Muel Posted January 22, 2012 Report Share Posted January 22, 2012 Oh yeah, and f**k the 'musicians/artists' overpaid wankers the lot of em anyway Do you know any? No? Then f**k right off. Most I know are rather poor, and have to work full time jobs as well. Buying their music makes a massive difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkeyseemonkeydo Posted January 22, 2012 Report Share Posted January 22, 2012 Do you know any? No? Then f**k right off. Most I know are rather poor, and have to work full time jobs as well. Buying their music makes a massive difference. I still don't buy it (pardon the pun). If they're good enough they'll get signed up and do just fine for themselves. If I buy one of their albums (highly, highly unlikely but go with it) they might get what, a few pence from the sale? That's not going to make them rich quick. If they're of the opinion that they're so damn good they shouldn't have to be working a real job for a living and should be multi-millionaires by now I'd say maybe they're simply not as good as they think or maybe they're in it for the wrong reasons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MonsieurMonkey Posted January 22, 2012 Report Share Posted January 22, 2012 I thought bands didn't even make anything from sales? I thought they got paid when they signed their record deal and then made most of their money from touring? On topic. I have no problem with people downloading anything illegally. Within ten years it'll be pointless anyway, MP3 players with built in internet that just stream whatever music you want with adverts thrown in will be the future. Same with films, but just to your TV. If I did something, that people would commit a crime to get, I'd be quite pleased with myself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bikeperson45 Posted January 22, 2012 Report Share Posted January 22, 2012 Do you know any? No? Then f**k right off. Most I know are rather poor, and have to work full time jobs as well. Buying their music makes a massive difference. The thing is though those bands are getting so little from sales that I think it's almost better for them to give some stuff away for free just to get the exposure. I wouldn't buy an album without hearing it first in the same way you wouldn't buy a car without testing it. Usually with me the albums and movies I buy are the ones I've already seen or heard. And in terms of copying the music and giving it to friends, people lend stuff to other people all the time, things like books. No one seems to have made a law about lending books illegal. I don't know if that'll sound like some flawed logic, probably will in some way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1a2bcio8 Posted January 22, 2012 Report Share Posted January 22, 2012 (edited) People don't have to make money from their creativity. There's nothing wrong with it for its own sake. People wouldn't stop making music or other art forms if there was no money in it. There are plenty of artists I listen to that blatantly don't live off their creativity but they keep being creative anyway. In fact, creative enterprise might become a bit more sincere if money was removed from the equation... That being said, there's nothing wrong with choosing to support an artist that you really appreciate. I'd happily throw a few quid to artists I like over paypal or something similar if such a system existed. Most of the time we are paying rates for creative enterprise to make industries rich though. I don't agree with that. If what was being asked for was simply a fair amount to support the continuance of a given enterprise then fair enough but this just isn't the case. Edited January 22, 2012 by Ben Rowlands Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JT! Posted January 22, 2012 Report Share Posted January 22, 2012 Nice idea but it's a shame it goes against our entire nature as humans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1a2bcio8 Posted January 22, 2012 Report Share Posted January 22, 2012 (edited) Nice idea but it's a shame it goes against our entire nature as humans. I think it's a shame that you reduce our nature to selfishness when there's nothing fixed about being selfish. It's just a tendency as is love. We can cultivate one or the other out of choice when we become aware of it as such. I really dislike this interpretation of evolutionary theory that regards humans as being intrinsically selfish so I'm going to throw an argument at you. The "evolutionary theory" from which you are making your statement originally came from Herbert Spencer. From Darwin's work he extracted the idea of "survival of the fittest" from the animal kingdom and supplanted it into modern human society. Specifically he applied this idea to economics to justify inequality as something "natural" in the same way you are here. Darwin was very opposed to what Spencer did. One of the later editions of one of his books (I forget which) had an introduction where he stated the limits of his theory as not applicable to modern human society where different rules govern behaviour; which obviously includes our greater intellectual abilities to choose and change our behaviour. Nobody much heeded Darwin's complaint though and Spencer's use of evolutionary theory become popular. You can see why it would given some people's slavery to their selfishness. That presupposition about humans being