Aggie87

Happy Birthday!!

Our live chats must really amuse you if you're sober during them!!

congrats! made two (maybe half-hearted) attempts in response to this thread but with no success so far... what i did give up after this thread was my other habit of eating 500 grams of chocolate a day which i'd been carrying with me for a year - giving that one up was so easy it was ridiculous... thought it would be good to know i quit anything at least (and 500 grams of chocolate aren't that cheap or healthy either i guess)

Hey, I have no problems with legal downloading at all! LOL I have downloaded stuff from Dave Douglas, Jason Moran, & Greg Osby, Robyn Hitchcock, & Porcupine Tree - some free, some paid for. But all with their consent. I have ended up with a couple of burns from various board members in previous trades as well. Unsolicited stuff (that was thrown in) that's found its way into the circular file. The intent of sharing is appreciated, though.

And I get criticized for sticking to my guns on the downloading thing?

It may be. Molde is Aug 81, Motians Psalm is Dec 81. There were several before these according to this discography page: http://www.bryanaaker.net/pre1983.html Thanks! Alot of stuff I've never heard of before there.

I'd love to see those two out!!! Probably my favorite Liebman stuff. Drum Ode, and Arild Anderson's A Molde Concert, actually came out here in the States around the turn of the century! Was Molde Concert the first recorded Bill Frisell, or did something come before it? I need to give that one a spin tonight.

is hilarious! A masterpiece of irony! Thanks. I think I better just agree that we disagree and move on. I clearly don't see this the same way as the majority of people here or elsewhere. I know the industry is changing. I will continue to enjoy CDs and vinyl though, thanks very much.

I don't see that as any different than some kid downloading a copy of the AEC box illegally. Except that somebody else happened to profit. In either case, the rightful people received no compensation. Your tunnel vision is your prerogative, so as long as you're at it, why don't you ask proponents of euthanasia (or even better, pro-choice advocates) if they feel "ok" with a drive-by or a mass murder or if they think it's "wrong"? Put that lack of nuanced thinking on full display for us, ok? And to be perfectly honest, if that kid had a choice between downloading a free copy of the box off of some blog, or paying beaucoup bodacious bucks for it from some "speculator" on eBay, I'd encourage him/her to download it from the blog - if all they wanted was to hear the music and not own an "object". But not before encouraging him/her to contacting Chuck first to see what the man himself could do. Excuse me now. I just heard a song on the radio that i like, and it's the fourth time today I've heard it. 20th time over the last two weeks. I now have a moral obligation to buy it. Hearing a song on the radio is apples and oranges, or else I don't get the comparison. I don't get that it's ok to download something that you aren't entitled to, but it's wrong to make copies of it physically and sell it. Either way it's wrong, isn't it? And I'm not sure I understand the need to insult someone who doesn't see things the same way as you do. Is nuanced thinking a way to justify doing something wrong? You keep trying to correlate the music thing with murder and other horrible crime (here and in our previous discussion about this), but it's simply not the same thing. What's wrong is wrong in either case, but there's certainly degrees of wrongness in the examples you're bringing up and downloading music. Stealing a pack of gum from 7/11 is wrong too, but I would never compare it to something like murder. Why are you doing that with the music thing? You commented in the other thread that it's your birthright to only respect laws that respect you (and presumably not the other ones?). I think that's our disconnect on this one.

I don't see that as any different than some kid downloading a copy of the AEC box illegally. Except that somebody else happened to profit. In either case, the rightful people received no compensation.

For those that illegally download material and defend the practice (because it's OOP or simply because you're "entitled"), how does this particular situation strike you? Is it wrong or is it ok? Is it wrong because you know Chuck?

By all means, don't make rash decisions. I don't think anybody in this thread has recommended doing so. My point was once you've made a decision to get a divorce, don't dawdle. Our decision to get divorced occurred in late 2002 or early 2003 while living in Germany. We didn't return to Texas until Nov 2003 (for a couple of reasons), and the divorce wasn't final until May 2004. In our case that was too long to remain together under one roof, and things happened to make our relationship worse than it already was during that time, not by my doing.

Agree with Paps' and catesta's advice. If you do go ahead with the divorce, it's important for your daughter to understand that she's not the cause or at fault in any way. When we got our divorce four years ago, I talked with both of my kids about it quite a bit (as did their mother). My daughter was 6 at the time, and had a difficult time at first. My son was much younger (3), so it didn't seem to affect him as much. We have 50/50 custody, where the kids live with me for a week, then their mother, and back and forth. Luckily we live close enough to make that feasible with schooling, activities, etc. If you're able to do something like that, I strongly urge you to consider it. Your daughter will get to spend an equal amount of time with both of you, and will realize that you both do love her. My kids understand our situation better now, and are accepting of their situation. They are able to have the same friends come over to either home, and have alot of friends with divorced parents as well, which I think makes it easier to deal with for them. Catesta is right that if you are going to ultimately get divorced, it's probably better to go forward and not drag things out. You will be happy again, whether that's something you can see now or not. Take care.

