Mythrill

I know better, so I'm not answering your questions about my personal life.

Another problem of digging too much into people's lives is: who can guarantee that you'll actually do noble things with the information you got? As I told you, as a boss knowing so much about my employee could lead to situations where there's abuse of authority. I could certainly try to coerce my employee to do things just because I know so much of him. That, and everyone around me would also be exposed. The last paragraph leads to another problem: what if someone else photographs you drunk, for instance, and puts that in their myspace without your authorization and you get fired for that? I'm not sure in the US, but where I live this person could be sued for at least one thing: unauthorized exposure of a picture.

I got the idea of blackmail from this post. I did understand that as blackmail. However, even if she wasn't really blackmailed, how right is this? Why isn't anyone complaining about the attitude of this mother? Perhaps it was not blackmail, but she did use that kind of information to take revenge on a faulty behavior of her daughter.

So if I had two job offers and I decided to know more about you as a boss, is it right to try to do "research" on your life too? Probably my "research" wouldn't even be finished and I would be arrested by stalking.

So if the school knows, hires the coach anyway and then someone blackmails her it suddenly became wrong? So none of this matter, as long as you don't get caught? Hm. Smells like hipocrisy.

Obviously, just because things are legal doesn't mean they're right (from an ethical point of view). Sure, you can hire or fire whoever you want. It's your corporation anyway, isn't it? However, how ethical it is to do "research" on people's lives? What if your boss decided to research more about your friends, or where do you live, or the hospitals you go to? The illnesses you got? Say, if you decided to hide information from your boss, he/she could still create a fake profile and make you accept him as a friend (so he can learn more about you). That's not illegal. But is this ethical? You guys are missing the point. You're opening a door to legitimize this kind of action.

Why not? Do you think that your children being taught by an ex-playboy bunny would make them sexually deranged? Rapists? I don't think so. I think it's bias of your part.

I'd like to say some of the opinions here amuse me. Sure I certainly would not like a violent person to be a cop, for instance, but expecting someone to act in professional decorum even in his/her personal life is abusive. You're forgetting that when a corporation monitors your myspace, orkut or try to gather too much data on you, that's called spying. But I suppose that's a characteristic of this decade: mixing personal and professional environments and an oppressive technocracy. Let's not forget that, while this questionable way of gathering information could be used for good things, like checking if a person is too violent to be a policeman, it also opens a door for a person not to be hired or fired by their personal views of the world too. This includes political views or polemical views about things like abortion, euthanasia and so forth. If this is not a step to a dictatorship of corporations, then I don't know anymore what is. Furthermore, you keep talking about how that vampire guy could be so potentially immoral and violent, when there's no proof that this will lead to violent behavior (this is only justified by pure fear) and about how people that exaggerate on parties in their personal life have "a poor judgement". You shouldn't forget that the most immoral and dirty people are the ones that seem the most righteous: christian preaches, priests, and politicians, and so on. The ones you love and admiriate the most. Ironic, isn't it? I rest my case for now.

Is anyone willing to sue the music industry for being fooled?

Normally you would be dead right. However, you're assuming the upper layers of society are always right. Notice they're biased; it's of their interest to defend the (large sum of) money they own. Or are you expecting them to say: "we're ashamed of stagnating creativity, choosing looks over talent when release singers and pop groups to the masses and we're giving 70% of the money we have to society"? I don't expect that to happen, seriously. About your argument: I don't want to mean that just because the masses are acting like this they're right. But, if 99.99% of the population acts like this, there's certainly something it's not working here. Something in this system may be very corrupt or wrong.

I'm not active here, but after I saw this topic, I decided to give my own opinion on the subject. I understand that many of you are musicians and feel depreciated your work isn't paid. However, I ask you: how did Overclock Remix start? By remixing copyrighted material, and allowing original tracks to be downloaded. Sure, a remix isn't a copy of the original material, but a strict interpretation of the intellectual property could outlaw you simply by saying you're distributing songs derivated from intellectual property that wasn't licensed to you. Furthermore, if you think this is too farfetched, don't forget Ocremix distributes game songs in their original format. In order to distribute these files, you need to dump the music of a game, possibly using ROMs - which are seen as illegal by the industry. Don't forget that without the digital world, you guys would have less chances of remixing videogame songs. Sure, your chances to get richer would be much higher, but this would happen in an uneven way. Very few, if any of you here, would have any chance to be somewhat known as you are. To the ones that defend the industry: make no mistake. They don't give a damn about you. While I do see the need to protect some work as beneficial, this constant attempt to make it into a criminal matter is abuse of power. Also, think about it: if it's only fair a song remains protected for a while, is it fair that the person that executed the song retains a lifelong copyright protection? To conclude, I'd like to add that there's a conflit of interests: while protection of intelectual property is good for economy, it leads to creative stagnation, as you get much more restricted on what you can work with. It's really a tradeoff here.

Damnit... I've lost the midi. Well... if I find it anywhere I'll post the link. If you can find it guys please tell me. My sister has a music box with that song. If I COULD record it...

I'll prove you that this IS classic music. Just wait a while.

The version that's not on this site actually seems more with the original song I've heard before than SMRPG Sad Song.

I don't really know, but I *do* know I've heard it before.

Nonetheless, the song rocks! Btw, I have nothing to do with Mythril Nazgul. It's just mere coincidence we use similar nicknames. I used to use lots of different nicknames, but now I just stick for two nicks. Mythrill is the one I use most. Another difference: "Mythril Nazgul" is female, and I, "Mythrill" (two "ll"s) am male.

Just a tip... you feel like this was classic music because the original song was already a remix from some classical music. But can't recall if the author was Beethoven or Mozart. I think it was Beethoven. So this song is the remix of the remix. (If the MRPG song can actually be called a remix, that is. )