Where do you get your music?

[HAL9000]

Everything is arguably art. Any creation (for idiots like you, read: inventions) is art. That includes movies, music, paintings, inventions, etc.

You're a fucking moron.

Quoted, reported.

Here's my reply. I think that art should be free. that includes paintings and movies and music. But inventions are not art, art should have no other purpose but itself, if it has a function it is not art, this is why cars are not art.

 

[HAL9000]

I have not seen their cassette collection lately :biggrin:

I go to the library because I take my kid to the library. I'll grab some CDs, mostly classical, come home and rip.

PS ripping is not illegal here.

Genius, good thinking.

 

[Alone]

Quoted, reported.

Here's my reply. I think that art should be free. that includes paintings and movies and music. But inventions are not art, art should have no other purpose but itself, if it has a function it is not art, this is why cars are not art.

Report me all you want, I've said nothing that isn't true.

Art is "the products of human creativity; works of art collectively; "an art exhibition"; "a fine collection of art"

Nothing there states that art can't be an invention. That's the #1 definition.

Art is an original creation, and any original invention falls into that category.

You're an idiot.

Also, if you think art should be free, we would certainly be limited of it as ART COSTS MONEY. If there's no money, it can't be sustained long term. Do you expect actors, directors, producers, etc, to create movies that won't be paid for? Fuck that.

Do you have any idea how much it costs for studio time? You're ignorant.

At least I admit what I do is wrong. I steal for my own selfish reasons. Why do you steal?

 

[HAL9000]

Report me all you want, I've said nothing that isn't true.

Art is "the products of human creativity; works of art collectively; "an art exhibition"; "a fine collection of art"

Nothing there states that art can't be an invention. That's the #1 definition.

Art is an original creation, and any original invention falls into that category.

You're an idiot.

Then I'll restate my point: I believe that non-functional art or art without utility in a practical sense, should be free.

I'm sorry if in your fucked up world anyone who doesn't agree with you is an idiot. I'm entitled to my opinion, and it is that I don't believe art should cost money. I believe that artists should not create art to be paid.

 

[HAL9000]

Report me all you want, I've said nothing that isn't true.

Art is "the products of human creativity; works of art collectively; "an art exhibition"; "a fine collection of art"

Nothing there states that art can't be an invention. That's the #1 definition.

Art is an original creation, and any original invention falls into that category.

You're an idiot.

Also, if you think art should be free, we would certainly be limited of it as ART COSTS MONEY. If there's no money, it can't be sustained long term. Do you expect actors, directors, producers, etc, to create movies that won't be paid for? Fuck that.

Do you have any idea how much it costs for studio time? You're ignorant.

At least I admit what I do is wrong. I steal for my own selfish reasons. Why do you steal?

Firstly, I don't steal, secondly, I know how much all those things cost, but I don't believe that the money for them should be received from profit, they should be non-profit, or government funded organisations. There are many famous artists who never made any money in their lifetime and yet we still have their art work (Van Gogh springs to mind)

 

[Alone]

Firstly, I don't steal, secondly, I know how much all those things cost, but I don't believe that the money for them should be received from profit, they should be non-profit, or government funded organisations. There are many famous artists who never made any money in their lifetime and yet we still have their art work (Van Gogh springs to mind)

Van Gogh wasn't famous until he was dead, same as many other "artists."

You're an idiot. Prove me wrong and I'll apologise. But you can't, so I won't.

People should be paid for the work they do, regardless of what it is.

 

[Raduque]

He didn't call you an idiot because you have a different opinion, he called you an idiot because you think people who create art shouldn't be compensated for their time, effort and creativity.

edit: +b hal9000/neckbeard

 

[HAL9000]

Van Gogh wasn't famous until he was dead, same as many other "artists."

You're an idiot. Prove me wrong and I'll apologise. But you can't, so I won't.

People should be paid for the work they do, regardless of what it is.

I disagree, certain things should be free to everyone. Music, Software etc. Also I realise that Van Gogh wasn't famous until he was dead, I don't give a shit if people become famous, if people are just making music to become famous then they definitely don't deserve my money.

