this is out today:



BUY IT

7/13/2010 10:48:12 AM

Flashy cover

7/13/2010 10:49:09 AM

Nice. Will probably purchase at next show i make it out to

The vintage looking picture reminds me of:




[Edited on July 13, 2010 at 10:58 AM. Reason : ...]

7/13/2010 10:57:23 AM

except this record is good

7/13/2010 10:59:14 AM

ZING!

Yeah Contra was ok IMO but I do really like their first record

7/13/2010 10:59:54 AM

or we can just download it for free instead

7/13/2010 11:00:40 AM

you can't download vinyl

and as much as i enjoy downloading leaks

i'm not going to steal something from a local band and a local label when i can buy it

7/13/2010 11:04:38 AM

Why would anyone buy a copy of a recording? ....is this the 20th century or something?

If it's good music, I'll eventually hear it. Then I'll either download or burn a copy.

7/13/2010 11:04:48 AM

i might buy it if lafta would pay what he owes

[Edited on July 13, 2010 at 11:06 AM. Reason : for your consideration]

7/13/2010 11:05:11 AM

^^ for the same reason someone pays you for your job, i guess

7/13/2010 11:06:38 AM

I wouldn't mind hearing this after listening to some of the tracks on their myspace page.
How can I get it for free?

7/13/2010 11:11:07 AM

stu would probably give you a copy if you blow him

7/13/2010 11:12:13 AM

Quote :

"Why would anyone buy a copy of a recording? ....is this the 20th century or something? If it's good music, I'll eventually hear it. Then I'll either download or burn a copy."

i don't understand how you can take most of the stands you take on this forum and then advocate stealing content in any way

7/13/2010 11:12:36 AM

^^ Could you just grab me a free copy after one of your sessions?

7/13/2010 11:15:51 AM

i already bought that shit

plus they're out of town

7/13/2010 11:17:02 AM

ha ask stu about the time he and tom broke into their studio in holly springs all coked up and cut themselves spilling blood every where. it looked like a damn murder scene when we got there.

i understand artists need struggles, but the love language is fucked up.

7/13/2010 11:17:47 AM

they're not any more fucked up than any other touring band i know

7/13/2010 11:18:31 AM

it was streaming on merge's website

idk if it still is

it's quite enjoyable. would recommend, have purchased.

7/13/2010 11:18:33 AM

lol that's a new level of music snobishness

"i'll only pay for master recordings and one-off demos"

get out of here with that shit, Daniel Johnston.

7/13/2010 11:20:45 AM

http://www.thelovelanguage.bigcartel.com/

12
FOOT
VINYL

That's a big fuckin' record man.

7/13/2010 11:20:58 AM

7/13/2010 11:22:02 AM

I can't stand this garbage music and all your garbage people who listen to it

With your sandals and your festivals and your brie cheese and your camrys and your faggot beers

I loathe you

7/13/2010 11:23:19 AM

Oh how I loathe brie cheese.

7/13/2010 11:25:15 AM

i like this video because it looks like they all have a pretty large area of the stage and yet can't help but gravitate to just hovering over the drummer at all times

http://www.vimeo.com/2204358

7/13/2010 11:26:03 AM

Quote :

"i'm not going to steal something from a local band and a local label when i can buy it"

In order to steal something, the victim must be missing it afterwards.
Copying data isn't stealing.

Quote :

"Why would anyone buy a copy of a recording? ....is this the 20th century or something?"

Quote :

" for the same reason someone pays you for your job, i guess"

First you say "BUY IT", as in, buy the product. Now, you back-pedal and say it's the service that should be payed for. I would agree that paying for a service is fine, but their service is already done. Had they sought money for a commission, sure, I may have payed. But they already have their recording. Or perhaps I should be paying for the service of actually making the vinyl record or burning the CD -- but that doesn't cost much, and afterwords I should be able to freely make my own copies and distribute, sell, or perform them as I wish. Nobody owns the sound data that they created. That is not a product that anyone should buy.

Quote :

"i don't understand how you can take most of the stands you take on this forum and then advocate stealing content in any way"

What do you not understand?
Some things aren't property. Humans, for instance, were once considered property. Believing that they shouldn't be property doesn't make one a thief or less of a capitalist. (Please note that the analogy here is between "the relationship between humans and property" and "the relationship between ideas and property". Copyright is not being compared to slavery -- that's not how analogies work.)

