This has been rewritten as a post for TorrentFreak. Everyone check it out!
6 Reasons Why Filesharing Will Go Down in History as the Greatest Thing Ever to Happen to Music
If I’ve learned one thing from all the responses to my previous post about legalizing things, it’s that people don’t understand reality. You really should read my post about Star Trek and Intellectual Property before continuing. And I really do mean read it; a lot of people apparently commented on it without reading it, which makes their comments seem stupid. This post is an extension of that other one, but this time focusing specifically on sharing music and other art over the Internet, and I outline tons of reasons why it’s a good thing.
Point 1: The end of millionaire rock stars is a GOOD thing.
Imagine for a moment that each Beatle only made $50,000 per year instead of $600 billion trillion. I don’t see anything wrong, here. The sooner we can get it out of our heads (and our kids heads) that “being a rock star” is not a career goal, the better.
Point 2: Artists don’t, and never have, made money.
I consider my blog to be a work of art, and do you know how much money I’ve made off of it? Over the past six months: $1.26, according to Google. Should I:
- Get pissed and make it illegal for people to read my blog without paying me, or
- Realize that blogging is no way to make a living.
Unless I’m one of the very very very very very very very very incredibly lucky few who make it “big” in the blogosphere, I’m always going to need a day job. This is how it is with all art. This is how it’s been, and this is how it always will be. 99% of artists are starving artists. It’s not a stereotype.
Point 3: Money is not a good motivation to make art.
People seem to think (why, I don’t know) that the only motivation to do anything is to become rich and famous. Let’s remember that art comes FIRST and money comes LATER. The Beatles wrote their songs and only afterwards did they become famous. JK Rowling selflessly created Harry Potter for her child and only years later did she get paid for it. It’s great and all that the Beatles and JK Rowling got paid for their work, but even if they never saw a dime their work would still exist. Besides, does anybody want to listen to music written by people who care only about money? I don’t think that music would be any good…
Point 4: Everything is ALREADY free and better because of it.
If you’ve ever heard of DeviantArt.com or YouTube.com then you are aware of how massive an impact the Internet has already had on art, increasing both the quantity and quality all around, and providing free access to everything for everyone. No longer do we have to look at art that critics tell us to, or watch TV that cable companies force us to, or listen to music that record companies want us to. If you’ve ever heard of Linux then you are aware that open source software available for free (as in beer) is superior to proprietary software.
Point 5: Creating art doesn’t cost anything.
“But if artists don’t get paid, how will they make their art? Better yet, why would they even bother?” Did I mention that most art (drawings, music, videos, software, everything) is already online and FREE? The millions of artists putting their art legally and freely online apparently aren’t getting the message about how important money is. Maybe you should go and tell them to stop making art until it becomes illegal to share it. On second thought, they probably wouldn’t understand. Most people, no matter how poor, can afford a pencil or a guitar.
Point 6: Money stifles creativity.
I would much rather have 100 songs by 100 independent artists than 100 songs by a single mega-band like U2 or a teeny-bopper like Miley Cyrus. “If people download music illegally all the musicians will die out.” No, all the mega-rich superstar musicians will die out (hopefully). Think of all the aspiring musicians out there who never had a chance because they were pushed aside by the latest hit thing that the record companies decided to bring out. Once the mega-bands are gone, it won’t mean the end of music, it will simply open up a whole new world of opportunity to a whole new generation of artists. Money also stifles creativity because companies always want to suck you into two year contracts with arbitrary limits, proprietary technology, expensive add-ons, or whatever. Just think how cool it would be to be able to play your legally purchased music on any portable music device instead of just iPods or just Zunes because of the DRM.
Point 7: Artists DO make money.
Contrary to what I’ve said above, artists who are really good will always make money. Everybody knows that Radiohead‘s album In Rainbows was given away for free and yet somehow still managed to hit the #1 spot on both UK and US music charts and sold a “measly” 3 million copies.
Point 8: You cannot download a live performance.
Why do people go see bands in concert? Why do people see movies in the theaters? Why do people go to museums? Why don’t they just listen/watch/look at everything on their tiny little computer screens? Because things are always better live, that’s why, and that’s how artists have always made their living: live shows. Live shows will continue and downloading has exactly zero effect on this. If anything, filesharing will encourage people to go out and see MORE shows because people will be aware of so much more art that is out there.
Point 9: You are not ENTITLED to money. You cannot FORCE people to buy things they don’t want.
