No_M0re
-
Posts
79 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by No_M0re
-
-
Oh hai there similar to RSC topic.
I have no idea on what they would be, if you could buy multiple clues though I'd say anywhere from 200-600k for hards.
I reckon level 2s would actually be fairly high priced because of the fair ease and the high price of some of the rewards, which would probably change if this got updated.
Same with easy..
No idea on elite, most of the good elite stuff seems like useless junk to me, best I ever got was like 500k.. And then I found out it didn't sell for anything less than 300k.
I'd say 400k-800k .
-
I don't look down on them... I just think nothing of them.
yeah. if youre desperate enough for any 99 that you get cook/fletch/etc as your first, i dont see that as an achievement. :|
Errr.... why?
Fletching takes aggeees, it was my first 99. Don't see how it's any less of an 'achievment'.
I think cooking capes look boss aswell
Er, I don't think 13 hours at a moderate price or 30 hours profiting is "agessss"
For people saying a 99 is a 99, you obviously have no experience with the max exp rates of skills. Fletching is, without exagerattion, 20X faster than slayer.
Yeah but how many people have time to get 99 slayer. I remember for my fletching it felt like a long time to me. I spent at least 4 hours + playing a day for a week to get 91-99 and that is a lot to me. If that's not a lot to you maybe you should take a walk and think about things.
I spent 30 hours completing FF7 and I think of that as an achievement.
Basically I think it's seriously bad times if a lot of people think that spending 30+hours on a game isn't noteworthy at all.
-
I still don't really believe that every one of these bots are actually selling money to people. There has to be well over 200,000 bots... I can't imagine that many people are buying gold.
Lots of botters are old school players who have grown up but want money to play with on RS without spending too much time.
I do wonder though what the percentage of players is. Heard guesstimates of 20-40 percents!!
-
Wooah SUOMI got 30m exp in 1 week! That's nuts, is that all slayer, str and hp?
And if he has money problems, (I don't know almost anything about slayer) but won't he make his money slaying/runecrafting/hunting?
I don't know what the efficient ways of training are but yeah.. ZMI gains money no? And 200m RC is a lot of runes crafted lol.
I don't know why he doesn't start merching tho :S You don't need that many bils for 200m buyables no?
Powerslaying - nope
Runecrafting - effigies - nope
Hunting - draconic jadinkos - nope
Merching is a risk of cash and he doesn't like to risk. As mentioned before, he is a perfectionist :P
Oh damn! So there's no skills left were he makes money??
Flipping isn't really a risk, he's gotta do something like that. Unless he has like a few p hats he can spare? Does he even have a p hat?!
Just read the post about needing 15b more.
No offense but if you want 200m all skills you need a money maker, maybe he could nex or something?
If he doesn't like merching then all he can do is stake/boss hunt. And stakings a risk aswell.
So either boss hunt/merch or give up? He can't rely on donations :P
-
Wooah SUOMI got 30m exp in 1 week! That's nuts, is that all slayer, str and hp?
And if he has money problems, (I don't know almost anything about slayer) but won't he make his money slaying/runecrafting/hunting?
I don't know what the efficient ways of training are but yeah.. ZMI gains money no? And 200m RC is a lot of runes crafted lol.
I don't know why he doesn't start merching tho :S You don't need that many bils for 200m buyables no?
-
Screw blessing? I'd much much rather loot. :thumbsup:
-
I don't look down on them... I just think nothing of them.
yeah. if youre desperate enough for any 99 that you get cook/fletch/etc as your first, i dont see that as an achievement. :|
Errr.... why?
Fletching takes aggeees, it was my first 99. Don't see how it's any less of an 'achievment'.
I think cooking capes look boss aswell
-
GF me ever luring a p hat. :boohoo:
-
Oh and schizophrenia but in my experience everyone I've known who got it (3 people :P) were right weirdos before. So bound to go scitz at some point.
Weed doesn't cause schizophrenia fyi
Like I said, they were bound to skitz anyway.
But it did cause it, trust. There's no proof because it's incredibly hard to prove. But mate I watched a mate of mine go skitz. it was the weed.
-
rs isnt dieing
there are more searches and more rs bots than wow because rs is free
/thread
Yeah it is. Have you read any reviews of RS lately? It's just a game with a large ammount of players who will continue to play for a long time. The ammount of new players is minimal now, so that just means that things will slowly die.
