Well YOU may not like it.
But I make my living solely from recording. I'm raising a family doing it. So ANYTHING that might help curb illegal downloading (at this point) is fine by me.
Stealing is wrong. Rationaliztion has become way too prevalent.
Comments
RM is commenting on my remarks on the previous page...and I mean no disrespect to his role as a musician/producer...
However, my thoughts are meant to suggest a growth process to artists and the RIAA...we have to attack the problem of piracy (which I do NOT support by the way) on common ground...i.e., we all have a common interest...attacking our customers is not the high ground...we should instead educate them...and with the right social proscription against taking free copies of artists work, the public who is made up of decent people will respond by supporting us.
If bands like the Greatful Dead and others can build an empire on allowing informal trading of recordings of their shows, there might be a lesson in this for the rest of the industry...I am certain that, in the end, the legal efforts will fail to curb the file sharing. So, I suggest we consider winning the fight for our intellectual property by instead welcoming certain types of sharing...
My suggestion? Allow trading of files between consumers...just like we borrowed albums, copied cassettes, etc. in years gone by. People, who are for the most part wanting to support artists, will ultimately want to own the graphics, have the entire work...artists should exhort consumers to enjoy the trading process AND to buy their work, with our blessings. Treating file sharing as "stealing" is going up a slippery slope...musicians aren't corporate retail stores, we sell a musical service..what's good for us is ultimately good for engineers, producers, and the entire industry...we need to adapt to the changing nature of our customers...I believe we will and the industry will be stronger...but not until we recognize that serving the customer, not arresting him, is in our best interest...RD
RD,
File sharing, or stealing, will slow when it is looked upon as a nasty habit by society (like littering or, increasingly, smoking and 2nd hand smoke). When it becomes uncool to download copyright protected files, people will stop doing it. Since the RIAA can't dictate societal norms, it is acting to protect the interests of both the companies and artists by suing people who are downloading illegally. The civil suit is the chief instrument in resolving disputes in our society.
I won't say that all of the ills the big record companies are suffering are due to downloading, but that is another discussion. I also believe that pay-for-use downloading services will be an important pert of the future. I also believe that downloads can help small artists and labels with exposure.
I like this comparison to littering and 2nd hand smoke. At one time, people thought nothing of littering, or of smoking in a theater or packed elevators. After years of suits and public awareness campaigns these activities are now much less accepted, to the benefit of everyone. Hopefully ILLEGAL downloading will find the same fate.
No point in having a carrot without a stick. David
David, you make a good point about litigation changing public perception of an issue...valid...
I think that's the point anyway...if society percieves it as wrong things will change...but suing college kids who trade files (and threatening by extension to sue ANYBODY who does so) is likely to backfire...its too corporate and simplistic as an entire approach...I'd like to see way more in the way of public education...the courts do often determine public policy as you point out, but sometimes public policy turns in directions that are not popular...we won't sell cd's if we're viewed as greedy corporate interests...my way would be to perhaps seek injunctions against the worst offenders, abandon the silly damage claimes against students, and use the available resources to win back our audience's admiration...
The record industry has suffered more ills from its profit mongering (i.e. launching flavor of the month acts for years) than file sharing...which can still be hotly debated as to whether it ultimately hurts or helps the industry financially....
JMHO. RD
Whenever this subject is debated, there is an almost immediate reference or comparison to the days when we recorded an album to cassette, either for our own use or for a friend etc., but for some reason I personally find this difficult to equate to someone,(college kid or whoever), who has a substantial catalogue of songs available for an almost infinite number of downloads over the internet.
The "one off" copying of songs has been going on since the very first tape recorders became available, and realistically probably didn't do too much damage to the income of artists, etc..........file sharing these sometime enormous "libraries" of copyrighted material is a totally different matter.
:cool:
Point well taken...but RIAA could concentrate on the "libraries"...i.e. Napster, for example..as they did...
The days of cassettes and one offs are gone..we'll never snatch back the digital duplication technology...what I am saying is that we need to find a way to market product in this environment...offer extras, artist contacts, preferred concert seats, whatever it takes to make the hard copy superior to the digital file...and trust our consumers...I would NEVER accuse any college student of stealing my work...I'd build on the familiarity instead...If I were RIAA I'd be stratagizing how to thrive on this situation...offer incentives, put some music online for free, offer contests, or license the music at a discount fee for students...something besides just suing...RIAA and by extension the artists and producers of work, will only win when they embrace this technology and stop viewing it as negative...the jury is still out as to what, if any, damage it is doing to the industry anyway...RD
If bands like the Greatful Dead and others can build an empire on allowing informal trading of recordings of their shows, there might be a lesson in this for the rest of the industry...I am certain that, in the end, the legal efforts will fail to curb the file sharing. So, I suggest we consider winning the fight for our intellectual property by instead welcoming certain types of sharing...
