Do you really buy that expensive recording software?

[Toker41]

Well, I feel pretty good about busting your ass. After having asked for it three times over three days (and at least once by someone else also) you are unable to provide any evidence or support for your contention that there are "Harvard studies" backing your point. Because they don't exist. And you have absolutely ignored all opportunities to represent any relevant business management training or experience that you may have; which, if you had any, you'd be jumping all over to defend yourelf and your position.

You, sir, are a bullshitter...at least on this subject. You know nothing about how the software business works and the only "studies" there are that state that piracy has no effect on business are those polls held within the pirating-friendly community.

G.

Man, you really are an ass. (not to mention blind)

http://www.unc.edu/~cigar/papers/FileSharing_March2004.pdf

Now how about you show proof for your point that it does impact sales?

 

[Toker41]

To The People That gave me Anonymous Neg Feedback....

Did Your Parents Raise Any Men?

Sign It, Cowards. If You Are Going To Give It, Have The Balls To Own Up To It.

 

[legionserial]

Now how about you show proof for your point that it does impact sales?

How about you show proof for your point that it doesn't? All I saw was a report on record sales. Not software. And to be honest, all I really saw (based on the language used mostly) was someone trying to cleverly justify themselves. For example...

"File sharing allows users to learn about music they would not otherwise be exposed to"....

This point is neither here nor there, and clearly a tool of self justification. Stealing a car might allow me to learn about a car I might not otherwise be exposed to. Does that justify it? I don't know many mentally stable people that would think it does. I mean shit, smoking some crack would allow me to experience drugs I have never been exposed to...that doesn't mean it wouldn't be fucking stupid of me to go smoke a whole bunch of crack.

Anyway, whatever effect piracy has on sales is irrelevant to the moral aspect. But if people are happy to be morally devoid, let 'em. Karma will kick them in the ass one day.

 

[TerraMortim]

file sharing gave me AIDS! HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THAT?!?!?!

 

[pacman9000]

Look, I can't tell u nyggas exactly how the fuk that sh1t is fundamentally flawed, you just have to trust me on this one.

put this way, if you have 2 apples right, you think there are 2 apples, that's your false perception due to math, but do you have 2 exactly equivalent apples no, do we even know how to measure all the parameters of an apple, hell nah.


Does math justify the war in iraq? Yes

Does math tell us that there is greater benefit and more financial gain in death then in life, in many instances, yes!

How can science be so advanced as we claim, and how can we claim any scientific data is fact, when we understand next to nothing about the inner workings of our own human brains.

 

[Toker41]

Like I said, some hear what they want.


I still never said stealing wasn't wrong, just that "it's hurting companies" is a weak, and invalid argument, and can not be backed up with any facts or numbers, only unprovable speculation. I even said, over and over, that I don't steal, and all my stuff is legal. Yet, I am grouped in as one of the "evil immoral sinners" because I do not attack it at every angle, weather factual, or fictional.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Man, you really are an ass. (not to mention blind)

http://www.unc.edu/~cigar/papers/FileSharing_March2004.pdf

I'M the blind one?? Take a look at that paper again, Sherlock. It has nothing to do with software sales. You'd think the title of the paper would be a tipoff. And if not, the abstract makes it pretty straight. I've already been there, done that with that paper.

But heck, let's run with that paper for a minue anyway, because there IS something to be learned here...

First is the confirmation on page 3 of what I was saying earlier with regards to user surveys and polls:

"users might overstate their additional purchases to make their file sharing behavior appear more favorable."​

and on page 5:

"Those who agree to have their Internet behavior discussed or monitored are unlikely to be representative of all Internet users."​

But as far as the effects of file sharing itself on music sales, on page 5 they refer to another 2003 study that:

"therefore concludes that file sharing has reduced aggregate sales."​

So there are other studies contradicting what you say and what they want to say. Their intention with the study is to try to shake the data another way, to use a different methodology to try and come to a different conclusion. Note the importance of this: they *want* to come up with a different conclusion.

Now, as far as their methodology, they admit on pages 14 and 18 that there are inherant problems with the main equations they used (equations 2 and 3) that may introduce "bias" and "relevant concens" with their actual results. Namely that their time and geographic sampling may not be adequate to the measurement. Until on page 20 they finally specifiy an admission:

"We use high frequency data, so it is possible that downloads may influence sales many periods later."​

In order to try and fudge out these intangibles, they introduce ad-hoc estimates into their data. They even wind up saying at the bottom of that page:

"The main conclusions we draw below [are] from the estimates"​

and not purely from the actual data and models they collected and created.

I could go on and on. Every page from there on in has at least one (and usually more) disclaimer or caveat on it that their methodology was weak (in one case warning in asterisks that it was not even finished, they were still checking one result for actual validity); that when other factors that they didn't include in their model are indeed brought in, their results were affected negatively; and even an admission at one point that, even without those extra negative variables they ignored, there still could have been a negative effect on overall sales as much as 2 million copies a year.

They, and you, shrug that 2 million off as "statistically insignifigant", but it does translate to some 30 million dollars of lost revenue. And that's assuming a best case scenerio intheir model, where all the self-admitted weaknesses and omissions in their study don't even count.

And considering they they also claim in their own study that the "statistical insignifigance" is because the most popular albums (your Eminem, your Aguilera, etc.) are the ones positively affected by downloads, but the futher you get away from the Top 40, the more the negative effect of downloads on sales becomes apparent. Take the Top 40 out of the equation, and the statistical insignifigance disappears and the negative effect of downloads on sales becomes quite large and signifigant.

In summary, this is a flawed study at best where the authors had an initial bias, where the sampling method has weaknesses that the authors blured by introducing their own estimates in addition to the actual data (all at their own common admission), and even at it's best it still *does* indicate a negative impact on sales for just about everybody except the Top 40 artists.

Yet more bad pop science where people who can't read scientific papers because they don't actually understand and can't judge the quality of the study methodology or have any education or experience in the field being studied. They then read an oversimplified summary instead of the details of what the study actually says in the meat of it, and without determining the level of author confidence in the strength and validity of the conclusions they draw, make a sweeping statement that the study says something other than what it actually does say.

Now how about you show proof for your point that it does impact sales?

You mean other than this exact same study you quote, which does show negative impact to the tune of at least $30M a year, and affecting mostly the non Top40 stuff that most of us are interested in?

Well, how about the 2003 Leibowitz study that your authors themselves refer to as "the leading study" on this topic, and one that does conclude that file sharing has reduced aggregate sales. That might be a good place to go after you finally wrap your head around this one the right way.

G.

