Funny, I had a similar first experience. Windows wanted more & more hardware, at a time when everything was pricier than it is now. I couldn't upgrade to a Pentium, and I felt that my 486 just couldn't be doomed so soon, so I tried Linux via Slackware. After a little time with the system I was a convert.
And I have to agree with you re: the current distro bloat. OTOH you do at least get damned near full value for your purchase, an evaluation I simply can't make for Bill's bloat.
In his "In The Beginning Was The Command Line" Neal Stephenson had this to say : "Microsoft refused to go into the hardware business, insisted on making its software run on hardware that anyone could build, and thereby created the market conditions that allowed hardware prices to plummet. In trying to understand the Linux phenomenon, then, we have to look to not a single innovator but to a sort of bizarre Trinity: Linus Torvalds, Richard Stallman, and Bill Gates. Take away any of these three and Linux would not exist."
He's right, y'know, though I'm not sure that should get Bill into the Hacker Hall of Fame.
OTOH if you took out RMS, Denny & Ken, esr, and Linus, then added Bill, that gallery would appear more homogeneous...
Actually I just wanted to say "Thanks!" to the people who provided some heads-up info in response to my screed. Obviously I'm not spending money on anything at iTunes (I don't purchase RIAA-supported music anymore) and was off-base in my estimation of its qualities. Bad call on my part, apologies to all happy iTunes customers (but remember $$ == votes), and screw the RIAA.
Okay, let me get this straight: iTunes is charging what, something like $ 0.90 per tune, so that the numerical equivalent of a 13-song CD is going to cost you approximately $13, i.e., the same you'd pay for it at my local discount CD store or Wal Mart ? And you get to pay that same amount for a product with no liner notes, no art work, no jewel case, and in an inferior audio format ? Now, I realize that you have the ability to download whatever and whenever, but does that really make up for losing those amenities while continuing to assist the expansion of the industry's already enormous profit margins ? Remember, when you buy this stuff you're still supporting the RIAA and the MPAA, both of which are aggresively anti-privacy and anti-choice. In the RIAA's instance they are also very aggresively anti-music, being primarily interested in the continued careers of their singing cash cows (Rod Stewart, Elton John, Celine Dion, Carlos Santana, Britney, Madonna, and the rest of that crapazola crew).
(rant-on) I'm reminded of my chain-smoking friend who insists he's a Democrat, yet with every pack he smokes he's contributing to the success of the Republicans he so despises. Say what you will, but in a corporate plutocracy (i.e., the new USA) you vote with your purchases, not your ballot. Organizations such as the RIAA are also behind the continuing assault on the public domain and the further restriction of your rights of ownership. The only way to stop such people from acquiring more power over your life is for you to *stop giving it to them* ! (rant-off)
Btw, I'm obviously not very savvy re: iTunes so I welcome any and all civil corrections to my assumptions.
Last year I received notice of a Rebirth clone for Linux called Reborn. The programmer sent me a copy (no source, but he was planning to release it), I tested it, it was great sounding and great fun. Within days he received a C&D from Propellerheads claiming copyright infringement of their interface. I thought that was pretty outrageous, since P-heads software had copied the Roland interface. However, the programmer informed me that in fact P-heads *did* pay Roland for the right to use their interface designs on Rebirth. He also pointed out that the people at P-heads were quite civil about the whole thing and even offered him a job. All well & good, except that Linux still doesn't have a Rebirth clone. P-heads apparently have no inclination to release a Linux version of Rebirth. Bummer... Oh, btw: If someone were to create a software emulation of Roland's MKS-70 I'd really be impressed, it's still one of Roland's finest synths.
Sorry, I just can't leave it alone... In his "Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television" Jerry Mander points out that the more heavily advertised a product, the more the advertisers are aware of the fundamental fact that YOU DON'T NEED THIS PRODUCT. Advertising is ALL about creating need. If you believe you actually need Coke or Pepsi then you're already lost, "You are a slave, Neo"... Personally I despise the thing, and my life is enriched immensely simply by not watching it at all. In a nutshell, without televsion I have more time for everything else. Just my two drachmas, but I tell my students that every hour spent in front of that tube is an hour utterly wasted. Well, what's to be expected from a junk and throw-away culture if not junk and throw-away lives ? I choose better for myself. Frankly, I'm a believer in the motto "You can't be free if you watch TV"... Okay, you may now return to your regularly scheduled programming...
