[QUOTE=christsimpson;16939482]I don't know which Evergreen you are talking about but if it's the emo one it's from LA (bay area) and it had Antioch Arrow's bassist.

if it's the Slint one it's definitely from Louisville.[/QUOTE]

yeah, i was confused cause im all about pa bands being from pa and all haha

favourite pa band = Venomous. psychedelic influenced garagy emo punk thing. essentially cuddly boys playing noisy rock.

favorite pa band = either oktober skyline or cold like december.

still together though, probably aphotic discord.

Bam Margera tried to sign Venomous lolololololololol.

simpson, eh??

bam margera is a flaming homosexual/arrogant twat

but we all loved CKY as kids though

is bam the midget

[QUOTE=christsimpson;16939775]but we all loved CKY as kids though[/QUOTE]

never.

[QUOTE=christsimpson;16939670]no I don't. I downloaded the track. I took the right.[/QUOTE]

which is essentially illegal in america. you are taking away someones right to their property intellectual or physical.

quit being stupid and making me have to be douchey and right

This one time i thought that john howard had huge eyebrows and then the next day i see some comedian on TV talking about john howards huge eyebrows. Can i sue?

if you had performed the act on stage you would have grounds to sue in america and in the uk yes

no i just thought it so its my intellectual property

stop being such a communist

you see you still have to apply common sense to things. a thought is different then recorded audio. if you had recorded yourself in front of an audience and it was shown that thought contributed to your livelihood, then yes you would have a case to sue that comedian.

[QUOTE=whiteminority;16940092]never.[/QUOTE]

videos are funny as hell, what are you smoking?

[QUOTE=Iluvatar;16941065]which is essentially illegal in america. you are taking away someones right to their property intellectual or physical.[/QUOTE]

so what? I do not approve of their "right". thus it is non-existent to me. consequently I can s'hit all over it and do whatever I want, furthermore leading to a demonstration of just how retarded "intellectual property" actually is. (a whole lot.)

he's not saying you would win the case, just that you have a case

[QUOTE=christsimpson;16941408]so what? I do not approve of their "right". thus it is non-existent to me. consequently I can s'hit all over it and do whatever I want, furthermore leading to a demonstration of just how retarded "intellectual property" actually is. (a whole lot.)[/QUOTE]

yeah but you're just arguing that you dislike the law so you won't follow it, and while of course you can **** all over it and do whatever you want, you can theoretically be sued and have no chance of winning under country law. the point is filesharing is illegal whether or not you like it man

[QUOTE=christsimpson;16941408]so what? I do not approve of their "right". thus it is non-existent to me. consequently I can s'hit all over it and do whatever I want, furthermore leading to a demonstration of just how retarded "intellectual property" actually is. (a whole lot.)[/QUOTE]

crimethinc much?

whoah how did i not catch that

[QUOTE=Iluvatar;16941430]yeah but you're just arguing that you dislike the law so you won't follow it, and while of course you can **** all over it and do whatever you want, you can theoretically be sued and have no chance of winning under country law. the point is filesharing is illegal whether or not you like it man[/QUOTE]

I can't be sued theoretically or practically if I'm not caught. thus i > the law. thus I don't have to care.

as for crimethinc, I'm not really up to date on that. I've always considered them to be an American thing. also I've read a bit about them being more into graffiti and vandalism than actual thinking and solidarity. but I'd be happy if I'm wrong.

Crimethinc is actually a really cool organization, and while I can definitely see the graffiti aspect of them they do have a lot of interesting things to say. If nothing else, they publish a few really interesting novels. In one of their guides that I bought, one of the writers put a list of books and music that people should listen to. His Hero is Gone was on it, so naturally I have to like the company.

[QUOTE=christsimpson;16941504]I can't be sued theoretically or practically if I'm not caught. thus i > the law. thus I don't have to care.

as for crimethinc, I'm not really up to date on that. I've always considered them to be an American thing. also I've read a bit about them being more into graffiti and vandalism than actual thinking and solidarity. but I'd be happy if I'm wrong.[/QUOTE]

dude all you are saying is you are up the punx and dont care as opposed to saying you aren't doing something. if you really didnt care about society then you wouldnt use the internet

[IMG]http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/funny-pictures-cat-thinks-you-are-stupid.jpg[/IMG]

I have been arguing the validity of your claim that it is not illegal. All you are saying is you don't care and that you take away peoples rights. That is like we are sitting around and you are eating a sandwich, and I steal your sandwich and you say "hey thats my sandwich" and I say "no it isnt I took it from you" I am in the right.

edit: zach savage

i took it from you

no it is not. if you take my sandwich then I would be left there, without a much appreciated sandwich. you would leave me hungry. someone would starve for your actions. consequently this would be a violation of humanity.

if you share a file with me, you would still have your original file - and we could both live together in harmony and utmost happiness, with our files.


oh and holy s'hit are we off topic lol.

yes and someone makes a livelihood by creating those songs. if they do not condone filesharing and you take a copy of a legally bought copy (or so on and so forth), then you are depriving them of something that helps them to live and is thus a violation of humanity.

and this thread is off topic considering the forum anyways so it doesn't matter

objects d'art should not be a source of private income, but an outlet of human emotion and expression - something which cannot be measured in filthy green paper with numbers on them (not that anything else could be measured like this either). an artist should not be in it for the money. I do however very much condone donations and such.

anyway I will not be actually purchasing "intellectual property" (as if it exists) that I do not even know. how can an artist expect someone to be willing to trade something for his or her work, if the person on the opposite side of the deal does not know what s/he is getting? if the barter consists of a certain amount of green paper with numbers printed on them on the one side, and an unknown non-physical object on the other side - how can the barter rightfully go through? and how on earth can one side of the barter measure according to the other side, if it is oblivious to what in fact *is* on the other side?

it makes no sense paying up for something that might suck.