 

[TerraMortim]

poop
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

 

[Toker41]

Trent Reznor's views on his record label's "Bullshit"

Q: You're a bit of a computer geek. You must have been there, too?
A: Oh, I understand that -- I steal music too, I'm not gonna say I don't. But it's tough not to resent people for doing it when you're the guy making the music, that would like to reap a benefit from that. On the other hand, you got record labels that are doing everything they can to piss people off and rip them off. I created a little issue down here because the first thing I did when I got to Sydney is I walk into HMV, the week the record's out, and I see it on the rack with a bunch of other releases. And every release I see $21.99, $22.99, $24.99. And ours doesn't have a sticker on it. I look close and 'Oh, it's $34.99'. So I walk over to see our live DVD Beside You in Time, and I see that it's also priced six, seven, eight dollars more than every other disc on there. And I can't figure out why that would be.
Q: Did you have a word to anyone?
A: Well, in Brisbane I end up meeting and greeting some record label people, who are pleasant enough, and one of them is a sales guy, so I say "Why is this the case?" He goes "Because your packaging is a lot more expensive". I know how much the packaging costs -- it costs me, not them, it costs me 83 cents more to have a CD with the colour-changing ink on it. I'm taking the hit on that, not them. So I said "Well, it doesn't cost $10 more". "Ah, well, you're right, it doesn't. Basically it's because we know you've got a core audience that's gonna buy whatever we put out, so we can charge more for that. It's the pop stuff we have to discount to get people to buy it. True fans will pay whatever". And I just said "That's the most insulting thing I've heard. I've garnered a core audience that you feel it's OK to rip off? F--- you'. That's also why you don't see any label people here, 'cos I said 'F--- you people. Stay out of my f---ing show. If you wanna come, pay the ticket like anyone else. F--- you guys". They're thieves. I don't blame people for stealing music if this is the kind of s--- that they pull off.
Q: Where does that extra $10 on your album go?
A: That money's not going into my pocket, I can promise you that. It's just these guys who have f---ed themselves out of a job essentially, that now take it out on ripping off the public. I've got a battle where I'm trying to put out quality material that matters and I've got fans that feel it's their right to steal it and I've got a company that's so bureaucratic and clumsy and ignorant and behind the times they don't know what to do, so they rip the people off.
Q: Given all that, do you have any idea how to approach the release of your next album?
A: I've have one record left that I owe a major label, then I will never be seen in a situation like this again. If I could do what I want right now, I would put out my next album, you could download it from my site at as high a bit-rate as you want, pay $4 through PayPal. Come see the show and buy a T-shirt if you like it. I would put out a nicely packaged merchandise piece, if you want to own a physical thing. And it would come out the day that it's done in the studio, not this "Let's wait three months" bulls---."

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

For a guy who claims not to support stealing, you sure do like coming up with as many arguments as you can to defend it.

And it *still* has nothing to so with software sales, which is what this thread is all about.

I want to understand your position, but you keep contradicting yourself. You have spent the past pages defending the argument that software and music theft (which you fail to recognize are two entirely different dynamics, BTW) are more or less victimless crimes and therefore OK since the theives wouldn't be buying the product anyway, right?

Yet you quote Trent Reznor advancing the idea that it's OK for one to steal instead of buy the product as a way to tell the companies to fuck off. That's not describing someone who wouldn't buy the product anyway, that's describing the advocation of making the choice to steal a product they otherwise would buy as a form of idiotic protest.

And also one last look at the "Harvard study" - which BTW is a false title, it is not a study commissioned by that university, it is a study authored by one guy who happens to either teach at or attend Harvard, and another guy who happens to either teach at or attend the University of North Carolina - that you love so much:

The authors claim that file sharing actually has a positive effect on total album sales. Put another way that people who steal someone's recording are likely to go out and buy more. The unsupportable incorrectness of that supposition aside, that is not exactly describing "someone who wouldn't buy it anyway".

And finally, the close to two billion dollars that have been spent on music via the legal services like iTunes and Rhapsody are pretty much proof positive that downloaders will buy the music if their laziness and egocentricity are stroked.

It's all waaaay off-topic anyway, as this thread has nothing to do MP3 file sharing.

You're in quicksand, Toker, and you're in way over your head. The more you struggle, the deeper you sink. Do yourself a favor and give it up.

G.

 

[Toker41]

The point of my post was to shed some light on the matter from the eyes of one directly effected, and in the mix. Explains why the labels are going to become extinct do to short sightedness, and underhanded, less than honest practices (bad management). Shows how the major labels continue to rip off the artist, and the consumer. Thus, there is an evil on their side that is just as great as the one you attack. Yet, you defend the sins of the labels, while attacking the soul of the illegal downloader. This demonstrates your need to have others to look down on to feel better about yourself. I NEVER defended stealing, or said it wasn't wrong. I simply said that one should not judge another individual. Nobody here has that right. You are not better than anyone else here.

If you read through this thread, you will see that I alway acknowledge that they are 2 different issues. However, I've also stated that it is a fair argument to suggest that the results, and impact are similar enough to say that what is true about one, is true about the other.

As far as "giving up". There is nothing to give up. This is simply a discussion. Again, you exhibit your need to feel, and show that you are superior to others.

I doubt very, very much that there is anyone here that has never stolen something, lied, or cheated is some form. Nobody is perfect. Never recorded movie on a VHS? Never copied an album onto cassette, or recorded a song from the radio onto cassette (back in the day)?

This same argument was around back when cassettes came out, and lasted through out the life of them. It's nothing new. No different than kids copying their friends CD. (And yes I know it's not "software", it's "music").

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

The point of my post was to shed some light on the matter from the eyes of one directly effected, and in the mix.

Strange. when I did that as one who was actually in the software dvelopment business, you just dismissed the first-hand account. Funny how such first-hand accounts all of a sudden gain inport when they support your position, but are not worth a hill of beans when they don't.

Explains why the labels are going to become extinct do to short sightedness, and underhanded, less than honest practices (bad management).

According to the "studies" - including both mine and yours - that has absolutely nothing to do with the decline in sales. Something they pretty much all agree with. But rather that the three main reasons for the decline are

A) because of the artificial bump in the 80s due to the replacement of vinyl with CD,

B) the competition from other sources such as video, video gaming, cable TV, etc

C) theft.

If you actually bothered to read and comprehend this stuff, and if you had an iota of business experience yourself, you'd undertsand this and stop propagating the myths you do.

Raznor had a choice. He didn't *have* to sign with the devil. He did because he's just as greedy as the rest of the lot.

Thus, there is an evil on their side that is just as great as the one you attack.

Then don't buy the product. Do without it or go with a competitor with more acceptable practices. That's fine. That's exactly how it's supposed to work. Competition, supply/demand, etc. But it doesn't justify theft.

In fact what you slopeheads don't get is that high level of theft simply proves to the "evil companys" that their product is still in demand, and gives them little impetus to therefore drop their prices. You really think they'll kowtow to you guys when they already know that you're addicted to their product to the point where you'll steal to get it?

Yet, you defend the sins of the labels, while attacking the soul of the illegal downloader.

No. And yes. I never defended the record labels...in fact I never even talked about them in any way in this thread at all until now. But, yes, I attack those lazy, slacker, spoiled brat pubescents with no experience actually working for a living who go around constructing false justifications for their meatrial drug habit

This demonstrates your need to have others to look down on to feel better about yourself. I NEVER defended stealing, or said it wasn't wrong. I simply said that one should not judge another individual. Nobody here has that right. You are not better than anyone else here.