This is a serious post, so please take it seriously. What, in truth, does anyone do at your company ? I mean , besides Darl & Co. making pronouncement after pronouncement, what do the rank and file employees really do ? Do you write code ? Do you debug existing code ? Are you selling stuff ? What stuff are you selling ? Do you write documentation ? About what ? Are you working support lines ? Seriously, I'm wondering about this because it seems like a crappy job to work for people like Darl. I mean, it's pretty obvious that he doesn't care about SCO's product line (which to us out here seems to consist only of lawsuits). Do you stand to personally make out well financially from an outcome favorable to SCO ? Do you like working at SCO ? Do you feel that you're doing creative and/or useful work there ? Really, does anyone actually work at SCO ?
You cannot be free when you're watching television. Television is not now nor has it ever been about freedom. Blow it up, stop watching the foul thing, do something useful. Digital or analog, crap is still crap, and a gilded turd is still a turd. Your eyes cannot tell if something stinks. Follow your nose. Read Mander's "Four Arguments For The Elimination Of Television". Grow up, think for yourself. You need absolutely nothing from the MPAA or the RIAA.
Given the Bush administration's avowed policy of thwarting any other nation's attempt at building a comparable military technology (viz the rancor directed at North Korea and Iran, both of which have nuclear capability) I'm wondering how the US military perceives this rather impressive tech advance from China.
Btw, there's probably little hope left for the US reviving the space program as long as Bush is in office. He and his friends are making far too much money from cost overruns in Iraq. When the administration can ask for $90 billion (US) to "rebuild" Iraq, it seems evident to me that there's less than 0 interest in such a program. Science, education, and social programs are things of the past, as far as the Bush administration is concerned.
A few weeks ago I watched "Apollo 13" again. Considering the history presented in that movie I had to wonder if the US would ever know such days again in my own lifetime. Sadly, I doubt it.
This is my opinion. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
92 issues ?? Yowza ! How many of those did Lansdale write (or have anything to do with) ? I recall purchasing only the first three or four, then I couldn't find any further releases. Probably because I live in the middle of nowhere...:(
It's "Lansdale", and I'd say he's even better known for his "Night They Missed The Horror Show", which is truly one of the most outrageous extreme horror stories I've ever read. He's also the author of the short-lived "Jonah Hex" comics, as well as the sometimes-yea, sometimes-nay series of novels starring the unlikely duo of Hap Collins (ass-kicking young white trash) and Leonard Pine (even better ass-kicking aging black fag). I read anything and everything I can find by Joe, so if you ever meet him in Nacogdoches TX please tell him he's got a *monstrous* fan in Findlay OH !
Check out James Berardinelli's review at http://movie-reviews.colossus.net/. My favorite line: "Based on indisputable facts..." ! I can't wait to see this movie, but it'll probably never show in my home town. Time to take another trip...
I bought a Z23 recently because 1) it was cheap and 2) because the labeling very specifically indicated Linux support. It even specifically referred to my distro (at that time RH 7.2). After four frustrating days of trying to make it work I finally just returned it and got my money back. IMO Lexmark misrepresents their Linux support. The excellent LinuxPrinting.org site lists the Z23 as a "Paperweight", and IMO that evaluation is spot-on. Hey Lexmark: I'll never purchase your products again, so you can take your cartridges and stuff 'em yourself !
I recently had an eye-opening experience with Win2k. A computer-illiterate friend of mine managed to acquire the SoBig and Blaster diseases so badly that his Win98 machine was brought to a near standstill. I decided to upgrade it to Win2k for him (BIG mistake). My first try was successful, everything went smooth as silk, and I returned the box to him with confidence that it would be a far more satisfying machine. Alas, I had forgotten how inherently insecure MS OS's really are (I've used nothing but Linux since 1996 or so), and the next day I received a panic'd call, bewailing the machine's even poorer performance (friend had gone on-line and quickly reacquired the worm and the virus). Okay, my bad, I should have known better, so I called in the help of a friend who knows how to secure a Microsoft system. We reinstalled Win2k and then spent (I kid you not) nearly three hours upgrading and hardening the system against intrusion. You probably know the drill: get the patch, apply it, reboot, get the next patch, apply it, reboot, and so on and so on ad nauseam. Maybe you like Win2k, and maybe you're savvy enough to harden it yourself, but you should ask yourself why MS doesn't do so when the system comes out of the box. There are in fact a lot of other good reasons to despise MS, but the basic security issues are truly in first place. Never again will I assist anyone with a MS system on their machine. My advice will be to either stop using a computer or learn how to use Linux. Draconian solution ? Jeez, a near idiot can learn enough about using Linux in the time it takes to harden a system that costs considerably more than any mainstream Linux distro and really delivers so much less.
