economy by radically reducing spending and taxes and I'm not a Republican
but I would take their policies over the "tax and spend" policies of the
Democrats any day because the only ones who rely benefit from those policies
are the politicians in buying votes.
Posted by
pick: Lori, you have a misconception of Republicans
and their stance on the world. The current administration may dislike sex
ed and AIDS awareness seminars, but I know a good deal of Conservatives
who like those ideas (and I'm one of them). And what's wrong with complete
abstinence? I know people will snicker at that last line, but if people
could keep their pants on maybe AIDS wouldn't be so prevalent in big cities,
Africa and China. It would also lower the amount of children born into
wedlock (a good portion of which are a drain on the economy) and would
also drop the abortion rates. Oh, and the House will remain Republican...insiders
even predict that we'll gain a few seats. Woo-hoo! I get to keep my job!
Posted by
pick: The deregulation tactics of Newt Gingrich
and Phil Gramm are what caused the economic boom of the mid-90s. If it
weren't for the Reagan-era tax cuts and insider policies, the stock market
never would have soared past 10,000 and our development levels would stand
much lower than they are now. As for the Bush tax cut: it may not seem
big now, but think about what will happen when the economy kicks out of
its current funk. The common man and woman pay too much into the federal
tax system and everyone sees too little in return. Low taxes and privatized
social security for working class people makes more sense than taxing the
average American at a clip of 1/3 of his/her paycheck. Until America adopts
universal health care or pension plans, higher taxes and an empty FICA
account is more ignorant than any "trickle-down" theory.
Posted by
Josh: Just to clear up a misconception. Bush's
tax cut did indeed help out a lot of people through the first recession,
however due to the corporate scandals and other factors we are now in a
double dip recession.
Posted by
Lori: P.S. I don't have a great opinion right
now of the Democrats in office either, but I think that back in the 90's
the Democrats were heading to a more enlightened centrist approach in regards
to economic and social policies. Now the pendulum has swung to the extreme
with right-wing Christian conservatives having the most say when it comes
to the economic and social policies of the current Administration such
as Draconian measures like cutting aid to institutions who provide AIDS
and sex education, and instituting sex education programs that advocate
complete abstinence. This is idiocy. Due to this and other examples of
backward thinking in regards to policy making, there has been a large backlash
across the country that is evident through the polls, and a lot of people
are leaning more toward the Democratic point of view. Now, if only we could
clean out the House and the Senate and get some forward thinking people
in there who are not frightened to stand up for what's right like not waging
a hypocritical war against Iraq. I see a lot of strong female Democratic
candidates in my state that give me hope.
Posted by
Lori: Clinton had a very progressive economic
policy that reduced spending, overhauled welfare, and redistributed income
from the wealthy to the less wealthy. The trickle down theory hasn't worked
in the past, nor will it work in the future. The money needs to go into
the hands of the people who will spend it - the people who will spend the
money are the middle and lower middle class. Any one of you who thinks
Bush's tax cuts are going to help you are completely ignorant of the facts.
The tax cuts affect only the wealthiest 1% of the population. Hope you
are enjoying your $300 rebate check as you are standing in the unemployment
line.
Posted by
SMIC: Josh both parties believe in handouts
its just who they want to hand out to in general the democrats are more
for bottom up income redistribution while the republicans are more in favor
of big businesses and go for the "trickle down" theory which is better
I am not sure. Socially the democrats lean left so that I support but economically
it is a toss up and they both do about faces so many times it is hard to
keep track of any policy.
Posted by
Josh: The main difference I have noticed among
the major political parties is Democrats always ask for handouts (gimme
gimme) and the Republicans say fuk you, do your own work? I like the realism
involved in the GOP, not the begger status of the socialists, I mean democrats.
Posted by
the individual: if i were an assassin, i would start by
taking out the RIAA, then maybe politicians & Metallica. ok so maybe
we don't have the right to steal music, but i don't have the money to buy
a cd that may turn out to be sh*tty just because i liked one song from
that band. & believe it or not i actually do buy cd's of artists i
like AFTER i have downloaded songs and made sure the cd is quality. i probably
won't buy as many cds if i can't preview them through the internet first.
f*ck all those greedy capitalist bitches, thats all i have to say.