Most reviews of Runescape are world of warcraft players who have played runescape for 5 minutes
RS has been "dieing" since like what 2006 now?
It wasn't dying tho was it, there was plenty of miniclippers and all that jazz.
Now it's dieing, slooow like. I think it'll go for a fair few more years, but it's pretty blatent to me that when a large majority of people I see have 99 capes the game is becomming top hevy and dieing.
-
I finished my 5 month accutane treatment today. It has definitely helped, and I'm looking forward for when my lips un-chap.
Oh, I can give before & after pictures if anyone wants to know how well it works.
That's the hella hefty acne drug yeah??
Yeah put the pics up dude, would be intersting to see!
-
America should really reconsider some of their drug laws...oh wait, making weed legal would hurt pharmaceutical companies
Arizona legalized medical marijuana.
One state legalizing it under strict rules isn't what I was talking about. I remember reading about pharmaceutical companies manufacturing synthetic marijuana to sell as well, funny how weed is supposedly bad enough to make illegal, but beneficial enough that pharmaceutical companies mimic it (I imagine that regular old weed would be a lot cheaper than the stuff they're making)
Innit.
[bleep] the drug laws, keep smoking keep fighting.
There's clearly an alter motif because the pros heavily, heavily outway the cons, and the Governments all know this.
The problem with saying the "for the side affect" argument is that the government doesnt say to alcohol drinkers that you are allowed to drink as long as its under a limit that would get you intoxicated they say you can drink as much as you want just dont drive.
If the government had that precidence on drinking you would have a valid arguement there.
I agree, I think the law is silly. But it would be too arbitrary to tell people they could drink to a certain extent, which is why that isn't the case.
regardless we operate largely on precedence, so in the case that it ever was legal it would follow the same laws as alcohol, as in massive trouble for DUI crimes, acting stupid on the street while under the influence, but while in your own home you would be allowed to use as you wanted.
In my personal opinion I would have no problem with this, and it would hurt criminal gangs the most since people would be willing to pay more to buy from a store legally instead of shady deals with dealers
Or grow it ;)
I bet there would never be a recorded case of 'high and disorderly' haha!
I have a lot of friends who have smoked weed for years and i see the only problems as creating laziness (but if they couldn't deal then they couldn't afford to be lazy) and causing paranoia, but I think that comes from the paranoia you need to have when doing something ilegal. If legalised it wouldn't be sketchy smoking a dooby in the park and constantly looking out.
Oh and schizophrenia but in my experience everyone I've known who got it (3 people :P) were right weirdos before. So bound to go scitz at some point.
Also with regards to driving stoned, my mates do all the time. And I mean all the time, it's not amazingly dodgy. I've probably been in a car with stoned drivers about.. i dunno 300+ times, no joke. I've been in a car with a drunk driver like 10 times and 3 times we had a heavy crash.
Basically, stoned driving is kusher than kush.
But if you wanna hurt criminal gangs you need to legalize everything, otherwise they'll move onto something else. I don;t know much about Mexican cartels but I'm gunna guess coke is pretty high up there aswell.
-
Gunna be a [bleep] but you just made a joke out of dead man. :notalk:
was that even remotely necessary?
Well I think it's proper disrespectful to joke about something like that. The rest was funny yeah, but when I read theoldnite I was a bit pissed off to be honest.
It's not necessary tho no.
