|
Jayesel
|
read my profile
sign my guestbook
Name: Jake
Country: United States
State: Texas
Metro: San Antonio
Birthday: 3/14/1986
Gender: Male
Interests: Guitar, Guitar, More Guitar, oh yeah, and Guitar!I Love Music, Running, and being me.Everything I say on this site is up to your decision, but remember that it is for entertainment, and if you're dumb enough to read this and get offended you should get away from here and find yourself a stupid video website where everyone says little stupid things and the videos are more pointless than me making a video that has me watching a video on one of those pointless sites. If you don't like what I say, tell me, but to be more honest, I want you press Alt+F4 to close this page.
Expertise: Computers, Recording, I play guitar, Blues, Jazz, Metal, Funk, Punk (but what guitar player isn't good at punk?), Bluegrass, and....yes even Country (vomits).Music.Dry Drug Humor. (its fun to say "...and crack!" at the end of a list).
Occupation: Musician/Ranter
Industry: Entertainment
Message: message meEmail: email me
Website: visit my website
AIM:  jslimon86
Yahoo:  jslimon86
Jabber: i dont know what the fuck jabber is but i have xfire: jayesel
Member Since:
10/8/2004
|
|
| On Piracy.I do not condone piracy, this essay is simply a philosophical/sociological viewpoint and should be read as such.
Yeah, the great debate. I know that piracy is a touchy subject...almost as touchy as religion or abortion. You get the people on one side bitching about losing money, and people on the other bitching about how no money is being lost. I will direct you to an interesting picture I came across yesterday.
 Now, really think about this. Really think about how it is not, theft in the literal sense. I mean, you're not walking into a store and picking up a cd.
This crazy person who drew this (is not only a genius but) has a fucking point.
I'll come back to this drawing when I've explained the concept of theft a little more precisely.
I live in Texas, and am a Criminal Justice Major, I am not a law major, nor do I claim to know how to properly interpret law. I simply study the nature of Criminals, Deviants, and Delinquents. (Rather interesting field if you ask me.) However I do own a few books which state the various laws in each state, and even...a book on theft. Titled "Shoplifting: What you need to know about the law." Yeah i know, it is a dated book, but it is better than nothing.
In the back of the book there is a Statutory Appendix. This statutory Appendix lists the definition of Theft as written by the state of Texas' Penal Code.
(begin quote)
"§31.03 Theft
(a) A person commits an offense if, with intent to deprive the owner of property:
(1) He obtains the property unlawfully; or
(2) He exercises control over the property, other than real property, unlawfully.
(b) Obtaining or exercising control over property is unlawful if:
(1) the actor obtains or exercises control over the property without the owners effective consent; or
(2) the property was stolen and the actor obtains it from another or exercises control over the property obtained by another knowing it was stolen...."
(end quote)
Now you see where this gets weird. I mean, the Texas legal system is so vague at times...but this seems pretty clear. The real question is where do we draw the line between a criminal act and something that isn't criminal in the legal sense of the word. The problem with the RIAA, MPAA and such is not that they're suing people...it's perfectly fine to sue people. People do it all the time. The problem is that they are trying to call it a criminal act and put restrictions on information. They have the biggest problem suing for insane amounts of money.
That's where the problem lies. You see Provision B Section 1 being violated...but what about Provision A? What is unlawful and lawful control? For instance a friend can sell me a copy of a cd, but he can only charge me for the cost of burning a cd...say.....10 cents for the cd and 15 cents for time and labor. Yes burning a cd is pretty easy now...but it still takes time. "What are you going to sue me now for working for you? My time ain't free." Is what I heard a friend tell his boss before he quit. The boss wasn't goin to pay him for his last 4 hours of work...because it wasn't a "complete workday".
What about just giving out the cd? Is that unlawful? ...if anything you're losing money and time.
Being a musician, I understand the dangers of piracy...but really think about it. The record companies are suing the people not the musicians themselves.
Wait a minute, I know what you're thinking....Metallica went apeshit when they found out their songs were being shared. Let me remind you how long Metallica has been on the scene, and then let me remind you that they actually make a pretty good profit off of their album sales. (Why else do you think they haven't toured as much in the past 10 years?)
I'm going to explain something to you, that you probably had an idea of, but didn't fully know or understand. When an artist signs onto a record deal, they essentially "sign" their rights to own the songs for the next 15-30 years (depending on how copyright and rights ownership works), why the fuck do you think Michael Jackson was able to buy the Beatles song rights? That's right, the artist doesn't own the rights to the song, all they do is record it...hand it over to the suits and then make a measly1%-10% off the album sales. You read right 1%-10% (sometimes 15% but that's rare too). Don't give me that "Artists have to be paid like everyone else." Practice what you preach big wigs.
The artist makes most of their money off of touring, and that isn't subject to piracy. There are bootleggers/tapers but they usually are hardcore fans and collectors who own every single album, single, dvd, or bootleg available.
The record execs are the ones who make a shitton of money off the record sales, so when they sue people for insane amounts of money they really are just suing for insane amounts of money. There is no way to accurately measure how much monetary damage one song cost to share.
Now let me get back to the picture. Theft removes an original. Piracy makes a copy. Let us sit on this for a few minutes.
Now think about piracy as a massive way of backing up information. Not just any information but...culturally significant information. I know it's a stretch for some of you, but if you really think about it it makes complete sense.
