Why not let the patent expire earlier after the owners make a certain amount of total profit on the media? Disney has multiple patents that should rightly have disappeared decades ago because they can afford hordes of lawyers to game the system, while smaller creators have their properties completely unprotected due to a lack of legal support.
Any system can be manipulated to some extent, but if you made a creative license expire after a certain amount of money is made, instead of after a certain period of time, you'd be better able to protect smaller creators without overfeeding large ones. After all, patents are ostensibly supposed to preserve the profit motive.
On a side tangent, whenever I engaged anyone on other platforms about the Dr. Seuss nonsense, and correctly pointed out that nothing was being banned, the estate was choosing not to do another run of certain books, and what would you like to do, FORCE them to?? (which is about 1000x more dystopian than anything they are alleging took place) the answer would inevitably shift to "copyrights shouldn't last that long anyway". Which is an amazing non-sequiter in and of itself. But also speaks to another issue.
My generation was dead wrong about Napster and copyright infringement. Lars Ulrich and Metallica took endless heat, but, in hindsight, they were 100% right. The music industry did die, and the fans killed it. Because we took everything for free (stole) and never looked back. Only with the advent of streaming has it started to adapt, but the artists are seeing fractions of pennies per spin, and unless you are Elton John or AC/DC, you aren't seeing jack squat from them.
The reason "It's a Wonderful Life" played on literally EVERY local station on Christmas Eve for decades was because it became public domain. It's why there are endless anthologies of Lovecraft stories. But if an estate or heirs are protecting and using the copyright, I now believe it should absolutely NOT be taken from them by force after a certain amount of time (even though it is currently somewhere between 70-120 years based on when/what was published, but apparently people now think it should be as low as 30, meaning during the lifetime of the author, which is ridiculous). This isn't like a patent on medicine. No one's life is hanging in the balance over a record or novel.
But it doesn't surprise me this was the response. And the 30-40 year old generation is responsible. We decided in the year 2000 that we shouldn't have to pay for music anymore. We were dead wrong, and created a world where people think art should be free. Which may be why so much of it isn't up to the level it used to be.
It's caused me to do a complete 180 on the issue after a situation arose with Metallica on Twitch a couple weeks ago (having their own live performance muted was seen as a great irony and karma by most, but it made me question my own positions from 20 years ago and change them) and then being confronted with this response about copyright length (from the left and right) during this most recent dust-up. But I am in the minority on this, the OVERWHELMING minority based on social media responses and interactions. Why should people Stephen King has never met have a right to make money off his work in 60 years if his great-grandchildren are still alive??
The music industry killed itself by not being able to adapt to the changing technology at the time and offered more resistance than innovation. They were losing the PR battle as they took music fans to court.
It took Apple to dispel the myth that 'everyone' will just download everything for free with a sustainable online store that offered individual songs for sale for a buck instead of full albums for $20 where the buyer really only wanted one or two songs out of the 10-15.
Artist have now adapted to this type of service. The likes Gorrilaz (The Song Machine), Big Head Todd and the Monsters (Monster's Music Monthly), and Maisie Peters to name a few, release singles every month to couple of months to their fans to purchase or stream through Spotify or Apple Music Subscription.
While offering up singles every month (or doing free concerts through Youtube like Ben Folds did during the pandemic), artist stay relevant longer. No longer do artist need to release an album every two to three years and hope to god the consumers didn't forget about them. They don't need to do media tours or promotional campaigns, where the bulk of money goes into when creating a full album. These tactics, and the record labels that were in charge of them screwed over more artists than they helped them.
Exhibit A: Read "So You Wanna Be A Rock & Roll Star: How I Machine-Gunned A Roomful of Record Executives And Other True Tales From A Drummer's Life" (yes a very long title) by Jacob Slichter if you can find it. Slichter was the drummer for Semisonic, the band behind the one hit wonder "Closing Time", to get a honest and humour filled look into the music industry in the early aughts when Napster and digital file sharing was just getting started to see what I mean. And;
Exhibit B: Suck Fony by Wheatus, the one hit wonder ("Teenage Dirtbag") whose second album Hand Over Your Loved Ones was poorly promoted by their record label due to 'conflicts' with the band. Wheatus had to fight to get the rights of the album back, releasing it as Suck Fony and have been releasing music independently since, and not having to worry about being radio friendly just creating art.
I also disagree that music is getting 'worse.' In fact, compared to some full albums released in the late 90s early aughts, the music is getting better. I think it is getting more diverse and just harder to find what appeals to the listener, either that or you're getting old and are going to start screaming at kids to get off your lawn soon. Don't worry, it happens to all of us.
Dr. Seuss is a distraction. The real deplatforming happens mostly by chilling effect now, since we've had half a decade of everything from banks to payment processors to Cloudflare access to Google and the social media giants be weaponized against those deemed outside of the elites acceptable boundaries. GOP politicians are, as always, cartoonishly useless and an impediment to the issue despite being the primary targets for a time.
It's not really relevant to Dr. Seuss, but it is to the general subject of "cancel culture", and how pervasive this new rigid ideological enforcement of arcane far left values is. Yesterday I was watching an interview with one of Disneys Star Wars screenwriters and, to paraphrase what he says, corporations like Disney know that punishing people for minor infractions on the sensibilities of a shrill minority isn't profitable, nor is it what people want, but there enough people in the right positions of power, and they are sufficiently scared of the pushback they might receive from these people that should they not capitulate, that it happens anyway despite the better judgement of many people.
On a side tangent, whenever I engaged anyone on other platforms about the Dr. Seuss nonsense, and correctly pointed out that nothing was being banned, the estate was choosing not to do another run of certain books, and what would you like to do, FORCE them to?? (which is about 1000x more dystopian than anything they are alleging took place) the answer would inevitably shift to "copyrights shouldn't last that long anyway". Which is an amazing non-sequiter in and of itself. But also speaks to another issue.
My generation was dead wrong about Napster and copyright infringement. Lars Ulrich and Metallica took endless heat, but, in hindsight, they were 100% right. The music industry did die, and the fans killed it. Because we took everything for free (stole) and never looked back. Only with the advent of streaming has it started to adapt, but the artists are seeing fractions of pennies per spin, and unless you are Elton John or AC/DC, you aren't seeing jack squat from them.
The reason "It's a Wonderful Life" played on literally EVERY local station on Christmas Eve for decades was because it became public domain. It's why there are endless anthologies of Lovecraft stories. But if an estate or heirs are protecting and using the copyright, I now believe it should absolutely NOT be taken from them by force after a certain amount of time (even though it is currently somewhere between 70-120 years based on when/what was published, but apparently people now think it should be as low as 30, meaning during the lifetime of the author, which is ridiculous). This isn't like a patent on medicine. No one's life is hanging in the balance over a record or novel.
But it doesn't surprise me this was the response. And the 30-40 year old generation is responsible. We decided in the year 2000 that we shouldn't have to pay for music anymore. We were dead wrong, and created a world where people think art should be free. Which may be why so much of it isn't up to the level it used to be.
It's caused me to do a complete 180 on the issue after a situation arose with Metallica on Twitch a couple weeks ago (having their own live performance muted was seen as a great irony and karma by most, but it made me question my own positions from 20 years ago and change them) and then being confronted with this response about copyright length (from the left and right) during this most recent dust-up. But I am in the minority on this, the OVERWHELMING minority based on social media responses and interactions. Why should people Stephen King has never met have a right to make money off his work in 60 years if his great-grandchildren are still alive??
The music industry killed itself by not being able to adapt to the changing technology at the time and offered more resistance than innovation. They were losing the PR battle as they took music fans to court.
It took Apple to dispel the myth that 'everyone' will just download everything for free with a sustainable online store that offered individual songs for sale for a buck instead of full albums for $20 where the buyer really only wanted one or two songs out of the 10-15.
Artist have now adapted to this type of service. The likes Gorrilaz (The Song Machine), Big Head Todd and the Monsters (Monster's Music Monthly), and Maisie Peters to name a few, release singles every month to couple of months to their fans to purchase or stream through Spotify or Apple Music Subscription.