-
Update of the top 5 (expect the top 15 on saturday the 2nd of avril)
1. Zezima : 3,61BB xp (+2,3B). In a strange turn of events, Zezima reclaimed his long lost rank 1 by dumping a whopping 1742 effigies, using 132K slayer points and exchanging his funorb XP for runecrafting XP. Coming milestones: 100M sailing
2. Durial321 : 3,09Bxp (unknown XP gains). After years of negociation with Jagex lawyers, Durial321 finally won his trial and was awarded his old account back with extra XP in his choice of skills and the ability to kill and loot from Jagex Mods . Coming milestones : 1K blue phats banked
3. The Old Nite : 2,99B xp (-55M xp) Back from the grave due to the mexican Zombie outbreak of southern Sri Lanka, The Old Nite is back on the frontpage and I expect him to nolife dungeoneering in order to catch up to durial in the coming weeks. Coming milestones : 3B xp
4. Zarfot : 2,89B xp (+540M). Zarfot pulled a Drumgun on us!!! Zarfot discovered a new training method to earn 3M xp in runecrafting per hour. Rumor has it, his return to runescape was sponsored by Xtranormal who observed a decline in viewers in the weeks following Zarfot`s retirement in late november. Coming milestones : 2M youtube subscribers
5. Langerkiller : 2,83B xp (+2,41Bxp). Definitly the most well rounded, efficient, handsome and various other nice attributes, Langerkiller entered a deal with a bunch of ex top 15 players who gladly gave away some of their XP to this player in order to get better comments in the weekly update of the top 15. Credits goes to Paperbag who gave 800M xp in construction, prayer, herblore and ranged, Suomi who shed some of his agility, fishing and mining XP for a total of 600M xp and Drumgun who renounced to his melee skills, Hp skill and summoning skill for a whopping 1B xp. Aasiwat offered some cooking XP, but Langerkiller replied he didnt want a "noob" 200M skill. Coming milestones : I expect he will receive a lot of flack for entering the top 5 under these circumstances...
Gunna be a [bleep] but you just made a joke out of dead man. :notalk:
-
Of course they have bot dtetection systems, all good games too.
Also no poof of tht many users using bots its just a theorised number backed up by some clever statistic work and statistics can be manipulated to show w/e you want.
You seem to be labouring under the illusion bots can be gotten rid of; they can't.
There will always be bots and jagex will always work agaisnt them. And lawsuits do help given the site owners are slammed with massive compensation charges and cant realistically open a new site too fast with them, plus any subsequent site would be all the easier to get taken down due to the prior ruling on the same issue.
If they had good bot detections there wouldn't be succesful suicide bots. Already said this but one guys suicided into the top 500 mining. (Suiciding is 24/7 botting). There's even almost maxed suicide bots.
Anyway RS is obviously gunna die at some point.
Probably not for a while but it's cleearly in decline.
rs isnt dieing
there are more searches and more rs bots than wow because rs is free
/thread
Yeah it is. Have you read any reviews of RS lately? It's just a game with a large ammount of players who will continue to play for a long time. The ammount of new players is minimal now, so that just means that things will slowly die.
-
Soldiers are people. You cannot expect them to always act ethically.
^This
The Taliban are doing far worse than this. Not saying this is a good thing, but it appears to be an isolated incident.
I would say that the US and UK(I don't know much about others) have done/ are doing things that are just as bad as the taliban.
I'm sure this isn't an isolated incident, I've seen loads of videos of UK/US troops behaving like this in plenty of countries.
But I still think that drone attacks are worse, because noone seems to think of them as bad.
Anyway the taliban have a good few new images for recruting now. :S
(By the way I didn't read the article because it makes me sad :()
-
[hide][hide=Antispam]
[hide]
Plagiarizing and copying music in this context don't mean the same, Jaffy. Plagiairism laws exist so people don't make a profit or claim ownership of other people's ideas. With piracy, none of these apply.
They aren't entirely the same, that's true. However, here are plenty of sites that do offer other people's music, tv shows and whatnot in return for payment. To avoid plagiarism you can credit a source a specific way, or in certain cases, buy the material. To avoid copyright infrigmentation you buy the music for your own personal use, or the right to play it (for example shops have to pay the owners of music to be allowed to play it when they are opened). The reason behind the rule may be slightly different, but that doesn't mean it is entirely different. In both cases the material belongs to someone else, and you have to pay for the right to play it, quote it, or own it in a sense.
You may not take away the original, but the owners have the right to claim a fee for your using it in both cases.
[/hide]
At No_M0re,
I don't mind you calling people "man", it just makes me feel odd since plenty of people seem to think there are no women on the internet. xD
Anyhow, I can assume you hereby admit to randomly sharing your opinion with made-up prices for songs and whatnot?
If your information is based on fact, finding credible sources isn't that hard, so for lack off it is safe to say you were not basing your claims on facts, but simply making things up?
