Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I agree with you about not placing all the blame on the women. I intended to say give both parties equal responsibility in about all areas. I think the bedroom shows the quality of the basis of the relationship. Also, I think that anything goes between the two in a relationship. Normally, women tend to be the naggers (which would be a complete turnoff). I wasn't trying to speak in absolutes. I suppose I'd like to see more sucess in relationships than what I've seen. Life is complicated as is...it would be nice to have a simple relationship where each person would be able to enjoy the other. Simplicity isn't negative but overlooked.

 

I, however, do enjoy a good philosophical dicussion from time to time. I probably wouldn't of even posted if I hadn't found this subject. I've had a good time. Too many ideas, though.

 

Personally, Matt and other famous personalities reap the rewards of being admired for their gifts, ect. I would think that fame would also isolate Matt. He can't just send a post about a bad day or what he received for Christmas or say he thinks we are all idiots...ISPs post enlightened us of some of his world, how he thinks, and how he thought it important to qualify his thoughts (if he really posted??? Or who did post). I think it would be hard to trust people...what are the fan's intents?) I ramble. I think it would be lonely in some aspects.

 

Obviously, I am a fan of his music. I like a sense of humour as well. Take Care, Christina

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, Matt and other famous personalities reap the rewards of being admired for their gifts, ect. I would think that fame would also isolate Matt. He can't just send a post about a bad day or what he received for Christmas or say he thinks we are all idiots...ISPs post enlightened us of some of his world, how he thinks, and how he thought it important to qualify his thoughts (if he really posted??? Or who did post). I think it would be hard to trust people...what are the fan's intents?) I ramble. I think it would be lonely in some aspects.

 

Obviously, I am a fan of his music. I like a sense of humour as well. Take Care, Christina

 

Yeah I think you're right. I reckon being famous (and/or wealthy) for anyone can be lonely in some respects, as I would have thought you could never know whether you can entirely trust people :( but then maybe they use their intuition.:) They must meet a lot of people in their line of work. Possibly they meet fans least. Not to say that fans don't have good intentions. Most do I think, but some people, I think, appear to just want a piece of them. Unfortunately that happens to anyone in the public eye. Muse appear pretty chilled about it all though, I think.:)

 

I don't think there's any question that it wasn't Matt who posted the ISP posts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah I think you're right. I reckon being famous (and/or wealthy) for anyone can be lonely in some respects, as I would have thought you could never know whether you can entirely trust people :( but then maybe they use their intuition.:) They must meet a lot of people in their line of work. Possibly they meet fans least. Not to say that fans don't have good intentions. Most do I think, but some people, I think, appear to just want a piece of them. Unfortunately that happens to anyone in the public eye. Muse appear pretty chilled about it all though, I think.:)

 

I don't think there's any question that it wasn't Matt who posted the ISP posts.

 

There's still shit loads of people out there on planet earth that don't know who they are, they can pretty much go about there business without too much hassles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah I think you're right. I reckon being famous (and/or wealthy) for anyone can be lonely in some respects, as I would have thought you could never know whether you can entirely trust people :( but then maybe they use their intuition.:) They must meet a lot of people in their line of work. Possibly they meet fans least. Not to say that fans don't have good intentions. Most do I think, but some people, I think, appear to just want a piece of them. Unfortunately that happens to anyone in the public eye. Muse appear pretty chilled about it all though, I think.:)

 

I don't think there's any question that it wasn't Matt who posted the ISP posts.

 

I have to agree with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know about you...you seem to have a good head on your shoulders, but I realize different things about myself. Sometimes, while talking about ISPs and others just interacting with other people. My downfall personally is that I think the best I can of others I meet. I then get hurt. But, I'd rather be hurt than a bitchy old woman in the future. I stepped out on a thin piece of ice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know about you...you seem to have a good head on your shoulders, but I realize different things about myself. Sometimes, while talking about ISPs and others just interacting with other people. My downfall personally is that I think the best I can of others I meet. I then get hurt. But, I'd rather be hurt than a bitchy old woman in the future. I stepped out on a thin piece of ice.

 

(hug):(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just came across this, written by Bono in his year/decade end "Ten for the Next Ten" OpEd in the NYT:

 

Intellectual Property Developers

 

Caution! The only thing protecting the movie and TV industries from the fate that has befallen music and indeed the newspaper business is the size of the files. The immutable laws of bandwidth tell us we’re just a few years away from being able to download an entire season of “24” in 24 seconds. Many will expect to get it free.

