Strict Standards: Redefining already defined constructor for class BPDB in /home/actidemann/kurtrosenwinkel.com/forum/bb-includes/backpress/class.bpdb.php on line 183

Strict Standards: Declaration of BB_Walker_Blank::start_lvl() should be compatible with BB_Walker::start_lvl($output) in /home/actidemann/kurtrosenwinkel.com/forum/bb-includes/class.bb-walker.php on line 148

Strict Standards: Declaration of BB_Walker_Blank::end_lvl() should be compatible with BB_Walker::end_lvl($output) in /home/actidemann/kurtrosenwinkel.com/forum/bb-includes/class.bb-walker.php on line 148

Strict Standards: Declaration of BB_Walker_Blank::start_el() should be compatible with BB_Walker::start_el($output) in /home/actidemann/kurtrosenwinkel.com/forum/bb-includes/class.bb-walker.php on line 148

Strict Standards: Declaration of BB_Walker_Blank::end_el() should be compatible with BB_Walker::end_el($output) in /home/actidemann/kurtrosenwinkel.com/forum/bb-includes/class.bb-walker.php on line 148

Strict Standards: Redefining already defined constructor for class WP_Object_Cache in /home/actidemann/kurtrosenwinkel.com/forum/bb-includes/backpress/class.wp-object-cache.php on line 285

Strict Standards: Redefining already defined constructor for class WP_Http in /home/actidemann/kurtrosenwinkel.com/forum/bb-includes/backpress/class.wp-http.php on line 67

Strict Standards: Redefining already defined constructor for class WP_Http_Cookie in /home/actidemann/kurtrosenwinkel.com/forum/bb-includes/backpress/class.wp-http.php on line 1633

Strict Standards: Redefining already defined constructor for class WP_Users in /home/actidemann/kurtrosenwinkel.com/forum/bb-includes/backpress/class.wp-users.php on line 11

Strict Standards: Redefining already defined constructor for class BP_Roles in /home/actidemann/kurtrosenwinkel.com/forum/bb-includes/backpress/class.bp-roles.php on line 11

Strict Standards: Redefining already defined constructor for class WP_Auth in /home/actidemann/kurtrosenwinkel.com/forum/bb-includes/backpress/class.wp-auth.php on line 36

Strict Standards: Redefining already defined constructor for class WP_Dependencies in /home/actidemann/kurtrosenwinkel.com/forum/bb-includes/backpress/class.wp-dependencies.php on line 33

Strict Standards: Redefining already defined constructor for class WP_Taxonomy in /home/actidemann/kurtrosenwinkel.com/forum/bb-includes/backpress/class.wp-taxonomy.php on line 36

Strict Standards: Non-static method BP_Options::get() should not be called statically in /home/actidemann/kurtrosenwinkel.com/forum/bb-includes/backpress/functions.bp-options.php on line 9

Strict Standards: Non-static method BP_Options::get() should not be called statically in /home/actidemann/kurtrosenwinkel.com/forum/bb-includes/class.bp-options.php on line 26

Strict Standards: Non-static method BP_Options::get() should not be called statically in /home/actidemann/kurtrosenwinkel.com/forum/bb-includes/backpress/functions.bp-options.php on line 9

Strict Standards: Non-static method BP_Options::prefix() should not be called statically in /home/actidemann/kurtrosenwinkel.com/forum/bb-includes/class.bp-options.php on line 49

Strict Standards: Non-static method BP_Options::get() should not be called statically in /home/actidemann/kurtrosenwinkel.com/forum/bb-includes/backpress/functions.bp-options.php on line 9
<br/> <b>Strict Standards</b>: Non-static method BP_Options::get() should not be called statically in <b>/home/actidemann/kurtrosenwinkel.com/forum/bb-includes/backpress/functions.bp-options.php</b> on line <b>9</b><br/> file sharing issue revisited! (a very good article!!) « The Kurt Rosenwinkel Forum

file sharing issue revisited! (a very good article!!)

(5 posts)

Tags:

  1. themawt71
    Member

    the first link is a letter from musician david lowry to a young woman who published an article at npr about why she doesn't pay for music.
    it's one of the best arguments i've read in defense of musicians.

    the next link is someone who responds to david lowry. it's a good response to lowry but i still fall on more on lowry's side.

    i definitely am not interested in any animosity or fights but i would love to discuss both sides of the issue.

    what do y'all think?

    http://thetrichordist.wordpress.com/2012/06/18/letter-to-emily-white-at-npr-all-songs-considered/

    http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/index.php/archives/2012/06/18/the-david-lowery-screed/

  2. gleepglop
    Member

    Lefsetz's "rebuttal" is so full of fallacies and other logical holes that I can't believe anyone takes it remotely seriously. Practically every sentence initiates a new fallacy; the whole thing could be used for an assignment in a beginning logic class (I emphasize beginning, since usually fallacious arguments are more subtle).

    Lowrey wrote a nuanced, logical article about the ethics of how people are relating to music and musicians. Lefsetz's response is to try to distract from the issue of ethics with as many incoherent arguments as he can.

  3. Quintricacy
    Member

    Seems like Lefsetz completely missed the point.

  4. egav
    Member

    Funny how Lefsetz disabled comments.

  5. Matt
    Member

    Of the 75,000 albums released in 2010 only 2,000 sold more than 5,000 copies. Only 1,000 sold more than 10,000 copies.

    wow....

    Magical rainbow ponies

Reply

You must log in to post.