Oh stop beating that dead horse, you bonehead. You are defening the practice RIGHT NOW. You are justifying theft by saying the theives are stealing form bigger theives, so it's ok. You are saying that two wrongs make a right. You are, quite frankly, in massive denial if you really believe you are not supporting the theives.

If you read through this thread, you will see that I alway acknowledge that they are 2 different issues. However, I've also stated that it is a fair argument to suggest that the results, and impact are similar enough to say that what is true about one, is true about the other.

This is just plain incorrect several different ways. If you had any education or experience in the field at all, you know immediately and at face value just how misguided that is. But you don't.

And if you were honest, you'd admit that you know that not all opinions are created equal, and that just because one has a keyboard and an Internet connection, that their opinion is not the equal of everybody else's.

I'm not superior to you as a human being, I'm just as imperfect as the next guy. Hell, there may be some areas of life in which you could kick my ass.

But I'm far, far more qualified to render an accurate analysis and opinion on this topic than you are. You just have no idea of what your talking about; your own opinions and defenses are self-contradictory (when you get pinned down on one, you just start arguing the other, even though they cancel each other out), and you have zero first-hand work or managemet experience or education on the subject, and have been repeatedly proved in this thread to be a bullshitter. There is no reason for anybody to put any weight in your opinion whatsoever under those conditions.

Never recorded movie on a VHS. Never copied an album onto cassette, or recorded a song from the radio onto cassette (back in the day)? ?

Of course I did. Because those are perfectly legal (Sony Corporation of America v. Universal City Studios, 464 U.S. 417 [1984, S.C.]; RIAA v. Diamond Multimedia, 180 F. 3d 1072, 1079, 9th Circ. 1999, etc.); ).

No different than kids copying their friends CD..

But all that is entirely different than putting your copy up on the internet and distributing it to several million strangers, or being one of those several million. One-to-one serial copying amongst private parties is not at all the same thing as a public global network of millions of people sharing with millions of others in real time.

G.

 

[TerraMortim]

I think the point he was trying to prove Glen, is that the RIAA and major labels claim a lot about the "poor starving artists" they have on their label which are going broke due to music downloads...when they are really the ones screwing the artists. Look far back at some of my original posts in this thread, I talked about it in more depth, and to be honest some of what I read that one pacman dude, he knew what was going on with this issue as well.

These companies don't give a shit about artists, or music. Some indie ones do, but real music fans are more prone to buying from those labels instead of downloading, or at least going out to the shows and buying shirts and stuff like that. Here's the reality. These major labels are not losing money. It's about a loss of control. That's it. For decades these major (masonic usually) media companies have had control over what people see, read, and listen to, what they say, and as a result have control over the thoughts of the collective masses (through psychology and propaghanda).

We have started to reach an age of infinite choices, of information, products, and art. This scares the shit out of these guys. If the record store doesn't sell it, then you can get it online with little hassle, and if you know the right places, sometimes way cheaper than it would be in a store. With information, you don't have to rely on your CNN and FOX news to get information if you choose not to. There are plenty of places outside of the North American continent where you can get a much clearer picture of reality. If you want information on health, there's a ton of information about it that doesn't always come from a doctor that was trained to serve their masters at pharmaseutical corporations. If you want to know a more accurate version of history, you don't have to rely on government regulated (ha!) textbooks to train you to be a god fearin' SUV drivin' consumer that loves getting fucked by his/her government. If you want to know alternative scientific views, they're out there as well, with no control by the puppeteers behind the curtain of what we know as reality. This is why they're pushing net 2.0, trying to shut down all internet radio, that why Sony bought mp3.com several years ago to turn it into their own version of itunes for sony artists. This is why the news outlets put down any alternative viewpoints in politics. Look at the sen. Ron Paul controversies, Rosie O'donnel (guess what...she's actually right, as loud mouth and annoying she always has been to me) It's all about controling the market for the labels and media companies, making unreal ammounts of money, because you have to go through them to get to almost any mainstream, or easy to aquire, media on the planet. And the people pulling their strings, it's all about the spin, or psychology used to breed us all into believing we're free. Free to do what? It's all about making good little consumers, who take what they're given and channel their money through the same few hands. Slaves to credit cards, mortgages, second mortgages, car loans, student loans, taxes, middle of the road meaningless jobs. The freedom to go to wal mart and buy some cheap shit. That is what you are free to do. Religion doesn't control people as well as it used to so money, and media is a good place to pick up where christianity left off. Hitler helped to sculpt the way modern media is run. They follow his design. No shit, read about it.

As a rule, I WILL NOT buy any music released by these 5 big companies. Sorry, don't want to support corruption and enslavement. I don't want to as much as I possibly can, give money to the same bastards that are making policies that just bring the entire world closer and closer to a police state, full of theives with their hands in your wallet and control in your life. That quite frankly is difficult to deal with. I buy music constantly from small labels and even mid size ones, or direct from artists that I believe in. Downloading of music has done nothing but increase my music adiction, and give me a broader appreciation for things out there that I never would have known of. Guess what. They get money from me now, through records, shirts, concert tickets, etc... If some people are assholes and don't feel the need to support artists, that's their own lack of charactor. People are generaly selfish and ego centric, and believe me, they use these traits to do much more harm to people day by day than downloading some music.

Anyway,

Software piracy is a bit different of an issue, as even though it's kind of related to media, so don't bring that into this particular arguement I'm making. It doesn't flow through the same channels in MOST cases (save for maybe Adobe). But these are my two cents on the whole music piracy thing. If labels care about artists, let them actually give their artists enough of a percentage that they can live without selling tens of millions of records. If the RIAA cares about helping out artists, why would they shut down internet radio? It's all about payola, and who can suck the most cocks over at clear channel communications to get their product on the air, or in the concert venues. In short. THEY ARE NOT LOSING MONEY! NONE! THEY ARE STILL MAKING RECORD PROFITS! THEY ARE JUST LOSING CONTROL! THE ARTISTS ARE BEING SCREWED NOT BY ANYONE BUT THE RIAA AND THE LABELS. THAT'S IT!

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I think the point he was trying to prove Glen, is that the RIAA and major labels claim a lot about the "poor starving artists" they have on their label which are going broke due to music downloads...when they are really the ones screwing the artists....THEY ARE NOT LOSING MONEY! NONE! THEY ARE STILL MAKING RECORD PROFITS! THEY ARE JUST LOSING CONTROL! THE ARTISTS ARE BEING SCREWED NOT BY ANYONE BUT THE RIAA AND THE LABELS. THAT'S IT!

Terra,

Let's say - just for the sake of argument - that evrything you say is true. It's not, but let's say that it is, just for the hell of it for a minute.

My response remains the same; the answer is simple: then ignore the product and prove to the bad boys that they need to change if they want our money.

But what does stealling it prove? It only suggests that you don't want to pay for it, not that you are unwilling to do without it. It just makes you look like a cheapskate. Like I just told Toker, all that proves to the companies is that you guys are still hooked on their product (no matter how much you say the music sucks, you still manage to find it worth stealing, don't you )

As long as they know just how hooked you are on their product, they will act like the drug dealers you say thay act like, because they know that at the end of the day they hold the imnportant cards.

