I get most of my music via free, legal downloads from artists and labels that offer them for promotional reasons. But I don't see this on the chart at all. Am I unusual, or was this deliberately left out of the RIAA's calculations?
Having worked in the music industry for over 20 years, I know a huge number of musicians. The vast majority lose money on their art. They'd be happy to make money, and might hope to do so, but they don't expect to. Most know very little about copyright law. They write and perform because they enjoy it.
I'm not saying it's good that there are starving artists. Some of the people I know are incredibly talented and should be making good money for their music, which would enable them to spend time making more music instead of working odd jobs. But don't think the current copyright laws are somehow necessary or even relevant to artists, especially future artists. For the most part, the laws were created by and for the owners of existing famous works, which are almost entirely large companies that do not create art themselves.
Both the Request for Comment and the underlying law specifically refer to the identification of foreign countries with bad IP policies. So I still don't see how this opens the door for complaints about the U.S. Trade Representative's secrecy regarding ACTA. I don't want to discourage anyone from complaining -- certainly the Trade Representative should know that people are concerned about this -- but as I understand it, they have the right to disregard any comments not responsive to the request.
Am I missing something? I read the Federal Notice rather quickly, but I don't see anything about ACTA. They're looking for comments specifically for "Identification of Countries Under Section 182 of the Trade Act of 1974." Wouldn't they just disregard any comments that don't address what they've asked for? (To "identify those countries that deny adequate and effective protection for intellectual property rights or deny fair and equitable market access to U.S. persons who rely on intellectual property protection.")
I suppose one could submit a comment saying that the parties negotiating ACTA are denying adequate and effective protection (etc.) under Section 182 of the Trade Act of 1974, but I don't know that this would have any effect on the ACTA negotiations.
Just wanted to say I'm troubled by the viciousness of the insults being hurled at these lawyers. First, no one can get through law school if they're an "idiot" or a "moron." Second, the fact that they were working pro bono is to be commended, and I'm sure it's not very encouraging for them to have their techniques be ripped to shreds by people who -- however closely they may have been following the case -- weren't in the courtroom and probably haven't studied the matter as closely as the people involved.
That said, I think the lawyers did make a mistake in taking on this case. There are some file sharing cases which should be defended as vigorously as possible, like where the RIAA is targeting the wrong person, or the file sharer has a plausible fair use claim. But here? It just sounds like the file-sharer is a greedy dumbass who knew what he was doing was wrong, did it anyway, and thought he'd somehow avoid getting in trouble. Tenenbaum is the idiot, not his lawyers.
Celiac disease is another possibility but again this is not a difficult diagnosis
Tell that to every doctor I'd ever seen in my life (being visibly malnourished, and complaining of symptoms associated with malnutrition), until I was 33 when my celiac was self-diagnosed and confirmed by testing. And to my cousin and grandfather (both on my mother's side of the family) who died of gastrointestinal cancers, both associated with undiagnosed celiac. And to my mother, sister, and another cousin who all have celiac which was undiagnosed until I brought this condition (so common I don't like to call it a "disease") to their attention.
In the U.S., it is standard medical practice to misdiagnose celiac, and most people have to self-diagnose in their 30's, 40's or 50's (keeping in mind that this is a genetic condition, and so present from birth). Or more likely, stay undiagnosed and die of a gastrointestinal cancer, or some other condition caused or worsened by malnutrition. Celiac affects 1 in 133 Americans, but only 1 in 5,000 is diagnosed.
Unless you're saying that 1 in 133 of your patients (or more, if you see many patients with gastrointestinal symptoms) has been diagnosed with celiac, then you have no business saying it's "not a difficult diagnosis."
Hodder is fascinated that Gobekli Tepe's pillar carvings are dominated not by edible prey like deer and cattle but by menacing creatures such as lions, spiders, snakes and scorpions. "It's a scary, fantastic world of nasty-looking beasts," he muses. While later cultures were more concerned with farming and fertility, he suggests, perhaps these hunters were trying to master their fears by building this complex, which is a good distance from where they lived.
I was immediately reminded of this article: "This Place Is Not A Place of Honor."
If this ancient Turkish civilization were trying to give us a warning for some reason, we're not heeding it. Yet we think a future civilization will heed ours?
As Gary Rollefson says in the article, "Trying to pick out symbolism from prehistoric context is an exercise in futility."
It says "The Copyright Royalty that set the new online radio royalty rates . .." but should probably say "The Copyright Royalty Board that set the new online radio royalty rates . .."
These are the entities formerly known as Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panels ("CARP"). True story: these were (very briefly) known as Copyright Royalty Arbitration Panels (which makes more sense, actually), but no one wanted to serve on a CRAP panel so they had to change the name.
Yes, SoundExchange is basically run by the RIAA, so I have my doubts as to whether their collection and payout methods are fair to non-RIAA artists (or even RIAA artists, for that matter). But as a practical matter, who else was going to offer to take on this responsibility? I haven't checked, but I have a feeling that when the Copyright Office needed to figure out who would be responsible for collecting and paying these royalties, the RIAA lobbyists were right there, and no one else had the money or clout to suggest a plausible alternative.
Whether they're really gone *permanently* is another story, and already being discussed elsewhere.
I think the bigger story, and I was Googling like crazy but can't find the link now, is that it turns out these Republican-controlled email addresses were on some of the *same servers through which electronic voting results were being processed.* I thought I read this on DailyKos but maybe I'm wrong. If anyone has a link to more info. on this, please post. Thanks.
Slashdot Mirror
according to Kevin Burke who originally found the issue (scroll down to "Wednesday morning").
