TBD

atomic wrote:
I was thinking that in a year when I was done paying my Alimony I could buy myself a really expensive Audi.  Then I calculated what day care costs and I realized I am not getting an Audi.   :'(

Audis are passe.  Get a Ghibli.

just make sure, its not used.

Why? I like to read the reply first. If the reply is boring, I don't have to bother rereading what they are quoting.
:D

stevewizzle wrote:
can we all stop replying on the top of quotations? it's like reading from right to left.

nevermind.

James wrote:
Why? I like to read the reply first. If the reply is boring, I don't have to bother rereading what they are quoting.
:D

stevewizzle wrote:
can we all stop replying on the top of quotations? it's like reading from right to left.

because scrolling through it reads like a pile of shit. i'm going to modify the atomic blocking script and block you if you keep this shit up.

atomic wrote:

James wrote:
Why? I like to read the reply first. If the reply is boring, I don't have to bother rereading what they are quoting.
:D

stevewizzle wrote:
can we all stop replying on the top of quotations? it's like reading from right to left.

Is that why you haven't been replying to my replies to your posts.  You find your orginal post boring so you never get to my post?

I think he still had the atomic blocking script on.

stevewizzle wrote:

James wrote:
Why? I like to read the reply first. If the reply is boring, I don't have to bother rereading what they are quoting.
:D

stevewizzle wrote:
can we all stop replying on the top of quotations? it's like reading from right to left.

because scrolling through it reads like a pile of shit. i'm going to modify the atomic blocking script and block you if you keep this shit up.

You sleep in a separate room from your wife too, don't you?  I can see the bitterness rising from your posts.

Yada wrote:

atomic wrote:

James wrote:
Why? I like to read the reply first. If the reply is boring, I don't have to bother rereading what they are quoting.
:D

stevewizzle wrote:
can we all stop replying on the top of quotations? it's like reading from right to left.

Is that why you haven't been replying to my replies to your posts.  You find your orginal post boring so you never get to my post?

I think he still had the atomic blocking script on.

There was no blocking script. 

atomic wrote:

Yada wrote:

atomic wrote:

James wrote:
Why? I like to read the reply first. If the reply is boring, I don't have to bother rereading what they are quoting.
:D

stevewizzle wrote:
can we all stop replying on the top of quotations? it's like reading from right to left.

Is that why you haven't been replying to my replies to your posts.  You find your orginal post boring so you never get to my post?

I think he still had the atomic blocking script on.

There was no blocking script. 

Yes…Yes, there is.

How does the placement of the reply affect scrolling?

stevewizzle wrote:

James wrote:
Why? I like to read the reply first. If the reply is boring, I don't have to bother rereading what they are quoting.
:D

stevewizzle wrote:
can we all stop replying on the top of quotations? it's like reading from right to left.

because scrolling through it reads like a pile of shit. i'm going to modify the atomic blocking script and block you if you keep this shit up.

How does the placement of the reply affect scrolling?

atomic wrote:

stevewizzle wrote:

James wrote:
Why? I like to read the reply first. If the reply is boring, I don't have to bother rereading what they are quoting.
:D

stevewizzle wrote:
can we all stop replying on the top of quotations? it's like reading from right to left.

because scrolling through it reads like a pile of shit. i'm going to modify the atomic blocking script and block you if you keep this shit up.

You sleep in a separate room from your wife too, don't you?  I can see the bitterness rising from your posts.

dont have a wife, and JF knows that I kid.

walkonby wrote:
then pay for the fucking download, latchkey kid.

1% of the people might.  The rest will steal it.  By stealing it they continue to encourage people to continue uploading music and give it away.  The labels are kind of shooting themselves in the foot, imo.

StoneTheCrow wrote:

walkonby wrote:
then pay for the fucking download, latchkey kid.

1% of the people might.  The rest will steal it.  By stealing it they continue to encourage people to continue uploading music and give it away.  The labels are kind of shooting themselves in the foot, imo.

