Slashdot Mirror

put at least some of the responsibility on the general public I felt the same way at one time until I began to think in terms of a business m0del.

you deserve what you get The technique is diversionary. The taxpaying public is saddled with debt which they had no opportunity to opt out of. The taxpaying public is then distracted with vaporous issues. With the assent of popular opinion (which can be completely manufactured if necessary, eg. the Iraq war) money can be allocated. The allocation of that (tax) money serves to maintain social relationships and funnel money to preferred social groups.

I can't really hold the general public responsible anymore. They're trapped in the banker's game. I can't honestly expect everyone to quit their jobs and hold the fort against the eviction/foreclosure notices served by paid public servants.

Preemptive Strike lyric: "There's a game out there and the stakes are high. And the guy who runs it figures the averages all day long and all night long. Once in a while he let's you steal a peek. But if you stay in the game long enough you've got to lose. And once you've lost there's no way back. No way at all..."

I wouldn't normally use Flash for a whole site (although Joshua Davis often does with gorgeous results)

The Flash on the other Josh Davis' site isn't terribly offensive, either.

I had assumed this article is talking about the disc jockey that plays music at dances kind of DJ. Because most real DJ's have to pay for their tracks that they mix live or they create the samples themselves.

I don't understand why they would have to pay royalties if they're mixing from mp3s when they had to pay for it.

Here's an example. Let's pretend I'm DJ Dangermouse and I bought some Beatles vinyl that I like to mix into my songs. Now, it shouldn't be a problem for me (Jay-Z) to get up there and mix these songs together. But if I put them in an album and make serious dough off of it, I'm in for a ride in the court system.

I've always been under the impression that it would be fine to perform this live and play it for an audience but once you try to sell it as a record, you're going to face some serious liabilities. I've been in bands that have covered Coldplay, Radiohead, The Beatles, Beck, The Pixies, etc. and we've never got in trouble for playing them live at crowded bars. In fact, when you start out, it's advised to include about 50% originals and 50% covers so that the music is accessible to anyone who might be there just for a drink.

There's a lot of studying to be done if you want to fully understand how sampling works with musical copyrights but up until this point, the only litigation I have seen is often brought up in instances of recordings.

Here's a straight forward article containing:

Flat fees range from $100 to over $10,000, while royalties to recording owners range between half a cent and three cents for every copy of the track sold. Musical composition licenses typically give "the copyright holder a percentage ownership in the new work's musical composition copyright," as well as an advance of a few thousand dollars on the expected publishing income.

In the old days, artists used to smile and feel appreciated when they heard their music being played live. It was a sign of admiration. They only sought legal action if the song was recorded and money was made.

If you're a DJ who plays songs for weddings and events, then you probably should have to have a license to do so. But if you're a musician who just spins tracks together, it seems kind of ridiculous. I guess the license isn't that big of a charge if you're selling out venues.

My trusty old HP 48S graphing calculator, that served me since engineering school, seems to be giving up the ghost.

I know this is offtopic, but since
the release of DJ Shadow's "The Private Press", I realy must know...

WTF does "giving up the ghost" mean?