The Afronaut said:

richken said:

Racist?  I am not even going to respond to that, I live in Detroit, be serious.  

---

The fuck you living in Detroit got to do with shit Ken?  When you start making sweeping generalizations about rap listeners being less than "regular" people, that shit is borderline racist.
 

---

 

White people don't live here. 

Wrong.

Stop feeding this troll. He only gets stronger with posts.

Congrats, you are wrong.  Any decision made in any appeals court and be used as presidence for future rulings.  Meaning, you ended your own arguement, because it has been ruled on making your argument finished. 

 

Thanks for playing. Btw.  Being a 2nd year law student at a tier III law school holds no weight around me.   

This entire premise is wrong but we won't agree about this sampling/stealing issue and its useless to have a debate like that.  Let's just leave it at that.  

No one misspoke.  What are you talking about?  What does rap music fans being dirtbags have to do with racism?  The majority of rap music fans are white, and I live in a 98% chocolate city.  What on earth are you getting at?  Is there a language barrier here?  Are we talking passed each other?  I am really trying to understand what you are getting at?

Furthermore Hip-Hop being Black music (regardless of who listens to it) makes making a statement like "it is music for dirtbags", as previously stated vaguely racist.

That is what Im getting at.

The Afronaut said:

richken said:

Racist?  I am not even going to respond to that, I live in Detroit, be serious.  

---

 
The fuck you living in Detroit got to do with shit Ken?  When you start making sweeping generalizations about rap listeners being less than "regular" people, that shit is borderline racist.

---

 
White people don't live here. 

Again. That has nothing to do with what you said.

You keep talking about owning up to who you are...how about owning up to the fact you misspoke?

richken said:

Racist?  I am not even going to respond to that, I live in Detroit, be serious.  

---

 
The fuck you living in Detroit got to do with shit Ken?  When you start making sweeping generalizations about rap listeners being less than "regular" people, that shit is borderline racist.

White people don't live here. 

richken said:

Attorney's fees are meaningless, they mean nothing, no matter what you do, you pay attorneys.  That has absolutely nothing to do with anything I can't understand why you keep bringing it up.  The fact is attorney's that deal with that type of law are relatively cheap anyway (compared to sullivan and cromwell, wachtell, etc). 

Secondly, there are no shades of gray.  If I create something no matter if it is a car, or a piece of art, and you take it from me without permission or without paying me for permission you are in violation.  This is easily shown by the arrests of bootleggers, the arrest of car thiefs,  and the lawsuits filed against many producers for samplking music without permission.  Heck, it is even shown by the Napster lawsuits.

 

If it is not so cut and dry, then why is this topic occuring?  Apparently to the creators of the music that is sampled feel it is cut and dry.  Fact is you want a sample you have to pay, point blank period, or risk being sued.  Now answer me how is it not cut and dry?  It is, it has been decided in the courts over and over that it is cut and dry.

 

Most of you are musicians, or wanna be musicians, so you feel it should not be cut and dry, but it is.  Go on and sample without permission, see how well it works out for you.

---

 
All of the decisions come from appeals courts, which were distinctly created for areas of the law that are by their nature "gray."  Good job, you ended your own argument.  

Thanks for playing. Btw.  Being a 2nd year law student at a tier III law school holds no weight around me.   

Racist?  I am not even going to respond to that, I live in Detroit, be serious.  

The fuck you living in Detroit got to do with shit Ken?  When you start making sweeping generalizations about rap listeners being less than "regular" people, that shit is borderline racist.

Attorney's fees are meaningless, they mean nothing, no matter what you do, you pay attorneys.  That has absolutely nothing to do with anything I can't understand why you keep bringing it up.  The fact is attorney's that deal with that type of law are relatively cheap anyway (compared to sullivan and cromwell, wachtell, etc). 

Secondly, there are no shades of gray.  If I create something no matter if it is a car, or a piece of art, and you take it from me without permission or without paying me for permission you are in violation.  This is easily shown by the arrests of bootleggers, the arrest of car thiefs,  and the lawsuits filed against many producers for samplking music without permission.  Heck, it is even shown by the Napster lawsuits.

 

If it is not so cut and dry, then why is this topic occuring?  Apparently to the creators of the music that is sampled feel it is cut and dry.  Fact is you want a sample you have to pay, point blank period, or risk being sued.  Now answer me how is it not cut and dry?  It is, it has been decided in the courts over and over that it is cut and dry.

 

Most of you are musicians, or wanna be musicians, so you feel it should not be cut and dry, but it is.  Go on and sample without permission, see how well it works out for you.

All of the decisions come from appeals courts, which were distinctly created for areas of the law that are by their nature "gray."  Good job, you ended your own argument.  

Also, I want to make it perfectly clear that I am not against sampling, and of course rap music would not be what it is today without samples.  I love samples, especially samples of cheesy 80s songs (80s baby, born 1980 baby).  However, just because I like music made with samples does not mean I believe it is ok to sample others work and not pay for it.  Sample all you fuckin want, just be a man and pay for the shit.  I know damn well if I were an artist and a producer sampled me he would either be sued, or my inner dirtbag would come out, and you know it would end bad for that producer. 

It is the same thing if I created a song, and GM used that song in a Cadillac commercial and never paid me for it. 

Fuck you pay me.

lol sorry my man, it's just that the way you posted in that other thread made other folks suspicious as well, and I too do think you're just trying to get a rise out of folks.

Word.  Anyone on a RAP message board saying that rap is "music for dirtbags" (among other vaguely racist shit) reeks of trolling.  Disagreeing is one thing, but dont act like your approach shouldnt arouse suspicion. 