 

[HAL9000]

He didn't call you an idiot because you have a different opinion, he called you an idiot because you think people who create art shouldn't be compensated for their time, effort and creativity.

Not so, I think they should receive recognition, donations etc. But not direct profit. Like open source software.

 

[Alone]

I disagree, certain things should be free to everyone. Music, Software etc. Also I realise that Van Gogh wasn't famous until he was dead, I don't give a shit if people become famous, if people are just making music to become famous then they definitely don't deserve my money.

No, people become famous because they make music. But in order to continue making music, they need to be compensated. If they can't afford to live just making music, they probably can't make music.

You might "realise" Van Gogh wasn't famous until he died, but you haven't explained why you think of him when you think art should be free.

People need to live. They need to be able to pay for the things they need.

You sound like a wannabe communist who couldn't survive in a communist state.

You're a loser and an idiot. I'm still waiting for you to prove me wrong.

 

[HAL9000]

No, people become famous because they make music. But in order to continue making music, they need to be compensated. If they can't afford to live just making music, they probably can't make music.

You might "realise" Van Gogh wasn't famous until he died, but you haven't explained why you think of him when you think art should be free.

People need to live. They need to be able to pay for the things they need.

You sound like a wannabe communist who couldn't survive in a communist state.

You're a loser and an idiot. I'm still waiting for you to prove me wrong.

OH FUCK OFF! I'm neither a loser nor an idiot, you don't know me, if you can prove your not a loser and an idiot to me then I'll reply with equal proof.

I know all sorts of bands that make no money from their music, they do it for fun, as a hobby after work.

Also I use Van Gogh as a demonstration how we are able to get exceptional art from people without ever paying them a penny.

If you want money get a job, if you want to make art get a hobby, if your good enough with your art people will donate, you will get recognition, but it is ART not some exceptional contribution to the benefit of society.

 

[Alone]

OH FUCK OFF! I'm neither a loser nor an idiot, you don't know me, if you can prove your not a loser and an idiot to me then I'll reply with equal proof.

I know only what you say, and that tells me you're a loser. Proving I'm not a loser and an idiot? Well, nothing I can say would be sufficient to you, but you're free to ask as I know you will.

I know all sorts of bands that make no money from thier music, they do it for fun, as a hobby after work.

Who are they, how long have they been doing it, are they good, and what do they do to pay the bills?

Also I use Van Gogh as a demonstration how we are able to get exceptional art from people without ever paying them a penny.

People are paying for pieces of Van Gogh's art. Your point is null and ignorant.

If you want money get a job, if you want to make art get a hobby.

This is 2011. Artists have jobs. They serve a market with what they love doing. They spend enormous amounts of time on it and deserve to be compensated.

 

[HAL9000]

Who are they, how long have they been doing it, are they good, and what do they do to pay the bills?

To take one example: They are a colleges friends, A few years, I have no idea, All sorts of things, one is a Computer engineer, one works at the University I work at, one ... Who cares what's your point?

People are paying for pieces of Van Gogh's art. Your point is null and ignorant.

No it isn't my point is the money never went to him, if his art was now free the world of Van Gogh would be the same.

This is 2011. Artists have jobs. They serve a market with what they love doing. They spend enormous amounts of time on it and deserve to be compensated.

I disagree, if their art is strictly for arts sake they shouldn't charge for it.

 

[Alone]

You certainly are an idiot. Van Gogh lived until 37. I'm sure if he were wealthy from it he would have lived longer.

Are you seriously this ignorant?

 

[HAL9000]

You certainly are an idiot. Van Gogh lived until 37. I'm sure if he were wealthy from it he would have lived longer.

Are you seriously this ignorant?

I'm seriously not, no, My point isn't about how happy his life was, my point was about the fact that he created great works of art for no money.

Are you seriously this ignorant?

 

[Alone]

My point is that Van Gogh's art was worthless until he died. No one appreciated it until the fact that it was "art" from a man who was no longer alive. Whether or not it was good is subjective.

And, for the record, the only reasons Van Gogh was able to sustain his style of living was for the money he made on being in the art "industry". So, you're an idiot.

