Slashdot Mirror

Do you have any clue how TINY the percentage of profits a musician actually makes off of the sales of his/her album?

I think most musicians, even a lot of the big-name stars who have the most to lose from mp3 piracy (as opposed to freely releasing an mp3 themselves), support the mp3 revolution. Tom Petty and (in a big way) David Bowie come to mind as examples of people who have really embraced the new medium.

For a brief, freakish time, recordings as a medium were intensely profitable for a very few musicians (but never so much for them as for record companies). Those days are over. MP3s represent a brand-new way to use recordings for their original purpose -- a marketing tool to sell either the live performance or the sheet music.

The beauty of it is the beauty of the internet -- I no longer need to grease the palms of radio DJ's, I no longer need to get an "in" with a major label -- many of the barriers that formerly blocked new musicians from "making it" are now gone, and a band can even be from Midland, TX or The Netherlands and a guy like me could stumble across them. Or even Italy. (Just three of my favorite bands that I never would have heard of through the standard radio play / movie soundtrack / local bar circuit methods.)

The recording industry is corrupt. (Duh.) Most of us musicians, even those of us who are in the system, have seen it as a necessary evil. MP3's are a way around them!

(Braveheart mode on)
FREEEEEEDOOOOOOMMMMMMMMM!
(Braveheart mode off)

One band I know of is even using mp3's to give fans who are musicians the opportunity to make their own remixes!

All in all, mp3's are pretty cool for those of us who are artists. Most musicians are NOT whores to the music industry (much as they've tried to be) and lose almost nothing; many of those who are tied in with big labels have already embraced the new medium.

MP3's aren't going anywhere, and those who fight against them will only lose their money in the end.

just my 2 zorkmids

According to this page, it's also available for the macintosh. I know that doesn't help most linux folk, but c'est la vie.

with the list of cd's that I own? From the terms of service:

8. By accepting these Terms and Conditions, you expressly consent to certain disclosures of your personally identifiable and other personal information to third parties, and to our use of your information, as enumerated in our then-current privacy policy, which is available at http://www.mp3.com/privacy.html.

I especially don't like the fact that the privacy policy is mutable to the point that the terms of service even allow for it with the "then-current" phrasing. The entire terms of service are at http://www.mp3.com/my/terms/index.html.

I'll admit, it's a bit paranoid, but I'll stick with my CD-R's for portable MP3's.

with the list of cd's that I own? From the terms of service:

8. By accepting these Terms and Conditions, you expressly consent to certain disclosures of your personally identifiable and other personal information to third parties, and to our use of your information, as enumerated in our then-current privacy policy, which is available at http://www.mp3.com/privacy.html.

I especially don't like the fact that the privacy policy is mutable to the point that the terms of service even allow for it with the "then-current" phrasing. The entire terms of service are at http://www.mp3.com/my/terms/index.html.

I'll admit, it's a bit paranoid, but I'll stick with my CD-R's for portable MP3's.

1. Buy MP3's from their web site, which are loaded into your account, and
2. Upload your existing CDs into your account.

Both ways, you're still paying for the music, so this would probably fall under the "shift-transfer" stuff that got the Diamond player through the courts (I'm not sure of the name, but its when you record music you bought onto a different medium, used previously for cd's recorded to tape).

What I don't see is a way for your existing (legally questionable?) downloaded MP3's to get onto the account.

Just my $.02

It seems that the large corporations are doing everything in their power to piss me off.

Close. Actually, corporations are doing everything in their power to gain and maintain more power. And in a democracy, where power is supposed to be in the hands of the people, such corporate power gains can only be had at the expense of the people. I doubt the corporations are intentionally trying to piss you off specifically (then again, you never know...). I suspect it's more that your loss of freedom is what's really pissing you off.

The whole issue of the MPAA and DVD encryption has nothing to do with piracy. And it has nothing to do with them telling you what you can do with the DVD's you own. It has everything to do with the MPAA wanting desparately to keep any independent and small movie production companies from creating their own movies on DVD without signing contracts with MPAA affiliates. Remember, opening the CSS encryption scheme allows people to make their own DVD's as well as pirate them. For a more eloquently expressed version of this arguement, see the Mojo Nixon rant on www.mp3.com. Just replace 'mp3' with 'deCSS' and 'RIAA' with 'MPAA' and you'll get the idea.

I predict many more suits like this in the area of patents and copyrights in the near future.

Definately. In the past, the oppressors would send in the army and police to keep the peasants in line. These days, sending in the lawyers is much more cost effective. That way they get to impose their will and have it enforced by the police and military funded through the taxes of the very people they're oppressing.

Hopefully this will remind us that the power of the corporations are eroding our individual rights, and that this appears to be on the rise in the near future.

The difficulty lies in that most people want to give away their rights and freedoms. Especially if doing so gets them greater convenience and more trinkets. And think on this: Corporations are not required to obey the restrictions in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Only the government is required to obey those rules (and they don't do much of that anymore either).

I'm sounding like Chomsky here...

So? You make it sound like that's a bad thing. For the most part, Chomsky is right

Note to self: don't by anything DVD related. Encourage all of my friends to stay away from the technology.

