| Author
|
Russian site has ripped Cytopia.org tracks
|
UnderTow
Started Topics :
9
Posts :
1448
Posted : Jul 18, 2007 23:40
|
PS: I think that a truely corrupt financial system has to be maintained by force or at some point it will collapse.
I remember when the Enron guys came to our offices to try and sell their stuff (The telco bandwidth "open exchange" thing or whatever it was called. I spent a couple of hours with the guys trying to understand where the profit for Enron was coming from. It just didn't make any sense. I couldn't figure it out and the Enron guys couldn't seem to explain it to me.
Of course not. The whole thing was bullshit. Enron collapsed...
These schemes come and go but they don't last because they just don't work. Systems that stand by themselves need to be relatively beneficial to a large number of people or they don't survive in the long run IMO.
UnderTow
|
|
|
faxinadu
Faxi Nadu / Elmooht
Started Topics :
282
Posts :
3394
Posted : Jul 18, 2007 23:58
|
|
Spindrift
Spindrift
Started Topics :
33
Posts :
1560
Posted : Jul 19, 2007 00:03
|
Quote:
|
On 2007-07-18 23:16, UnderTow wrote
Of course because copying wasn't possible before.
|
|
You could copy and reproduce peoples ideas as long as people been having ideas.
It's been getting easier and easier...but just like one could make cassette copies before the internet one could copy handwritten notation or perform a composers work before note the printing presses.
Quote:
|
That is why there are distinctions between the copyright of the music (the notes) and the performance and mechanical rights etc.
|
|
Well basically what I'm saying is that I don't think one should be able to own rights for neither a waveform or a series of notes, regardless of what kind of rights you would attribute those to.
That's the technicalities I mentioned, but the underlying concept is the same.
Quote:
|
Here I don't really agree. I don't see why it should be free unless the artists decides it should be free. Why do the people taking suddenly have all the rights over the people it is taken from? |
|
First of all I don't see it as something taken from someone.
If I download one of your tracks and enjoy it, have I really been taking something?
I have hard to see it that way.
And it's not that easy as to say that if I think I should get paid I have the right to do so.
If I think that anyone that happen to hear my music should pay me <dr evil voice>$100 000</dr evil voice>, does that make it right or a fact?
As an artists you already have to confirm to a certain framework for how, when and what you can demand.
I don't agree with the ideas behind that framework, and I don't think that it would work that every artist could dictate freely how their material should be handled.
Quote:
|
Why is it so bizarre? If those notes would not have come into existence without that person coming up with that sequence, that person has created value where there wasn't. Why not recognise that value?
But it isn't just the notes. Especially in Psytrance. 
|
|
Sure, in psytrance a lot of the points I've been making can be a bit far fetched.
I don't think people humming my trance tracks in front of the camp fire will ever be much of an issue
But I have been working on other types of music as well and the principle is still relevant I feel.
And I think that in effect patenting certian waveforms or note sequences is stifling for the collective creativity.
I don't like the idea that composers will sit and worry about if they will get sued for making something too similar to something they might not never even have heard.
I also write software and is against software patents for the same reasons.
They are bad for creativity and stifles development.
Quote:
|
Well I think we can have a huge debate about what is and isn't art but IMO that isn't the point. I would say that it is up to the artist to decide whether they want to share or not. Again, why do the takers suddenly have some claim on something that they did nothing to create in the first place?
The artist sets a value to their art and people either agree with this and pay for it or not. Seems quite simple.
|
|
Like I said, that's IMO.
But I really don't understand how you can create art without the motivation of sharing something...but I'm sure other artists feel otherwise.
Quote:
|
I know. But again, this isn't really the point. I think the one that creates the art/content/whatever should be able to decide what price to set on it and the market can decide whether they agree with it or not.
|
|
Again, that's actually not how it works today.
You can't really decide how much and under what circumstances people should have to pay.
Quote:
|
Only because they can get of for free in this broken market. If they couldn't I'm sure more CDs would be sold. People really were paying for the music. Not the media. (Or any old CD would do which obviously isn't true). |
|
How much of the cost of a CD is the actual music?
The business model is a rip-off for both consumer and artist and people know it.
And I'm not sure if people didn't pay mostly to get the music distributed to them since that was the way they could get it before and not actually to fund the artist.
That distribution model is not the most convenient any more and hence it not much of a market for it.
Quote:
|
From a business perspective you are right but I wouldn't say that this is really a market economy. It would be a market economy if there were no illegal copies of the music available.
Not that that helps much if you run a label or a music store...
UnderTow
|
|
If the governments would manage to stop filesharing because music industry lobbyists make them do so to sell their CD's, is that market economy?
The industry has to find a way to make business with their product in spite of it being possible to hear music on the internet if it would be anything close to my idea of market economy.