Just because you worked hard on something does not mean it has any value or that anybody wants to buy it. It’s very common for someone to spend many hours working on something such as a song or a computer game only to have nobody buy it. They feel that they are ENTITLED to have consumers because they worked so hard and that “life isn’t fair” because nobody is buying their stuff and that “it must be pirates” that are the cause. I have another theory: maybe your song just sucks or your game is just crappy.
It’s also important to remember that some things just don’t have value because it’s available for free. When was the last time you bought an encyclopedia? Or a dictionary? Or a phonebook? Or a newspaper? These things haven’t gone away, they’ve just gone online and become FREE. The same thing will happen with music. It will go online and become free. In fact, it already has. Newspapers are going ape trying to get people to pay for subscriptions but nobody is buying because paying for subscriptions is retarded. I’m really good at making paper airplanes; why won’t anybody pay me to make paper airplanes?! I want a career making paper airplanes, dammit!
Point 10: Bit torrent is the best means of distribution, the best means of advertising, and almost always has a positive effect on the numbers.
Everybody remembers when the pilot for Battlestar Galactica was leaked onto the Internet before it even aired. What happened? Viewers came out in record numbers when it actually aired on TV making it the most-watched pilot in the history of the SciFi Channel and perhaps their best series to date.
I still don’t understand why companies spend so much money on bandwidth and distribution when we consumers are willing to share their files for free using something like BitTorrent. Distributors are no longer needed; we the people can do it for you!
Point 11: The customer is always right. Give us what we want.
As a customer, I have a few choices:
- I can hop in my car, drive a couple miles to the nearest Best Buy, wander around the store for a bit looking for the movie I want, wait in line for 10 minutes, drive all the way back home, spend hours ripping it to my computer and converting it to iPod format, and then FINALLY be able to watch it on the subway on the way to work the next day, or
- I could download it in five minutes.
I’m sorry, but no company will get consumers to pay for poor service at high prices to get things they don’t want.
Point 12: It doesn’t make sense to illegalize something you can do nothing about.
What’s the plan? Throw everybody in the world in jail? Impractical. Sue filesharing sites out of existence one at a time? Really impractical. Censor the Internet? Impossible.
Point 13: People are willing to pay LOTS of money to download things.
iTunes is a BILLION-dollar business. People pay USENET servers like GigaNews $30 per month to be able to download things at reasonable speeds. Internet providers could DOUBLE their revenue by providing a service such as that. Perhaps this is the future of the industry, where services are what’s sold rather than content. Think about games like World of Warcraft which can’t be pirated because they depend on servers run by Blizzard, or companies like 37Signals who sell software as a service which also can’t be pirated. Consumers will always pay for things they are unable to do themselves, such as run their own servers.
Point 14: Stop prophesying the end of the world.
Video killed the radio star, remember? And then VCRs killed TV, DVDs killed VCRs, TiVo killed TV again, and now the Internet is killing TV yet a third time. It’s strange that both TV and radio are still around after having been killed off so many times. Trust me, things change, they don’t die. Maybe artists will have to adapt, but they aren’t going anywhere.
Point 15: Not everyone is a greedy bastard; many people work for free.
I’ve noticed that most people who are against filesharing are greedy bastards who would never get off their butts if they weren’t paid tons and tons of money and they simply can’t fathom how anybody would work for free. Wikipedia is better than a real encyclopedia and it was built by people working for free. It’s actually a good thing that many jobs were “lost” because the people who used to spend their time making encyclopedias can now spend their time productively doing other things. The collaborative effort of Wikipedia and the Internet has freed up humanity from worrying about gathering information and now we can worry about using that information to better mankind.
In fact, the only consequence of people working for free is that we end up with products made by people who ENJOY doing what they do. Instead of having an operating system (Windows) designed to make bank for Microsoft, we will end up with an operating system (Linux) designed to make computers work well. Funny how freedom is good for everyone.
Point 16: Scientists aren’t in it for the money, either.
I put this one in because I’ve actually heard people say such dumb things as, “But who will make medicines and new technologies in the future if they can’t make money off of it?” You do realize that patents and other intellectual property laws PREVENT people from getting the medication they need, right? And that it’s dirt-poor graduate students living in coffin-shaped door rooms and moderately-paid professors who actually come up with the drugs, not the drug companies? Drug companies come up with cures for restless leg syndrome while scientists do the real work. Besides, it’s the BUSINESSMEN who get rich off of the work of the scientists, not the scientists themselves.
