I agree your logic concerning copyright,but...
The media is forcing us into a downward spiral.
DVD offers the best quality in terms of video media, however, I am forced into buying a DVD
player (the only legal DVD player is one licensed by the MPAA).
But,you know, if I can manage to figure out how to build my own DVD player (which would obviously not be MPAA-sanctioned), you better believe I should have the right to use it.
Unfortunately, the US government is far too shortsighted to see what they are doing to us citizens. I would consider building my own DVD player to show that I have some ingenuity and resourcefulness (if not talent). To avoid breaking the law, I can't do much more than just think about building one. So what we learn here is that doing-it-yourself is no longer an option, and there is absolutely no incentive to create, invent, or innovate.
Let the rest of the world rejoice! The United States is heading for an irrevocable decline, its citizens will all become (more) complacent, apathetic and lazy... not because its our nature, but because there are strict laws against being otherwise. Wake up people, YOUR representatives are slitting your throat and raking in the cash. The government is quite literally selling our freedom and liberty to the highest bidder.
I just hope that when the US buckles under its own weight, the country that invades us provides
us with a benevolent dictatorship instead of a tyrannical one.
And, as an afterthought, the US government is not THAT old, in the greater scheme of things. Should
we be so sure it knows what its doing?
Okay, while I admit that the signs you suggest (withdrawl, lack of interest in schoolwork, apathy, etc etc) would be likely signs of "D&D addiction", I think your post is kind of a cop out, because these signs are very general and can be applied to MANY different situations (drug abuse, depression, or just being antisocial tend to all have the same apparent side-effects).
I suffer from clinical depression and exhibit most of the same symptoms you describe. It would be rather asinine (and irresponsible) of you to convince my parents that I am a D&D addict and am this subject to the possibility of committing murder, rape, mutilation, etc etc. Thats surely not the case at all, but my parents, like many, would see your post as a total red flag and likely have me locked up.
While I have never been involved in D&D and really have no interest in it, I find it somewhat hard to believe that completely normal youth will fall victim, so to speak, to the evil Dungeon Master (read: cult leader). However, I find it easy to believe that youth with emotional/social disorders could fall victim, in which case, I would hope that the parents would already be aware of the child's illness (and yes, most emotional/social disorders are treatable). For youth that have not exhibited any common symptoms of emotional/social disorders, the risk of being corrupted, so to speak, is probably nominal.
Also, I don't mean to rain on your parade, but I hold the opinion that we are all born with the right of religeous freedom, and some of us are not "God-fearing Christian youths". This negates the validity of the last paragraph of your post (and as a side note, if the youth really is a God-fearing Christian, I'd think they'd be much less susceptible to D&D-type brainwashing).
I'm sure you mean well, but please try to be more objective and factual about this stuff. I'd be intrested to see where you've gotten your information regarding your post.
And please refrain from scaring the parents of today's youth with notions that will make MANY of those parents exteremely paranoid toward thier children. This is equally unhealthy. Just because you imform parents of this supposed imminent danger hardly guarantees that they are going to handle things in a positive way, and really, you're not doing anyone a favor unless you can post some information as to how to go about rectifying a situation such as that you describe.
Yes, but unfortunately, the FBI probably doesn't need to work real hard to get a court order to do surviellence(sp?), and in any case, they don't (and won't) TELL YOU they are going to be watching you!
So yes, they have to have a court order, but once they have it they can do damned near whatever they want.
Besides, the court will decide whether to issue that order based on the reasons the FBI wants to investigates, and by applying those reasons to current law (which is a fallacy in itself because there are not specific laws concering "PC-Wiretapping", IIRC). The reason people are (or rather, should be) concerned about this is not so much because the FBI is playing spy (after all they do have a court order), but rather HOW they got the court order in the first place.
And, not to sound like a pretentious dick, when it comes to our good old U.S. goverment, "I don't see what the big deal is here" is a very naive mindset. If you're a U.S. citizen, you might want to be a little more wary of the shit big brother tries to pull... The latest presidential election aughtta be enough reason to question those in power;-)
While it might be more organizationally sound for say, all cellphones in service by SomeTelco Inc use a given area code (SomeTelco "owns" the 999 area code and uses it for the cellphones it sells). Thats all fine and good, but if my girlfriend from down the street wants to call me on my cell, she'd have to make a long distance call.
Or, conversely, I live in a rural area, and the metro part of the state is in a different area code, thus its long distance. If I have a cell phone that uses the same area code as the metro area, I can call the metro for free (minus airtime). At least in the metro area I am speaking of, they were going to split the area code anyway, just because of all the new phone numbers (urban sprawl), and the cellphone thing just sorta cinched it.
In other words, due to population density, they split the metro area code into thirds. The area that the new area codes cover is a little bigger than the old one (before the split). Yes its a big pain in the ass. I think there are now 5 or 6 area codes for our state, and it used to be 3 (north, central, and south). Made it pretty easy to guess what a certain town's area code was if you weren't sure. Now its all screwed up. Course considering almost everyone I know has AT LEAST one cellphone, a home phone, and a data line (internet dialup), thats 3 phone numbers for every household, as opposed to the old general rule of 1, MAYBE 2.
I think the phones aughtta use a different system, since locale has almost no bearing on an individual's phone number: Make it like (backwards) DNS. I want my phone numbers to be EASY to figure out. I dunno maybe in the form of
surname.firstname.(home || data || cell)
or some damned thing.
But now that I think about it, its a pretty moot point... there is a reason that major telcos are laying fiber lines left and right, and its NOT for plain old telephone use. I think the telcos have something up thier sleeves (commercial phone service via internet). Think about it. Telcos make more money from its phone customers than shit like leased backbones or dialup access. For some reason I can see the telephone becoming an internet appliance anyway. With IPv6, this is probably possible. In which case, all incoming communication to my house would be routed to
country.state.county.town.street.number.*
Personally I think this would be cool as hell, once we get fiber at the curb;-)
Good point, though I think the feds would have a hard time pulling that off without me knowing about it. Unless they uploaded some software keylogger from the net, they'd have to physically screw with my computer to install the bug (inside the keyboard, install software, etc etc). My computer desk (and keyboard itself) happens to be covered with a fine dusting of cigarette ash, and it would be pretty apparent if anything was moved around;-)
Still, to do this, I'm pretty sure the feds would need a warrant to enter my home and do this. Otherwise any information they recieved with the bug is illegal evidence, and can't be used (IIRC).
So, lock your doors and windows. (heh, no pun intended).
A perl IDE is kinda a condtradiction in itself. If you don't have the balls to write Perl (or any other language for that matter) in a text editor, how good of a coder are you, anyway?
Sheesh, the spoiled brats of the IT industry always want thier job done for them.
Seriously, other than the fact that Perl code tends to run slower (since its an interpreted language, I don't know if ASP or JSP are, because I haven't messed with them at all). Course, you can always compile Perl scripts if you bother to code them right.
I've been programming Perl for 5 years or so, and I've noticed a disturbing trend in the IT industry. Introductions of shit like ASP and JSP, which are damn near all but incomprehensible for all but uberhackers. Take Perl on the other hand, which has more documentation (not to mention modules) than you can shake a stick at. What exactly is my motivation to waste my time and energy learning ASP/JSP/Java/XML/C#/AddYourFavoriteTrendyLanguageB uzzwordHere??
Oh yes, because the PHB's at the dot coms are hopelessly addicted to industry buzzwords. Oh please. Java was a good idea (write once, run anywhere), but that only works if wherever you want to run your Java program actually supports Java. Thats a bit like saying that I can expect my Perl scripts to run on any system that has a perl interpreter (which, I might add, is damn near all the systems I can think of, with the exception of the flaky Win32 port).
Maybe I'm just set in my ways. When I first started learning HTML and Javascript (which was ALL you needed to know to make a website, back in the day), I dreamed of the day that I could do something I enjoy (creating a slick website), and actually get paid for it.
Course, now you need to know Java/ASP/C++/DHTML/XML/SQL/B2B/B2C/Oracle/Delphi/V B/DirectX/CSS/DOM/COM/GET/FUX'D++#::!! just to be a goddamn web developer (and remember, a Bachelor's in CS is highly preferred).