I wrote my book using vi. All the editing was done via Word, which was enough experience to teach me that: 1) Word sucked bad gas as a writer's tool and 2) Word rocked as an editing environment. My publisher utilized a template (DOT file) that greatly simplified the exchanges between me and my editors, so I have to grudgingly admit that Word has its uses. OTOH I could no way see myself using it to actually write my texts. Vi provides the tools I want as a writer, all from the keyboard, all very fast, all out of my way until I need them. And a little knowledge about regular expressions goes a long way in vi too...
Emacs rocks too, but I learned vi first and better.
That's a logo they used to put on t-shirts they gave away to retailers.
As a professional musician I've decided that I'll purchase their strings exclusively. Bless their heads for making the right decision for the right reasons !
The only CD store in my benighted burb is a long-surviving store owned & managed by one man. He has no particular concern either for music or his employees (he won't allow any government labor law stuff to be posted in the break rooms) but he sure does know how to make a dollar. He's posted the industry's "Who cares about illegal downloading?" screed in the front window of the store, while he cheerfully buys & sells used CDs from which the artists *and* the RIAA see absolutely $0. Amazing. He pays a top price of $4.00 for a must-be-clean disc (usual payout is $2), and no cash actually trades hands: he issues a credit slip for use in the store. Now, this guy makes up to 1/3 of his profits from selling used CDs. Whatever he "pays" for the used discs he makes up for by selling them at three to four times the credit value. The RIAA wants to do something for artists ? Why don't they go after guys like him ? To reiterate: he resells discs and pockets every cent of the money. The artists see *nothing*, nor do the record companies. So somehow it's all right for him to make a profit on selling used CDs, but it's piracy for you to trade them with your friends (yeh, yeh, I know that's a loose statement, it's there for the argument's sake). He also rips out the "Not for resale" notice from the hundreds of promos he receives weekly from the industry, then he sells them in the used section. And the RIAA does nothing about this sort of theft. What hypocrisy. Their claims of being necessary are falling upon deaf ears, while their actions expose them as an organization bent only on making as much money as possible by defining, controlling, and exploiting a popular music culture of their own manufacture.
Mr. Oppenheim remarks: "If art of any form is going to survive and flourish in our culture, we need to support it and protect it."
This is a cynical and ingenuous statement. Perhaps Matt believes that is the goal of his organization, but its aims appear now to have more to do with lining its executives' pockets than with the promotion of the arts. The music industry wants us to believe that without them there would be no more music, no more arts. What crap. People would still write, play, and even record & distribute music. People did plenty of that before there was a music industry. The only difference would be... no music industry ! Which of course means no more fat cats, no more industry control of popular culture, no more middlemen whose main purpose in all of this is to keep their jobs.
And yes, Matt, some of us have considered that whole infrastructure from Sheryl Crow to the clerk at the local CD store and everyone in between. The Internet indeed threatens the existence of that infrastructure, and it is in the way of such things that your industry would rather fight than switch. I find it still ludicrous that iMusic and similar services are being touted so loudly, when the total amount spent on a CD's number of songs still comes to what you'd pay for a CD in the store. Yes, we get to choose the tunes, but we actually get less (no packaging, no Easter eggs, no value added) for the same money. Which means your industry can charge essentially the same amount of money for the product while eliminating the infrastructure you yourself want us to care so much about. Hmm...
