It was just a little joke I made with myself...my friends often call me a communist. I'm not...really. Actually, yeah, I'd vote for Gore over W ANYDAY. |
Garfish, First, I've never pretended to know what you like or don't like. Second, If you don't like what I'm saying there there are about 1500 other threads that you can read. |
An eloquent response. It is indeed a complex issue. My personal opinion (and it changes weekly) is that most people assume that artists act out of profit motive and are therefore inspired to create-- Take away their control and they will be less inclined to produce. All of the artists that I know, including myself, do not act out of a profit based motive, but rather a basic need to be creative. This is the essence of being an artist. The artist creates for the greater good. Thus, I think the control of artistic products is less an issue of the artist and more an issue of the industry that has built up around the artists. I think a real argument can be made that rampant capitalism has in fact degraded music, suppressing that which is less "marketable" and promoting the tastes of the "masses." It has created an appetite for the mediocre. Certainly, artists do need to be able to make a living, but do they and their record lables need millions upon millions? I don't cry for the likes of Metallica...certainly some of the profit oriented folks may drop out, but I don't think that it is necessarily a bad thing if we trim off some of the pork at this point in time. And start with N'Sync. |
Hmmm. I never thought of myself as a thief before. But maybe I'm wrong there. You obviously take the hardline capitalist viewpoint that all art is also a commodity and therefore should be regulated. I agree to maintaining an artists right to make money on his art should he wish. There is also a point to which the urge to control and make money begins to affect the quantity and diversity of non commercial art. No doubt that something created to reflect a person's/group's perspective and a product meant to appeal to masses of people will probably look very different. Just look at Hollywood, every film with the same proven formula. Not by chance for sure. Thus there is a need for a forum to give wider access to music and art, beyond the control of labels, corporations, etc. The internet is this media. To control Napster would set a precedent to control all the Internet, turning it into one giant business forum. The answer is somewhere in between. But surely you must see that there is more to the question than just "property rights." If not, oh well...By the way, it's not illegal to use Napster...so I'm not a thief yet. |
Problem: Artist rights are infringed upon by unscrupulous internet users. Solution: Establish a powerful legal precedent that, may or may not actually be addressing the acutal problem, but will certainly aid those with enough money and connections to determine who can and cannot operate on the world's most extensive, soon to be most ubiqitous international information network. Analogy: Hey, that tree is on fire! Let's burn down the entire forest before it spreads to our top secret national laboratory. By the way, who left the highly classified disc drive behind the copier? |
P.S. ---Carl, re: my guy getting elected. My guy doesn't need to get elected...he's outlasted every President since Kennedy. Heh, heh, heh. (JK) |
Mr. grid_lock: I too find no sense in the "fair use" arguement. I completely agree that as the rules are now written (even more so today than yesterday), using Napster is against the rules. However, I'm arguing a more fundamental point. The rules, the large majority of which are written by people protecting their bank accounts, need to be changed altogether. Complete revamp. It's a philosophical point. You can argue that it isn't practical or that "that's the way it is in America so suck it up", I can respect that though I may disagree. I do not understand people who cannot see the larger picture however. I will continue to applaud any effort to resist the rulemakers when their rules are to the detriment of our society. Certainly, the alternatives are not clear, but they will become so as we progress. |
I guess the point I'm trying to make is this: with Napster we are at a sort of crossroads. A)We protect the rights of the artists (but are we really doing this or are we really protecting the rights of huge corporations masquerading as artists?) or B) We protect the sanctity of a free internet. We simply can't have it both ways. So which "right" takes precedent? With this ruling, there is a precedent being set that will assist other companies in their efforts to stake their claims to the internet in the future. Our entire system of law in America operates precedent. And America right rules the net. This will become even more complex as other countries join in. I know we call people who talk this way dark prophets, but look at the evidence. What's next...western pharmaceutical companies claiming that makers of traditional medicines in India have no right to sell on the internet because they're infringing on their patents? Nope, that was last year. |
|
I grew up, at least partly in northern georgia, my grandparents had a house in Macon county, near the line with North Carolina, in the mountains. I spent my childhood in the mountains there, working in Highlands north carolina, if you know where that is. Re: Napster--glad your having fun with it. Apparently your living life in a faster lane than I (I'm still dealing with a 56k modem). I've not burned any CD's as I don't own a burner. How did it turn out? |