I think something like this would have been better - using a symbol that's identified worldwide with London.

Still looks like somebody doing something to somebody else!

Bulgarian Idol

Aside of the promo issue, my interest is in purchasing music legally. If artist's contracts are structured that way, as a consumer that's not my issue. Well, at least you're honest enough to admit that your concern for ethical behavior does not extend to artists' contracts. I sympathise with artists having to do this, if they want to have a contract with a label that forces them to issue promos. Even if they are self produced, like Organissimo, they issue promos. Part of the game and landscape. But it's out of my sphere of influence, so there's not much I can do about it individually. I know illegal downloading is part of the game and landscape too, I just don't care to participate in it, and think it's done far more harm on balance than good (at least for those of us who actually like to own physical copies of music). I think it's contributed to dwindling cd sales, which in turn reduces the number of artists that labels sign, promote, and issue recordings of, as well as reducing the demand for reissues of things I'd be interested in owning.

The technology now exists to this this same type of "borrowing" to take place online, which is exactly the point, as is that this same technology allows for outright theft as well as harmless borrowing. That the law/industry/establishment still has its head up its ass as to what to do about all this shows yet again how totally unprepared any of them were/are for the full implications of digital media. They simply saw it is an immediate sales boon. Well, hey, guess what. That ain't nowhere near all it is. As a Classic American, it is my birthright and moral obligation to respect any & every law, but only to the extent which it respects me. The difference is, it's not being controlled by anyone when it's done in an unlimited manner online, and by whomever desires to share or obtain those files. Also, when it's done online, people have the ability to simply take any and everything they want, for as long as they want. Effectively owning the content, without paying for it. Try doing that in a record store. You won't get out the door with a copy of the music, unless you're ok with theft.

Last saw the statue in 1984 - she's a beauty. I'd love to get back to Copenhagen as well, fascinating place.

I don't like using the Maltz Method, but I'm not sure how to really respond to you otherwise. That may be your issue, but not mine. I'm not making that comparison. I don't care to download music illegally. I'm not an evangelist about it, or at least I'm not trying to be (you asked me afterall). Aside of the promo issue, my interest is in purchasing music legally. If artist's contracts are structured that way, as a consumer that's not my issue. Listening to music in the store is an option in many stores. I don't have any problems with people listening to music like that. Not sure I get the point again. Oh yeah, trying before you buy. I don't have a problem with anyone listening to their friend's copy of a cd either. Borrowing is an every day thing. All I'm trying to do is what feels right to me. As are you and everyone else, I'm sure.

I don't burn copies of DVDs or download them, if that's what you're sort of getting at. And sure I've watched movies at friend's houses, but doing that doesn't create extra copies of the DVD like downloading would. I'm not sure I get the point about reading a magazine in a doctor's office or somewhere - you're not generating additional copies of something for which nobody is paid. Are you suggesting that the "rules" by which I'm playing aren't really rules? They aren't the law? It *IS* ok to download whatever you want, from wherever you can get it, artists/producers/record companies be damned? I'm not sure I get that. And I'm playing by what I'm comfortable with, which works for me. If others want to download things, that's their choice. I don't think simply being capable of doing something gives you the right to do it, though. Promos and BMG are different issues to me. BMG items are legally offered and sold, so I'm not sure why I should feel wrong about buying them. Promos are murkier for me, but I own a number of them. I buy them in used shops, and they've obviously been sold to the shop by radio stations, reviewers, etc. But aren't they manufactured with the artist's consent? That being the case, once they are "out there" in the world, in whatever quantity, there's no way to control whether they are sold and repurchased. If there was a promo and a regular used copy of a title in a bin, I'd buy the regular copy every time. I admit to possibly some hypocrisy with the promos, but I haven't resolved that one completely in my head.

I wouldn't do that. Listening to samples somewhere is enough for me to make a decision, if I'm torn that much on whether I want to check something out or not. If I'm interested enough in wanting to hear the whole thing, I'd prefer to just buy it. And if I end up not liking it after enough times spinning it(however many listens that is), it goes in the trade/sale pile.

Well Erik, I would certainly hope not. I mean, its sort of like whether a teetotaler has a problem with people drinking, or a non-smoker with people smoking. It depends on the intent behind the poll to me - it's not explicitly talking about filesharing etc.

I assume the question is about illegally downloading material, right? I don't have any problem with people legally downloading any music, regardless whether I do it personally or not.

that's not cool. Probably so they can show it in prime time tonight?