While offering up singles every month (or doing free concerts through Youtube like Ben Folds did during the pandemic), artist stay relevant longer. No longer do artist need to release an album every two to three years and hope to god the consumers didn't forget about them. They don't need to do media tours or promotional campaigns, where the bulk of money goes into when creating a full album. These tactics, and the record labels that were in charge of them screwed over more artists than they helped them.
Exhibit A: Read "So You Wanna Be A Rock & Roll Star: How I Machine-Gunned A Roomful of Record Executives And Other True Tales From A Drummer's Life" (yes a very long title) by Jacob Slichter if you can find it. Slichter was the drummer for Semisonic, the band behind the one hit wonder "Closing Time", to get a honest and humour filled look into the music industry in the early aughts when Napster and digital file sharing was just getting started to see what I mean. And;
Exhibit B: Suck Fony by Wheatus, the one hit wonder ("Teenage Dirtbag") whose second album Hand Over Your Loved Ones was poorly promoted by their record label due to 'conflicts' with the band. Wheatus had to fight to get the rights of the album back, releasing it as Suck Fony and have been releasing music independently since, and not having to worry about being radio friendly just creating art.
I also disagree that music is getting 'worse.' In fact, compared to some full albums released in the late 90s early aughts, the music is getting better. I think it is getting more diverse and just harder to find what appeals to the listener, either that or you're getting old and are going to start screaming at kids to get off your lawn soon. Don't worry, it happens to all of us.
The actions of record labels are a bit of a separate issue, because, ideally, the musicians would have control of their own music, but that was never the case. They are still business arrangements entered into by two parties, no matter how one-sided (which they were).
I'm not at get off my lawn phase yet, because I also generally think the music that was popular when I was in high school holds up like garbage overall (while I would argue people who grew up in the 60s and 70s would never take this view). I think popular music clearly peaked around '66-'69, and there have been ebbs and flows. But what music HAS lost is it's mystique and mythos. And that is due to the death of the album format.
But yes, by the late '90s, practically no one was bothering to make a full album of worthwhile songs anymore. It was two or three songs, and (I know this quite well since I spend alot of time making Spotify playlists) they are almost always tracks 1-3. When you go backwards from this point, you run into albums where you are hard pressed not to favorite 60-70% of the tracks.
But I frankly don't remember anyone complaining about the $15.00 price tag for CDs until graduating, getting to the dorm rooms at college, and finding out that all you had to do was SEARCH for a song on this new program, and then burn it to a blank disc. I still think the argument that "albums weren't worth $15.00" is what led to Napster isn't really all that accurate. It's true when you compare what you were getting for the price to older material, but it wasn't a pressing concern among anyone I knew. That only became the excuse in retrospect, after everyone started thinking the Gourds cover of "Gin and Juice" was actually Phish, because that is how the MP3 was labeled on Napster and Limewire.
This is getting really into the weeds here about the atmosphere during the dawn of filing sharing among young people, but there were only really 3 albums that would get put on at parties and not leave the CD changer, which were Eminem's "The Marshal Mathers LP", Dr. Dre's "Chronic 2001" and Outkast's "Stankonia" (Kid Rock's "Devil Without a Cause" was in a similar category, but that was old hat by the time Napster became prevalent). Everything else was off someone's media player.
Those are very subjective statements and depend fully on which crowd and genre you would keep yourself in.
There were plenty of full albums that were worth it throughout the 80s, 90s over all genres and I am sure until now (I listen less music since the 00s).
The ones you mention would be quickly turned off in most crowds I would venture in.
Those are very subjective statements and depend fully on which crowd and genre you would keep yourself in.
There were plenty of full albums that were worth it throughout the 80s, 90s over all genres and I am sure until now (I listen less music since the 00s).
The ones you mention would be quickly turned off in most crowds I would venture in.
Napster was also just an afterthought.
Well, yes, on a personal scale it is subjective. But when an album had sold 5-10 million copies, it was literally everywhere, and blockbuster rap music for newly minted college students in the first few years of the new millennium was just as much the music of choice (on a macro level) as the Beatles were in 1967 or Zeppelin was in 1972, or Nirvana in 1991. At a certain point, some stuff just ends up defining the cultural zeitgeist. It's not really a matter of personal taste, but not being able to avoid something even if you wanted to.
"Right of my IRA and straight into their iPod." Not a direct quote because it is late and I don't remember, but Ron White, A Little Unprofessional.
In this forum, this thread, yeah...
Sorry, you don't have to look to politics to find the culprit here. Click up until you find an unrelated post, everything down from there is someone trying to get what they want for nothing. Not the people making the post, but the reason behind it. This is not politics it is someone taking advantage.
Afterthought my ass, millions of people found a path to what they wanted without paying for it.
You can blame the record label, you can blame politicians, you can blame music in general...
Fact is people wanted something that they did not want to pay for, those that made the content, are not to blame....
We are. Are we really blaming politics, music or grandma's secret recipe for this?
Yes, we have created a world where the majority does not win sometimes, but we have also created a world where everyone believes that everything that exists should be theirs by right of their very existence. Yes, some things should be equal for all and some rights should never be questioned, but YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED THE RIGHTS OF ANOTHER PERSON'S LABOR JUST BECAUSE YOU LIVE AND BREATHE, if you think you do then you have never struggled, never felt pain, never made an effort to excell. In all of this thread I have not heard a more ridiculous thesis.
"Right of my IRA and straight into their iPod." Not a direct quote because it is late and I don't remember, but Ron White, A Little Unprofessional.
In this forum, this thread, yeah...
Sorry, you don't have to look to politics to find the culprit here. Click up until you find an unrelated post, everything down from there is someone trying to get what they want for nothing. Not the people making the post, but the reason behind it. This is not politics it is someone taking advantage.
Afterthought my ass, millions of people found a path to what they wanted without paying for it.
You can blame the record label, you can blame politicians, you can blame music in general...
Fact is people wanted something that they did not want to pay for, those that made the content, are not to blame....
We are. Are we really blaming politics, music or grandma's secret recipe for this?
Yes, we have created a world where the majority does not win sometimes, but we have also created a world where everyone believes that everything that exists should be theirs by right of their very existence. Yes, some things should be equal for all and some rights should never be questioned, but YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED THE RIGHTS OF ANOTHER MANS LABOR JUST BECAUSE YOU LIVE AND BREATHE, if you think you do then you have never struggled, never felt pain, never made an effort to excell. In all of this thread I have not heard a more ridiculous thesis.
I mean, we all justified it (not you personally, just saying in general). We justified it because it was easy, we justified it because it didn't really cost anything at all to have ANY music you wanted (especially if you were using the university computer network). We justified it because the rock stars were rich. People (as we have discussed) justified it because the albums were bloated and full of filler. But it was wrong, we were stealing. That's not really debatable in my mind. And it changed everything about how art is obtained and consumed. It doesn't mean the record labels weren't preying on the artists. It doesn't mean some of the artists didn't phone in 12 out of 14 songs. But that really isn't the point.
People often make the comparison to people loaning out or passing down a book. Isn't that the same as file sharing?? No, it isn't. Nobody was making copies of books back then that could be transmitted digitally. The physical book or CD that was purchased could only be in the possession of one person at a time. Downloading an ebook without paying for it now that that is actually possible falls in the same boat. There IS an analogy to be made to tapes in the '80s, but the process of copying tape to tape was FAR more time-consuming and difficult than a few mouse clicks. Not to mention the audio quality drop-off.
"Right of my IRA and straight into their iPod." Not a direct quote because it is late and I don't remember, but Ron White, A Little Unprofessional.
In this forum, this thread, yeah...
Sorry, you don't have to look to politics to find the culprit here. Click up until you find an unrelated post, everything down from there is someone trying to get what they want for nothing. Not the people making the post, but the reason behind it. This is not politics it is someone taking advantage.
Afterthought my ass, millions of people found a path to what they wanted without paying for it.
You can blame the record label, you can blame politicians, you can blame music in general...
Fact is people wanted something that they did not want to pay for, those that made the content, are not to blame....
We are. Are we really blaming politics, music or grandma's secret recipe for this?
