and here you have it…
Just Announced Commentary - 2011 Edition
RatBastard wrote:
None of what you said excuse the fact that she took something she did not pay for that was not hers to take. IOW she is still a thief. It astounds me that people actually try to use the "I only stole it cause I couldn't afford it' debate. If that is acceptable then I ought to have three jags, and a coupe of private jets at no cost. Hey wait, maybe Bammy will send them to me for free…
you're right, by absolute definition of law, thief. but no more of a thief than millions of others.
azaghal1981 wrote:
^We're both troll-feeding.
you two are the ones who are trolling…
stevewizzle wrote:RatBastard wrote:
None of what you said excuse the fact that she took something she did not pay for that was not hers to take. IOW she is still a thief. It astounds me that people actually try to use the "I only stole it cause I couldn't afford it' debate. If that is acceptable then I ought to have three jags, and a coupe of private jets at no cost. Hey wait, maybe Bammy will send them to me for free…
you're right, by absolute definition of law, thief. but no more of a thief than millions of others.
the difference is the other theives don't go on the internet and brag about being theives. If you do you should expect backlash from people you are stealing from.
kosmo wrote:
Did I say any of those activities were illegal? No… The point being made is that artists don't benefit on secondary sales..
they benefit from secondary sales. If someone goes out and buys all the used Smiths albums ( you know who you are) that forces me to buy a new one instead of picking up a cheaper used one. So that is better for the artist than if the person just downloaded the songs from pirate bay.
And the sampler helps the unknown artist. If I hear an artist on a sampler I end up buying stuff from the artist. I remember buying NME's C86 sampler used back in the 80's and then ended up buying a ton of albums over the years from artists on that sampler. Most of whom I had never heard of before. Artists on that sampler got a huge boost because of it.
It's funny that this thread was started to keep another thread on topic, and now this thread is completely off the rails.
atomicfront wrote:
I didn't get any student loans I worked 35 hours to pay for my tuition and i took 18 credits a semester. So take that bullshit about me having it easier. If you have student loans you don't pay interest when you are in college so you should have plenty of money. And interest is a whole lot lower these days than when i was going to college.
i was wrong, gov't interest rates are the same as 1992. but they dipped to very low rates in the early 2000's.
tuition, however, has tripled. average tuition in 1990 was $6k. today, it's $18k. so, unless you were working 110 hours a week, i don't think you'd be paying your way through your college these days.
atomicfront wrote:
Bands do complain about not having health insurance all the time and not being able to make ends meet. bands give up all the time. Lower Dens complained about how they got attacked for letting their music be used in a commercial when it allowed them to pay everyone in the band. Rasputina works in factory and loses members because she can't pay them.
they don't have health insurance because they choose not to pay for it and that whole system is fucked anyways. i don't think me buying their album is going to change that.
atomicfront wrote:
wow you spend 720 dollars on music a year!!! You deserve a medal. Spotify pays next to nothing to bands. That is comical that you even think bands are making money off you. You wouldn't go to any shows if you had to pay for music? We went to shows all the time when I was in college and we had to pay for the music.
i spend much more than that, but that's not the point. I was using ball park figures, plenty of those shows i see are $30 tickets, etc. the point i was making was i'm contributing more to society. and regarding you're point that you saw shows and paid for music… once again, times have changed. apples to oranges.
beetsnotbeats wrote:
It's funny that this thread was started to keep another thread on topic, and now this thread is completely off the rails.
it's fantastic.
stevewizzle wrote:
CHVRCHES
6/21, Black Cat
^ this trio is worthwhile watching over the next few months. good pop music, and the lead singer, lauren mayberry, is absolutely fascinating.
stevewizzle wrote:atomicfront wrote:
I didn't get any student loans I worked 35 hours to pay for my tuition and i took 18 credits a semester. So take that bullshit about me having it easier. If you have student loans you don't pay interest when you are in college so you should have plenty of money. And interest is a whole lot lower these days than when i was going to college.
i was wrong, gov't interest rates are the same as 1992. but they dipped to very low rates in the early 2000's.
tuition, however, has tripled. average tuition in 1990 was $6k. today, it's $18k. so, unless you were working 110 hours a week, i don't think you'd be paying your way through your college these days.atomicfront wrote:
Bands do complain about not having health insurance all the time and not being able to make ends meet. bands give up all the time. Lower Dens complained about how they got attacked for letting their music be used in a commercial when it allowed them to pay everyone in the band. Rasputina works in factory and loses members because she can't pay them.