selfish has worked itself deep into our social psyche and consequently you can see it in the works popular biologists such as Edward Wilson and Dawkins. Dawkins applies the term selfish to genes though, rather than humans, and this only makes sense if the term is understood metaphorically or poetically rather than literally. It's a nonsense if you apply the term literally because genes cannot be selfish or love or hate or do anything like that according to the rules of the word. Humans can love, can be selfish, etc. So Dawkins is only using colourful terminology to help describe biological processes but he's not literally saying genes and people are selfish although he's clearly operating out of Spencer's terms albeit, I suspect, somewhat unconsciously. He even lodges a complaint about the attacks on his work by saying that he doesn't think we are fixed to be selfish and that humans should decide how they are and not just give into selfishness, using the idea of it being their nature as a means of rationalising whatever they want to do. I think his terms are pretty irresponsible to be honest because there is this massive misconception about everyone being intrinsically selfish. No offence but it's clearly nonsense. I regularly decide to do something selfish or not selfish. Yes you can rationalize everything back to a selfish motivation but then that's not scientific much like Freudian theory which can always explain every phenomenon to fit itself. One other important point is that the word selfish means to think greedily of oneself and is therefore defined and dependent of the opposite of not thinking greedily about yourself (i.e. of others instead). This means if it were our fixed nature not to think of others, because we have no choice, then the term "selfish" becomes defunct. Part of its definition is choice because part of its definition is an opposite which can be chosen over it. The situation is more complex but you only have to reference your own experience to know that sometimes you do things for others without a consideration of yourself. This is a choice that ignores any selfish tendencies. And in fact there is a great deal of room to make yourself almost entirely, if not completely, cut off from selfishness. Anyway, essay that is pointless for trials-forum finished... It's just that the idea that our nature is selfish rather than anything good irritates me because it rationalizes all that is shit in this world. edit: this is not a dig, JT. It's the idea that I dislike not you Edited January 22, 2012 by Ben Rowlands 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JT! Posted January 22, 2012 Report Share Posted January 22, 2012 Well I won't go into it too much as there's another thread where we were talking about this, I might go back and find that thread and continue the discussion there as really this has nothing to do with the thread. But I wasn't really referring to that anyway, I was thinking more along the lines of if the people who are being creative by whatever means receive money for their creativeness, then they'll have more funds to use to be even more creative. So naturally a singer is going to do things that that person doesn't really want to be doing(working in a facotry etc) just to get the funds to move forward with what they're doing. If I imagine a world where it was made illegal to make money from any of the arts, that would heavily stifle peoples creativity, and can't see it as a positive thing at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1a2bcio8 Posted January 22, 2012 Report Share Posted January 22, 2012 (edited) I'm not sure how your previous statement translates into what you're saying now but fair enough. I may have just wasted 30 mins of my life there then I'm also not sure I also understand entirely what you're getting at here aside from your last paragraph. I wouldn't ever want to criminalise financial support for creative enterprise. I'm just saying that such support should be proportionate rather than creative people and businesses becoming very rich from what they do. The best artists are clearly the ones that do what they do because they love it. Passion informs creative enterprise much more than greed. I think the latter explains why so much of pop culture is so superficial. So really the artists that matter will keep at it regardless of whether money is involved. I know my creative skills aren't anything special and wouldn't ever offer the chance of making money but I don't care anyway. I'm even working a part time job alongside uni to buy more camera equipment so that I can develop the production value of my edits; so that I can further enjoy the creative process. I don't really care about anyone that won't be creative because they can't make money from it. They are sadly missing the point. edit: apologies if I've missed the gist of what you're saying btw Edited January 22, 2012 by Ben Rowlands Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JT! Posted January 22, 2012 Report Share Posted January 22, 2012 I'm not sure how your previous statement translates into what you're saying now but fair enough. I may have just wasted 30 mins of my life there then I'm also not sure I also understand entirely what you're getting at here aside from your last paragraph. I wouldn't ever want to criminalise financial support for creative enterprise. I'm just saying that such support