Comments on: “Death of ACTA” Music Video by Dan Bull

By: Edgaras

Edgaras — Wed, 03 Nov 2010 12:01:31 +0000

Guys… Wi-Fi signal is scarce Just because something LOOKS abundant doesn’t mean it is infinite. Air also is abundant, but it is still scarce and in under-water society one would have to pay for it.

By: Adam

Adam — Tue, 02 Nov 2010 16:35:20 +0000

Actually, when I use your WiFi, it’s because you are already transmitting the signal into MY home. Therefore, if you transmit your signal into my home, I am free to use it (if I figure out how). However, if you put some sort of password restriction on YOUR signal, and I am unable to use it, than you have succeeded in stopping me. Whether or not there are any noticeable affects of YOUR signal flooding MY home is another discussion, and if there are then you would be responsible to cease invasion of my home with your signal.

By: Andras

Andras — Tue, 02 Nov 2010 16:13:54 +0000

Using your wifi access by me would not use your physical property. Only the field of it. You still have your widget with all its functions. Why would I pay for mine when the abundance of your field is just unresistable. The provider would not have physical harm either, it wouldn’t even see the difference. Don’t send your goons you little statist to damage my physical property just to enforce your positive rights.

By: Matthew Swaringen

Matthew Swaringen — Mon, 01 Nov 2010 22:33:05 +0000

Internet use requires other people’s physical property. When you connect there is a physical modem or server that you are connecting with. They don’t have to allow you to connect, they choose to allow you based on payment. If you use someone elses internet against their will doing so requires violating their physical property.

The analogy to your argument is downloading via iTunes. You have to pay them to download from them. But if you download from someone else who has voluntarily agreed to it, it’s not the same thing anymore.

If you see these things as the same it’s because you still rely on the reasoning that copying is theft because it’s against the will of the creator/publisher/etc. But if we don’t agree with your premise then your argument is unconvincing.

By: Juraj

Juraj — Mon, 01 Nov 2010 20:37:29 +0000

LOL! I eat 50 feet from that boat every week! Well done.

By: Nick

Nick — Mon, 01 Nov 2010 17:51:22 +0000

It's from D.O.A. (Death of Autotune), produced by No I.D..

By: Andras

Andras — Mon, 01 Nov 2010 16:57:24 +0000

Why would you stop at downloads? Why shouldn’t we use other people’s internet access. After all, wi-fi-, cable-access and broadband are even more abundant than materialisation of any ideas.

By: BD29

BD29 — Mon, 01 Nov 2010 16:35:01 +0000

Awesome!!!

By: Nix

Nix — Mon, 01 Nov 2010 02:34:19 +0000

Kinsella,
If you want to replace the question mark in the prelude: “But I don’t think it’s auto tune”

By: Nix

Nix — Mon, 01 Nov 2010 01:34:44 +0000

Raw beat, great lines.

And thank God nobody sings over the hook.

By: Magnus

Magnus — Sun, 31 Oct 2010 22:39:39 +0000

Cool song but the vocals weren’t strong enough. Had a hard time hearing what he rapped about which I didn’t listening to the Keynes vs Hayek rap.

By: Tyrone Dell

Tyrone Dell — Sun, 31 Oct 2010 20:00:01 +0000

Good beat. Good flow. Great lyrics.
For all you hip-hop heads out there, this webpage is definitely worth checking out: http://best.complex.com/lists/Kon-Amir-Present-The-50-Greatest-Samples-In-Hip-Hop-History

Its just fascinating to me how a bunch of bored dudes who would recite spoken-word poetry over old funk albums turned into a musical revolution.

By: Tyrone Dell

Tyrone Dell — Sun, 31 Oct 2010 19:35:47 +0000

Good beat. Good flow. Great lyrics.

By: Nielsio

Nielsio — Sun, 31 Oct 2010 18:49:53 +0000

Excellent!