A bootleg tape of a grateful dead show is not the same as an mp3 duplicate of the corresponding studio cd.
The issue is more than just the quality of the audio - the studio version is a definitive version of a peice of material, where the live show exhibits a completly different side of the band. A deadhead is going to have both. The less than diehard deadhead is going to want the cd first - they'll be able to hear what's going on, there won't be mistakes and fumbles, the solos won't go on forever, etc. It's been edited for repeated consumption.
There's more going on that simply the 'live' versus 'studio' issue here too. The idea that bands should give away their music, and live off their touring proceeds ignores how a lot of music is made. Many bands don't create the kind of music that lends itself to never-ending jams, touring, or fifty versions of the same song, all different and of value to the listener. Much music written today can only be created in the studio - because it is composition-based rather than performance based, or requires equipment that doesn't fit in the back of a van. Many musicians aren't performers as much as creators or composers.
Since their music is pirated and their live shows will suck, should we abandon these avenues of musical adventure - simply because it 'doesn't pay'? This sounds a lot like the excuse for top 40 music.
Furthermore, not every band has a rabid following and the financial success that comes from their years on the road, and can afford to give away live recordings, knowing that they will make it up in volume and, don't really need the money, anyway.
I guess to me the genie is out of the bottle...don't you think the RIAA has already lost the battle? They've issued 900 investigation subpoenas to internet providers (some of whom have countersued over constitutionality issues) and are closing in on an outright invasion of privacy, some bad press today on NPR, the list goes on...
It's like suing somebody for absence of affection...many consumers are growing increasingly angry and apathetic about those "poor" record companies; some of those companies just literally screwed professional musicians for decades...the companies are, through their heavy handed corporate tactics, only opening themselves up to further criticizm and dislike.
Public education, a kinder attitude about changing technology, focusing on other demographics like the 40+ audience (who has money and little time for file swapping)...develop some artists and stop playing me flavor-of-the-month-designed-for-profit music...that's what will save the industry...hard work and the big picture view.
I guess if I thought we could put the genie back into the bottle I'd agree entirely with those who think we should. We can't...so to survive we'll need to find a future together WITH this technology...
The industry needs to change...I for one am just loving the rocky road...it WILL produce a better, more focused, industry...I don't have much sympathy for the status quo I guess...
Thanks for the interchange by the way...Best, RD ;)
The record industry has suffered more ills from its profit mongering (i.e. launching flavor of the month acts for years) than file sharing...which can still be hotly debated as to whether it ultimately hurts or helps the industry financially....
Also no one (certainly not the riaa) has taken into account that music is somewhat of a luxury item and with the economy having taken a downturn* during the past few years, people have less money to spend on overpriced CD's - and yes they are overpriced!
Anyone read that the RIAA has a new president
[[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.wired.co…"]ARTICLE[/]="http://www.wired.co…"]ARTICLE[/]
Things will get even more interesting in the next few years.
*really rich people making a bit less money therfore laying off everyone they can and freezing most raises. ;)
Originally posted by RD:
RM is commenting on my remarks on the previous page...and I mean no disrespect to his role as a musician/producer...
Naw RD...that's cool. I was jsut commenting on the recent articles about the RIAA suing users of downloads on the net. I'm jsut frustrated. The biz sucks now...and downloads are part of the problem. Multinationals are one of the others.
Were all cool though (not "hip" any more, but cool...) :p:
Originally posted by RD:
RM, thanks for your comments...I, in all my glory as a smart guy, was meaning to write in one thread, but was actually answering and contributing to TWO threads at once!! Sheesh!! Anyway, glad that's cleared up! Love this site by the way! Thanks to all who make it happen... :) RD
]
Back at ya RD.
Remeber, with me , please don't EVER take anything personal. I may have an opinion, a bias and a passion...but i wouldn't be worth a nickle if I didn't.
" I wanna RocK!!!!"
RM
Originally posted by RD:
If bands like the Grateful Dead and others can build an empire on allowing informal trading of recordings of their shows, there might be a lesson in this for the rest of the industry...
