Stop Microsoft
All Things Microsoft => Microsoft Software => Topic started by: Kintaro on 8 June 2010, 23:07
-
Well,
Windows Server 2008 R2 has this wonderful feature which checks if your copy of Windows 2008 R2 is genuine periodically and if it isn't it shuts down the system. This is pretty typical behavior of Microsoft, and it appears to have some bugs. For example, Microsoft doesn't know I am using a pirate copy - it claims it is activated and all that - yet it decided to shut it down. When looking up what the hell wlms.exe is and why it is shutting down my computer I found some pretty annoying cases. One guy was using the evaluation quite legally to test the software for his company to see if they want it, and the bugs started shutting it down. His company won't run the software now because it failed the uptime requirements.
Ironically, in the thread a Microsoft VP explains how to remove the permissions of the program causing all the trouble so it simply can't shut down the computer. I find this hilarious because this Microsoft employee has had to write what is in effect a Windows 2008 R2 crack to solve this problem and stop scaring away customers. On top of that, I have realized that if it shuts down the server every hour that you can just schedule a task to reboot the server every 45 minutes. Do this with two clustered servers a good ten minutes apart, and you can do this without downtime.
They might as well just be good sports about this and anally rape winlogon.exe like they do on XP. Oh wait, we could still administer the server via powershell and the management console via Windows RPC. Fucking idiots. They could just not bother with copy protection on server copies, and sue the big earners using pirate copies the old fashioned way. They would scare away less customers.
-
Copy protection is one of mankinds worst ever ideas.
-
Copy protection is one of mankinds worst ever ideas.
Unless you use crypto and real DRM techniques its usually just trouble to legit users and potential customers. That isn't really possible with the operating system.
-
Copy protection is one of mankinds worst ever ideas.
Unless you use crypto and real DRM techniques its usually just trouble to legit users and potential customers. That isn't really possible with the operating system.
"trouble to legit users" is not where I am coming from, in my opinion every person every fucking animal on the planet (this includes record company bosses :) ) should be considered a "legitimate user" of all the ideas, art and culture around them.
Copying should be encouraged, and I believe that one day in the prehaps not too distant future it will be. More and more people are growing up whose music, film tastes etc are moulded by what they get off their friends - illegally (I can mention almost all of my friends and myself here). And when these and more people grow up, and (I should say vested, but they are also all of this) stupid greedy animals die, we might eventually copy this idea: copying is sharing, and that's good for spirits.
This is, of course, an optimistic remark about the future. There is so much corrupted power involved that it's hard to know. But I know where I'm standing.
Besides, I'm absolutely sure it says in the bible that copy protection is lame.
-
Well, I think that is stupid for numerous reasons. Firstly, as an artist (and more of a hobby artist) I know that most artists want to be able to make a living from the work they do. There is more to the expenses than printing costs and bandwidth bills, musicians and writers actually have to eat and pay their bills while they write their music and generally enjoy themselves. Life is supposed to be about attaining happiness, and by 'copying' or 'pirating' or 'stealing' - however you want to say it - you are destroying that opportunity for the artists. The exact same applies to programmers.
Of course, copyright law and patent laws as they stand are primitive and coercive. They have stopped performing a function and have always done it at too great of a cost. This is why I am an advocate of things like TPM. I hope there will be a day that I can chose to only release my work in TPM garbled form and you can chose only to pay. Doing anything about it would put the blood of coercion on the hands of the freetards.
Anyway, your above post doesn't really objectively justify anything. You talk about mystic things like it being "good for spirits" and "bad in the bible." This is mysticism and it is pretty sickening since you seem to claim to be some sort of reasonable atheist. Reasonable except when it gets you a free ride. Another option to TPM would be building city walls, and throwing people like you outside of them for having nothing to contribute to society.
I don't know what you mean about corrupted power. It seems your entire view on this is poorly defined. What corrupted power? The fact that Tolkien had to buy tobbacco and food for over a decade to write The Lord of the Rings? That is just an objective necessity of human survival and for great long term things to exist society requires a means of exchange and freedom of contract. That is, I agree to publish my lifes work, and by reading it you agree to pay for it to help cover the costs of working on it for my entire life.
-
Besides, I'm absolutely sure it says in the bible that copy protection is lame.
If that's true, then I love copy protection.
-
I didn't read your post entirely Kintaro, reason number 1 is that this isn't something I want to battle out over the internet, here no less, this is something I want to study and research more at some point in my life, and perhaps since I am not and never will be qualified in the fields of psychology, and other fields*, I may be interested in encouraging or supporting useful related studies (food for thought, and that is all this is: will ubuntu children be nicer than windows children? How does the subtly presented message of ubuntu (as an example) filter down to kids, who won't all be particularly interested in those ideals (and yet could take them on board wrt sharing). And then we can think about the real benefits of a free society, outside of the obvious (typically ill-informed) observations that you or I or anyone may have (and vested observations in the case of the real gold-diggers of the industries (who aren't artists)). For example I believe that you suggested that it will be impossible to make a living as an artist without copy-protection, which seems silly to me because artists existed before copy-protection. Of course you know this, and that artists exist today without copy protection (think bsd and additionally think fashion interestingly, it is legal to rip off a quality brands designs completely (just not TMs). Tomorrow I'll find a link to a talk very relevant to this discussion). Anyways my main point is that your post, my post is not useful, it is just what we feel.
Btw, my remark about the bible was a joke. Jesus advocated sharing (especially with piratepenguin, btw).
* Though I will be (notice: will be) quite informed in economics, and let me mention that the economical issues with this are more complex than you appear to understand, there is much information you should read from Lawrence Lessig as a simple example, but I think you already know about this. Surprising.
-
I don't know what you are on about.
I wasn't talking about philosophy or economics. I wasn't really even talking about politics, I was talking about philosophy. Yet I think even that is far too vague. I am talking about a code which supports human existence. This necessitates certain freedoms and certain human rights and for these things to exist we require inalienable human rights. You talk vaguely about gold-digging titans of industry, but what is the source of all the wonders which make this debate possible? It is these "gold digging" individuals you talk about. They should be able to produce what they produce on their own terms. This is what freedom is all about.
All I was saying is that artists, developers, writers, and so on have the human right to produce their work in forms that require you purchase it. Rather than doing that at gunpoint through copyright law, it would be a great progression for human achievement to do this through the Trusted Platform Module or other similar things. I just want to ask you one question: do you advocate using the law and thus force and coercion to stop people doing this? Because it sounds that way, and at that point you stop being a simple pirate and become an armed bandit.
What your original post ignores is the supply side of the debate entirely. You talk about music and art as if you are the member of some strange cargo cult - and all that you know is that these things "come from your friends." No, they don't. They come from the human mind and for the human mind to be capable of anything at all it requires a body which is free to act. When you seperate property rights from human rights you seperate a mans limbs from his own survival. Without the right to use his own arms, Calum wouldn't be able to impress us with nifty guitar riffs. It is sometimes a shame, because Calum uses that freedom to do questionable things with his mouth - but we have no right to stop that. My freedom allows me to do what I want: live off the stock market (really, ask me about that some time and we'll see who knows anything useful about economics, masturbate, smoke pot, and write poems about little girls. Worker201 uses his freedom to work at a green grocer and despite me looking like the fat cat, he probably has the more stable income and yet still pays less taxes.