A tyranny is a tyranny and oppression is oppression regardless of whether it's ruled by a king or a corporation. The best defense against tyrrany and oppression is still (and always will be) the armed citizen. The companies may be able to sue people into economic oblivion, lie to them through corporate media, and control their choices in the marketplace. But as long as there is the threat of an armed reprisal from a single individual pushed too far, there's a limit to the amount of power companies (or any other organization) are able or willing to exercise. Does anyone wonder why the majority of funding for "gun control" organizations like Handgun Control Incorporated comes from corporate sponsors while gun rights organizations like the National Rifle Association rely almost solely on donations from private individuals.

Of course most people aren't aware of any this, being content to get all their information from corporate owned and sponsored media. That's why the corporate power blocks are so unhappy with the open nature of the internet. It's one information source they don't control (yet), but just you wait until they get their laws passed to censor it "to protect children" or (more recently) to tax it "to protect mom-and-pop stores from unfair competition". Remember that the ability to tax something necessitates and creates the ability to control and regulate it. The companies want to control all information and already got their "Digital Millenium Copyright Act" to this very end, despite its flagrant violations of the Bill of Rights (but who has the money to pay the lawyers to successfully challenge it?). The control of DVD creation and distribution through CSS is just another way the companies in the MPAA hegemony are trying to maintain their control of information. This lawsuit is their tool for maintaining that control.

It seems that the large corporations are doing everything in their power to piss me off.

Close. Actually, corporations are doing everything in their power to gain and maintain more power. And in a democracy, where power is supposed to be in the hands of the people, such corporate power gains can only be had at the expense of the people. I doubt the corporations are intentionally trying to piss you off specifically (then again, you never know...). I suspect it's more that your loss of freedom is what's really pissing you off.

The whole issue of the MPAA and DVD encryption has nothing to do with piracy. And it has nothing to do with them telling you what you can do with the DVD's you own. It has everything to do with the MPAA wanting desparately to keep any independent and small movie production companies from creating their own movies on DVD without signing contracts with MPAA affiliates. Remember, opening the CSS encryption scheme allows people to make their own DVD's as well as pirate them. For a more eloquently expressed version of this arguement, see the Mojo Nixon rant on www.mp3.com. Just replace 'mp3' with 'deCSS' and 'RIAA' with 'MPAA' and you'll get the idea.

I predict many more suits like this in the area of patents and copyrights in the near future.

Definately. In the past, the oppressors would send in the army and police to keep the peasants in line. These days, sending in the lawyers is much more cost effective. That way they get to impose their will and have it enforced by the police and military funded through the taxes of the very people they're oppressing.

Hopefully this will remind us that the power of the corporations are eroding our individual rights, and that this appears to be on the rise in the near future.

The difficulty lies in that most people want to give away their rights and freedoms. Especially if doing so gets them greater convenience and more trinkets. And think on this: Corporations are not required to obey the restrictions in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Only the government is required to obey those rules (and they don't do much of that anymore either).

I'm sounding like Chomsky here...

So? You make it sound like that's a bad thing. For the most part, Chomsky is right

Note to self: don't by anything DVD related. Encourage all of my friends to stay away from the technology.

A tyranny is a tyranny and oppression is oppression regardless of whether it's ruled by a king or a corporation. The best defense against tyrrany and oppression is still (and always will be) the armed citizen. The companies may be able to sue people into economic oblivion, lie to them through corporate media, and control their choices in the marketplace. But as long as there is the threat of an armed reprisal from a single individual pushed too far, there's a limit to the amount of power companies (or any other organization) are able or willing to exercise. Does anyone wonder why the majority of funding for "gun control" organizations like Handgun Control Incorporated comes from corporate sponsors while gun rights organizations like the National Rifle Association rely almost solely on donations from private individuals.

Of course most people aren't aware of any this, being content to get all their information from corporate owned and sponsored media. That's why the corporate power blocks are so unhappy with the open nature of the internet. It's one information source they don't control (yet), but just you wait until they get their laws passed to censor it "to protect children" or (more recently) to tax it "to protect mom-and-pop stores from unfair competition". Remember that the ability to tax something necessitates and creates the ability to control and regulate it. The companies want to control all information and already got their "Digital Millenium Copyright Act" to this very end, despite its flagrant violations of the Bill of Rights (but who has the money to pay the lawyers to successfully challenge it?). The control of DVD creation and distribution through CSS is just another way the companies in the MPAA hegemony are trying to maintain their control of information. This lawsuit is their tool for maintaining that control.

It is my feeling, being a rocker, that the thrill of performing for a live audience will continue to be a factor in making music. I'm all for the musicians taking control of their own sales and marketing, middle men be damned!
I freely post my music at mp3.com, get very excited that folks in France seem to like it a lot (at least they email more than other folks) and I can feel the seething hate for record companies growing from all sides. MTV sucks, it has sucked since Remote Control. :-) It's a watering hole for drunk frat kids who consume mass quantities of Top 40 garbage.
Fret not over the death of Rock. Music, like knowledge, wants to be free! :-)
http://luxuriousfur.homepage.com

The Divine Creatrix in a Mortal Shell that stays Crunchy in Milk

Are you buying the data of a song when you buy the CD, or are you only buying permission to listen to the sounds?
Looks like my.mp3.com are about to test this. They have ripped 10,000 CDs and wil give you access to the MP3s if you prove you have the original - either by putting it in your CD-ROM drive or buying it online. Should be an interesting court case.