And people wonder why the dot coms are going belly up. Sheesh. One teenage kid's dream crushed by the greedy corporate media whores. Thanks alot.
I don't wanna be a web-developer anymore. I wish I wouldda stuck with basketball instead of squandering my teen years on IT.
I'd personally like to thank MS, Nutskrape/AOL/Time/Warner and Sun (to an extent) for providing a dozen useless languages and incompatible implementations that the PHB's can cream in their shorts over. Do we really need all this shit, when the vast majority of web browsers still receive (mostly) the same damn hypertext we've been getting for close to a decade? The more I read slashdot (and I have been for several years now), the more I am convinced that a disturbingly increasing faction of IT developers are also just people who get a hard on for using buzzwords when telling thier menial worker friends what they do.
But thats okay, because regardless of what some of you may think, while the internet, and its assorted development schemes aren't going to die off soon, I'd dare to bet that alot of web developers are going to find themselves looking for a major career change within the next decade... Like say, law. America loves lawyers. Didn't you watch the news today?
I realize I'm being a dick about it all, but c'mon... the point is all the great "breakthroughs" in web development in the last 5 years has meant precisely dick to me. Honestly there ain't a whole lot anyone can do with all those languages that I can't whip up faster with Perl/HTML/Javascript/CSS. So far as I can tell, this is about as cross platform as it gets. (does ASP/COM work on Linux? How many perl functions besides crypt() don't work on NT?)
I don't claim to be the best coder in the world, and I can't hold a candle to some of the Perl gurus, but still... About the only other useful web development application worth mentioning besides is PHP, which, coincidentally enough, I've stolen features from and implemented in perl for my own Fake-SSI perl-based rendering core. Sure, I could have just used PHP, but I didn't need everything PHP offered, and didn't consider the download to be worth my time... I'd rather do it in perl and learn something in the process.
The problem is the IT industry (generally speaking), wants an easy job, and to be perpetually pampered for doing it. I, on the other hand, picked up the languages I have because I wanted to learn something, not because some dumbass employer required I know how to do it.
<-- End Rant -->
Sorry about this bitchy ass post, but if I would have been just a little older when I did learn what I know, I'd be set for life. Tends to make one a bit bitter. I planned on leaving my blue collar job for a career in web-development, but, truth be told, I think my current co-workers are a lot more fun than a buncha technobabble speaking, self-righteous jerks who think they are hot shit cuz they know Java.
After all, the vast majority of people couldn't care less about what the hell it is you say or do. Time to step off your self-made pedestal boys. I know I have.
Oh yeah, and there is a reason there are very few hot chicks who work in IT... they are not impressed by buzzwords. If only us guys were that smart...
(and no, knowing Java, HTML, Bill Gates, or perl for that matter, is going to make a chick drop down and fondle your nerdmeat, either. Already tried that. And for pete's sake, lose the damn Nerf toys already;-)
We don't have to be loyal to any company, just because of what they've done in the PAST. If they can't keep up the superior quality, then we, as consumers, will support the company that producest that product of higher quality.
Or simply, the consumers control the market, and if AMD is nicer to the consumer, the consumer is gonna be good to AMD. Same with Intel. Whoever pleases the consumer the most wins (for the time being)...
I don't see why I should remain loyal to a company that is starting to screw me over as a consumer. Forget that!
So, for that reason, I won't lay off Intel until they have produced a product superior in quality and value than that of its competitors.
While I agree it sounds like an old trick, what makes that a bad thing, exactly? I mean, just because its some old magic trick (basically), is it impossible to build on those principles?
I mean, if wierd mirror tricks do the job, maybe they aughtta find a way to make those mirror tricks work better.
You are not alone. I will vote for bush, because he seems a little more down to earth than Gore. Bush seems to be fairly informed of the issues, and if there is something he doesn't know the answer to, he says so, and finds out about it. I think the CIO deal is a terrific idea, for the same reasons you stated.
Gore, on the other hand, seems to have a more robotic, autogenerated answer for everything. I also get the impression that he is a bit wishy-washy. I don't think I want a guy like that in the oval office.
I'll hedge my bets and go with Bush, because well, he just seems a little easier to trust. I hope I'm not being naive about that...
Thank you very much... thats exactly the first thing I thought whilst reading the article (other than that the whole thing is blatantly biased:)
I mean, just look at early PSX titles... quite frankly, they look like ass, compared to some of the newer ones... developers need time to get acquainted with the nuances of any system, and I don't see consoles as any exception (actually, I see this as being more true of consoles, than say PC hardware)
Its already been said that the article has the whole technical aspect all wrong, but even so, the author makes a fairly fatal assumption, that "more efficient" hardware makes for better games. True in theory, it never works in practice. You can have a fairly crappy machine and still get kickass games (I still remember how late SNES titles beat the shit out of the Sega 32X/Saturn).
But really, even none of that matters. Sega has more original titles, buuuut thats not necessarily what people want. I want a PS2 because Sony just plain has more of what I know I like, in terms of genre and licensees. And I rather like the fact that I'll be able to dust off my very OLD PSX titles and play em on the PS2 (I got a PSX when they first came out, and they seem to have been plagued with CD lens problems, hence my trusty old PSX is out of commission). Its nice to know that I can play all my favorites on the new console. You can bet I'll be buying a bunch of "Classic" PSX games now... they are one helluva deal at $9.99 to $29.99;-)
In our school, DARE started in 4th grade as well, and consistently went through 7th grade. I think they did right to approach things early, but I also agree that they stopped too early. It probably would have been more effective if once we have moved into high school, they could have shown us some fucked up pics and stuff of accidents and suicides that resulted from drug and alcohol abuse. (Okay, maybe thats a bit much, but kids are gonna see this shit first hand if you don't scare the hell outta em with it).
They also didn't go into explicit detail on the long term effects of drugs, and common side effects thereof (i.e. we never learned that heroin as so addicitive, and that there is always a good chance it will kill you. It was more like "drugs are bad, mmmmkay"). Sadly, this forced most of us to see what all the fuss was about firsthand. I've done mushrooms, acid, crank, crack, ecstacy, and still smoke pot regularly (though I've never had the need to do any of the others again). I suppose I should count myself lucky that nothing serious happened whilst I was on these drugs, but it really comes down to that I had to see for myself. DARE would have been better if they would have been a little more straight with us, and kept the program running longer into our high school years.
DARE is a good idea, and shouldn't be shunned. It should have a little more effort put forth though.
Never played that one, but Tony Hawk 2 is pretty goddamn fun too! I kinda wish they would have waited and released it for PSX2 though...
Here, in Rochester, MN, the lines were plenty long at 9PM last night (and the only 24-hour store is Wal-Mart, the rest opened at 7AM). Very cool people there though. We didn't manage to snag one, but luckily for us, I think considering our videogame retailer/population ratio, our house should have one in 2 weeks!
(It also helps to have friends at Best Buy;-)
I was thinking the same thing. If the record companies wanna use the internet to thier ADVANTAGE, this is what they have to do!
The same idea applies for Napster. You find a song, the napster server checks whether or not you already "own" the song, and if not, gives you the option to "buy" it for $0.xx. Once you "buy" it, you can download it as many times as you want, since you have a digitial-certificate thats says you paid for it already.
There, now the RIAA just finds someone to hack out the protocol for something like this, where a checksum between your key and the certificate key unlocks the encryption on a certain file. Now just apply that to existing MP3 technology. Also, you could have certain MP3's flagged as "free", that do not require a checksum to unlock. Artists can use this to get the word out about themselves, and keep track of exactly how many times a song has been downloaded (the MP3 file is encrypted on the server, but after completing a download form, it unlocks the MP3, gives it a unique ID, and sends it unencrypted (or something like that)).
I wouldn't mind paying for music this way, since i'd only be paying for what I want (why buy a whole CD, when you only like a few songs? Thats why MP3 got popular in the first place). Plus, if I accidentally delete the files, I can re-download them because I already paid for it. Basically it means the internet is your music archive, and you can access your music anywhere you can get online. This would be way cool.