 

A decade’s worth of music file-sharing and swiping has made clear that the people it hurts are the creators — in this case, the young, fledgling songwriters who can’t live off ticket and T-shirt sales like the least sympathetic among us — and the people this reverse Robin Hooding benefits are rich service providers, whose swollen profits perfectly mirror the lost receipts of the music business.

 

We’re the post office, they tell us; who knows what’s in the brown-paper packages? But we know from America’s noble effort to stop child pornography, not to mention China’s ignoble effort to suppress online dissent, that it’s perfectly possible to track content. Perhaps movie moguls will succeed where musicians and their moguls have failed so far, and rally America to defend the most creative economy in the world, where music, film, TV and video games help to account for nearly 4 percent of gross domestic product. Note to self: Don’t get over-rewarded rock stars on this bully pulpit, or famous actors; find the next Cole Porter, if he/she hasn’t already left to write jingles.

(bold added by me)

 

 

So... coincidence? Or... who's influencing who? (who? whom? baah) ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just came across this, written by Bono in his year/decade end "Ten for the Next Ten" OpEd in the NYT:

 

 

(bold added by me)

 

 

So... coincidence? Or... who's influencing who? (who? whom? baah) ;)

 

It makes sense though. The FH make most of their money from the t-shirts they sell but they only get back a £1 profit on each one. They sell cds at £5 each but the minute it's out of your hands it's in the possession of someone who can copy it, upload it and send it.

For every cd they sell, there's 10 ppl who'll get it free.

So they rely on t-shirt sales. Which is still slim pickings.

Not all small bands can do t-shirt sales though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just came across this, written by Bono in his year/decade end "Ten for the Next Ten" OpEd in the NYT:

 

 

(bold added by me)

 

 

So... coincidence? Or... who's influencing who? (who? whom? baah) ;)

 

 

I read that this morning but I don’t understand the sense of some sentences and so, what he really wanted to say. It’s very controversial here because of differents interpretations. I prefer to wait a good french translation before thinking something about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i just read matts post and just thought....what??? :erm: all of that just went straight over my head so im just gonna nod politley :yesey:

also would anyone dare say to matt...this is in the wrong area of the forum? :LOL:

 

EDIT: now i actually read it a few times...i get matts point :chuckle: and in a way agree

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello, I somewhat amazed at the information and demographics used in your quote/bold additions. Firstly, agree that information can be tracked, documented, and put into some manilla file folder. I don't think there is too much privacy left for anyone in America. America has been known to being the "world's" self-conscience. We stick our noses into places in which we do not belong. I ask you, why should America solve this problem? Did anyone ask America to share their information and 'fix it'?

 

After saying that, there is a definite problem with the illegal downloads now in all artist/entertainment industries. This started all the way back in Americas history from clothing to cars. What choices are we able to influence? I've not been polled for what I would like my representative to suggest on Capital Hill?

 

For this subject, we must go to the central problem which includes personal morality and the Internet. The legislation needs to begin with each industry to fight/pursue the safety if their creations. Maybe, if the industries pool their resources, they can protect themselves and their artistic creations. I am all for protecting their art. I like cd's because I like the back-up if my computer fails. I don't copy them or share them. If someone illegally downloads music or videos, I think they should pay monetarily as a purchase. Are you asking the government to trace all illegal activity to an individuals home? Then what? I don't disagree that the government has the capability to track such actions? How far does it go? If the Internet had some legal boundries that would be ideal. Ideal world! Unfortunately, the artist's need to protect themselves the best way they can. I'm appauled by the profit margins that were stated. I will stand behind the artist's to protect themselves. We end up at the beginning of governmental powers, personal rights, and really how far do you want the government in your own home/family? How does YouTube affect the artists' rights? There is a beginning to protection from downloading videos/music? Technology growth increases illegal activities. I live here but would rather live across the pond...patents, copyrights, ect. were placed to protect artists'. These laws need to be updated. This is a tough subject....we have to go back to the Internet. That's where this problem began. Whose job to fix? In an ideal setting? Or reality? I am no for or against what you've stated. My personal opinions are personal...all I do is ask more questions. The car manufacturers' lost the battle. Do I want to sit idlely by, no! This is definitely a can of worms.