If that's not possible we have no more music industry and the owners have to focus on their main business like selling weapons instead.
The reason people have special concerns about the music industry is that some think that without it no music.
Personally I do not share that concern at all.
 (``·.¸(``·.¸(``·.¸¸.·`´)¸.·`´)¸.·`´)
« .....www.ResonantEarth.com..... »
(¸.·`´(¸.·`´(¸.·`´``·.¸)``·.¸)``·.¸)
http://www.myspace.com/spindriftsounds
http://www.myspace.com/resonantearth |
|
|
|
Spindrift
Spindrift
Started Topics :
33
Posts :
1560
Posted : Jul 19, 2007 00:06
|
Quote:
|
On 2007-07-18 23:27, UnderTow wrote:
Actually I think that allot of the financial systems are more or less well intended. Sure there is abuse and sure people will try and design and bend the system to their advantage but saying that there is a big plot by a few cunning men (and women) to rob the poor of their hard earned money is just as much living in lala land as believing that everything is all nice and shanti.
UnderTow
|
|
I'll be interested to know why you think that pretty much all nations, companies as well individual is in debt that they are paying interest on?
Who do they owe that money and why?
(``·.¸(``·.¸(``·.¸¸.·`´)¸.·`´)¸.·`´)
« .....www.ResonantEarth.com..... »
(¸.·`´(¸.·`´(¸.·`´``·.¸)``·.¸)``·.¸)
http://www.myspace.com/spindriftsounds
http://www.myspace.com/resonantearth |
|
|
|
UnderTow
Started Topics :
9
Posts :
1448
Posted : Jul 19, 2007 00:41
|
Quote:
|
On 2007-07-19 00:06, Spindrift wrote:
I'll be interested to know why you think that pretty much all nations, companies as well individual is in debt that they are paying interest on?
|
|
Because it is possible. That in itself isn't a bad thing. You want to do something, you don't have the money now but you will have it later, so you borrow now, do whatever you want to do and repay the money back later. The interest is payment for the service provided by whoever loaned you the money. Everyone benefits.
This is a good thing! This enables people to do things that they couldn't otherwise (like start businesses, buy houses, pay an unexpected big bill for which they don't have the money directly available etc etc).
The fact that allot of people borrow money beyond their means doesn't mean that the system is bad. It just means that some (or allot) people can't control themselves and abuse the system.
Don't blame the system. Blame the people that can't control themselves.
Quote:
|
Who do they owe that money and why?
|
|
All sorts of entities from individual people to nations. Why? Because they wanted to do something now which they didn't have the means for yet. This in itself isn't a problem.
The reality of things is that there is allot of unused potential value. (Anything of value that isn't actively producing more value) The money system and loans etc means that this money can actually be used. This is an enabling thing.
It would not be better if people kept their cash (or carrots if you dispense with money) under their cushions because that money wouldn't be productive in any way. There is always rest value (change). That rest value is being put to use and people are being paid for providing the enabling service.
Is the system perfect? No. Are banks charging too much for too many things? Sure. Can it all be improved? Most probably but that doesn't mean that financial systems and loans as such are bad things.
I'll back to you on the other post tomorrow.
UnderTow |
|
|
|
cytopia
Cytopia.org
Started Topics :
61
Posts :
329
Posted : Jul 19, 2007 00:49
|
Finally a coherent discussion with valid points
I peronally think the problem with money is people, and not money itself. It could be a good system if it was not abused.
It's very hard to think of a system that can not be abused.
In the end its up to the integrity of the individual and their sense of conscience to make the right choices. There is this naive conspiracy attitude that money was invented to enslave all of us, all companies are bad and goverments too. They are all people, alot good, some bad and all humans.
I dont think anyone should own a tune.
I do however think I should keep the rights to music as a good or service -the particular tracks I made- I wrote them, bought equipment to make it on, and paid to have it mastered.
In such a case its quite natural for me to have some rights to choose to give or sell it. I choose to do both, and hope I earn enough to PAY for the lovely tools I used to make the music which are very expensive, but probably took alot of effort to program.
I used to hear that the IMF and World Bank lent money to South America at super high interest rates and the people there are poor because they cannot pay it off. Recently I heard this is not the case, that it is infact the private American banks that chose to do this to make alot of money.
So it was a choice of a company, a bank
-because their highest goal is money instead of the wellbeing of the people of that region.
The World Bank -as I just learned- lends money to South American goverments to buy informational products and services for all thier schools and unversities.
These low interest long term loans allow the countries to get books and online databases that link to all the scientific journals online (Scopus, Science Direct, Web of Knowledge). (I work at Scopus.com that where I heard this)
This means a different choice was made using the same system.
Its not the system, its the goals of the people using the system.
Cytopia.org is a good thing and we want to support creative people and help them earn some income from their tracks, so that can in turn can be used in a positive creative way. The goal is not profit maximization or ownership of the tune.