Posted by
ritalin: all bands start somewhere, usually at
the bottom. by shutting down the mp3 business they are eliminating the
middle ground for the huge and small bands. all the HUGE labels are going
to reign like dictators, while the more obscure stuff is going to go down
the toilet. smaller labels are probably going to drown. how many people
are going to spend 20 bucks on a cd because someone says theyre good? the
huge bands have this giant safety net to rely on called the radio, but
the smaller bands have nothing (ok maybe playing at smoke-filled bar during
happy hour, but the patrons are probably too drunk anyway). but seriously,
i thought all these bands/singers were millionaires anyway? how is this
going to affect the music industry? for the huge bands its gonna mean maybe
another mansion, more implants (actually thats a good thing), another car,
etc., but the smaller bands are going to take a beating.
Posted by
SMIC: bollix that post was mine... i meant to
adress it to Pick
Posted by
Pick: blank cd's are legal, so are p2p applications,
there are plenty of uncopyrighted files that can be and are traded through
them, the issue is not sharing it is copywright infingement, when you burn
copywrighted music to a blank disc and give that disc to a friend you are
comitting copywright infringement in the same form as if you gave that
music to someone over a P2P network.
Posted by
pick: SMIC, think of how many more records "The
Eminem Show" would've sold had pirating not occurred. Corporate America
doesn't care how much they have...they always want more! Come on, man,
you should know that by now. Also, if you haven't noticed, KazaA has advertisements
on its P2P site (such as punch the monkey or you are the Xth person here).
Actually, record companies wouldn't complain if P2P sites charged money
for their services. After all, Napster offered to do that and some record
execs loved that idea. With my comment about giving friends CDs, think
about this, SMIC: blank CDs are legal. You can go to Best Buy and buy 50
of them for $14.99. Yes, you may not have the artist's permission to do
so, but it's still within the law. Oh, and there is no grey area within
the law - unless you are referring to the Constitution.
Posted by
SMIC: sorry Lori - that was actually Pick's
comment misread on my part
Posted by
Lori: pick, the fact remains that the existence
of MP3's on your computer hard drive (whether pirated or not) is not a
crime. The actual selling of the MP3s for profit is a crime, and the actual
dollar amount associated will determine whether it's a felony or a misdemeanor.
Posted by
Lori: I don't recall ever talking about "eminem"
in any of my posts. Furthermore, I do not hold the opinion that pirating
is bad for the music industry. By the way, I think Eminem sucks.
Posted by
SMIC: LORI - by using eminem you just killed
any argument that pirating is bad for the music industry... eminem's "The
Eminem Show" is one of the highest selling albums of the year Topping the
carts in The US, UK and Canada. That album has sold millions of copies
worldwide and made fortunes for record execs and Mr Mathers himself. PICK
your argument still does not work. If you burn a cd for your friends it
is essentially the same act as file sharing, you are distributing the work
without the artists permission, but you are also not profiting from it.
If you were to sell the copied CD that would be illegal, if the software
designers of p2p networks were making money by either charging for the
service or selling advertising when you downloaded that would be illegal.
As it now stands it is sharing of information, this occupies a far more
grey legal area than your argument is asserting. Solace Girl - There is
lots of really good music out there, great new music all the time, maybe
not at wallmart but it's out there, look harder
Posted by
aG: Pick, I still fail to see how that makes
mp3 files public property. - John McCain? That guys scares me, he is about
as selfserving as you can get in a politician. Although he has some good
ideas he doesn't hesitate to sell people down the river if it gives him
a momentary gain.
Posted by
solace girl: I wanna speak my peace to the music industry.
You think it's the internet that's got you running scared! Here's the truth.
