Timcast IRL - BLM Harassment Results In Man Taking Own Life, Family Sues w/Richie McGinniss

Sign Up For Exclusive Episodes At https://timcast.com/ Guest: Richie McGinniss @RichieMcGinniss (Twitter) Merch – https://teespring.com/stores/timcast-2 Hosts: …

*For corrections please email [email protected]*

4 responses to “Timcast IRL – BLM Harassment Results In Man Taking Own Life, Family Sues w/Richie McGinniss”

  1. IMnvrRite says:

    Corn is a quarter Ian, steal better stuff! Lol love you guys and all you do. ….i gave my user name and password to my brother in law in hopes he would watch, learn, love you guys like I do and subscribe. I plan to change my password on the 1st 😉

  2. Nilstheviking says:

    I’m really glad Ian stepped up and mentioned the crossover between the vaccine controversy and the genocide list. I think we are much further along, at this point in time, on that list in regards to the vaccine.

  3. NoOne123 says:

    Okay i lied, i have one other thing i want to type about.

    If an artist in New York is working on a painting and has a sign that says, “no cameras pls” and a photographer happens to stand behind him and take a picture of the street but still captures the painting that artist made, is the photographer committing theft of the artists work? For clarity both are standing on public property. Who owns the image of the painting in this instance? I would assume the artist owns the physical painting but the photographer owns the image of the street that has the artists painting in it right?

    If that photographer puts out the image of that street with the artists work and i happen to zoom in on that artists work on my computer and take a screenshot, is that theft? who owns that image?

    with enough abstractions, the definition of who owns what becomes completely meaningless. As an artist/musician myself i find the artist sitting there painting an image on a canvas with a sign, “no cameras pls” to be a huge fucking prick because it carries the implication that the mere sight of what he is painting is theft and that is simply not true.

    anyway, after a certain point this ends with the government mandating citizens get mechanical eyes that block out all images and if you want to see something you’ll have to pay for it as DLC like a video game. welcome to hell =^)

  4. NoOne123 says:

    So a couple things about the, “is piracy theft” argument. As Tim has said, the problems largely been solved(kind of) but here’s some of the arguments from back in the day for the, “for piracy” side.

    1. If a person pays for a song and sits in a room with their friends to listen to the song, are that persons friends stealing from the artist?
    2. If a person lends out an album they bought from a musician to their friends to borrow for awhile, is that friend committing theft?
    3. If a person bought an album and makes a copy of that album and gives it to their friend, is that theft?

    A couple of things that sort of run parallel back when piracy of media started to become a thing that Tim and gang forget to mention in this discussion, piracy ultimately destroyed the “super bands” of the past. No longer do shared cultural iconic bands like The Beatles and Nirvana and Metallica exist(for the most part). Thanks to piracy, the ability to distribute music online for audio files becomes dirt cheap. You no longer need to sign with a major label in order to get your music distributed among a large population. This allows smaller bands that might not otherwise be able to get signed onto major record labels to achieve large reaches across a population and build a following. This changes their model of making money. Bands these days primarily make their money by selling Merch(band t shirts) and show tickets. Some bands have tried experimenting with the market. Protest The Hero would have their fans sign up for a subscription for a brief period of a couple months while they worked on to develop their album and they’d make a documentary that fans could watch and they distribute merch and youd get a chance to chat with the bands and a couple of other things as well.

    As far as Art goes on the topic of piracy, it isn’t really too much of a problem. Most artists these days will make their money through commisisons. Someone gets in touch with them and asks if they are willing to work on a piece for a price and then the artist will work on a custom piece. As an artist builds a following they’ll be able to capitalize on that audience via offering various things through Patreon or selling a product through etsy. Art can still get somewhat affected by Piracy but the ease of online distribution far outweighs whatever negatives piracy brings for artists.

    Art is unique in its model of commissions(the product does not get made if you dont pledge to pay for it first) compared to other types of media and i think this is an important thing to realize. Movies are a lot different than Art and Music. Movies take a somewhat large budget and a team of people to make. Though…i guess you can technically question what a movie even is? This timcast episode is literally 2 hours and 20 minutes long and could technically be called a, “movie” and its just a couple of people sitting around in a room talking and im here willing to pay a subscription fee to watch bonus content on a website and im assuming timcast is raking in quite a bit of profit? Maybe the model of watching a movie and making a movie is due for another shift? Maybe subscriptions to centralized services is already an archaic model?

    Anyway this comment is too long and im bored with typing about the subject so im outty.