I'm betting that you'd try and stop it happening. I'm also betting that one of the companies is going to either invest quickly in the new technology and betray the others or that some upstart firm is going to make a killing here.

It's already happening -- mp3.com is right there, right now, and the price point is right. I'm the happy owner of a DAM/CD from a group that I never would have heard of otherwise. A couple of clicks and it was mine. Admittedly I haven't deleted the mp3 that I had downloaded -- instead I copied all of the mp3's on the DAM/CD to my hard drive, so I can leave the CD with my stereo.

If you have ever used a SGI Indy running Irix paired with that amazingly *ahem* interesting 4DWM desktop windowing environment the dynamic resizing of icons should be familiar to you.

I used to have access to one back in the mid 90's... whoa... that sounds cool.

I know when I took people by the lab to see it they would immediately go "COOL!!!" when they saw the scrolly thingie make the folder icons look bigger then smaller then bigger then... you get the idea.

It's no wonder SGI's never caught on... it must have been the amazing easy to install no issues approach to software they have always used. I know I am not alone in feeling this way.

Latra, Jay
http://www.mp3.com/fudge/

People are really uptight. I can understand why it has come to this. It's just one person's humor is another persons offense.

I wonder what it is like working for some place like N2H2 where you update no-no URLs regularly.

It seems like one way to harvest naughty URLs would be to just leave your email address laying all over the place in Usenet postings and on home pages. The email address could be a dropbox that parses incoming URLs for smutty, naughty, racy, and other -y word like contents.

I just always wondered what it would be to work for a place that provides filters. Its like you could resell the listings as xml feed to search engine providers to allow for a "safe internet search". Perhaps this already exists? Half the time people put things like "HOT POODLE SEX" into Meta tags expecting a non-intelligent web robot to index it and go its merry way.

I know this is offtopic to Linux in Playboy but it is ontopic in that a lot of filtering packages do in fact run on Linux boxes as proxy filters. :)
http://www.mp3.com/fudge/

It's an ice-breaker. However, the strip itself is a poorly-drawn and clumsily written affair, and only funny due to the very fact that it's a cliquey affair... HOWEVER, people feel included. It's very lonely, some days, being (in my case) a solo sysadmin in a small company.

People ask "what do you do all day?". This is soul-crushing. After the first few blank looks, you learn not to say "I audited the firewall, recompiled sendmail, and discovered a nasty buffer overrun in {insert name of software here}". They don't want to actually know; they want to be sent away with re-assuring generalities laced with current buzzwords.

Yes, people can be rude, people can be stupid. People don't treat their pet geeks with respect. They take the piss mercilessly (well, they do at first.. they learn, muahahahahahahaah!). I don't think it's so bad if techies want to have a harmless laugh at a lumpy and slightly slipshod cartoon.

Gallows humour is far from uncommon; try spending some time with doctors in a busy general hospital. Their humour is amongst the blackest, most obscene and twisted you'll encounter, but it keeps them sane (well, for some values of "sane").

Moreover, I don't take particularly kindly when people tell me what to think. I don't accept it from the "great and the good", and I certainly don't intend to take it from forth rate cartoonist who has trouble counting to ten without removing his shoes. :-)

End of rant/flame off.

Listen to my crappy techno- The Inedible Buddhas- if swallowed, seek immediate medical assistance.

Their beef is with Layer-3 and variants because it allows for the easy piracy of music.

Yes, sir, a wavelet based compression scheme... AFAIK. This is about wavelets.

VQF is related to MP3, and both are related to Jpeg2k (wavelet compression) :-) (the relation to plain Jpeg is just because of the lossy nature of the compression)

Further along my train of thought: VQF allows 18:1 over MP3's 12:1. Who says it'll stop there? I wouldn't mind some of the thinking that went into Jpeg2k to go into MPEG layer 4 audio :-)
---

The reason those throttle controls exist in Apache are for very specific reasons.

If you are looking for a shared hosting environment it is that same error message which allows other websites a chance at being seen for their payment of the exact same fees as Mr. Joe Popular website.

Price it out and do the math sometime... most providers use other means such as network throttles that don't afford you the 500 transfer limit message... also... that message can be tailored to have a more meaningful message.

Apparently, you have never read about people writing robots for site indexing that DO NOT conform to RFCs meant to govern the manners of a robot.

Its a sign that you are getting what you pay for from your provider _perhaps_.

Heck, do a Altavista search and see sites like OpenGL.Org which have that word indexed in the search engine database... it happens.
http://www.mp3.com/fudge/

Simply put, if you don't consume that much electricity you just need to suck it up and realize that there won't be a 18 wheel semi loaded with a portable diesel generator to keep your 100 hit per month website up to insure that there will be people downloading the PDF file for how to tear apart their new birdhouse correctly.

Just an example -- if you are an MIS person at a place that makes birdhouses I am just using this as an example ;)
http://www.mp3.com/fudge/

While I can appreciate your zeal for placing MIS into two discreet factions, it just isn't that simple.