I hate to burst the bubble on this popular urban myth but the Dead DID NOT build their empire by allowing recordings of their shows. The taper section was started because they had a problem with tapers beating up patrons who happened to purchase tickets in prime taping locations and weren't willing to move. The band was already selling out most, if not all of their shows and recordings had never been a significant source of income or promotion for them.
I've long been on the RIAA's side on this one, but I no longer am. Their tactics are insane, wrong, and are making the poor poorer.
When I heard that they were going after 14 year old kids with $150,000 lawsuits for downloading 150 songs, I soon lost my taste for their SS style tactics. The only way out was for their parents (who didn't steal, mind you) to cough up $1500 to settle the lawsuit out of court. This is taking money from poor people and lining the pockets of the rich. I'm sorry, but the RIAA needs to find more reasonable ways of going about this. Suing children for hundreds of thousands of dollars for petty theft, is not something I thought I'd see in this country.
How about the RIAA take it down about 15 notches and ease into this thing. Most people until very recently didn't even know that they were breaking any laws. I mean, come on, let's shut down the Kazaa's of the world first, and then let's start going after the little kids.
Until the RIAA gets off of its WMD and stops throwing children in jail, I'm going to oppose them at every corner.
File swapping is wrong, it should be punished from the top to the bottom, not from the bottom to the top. People need a chance to understand that there are laws against this, and they should be formally warned first, before being sued and black mailed into paying $1500 settlements. It's totally ridiculous. DOWN WITH THE RIAA!
Again, I am 100% against stealing music, and I'm not minimizing the impact of those that do. I'm just saying, that punishing the parents of kids who steal is wrong, and not giving a formal warning is also wrong. If people continue to steal music, after being warned, then sue them for a billion dollars, I don't care. This new punishment just needs to be eased into, and done with reason.
I realize that most here, myself included, feel personal loss from music being stolen online, but let's not throw reason out the window here.
Just read over everything and thought I would put in my opinion as a recently graduated "college" (university actually, canadian thing) student, and an aspiring musician, recording engineer, occasional kazaa user, cd buyer, and software developer (piracy issues).
Lets face it: $20 for a cd... that's bs. Cassettes are under $10. They were once $20. Cd's haven't changed in price much at all in 10 years. That's crap.
I will hear about a band from a friend, I download a few songs. If I like the songs, I will download as much as I can to make sure the band isn't a "couple hit wonder". If I like what I hear I will buy the cd's. I support the little guys in the industry. I refuse to support the manfactured/popized bands record companies push.
If record companies pushed bands that actually made music instead of... uh crap... the industry would be stronger for it. They've cornered themselves into the "10-15 year old female" market. Stupid fools. The money is in the baby-boomers.
As a musician, I will probably never give my music to a record company for any reason.
1. 99% chance it will not make me money
2. They will hold the rights to MYYYYYY music??
Two words... They start with F and U.
Piracy = bad. But if things aren't affordable, it will continue. The problem is: companies price their merchandise to maximize profits. If they thought less about profits are more about promoting their product to more people, they would gain the trust of the consumer and strengthen their customer base. Making it easier to make new, accepted products. Companies think with their proverbial "penis" and not their heads.
There, I have said my two cents. Thanks, and no offense to anyone, love you all here.
Originally posted by Breezes:
Just read over everything and thought I would put in my opinion as a recently graduated "college" (university actually, canadian thing) student, and an aspiring musician, recording engineer, occasional kazaa user, cd buyer, and software developer (piracy issues).Lets face it: $20 for a cd... that's bs. Cassettes are under $10. They were once $20. Cd's haven't changed in price much at all in 10 years. That's crap.
That's kind of my point...we play in the college market and students are forever struggling to make ends meet...the last thing I want any part of is an industry who targets students with lawsuits because they file share...because, and this is important, I believe it is TOTALLY unproven that this practice (for college students) hurts the industry. What IS happening is that students, who are training for careers, are being given an opportunity to develope musical tastes and likes etc., and those same students go out into the market and purchase CD's. It's kind of like doing a teaser show at a college campus. I used to resist these 'cause who wants to play for 15 minutes in the cafeteria to advertise an evening show...but you know, it works! When we do classroom appearances, or teaser shows, or radio performances (when we can get them) the evening shows go better...so, our experience suggests to us that students respond to being "lured" in by sampling music or entertainment. As I mentioned earlier, the genie is out of the bottle...lets stop beating up young people, and start selling them music that matters...the record industry is embarrasing all of us with their heavy handed tactics...and in the end, they are certain to lose if they don't adapt with something better than suing kids...it's just plain silly...JMHO, RD
Maybe what the music industry needs to realize is that marketing to teenage girls isn't the right market to be going after. Teenage girls have computers, are smart enough to use a mp3 player/CD Burner, and don't care about the laws. Duh. How about the leaders at the record labels start marketing music to the 25 and up crowd. Holy crap...WE HAVE MONEY!!! Most of us won't steel if good music is being produced to our benefit. I feel totally starved for good music. I think the record industry totally ignores the 24 to 35 year old crowd. You're either making bubble gum, or old people music.