Imagine theres a major catastrophe...let's say the apocalypse came. Any kind, take your pick. Well...hundreds of years later, the race picks up again, and they find these things called computers in the rubble and ashes. In the computers they find thousands of files...and most of the computers have the same files... DVDs and CDs are burned and long gone, and all that is left is magnetic media which had not been turned on in ages.
So they press a few buttons, an os boot screen loads up and...they learn what the buttons do. Wouldn't that be interesting...seeing that: "whoa this culture really thought this moving picture was good?" Or the language may be forgotten and they use the music...movie...and digital book files to help decode the language. Hell we need decoders to help "decode" ancient languages. it would be nice if we had a few movies to actually help us out.
It's not entirely bad.
-Jake
(i might come back and edit this later)
| | |
| Expression.That's what this is so get used to it.
| | |
| Tweet This MotherfuckersI've been putting this for far too long. There's this site that started about 2 (maybe 3 depending on how you count) years ago.
It's called Twitter. You will not find me on Twitter. You will never, and I repeat never find me on twitter (well hopefully never, and you'll see why). It took me 2 years to find out exactly what Twittering is. Apparently, despite my request that website names never become nouns, verbs, superlatives, interjections, adjectives...you get the point.
Man, like xanga. All of a sudden if you're on it you're a Xangan. what the fuck?! Even Xanga's word check doesn't recognize Xanga or Xangan as a word.
Well. What the fuck are you if you're on Twitter? A Twitterer? A bird? A Twitterbug?
They do say, "He Tweeted!"
What the fuck is the purpose of Twitter you ask? Twitter is a site that is based upon the one question...What are you doing? Shit, I feel so dirty quoting the site.
Anyways, Twitter is just another way of saying, "I am addicted to the Internet."
Even more disturbing is that some celebrities thought it would be cool to have a twitter account. Do I really want to know what Whoopi Goldberg is doing? What about Xzihbit? (i think i spelled that name wrong).
I don't really care to know what 90% of people are doing at any time.
As I usually say, good concept...bad execution. It was based upon the AIM away messages, and the away messages should have stayed that way. As it is I do this, a twitter accountwould just fuck me up more.
I imagine a world sort of like a cross between the matrix and lawnmower man. Both series sucked (well when the sequels were made you could tell they were just trying to make money). You know....you're logged into the internet constantly only to get sucked in and stuck in it because you as a stupid human are so susceptible to it's superior power.
We already have 'networking' (god i hate that word) websites connecting to other sites of its kind. Take xanga, allowing you to fucking post to fucking facebook. Or take Myspace, already acknowleding that xanga, twitter, facebook, blogger and other such sites exist and letting you post things to those accounts (not blogs but other things).
What kind of world are we living on? The internet sucks.
The whole subculture of the internet has moved from high up government geek to teenage hacker to lowlife wannabe script kiddy back to teenage hacker to dense myspace/attention whore.
It's annoying. Let's not even get into the gamers.
- Jake the Snake
| | |
| DDF gets DP'ed by RB and UPFor those of you dumbasses not in the know. That above sentence comprised mostly of acronyms is supposed to read:
Drop Dead Fred gets Double Penetrated by Russell Brand and Universal Pictures.
Drop Dead Fred viciously raped.
Russell Brand...oh...you Slag. Okay, so he's not a woman, but still, he really shouldn't touch the damn part.
The movie sucked as it was in 1991. It was aimed at kids mostly and, well, it wasn't all that great. Having dated a girl or two who liked the movie well into their older ages, it's really hard to see how the movie would be liked by anyone older than 12.
I also am 100% convinced that the movie industry has gone to the shits. In the past few years I've seen so many reboots and so many remakes it's hard to even want to be a movie star now. The most compelling being the reboot of the Hulk. Which was redone before the 10 year marker.
Let me explain. A movie franchise should be given at least 10 years to sit on the shelves, by which time people would either stumble upon the movie (I know Ang Lee's: Hulk would never reach this status) in a bargain bin and the movie would quickly achieve cult status.
I mean for fucks sake, look at Boondock Saints, that movie sucked ass (not really)...but no one wants to remake it because it achieved cult status.
So instead of thinking of a new plot that actually makes sense and can stand on it's own for generations (Donnie Darko), they choose to make a sequel based on that franchise and subsequently shit on EVERYTHING that director of the original has done (by making S. Darko).
Seriously don't you assholes see it?
The movie studios believe that piracy is hurting them? Shit man, make better movies and get Russell Brand out of here. I like him as a comedian...but he should STAY a fucking comedian. There's reasons why people stay in their profession, and that's because they fuck up OTHER professions. For instance, let's take the wonderful example of Johnny Depp...no...Robert Downey Jr, no wait Stephen Segal.
No wait...all of them.
All of them composed a musical album in one way or another. All of those albums...sucked...or reached cult status and fell off the cult status marker faster than you can say Beatles Suck.
Russell Brand does so many things, it's hard to understand why he decided to sign on with Universal. He is so anti media and shit, or at least gives off that impression, that the first thing he does in America is sign on to star in Major Motion Pictures.
Isn't that...backwards? I know the best way to fuck things up is from the inside out...but come on...starring in Bubblegum Popcorn Movies such as Forgetting Sarah Marshall, Penelope, and Get Him to the Greek is a bit much don't you think?
You know. Nirvana did the same thing. Changed the music industry whilst beating the man off while wearing rubber gloves and a dental dam.
You're so against getting near it that you dive right into it and forget that you're still fucking the man...
Goddamn you assholes.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.
In addition, all the material here is provided solely for entertainment purposes.
| | |
|