You claim to have read every word I said, yet you repeat the same futile questions while I have already provided a proper answer, and you repeat flawed statements without any arguments or even hint at evidence to back them up. Don't go round in circles now, go on and show us that support for your claims.
Yeah I assumed you were a girl because of your avatar lol!
I do have a fair knowledge of the costs though because of watching my friends and like i said my best mate is an engineer, pretty good one at that. I'm making things up to an extent, it isn't exactly 5k£ to bring out a song, but it is definately around that with no manager/company involved. I would say, for a good songwriter, including the time spent writing the song. If you don't want to accept that is credible that's fine, I don't mind. It's not really but it's a fiarly good estimate, gives an idea.
Also I did read what you said, but it's all weird legal nonsense. I'm saying for my case how is it stealing? Surely you can see it's not really.
Oh well I guess we both have pretty strong opinions on this :ohnoes:
I don't have any evidence either because once again I'd say it's kind of self explanatory, or is it even possible to get evidence for my last post.
Basically I don't think that I personally am stealing.
^In other words, you are wrong.
Calling that source weird legal nonsense proves that much to be honest.
You're not the only one that claims it isn't stealing, but the simple fact that you're downloading illegally means that you are.
The source shows you perfectly that copying the original without taking it away is stealing, so please stop claiming you're not. xD
Also, what you're saying is not self explanetory, because if it were there wouldn't be room for opposite opinions, now would there? Backing up something that is self explanetory should be very simple.
If getting a song on the market is around 5.000 pounds including all the advertisement and whatnot, why do so many artists lack the money to do so? Getting 5K isn't that hard.. What is that based on?
The fact that you think you know what you're talking about, or the fact that one random friend of yours may have hinted at that? I'm not going to claim I do know how much it costs, because I don't, but you made a statement about it, so I would like to see the validity of that. And even if, assuming every song costs 5K to create, do you honestly think that pirating that one song makes up for the creator's costs? Would you go to a concert to listen to one song? How much should an artist invest into a song, and how many songs should they create for you to steal before you pay to go to a gig?
Now I'm not sure what kind of person you are, but surely you enjoyed some education with regard to backing up statements, and were taught to think critically? And I'm sorry, but saying"I know a lot about this subject so I am right" simply doesn't cut it, because everyone can say that too, and if they did it still wouldn't be true.
Finally, to clarify part of the "weird legal nonsense" --> You claim copying the original is not stealing, then what is plagiarism again?
And to think, 3 million people could all share one cd and the record companies would be pissed off about the 2.9million who didn't buy the cd. Record companies are hippocrits, putting a price tag on something that's theoretically free...
That too is stealing, so you're suggesting you're as hypocritical as you claim record companies are?
[/hide]
[/hide]
Plagiarism I don't know much about, in my eyes though it should only be ilegal if people profit from it.
I suggest you read the below again... and uh, how do you plagiarise without profitting off it in some way?
...This link right here...
What I'm saying is is that in my case noone loses any money. I wouldn't have bought the CDs anyway and infact after hearing about the band I go see them.Already proven that to be invalid.
I really don't understand how you can argue with that :(
Because what you are saying is incorrect, and you fail to answer any critical question to explain yourself.
Also I did say, advertising shouldn't be part of the coosts because msot good bands/musicians go viral on youtube now. Therefore it's free,
That is nonsense, and you know it.
Granted most big bands still get loads of money spent on advertising, but I don't think the music industry should be like that, bands should get famous becasue people like them and share them with their friends.
Believing something should be different doesn't make it different. That also doesn't justify theft.
And uh, how do people get to like bands without advertising? How do they get famous if no-one knows about them?
Also I don't live in a world where I have to back everything up with facts and sources, my sources are in real life. There's no way I can link you to all of them.
I'm not asking for a link to everything, but when you come up with "factual" claims that are made up for whatever reason I think it's reasonable to ask what they are based on.
I can't remember excactly how much it costs to hire an engineer and studio for 1 day, I think it's cheap..