 

As to the other subject on Bono...it's not for us to judge...when we become perfect in all ways, then and only then, can we point a finger to judge someone else. I may not like things or situations, but how can judgement be passed on heart's intent/circumstances?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello, I somewhat amazed at the information and demographics used in your quote/bold additions.

just to be clear - I didn't add the text that's in bold, I just added the bold emphasis because that's the part that most reminded me of Matt's comments ;) The entire quote is from Bono and is part of a larger piece he wrote.

 

For what it's worth, I disagree with blaming the ISPs, I think they're just a convenient target. ISPs are there to provide a service, they shouldn't be held responsible for people abusing that service. I think all this blaming the ISPs is narrowminded on the part of Bono (and Matt) - it strikes me as though they see the use of bandwidth only in the context of how it impacts them and people in their line of work without quite realizing all the other (perfectly legal) uses of bandwidth that exist.

 

I pay my ISP to provide me with fast, reliable internet service, and they do - thats how and why they make their money.

 

IMO going after ISPs for "making money off of" musician's work is like going after breweries or automobile manufacturers for "making money off of" drunk driving deaths.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand your point. We have to go back to where the problem began. I also hold accountable YouTube as well as other companies. The car companies no longer exist, nor do they have any power to change their situation. Breweries such as Anheiser-Busch was just acquired by a foreign beverage company. Driving is a personal choice....that's where the morale of the individual comes into play. Who is going to become everyones' morale compass? There lies the second dimension.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the problem is that somewhere someone has to pay for it or else the creative industries risk becoming stagnated. I don't think it can really come down to blame and fault. Matt points out (looking back at his post) that TV companies have to pay copyright charges, so it's more about the fact that internet providers are avoiding costs that other industries have to pay.

 

The ISP idea isn't a perfect solution but it's not such an unfair one in that it appears to me to be similar to levying a tax on the profits of a rich capitalist industry in order to support the wider community. In the end this would filter down to the consumer, but hopefully with competition wouldn't be too drastic and could even level out.

 

I don't think the ideas put forward are narrow minded at all, just a different way of thinking and imo quite enlightening. I particularly like the idea that it could lead to the stripping out of the profiteering middle man, allowing artists the opportunity of direct access to the public with compensation for their work and also giving the public more accessibility to a range of different artistic contributions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the problem is that somewhere someone has to pay for it or else the creative industries risk becoming stagnated. I don't think it can really come down to blame and fault. Matt points out (looking back at his post) that TV companies have to pay copyright charges, so it's more about the fact that internet providers are avoiding costs that other industries have to pay.

 

The ISP idea isn't a perfect solution but it's not such an unfair one in that it appears to me to be similar to levying a tax on the profits of a rich capitalist industry in order to support the wider community. In the end this would filter down to the consumer, but hopefully with competition wouldn't be too drastic and could even level out.

 

I don't think the ideas put forward are narrow minded at all, just a different way of thinking and imo quite enlightening. I particularly like the idea that it could lead to the stripping out of the profiteering middle man, allowing artists the opportunity of direct access to the public with compensation for their work and also giving the public more accessibility to a range of different artistic contributions.

 

Stripping out the middle man is going to happen eventually. Record companies were there for bands to market and distribute. In the era of the Internet they don't need this as such. A small band can easily be publicised through itunes/7digital etc where there music is then directly available. Gone are the days were you'd have to go to a dingy back-alley music shop to find small unsigned artists CD's or attend pub shows. Times are changing and the record companies haven't kept up.

 

For pop acts however, I do still feel that this is where the labels suffer the most because the pop acts purely exist to make their signatories vast sums of money. Already there is a shift with the growth of X-Factor etc which is doing the traditional role of the label but on TV.

 

I think we will be moving into an era where the big credible bands with strong fan bases (Radiohead, Muse, Manics etc) will sell their music directly to their fans via their own websites for digital downloads and boxsets. I still imagine that a mass production of CD releases would require some sort of record company help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand your point. We have to go back to where the problem began. I also hold accountable YouTube as well as other companies. The car companies no longer exist, nor do they have any power to change their situation. Breweries such as Anheiser-Busch was just acquired by a foreign beverage company. Driving is a personal choice....that's where the morale of the individual comes into play. Who is going to become everyones' morale compass? There lies the second dimension.

Driving drunk is a choice, granted one that's been affected by the alcohol, and so is downloading things illegally. No one is forcing anyone to take part in the illegal stuff, you can buy from iTunes, watch shows on Hulu... etc.

