Not that I disagree with you, Kyle, but if a musician writes one song popular song, you can bet he'll start considering himself a "professional" musician regardless if he never writes a popular song again in his lifetime.
Then again, to counter my own argument, he'll get paid for that one song for the rest of his life.
At any rate, you can drop the "semi" and I won't mind. :)
I'm sorry Chris, but playing the starving artist card doesn't work. You are trying to confuse the issue. You claim you work "9 to 5" at being a musician-- but you still expect to be paid even when you're *not* working. Just because I ignore your music while drinking a glass of scotch at my favorite bar doesn't mean the bar owner should pay you. If I play a song on a jukebox, you don't get a phone call to wake up and perform it for me, do you? There are many fields that require expensive college degrees but that doesn't entitle all of us to get paid for each USE of our work, does it? No, just for musicians? Why? What makes you different?
I applaud your dedication to doing what you love, but that doesn't give you the "right" to get paid for doing nothing.
How do *I* know which artists fall under these organizations? Do they have a Master List? Do **they** even know? (It sounds like they don't.)
A comprehensive list of the music that cannot be played unless protection money is paid would be quite useful business owners. In fact, if someone were to make and maintain a list of "safe" artists they could probably get owners to pay a (much smaller) yearly fee. Like Anti-virus software for music. :)
Well, I can counter your made up numbers with some of my own. If the pirate bay points to 100,000 torrents for illegal downloads and takes zero of them down, but Google points to 1,000,000 illegal torrents and takes 50% of them down, who is doing more "harm"?
I think you've trolled the wrong post. This post isn't about file sharing, it's about collection agencies. You want this one. I know, wicked embarassing, right? We all make mistakes though, so don't let it get you down.
So basically any private party can accuse another private party of something and have the accused's property taken by force and turned over to the accuser without the need of any criminal act?
Any *wealthy and well connected* private party can, yes. If you tried it on them, I suspect it wouldn't work out so well.
Google has set themselves up to be in a world of hurt if public opinion turns against them at all, as they are entirely dependant on people being nice to them.(sic)
I don't know about you, but this is *exactly* where I want all corporations to be. When they have a government grated monopoly to keep them in business regardless of public opinion, that's when things go to shit.
Now, I may be wrong, but I think you're confused because Verizon's network is all 3G, and only part of AT&T's is. So, Verizon's 3G map and it's coverage map is the same, and AT&T's isn't.
Furthermore, the non-colored-in parts of Verizon's map would actually indicate no service, whereas AT&T's only indicates no 3G coverage. (I think they claim 98% coverage in the US, or something like that.)
Personally, as a iPhone/AT&T user, I'd much rather AT&T focus their money less on lawsuits and more on upgrading their shitty (as shown accurately in the Verizon ad) 3G coverage.
Not that it matters much, if Verizon doesn't mess up the Droid, I'll be switching soon anyway.
banned the girls from extracurricular activities for a while
Seems to me they already have an extracurricular activity. :)
FTA:
In the photos, the girls wore lingerie and pretended to lick a penis-shaped lollipop.
The true criminal is people who sell penis-shaped candies to children knowing full well those children are going to pretend to lick them. I'd be way more concerned if they actually licked said candy instead of just pretending. :P
I like the idea from earlier: Take the judgments from the companies that hired him. If I hire someone to perform an illegal act, I am just as guilty as the person performing said act. Make it very costly/risky to hire someone to spam and the market should sort it out.
RSS
Twitter
Re: Re: Re: Do us a favor (as The Infamous Joe)
If pro is the opposite of con, what is the opposite of progress?
Re: (as The Infamous Joe)
Not that I disagree with you, Kyle, but if a musician writes one song popular song, you can bet he'll start considering himself a "professional" musician regardless if he never writes a popular song again in his lifetime.
Then again, to counter my own argument, he'll get paid for that one song for the rest of his life.
At any rate, you can drop the "semi" and I won't mind. :)
Re: (as The Infamous Joe)
How can someone be "semi-professional"? Either you got paid or you didn't, right? :)
Re: (as The Infamous Joe)
They prefer the phrase "Forever minus a day", I think.
Re: (as The Infamous Joe)
That isn't worth the bandwidth used to post it. Who on earth would seriously re-post that garbage?