Yes, we have created a world where the majority does not win sometimes, but we have also created a world where everyone believes that everything that exists should be theirs by right of their very existence. Yes, some things should be equal for all and some rights should never be questioned, but YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED THE RIGHTS OF ANOTHER MANS LABOR JUST BECAUSE YOU LIVE AND BREATHE, if you think you do then you have never struggled, never felt pain, never made an effort to excell. In all of this thread I have not heard a more ridiculous thesis.
I mean, we all justified it (not you personally, just saying in general). We justified it because it was easy, we justified it because it didn't really cost anything at all to have ANY music you wanted (especially if you were using the university computer network). We justified it because the rock stars were rich. People (as we have discussed) justified it because the albums were bloated and full of filler. But it was wrong, we were stealing. That's not really debatable in my mind. And it changed everything about how art is obtained and consumed. It doesn't mean the record labels weren't preying on the artists. It doesn't mean some of the artists didn't phone in 12 out of 14 songs. But that really isn't the point.
People often make the comparison to people loaning out or passing down a book. Isn't that the same as file sharing?? No, it isn't. Nobody was making copies of books back then that could be transmitted digitally. The physical book or CD that was purchased could only be in the possession of one person at a time. Downloading an ebook without paying for it now that that is actually possible falls in the same boat. There IS an analogy to be made to tapes in the '80s, but the process of copying tape to tape was FAR more time-consuming and difficult than a few mouse clicks. Not to mention the audio quality drop-off.
Yeah, spot on in my book. It just seemed some were trying to justify the unjustifiable.
I have done it. Way back when I would put my terrible flat tape recorder next to the radio and wait for my favorite song to come on so I could press record. Wasn't just record though, had to press play and record at the same time. I was a child then.
Just well, it was a disappointing conversation. Probably proves my age more than anything.
Blockbuster rap is mostly a US phenomenon. Around here no one cared about the west vs East Coast issues for instance.
Enimem and Snoop had some hits. Tupac and Biggie had one at most, just like all the others. Kid Rock is the guy with the one hit wonder which is considered an awful rip off from Lynyrd Skynyrd.
Beatles, Stones, Zeppelin, Queen, Toto, U2, etc, and all the one hit wonders still get a lot more air time than what happened in the niche rap, house and dance scenes that were made before the last 5 or so years. It becomes forgettable fast.
Blockbuster rap is mostly a US phenomenon. Around here no one cared about the west vs East Coast issues for instance.
Enimem and Snoop had some hits. Tupac and Biggie had one at most, just like all the others. Kid Rock is the guy with the one hit wonder which is considered an awful rip off from Lynyrd Skynyrd.
Beatles, Stones, Zeppelin, Queen, Toto, U2, etc, and all the one hit wonders still get a lot more air time than what happened in the niche rap, house and dance scenes that were made before the last 5 or so years. It becomes forgettable fast.
I mean, I can of course only speak for the US. It may in fact be that Napster was mostly an American phenomenon that was centralized on college campuses. I just happened to be on one at the exact time it took off.
"Right of my IRA and straight into their iPod." Not a direct quote because it is late and I don't remember, but Ron White, A Little Unprofessional.
In this forum, this thread, yeah...
Sorry, you don't have to look to politics to find the culprit here. Click up until you find an unrelated post, everything down from there is someone trying to get what they want for nothing. Not the people making the post, but the reason behind it. This is not politics it is someone taking advantage.
Afterthought my ass, millions of people found a path to what they wanted without paying for it.
You can blame the record label, you can blame politicians, you can blame music in general...
Fact is people wanted something that they did not want to pay for, those that made the content, are not to blame....
We are. Are we really blaming politics, music or grandma's secret recipe for this?
Yes, we have created a world where the majority does not win sometimes, but we have also created a world where everyone believes that everything that exists should be theirs by right of their very existence. Yes, some things should be equal for all and some rights should never be questioned, but YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED THE RIGHTS OF ANOTHER MANS LABOR JUST BECAUSE YOU LIVE AND BREATHE, if you think you do then you have never struggled, never felt pain, never made an effort to excell. In all of this thread I have not heard a more ridiculous thesis.
I mean, we all justified it (not you personally, just saying in general). We justified it because it was easy, we justified it because it didn't really cost anything at all to have ANY music you wanted (especially if you were using the university computer network). We justified it because the rock stars were rich. People (as we have discussed) justified it because the albums were bloated and full of filler. But it was wrong, we were stealing. That's not really debatable in my mind. And it changed everything about how art is obtained and consumed. It doesn't mean the record labels weren't preying on the artists. It doesn't mean some of the artists didn't phone in 12 out of 14 songs. But that really isn't the point.
People often make the comparison to people loaning out or passing down a book. Isn't that the same as file sharing?? No, it isn't. Nobody was making copies of books back then that could be transmitted digitally. The physical book or CD that was purchased could only be in the possession of one person at a time. Downloading an ebook without paying for it now that that is actually possible falls in the same boat. There IS an analogy to be made to tapes in the '80s, but the process of copying tape to tape was FAR more time-consuming and difficult than a few mouse clicks. Not to mention the audio quality drop-off.
Yeah, spot on in my book. It just seemed some were trying to justify the unjustifiable.
I have done it. Way back when I would put my terrible flat tape recorder next to the radio and wait for my favorite song to come on so I could press record. Wasn't just record though, had to press play and record at the same time. I was a child then.
Just well, it was a disappointing conversation. Probably proves my age more than anything.
What gets me as I watched a few Youtube clips on the subject late tonight and read the comments is just how self-righteous nearly EVERY poster is about the theft. Everyone has convinced themselves it was justified because it forced what they viewed as a necessary change. Was handing control of distribution over to Steve Jobs rather than Clive Davis really some moral victory?? It was certainly a victory for CONVENIENCE, but does convenience condone stealing??
Blockbuster rap is mostly a US phenomenon. Around here no one cared about the west vs East Coast issues for instance.
Enimem and Snoop had some hits. Tupac and Biggie had one at most, just like all the others. Kid Rock is the guy with the one hit wonder which is considered an awful rip off from Lynyrd Skynyrd.
Beatles, Stones, Zeppelin, Queen, Toto, U2, etc, and all the one hit wonders still get a lot more air time than what happened in the niche rap, house and dance scenes that were made before the last 5 or so years. It becomes forgettable fast.
What you are dismissing means nothing to you but it means something to someone. Yeah, I am a Queen super fanatic, loved the Bee Gees, but no one ever let me forget that I was not normal. My musical taste is not in question, we are asking if it is okay to steal from someone because they had one song. If your neighbor has only one arbovitae is it okay to take it? Doesn't matter what it took to plant it, water it, it was only one, if you want it you can take it. They don't deserve anything for their time, effort and money. Could you do what they did that you so easily dismiss? My guess is no or we would not be having this discussion.
"Right of my IRA and straight into their iPod." Not a direct quote because it is late and I don't remember, but Ron White, A Little Unprofessional.
In this forum, this thread, yeah...
Sorry, you don't have to look to politics to find the culprit here. Click up until you find an unrelated post, everything down from there is someone trying to get what they want for nothing. Not the people making the post, but the reason behind it. This is not politics it is someone taking advantage.
Afterthought my ass, millions of people found a path to what they wanted without paying for it.
You can blame the record label, you can blame politicians, you can blame music in general...
Fact is people wanted something that they did not want to pay for, those that made the content, are not to blame....
We are. Are we really blaming politics, music or grandma's secret recipe for this?
Yes, we have created a world where the majority does not win sometimes, but we have also created a world where everyone believes that everything that exists should be theirs by right of their very existence. Yes, some things should be equal for all and some rights should never be questioned, but YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED THE RIGHTS OF ANOTHER MANS LABOR JUST BECAUSE YOU LIVE AND BREATHE, if you think you do then you have never struggled, never felt pain, never made an effort to excell. In all of this thread I have not heard a more ridiculous thesis.
