Well that sucks, apperently filthy rich corporatists don't have enough money yet.
Your argument is terrible, and so fucking infantile...So if I go to a shop and steal a TV, it's fine because if I didn't take it for free, I wouldn't have bought it anyway? What fucking nonsense. In the case you talked about, I would still be the owner of that CD, and if I don't want you to listen to my music without paying, I should have every right to do so. My stuff, my rules.I would imagine any feelings that could be used would be no more than indifferent. If your band makes a CD chances are I am not going to be a paying customer. The bottom line is if i then pirate your band's cd there is a zero sum equation at work here. You never had access to my money. When i pirate your cd you STILL have no access to my money. The status hasn't changed. you might be butthurt INTELLECTUALLY but the reality is I've done nothing to change the status of our relationship.
If an ISP did this to me, or even threatened to, I'd get a new ISP.
Well if you're dumb enough to get caught then it sucks to be you. Also these companies won't do much because the second people start giving them bad rep they will back off as it's bad for business. Also I love my ISP as they don't like reporting people or taking measures against them.
Intel I5-2500k @4.8Ghz| Noctua NH-U9B | Asus P67 Deluxe | 8GB G.SKILL Sniper Series 1600MhzCrucial M4 128GB | 500 GB WD CB | 500GB Seagate Barracuda | 2TB Seagate External |3TB WD Green x2Sapphire R9-290x | SeasonicX 650 | CM HAF 912 | Asus PB278Q | Razor Naga Molten Edition | Microsoft Sidewinder X4
I never said it was the artists task. Or even the record labels. Or even a "cultural programmer". It's no-one's task. It is a cultural problem (if you view it that way). The same is true of movies and television shows (thought not quite the same way). I was just saying that companies created that climate to happen.Tastes are supposed to, and can be, educated. And it isn't artists' task to educate people in order to like their music.
No, but that is because they existed in a time prior to the internet where resources for music were physical.It's cultural programmers' task. Artists can't strive without companies, just like companies can't strive without artists. You would never ever hear about bands like The Beatles or Queen if they didn't have good companies / managers covering their backs
Last edited by Skavau; 2012-11-27 at 03:56 AM.
In my country, one of the major cable TV providers decided out of the blue to remove the Discovery channels from the service. They didn't notify the clients in any way prior to doing this, inspite of the clients having specific contracts which include these channels. Before that, they also removed a country-local TV network because that TV station was against the current president and the TV cable company's owner happened to be a fan of the president. What, the customers don't like it ?! They're free cancel their subscruption...oh wait, there is no other TV cable provider in most areas of the country. Tough luck, people. Gotta love Capitalism.
WHEN I POST IN CAPS CURSE SPEAK FOR ALL PALADINS AND REFRAIN FROM PUNCTUATION EXCEPT AT THE END OF MY SENTENCE WHERE I USE EXTRA YOU CAN'T ARGUE WITH MY LOGIC!!!!!!!
I don't think that it is either fair or legal. Internet activity is a form of communication. Private communication. And everyone is entitled to it. Just as the post office cannot open my letters so an internet provider should not have the right to monitor my internet activity. I cannot even fathom what kind of person would not understand such a simple concept as privacy. I don't care if some people are illegaly downloading content from the internet. Nothing, absolutely nothing, gives the right to an internet provider to invade my privacy.
The only people who can take a look are the authorities, and even they should have to have an extremely important reason to do so, such as a valid suspicion of child pornography distribution.
And there are no copyrights on the internet. The concept just doesn't exist in a digital world where everyone can have his own place to be. A movie can have all the copyright warnings its distributors want on the official content, but I doubt any pirate carries over those warnings to a pirated movie. And online copyright course?! Who gives the right to an american company to lecture me, a european, on what I can do with my internet activity? Give me a break. By that reasoning there should be a telephone conversation copyright course as well. And of course a letter-writing copyright course. We can't forget the way of communication that predates the previous two! And how awesome and rational it would be if someone was placed under arrest for writing the lyrics of a favourite song of his in a text message?! This is ridiculous. It doesn't stand to reasonable thinking. Not even a bit. That is why companies fight so hard to create such a concept. They have the money, the means, and the time. And they rely on people's inattentiveness and blind following to keep pushing for such things.
If movie/music/whatever companies want to increase their sales, they can try to release products that are not shit to begin with. I know I would never pirate an album from my favourite music band unless I was completely broke, broke as in not have money to pay even basic bills. That is because I love their music. When a company floods a market with shitty musical albums they have it coming to them. Teach people to not care much about art, and they will act accordingly. They turned albums in streamlined products, and they are trying to sell them continuously and en masse, like laundry detergent, no wonder people choose the free method. Unless they stop trying to milk things and decide to focus on quality this will continue to happen. And by the way, piracy existed before the internet was widely available. People that used to pirate that way will go back to that, and the younger people will learn how to do so. So even this masterpiece of stupidity solves nothing. Giving true value to art will.
Last edited by Drithien; 2012-11-27 at 07:34 AM.
In both cases, both companies are colossal corporations who don't really need to be worried about pissing people off because... lol, where else are they gonna go for broadband?
They are worlds apart. HuffPost while it may enhance the liberal view and they're message may be Pro Left wing. I never known them to flat out make out twisted truths and lie about situations in the way Fox News has done. On topic I think it's very disturbing and a little scary that "Motion Picture of America" which is Hollywood and "Music People" have teamed up under the screen to go out of they're way to make sure you're not "stealing from the internet"
Whenever you modify the internet. Even with the best intentions. It loses it's freedom. That's why the bills aimed at doing just that were overwhelmingly defeated. Even some corporations that supported the bill backed away after the public's anger. What's to say they don't create an internet group to monitar people on the internet.
If you need more proof and you can Google this.
People who watch no news, know more then people who watch Fox News
To me at least they're is a major difference. One of them flat out makes up false information and other one tells the truth.
“The largest effect is that of Fox News: all else being equal, someone who watched only Fox News would be expected to answer just 1.04 domestic questions correctly — a figure which is significantly worse than if they had reported watching no media at all. On the other hand, if they listened only to NPR, they would be expected to answer 1.51 questions correctly; viewers of Sunday morning talk shows fare similarly well. And people watching only The Daily Show with Jon Stewart could answer about 1.42 questions correctly.”
Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/241677/stud...VXYyZiRuK9P.99
The daily show is a comedy news network and they are more honest then Fox News and they are Liberal leaning.
Last edited by FusedMass; 2012-11-27 at 03:37 PM.