Stop buying the product AND stop stealing it; i.e. actually demonstrate to them that they do not have you by the entertainment short hairs and that it's not just a matter of you (and I mean the general generic "you") being a cheapsakte, and that you can do without their product until they straighten their act out, *then* you will grab the advantage from them and *then* you might see positive change.

Also, if all those rock star wannabes out there were not so worried about signing the big contract and becoming big and rich and famous, and actually stayed away from signing lousy and unfair contracts themselves, that would help a lot too. It's hard to have a bleeding heart for someone who got screwed because they were trying to be just as greedy as the guys they were signing with, and even harder to get my heart to bleed for Trent Reznor, that poor suffering bastard .

G.

 

[TerraMortim]

Glen, what wasn't true about what I said? Not sure which point you were saying is a lie.

The thing is, honestly, truely. No matter how fucked up these people do things. It won't change. Nope. There are powerful people out there that have almost godlike power, which control governments, oil companies, transportation companies, big media companies, weapons contractors, trade relations, and generally anything that affords us our "modern" way of living on a massive scale. If an industry isn't controlled directly, it surely is indirectly. You can't ship product without oil, vehicles, trade aggreements (in some cases), or in some cases the advertising using media. Which ever government you are owned by, chances are, who you think is running the show isn't really doing anything other than providing a lot of distractions for media to grab onto. Most of them even believe the deception, since it is the culture they were born into.

The media companies aren't dealing drugs, the CIA has that one covered (again, RESEARCH! Before you refute..RESEARCH).

I should not have to ignore significant and powerful art because of these companies. The artists, if their art is worth two shits, really care about touching people's lives, and achieving greatness. Money is never a bad thing to have, so sure that's great too, but anyone wanting to enter the music biz for money should turn right around and go to law or medical school, or learn how to play the stock market well. I would be throwing a big fuck you to artists by ignoring their art, Glen. I'd be saying to them that their music is not good enough to enjoy without the purchase of it from a major media company.

The thing is, music is way more than a product. Sure it's a product in some ways, but you can't compare it to something like a refrigerator, or television set. A physical disc is a product, the music on it is art. If I don't want to buy that physical disc that happens to be manufactured by companies that I do not agree with, that has nothing to do with the art that the artist created. Nobody owns art, truely. It doesn't exist, and it does, if only in our souls and minds. The physical device used to create the art is not the art, just as in a painting. Is the canvas art? Are the chemical compounds used to make the paint? The paint brush? The nail used to hang it? Nope. It's the insight into the soul of the creator that is the art, the idea behind it: Something you can't own, tax, or even censure (censured art is not art... it is product) I'm not refusing to buy for the reason of stopping the machine. It won't happen that by my choice not to buy their disc, they will have a change of heart. There's no money in it if they play fair. TO be honest, this illusion that everyone has this cataclyzmic ability to shape the world if they so choose is a bunch of hogwash. Who's in control has been destined to it their entire lives, and likely before they were even born, and the same group of folks have for thousands of years. When I say, in control, I don't mean successful or rich. I mean, litterally IN CONTROL...OF EVERYTHING.

We live in this world, with these evils being committed, and to be honest, our choice is more along the lines of either supporting it financially or not. People will support it though, because it's in our culture. We were raised to believe it's the way things are. We were raised to desire certain things out of life, and to base success in life on what we do. We were raised to go in debt, feed the machine, consume as much as we can, and to respect authority under all circumstances. We've been raised to beg for our own enslavement, and to be enraged when any hope of true freedom is in view. The spread of democracy throughout the world is a deception. It's that PR propaghanda that makes us love our captors. It's all about consolidation. In huge business, AND in government.

The artists sign the contract because they aren't aware that there is another way. It's all part of the smoke screen. I do pity them. As you even demonstrate, and honestly, most people do, so don't feel bad about it. People are unable to think beyond their culture, or the way things are explained to them. They are unwilling to question everything they see or hear down to the very core of reality itself. They are victims of the same machine that you are a victim of. It truely is a crime (litterally, and philisophically) how things are run.

And, just a note regarding your overall attitude about people who download music. Guess what, we're not all over priviledged young folks who have not worked for an honest dollar. I have struggled a great deal in my life, sometimes to the point that most people would have given up. I have worked tirelessly, often in situations where everything that is human had been forced from me. I've been homeless, successful in business, and back again, and have brought myself out of hopeless and downright insane situations on many occassions. I know very well the reality of life, and have learned it in very hard ways over and over in my life. You are very quick to asume things about people in many different ways. You asume that because someone's name is toker, they are a total drug burnout with mental problems and no ambition. You assume that if someone has different methods in audio than you, they must be a newbie (I've personally been doing audio for over a decade, so I'm hardly new to it). If they have different political views as you, they are either stupid or insane. If they don't have the same moral code as you, they are immoral or they simply don't care about anything. You're not alone, society has trained you allong with everyone else to believe this way. That's what keeps people busy arguing about this and that while reality chugs allong beyond the view of their blinders. And yes...you DO come accross as someone who is trying to constantly assert their greatness and importance. Whether that's how your feel or not, this is how you come accross.

That is all.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Glen, what wasn't true about what I said? Not sure which point you were saying is a lie.

First of all, I didn't call you a liar the way I did Toker. I simply said that not all of what you said true; I dodn't say it was because you were purpolsely telling an untruth. I believe you believe what you're saying.

However, my friend, I gotta say that your broad corporate conspiracy theories are so divorced from reality in so many ways that I'm not sure where to begin or where to end. And yes, I have done plenty of research and had first-hand experience on many of these subjects...and I might say stuff that goes waaaay beyond the Wikiality of the Internet.

Just a couple of examples:

- That media is in cahoots with "the powers that be" to keep us sedated. Oh, please. Conservative capitalists absolutely despise the reporting of most major media (except Fox News, which is biased in their direction) as being counter to their desires.

- That "the government" controls the textbooks. Are these the same textbooks they are simultaneously unsuccessfully trying to ban? And the same ones which, when in '08 the ruling part fully changes hands, half the decisions made inthe last 8 years as far as education and educational material will be right back on the change table again? Are these the same books which are chosen on an extremely local levels by municiplal or county teachers acociations? I guess the Shadow Government is so wide spread they have theird pods planted in every town and county seat and PTA and teacher's union in the country.

- That major corporations answer to nobody. OK, there are some examples whose stocks are majority owned by one person or one conservative voting block like Viacom, Newscorp and Microsoft. But the majority of corporations (not all of hich are all that big BTW) are at the mercy of the stockholders, none of which who owns a large enough stake to run it like a king. If what you believe was true, then some of the largest corporations inthe world - ones like Chrysler and Motorola ane the Tribune Corp and ABN Amro (and, until the Bushoes came back, Microsoft itself) wouldn't be getting jerked around on chains by stockholders, hostile takeovers, and governments alike.