This would definately cut down on unauthorized copying, but it wouldn't stop it completely. I think it would be a good start to satisfying BOTH sides, however... the RIAA is dumb. We need to ENCOURAGE them to develop decent online distribution models, instead of fighting them. But, we also need to let them know that they stand to lose big if they don't. So, until then, I'll see ya on Napster. When Napster starts charging a small fee per song like outlined above, I'll still be there;-)
Tell me, when was the last time you nearly starved to death?
When I went without work for the summer. No cash, little food, lost 1/5th of my body weight. Yeah, food is good, but its NOT the government's responsibility to fatten me up! I'd really rather have free speech, since I can earn money (and thus food), but how in the hell can one earn freedom? Ooops, nevermind, already know the answer to that one... send some lobbyists to washington heh...
As sick and insensitive as this is going to sound, I think the US is already too much of a welfare state, ESPECIALLY considering that the unemployment rate is so low (c'mon now, its not like people are starving because there is no place to get a job). It'd be different if we were in the middle of a depression or something, but in that case, the Gov't couldn't afford to feed everyone that NEEDED to be fed. So, our nice welfare state only works when we shouldn't need it.
Course, I wouldn't go so far to say that the Gov't should increase technology development at the expense of social services (thats just dumb), but on the other hand, technology creates jobs.
Welfare should be supplied to those completely unable to earn an income for theirselves (i.e. mentally handicapped or otherwise severely disabled).
I would think this would save the gov't enough money so they could do some things a bit more beneficial to the country as a whole... like improving education, and providing a way for people to get out of those overpopulated urban areas... I just can't understand why it is the government would rather send welfare checks to people in the ghetto, instead of helping them get the hell away from the drugs and gangs.
Of course the record industry is pissed at and scared of Napster. Napster is giving away for free something that costs the industry hundreds of millions
of dollars to create. If Napster's allowed to flourish, that means that really, in the short term, cool, everyone gets free music, but in the longer term, how
much more music do people think will actually come out? And how much of that will actually sound okay, recording wise? If labels aren't to exist, then
there goes the money that artists would have used to pay for recording their albums in a nice studio rather than in their basements with one
microphone set up in the middle of their setup...
Almost... I'll tell you what will happen if Napster is allowed to flourish, and the recording companies get screwed: The musician wins, the music affectionado wins, record labels still get money.
Honestly now, how many of you people actually KNOW how the recording process (when dealing with a label) happens? Show of hands?
Anyone?
Thats what I thought.
Recording equipment IS NOT so expensive that you need to get a big big loan from a record company to produce an album. A decent 8-track is usually more than the average band needs (excluding prefab teeny bopper bands), and coupled with computer software capable of mixing and editing, you can have a very nice recording rig for approxamately 2 grand. (includes the price of the PC to run the software on, BTW).
Yeah, 2 grand seems like a lot to spend on recording equipment, but its really not. An artist can spend nearly twice that much just for stage equipment in order to do a live show (which is what MOST real bands do first before recording anyway). There are many cd-recording companies throughout this area (which happens to be in the middle of nowhere), that are more than happy to press, package, and help you distribute for the price of $1.50 per CD. If record labels go belly up, artist have to try harder and be more dedicated to win praise. The music will have to have soul. We'll have a throwback to the old days when thats ALL music was about... expressing one's self, and not for the love of money. Being Bassist/Guitarist/Vocalist and Co-Writer for a band, I can stress how important this really is.
Record labels actually harm artists in general, whether its by stealing the spotlight with thier Next Greatest Thing(TM) prefab groups, or actually signing us and then screwing us over (signed artists make a penance on CD sales. The real moneymaker for an artist is by doing live shows and selling merchandise).
Just in my band's experience, Napster and MP3.com have helped us out, not only to get the word out, but to let people try before they buy, so to speak. Real life example:
Fan - "Hey DP, that song "S.N.E" rocks... I can't wait until you guys release your CD..."
Me - "Well thanks," *aw-shucks look* "but you can just check out our site on MP3.com and download it, or search Napster."
Fan - "You mean for free..."
Me - "Yeah, and have other people who might like our stuff check out the site too"
Guess who's friends I saw at our last show?
I doubt they would have been there if it weren't for exposure like MP3.com or Napster!
(BTW, tix for our shows are $9 a piece. Our CD will go for $4.50. I'm willing to trace a CD sale for a ticket sale anyday, thank you.)
Oh, and a gratuitous link to the lyrics for our first album;-)
Quite so. Any company that can run fiber to my house for $20 can have my business (which'd be the only way for the company to guarantee I used their pipe to do whatever).
I say fiber because broadband has existed for awhile, but we still don't have it here. I assume our regional ISPs will just forgo cable and DSL and move right into some kind of fiber. Probably won't happen for 5 to 10 years, depending on how quickly more major backbones are added to the net.
Anyhow...
I realize this whole thing will either never happen or flop horribly, but it would actually be a VERY good thing for the consumer, provided the infrastructure was in place (which it isn't).
I'd suggest these ISPs start implementing something like this AFTER every house on my block has a fiber optic connection. Course, that is quite awhile off, but QWest is extending broadband here in Minnesota at a pretty alarming rate. My secluded town should have a backbone running right up main street in a year or two.
I'd be willing to pay Qwest (or whomever) thier little per-purchase internet tax if I had the ability to actually purchase anything worthwhile on the net (online multimedia content such as audio, streaming video, IP-telephony, etc). Being able to download a complete Linux distro in a couple minutes would be well worth it;-)
Wow. I just thought of a nice business model... ISPs offer free T-3 level inet access, and the user donates spare CPU cycles to the ISP (ala distributed computing). I bet the ISP could get some heavy government subsidies that way;-).
I actually agree with you, but for a few different reasons... First off, there is a DEFINATE reason that Carnivore is getting so much 'publicity', and it sure as hell isn't that we were smart enough to call the governments bluff (I think thats rather naive of the/. community as a whole). Like you said, if you're not doing anything wrong, Carnivore's not gonna hurt you, and if you are sending sensitive stuff, you aughtta be encrypting it anyway... With that in mind, consider what the FBI is actually doing... Carnivore WILL get the green light, for the aformentioned reasons, despite the controversy. Thats exactly what the FBI wants. Ever consider that the FBI wants you to use encryption? They do. Remember, big business lines the gov't pocket here... businesses don't like it when thier ultra-secret stuff gets leaked.. if, because of Carnivore's presence, businesses start requiring outbound mail is encrypted, that slows the leaks. (Remember, when it comes to computer stuff, business usually dictates common practice). Hell, think about it, you don't think the FBI/CIA doesn't know how to break encryption anyway? What about the alleged NSA backdoors in Windows and possibly other OS's?
Why do you think the USA has munition export restrictions on encryption anyway? So the U.S government agencies always have a leg up on em, not because other countries can't use the encryption, but because its less likely those other countries will figure out how to crack it.
Kinda puts the whole "reverse-engineering" and
"encryption circumvention" mentioned in the DMCA a little more meaning, eh?
When dealing with the government, what you see is never what you get.
I really find it hard to believe that Windows will cost $1000. I also find it hard to believe that you think that Linux will actually take over the desktop market. Windows will never cost $1000, it just isn't worth that kind of cash. Everyone knows it.
I don't find it that hard to believe at all. If M$ got broken up, I can see them using that as an excuse to jack up the price. "The OS uses a larger percentage of our workforce and therefore we have to charge more to stay even." I can totally see something like that happening.
I'll agree with you though, that I don't think Linux will actually take over the desktop market. Its just not ready yet. But as window managers like KDE or Gnome become easier to use, and the applications fall into place like they have been (albeit slowly), I see potential. Especially if you consider that you'd be able to get a computer for $1000 cheaper, minus the Windows OS. People are cheap, and don't like to spend more than absolutely necessary. Alot of big businesses (at least here in Minnesota) are incorporating Linux networks in addition to thier existing NT. They are switching over, solely due to the existing NT licensing costs. If the license price goes up more, I can guarantee that these companies will completely embrace Linux (or some other free OS).