I mean, we all justified it (not you personally, just saying in general). We justified it because it was easy, we justified it because it didn't really cost anything at all to have ANY music you wanted (especially if you were using the university computer network). We justified it because the rock stars were rich. People (as we have discussed) justified it because the albums were bloated and full of filler. But it was wrong, we were stealing. That's not really debatable in my mind. And it changed everything about how art is obtained and consumed. It doesn't mean the record labels weren't preying on the artists. It doesn't mean some of the artists didn't phone in 12 out of 14 songs. But that really isn't the point.
People often make the comparison to people loaning out or passing down a book. Isn't that the same as file sharing?? No, it isn't. Nobody was making copies of books back then that could be transmitted digitally. The physical book or CD that was purchased could only be in the possession of one person at a time. Downloading an ebook without paying for it now that that is actually possible falls in the same boat. There IS an analogy to be made to tapes in the '80s, but the process of copying tape to tape was FAR more time-consuming and difficult than a few mouse clicks. Not to mention the audio quality drop-off.
Yeah, spot on in my book. It just seemed some were trying to justify the unjustifiable.
I have done it. Way back when I would put my terrible flat tape recorder next to the radio and wait for my favorite song to come on so I could press record. Wasn't just record though, had to press play and record at the same time. I was a child then.
Just well, it was a disappointing conversation. Probably proves my age more than anything.
What gets me as I watched a few Youtube clips on the subject late tonight and read the comments is just how self-righteous nearly EVERY poster is about the theft. Everyone has convinced themselves it was justified because it forced what they viewed as a necessary change. Was handing control of distribution over to Steve Jobs rather than Clive Davis really some moral victory?? It was certainly a victory for CONVENIENCE, but does convenience condone stealing??
I have spent so much of my life justifying my life. Yeah I eventually stoped but I do understand.
Take responsibility for yourself.
Don't do anything to hurt anyone else.
Give back.
I think they justify it by telling themselves that it is not hurting anyone. We all know that is not true. Everyone that thinks they can come up with a top 100 song raise their hand. What, no one? Then you know it is not true. Be as critical as you want, say what you want, stealing is stealing. You are hurting someone else to benifit yourself, sound right to you does it? You are literally taking out of their pocket, I don't care how much money they have, you are stealing. Not a specific you, just... well you all get it right? I, yeah cannot judge at all, my faults and mistakes are legion. Don't steal though kay? If it continues one day there will be no new content because there will be no benifit in creating it.
I can't listen to music and I have more respect for it than you all. Kay wait, misrepresented there, it is hard for me to listen to music, don't even have a radio in my 2012 car. I do still love music at home at night when everything is still.
I remember Napster, I got to know a lot of bands thanks to it. Then I switched over to Audio Galaxy, that became the new cool thing at some point. Then it died just like Napster did.
There's been another setback in the fight for 15 and I'm not sure we'll get it during Biden's term, or at least another 2 years. Leftists have been faulting Democrats for not staying united, but as much as I'm frustrated with the Democratic party, I honestly don't think that's where the problem really lies.
I can't get around one basic fact of arithmetic.
The vote was 48 to 52. When 8 Democrats and 50 Republicans vote against something, while 42 Democrats and 0 Republicans vote in favor, the main reason it doesn't become law is not that Democrats didn't vote for it. It's that Republicans voted against it.
This is why an undemocratic Senate is bad for the country. Raising the minimum wage is a popular policy, but the GOP's disproportionate influence in the Senate means we're going to see lower wages for ordinary Americans.
We can argue over and over about abstract theory about how the Senate is supposed to operate, but in actual practice, in concrete reality, THIS is what happens when you empower a minority of voters over a majority. This is what happens when rural Republicans win out over urban Democrats. People make less money.
Eight Democrats and 50 Republicans. The problem is 86% Republican and 14% Democrat. The solution is 100% liberal and 0% conservative. That's the math.
I just wanted to chime in on musical spread to be honest.
Napster is an afterthought because when that disappeared, others popped up and disappeared again. Then torrents came, etc etc.
It was at the birth of digital trafficking. Itis easy to judge with current knowledge but early on the sharing was done in my country mostly because of issues in accessibility. Stuff could only be gotten physically if a friend would go to a different country to go get it at risk of detainment.
It doesn't make it right, but it was understandable to a certain degree. Also, the rules were not as simple as sharing is stealing. Under copyright laws it was legal in my country to make a copy for home use, and no where did it say you could not gift the original to a friend. That made it tough in court to defend the issues.
Accessibility reasons were actually the same or worse with the cassettes. Stuff would get played on public radio (progressive at the time) or at top-pop that you could not acquire anywhere.
It was even the same for the cassette game consoles. They would share software via the ether for you to record and play.
Napster was a natural intermediate step towards proper digital distribution across the globe. It needed to happen in order to raise the awareness and get to the regulated way of how it is now.
Edit: by the way, it is still not fair to artists. These non profit companies that get the money from airing the music are not transparent in how much was played of an artist and how much they should actually get.
The Internet in general has pushed the price of art down to almost nothing. You can just find art for free all over the place, and the only artists who can live off of their work either work for a company or have managed to be extremely lucky at nailing a specific niche.
I think at this point the only realistic solution is to directly fund the arts from public support. I've always wondered what San Antonio could look like if you just paid some artists to cover the place in color. We have a lot of big bridge roads that would be prime real estate for spray painted artwork. It's not an ugly city but it's a huge blank canvas. The whole city could be just as beautiful as the Riverwalk.
Paint is cheap. Artists are talented and plentiful. And every city has tons of bare walls with no decoration or color to them. You could make a city absolutely gorgeous to tourists and natives alike just by putting skilled artists to work.
No everyone, my biggest problem is that I am sickened by the world I find myself in. Should be simple right? You believe this, I believe that and fuck you if you don't think like I do. It is not even remotely like that though. We are not that simple. I just don't understand when, I will do what is rignt was replaced by, I will do what is convenient and best for me.
I have appreciated you all so much, to be frank, I am not sure that someone could pay for the education you all have given me and I hope to enjoy for years yet to come. Really, I think you all are very special. I have seen it all, I have rarely felt a sense of acceptance like I do here. Yes, I may be delusional, know what? With this I am okay as long as I don't hurt any of you. I think that I have come close, I don't know if I deserve to ask forgiveness. You know what? That is okay too.
You all actually think through things, even Zeke. ? I have come to respect your opinions. May not seem like much but I was living alone when I was fifteen in 1984, I don't often endorse anyone... I would endorse you and back you to the ends of the earth. I am not very bright but I recognize brightness when I see it.
You are the people I would trust with humanity and not fear the outcome. I hope that you all can see that in yourselves. You are very good people.
There's been another setback in the fight for 15 and I'm not sure we'll get it during Biden's term, or at least another 2 years. Leftists have been faulting Democrats for not staying united, but as much as I'm frustrated with the Democratic party, I honestly don't think that's where the problem really lies.
I can't get around one basic fact of arithmetic.
The vote was 48 to 52. When 8 Democrats and 50 Republicans vote against something, while 42 Democrats and 0 Republicans vote in favor, the main reason it doesn't become law is not that Democrats didn't vote for it. It's that Republicans voted against it.
This is why an undemocratic Senate is bad for the country. Raising the minimum wage is a popular policy, but the GOP's disproportionate influence in the Senate means we're going to see lower wages for ordinary Americans.
We can argue over and over about abstract theory about how the Senate is supposed to operate, but in actual practice, in concrete reality, THIS is what happens when you empower a minority of voters over a majority. This is what happens when rural Republicans win out over urban Democrats. People make less money.
Eight Democrats and 50 Republicans. The problem is 86% Republican and 14% Democrat. The solution is 100% liberal and 0% conservative. That's the math.
Joe Manchin and Kirsten Sinema are just immensely frustrating to deal with right now, but not just because of the minimum wage. The also want to maintain the filibuster. The Senate is already utterly anti-majoratarian. The filibuster makes it nearly impossible to pass anything. The only way to do so is through an arcane process called reconciliation (which I believe can only be used 2 or 3 times a year). If it wasn't for this process, the ENTIRE COVID-19 bill would be dead in the water.
There is no minimum wage in this, but people are going to get a substantial sum of direct cash, and it is quite literally a game-changer for how much it eases access to child-care in this country, and also extends UI through most of the year. It just passed the Senate as I type this.