Lastly...the record industry would be well served to look at the 70's when they were creating super groups by totally supporting them through 3-4 bad albums until these bands came out with 5 really excellent albums. Support the music, and the money will follow. Giving a band one record to create a following is crazy. Of course you're only going to sell to 13 year old girls, looking for hot guys. Of course they're going to download it, rather than buy it.
I may seem controversial (which I am happy to be) but I do not think that file sharing is completely a bad thing. I know many people even on this board have been calling that stealing and all that, but I disagree with the phylosophy behind. It is the phylosophy of greed and selfishness coming from the record companies which have affected us. "What is mine is mine only to keep."
File sharing is not stealing, pirating is. Pirating is taking someone else's idea or product and make money out of it. File sharing is someone sharing the files they have got with some other friend or family. To make that illegal is a bad law which is based on greed in the name of copyright. Do we all have to buy a single CD that comes out because it has 3 songs I like? Cannot not with a friend who neebd to hear as well?
Someday we will end up being sued for sharing recording ideas ad tips on with others on this borad
Buzain, you've missed the point entirely. File sharing is completely legal if I offer up a word document of something I've written for anyone to download and do as they please with.
If I take SOMEONE ELSE'S intellectual property, convert it to a file of my liking without their permission, and offer it for distribution ("share" it with) to anyone to do as they please with it, that's flat out wrong and illegal. And these aren't laws that are just now being introduced. as you seem to suggest. They've been in existence since the introduction of copyright law long, long ago. This is simply a new arena in which it applies, and there are lots of battles to be fought in how the law applies to it. But I really don't see how anyone can say that it's completely legal and ethically OK for this practice to continue unabated. That's just freakin' crazy, man.
If I offer the file to you and anyone else, I have violated that fine print that I guarantee you will find on every commercially manufactured CD and tape you own: "Warning: Unauthorized reproduction of this recording is prohibited by Federal law and subject to criminal prosecution." If my one .mp3 becomes 500 identical .mp3's through downloading, I have violated that. And if you download that .mp3 from me, you have as well. How can you argue against that? The warning is right there on every CD you've ever bought. Don't say you weren't warned, and don't feel sympathy for those being sued. Sure, it's a heavy handed tactic, and it probably isn't the best way to go from a PR standpoint, but the RIAA and the owners of the intellectual property rights of any recording have every legal leg to stand on to do so.
Read the fine print and pay for your music, man. Some of us make a living in media duplication and take this issue extremely seriously.
And no, copyright law will never apply to a forum like this, where the OWNERS of those ideas share them FREELY AND VOLUNTARILY.
Certainly don't want this whole thread to go up in flames, but I feel pretty strongly about this issue, doing what I do.
Buzain, just a slight clarification: piracy is not only offering something of someone elses up for sale to make money yourself, it is depriving one of the opportunity for a sale.
E.g.- Because you now own a copy of a song you like for free, you might not go and actually purchase it.
In both cases the vendor is robbed of legitimate income.
That being said....
I think what we're witnessing is something very common...it's just that it's dramatic and high profile.
We're witnessing the clash of capitalism and technology. Other industries...take the Travel Agency industry for example....have been devastated and gutted by the same interaction.
Technology is always altering the landscape: Buggy whip manufacturers have been put out of business by automobile manufacturers....and on and on.
This is a common market occurrence....it's just painful to watch in this particular industry.
The core questions are:
-Is music going away? Nope. People will still want to listen to music.
-Is the old distribution method changing? Yup. Technology has changed the way people want there music delivered.
-Who is actually getting hurt? Well, most affected are the institutions of the old vanguard. Coincidently, these are the folks that are "doin' the suin'". Too often, these people, who make mega-dollars off of other creative people's efforts, complain that folks are stealing their products...fail to note that they, by pricing their product at greatly inflated prices, have been stealing from the music buying public themselves for a long time now. In one sense, turnabout is fair play. Still, stealing is wrong, and I do not support it...from either side.