First, you have no idea what legacy connections exist between front line servers to the Internet a.k.a. web servers. All people see when they go to many sites is just that... a web server. There is no database box or ancient mainframe wide open on the net... also, if there is integration with authentication systems there is a possbility that an internal edict affects the external perception and functionality of a "site".

So, if you want to control input for a time when people will simply NOT be around and there is risk assessment regarding the personal lives of the professionals that report to you. For many the escalation plan is a pager on a belt loop.

Basically, if you airgap a web server you have just cut down the possible attack paths by at least 50% since nobody can come around to hit the site. Or, you have complied with the team decision to take it offline to take any possible stressors off internal systems that form a basis for external funcitonality.

Third, if it isn't a mission critical site then you take it offline and recall the functions. Most good commerce sites will engineer a boolean off value for maintenance purposes. It doesn't hurt anyone... are you intent on browsing heavily while getting toasted on champaign or sparking fruit juice tonite? I have bought some guitar strings tonite and might browse around but you know it isn't critical to me. :)

If you are a business you likely pay salary individuals to ride out situations like this. Since y2k is "hype" and misplaced concerns why not give people a night off so that they don't have to worry about the lesser qualified less certified more likely to play Quake on the corporate network at the expense of the website?

Shutting things down isn't a bad thing. Uptime is cool... but if it is a site that connects to other systems that require additional MIS staffing in the event of a unforseen circumstance are you as a "manager" going to explain to everyone why they need to stay alert just in case?

If your site is down this New Years, think seriously about wanting to be at work on New Years and buy your MIS manager a beer.

I respect what you are saying about IS managers not knowing what is up... but there is more to understanding a complex system than a computer science background.... you just open a whole can of worms when you go there gf.

Most seasoned IS managers know enough NOT to do something stupid.

I just think there is more than one way of looking at things in this area. So, unless you burned in the belly of corporate MIS and was there when things really hit the fan you might want to consider alternative views.

I know I am NOT one of those so I reserve judgement since I don't know all the pieces or the politics. Computers are still run by people ya know.

My sites will be up tonite too...
http://www.mp3.com/fudge/

I have to chime in as well.
pairNetworks ROCKS.
Hosting providers should look at their migration updates page as a model for how to do it right the FIRST time and keep CUSTOMERS informed.
http://www.mp3.com/fudge/

"It's up to you to decide what you need. Furthermore, Linux gives you power, but it takes some time to learn how to harness it. Thus, if you mostly need commercial sw, or if you don't feel like learning new commands and concepts, you had better look elsewhere. Be aware that many newcomers give up because of initial difficulties."

It's not a windows replacement; it shouldn't be taken as one. What with all the little kiddos jumping on the IPO bandwagon etc, they certainly have a financial interest to make linux in the round seem like an everyman operating system. It isn't. Most people aren't suited to making friends with it- they don't have the time to invest.

This doesn't make them bad people- maybe they just have other priorities... In which case, linux based appliances, or things like the BeOS Stinger webpad, EPOC boxen, or even, yes, Wintendo and Macs might suit them better.

It might not be fashionable right now (in the middle of all the American goldrush hype :) to simply put all of this down to technological darwinism, but it's the truth. To learn a *nix, you really have to be willing to tinker, and play detective.

The most promising new linuxer I know is a part time musician and a pig farmer... He told me that he installed RatHed 6 the other day, and was wrestling with it cheerfully.. All he wanted was pointers to good collections of docs, software etc. I pointed him at the HOWTOs and the excellent O'Reilly "Running Linux" book (something of a godsend when faced with linux for the first time- wish I had a copy when I was struggling :-).

He seemed very pleased with that, and went back to configuring X, promising "I'll fiddle with it until it works". That just about made my day.

Linux was a minority OS for a reason. Few people have the sheer bloodymindedness needed to get the best out of a *nix..

There's nothing wrong with being a newbie, not at all- it shows that you're willing to try something new. What is bad is expecting others to carry you.

When the area isn't an easy one, you have to be prepared to put some effort in.. After all, people don't complain when they buy a burette that they instantly know the chemistry behind titration, do they? You don't buy a car and scream at Ford because you don't know how to drive...

Anyway, end of rant. Remember that for all the frustration caused by people who refuse to RTFM, there are many people quietly tinkering, and learning. How many people could resist taking a clock apart to see how it works, when they were little? :)

Why not boost my flagging chart position, by downloading a copy of "mindless thumping techno" from my mp3.com page? :)

Or something. This happens a lot. It isn't Microsoft specific either... If you read my posting this goes for all companies that do business online. Its the Internet equivalent of a utility cutting off the power because the bill went to the "wrong" address. "Wrong" can mean soooo many things. But you can be sure it really messed someones day up for sure.
http://www.mp3.com/fudge/

Specifically, you will note that the Billing Contact for PASSPORT.COM is a person.

Billing Contact: Gudmundson, Carolyn (CG6635) carolyng@MICROSOFT.COM +1 (425) 882-8080 (FAX) +1 (425) 936-7329

Now, compare that to most other domains used by M$oft. It is often the case, that people that are part of big business FORGET that there are some very tedious details on the InterNET.