My point is this, in the future I hope things like TPM can solve these problems. I won't run Windows Server on my network at all because in the time it takes for me to make the money to buy it - I could have just done everything on FreeBSD. Thus, suddenly Windows Server 2008 loses all its value in being quick and easy to set up. If that is how Microsoft want it to be, that is quite fine with me. At the same time, I think the guys at FreeBSD should be free write code under their own licence and have it enforced through the civil court.
When I see a GPL violation go unenforced I feel the same disgust as I do when I see The Australian Constitution (a social contract) violated beyond all comprehension. The sanctity of contract is very important, and so is the rights of producers to ship TPM in computers and for producers like Calum or Me to release our work on the Internet for free or on the Internet for profit.
* Lessig is really on the surface of economics, and his work is alright but as far as understanding economic behavior goes he is like Python, and what you really want to learn about probably won't be covered fully in your education. You will either learn a Chicagoian or Keynsian agenda depending on the whims of your faculty. Read Milton Freidman, read Maynard Kenyes, and read Frederich von Hayek and Rothbard and you will get the full spectrum. Nobody has a better theory of how small scale entities form the bigger picture than Friedman, nobody has a better theory of how to destroy freedom faster than Keynes, nobody has a better theory of how to end civilization than Rothbard's anarchism, and nobody has a better concept of sound and honest money than Hayek.
-
Well I didn't read your first post so I don't know what you think you're at right there.
The way I see it, a musician could easily release his songs under a free license and make money off of playing gigs, if he is good enough, and if that's what he wants. For one a million more people will get to enjoy his work (is that not important to an artist? I think you're being very one-dimensional), the more people that do will not only go to his gigs, but will probably offer donations e.g. he could raise around the time of new releases. Besides, everybody's stealing music already and the artists are getting no money from their customers!!111 (did I make my sarcasm clear enough?)
Again, some of my friends would have about zero interest in music, nevermind in paying for it, if I couldn't have given them stuff from my collection 7 or 8 years ago.
edit: Oh, you said that the freedom to distribute work with restrictions on people is the important freedom. Well I obviously don't agree, and I'm not the only one.
here's that video i referred to earlier. How do you explain this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zL2FOrx41N0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zL2FOrx41N0)
-
One last thing: I noticed you put forward some sharp criticisms of some economists: but are you really any smarter than they are?
Also I surely know that my education should extend well beyond what I will learn in my degree wrt economics, history. What I'm particularly interesting in wrt history (off-topic) is why the Irish free state didn't turn out to be a socialist one: was it foreign pressure? Or the partition of Ireland, or why did people in this country change their minds about this. I know history students who want to be professors so I should just ask them.
Perhaps you should start a thread where you can tell us all about your stock market endeavors, I'd like to hear.
-
The Austrians like Hayek and Mises have the clear lead in being able to accurately predict the business cycle through understanding the conditions which create them. This is an incredibly long discussion. In terms of an economy serving consumers and producers - it needs to support the decisions of the individual participants. That is what objective law and the courts provide alongside individual rights. Central planning doesn't add any wisdom to an economy, for example. What it does is shut participants out of making decisions regarding their own things. Socialism removes intelligence from the economy by restricting thousand of actors, and thus thousands of minds replacing their decisions with a select group of bureaucrats with unearned power attained through a popularity contest rather than achievement.
To me what makes something 'economical' is as many consumers being producers as possible with the conditions of their employment to only be created by other producers acting freely with no Government intrusion into the economy except for indirect taxes and service based fees (contracts and the courts). I don't see it as a utopia - because the very idea of a utopia is about about stunted human development and a world with no innovation or changes whatsoever to avoid 'conflict.' Quite frankly I am tired of this 'the ends justify the means' holier than thou bullshit in the background of every economic discussion. What are the ends? To create a society that has no war, no hunger, and no suffering at all. Yet by what means? By destroying anything that might effect the balance, anything that might create the pain of a lesson to be learned, stifiling the imagination. This hedonistic short term goal of peace and conformity is about as sustainable as a hit of meth on a persons happiness. Once it is realized that creativity is forbidden, another type of suffering will become rampant through the utopia: oppression of free expression through censorship and oppression of private activity.
Generally for something to be truly economical in a utilitarian and subjective sense it needs to work for the desires of the participants in society. I like systems that account for scarcity and necessity through a bartered means of exchange: ie capitalist systems. For example I like to live a very relaxed life at the moment while managing a few portfolios for people. I actually don't have that much money, but my necessities by my own values are provided (food, internet, rent, power, gas, water, and such). I do a lot of things that don't involve either of these things, my writing, etc. These activities should be able to be anything a person wants that doesn't harm others directly yet still covers their own survival.
Microsoft's management should be able to hide their code, as it is their decision to do so. Ubuntu's team should be able to share their code. This is the most important thing about freedom of contract - but copyright should be only about that. It's pretty disgusting the way corporations use Governments to gain revenue through the barrel of a gun courtesy of the DMCA. It is worldwide and it is more corporatist and fascist than anything Hitler and Stalin could ever dream of. For anything else, to prevent things being distributed on ISOHunt or the pirate bay, it should be left to the distributor to require and use hardware and software that restricts its ownership. That is all voluntary activity and by doing anything about that on a Government level you commit the same crime as the companies using the DMCA.
At the same time, you should have the option of buying hardware that is TPM free and makers should have the option of building it free of coercion. This is why companies will produce hardware that can still run untrusted code. The project has never stated otherwise and doing so would be impossible anyway without coercive intellectual property law, because others will be free to create systems that either don't have TPM do both. We already have the software and the hardware - what we lack is a liazze-faire legal structure that prevents coercive laws of monopoly being used to have us all stuck with trusted code. This is the fatal consequence of copyright and patents in the traditional sense now that we have this kind of cryptographic technology.
Generally I think it will really only be closed-source application code and multimedia that will exist as trusted code. People will still be recording shit from TV as untrusted and so on. I personally like the implications of this for privacy and evasion of censorship and Government. Along with trusted code and such, it generally allows for trusted data in general. This could be your bank account, or it could be your will and signed you and a lawyer. The possibilities are endless, and anyone who is sinister of TPM should be equally as sinister of dm-crypt.
At the end of the day, I don't care how smart they are or you are. Others have the right to use TPM and others have the right to avoid it. If you really think openness and all that works - there should be no reason you can't convince people with reason to do things your way. Just get rid of the coercive big Government bullshit. I'll try to convince them otherwise.
Also you are wrong about the gigs. I for one multitrack and will never play a gig in my life. Mike Oldfield couldn't just do tubular bells right up as a gig. Also the money is far far less.
-
Just about every form of copy protection can be cracked or circumvented one way or another, if it's nor possible to do it digitally the analogue method can be used.
Copyright law is an artificial control on the economy which distorts the market, making people pay for pieces of plastic or zeros and ones. Laws restricting the transfer of information are more in line with totalitarianism than democracy.
Musicians who don't perform live would no doubt still exist if copyright didn't exist and they would no doubt still make money.
-
I agree, copyright is physical coercion - Activiation, WGA, and TPM are not however.
This doesn't make activation reasonable though and I'd like to get back onto that subject. With Windows 2008 Server R2 you get an evaluation period of sixty days. This is pretty nice of them really, but you also get to rearm that period five times giving you three hundred days of shareware Windows. Microsoft offer this extremely generous freebie yet at the same time they are strict on protecting intellectual property with activation bullshit that breaks the system. They even provide a handy script you can schedule to rearm the servers trial activation those fives times automatically in their support section.
