iLounge

21

becuase the majority of poeple in this community are very VERY passionate about music and the future of it as a product!

u may not give a s**t about how u buy and enjoy your music but a great deal of us do!

Posted by .::KIT::. on March 25, 2004 at 7:21 AM (PDT)

22

But why’s it so important to slag each other off and try and prove everyone wrong and be basically rude to each other all the time.

I never see a good word about anything on this site.

I’m just not feeling the love that apple promised me when I bought my ipod.

Posted by dipo on March 25, 2004 at 7:36 AM (PDT)

23

^ Theres a lot of love on this website, you just won’t find it in the threads debating file sharing.. things tend to get a bit heated..

Posted by Syph on March 25, 2004 at 9:02 AM (PDT)

24

You were promiced love with your ipod dipo???????

i was promiced a damn good music player which is what i got…....  :o)

you can’t buy love dipo…well….not from apple anyway…maybe on some dark street corner u can lol

Posted by .::KTI::. on March 25, 2004 at 9:44 AM (PDT)

25

Just to second “someguy”‘s statement above:

mu·sic (myzk) n.

1. The art of arranging sounds in time so as to produce a continuous, unified, and evocative composition, as through melody, harmony, rhythm, and timbre.
2. Vocal or instrumental sounds possessing a degree of melody, harmony, or rhythm.
3.
a. A musical composition.
b. The written or printed score for such a composition.
c. Such scores considered as a group: We keep our music in a stack near the piano.
4. A musical accompaniment.
5. A particular category or kind of music.
6. An aesthetically pleasing or harmonious sound or combination of sounds: the music of the wind in the pines.

Hmm, funny, I see neither the word “luxury” (see especially definition number 6) or the phrase “something that must be overpriced fivefold in order to line the pockets of rich executives that specialize in the destruction of creativity and free expression”.

Dictionaries are great.

Posted by Aaron on March 25, 2004 at 10:09 AM (PDT)

26

So for all the non-corporate butt kissers on this site, what are your ideas on changing the face of the corporate music industry?

Let’s get some ideas flowing.

Posted by Wolf on March 25, 2004 at 3:03 PM (PDT)

27

free exchange of ideas will always kill corporations.  So, how do you change the face of corporate music, keep downloading and supporting the artists DIRECTLY, through concerts, merchandise, etc.

Posted by dave on March 25, 2004 at 3:55 PM (PDT)

28

KTI you’re such a nobhead

Posted by Chicky on March 26, 2004 at 1:58 AM (PDT)

29

The term “luxury” is used to differentiate things that are not “neccesities.”

Have a car is a luxury.  Many people around the world cannot afford a car.  In fact even many people in the United States cannot afford a car.  They are not dying because they don’t have a car.

Food, Shelter, Clothing, etc. are neccessities.

All forms of entertainment are by definition luxuries.  This is even more true of the infinite forms of trivial entertainment which exists in the West.  In other words they are “nice to have” but there are many people who do not have them and still survive.

Some of you guys need to wake up and realize how spoiled you have become living in the West that you think you are “entitled” to free luxuries.

All people around the world have an intrinsic right to things that are not luxuries (ie neccessities)  That is why governments subsidize those that cannot pay for them.  If music is not a luxury, then should the government pay for music for the homeless?

Are you sending music to Third World nations so they won’t “die of music starvation?”

This is ridiculous.

Posted by Musulsa on March 26, 2004 at 12:13 PM (PDT)

30

Yeah KTI you’re the biggest ##### I ever came across.

Posted by KTI Hater on March 28, 2004 at 11:15 AM (PDT)

31

Music is a feel-good drug.  The RIAA are dealers who keep giving their product away over the airwaves and cable until they have consumers hooked.  Then they try to sell consumers the same thing over and over again at artificially inflated prices. 

They also manage to squeeze money from radio and cable for this distribution even though it is essentially advertising their product without cost.  In fact, every time anybody plays or shares music it is free advertising for RIAA labels.  In the real world advertising costs money.  This is the real world turned upside down.  This is what you call a free ride.

Copyright is a socialist concept that has been perverted beyond any usefulness it may have originally had.  Even that useless scrap, the Constitution, only allows copyright protection for a “limited” time for authors and inventors - not corporations, agents, family members, Disney or the highest bidder.

Intellectual property is an idiotic concept.  Once something is published it is de facto in the public domain - if its creator wishes it protected from copying then he may do so to the best of his ability - or he should just keep his intellectual property to himself.

Musicians are free to make all the money the market will pay them to play music.  To insist on retaining some sort of “ownership” and control of a recording that has been publicly sold and distributed is ludicrous - and inhibiting its distribution, free or otherwise, hurts the musician more than the public.  It should be enough that it be illegal for a third party to re-package and sell it as their own.

The abomination that is the copyright law of today does not promote the progress of science or the useful arts - indeed, it does exactly the opposite.  You can be assured that if the creators of music actually owned the copyright to their creations the RIAA with their corrupt political backers would see that the copyright protection was limited to a few months or perhaps just the initial press run.

Posted by alter-ergo on April 1, 2004 at 5:03 PM (PDT)

32

funnier tshirts are at shirtfreaks.com
http://www.shirtfreaks.com

Posted by Shirtfreaks.com on June 24, 2004 at 8:12 PM (PDT)