I'm an average consumer. I don't download music or burn CD's because I
believe that artists are entitled to make maoney off of their art. With
that said, I also don't buy CD's. Why? Because most of the "commercial"
crap that is released if so obviously designed to make a big bang for a
short lived buck. Most music released today lack depth, innovation, talent,
creativity, and integrity. The are the things I expect when spending my
hard earned dollar an a CD. Until the music industry regains the integrity
it's lost, you won't have my respect or my money. You think it's file sharing
that's caused this slump in record sales? It's not. Coming fron an average
person, it's because there is almost nothing that's worth buying.
Posted by
Lori: Hey, John McCain's alright by me.
Posted by
pick: aG, I didn't back up your argument. The
reason why mp3's are coming under attack is because they are being abused.
If you think about it, the latest Eminem album is a prime example. Nine
out of ten albums streamed onto the internet are usually just used for
personal purposes, but his album was pirated and it made the music industry
look bad. It's like a dumb law: all it takes is one stupid person to ruin
a good thing.
Posted by
My Mom is a Rabbit: But who is doing the selling in file sharing?
Posted by
aG: Ok I don't see why the analogy is a bad
one, you just backed it up. Just because something is broadcast to the
public doesn't make it public property, my point exactly!
Posted by
pick: Lori, you and I finally agree on something.
I wish Bushie would pay more attention to his already weak domestic platform.
If he righted his wrongs at home, then I might support his Iraqi proposals.
But until them, he doesn't have this Republican's support. Of course, I'm
still stinging since McCain didn't become President, but that's just me.
Posted by
pick: aG, I must apologize once again, but the
TV analogy is a bad one. Ever watch a ball game? One of the many things
said during the course of a game is that a game may only be reshown or
reproduced by a certain company that has the exclusive rights to do so.
That means if you taped the World Series and sold it on the street or eBay
you'd be arrested or fined. You also can't tape movies and sell them on
a market...it's illegal. Actually, it's supposedly illegal to dub a tape
from the video store. Same way with CD's. If I burn a CD for my friends,
that's one thing. But if I start to sell my burned CD's in a mass-market,
the feds are gonna have my ass. The penalties in America aren't too bad,
but in other countries piracy is a big problem and can get you 20 years
in the clink. aG, I want you to understand that you've got good ideas,
but the law doesn't care how clever your arguments are.
Posted by
Say What? : You forget that the economy started going
down hill at the end of 97, Clinton's administration just put out bogus
numbers, research it they did! Dem's are funny, Clinton is elected an all
of sudden the 90 recession which was already 6 months over is over in their
eyes and Clinton gets the credit even before he passed a budget. Then Bush
gets blamed for an economy on the decline that he inherited and the assclowns
were blaming him before he signed one bill! partician people are so funny,
you can't argue with them because they buy any bs the party hands em.
Posted by
Say What?: That's a brilliant piece of horse shyt
or should I call it propaganda Lori. The Supreme Court just held up the
laws of Florida and the Constitution and ended the insanity of recount
until we win that the Gore campaign was trying to do in florida. How can
anyone take anything you say seriously, you talk right of the Dem talking
points, facts don't mean a thing. If the Supreme Court was so heavily weighted
conservatively then Roe V Wade would be gone. Your problem is even when
you are right, we can't take you seriously because you're a blow hard.
A liberal Rush if you will.
Posted by
Lori: I agree. Usually, the Supreme Court (which
should be apolitical)would put a stop to this kind of thing, but right
now we have a Supreme Court which is weighted heavily on the conservative
side, and which, in fact, took it upon itself to decide the 2000 presidential
eletion. The current Administration and the conservative Supreme Court
majority will alway vote on the side of big business, i.e. the corporations,
so don't hold your hopes out. Oh, and what better way to deflect attention
away from the failing economy and failing domestic policies of the current
administration than to cynically pronounce a war against Iraq and Saddam
Hussein with little or no evidence to back it up he is an increasing threat
to the US.
Posted by
Forrest Gabitsch: This is an invasion of privacy, pure and
simple. My worry is the Supreme Court, who usually stamp down this kind
of crap, will waffle on this one and let another corporation off on something
you or I would go to jail for. They've also picked a nice time to push
it through, since no one's focused on corporate scandals anymore. It's
all about the drumbeat to bomb Iraq back into the stone age. Meanwhile,
more of your rights are being taken away. Wakey-wakey.
