Thread: Internet censorship

I didn't say there wasn't good music out there. I said it's not popular anymore because it's just easier and cheaper for record companies to mass produce stuff. They can pump out an album a day. Real artists are slow to fine tune their product to make it as good as it can possibly be. This is why there will never be another Sergeant Pepper, it's too expensive to create masterpieces. The masterpieces are released underground, and very few people ever hear of them. I have a few albums on my iTunes form small time bands that are fantastic, but no record company will touch them. If a 20 year old Bob Dylan walked into a record company today, he would not get a deal. Part of why iTunes is so awesome and lame at the same time. Any band can usually get their stuff on, most is crap, some is awesome. Unless someone refers you to the awesome stuff though, you'll never hear it.

Exactly. Record Companies are a brick wall between listeners and their music of interest. They can scale the wall by filing through thousands of indie artists but if the record companies were put out of business then art would once again become popular.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

Exactly, Mariah Carey has sold more albums that Bob Dylan. It's why there hasn't been a good new artist in 20 years. Go ahead, name someone from the past decade that even comes close to Dylan, Springsteen, Pink Floyd, The Beatles, U2, REM, Styx, Journey...

You don't look around enough. Regina Spektor, Radiohead, Missy Higgins, Sigur Ros, Lisa Mitchell, Joanna Newsom, Eminem, Gotye, Ben Folds, Elliot Smith, Gorillaz, Massive Attack....
Whether you agree or not is irrelevant. IMO they are all easily on the same level as the ones you mentioned, and better in some cases.

If you listen to the mainstream radio of course you're gonna think that all music is shit now. I get fucking depressed if I listen to that shit. But there's still good out there.

EDIT: Missed the next page.

There has always been shitty popular music.

And as for -

"What are you going to do about it? The people like it enough to buy it. Who are you to tell them, 'nope, this is objectively bad, you can't have this'? Why is it such an issue for you to let them alone with their beloved simple music?

While we're at it, why not take on the literature industry? We seriously have to do something about people buying these Twilight Books. Sure they like them, but that's only because they're too stupid to not like the Greek classics. We need to take these publishers down!"

I think the point is that people WOULD like the actually talented musicians and writers if they were not coerced through marketing to like the shitty artists.

Originally Posted by tommo

I've downloaded thousands of songs that I would never buy, I just listen to it for a while and then forget about it. Just like if it were on the radio.
With the songs/artists I download and actually end up liking, I buy their stuff. It's no different to listening to them on the radio or seeing them on TV before buying their CD.

See, this is a bit more agreeable, although a lot of people claim this less than truthfully (even if unintentionally so) (not accusing you). And there is a very good point in arguing against music corporations themselves - surely I don't give two shits about Warner Music Group. And they're still going to give their artists their share regardless.

I guess it's like what I said to my friend; "Stealing from corporate entertainment giants isn't really that big of a deal, but stealing indie games or independent/startup bands is just a huge dick move."

Originally Posted by tommo

You don't look around enough. Regina Spektor, Radiohead, Missy Higgins, Sigur Ros, Lisa Mitchell, Joanna Newsom, Eminem, Gotye, Ben Folds, Elliot Smith, Gorillaz, Massive Attack....
Whether you agree or not is irrelevant. IMO they are all easily on the same level as the ones you mentioned, and better in some cases.

*gags a little* Eminem I like, but he's not the same level. I refuse to say any of those are even close to the level of Lennon, Dylan, Clapton, Waters. Will any of them be remembered in 50 years? Because all four I mentioned STILL will be. But that's a music debate, move it to Entertainment if you want to discuss that.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

I didn't say there wasn't good music out there. I said it's not popular anymore because it's just easier and cheaper for record companies to mass produce stuff. They can pump out an album a day. Real artists are slow to fine tune their product to make it as good as it can possibly be. This is why there will never be another Sergeant Pepper, it's too expensive to create masterpieces. The masterpieces are released underground, and very few people ever hear of them. I have a few albums on my iTunes form small time bands that are fantastic, but no record company will touch them. If a 20 year old Bob Dylan walked into a record company today, he would not get a deal. Part of why iTunes is so awesome and lame at the same time. Any band can usually get their stuff on, most is crap, some is awesome. Unless someone refers you to the awesome stuff though, you'll never hear it.