should be proportionate rather than creative people and businesses becoming very rich from what they do. The best artists are clearly the ones that do what they do because they love it. Passion informs creative enterprise much more than greed. I think the latter explains why so much of pop culture is so superficial. So really the artists that matter will keep at it regardless of whether money is involved. I know my creative skills aren't anything special and wouldn't ever offer the chance of making money but I don't care anyway. I'm even working a part time job alongside uni to buy more camera equipment so that I can develop the production value of my edits; so that I can further enjoy the creative process. I don't really care about anyone that won't be creative because they can't make money from it. They are sadly missing the point. edit: apologies if I've missed the gist of what you're saying btw Nah I did mean to dig that topic back up and continue that discussion, didn't feel like thinking at the time of your last reply so I'll just quote that and continue on in that topic when my brain's working one day rather than talk about evolution in an internet thread. My original point was in reply to what you said about how you would like to see any kind of financial/business stuff taken out of anything creative. I think that will never happen because of human nature, it shadows quite a bit on what you were talking about in that topic a few months ago, but I wasn't really coming from a instinctual / evolutionary point of view, but more how people live their lives. 'The best artists are clearly the ones that do what they do because they love it' is a very broad statement. That's basically saying a 7 year old who really f**king loves to make paper airplanes is 'better' creativity than someone who designs interiors for private jets for a living. But then again trying to quantify creativity is virtually impossible anyway. But looking at it from a real world example, do you think it's wrong that local singers sell their CDs at clubs? Surely not, but you think it's wrong that Simon Cowell makes millions from promoting singers, probably so. So at what point do you draw the line? If you were offered payment for your creative work so you could put that money back into it, would you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1a2bcio8 Posted January 22, 2012 Report Share Posted January 22, 2012 'The best artists are clearly the ones that do what they do because they love it' is a very broad statement. That's basically saying a 7 year old who really f**king loves to make paper airplanes is 'better' creativity than someone who designs interiors for private jets for a living. But then again trying to quantify creativity is virtually impossible anyway. But looking at it from a real world example, do you think it's wrong that local singers sell their CDs at clubs? Surely not, but you think it's wrong that Simon Cowell makes millions from promoting singers, probably so. So at what point do you draw the line? If you were offered payment for your creative work so you could put that money back into it, would you? I wasn't saying that being passionate means you'll be good only that without it you are very unlikely to be good. I think that's just a truism with regard to most activities in life. Yeah you can't really quantify creativity but you can qualify it and I do think that there are more and less sincere kinds. As I already mentioned the popular music industry is essentially motivated more by money than music per se. Consequently music becomes a product packaged together with attributes that will make it sell (i.e. hip-hop videos as a prime example; bling, guns, etc.). The end result isn't informed by ones actual heartfelt experience but rather what resonates with the rest of the superficial and formulaic market at a given time. Strip away the money motivation and we might find a different form of popular music taking its place. The line is certainly difficult to establish. There probably isn't anything specific. I wouldn't disagree on that point but just because it's difficult to specify something exact doesn't mean the underlying point doesn't stand. Simon Cowell represents an easy example of something extreme and people selling their CDs at gigs as something that's reasonable. What's important for now is that we recognise there's something wrong with someone making millions against the backdrop of a massive majority that don't and at the same time they taint what's on offer with what sells over what's sincere. Yeah if somebody donated me money because they liked something I did that would be cool but I don't really care and I'm not going to ground to a halt if they don't. That's the point I want to make. If people don't give money to artists they won't disappear. A lot of people do it out of a genuine interest with their creative enterprise within itself and without any concern for monetary gain. They're the ones that actually matter rather than all these people that whinge about needing money to be creative. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam Nichols Posted January 22, 2012 Report Share Posted January 22, 2012 I agree with Ben. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JT! Posted January 23, 2012 Report Share Posted January 23, 2012 Strip away the money motivation and we might find a different form of popular music taking its place. Well, it wouldn't be popular for a start. Money generally is the biggest motivation, then praise after that. By your logic the best things ever created are never seen because they only did it for themselves and not for any other means. But I can't really disagree with much else that you said though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muel Posted January 23, 2012 Report Share Posted January 23, 2012 I still don't buy it (pardon the pun). If they're good enough they'll get signed up and do just fine for themselves. If I buy one of their albums (highly, highly unlikely but go with it) they might get what, a few pence from the sale? That's not going to make them rich quick. If they're of the opinion that they're so damn good they shouldn't have to be working a real job for a living and should be multi-millionaires by now I'd say maybe they're simply not as good as they think or maybe they're in it for the wrong reasons. The thing is though those bands are getting so little from sales that I think it's almost better for them to give some stuff away for free just to get the exposure. I wouldn't buy an album without hearing it first in the same way you wouldn't buy a car without testing it. Usually with me the albums and movies I buy are the ones I've already seen or heard. And in terms of copying the music and giving it to friends, people lend stuff to other people all the time, things like books. No one seems to have made a law about lending books illegal. I don't know if that'll sound like some flawed logic, probably will in some way. You're talking about signed bands, what about unsigned ones? It's all very well saying "If they're good enough, they'll be signed", but that's simply not the case. Pop music these days is universally filled with shit (the common consensus seems to say anyway). I went to see a band just before christmas who were the best live act I've ever seen, and I've seen a lot of big bands live. I asked them why they weren't signed, and of course the answer was that it wasn't worth it. Most of the members used to be in Fandangle (anyone into ska-punk should know that name), and they packed it in because they couldn't afford to do it any more. Between me and my mate, we bought 2 t-shirts and a CD, totally about £30. £15-20 of that was going straight towards paying for the petrol to get them there, anything else they made went towards new gear. I'll happily buy the music of bands like that, because they're just as badly off as I am. Anyway, back to the topic, read this: http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/01/the-real-meaning-of-the-take-down-of-megaupload.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Vandart Posted January 23, 2012 Report Share Posted January 23, 2012 Do you know any? No? Then f**k right off. Most I know are rather poor, and have to work full time jobs as well. Buying their music makes a massive difference. I was also referring to mainstream dogshite. Yes I f**king well do, I have loads of friends that are involved in the music scene/industry some of them EXTREMELY successful. Some, like you said are rather poor, and have to work full time jobs as well. Well Mr Smarty pants there are people out there doing other stuff which is creative, starting businesses, developing ideas and inventions, trying to stop ridiculous projects like this that may ACTUALLY HAVE SOME EFFECT on the future. Are you giving them any money? Besides my mates that are struggling are mostly shite and they have realised that they are never gonna make any money out of it for the reasons touched on below: I still don't buy it (pardon the pun). If they're good enough they'll get signed up and do just fine for themselves. If I buy one of their albums (highly, highly unlikely but go with it) they might get what, a few pence from the sale? That's not going to make them rich quick. If they're of the opinion that they're so damn good they shouldn't have to be working a real job for a living and should be multi-millionaires by now I'd say maybe they're simply not as good as they think or maybe they're in it for the wrong reasons. THIS People don't have to make money from their creativity. There's nothing wrong with it for its own sake. People wouldn't stop making music or other art forms if there was no money in it. There are plenty of artists I listen to that blatantly don't live off their creativity but they keep being creative anyway. In fact, creative enterprise might become a bit more sincere if money was removed from the equation... That being said, there's nothing wrong with choosing to support an artist that you really appreciate. I'd happily throw a few quid to artists I like over paypal or something similar if such a system existed. Most of the time we are paying rates for creative enterprise to make industries rich though. I don't agree with that. If what was being asked for was simply a fair amount to support the continuance of a given enterprise then fair enough but this just isn't the case. THIS In essence, why should I subsidise unproductive generally distanced from reality people from a specific realm of human society. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muel Posted January 23, 2012 Report Share Posted January 23, 2012 You're linking to a river from what I said? Taken out of context much? No I'm not donating my wages to a river in another country, because I have things in my own life to sort out first. Sorry if I think spending £5 on a CD from a band I really admire is more important than a river many thousands of miles away. (And yes, I do donate to some good causes, not that it's anything to do with you or anyone else). You said this: Oh yeah, and f**k the 'musicians/artists' overpaid wankers the lot of em anyway I stick to my original statement of: Do you know any? No? Then f**k right off. Most I know are rather poor, and have to work full time jobs as well. Buying their music makes a massive difference. Your original post was a blanket statement about all musicians and was, in my opinion, horse shit. Very few artist are "overpaid wankers" and the majority are underpaid and underecognised. Anyway, can we stop talking about music and the environment and start talking about the internet? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1a2bcio8 Posted January 23, 2012 Report Share Posted January 23, 2012 Anyway, can we stop talking about music and the environment and start talking about the internet? I'm fairly confident that the discussion of music is perfectly correct for this thread? The "intellectual property" of musicians is a standard and central argument for better control over 'illicit' file sharing. We're trying to say that we think that argument is a fallacy. This is obviously very meaningful to the entire debate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muel Posted January 23, 2012 Report Share Posted January 23, 2012 Good point, but it's moved on from how pirating music has effected the internet and how we use it to whether the artists deserve paying in the first place? Did anyone read this that I posted earlier? Certainly scared me somewhat... http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/01/the-real-meaning-of-the-take-down-of-megaupload.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JD™ Posted January 23, 2012 Report Share Posted January 23, 2012 Good point, but it's moved on from how pirating music has effected the internet and how we use it to whether the artists deserve paying in the first place? Did anyone read this that I posted earlier? Certainly scared me somewhat... http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/01/the-real-meaning-of-the-take-down-of-megaupload.html That post is a bit sensationalist to be honest, and it's yet another opinion by someone who wants to treat the internet the same was as the 'real world', which is ultimately the reason SOPA and PIPA pissed everyone off so much. The mafia buying a storage company as a front for criminal activity is more like the Megaupload situation, but it still doesn't apply to digital stuff. You can't keep a backup of your priceless heirlooms, you can and should when it comes to digital possessions. All those people who are pissed that they lost their data have learned a valuable lesson in not trusting someone else with the only copy of your shit. Same as people like me getting robbed without having home insurance, and then learning from that rather than bitching about it (much). If there's a way to protect yourself from someone else f**king up (y'know, like humans do), then perhaps you should take it? That's a very general 'you' by the way, not aimed at anyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Vandart Posted January 23, 2012 Report Share Posted January 23, 2012 Now that is scary. Also the music/artist argument is very important to this thread, the whole industry is overpaid and is one of the best examples of a 'fabricated market'. It's ALL about the money. Censorship is very bad for the internet, its the best information sharing thing in the world. By using this masked attempt to gain control of what information is out there for people to use and gain, including important information about what 'They' are up to free information could potentially become, again' a thing of the past. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muel Posted January 23, 2012 Report Share Posted January 23, 2012 That post is a bit sensationalist to be honest, and it's yet another opinion by someone who wants to treat the internet the same was as the 'real world', which is ultimately the reason SOPA and PIPA pissed everyone off so much. The mafia buying a storage company as a front for criminal activity is more like the Megaupload situation, but it still doesn't apply to digital stuff. You can't keep a backup of your priceless heirlooms, you can and should when it comes to digital possessions. All those people who are pissed that they lost their data have learned a valuable lesson in not trusting someone else with the only copy of your shit. Same as people like me getting robbed without having home insurance, and then learning from that rather than bitching about it (much). If there's a way to protect yourself from someone else f**king up (y'know, like humans do), then perhaps you should take it? That's a very general 'you' by the way, not aimed at anyone. It does need reading with a pinch of salt, but doesn't change the facts. The American government can already take down any site they like, they have the power they need to fight piracy, what they're proposing is giving them even more power over more people, by censoring what we do, before we actually do it. It's going against innoncent until proven guilty IMO. Censorship is very bad for the internet, its the best