Ok so I googled it, you can rent a studio AND an engineer for 180£. Assistants are usually interns and work for free. So that's 180£ apparently.. Granted that might not be amazing quality. But if it can cost 180£ then I'm sure I'm safe in saying that it's around 3k£ for one day with a good engineer. So 3k£, maybe you need a few session musicians, they're around 30-60£ an hour.. Usually you only need them for a few hours. So let's say you have 2 for 5 hours, that's 600£. Then you need someone to master, they can work cheap becauase there are too many. I can't easily find one on the internet but many places are saying around 500$ a track, so like 300£. So around 3900£ to have a song produced. Maybe you need a video but due to the large ammounts of amateur film makers you can usually get it done for free, or possibly around 1k. Once again I can;t back this up but I know it from experience.
Music videos for free mhm? I'm sure a random cheap camera and lacking choreography will go very far... And all you need is to spend money on an engineer and studio time?
I'm no expert, but I am sure that a lot more is required. You also said that advertising isn't necessary, so if I just randomly spent x thousand pounds on making a song, and then put it on YouTube, following your logic this would happen:
1. "Loads of people" will somehow see my random video with music, and download it for free.
2. I will get "loads" of fans because people will share my song a lot.
3. How on earth do I get a gig then?
4. When does the money come into the picture?
5. I end up facepalming at having lost x amount of money, but the bright side is that a bunch of people got my song for free, and like to listen to it at times?
It does make me wonder what kind of experience you have.. :rolleyes:
Basically, whether I pirate or not it makes no difference. I wouldn't have bought the CD otherwise. Only difference is that if I pirate I hear it and share with my friends, if I don't I don't and my friends might not hear about them.
Please tell me how there is any leeway in the above statement. :pray:
Even if that were true you would still have stolen the music. You didn't buy the right to have it, and therefore you should not have it. If you were intregued enough by something you would have bought it, or heard a song on the radio and then may have chosen to buy it. Even if you didn't, the fact that you take what does not belong to you means you cheat the creators. Shops pay owners of music to be allowed to play it to their customers, that's just the way it works. By having it, and playing it, you owe them the money they are entitled to by the simple fact that it is theirs. That is how they lose.
It does make a difference, because a huge amount of people pirate music (and movies/TV shows), and since that started the sales of music and movies went down by a significant amount.
^I've already explained that before as well.
Would you buy the DVDs to a movie or TV show if you've already pirated it?
Would you buy the CDs if you've already pirated the music?
Would I buy DVDs? No, I hate spending 12pound on something I watch once.
Would I buy CDs? Possbily because I can listen to music over and over again but in better quality. I don't though and never have because I'm skinted. I buy vinyl from things I've listen to from pirating.
It is true though, you can get music out without advertising costs.
350k views on an original with no advertising costs? that's pretty good no? (I think it;s a crap song tho)
Also I dunno if you know dubstep?? Most artists got famous by posting music on youtube and are now touring and DJing.
Anyway I can't be assed to argue anymore, your not gunna change my opinion I'm not gunna change yours.. so let's not :thumbup:
-
I just hate the conclusion. It's a dumb conclusion, and to me it shows he can't have done that much research.
When I started fining out about bots and getting to know some botters I came to the opposite opinion.
-
Well ok, then don't look at fishing: let's look at mining, smithing... woodcutting, firemaking, fletching (do I need to go on?).. Those skills have totally lost their purpose: and this brings me back to the main point I tried to make 2 pages back:
those who say people should just go using combat and don't expect to skill for any monetary income are basically saying skills are a waste.Cause if you say: "but you should skill for levels".. Well on the game design level if they wanted this to be true (skilling's purpose to only be gaining levels) they could just increase the level cap of combat skills - so you get more levels there. And if you say skilling should be done to have some relaxed fun: well this might be true, but bots are destroying this too: they increase the chance for getting ores, logs etc..
Hence considering above statement one can only conclude that bots -by creating an atmosphere where skilling is only done for levels- are destroying the game to be played as it was planned during the game design phase. And as this is more or less an unwanted effect jagex should take harsh action against bots!
But did you ever skill in RSC?? IT was a million times worse than now and almost everyone with a 70+ level seemed to bot. You had to click continuously on a fishing spot, or right click and then left click continuously. Skilling was never really enjoyable. Obviously they must have been made to be enjoyable because, well, it's just weird making a game that's purposefully not enjoyable. But in practice I think they only thing people ever found fun about skills was the reward. By Jagex adding skill capes they made it about the levels.
But this is what I don't get, if you enjoy skilling then surely the monetary reward is just a by product?? If the aim is to make money then why not combat?
