Beev
Diamond Member
- Apr 20, 2006
- 7,775
- 0
- 0
torrent
Same for pretty much everything, honestly, and will probably do so until the day I die.
Sorry, ________ industry!
torrent
Hey, Neckbeard, how close to Wokingham are you? I'm considering doing the AT community a favour by coming round to your place and cockpunching you.
![]()
Why don't you go code us up some free software. Thanks. Please don't take too long either, and if there are any bugs in it I will sue you for all you have. And your family, too. And people you've met.
And if people couldn't make money writing software, then you would be annoying people with smoke signals instead of on the internet.Errm... Great! I live in Essex.
I don't write software. Thanks.
Art should be free, and in some cases it is.
You could make the argument that music isn't art, rather entertainment. Should that be free too?
Are musicians ever referred to as anything but artists when it comes to their music specifically, though? It seems like the product is art, but the musicians themselves are entertainers, and that's why concerts shouldn't be free![]()
Art should be free, and in some cases it is. If I want to see the Mona Lisa I can just look up pictures of it online. There. That's free. If I want to see the REAL Mona Lisa then I have to spend money in some way to do so. Why can't music be the same way? I can listen to it for free, but if I want to hear it being performed by the real artists then I have to pay to do so.
Answer: Because someone somewhere wouldn't get paid for something they don't deserve. Typical human greed like always.
And if people couldn't make money writing software, then you would be annoying people with smoke signals instead of on the internet.
As a semi-pro musician (don't support myself that way but I do play for money when I can), I need to point out that what you're paying for when you talk about "music" isn't so much the musicians but the machine that runs the music business. Most musicians DO play music for free - I'll pretty much jump at any opportunity to perform for anybody. I didn't get into the business for the money. Making music is what I do because I can't help it.
And that's the way it should be, but a lot of mainstream "musicians" I would argue are in it for the money, I say give music back to people, let it be about art again not about who arrives on stage in an egg to drum up headlines.
No, that's not the way it should be. There have always been different levels of the entertainment business - and why not? Yes, a lot of mainstream musicians are in it for the money - you don't GET much money if you're not motivated that way. My father was a successful jazz pianist and he worked hard at the money side of things, and as a result got to perform with a lot of amazing musicians and enjoyed a successful career. His audiences and listeners had no problems paying for the entertainment that he provided. I've never felt that drive. There is room in the music field for BOTH of us.
Try this: I personally think that teachers should work for free. It would weed out the really bad ones who can't stand doing it, of which there are a lot. I teach music, and while I have no objection to taking money from my students, I also teach for free. My daughter's a math teacher, and since losing her job, she's been tutoring for free. Why should teachers get money for sharing knowledge when that knowledge should be open to all the public? Why should teachers get paid?
So you think he invented the internet? Conjured it out of thin air without using anyone elses software?...I disagree, Tim Burners Lee didn't do it for the money, we'd still have the internet, Linux seems to do pretty well... All open source...
It's an interesting hypothesis, but I would argue that teachers are a requirement of modern society, we need teachers to educate our children, without them society falls apart, therefore we offer an incentive to try and insure that there are enough teachers to do the job, Art can be a hobby, if we suddenly had a massive drop in the number of artists in the world, then the world would be slightly more grey, but it would continue there wouldn't be chaos. Education is a fundamental requirement IMO of any modern society and it is a socially responsible society that incentivises those positions to make education possible. If anything we should funnel money from the Arts to education, While I completely agree that there are far too many teachers who are not interested in their job, I don't think that cutting off salaries is for them would be a socially responsible route to go down, if teaching was something that could comfortably be done as a hobby outside of your normal job, then yeah there is no reason it shouldn't be free.
Art can be created in conjunction with paid work. Full time teaching for the most part, cannot.
You underestimate the importance of art. And overestimate the importance of organized education. Art is essential to thinking. Most of our real education doesn't come from school.
So you think he invented the internet? Conjured it out of thin air without using anyone elses software?
You underestimate the importance of art. And overestimate the importance of organized education. Art is essential to thinking. Most of our real education doesn't come from school.
Hey, you can't blame me for asking, after all it is you I am asking. Have to be sure, can't rule out any type of idiocy.Yep that's exactly what I think
...
I get all my music from God. he is the source of all music.
Music is clear proof that God exists.