Cytopia.org
Psychedelic & Progressive Downloads
Mp3 / WAV CD Quality Downloads
Full Streamed Previews |
|
|
|
shamantrixx
Started Topics :
7
Posts :
549
Posted : Jul 19, 2007 01:14
|
@ Undertow: I was wondering where you are? I don't feel complete without reading your mile long posts with such a desperate desire to insult me in any possible way. I really hope that you get paid for that otherwise you'll end up in hospital having a heart attack of psychotic brake down 
I was having doubts before but now it's obvious that you indeed have a sort of duty on this forum, isn't it? Establishing already existing establishment and defending the on going system like your life depends on that defense No wonder you get all anxious and write mile long posts full of cheap insults and constant effort to discredit others. Always trying to leave an impression... I bet that you ware told from the birth that you're a natural born leader. You are one of those who are chosen to guide the rest of us mentally retarded rednecks from the bottom of the hill.
Knowing that you actually defend ongoing dogma and world order it would be complete waste of time to argue with you. Watch out not to walk under the ladders because it brings bad luck... and say hello to Jacob 
"It occurred to me by intuition, and music was the driving force behind that intuition. My discovery was the result of musical perception"
Albert Einstein, speaking about his theory of relativity |
|
|
|
UnderTow
Started Topics :
9
Posts :
1448
Posted : Jul 19, 2007 01:23
|
Shamantrixx, You are not paying attention. I am not responding to everyone in the same manner.
Why don't you go and ponder that until you figure it out. That should give us all a nice breather.
UnderTow |
|
|
|
Spindrift
Spindrift
Started Topics :
33
Posts :
1560
Posted : Jul 19, 2007 02:39
|
Quote:
|
On 2007-07-19 00:41, UnderTow wrote:
Because it is possible. That in itself isn't a bad thing. You want to do something, you don't have the money now but you will have it later, so you borrow now, do whatever you want to do and repay the money back later. The interest is payment for the service provided by whoever loaned you the money. Everyone benefits. |
|
So if for example the IMF, federal reserve and Bank of England, which all is entities run by private interests restricts the amount of money available to make you lend money from them that they don't even have everyone benefits?
That's how it works.
They are private and they control how much money is available.
It all seems peachy how you describe it, but it's not a service you can choose or not.
You have to pay tax, from which a large slice goes to the bankers.
On everything you buy you have to pay for the companies debts.
As part of your rent you have to pay for your landlords debts.
Sure you might have taken a loan yourself, in which case it's you who chose to make that deal.
But why did you have to lend?
Because you have a privately controlled supply of money, and by keeping it restricted enough the same people who controls federal reserve and BoE can offer to lend you money that they don't even have.
But it would be nice to just see a peachy reality where it's nothing strange about the fact almost every nation, company and individual is owning money and constantly paying interest to a few bankers.
To me it's a pretty obvious case that the system we have is clearly corrupted and flawed and far from being of benefit for the public.
Quote:
|
Don't blame the system. Blame the people that can't control themselves.
|
|
I don't have any loans, and still I pay a lot of money to the bankers all the time?
Who should I blame for that again?
Quote:
|
All sorts of entities from individual people to nations. Why? Because they wanted to do something now which they didn't have the means for yet. This in itself isn't a problem.
|
|
You really should look into how a lot of the national debts has been created.
For example, who funded both the Germans, English and Americans during WW2?
It was very profitable for those who did, but did it really benefit you and me that all sides could produce a lot of weapons and that we have to pay not only the bill but the interest for that bill?
I wouldn't say so, and a system where people rake massive profits from that kind of destruction has a major problem.
There will be powerful forces working for those kind of events to happen and be as drawn out as possible.
Ok...if you don't think conspiracies exists it's not a concern.
I wish I could have that peachy outlook on world affairs.
Maybe Bush is still in Iraq because they are trying to find WMD's and to revenge Saddams involvement in 911?
Quote:
|
cytopia wrote:
I used to hear that the IMF and World Bank lent money to South America at super high interest rates and the people there are poor because they cannot pay it off. Recently I heard this is not the case, that it is infact the private American banks that chose to do this to make alot of money.
So it was a choice of a company, a bank
-because their highest goal is money instead of the wellbeing of the people of that region. |
|
IMF is private as well.
I don't know what you think their goals are...well being of the people?
It's the same people that run the big banks in America, but maybe when acting as the IMF they are bankers who don't care about profit?
That would be an interesting theory to say the least.