I immediattely start thinking about some kind of 'for the lulz'-ulterior motive.

too much faith

Oh yeah… I'm new here.

My name is ShakySuperFly

I make music.

I currently reside in the Gnait.

I'd love to talk about this whole thing, I really would. I have so much to say about all of these things…

 

 

 

 

 

…but I refuse to do it with this obvious troll. C'mon on son. You're see-through.

Secondly, there are no shades of gray.  If I create something no matter if it is a car, or a piece of art, and you take it from me without permission or without paying me for permission you are in violation.  This is easily shown by the arrests of bootleggers, the arrest of car thiefs,  and the lawsuits filed against many producers for samplking music without permission.  Heck, it is even shown by the Napster lawsuits.

If it is not so cut and dry, then why is this topic occuring?  Apparently to the creators of the music that is sampled feel it is cut and dry.  Fact is you want a sample you have to pay, point blank period, or risk being sued.  Now answer me how is it not cut and dry?  It is, it has been decided in the courts over and over that it is cut and dry.

Most of you are musicians, or wanna be musicians, so you feel it should not be cut and dry, but it is.  Go on and sample without permission, see how well it works out for you.

 

 

No, very cut and dry.  My desktop for your information is stock windows desktop so hopefully not stolen.  If my desktop were stolen material and the creator were to come after me, then I have to chalk it up as a loss.  It is very cut and dry, stealing is stealing.  You take a chance when you dl a copywrited MP3, you take a chance when you steal a car, you take a chance when you buy a bootleg dvd, you take a chance when you sample copywritten music.  It is very simple, you don't wanna get sued or arrested dont steal anything.  If you do steal then know that there is a chance of you being sued and or arrested.  Attorney's fees do not make this different than any other case.  Art is not an excuse to comit a crime.  In fact committing a crime for the purpose of creating art rather than committing a crime for the purpose of making money is rather dumb to me.

You take a chance when you wake up every morning, when you go to bed, etc.  That is a poor argument.  And attorney's fees do change the picture.  If attorney's did not collect handsome fees for these lawsuits there wouldn't be lawsuits.  Kind of hard to get started without an attorney.  I don't want to veer the topic off course but a majority of the attorney's that work on these cases earn far above the standard 1/3 recoup agreement.  I have seen it quoted that some attorneys earn 50-80% of the value recovered for illegal downloading.  To say that an attorney working for Target to sue someone for theft (which they would never do because it would involve small claims court) would recoup the same is an ignorant statement underserving of any rebuttal.  So yes, it does make a large difference.  

…but I refuse to do it with this obvious troll. C'mon on son. You're see-through.

artificial scarcity keeps monopolies afloat.

 

No, very cut and dry.  My desktop for your information is stock windows desktop so hopefully not stolen.  If my desktop were stolen material and the creator were to come after me, then I have to chalk it up as a loss.  It is very cut and dry, stealing is stealing.  You take a chance when you dl a copywrited MP3, you take a chance when you steal a car, you take a chance when you buy a bootleg dvd, you take a chance when you sample copywritten music.  It is very simple, you don't wanna get sued or arrested dont steal anything.  If you do steal then know that there is a chance of you being sued and or arrested.  Attorney's fees do not make this different than any other case.  Art is not an excuse to comit a crime.  In fact committing a crime for the purpose of creating art rather than committing a crime for the purpose of making money is rather dumb to me.

I've never thought I'd disagree with an Internet personality so much.

The argument is different than just stealing is stealing.  It's a matter of taking art and making it into new art.  The desktop background on the computer that you are using?  If you got it from the internet it's probably "stolen."  A picture of a piece of artwork, technically "stolen."  There's a reason why this is such a slippery legal issue.  Also the only reason that this particular thievery of artwork is an issue is because it gets large attorney's fees.  

 

I'm not saying I agree one way or the other but I am saying if you are having the argument acknowledge what is actually happening and the cause of it.  To do otherwise is to miss the big picture and skip steps 1-3 of a 10 step process.

No, very cut and dry.  My desktop for your information is stock windows desktop so hopefully not stolen.  If my desktop were stolen material and the creator were to come after me, then I have to chalk it up as a loss.  It is very cut and dry, stealing is stealing.  You take a chance when you dl a copywrited MP3, you take a chance when you steal a car, you take a chance when you buy a bootleg dvd, you take a chance when you sample copywritten music.  It is very simple, you don't wanna get sued or arrested dont steal anything.  If you do steal then know that there is a chance of you being sued and or arrested.  Attorney's fees do not make this different than any other case.  Art is not an excuse to comit a crime.  In fact committing a crime for the purpose of creating art rather than committing a crime for the purpose of making money is rather dumb to me.

The argument is different than just stealing is stealing.  It's a matter of taking art and making it into new art.  The desktop background on the computer that you are using?  If you got it from the internet it's probably "stolen."  A picture of a piece of artwork, technically "stolen."  There's a reason why this is such a slippery legal issue.  Also the only reason that this particular thievery of artwork is an issue is because it gets large attorney's fees.  

 

I'm not saying I agree one way or the other but I am saying if you are having the argument acknowledge what is actually happening and the cause of it.  To do otherwise is to miss the big picture and skip steps 1-3 of a 10 step process.

PREACH.

I'm not saying I agree one way or the other but I am saying if you are having the argument acknowledge what is actually happening and the cause of it.  To do otherwise is to miss the big picture and skip steps 1-3 of a 10 step process.