Yep, sad but true. I encourage all South Australian – hell, all Australian/.ers – to let him know your feelings.
As always, keep it polite and intelligent. Show him that we are mature enough to make up our own minds about what we deem appropriate for our own personal gaming pleasure.
You may download and print one copy of this information sheet from our website for your reference...
Heh! Can't even distribute it to your family members...
I can see the 'A' slowly shifting... ARIA becomes RIAA. Give it six months and the malicious law suits will begin...
Since the venues are already paying a licensing fee for public performance, maybe DJs should 'sell' their music (in all its formats) to the venue for the duration of the gig. I know it doesn't get around the 'private use' element of the act, but I'm sure there will be some creative workarounds.
it never mentions the readers gender once. alway 'you' or 'your'. granted the business associate is referred to to as a male, but the reader could easily be female.
Conceded. However, what do you suppose the breakdown of readership of 'Modern Mechanix' would have been? I would be willing to bet it was predominantly male, and it could be assumed that he was writing to this audience.
housewives still exist and many women enjoy that role in life... it is funny how housewives are denigrated but others who put children (teachers for example) are praised for their selflessness. or is it not cool to sacrifice for your own kids? i guess that is selfish.
Apologies if this is the context you understood my last post to be. Indeed, my partner is a 'housewife' in the traditional sense (temporarily at least), and she probably works harder than I do (she doesn't read or post to slashdot while she's at work, for starters). It was merely an observation that, although the author predicts many technological advances, he would appear altogether to ignore societal advances. You said it yourself, "many men like to be 'househusbands'". Who would have predicted that in 1968?
...the article maintains a phallocentric society, where men go to the office to work, and women stay home and coo-- I mean, oversee the cooking. While some of the technological advancements have certainly come to pass (and some pretty close if we look at them analogously), the social attitude of the article is firmly entrenched in the 1960s. Consider:
The housewife simply determines in advance her menus for the week, then slips prepackaged meals into the freezer and lets the automatic food utility do the rest.
... the slightest research would have shown... that the novel Space Odyssey was written as a novelization of the classic movie. The movie itself was based mostly on Clark's short story, The Sentinel. Furrfu!
While you're right about the movie being initially based on the the short story "The Sentinel", Clarke actually wrote the book concurrently with his and Kubrick's work on the screenplay (according to Clarke's introduction in the book). Perhaps that still qualifies as a novelisation of the movie, but in my opinion it sits uniquely in film/book crossovers, since elements of each were affected by decisions (and technical limitations) in the other.
Regardless, it was a fantastic piece of work by two great artists, both of whom will be sorely missed.
First the new deal gives ridiculous profit to SoundExchange (30% of gross).
Especially when satellite radio networks pay 7.5%. And no tenable reason given by SoundExchange as to why it should be different, especially as internet radio revenue tends to be much smaller than traditional commercial radio stations.
the lack of expediency is directly adding to the profit of the RIAA through this process. The artists are clearly an afterthought. The RIAA can't come close to hiding their real motivation: profit for its members at all costs, regardless of artists rights/needs.
What sucks even more is that you have to become a member of SoundExchange to claim the royalties, too. Otherwise, SoundExchange 'holds' them for you, regardless of whether your label is RIAA-affiliated. (How else can they pay for the cocaine to snort off hookers' backs?)
Even though my band is independent, with distribution through an independent UK label, the RIAA (via SoundExchange) still gets my royalties. As an artist (in Australia) who has had work played on internet radio (station based in New York) it sickens me that the US Government accepted the RIAA proposal for this in the first place (i.e. the creation of SoundExchange). SoundExchange should never have been allowed to come into existence.
30%? I will never see a dime from American internet radio.
So yeah, you're right. The artist doesn't figure into the RIAA's reasoning. Especially as they are reasoning on behalf of artists and labels who are not part of the RIAA.
Actually, a joint study by Harvard and University of North Carolina (CNET news story here, pdf link to original study available from the article) suggests that filesharing has almost zero effect on CD sales. Admittedly it is a few of years old now (March 2004) and is by no means exhaustive; however, the conclusions are still relevant and suggest that there are greater influences on music sales than piracy (despite what the RIAA would like us to believe).