(``·.¸(``·.¸(``·.¸¸.·`´)¸.·`´)¸.·`´)
« .....www.ResonantEarth.com..... »
(¸.·`´(¸.·`´(¸.·`´``·.¸)``·.¸)``·.¸)
http://www.myspace.com/spindriftsounds
http://www.myspace.com/resonantearth |
|
|
|
Inner Demon
Started Topics :
6
Posts :
321
Posted : Jul 19, 2007 02:59
|
Quote:
|
On 2007-07-19 01:14, shamantrixx wrote:
@ Undertow: I was wondering where you are? I don't feel complete without reading your mile long posts with such a desperate desire to insult me in any possible way. I really hope that you get paid for that otherwise you'll end up in hospital having a heart attack of psychotic brake down
I was having doubts before but now it's obvious that you indeed have a sort of duty on this forum, isn't it? Establishing already existing establishment and defending the on going system like your life depends on that defense No wonder you get all anxious and write mile long posts full of cheap insults and constant effort to discredit others. Always trying to leave an impression... I bet that you ware told from the birth that you're a natural born leader. You are one of those who are chosen to guide the rest of us mentally retarded rednecks from the bottom of the hill.
Knowing that you actually defend ongoing dogma and world order it would be complete waste of time to argue with you. Watch out not to walk under the ladders because it brings bad luck... and say hello to Jacob
|
|
Well that was a cheap insult if I saw one, Shamantrixx. Don't put on others what you can't handle yourself.
That insult was also the words of someone who's seemingly endless supply of nutty views and strange arguments has dried up.
Undertow took you apart, Shamantrixx. And he did it good. Everything I wanted to say and more.
Quote:
|
I was having doubts before but now it's obvious that you indeed have a sort of duty on this forum, isn't it?
|
|
Well if Undertow has a duty on this forum that would be to straighten up people like you so that innocent forum visitors don't get confused by you spreading your braindead theories. Who knows, maybe they'd get a 'heart attack of psychotic brake down'. Whatever that is I don't want it.
I'm offended by the fact that you blatantly didn't bother to try and understand a single thing I said in my previous post, and in your obvious eagerness to just oppose instead posted the most far out thing I've heard in a long time.
Quote:
|
Your system doesn't work Shamantrixx unless it takes on more and more aspects of modern financial systems. That is exactly what has happened over the ages because IT IS A BETTER SYSTEM THAN JUST TRADING GOODS FOR GOODS!
|
|
Its funny when you ask people to describe their 'perfect world' they often end up describing pretty much what we have in generak terms, there's just too much fuss on the surface to see it that way.
The way deep structures have developed over long periods of time is nothing short of beautiful.
The point is that nobody's in charge. People seem to think that economies are constructed. They are a construct, yes, but they were not constructed in a planned, devised sense. It grew out of need and convenience...and changes like an organism.
Many people also associate borrowing (micro level) with negative feelings (maybe because of personal debt) and thus seems to think borrowing in general is bad somehow. Hell, borrowing IS the economy, it is the wheels on the car.... please show me how anything at all can develop in an economy that has no lending of money? That's right, it doesn't make any sense at all. Without borrowing, we'd have nothing. What do you prefer? Nobody said it was fair.
Quote:
|
Establishing already existing establishment
|
|
Institutionalizing?
Quote:
|
and defending the on going system like your life depends on that defense
|
|
Yeah I'm sure Undertow is one of those malicious people 'in control'. He's an agent of the system and you've swallowed the blue pill, I get it
The truth is out there! |
|
|
|
UnderTow
Started Topics :
9
Posts :
1448
Posted : Jul 19, 2007 03:07
|
Quote:
|
On 2007-07-19 00:03, Spindrift wrote:
You could copy and reproduce peoples ideas as long as people been having ideas.
|
|
Simple ideas, yes. The more complex the idea, the more difficult it is to copy. Actually, that is the whole basis of copy protection on money. If it is too complex to copy, it costs more to create counterfeit money than the real stuff.
Quote:
|
It's been getting easier and easier...but just like one could make cassette copies before the internet one could copy handwritten notation or perform a composers work before note the printing presses.
|
|
Yes but you couldn't copy a symphony just by listening to it (unless you are a particular type of autistic savant) just like you can't recreate a psytrance track just by listening to it. That was the copy protection...
As the technology advances, we can now copy things like music infinitely. That wasn't the case with the case with analogue cassettes. There really is a difference in how "copyable" things are these days. That is why the old system is breaking down.
Quote:
|
Well basically what I'm saying is that I don't think one should be able to own rights for neither a waveform or a series of notes, regardless of what kind of rights you would attribute those to.
|
|
Yes, that is where we disagree.
Quote:
|
First of all I don't see it as something taken from someone.
|
|
But something is certainly received! In the modern abstract world we need abstract concepts to deal with what is possible with all the new technology. What is taken in this case is potential earnings.
This is a tricky concept because it is often abused. For instance, the RIAA when pleading their case tend to equate every download with a loss which is of course a huge exaggeration. But that doesn't mean that the concept of loss of potential earnings is entirely wrong.