There is alot of wailing a gnashing of teeth on progressive Twitter, but recent polling shows that almost 70% of the public support the bill. You can't get 70% of people to agree grass is green in 2021.
Every Democrat voted for it. Every Republican voted against it. When Trump was in office, what Democrats objected to passing a similar bill?? The asymmetry shows itself yet again.
There's been another setback in the fight for 15 and I'm not sure we'll get it during Biden's term, or at least another 2 years. Leftists have been faulting Democrats for not staying united, but as much as I'm frustrated with the Democratic party, I honestly don't think that's where the problem really lies.
I can't get around one basic fact of arithmetic.
The vote was 48 to 52. When 8 Democrats and 50 Republicans vote against something, while 42 Democrats and 0 Republicans vote in favor, the main reason it doesn't become law is not that Democrats didn't vote for it. It's that Republicans voted against it.
This is why an undemocratic Senate is bad for the country. Raising the minimum wage is a popular policy, but the GOP's disproportionate influence in the Senate means we're going to see lower wages for ordinary Americans.
We can argue over and over about abstract theory about how the Senate is supposed to operate, but in actual practice, in concrete reality, THIS is what happens when you empower a minority of voters over a majority. This is what happens when rural Republicans win out over urban Democrats. People make less money.
Eight Democrats and 50 Republicans. The problem is 86% Republican and 14% Democrat. The solution is 100% liberal and 0% conservative. That's the math.
Joe Manchin and Kirsten Sinema are just immensely frustrating to deal with right now, but not just because of the minimum wage. The also want to maintain the filibuster. The Senate is already utterly anti-majoratarian. The filibuster makes it nearly impossible to pass anything. The only way to do so is through an arcane process called reconciliation (which I believe can only be used 2 or 3 times a year). If it wasn't for this process, the ENTIRE COVID-19 bill would be dead in the water.
There is no minimum wage in this, but people are going to get a substantial sum of direct cash, and it is quite literally a game-changer for how much it eases access to child-care in this country, and also extends UI through most of the year. It just passed the Senate as I type this.
There is alot of wailing a gnashing of teeth on progressive Twitter, but recent polling shows that almost 70% of the public support the bill. You can't get 70% of people to agree grass is green in 2021.
Every Democrat voted for it. Every Republican voted against it. When Trump was in office, what Democrats objected to passing a similar bill?? The asymmetry shows itself yet again.
It's fair to be annoyed with Manchin and Synema for their positions and their roll in today's vote - but it's important to remember that the GOP bill for stimulus would have been 600 Billion rather than 1.9 Trillion, and objectively worse for the working class during this pandemic.
Manchin and Synema are standing in the way of that.
The Internet in general has pushed the price of art down to almost nothing. You can just find art for free all over the place, and the only artists who can live off of their work either work for a company or have managed to be extremely lucky at nailing a specific niche.
I think at this point the only realistic solution is to directly fund the arts from public support. I've always wondered what San Antonio could look like if you just paid some artists to cover the place in color. We have a lot of big bridge roads that would be prime real estate for spray painted artwork. It's not an ugly city but it's a huge blank canvas. The whole city could be just as beautiful as the Riverwalk.
Paint is cheap. Artists are talented and plentiful. And every city has tons of bare walls with no decoration or color to them. You could make a city absolutely gorgeous to tourists and natives alike just by putting skilled artists to work.
I see this ALOT with video games, at least the people who bother to leave comments for them. "No way this 5 hour DLC is worth my $10.00". First of all, people have a very inflated view of what their money is worth ($10.00 is a fast food extra value meal), but secondly, do the people who say stuff like this have any idea how many THOUSANDS of man hours went into making that 5-hour piece of side content?? What price (besides free) do these folks believe would be fair market value for something a group of people spent 6 months of their life creating??
There's been another setback in the fight for 15 and I'm not sure we'll get it during Biden's term, or at least another 2 years. Leftists have been faulting Democrats for not staying united, but as much as I'm frustrated with the Democratic party, I honestly don't think that's where the problem really lies.
I can't get around one basic fact of arithmetic.
The vote was 48 to 52. When 8 Democrats and 50 Republicans vote against something, while 42 Democrats and 0 Republicans vote in favor, the main reason it doesn't become law is not that Democrats didn't vote for it. It's that Republicans voted against it.
This is why an undemocratic Senate is bad for the country. Raising the minimum wage is a popular policy, but the GOP's disproportionate influence in the Senate means we're going to see lower wages for ordinary Americans.
We can argue over and over about abstract theory about how the Senate is supposed to operate, but in actual practice, in concrete reality, THIS is what happens when you empower a minority of voters over a majority. This is what happens when rural Republicans win out over urban Democrats. People make less money.
Eight Democrats and 50 Republicans. The problem is 86% Republican and 14% Democrat. The solution is 100% liberal and 0% conservative. That's the math.
Joe Manchin and Kirsten Sinema are just immensely frustrating to deal with right now, but not just because of the minimum wage. The also want to maintain the filibuster. The Senate is already utterly anti-majoratarian. The filibuster makes it nearly impossible to pass anything. The only way to do so is through an arcane process called reconciliation (which I believe can only be used 2 or 3 times a year). If it wasn't for this process, the ENTIRE COVID-19 bill would be dead in the water.
There is no minimum wage in this, but people are going to get a substantial sum of direct cash, and it is quite literally a game-changer for how much it eases access to child-care in this country, and also extends UI through most of the year. It just passed the Senate as I type this.
There is alot of wailing a gnashing of teeth on progressive Twitter, but recent polling shows that almost 70% of the public support the bill. You can't get 70% of people to agree grass is green in 2021.
Every Democrat voted for it. Every Republican voted against it. When Trump was in office, what Democrats objected to passing a similar bill?? The asymmetry shows itself yet again.
It's fair to be annoyed with Manchin and Synema for their positions and their roll in today's vote - but it's important to remember that the GOP bill for stimulus would have been 600 Billion rather than 1.9 Trillion, and objectively worse for the working class during this pandemic.
Manchin and Synema are standing in the way of that.
I mean, people with roses in their Twitter handle are saying this bill guarantees Democrats will get slaughtered in 2022. That may be, but nothing about public opinion suggests this will be the reason.
Blockbuster rap is mostly a US phenomenon. Around here no one cared about the west vs East Coast issues for instance.
Enimem and Snoop had some hits. Tupac and Biggie had one at most, just like all the others. Kid Rock is the guy with the one hit wonder which is considered an awful rip off from Lynyrd Skynyrd.
Beatles, Stones, Zeppelin, Queen, Toto, U2, etc, and all the one hit wonders still get a lot more air time than what happened in the niche rap, house and dance scenes that were made before the last 5 or so years. It becomes forgettable fast.
What you are dismissing means nothing to you but it means something to someone. Yeah, I am a Queen super fanatic, loved the Bee Gees, but no one ever let me forget that I was not normal. My musical taste is not in question, we are asking if it is okay to steal from someone because they had one song. If your neighbor has only one arbovitae is it okay to take it? Doesn't matter what it took to plant it, water it, it was only one, if you want it you can take it. They don't deserve anything for their time, effort and money. Could you do what they did that you so easily dismiss? My guess is no or we would not be having this discussion.
So the counterpoint to that is, if it is impossible to buy the one thing you are interested in (that one song) without having to buy 9 things you're not interested in (the rest of the album) then it is scummy pricing practices of the seller. Media companies at the time were awful for using this type of forced consumption. Imagine if you wanted to play and own Baldur's Gate, but the only way you could do that is if you purchased 9 other games at full price to obtain it? Consumers would be looking for other means to obtain what they want without being price gorged.
As my previous post said, once Apple came along and offered single song sales, the vast majority of people stepped away from obtaining things illegally. Yes there are still people who think they deserve everything for free but that is a minority IMO. They are like shoplifters in a store, the actual customers outnumber them.
