A Material Girl → That's a funny, if ineffectual way around it

said by boogie74:

---

It's wrong, you know it, so quit complaining about reasons why you should be allowed to do it.

---

Read carefully. I'm only going to waste my time once.

Intellectual -1 a : of or relating to the intellect or its use b : developed or chiefly guided by the intellect rather than by emotion or experience : RATIONAL c : requiring use of the intellect
2 a : given to study, reflection, and speculation b : engaged in activity requiring the creative use of the intellect

Property - 1 a : a quality or trait belonging and especially peculiar to an individual or thing b : an effect that an object has on another object or on the senses c : VIRTUE 3 d : an attribute common to all members of a class
2 a : something owned or possessed; specifically : a piece of real estate b : the exclusive right to possess, enjoy, and dispose of a thing : OWNERSHIP c : something to which a person or business has a legal title d : one (as a performer) under contract whose work is especially valuable
3 : an article or object used in a play or motion picture except painted scenery and costumes

Since you are such the model of intellectual rigor; explain to the audience, in pratical terms; how an individual, or an entity, could own an intellectual concept, otherwise known as an idea?

How long could an individual, or entity prevent this idea from being stolen and being reproduced, once the idea is presented publicly?

How long can an idea, especially a popular one, be contained or restricted, when presented publicly?

What political and economic systems can possibly be successful in limiting a publicly expressed idea for an indefinite period of time?

Answer these questions, and I might just continue wasting my intellectual property on you.

Have a good one.

Regards
Shark...

I hope we can copy the f*ck out of all music out there right now. I dont think music is a commodity like any other and the bands that are put together just to earn a lot of cash deserve to go under (Spears and Nsync come to mind). If I want to pay for music I will. I am not paying first and listening later. Last year I spent 600 dollars on Cd's that I liked. I try - then I buy - if I feel it is worth the money. Hopefully we can end this blatant commercialism and get some real frickin artists that produce music for fun and have a real job on the side. I am also extremely happy to hear that Madonnas website got hacked today. Haha, she picked the wrong group to mess around with.

I like to try and then buy as well. I will download a song or two or five, if I like what I hear, the album comes into my collection. If not, the songs are deleted and life goes on. I was recently turned onto some old Theatre of Tragedy, downloaded it, then bought that album. Had I not sampled the new album, I would have very mistakenly purchased a brit-pop cd which is a vast difference over the metal they played in the album I now own. Evolution is not always good.

said by boogie74:

---

The rest of my subsequent post was directed at the droves of people here on DSLR that hold the opinion that they are entitled to obtain music without paying for it because of the following empty if not completely false reasons:

---

I'm glad we agree. It's not an "entitlement" if that's what you mean. At the same time it's hard to ignore the fact that so many of us would gladly pay for it if there were a legal way to get exactly what we want for a reasonable price.

Don't give me that bull---t about the money not going to the artist. They do not drive around the country for free, out of the kindness of their heart, to only promote their album sales. If that was the case, then why do we pay for the concert? Why are more popular artists more expensive than others? Where does that money go? I think you're comment is ineffectual, if anyone's, and you can continue paying ridiculous prices to help promote this bitch's new album....sucker!

said by Uno3whO:

---

Don't give me that bull---t about the money not going to the artist. They do not drive around the country for free, out of the kindness of their heart, to only promote their album sales. If that was the case, then why do we pay for the concert? Why are more popular artists more expensive than others? Where does that money go? I think you're comment is ineffectual, if anyone's, and you can continue paying ridiculous prices to help promote this bitch's new album....sucker!

---

Are you assuming that the venue gets nothing, that the tour sponsor gets nothing, that the local technical crews are volunteer and that the band is paid nothing from the venue itself?

My point is simply that bands have concerts to promote themselves and sell albums- not to sell tickets per se.

I find it odd that you call someone willing to pay for music instead of stealing it (who also has differing musical tastes than you) "a sucker."

Boogie

said by boogie74:

---

said by Cyron:

---

Do you know how much a Madonna concert ticket costs? If I support an artist, I do it buying concert tickets, and there's now way in hell I'm paying $85 dollars for a general admission ticket.

---

Despite what you wish to believe, the money from concert ticket sales isn't cash that goes to the artist. Bands go on concert for one thing and one thing only: to promote record sales.

Did you honestly believe it was just coincidence that concerts always tend to focus on ONE album- the latest one out? And they play the CRAP that some hate! Oh, they'll play some of their best stuff to motivate the audience- but out of the 10-12 songs (at most) that are played, at least 7 to 9 of them will be from the same, newest album (usually the title of the tour, no less).

In closing, concerts aren't for making money from ticket sales- they're for promoting record sales.

Boogie

---

let me add to that by saying "BS" you want us to think they go to all that trouble, travel, and frigging headache for nothing??? you think we are as old and feeble minded as she is? get a life

HR>I'm glad we agree. It's not an "entitlement" if that's what you mean. At the same time it's hard to ignore the fact that so many of us would gladly pay for it if there were a legal way to get exactly what we want for a reasonable price. [/QUOTE]
Thank You Very Much!!!! Nuff Said!!!

First of all, I know that people make money off of these concerts...that is precisely the point I was trying to make. If you would have read the comment I replied to you would understand that. I think that you are a sucker, too, for complaining all the time about P2P networks. Just because you aren't able enough to benefit from the P2P networks doesn't mean that it is wrong for others to use it. How do you think the music gets there in the first place? From people BUYING the albums!! I don't think it is a big deal for people to trade and share their music when millions of people are buying the overpriced cd's everyday anyway. And, I didn't call him a sucker for buying music, I buy music. I called him a sucker for being totally oblivious to the fact that these millionaire artists make millions from each tour. Get your shit straight before you respond.