Posted by
slipgun: i never realized my days in the sun were
counted. anyway i am geograhically very distanced from the centre of action
so never knew it was such a big issue. the way i see it, it is only the
corporates big f*ckin labels that loose. the artists can directly deal
with the fans and this whole middle chain can absolutely go to hell. that
is why artists like metallica who have a big control over their material
were wary of napster but have now knownthe way of the future. push us in
the back, we will go underground to do it.
Posted by
LithiumBliss: To pick: Yes, we do have at least 2.5
million Americans incarcerated. Hmmm... think that could be because of
the ridiculous war on drugs? 50% of marriages end in divorce? Maybe people
shouldn't rush to get married. It's better that people are easily able
to divorce now. There used to be a huge stigma against it. In the "good
old days", many a woman stayed in an abusive marriage (or vice versa) rather
than face the stain of divorce. Abortions are up? That's a shaky subject
for me, because I do support the right to abort, but only if proper use
of contraception has failed (like a rubber breaking), or if a woman is
impregnated by rape. It is ludicrous to terminate a life just because the
tools who had sex were to stupid to use protection. As far as religion,
I do hate the bible-thumpers and religious freaks. If someone wants to
believe in a religion, they have every right to; but those who choose not
to, or choose to believe in a different deity than the "good old American
white Christian" one should not be vilified for it. And finally for this
RIAA subject - has anyone thought that maybe they should just stop the
manufacture of the mp3 players such as Rio and Sonicblue? You should be
able to trade mp3s. It is a way to hear music without having to fork out
the major bucks to purchase it before hearing it. Aren't you allowed to
test drive a car before you buy? Yes, there is a legitimate point as far
as piracy when people can just download whole albums without paying and
then play them on mp3-able devices. There should be a compromise. If you
download music, it should only be able to be played back on the PC.Those
who are too cheap to then go and purchase the music that they like will
be limited to lame mp3 quality sound. The CD will havve better sound quality,
and also the art and lyrics or whatever. But the record companies should
lower the prices of CDs, and make more of an effort to provide better music,
or it's their own fault if sales suffer.
Posted by
aG: mj, I usually do, unless the candidate
is worthless or objectionable. Pick, on the religious thing, I've always
held that you can't fight bigotry with bigotry. I wish more people could
put their prejudices aside, but that's asking too much. On the mp3 as public
property. I still don't buy it. Yes the actual music and recordings are
owned by the songwriter, group and/or record co. But you own the physical
CD it is on and the music on it is licensed to you. Taking your "public
property" stance then I could take a TV broadcast since it is freely available
and make copies of it and do with it what I want. You may not own the actual
copyrighted song but you do own the physical vehicle in which it is distributed
such as an mp3 or CD as well as the hard drive storage on your PC that
the RIAA would have to violate in order to destroy the mp3's. When you
use a system like KazaA you are simply allowing access to your files and
hard drive for the purpose of sharing the files, you do not give anyone
the express permission to amend, change or delete the files on your hard
drive, only the means to copy the material from your drive. Since the artists
own the music on the CD's I own, it's just like that car analogy, if I
leave the door open with a bunch of CD's on the seat, that doesn't give
anyone the right to take those CD's since the actual music is owned by
someone else. oh well I think both sides of this have been beaten like
a dead horse. Finally on the issue of those who are outside of the US and
use the p2p systems, I think the RIAA or anyone who would use this bill
to damage files etc would use IP mapping of some kind. It's really easy
to determine where most web surfers are geographically coming from by looking
at their IP address, since they are assigned geographically in blocks.
Posted by
mj: the choice is clear: vote libertarian
this november.
