On 11/9/05, Jong-Ilist Massive <meatsock@gmail.com> wrote:
quoted 7 lines your logic does not follow my argument; if the point is THE MUSIC, it>
> your logic does not follow my argument; if the point is THE MUSIC, it
> is implicit that THE MUSIC is inseperable (or at least closely tied
> to) THE MUSICIAN; ergo if my primary motivation was appreciation of
> the music it follows i would want THE MUSICIAN to be able to
> understand my appreciation; in our culture this is indicated by
> purchasing his music for a fee, or paying to see him live.
I disagree - the point is what is presented to the listener. While this
obviously includes the music, I don't think anyone would dispute that, it
also includes how the music is presented. If the musician (or label) has
gone out of their way to produce something special in the physical
presentation of the music, wouldn't it show a lack of appreciation to ignore
it?
there's no reason to go around accusing people of piracy just because
quoted 6 lines they consider the FUNCTION of the content to be superior to the FORM> they consider the FUNCTION of the content to be superior to the FORM
> of the packaging. there's no reason to assume everyone is as motivated
> by price as you are. there's no reason to assume i'm a pirate just
> because i value 74 minutes of input to my ears above 20 seconds of
> input to my eyes.
>
I wasn't accusing you of anything. I was making a suggestion. If all you're
really concerned with is content, then why not just rip all the cd's you
purchase to mp3 (or ogg or flac or whatever) and then donate the physical
media and packaging to your local library?
You talk about considering the function of the content and then assume that
the content ends at the music. I disagree.
I apologize if I came off as attacking you, this conversation is all in good
fun for me as well. And I'm definitely not calling you Mr. Massive.
i0