Quote:
|
If I download one of your tracks and enjoy it, have I really been taking something?
|
|
Yes, potential earnings. (Assuming you like it enough that you would have bought it if that was the only way for you to acquire it and you had the money available etc...)
Quote:
|
I have hard to see it that way.
And it's not that easy as to say that if I think I should get paid I have the right to do so.
|
|
Why not? You have the right to set a price. The buyer has the right to not buy it at that price if they don't agree with your valuation of your product/service.
Quote:
|
If I think that anyone that happen to hear my music should pay me <dr evil voice>$100 000</dr evil voice>, does that make it right or a fact?
|
|
Well they wouldn't just hear it if no one bought it (and you didn't perform it for them) so that isn't a valid scenario. If someone has heard it then someone (a friend, a DJ, a radio station etc) has purchased it so you have already been paid for your work.
Sure you can think of exceptions to this (some DJ is playing a promo copy of your track or whatever) but the point is that it isn't about just hearing your music but owning a copy of it and having the ability to listen to it when and where they want.
Of course if you set the price for your work too high, no one will buy it. That is market economy at work.
Quote:
|
As an artists you already have to confirm to a certain framework for how, when and what you can demand.
|
|
Sure. that is market economy. You can set your price at whatever you want and the market decides whether it is fair or not...
Quote:
|
I don't agree with the ideas behind that framework, and I don't think that it would work that every artist could dictate freely how their material should be handled.
|
|
No the artists can't dictate exactly how it is handled which IMO is a different topic. But the artists should be able to get money for their work.
Again, why should the receiving, or rather the taking party decide? Why give them any rights but refuse the rights of the actual creator of the material? This doesn't make any sense to me.
And again, a commercial system isn't stopping anyone from sharing their work freely. The commercial model gives the choice to the artist. A non commercial, free for all model gives the choice to people that have not merited that choice in any way whatsoever. Why favour them?
Quote:
|
Sure, in psytrance a lot of the points I've been making can be a bit far fetched.
I don't think people humming my trance tracks in front of the camp fire will ever be much of an issue
|
|
LOL
Continued next post.
UnderTow |
|
|
|
UnderTow
Started Topics :
9
Posts :
1448
Posted : Jul 19, 2007 03:08
|
Quote:
|
But I have been working on other types of music as well and the principle is still relevant I feel.
And I think that in effect patenting certian waveforms or note sequences is stifling for the collective creativity.
|
|
I think that long copyrights are a bad thing and stifling. I don't think that anyone that has created something should sit on their fat backsides for the rest of their lives. Or their children or corporations that use their ideas etc.
Maybe something like a 5 or 10 year copyright would be nice. It gives the creator an advantage for a while but not indefinitely. It motivates people to create but doesn't tip the balance too far towards that one golden idea or that one track or whatever... it keeps things moving while still giving an incentive to make the effort to create new ideas.
Quote:
|
I don't like the idea that composers will sit and worry about if they will get sued for making something too similar to something they might not never even have heard.
|
|
Agreed. The fine points are quite complex but I don't think this invalidates the idea of copyright entirely.
Quote:
|
I also write software and is against software patents for the same reasons.
They are bad for creativity and stifles development.
|
|
Funny you mention software patents because I am also against them to a certain extent. (Especially companies that take out patents on existing ideas that haven't been patented yet.
Anyway, I think there is a distinction between copyright, which is about the final product, and patents, which are about ideas that make the final product possible.
When you sell software, unless you include the full source code, all the ideas that make the product possible, aren't directly visible and/or usable by others. When you copy the product (software or music) you have the final product. That's it. You have the whole thing.
Of course there are some ideas that are directly visible. So should those be protected or not? Should someone (or a company) that comes up with a revolutionary new idea after years of research not be allowed to somehow benefit from those years of research?
The whole ideas of patents is to promote research and new ideas. It makes it worth the effort. This is quite complicated because it is about balancing the need to motivate to create and the need to not stifle innovation.
Of course the current system can and should be improved...
Quote:
|
Like I said, that's IMO.
But I really don't understand how you can create art without the motivation of sharing something...but I'm sure other artists feel otherwise.
|
|
Oh I'm not saying you are not right about what does and does not motivate any particular artist. I'm trying to take it out of the discussion for the simple reason that the "old" commercial system as well as the "free for all" current system allow you to share your music freely. It is not an issue because anyone can already do that right now.
In other words, the fact that some people will share their creations regardless is irrelevant to the topic of copy protection. (No one is trying to protect anything! ).
Quote:
|
Again, that's actually not how it works today.
You can't really decide how much and under what circumstances people should have to pay.
|
|
Indeed. That is exactly how market economies work. The market sets the price. Now, no one sets the price. People just grab what they can.
