seertaak

44 ms·

361.
by seertaak 18y ago
Ok, fair enough. Sorry using the expletive and calling you a pompous twit. I wish Jonathon Coulton the best of luck with Creative Commons licensing. But as a model, I'm not convinced it will work. The benefit of having healthy labels is pr
362.
by seertaak 18y ago
> If you really, really think it's worth it, pirate Logic Studios and pay for it once you've made enough money. Great -- now you're suggesting that I rip off programmers! It goes without saying that I have too much respect for what I do
363.
by seertaak 18y ago
> I listened to your music. I followed both your links. It's mediocre at best. You're of course entitled to your opinion ;) But Mick Jones of Clash fame disagrees with you. My manager is in negotiations with him, along with the guy who
364.
by seertaak 18y ago
> You didn't "take him to task." Yes, I did. Else how do you interpret my asking him how he thinks musicians should be remunerated? And my response to his suggestion that musicians are just in it for the money?
365.
by seertaak 18y ago
> it's a metaphorical ghetto because metaphorical lepers like you are metaphorically whining about how the metaphorical government sucks rather than leaping up, not complaining, and getting a metaphorical job. You use this word, "metaph
366.
by seertaak 18y ago
> In the case of Billy Bragg, it is he who's trying to control Google's content Except that it's not google's content, is it? It's content that's owned by the songwriters, as google themselves acknowledge. Why is this so difficult to u
367.
by seertaak 18y ago
So slandering the community of songwriters is civil, but taking someone to task for it isn't. Somehow, I very much suspect that had my vitriol been directed at "fat cat music execs", my comment would have been upmodded and nobody would have
368.
by seertaak 18y ago
> Most musicians, even of the mega pop star variety, make most of their money performing music Especially of the mega pop star variety. The highest-grossing band in the US last year was Bon Jovi. The idea that the new emphasis on live
369.
by seertaak 18y ago
This is incredible. Another pair of downmods -- again, no one addresses the points I make. I ask again, what are these other, benign, interpretations? Hacker News is becoming a ghetto.
370.
by seertaak 18y ago
Stop being so coy Confusion -- if there are 'several' 'very different' interpretations to mine, then I'd like to hear them. As far as I can tell, the meaning of his statement was quite clear: musicians are a bunch of whingers who have nothi
371.
by seertaak 18y ago
Of course... how dare they demand control over their content?
372.
by seertaak 18y ago
> The iTunes store isn't really the solution: much of the time, people want to pay for music @ .22p a listen, not $1.00 a download. I totally agree, that's why I mentioned Spotify as well as iTunes. Although Spotify works off a flat-rat
373.
by seertaak 18y ago
Those are fair points, and I agree that YouTube removed the music labels' content. Personally, while I sympathize with the songwriters complaining about YouTube's removal of their content -- after all, they have a gun to their heads: if the
374.
by seertaak 18y ago
It is truly the last refuge of scoundrels to downvote my reply without providing any justification.
375.
by seertaak 18y ago
Why was this voted up five times? This comment is breathtakingly idiotic. I mean, what exactly are you saying here? That royalty paychecks are wrong or immoral? If so, then, in your considered opinion, how exactly should musicians be remune
376.
by seertaak 18y ago
It's .22p, not 22p, per play -- similar to the price charged to radio stations. If radio stations can make it work, so should YouTube. And if it can't, then I prefer for the content to be removed, because if advertising can't adequately fin
377.
by seertaak 18y ago
Right, so actually storing the illegally-obtained copyrighted content is what you consider wrong. In other words, you oppose the RIAA going after The Pirate Bay. But by your own argumentation going after, say, a college kid with a terrabyte
378.
by seertaak 18y ago
The hacker news community discovers that stealing ain't so cool when it happens to you. Various posters then tie themselves into knots trying explain this double-standard. Proferred reasons why it's ok to steal from musicians, but not from
379.
by seertaak 18y ago
It's sad that an article with such an asinine title, and such poor analysis and content, makes it close to the top of hacker news. Can we have ONE day without a ritualistic bashing of the music industry and the RIAA, please?
380.
by seertaak 18y ago
Or: "3 euros a month is too much". 10c per day -- too much!
381.
by seertaak 18y ago
- they act as a filter for good music, or at least, music that is likely to achieve commercial success. Take MGMT. Two college guys with good ears put out a demo and basically forget about it. An A&R guy hears it, likes it, and travels
382.
by seertaak 18y ago
Shameless plug: myspace.com/thesignalsuk myspace.com/martinpercossi That's the music I'm writing when I'm not programming! [You'll note that I don't benefit from the recording expertise I mention above ;) ]
383.
by seertaak 18y ago
So basically, because the record companies lobby government, the public should engage in illegal behaviour. News flash: most of corporate America engages in lobbying -- many industries far more aggressively and successfully than music. So i
384.
by seertaak 18y ago
This is so incoherent I don't where to begin. > On a less snappy note, I sincerely hope that these two-faced bastards Less snappy? Am I missing the irony here? If I understand correctly, the poster thinks paying for recorded music is ba
385.
by seertaak 18y ago
Musicians don't think the world owes them a living. In fact I can scarcely think of an endeavour which requires more individuality and self-reliance than music. Your callousness ("they should get another job instead") and propensity to attr
386.
by seertaak 18y ago
Concerts: so if I understand correctly, paying for concerts is morally justified as opposed to paying for recorded music -- which apparently is wrong -- because... you're confronted with a threatening-looking bouncer if you attempt to jum
387.
by seertaak 18y ago
So you'd agree to the try-before-buy principle for oh, say, condoms? There was no obligation to "try-before-buy" policies handed down to sellers of wares by Moses, you know. I fail to understand how paying for the music that you listen to i
388.
by seertaak 18y ago
> In short, you can't debate with non-scientists in the sense you mean. Yep, that's the conclusion I'm led to. In this case, it wasn't possible however: straight off the bat, for example, he declared that he's left-wing. I happen to be
389.
by seertaak 18y ago
That's assuming that your friends' behaviour is rational. For example, during the debate, while I certainly held my ground confidently, I didn't raise my voice, swear, engage in ad-hominem, belittle my opponent, or anything else that I woul
390.
by seertaak 18y ago
That's funny, the example you gave sort of happened during the argument. I would painstakingly establish A. Then I would do something like A => B. Then I would remind my opponent that we'd established A, whence B followed. At that point

More ›