Has anybody who has seen Richard Feynman gave a talk or read any of his books honestly say that he was in it for the money? Do you think he would’ve just given up and stopped winning Nobel prizes if he wasn’t paid millions of dollars? Oh wait, he wasn’t and he didn’t.
Conclusion
The freedom of file sharing is the future. Why are we trying so hard to stop it? In the future music will be so abundant that the law of supply and demand will make it impractical to charge anything for it or to make a living off of it. This is a good thing. In fact, it’s a great thing.
EDIT: Food for thought — Why do people generally think that newspapers should be free, but not music? I mean, people were up in arms about the New York Times asking people to login to their site to view the news, let alone pay for it. Why does everyone think that journalists don’t need to be compensated for their hard work and that the news should be public domain, but not music? They’re both digital assets.
Tags: bittorrent, file sharing, freedom, music
126 Comments on Filesharing Will Go Down in History As the Greatest Thing Ever to Happen to Music
- « Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- « Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
I have to say you are one of the most ignorant people I’ve ever had the displeasure of knowing exist. Your blog here is the only reason I could think of for limiting access to the internet. You’re stupid, non-creative and so misguided. I can’t begin to tell you how pissed I am that you would even think stealing music is cool. I wish only the worst for you! God I’m so angry right now I can’t put togetheer coherent thought, much like the dribble I just read,
It’s funny how you’ll be remembered for how efficiently and conclusively the entirety of your pseudointellectual nonsense has been refuted.
You got some nice advertisements on your page, oh, and how it that YouTube Partnership going?
You’re a fool!
Many people are against ads (Salem13 is one example). But what’s wrong with ads? Ads are freakin’ amazing!
Thanks to ads, we have FREE broadcast TV, FREE radio, FREE websites on the internet (free Google, free YouTube, etc).
Ads give the best of both worlds: everything is FREE and at the same time the artists still get paid! What’s to complain about???
FastUsenet.org offers Unlimited Usenet service for only $9.95. For only $9.95 you get Unlimited Usenet downloads, 50 256bit SSL connections, iPhone newsreader, and web based picture and text newsreaders. Signup for FastUsenet.org today and see why more and more people are switching everyday.
you said and I quote “The sooner we can get it out of our heads (and our kids heads) that “being a rock star” is not a career goal, the better.” do you know anything about double negatives apparently not or even better do ya know anything about economics?
Oh do you see that little point 14 up there yeah uh lets see. Artists don’t get money for things they have made, they can’t afford things like say i dunno instruments, instrument repairs, microphones,editing, or ya know the things they use to MAKE the music. Music is a career field not a hobby.
Honest question, no sarcasm, no intended rudeness.
Have you taken an economics class?
I really am wondering. Because while your point regarding supply and demand has validity, I don’t think it’s very well-thought-out. As you’ve noted, music is already pretty plentiful. Legal, free downloads from sites like soundclick and reverbnation are extremely plentiful! The problem is that some of the music I want to listen to hasn’t been covered, or I don’t care for the covers that do exist. That’s not to say that no one will, but some of them just aren’t my cup of tea. So, supply is high, demand is high. Awesome, right?
But demand for popular songs–the ones we hear on the radio, or in live concerts, or that our friends tell us about–is even higher, because a lot of people don’t have time to spend slogging through (sometimes poorly-rendered) covers of popular tunes. And supply of those popular tunes is lower than the demand, which is how the popular musicians make money. It’s the theory of supply and demand working within a certain market.
And I agree, it is unfair that some very talented people have been looked over by the record labels in favor of other very talented people, but that is how competition works. If I want to be selected for a grant, or a scholarship, or something like that, I need to be better than the competition. A lot of the time, that competition is going to be better than me. I’m okay with that. There’s a lot of luck involved in the music industry simply because there are so many good musicians out there–the same thing happens with aspiring actors. Some of them are going to be overlooked, it’s going to happen, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t pay the ones who make it for their work.
It would be nice not to have to pay for music, but I cannot reconcile my morals with your logic, so I will continue to pay for music.
This blog is a perfect example of why tech nerds didn’t understand music in high school and obviously still don’t.
That was literally the dumbest article on music, art, or piracy, that I have ever read.
What a stinking, steaming, pile of cyber feces.
You are simply a class A moron who knows nothing about music.