I get most of my music via free, legal downloads from artists and labels that offer them for promotional reasons. But I don't see this on the chart at all. Am I unusual, or was this deliberately left out of the RIAA's calculations?
of thwarting FBI requests: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/08/exclusive-how-the-fbi-investigates-the-activities-of-anonymous.ars
Having worked in the music industry for over 20 years, I know a huge number of musicians. The vast majority lose money on their art. They'd be happy to make money, and might hope to do so, but they don't expect to. Most know very little about copyright law. They write and perform because they enjoy it.
I'm not saying it's good that there are starving artists. Some of the people I know are incredibly talented and should be making good money for their music, which would enable them to spend time making more music instead of working odd jobs. But don't think the current copyright laws are somehow necessary or even relevant to artists, especially future artists. For the most part, the laws were created by and for the owners of existing famous works, which are almost entirely large companies that do not create art themselves.
His family does not know the truth of how he died.
What stops you or your brother from telling them the truth?
19 U.S.C. 2242 : US Code - Section 2242: Identification of countries that deny adequate protection, or market access, for intellectual property rights.
Both the Request for Comment and the underlying law specifically refer to the identification of foreign countries with bad IP policies. So I still don't see how this opens the door for complaints about the U.S. Trade Representative's secrecy regarding ACTA. I don't want to discourage anyone from complaining -- certainly the Trade Representative should know that people are concerned about this -- but as I understand it, they have the right to disregard any comments not responsive to the request.
Am I missing something? I read the Federal Notice rather quickly, but I don't see anything about ACTA. They're looking for comments specifically for "Identification of Countries Under Section 182 of the Trade Act of 1974." Wouldn't they just disregard any comments that don't address what they've asked for? (To "identify those countries that deny adequate and effective protection for intellectual property rights or deny fair and equitable market access to U.S. persons who rely on intellectual property protection.") I suppose one could submit a comment saying that the parties negotiating ACTA are denying adequate and effective protection (etc.) under Section 182 of the Trade Act of 1974, but I don't know that this would have any effect on the ACTA negotiations.
Just wanted to say I'm troubled by the viciousness of the insults being hurled at these lawyers. First, no one can get through law school if they're an "idiot" or a "moron." Second, the fact that they were working pro bono is to be commended, and I'm sure it's not very encouraging for them to have their techniques be ripped to shreds by people who -- however closely they may have been following the case -- weren't in the courtroom and probably haven't studied the matter as closely as the people involved.
That said, I think the lawyers did make a mistake in taking on this case. There are some file sharing cases which should be defended as vigorously as possible, like where the RIAA is targeting the wrong person, or the file sharer has a plausible fair use claim. But here? It just sounds like the file-sharer is a greedy dumbass who knew what he was doing was wrong, did it anyway, and thought he'd somehow avoid getting in trouble. Tenenbaum is the idiot, not his lawyers.
Celiac disease is another possibility but again this is not a difficult diagnosis
Tell that to every doctor I'd ever seen in my life (being visibly malnourished, and complaining of symptoms associated with malnutrition), until I was 33 when my celiac was self-diagnosed and confirmed by testing. And to my cousin and grandfather (both on my mother's side of the family) who died of gastrointestinal cancers, both associated with undiagnosed celiac. And to my mother, sister, and another cousin who all have celiac which was undiagnosed until I brought this condition (so common I don't like to call it a "disease") to their attention.
In the U.S., it is standard medical practice to misdiagnose celiac, and most people have to self-diagnose in their 30's, 40's or 50's (keeping in mind that this is a genetic condition, and so present from birth). Or more likely, stay undiagnosed and die of a gastrointestinal cancer, or some other condition caused or worsened by malnutrition. Celiac affects 1 in 133 Americans, but only 1 in 5,000 is diagnosed.
Unless you're saying that 1 in 133 of your patients (or more, if you see many patients with gastrointestinal symptoms) has been diagnosed with celiac, then you have no business saying it's "not a difficult diagnosis."
Celiac disease is always my first thought when I hear of a somewhat geeky underweight person. Undiagnosed celiac is associated with Asperger syndrome. For more about this, see Unraveling the Mystery of Autism and Pervasive Developmental Disorder by Karyn Seroussi.
I was immediately reminded of this article: "This Place Is Not A Place of Honor." If this ancient Turkish civilization were trying to give us a warning for some reason, we're not heeding it. Yet we think a future civilization will heed ours? As Gary Rollefson says in the article, "Trying to pick out symbolism from prehistoric context is an exercise in futility."
It says "The Copyright Royalty that set the new online radio royalty rates . . ." but should probably say "The Copyright Royalty Board that set the new online radio royalty rates . . ."
These are the entities formerly known as Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panels ("CARP"). True story: these were (very briefly) known as Copyright Royalty Arbitration Panels (which makes more sense, actually), but no one wanted to serve on a CRAP panel so they had to change the name.
The SoundExchange website has links to the relevant laws and the "Notice of Designation As Collective Under Statutory License": http://www.soundexchange.com/about/about.html
Yes, SoundExchange is basically run by the RIAA, so I have my doubts as to whether their collection and payout methods are fair to non-RIAA artists (or even RIAA artists, for that matter). But as a practical matter, who else was going to offer to take on this responsibility? I haven't checked, but I have a feeling that when the Copyright Office needed to figure out who would be responsible for collecting and paying these royalties, the RIAA lobbyists were right there, and no one else had the money or clout to suggest a plausible alternative.
But here, maybe these Modern Music Industry Lightbulb Jokes will cheer you up.
Whether they're really gone *permanently* is another story, and already being discussed elsewhere. I think the bigger story, and I was Googling like crazy but can't find the link now, is that it turns out these Republican-controlled email addresses were on some of the *same servers through which electronic voting results were being processed.* I thought I read this on DailyKos but maybe I'm wrong. If anyone has a link to more info. on this, please post. Thanks.