Slashdot Mirror

Nice troll.

http://www.rockonthenet.com/archive/2000/vh1hardrock.htm
#1 in "VH1: 100 Greatest Hard Rock Artists"

http://www.avrev.com/bands/
#1 in "AVRev Top Ten Rock Bands of All Time"

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/5939214/the_immortals_the_first_fifty
#14 on "The Immortals: The First Fifty"

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4595384/
#6 in "The 10 best rock bands ever"

http://classicrock.about.com/od/recommendationsandreviews/a/top100_bands.htm
#5 in "Top 50 Classic Rock Bands"

"How did Perl Jam try to fight them?"

look here. Scroll down to 1994.

I saw them live in downtown Minneapolis that same summer, where they gave a FREE outdoor concert to over 100,000 people.

It means young artists will have to search harder for their inspirations, but the results will be better for it.

Yes, to think that if Britney Spears had access to such works as American Revival Gospal of the 20s or Alternative Rock of the 70s the public might have been spared such wonderful corprate^H^H^H^H^creative acts such as Oops!... I Did It Again.

Oh, wait a minute, she's got ,tons of money and corporate backing! So, unlike a new starting atrist she can buy herself access to these works.

It's not just Britney Spears and Justin Timberlake. It's damn near every so-called "singer" in the top 40 these days. Real talent is seconday to image in this industry. The only reason that we don't see bands like Milli Vanilli these days is because studios can use technologies like autotune and Pro Tools to make any nice set of breasts sound like a pro.

And if you're pretending to be SEAL, you go around humming but refuse to sing.

Intelectual property is a modern concept, invented by greedy bastards that ignore that ideas belongs to everyone.

As much as I disagree with the way the MPAA and the RIAA have handled this brave new world of technology, they are fundamentally right.

Consider great artists, like Mozart, or Leonardo. How did they get rewarded for their creative efforts? They had sponsors -- patrons -- who gave them a living allowance. (This tradition continues today. Richard Stallman and Tim Berners-Lee are two of the receipients of the MacArthur Foundation's "genius" grants .)

Isaac Asimov wrote a great book entitled "Asimov's Biographical Encyclopedia of Science". It consists of brief biographies of the 1,000 scientist Asimov considered the most important. One of the interesting things I learned from this book was that during the middle ages, when Greek and Roman thinkers from classical times were very highly respected, some mediavel scholars would attribute their work to classical thinkers. Some of these classical thinkers were hacks. And their reverse plagiarism was an annoying source of confusion for modern scholars. But sometimes their work was unique and valuable. One of these guys made Asimov's list of the 1,000 most important scientists. IIRC he is known only as "the False Jeder".

My point? Smart people, creative people, from different cultures, had no idea of "intellectual property".

You have apparently never had something that you put serious effort into creating taken without your consent. Intellectual property is a way of quantifying that a song, or video, or picture, or peice of software exists through the expenditure of someones resources (time, money, etc..) and that expenditure should be justly compensated.

Who are you to claim that a song should belong to you by right.

Tell me, where do rights come from? Do you believe that rights come from God? That is what the US constitution says. Well, I don't believe in God.

So far as I am concerned, what people call rights are merely conventions. If you can convince everyone else that the conventions you believe in have value to them, then you get to live in a society that respects your "rights".

If not, you have some very difficult decisions to make.

Now, I am sorry you had your ideas ripped off. I want to live in a society where people's contributions are appreciated. But it seems to me your arguments are circular. If I were to paraphrase your argument it seems to be you are entitled to own your ideas because you have a right to them. Circular.

Patents, copyright. They are inventions. There is a rationale for granting patents and copyrights to creators. Doing so is supposed to benefit society in general.

The idea behind a patent is that granting the patent holder a limited period of time when no one else can use their idea, without a liscense or other permission, ultimately benefits the public. The idea is that the patent holder grants some liscenses, or gets a limited period of time when they have a monopoly, and they make some money. The idea is that without that money they wouldn't have come up with the idea. Or they wouldn't have the cash to develop it. What does the public get out of it? Well, we get to use the mature creation for free, when the patent expires. If it is a good idea this should be good for us. And if it is a good enough idea it is worth it to us to pay the liscense fee prior to the patent running out.

Question: If the US Patent Office was keeping this idea in mind would they be granting patents to corporations with deep pockets who were cashing in on ideas that already existed. Did it really benefit the public when the compression algorithm used in the original GIF format was patented out from under us?

... Again, I'm not saying that the current actions of the RIAA are morally sound.

But having had a peice of software stolen from me in College and billed as somebody elses work woke me up to the fact that people pour a bit of their soul into the things they create and they at the very least deserve to be recognized and if they so desire, compensated for their effort. Recognize that the RIAA and MPAA are products of the industry itself. They are trying to work in an arena they had no hand in building and really don't have the option to just sit back and say, "fuck it, nobody get's paid anymore." Artists and studios make a ton of money because we the people are willing to pay it for the enjoyment of their product.

And then there are the not famous artists. If I had a young protege who wanted to be an artist, I would encourage them to do it because it gave them pleasure. I would encourage them to consider whether they loved creating enough that they were willing to go into debt to create, and if so, how deeply in debt. Most artists you or I are ever likely to make friends with are going to be lucky if they can manage to break even.