Sooo what was the complaint again? People can publish easily, and you can hear about the good music by people referring you to it. What needs to change here..? And why do you think record companies would be averse to publishing really good albums? I've heard just as many masterpieces in the 2000s as I have from the previous decades.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

*gags a little* Eminem I like, but he's not the same level. I refuse to say any of those are even close to the level of Lennon, Dylan, Clapton, Waters. Will any of them be remembered in 50 years? Because all four I mentioned STILL will be. But that's a music debate, move it to Entertainment if you want to discuss that.

Oh come on, this is too luddite to be true.

Radiohead have done far more than Clapton, melodically and artistically. Of course they'll be remembered for as long as him.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Exactly. Record Companies are a brick wall between listeners and their music of interest. They can scale the wall by filing through thousands of indie artists but if the record companies were put out of business then art would once again become popular.

I have never once encountered a 'brick wall' in the form of a record company between me and my musical tastes. I don't even have any conceptualisation of what you could possibly be talking about.

Making junk is not blocking anything. Nobody is forcing you to buy the junk, nobody is even forcing you to look at the junk. Just let them make their junk pile in the corner, and let whoever likes the look of the junk go over there and buy some.

I really think it's pretty concerning that you think you have the right to just delete the entire record industry from existence because you don't like it. How would this suddenly cause art to flourish? I have absolutely no idea. Especially as nobody could publish records any more. :/

Maybe, just maybe, this would have made sense as an issue 50 years ago when there were just a few radio channels. But nowadays, it is completely archaic. The internet has given people complete and utter freedom to explore and root out interesting music, made it extremely easy to find and listen to similar artists, to talk to people with similar tastes, to read musical history and journalism, and all of this for no cost whatsoever. Plus start up bands can now record and publish virtually for free, and generate popularity via social media.

Seriously, your whole 'corporations are suppressing everything' thing is just completely risible here. It's paranoid fantasy; just look around you. It's better than ever.

Once again you have my claims completely wrong. When did I say corporations suppress everything? You bitch that I attack claims you didn't make and then you do the same thing to me.

Corporations don't exclude good artists from getting their name out there, they just make sure you have a much smaller chance of hearing about them because they're drowned out by all the assembly line music. Once again, for the umpteenth time, let me state I'm just fine, I find and buy good music. But these artists I like are not as successful as they deserve to be because they can't get good publicity. Publicity is in the hands of the big companies and they're so busy publicizing their latest repetitive garbage that the mainstream venues are full.

Yay for the internet and alternative life choices! Enjoy making beautiful music in order to maybe one day have enough money to buy a real drumset. Meanwhile justin bieber just bought a plane.

Originally Posted by Xei

Yes but your terms are vague. What does 'putting something out there in the world' mean? Take for example the Steam video game distribution service, where customers essentially engage in such a contract. Does this mean the games have been 'put out into the world'? Are they free to be copied?

All information is free to be copied, and all publishers are free to try to prevent me from copying. And that's the bottom line for me.

Originally Posted by cmind

All information is free to be copied, and all publishers are free to try to prevent me from copying. And that's the bottom line for me.

If you're free to do it, how can they be free to stop you?
That would take away your freedom to copy it.

He said they're free to TRY.

Big difference.

So they're free to try, but if they actually can, they're not allowed? what....

Originally Posted by tommo

So they're free to try, but if they actually can, they're not allowed? what....

You're being deliberately obtuse here. I know that because another poster, Darkmatters, understood my point perfectly.

I have no moral obligation to adhere to what I consider to be fantasy-based copyright laws. Likewise, publishers have no moral obligation to not try to stop me with DRM schemes and the like. Morally, ethically, it's a wash.

