Black Metal.

[Koude Haat]

I agree with Dodens.

BACK ON TOPIC.


When/where can I get the new Archgoat album???

From Hellsheadbangers site..

Hells Headbangers is the *ONLY* U.S./North American distributor of this Blasphemous Underground Records (France) LP release due out February 2009. Labels & Distros get in touch for wholesale prices (no trades).

 

[A1a23]

Isn't that that anti-Muslim band or something? Read a review for that in the new Metal Maniacs, seems cool.

Also, new Blut Aus Nord (full song) is up! It's...great!
http://www.myspace.com/candlelightrecords

Awesome!! Kinda sounds like a mix between their older and newer material.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Not interested in the theoretical connotations behind downloading because earlier, Matt, you claimed that you hate the downloading culture and mentality. I kind of do too, but it obviously bothers me less. Regardless, I think your hatred stems from how they are in practice, not in theory. I hate leeches too. I should know by now that all you EVER do is debate things in theory when they wouldn't hold up [that way] in reality, and this frustrates me tbh. Like I said, I should KNOW this, but your approach still bothers me. And I lol at "you SHOULD hold yourself up to this standard, but not everyone does or will" because it's just funny, sorry. I think you've built up this total ivory tower "ethical" mentality to the situation that just does not work, it's very pretentious and crusader-like. Why do you care about the ethics and legality of it; you REALLY care about the support the bands do not receive from the people downloading the music, am I right? Why do you always go back to the "ethics" and "legal" side of this argument when I KNOW to you it's more about being passionate and not being a "poseur" (which I can commiserate with; see why I hate leech faggots).

 

[Koude Haat]

because he is an upstanding member of society and will chastise all these lawbreakers. (over the internet)

 

[skeptik]

Not interested in the theoretical connotations behind downloading because earlier, Matt, you claimed that you hate the downloading culture and mentality. I kind of do too, but it obviously bothers me less. Regardless, I think your hatred stems from how they are in practice, not in theory. I hate leeches too. I should know by now that all you EVER do is debate things in theory when they wouldn't hold up [that way] in reality, and this frustrates me tbh. Like I said, I should KNOW this, but your approach still bothers me. And I lol at "you SHOULD hold yourself up to this standard, but not everyone does or will" because it's just funny, sorry. I think you've built up this total ivory tower "ethical" mentality to the situation that just does not work, it's very pretentious and crusader-like. imo.

Practice is irrelevant without establishing the theory first. This is fundamental. I don't know why you don't get it yet, it really shouldn't bother you.

What is wrong with following a proper standard simply because it's not regularly followed? If everybody does the wrong thing, does it become right? Everybody knows that the vast majority of young people will illegally download at some point and to some degree. Everybody knows that theory and practice regularly don't match up perfectly. How this translates to abandoning the theory, or the 'ideal,' is beyond me. We don't abandon what is 'right' simply because the amount of people who do what is 'wrong' far outweighs us. You really just don't seem to understand how this whole concept works, and that's what frustrates you, that you don't understand. Don't accuse me of pretension unless you can justify it. I said that I hate the downloading culture and mentality and then I proceeded engage in devil's advocate and principle of charity with the ensuing barrage of implied arguments. I don't feel like discussing your personal problems with me on the board any more though, so unless you have something to say that is relevant to either this discussion or, obviously, relevant to the thread, then say it to me in private.

Stop editing your fucking post:

Why do you care about the ethics and legality of it; you REALLY care about the support the bands do not receive from the people downloading the music, am I right? Why do you always go back to the "ethics" and "legal" side of this argument when I KNOW to you it's more about being passionate and not being a "poseur" (which I can commiserate with; see why I hate leech faggots).

Don't tell me what I "REALLY" care about. What I care about primarily, among other things, is the principle. Why does anybody else care about principles? Why do we have principles? I shouldn't need to answer these questions. What I'm concerned with IS the ethics; producing posers is just an unfortunate side effect of massive abuse of ethics.

because he is an upstanding member of society and will chastise all these lawbreakers. (over the internet)

You and most everybody else seem to be too fucking stupid to realize that I'm not speaking for or as myself. I'm not putting MYSELF on a fucking pedestal; using this analogy, I'm showing everybody where the pedestal is and where we should all make an effort to come close to. Learn to distinguish between the two. But I guess it's easier to attempt to make witty remarks from the sidelines.

 

[Koude Haat]

um, i find all of this really retarded and not worth the effort to try and convince anyone that downloading is okay. Yeah we get it downloading is illegal. I don't really give a fuck. How about you stop caring what other people do? It's not really a big deal and your favorite bands wont stop making music because of it.