Microsoft-Internic Billing Issues (MDB-ORG) msnbill@MICROSOFT.COM 425 882 8080

This is the proper use of a ROLE. A sure fire way to screw something up is to let a SINGLE person be a Billing Contact. By far the best practice is to use a ROLE that has a email address that gets sent to several people. Since you never know who might be on a vacation or might blow away their inbox.

So I would recommend that Microsoft go here: http://www.networksolutions.co m/makechanges/reports/

Actually, a good natured Linux user could probably do this as well for them. :) All you need it the information contained in the whois lookup.

The reason this is important is that Gudmundson, Carolyn (CG6635) carolyng@MICROSOFT.COM probably hasn't paid many other things as well. Why? This person might not even WORK for microsoft now...

Think this can't happen? Think again. Her manager should have known or someone should have known but apparently nobody did or there was a billing error/oversite. Oh, but wait... what if her manager is gone TOO???

Repeat again: Think it can't happen? Thing again.

When you use a domain name make sure you put a TEAM in charge with a leader vs. a single point of failure. Even a rank newbie working for an ISP knows this much. I expect that Gudmundson, Carolyn (CG6635) carolyng@MICROSOFT.COM was on vacation or called in rich[sick].

Aren't you glad you don't work in this persons office?
http://www.mp3.com/fudge/

Specifically, you will note that the Billing Contact for PASSPORT.COM is a person.

Billing Contact: Gudmundson, Carolyn (CG6635) carolyng@MICROSOFT.COM +1 (425) 882-8080 (FAX) +1 (425) 936-7329

Now, compare that to most other domains used by M$oft. It is often the case, that people that are part of big business FORGET that there are some very tedious details on the InterNET.

Microsoft-Internic Billing Issues (MDB-ORG) msnbill@MICROSOFT.COM 425 882 8080

This is the proper use of a ROLE.

A sure fire way to screw something up is to let a SINGLE person be a Billing Contact.

By far the best practice is to use a ROLE that has a email address that gets sent to several people. Since you never know who might be on a vacation or might blow away their inbox.

So I would recommend that Microsoft go here: http://www.networksolutions.co m/makechanges/reports/

Actually, a good natured Linux user could probably do this as well for them. :) All you need it the information contained in the whois lookup.

The reason this is important is that Gudmundson, Carolyn (CG6635) carolyng@MICROSOFT.COM probably hasn't paid many other things as well. Why? This person might not even WORK for microsoft now...

Think this can't happen? Think again.

Her manager should have known or someone should have known but apparently nobody did or there was a billing error/oversite.

Oh, but wait... what if her manager is gone TOO???

Repeat again: Think it can't happen? Thing again.

When you use a domain name make sure you put a TEAM in charge with a leader vs. a single point of failure.

Even a rank newbie working for an ISP knows this much. I expect that Gudmundson, Carolyn (CG6635) carolyng@MICROSOFT.COM was on vacation or called in rich[sick].

Aren't you glad you don't work in this persons office?
http://www.mp3.com/fudge/

So, if you took the time to notice the small blurb below the fancy graphic:

"Reports are provided showing server usage for the Internet as a whole, and for selected domains, with links to all the sites responding to the survey. A facility for you to check what server a particular site is running now is also available. The same form can be used to ensure that a particular site is included in future surveys. A directory of sites running in developer domains is also provided, while the sites discovered by the survey can be explored."

So to be included you merely have to test a site you are curious about at some point.

What this says to me is that I can put in any number of IP addresses that are bound to a hosting server. If they are doing checks on this alone they would get different points on the graph. However, the problem with that is that a massive virtual hosting operation could really skew the number.

Netcraft even realizes this and states it clearly on the Mechanics page.

Now, the same is true of IIS4 which just makes me think that the number isn't completely representative and that the sample has potential for being flawed.

There are several caveats when looking at compiled data like this in a simplified graphic.

So, before you shoot off at the mouth to your MIS director make sure you can qualify the data you present. Make no mistake that MS has some idea of how many NT4 installs took place with IIS4 counting as running as a service whether or not the people running it know about it. There are many many places with the MS equivilent of the Apache successful install home page. *grin*

Just remember that joe business owners internal intranet IIS4 box with some canned application isn't going to show up on this kind of study. And internal MIS projects that go bump in the night won't either. How many users would really notice if you mapped let .asp be a known extension for perl cgi's? *grin*
http://www.mp3.com/fudge/

IMHO, it's not just Fox that are at fault here, it's commerical "web design" in general. Ever notice how places like PCWeek, Altavista, mp3.com, and many -- many -- others use pages replete with br and such to force the 640x480 look on people? Most of the time it's not even centred, forcing me to stare at the left 30% of my monitor.

There is no excuse why this should be. Give me my content, give it to me nicely, and, damnit, let me view it in my browser window at proper scaling. There was an artcle on some site about Slashdot long ago. I had to use Opera to magnify the page view 300% for it to show the "content" at a decent size in my 1024x768 desktop. When I started using Linux exclusively (with Windows as a glorfied Nintendo), the problem was exacerbated by the simple fact that the pages designed to look great at 640x480 also assumed a bunch of fonts (which I did later setup, thanks to the ttf font server in the Slackware contrib dir).

