whoa man!

what's next

mediafire
rapidshare
filestube
filetram
youtube
yahoo
apple
ebay
google
mountain-goats.com
horny-bizzos.com

don't lay a finger, on my horny-bizzos.com!

I was always more partial to box.net. 5GB free, and the links don't expire.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/19/2012 04:36PM by Sethie.

RICK ROLL!!!

i don't think kim kardashian will let this injustice stand.

new zealand?

zat you thuggy!??!

[tvnz.co.nz]

Karma of stealing I guess.

i kno. he fat and ugly.

but, he gonna be defended by super lawyer.

wild creature will be outta the country for 5 weeks!

If feds can bust Megaupload, why bother with anti-piracy bills?

[www.csmonitor.com]

exactly

you know, if a cd was 5 bux, and getting into a movie was 5 bux......a shit ton less people would be using sites like megaupload.

in other words.

IT'S THEIR FUCKIN FAULT.

instead of raping our assholes with drills the size of the empire state building until money shoots our our nostrils, they could instead just lube up their pinky and insert until we want to give them our money.

who wouldn't go see a movie if it cost 5 bux?

who wouldn't buy a cd if it cost 5 bux?

they want maybachs instead of mercedes, and it's fuckin bullshit.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/22/2012 05:40PM by mike10k.

yeah, they could try to fight piracy by making cds and dvds more reasonably priced, all the major labels are part of the vulturous corporatocracy system that is destroying the middle class in america, when the news networks talk about universal and columbia losing all this money, they attribute it 100% to online downloading, never a mention of the unemployment rate and the ever increasing separation of wealth

i don't really buy the cost argument.

$5 is still more than free, and so people will still pirate material. It's a complete nonsense to argue that the reason people perform copyright theft is because the alternative is too expensive - it's because people want something for nothing.

sure, music is expensive but i think with modern sites like Spotify (or even YouTube) you can listen to an obscene amount for free. Downloading it for nothing, and not giving the money to those who made it, is not cool.

edit: i should clarify, i don't support SOPA or PIPA.

i do think piracy is something that needs to be addressed, though.

---

let's get dressed up in costumes and dance by the bar.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/22/2012 06:39PM by betamax.

Quote
betamax
i don't really buy the cost argument.

$5 is still more than free, and so people will still pirate material. It's a complete nonsense to argue that the reason people perform copyright theft is because the alternative is too expensive - it's because people want something for nothing.

sure, music is expensive but i think with modern sites like Spotify (or even YouTube) you can listen to an obscene amount for free. Downloading it for nothing, and not giving the money to those who made it, is not cool.

edit: i should clarify, i don't support SOPA or PIPA.

i do think piracy is something that needs to be addressed, though.

i wasn't talking about eliminating ALL online piracy, of course there are still alot of people who would still download no matter how low the cost of buying were, but to say it has nothing to do with price i think is ridiculous

I think the $5 rule worked pretty well for Fugazi. Also, given my tendency to go on extended hiatuses, I apologize for the amount of randomosity this message provides to the forum. Also, I wanted to say hi to Mike.

Quote
hexakosioi

Quote
betamax
i don't really buy the cost argument.

$5 is still more than free, and so people will still pirate material. It's a complete nonsense to argue that the reason people perform copyright theft is because the alternative is too expensive - it's because people want something for nothing.

sure, music is expensive but i think with modern sites like Spotify (or even YouTube) you can listen to an obscene amount for free. Downloading it for nothing, and not giving the money to those who made it, is not cool.

edit: i should clarify, i don't support SOPA or PIPA.

i do think piracy is something that needs to be addressed, though.

i wasn't talking about eliminating ALL online piracy, of course there are still alot of people who would still download no matter how low the cost of buying were, but to say it has nothing to do with price i think is ridiculous

Maybe, but who deems what constitutes 'reasonably priced'?

---

let's get dressed up in costumes and dance by the bar.

Quote
betamax
i don't really buy the cost argument.