The right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing, but in any case the system shutting down like it does really pisses me off. You can tell its probably the kind of thing the programmer who implemented hated, but the middle manager insisted "oh noez, shut that fucker down." It would make more sense to just allow trial users to use the system for free but limit the amount of connections. That way its easy to give a quick test for deployment without buying it, and for Microsoft to enforce intellectual property on big companies so they can make a sale and keep developing this otherwise great system.
Clearly though, Microsoft want to be primitive cunts with licensing and I think this is why Linux rules the server world. To learn Linux you don't need any money, you don't even need a good computer. Microsoft has students and developers jumping through hoops that Linux does not.
-
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2010/06/copyright-elephant-in-middle-of-glee.html (http://balkin.blogspot.com/2010/06/copyright-elephant-in-middle-of-glee.html)
-
at the moment, there are many competing theories about copyright and making money from your work, and unregulated copying etc.
Basically there's not enough real long term case studies for any one point of view to win out at the moment. In an effort to apply other models to this issue, here are my fairly scant opinions:
prohibition of something that many people are doing "illegally" never works. The only solution, whether it's morally right or wrong, is to legalise it, and licence it. Not sure what this actually means when applied to "illegal copying" though, i'm afraid. Does it mean the industry should take action in the countries where copying is more widespread? There are plenty countries where copying without paying the rights-holders is the norm. Perhaps the level of illegal copying going on in "the West" would actually be acceptable if this were applied across the board instead of having large areas of the world with basically 100% copyright violations.
Obviously this issue affects me in terms of the music industry much more than the software industry, and i've read a lot of opinions and still don't entirely know ehere i stand on this (which is remarkable since i'm usually so opinionated). Here's a really interesting article and associated discussion thread about this:
http://www.newmusicstrategies.com/2008/04/03/should-i-be-worried-about-piracy/ (http://www.newmusicstrategies.com/2008/04/03/should-i-be-worried-about-piracy/)
and here's another thread where we talk about this with regard to music ("we" being a community of songwriters, who are, i think, entirely hobbyists)
http://fawm.org/forums/thread/1257/ (http://fawm.org/forums/thread/1257/)
-
Well I didn't read your first post so I don't know what you think you're at right there.
not a good start tbh. why didn't you read what he said before putting your oar in?
The way I see it, a musician could easily release his songs under a free license and make money off of playing gigs, if he is good enough, and if that's what he wants.
that's definitely one opinion. Is it true? i'm not sure. I plan to do a two week tour of scotland this August, it's possible i'll break even (with travel, food and accommodation being covered by money the venues and promoters pay). Potentially i might sell one or two CDs a night and that's gravy. Do you think i am in this tight situation because i am not good enough? Is somebody like Gareth Gates or any boy band better than me? They could tour scotland and make thousands. And be clear, i expect to take a loss on this tour, not make money on the gigs.
So, let's take the travel out of the equation, since that's what's obviously causing the expenses, yes? This means playing gigs in Edinburgh. Edinburgh's not that big, but there are literally dozens of gigs a night, many of them free. You expect me to be able to charge for a gig and make money? I have done it before, but this was a special case (of the three bands, one was launching a CD, the other were making their debut appearance). It's DEFINITELY not an issue of being good enough, it's an issue of looking at a situation where punters could go to any gig, and they are less likely to choose the one that costs a fiver to get than the one that's free. In my world money can ONLY be made on merch sales, which is why it confuses me that many of my favourite Edinburgh bands have no CD even!
For one a million more people will get to enjoy his work (is that not important to an artist? I think you're being very one-dimensional), the more people that do will not only go to his gigs, but will probably offer donations e.g. he could raise around the time of new releases.
hmm, millions? How much will that kind of promotion cost? We always hear the "radiohead released their album on a 'pay what you want' model..." argument, but they were already huge, and they had EMI pushing them. Where would i or any of the hundreds of similar performers i know get this kind of money, or have this kind of time? I do agree with you, by the way. You can listen to my album as many times as you like for free on bandcamp.com but i made it so you have to pay to download it. To me, this is the compromise at the moment. Other musicians draw the line differently. i know plenty who release extra non-CD tracks for free, and one person i know has made it impossible to download tracks individually from iTunes, to make people pay for her whole album if they want one or two songs in particular. Besides, everybody's stealing music already and the artists are getting no money from their customers!!111 (did I make my sarcasm clear enough?)
no you actually didn't, where's your sarcasm? This issue is actually one with such diversely held opinions and no clear truth in it that sarcasm is virtually indetectable. Anyway, unauthorised copying is NOT stealing, it's perhaps a violation of the owner's rights (if they didn't allow copying in the licence the stuff was released under) but it is not stealing.
Again, some of my friends would have about zero interest in music, nevermind in paying for it, if I couldn't have given them stuff from my collection 7 or 8 years ago.
i was at a music industry forum this week, and one of the panelists in a seminar about the future of music said that home taping was ok in the 80s when tape copies were usually crap, and forced you to buy the album if you liked the music, but now you can copy a perfect digital copy so this is no longer true. My opinion is that that's crap. But that's the sort of opinions you hear, even from industry professionals. Maybe i'm wrong, maybe that guy was right? I'm not an industry professional.
-
Well I didn't read your first post so I don't know what you think you're at right there.
not a good start tbh. why didn't you read what he said before putting your oar in?
I've already made it clear that I don't think a simple minded discussion here is useful to finding answers.
The way I see it, a musician could easily release his songs under a free license and make money off of playing gigs, if he is good enough, and if that's what he wants.
that's definitely one opinion. Is it true?
In any case, what if the world prohibited copyright that restricts copying, therefore all artists are in the same boat. It's fair to say I don't know if that means more artists will exist, or if it would result in a lot of artists sinking (or, more likely, looking for a job like the rest of us - if they can't succeed or more simply make a living in a free culture world).
I for one, wouldn't be giving my money to artists with millions (which often leads them to problems, I think it is worth pointing out - and you can't make music if you're dead), but I'd give it to lots of little/medium bands whose music I like, mostly I like medium bands anyhow.
Anyways, this seems to be the question everyone wants to know: how will artistic volume be effected in a free culture world. I hear a lot of people jumping to the conclusion that all the money will be sucked out of the industry, but in my opinion A) this isn't even the most important question and B) these people don't know this. The thing is, if you are simple minded about it, all of the money being sucked out of the industry seems like a no-brainer, but what I'm saying is it is NOT a simple problem, and even if money is sucked out, there are other societal benefits of a free-culture world to be considered.
i'm not sure. I plan to do a two week tour of scotland this August, it's possible i'll break even (with travel, food and accommodation being covered by money the venues and promoters pay). Potentially i might sell one or two CDs a night and that's gravy. Do you think i am in this tight situation because i am not good enough? Is somebody like Gareth Gates or any boy band better than me? They could tour scotland and make thousands. And be clear, i expect to take a loss on this tour, not make money on the gigs.
If you're making a loss on this tour, how are you paying for it?