I am flat against piracy and I am thankful that there are services like Spotify and Apple Music Subscription that can now cater to me and how I consume music. I no longer have to gamble 25 - 30 dollars to see if I will like a new a band just because of the CD art or that one song that is getting airplay. I can discover new artists that I wouldn't in a million years have discovered as I make stupid playlists and it is allowing actual artist to cut out the middleman and release their art. For example, Semisonic released an EP last year (2020), 19 years after All About Chemistry (2001) was poorly marketed and their label dropped them. Or a friend can say 'have you ever heard this,' and I am able to play it immediately on my phone.
Yes this practice started with illegal piracy, but it was consumers way of communicating of what they wanted to companies. Netflix capitalized on this with TV and movies and it shouldn't be a surprise that gaming companies like Xbox and EA are ahead of the curve in their market by offering subscription services.
I agree that initial resistance to new technology was a major reason for the growth in piracy. I have no interest in or knowledge about music, but I did years ago download some pirated ebooks when they were not offered anywhere for sale electronically. I'm not suggesting that's an excuse, but it is a reason people did this sort of thing.
Another point I'd like to make is the nature of the crime. Although it's often described as theft it doesn't really fit that definition. Theft involves an intention to permanently deprive someone else of property. Thus, in order to make that definition stick, it's necessary to distinguish each individual copy of an electronic book, song, picture or similar - and I don't really think it's credible to do that when typically the copies concerned were never actually under the control of the 'owner' in the first place. I think it's more akin to an infringement of intellectual property rights - definitely annoying to the owner and economically costly, but it doesn't have the same physical and emotional loss associated with theft.
The Internet in general has pushed the price of art down to almost nothing. You can just find art for free all over the place, and the only artists who can live off of their work either work for a company or have managed to be extremely lucky at nailing a specific niche.
I think at this point the only realistic solution is to directly fund the arts from public support. I've always wondered what San Antonio could look like if you just paid some artists to cover the place in color. We have a lot of big bridge roads that would be prime real estate for spray painted artwork. It's not an ugly city but it's a huge blank canvas. The whole city could be just as beautiful as the Riverwalk.
Paint is cheap. Artists are talented and plentiful. And every city has tons of bare walls with no decoration or color to them. You could make a city absolutely gorgeous to tourists and natives alike just by putting skilled artists to work.
I see this ALOT with video games, at least the people who bother to leave comments for them. "No way this 5 hour DLC is worth my $10.00". First of all, people have a very inflated view of what their money is worth ($10.00 is a fast food extra value meal), but secondly, do the people who say stuff like this have any idea how many THOUSANDS of man hours went into making that 5-hour piece of side content?? What price (besides free) do these folks believe would be fair market value for something a group of people spent 6 months of their life creating??
My comment to that is 'don't buy it' if you do not think it is worth the price it is being marketed at. It does have to do with how heavily discounted games get after a certain amount of time. If a person can purchase a full game for $10, a DLC for the same price looks overpriced.
~
As for public art, I am glad I live in a city where this is a priority as Ottawa has a public art policy that is attached to infrastructure projects. 1% of any big budget project needs to spent on public art displays attached to that project. One per cent may seem miniscule, but the latest project (Light Rail stage 2) is going to cost $4.6 billion dollars. $46 million on public art is nothing to scoff at IMO.
I've been trying to reconcile my opposition to piracy with my desire for content and my immense reluctance to spend money on stuff I don't strictly need. Almost every game I own is a gift from my brother, I watch stuff on my girlfriend's Hulu account and my dad's Netflix account, I get a lot of my music from Newgrounds and a little more from my dad's Amazon music account, and the rest is mostly YouTube and Reddit. Aside from a piece I bought at a pre-pandemic art crawl and an Istanpitta CD I bought from the creators at a renaissance fair, plus an album from Entertainment for the Braindead I bought from the artist online, I can't think of any form of creative media I've actually paid for in several years. I've been content to stick to content that the original creators don't charge for to begin with.
I've been trying to reconcile my opposition to piracy with my desire for content and my immense reluctance to spend money on stuff I don't strictly need. Almost every game I own is a gift from my brother, I watch stuff on my girlfriend's Hulu account and my dad's Netflix account, I get a lot of my music from Newgrounds and a little more from my dad's Amazon music account, and the rest is mostly YouTube and Reddit. Aside from a piece I bought at a pre-pandemic art crawl and an Istanpitta CD I bought from the creators at a renaissance fair, plus an album from Entertainment for the Braindead I bought from the artist online, I can't think of any form of creative media I've actually paid for in several years. I've been content to stick to content that the original creators don't charge for to begin with.
I had a massive CD collection compiled from around 2002-2010. The amount of money I could have saved by investing in a computer and internet connection and just pirating it all would have been.....incalculable. All my physical discs were stolen from my storage closet when I went away one Christmas. Thankfully, I had already backed up everything digitally (I keep this collection on no less than TWO external hardrives at all times in case one of them gives out). What gets me about this is that the thousands of dollars I spent on them probably netted whoever took them $75.00 at a pawn shop.
I simply don't believe even half of the people who made being anti-mask the CORE part of their political identity would have done so if the former President hadn't tacitly encouraged it. The reckless irresponsibility in those early days a year ago wasn't just about logistics, it was about setting a tone for what we were going to face going forward. And the overwhelming signal sent from the top was "this is a plot to destroy me personally". That's why people are burning masks in trash cans. No other reason. Even if we forgive the governmental fuck-ups, the rhetoric was SO irresponsible that it can never be forgiven. These folks were simply not leveled with by the leader of this country, and by the time he took it even remotely seriously (in very short spurts) it was far, far too late to put the genie back in the bottle.
Seeing alot of posts on Twitter the last few days (since it is basically the one-year anniversary of life during COVID-19) saying, "last year at this time, life was about to change forever, we just didn't know it yet". This may be true, but it wasn't for lack of a large group of people trying to warn everyone, even though the results were ultimately futile. I still feel like most of the population believed a magical bubble was going to protect the United States simply because of how wonderful we are.
Here's the main problem. Why the Hell should the opinions of 'around 150 people' matter enough to make the news? This idea that every 'protest' is somehow relevant enough to be taken seriously is totally ludicrous to me...
Comments
Any system can be manipulated to some extent, but if you made a creative license expire after a certain amount of money is made, instead of after a certain period of time, you'd be better able to protect smaller creators without overfeeding large ones. After all, patents are ostensibly supposed to preserve the profit motive.
Counterpoint to Napster killing the music industry:
The music industry killed itself by not being able to adapt to the changing technology at the time and offered more resistance than innovation. They were losing the PR battle as they took music fans to court.
It took Apple to dispel the myth that 'everyone' will just download everything for free with a sustainable online store that offered individual songs for sale for a buck instead of full albums for $20 where the buyer really only wanted one or two songs out of the 10-15.
Artist have now adapted to this type of service. The likes Gorrilaz (The Song Machine), Big Head Todd and the Monsters (Monster's Music Monthly), and Maisie Peters to name a few, release singles every month to couple of months to their fans to purchase or stream through Spotify or Apple Music Subscription.
While offering up singles every month (or doing free concerts through Youtube like Ben Folds did during the pandemic), artist stay relevant longer. No longer do artist need to release an album every two to three years and hope to god the consumers didn't forget about them. They don't need to do media tours or promotional campaigns, where the bulk of money goes into when creating a full album. These tactics, and the record labels that were in charge of them screwed over more artists than they helped them.
Exhibit A: Read "So You Wanna Be A Rock & Roll Star: How I Machine-Gunned A Roomful of Record Executives And Other True Tales From A Drummer's Life" (yes a very long title) by Jacob Slichter if you can find it. Slichter was the drummer for Semisonic, the band behind the one hit wonder "Closing Time", to get a honest and humour filled look into the music industry in the early aughts when Napster and digital file sharing was just getting started to see what I mean. And;
Exhibit B: Suck Fony by Wheatus, the one hit wonder ("Teenage Dirtbag") whose second album Hand Over Your Loved Ones was poorly promoted by their record label due to 'conflicts' with the band. Wheatus had to fight to get the rights of the album back, releasing it as Suck Fony and have been releasing music independently since, and not having to worry about being radio friendly just creating art.