But you realize that without some sort of legislation dictating what is legal or not, they can't actually prosecute you for violations, right?

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

But you realize that without some sort of legislation dictating what is legal or not, they can't actually prosecute you for violations, right?

Violations? When did the topic shift to my sexual practices?

Originally Posted by Xei

Radiohead have done far more than Clapton, melodically and artistically. Of course they'll be remembered for as long as him.

This is the most pleasing thing I've read on Dreamviews in some time.

Originally Posted by cmind

All information is free to be copied

By saying this, you're basically saying that the people who created that information have no ownership whatsoever of their own ideas. Care to elaborate?

Originally Posted by Supernova

By saying this, you're basically saying that the people who created that information have no ownership whatsoever of their own ideas. Care to elaborate?

I don't have the desire or patience to get into some Aristotle-esque discussion of ownership, but sufficed to say, they own their copy. In other words, you own the effects of your actions on matter. So you own the information you create when its on information media you own (CDs, disk drives, etc.). You don't own the other copies of that data because they now exist on physical media you don't own.

This is fairly intuitive for most people if we change the context slightly. Say you buy a PC game, install it on your computer, and then some time later you intentionally corrupt the data somehow. Is this destruction of someone else's property?

Another example: you own a copy of Jurassic Park on VHS, and you tape a Buffalo Bills game over it. Have you just committed property destruction, twice?!

You're confusing the material with the idea. Copyright legislation is not about something material so hurting a material object does not effect the copyright law.

In my opinion, we should have permanent usage rights because it's the only non-hypocritical way to handle copyright laws. If someone buys a game, they ought to be purchasing the right to play the game for ever, not just the one copy. Unfortunately copyright legislation doesn't go both ways, it protects the seller but not the buyer.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

You're confusing the material with the idea. Copyright legislation is not about something material so hurting a material object does not effect the copyright law.

I'm not talking about the law, I'm talking about reality. In reality, information cannot exist without a medium. Information doesn't just float in space somewhere. Whether it be magnetic tapes or radio waves, there's always a medium. And I deal with reality, reality being matter*. You can own matter. You can't own something immaterial.

*matter/energy

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

In my opinion, we should have permanent usage rights because it's the only non-hypocritical way to handle copyright laws. If someone buys a game, they ought to be purchasing the right to play the game for ever, not just the one copy. Unfortunately copyright legislation doesn't go both ways, it protects the seller but not the buyer.

This is pretty much how I operate now. The law is arbitrary and du jour. Why do you keep bringing it up as if it matters?

You can't own matter any more than you can own something abstract. You're drawing lines in the sand without providing an argument why something material can be owned but something abstract cannot be. What's the difference? Why is the moral obligation suddenly different just because you can hold it?

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

You can't own matter

Good, then you won't mind if I come to your house and take the computer you used to write that?

Originally Posted by cmind

Good, then you won't mind if I come to your house and take the computer you used to write that?

By your logic, yes. Your logic is basically telling me I could come to your house and take anything I want with no moral obligation. You refuse to make a claim as to what the difference is between something abstract and something material so I'm forced to conclude that unless you can stop me, I'm morally enabled to rob you.

What about the pragmatic consequences?

You realise that with such a view of copyright, there would be zero pharmaceutical industry? In fact there would be zero drive for invention of any kind whatsoever, it'd be a nightmare.

If the only people making those products are only doing it for shitloads of money.

Maybe some people who wanted to actually help others would start a pharmaceutical business.
Generics still make a lot of profit.

Basically the way it is now, that business attracts the worst kind of businessmen.

I don't really care why they're doing it; as long as they are motivated to do it. Because invention has been and still is the greatest force in the world for improving human life. Which would you rather; harness human greed in order to create an unequal society in which the poorest still have a much better quality of life, or suppress human greed in order to create an equal society in which everybody breaks their back every day ploughing the fields? It's not a hard decision for me.