Btw, we get plenty of free small gigs in our town sometimes, but that normally means the pub is paying the band. Some of my local friends get 50 quid each a night in a band, a nice price for students who learned to do the music because they enjoy it.Again, some of my friends would have about zero interest in music, nevermind in paying for it, if I couldn't have given them stuff from my collection 7 or 8 years ago.
i was at a music industry forum this week, and one of the panelists in a seminar about the future of music said that home taping was ok in the 80s when tape copies were usually crap, and forced you to buy the album if you liked the music, but now you can copy a perfect digital copy so this is no longer true. My opinion is that that's crap. But that's the sort of opinions you hear, even from industry professionals. Maybe i'm wrong, maybe that guy was right? I'm not an industry professional.
I don't think you need to be an industry professional.
-
I think the problem is, you don't really explain what the benefits of a so-called 'free-culture' world are, that and I just don't see any. In fact I see nothing more than detriment in the concept. It alienates everyone but the artist from the concept of contract and profit which both as an end to themselves are not a bad thing. You basically want to turn artists into rightless slaves who perform like beggars for that de-facto pittance of goodwill. I believe artists just like any other provider of a service should be entitled to the implied agreement of copyright. That those enjoying the artists work are expected to uphold certain contractual obligations. Everyone else gets this benefit in a civilized society with courts and the law. It seems you are trying to promote the slavery of artists for the so called greater good of your consumption of art, and personally I think it is disgusting and will have no more of this pointless conversation with a rotter.
-
I plan to do a two week tour of scotland this August, it's possible i'll break even (with travel, food and accommodation being covered by money the venues and promoters pay). Potentially i might sell one or two CDs a night and that's gravy.
I recently finished a book about the DIY histories of some of the American bands who booked their own tours and released their own albums in golden age before Nirvana's "Nevermind" flipped the music industry inside out. Bands like Minor Threat (and later Fugazi) actually made money on their tours, because they lived so spartanly - booked their own shows and slept on people's floors. Spending a couple weeks in a sleeping bag on someone's floor could make you a lot more money. Or rather, you would save money that could be used for other things.
-
Well I can see plenty of advantages of a society free from copyright, at least in the music industry: people will be free to exchange information, artists can freely mix and improve the work of others and it will result in a more level playing field.
Who really benefits from copyrights anyway?
Certainly not the small unsigned artists who probably couldn't afford a lawsuit, even if they manage to catch people pirating their music. The people who benefit most are the big artists and record companies who have plenty of resources available to take on even the most minor breach of copyright.
A world of free music wouldn't be a world without music, it'd just be a world without large record companies and pop stars who get paid huge sums of money to record a few songs. The music industry would probably go back to how it was before the big record companies existed. Before most people owned a record player, there were classical music concerts and Broadway for the rich, the poor people would only listen to folk and a gospel at Church which probably differed greatly depending on where they lived. Of course the Internet and better transport would mean, it wouldn't be quite like that but it would mean that most music would return to being mostly produced by those who do it for the joy of it rather than for the money which might not be a bad thing.
Hell I can see the downside, I like pop music just as much as real music, sometimes even more so. I think if a record producer can get hold of the best singers and song writers, it's no surprise that they often produce some of the best music. I accept the criticism that too much attention is often paid to appearance that the music suffers but I don't think this is always the case. For example I think the cast of Glee's cover version of Journey's Don't Stop Believin' is musically superior to the original, the harmony is near perfect and it seems more in tune than the original. Normally I prefer originals to covers, probably because of nostalgia and that the cover is often a totally different style but Don't Stop Believin' is an exception to the rule, I'm too young to remember the original and it's in the same style as the original. I'm not knocking Journey as they probably didn't have the same technology when they released it: pitch correction was unheard of back then.
EDIT:
Here's links to the Youtube if anyone living in a cave hasn't heard either of the songs.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ffuCVLECpY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ffuCVLECpY)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfUYuIVbFg0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfUYuIVbFg0)
-
I'm not knocking Journey as they probably didn't have the same technology when they released it: pitch correction was unheard of back then.
I generally don't like anything that in my opinion degrades the quality of music, like
- pitch correction (sounds unnatural and without passion)
- wall of sound (ugly poppy echo effect that sounds better on FM radio than on a music album)
- vocoder (it was cool when Cher and Kanye West did it on just one album, but it's generally for people who can't sing)
- side instruments that don't add anything but annoying background noise to the song
- album mixers that went crazy with reverb
-
Wow, I'm surprised I haven't got a load grief for suggesting a pop remake is better than the original, well It's a matter of opinion I suppose.
I think pitch correction is good because it allows the singer to make a fuckup without having to rerecord anything, although I can see why it's controversial as it can make any shit singer sound good but that isn't necessarily a bad thing.
Vocoder effects are nothing new and have their place, for example I think the Electric Light Orchestra used the vocoder brilliantly on Mr. Blue Sky - much better than Cher's Believe which came 20 years later.
-
Wow, I'm surprised I haven't got a load grief for suggesting a pop remake is better than the original, well It's a matter of opinion I suppose.
Journey is a terrible band. The fact that they wrote a couple listenable songs doesn't redeem anything. And covering a listenable song is barely noteworthy.
-
Pitch correction will make a good signer sound shit as well.
-
I've already made it clear that I don't think a simple minded discussion here is useful to finding answers.
maybe i am misunderstanding you. are you saying my argument is simpleminded? or that you chose not to read the post you were replying to because you assumed it had only simpleminded content?
Basically: if you don't read something, you can't reply to it. You can call it names, but you are talking from a position of ignorance unless you read it, am i wrong? did i just misunderstand what you meant?
In any case, what if the world prohibited copyright that restricts copying, therefore all artists are in the same boat. It's fair to say I don't know if that means more artists will exist, or if it would result in a lot of artists sinking (or, more likely, looking for a job like the rest of us - if they can't succeed or more simply make a living in a free culture world).
that's not something i can agree with, you propose prohibiting creators from licencing their own works under a licence of their choosing? It's not inherently evil, but it is censorship of a very strong kind (quite Orwellian as they say). Why do you imagine that prohibition is ever the solution? History has shown us that prohibition never works.
I for one, wouldn't be giving my money to artists with millions (which often leads them to problems, I think it is worth pointing out - and you can't make music if you're dead), but I'd give it to lots of little/medium bands whose music I like, mostly I like medium bands anyhow.
would you? or are those "medium" bands just "big" bands with fashionable PR. Anyway how do you imagine a band gets to that status anyway if hamfisted legislation (such as the digital economy act, which comes dangerously close to forcing creators and rights holders to licence their music in a certain way) has destroyed the music industry so that the only people able to make money are X-Factor finalists? You haven't thought this through. I'm not trying to be condescending but i have devoted a lot of thought to this and talked to a lot of people, many of whom are industry professionals, and i can't see any clear solutions myself, and haven't really met anybody (except within this thread!) that seems to think they know the hard and fast solutions to the current digital copying situation.
Anyways, this seems to be the question everyone wants to know: how will artistic volume be effected in a free culture world. I hear a lot of people jumping to the conclusion that all the money will be sucked out of the industry, but in my opinion A) this isn't even the most important question and B) these people don't know this.
in a way i have to completely U-turn here because i agree that what you just said is really important. The thing is, if you are simple minded about it, all of the money being sucked out of the industry seems like a no-brainer, but what I'm saying is it is NOT a simple problem, and even if money is sucked out, there are other societal benefits of a free-culture world to be considered.
yeah, and with music, people will be making it anyway, the money is just an indicator of how well the industry is providing mechanisms to turn that creativity into business and marketing models.
i'm not sure. I plan to do a two week tour of scotland this August, it's possible i'll break even (with travel, food and accommodation being covered by money the venues and promoters pay). Potentially i might sell one or two CDs a night and that's gravy. Do you think i am in this tight situation because i am not good enough? Is somebody like Gareth Gates or any boy band better than me? They could tour scotland and make thousands. And be clear, i expect to take a loss on this tour, not make money on the gigs.