-Aren't the artists getting hurt too? The big name sellers are...to some degree...but they represent less than 1% of the total. Ironically, smaller selling artists rely heavily on file sharing to get there music heard. Right here, on this board, you can go to sites where artists (like myself) gladly have you download and share their music. Therefore, folks who could least afford file sharing, because they don't sell a lot, wind up being the ones who most support it. Consequently I would appreciate it if the lucky, pampered people would stop whining and put it in perspective. It's not like they are underpaid. If they hadn't received their "big break", they would be handing it out voluntarily, just like the rest of us. To me, it comes off bratty and crass.
-What will happen from here? What always happens. Enterprising capitalists will move in to fill the void. Those that best serve the wishes of the market will flourish. Once entrenched, they too will begin suing to retain their market position.
And the wheel of life turns again.......
Best-
Kev.
The music industry might get hurt but it's still not proven that mp3's and the downloading of music actually makes the sales to drop. In some places music sales are rising even. I think that the whole mp3 thing has made ppl aware of how much money they pay for their music. Now, every artist will agree to the fact that the music labels take way too much of the pie that is the sales of music. The ppl are getting really tired of paying so much money for music. And they can't really be blamed. I for one like a retail cd because of the quality and i find it hard to understand that one will prefer a low quality mp3 over a high quality cd. But it doesn't take away the fact that the ppl pay way to much for a cd. When you buy a cd you pay for the right to play and listen to the music but if you scratch the disc you won't get a new one 9 out of 10 times. These things are all proof of the plain robbing the labels excercise.
A medium selling artist get's what of the total amount of what a cd costs? maybe 10% if you are lucky. And this is after all the costs have been deducted. What happens to the other 90%. It goes to the label executives which live well from it. And the RIAA is sueing little kids for the downloading of music now. How pathetic. This has been going on for ever. Before mp3 ppl would copy cassette's. There really hasn't changed anything. This is just a sorry excuse for the RIAA to hunt down little kids and make them pay a few thousand dollars.
Don't get me wrong, i'm all for the recording industry. But it's not like there hasn't been earned money and producers are still earning money. The big studio's need to make place for bedroom studio's now. It's evolution. And i'm sure the music industry will find a way...
Just my 2 cents....
This shouldn't be an issue.
Society should outright subsidize arts as programs for quality of life improvement.
And the arts ought to be as free as knowledge and sharing are to science.
Y'all caught up in the capitalists web, on that hampster wheel of life, fighting over crumbs.
Like Archer-Daniels-Midland copywrites lifeforms, then sues neighboring farmers when ADM's crops pollenate theirs.
You can justify evil means when the ends are just to get fed.
Yeah...the capitalist web...right. I suggest you head over to North Korea and check out their wonderful socialist-communist way of life. It's a joke, it always has been, and always will be. There has never been a great socialist society (that was actually fair to its people)...and there probably never will be. BTW there's not a whole lot of music and art coming out of these places...in case you didn't notice. What music did come out of the USSR was good, but state approved, homogonized, and who knows the millions of great records that could have come out of that culture if the state didn't have control over you, your money, your food, and your career.
Music and art should absolutely NOT be free. The freedom should be for the people to decide what to buy, and then others to decide what to make. It's something we call FREEDOM. Socialists would like to control every aspect of our lives, from our career, to our time off of work, to the amount and type of food we eat. Don't you see, it's that very control over the minute aspects of one's life that eventually leads these socialist governments down the road to the North Korea's, and USSR's of the world. And if you think the USSR was awesome, I've got some Slovakian relatives who would beg to differ. Their hatred for the USSR is thicker than you can imagine. Socialism was absolutely awful for them, and they are quite bitter.
Get a life, go eat some GM food...it's really quite good, it's providing food for people who have none, and has the potential to save BILLIONS of people from starvation and malnutrition...actually. You would probably rather them starve, and be happy in your commune though, I'm quite sure.
I'm quite happy buying and selling music...it works quite well. I'm happy to live in a world where I have the choice to be a musician, engineer, doctor, garbage collector, or bum. In your society, there would be quotas on who could be and do what, or wouldn't everyone choose to be rock stars? That's not a world I care to live in. If you want to give up your ability to create art, you go for it...I'm not going to do it.
Might I remind y'all that the only artist who gets hurt by illegal downloads are the ones who have recouped their advances. And there are very few of them.