If this happens, the trickle down effect will probably make Joe user switch too.
This is purely speculation on my part, granted, but, here anyway, almost every computer store has about twice the space dedicated to Linux and FreeBSD as they do for M$ OS's (and no, its not because the M$ stuff is always sold out:-)
If anything, I think a raise in windows prices will force computer distributers to offer a choice in the preinstalled OS... something I'd REALLY like to see happen. I'd chalk just that up to a hard hit against the Borg of Redmond.
I too would also be entertained to no end if the RIAA (or whomever) started going after individual Napster users (and thier ilk), just for the sole fact that prosecuting millions of people would surely bankrupt the RIAA.
Now, I am a musician myself, and I can tell you right now that there aren't all that many bands that actually give a shit if thier music is traded ala mp3. Guess why.
Because even though CD's cost what, between 12 and 17 dollars, the band or artist only sees a small fraction of that amount, and after paying thier dues to the record label, they make anywhere from.40 to 1 dollar per CD.
I think it would be quite fair to suggest that the musicians that have spoken out against Napster and such are only doing so because thier record label is either pressuring them to do so, or offering a large chunk of cash for thier endorsement.
I can tell you, as a musician, that I would be absolutely thrilled if my music, even full albums, were distributed via the net. Why? Like I said, a band doesn't make a lot of money on CD sales. They make orders of magnitude more money by doing concerts and selling merchandise (such as T-shirts, hats, whatever), which the record company gets approxamately zero money from. I'd make one hell of a lot more money from the sheer amount of people exposed to music via mp3 than I would just selling CDs.
To make matters even worse, the major record labels are actually destroying the music community. They insist on heavily marketing their prefab artists (the Backstreet Boys and/or Britney Spears come to mind), and focus less on signing smaller bands, unless they are completely sure those bands can be turned into the Next Big Thing(TM)
What the RIAA is attempting to do now is to secure their future by ensuring that their current (very profitable) business practices are protected under federal law.
Of course, some bands may not want thier music to be so easily distributed on the net, and thats fine. So why are those bands allowing thier music to be distributed on a completely insecure format (compact discs)?? Because they have no choice! People are not going to be likely to buy a new and improved SECURE-CD player, which would in theory enable copy protection, because it offers no clear advantage to the consumer. Furthermore, even if a SECURE-CD format was released, its only a matter of time before that copy protection is cracked, much like DVD and DeCSS.
If the record companies would like to survive, they are going to have to change the way they play the game, whether the like it or not. You can either embrace technology, or let it be your downfall, but you cannot stop technology. The sheer number of MP3 users in existance should be more than enough proof for this, and regardless of how many people are arrested and have equipment siezed, people are still going to trade (illegal) digital music. The music industry can either find a way to cash in on this, or spend the rest of eternity prosecuting people for the love of money.
Since it has a way of disrupting the geomagnetic field, I was wondering how this might effect life?
Example: The human body contains substantial amounts of iron (in red blood cells). Could these types of solar emanations do wierd things like polarize that iron?
Mayhaps it would explain why the trolls are more restless than usual today;-)
Ya know, I use Napster, but I haven't downloaded any Metallica, because I personally am not that interested in the band... but lets say I did... because I don't own any of the original albums a certain song I downloaded came from, I'd obviously be infringing on copyright, as I understand it. But I DID pay to DOWNLOAD that music!! I __PAY MONEY__ to my ISP in exchange for them sending my computer data from the internet! It seems to me, that the real way for Metallica to nip this in the bud is to disallow ISP's from transmitting/routing/whatever this type of media (digital audio, that is)... THAT is really the only effective solution. However, this brings up MANY touchy implications... The day my ISP starts filtering the content of the data I recieve is the day I find a new ISP without such limitations. And I will be honest... one of my favorite bands released thier new album recently, and I live in a rural area. I was really excited about the new album, and I know that it will not me available in physical media (CD, tape, etc) for quite some time. So I downloaded the whole damned thing via Napster, and burned it all to CD myself. Do I feel bad for doing that? No. Do I feel that I have done anything morally wrong? Absolutely not. Its hardly my fault that record companies and record stores are unable to have albums in stock immediately upon release. If I had to wait 6 months to buy the album, I probably wouldn't. By then I'd have heard 3 or 4 singles on the radio, and probably gotten sick of them all. I sure as hell wouldn't buy the CD then! But, I got the album the day it was released because of Napster, and I am very happy with the album. It will soon be available in stores here, and I will actually go and buy the legit album. Why? I already have the music, right? Well, the actual album comes with extra stuff (its Cd-Enhanced), and even comes with a 4" vinyl with previously unreleased tracks. Being a hardcore fan, I WANT these little extras, and am willing to essentially pay for a CD I already have to get these "free" extras. This is what the record companies should do!! Provide extra stuff WITH the legit albums. Stuff thats essentially unproducable otherwise.. hell, throw in some stickers, I don't care, just give me a little incentive to buy the legit album instead of just downloading the thing! THIS is what record companies have to do if they wanna stay in the game. Piracy (if you really wanna call it that), is something the record companies ARE NOT going to ever get a hold on unless they provide extra incentive to purchase the real deal. Also, I buy T-shirts, and other merchandise because I know it helps support the band (they are a small band and deserve the support)... Sure, I could make my own T-shirts, but thats not really the point. When I wear a shirt sporting the band's logo, and its a offically endorsed product, what I'm telling the world is that I like the band, I don't mind giving them money and free advertising. That says a hell of a lot. I sure wouldn't be saying that if I spraypainted the logo on a T-shirt myself. Don't get me wrong, piracy is not a cool thing, and can certainly hurt bands. I'm in a band myself, and I put my heart on display in my music. It __IS__ art... (maybe moreso because my band is unsigned), and I would be really pissed off if someone were making MONEY by distributing my music, but I would be FLATTERED if my music was freely distributed. As long as I have a sayso in the matter. I should, I have copyright. I totally see where Lars is coming from there. Its a sensitive thing. If I say its okay to distribute my music, do so with my blessing. If people like my music, I wouldn't mind a little support so I can continue to make music. If people choose to not support financially, and they like my music, they will lose in the end, because it will not be economically feasable for me to continue to produce such music. But, then again, I'm in an unsigned band. To tell the truth, my band DOES NOT make very much money selling our album. Basically just enough to cover the costs of recording the album and putting it on CD. I would imagine some people bootleg our music, and thats fine. As long as we are not losing money, I don't care. We make our real money by performing live. You can't really bootleg concert tickets! And I enjoy performing live anyway, so I really get paid twice. The nice thing about this particular setup is that any money made from our music goes directly to us, all 100%. Maybe some of these bands need to get real and get back to thier roots. Almost every successful (non shrinkwrapped, non commodity, non sellout) band started off about the same way, so far as I know. It can be quite lucrative. If not, your music probably isn't as good as you think. If people like you, they will come to your shows. Sure, you're not going to make millions of dollars that way, and you're not going to get on MTV, but who the hell cares!? That shouldn't be what your music is about anyway. If it is, your music IS NOT art, and you have no business getting pissed off because somebody decided it wasn't really worth paying for. Yes, record companies can greatly help spread your music to more people, but for big labels, that's not what its about. Its all about money... if you think different, listen to the radio for a couple hours, and see how many times you hear the same song played. Ditto for MTV. Some small bands have made it big by basically selling out. I won't buy albums from bands that have lowered themselves to do TV appearances on frickin Donnie and Marie... thats just pathetic! I'm sorry if I've offended anyone, but take it from one who knows what its really like to be strapped for cash... this pity party about quantity and quality is complete bullshit. Lars did a good interview, but he's got his head in the clouds, just like every other sellout band these days. I am disappointed. Makes the rest of us musicians look shitty.
Slashdot Mirror
gnapster and opennap is all I need.
And should gnapster and opennap ever fail you, I have only but 3 words to say... Audiogalaxy dot com
I agree your logic concerning copyright,but... The media is forcing us into a downward spiral. DVD offers the best quality in terms of video media, however, I am forced into buying a DVD player (the only legal DVD player is one licensed by the MPAA).