Re: You guys scare me. (as The Infamous Joe)
I'm sorry Chris, but playing the starving artist card doesn't work. You are trying to confuse the issue. You claim you work "9 to 5" at being a musician-- but you still expect to be paid even when you're *not* working. Just because I ignore your music while drinking a glass of scotch at my favorite bar doesn't mean the bar owner should pay you. If I play a song on a jukebox, you don't get a phone call to wake up and perform it for me, do you? There are many fields that require expensive college degrees but that doesn't entitle all of us to get paid for each USE of our work, does it? No, just for musicians? Why? What makes you different?
I applaud your dedication to doing what you love, but that doesn't give you the "right" to get paid for doing nothing.
List there a list? (as The Infamous Joe)
How do *I* know which artists fall under these organizations? Do they have a Master List? Do **they** even know? (It sounds like they don't.)
A comprehensive list of the music that cannot be played unless protection money is paid would be quite useful business owners. In fact, if someone were to make and maintain a list of "safe" artists they could probably get owners to pay a (much smaller) yearly fee. Like Anti-virus software for music. :)
Re: Software history is often forgotten (as The Infamous Joe)
Ha! I completely forgot about keys hidden in manuals. Something like, "Type the third word in the second paragraph on page 15."
Ah, how innocent we were back then. :P
Re: Re: (as The Infamous Joe)
Well, I can counter your made up numbers with some of my own. If the pirate bay points to 100,000 torrents for illegal downloads and takes zero of them down, but Google points to 1,000,000 illegal torrents and takes 50% of them down, who is doing more "harm"?
Fun, isn't it?
Re: (as The Infamous Joe)
Oh, Hi?
I think you've trolled the wrong post. This post isn't about file sharing, it's about collection agencies. You want this one. I know, wicked embarassing, right? We all make mistakes though, so don't let it get you down.
Have a great weekend!
Re: Re: Wow (as The Infamous Joe)
without a single drop of common sense.
Why is common sense always a liquid? Can it be concentrated? Or better yet, carbonated.
Just wondering.
Re: (as The Infamous Joe)
So basically any private party can accuse another private party of something and have the accused's property taken by force and turned over to the accuser without the need of any criminal act?
Any *wealthy and well connected* private party can, yes. If you tried it on them, I suspect it wouldn't work out so well.
Re: Re: Re: (as The Infamous Joe)
Google has set themselves up to be in a world of hurt if public opinion turns against them at all, as they are entirely dependant on people being nice to them.(sic)
I don't know about you, but this is *exactly* where I want all corporations to be. When they have a government grated monopoly to keep them in business regardless of public opinion, that's when things go to shit.
My Bad. (as The Infamous Joe)
I couldn't help it, I sold Techdirt on eBay.
I'm a victim, I couldn't help it!
Re: Re: (as The Infamous Joe)
Not that I agree, but I think their reasoning is "If movie X made us $Y, it would have made $Y+$Z without filthy pirates!
It's a fantastic mix of greed and ignorance.
Re: Re: Re: (as The Infamous Joe)
Now, I may be wrong, but I think you're confused because Verizon's network is all 3G, and only part of AT&T's is. So, Verizon's 3G map and it's coverage map is the same, and AT&T's isn't.
Furthermore, the non-colored-in parts of Verizon's map would actually indicate no service, whereas AT&T's only indicates no 3G coverage. (I think they claim 98% coverage in the US, or something like that.)
Personally, as a iPhone/AT&T user, I'd much rather AT&T focus their money less on lawsuits and more on upgrading their shitty (as shown accurately in the Verizon ad) 3G coverage.
Not that it matters much, if Verizon doesn't mess up the Droid, I'll be switching soon anyway.
Remix (as The Infamous Joe)
The world tells the FCC: If we don't stop the **AA, the internet will die.
Smooth move. (as The Infamous Joe)
banned the girls from extracurricular activities for a while
Seems to me they already have an extracurricular activity. :)
FTA:
In the photos, the girls wore lingerie and pretended to lick a penis-shaped lollipop.
The true criminal is people who sell penis-shaped candies to children knowing full well those children are going to pretend to lick them. I'd be way more concerned if they actually licked said candy instead of just pretending. :P
Re: Coke's The One... (as The Infamous Joe)
Having been on quite a few road trips in my day, I feel that I may owe you some money for the use of your "invention". :)
Idea from earlier. (as The Infamous Joe)
I like the idea from earlier: Take the judgments from the companies that hired him. If I hire someone to perform an illegal act, I am just as guilty as the person performing said act. Make it very costly/risky to hire someone to spam and the market should sort it out.
Just saying.