If you're making a loss on this tour, how are you paying for it?
i have a job. Also, i have found i have no choice but to put my efforts into music. I've made a loss (so far) on the CD too, but i had to do it. So basically with the tour, i just said "right, i'll do it" and i'll have to make up whatever losses from my own pocket. I do know one or two people who are professional musicians, but i have no idea how i could ever get to that point.
For software, i could be wrong but i can't imagine the drive to code is as strong as the drive to create art, such as music, painting and poetry. Maybe i'm wrong.
Btw, we get plenty of free small gigs in our town sometimes, but that normally means the pub is paying the band. Some of my local friends get 50 quid each a night in a band, a nice price for students who learned to do the music because they enjoy it.yeah, that'd be excellent. this doesn't seem to be too common from what i have seen. depends on the area though, and the venue.
-
that final nested quote is actually my reply, sorry. Also, the digital economy act doesn't only force rights holders, it legislates pointlessly for lots of other related issues too.
-
I think pitch correction is good because it allows the singer to make a fuckup without having to rerecord anything, although I can see why it's controversial as it can make any shit singer sound good but that isn't necessarily a bad thing.
did you actually mean that? Have you ever heard pitch correction used? it doesn't make anybody sound good!
it's an amusing effect, but highly limited in its practical use (like phased drum fills or backwards guitar solos). If you (or a recording artist, more's the pity) thinks it is the solution to poor singing, they are clearly as tone deaf as they would need to be to sing that badly in the first place.
No, your ear's the judge, and saying pitch correction's the answer for people who can't sing is like saying this (http://www.guitarhero.com/) is the solution for people who can't be bothered to learn how to play the guitar.
-
Yes, I've heard pitch correction used and I simply disagree, it's brilliant if used correctly. There was an item on the radio about it, some DJ who couldn't sing recorded a song, got some expert in pitch correction software to play with it and he sounded great. Apparently nearly everyone in the audio industry uses it these days and no doubt you've heard it without realising it.
-
I've already made it clear that I don't think a simple minded discussion here is useful to finding answers.
maybe i am misunderstanding you. are you saying my argument is simpleminded? or that you chose not to read the post you were replying to because you assumed it had only simpleminded content?
Basically: if you don't read something, you can't reply to it. You can call it names, but you are talking from a position of ignorance unless you read it, am i wrong? did i just misunderstand what you meant?
I assume you have read all of my posts in this thread?
I didn't read your post entirely Kintaro, reason number 1 is that this isn't something I want to battle out over the internet, here no less, this is something I want to study and research more at some point in my life [...]
Notice that I was saying those things to Kintaro, not to yourself.
In my mind, the questions are complicated and they deserve open-minded considerations: not knee-jerk reactions or dumps of feelings. In Kintaros mind he has all the right answers, which imo are not open-minded or considered enough, and are certainly not going to help me. So, I will happily skip or skim his posts, let him know basically what I think of his remarks, without wasting my time reading a complete page of trash.
I have read everything you have said on the other hand.
In any case, what if the world prohibited copyright that restricts copying, therefore all artists are in the same boat. It's fair to say I don't know if that means more artists will exist, or if it would result in a lot of artists sinking (or, more likely, looking for a job like the rest of us - if they can't succeed or more simply make a living in a free culture world).
that's not something i can agree with, you propose prohibiting creators from licencing their own works under a licence of their choosing? It's not inherently evil, but it is censorship of a very strong kind (quite Orwellian as they say). Why do you imagine that prohibition is ever the solution? History has shown us that prohibition never works.
Huh?
What I am advocating is prohibition of licenses that prohibit sharing, if you want to put it like that.
I don't understand your point here whatsoever, because therefore we're screwed eitherway.
I for one, wouldn't be giving my money to artists with millions (which often leads them to problems, I think it is worth pointing out - and you can't make music if you're dead), but I'd give it to lots of little/medium bands whose music I like, mostly I like medium bands anyhow.
would you? or are those "medium" bands just "big" bands with fashionable PR. Anyway how do you imagine a band gets to that status anyway if hamfisted legislation (such as the digital economy act, which comes dangerously close to forcing creators and rights holders to licence their music in a certain way) has destroyed the music industry so that the only people able to make money are X-Factor finalists? You haven't thought this through. I'm not trying to be condescending but i have devoted a lot of thought to this and talked to a lot of people, many of whom are industry professionals, and i can't see any clear solutions myself, and haven't really met anybody (except within this thread!) that seems to think they know the hard and fast solutions to the current digital copying situation.
I am not saying I have the hard and fast solutions. I simply believe that the world can operate like this, without the roofs falling from above artists heads (and I believe that's all I've tried to defend thus far). This doesn't mean I believe we will have more or better art, or that I know what the world will look like. But certainly, if we aren't prepared to consider the idea, then we'll never know.
-
Lyrics are wasted time between solos.
-
I assume you have read all of my posts in this thread?
i think so, though i can't go back and refresh my memory because something on page one of the thread is blocked by my work's firewall. I understand what you mean, but i still think that if you are going to reply to someone, it's generally pointless not to read what they actually said.
Huh?
What I am advocating is prohibition of licenses that prohibit sharing, if you want to put it like that.
I don't understand your point here whatsoever, because therefore we're screwed eitherway.
clever response but no, you're not quite proposing a prohibition of prohibition, plus, two wrongs don't make a right.
Creators being able to release their output under whatever conditions they choose is not prohibition. i am the rightsholder to my created works. if you want to use one of my songs in (say) a computer game, then i should have been able to specify in the licence for that song what the conditions are. In practice there are fairly normal and sensible de facto standards for how this is done, with creative commons released music becoming more popular. The choice of licence then (especially in a world where more and more artists are "independent", rather than the rather sad "unsigned") becomes an important business decision, and legislating against the artist's choice of how to licence their own intellectual property is not protecting anybody.
You want to use a song for free in your film (for example)? Go and find a song that allows this in the licence, or write your own. Why is this a problem for anybody except those that want to "liberate" music for their own use (ie: to imprison this music into their own projects). Arguably the song would get more exposure if it allowed free reproduction or arguably it might make more money if it didn't (or not, because of lack of exposure), but i firmly believe this is the rights holder's right to decide which model they will go for, see why? because they are the rights holder! Make your own damn song/book/film etc if you don't like it.
Nope, the more i think of this it's the legislators who are stealing here, not the public, and its our rights being stolen, not our music.
I am not saying I have the hard and fast solutions. I simply believe that the world can operate like this, without the roofs falling from above artists heads (and I believe that's all I've tried to defend thus far). This doesn't mean I believe we will have more or better art, or that I know what the world will look like. But certainly, if we aren't prepared to consider the idea, then we'll never know.
you're right about that, but i think you might be wrong about this "roof". The situation we're all used to in the music industry is new. it was created in the mid 20th century, on the back of the takeoff of telecommunications and cheaply copying recorded media. Now the world's saturated with recorded output and recordings and multimedia have advanced to the point where there are a lot less natural restrictions on the music, and ironically, we're back to a position like before the 20th century where music (and art and writing etc etc) are chiefly amateur pursuits, with some people being sponsored by patrons (like Groove Armada and Bacardi).
