So, what you are saying is, allow the government to monitor private information, otherwise the effect will be a police state. That would mean, that either we allow them to act like a police state, or they will outright become a police state.
Since when has it not been unreasonable to search identifiable information of an innocent person?
A cop would not be able to walk in to your house and search it, under the pretense of "if you have nothing to hide you shouldn't be worried."
i see... so instead of answering a call for proof, and thus vidicating the entire reasoning of your argument that Masnick is wrong, you instead ask for proof that Masnick is right. I see what you did there.
Fortunately the only thing that Masnick claims is that there are flaws in the arguments of the IFPI. Now, what you are saying is that he did not prove that the IFPI was incorrect, but he seems to do so by showing that the information shown my IFPI cites information that is known to be debunked.
He further states that he believes that the manner in which the IFPI measures the success of an artist should be reviewed and provides an interesting argument for it.
While you may not want to accept this argument as proof, you yourself make the argument that his statements are incorrect.
Instead of answering the call for you to prove your argument you decide to ask that we prove Mike's argument. Mike's argument was not in question until you questioned it. We are simply trying to find the evidence which you cite as the basis of this argument.
Once again, i'm not siding with anyone, i just want to hear the actual facts that you claim we are all ignoring. So that i may correctly pick a side.
I see what you are saying. And I have never stated that government is stupid, so to make the assumption that i think it is, is a little childish. I have worked for my government and although i understand it is flawed, i would never say it is stupid.
My second comment is that you drive a incoherent argument. In the same paragraph you say, that you have stated a fact that recorded music= art= monetization. Then you soften your argument by saying that in fact the "attractiveness of monetizing it" is what is not going to change. Putting "Ergo" at the begining of your sentence does not mean it is a logical conclusion. Though i agree with your second statement i disagree entirely with the idea that recorded music MUST be monetized. Just because the attractiveness of monetizing it may not change, that does not mean that recorded music MUST be monetized. And finally to quote someone who is quoted all the time who's name i can't remember, "things always change".
Also, by stating that "recorded music is higher and more coveted art than a t-shirt and that will never change either", you are making a statement of values that is not empirically true. For a deaf person, the art on a t-shirt may be more moving than the most beautiful Mozart. Also, the level of "covetedness" does not drive price. I bought my favorite CD for $20 and spent $60 on a football jersey, yet i will complain more if i spill ketchup on my CD than if i spill it on the jersey. I further question why this comment is even here to begin with. Do you have some stake in the music industry by chance? This would be the only reason for your mostly emotional rants. But i digress.
Furthermore, i don't see even once when someone has argued that recording music does not cost money. Even if it would be just the money to feed the artist, there would be money spent. So that argument is moot.
On the last point you make about the government, i once again ask for proof that the government is taking this stance for THIS reason. If we are all naive children then please illuminate us with facts and don't coddle us (or beat us over the head) with emotion.
Once again i'm not arguing for pirates, i am only saying that your argument has some important flaws.
Oh, and once again, calling people names does not help to make you sound like an informed apologist.
I see the argument you are making, but you say, "it is going to be monetized no matter what.". And i truthfully question that assumption. You are saying that recorded music is art and therefore being that it is art, it is the artist's right to do with it as they like. Then you state that "it is going to be monetized no matter what. There is nothing you can do to change that. Nothing." Now, by,"nothing you can do to change that." do you mean that there is nothing we "the consumer" can do about it? Because i'm sure you are definitly not saying that there is nothing the artist can do about it. Because that would mean that the artist really doesn't have any control over the art.
So assuming you are speaking about the consumer, you are making a very important point, one that i am not sure you will agree with. Monetizing the art is an intregal part of making art. In which case hindering the monetization of art is a crime.
So let's take this a little further, you later claim that "It's one of the reasons why piracy is finally being addressed by law enforcement." So by connecting both of those thoughts together you are saying that "Artists must make money off of the art they work so hard to create, therefore law enforcement must address it."
I question whether someone "must" make money from the art they create.
I'm not arguing for piracy, i am simply questioning your line of reasoning. If i misinterpreted it, please elaborate.
You say he is,
"Lying about the enforcement finally being wielded against piracy"
Fine, let's say he is. Please, for the sake of intellegent discussion, prove him wrong. If you really are,
"sick of this asshole promoting his sick vision all over the web with no rebuttal"
then please, rebut. Saying, "No, he's wrong! And has fiendish motives." is not proof that he in fact IS wrong. The only thing you are doing is causing more hits to his page. (Which i would assume he would call the "Striesand Effect" [sp])
I really want to hear your actual arguments. I'm really interested in your viewpoint. Please, offer facts, or at least analysis, so that I may further understand your view.
It must be very sad living to be angry all the time...
Instead of insisting on answering your question just to have you ask another i will ask you a question and we can go from there. Is it the "Indie" labels that are always complaining about copyright infringement or is it the "Major" labels?
It is easy to make an argument when you do the ol' "bait and switch". The whole of the argument and previous arguments, is that "Major" record labels are trolling governments in order to make sure that THEY make a profit. The argument stated by Mike is that there has been no proof that people have lost thier jobs or even lost money specifically because of piracy. You make the claim that Mike's argument is solely founded on his own hatered of record labels, and yet offer no counter argument. The only comment you make is that he is simply working off of his emotions, and might i say in a very emotionally charged manner (name calling has never been seen as calm and collected).
AJ, commented that the record labels are making more money off the music than the artists, and offers links. Then instead of making an argument for your side, you just lable his argument as invalid and claim that you have in fact "destroyed" it. The argument has never been that "Indie" lables rip off artists (although I do not know that they do not), and so pirating the music is okay. In fact this is not even an argument that "Major" labels rip off artists and so it is okay to pirate. The argument is that business models must change in order for businesses to continue to be profitable, that is Business 101. But the recording industry seems to not have taken that class. Is it "Right" for people to pirate music? No. Is it "Right" for record labels to require tax payers to make sure their company does not go out of business. NO.
Things need to change. On both ends of the spectrum.
And relax man. It'll be okay.
Go ahead, call me names.