Anyway, I personally cannot understand why anyone would want play this game if they purely skilled.
I r cmbt n00b :ph34r:
-
The Chinese have a 20times better work ethic than any western country.
Read part 4 of the article linked to at the bottom of this post. The work ethic is almost just forced on them because they have no alternative. One of the reasons for that work ethic is they know they can't change anything about how they work. The police are called if a worker refuses to do his job (right to strike was removed in 1982).
It's also their culture, it's the same in Thailand and they arn't forced to work, granted a lot of them need money, but even so they still work their asses off. Sorry I don;t have tiome to reaad the article right now, maybe later. But when I look at asian families in Britain they usually work 10times harder that Brits, and I'm not talking about ilegal immmigrants with no money.
They also have a lot more people, a lot more money.
The number of people is irrelevant. China has loads of money because the U.S. and other countries buy their products. China depends on other countries to thrive just like any other country.
Right now, they don't depend that much though, they are owed money by a lot of countries, have a lot of farmable land and a lot of oil supplies. I wouldn't say they're anywhere near as dependent as the US or Europe even more..
Soon they'll get freedom of speech (although from what I can tell most Chinese arn't fazed by it) and then yeah, they'll be the new superpower :thumbup:
I'm not sure where you got that from. China giving it's people freedom of speech would be a stupid move. China is a communist country and communism is working very well for them because they run everything with no backlash from people. Give those people freedom of speech and they ask for more freedoms which would eventually lead to rebellion, riot, etc. Not to sound harsh or anything.
Yeah it would be a stupid move for the few in power. But there's riots fairly often in China now. I think it'll have to happen as a redult of them becoming a first world country. But then the majority of han don't seem to give a crap.
Same with India, I like Chinese culture though so I dunt care.
Awesome, so you're biased to China? So why are you making fun of people who are biased to the U.S.? I'm referring to your reply a few posts up when you said "Stop being so patriotic perhaps?", you're certainly not being patriotic but you're showing bias. Which in my opinion completely makes your argument invalid.
No of course not, I'm not living in China so my country would suffer.
Today it was in the news that China is the 4th biggest publisher of scientific research. Trust me, they're hoarding money and soon.. muhaha.
So being 4th makes you the best now? I want this insider info you must have of what China is going to do with the money that they have "hoarded" by the way.
No, it was also that they're going to take over the US in around 2 years. So that makes them the best.
I dunno what they'll do with money, something evil. :ph34r:
Also when they finally yet the RMB(quai :)) be controlled by the world market things will change drastically.
Sichen (I dont no how to spell chinese :()
Add English to the list of languages you can't spell in. Even with spell check.
That's just low man, who cares u can still read it. I'm not writing a bloody essay I'm writing on a forum, your lucky I'm punctuating right now if it annoys you so much. :S
I'm not arguing whether China may or may not become an economic superpower or that the U.S. may or may not be going downhill, I'm arguing that China won't control the world. My point is why would China want to change anything if everything is working so well for them now.
Oh and in my opinion this article is a good read on why China is quickly becoming an economic superpower.
Red China, Inc. Does Communism Work After All?
China > America in certain aspects but America > China in others. Neither is completely better than the other. America's economy sucks, China's standard of living sucks. Both have their pros and cons.
I'm 99% sure you won't read any of the article before saying anything and you'll probably end up posting more mindless dribble that you're pulling out of your ass so that's all I have to say about this.
Oh and I don't support communism for all you reading this thinking "omg he likes communism". I'm just saying communism works economically for China.
I didn't read it \:D/ !
I'm not that interested. I just find it really funny how patriotic you Americans are that you feel you have to defend it so much. I'm not really bias towards China becoming a superpower, I'd much rather it stayed the way it was now. Better for me. Where will I backpack when the world's economy begins to even out :(
Quite a lot of what you said is right aswell, I don't have anything to back up what I say. Don't care either, the whole constantly linking on a forum pisses me off.
(I want OP to post again since he is from China_
=P~
-
[hide]
Plagiarizing and copying music in this context don't mean the same, Jaffy. Plagiairism laws exist so people don't make a profit or claim ownership of other people's ideas. With piracy, none of these apply.