But in a market economy you CAN set the price way too high. That is your choice. The fact that no one will buy your product if the price isn't right is your own problem.
I'm in favour of giving people the right to set ridiculous prices for all non-essential products and services. Let them find out the hard way that others don't value their work the same way they do.
Quote:
|
How much of the cost of a CD is the actual music?
|
|
That is pretty much irrelevant to why people buy CDs. People are not analysing the cost of a CD. They look at the final price and decide if they are willing to pay that or not.
Quote:
|
The business model is a rip-off for both consumer and artist and people know it.
|
|
I'm not so sure about that. The thing about market economies is that if something is truly a rip-off, someone else will come with a cheaper product.
In the pre-internet economy, prices were dictated pretty much be demand and offer. If there would have been a better cheaper model for selling CDs, someone would have come up with it...
Personally I find the idea of an online store where you choose the tracks you want (as opposed to compilation with mostly fillers for instance), absolutely great. Its just that the same technology that enables that enables all the illegal copying too.
The new and better business model is here but it has already been crippled and broken before it even gets a chance.
Quote:
|
And I'm not sure if people didn't pay mostly to get the music distributed to them since that was the way they could get it before and not actually to fund the artist.
|
|
People were paying for the music. The actual cost might have been mostly distribution and marketing but that isn't the reason to pay the money. The money was for the music.
Very often the artists wasn't considered either, true. It was about having a copy of the music.
Or let me put it differently, people didn't choose their CDs based on the distribution company that brought the CDs to the local shop. The distribution was an ineherent cost but not the reason for the purchase.
[quote]
That distribution model is not the most convenient any more and hence it not much of a market for it.
[quote]
Agreed. I'm not in favour of the old model. Unfortunately the new model is already broken.
I'm not in favour of DRM (not least because it is inherently impossible to copy protect audio) but I'm not in favour of a free for all either. And no I don't have a nice and easy solution to all this. 
Quote:
|
If the governments would manage to stop filesharing because music industry lobbyists make them do so to sell their CD's, is that market economy?
|
|
File sharing in general? No. File sharing is good. P2P is good. MP3 technology is good. That isn't the problem.
As I said above, I don't have a solution to the problem but I do think there is a problem and, for instance, the availability of Cytopia's catalogue on some Russian download site is plain and clearly wrong.
People coming with comments like "music should be free" and similar bla bla just don't seem to understand this. If you choose to make your music free fine, but that should be your decision as the creator of the music. Not the decision of some music grabbing hippie with a deluded world view.
Quote:
|
The industry has to find a way to make business with their product in spite of it being possible to hear music on the internet if it would be anything close to my idea of market economy.
|
|
Well again, there is nothing wrong with hearing music on the internet. (There are many scenarios in which this is possible without cheating the creator of any potential earnings if they so choose).
I am against the greedy grabbing. The idea that some people have that somehow they are _entitled_ to take stuff just because they feel like it.
And no, still no solution to this problem.
Quote:
|
If that's not possible we have no more music industry and the owners have to focus on their main business like selling weapons instead.
|
|
Well this a bit extreme. There is always performances etc. And there are still honest people around.... maybe...
Quote:
|
The reason people have special concerns about the music industry is that some think that without it no music.
Personally I do not share that concern at all.
|
|
My reason for being concerned about music is because I like music. (I saw a documentary about haute-couture houses not so long ago, they had very similar concerns about their business. Concerns that I do not share but understood because that is their passion just like music and sound is mine).
There will always be music. I'm not worried about that either. But maybe there would be better music if things were a bit more balanced.
If you talk to many of the artists that live off of making psytrance, there is a constant push to produce more music to be able to pay the bills. That means more quantity and less quality. I would prefer if that financial burden would be a bit lighter and we could have a bit more quality over quantity.
UnderTow
|
|
|
|
UnderTow
Started Topics :
9
Posts :
1448
Posted : Jul 19, 2007 04:11
|
Quote:
|
On 2007-07-19 02:39, Spindrift wrote:
So if for example the IMF, federal reserve and Bank of England, which all is entities run by private interests restricts the amount of money available to make you lend money from them that they don't even have everyone benefits?
|
|
For one, the Bank of England is not privately owned. Which btw is mentioned in that Masters of Money "documentary" but I can understand that you probably lost interest by the time it was mentioned at 3 hours and 25 minutes into it (or something like that).
Personally I lost interest when the guy was using the bible to bolster his point. Never a good sign. I noticed the mention of the BoE not being privately owned in one of the comments in the sidebar.
But yes, the Federal reserve model is pretty lame. But frankly, I think allot of things in the US are very twisted and illogical... and, this is the important part when watching american conspircay videos, isn't how the whole world functions. (Thank goodness for that!)
I don't know whether the IMF is privately owned or not but IMO that is irrelevant. Edit: Irrelevant because it is about who controls it. Frankly I don't think it is privately owned.