 

[HAL9000]

My point is that Van Gogh's art was worthless until he died. No one appreciated it until the fact that it was "art" from a man who was no longer alive. Whether or not it was good is subjective.

And, for the record, the only reasons Van Gogh was able to sustain his style of living was for the money he made on being in the art "industry". So, you're an idiot.

Stop calling me an idiot, are you literally incapable of having a conversation without hurling pathetic childish insults at the person who has a different opinion that you do.

Secondly, I know his art was worthless until he died, I know no one appreciated it until he was dead.

I know he made money from the art industry, this is my point he could create his art in his own time and he could have kept a job also.

Einstein came up with special relativity whilst working in a patent office in Switzerland.

Personally I think Van Gogh was one of the greatest artists the world has ever known also. The fact that he is now dead but I appreciate it means nothing!

 

[OVerLoRDI]

it is ART not some exceptional contribution to the benefit of society.

I'm sorry but, art adding no exceptional benefit to society? I ask you to imagine a world without art and then tell me it doesn't add exceptional benefit to society.

 

[Alone]

The fact is that he made money by doing something you think shouldn't be worth being paid for. The fact that you admit this proves you're wrong.

As far as childish insults, I must say that I'm not being an asshole; rather stating a simple truth. If you'd like to bring a moderator into this that's fine; my opinion is my own and it's honest.

You mention Einstein, which confuses me. You seem to think that his work had no relation to his theories. You'd be wrong since a lot of his theories are based on what he came across during his "profession". I think only that you look up short-sighted histories of historical figures and try to use that for your facts.

You're still an idiot. For the record, in case you're unsure:

a person of subnormal intelligence

So far you seem to fit that definition. As far as I'm concerned, it's not libel, as it's perfectly accurate (until you can prove me wrong).

 

[HAL9000]

I'm sorry but, art adding no exceptional benefit to society? I ask you to imagine a world without art and then tell me it doesn't add exceptional benefit to society.

:hmm: Yep, I'm sticking with it, no exceptional benefit, It definitely benefits society, but is it as exceptional as say the discovery of electricity or the discovery of radium. No.

 

[zerocool84]

This thread has gone gold. Yet another great Brit we have here.

 

[zokudu]

Can we get this thread back on topic? Spotify is not avalible in the US right now is there an alternative? I would love a way to stream music so I can find things worth buying. I also hate Pandora.

 

[HAL9000]

The fact is that he made money by doing something you think shouldn't be worth being paid for. The fact that you admit this proves you're wrong.

As far as childish insults, I must say that I'm not being an asshole; rather stating a simple truth. If you'd like to bring a moderator into this that's fine; my opinion is my own and it's honest.

You mention Einstein, which confuses me. You seem to think that his work had no relation to his theories. You'd be wrong since a lot of his theories are based on what he came across during his "profession". I think only that you look up short-sighted histories of historical figures and try to use that for your facts.

You're still an idiot. For the record, in case you're unsure:


So far you seem to fit that definition. As far as I'm concerned, it's not libel, as it's perfectly accurate (until you can prove me wrong).

My IQ is 138, I don't care if you don't believe me but I'm well above average. There are no words that I can use to express how little it means to me what you think of me, posting these pathetic insults on an internet forum from the safety of your house thousands of miles away means so little that I can't even be bothered to finish this sen...

I am well aware where Einstein got some of his ideas thank you, what you are not obviously able to comprehend is the point that I am making, which is that invention or creation can still happen spectacularly when holding down a job that utilises the persons skill.

My point with Van Gogh is that while he was employed using his skill as an artist he was not employed creating art, and even if he had been my point is that he was not payed for his art, and yet it exists.

My point to sum up so that you can comprehend it is this: Art can exist as a hobby, and it would continue to exist.

 

[HAL9000]

Can we get this thread back on topic? Spotify is not avalible in the US right now is there an alternative? I would love a way to stream music so I can find things worth buying. I also hate Pandora.

Really? that sucks Is it going to the US? It's been over here for a long time.

 

[HAL9000]

This thread has gone gold. Yet another great Brit we have here.

Who are the others ?!