Why bother to take the time, spend lots of your company moola, only to come up with a hard-coded, useless, junky site?

Flash? Great -- what's the point? Slow downloads suck, and I'm on a cable modem! The only site I've seen to use Flash in a compelling way (in terms of "mainstream" sites), is After Y2K. With Cascading Style Sheets, it is trivial to implement really nice looking sites that scale well. Netscape, Opera, and (gahck) IE support CSS very well, as does Mozilla. With Lynx, it's a non-issue ;-)

If anyone doesn't understand what I mean, go look at my webserver (Thock.com) for an example of how I write my HTML (which is all hand written, and generally tested well). I'll also welcome any comments anyone has on my HTML, I am writing an HTML primer, and related, documents for the webserver.
---

How many of you have downloaded mp3s from actual sites like mp3.com that are not copyright protected?

The songs on mp3.com are copyrighted. You are not permitted to distribute them, unless the artist overrides this restriction (and I haven't seen any that do). Of course, it's in mp3.com's interests to see their artists' songs distributed far and wide, so I doubt they'll crack down on anyone who distributes the files.

To answer your question, though: I think you'd be surprised. I've downloaded a few dozen songs from mp3.com, at least. I've also bought 5 D.A.M. CDs from them, and will probably buy more in the future. A lot of the artists on mp3.com are good -- as good as anything on the radio (which isn't saying much these days).

The vast majority of my MP3 files were ripped directly from CDs that I own. I've got several hundred CDs, and a couple thousand fully-legal MP3 files.

Most of the "illegal" MP3 files I have fall into two categories: rare/live/B-side songs from artists I adore, or one-shot singles from artists from whom I only like one song and don't want to buy a whole album just to get that song.

E.g., I have bought every Tori Amos studio album, and every single I could get my hands on. But most of the singles are out of print -- so the B-sides on those singles can only be had by either buying the single from someone, or copying it. In either case, neither Tori nor Atlantic Records gets any money at all. So why not just copy the B-side tracks?

If I could pay, say, $0.50 USD directly to Tori Amos for every B-side, live track, etc. that I've downloaded, I'd do it. And I think a lot of other people would, too (though the price they'd be willing to pay might be different, and of course the artist might not be Tori).

The same goes for the one-shot songs. There are a lot of one-hit wonder artists out there, or artists who only have 1-3 songs I like. Would you pay $0.25 for a copy of Tommy Tutone's "867-5309 (Jenny)"? Or The Buggles' "Video Killed the Radio Star"? A lot of people would, especially if it were easy and had no overhead. Even more would, if they knew the money was going to go straight into the artist's pocket, and not to some record company exec. But would you buy a whole album at $12-$18 USD just to get one of those songs? No, probably not, unless it's a Rhino Records compilation or something.

The next great innovation for the human race is going to be secure, anonymous, untraceable electronic currency. And it's going to turn the whole world upside-down.

I'm quite aware of the potential probs with online music distribution, but it's definately not as bad as this article portrays...

Also, the article misses the major point that having your music on the internet does not eliminate the need to promote it effectively... After all, if anyone can make a CD, (which has now happened since the likes of mp3.com started their DAM CD programme last year) then every artist is going to have to convince surfer that theirs is more special than your average Joe Bloggs CD... Talking of which... Check out Adrenalin Sound Machine's music here and here!!! ;)

===
Old Fart!!! Of tha SENIOR DADS!!!!!

I'm quite aware of the potential probs with online music distribution, but it's definately not as bad as this article portrays...

Also, the article misses the major point that having your music on the internet does not eliminate the need to promote it effectively... After all, if anyone can make a CD, (which has now happened since the likes of mp3.com started their DAM CD programme last year) then every artist is going to have to convince surfer that theirs is more special than your average Joe Bloggs CD... Talking of which... Check out Adrenalin Sound Machine's music here and here!!! ;)

===
Old Fart!!! Of tha SENIOR DADS!!!!!

The whole mp3.com thing is rather interesting.

I had some of my music up there for just under 3 months. We (The Tic Tok Men) went from number "nothing" to number one in our genre in just a few days. We pretty much held that chart until mp3.com removed the music genre "old skool" where we were listed.

MP3.com then added a new genre called "intelligent techno". We placed our music in that genre and BOOM, went to number one there. We held the number one in "intelligent techno" while the music was there, and number one for the state of Oregon several times. I think our peak was 200th most popular on all of mp3.com.

MP3.com then started the Payback for Playback promotion where you received money for a mix of band page views, music downloads, etc.

On November 28th our popular music went away. For no reason. Well,. Sort of went away. They went from "live" to "going live".

For a little background on how mp3.com works. When you first upload a song it gets placed in a "waiting to be approved" que. After the music is verified it is indeed in the proper mp3 format, then it goes to "going live" status. Normally, mp3.com says "going live" can take from 24-72 hours before it obtains "live" status. The music can not be downloaded or be placed in the charts until it's "live".