As I said in my previous post, the system will be abused. That doesn't make the system itself wrong. And it certainly doesn't mean there is a better system!
Quote:
|
That's how it works.
They are private and they control how much money is available.
|
|
Not quite. The money is controlled to stop inflation. That benefits everyone!
Quote:
|
It all seems peachy how you describe it, but
it's not a service you can choose or not.
|
|
I'm not saying that the system is perfect and certainly not peachy. I am saying that the problem aren't the systems as such. Getting rid of financial systems and the concept of loans is NOT the solution. There is absolutely no point in throwing out the baby with the bath water.
What I am saying is that it is actually allot more complex than what can be shown in a conspiracy video (even if it is more than 3 hours long!) It isn't black or white. The system is neither perfect nor totally flawed.
Quote:
|
You have to pay tax, from which a large slice goes to the bankers.
|
|
Especially in the US... but again, the problem isn't the system. The problem in this particular case is what politicians do with the tax money.
In the Netherlands 39.6% of BNP will be used to pay interest on loans. That figure is down from last year. Great.
In the us that's 62.4 % apparently. In Malawi that is 2350.7% Ouch! Estland is the winner at 4.5%.
Quote:
|
On everything you buy you have to pay for the companies debts.
|
|
Sure but most companies would not even exist if it wasn't for a capital loan to start it up in the first place! So either we pay a bit of interest when we buy a product or ... that product doesn't even exist. (Ok, I'm exaggerating a bit but it isn't too far from the truth).
Quote:
|
As part of your rent you have to pay for your landlords debts.
|
|
Just my own debt as I am my own landlord.
Quote:
|
Sure you might have taken a loan yourself, in which case it's you who chose to make that deal.
But why did you have to lend?
|
|
Because I couldn't afford my nice penthouse with roof terrace and jaccusi from my savings. But I can afford it over the span of 30 years. So instead of paying money every month to a landlord and end up with absolutely nothing in return at the end of it, I will fully own my nice little apartment after 30 years.
Thanks for bringing this up because this is a very good example of why loans can be a very good thing! It means the difference between me being able to own my own house or not.
Imagine there were no loans. That would mean only the already rich that had capital could do anything. That is a MUCH MUCH worse situation and would make the richer even richer and the poor even poorer.
The concept of money loans really is a good thing. It is an equaliser more than anything else!
Quote:
|
Because you have a privately controlled supply of money, and by keeping it restricted enough the same people who controls federal reserve and BoE can offer to lend you money that they don't even have.
|
|
Rubbish. Whether the Federal reserve is privately owned or not would automagically mean that I have enough capital to buy a house. (The BoE is not privately owned nor is the Nederlandsche bank).
Is it right that the federal reserve is privately owned? Probably not. Does that mean that the concept of loans in itself is a bad thing? No. It just means that some people abused the system... don't blame the system.
Quote:
|
But it would be nice to just see a peachy reality where it's nothing strange about the fact almost every nation, company and individual is owning money and constantly paying interest to a few bankers.
|
|
That is what makes it all possible. The peachy view is that of a functional economy without loans. That is unrealistic.
Quote:
|
To me it's a pretty obvious case that the system we have is clearly corrupted and flawed and far from being of benefit for the public.
|
|
It might be corrupted and flawed but it is the best system available right now. I would say that the public does absolutely benefit.
Sure there are some people that are filthy rich and abuse the system but just have a look around you. The "public", aka you and me, are better off than people were 1000 years ago by a very very long shot. That is the direct benefit to the public.
Ignoring that is completely missing how economies function.
(And again, things aren't perfect and there is allot of abuse, especially of third world countries, but the benefit far far outweigh the costs).
Quote:
|
I don't have any loans, and still I pay a lot of money to the bankers all the time?
Who should I blame for that again?
|
|
No one. Maybe about the amount, yes, but not about the fact that the world we live in is made possible due to the concept of money and loans.
It's better than living in a cave with no synths to play with!
Quote:
|
You really should look into how a lot of the national debts has been created.
|
|
I wrote what I did because the concept of loans exist from individuals to nations. It doesn't help to generalise the whole concept based on the examples of abuse. It just confuses the real issues that do exist.
Writing off the whole concept of money and loans will only many more problems than we have now. I think it is much more productive to look at actual individual issues and figure solutions to those than to paint the whole thing black because there are a few black dots in the picture.
Quote:
|
For example, who funded both the Germans,
English and Americans during WW2?
It was very profitable for those who did, but did it really benefit you and me that all sides could produce a lot of weapons and that we have to pay not only the bill but the interest for that bill?
|
|
Again, people will abuse the system. IMO, I would prefer a solution to human conflict so we can avoid wars (the real problem in the example above) rather than blame monetary systems for what a few greedy people did in times of crises/opportunity.