- That the credit companies are to blame for the public's total misuse of credit. Anybody who charges more than they can afford is a damn idiot, and it's entirely their fault. Sure the credit companies are scum for taking advantage of the sickening number of idiots out there, I don't deny that. But they didn't hold a gun to any of these people's heads. Nobody said that it was mandatory for 4-person family to own a 14-room McMansion or to have a 50" DLP television and a Hummer in the driveway and three million channels of digital cable in the backseat, and spend waaaaay too much money for crappy food (and get fat by doing it) by going to a drive thru instead of actually buying groceries and cooking your own meals that are a lot tastier, a lot healthier and a LOT cheaper.

Anyone who puts more on their credit cards than they can afford to pay off in 30 days is a damn fool idiot, and it's not the credit card company's fault (or anybody else's but the cardholder's, FTM.)

We as a society are hooked on *THINGS*, and it's our own damn fault. We have the right and ability to say "NO" to any corporate entity we want; we're just either too stupid, too lazy or to apatheitc and that nobody's fault but our own. This is yet another example of the irresponsibility of blaming everyone else for our own actions rather than standing up and taking responsibility for our own lives.

Some of those *THINGS* that folks are hooked on, they they would rather steal than do without, are the Soma Gas of the 21st century; our music and television. More on that in a minute...

The thing is, honestly, truely. No matter how fucked up these people do things. It won't change. Nope. There are powerful people out there that have almost godlike power, which control governments, oil companies, transportation companies, big media companies, weapons contractors, trade relations, and generally anything that affords us our "modern" way of living on a massive scale.

Oh, please. Le's see, who are you talking about? The Masons? The Tri-Lateral Comission? The World Bank? The IMF? The Priory of Scion? The Skull and Bones Society? Bechtel? The Pope? The UFOs that live under the Arctic Circle? The movie company that faked the Moon Landings? Or maybe the people who are holding the secret that Hitler, Buddy Holly, Jack Kennedy and Elvis are all still somewhat alive and holding cryogeno-homosexual relationships somewhere in the mountains of Aregntina? Those are The Usual Suspects brought up by those who just love their conspiracies and feel the need to blame someone else for their not taking responsibility for their own lives.

You give people far more credit than they deserve. Christ, the richest people in the world; people like George Soros, William Buffet, Donald Trump, Bill Gates, and Sumner Redstone couldn't throw the last two American elections, as much as every one of them wanted to. Even the Republicans who are usually most closely assocaited with such shadow government involvement, people like George Shultz, Jim Baker and their gang, have no influence whatsoever on the curent stae of affiars. And if people like King Abdullah, Hugo Chavez and the rest in charge of the major oil countries had THAT MUCH pull, the world would be a *much different* place than what it is.

And the ability of such consipratorial movements to keep such secrets for so long and have such a spotless track record in their is truely superhuman. It's like running something the size of three Manhattan Projects for 60 years without a single slip up or substantial information leak. Pretty amazing.

The media companies aren't dealing drugs, the CIA has that one covered (again, RESEARCH! Before you refute..RESEARCH).

Once again, you givethe CIA far more credit than they - or any other beureaucratic, political, government organization - more than they deserve. It's amazing how an organization who can't find binLaden, totally missed the collapse of the Soviet Union, and dropped the ball on 9/11 can so completly control a country of 300 million people so efficiently.

Besides, if you are even close to right, it's the NSA you should be worrying about; not the CIA. The NSA are the ones in bed with Cisco, AT&T, Comcast and others and renting closet space at the key hubs of each of these companies so that can monitor every bit and byte of Internet traffic. Better be careful how you out these pople on this forum, or you might disappear off the face of the earth .

I should not have to ignore significant and powerful art because of these companies. The artists, if their art is worth two shits, really care about touching people's lives, and achieving greatness.

Therefore the music, the software and the art are things that should be respected, and not cheapened. They should be something to be appreciated and strove for, not something to be treated as a valueless commodity of life. Their value sould have value, and not simply be treated as an object to be posessed willy nilly.

I could go on, but I now realize that I'm not just dealing with lazy, selfish pubescents who feel that their material desires trump the rights of others, but also with unreasonable consipracy theorists who cling on to ideas of there being someone who controls everything that happens in their world because they want to blame all their own personal problems on someone else.

Such fights are a total waste of time. I might as well try and convince the Pope that Adam and Eve did not strap a saddle on their domesticated dinosaur and ride it to Sunday worship some 6 thousand years ago. I'd have as much luck there as I'd have here.

G.

 

[Toker41]

I think the point he was trying to prove Glen, is that the RIAA and major labels claim a lot about the "poor starving artists" they have on their label which are going broke due to music downloads...when they are really the ones screwing the artists. Look far back at some of my original posts in this thread, I talked about it in more depth, and to be honest some of what I read that one pacman dude, he knew what was going on with this issue as well.

These companies don't give a shit about artists, or music. Some indie ones do, but real music fans are more prone to buying from those labels instead of downloading, or at least going out to the shows and buying shirts and stuff like that. Here's the reality. These major labels are not losing money. It's about a loss of control. That's it. For decades these major (masonic usually) media companies have had control over what people see, read, and listen to, what they say, and as a result have control over the thoughts of the collective masses (through psychology and propaghanda).

We have started to reach an age of infinite choices, of information, products, and art. This scares the shit out of these guys. If the record store doesn't sell it, then you can get it online with little hassle, and if you know the right places, sometimes way cheaper than it would be in a store. With information, you don't have to rely on your CNN and FOX news to get information if you choose not to. There are plenty of places outside of the North American continent where you can get a much clearer picture of reality. If you want information on health, there's a ton of information about it that doesn't always come from a doctor that was trained to serve their masters at pharmaseutical corporations. If you want to know a more accurate version of history, you don't have to rely on government regulated (ha!) textbooks to train you to be a god fearin' SUV drivin' consumer that loves getting fucked by his/her government. If you want to know alternative scientific views, they're out there as well, with no control by the puppeteers behind the curtain of what we know as reality. This is why they're pushing net 2.0, trying to shut down all internet radio, that why Sony bought mp3.com several years ago to turn it into their own version of itunes for sony artists. This is why the news outlets put down any alternative viewpoints in politics. Look at the sen. Ron Paul controversies, Rosie O'donnel (guess what...she's actually right, as loud mouth and annoying she always has been to me) It's all about controling the market for the labels and media companies, making unreal ammounts of money, because you have to go through them to get to almost any mainstream, or easy to aquire, media on the planet. And the people pulling their strings, it's all about the spin, or psychology used to breed us all into believing we're free. Free to do what? It's all about making good little consumers, who take what they're given and channel their money through the same few hands. Slaves to credit cards, mortgages, second mortgages, car loans, student loans, taxes, middle of the road meaningless jobs. The freedom to go to wal mart and buy some cheap shit. That is what you are free to do. Religion doesn't control people as well as it used to so money, and media is a good place to pick up where christianity left off. Hitler helped to sculpt the way modern media is run. They follow his design. No shit, read about it.

