wouldnt even go that far,
its more like buying socks only to find that you may only keep them in ONE specific sock drawer, and no one else is allowed to wear those socks. just you....only you... never anyone else. and if you want to keep them in another drawer or let anyone else wear them? you have to buy another set of socks for that... except, again, only one person is allowed to wear that new pair of socks... but hey.. you can keep that new pair of socks on the floor at the foot of your bed...
of course, once you do that, you then again, cant keep those socks anywhere else other than your floor at the foot of your bed....
... and are we starting to see the ridiculous nature of what we are talking about here?
by all means guys... just keep driving me further towards options that give me a way to NOT watch commercials.... dont worry one bit about the fact that these options give you NO money as opposed to at least some...
see, here is the problem with being afraid to "throw another brother under the bus"... is he truely your brother if he lives his life bilking those seeking the word of god? that sound more like a false prophet to me.
and, as one of my favorite authors said "a man of the cloth should be recognizable as one in spite of what he wears, not because of it"
the problem isnt a fear of independant artists. as far as the artests themselves go, i really could not care less how they decide to market their wares. its their decision not mine.
the actual problem is that in agencies such as RIAA and MPAA stating that they are in fact working towards ensuring their members are getting paid, they are in fact not working towards that end at all. what they ARE doing is trying to use legislative means to enforce their old school way of doing things on everyone else.
They could have very easily adapted to the internet a LONG time ago and the problems they are having now would be minor... still present to be sure, but nowhere near to the level it is now. but they did not. they are attempting to get poorly worded and vague legislation passed which has seriously negative ramifications on the rest of the world.
so, you can sit there all day long and croon about freedom of choice, but these organizations have proven time and time again, they are not worried about artists in any way shape or form. they are worried about two things: money and control. thats it
you should really read rick falkvinge's write up on that specific subject if you have not done so already. the other parties have nothing to worry about at the moment as they are not openly rejecting the current status quo from the media outlet overloards.
i would so totally do that..
that is, if i were electable to begin with... which im not.
apparently the problem is that if you give money DIRECTLY to an artist, you then are expected (rightly so) to say if you like the art thats being produced and then can influence an artist to make more art that you like.
if you give money to a large corporation, you are (not quite so rightly so) expected to just shut your mouth about the art thats being produced and continue to fork over dollars and just OBEY.
so when you boil it all down, apparently the actual problem is, we have brains and can think.
on the gripping hand...lol
intentional or happpy accident?
came here to say this...sorta.
yes, he is actually talking about spectrum crunch rather than actual competition with a single market. So, the guy is still an idiot, but he is an idiot for different reasons than this article lays out.
"we've got to protect our phoney baloney jobs!"
/mel brooks
okay... they liberated the idea... that work better for you? lol
if you are going to try to correct someone on a forum, or other public venue, you may want to be sure that you're 100% correct.
they were not founded as a software firm for office.... the office software didnt start until way later, they were founded as a software company that produced software interpreters, then they bought dos. office products didnt come until much later (word was released in 1983 and it was available for DOS only.... at the time apple had lisa write...so no, it was not created 'for apple'.
as for stealing, apple stole the concept of the gui from xerox, microsoft lifted the idea from apple and yes, jobs said that but he even stole that comment from picaso who said it long before jobs did... (and i belive that bob dylan also said the same thing but worded slightly differently).
no, those are rough film makers...
okay, that made me laugh
because the intelligence level of books can pretty much always be appropriate to the person, social networking however almost always devolves into the lowest common denominator which is almost universally "idiot people doing idiot things"
sure there are exceptions but even there, you pick up a stupid book, you can stop reading it. you cant always just stop the tide of stupid tweets and at some level you just either have to put up with the stupidity or not use it at all.
and yet, here you are spending your oh-so-valuable time reading about it and commenting on it.
methinks your statement belies your true feelings.
the only thing that comes to mind after reading your post is
and thats why we had to kill daddy, he gave the mouse a cookie.
o.0
you do not have civil rights "as a musician".
there are no guarunteed rights as a musician just as there are no such rights in any field of employment.
your statement right there is the entire mess in a very neat and tidy nutshell: YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS TO EARN MONEY IN ANY SPECIFIC FIELD OF EMPLOYMENT. if your particular field has become unprofitable, find another one you can make money in...
....burger king looks like they are always hiring....
was that clear enough for you?
im betting here is what happened:
adelle- sony artist
shakira former sony artist that released an album with a song titled grande exitos
adelle + exitos = SonyIsAnAsshat