They couldn't harm their image any further if they tore it apart, trampled it into mud, spat on it, then fed it to wild animals. They're delaying the inevitable.

Are you taking action though: that achieves a great deal more and is much more inspiring to others to do the same than someone saying word to the efect of "people need to do something about this atrocity" (atrocity is not a word I would use, but Roze has used it previously).

Perhaps.. our miscommunication stems from a difference in our opinions of passion & action. How do you define action? Starting a blog or a forum?

>Tell me a social movement where there has been no anger.
(Perhaps Ghandi's peaceful protests? How about, given the time of year, MLK's peaceful protests? Arguably, could have been anger–but the point of it was to turn the hate/anger/violence into a constructive flow.)

>Saying that there needs to be more calmness and temperateness is >like telling David, in his fight against Goliath, to put down his slingshot >and… calmly gnaw at Goliath's ankles, or something.
Just pointing out that you're using a Biblical reference to prove a point in the same post that you invoked a vehement atheist. It amused me. :)

>There needs to be passion. There needs to be anger. Telling people >to be calm is the same thing as telling people to disempower >themselves.
Passion, I agree. And even anger, yes, can be useful. You use it to constantly inform your beliefs, though, and I guarantee you'll run afoul of trouble.

I'm not sure how this thing got so off-topic so quickly.

>After all, I am not attempting to speak to people "on the other side," >even if it seems as such. I am not trying to persuade anybody.
And it's evident! Can you imagine how little we'd accomplish if we calmly, measuredly attempted to speak to people on the other side of the fence from us? Jesus–pandemonium it'd be!

>I would doubt that any informed, reasoned, highly educated,
>even-tempered argument would do much to stir people to action.
Totally agree! The reason I enjoy Obama, for example, is because he is quick to judge, holds onto his ideals without thinking through and considering, and sensationalizes everything into a common denominator equivalent to baby food for the brain. You know, so that -anyone- can understand it. He had stirred us into action last year, and hopefully this year, through his anger-stoking speeches calling us to jump to conclusions.

>I really don't think people listen to such highly intellectual arguments. I >mean, wouldn't people just brush that off as "snobbish" or something >like that?
I'd much rather listen to someone with informed opinions, snobbish or no.

>I want there to be anger, and if there is not, I want to stir anger.
I thought maybe there'd be something to be had from discussing with you–at this point I realised there would be nothing useful, though.
>But anger is always necessary.
No.

I've got no time, patience, good words, well-wishes or any form of encouragement for those on the side of The Gluttonous–
but Roze–you need to calm down. seriously. The Fight gains nothing from your vitriolic, mindless, uninformed ranting. There are so, so, so many holes in your logic that I don't even know where to start at.

My point: we need all the fight we can muster, but our cause gains nothing from misinformed, uneducated, circuitous accusations and assumptions.

Not an attack–a plea. Please take it as such! Light a candle! Don't curse the darkness!
An informed, even-tempered citizen is of far more use to us in reaching a successful conclusion than is a prejudiced sensationalist..

Rather, I am trying to get people to act. It seems like there is too much apathy on the side of the Rightful, even if they are Rightful, and I am trying to at least get people impassioned enough to do something about the situation, or at least urge others to take action in turn (like I am right now). I would doubt that any informed, reasoned, highly educated, even-tempered argument would do much to stir people to action. I really don't think people listen to such highly intellectual arguments. I mean, wouldn't people just brush that off as "snobbish" or something like that? People listen to stirring speeches and sensationalism, not reasoned arguments.

My purpose is not to persuade, nor to inform, but to actuate.

I want there to be anger, and if there is not, I want to stir anger. The lack of anger against the MAFIAA and against copyright holder supremacism is just shocking – because there is surely a lot to be angry about.

Yes, yes, anger can be tricky to work with. It can cause people to act rashly, and can cause people to think less clearly.

But anger is always necessary.

Because anger has driven every major movement for social change in this world.

Tell me a social movement where there has been no anger. Were people calm in the abolitionist movement? The civil rights movement? Women's suffrage? The modern feminist movement? The gay rights movement? The '60's anti-war movement? Every single social movement had anger as its driving force: anger over injustice, anger over mistreatment and brutality, anger over helplessness.

We can't just be calm and even tempered to get something done. Anger is what is needed, because if we are just going to sit there calmly and "talk nicely," then why the hell would anybody bother to organize social movements in the first place? As somebody else (Greta Christina) had said, "social movements are hard. They take time, they take energy, they sometimes take serious risk of life and limb, community and career. Nobody would fucking bother if they weren't furious about something."

Saying that there needs to be more calmness and temperateness is like telling David, in his fight against Goliath, to put down his slingshot and… calmly gnaw at Goliath's ankles, or something.

There needs to be passion. There needs to be anger. Telling people to be calm is the same thing as telling people to disempower themselves.

I'm not on anyone's side, but I believe creatives have rights in controlling the fruits of their labor – and that you deciding to be a free proxy distributor comes comes under those rights.

So maybe chill, and go watch a movie … I hear Mutiny on the Bounty is good one, you can borrow my copy if you can't find one you don't have to pay for.

F*** off.

F*** off.

I'm not on anyone's side
Nope, you are definitely on the MAFIAA's side.

File sharer's justification for the legitimacy of their methods is just as manipulative as the RIAA methods. Chicken or the egg….

anonweb.pro.tc

Artists that sign to record labels do so because of tangible benefits. Labels connot force anyone to sign so there must be tangible benefits to the artist.

Sorry to rain on your irrational spewing of hatred but some of your statements are plain wrong. The fact is that the interests of artists signed to labels and filesharers are not the same.

\r\nWith the Tenenbaum defense getting their request to broadcast the trial online, it seemed that s…

It doesn't say the amount of money and songs in this article but i think TF reported this earlier, if not then look up the article about this on afterdawn.com.

Everyone watch the hearing, dont think they'll show the actual trial but the hearing has most of the facts and will prove how ridigulous greedy bastards the RIAA are.

I hope this case blows up on them big… very big.