But,you know, if I can manage to figure out how to build my own DVD player (which would obviously not be MPAA-sanctioned), you better believe I should have the right to use it.
Unfortunately, the US government is far too shortsighted to see what they are doing to us citizens. I would consider building my own DVD player to show that I have some ingenuity and resourcefulness (if not talent). To avoid breaking the law, I can't do much more than just think about building one. So what we learn here is that doing-it-yourself is no longer an option, and there is absolutely no incentive to create, invent, or innovate.
Let the rest of the world rejoice! The United States is heading for an irrevocable decline, its citizens will all become (more) complacent, apathetic and lazy... not because its our nature, but because there are strict laws against being otherwise. Wake up people, YOUR representatives are slitting your throat and raking in the cash. The government is quite literally selling our freedom and liberty to the highest bidder.
I just hope that when the US buckles under its own weight, the country that invades us provides us with a benevolent dictatorship instead of a tyrannical one.
And, as an afterthought, the US government is not THAT old, in the greater scheme of things. Should we be so sure it knows what its doing?
Okay, while I admit that the signs you suggest (withdrawl, lack of interest in schoolwork, apathy, etc etc) would be likely signs of "D&D addiction", I think your post is kind of a cop out, because these signs are very general and can be applied to MANY different situations (drug abuse, depression, or just being antisocial tend to all have the same apparent side-effects).
I suffer from clinical depression and exhibit most of the same symptoms you describe. It would be rather asinine (and irresponsible) of you to convince my parents that I am a D&D addict and am this subject to the possibility of committing murder, rape, mutilation, etc etc. Thats surely not the case at all, but my parents, like many, would see your post as a total red flag and likely have me locked up.
While I have never been involved in D&D and really have no interest in it, I find it somewhat hard to believe that completely normal youth will fall victim, so to speak, to the evil Dungeon Master (read: cult leader). However, I find it easy to believe that youth with emotional/social disorders could fall victim, in which case, I would hope that the parents would already be aware of the child's illness (and yes, most emotional/social disorders are treatable). For youth that have not exhibited any common symptoms of emotional/social disorders, the risk of being corrupted, so to speak, is probably nominal.
Also, I don't mean to rain on your parade, but I hold the opinion that we are all born with the right of religeous freedom, and some of us are not "God-fearing Christian youths". This negates the validity of the last paragraph of your post (and as a side note, if the youth really is a God-fearing Christian, I'd think they'd be much less susceptible to D&D-type brainwashing).
I'm sure you mean well, but please try to be more objective and factual about this stuff. I'd be intrested to see where you've gotten your information regarding your post.
And please refrain from scaring the parents of today's youth with notions that will make MANY of those parents exteremely paranoid toward thier children. This is equally unhealthy. Just because you imform parents of this supposed imminent danger hardly guarantees that they are going to handle things in a positive way, and really, you're not doing anyone a favor unless you can post some information as to how to go about rectifying a situation such as that you describe.
-DP
Yes, but unfortunately, the FBI probably doesn't need to work real hard to get a court order to do surviellence(sp?), and in any case, they don't (and won't) TELL YOU they are going to be watching you!
;-)
So yes, they have to have a court order, but once they have it they can do damned near whatever they want.
Besides, the court will decide whether to issue that order based on the reasons the FBI wants to investigates, and by applying those reasons to current law (which is a fallacy in itself because there are not specific laws concering "PC-Wiretapping", IIRC). The reason people are (or rather, should be) concerned about this is not so much because the FBI is playing spy (after all they do have a court order), but rather HOW they got the court order in the first place.
And, not to sound like a pretentious dick, when it comes to our good old U.S. goverment, "I don't see what the big deal is here" is a very naive mindset. If you're a U.S. citizen, you might want to be a little more wary of the shit big brother tries to pull... The latest presidential election aughtta be enough reason to question those in power
Long Distance Charges!
;-)
While it might be more organizationally sound for say, all cellphones in service by SomeTelco Inc use a given area code (SomeTelco "owns" the 999 area code and uses it for the cellphones it sells). Thats all fine and good, but if my girlfriend from down the street wants to call me on my cell, she'd have to make a long distance call.
Or, conversely, I live in a rural area, and the metro part of the state is in a different area code, thus its long distance. If I have a cell phone that uses the same area code as the metro area, I can call the metro for free (minus airtime). At least in the metro area I am speaking of, they were going to split the area code anyway, just because of all the new phone numbers (urban sprawl), and the cellphone thing just sorta cinched it.
In other words, due to population density, they split the metro area code into thirds. The area that the new area codes cover is a little bigger than the old one (before the split). Yes its a big pain in the ass. I think there are now 5 or 6 area codes for our state, and it used to be 3 (north, central, and south). Made it pretty easy to guess what a certain town's area code was if you weren't sure. Now its all screwed up. Course considering almost everyone I know has AT LEAST one cellphone, a home phone, and a data line (internet dialup), thats 3 phone numbers for every household, as opposed to the old general rule of 1, MAYBE 2.
I think the phones aughtta use a different system, since locale has almost no bearing on an individual's phone number: Make it like (backwards) DNS. I want my phone numbers to be EASY to figure out. I dunno maybe in the form of surname.firstname.(home || data || cell) or some damned thing.
But now that I think about it, its a pretty moot point... there is a reason that major telcos are laying fiber lines left and right, and its NOT for plain old telephone use. I think the telcos have something up thier sleeves (commercial phone service via internet). Think about it. Telcos make more money from its phone customers than shit like leased backbones or dialup access. For some reason I can see the telephone becoming an internet appliance anyway. With IPv6, this is probably possible. In which case, all incoming communication to my house would be routed to country.state.county.town.street.number.*
Personally I think this would be cool as hell, once we get fiber at the curb
Good point, though I think the feds would have a hard time pulling that off without me knowing about it. Unless they uploaded some software keylogger from the net, they'd have to physically screw with my computer to install the bug (inside the keyboard, install software, etc etc). My computer desk (and keyboard itself) happens to be covered with a fine dusting of cigarette ash, and it would be pretty apparent if anything was moved around ;-)
Still, to do this, I'm pretty sure the feds would need a warrant to enter my home and do this. Otherwise any information they recieved with the bug is illegal evidence, and can't be used (IIRC).
So, lock your doors and windows. (heh, no pun intended).
-DP
Thank you sir, I think you just about summed up what I have to say about Java in the _nicest_ way possible ;-)
A perl IDE is kinda a condtradiction in itself. If you don't have the balls to write Perl (or any other language for that matter) in a text editor, how good of a coder are you, anyway?
Sheesh, the spoiled brats of the IT industry always want thier job done for them.
Speaking of crybabies...
What about Perl?
B uzzwordHere??
V B/DirectX/CSS/DOM/COM/GET/FUX'D++#::!! just to be a goddamn web developer (and remember, a Bachelor's in CS is highly preferred).
;-)
Seriously, other than the fact that Perl code tends to run slower (since its an interpreted language, I don't know if ASP or JSP are, because I haven't messed with them at all). Course, you can always compile Perl scripts if you bother to code them right.
I've been programming Perl for 5 years or so, and I've noticed a disturbing trend in the IT industry. Introductions of shit like ASP and JSP, which are damn near all but incomprehensible for all but uberhackers. Take Perl on the other hand, which has more documentation (not to mention modules) than you can shake a stick at. What exactly is my motivation to waste my time and energy learning ASP/JSP/Java/XML/C#/AddYourFavoriteTrendyLanguage
Oh yes, because the PHB's at the dot coms are hopelessly addicted to industry buzzwords. Oh please. Java was a good idea (write once, run anywhere), but that only works if wherever you want to run your Java program actually supports Java. Thats a bit like saying that I can expect my Perl scripts to run on any system that has a perl interpreter (which, I might add, is damn near all the systems I can think of, with the exception of the flaky Win32 port).
Maybe I'm just set in my ways. When I first started learning HTML and Javascript (which was ALL you needed to know to make a website, back in the day), I dreamed of the day that I could do something I enjoy (creating a slick website), and actually get paid for it.