You insult my intelligence.
i agree with some of your points
but theres alot of BS in this blog
i dont think it could be Legal to download music that SOME people pay for. if everyone stoped paying for music nobody would be paid. not just artists but the people behind the scenes.
and i dont care what you say MOST people wont work entirely for nothing. it wouldnt work.
i could count the actual music CSs and Programs i have actualy paid for on 2 hands. its safe to say that i Fileshare. but if it wasnt breaking a law and it was literaly the only way to get music. quality and quantity would suffer…..
Some people only steal because they’re poor, some people only pay because they think they should…
…either way, this article is mostly bullshit.
~ a former “professional musician” and current pirate
Proper bullshit lol so if u want to make music u must go bankrupt?
Thats how u show love? U know it costs thousands to record a fkin album right u are so horribly misinformed ..people still make money off of online news. what are u ?
I am a poor African (paleface honky in the South) and I torrenting 24/7 until the tap runs dry.
My BIGGEST DREAM is to have ALL my MP3 Albums as legal CD-ROMs, and TRULY wish I had 2 million dollars or more to buy just music CD-ROMs, it so much nicer to own the real thing, but I can’t so I am FORCED to download the crappy MP3 format. Why should the poor be denied simple pleasures like music?
There are more serious issues on the planet to address like murder, rape, child porn and abuse, war, torture, destroying nature and evils done by the New World Order: world leaders, governments, greedy charismatic churches (like the Rhema Church with filthy rich pastors living in mansions, riding expensive cars and all the vulgar bling), and multinational corporations. But I guess I live a pipe dream…in the end money and power always wins and are the two most important things in the entire universe!
Phil my man.
There is a real tragedy in this, and it is the fact that you get to spew this BS publicly. This blog clearly shows that you don’t have any sort of grasp on what it takes to do music. You also have so many contradictions in this article that at times it doesn’t even make sense. What an idiot!
I am NOT with you on this one, bro.
I echo what Richard said: You have NO IDEA how much goes into making an album. If the artist and studios and producers don’t get money from that, guess what? NO MORE MUSIC. How about that?
Also, I am 18, and I detest filesharing.
BUY A HARDCOPY, YOU DAUNTLESS JERK! Grow up, get a legitemate job, stop blogging this crap, and ACTUALLY WORK FOR YOUR ENTERTAINMENT.
Be a mature, grown-up human being and learn to respect those who sell their music.
Phil,
It’s refreshing to read someone with some common sense blogging the good fight. It also reaffirms to me why the world is so knackered – just look at the misguided and illinformed replies you’re getting to your article! Greedy, desperate, corporate wannabes who don’t dare stand up to big brother’s loaded game because they’re too indoctrinated to be free. Satan’s little helpers. Sigh.
Thanks for the kind words, Magnus
I like to think (I like to hope) that a lot of the comments on my blog are just trolls and that many more people who don’t leave comments are indeed more intelligent. I can’t prove it, but I certainly hope so, ha ha. Anyway, thanks for reading!
You were so pwned by Mike Lombardo, it’s a wonder you even bother continuing to writer your tripe, ever single point of which is filled with utter absurdity. I would assume it was comedic, only it’s not funny either.
The fundamental point you miss is that the artist is entitled to the fruit of his labor and can control the means of it’s production. And you have no right to appropriate it for your use without his/her say so. Didn’t You Tube, which you mention in fact get sued for hosting things like copyrighted material?
Hey look Philip. At the bottom of your website in the footer it says “Copyright 2012 Philip Boucoum, All rights reserved.
Sounds like you are a supporter of copyright.
For you obviously. why the disconnnect because you are an idiot or a malevolent hypocrite or both?
File sharing, if its not agreed upon by those who’s files are being “Shared” is not some moral good. It’s theft. Just as if I appropriated your blog, despite you having a copyright that says its yours and did what I wanted with it.
Would you be ok with that? Be truthful. What do you think that copyright entitles you to? Perhaps the ability to control your content and not have me simply appropriate it as your own.
Yes its true that simply by putting out a product your are not entitled to money for it You are not ENTITLED to money and you cannot FORCE people to buy things they don’t want. But, heres’ the thing. If your content is for sale and you want to have it, you are not ENTITLED to take it without paying for it (unless of course the artist is giving it away). You mention BestBuy and how inconvenient it is to have to go to the store when you can download it in 5 minutes. Does that fact that its less inconvenient entitle you to simply take it through back channels? REALLY? That sounds more like theivery. And if you are a thief, how are you calling yourself a customer? No, the customer is not always right if you are not honoring the terms of the sale in a legitimate market. THat would be like arguing that you should be entitled to walk into the back door of a store and simply take what you want because it’s convenient and the customer is always right.
