Plooky Night Live (and the Not RK for TIP Thread Players) with your host F. Myles Ron

[Artie Pink]

Bands like Radiohead and NIN, plus others such as Louis C.K, would seem to have proved otherwise.
Or at least, taken steps in the right direction.
For sure, there were those that still illegaly downloaded the material even though it was made available absurdly cheaply, but (and I have no figures to support this, I'm just going by what I heard/read the artists themselves saying about the experiments) I believe all three of those I have cited made quite a large profit from their work.

*For the record, I have no dog in the piracy discussion, I have honestly never bothered to take the time to think about what my position is, I'm just saying that there is a counterpoint to your statement.

Like I said, they are thinking different!

[Artie Pink]

If you want to steal shit, just do it. Don't pretend it's something different though. I don't!

I spent a lot of years paying a lot of money for music. Those days are over!

For me to pay for music nowadays, the music has to be great, the artist has to not be a douche, the packaging has to be cool, it has to be a value... and it has to not be available for free somewhere. If it moves me, I'll go see 'em in concert. Since I go to about 25 shows a year, I'd say the system's working.

[Artie Pink]

They're also all artists who benefited from years of promotion from major corporations to establish a fanbase. Yes, even Louis CK.

Bands I like nowadays are largely doing it themselves, via their own sites or Bandcamp. Anyone who signs to a label nowadays can go fuck himself, I ain't payin'.

[R0cketFr0g]

Or they can reverse the laws that protect ISPs from selling a service that is being used for criminal behaviour.

Shut off the internet! What reasonable and measured response!

[WillieLee]

I spent a lot of years paying a lot of money for music. Those days are over!

Isn't it fun?

For me to pay for music nowadays, the music has to be great, the artist has to not be a douche, the packaging has to be cool, it has to be a value... and it has to not be available for free somewhere. If it moves me, I'll go see 'em in concert. Since I go to about 25 shows a year, I'd say the system's working.

Working for you, Jim! For You!

Which is how arguments should be. It's when people try to make them larger (or smaller as the case may be) that my mockery sense kick in. Like the "I want it now! It should be available to me" arguments, but they never investigate why media isn't available, they just use it as justification to steal shit. Unless you understand how business and international right and law works, you (meaning internet people) shouldn't engage in "Damn the man!" arguments. Just steal your shit and own it. There's no need to try to involve the plight of migrant fruit workers to cover for you downloading Twilight (in Blu-ray format!).

People are so scared to actually take a position without trying to erect (tee-hee) barriers where they are safe from a counter-argument. Seriously, do you guys think I was going to pay $5 to watch Contagion in a non-HD format?

[WillieLee]

Shut off the internet! What reasonable and measured response!

See Jim? Some people can't even see how their statements conflict with the idea they are trying to promote.

[R0cketFr0g]

See Jim? Some people can't even see how their statements conflict with the idea they are trying to promote.

When you said:

Or they can reverse the laws that protect ISPs from selling a service that is being used for criminal behavior.

You weren't advocating allowing ISPs to be sued out of existence based on their pipes carrying copyrighted content that wasn't being paid for? Effectively removing a provision in the original DMCA that led to the internet we all know and love today? We wouldn't have such easy access to porntubes and kitty cat pictures in your world.

[WillieLee]

When you said:




You weren't advocating allowing ISPs to be sued out of existence based on their pipes carrying copyrighted content that wasn't being paid for? Effectively removing a provision in the original DMCA that led to the internet we all know and love today? We wouldn't have such easy access to portubes and kitty cat pictures in your world.

I don't know, perhaps you should have asked?

[R0cketFr0g]

I don't know, perhaps you should have asked?

Asking someone "did you really mean that?" before attacking his point of view violates at least 3 rules of the internet, and I won't play that game. I'm shocked and appalled at your suggestion sir!

[WillieLee]

Asking someone "did you really mean that?" before attacking his point of view violates at least 3 rules of the internet, and I won't play that game. I'm shocked and appalled at your suggestion sir!

I'm not advocating lawsuits(although suing the assholes that make me pay $100 a month just to watch a dozen HD channels is tempting), just that the ISPs be made responsible for the traffic they are profiting off of.

Internet piracy is not some force that cannot be squashed. All it takes is a little effort, they can do real-time packet inspection without impacting data transmission now(something they do with child pornography). The tools are in existence but there is no leverage because ISPs can claim this protection so they won't spend any money regulating the piracy. It's not Neuromancer, people aren't jacking into the 'web' and running free. These are easily controllable systems.

Look, we all had fun stealing shit like there was no tomorrow. But the internet is just like every other frontier that existed. There comes a times when it must be regulated because a small group are fucking things up for their own benefit. Stalking alone has seen a boom like no other. Freedom doesn't exist when your actions harm others. Gas, grass or ass. No one rides for free. My other car is a broom.