 

[Mort Divine]

^

 

[skeptik]

um, i find all of this really retarded and not worth the effort to try and convince anyone that downloading is okay. Yeah we get it downloading is illegal. I don't really give a fuck. How about you stop caring what other people do? It's not really a big deal and your favorite bands wont stop making music because of it.

You obviously don't understand my point at all, which isn't surprising. Shut the fuck up unless you have something to add rather than be another one of the fucking idiots who say "tl;dr" and other similarly worthless things whenever a discussion that actually has content and requires thinking comes up.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

You and most everybody else seem to be too fucking stupid to realize that I'm not speaking for or as myself. I'm not putting MYSELF on a fucking pedestal; using this analogy, I'm showing everybody where the pedestal is and where we should all make an effort to come close to. Learn to distinguish between the two. But I guess it's easier to attempt to make witty remarks from the sidelines.

Wow, that's an interesting way to make it so your argument is irrefutable. You're not speaking as yourself? Bunch of bullshit and a cop-out, tbh, this isn't even worth it. You always pull shit like this ("I'm not being serious!", "I'm not speaking as myself"), it's always the same. Why don't you preface your posts with an obvious disclaimer so you don't get caught up in this shit? It seems like it would really make things easier.

OBVIOUSLY we can't argue a fucking perfect theory of law. This isn't even "your" argument, since, in your own words, you're not even posting as you (wtf is this shit). The truth is that the law is often stupid, and taking it as the word of a god is making a mistake.

By the way, it's my opinion that art transcends law. Law is just a created system to keep society from degrading. Art is far beyond that in scope and purpose. Laws pertaining to art pertain to it only insofar as they even can. Making copies of a musical or other artwork for personal purposes should definitely not be illegal or vehemently opposed. If it were, me going and making a Xerox of a reproduction of "Starry Night" would be opposed by law enforcement agencies.

 

[skeptik]

Um...in an theoretical argument, you're never speaking for or as yourself, idiot. A theory is supposed to be an objective concept not based on subjective, personal opinions on an issue. If I was speaking for myself then I would allow some downloading in some cases. But I can't speak for or as myself until we establish the theory and move on to the practice, WHICH IS THE PART THAT YOU NEVER FUCKING GET BECAUSE YOU'RE REALLY FUCKING STUPID AND NARROW-SIGHTED.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

cool

(i don't care because now you're just being a douche tbh)

 

[Dak]

 

[skeptik]

You really need to take some kind of debating course.

Also, whether or not "art transcends law" really depends on the way in which you mean that, but OMG THAT'S SEMANTICS AND THEREFORE STUPID AND BEING A DOUCHEBAG. But what does not transcend law, and is not art, is obtaining art. Unless copying music onto CD-Rs is part of a work of art, then what you're saying isn't even fucking relevant to the discussion. Unless copying music onto CD-Rs is an artform itself? Try to explain how art transcending law allows for the illegal acquisition of pieces of art, that should be fun to watch. And if you'll go back AGAIN and read what I ACTUALLY said, I made it pretty clear that what I'm saying isn't based on the fact that it's "the law." Scroll up, you obviously missed those multiple parts where I said that.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

hey man don't tell me what i REALLY need to do duhr duhr

 

[Einherjar86]

I like watching the big fish go at it. It's like War of the Worlds (except not as glorious or cool).

 

[Dak]

I like watching the big fish go at it. It's like War of the Worlds (except not as glorious or cool).

Like this?

 

[General Zaroff]

LOL

 

[AchrisK]

This argument looks interesting.

 

[S<issors]

This is not a matter of (legal) digital distribution, nor is it about "the lay of the land," because neither justifies the means of obtaining the object in question. That it's easy and carries with it minimal risk does not excuse the behavior. The implication that bands need to adapt to digital distribution rests on the premise that downloaders will convert to purchasing the mp3s that they are accustomed to obtaining for free. If you can secure that, then I will agree with you fully, but frankly, if digital distribution became the sole or even primary means of distributing music, then I would wager that the amount of illegal downloaders would increase dramatically.

I think that the ease and reduced cost of buying music off iTunes (plus the easy availability of a sound sample) is indeed an attractive alternative to downloading. And I wasn't trying to morally justify it, just pointing out that when something requires so little effort and puts you at so little risk, people's ethics tend to be very flaky. It doesn't "feel" like theft- which was my point with the "copy of the apple" thing. The damage is far more indirect and "conceptual," if you will, than, say, shoplifting a CD.

 

[MasterOLightning]

Not to mention that it's a victimless crime, especially when it comes to OOPs and unreleased material. When Atheist and Cynic were out of print for all those years, in a pre-Myspace/Youtube world, these bands certainly benefited from continued exposure via downloads.