If you want to talk about a sense of entitlement it’s your suggestino that someohow your advocation of thievery is some market innovation. Nah, you’re just a leech and a bottom feeder.
YOu are one evil prick Philip.
‘It’s “fair” that computer programmers make money and musicians don’t because people are willing to pay people to program things. If you can get someone to pay you to make music, great! If you can’t, too bad. That’s the way the world works.”
Ah, so you should get for your work, but there is no reason to pay musicians for there work. First off, musicians are putting out a PRODUCT. Granted they are taking a gamble that there will be a market for said product, and granted they may end up not selling it, but inherent in this notion is that IF someone wants and uses their product and they decide to charge for it, that you will pay the cost because you want the product. THat is called paying for goods and services.
You know what’s also convenient? Warez sites. All that software that programmers code is expensive so we should just have it. How dare they charge for software? Since sofware should be free, you shouldn’t profit from it. In fact you should work for free. You should only code. So sez I the customer and I am always right.
“At my company, people pay us to program our website that sends faxes and press releases for you. Unfortunately, I haven’t been able to get anybody to pay me to create my super awesome Scrabble program, my boggle solver, my pencil portraits, or any of my other personal art projects. I would love it if I could get paid for them, but I can’t.”
And no one is saying you should get paid for them simply because you are owed money. But lets say that someone does pay you to produce an awesome scrabble game. Or suppose you decide to put the game out. What if you are selling the game?
Are you entitled to profit from said game, or am I as a “customer” entitled to simply download your game wihtout your approval. You ceratinaly arent guaranteed success, but are you honestly suggesting that you are not even entitled to profit if people want to buy your product? ANd who is the controller of how that game should be distributed? You,the maker of the game, who put all the money and time into its creation with the hope that you could recoup your losses and even make a profit, or me a guy who doesn’t want to pay for your game with the price that you set, but still wants to play a nice game of scrabble?
“The simple fact of the matter is the general populace is no longer willing to pay for music, at least not at the prices they have been before. You cannot write into the law that people must pay you for your music. It doesn’t work that way.”
Are you retarded? Of course you can. That is the way a market works. It’s called selling a product. I can’t force you to buy it, but if you decide to take it you are obligated to pay the set price.Would you argue that you can’t write into law that Apple can force people to pay for iphones? Apple can’t force someone to buy one, but if you want one, then you are obligated to PAY FOR IT. Just as if I was going to use your company’s service and have you guys send press releases for me, must it be written into law that I have to pay for your service? Of course I do. If your company charges x amount to send a press release and I engage with you to send a press release for me,I have to pay the price that YOU set, not the price I set. It may be totally convenient for me to have you send that press release for me for free. But since when do I have the right to dicate those terms? WOuld I as the customer be right? IF so, then please provide the name of your company and I will certainly use your service,but don’t expect any payment.
as to whether the general populace is no longer willing to pay for music. That’s fine. If you don’t want to pay the price, no one is forcing you to. SO then don’t buy the music. But since when does that entitle you TAKE that music? How is that anything other than theft? You have the price that is being offered, and you can take it or leave it. If you leave it you don’t get access to the music. It’s that simple. And if you argue anything other than that you are arguing for outright thievery.
“It’s basic economics, people: unlimited supply with limited demand necessitates that the price goes to zero. There’s nothing you can do about it, regardless of your moral or ethical beliefs.
Artists can do what everybody else in the world does: get a day job. If they don’t like it, they can stop making music. Simple.”
THat’s not basic economics. THats theivery. You are not competing in a market. You are appropriating content from companies that produce it and distributing it for free, thus undercutting their market. If I bought home an ipod, copied all its parts and put out a product called an ipod and paid Apple nothing for this, and was able to distribute this ipod to the masses without paying apple for it’s appropriation I would essentially make the price of Ipods go to zero. YOu can do that with any product.
As to what can be done about it, you can honor copyright, put companies that do such things out of business. Is that really how you view any products? Why are you controlling the intellectual property of companies or artists. You’re not arguing for capitalism or economics at all. YOu are arguing for the killing of markets and the theft of inteelectualy propertly as a replacement for economics.
GET THIS THROUGH YOUR HEAD. YOU ARE ENTITLED TO THE CONTROL OF YOUR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND CAN SELL IT OR GIVE IT AWAY AS YOU SEE FIT . YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED TO THE CONTROL OF SOMEONE ELSE’S AND YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED TO APPROPRIATE THEIR WORK OR THEIR GOODS OR THEIR FILES WITHOUT THEIR EXPRESS SAY SO UNDER THEIR TERMS AND NOT YOURS.