What i'm saying is i think it'd be a mistake to assume we can or should maintain the 20th century model indefinitely and artificially. If we try, and that's not the way the market goes, then ultimately these regulatory efforts will fail. Remember the parable about the oak and the willow? the supple willow survived the storm by bending in the wind, while the strong but unbending oak was destroyed.
-
Yes, I've heard pitch correction used and I simply disagree, it's brilliant if used correctly. There was an item on the radio about it, some DJ who couldn't sing recorded a song, got some expert in pitch correction software to play with it and he sounded great. Apparently nearly everyone in the audio industry uses it these days and no doubt you've heard it without realising it.
i'm glad you're so certain about my active listening skills, is this like the "i'm sure you can't tell the difference between a CD and a proper audio recording" statements i used to hear all the time from people?
Sorry but if you can't sing, then don't. Or learn. Or just sing as best you can and maybe it'll still sound good and people'll like it. I am aware (strangely enough by using my ears, as i said your ears are the judge) that far too many pop records are soaked in autotune and are heavily overproduced in protools as well, but this doesn't mean it's "good". The voice is an inherently microtonal instrument. Surely only the most simple vocal parts require literally no movement when going from one note to the next, even if you quantise it for quarter tones, you'd be able to hear the artificialness when sliding from one note to another, and obviously quantising any finer than maybe a semitone or quarter tone is pointless because it's for people who can't sing.
No wonder the industry's falling on its arse if autotune is not only acceptable but somehow being put forward as superior to actually being able to sing.
eg: T-Pain vs Otis Redding - who can sing? Who sounds better on their records? You decide.
-
i'm glad you're so certain about my active listening skills, is this like the "i'm sure you can't tell the difference between a CD and a proper audio recording" statements i used to hear all the time from people?
Sorry I forgot, you're the one who claims inferior analogue formats sound better than superior digital formats, otherwise I wouldn't have bothered having this discussion with you.
You do know that there's more distortion in even the highest quality speaker system and recording studio acoustics than there is in an ADC with a ridiculously high sample rate and number of bits per sample?
-
i'm glad you're so certain about my active listening skills, is this like the "i'm sure you can't tell the difference between a CD and a proper audio recording" statements i used to hear all the time from people?
Sorry I forgot, you're the one who claims inferior analogue formats sound better than superior digital formats, otherwise I wouldn't have bothered having this discussion with you.
don't be such a self righteous wanker. "inferior analogue formats"? it's a contradiction in terms! if something is an analogue of a sound, it is not inferior to a digital representation. Analogous recordings are superior to representations. And your superior "you're not worth my time" attitude only serves to show that you don't even believe you could have a discussion with someone who doesn't already agree with your point of view.
If i were you i wouldn't be as proud of that fact as you seem to be.
You do know that there's more distortion in even the highest quality speaker system and recording studio acoustics than there is in an ADC with a ridiculously high sample rate and number of bits per sample?
i don't give a fuck about that, any digital system has speakers too you know, big deal? Why are you attempting to steer the issue away from autotune anyway? is it because you just got pwned?
I might clarify one thing though, i am not "against" autotune as a technique or effect, i am just saying that as a substitute for hitting the right notes, it's laughable. can you imagine applying autotune to a lead guitar part on the questionable basis that it would improve the guitarist's performance? Very silly.
-
furthermore i'm not "against" digital either, and i just wanted to point out that you not only steered the discussion away from what we were talking about, but you've also turned this into a "which is better" argument, when it was actually about whether you can tell the difference between one thing or another. You claimed i couldn't tell the difference, i maintain that that's ill-informed garbage just like when you claimed scotland always votes predominantly Liberal, without checking your facts, because you know best.
Generally, for anyone who's interested in the subject of legal/illegal and moral/amoral digital distribution, here's enough discussion to make you blue in the face and sick to the stomach: http://fawm.org/forums/thread/1257/ (http://fawm.org/forums/thread/1257/)
-
don't be such a self righteous wanker.
I stopped reading after that.
The fact that you've resorted to petty name calling just reinforces what I was saying before - there's no point in trying to discuss this with you any further.
-
That was hilarious.
Anyways, back to my discussion with Calum. We are simply coming from two different points of view: you believe that it's an artists inalienable right to set the terms of distribution for their artwork, including disallowing sharing. Imo it is a persons inalienable right to share whatever they have: the ability to share digital media, a million times in one second, should be a massive advancement for human society, not something that is culled and discouraged. We don't know where this attitude will take us - that's something I'd love to look into one day. The effects in my mind clearly extend beyond everyone having access to all public artwork for free (notice that if someone wants to keep artwork private they can only keep it to themselves, or distribute it only to trusted individuals who agree not to use their right to share).
I know you have a liken towards free media - as long it's the artists choice, as it is today. And maybe one day we'll see majority free media even with current legislation (I see things moving that way, slightly, and it's heartening and if it were to work, it would definitely be the most satisfying way to a free media world). However, I will continue to hold an artists right to use terms such as "can create copies for personal use, cannot distribute to others on a commercial or a non-commercial basis" in question. As I've said, I want to study this more, and (food for thought) in doing so I think it will be interesting to refer to the luddites of the industrial revolution. The digital revolution hasn't even been nearly embraced yet, the way I see it.
edit:
Consider finally that all artwork (essentially) is based off of other artwork. If you lived 1,000 years ago would you be playing the same way you play today? I don't think so. This means that in a (limited) sense, "your" music came from around you.
-
don't be such a self righteous wanker.
I stopped reading after that.
The fact that you've resorted to petty name calling just reinforces what I was saying before - there's no point in trying to discuss this with you any further.
bullshit, you just can't stand the heat, and now you're resorting to a complete strawman tactic, essentially saying that because you're self righteous, that means i must be wrong.
Grow up, read my full post and formulate a reply. i'll be waiting.
-
That was hilarious.
... I will continue to hold an artists right to use terms such as "can create copies for personal use, cannot distribute to others on a commercial or a non-commercial basis" in question. As I've said, I want to study this more, and (food for thought) in doing so I think it will be interesting to refer to the luddites of the industrial revolution. The digital revolution hasn't even been nearly embraced yet, the way I see it....
well, as i said, my mind's open about this because it's early days yet, and nobody knows what's going to happen, but you've now pointed out that this discussion is currently about ownership, does the service user own the music they "bought"? Actually no, they own the rights to listen to it privately, this is why more rights money is collected if the song's played publicly even from a record that has been paid for in the shop. So, you may be saying that given that a digital copy costs nothing in physical terms, compared with a real record, that this very precept should be challenged.
I'm not so sure. Whether it was made 1000 years ago or now, my music took a long time and some money to get into its current state. Say for example, i become mega successful in the future (ha!), for the sake of argument, should somebody who bought a copy of "Honesty And Thorns" be able to just distribute copies willy nilly, for their own financial gain? Should that guy actually own the music just because he paid me £6.50 at some point (or more likely got it for free dodgily off the internet somehow). I've already found my songs on illegal download sites, and i have heard all the "you should be grateful your music's out there for people to hear" stuff, i'm just not convinced, yet. A lot of musicians say if people like your music they want to pay you for doing a good job, i have yet to really experience this to any great extent. Time, of course, will clarify these issues within the community at large of course.