You don't have to ask to cover a song. You just have to let the relevant administrative body (APRA in Australia, I believe it falls to ASCAP et al. in America) know about any recording or performance you have done of it, so that the artist will be recompensed for your use of the song.
If a picture is worth a thousand words, I have the Right to repeat those thousand words.
Provided those words are your own and do not infringe on any copyrighted material. Also, you do not have the right to reproduce the original picture without the authorisation of the copyright holder.
If I hear a tune, I have the Right to sing it.
But not to release it publicly without compensation to the creator(s).
If I read a book, I have a Right to repeat any or all of the information in that book.
But not to repeat the information without acknowledgment of the source, or to pass it off as your own work.
The distinction here is that you are entitled to use the work (or the information provided therein), but are not entitled to the work itself. You are still expected to provide some compensation to the artist for the work, be it a painting, song or book (e.g. you can repeat the information in the book, but you still have to buy/borrow/steal the book to begin with). That is the distinction which needs to be made when comparing your definition of 'free speech' to file-sharing.
File sharing is Free Speech.
Which is the same fallacious argument as 'File sharing is Stealing'. Both are incorrect because they attempt to prove by analogy. Essentially,
Proof by analogy = fallacy
Illustration by analogy = enlightenment
which is the basis on which the article made its points. It's not stealing, nor should it be entirely free. The distribution technology evolved faster than the industry was able to, so we're left in an undefined grey area (with an industry which remains reluctant to evolve, unfortunately).
Really, file-sharing is just the next generation of tape-trading, which was never (to my knowledge) prosecuted by the RIAA. Sure, it's faster and allows more freedom in the choices (and conversely, easier to track), but the basis is the same: unauthorised (in the sense that the creator has no prior knowledge) duplication of work.
Call it semantics if you will, but your argument is flawed. (Please note that this does not mean I am against file-sharing, I am merely illustrating the flaws in the argument, which are the same flaws suffered by the RIAA/MPAA arguments.)
Slashdot Mirror
Yep, sad but true. I encourage all South Australian – hell, all Australian /.ers – to let him know your feelings.
As always, keep it polite and intelligent. Show him that we are mature enough to make up our own minds about what we deem appropriate for our own personal gaming pleasure.
You missed one...
Citizen! Have you seen any Hollywood blockbuster films recently?
No, I went to see an independent fi--
TERRORIST!!!!
So you're saying that in 200 years, the descendants of the Guantanamo Bay inmates are going to thrash the Americans at all their sports?
More likely to be Revision3 for "interfering with MediaDefender's ability to provide DOS attacks".
"Grok" isn't jargon. It's a perfectly cromulent word. (Albeit one coined by Heinlein in 'Stranger In A Strange Land'.)
As the saying goes:
If it ain't broke...
... It doesn't have enough features yet.
--
Mechanical Engineers build weapons. Civil Engineers build targets.
From the fact sheet:
You may download and print one copy of this information sheet from our website for your reference...Heh! Can't even distribute it to your family members...
I can see the 'A' slowly shifting... ARIA becomes RIAA. Give it six months and the malicious law suits will begin...
Since the venues are already paying a licensing fee for public performance, maybe DJs should 'sell' their music (in all its formats) to the venue for the duration of the gig. I know it doesn't get around the 'private use' element of the act, but I'm sure there will be some creative workarounds.
If you're not technically savvy, what the hell are you doing downloading a Linux distribution?
Conceded. However, what do you suppose the breakdown of readership of 'Modern Mechanix' would have been? I would be willing to bet it was predominantly male, and it could be assumed that he was writing to this audience.
housewives still exist and many women enjoy that role in lifeApologies if this is the context you understood my last post to be. Indeed, my partner is a 'housewife' in the traditional sense (temporarily at least), and she probably works harder than I do (she doesn't read or post to slashdot while she's at work, for starters). It was merely an observation that, although the author predicts many technological advances, he would appear altogether to ignore societal advances. You said it yourself, "many men like to be 'househusbands'". Who would have predicted that in 1968?
