- Background Noise http://www.torrentroom.com/torrent/2737363-Matt-Stevens-Ghost-2010.html oooooooooooor people could get it for free
- Matt Stevens I believe you can no longer justify torrenting when you can listen legally for free. Makes very little sense.
- Background Noise the lines between legalities are very blurry my friend. besides, i myself believe the ownership of music to be moot. take poetry for example; the way the words make us feel is the soul purpose of the art. therefore it is the emotion i am paying or working for. an emotion is either a chemical reaction in my own brain, or a religious or spiritual enlightenment of my soul. ergo how can an experience i (or if you must "fate) create, be subject to the ownership of a simple cog in a grandfather clock of variables? if you must spin the argument of source-fulness, your art wouldn't be wanted unless someone felt the need to accompany their emotion. so, you as the artist are subjugate to the whims of the commission. and this commissioner can get it for free. merchandise my friend. thats the way. keep up the good work
- Matt Stevens PS Just turned this into a PDF and I'm selling it on my website - totally agree words belong to no one. BTW that's £6 please.
Monday, 22 April 2013
How To Profit From A Ridiculous Argument
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
LinkWithin
3 comments:
@ Background noise. The legalities are far from blurry. This is a convenient display of ignorance to justify theft. Whisky, like poetry, elicits a chemical and emotional response in the brain. Walk into a pub, order a whisky and then use your argument to explain why you don't have to pay. If you're torrenting you are stealing. Stop. Thief.
You're not paying for the emotional response; your paying for the entity that creates the emotional response. I shouldn't even respond to Background Noise's comments because they're beneath me, but it galls me that people use this kinda numbskull argument to justify their own lack of cultural conscience: "It's *art*, man. You can't put a value on *feelings*". Well, yes, actually, I can....they're priceless. So pay the $5, you fuckwit! (Smileyface)
I can't fathom Background Noises argument. Have I missed something??? Here's my synopsis of what he is saying:
"I own the emotion that I experience when I listen to your music, therefore you have no right to charge me for it."
However, the comment Matt is making (again, assuming that I am understanding correctly) is not about cost, it's about doing something illegally for free vs doing something legally for free.
So, do I infer that this chap gets a heightened emotion response simply from the fact that he is doing something illegal? If so, then the emotional response from the music is actually what is 'moot' in his argument (as the response resulting from the music is exactly the same whether streamed or torrented).
I therefore suspect that he is confusing an emotional response from the music with a kick resulting from breaking the law. Maybe this is a well disguised plea for help from a hopeless addict?!?!
Post a Comment