This is a similar argument to the software one, GPL, BSD licences and all that, but i'm not sure the answers are the same, because of the totally different mechanisms that lead people to create music (and physical art etc). Anyway...
PS - it's really hard for me to ignore that the only person in this thread who's thrown all their toys out of the pram and behaved in an irrational insecure manner is the guy who's english. this is the sort of thing that creates nationalist feeling, the fact that no matter how hard one tries not to be nationalist in one's opinions, there's always somebody willing to confirm their own national stereotype. Don't let your country down Alun, you're better than this. You can do it, restore my belief that everyone's an individual and isn't influenced unduly by their perceived national characteristics!
oh yeah, and kintaro said this earlier:
You basically want to turn artists into rightless slaves who perform like beggars for that de-facto pittance of goodwill. I believe artists just like any other provider of a service should be entitled to the implied agreement of copyright. That those enjoying the artists work are expected to uphold certain contractual obligations. Everyone else gets this benefit in a civilized society with courts and the law. It seems you are trying to promote the slavery of artists for the so called greater good of your consumption of art, and personally I think it is disgusting and will have no more of this pointless conversation with a rotter.
oops! watch that language kintaro! wouldn't want this thread binned now, would we? Nevertheless, i basically agree with kintaro, if i were to go by my own experience. i have tried the "free CD, pay what you can afford" model, and found that the CDs are a lot more popular than usual, while handing over the money is almost as unpopular as ever.
It's my view that if relinquishing some control over your copyright didn't mean people taking advantage of you financially then it would sweeten the pill considerably, so to speak.
-
well, as i said, my mind's open about this because it's early days yet, and nobody knows what's going to happen, but you've now pointed out that this discussion is currently about ownership, does the service user own the music they "bought"? Actually no, they own the rights to listen to it privately, this is why more rights money is collected if the song's played publicly even from a record that has been paid for in the shop. So, you may be saying that given that a digital copy costs nothing in physical terms, compared with a real record, that this very precept should be challenged.
Huh? This discussion is not about ownership (which seems like a meaningless idea when discussing music, if you think about it from a perspective outside this world we grew up in (and getting into that perspective is the key thing for this discussion)), it is about rights. We either allow artists the right to set terms that limit sharing (imo, a theoretical cap on society), or we allow people - everyone, the right to share with their friends, or anyone, the music and digital art that they enjoy.
Currently (clearly), the former is the case. But additionally currently people think they understand that this is necessary to result in the volume of artists we have. But I think all of this is so unfounded, even unthought out. People (e.g. we had Kintaro's views earlier) grew up in a digital world where sharing was prohibited mostly, and they can't understand a civilized world where everyone is allowed to share. (how funny is that, actually?)
I'm interested in a statistic for the average $ spent on music per household per year to continue this discussion further (which I don't see), but I'll probably come back to this again instead.
-
Grow up, read my full post and formulate a reply. i'll be waiting.
What do you mean grow up? I'm not the one who resorted to childish name calling.
For the record your commend didn't offend me, I've just debated things with people who behave like that before and it inevitably goes nowhere so I thought I'd not waste my time on it.
If you want to continue the discussion, review your post, remove the silly name calling and I'll respond to it.
-
Grow up, read my full post and formulate a reply. i'll be waiting.
What do you mean grow up? I'm not the one who resorted to childish name calling.
my namecalling wasn't as childish as your presumptuousness.
For the record your commend didn't offend me, I've just debated things with people who behave like that before and it inevitably goes nowhere so I thought I'd not waste my time on it.
that's your prejudice, not mine, so you deal with it. You fail if you think this discussion would have been a waste of time.
If you want to continue the discussion, review your post, remove the silly name calling and I'll respond to it.
how about this, see if you can get over yourself for a minute to actually read what i said WITHOUT me having to pander to your outmoded opinions about acceptable language.
-
Huh? This discussion is not about ownership (which seems like a meaningless idea when discussing music, if you think about it from a perspective outside this world we grew up in (and getting into that perspective is the key thing for this discussion)), it is about rights. We either allow artists the right to set terms that limit sharing (imo, a theoretical cap on society), or we allow people - everyone, the right to share with their friends, or anyone, the music and digital art that they enjoy.
Currently (clearly), the former is the case. But additionally currently people think they understand that this is necessary to result in the volume of artists we have. But I think all of this is so unfounded, even unthought out. People (e.g. we had Kintaro's views earlier) grew up in a digital world where sharing was prohibited mostly, and they can't understand a civilized world where everyone is allowed to share. (how funny is that, actually?)
it is about ownership, and it's much more complicated than you seem to be saying. Unfortunately i thought you would see where i was going with this. I haven't got a lot of time at the moment or i'd do another big long reply. you'll just have to make do with me saying it's more complicated than that for now, though, sorry.
-
Grow up, read my full post and formulate a reply. i'll be waiting.
What do you mean grow up? I'm not the one who resorted to childish name calling.
my namecalling wasn't as childish as your presumptuousness.
LOL
-
Huh? This discussion is not about ownership (which seems like a meaningless idea when discussing music, if you think about it from a perspective outside this world we grew up in (and getting into that perspective is the key thing for this discussion)), it is about rights. We either allow artists the right to set terms that limit sharing (imo, a theoretical cap on society), or we allow people - everyone, the right to share with their friends, or anyone, the music and digital art that they enjoy.
Currently (clearly), the former is the case. But additionally currently people think they understand that this is necessary to result in the volume of artists we have. But I think all of this is so unfounded, even unthought out. People (e.g. we had Kintaro's views earlier) grew up in a digital world where sharing was prohibited mostly, and they can't understand a civilized world where everyone is allowed to share. (how funny is that, actually?)
it is about ownership, and it's much more complicated than you seem to be saying. Unfortunately i thought you would see where i was going with this. I haven't got a lot of time at the moment or i'd do another big long reply. you'll just have to make do with me saying it's more complicated than that for now, though, sorry.
Well, I think you're full of shit with this reply, sorry.
Please explain who owns this post I'm writing, and why I should own copies of this post. I clearly said above that in my opinion this is a meaningless concept when applied to1s and 0s, and that considerations should revolve around rights, and then your response is that ownership is what this is about. That doesn't fucking cut it. Is there any wonder I can't "see where you are going"? (keep believing that. btw, there was nothing about your previous post that I hadn't heard before, except your aside about stereotypes, which is one of the silliest things I saw on this forum ever, but, this is my aside and lets not stay off the point)
-
what's the point in this?
so far this thread has had AlooneJonez dragging my name through the mud on the spurious basis that children swear (which is the opposite of my experience), and now PiratePenguin, who i thought i was having a reasonably sensible discussion with, decides that not only am i talking shit, but furthermore that i have no idea what is even being talked about. Not only this, but his failure to grasp what i am saying cannot be down to any misunderstanding on his part, but must, actually, be entirely down to my inability to even know what i'm talking about.
This whole discussion is childish and pointless, looking at it from this end. *i* know what i'm saying, and both of you (i suspect) are completely capable of understanding it too, though both of you have now chosen the "la la la, i'm not listening" defence, which is frankly disgusting.
grow up, or you will constantly fail to communicate in the world, and the only person that'll think it's big and/or clever are yourselves.
-
so far this thread has had AlooneJonez dragging my name through the mud on the spurious basis that children swear (which is the opposite of my experience)
No I didn't, read my previous post.