...the article maintains a phallocentric society, where men go to the office to work, and women stay home and coo-- I mean, oversee the cooking. While some of the technological advancements have certainly come to pass (and some pretty close if we look at them analogously), the social attitude of the article is firmly entrenched in the 1960s. Consider:
The housewife simply determines in advance her menus for the week, then slips prepackaged meals into the freezer and lets the automatic food utility do the rest.... the slightest research would have shown ... that the novel Space Odyssey was written as a novelization of the classic movie. The movie itself was based mostly on Clark's short story, The Sentinel. Furrfu!
While you're right about the movie being initially based on the the short story "The Sentinel", Clarke actually wrote the book concurrently with his and Kubrick's work on the screenplay (according to Clarke's introduction in the book). Perhaps that still qualifies as a novelisation of the movie, but in my opinion it sits uniquely in film/book crossovers, since elements of each were affected by decisions (and technical limitations) in the other.
Regardless, it was a fantastic piece of work by two great artists, both of whom will be sorely missed.
First the new deal gives ridiculous profit to SoundExchange (30% of gross).
Especially when satellite radio networks pay 7.5%. And no tenable reason given by SoundExchange as to why it should be different, especially as internet radio revenue tends to be much smaller than traditional commercial radio stations.
the lack of expediency is directly adding to the profit of the RIAA through this process. The artists are clearly an afterthought. The RIAA can't come close to hiding their real motivation: profit for its members at all costs, regardless of artists rights/needs.
What sucks even more is that you have to become a member of SoundExchange to claim the royalties, too. Otherwise, SoundExchange 'holds' them for you, regardless of whether your label is RIAA-affiliated. (How else can they pay for the cocaine to snort off hookers' backs?)
Even though my band is independent, with distribution through an independent UK label, the RIAA (via SoundExchange) still gets my royalties. As an artist (in Australia) who has had work played on internet radio (station based in New York) it sickens me that the US Government accepted the RIAA proposal for this in the first place (i.e. the creation of SoundExchange). SoundExchange should never have been allowed to come into existence.
30%? I will never see a dime from American internet radio.
So yeah, you're right. The artist doesn't figure into the RIAA's reasoning. Especially as they are reasoning on behalf of artists and labels who are not part of the RIAA.
Actually, a joint study by Harvard and University of North Carolina (CNET news story here, pdf link to original study available from the article) suggests that filesharing has almost zero effect on CD sales. Admittedly it is a few of years old now (March 2004) and is by no means exhaustive; however, the conclusions are still relevant and suggest that there are greater influences on music sales than piracy (despite what the RIAA would like us to believe).
[...] software that has already been developed, tested, and deployed by American companies in China.
You mean developed by American companies outsourcing the labour to China (and then deployed in China).
You don't have to ask to cover a song. You just have to let the relevant administrative body (APRA in Australia, I believe it falls to ASCAP et al. in America) know about any recording or performance you have done of it, so that the artist will be recompensed for your use of the song.
Provided those words are your own and do not infringe on any copyrighted material. Also, you do not have the right to reproduce the original picture without the authorisation of the copyright holder.
But not to release it publicly without compensation to the creator(s).
But not to repeat the information without acknowledgment of the source, or to pass it off as your own work.
The distinction here is that you are entitled to use the work (or the information provided therein), but are not entitled to the work itself. You are still expected to provide some compensation to the artist for the work, be it a painting, song or book (e.g. you can repeat the information in the book, but you still have to buy/borrow/steal the book to begin with). That is the distinction which needs to be made when comparing your definition of 'free speech' to file-sharing.
File sharing is Free Speech.
Which is the same fallacious argument as 'File sharing is Stealing'. Both are incorrect because they attempt to prove by analogy. Essentially,
which is the basis on which the article made its points. It's not stealing, nor should it be entirely free. The distribution technology evolved faster than the industry was able to, so we're left in an undefined grey area (with an industry which remains reluctant to evolve, unfortunately).
Really, file-sharing is just the next generation of tape-trading, which was never (to my knowledge) prosecuted by the RIAA. Sure, it's faster and allows more freedom in the choices (and conversely, easier to track), but the basis is the same: unauthorised (in the sense that the creator has no prior knowledge) duplication of work.
Call it semantics if you will, but your argument is flawed. (Please note that this does not mean I am against file-sharing, I am merely illustrating the flaws in the argument, which are the same flaws suffered by the RIAA/MPAA arguments.)