[MightyMasd]

hi dazcox, i like your poll!

i voted for switching the price tag, because there's a distinct possibility that one or more event like that may have occurred somewhere in my murky past.

yes, i've downloaded mp3s before but i seriously don't think i'll be taking a karmic hit for that one. granted dw may not agree, but here's my take on it. if i truly like a cd, i'll go out and buy it; i always have. but... if i find an mp3 that i just 'kinda' like i might just download it. i usually ask myself, "would i buy this, if i could not download it?" if 'yes', then i may still download it, but i'll make sure i actually buy the cd later.

[BWJfEkOB]

i look at karma like, you create therefore you experience, if you create a loss, you are going to experience a loss.

[Dyslermergerb]

please forgive me for not choosing one of the many funny choices you have presented. please take this response as gratitude:

ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!!

american life in a nut shell.

with love,
foo

[rxnixoncom]

c'mon, we're here for the catalyst! that's why we organized all such that it is so easy to pirate just about anything.

so, is knowledge really different than artistic expression? is the "aha!" of a scientist really any different than the "aha!" of a painter, or sculptor, or musician? and wouldn't most agree here that the total and free exchange of knowledge is vital to our evolution? wouldn't we all presume that david wilcock, given unlimited means, would then "freely" spread the amazing information he is tapped into as far and wide and quickly as possible?

at what point is the experience of the truth of music different than the experience of the truth of...well...truth? that is, the scientific expression of truth (which we all likely believe to be our free right to know). music holds truth as surely as the most stringent scientific experiment and the best of all data analysis holds "truth."

music is discovery, as surely as science. and like good science, a good song gets the same effect over and over again (provided the experiment is performed properly - ie: the band is able and inspired enough.)

it seems an invalid judgment to me, an arbitrary rule, that an illegal (laws created by a non-constitutional entity, thereby themselves "illegal") act of downloading music is automatically bad, as the "karmic hit" would imply. all of 3d existence is the playing out of duality, thus "karma" with its positive and negative - not to be confused with right and wrong or good and bad. frankly, i am surprised that such a flip judgment would have come from the source that it did.

so here you go. what if someone got a hold of david's materials, which are for sale, and through some scheme of pirating and marketing genius which completely exceeds david wilcock's abilities to spread the message, manages to get the core of the concepts of the new physics and the potentialities of 2012 across to a critical mass of the populace, creating a millionth-monkey effect which sends incredibly positive ripples throughout the consciousness of the entire planet, bringing about a peaceful and reasonably coherent transfer through the "difficulties" we now face?

does he have to take the freakin' hit for it?

people! it is not our job to do the accounting. until the veil is fully down for all there is no way and no right to place judgment upon any of our acts. this is at the core of forgiveness and recognizing in lak'ech - a mayan term meaning "i am another yourself."

keeping a tally of your sins is a sin. don't worry about it. but - respect and realize what those other "yourselves" are going through. if something is truly inspiring and needs to be shared do not sit on your hands worrying about some petty #*%^#@!!! karma! act from your highest heart and self discretion and convey that which needs conveying.

to not act in the enlightened interest of the many, does that take a karmic hit?

this counts for music too. music is too close to the heart, spirit, and emotion of the 3d experience. it is part of our truth.

honor the musicians. pay for your music. but don't fret the little stuff. really. get over it.

[pIp83Uns]

i really think that the money aspect is not a factor in the big picture at all, i think the key is appreciation of the material that was created.

if i download a song that a record company 'owns' and i love it then i am already compensating or 'giving back' to the artist in a way that is far more important than allowing a few cents per song to trickle down to them. an indy artist might be better served having additional merchandise for their fans to buy rather than relying on a medium that is so easy to pirate. it's a lot harder to pirate a t-shirt than a song these days. many bands, mine included, give their music away for free.

if intellectual property has a monetary value then the record companies should replace our obsolete vinyl records and cassettes with whatever the modern medium is, or at least allow us to do so without squawking. essentially , if you've paid for a song at any time in your life then you bought a de facto license to enjoy that song not just to enjoy that song on a particular medium, so if your cassette gets chewed up and you download an mp3 it's all part of the de facto license.

however the corporate slant is that if your cassette gets chewed up you're screwed and legally have to buy another in order to enjoy the music again, right? who decided that? not any of us, and most likely the majority of artists wouldn't be so greedy as to make a fan pay more than once for the same song.

sorry if the corporate mechanism suffers and ceasar isn't rendered unto, but that's my free will and the general consensus of the modern world is that music, once exposed to the public, becomes part of the public domain but the artist is basically expected to capitalize on the fame generated by the content.

look at the girls playing mandolin and ukes etc on youtube, they get thousands of fans and are giving you entertainment, for free, and cashing in on the fame without record companies in the middle. it's a whole new system of music, even with rampant mp3 downloading, new talent still emerges and inspires.

the people who suffer are those who refuse to accept that the times have changed and cling to antiquated rules that were the norm 20 yrs ago.

i think our main man dw needs to get a little more creative on his revenue generating rather than clinging to rules that are becoming more plastic. simply selling mp3's and sticking to the 'morals' of old fashioned laws looks like a system that will eventually fail in a monetary way.

i will not pirate the mp3's i purchased from david, but i find myself thinking that it's selfish of us to essentially 'withhold' the information in those mp3's from the public.