I also disagree that music is getting 'worse.' In fact, compared to some full albums released in the late 90s early aughts, the music is getting better. I think it is getting more diverse and just harder to find what appeals to the listener, either that or you're getting old and are going to start screaming at kids to get off your lawn soon. Don't worry, it happens to all of us.
It's not really relevant to Dr. Seuss, but it is to the general subject of "cancel culture", and how pervasive this new rigid ideological enforcement of arcane far left values is. Yesterday I was watching an interview with one of Disneys Star Wars screenwriters and, to paraphrase what he says, corporations like Disney know that punishing people for minor infractions on the sensibilities of a shrill minority isn't profitable, nor is it what people want, but there enough people in the right positions of power, and they are sufficiently scared of the pushback they might receive from these people that should they not capitulate, that it happens anyway despite the better judgement of many people.
The actions of record labels are a bit of a separate issue, because, ideally, the musicians would have control of their own music, but that was never the case. They are still business arrangements entered into by two parties, no matter how one-sided (which they were).
I'm not at get off my lawn phase yet, because I also generally think the music that was popular when I was in high school holds up like garbage overall (while I would argue people who grew up in the 60s and 70s would never take this view). I think popular music clearly peaked around '66-'69, and there have been ebbs and flows. But what music HAS lost is it's mystique and mythos. And that is due to the death of the album format.
But yes, by the late '90s, practically no one was bothering to make a full album of worthwhile songs anymore. It was two or three songs, and (I know this quite well since I spend alot of time making Spotify playlists) they are almost always tracks 1-3. When you go backwards from this point, you run into albums where you are hard pressed not to favorite 60-70% of the tracks.
But I frankly don't remember anyone complaining about the $15.00 price tag for CDs until graduating, getting to the dorm rooms at college, and finding out that all you had to do was SEARCH for a song on this new program, and then burn it to a blank disc. I still think the argument that "albums weren't worth $15.00" is what led to Napster isn't really all that accurate. It's true when you compare what you were getting for the price to older material, but it wasn't a pressing concern among anyone I knew. That only became the excuse in retrospect, after everyone started thinking the Gourds cover of "Gin and Juice" was actually Phish, because that is how the MP3 was labeled on Napster and Limewire.
This is getting really into the weeds here about the atmosphere during the dawn of filing sharing among young people, but there were only really 3 albums that would get put on at parties and not leave the CD changer, which were Eminem's "The Marshal Mathers LP", Dr. Dre's "Chronic 2001" and Outkast's "Stankonia" (Kid Rock's "Devil Without a Cause" was in a similar category, but that was old hat by the time Napster became prevalent). Everything else was off someone's media player.
There were plenty of full albums that were worth it throughout the 80s, 90s over all genres and I am sure until now (I listen less music since the 00s).
The ones you mention would be quickly turned off in most crowds I would venture in.
Napster was also just an afterthought.
Well, yes, on a personal scale it is subjective. But when an album had sold 5-10 million copies, it was literally everywhere, and blockbuster rap music for newly minted college students in the first few years of the new millennium was just as much the music of choice (on a macro level) as the Beatles were in 1967 or Zeppelin was in 1972, or Nirvana in 1991. At a certain point, some stuff just ends up defining the cultural zeitgeist. It's not really a matter of personal taste, but not being able to avoid something even if you wanted to.
In this forum, this thread, yeah...
Sorry, you don't have to look to politics to find the culprit here. Click up until you find an unrelated post, everything down from there is someone trying to get what they want for nothing. Not the people making the post, but the reason behind it. This is not politics it is someone taking advantage.
Afterthought my ass, millions of people found a path to what they wanted without paying for it.
You can blame the record label, you can blame politicians, you can blame music in general...
Fact is people wanted something that they did not want to pay for, those that made the content, are not to blame....
We are. Are we really blaming politics, music or grandma's secret recipe for this?
Yes, we have created a world where the majority does not win sometimes, but we have also created a world where everyone believes that everything that exists should be theirs by right of their very existence. Yes, some things should be equal for all and some rights should never be questioned, but YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED THE RIGHTS OF ANOTHER PERSON'S LABOR JUST BECAUSE YOU LIVE AND BREATHE, if you think you do then you have never struggled, never felt pain, never made an effort to excell. In all of this thread I have not heard a more ridiculous thesis.
I mean, we all justified it (not you personally, just saying in general). We justified it because it was easy, we justified it because it didn't really cost anything at all to have ANY music you wanted (especially if you were using the university computer network). We justified it because the rock stars were rich. People (as we have discussed) justified it because the albums were bloated and full of filler. But it was wrong, we were stealing. That's not really debatable in my mind. And it changed everything about how art is obtained and consumed. It doesn't mean the record labels weren't preying on the artists. It doesn't mean some of the artists didn't phone in 12 out of 14 songs. But that really isn't the point.
People often make the comparison to people loaning out or passing down a book. Isn't that the same as file sharing?? No, it isn't. Nobody was making copies of books back then that could be transmitted digitally. The physical book or CD that was purchased could only be in the possession of one person at a time. Downloading an ebook without paying for it now that that is actually possible falls in the same boat. There IS an analogy to be made to tapes in the '80s, but the process of copying tape to tape was FAR more time-consuming and difficult than a few mouse clicks. Not to mention the audio quality drop-off.
Yeah, spot on in my book. It just seemed some were trying to justify the unjustifiable.
I have done it. Way back when I would put my terrible flat tape recorder next to the radio and wait for my favorite song to come on so I could press record. Wasn't just record though, had to press play and record at the same time. I was a child then.
Just well, it was a disappointing conversation. Probably proves my age more than anything.
Enimem and Snoop had some hits. Tupac and Biggie had one at most, just like all the others. Kid Rock is the guy with the one hit wonder which is considered an awful rip off from Lynyrd Skynyrd.
Beatles, Stones, Zeppelin, Queen, Toto, U2, etc, and all the one hit wonders still get a lot more air time than what happened in the niche rap, house and dance scenes that were made before the last 5 or so years. It becomes forgettable fast.
I mean, I can of course only speak for the US. It may in fact be that Napster was mostly an American phenomenon that was centralized on college campuses. I just happened to be on one at the exact time it took off.
What gets me as I watched a few Youtube clips on the subject late tonight and read the comments is just how self-righteous nearly EVERY poster is about the theft. Everyone has convinced themselves it was justified because it forced what they viewed as a necessary change. Was handing control of distribution over to Steve Jobs rather than Clive Davis really some moral victory?? It was certainly a victory for CONVENIENCE, but does convenience condone stealing??
What you are dismissing means nothing to you but it means something to someone. Yeah, I am a Queen super fanatic, loved the Bee Gees, but no one ever let me forget that I was not normal. My musical taste is not in question, we are asking if it is okay to steal from someone because they had one song. If your neighbor has only one arbovitae is it okay to take it? Doesn't matter what it took to plant it, water it, it was only one, if you want it you can take it. They don't deserve anything for their time, effort and money. Could you do what they did that you so easily dismiss? My guess is no or we would not be having this discussion.
I have spent so much of my life justifying my life. Yeah I eventually stoped but I do understand.
Take responsibility for yourself.
Don't do anything to hurt anyone else.
Give back.
I think they justify it by telling themselves that it is not hurting anyone. We all know that is not true. Everyone that thinks they can come up with a top 100 song raise their hand. What, no one? Then you know it is not true. Be as critical as you want, say what you want, stealing is stealing. You are hurting someone else to benifit yourself, sound right to you does it? You are literally taking out of their pocket, I don't care how much money they have, you are stealing. Not a specific you, just... well you all get it right? I, yeah cannot judge at all, my faults and mistakes are legion. Don't steal though kay? If it continues one day there will be no new content because there will be no benifit in creating it.
I can't listen to music and I have more respect for it than you all. Kay wait, misrepresented there, it is hard for me to listen to music, don't even have a radio in my 2012 car. I do still love music at home at night when everything is still.
I like that we are finally vibing on something.
I can't get around one basic fact of arithmetic.
The vote was 48 to 52. When 8 Democrats and 50 Republicans vote against something, while 42 Democrats and 0 Republicans vote in favor, the main reason it doesn't become law is not that Democrats didn't vote for it. It's that Republicans voted against it.