First, I'm pretty impressed with the quality of the posts here...most of them anyway. I think we agree on more than we disagree on. Secondly, I want to be clear that, as I use a modem for downloads-- taking years per song, I certainly do not avail myself of Napster all that often. Thus,with the demise of Napster, it's not the loss of free music that I lament so much as the further empowering of corporate domination of music, art, films..etc. Clearly art and music will survive, but commercialization has had and will have inevitable detrimental ramnifications for American culture (and don't even tell me that there are no ramnifications) which will in turn influence the popular arts. A downward spiral. We all agree that taking advantage of an artist's work without his consent is incorrect and wrong. So how do we solve the problem? If it goes before a court, it is a case of yes or no. However, the third option would have been not to hear the case at all. Find a solution outside the courts. Clearly, the music industry has not taken advantage of technologies available to prevent this phenonmenon. There are many, many answers. Why? In fact, the most drastic solution is to establish a precedent of regulating the internet. Why do this? Because, there is clearly more at stake and they want to sew up the issue now, while it's still early. So the questions regarding Napster are not unrelated, just a subset of much larger long term issues. Overall, I think we agree on the problems, it's the solutions that we are in disagreement about. |
Jeeeez Carl, You do that too well, hmmm. So your a communist too?I think this one might need another thread. |
OK, to intentionally digress now that it seems everyone is finished with Napster, and to pick up the glove that Carl threw down (albeit I find his tone suspect). That communism is a great theory, but perhaps not practical or workable in todays world is admitted. But Actually, the closest thing that we have to true Marxism today are large multinational corporations--pay grades, group health insurance, even the big brother cubicle. (Isn't it ironic that we tried to escape it all these years and ended up nuturing it at our own bosom?) Socialism on the other hand, is not a downhill slide to authoritarianism, I don't know where you got that. That's not only borne out in history, but in modern geo-politics. Yes, America is full of men who will fight for their freedoms and will receive them. However, freedom is just the beginning of the line, not the end. It's what you do with that freedom and how it benefits you and your fellow man that counts. And I think you'll agree that holding too closely to the concept of my liberty can forge chains as strong as any. Now, a well defined awareness of individual liberty when paired with two things that all Americans, like it or not, are inculcated with, social darwinistic thought (as evidenced in Manifest Destiny) and free market capitalism, we have a situation where a)people are keenly aware of "personal liberty"; b)are convinced that a failure to acquire what they percieve as their freedoms will result in utter extinction and, on the other hand, feel justified when they do get what they "need" at the expense of others ; c)have the means to acquire these things if they are hard working, smart and clever enough. Basically, this combination has resulted in a nation of extreme wealth, little collective conciousness or conscience (america consumes far far more than its porportional share of resources), (in my opinion)a largely miserable society (as evidence in our incredibly high crime rates, suicide rates, incidence of psychological disturbance..etc. America is not alone, those societies that hold dearly to these same tenents (and they are mostly western)develop ramant drug use and crime, suicide rates climb, etc. etc. Now where I used to live, in West Africa, you had perhaps the poorest people on the face of this planet, that while they had problems to be sure, they did not have the types of problems that we have...societal psychological problems. What struck me after returning to America after living in Africa for almost half a decade, was how happy people were there and how unhappy and dissatisfied people are here. It all comes down to this: We are masters of creating "need" in America. We always need more-- better cables, more output, deeper bias.. perhaps we will even go to the extreme and PURCHASE A KRELL AMPLIFIER (sorry). At any rate, the thing is we need more and feel dissatisfied when we do not have it. IT IS OUR RIGHT, THE WAY OF NATURE. That my friend is poverty. Poverty is not the actual need. It is the PERCEIVED need. And thus, my friends, due to the over-emphasis on these tenents, we have ironically become one of the most impoverished countries in the world today. That being said, I do not believe two of the three tenents are wrong, social darwinism however I do not ascribe to. Capitalism and Democracy however, yes, are very dear, very powerful and, while they are not an end in themselves, very legitimate TOOLS. But we must use them wisely. Somewhere along the line, we will realize that the situations where we gave up (though did not deny) some of our freedom, some of our rights, went against our instinct and tempered our desires, resulted in the most abundant outcomes ever experienced. Aren't those in fact the most blissful moments in life? Budda had it right...The way is in the middle. So the answer? Not communism. Not capitalism. Somewhere in between. Socialism? Perhaps. So yes, my position has been revealed. I stand naked before you. Avert your eyes if you wish. --And if you bring this back to audio, the lesson here is we CAN BE (but will we be?) all be happy with an old pair of Vandersteens, A dyna-st 70 and some Esoteric cables. I'm preachin...are you believin? |
Garfish, Perceived need includes needs that are both real AND needs that are completely mental. It is an expansion of the definition of need, not a total redefinition. And yes, what you see on CNN is no way representative of the majority of Africa, just as what you see on CNN is no way representative of the majority of America. I'd just like to say thank God someone in the federal court system does see the bigger picture. |