Well,. Our songs went from live to "going live" and were instantly removed from the charts. We found the whole thing a bit upsetting and attempted to ask mp3.com what happened. Pretty much the only response from mp3.com was a form letter type e-mail telling us it takes up to 72 hours for a song to go from "going live" to "live". Our calls to the mp3.com offices only resulted in voice mail boxes or forwarded to a recording telling us to check out the FAQ online.

In the meantime, mp3.com extended the Payback for Playback promotion. Which of course we totally lost out on.

Out of 6 songs on mp3.com, only two remained. These two where NOT the popular ones. In fact,. Of the six,. The two that were left were always the least downloaded. Oddly,. These 2 songs were also listed as "going live" but were still available. As a test, I downloaded one of these songs and checked the stats the next day. The download was not recorded.

I think we were one of the few bands on mp3.com that were actually selling cd's. (12 in November alone) A visit to the mp3.com message boards reflect many upset musicians complaining that they haven't had any downloads and never sold a cd. Sometimes you hear from a musician that is ecstatic because he had his music and CD available for almost a year and finally sold ONE CD!

MP3.com also has an interesting "scam" going where to make a CD available, the artist has to buy one to make it active. So,. You shell out $5.99 or what ever and you get 50% of that. Sounds ok right? Here's the scam part. MP3.com will only issue you a CD commission check if they owe you more then $50.
Think about all those musicians that have only sold one CD, and THEY bought it. They will NEVER receive a commission check. In fact, really, they loose money.

Another common complaint is people getting upset at mp3.com and removing their music, only to find the songs, for some reason, remain for weeks or months on the mp3.com site. Mp3.com says "you can cancel at any time" but don't respect the musicians when they do. (We, in fact deleted our "going live" music from mp3.com several days ago and the two that remained are still there.
Check http://www.mp3.com/tictok and you'll see what I mean.)

After being at mp3.com for just under 3 months, selling quite a few CD's and getting a number of hits and downloads (which added up for the November Payback for Playback promotion) I haven't ever seen a check from them. They owe us well over the $50 mark.

We used to have our music at mp3.com but moved it over to besonic.com. Besonic doesn't offer any money for your music, they don't have cd's available yet, you just put it there and people can listen to it. Looks like the only money they make is from advertising. That's ok with me. Seems like I get a place to house my music without feeling overly exploited.

So,. Here's a shameless plus. Take a listen to us at
http://www.besonic.com/tictok
and hear some really great electronic music in the vein of Kraftwerk.
If you like it, please write a nice little note to mp3.com telling them how they lost a really swell band. Heh heh.

$200,000 a month is distibuted among all the artists on the site according to how popular they are.

http://www.mp3.com/payback/index.html

several artists got in excess of $1000 and one got over $4000

The rumor is that this will continue indefinitly

Had to post AC because. well, just because.

Remember the hi-tech car with Jackie Chan in it from Cannonball Run? Well, it is almost reality now with this nite-drive feature as an option.

Of course having this didn't always serve Jackie and his co-driver to full advantage...

You can be sure that police would have something like this to track phantom speeders with their lights off as well.

YMMV NPI
http://www.mp3.com/fudge/

It is pretty much accepted that SDMI has been, and always will be, DEAD. Users will never support a format that includes self-destruct "features". In fact, one of the SDMI folks wrote a message on MP3.com, which can be found here.

-Davidu

I posted three songs on mp3.com (check it out), about 2 months ago. We've gotten aprox 120 "page views". I think mostly from the email I sent to everyone in my address book. Pretty crappy. On the other hand, I can't figure out any other good way to promote us, without spending the equivalent of a 3rd world countries GNP. Oh well, I guess it's a good thing I love to play, cuz it sure don't pay!


Dive Gear

I can't help wondering, after hearing her defend the big record companies, if Emily Vander Veer perhaps "has a dog in this race." In other words, does anyone know if she has some connection to the old-line record companies? It sure feels that way when you read the article.

I, for one, am glad mp3.com came along, as I have discovered a lot of great music that I would never have gotten to hear otherwise, if I were stuck listening to the mainstream drek pushed by the major labels.

giving mp3.com distribution rights is giving yourself an opportunity to go global (for some, the first time).
there is, like anything in the world, a good and bad way to go about it. some artists can choose to spend all day encoding and getting their entire first local release just right for the web. your music site gets half. ~most of the time,~ that's acceptable. i hate having 950 out of 1000 cd's sitting in boxes anyway.
mp3.com makes sign up a snap. i would ~love~ to get screwed by mp3.com. oh damn, my song is being played on the radio in baltimore, and here i am i texas. there is no downside to that for the hobbyist or indie label. have you heard of OneTon records in dfw, tx or Last Beat Records? all of the local musicians have. indie label showcases occur. the luckier ones get to tour. nothing like paying $5 for a cd and then special ordering the bands other cd over the phone. well, briefly, don't put all your songs up. make your mp3 cd's cheap. if use of one of your songs really chaps your behind, that song is being listened to! i can imagine only ~wild~ situations where the exposure is not worth it. everyone has to credit the artist anyway, period. so don't worry. Y2K threat:slashdotters::online audio:serious or smart musicians. the best music? Gropius and that's not even my band.

After all, the RIAA is not interested in "ripping off" the consumers, just maximizing the "extracted" money from our pockets to theirs. :) Evidently, the game works both ways.