Oh, and the indie. They got no advance to recoup.
Most of us singer/songwriter types make our only income from live performance...no different than before the technology of recording was invented by Mr. Edison.
Jay- A minor clarification in order big guy....
The prior post's comments were a dig at capitalism, not the U.S...You seemed to bristle at his comments.
Don't confuse capitalism with democracy or socialism with communism. Capitalism and socialism refer to economic systems. Democracy and Communism are forms of government.
Even democracies can contain elements of socialism. Canada's health care system, for instance, or Social Security in the U.S. are both examples of socialism existing within vibrant democracies.
The comments related to the government supporting the arts don't mean that he wants us all to convert to communism (I for one, wouldn't do it for all the reasons you eloquently cited in your post).
The writer just wants more socialism-style support for artists than what is currently being done...versus having to "sell your soul" to the masses for commercialism...which is also not a form of government...though some might argue it's a type of religion.
:D
His concept, however noble, is not entirely realistic though. Government has enough trouble keeping it's bills paid. Artists are not high on the priority list.
I don't see it happening anytime soon. So I'm not going to hold my breath.
In the meanwhile, perhaps other economic models within the scope of good ol' capitalism will emerge...and artists can shed the yoke imposed by the controlling emperors of distribution, the RIAA and all others who dictate what, and what doesn't, get heard.
It will be interesting....guaranteed.
Best-
Kev.
Yes Kev1, or 'big guy' or should I say 'Mr. Condescension' you are correct. ;) However, Socialism and Communism go hand in hand, if you want to look historically, and Capitalism and Democracy go hand in hand as well...in I think every major democracy. Truly, there is no such government that is driven purely on the principals of capitalism. It probably wouldn't work.
There are elements of Socialism in every single government, though major elements of capitalism rarely shine through for the people in communist states. Sure, I was making a generalization there, but I think everyone got me, and I think it's a fair and accurate parallel to draw.
Yes, I did bristle at his comments, because if we aren't the ultimate capitalist society of any substance, then I don't know who is. So I guess those comments had to take aim at the US system...which I happen to think is excellent. And yes, it is true, I love this country. Sorry...but I do. In this country, if you really put your mind to it, I believe you can do anything. If you have no drive, the government will still throw you about fifty bones to try to help you out. Do they make you rich? No. Do they put you on the same level as someone who's busting their ass? No. However, you can take what they give and use what's in you to become whatever you want.
I think everyone has the right to speak their mind, but I also have the right to speak mine. I think that socialism, and communism, go together like wine and cheese...and likewise, capitalism and democracy go hand in hand like gold and chains. ;)
The less government control...the better. The more we hand the power over to the government, the less control we have over what's done in our lives. Let the government pay the bills for entertainment...and they'll also end up controlling the entertainers. Does anyone really believe the government would have payed the bills for Eminem to make records? In a country that is PRIMARILY a capitalist society, the people dictate what to make with their pocket books.
Jay-
I certainly meant no offence. And I did not intend to come off condescending.
I definitely don’t think that you are a simple minded, flag waving idiot.
My offering was posted after reading (a couple times) your initial reply to the other guy, and it wasn’t entirely clear from your post that you understood the subtle differences in the definition of the terms you were using…so I mentioned it, clarified....then moved on to other things.
Have you ever heard the saying, “the camera lies”? Where, say, a television camera can make a small gathering of people look like the million man march?
These forums can do the same.
Without certain common communication cues, such as vocal inflections and other non-verbal input, one might misinterpret the intent of a given post.
For instance, by your usage of the winking smilie, I infer that you were not intending to be insulting in your reply by mocking me with “big guy (I was trying to be friendly)” and “Mr. Condescension (which I was NOT trying to be)”.
Maybe you were…
Without the aforementioned extra communication information, it’s hard to tell.
No matter….
I quite agree with your philosophy of government. I want their hands out of most things too. I have a healthy disrespect for government. Yet, I also have a healthy respect for the consequences of defying it.
Meanwhile (to twist a quote from Garret Morris—remember him?/SNL), “Capitalism been berry berry good to me.”
Like Winston Churchill said: Democracy is the worst form of government….but every one else sucks ass way more.
Okay, I might have paraphrased there a little.
In your corner....I love the U.S.A. too...most of the time, anyway.
Best-
Kev.
It is the theft of intellectual property as well- hurts artists. RM, are you reacting to a specific piece of info that has just come out, some new news? If so, post a link so I can check it out. Thanks, David