 

IMO the real way to solve the problem isn't to go after the profits of a loosely related industry or sue a few random users, it's to change the system so that it's easier to get the money from the consumer to the musician (which can result in lower prices for consumers that still end up in bigger profits for the musicians) And you also need to change the proverbial "hearts and minds" - no one is "entitled" to free access to someone else's music...

 

 

.... of course that's all very vague and easier said than done ;)

 

I think the problem is that somewhere someone has to pay for it or else the creative industries risk becoming stagnated. I don't think it can really come down to blame and fault. Matt points out (looking back at his post) that TV companies have to pay copyright charges, so it's more about the fact that internet providers are avoiding costs that other industries have to pay.

 

The ISP idea isn't a perfect solution but it's not such an unfair one in that it appears to me to be similar to levying a tax on the profits of a rich capitalist industry in order to support the wider community. In the end this would filter down to the consumer, but hopefully with competition wouldn't be too drastic and could even level out.

 

I don't think the ideas put forward are narrow minded at all, just a different way of thinking and imo quite enlightening. I particularly like the idea that it could lead to the stripping out of the profiteering middle man, allowing artists the opportunity of direct access to the public with compensation for their work and also giving the public more accessibility to a range of different artistic contributions.

I was looking at the Bono quote:

 

"and the people this reverse Robin Hooding benefits are rich service providers, whose swollen profits perfectly mirror the lost receipts of the music business."

 

He is saying here that the ISPs are getting rich off the backs of the music industry, describing the ISPs profits as "mirroring" the lost revenue of the musicians. This sounds to me like he's claiming that the ISPs are making their money by trafficking in illegal music and as such should have to turn at least a portion of those profits over to the musicians - thus ignoring the fact that the money made by the ISP is due to them providing a service that has a thousand uses, only one of which is the illegal download of copyrighted material.

 

This is what I mean when I say it's a narrow view - they're musicians, so understandibly they're going to see the situation through their worldview, and to them, high speed internet = high speed illegal downloads of their stuff. But to me, high speed internet = better access to the database and servers I use for my research. To someone else it might mean better gaming or better video chats with their grandchildren.

 

The ISPs aren't providing an illegal service, nor are they providing a service that is exclusively linked to illegal downloads/bootlegging. They are providing a useful, multi-purpose service that some people are using illegally. Punishing them is "shooting the messenger" and in the end is likely to hurt people who are using their bandwidth for perfectly legal reasons.

 

With the copyright fee idea, I think the ISP is still the wrong one to go after. As far as I know (here in the US, at least) the cable/satellite company doesn't have to pay fees because they provide access to networks that air a particular TV show, it's the network broadcasting the show that pays the fees. With the internet, it's the websites that provide the streaming/downloads that are the equivalent of the TV or radio stations - they're the broadcasters, not the ISPs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe the websites should pay the copyright fees then but I can't see exactly how that could be organised as I assume websites that allow illegal downloading are illegal in the first place, the only result available being to close down the websites, which means there wouldn't be any progress.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe the websites should pay the copyright fees then but I can't see exactly how that could be organised as I assume websites that allow illegal downloading are illegal in the first place, the only result available being to close down the websites, which means there wouldn't be any progress.

Yeah, and close down one website and a dozen more will crop up in its place. I'd say that's why the problem is still here 10yrs after the Napster controversy and why it continues to grow - because the solution is not simple and tracking who is responsible/who needs to pay isn't simple.

 

I don't think we should let the fact that the ISPs are a nice easy to visualize target be an excuse for going after them for something they aren't responsible for - just because they have a lot of money and a tangential connection to the problem doesn't mean they should bear the responsibility or cost.

 

The internet doesn't work like TV, radio and movie theaters, it's the the square peg to the systems round hole - we can bash and bash and bash, it's never going to fit through. The solution, whatever it may be, will likely not be a matter of making a simple change to the existing system, it'll have to be a massive overhaul of the system, if not an outright replacement of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There won't be one here either. Its quite sad really.

 

All the time you have people like me who will BUY the cd, there will be 100 people out there who would rather get it for free off the net.

The only consolation is that if their pc/mac goes tits up they lose it and have to download it again. Unlike people that buy the cd and have it for as long as the cd lasts.

 

The main issue is that little bands are struggling because there is no support for them here.

I have a friend who gigs in Iceland and she says the attitude over there is different. All art forms are supported. I don't know the details on it though, someone who lives there could maybe shed some light on that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...