[Dyslermergerb]

c'mon, we're here for the catalyst! that's why we organized all such that it is so easy to pirate just about anything.

so, is knowledge really different than artistic expression? is the "aha!" of a scientist really any different than the "aha!" of a painter, or sculptor, or musician? and wouldn't most agree here that the total and free exchange of knowledge is vital to our evolution? wouldn't we all presume that david wilcock, given unlimited means, would then "freely" spread the amazing information he is tapped into as far and wide and quickly as possible?

at what point is the experience of the truth of music different than the experience of the truth of...well...truth? that is, the scientific expression of truth (which we all likely believe to be our free right to know). music holds truth as surely as the most stringent scientific experiment and the best of all data analysis holds "truth."

music is discovery, as surely as science. and like good science, a good song gets the same effect over and over again (provided the experiment is performed properly - ie: the band is able and inspired enough.)

it seems an invalid judgment to me, an arbitrary rule, that an illegal (laws created by a non-constitutional entity, thereby themselves "illegal") act of downloading music is automatically bad, as the "karmic hit" would imply. all of 3d existence is the playing out of duality, thus "karma" with its positive and negative - not to be confused with right and wrong or good and bad. frankly, i am surprised that such a flip judgment would have come from the source that it did.

so here you go. what if someone got a hold of david's materials, which are for sale, and through some scheme of pirating and marketing genius which completely exceeds david wilcock's abilities to spread the message, manages to get the core of the concepts of the new physics and the potentialities of 2012 across to a critical mass of the populace, creating a millionth-monkey effect which sends incredibly positive ripples throughout the consciousness of the entire planet, bringing about a peaceful and reasonably coherent transfer through the "difficulties" we now face?

does he have to take the freakin' hit for it?

people! it is not our job to do the accounting. until the veil is fully down for all there is no way and no right to place judgment upon any of our acts. this is at the core of forgiveness and recognizing in lak'ech - a mayan term meaning "i am another yourself."

keeping a tally of your sins is a sin. don't worry about it. but - respect and realize what those other "yourselves" are going through. if something is truly inspiring and needs to be shared do not sit on your hands worrying about some petty #*%^#@!!! karma! act from your highest heart and self discretion and convey that which needs conveying.

to not act in the enlightened interest of the many, does that take a karmic hit?

this counts for music too. music is too close to the heart, spirit, and emotion of the 3d experience. it is part of our truth.

honor the musicians. pay for your music. but don't fret the little stuff. really. get over it.

leo, you da man! i like your penmanship. keep it up!

keep it light,
foo

[Dyslermergerb]

i really think that the money aspect is not a factor in the big picture at all, i think the key is appreciation of the material that was created.

if i download a song that a record company 'owns' and i love it then i am already compensating or 'giving back' to the artist in a way that is far more important than allowing a few cents per song to trickle down to them. an indy artist might be better served having additional merchandise for their fans to buy rather than relying on a medium that is so easy to pirate. it's a lot harder to pirate a t-shirt than a song these days. many bands, mine included, give their music away for free.

if intellectual property has a monetary value then the record companies should replace our obsolete vinyl records and cassettes with whatever the modern medium is, or at least allow us to do so without squawking. essentially , if you've paid for a song at any time in your life then you bought a de facto license to enjoy that song not just to enjoy that song on a particular medium, so if your cassette gets chewed up and you download an mp3 it's all part of the de facto license.

however the corporate slant is that if your cassette gets chewed up you're screwed and legally have to buy another in order to enjoy the music again, right? who decided that? not any of us, and most likely the majority of artists wouldn't be so greedy as to make a fan pay more than once for the same song.

sorry if the corporate mechanism suffers and ceasar isn't rendered unto, but that's my free will and the general consensus of the modern world is that music, once exposed to the public, becomes part of the public domain but the artist is basically expected to capitalize on the fame generated by the content.

look at the girls playing mandolin and ukes etc on youtube, they get thousands of fans and are giving you entertainment, for free, and cashing in on the fame without record companies in the middle. it's a whole new system of music, even with rampant mp3 downloading, new talent still emerges and inspires.

the people who suffer are those who refuse to accept that the times have changed and cling to antiquated rules that were the norm 20 yrs ago.

i think our main man dw needs to get a little more creative on his revenue generating rather than clinging to rules that are becoming more plastic. simply selling mp3's and sticking to the 'morals' of old fashioned laws looks like a system that will eventually fail in a monetary way.

i will not pirate the mp3's i purchased from david, but i find myself thinking that it's selfish of us to essentially 'withhold' the information in those mp3's from the public.

hey, i think you are absolutely right. "nine inch nails" is now giving away their new album for free on their website. they are doing this for precisly the same reason you stated above. you can't fight this free exchange of information, you just have to creatively change with it. i went into the virgin records store the other day and do you want to know which album was nearly sold out? it was the "nine inch nails" one. weird, huh? you would think the opposite, right? if they are giving it away for free then nobody is going to buy it, right?