They aren't entirely the same, that's true. However, here are plenty of sites that do offer other people's music, tv shows and whatnot in return for payment. To avoid plagiarism you can credit a source a specific way, or in certain cases, buy the material. To avoid copyright infrigmentation you buy the music for your own personal use, or the right to play it (for example shops have to pay the owners of music to be allowed to play it when they are opened). The reason behind the rule may be slightly different, but that doesn't mean it is entirely different. In both cases the material belongs to someone else, and you have to pay for the right to play it, quote it, or own it in a sense.
You may not take away the original, but the owners have the right to claim a fee for your using it in both cases.
[/hide]
At No_M0re,
I don't mind you calling people "man", it just makes me feel odd since plenty of people seem to think there are no women on the internet. xD
Anyhow, I can assume you hereby admit to randomly sharing your opinion with made-up prices for songs and whatnot?
If your information is based on fact, finding credible sources isn't that hard, so for lack off it is safe to say you were not basing your claims on facts, but simply making things up?
You claim to have read every word I said, yet you repeat the same futile questions while I have already provided a proper answer, and you repeat flawed statements without any arguments or even hint at evidence to back them up. Don't go round in circles now, go on and show us that support for your claims.
Yeah I assumed you were a girl because of your avatar lol!
I do have a fair knowledge of the costs though because of watching my friends and like i said my best mate is an engineer, pretty good one at that. I'm making things up to an extent, it isn't exactly 5k£ to bring out a song, but it is definately around that with no manager/company involved. I would say, for a good songwriter, including the time spent writing the song. If you don't want to accept that is credible that's fine, I don't mind. It's not really but it's a fiarly good estimate, gives an idea.
Also I did read what you said, but it's all weird legal nonsense. I'm saying for my case how is it stealing? Surely you can see it's not really.
Oh well I guess we both have pretty strong opinions on this :ohnoes:
I don't have any evidence either because once again I'd say it's kind of self explanatory, or is it even possible to get evidence for my last post.
Basically I don't think that I personally am stealing.
^In other words, you are wrong.
Calling that source weird legal nonsense proves that much to be honest.
You're not the only one that claims it isn't stealing, but the simple fact that you're downloading illegally means that you are.
The source shows you perfectly that copying the original without taking it away is stealing, so please stop claiming you're not. xD
Also, what you're saying is not self explanetory, because if it were there wouldn't be room for opposite opinions, now would there? Backing up something that is self explanetory should be very simple.
If getting a song on the market is around 5.000 pounds including all the advertisement and whatnot, why do so many artists lack the money to do so? Getting 5K isn't that hard.. What is that based on?
The fact that you think you know what you're talking about, or the fact that one random friend of yours may have hinted at that? I'm not going to claim I do know how much it costs, because I don't, but you made a statement about it, so I would like to see the validity of that. And even if, assuming every song costs 5K to create, do you honestly think that pirating that one song makes up for the creator's costs? Would you go to a concert to listen to one song? How much should an artist invest into a song, and how many songs should they create for you to steal before you pay to go to a gig?
Now I'm not sure what kind of person you are, but surely you enjoyed some education with regard to backing up statements, and were taught to think critically? And I'm sorry, but saying"I know a lot about this subject so I am right" simply doesn't cut it, because everyone can say that too, and if they did it still wouldn't be true.
Finally, to clarify part of the "weird legal nonsense" --> You claim copying the original is not stealing, then what is plagiarism again?
And to think, 3 million people could all share one cd and the record companies would be pissed off about the 2.9million who didn't buy the cd. Record companies are hippocrits, putting a price tag on something that's theoretically free...
That too is stealing, so you're suggesting you're as hypocritical as you claim record companies are?
Plagiarism I don't know much about, in my eyes though it should only be ilegal if people profit from it.
What I'm saying is is that in my case noone loses any money. I wouldn't have bought the CDs anyway and infact after hearing about the band I go see them.
I really don't understand how you can argue with that :(
Also I did say, advertising shouldn't be part of the coosts because msot good bands/musicians go viral on youtube now. Therefore it's free,
Granted most big bands still get loads of money spent on advertising, but I don't think the music industry should be like that, bands should get famous becasue people like them and share them with their friends.