7/13/2010 11:26:24 AM

^^^^the widespread panic thread is =========>

Quote :

"Or perhaps I should be paying for the service of actually making the vinyl record or burning the CD -- but that doesn't cost much,"

WAT

[Edited on July 13, 2010 at 11:29 AM. Reason : .]

7/13/2010 11:27:03 AM

Quote :

"Nobody owns the sound data that they created."

Wait, what? That's precisely what's copyrighted.

7/13/2010 11:28:36 AM

RIOT SOUND DATA PRODUCE RIOTS

[Edited on July 13, 2010 at 11:29 AM. Reason : data is plural guys]

7/13/2010 11:29:04 AM

[Edited on July 13, 2010 at 11:29 AM. Reason : delusional]

7/13/2010 11:29:23 AM

i believe he feels that copyrights should not exist

7/13/2010 11:30:32 AM

Quote :

"perhaps I should be paying for the service of actually making the vinyl record or burning the CD -- but that doesn't cost much, and afterwords I should be able to freely make my own copies and distribute, sell, or perform them as I wish"

in this instance, the service you're speaking of runs between $15,000-40,000

7/13/2010 11:32:01 AM

vinyl starts out as like little pellets if i remember correctly, it's an amazing process

7/13/2010 11:35:01 AM

Quote :

"Nobody owns the sound data that they created"

Quote :

"Wait, what? That's precisely what's copyrighted"

Copyrights are only that -- legally granted temporary monopolistic "rights" to copies of data.
Nothing is actually owned.

Quote :

"i believe he feels that copyrights should not exist"

Not necessarily. But we should at least view them properly -- they do not create ownership.

Quote :

"in this instance, the service you're speaking of runs between $15,000-40,000"

Good thing I have no interest in vinyl, lol...
Also, is that $15,000-40,000 per record? Wow, that's steep.

7/13/2010 11:35:11 AM

the process that nets you a recording of which you can freely make copies and distribute/perform them at will

runs between $15-40k

and that's on the cheap end

a record like loveless and you're up near a million

but it took two years to finish

7/13/2010 11:37:42 AM

^

Quote :

"paying for a service is fine, but their service is already done. Had they sought money for a commission, sure, I may have payed. But they already have their recording"

Why pay for anything now? They already did the service, and I didn't ask them to, nor did I commission it.
Why pay for anything now?
If they simply passed the hat, or if they sold cheap burned CD's for a couple dollars, with no copyright restrictions on the content, I'd be infinitely more likely to give them money.

7/13/2010 11:44:21 AM

passed the hat for what? records?

that doesn't even make any sense

also, if you'll pay a couple of bucks for a burned CD, you're admitting that the content has monetary value

7/13/2010 11:47:29 AM

Quote :

"passed the hat for what? records? that doesn't even make any sense"

Passed the hat to make back some of the "15,000-40,000 -- near a million" that they spent. Duh.

Quote :

"also, if you'll pay a couple of bucks for a burned CD, you're admitting that the content has monetary value"

Not at all. The only value is the CD itself (a few cents) and the service of putting already existing data onto it.
The content, in and of itself, is merely 1s and 0s... language.

7/13/2010 11:54:22 AM

Quote :

"Passed the hat to make back some of the "15,000-40,000 -- near a million" that they spent. Duh."

They didn't spend it. The record company did.

Quote :

"Not at all. The only value is the CD itself (a few cents) and the service of putting already existing data onto it."

So a few cents for the CD, and the labor cost involved for 10 seconds to reproduce it...so where's the rest of the "couple of bucks" coming from?

7/13/2010 11:56:40 AM

Quote :

"They didn't spend it. The record company did."

Well, that's not my fault. If they played into the idea of content ownership, that doesn't mean everyone else has to fall for it. They could've made their content themselves, but didn't. That's on them.

Quote :

"So a few cents for the CD, and the labor cost involved for 10 seconds to reproduce it...so where's the rest of the "couple of bucks" coming from?"

I'm not sure what you're asking. The couple dollars is what I might pay for the service and materials.

You're still acting on the presumption that the content they created is somehow a product that they own.
This simply is impossible.

7/13/2010 12:11:17 PM

Quote :

"The couple dollars is what I might pay for the service and materials."

Yes, but you said the creation and the recording of the music is the band's business to pay for, not yours, since you did not commission it or offer to pay for it.

So, the materials are a few cents. The cost of the reproduction service is a few cents. If you're only willing to pay for the service and the materials, why are you paying a few dollars? That implies that the content has monetary value.

7/13/2010 12:15:30 PM

Quote :

" You're still acting on the presumption that the content they created is somehow a product that they own. "

How would that be any different than a copyrighted poem, novel, or screenplay? Do you pay for books?