The problem is not the financial systems. THe problem is people that abuse them.
Quote:
|
I wouldn't say so, and a system where people rake massive profits from that kind of destruction has a major problem.
|
|
But the financial systems are irrelevant. The problem is the war, the "opportunities" than ensued and the people that abused the situation.
In more primitive times someone might have set up a toll at a bridge leading out from sieged town to extort the poor refugees fleeing for their lives. Should they have banned bridges? Of course not. The bridge in that scenario is not the problem just as the financial systems themselves are not the problem now.
Quote:
|
There will be powerful forces working for those kind of events to happen and be as drawn out as possible.
|
|
Sure and they need to be stopped (in as as that is possible) but not by removing financial systems.
Quote:
|
Ok...if you don't think conspiracies exists it's not a concern.
|
|
Conspiracies certainly do exist. Do a small handful of people control the world? I sincerely doubt it. Do some people have much more power than others and abuse it? Sure.
Quote:
|
I wish I could have that peachy outlook on world affairs.
|
|
My outlook isn't particularly peachy but doesn't mean I'm going to believe every doom conspiracy theory that comes my way. That is just the other ridiculous extreme.
Quote:
|
IMF is private as well.
I don't know what you think their goals are...well being of the people?
|
|
Yes. I really think that the well being of the people is their goal. Whether they have always done the right thing is another question. But mostly I don't think that is due to ill-will. More just bad decisions.
And the IMF is primarily controlled by the countries that have monetary stakes in the organisation. This isn't a private bank!
Quote:
|
It's the same people that run the big banks in America,
|
|
No it isn't.
UnderTow |
|
|
|
shamantrixx
Started Topics :
7
Posts :
549
Posted : Jul 19, 2007 05:28
|
Quote:
|
On 2007-07-19 02:59, Inner Demon wrote:
Undertow took you apart, Shamantrixx. And he did it good. Everything I wanted to say and more. |
|
He really did... no doubt about that. I'm glad that it made you so happy. Now you can sleep peacefully knowing that world is almost perfect and could hardly get any better
Quote:
|
On 2007-07-19 02:59, Inner Demon wrote:
...but they were not constructed in a planned, devised sense. It grew out of need and convenience...and changes like an organism. |
|
Please stop... you're killing me There is no way that you could possibly know that for sure even if that would happened to be true. Of course, truth is quite different and nothing in our society was developed without careful planing. We live in a society that's created from the top down. Wake up Alice... the Wonderland was just a dream!
Quote:
|
On 2007-07-19 02:59, Inner Demon wrote:
Nobody said it was fair.
|
|
Absolutely fabulous! You so easily accept and support the system that's not fair and to prevent your self from feeling guilt you chose to believe that it is perfectly natural way of living. I believe that this is called selfhypnosis.
Quote:
|
On 2007-07-19 02:59, Inner Demon wrote:
Yeah I'm sure Undertow is one of those malicious people 'in control'. He's an agent of the system and you've swallowed the blue pill, I get it |
|
I'm glad that you feel amused but don't get too excited about that... when the water is crystal clear it can look shallow and still be deep enough to sink a ship.
"It occurred to me by intuition, and music was the driving force behind that intuition. My discovery was the result of musical perception"
Albert Einstein, speaking about his theory of relativity |
|
|
|
shamantrixx
Started Topics :
7
Posts :
549
Posted : Jul 19, 2007 06:11
|
Quote:
|
On 2007-07-19 04:11, UnderTow wrote:
And again, things aren't perfect and there is allot of abuse, especially of third world countries, but the benefit far far outweigh the costs.
|
|
How to achieve those benefits in 10 easy steps!
1. Conquer "primitive" nations and "savages" and use them as slaves for a while...
2. take their land and move them to more hostile land
3. occupy all natural resources
4. establish colonies and take away everything worth taking
5. then act consciously and return the colonies and offer a credit to the county
6. overthrow their government and give credit to some general that you have previously trained in your country for that occasion
7. sell him weapons (paid by the tax money in your country) for the money you've land them
8. after general kills few hundred thousands people with your weapons make those who have survived to pay for the weapons used against them and make sure that interest on the loan outweighs the loan it self (this is my favorite part)
9. establish MMF to take care of charging the interest money and make it publicly funded and...
CONGRATULATIONS!!! You have your slaves again but this time they're even paying you for loans used to enslave them and they also pay your loan sharks! And finaly...
10. get your self a credit for the house, smile to the camera and say:
things aren't perfect and there is allot of abuse, especially of third world countries, but the benefit far far outweigh the costs.
Sleep tight
"It occurred to me by intuition, and music was the driving force behind that intuition. My discovery was the result of musical perception"
Albert Einstein, speaking about his theory of relativity |
|
|
|
|