Also I don't live in a world where I have to back everything up with facts and sources, my sources are in real life. There's no way I can link you to all of them.
I can't remember excactly how much it costs to hire an engineer and studio for 1 day, I think it's cheap..
Ok so I googled it, you can rent a studio AND an engineer for 180£. Assistants are usually interns and work for free. So that's 180£ apparently.. Granted that might not be amazing quality. But if it can cost 180£ then I'm sure I'm safe in saying that it's around 3k£ for one day with a good engineer. So 3k£, maybe you need a few session musicians, they're around 30-60£ an hour.. Usually you only need them for a few hours. So let's say you have 2 for 5 hours, that's 600£. Then you need someone to master, they can work cheap becauase there are too many. I can't easily find one on the internet but many places are saying around 500$ a track, so like 300£. So around 3900£ to have a song produced. Maybe you need a video but due to the large ammounts of amateur film makers you can usually get it done for free, or possibly around 1k. Once again I can;t back this up but I know it from experience.
http://www.londonmusicproductions.com/index.cfm?sid=32031&pid=490287
http://www.lnlrecording.com/FAQ/session_musicians.htm
Theres some links.
Can you believe me now?
Basically, whether I pirate or not it makes no difference. I wouldn't have bought the CD otherwise. Only difference is that if I pirate I hear it and share with my friends, if I don't I don't and my friends might not hear about them.
Please tell me how there is any leeway in the above statement. :pray:
-
Melee flesh crawlers, range and mage lesser demons
says flesh crawlers hit often and hard against weaker players...
I trained cows, but this was a while ago?
-
Chinese ballads, German hardstyle and kit kats. :thumbup:
-
[hide]
Plagiarizing and copying music in this context don't mean the same, Jaffy. Plagiairism laws exist so people don't make a profit or claim ownership of other people's ideas. With piracy, none of these apply.
They aren't entirely the same, that's true. However, here are plenty of sites that do offer other people's music, tv shows and whatnot in return for payment. To avoid plagiarism you can credit a source a specific way, or in certain cases, buy the material. To avoid copyright infrigmentation you buy the music for your own personal use, or the right to play it (for example shops have to pay the owners of music to be allowed to play it when they are opened). The reason behind the rule may be slightly different, but that doesn't mean it is entirely different. In both cases the material belongs to someone else, and you have to pay for the right to play it, quote it, or own it in a sense.
You may not take away the original, but the owners have the right to claim a fee for your using it in both cases.
[/hide]
At No_M0re,
I don't mind you calling people "man", it just makes me feel odd since plenty of people seem to think there are no women on the internet. xD
Anyhow, I can assume you hereby admit to randomly sharing your opinion with made-up prices for songs and whatnot?
If your information is based on fact, finding credible sources isn't that hard, so for lack off it is safe to say you were not basing your claims on facts, but simply making things up?
You claim to have read every word I said, yet you repeat the same futile questions while I have already provided a proper answer, and you repeat flawed statements without any arguments or even hint at evidence to back them up. Don't go round in circles now, go on and show us that support for your claims.
Yeah I assumed you were a girl because of your avatar lol!
I do have a fair knowledge of the costs though because of watching my friends and like i said my best mate is an engineer, pretty good one at that. I'm making things up to an extent, it isn't exactly 5k£ to bring out a song, but it is definately around that with no manager/company involved. I would say, for a good songwriter, including the time spent writing the song. If you don't want to accept that is credible that's fine, I don't mind. It's not really but it's a fiarly good estimate, gives an idea.
Also I did read what you said, but it's all weird legal nonsense. I'm saying for my case how is it stealing? Surely you can see it's not really.
Oh well I guess we both have pretty strong opinions on this :ohnoes:
I don't have any evidence either because once again I'd say it's kind of self explanatory, or is it even possible to get evidence for my last post.
Basically I don't think that I personally am stealing.
Would you betray your best friend for a Phat?
in Questionnaires
Posted
Yes I would.
I wouldn't RWT but to put in perspective people pay 3000$ for a p hat. I wouldn't value any internet friendship at 3000$.
I'd rather save myself the time, assuming its 0.50$ an hour because RWTers are usually sweatshoppers, 6000 hours.
I could make a cult in 6000 hours, nah screw that I'd add one to my ignore ;)