I won't say that the current major-label setup, with the actual musicians making a pittance off album sales, is a good one. But I also object to the implied assumption that the record labels shouldn't get any money because they aren't the ones making the music. The record labels are the ones advertising the band, getting their album into the stores, etc., so the band can focus on music-related crap.
And as for independent musicians, I get the impression that for every completely independent success story, there's a band like Radiohead or Jars of Clay, indie bands that are currently self-sufficient because of the fanbase and connections they built while they were on a major label.
So long as people use it in the way you use it, Pangur Ban, it's probably alright (in that you end up paying money and supporting the musicians, and that you care about supporting the musicians and don't feel a sense of entitlement to have all music indefinitely for free).
"and they have possibly gained a new fan who will buy things moving forward."
Assuming that said fan is willing to buy things and spend money on things he/she likes, yes.
(as opposed to feeling entitled to indefinitely own all the world's music for free; with "indefinitely", "own", "for free" and "all" being the key words).
I guess I have no problem with what you're doing (other than the riskiness of breaking laws, I guess, don't get in trouble. I like talking to you). It's like a library, I guess, where you read the beginnings of books before you decide whether or not you want to check it out; and then you decide whether or not you want to pay money to a bookstore to own it; but libraries are known for reimbursing the original authors.
I don't know, I'd feel more comfortable with it if this advertising/introducing-new-fans service of illegal downloading was accompanied by some sort of direct monetary reimbursement; however small. Like, maybe you give the artist a penny per song; paid for by the traffic revenue your site gets.
And music labels help, they advertise and distribute, so they need to get paid as well for their support of the musician. Yes, it should be better for the musician, but music labels do a service and should get paid for it by the people who use said service.
I feel like the man at the end of To Build A Fire, croaking "You was right old-timer" to a memory of an old man warning him of the dangers of the Yukon, or perhaps Charlton Heston at the end of The Planet Of The Apes.
Odradek: [singing] I hate every Antinatalist I see From Antinatalism to Efilism No, you'll never make an AN out of me
Oh my God, I was wrong Life was shit, all along
You've finally made a AN Antinatalists: Yes, we've finally made an AN Odradek: Yes, you've finally made an AN out of me Antinatalist: Yes, we've finally made an AN out of you
I wouldn't like Europe to be taken over by immigrants, as I wouldn't want anywhere to be taken over by anyone. I want the world to improve so everyone can live well and get along.
Okay, that was a poorly titled article with a rather irritatingly misleading first few sentences. What he should have said was "those atheists that are hedonistic, amoral, and selfish are among my least favorite people"; and really, hedonism, amorality, and selfishness is annoying regardless of religion; so why specify atheism in particular?
Some atheists believe that people are truly special beings and that you should act ethically and do good unto all men; many of them don't accept this idea of "just do what you want, pleasure is the greatest virtue".
I'm fine with the message (that religion is good, that morality is good, that hedonistic amoral selfishness is bad) but I'm not fine with the presentation.
The problem isn't with atheism, it's with selfishness, hedonism, and amorality, which are not necessarily atheistic traits any more than they are religious traits.
And that rant about math; I agree with the message (that math is not necessarily the be-all and end-all of all knowledge, and that other things should be celebrated, too) but I'm not fine with the presentation. Math isn't everything, but it's okay if people like it and think it's neat. The problem isn't with math, it's with the people who are snooty towards those who have other interests and the arts.
It's like belching out the Gettysburg address; the message is good, but your presentation is awful.
No no no, Neuroscienece is Behavioral Biology's failed clone; and BB hates Psychology; even though Neuroscience has a genuinely cute relationship with Psychology.
I'll have you know that psychologism was roundly refuted by everyone in Germany before the Second World War, and nobody believes it except Tzetze
Speaking of thinkers on the mind in germany before the second world war, I would like to point out that Carl Gustav Jung was not antisemitic and despised Hitler and the horrors of Nazi Germany. He was fascinated by the culture of Germany and it's folktales and national spirit, but he was not a Nazi Sympathizer. I can think of 488 reasons why it would be inaccurate to label Jung as being on the same level as Wagner.