This whole discussion is childish and pointless, looking at it from this end. *i* know what i'm saying, and both of you (i suspect) are completely capable of understanding it too, though both of you have now chosen the "la la la, i'm not listening" defence, which is frankly disgusting.
grow up, or you will constantly fail to communicate in the world, and the only person that'll think it's big and/or clever are yourselves.
That's it, you can never be the person who's in the wrong, can you?
Surely it's got to be everyone else with the problem.
-
I said you were full of shit because you suggested that the issue is more complicated than I understand, without providing any point that I misunderstand - you just said I don't understand, and that's the end of discussion. Your posts - in this thread and others, are really a bad buzz lately.
Why don't you get off the whole "nobody here understands me", "this place is full of censor whores" and either (A) gtfo or (B) start addressing posts, emphasizing points you feel are important, and producing quality posts which (I know) you are capable to do?
But seriously, if you keep going down this road, you're just annoying people, and annoying yourself.
-
The history of this thread:
* I start a discussion.
* People join in constructively
* Calum comes along with no knowledge on the subject beyond direct observation and calls his post a contribution.
* I get really annoyed at Calum for doing this.
* Calum derails my thread like fucktard.
* The rest of you join in because its me, and I am the bully who hurts your feelings and any chance to get back at me helps numb the pain.
* This post is made.
-
clap clap
-
what's the point in this?
so far this thread has had AlooneJonez dragging my name through the mud on the spurious basis that children swear (which is the opposite of my experience), and now PiratePenguin, who i thought i was having a reasonably sensible discussion with, decides that not only am i talking shit, but furthermore that i have no idea what is even being talked about. Not only this, but his failure to grasp what i am saying cannot be down to any misunderstanding on his part, but must, actually, be entirely down to my inability to even know what i'm talking about.
This whole discussion is childish and pointless, looking at it from this end. *i* know what i'm saying, and both of you (i suspect) are completely capable of understanding it too, though both of you have now chosen the "la la la, i'm not listening" defence, which is frankly disgusting.
grow up, or you will constantly fail to communicate in the world, and the only person that'll think it's big and/or clever are yourselves.
I think they speed read dude. I am going to see if I can translate your posts to them for you.
I just realized Calum made some really good posts after I stopped reading this thread. Sorry about that Calum.
Declan, I believe you won't understand the importance of contracts and the courts until you are divorced for beating up your wife over concepts you don't understand - and you lose your house because you didn't get a prenuptial agreement. In response you will probably attempt to ban marriage altogether and in fact defacto relationships.
See, I lived with this girl once called Fiona and eventually we hated eachother quite dearly. Certain property was purchased together and this had to be settled voluntarily despite the fact we were not married.
When you buy an album you effectively enter A DEFACTO RELATIONSHIP WITH THE ARTIST. If the Artist is awesome you might get something under the creative commons. I am writing a masterpeice at the moment which has taken a lot of time. To do it, I need to eat food, pay for bills, own a computer, own recording equipment, and rent my own damn house.
Where should all that come from, a subclass of slaves?
-
I'm afraid that my default plan is to make lots and lots of money from a job that pays one of the best salaries in the world, Kintaro. It isn't even because I love money - a tonne of people are in my course for that reason (this is interesting, and I think that money is an okay motivator in this case - but a poor selector i.e. it is only motivating the below average students, and most of them won't make it to actuary (it's likely that none of them will get what they think they'll get) - one of my best college friends hates the work we do, but when it comes down to it he'll spend 9-12 hours everyday in the library for weeks before important exams. Unfortunately, I don't think that he'll be continuing in his preferred course next year. There is actually an on-topic point in this, but I'll just point that out if you get it and I won't focus my post on an outlier).
This is just a little bit about me, but if I get married and divorced with no prenup, then trust that I won't mind fulfilling the law wrt marriage - not only is this a world apart from copyright law, I don't want to live in a big house. I'm your favorite thing in the whole wide world, and you don't even know this about me. Disappointed. Surprised too that you brought up divorce suits and not even copyright suits, but then again I am speed-reading your posts and I don't care about this point (this was not the case with Calums posts, mind you). In any case, really don't worry yourself about me will you?
Notice that above is what I said my default plan is. An alternative is that at some point - either in the distant future established in some job (isn't that an idea!!) or in the not so distant future, some of my mathsy-programmy endeavors could bring me fame and fortune (or, more appropriately - a living). I'll tell you what, though, if this occurs I won't be depending on people following an instruction not to share. If my users want to, sharing is their right. They are not stealing when they do this with digital information and that is the greatest advancement ever - seriously, yes it is. If I have any faith in our species then I know that one day we will tap out of one awesome power (think media cartels, the "representatives" of artists) and into another awesome power - the power of free sharing. This will be a good thing. You may know this too.
I feel like I've made these points a hundred times here and there, but here's a summary. It may well be my last elaborate post on the topic here, ever. So I'll just spell it so that hopefully I won't come back again and read a post that I've already read.
- I believe that good artists will get the ball rolling (bonus challenge: try to figure out which 'good' I mean), someday very strongly, on the free culture movement, and that the concept will grow and grow*. In the mean time in any case
- it is not my belief that artists terms should be allowed to extend to limiting sharing of digital copies
- the reactions I am picking up already are as though artists are going to STARVE NOW, but
- I do not believe that a good artist will starve. Any artist who finds yourself in this position, please seek employment! Will we really need information leaflets about this? For tried artists who are unsuccessful at making an income and unsuccessful at getting a job, please sign on for unemployment benefits! We can't do anything else for you!
- You can say that the above sounds cruel - I've made no effort to make it sound like anything else, but here's the sticker: PEOPLE WILL STILL GIVE MONEY TO KEEP ARTISTS WHOSE WORK THEY ENJOY IN BUSINESS!! Shock. Horror.
Which point is the difficult one Kintaro? and if we can have a focused discussion, it could be worthwhile. Go off the plot and back to your usual bullshit self if you want me to fuck off - then I'll be happy to. I feel like I've explained myself clearly enough.
* aside: Most likely this will be majorly helped by media cartels who are bigger bastards than pirates at sea, shooting themselves in the foot by not shutting the fuck up and pissing people off.
-
Oh right, you were suggesting that I don't understand or appreciate the importance of the law and contracts - you are wrong and if you don't leave it here that is one easy way out for you.
-
Well I agree that Calum made some good points.
To be honest, the reason why I left this thread because Calum annoyed me (no this wasn't just because he swore at me), I felt his attitude was just going to piss me off more and I felt that having the discussion wasn't worth the stress. I mean if you're not enjoying a debate and it's only frustrating, what's the point of continuing?
In truth, I think that we are guilty of many of the things Calum accuses us of but what he didn't realise is that he's no better himself .
I don't see the point in discussing the matter any further . Piratepenguin clearly feels that it shouldn't be possible to own information, ideas because it doesn't exist in the physical sense. In other words, if you manufacture wheelbarrows and someone steals 1000 of them, you loose the value of 1000 wheelbarrows but if you make music and 1000 people download your album from piratebay, you don't necessary loose the value of 1000 albums because that would presume they all would've bought it and it ignores the fact that their friends might buy it. after they've heard them play it You and Calum clearly disagree with this philosophy and so do I to an extent.
There comes a point in a discussion when both parties have made all the points they have to make; continuing the debate beyond that, without making any significant points will not get anyone anywhere - it's now a circular argument.