This is why an undemocratic Senate is bad for the country. Raising the minimum wage is a popular policy, but the GOP's disproportionate influence in the Senate means we're going to see lower wages for ordinary Americans.
We can argue over and over about abstract theory about how the Senate is supposed to operate, but in actual practice, in concrete reality, THIS is what happens when you empower a minority of voters over a majority. This is what happens when rural Republicans win out over urban Democrats. People make less money.
Eight Democrats and 50 Republicans. The problem is 86% Republican and 14% Democrat. The solution is 100% liberal and 0% conservative. That's the math.
Napster is an afterthought because when that disappeared, others popped up and disappeared again. Then torrents came, etc etc.
It was at the birth of digital trafficking. Itis easy to judge with current knowledge but early on the sharing was done in my country mostly because of issues in accessibility. Stuff could only be gotten physically if a friend would go to a different country to go get it at risk of detainment.
It doesn't make it right, but it was understandable to a certain degree. Also, the rules were not as simple as sharing is stealing. Under copyright laws it was legal in my country to make a copy for home use, and no where did it say you could not gift the original to a friend. That made it tough in court to defend the issues.
Accessibility reasons were actually the same or worse with the cassettes. Stuff would get played on public radio (progressive at the time) or at top-pop that you could not acquire anywhere.
It was even the same for the cassette game consoles. They would share software via the ether for you to record and play.
Napster was a natural intermediate step towards proper digital distribution across the globe. It needed to happen in order to raise the awareness and get to the regulated way of how it is now.
Edit: by the way, it is still not fair to artists. These non profit companies that get the money from airing the music are not transparent in how much was played of an artist and how much they should actually get.
I think at this point the only realistic solution is to directly fund the arts from public support. I've always wondered what San Antonio could look like if you just paid some artists to cover the place in color. We have a lot of big bridge roads that would be prime real estate for spray painted artwork. It's not an ugly city but it's a huge blank canvas. The whole city could be just as beautiful as the Riverwalk.
Paint is cheap. Artists are talented and plentiful. And every city has tons of bare walls with no decoration or color to them. You could make a city absolutely gorgeous to tourists and natives alike just by putting skilled artists to work.
I have appreciated you all so much, to be frank, I am not sure that someone could pay for the education you all have given me and I hope to enjoy for years yet to come. Really, I think you all are very special. I have seen it all, I have rarely felt a sense of acceptance like I do here. Yes,
You all actually think through things, even Zeke. ? I have come to respect your opinions. May not seem like much but I was living alone when I was fifteen in 1984, I don't often endorse anyone... I would endorse you and back you to the ends of the earth. I am not very bright but I recognize brightness when I see it.
You are the people I would trust with humanity and not fear the outcome. I hope that you all can see that in yourselves. You are very good people.
Joe Manchin and Kirsten Sinema are just immensely frustrating to deal with right now, but not just because of the minimum wage. The also want to maintain the filibuster. The Senate is already utterly anti-majoratarian. The filibuster makes it nearly impossible to pass anything. The only way to do so is through an arcane process called reconciliation (which I believe can only be used 2 or 3 times a year). If it wasn't for this process, the ENTIRE COVID-19 bill would be dead in the water.
There is no minimum wage in this, but people are going to get a substantial sum of direct cash, and it is quite literally a game-changer for how much it eases access to child-care in this country, and also extends UI through most of the year. It just passed the Senate as I type this.
There is alot of wailing a gnashing of teeth on progressive Twitter, but recent polling shows that almost 70% of the public support the bill. You can't get 70% of people to agree grass is green in 2021.
Every Democrat voted for it. Every Republican voted against it. When Trump was in office, what Democrats objected to passing a similar bill?? The asymmetry shows itself yet again.
It's fair to be annoyed with Manchin and Synema for their positions and their roll in today's vote - but it's important to remember that the GOP bill for stimulus would have been 600 Billion rather than 1.9 Trillion, and objectively worse for the working class during this pandemic.
Manchin and Synema are standing in the way of that.
I see this ALOT with video games, at least the people who bother to leave comments for them. "No way this 5 hour DLC is worth my $10.00". First of all, people have a very inflated view of what their money is worth ($10.00 is a fast food extra value meal), but secondly, do the people who say stuff like this have any idea how many THOUSANDS of man hours went into making that 5-hour piece of side content?? What price (besides free) do these folks believe would be fair market value for something a group of people spent 6 months of their life creating??
I mean, people with roses in their Twitter handle are saying this bill guarantees Democrats will get slaughtered in 2022. That may be, but nothing about public opinion suggests this will be the reason.
So the counterpoint to that is, if it is impossible to buy the one thing you are interested in (that one song) without having to buy 9 things you're not interested in (the rest of the album) then it is scummy pricing practices of the seller. Media companies at the time were awful for using this type of forced consumption. Imagine if you wanted to play and own Baldur's Gate, but the only way you could do that is if you purchased 9 other games at full price to obtain it? Consumers would be looking for other means to obtain what they want without being price gorged.
As my previous post said, once Apple came along and offered single song sales, the vast majority of people stepped away from obtaining things illegally. Yes there are still people who think they deserve everything for free but that is a minority IMO. They are like shoplifters in a store, the actual customers outnumber them.
I am flat against piracy and I am thankful that there are services like Spotify and Apple Music Subscription that can now cater to me and how I consume music. I no longer have to gamble 25 - 30 dollars to see if I will like a new a band just because of the CD art or that one song that is getting airplay. I can discover new artists that I wouldn't in a million years have discovered as I make stupid playlists and it is allowing actual artist to cut out the middleman and release their art. For example, Semisonic released an EP last year (2020), 19 years after All About Chemistry (2001) was poorly marketed and their label dropped them. Or a friend can say 'have you ever heard this,' and I am able to play it immediately on my phone.
Yes this practice started with illegal piracy, but it was consumers way of communicating of what they wanted to companies. Netflix capitalized on this with TV and movies and it shouldn't be a surprise that gaming companies like Xbox and EA are ahead of the curve in their market by offering subscription services.
Another point I'd like to make is the nature of the crime. Although it's often described as theft it doesn't really fit that definition. Theft involves an intention to permanently deprive someone else of property. Thus, in order to make that definition stick, it's necessary to distinguish each individual copy of an electronic book, song, picture or similar - and I don't really think it's credible to do that when typically the copies concerned were never actually under the control of the 'owner' in the first place. I think it's more akin to an infringement of intellectual property rights - definitely annoying to the owner and economically costly, but it doesn't have the same physical and emotional loss associated with theft.
My comment to that is 'don't buy it' if you do not think it is worth the price it is being marketed at. It does have to do with how heavily discounted games get after a certain amount of time. If a person can purchase a full game for $10, a DLC for the same price looks overpriced.
~
As for public art, I am glad I live in a city where this is a priority as Ottawa has a public art policy that is attached to infrastructure projects. 1% of any big budget project needs to spent on public art displays attached to that project. One per cent may seem miniscule, but the latest project (Light Rail stage 2) is going to cost $4.6 billion dollars. $46 million on public art is nothing to scoff at IMO.
I had a massive CD collection compiled from around 2002-2010. The amount of money I could have saved by investing in a computer and internet connection and just pirating it all would have been.....incalculable. All my physical discs were stolen from my storage closet when I went away one Christmas. Thankfully, I had already backed up everything digitally (I keep this collection on no less than TWO external hardrives at all times in case one of them gives out). What gets me about this is that the thousands of dollars I spent on them probably netted whoever took them $75.00 at a pawn shop.
Sigh. The lack of respect for their own well being as well as their community is staggering.
Seeing alot of posts on Twitter the last few days (since it is basically the one-year anniversary of life during COVID-19) saying, "last year at this time, life was about to change forever, we just didn't know it yet". This may be true, but it wasn't for lack of a large group of people trying to warn everyone, even though the results were ultimately futile. I still feel like most of the population believed a magical bubble was going to protect the United States simply because of how wonderful we are.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/tommybeer/2021/03/06/burn-the-mask-rally-draws-more-than-100-at-idaho-capitol-building/amp/