Thanks to The Office this has been stuck in my head the last few days. I had never heard this until a few months or so ago. I was like "Hey Boulevard of Broken Dreams...wait..."
I found this version of ICU. It was pretty good. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbriuyluPVI&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Please do not discuss methods and websites to get "free" music on EMC. Copyright laws are very strict in most countries, and sharing information on illegally obtaining music can have legal repercussions for the persons involved and possibly EMC.
Now that the thread's cleaned up... and the ultimate kind of geek music... stepper motor mario brothers! 0:44 for the music. Now that you may have played them... I bet you never thought accordian music could sound very cool and up to date, did you? (the first link)
I can beat that. Floppy Drive Imperial March: Sorry, but I'm sorta in a pony mood today, Season 3's air date was announced today. But now we should start thinking with portals:
It's not about beating it.... unless you have something that costs more than 3 industrial stepper motors playing music. Like a tesla coil playing music. (also, seen those, floppy harmoic systems, they are good)
Fair enough. What's the word on discussing the concept or what you think of it or the fact that you've done it, without revealing any sort of information about how or where? I mean, I have downloaded music illegally, and I'm fairly certain at least 70-80% of all Internet users have at some point or another. I also think it's an acceptable way of sampling music before buying, especially when no legal alternative exists. I also think it's an acceptable way of showing civil disobedience towards completely irrational copyright laws. Why? Well, prepare for a rant. A lot of people just throw the word copyright out there, without having any idea what it really is for. The first US copyright laws protected works for only 14-28 years. Why so short? Because the whole intent of copyright was giving producers of art (such as music, books and paintings) a limited exclusive right to their works, so that they could make money off of it, but still have it end up in the public domain a few years later to benefit the general population, as well as encourage the artists to keep producing new works. Copyright is meant to be a compromise between the general public's desire to use and share such works freely, and a producer's desire to keep it theirs and benefit from it monetarily. Today, it's no longer a compromise, it's just an absurd imbalance, completely contrary to the original intent. 14-28 years seems a good time to me. Do you know what the law is today? In most of the world, the default length of copyright is the life of the author plus either 50 or 70 years. You tell me how an author benefits from having copyright on their works 50-70 years after they are dead, and I might start respecting these laws a little more. Because I don't really feel much like respecting them today. While the makers of the US constitution were smart enough to add in this phrase: They unfortunately didn't realize how absurdly twisted you could make use of that phrase. For one, lawmakers have decided they can retroactively extend existing copyright duration, and that they can just keep extending it over and over, as long as they never actually come out and say that they will keep extending it ad inifitum, because that would go against the constitution. One of the greatest ironies in this whole thing? The Walt Disney corporation, which is one of the strongest proponents for copyright extension (the latest copyright extension act has been derogatorily referred to as the Mickey Mouse Protection Act) has based most of its works off of public domain works that, if copyright was as insane back when those works were written as it is today, would still have been under copyright, and thus couldn't have been used. The Walt Disney company is effectively saying "Yeah, it benefited us, but we sure don't want anyone else to benefit similarly in the future."