You are the end result of a “would you push the button” prompt where the prompt was “you have unlimited godlike powers but you appear to all and sundry to be an impetuous child” – Zero, 2022
tzetze is most likely smarter than me in most respects, but not like enough smarter than me that he loses me when explaining or talking about something.
i like that, because usually i either get something right away or i have a really hard time figuring it out, so it's nice to like be brought to understanding something that i would not quite get otherwise.
The Oxford Dictionary of Oxford Dictionaries in the index of all the other "The Oxford Dictionary of X" series.
The Oxford Dictionary of The Oxford Dictionary is a dictionary about the Oxford Dictionary. Not the Oxford Dictionary OF whatever, just The Oxford Dictionary.
Comments
Phillistines.
And as for independent musicians, I get the impression that for every completely independent success story, there's a band like Radiohead or Jars of Clay, indie bands that are currently self-sufficient because of the fanbase and connections they built while they were on a major label.
"and they have possibly gained a new fan who will buy things moving forward."
Assuming that said fan is willing to buy things and spend money on things he/she likes, yes.
(as opposed to feeling entitled to indefinitely own all the world's music for free; with "indefinitely", "own", "for free" and "all" being the key words).
I guess I have no problem with what you're doing (other than the riskiness of breaking laws, I guess, don't get in trouble. I like talking to you). It's like a library, I guess, where you read the beginnings of books before you decide whether or not you want to check it out; and then you decide whether or not you want to pay money to a bookstore to own it; but libraries are known for reimbursing the original authors.
I don't know, I'd feel more comfortable with it if this advertising/introducing-new-fans service of illegal downloading was accompanied by some sort of direct monetary reimbursement; however small. Like, maybe you give the artist a penny per song; paid for by the traffic revenue your site gets.
And music labels help, they advertise and distribute, so they need to get paid as well for their support of the musician. Yes, it should be better for the musician, but music labels do a service and should get paid for it by the people who use said service.
Does that make me a terrible person?
Dysfunctional SysOps.
Functional Systems.
Functional Dysystems.
I prefer art since it is soft and malleable like a cow girl's boob
this makes sense on some level, I promise
Some atheists believe that people are truly special beings and that you should act ethically and do good unto all men; many of them don't accept this idea of "just do what you want, pleasure is the greatest virtue".
I'm fine with the message (that religion is good, that morality is good, that hedonistic amoral selfishness is bad) but I'm not fine with the presentation.
The problem isn't with atheism, it's with selfishness, hedonism, and amorality, which are not necessarily atheistic traits any more than they are religious traits.
And that rant about math; I agree with the message (that math is not necessarily the be-all and end-all of all knowledge, and that other things should be celebrated, too) but I'm not fine with the presentation. Math isn't everything, but it's okay if people like it and think it's neat. The problem isn't with math, it's with the people who are snooty towards those who have other interests and the arts.
It's like belching out the Gettysburg address; the message is good, but your presentation is awful.
Sick freak.
i can get behind this sentiment, at least
i must confess i am still not sure what is going on or what you are talking about
Psychology is Philosophy's younger sibling.
aw, but psychology and neuroscience are so cute together!
their love is real
FORBIDDEN LOVE
FUCKING PSYCHOLOGISM
I'll have you know that psychologism was roundly refuted by everyone in Germany before the Second World War, and nobody believes it except Tzetze
i enjoyed that post
but he is better at math and logic type stuff than me
regardless, it was interesting
Speaking of thinkers on the mind in germany before the second world war, I would like to point out that Carl Gustav Jung was not antisemitic and despised Hitler and the horrors of Nazi Germany. He was fascinated by the culture of Germany and it's folktales and national spirit, but he was not a Nazi Sympathizer. I can think of 488 reasons why it would be inaccurate to label Jung as being on the same level as Wagner.
no, the Oxford Dictionary of the Oxford Dictionary
but then it's not like I've seen everything in the world
thankfully
The Oxford Dictionary of The Oxford Dictionary is a dictionary about the Oxford Dictionary. Not the Oxford Dictionary OF whatever, just The Oxford Dictionary.