I don't think they would be able to sue you if you bought the vinyl and downloaded the torrent. 

hutch wrote:
if you buy a record you should get the mp3s free…actually in FLAC or some such….end of story.

no, you are wrong.  if you buy a record you should get the record. end of story.

buying a license to a recording gives you the right to back it up (say, in digital format) for your personal use.  however, the label/artist/etc are not obligated to provide that backup for you.  you have zero legal (and even less moral) grounds to claim that you are owed a digital version.

sometimes a record comes with codes, but that's for the original purchaser only.  problem is, the labels can't stop the purchaser from giving away the codes.  solution: don't give codes.

sorry to burst your bubble but that's, like, law, and stuff.  lets… go… back… to… over… using… ellipses……………

StoneTheCrow wrote:

walkonby wrote:
then pay for the fucking download, latchkey kid.

1% of the people might.  The rest will steal it.  By stealing it they continue to encourage people to continue uploading music and give it away.  The labels are kind of shooting themselves in the foot, imo.

I'm not following your train of thought.  Are you saying that the labels are shooting themselves in the foot by encouraging 99% of people to steal the download, rather than giving it away free to 100% of the people?

ggw wrote:

StoneTheCrow wrote:

walkonby wrote:
then pay for the fucking download, latchkey kid.

1% of the people might.  The rest will steal it.  By stealing it they continue to encourage people to continue uploading music and give it away.  The labels are kind of shooting themselves in the foot, imo.

I'm not following your train of thought.  Are you saying that the labels are shooting themselves in the foot by encouraging 99% of people to steal the download, rather than giving it away free to 100% of the people?

I think they are encouraing people not to buy the vinyl and just steal the digital copy.  I am guessing you don't buy the vinyl?  If you do than do you turn around and buy mp3's as well?

atomic wrote:

ggw wrote:

StoneTheCrow wrote:

walkonby wrote:
then pay for the fucking download, latchkey kid.

1% of the people might.  The rest will steal it.  By stealing it they continue to encourage people to continue uploading music and give it away.  The labels are kind of shooting themselves in the foot, imo.

I'm not following your train of thought.  Are you saying that the labels are shooting themselves in the foot by encouraging 99% of people to steal the download, rather than giving it away free to 100% of the people?

I think they are encouraing people not to buy the vinyl and just steal the digital copy.  I am guessing you don't buy the vinyl?  If you do than do you turn around and buy mp3's as well?

So people only buy the vinyl to get the free mp3s? 

Why not just buy the mp3s?  Cheaper than the vinyl anyway.

sweetcell wrote:

hutch wrote:
if you buy a record you should get the mp3s free…actually in FLAC or some such….end of story.

no, you are wrong.  if you buy a record you should get the record. end of story.

buying a license to a recording gives you the right to back it up (say, in digital format) for your personal use.  however, the label/artist/etc are not obligated to provide that backup for you.  you have zero legal (and even less moral) grounds to claim that you are owed a digital version.

sometimes a record comes with codes, but that's for the original purchaser only.  problem is, the labels can't stop the purchaser from giving away the codes.  solution: don't give codes.

sorry to burst your bubble but that's, like, law, and stuff.  lets… go… back… to… over… using… ellipses……………

i, totally agree . . . about the ellipse points, you are making.

I'm a big fan of the elipse… I gotta say.

So back to Spotify, there are 100's of bands I would never give a listen to if I had to "buy" their albums. For example, Diarrhea Planet, god awful name… generally would immediately write them off immediately. Thanks to the power of Spotify, I listened to the record, enjoyed it and will therefore pay money to see them. If I didn't have Spotify, they wouldn't have ever receive a dime from me.

How should one be exposed to new music if they're not using a streaming service? This isn't 1994 or even 2004. Oink from way back in the day, waffles.fm, what.cd aren't even worth using anymore.

Also, FlAC or 320kbs >>> DAC sounds pretty darn amazing. If you have a piece of shit system, your vinyl and your mp3s are going to sound like crap.

ggw wrote:
I'm not following your train of thought.  Are you saying that the labels are shooting themselves in the foot by encouraging 99% of people to steal the download, rather than giving it away free to 100% of the people?

No, only to the people who purchased the vinyl.

By not giving them a download the labels encourage the type of behavior they would like to put an end to.  I realize we're only talking a fraction of the music-bying public, but it seems contradictory to me.  And maybe me only.