$5 is still more than free, and so people will still pirate material. It's a complete nonsense to argue that the reason people perform copyright theft is because the alternative is too expensive - it's because people want something for nothing.

sure, music is expensive but i think with modern sites like Spotify (or even YouTube) you can listen to an obscene amount for free. Downloading it for nothing, and not giving the money to those who made it, is not cool.

edit: i should clarify, i don't support SOPA or PIPA.

i do think piracy is something that needs to be addressed, though.

i do. 5 bux for a cd. 5 bux to see a movie. i'd have a huge cd collection, and also a giant pile of old movie stubs on the floor of my car right now if that were the case.

6 bux? fuck'em.

if there are less people pirating, then the problem becomes manageable.

why 5 dollars, may i ask?

---

let's get dressed up in costumes and dance by the bar.

cuz nobody here yet has said, hey, that's still too expensive.

10 bux for a cd is too expensive. that's how much they are now.

so fi' bux. because that's not too expensive.

If it's too expensive, you don't buy it. Just like pretty much everything else.

I do think music is expensive for what you get, and maybe that does need to change, but it doesn't mean that it's acceptable to just go off and d/l it. Further, i don't think reducing the price will make much difference long term. It'll maybe have an effect early on, but then the bar will come down again and people will say 5 bucks is too expensive, why not 3?

(royal 'you', here. Not at anyone directly)

---

let's get dressed up in costumes and dance by the bar.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/23/2012 03:09PM by betamax.

Quote
betamax
If it's too expensive, you don't buy it. Just like pretty much everything else.

I do think music is expensive for what you get, and maybe that does need to change, but it doesn't mean that it's acceptable to just go off and d/l it. Further, i don't think reducing the price will make much difference long term. It'll maybe have an effect early on, but then the bar will come down again and people will say 5 bucks is too expensive, why not 3?

(royal 'you', here. Not at anyone directly)

if it's too expensive, you can't buy it.

i think it's perfectly acceptable to listen to an album before i buy it. i'll buy it if i like it. i'll not if i don't. the odds are better that i will spend money if i'm not being raped at the same time.

i think reducing price would be a huge deal. long term and short term. and also middle term.

3 bux, not bad. how about 5 for new releases and 3 for everything else.



your idea, not mine! they're just ideas. no prob.

hey, we're getting thread crossover here - we've chatted before a bit about listening instore befre you purchase.

Is reducing price sustainable for the folks actually making the music? Genuine question; i don't know the ins and outs of the record industry...

---

let's get dressed up in costumes and dance by the bar.

Quote
betamax
hey, we're getting thread crossover here

OH NO

also, to answer your question....

YES

i listen to an album for free. i like it. cd is 20 dollars. i don't buy it, like you said.

i listen to an album for free. i like it. it's 5 bux. i will buy it. i just have to skip my 5 dollar footlong baby.

i listen to an album for free. i think it stinks. i will not spend any amount of money on it.

there is only one option where i spend money.

Quote
betamax

Quote
hexakosioi

Quote
betamax
i don't really buy the cost argument.

$5 is still more than free, and so people will still pirate material. It's a complete nonsense to argue that the reason people perform copyright theft is because the alternative is too expensive - it's because people want something for nothing.

sure, music is expensive but i think with modern sites like Spotify (or even YouTube) you can listen to an obscene amount for free. Downloading it for nothing, and not giving the money to those who made it, is not cool.

edit: i should clarify, i don't support SOPA or PIPA.

i do think piracy is something that needs to be addressed, though.

i wasn't talking about eliminating ALL online piracy, of course there are still alot of people who would still download no matter how low the cost of buying were, but to say it has nothing to do with price i think is ridiculous

Maybe, but who deems what constitutes 'reasonably priced'?

I don't know exactly, but i think the prices for cds and movies do generally seem inflated, with major labels label execs, managers and lawyers are clawing for every penny and the artist can only hope a decent amount is left for them, as steve albini has written about here the problem with music, i feel less bad about downloading major label releases after reading stuff like this, maybe it's just a cheap excuse to rationalize it to myself, i do actually buy alot of albums and movies, i have almost all of the mountain goats albums that have been released on cd, i usually buy smaller label stuff from local record stores, but i also do alot of downloading and i think it's mostly a matter of it's there within easy reach and i have a collecting and completist weakness so i download with a the feds have got to be coming after me soon now abandon



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/23/2012 06:11PM by hexakosioi.