First, Adam Smith did NOT sign the constitution of the United States and our country is NOT based on freemarket capitalism, and our forefathers who were escaping intolerance in Europe certainly would NOT have advocated Social Darwinism lest they be damning themselves. These tenents were adopted outside the constitution. Second, You're right when you say that we liberals are the ones who are unhappy. By very definition "liberal" means open....open to many different perspectives-(it's a natural evolution of human thought when you are faced with the complexity of the universe. One man or culture cannot know about everything...so there must be other people with other perspectives who are right too. At least we are open to that possibility.) But we don't call ourselves liberals. It is only after one begins to act on this assumption that you are automatically slapped with this appelation. Why are we unhappy? Certainly not out of a desire to equalize outcomes or wealth. That would dictate that a belief that more wealth or more things equals greater happiness and capitalism has show great dexterity in that relm. So why? Simple. WHILE WEALTH AND POWER DO PLAY A PART, WE ULTIMATELY HOPE FOR DIGNITY AND HUMANITY FOR ALL PEOPLE. MOREOVER, WE VIEW OUR PRINCIPAL SOCIAL TENENTS AS THEY ARE HELD AND PRACTICED TODAY AS BEING INEFFECTUAL IN THIS PURSUIT AND, TO THE CONTRARY, ARE INCREASINGLY BEING MANIPULATED BY POWERFUL PEOPLE WHO DICTATE THE RULES OF THE GAME, SUCH AS THE MUSIC INDUSTRY. As Garfish pointed out all societies have their problems and I'll admit that Americans are not necessarily worse off than Africans-surely Africa has many points that it needs to develop. Both cultures have their advantages. But what I DO WANT to say is that if you think that America is fully developed in the broadest sense of the word, THINK AGAIN. Development is not a one way street...and technology is often mistaken for development. |
Am I buggin you?....don't mean to bug ya. |
Treyhoss, first of all, If you were playing Sherlock Holmes you would have traced the past 54 posts back to the first one and discovered (brilliantly) who is the moderator of this thread. And because I posted the original statement, I can lead the discussion in any direction I please. Secondly, if you were a handy Sherlock Holmes you would have taken time to read all the subsequent posts, and noticed a couple of things...JK means Just Kidding, which would indicate a friendly jest on my part to get the juices flowing. It worked sure enough, however, everyone here is so busy being offended to the core they couldn't possibly pick up the elements of humor in my posts, say nothing about present a calm reponse. Thirdly, having read all the subsequent post you would have been able traced the line of thought to the present topic so you don't appear like a mental troll. But you might consider retiring your badge altogther Sherlock, because every single one of your assumptions was wrong. DEAD WRONG. PARTICULARLY THE ONE ABOUT NO ONE READING MY WRITING BECAUSE YOU DID. Let me give you a clue, when you have no concrete evidence to go on don't make accusations. I won't spend any more time boring you with the details of how wrong you are because your present post makes clear your inability to reflect on anything outside your own realm of experience. While I'm schooling you, I'll tell you another thing. This is a discussion forum. Discussion usually involves several points of view. If you can handle different perspective and stand upright (the callouses on your knuckles will soon disappera) and discuss things rationally. If you can't handle points of view different than your own, than join the church of Eber in another thread. I had previously thought this to be a discussion forum full of intelligent gentlemen willing to sanely discuss differing points of view. But all this whining and blithering and "go away, dummy" has changed my opinion altogether. You all are behaving like a pack of skittish poodles. |
No, I've found that it's not very good quality at all, with alot of the longer pieces cut off unnaturally. And unless your using a T1 or DSL service, it's laboriously slow. However, it will allow you to get into some music that previously you might not have been inclined listen to or to purchase. Then of course you can purchase the music that you really do like on CD or vinyl. Some of the stuff that I was not familiar with previously was stuff from Ali Farka Toure, Fela and Femi Kuti, and a bunch of Brazilian from Joao Gilberto and Stan Getz and Cuban stuff and believe it or not David Brubeck. Also, I'd not been really heavily into classical, but used the thread in Best of Audio "most achingly beautiful music" downloaded some of it and really enjoyed it particularly the the adagios. However, unless technology signficiantly progresses, the MP3 will not be a mainstay for audiophiles for quite some time. I've thought about getting into vinyl, but it strikes me as extremely expensive and lots more parts to tweak to bring the system. Is it really worth all the extra effort and expense? |
I don't know if I'm that type of person. While I love great sound, I find myself easily distracted by a noisy tube or a scratched cd. I don't know anyone with a good turntable, but I was thinking of just getting a old thorens off ebay and taking a listen. That way, I won't spend too much cash and can hear what everyone is talking about. Sure, I'd love to drop in and take a listen and since I'm from the southeast I go there often to visit the fam. The invitation is reciprical if your in Washington DC However, my system isn't all that yet. But maybe you could help me tweak it to sound better. |