As a rule, I WILL NOT buy any music released by these 5 big companies. Sorry, don't want to support corruption and enslavement. I don't want to as much as I possibly can, give money to the same bastards that are making policies that just bring the entire world closer and closer to a police state, full of theives with their hands in your wallet and control in your life. That quite frankly is difficult to deal with. I buy music constantly from small labels and even mid size ones, or direct from artists that I believe in. Downloading of music has done nothing but increase my music adiction, and give me a broader appreciation for things out there that I never would have known of. Guess what. They get money from me now, through records, shirts, concert tickets, etc... If some people are assholes and don't feel the need to support artists, that's their own lack of charactor. People are generaly selfish and ego centric, and believe me, they use these traits to do much more harm to people day by day than downloading some music.

Anyway,

Software piracy is a bit different of an issue, as even though it's kind of related to media, so don't bring that into this particular arguement I'm making. It doesn't flow through the same channels in MOST cases (save for maybe Adobe). But these are my two cents on the whole music piracy thing. If labels care about artists, let them actually give their artists enough of a percentage that they can live without selling tens of millions of records. If the RIAA cares about helping out artists, why would they shut down internet radio? It's all about payola, and who can suck the most cocks over at clear channel communications to get their product on the air, or in the concert venues. In short. THEY ARE NOT LOSING MONEY! NONE! THEY ARE STILL MAKING RECORD PROFITS! THEY ARE JUST LOSING CONTROL! THE ARTISTS ARE BEING SCREWED NOT BY ANYONE BUT THE RIAA AND THE LABELS. THAT'S IT!

Nailed it.

 

[Toker41]

I read an interview with the president of Sony records. He said that it is absolutely about loss of control, and not about money. He went on to say that the major labels can no longer choose a few select bands to sink money, and time into, because they can no longer control what the target market is exposed to, and thus has no control over the consumers choice. In essence, they can no longer manipulate the consumer.


BTW, Southside, sometime, when you are not wasting to much time pointing fingers as people you feel you are better than, or policing the internet to weed out the bullshitters you feel pollute it, you should research the Federal Reserve (which is neither federal, nor does it have any reserve). It would definitely shine some light on a few things for you, and would be a better use of your time.

 

[TerraMortim]

Okay good, glad we cleared that up, since I'm not lying to anyone.

Most of the mainstream media (the big 5) ARE in cahoots with politicians. What you have to realise man is this conservative, liberal thing is all a sham. They're all the same folks, whether they're democrat republican, indipendant, nazi, or raving monster loony party (yes there was a political party in the UK, led by Screaming Lord Such called that for a time that took on silly issues hahaha). You can't allow yourself to be swayed by the political theater of it all... It's like say, when you have Bill Gates and Apple. They don't REALLY hate each other. Bill Gates owns a good portion of Apple's stock. It's just political theater. The thing is, yes some speak against certain politicians, but this is way beyond even some of these politicians. The issues that they are against are very trivial in the grand scope of things, and to be honest they WANT people to fight and squabble about that shit. That's the only reason why political parties exist, to distract people into very trivial issues and keep them fighting about it while the people in control carry on unnoticed. Their politics have nothing to do with their desires, and their desires have nothing to do with their politics. The politics, and ALL politics are just in place as a big game. Their desires are to be rich, powerful, and get a lot of women, as all politicians pretty much are... It's not so much a consipiracy with them. They are the public face, but not nessisarily who is in charge. The folks in charge have roons in the freemasons and illuminati. Look up the Bilderberg group, the hellfire club, bohemian grove, information on the roots of the free masons, the knights templar, etc... Not even all politicians are aware of this shit. There are plenty of governmental folks that are, most likely corrupt, but have no motivation other than making a bit of cash and doing blow with hookers. ANd they don't need us to be sedated, if we're fighting about stupid shit, we're not paying attention to what's going on. Why do you think things like abortion and gay rights are always such huge issues in politics (REALLY easy to stir up arguments about that subject, get people ramming their views down the other guys throat.. on both sides of the issue...and no one is looking at the theivery happening).

point two. Nope. It simply has to do with the fact that there are certain companies that are trusted by the school districts because they simply don't know any better...it's the same stuff they were taught when they were growing up, so they believe that it's accurate. These people have no agenda, but just to teach. The lies are beyond them. You have to realize that it's not only politicians controling the world. There are plenty of corporate moguls in charge as well. People like. say, Rupert Murdoch.

Point three. Not all major corporations are in on all of this. There are plenty of huge companies that are just good at business and that's what they do. Most companies, in fact have nothing to do with the real rulers. And, you must remember, NOT ALL GOVERNMENT PEOPLE ARE AS CORRUPT. There are even some politicians that do a lot of good to try to stop some of these assholes, but some are in cahoots. SO yes, you are right. MOST companies have nothing to do with this, it's certain ones. Which always just happen to have blatant masonic symbology all over their businesses, with very high ranking masons in charge. Just like back in world war 2, when IBM developed the machines that decided when to send someone to the ovens or gas showers, based on their ability to generate profit through their labour. Look up Hitlers membership in the thule society, and it's connectionss with the other organizations I mentioned. Oh btw...if you want to know where the Bush fortune came from, look up Brown bank. It wasn't originally oil at all that generated money for their family (unrelated somewhat but that's just an interesting side note that I find fascinating)

Point 4
Yup. That's why it works. People are stupid. Remember what I said about people practically begging for enslavement? Look up information about the major credit card companies connections with freemasonry, and the banks that they spung from, and what connections they have with both the intelligence community (FBI, CIA, NSA, Homeland Security) and what do you know...the masons. It's simply a way with these credit card companies to exploit the consumer obsession that we've been bred to follow. They aren't responsible for it, however are responsible for exploiting and financially enslaving the consumerism that is so important in modern society. And that's the thing. It's culture that dictates people basically asking for enslavement in order to have that big SUV that they can drive over to wal mart and buy $900 worth of useless cheap crap on their credit cards. Those companies make it very difficult to get by without a credit card. You can't rent a car, some video chains won't rent to you without one, It severely limits your ability to purchase anything online (so you are forced to give even more money to paypal...I'll have to research paypal and see if they are involved in anything, no idea if they are or not)

The fast food thing is also interesting, with all of these chemical ridden processed foods. They have additives to make it more addictive in some fast food chains. The FDA is a joke who doesn't give a flying goat fucking shit about health, only supporting the industries that line their pockets. WHich brings me to my next point. Lobbyists... I don't even have to say anything about that. Just... Lobbyists.

About credit cards. How do you think they make their money? Their business plan is based on the fact that they know that people are stupid and will spend beyond what they can pay, so they can charge insane interest rates and keep you paying half your paycheck to them for the rest of your life. If everyone payed it back immediately there would be very little money in it.

By the way, you ARE right. It's our societies own fault. You see, people who are brilliant propaghandists know how to manipulate things that people are allready doing and thinking and twisting it and turning it to fit their needs. They are well aware of what you said, which YES is true... but they make no qualms about exploiting this. Hitler had a great quote that went something to the tune of "it's a great thing for governments that men do not think".