they don't have health insurance because they choose not to pay for it and that whole system is fucked anyways. i don't think me buying their album is going to change that.atomicfront wrote:
wow you spend 720 dollars on music a year!!! You deserve a medal. Spotify pays next to nothing to bands. That is comical that you even think bands are making money off you. You wouldn't go to any shows if you had to pay for music? We went to shows all the time when I was in college and we had to pay for the music.
i spend much more than that, but that's not the point. I was using ball park figures, plenty of those shows i see are $30 tickets, etc. the point i was making was i'm contributing more to society. and regarding you're point that you saw shows and paid for music… once again, times have changed. apples to oranges.
Average Tuition? Go to a state school like I did. My alma mater's tuition is less than 7k a year. I had 10 job offers when I graduated so don't pull the your school sucks card. If you go to a private college you need to get a scholarship as otherwise it is not worth it.
getting big student loan debt is for suckers. You can't get out of it even if you declare bankruptcy. So if you are unwise enough to acquire student loans make sure they are small in dollar figure and make sure you are studying in a field that pays well and has a high demand.
Less then 7k a year? That's absurd, no way are there any schools out there that cheap, unless it's a community colllege.
dont kill his buzz . . . he was going good there for awhile.
wml7 wrote:
Less then 7k a year? That's absurd, no way are there any schools out there that cheap, unless it's a community colllege.
Ok I missed the mandatory fees. It ends up being 9600 a year with them. Stuff like paying for kids to play sports is ridiculous. It Norway college is free. Why can't we be more like Norway? Maybe if college was free kids would buy more albums.
Well actually if these american college students are so poor why do I see them with Iphones, Ipads and apple computers that cost three times as much as the same computers without the apple logo on them? Why do they pay 4 bucks for shitty Starbucks coffee?
why would you want colleges to be free? i dont. make smart kids work there ass off to get to where they want to be . . . that is the point. to value what you have been given, not to be a bunch a freeloading "give me give me" folk.
paging rb.
paging rb.
walkonby wrote:
why would you want colleges to be free? i dont. make smart kids work there ass off to get to where they want to be . . . that is the point. to value what you have been given, not to be a bunch a freeloading "give me give me" folk.
paging rb.
well you don't have to let everyone into college. You could have minimum test scores to allow the freeness to happen. But free college is a good investment. College graduates pay more taxes. Non-college graduates use more entitlement programs. Ratbastard should be all for universal free college.
atomicfront wrote:
It Norway college is free. Why can't we be more like Norway?
because norway has a lot of oil and a government that is in the business of providing for its people.
the US has a little oil that is privately owned (and under-taxed) and its government is in the business of "ensuring liberties".
sweetcell wrote:atomicfront wrote:
It Norway college is free. Why can't we be more like Norway?
because norway has a lot of oil and a government that is in the business of providing for its people.
the US has a little oil that is privately owned (and under-taxed) and its government is in the business of "ensuring liberties".
we have a lot more oil than Norway. Tons more. We just like to drive in huge SUV's and have humongeous houses. We like things big in america.
you're right about the amount of oil, the US produces 4 times more than norway.
what i was getting at is in norway, the oil is taxed at a high rate (under the philosophy that it belongs to all norwegians and taxes are the way that the people get their share), and those taxes are spent on the people - schools, health care, etc.
in the US, oil is seen as the property of the company that gets it out of the ground, and that company gets to keep most of that value (re: the obscene profits of ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, Chevron, etc)
what i was getting at is in norway, the oil is taxed at a high rate (under the philosophy that it belongs to all norwegians and taxes are the way that the people get their share), and those taxes are spent on the people - schools, health care, etc.
in the US, oil is seen as the property of the company that gets it out of the ground, and that company gets to keep most of that value (re: the obscene profits of ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, Chevron, etc)
how do you people know all this stuff and still post on internet forums. i post here . . . because i dont know nothing.
walkonby wrote:
how do you people know all this stuff and still post on internet forums. i post here . . . because i dont know nothing.
It's the power of the troll.
wml7 wrote:
Less then 7k a year? That's absurd, no way are there any schools out there that cheap, unless it's a community colllege.
False.
California's State Universities Basic Tuition is $5,472. Even with the student based fees most campus costs average around $7,000 per student, not including room and board, of course.