Course, now you need to know Java/ASP/C++/DHTML/XML/SQL/B2B/B2C/Oracle/Delphi/
And people wonder why the dot coms are going belly up. Sheesh. One teenage kid's dream crushed by the greedy corporate media whores. Thanks alot. I don't wanna be a web-developer anymore. I wish I wouldda stuck with basketball instead of squandering my teen years on IT.
I'd personally like to thank MS, Nutskrape/AOL/Time/Warner and Sun (to an extent) for providing a dozen useless languages and incompatible implementations that the PHB's can cream in their shorts over. Do we really need all this shit, when the vast majority of web browsers still receive (mostly) the same damn hypertext we've been getting for close to a decade? The more I read slashdot (and I have been for several years now), the more I am convinced that a disturbingly increasing faction of IT developers are also just people who get a hard on for using buzzwords when telling thier menial worker friends what they do.
But thats okay, because regardless of what some of you may think, while the internet, and its assorted development schemes aren't going to die off soon, I'd dare to bet that alot of web developers are going to find themselves looking for a major career change within the next decade... Like say, law. America loves lawyers. Didn't you watch the news today?
I realize I'm being a dick about it all, but c'mon... the point is all the great "breakthroughs" in web development in the last 5 years has meant precisely dick to me. Honestly there ain't a whole lot anyone can do with all those languages that I can't whip up faster with Perl/HTML/Javascript/CSS. So far as I can tell, this is about as cross platform as it gets. (does ASP/COM work on Linux? How many perl functions besides crypt() don't work on NT?)
I don't claim to be the best coder in the world, and I can't hold a candle to some of the Perl gurus, but still... About the only other useful web development application worth mentioning besides is PHP, which, coincidentally enough, I've stolen features from and implemented in perl for my own Fake-SSI perl-based rendering core. Sure, I could have just used PHP, but I didn't need everything PHP offered, and didn't consider the download to be worth my time... I'd rather do it in perl and learn something in the process.
The problem is the IT industry (generally speaking), wants an easy job, and to be perpetually pampered for doing it. I, on the other hand, picked up the languages I have because I wanted to learn something, not because some dumbass employer required I know how to do it.
<-- End Rant -->
Sorry about this bitchy ass post, but if I would have been just a little older when I did learn what I know, I'd be set for life. Tends to make one a bit bitter. I planned on leaving my blue collar job for a career in web-development, but, truth be told, I think my current co-workers are a lot more fun than a buncha technobabble speaking, self-righteous jerks who think they are hot shit cuz they know Java.
After all, the vast majority of people couldn't care less about what the hell it is you say or do. Time to step off your self-made pedestal boys. I know I have.
Oh yeah, and there is a reason there are very few hot chicks who work in IT... they are not impressed by buzzwords. If only us guys were that smart...
(and no, knowing Java, HTML, Bill Gates, or perl for that matter, is going to make a chick drop down and fondle your nerdmeat, either. Already tried that. And for pete's sake, lose the damn Nerf toys already
-One Pissed off former IT drone
You said that pretty perfectly... Caveat Emptor!! (Almost certainly spelled wrongly, sorry bout that). I have nothing to add.
;-)
Thank you, and yes, its spelled right
-DP
We don't have to be loyal to any company, just because of what they've done in the PAST. If they can't keep up the superior quality, then we, as consumers, will support the company that producest that product of higher quality.
Or simply, the consumers control the market, and if AMD is nicer to the consumer, the consumer is gonna be good to AMD. Same with Intel. Whoever pleases the consumer the most wins (for the time being)...
I don't see why I should remain loyal to a company that is starting to screw me over as a consumer. Forget that!
So, for that reason, I won't lay off Intel until they have produced a product superior in quality and value than that of its competitors.
Simple as that.
While I agree it sounds like an old trick, what makes that a bad thing, exactly? I mean, just because its some old magic trick (basically), is it impossible to build on those principles?
I mean, if wierd mirror tricks do the job, maybe they aughtta find a way to make those mirror tricks work better.
In any case, its still interesting enough to me.
You are not alone. I will vote for bush, because he seems a little more down to earth than Gore. Bush seems to be fairly informed of the issues, and if there is something he doesn't know the answer to, he says so, and finds out about it. I think the CIO deal is a terrific idea, for the same reasons you stated.
Gore, on the other hand, seems to have a more robotic, autogenerated answer for everything. I also get the impression that he is a bit wishy-washy. I don't think I want a guy like that in the oval office.
I'll hedge my bets and go with Bush, because well, he just seems a little easier to trust. I hope I'm not being naive about that...
Thank you very much... thats exactly the first thing I thought whilst reading the article (other than that the whole thing is blatantly biased :)
;-)
I mean, just look at early PSX titles... quite frankly, they look like ass, compared to some of the newer ones... developers need time to get acquainted with the nuances of any system, and I don't see consoles as any exception (actually, I see this as being more true of consoles, than say PC hardware)
Its already been said that the article has the whole technical aspect all wrong, but even so, the author makes a fairly fatal assumption, that "more efficient" hardware makes for better games. True in theory, it never works in practice. You can have a fairly crappy machine and still get kickass games (I still remember how late SNES titles beat the shit out of the Sega 32X/Saturn).
But really, even none of that matters. Sega has more original titles, buuuut thats not necessarily what people want. I want a PS2 because Sony just plain has more of what I know I like, in terms of genre and licensees. And I rather like the fact that I'll be able to dust off my very OLD PSX titles and play em on the PS2 (I got a PSX when they first came out, and they seem to have been plagued with CD lens problems, hence my trusty old PSX is out of commission). Its nice to know that I can play all my favorites on the new console. You can bet I'll be buying a bunch of "Classic" PSX games now... they are one helluva deal at $9.99 to $29.99
In our school, DARE started in 4th grade as well, and consistently went through 7th grade. I think they did right to approach things early, but I also agree that they stopped too early. It probably would have been more effective if once we have moved into high school, they could have shown us some fucked up pics and stuff of accidents and suicides that resulted from drug and alcohol abuse. (Okay, maybe thats a bit much, but kids are gonna see this shit first hand if you don't scare the hell outta em with it).
They also didn't go into explicit detail on the long term effects of drugs, and common side effects thereof (i.e. we never learned that heroin as so addicitive, and that there is always a good chance it will kill you. It was more like "drugs are bad, mmmmkay"). Sadly, this forced most of us to see what all the fuss was about firsthand. I've done mushrooms, acid, crank, crack, ecstacy, and still smoke pot regularly (though I've never had the need to do any of the others again). I suppose I should count myself lucky that nothing serious happened whilst I was on these drugs, but it really comes down to that I had to see for myself. DARE would have been better if they would have been a little more straight with us, and kept the program running longer into our high school years.
DARE is a good idea, and shouldn't be shunned. It should have a little more effort put forth though.
Never played that one, but Tony Hawk 2 is pretty goddamn fun too! I kinda wish they would have waited and released it for PSX2 though... Here, in Rochester, MN, the lines were plenty long at 9PM last night (and the only 24-hour store is Wal-Mart, the rest opened at 7AM). Very cool people there though. We didn't manage to snag one, but luckily for us, I think considering our videogame retailer/population ratio, our house should have one in 2 weeks! (It also helps to have friends at Best Buy ;-)
I was thinking the same thing. If the record companies wanna use the internet to thier ADVANTAGE, this is what they have to do!
;-)
The same idea applies for Napster. You find a song, the napster server checks whether or not you already "own" the song, and if not, gives you the option to "buy" it for $0.xx. Once you "buy" it, you can download it as many times as you want, since you have a digitial-certificate thats says you paid for it already.
There, now the RIAA just finds someone to hack out the protocol for something like this, where a checksum between your key and the certificate key unlocks the encryption on a certain file. Now just apply that to existing MP3 technology. Also, you could have certain MP3's flagged as "free", that do not require a checksum to unlock. Artists can use this to get the word out about themselves, and keep track of exactly how many times a song has been downloaded (the MP3 file is encrypted on the server, but after completing a download form, it unlocks the MP3, gives it a unique ID, and sends it unencrypted (or something like that)).