The thing is, about what you were saying about our obsession with things being related to enjoying music: Glen. Art is part of being alive. That has nothing to do with consumerism. The physical act of aquiring that art in some certain tangible form is the only relation to consumerism. Art is ingrained in every living thing on the planet to some extent. People crave visual and auditory art. That's why every person since the begining of time listens to music or appreciates some sort of visual stimulus, whether it's really good art or really low brow (that's the thing about art...it's so subjective)

WHat you have to realize, man, is that a lot of the conspiracy theories are just what you say. BS! You see, stupid shit about UFOs and that kind of crap is a great way to make people who do see the few actual real conspiracies look like a bunch of nuts, because then you associate them with the fake moon landing and UFOs and other things taht I REALLY doubt are based in reality. The thing is man, a lot of oil companies, weapons contractors, companies to do with making vehicles (mostly the big US ones and some of the German biggies too..not the asian ones), and totally pharmaseutical companies...they have roots in the same shit man. Some of these companies just want to make money... but they use their connections to do that, and they do hold a great deal of power. If some of these folks wanted to say, kill someone, they could easily do that, and not a court on earth would convict them. What you need to understand, is you are confusing some political scandals and what not saying well look they got in trouble. Yup. They didn't have the right friends. They weren't the ones really in control. Most people in politics, even some presidents are really more ore less just puppets. I believe that Bush isn't really involved in this shit on a personal level, other than the fact that his family always has had ties with this stuff and he's just doin' what he knows. Yes, he's very corrupt, and has a lot of blood on his hands, but Dick Cheney (look up information about that guy) has more to do with it than George W Bush (other than his family's legacy). Stuff like the skull and bones society aren't in themselves elite groups, they just happen to have a lot of the same type of folks involved in them...that's why people bring them up, because you see some pretty evil criminials all coming from the same group of friends...people tend to flock to like minded people, you know?

The next point. Nope, you're confusing what I'm saying. Those folks don't have anything to do with it, and riches don't mean you are in charge. None of the people you mentioned, that I know of, have any connections with anything, other than just having a shitload of money. Sure, money grants you a little bit of power, but not so absolute as the power that COULD be attained by being in the right circle of people. And then that's the problem. Political parties. Here's the truth, It doesn't matter if they are democrat or republican or nazi or whatever the hell have you. There have been plenty of democrats in the same circle. Political parties just confuse people into getting caught up in politics, and not government.

no...the oil companies, not countries have powerful connections. countries don't nessissarily control things. Do you believe that say, the US government is REALLY in that much control? They can't even balance their own budget..has nothing to do with governments directly, even though some folks in governments (but plenty who are not) are involved. It's the coporations that run the governments man. They make the policy by exploiting politician's lust for money.

The thing is, there have been plenty of slip ups and things published about it. It's never been compeltely hushed. The way to make it invisible is bring it right out in the open, and spread disinformation about it around. There ARE a lot of these folks who suprisingly have donated money to conspiracy theory conventions (those are such a joke) and UFO conventions. I mean, it worked didn't it? You obviously know some of the secret societies and terminology often associated with this sort of thing, and knowing about some of that, you still deny it's truth. It's hiding right out in the open, the best place to conceal your deeds, to be honest.

The reason why Bin Laden hasn't been found is he IS a CIA operative. Look that up, it's even been admitted. They just say, well he was but he turned bad. They even admitted all the hijackers had CIA training to fly planes. That's not even considered a conspiracy theory. The CIA itself isn't in charge but it's just another organization that is used to get more power to some of those involved who ALWAYS have connections with the masons and the same organizations. ALWAYS! The CIA was actually found out for shipping cocaine and selling it using corrupt police officers. Go down to south central LA and talk to some of those folks where they get their guns and drugs...from crooked cops. There have actually been several police officers that were approached by the CIA about their cocaine dealings, and have gone public. All but one that I know of, are dead now, at relatively young ages to die, and the one left...I have no idea if he's alive.. he had attempts on his life and then said he was leaving public life because of it.

The thing is, they ARE stupid as an organization...efficiancy isn't the poiint. It's like sending a bunch of low level hacks around on fact finding missions and intelligence ops to keep the public eye off of the other stuff. It's not the CIA or different governments, or any organization that is recognized to be in charge. It's people who are involved in it, that use their powerful connections to get more money and more power. That's it.

Yes, the NSA and certainly Homeland Security are even worse than the CIA as a whole...there are a lot more shady things going on. The CIA's big thing is drugs, really. Just money.

and to the conclusion.

Yep of course. And if you read what I said, I say that I do buy what I can, provided it's not being MANUFACTURED by these big companies. I do buy records, and I go to a lot of live shows, buy UNREAL ammounts of merch in the way of shirts and vinyl pressings, and this ltd edition album and that pin and all of that. So How am I cheapening it. Certainly, if you chat with too many of the artists in those deals that are screwing them, they will tell you about how the label has destroyed their art and cheapened it. SO I'm not supporting the cheapening of the art. I'm not supporting the raping of the artists making it.

And there you go again, assuming quite a lot. Wow, to be lazy, that would be nice... I surely wouldn't have a lot of the stress that comes allong from actually doing stuff with my life. But fuck, couldn't stand being lazy on the other hand, and I'm obviously not prepubescent lol, so what are you talking about... it sounds like you're reading from a script. To be honest, they don't control things in my day to day life. And, really...it doesn't affect the average joe all that much. IT might make us a bit poorer, and have a higher risk of having the IRS on our ass (BAH!)

Everything that happens is not connected. But there are some things that are. There is plenty of evil to go around for everyone, you have to remember.

This is a fight? I thought it more of an intillectual discussion. I love intillectual discussion, and you have to realize: These are my views. My reality. You can have you're own and that's cool. Doesn't make you stupid or anything (even though you like to get insulting to others when they don't agree with you). The things I believe, I only believe because I have used common sense to see things for how they are and not how they seem. Most conspiracy theories are a joke, and some are just hillarious...read some David Ike for a good laugh...reptilians??? Aliens at the center of the globe? Jesus was a magic mushroom, and god is a constantly ejaculating penis in the sky? BAHAHAHAHA! Do realize that there is a much smaller community of people who see through even most of the conspiracy theory bullshit and can seperate what is true and not... some of it is, some of it isn't. It's just all about money, really. The fact it impedes on rights of others isn't the point. Money is the point.

Hope that helps to clear up where I'm coming from.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Well, Terra, I'll give you the credit you deserve in that you are at least carrying on this intellectual debate/discussion with a fairly civil tone. I admit that I have not done so well on that ladder with Toker. And for that I apologize to both of you. I should know better; the moment got the better of me. Again, my apologies for that.

I'm not quite sure how to say this without you guys interpreting me as trying to sound superior. That is not my motivation or intent. But frankly I don't know how to parse it another way...

There is nothing in what you guys are now referring to that is anything either revolutionary or revelationary. There are so many people who have walked this path before you guys only to realize after truely objective and truely professional and intense research that it's all a bunch of phantoms.

Starting out with Toker's latest, and maybe using that to respond at least partly to both of you:

Hmmm...a company that wishes to have some control over their product so they can have some control over their revenues, so they can tell their stockholders (as well as their bosses, more on them in a sec) what their projections and revenues will be. Gosh. That's a revelation.