Posted by
pick: My apologies for posting so much, but
I have something else to write. aG, thanks for the post on religion. I
can speak first-hand about the many times I've been ridiculed for worshipping
God, praying before lunch or reading The Bible. People would openly criticize
me for my beliefs, yet when I say something to them all I ever hear is
why Christians are bigots and Bible-thumpers who don't know how the real
world works. The other point I have is thus: before anyone rips on my second
post, please hear me out. When I speak of conservative values, I'm not
referring to right-wing ideas like Pat Buchanan barks. No, I mean common
sensical things like working hard, standing up for what one believe's in,
good morals and a nice home life. I don't know what's so bad about having
good morals. For Heaven's sake, we have 2.5 million people in the prison
system! 50% of all marriages end in divorce! Since Roe v. Wade (1973),
over 40 million abortions have been performed in America. That's not progress.
Progress is supposed to be change for the better, not for the worse.
Posted by
pick: Oh, and Lori, by the good old days I'm
referring to nice, conservative values. Every epoch of time has its downfalls,
and McCarthyism is sure one of those downfalls. I know things must progress,
but the way they progressed in America are ridiculous. We used to have
a world where people were safe, secure, happy and not worried about a thing.
Now we seem to be immoral, rushed and worried, only we're worried about
ourselves, not others. Do I call that progression? No, I call that lunacy.
Posted by
pick: First of all, Lori, mp3's are public.
If I'm not mistake, can't anyone with a computer an an internet connection
download an mp3 from KazaA or iMesh? mp3's are accesible to anyone who
has the knowledge of downloading music, and KazaA has been downloaded over
100 MILLION times! To me, that's as public as it gets. Now, if you burned
an mp3 onto a CD, then it is your's, for you have purchased a blank CD
(which are not illegal). Actually, I support the trading of mp3's. I think
it's another media witch hunt to blame a scapegoat for falling sales and
deteriorating talent. However, I'm going explicitly by the law. And I am
sorry, but the sharing of a music file is not a part of the freedom of
speech guaranteed on the internet. If anyone wants to read up on the fine
line between admissable and inadmissable evidence, please read Mapp v.
Ohio, 1957.
Posted by
GREENMUSE: hmm ms.Q brings up a really good point
i never previously thought of,the majors are probally losing out on ALOT
of sales due to the leveling of the playing field some what.now that people
can freely check out new music that hasnt been previously accessible to
everyone.and i am sorry about the cat,some one switched my regular absinthe
ns with hills absinthe to see if i could tell the difference.and the poor
kitty got the end result.ill pay for the cleaning and grooming of the kitten
if itll help.
Posted by aG: Lori, my response a bit too long to post
here and since it was really offtopic I posted it on another page so if
you wish to read my reply or discuss this issue further click
here
Posted by Ms.Q: And as for the issue at hand, I really
think that is an utter invansion of privacy. Not to mention the fact that
they could quite possibly delete my pictures of Greenmuse puking green
sh!t on my cat. Not to mention my nude shots of Lith. heh heh. J/K
Posted byMs.Q: Like Smic, my spending on cds increased
majorly when I was able to dl songs. Most of the cds I started buying were
from small labels or relatively unknown artists. Which makes me wonder
how much revenue was lost by major labels but gained by smaller ones? I
don't think the RIAA are going to quit until they can shut file sharing
down completely. I honestly believe these labels aren't as concerned with
people dl music from their artists as they are with people buying music
from the smaller labels. You have to remember you're dealing with bastards
with a history of watching the artists they promoted practically starve
to death. Most music lovers want the whole package...the cd,artwork,case.
The record companies are not losing money from 18yr olds who can't afford
to buy the cd anyway. Also,the sound quality of MP3's sucks in most cases.
So, the only real fear I can see is that they're afraid of independent
artists,smaller labels,etc. The internet is a powerful media and one who's
time is greatly needed in an era when ONE major corporation owns nearly
all of our radio stations in the U.S.
Posted byChi: u ru right CHE Guevara was a tard.
Posted byNag: Oh and before someone nails me on the
below comments and the comments I have posted when this article first came
up. I do take invasion of my privacy seriously. Sometimes I feel I am the
only one. For Example, I refused two good paying jobs the last few years
because of my objections to drug testing, as it ended up, I took a job
a KFC and Honeybaked Ham for almost half the wage. But I believe it will
take more then the "great democratic process" to change this world.