“Andrew, are you saying that you are a god who gets to decide what is and what isn’t art? You get to decide who makes money and who doesn’t? Musicians deserve money, but bloggers don’t? Basically, what you’re saying is that if YOU like somebody’s art then they deserve money, and if you DON’T like it, then they don’t deserve money? What gives you that kind of power?”
WHAT GIVES YOU THE KIND OF POWER TO APPROPRIATE CONTENT PRODUCED BY OTHERS AND NOT PAY THEM FOR IT? Andrew doesn’t decid what is and isn’t art or valuable. The market does. WHat determines who makes money is whether someone buys a product that somone makes> YOU ARE ARGUING THAT YOU CAN DETEMRINE WHO CANNOT MAKE MONEY. THat you control the means of their production and their distribution. What gives YOU that power?
If I don’t like someones art, I don’t have to pay them money. But if they are selling a product and I want it I pay their price. Likewise, if you were able to discover a way to potentially make money off of your blog, then it’s not a question of whether you deserve to have money thrown your way. It becomes a market decision. If I want what you have on your blog and its your content I will pay you for your good and service if I want it. IF you charge too much I wont buy it. If you get enough sales that you become a millionaire off your content, then good for you. But its YOUR content. Not my content. I would have no right to take your goods and putting it up on my website and charge less than you charge or charge nothing for it. Since it is your intellectual property, your goods and services. WOuld you have a problem if you did the work to produce said product, service or what have you, and I simply took your product without your consent and put it up on my website and profited from it?
Suppose Phil, that you came up with a song that was very catchy. And I had a company and I wanted to use your song in my advertising. And suppose you have your song up on ITunes because you want to sell it and actually earn a profit, or suppose you don’t want it to be in a commercial. Can my company simply take your song and use it in our advertising without even getting your permission?
YES OR NO? I would imagine that if I tried that you would sue me because I have no right to use your song without your permission.
Well how is that different than what Google is doing with peoples intellectual property.
They are selling advertising and using an artists song to sell their product (in this case advertising) without getting the consent of the person who’s work is being appropriated.If you look at all the links pointing to files that are illegal content they are invariably “powered by google”. Meaning, those who are hosting said links are getting paid to advertise on their site, using google.Google then is profiting from said content (since why would you click on the link if not for the access to the file you want a copy of).
How is this different than file sharing using content as a way to sell their own product? You say file sharing is “Free” yet why are the people run file sharing companies making billions of dollars? Because it’s not free. They make money on stuff like charging users for quicker downloads and through advertising using the content as their hook.
NOw go back to my example. If I as a reputable company can’t use your song to sell my product without your permission why can a file sharing company use your song to sell it’s product without permission. WHy can Google sell its advertising on YOUR Song without your permission. ANd don’t give me that crap about how it’s a digital file.What isn’t a digital file these days?
If I as a reputable company can’t use your song without permission, why can COMPANIES like Google or megaupload get away with the same thing?
Do you have an answer?
I think you just don’t understand how the world works, jr565. Every few years, a new technology comes along that simply makes an old industry obsolete. This is good for 99.9% of the population, but it really sucks for the 0.1% of people who work in that industry.
Remember when that internet thing came along? It destroyed newspapers, phonebooks, AOL and CompuServe, and, yes, the music industry. But damn if the internet isn’t fucking awesome for everybody else.
Judging from your emotional outburst and the way you seem to have taken my comments so very personally, I can only imagine that you probably were one of those people who unfortunately got laid off when filesharing upended the music industry. You have my condolences, but when you look at it objectively, filesharing has served the greater good.
For more about how disruptive technology changes the world for the better, I suggest you read my post, “Star Trek and Intellectual Property”.
All I can say is “It’s a big f*cked-up ugly greedy cold world being lived by greedy human beings.
Desperately and indifferently saying, almost all HUMAN BEINGS do not know how to share …
I’m thinking that one day breathing will be paid…
SHAME on HUMANS, you forgot the value of LOVE and SHARING
I hate Earth, I hate all, I hate how stingy people you are..!
It’s a dead humanity, it’s a big slap on the face of the universe.
You fucked greedy human beings… we are all EVIL, and I’ll be having a big smile on my face when we go in one hell.
I raged