Yes, Sony may be a bit scared that they may lose some control over their product. Can you blame them? If that was you're job, would you not be scared at the prospect as well? What the hell is so conspiratorial about that? It's common sense.

Have they done a great job responding to that situation? I don't think anybody would say yes, regardless of their position. I doubt even the president of Sony would agree with that. But that's called "bad moves", or maybe more accurately, "lack of good moves", not premeditated consipracy.

Let me save you some time and jump ahread a few squares, Toker my man. Look up who actually owns the Sony media group. And then who owns who owns them. Then take a look at who owns Clear Channel, NewsCorp, most American newspapers, Blockbuster, and communication companies such as Time Warner, Comcast, etc.

Study up on the game of corporate chess that's been played between these owners, these major players over the past 20 years or so, and look at just what's going on. What you'll find is an epic battle alright, but not the kind you now think. It's not a battle of some secret consiprators, some illuminati/priory/society/cult perpetrated on the public. It's a battle *between* corporate moneymakers. The rest of us are just the capital for which they fight. It's a big dick-waving battle on the global economic battlefield for who has the largest corner of the Monopoly board.

The two biggest contenders in this struggle - though certianly not the only ones, by far - are Sumner Redstone and Rupert Murdoch. They are true rivals who truely dislike each other and would dearly love to knock each other out of the game. They are not conspirators in any sense of the word, nor are they aprt of any conspiratorial team working behind any scenes to manipulate you or I.

And yes, like Gates and Jobs, they own shares of stock in each other's companies. It's called playing the market. It's called diversifying your portfolio. It's called hedging your bets. It's called maximizing your profits. It's called keeping your friends close and your enemies even closer. It's called a lot of things, all having to do with being good at making money and keeping the money you've already made. And yes, there's some politics involved too. Hell, where money goes, politics is not far behind. But it's nothing comspiratorial...at least not in the sense you guys are referring to.

The fact is these guys are heavy into media because they recognize the extreme values of that as a market to be in. Because there are so many schmucks out there who simply can't live without their cell phones and iPods and cable TV, that this is THE market of the early 21st century in which to be king of the monetary hill. This is, BTW, the same reason that Jobs is turning Apple into a media company instead of a computer company (iTunes, iPod, iPhone) and why Gates is belatedly trying to do the same, and was a bit more successful, if too premature, in trying to align his company with the Internet.

And speaking of the Internet, watch out; Redstone and Murdoch are coming this way next. They already indirectly battled over youTube, in fact Redstone fired one of his right hand men for missing that opportunity. The only real reason that Google got it is because they way overpaid for it. But it's not going to stop there, those guys want to own most of the green and blue squares on the Internet next. And they will succeed.

Now, as far as the Fed Reserve, again that's not news. It's something taught in just about every Civics class. And I'll save you a couple of posts. Yes I already know about the Income Tax and Social Security as not exactly being by the book. The fact is we live in a present that was generated by a very sloppy history. Not everything fits into nice clean boxes connected by straight lines. Reality is often cracked, dirty, and less-than-smooth. That's called a bunch of far-from-perfect human beings trying to manage a very complicated world without killing each other in the process. Add to that the numerous idiotic times where we did and do try killing each other anyway, Add the disgust of politics over the top of it all, and you got a real mess to try and keep propped up. Let's see you do a better job. It's called "muddling along", not conspiracy.

The Congress passed the Federal Reserve Act some hundred years ago (give or take, I forget the exaxct year) as a system attempting to regulate the amount of cash entering the economy. The reasons for this were an attempt to try and keep the US economy at a steady keel and to avoid things like recessions and panics from happening; in short to try and ensure that the US enonomy did not suffer collapse.

Has it been entirely successful? of course not. The Great Depression happened after the Fed was in place. But what was not understood back then, but has since been proven over and over again by economists that have won Nobel prizes for this, is that the economic system is much like the weather; it's a chaotic, non-linear feedback system that nothing can ever properly control. That includes the Federal Reserve, the World Bank, the IMF, or any other secret organization of fat rich bastards. The Fed does it's best (Greenspan was a frikin genius that kept the ship sailing through some very rough waters), but it's effect is both limited on a short scale and unpredictable on a long scale.

As far as it's not being a Federal instution, that's subject to definition. No it's not one of the three classic branches of federal government, that's true. It is, however, an institution created by Congress (and that can equally be dismantled by Congress, if so desired), and is run by the Federal Reserve Board, whose members are appointed by the President of the United States. I'm not sure just how much more federal one can get than that.

And as far as the "reserve" part of it being bogus, that again is old news and completly rational. The economy has grown astronomically in the past 50 years or so, far faster and with far more capacity than the amount of gold that we have. The ability to trade paper money for gold has disappeared long ago for that reason.

What would you have us do? Limit the economy so that the total amount of value in this country never exceeds the value of the gold we hold in the Fed Reserve banks? We'd be about as rich of a country as Norway if that were the case, we'd never be able to compete in the global economy, and you'd probably not be able to afford that computer you're reading this on because you'd be making only $1.80 an hour (or something close to that.) And those Intel or Motorola chips on any computer you might be able to save up for would be from Toshiba or LG instead.

And what happens when the gold is all taken? There's only a limited amount of it, you know. That's why it's so valuable (DUH ). When that point is reached, do we then say, OK, no more economic growth? Do we then say that any children or grandchildredn you may have cannot live as well as we do, because as the population goes up the amount of money to be divided amongst us remains the same; therefore our shares get smaller?

As for the rest of the conspiratorial "organizations" Terra mentioned, I give him credit again for managing to come up with a few names that I didn't already list. But a couple I already had listed in an eaarlier post. Its' all the same hogwash when shone under the light of reason. Illuminate the Illuminati and all reasonong behind it disappears for the very reasons you already cited for them existing. Politics, power, greed, etc. Those are just way too corrupting of forces to allow such organizations to exist as cohesive entities for very long. For the same reasons that Redstone and Murdoch want to beat each other, for the same reasons thet Kerry and Bush wanted to beat each other (both members of Skull and Bones, BTW), etc. It's the same reason the different Mafia families don't stick together and instead kill each other. Power corrupts, even among organized corruptors.

Guys, there were times I wanted to believe in all this stuff too. But I kept observing, I kept learning, and remain learning to this day, and didn't fall for it as a form of religion to use as a crutch to explain away the fact that human beings just are not perfect animals and this is not a perfect world, even before we muddled it up even further. Is the concentration on profit in our society too high? Yes, I believe it is. Do some people do bad things in the pursuit of it? Yes thay do. Do I approve of that? No, of course not. Is the world out to get me in any organized fashon? No, just that it's hard to navigate and it takes work and effort to beat back the bullshit and succeed with the good stuff. It's clled "life", and the struggle is what makes it worth living.

All I'm saying from the begining is that when we care so much about what we posess, and when we take unethical or illegal steps to obtain them, then we ourselves are no different than those we are rebelling against.

Have I never stolen anything in my entire life? Of course I have, when I was younger and didn't know what I know now. Like you said, everybody has at some point. But I'm not proud of it, and I certainly don't defend it. Because when I do, you won't be able to tell the difference between me and Rupert Murdoch.

G.