Posted byNag: What people fail to realize that some
of us have advanced past the stage of belief of a 2000 year old fairy tale.
And what amazes me that people actually debate political doctrines like
there actually is a two party system in America. What is it, Slightly liberal
Democrats against the little less liberal Republicans? Presidential races
are like a highschool football game, whichever program pockets the most
cash from their community wins. Sure the public goes to more extreme lengths,
but I hate both tree hugging bleeding hearts as much as I hate Bible thumping
zealots. Yet these people put undying faith in their politicians, what
a joke. I won't dwelve much deeper into the issues however, as I take my
apathy towards politics kinda of seriously, and my knowledge on American
politcs is somewhat weak, Europeans, now they make it exciting....Well
they did at one point. Anyways, Us working class people can't make a difference,
the industral age is over. Well, instede of me blowing hot air out my ass,
get Tool's version of Anemia, open up the jacket and read the last 4 lines,
that sums up how I feel.
Posted byMr.
huh? saying, "My Generation Sucks!": Isn't it ironic how people talk about
the good old days of worshipping god (I refuse to capitalze it since all
personified gods are man-made) despite the fact that this country was founded
on humanistic and deistic principles.
Posted byForrest
Gabitsch: And that's CHE Guevara, tard.
Posted byForrest
Gabitsch: I'd rather have both Democrats and Republicans
hanging by their ankles above a shark tank with Kielbasas strapped to their
privates, but that's just me. As long as people like Joe Lieberman and
the idiot who came up with this bill in the Democratic party, that party
is dead to me. Here's a solution: Buy music from labels that aren't part
of the RIAA. It's called a FAN BOYCOTT. If the industry thinks it's losing
money now, it's nothing compared to the losses it would face from angry
consumers.
Posted byLori: SMIC, very good point in response to Pick's
assertion that MP3's are a "public" entity. For one thing, MP3's are not
an entity. Our computers are private domain in which case the Fourth Amendment
would be applicable if someone were to try to hack into our computers.
The MP3's would be considered property, not an "entity". If they are "public"
property, as Pick suggests, then they would be freely accessible to anyone.
Posted byLori: "??", how interesting that you constantly
attack me for name-calling and insulting you, when you have called me names
and attacked me personally more than I ever have with you. Let's start
a count and pull a few quotes from your posts 1)"typical liberal" 2) "if
you had half a brain", 3)"shallow bullsh*t, 4) "dimwit". What a hypocrite.
Second of all, I do not understand, and I guess this is especially directed
toward aG, since you seem intelligent,what it is about my argument that
hasn't been backed up. ?? brings up the First Amendment and tries to stretch
it to try to apply it in the case of mandated school prayer (which is the
issue I've been talking about, I don't know about him). He repeatedly uses
the phrase "disallow the use of the word God in public". No one to my knowledge
is trying to "disallow" the word God in public. I don't know how many times
I have to say it, or how many ways I have to put it. America is a melting
pot of different ethnic groups and different religions. Prayer is a private
thing and should not be made a mandatory practice in a public institution.
Pick, sorry, I don't remember "the good old days" Was that in the 1950's
and 1960's you describe in your post? Let's see, 1950's - a woman's place
was in the home, people were taught to fear God instead of love God, and
everyone lived a perfect life with their perfect families. McCarthyism
was rampant, and society was way more male-dominated than it is now. No,
I'm sorry, it does not sound like the good old days to me. Of course, being
progressive, I like to look ahead, not behind. Alcoholic, thanks for the
very good points you made in your post.
Posted bypissed: This is bloody pathetic. My country is
starting to get bad enough, now Gee Dubbya is letting this crap start.
At least you guys in the US are in the position to speak out about it,
in my so-called "democracy" I'd just get taken to court. All the politicians
and the wimps have the power. Just when the world seems it can't get any
more f*cked up....