If the RIAA have a problem with our desire to listen to music we have legally acquired, and for which the artists have been legally fairly compensated, the RIAA can screw themselves. I think it's high time the RIAA and every other commercial organization remembered that they are at our mercy, and we are tired of having our rights violated simply so they can make an easy buck. Intellectual freedom is finally a possibility, and the corporation bigwigs are just trying to win back as much turf as possible before we realize that they are completely useless middlemen.

Unfortunately for them, there are thousands of artists at www.mp3.com who have realized that they can get their message and music across without being pimped by the music industry. Do us all a favor and listen to free music while you hack free software.

Daniel

This can be viewed two ways: one, a major international organization is making a step in a productive manner that could, hopefully, get other countries to move in that direction, and two, they made a law to charge you for something that was already free. To my knowledge, it has always been free to rip music from CDs for your personal use, granted that you own the CD as well. There is a whole website devoted to mp3s that promotes a product, MusicMatch, that is available at www.download.com.

There is lots of great music, much better than the dreck that comes out of the big RIAA-associcated record companies at http://mp3.com/.

Probably won't convince you, though, because you probably work for one of the music conglomerates (or one of your relatives does).

This is what scares RIAA more than anything. That MP3 will become a legitimate distribution channel, and that they will lose their oligipoly.

Go to mp3.com, and find the real music that is being produced by real people in your part of the world.

Boycott the sell-out bands who support RIAA and their sub-human lawyer leeches! Stop listening to lame mainstream bullshit produced merely to maximize profits of multi-national corporations!

Ok, here is the low down:

First: the RIAA has already taken legal action against Napster. They story is here.

Second: Another program by the folks who make CuteFTP called CuteMX is out. It seems however, that GlobalSCAPE the company that makes it, has removed it from their servers. Maybe they are scared of what is happening to Napster.

I am sure I am gonna get in trouble for this, but I have a version of the Win 95/98 CuteMX exe here. I would appreciate it if people would mirror it quickly, so not to saturate the cable modem...thanks
-Davidu

According to the mp3.com article here the RIAA is planning to sue the people/company behind Napster.

Even though the files swapped around on Napster could theoretically be 100% legal, the RIAA is suing. This is prety similar to what happened when the Diamond Rio came out. Sadly this time the company they're suing doesn't have deep pockets to fight back with.

The recent tactics of the RIAA are very disturbing, but I'm pretty sure that most people saw it coming. The worst part is that there's no one to stop them either. Yet.

" Can you boot your windows box from a ext2 floppy? Can you read Mac disks (w/o third party software). " Such is Mango!

Sorry, I just couldn't resist this one.

:)
http://www.mp3.com/fudge/

Omigod, that's the funniest...

mp3's from mp3.com:

low-bandwidth stream

high bandwidth stream

download the whole wad

Omigod, that's the funniest...

mp3's from mp3.com:

low-bandwidth stream

high bandwidth stream

download the whole wad

Omigod, that's the funniest...

mp3's from mp3.com:

low-bandwidth stream

high bandwidth stream

download the whole wad

And there's not a thing they can do about it. Support the artists who are trying to help decentralize the music industry.

This is 100% correct. MP3 is still thriving, and not (in my opinion anyway) harming the music industry. Priacy only occurs in cases where collusion or some other force damages a free market environment (close-source software is another good example).

MP3.com ran a terrific article on this a while ago, called "Why drug dealers don't sell aspirin" - here's the URL:

http://bboard.mp3.com/mp3/ubb/F orum8/HTML/000015.html

Here's the URL for the article. It is by Michael Robertson....

http://bboard.mp3.com/mp3/ubb/F orum8/HTML/000015.html

Here's the URL for the article. It is by Michael Robertson....

http://bboard.mp3.com/mp3/ubb/F orum8/HTML/000015.html

DirectSound3D was hacked together by the engineers at Aureal. They did it, they wrote it, MS used it. At least that's how it was explained to me back at WinHEC. (Ironic. The only convention I've ever paid money to attend was WinHEC '97. Definitely was worth it though, if only to see the Rendition guy get disturbingly flustered when I started comparing their product to the Voodoo solutions coming out of 3DFX. Incidentally, this was also the first the world had seen of the Riva 128, A.K.A. the return of nVidia. nVidia was the first 3D card manufacturer for PCs, but their card was so slow that it was better just to operate in software. Telling people nVidia was coming back from the grave was like announcing PC Chips as the one of the higher quality manufacturers in the industry...heh, wait a second...)

As for me, I use a SB Live Value because I compose music and the SB Live's MIDI support is light years beyond anything the rest of the industry has supplied us with. I'm truly looking forward to seeing what audio hackers can do with the power of that DSP.

I've still always lusted after a Vortex 2, though, and might just grab one for the hell of it.

Yours Truly,

Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com

These days I have about a gig or two of (mostly) legal MP3s that tend to be more slanted toward rock and plenty of generic techno stuff (non-industral) from mp3.com, riffage.com, amp3.com, etc. that is just background for getting stuff done. In general their techno stuff is OK, but I think they are a bit lacking in other generas. But I still cycle CDs through depending on what I'm in the mood for.

- Mike