i have also seen new artists uploading their own material to the torrent sites and putting a note inside saying that if you like the music then please make a donation.

i think you are right but that there needs to be a new creative idea to change with the times. at least i-tunes is still bringing in the money. yeah, maybe they have a monopoly on the industry, which is not good, but at least the artists are still receiving pay checks from them.

keep it light,
foo

[pIp83Uns]

i stopped at this part to add a comment

"the film industry is also in trouble, which is why every dvd you rent now tries to guilt you into not stealing movies."

youtube, is probably the single biggest provable enabler that i've seen for this allowing people to willfully upload, in sequential ten minute segments, entire major motion pictures.

for example a guy from canada, that bastion of anti-western piracy, has a dustin hoffman movie (and others) on his youtube site, which you'd think is a totally illegal act and would bring the crushing might of hollywood lawyers down upon him (and google for allowing him to do so like they did with napster).

he had to use an email addy to sign up and so they can trace him down right, like the recording industry did with those college students and little old ladies who downloaded mp3's? you'd think that offering 'illegal' material for anyone to watch would at least get him suspended from google, but no, and he's nice enough to rotate his fare too, last week he had the first two cube movies (cube and hypercube, now it's cube zero.
thousands of people watched each clip of these hollywood movies, which google conveniently strings together for you to watch the entire movie, without commercial interruption, one ten minute seggy at a time.

he last logged on 9 hrs ago (at the time of this writing) and has been on that account since june and somehow i doubt i stumbled upon the only blatant pirate there.

no, the answer has to be either hollywood doesn't care, can't do anything about it or there are just so many pirates on major corporate sites like youtube that it's impossible to stop all of them. perhaps the guy is actually in hollywood and 'immune'.

but, and here's what i actually think is going on, people are so bored with the same old stuff from hollywood that they hope to get people interested in their type of passive entertainment by allowing it to be pirated in an act of desperation on their part.

[pIp83Uns]

oh and just to prove synchronicity and irony are intertwined, while looking on youtube at one of these pirated movies from the canadian guy i just wrote about, for scientific research only of course, in the related videos list next to the movie (part two of cube zero) is the 2012 enigma by david wilcock as uploaded by larryseyer http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ob_fcueeyku

[pIp83Uns]

ok, i know we discussed it last time dw mentioned his belief that we will 'pay' in a karmic way for the unlawful act of downloading an mp3 that could presumably be sold to us instead but this opens several important points i think.

not to be flip, but if 'there's only one of us here' then why is it a punishable offense? it's my song and my record company! anyway, at the very least we can conclude that karma only applies when we think we are separate from oneness, does karma stop happening when you reach a certain density then?

if ra (for example) downloads a pirate version of dw's 'what is my purpose' mp3 does he take a karmic hit?

ok, now, an mp3 isn't as good a quality as say a wav of aiff file so is the karmic hit less than say duplicating your buddy's cd? and quality aside, i find it a little hard to believe that dw never dubbed a cassette tape back in his scandalous youth. (which we all did but was totally illegal, remember the dire prognostications on record sleeves of "home taping is destroying the music industry", it was only a few decades ahead of it's time).

music was sold for higher prices per song (think 45's), when adjusted for inflation, in the 80's so would you take a bigger karmic hit for dubbing a cassette from your buddies 45 than for a 99cent mp3? as the karmic hit is for stealing right?

ok, i'm not picking on dw as he's the coolest cat i know (from his words anyway) but if i don't point out the things (and you don't comment) that seem to be a slippery slope of arbitrary morality then who will and where does it end?

where does the karmic hit parade end?

if you steal an mp3 of a pat boone song (for example) one that he only recorded in the first place because the original version by the black group wasn't allowed on the racist controlled radio, do you take a lesser hit because of the circumstances?

if you downloaded an mp3 of a song that had been stolen from the real songwriter would you only take the hit on the part that the producer did?

if you are poor do you take a lesser hit for downloading an mp3 than someone who is rich?

hell, if bill gates and the king of saudi arabia did a song and then figured they'd sell it, just because they could, not even for charity, just because they wanted to for fun, and you, with ten bucks to last you to pay day got a hold of a pirate copy of that song do you take the same karmic hit as a bono song he's selling for charity?

karmic hits are all about right and wrong right?

who decides what's right and wrong?

i think that there might be a karmic hit but there's also a positive effect for appreciating the content. i'm going to be beaten to a bloody pulp by all my karmic hits but i love a whole lot of music, way more than i could ever afford to buy from the man. (ok so i'm a little defensive! but it seems so nit-picky to suggest a 'negative' reaction from something that is becoming ubiquitous in a world where the same legally structured money grubbing corporations that sell mp3's also sell weapons and deadly chemicals etc etc.

if each mp3 is a distinct karmic hit then does the president of one of those racist white power record companies get a karmic hit for each time his 'wrong' message is listened too?