information sharing thing in the world. By using this masked attempt to gain control of what information is out there for people to use and gain, including important information about what 'They' are up to free information could potentially become, again' a thing of the past. I've been wondering about that. The internet gave a lot of people the power and the voice to be heard by millions, which is a scarey thing if you're trying to govern a country. Much easier to keep everyoen confined in their own little worlds. Whether the American Govermnent wants to gain control of all information, or simply control the sharing of nasty/illegal information remains to be seen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JD™ Posted January 23, 2012 Report Share Posted January 23, 2012 Either way, both PIPA and SOPA have been shelved already after last Wednesdays blackouts. As you've said, and then added some extra sensationalism to yourself, governments in various countries (not just the USA) have the power to take down a website that can be clearly linked to criminal activity. I don't see why that's a bad thing? Yes, some innocent people lost their shit, but my original point still stands for those people. I'm all for an open and free internet, as long as those who abuse that position don't bitch and moan when they get caught. Yes that includes me if I got caught with pirate materials (not the costume though, that's legal I think...), in the same way I won't bitch and moan when I eventually get bitch slapped for driving like a retard every time I drive. What I'm trying to say is that there are and should be laws in place, but those in control have to allow people to be 'free' to break those laws if they so choose, and suffer the consequences if/when they get caught. Exactly the same way as murder is against the law, but people are 'free' to (and do) do it. Free will is the most important aspect of human society, in my humble one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muel Posted January 23, 2012 Report Share Posted January 23, 2012 I'm not disputing the point you made about backing up stuff if you're using Megaupload to share it. (Quite frankly you deserve to lose it if you don't). I wouldn't so I was being sensationalist? If you read the SOPA bill, it says in plain black and white what they wanted to do, they were proposing to remove the option of being able to freely do things on the internet. If that bill had been passed, then Facebook would have had to shut down. it sounds sensationalist, but if it was me just blowing steam about it because I can't get free music any more, would Wikipedia have taken their site down for a day? Even Google are publically against this thing, not just by signing a bill but by actively spreading information about it. That should tell you enough really! They already have the power to do all the things you said there and I totally agree with them needing that kind of power, but SOPA was coming at it from entirely the other direction, not allowing you to do things, rather than giving you the power to make the choice. I'd liken it to stopping you speeding by simply taking your car away from you, then only allowing you to use it when the government deems it acceptable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JD™ Posted January 23, 2012 Report Share Posted January 23, 2012 I suppose the point I've not made, which is actually the one I originally wanted to make is that PIPA and SOPA were never, ever, ever going to fly. I'm not exactly certain what the thoughts were behind the scenes on whether they've just done this all to prove a point, or to make people value their freedom more, or just simply to start the general public pointing fingers at the people hosting the illegalities. What I can be certain of, though, is that they knew very well indeed that they couldn't get away with passing such laws. The entire reason I didn't really comment about it before is because I didn't want to call everyone out for being retarded for even giving it any actual thought time. I read them both because, as you said, theoretically it could change my entire life. Then I did, and then I basically forgot about it, because it's a load of shit. Wikipedia and the like did their blackouts for their own publicity. Notice how Facebook didn't give a flying f**k? It's because they don't need the publicity, and they don't want to be associated with the same sort of people who start panic buying beans every time a news story comes out and picks up on one of the thousands of meteors that pass the Earth all the time as if it's going to DEFINITELY kill us all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muel Posted January 23, 2012 Report Share Posted January 23, 2012 (edited) No, these two were never going to fly, they're too heavy handed and way too time-consuming to police, and would bankrupt too many companies if they became resposible for their users uploads. That said, it shows the trend of things to come. SOPA is just a rehash of a bill that failed last year, that was a rehash of a bill that failed the year before. It'll keep returning until it gets passed! Wikipedia and Google doing it for publicity? Really? They're probably the two biggest known names to have come from the internet. Facebook is well against it anyway? Looksie. Edited January 23, 2012 by Muel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.