I wouldn't mind paying for music this way, since i'd only be paying for what I want (why buy a whole CD, when you only like a few songs? Thats why MP3 got popular in the first place). Plus, if I accidentally delete the files, I can re-download them because I already paid for it. Basically it means the internet is your music archive, and you can access your music anywhere you can get online. This would be way cool. This would definately cut down on unauthorized copying, but it wouldn't stop it completely. I think it would be a good start to satisfying BOTH sides, however... the RIAA is dumb. We need to ENCOURAGE them to develop decent online distribution models, instead of fighting them. But, we also need to let them know that they stand to lose big if they don't. So, until then, I'll see ya on Napster. When Napster starts charging a small fee per song like outlined above, I'll still be there
Tell me, when was the last time you nearly starved to death?
When I went without work for the summer. No cash, little food, lost 1/5th of my body weight. Yeah, food is good, but its NOT the government's responsibility to fatten me up! I'd really rather have free speech, since I can earn money (and thus food), but how in the hell can one earn freedom? Ooops, nevermind, already know the answer to that one... send some lobbyists to washington heh...
As sick and insensitive as this is going to sound, I think the US is already too much of a welfare state, ESPECIALLY considering that the unemployment rate is so low (c'mon now, its not like people are starving because there is no place to get a job). It'd be different if we were in the middle of a depression or something, but in that case, the Gov't couldn't afford to feed everyone that NEEDED to be fed. So, our nice welfare state only works when we shouldn't need it.
Course, I wouldn't go so far to say that the Gov't should increase technology development at the expense of social services (thats just dumb), but on the other hand, technology creates jobs.
Welfare should be supplied to those completely unable to earn an income for theirselves (i.e. mentally handicapped or otherwise severely disabled).
I would think this would save the gov't enough money so they could do some things a bit more beneficial to the country as a whole... like improving education, and providing a way for people to get out of those overpopulated urban areas... I just can't understand why it is the government would rather send welfare checks to people in the ghetto, instead of helping them get the hell away from the drugs and gangs.
Of course the record industry is pissed at and scared of Napster. Napster is giving away for free something that costs the industry hundreds of millions of dollars to create. If Napster's allowed to flourish, that means that really, in the short term, cool, everyone gets free music, but in the longer term, how much more music do people think will actually come out? And how much of that will actually sound okay, recording wise? If labels aren't to exist, then there goes the money that artists would have used to pay for recording their albums in a nice studio rather than in their basements with one microphone set up in the middle of their setup...
;-)
Almost... I'll tell you what will happen if Napster is allowed to flourish, and the recording companies get screwed: The musician wins, the music affectionado wins, record labels still get money.
Honestly now, how many of you people actually KNOW how the recording process (when dealing with a label) happens? Show of hands?
Anyone?
Thats what I thought.
Recording equipment IS NOT so expensive that you need to get a big big loan from a record company to produce an album. A decent 8-track is usually more than the average band needs (excluding prefab teeny bopper bands), and coupled with computer software capable of mixing and editing, you can have a very nice recording rig for approxamately 2 grand. (includes the price of the PC to run the software on, BTW).
Yeah, 2 grand seems like a lot to spend on recording equipment, but its really not. An artist can spend nearly twice that much just for stage equipment in order to do a live show (which is what MOST real bands do first before recording anyway). There are many cd-recording companies throughout this area (which happens to be in the middle of nowhere), that are more than happy to press, package, and help you distribute for the price of $1.50 per CD. If record labels go belly up, artist have to try harder and be more dedicated to win praise. The music will have to have soul. We'll have a throwback to the old days when thats ALL music was about... expressing one's self, and not for the love of money. Being Bassist/Guitarist/Vocalist and Co-Writer for a band, I can stress how important this really is.
Record labels actually harm artists in general, whether its by stealing the spotlight with thier Next Greatest Thing(TM) prefab groups, or actually signing us and then screwing us over (signed artists make a penance on CD sales. The real moneymaker for an artist is by doing live shows and selling merchandise).
Just in my band's experience, Napster and MP3.com have helped us out, not only to get the word out, but to let people try before they buy, so to speak. Real life example:
Fan - "Hey DP, that song "S.N.E" rocks... I can't wait until you guys release your CD..."
Me - "Well thanks," *aw-shucks look* "but you can just check out our site on MP3.com and download it, or search Napster."
Fan - "You mean for free..."
Me - "Yeah, and have other people who might like our stuff check out the site too"
Guess who's friends I saw at our last show?
I doubt they would have been there if it weren't for exposure like MP3.com or Napster!
(BTW, tix for our shows are $9 a piece. Our CD will go for $4.50. I'm willing to trace a CD sale for a ticket sale anyday, thank you.)
Oh, and a gratuitous link to the lyrics for our first album
Quite so. Any company that can run fiber to my house for $20 can have my business (which'd be the only way for the company to guarantee I used their pipe to do whatever).
;-)
;-).
I say fiber because broadband has existed for awhile, but we still don't have it here. I assume our regional ISPs will just forgo cable and DSL and move right into some kind of fiber. Probably won't happen for 5 to 10 years, depending on how quickly more major backbones are added to the net.
Anyhow...
I realize this whole thing will either never happen or flop horribly, but it would actually be a VERY good thing for the consumer, provided the infrastructure was in place (which it isn't).
I'd suggest these ISPs start implementing something like this AFTER every house on my block has a fiber optic connection. Course, that is quite awhile off, but QWest is extending broadband here in Minnesota at a pretty alarming rate. My secluded town should have a backbone running right up main street in a year or two.
I'd be willing to pay Qwest (or whomever) thier little per-purchase internet tax if I had the ability to actually purchase anything worthwhile on the net (online multimedia content such as audio, streaming video, IP-telephony, etc). Being able to download a complete Linux distro in a couple minutes would be well worth it
Wow. I just thought of a nice business model... ISPs offer free T-3 level inet access, and the user donates spare CPU cycles to the ISP (ala distributed computing). I bet the ISP could get some heavy government subsidies that way
Thats all. Thank you, drive thru
I actually agree with you, but for a few different reasons... First off, there is a DEFINATE reason that Carnivore is getting so much 'publicity', and it sure as hell isn't that we were smart enough to call the governments bluff (I think thats rather naive of the /. community as a whole). Like you said, if you're not doing anything wrong, Carnivore's not gonna hurt you, and if you are sending sensitive stuff, you aughtta be encrypting it anyway... With that in mind, consider what the FBI is actually doing... Carnivore WILL get the green light, for the aformentioned reasons, despite the controversy. Thats exactly what the FBI wants. Ever consider that the FBI wants you to use encryption? They do. Remember, big business lines the gov't pocket here... businesses don't like it when thier ultra-secret stuff gets leaked.. if, because of Carnivore's presence, businesses start requiring outbound mail is encrypted, that slows the leaks. (Remember, when it comes to computer stuff, business usually dictates common practice). Hell, think about it, you don't think the FBI/CIA doesn't know how to break encryption anyway? What about the alleged NSA backdoors in Windows and possibly other OS's?
Why do you think the USA has munition export restrictions on encryption anyway? So the U.S government agencies always have a leg up on em, not because other countries can't use the encryption, but because its less likely those other countries will figure out how to crack it.
Kinda puts the whole "reverse-engineering" and "encryption circumvention" mentioned in the DMCA a little more meaning, eh?
When dealing with the government, what you see is never what you get.
I really find it hard to believe that Windows will cost $1000. I also find it hard to believe that you think that Linux will actually take over the desktop market. Windows will never cost $1000, it just isn't worth that kind of cash. Everyone knows it.
:-)
I don't find it that hard to believe at all. If M$ got broken up, I can see them using that as an excuse to jack up the price. "The OS uses a larger percentage of our workforce and therefore we have to charge more to stay even." I can totally see something like that happening.