7/13/2010 12:17:43 PM

dude, just shut the fuck up already. no one is reading your trolling

7/13/2010 12:17:58 PM

^
Not trolling.
I honestly believe that if so many people continue to inflate the unsustainable "intellectual property bubble", the entire world economy will collapse when it pops. This is truly a basket that we shouldn't be putting all of our eggs into.

^^^
Oh. I just pulled "couple dollars" out of the air.
So yes. I would pay a few cents for it.
Also, keep in mind that the service might include the transporting of the CD to a particular location useful or convenient for me.
An ice cream cone is worth more on the beach than it is in the middle of a supermarket. (additional service)

Quote :

"How would that be any different than a copyrighted poem, novel, or screenplay? Do you pay for books?"

I would pay for the materials, the service of printing, and for the service of collecting/organizing/editing the content, but not the content itself.



[Edited on July 13, 2010 at 12:26 PM. Reason : ]

7/13/2010 12:21:23 PM

Quote :

"You're still acting on the presumption that the content they created is somehow a product that they own. "

wat.

7/13/2010 12:24:58 PM

A NEW CHALLENGER APPEARS

7/13/2010 12:26:00 PM

What does a law degree add? [before your edit]
If you study the unjust law in order to defend the unjust law.... well...

Really though. These ideas are not new -- you all are simply choosing what to believe.
If you cared about the future of the world, you'd at least attempt to understand why intellectual property is a misnomer.
I shouldn't have to be the one to hold your hand as you attempt to understand this...
...you have the whole internet. Search and read.

7/13/2010 12:29:35 PM

in summation

buy this record

so my friends don't have to go back to their crappy day jobs when they get home this time

7/13/2010 12:33:11 PM

Quote :

"Why pay for anything now? They already did the service, and I didn't ask them to, nor did I commission it."

regardless of your stance, that part of your argument needs to get thrown out of the window because it can be applied to physical property just as well. The desire for MOST things people buy comes AFTER a product is already created and the consumer realizes they want/need it.


I understand the thought process behind people not liking the concept of intellectual property, but at the same time, when someone spends a year writing, recording, mixing, mastering etc. a record and you choose to want to listen to their music...I guess I don't see where you are entitled to that. They've created something that you now have a demand for. You don't have a demand for the physical portion of their product, you have a demand to listen to their songs. Do you not pay for live shows? You are simply paying to listen to/consume songs that they wrote. You're not paying for anything tangible.

Not saying I haven't dl music leaks at times without buying the album later because that would be a lie, but I'm not going to justify it by saying they didn't deserve the money.

[Edited on July 13, 2010 at 12:47 PM. Reason : ]

7/13/2010 12:42:30 PM

Quote :

"it can be applied to physical property just as well."

No, because if I take the physical property, they no longer have it.
But I can take copies of the non-physical content, and they still have it.

Quote :

"when someone spends a year writing, recording, mixing, mastering etc. a record and you choose to want to listen to their music...I guess I don't see where you are entitled to that."

I'm not. They can keep it all to themselves.
But the second they release it to the world, it is no longer exclusively theirs.
I and everyone else in the world are entitled to participate in language.

Quote :

"They've created something that you now have a demand for."

Quote :

"Do you not pay for live shows? You are simply paying to listen to/consume songs that they wrote. You're not paying for anything tangible."

A live show is a service. Yes, I pay for services.




Really though. These ideas are not new -- you all are simply choosing what to believe.
If you cared about the future of the world, you'd at least attempt to understand why intellectual property is a misnomer.
I shouldn't have to be the one to hold your hand as you attempt to understand this...
...you have the whole internet. Search and read.



Why do you think the government is pushing the defense of copyright as 'national security'?
Why is the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement so secret?

Quote :

"Obama's administration has refused to disclose the drafts of ACTA on the grounds of "national security"...but we know from leaks and memos that it includes universal surveillance of the net; mandatory loss of Internet connections without trial for households where one member is accused of violating copyright; and a duty to search your laptop and personal devices at the border for infringing material"

\/


[Edited on July 13, 2010 at 1:00 PM. Reason : I'm done. You kids have fun on page 2. Keep marching to the slaughter... ]

7/13/2010 12:46:52 PM

Quote :

"If you cared about the future of the world, you'd at least attempt to understand why intellectual property is a misnomer. "

y'all. the future of the WORLD depends on our understanding of IP. this is serious shit.

7/13/2010 12:51:36 PM