I'll agree with you though, that I don't think Linux will actually take over the desktop market. Its just not ready yet. But as window managers like KDE or Gnome become easier to use, and the applications fall into place like they have been (albeit slowly), I see potential. Especially if you consider that you'd be able to get a computer for $1000 cheaper, minus the Windows OS. People are cheap, and don't like to spend more than absolutely necessary. Alot of big businesses (at least here in Minnesota) are incorporating Linux networks in addition to thier existing NT. They are switching over, solely due to the existing NT licensing costs. If the license price goes up more, I can guarantee that these companies will completely embrace Linux (or some other free OS).
If this happens, the trickle down effect will probably make Joe user switch too.
This is purely speculation on my part, granted, but, here anyway, almost every computer store has about twice the space dedicated to Linux and FreeBSD as they do for M$ OS's (and no, its not because the M$ stuff is always sold out
If anything, I think a raise in windows prices will force computer distributers to offer a choice in the preinstalled OS... something I'd REALLY like to see happen. I'd chalk just that up to a hard hit against the Borg of Redmond.
I too would also be entertained to no end if the RIAA (or whomever) started going after individual Napster users (and thier ilk), just for the sole fact that prosecuting millions of people would surely bankrupt the RIAA.
.40 to 1 dollar per CD.
Now, I am a musician myself, and I can tell you right now that there aren't all that many bands that actually give a shit if thier music is traded ala mp3. Guess why.
Because even though CD's cost what, between 12 and 17 dollars, the band or artist only sees a small fraction of that amount, and after paying thier dues to the record label, they make anywhere from
I think it would be quite fair to suggest that the musicians that have spoken out against Napster and such are only doing so because thier record label is either pressuring them to do so, or offering a large chunk of cash for thier endorsement.
I can tell you, as a musician, that I would be absolutely thrilled if my music, even full albums, were distributed via the net. Why? Like I said, a band doesn't make a lot of money on CD sales. They make orders of magnitude more money by doing concerts and selling merchandise (such as T-shirts, hats, whatever), which the record company gets approxamately zero money from. I'd make one hell of a lot more money from the sheer amount of people exposed to music via mp3 than I would just selling CDs.
To make matters even worse, the major record labels are actually destroying the music community. They insist on heavily marketing their prefab artists (the Backstreet Boys and/or Britney Spears come to mind), and focus less on signing smaller bands, unless they are completely sure those bands can be turned into the Next Big Thing(TM)
What the RIAA is attempting to do now is to secure their future by ensuring that their current (very profitable) business practices are protected under federal law.
Of course, some bands may not want thier music to be so easily distributed on the net, and thats fine. So why are those bands allowing thier music to be distributed on a completely insecure format (compact discs)?? Because they have no choice! People are not going to be likely to buy a new and improved SECURE-CD player, which would in theory enable copy protection, because it offers no clear advantage to the consumer. Furthermore, even if a SECURE-CD format was released, its only a matter of time before that copy protection is cracked, much like DVD and DeCSS.
If the record companies would like to survive, they are going to have to change the way they play the game, whether the like it or not. You can either embrace technology, or let it be your downfall, but you cannot stop technology. The sheer number of MP3 users in existance should be more than enough proof for this, and regardless of how many people are arrested and have equipment siezed, people are still going to trade (illegal) digital music. The music industry can either find a way to cash in on this, or spend the rest of eternity prosecuting people for the love of money.
solar radiation have?
;-)
Since it has a way of disrupting the geomagnetic field, I was wondering how this might effect life?
Example: The human body contains substantial amounts of iron (in red blood cells). Could these types of solar emanations do wierd things like polarize that iron?
Mayhaps it would explain why the trolls are more restless than usual today
Ya know, I use Napster, but I haven't downloaded any Metallica, because I personally am not that interested in the band... but lets say I did... because I don't own any of the original albums a certain song I downloaded came from, I'd obviously be infringing on copyright, as I understand it. But I DID pay to DOWNLOAD that music!! I __PAY MONEY__ to my ISP in exchange for them sending my computer data from the internet! It seems to me, that the real way for Metallica to nip this in the bud is to disallow ISP's from transmitting/routing/whatever this type of media (digital audio, that is)... THAT is really the only effective solution. However, this brings up MANY touchy implications... The day my ISP starts filtering the content of the data I recieve is the day I find a new ISP without such limitations. And I will be honest... one of my favorite bands released thier new album recently, and I live in a rural area. I was really excited about the new album, and I know that it will not me available in physical media (CD, tape, etc) for quite some time. So I downloaded the whole damned thing via Napster, and burned it all to CD myself. Do I feel bad for doing that? No. Do I feel that I have done anything morally wrong? Absolutely not. Its hardly my fault that record companies and record stores are unable to have albums in stock immediately upon release. If I had to wait 6 months to buy the album, I probably wouldn't. By then I'd have heard 3 or 4 singles on the radio, and probably gotten sick of them all. I sure as hell wouldn't buy the CD then! But, I got the album the day it was released because of Napster, and I am very happy with the album. It will soon be available in stores here, and I will actually go and buy the legit album. Why? I already have the music, right? Well, the actual album comes with extra stuff (its Cd-Enhanced), and even comes with a 4" vinyl with previously unreleased tracks. Being a hardcore fan, I WANT these little extras, and am willing to essentially pay for a CD I already have to get these "free" extras. This is what the record companies should do!! Provide extra stuff WITH the legit albums. Stuff thats essentially unproducable otherwise.. hell, throw in some stickers, I don't care, just give me a little incentive to buy the legit album instead of just downloading the thing! THIS is what record companies have to do if they wanna stay in the game. Piracy (if you really wanna call it that), is something the record companies ARE NOT going to ever get a hold on unless they provide extra incentive to purchase the real deal. Also, I buy T-shirts, and other merchandise because I know it helps support the band (they are a small band and deserve the support)... Sure, I could make my own T-shirts, but thats not really the point. When I wear a shirt sporting the band's logo, and its a offically endorsed product, what I'm telling the world is that I like the band, I don't mind giving them money and free advertising. That says a hell of a lot. I sure wouldn't be saying that if I spraypainted the logo on a T-shirt myself. Don't get me wrong, piracy is not a cool thing, and can certainly hurt bands. I'm in a band myself, and I put my heart on display in my music. It __IS__ art... (maybe moreso because my band is unsigned), and I would be really pissed off if someone were making MONEY by distributing my music, but I would be FLATTERED if my music was freely distributed. As long as I have a sayso in the matter. I should, I have copyright. I totally see where Lars is coming from there. Its a sensitive thing. If I say its okay to distribute my music, do so with my blessing. If people like my music, I wouldn't mind a little support so I can continue to make music. If people choose to not support financially, and they like my music, they will lose in the end, because it will not be economically feasable for me to continue to produce such music. But, then again, I'm in an unsigned band. To tell the truth, my band DOES NOT make very much money selling our album. Basically just enough to cover the costs of recording the album and putting it on CD. I would imagine some people bootleg our music, and thats fine. As long as we are not losing money, I don't care. We make our real money by performing live. You can't really bootleg concert tickets! And I enjoy performing live anyway, so I really get paid twice. The nice thing about this particular setup is that any money made from our music goes directly to us, all 100%. Maybe some of these bands need to get real and get back to thier roots. Almost every successful (non shrinkwrapped, non commodity, non sellout) band started off about the same way, so far as I know. It can be quite lucrative. If not, your music probably isn't as good as you think. If people like you, they will come to your shows. Sure, you're not going to make millions of dollars that way, and you're not going to get on MTV, but who the hell cares!? That shouldn't be what your music is about anyway. If it is, your music IS NOT art, and you have no business getting pissed off because somebody decided it wasn't really worth paying for. Yes, record companies can greatly help spread your music to more people, but for big labels, that's not what its about. Its all about money... if you think different, listen to the radio for a couple hours, and see how many times you hear the same song played. Ditto for MTV. Some small bands have made it big by basically selling out. I won't buy albums from bands that have lowered themselves to do TV appearances on frickin Donnie and Marie... thats just pathetic! I'm sorry if I've offended anyone, but take it from one who knows what its really like to be strapped for cash... this pity party about quantity and quality is complete bullshit. Lars did a good interview, but he's got his head in the clouds, just like every other sellout band these days. I am disappointed. Makes the rest of us musicians look shitty.