Here's a real idea, Matt: Why doesn't your industry get it together to place kiosks in my local CD store, kiosks that are basically high-speed connections to a content delivery service. These stands would let me select or even design the CD cover material, then I could download and burn the content to disc right then & there, I get the jewel case and all. Hey, if I spend enough maybe you guys could throw in a little extra value, kinda like all the bonus material you get from a DVD. You think a store with maybe twenty of those kiosks would do a bumpin' business ?
So there's an idea, Matt. I haven't copyrighted or patented it yet, so I'll let you have it for free. Go ahead, share it with your friends. I'm releasing it on the Internet under the GPL anyway...
I'm still astonished at the number of people who believe that television exists in order to provide programs. Television exists solely for the purpose of providing another advertising medium, for everything from footwear to politicians. The quality of programming is quite secondary to the networks first consideration: advertising dollars. They don't utilize those dollars to create "better TV programs", there's no such thing. The shows exist only to sucker viewers into watching the advertisements, and although you can say, "Oh, I always mute the commercials", the visuals are still effective at capturing attention (often far more so than the programs). It's also worth noting that television advertising works on the same basis as email spam: sure, YOU don't respond to those Nike and Coke ads, but someone sure as hell does, and the take from even a tiny percentage of viewers is significant enough to warrant the continued domination of television by its advertisers. Btw, in his book "Four Arguments For The Elimination Of Television" Jerry Mander notes that the more heavily a product is advertised the less there is an actual need for it. So while you never see an advertisement for whole wheat or organic farming you'll see plenty for soft drinks, antiperspirants, and yes, even automobiles and beer. You might like that stuff but you don't really NEED it. That is known up front in the advertising industry, so they must continue to blare their wares, else in a very short time you will forget about their product and discover that you simply don't need it. As an aside, I was told by a former jingles writer for the J. Walter Thompson Agency that he once conferred with representatives for a major brewing company here in the US. The reps told him they were targeting what they termed the "reparative drinker", i.e., the 30% of American drinkers who consume 60% of their product. These are the people who don't have a babe girlfriend, a fast cool car, or any talent for sports. But the advertisers know that their job is to convince those people that if they just drink their beer then at least they'll FEEL like they got the babe, the car, and the talent. In short, drinking their beer "repaired" those deficincies, and it's the advertiser's work to convince those people to keep drinking, as opposed to actually doing something to improve their real lives. As a last comment, I've lost track of the number of friends who tell me about their attention-deficit out-of-control kids, and then tell me that "All those kids want to do is watch TV". What those kids will really remember is the ads. Makes me wonder what Hitler might have accomplished with television...
Slashdot Mirror
Funny, I had a similar first experience. Windows wanted more & more hardware, at a time when everything was pricier than it is now. I couldn't upgrade to a Pentium, and I felt that my 486 just couldn't be doomed so soon, so I tried Linux via Slackware. After a little time with the system I was a convert.
And I have to agree with you re: the current distro bloat. OTOH you do at least get damned near full value for your purchase, an evaluation I simply can't make for Bill's bloat.
In his "In The Beginning Was The Command Line" Neal Stephenson had this to say : "Microsoft refused to go into the hardware business, insisted on making its software run on hardware that anyone could build, and thereby created the market conditions that allowed hardware prices to plummet. In trying to understand the Linux phenomenon, then, we have to look to not a single innovator but to a sort of bizarre Trinity: Linus Torvalds, Richard Stallman, and Bill Gates. Take away any of these three and Linux would not exist."
He's right, y'know, though I'm not sure that should get Bill into the Hacker Hall of Fame.
OTOH if you took out RMS, Denny & Ken, esr, and Linus, then added Bill, that gallery would appear more homogeneous...
"Magnae clunes mihi placent, nec possum de hac re mentiri." LOL! Did you come up with that yourself ? (I just finished reading "Winnie Ille Pu")...
Actually I just wanted to say "Thanks!" to the people who provided some heads-up info in response to my screed. Obviously I'm not spending money on anything at iTunes (I don't purchase RIAA-supported music anymore) and was off-base in my estimation of its qualities. Bad call on my part, apologies to all happy iTunes customers (but remember $$ == votes), and screw the RIAA.
Okay, let me get this straight: iTunes is charging what, something like $ 0.90 per tune, so that the numerical equivalent of a 13-song CD is going to cost you approximately $13, i.e., the same you'd pay for it at my local discount CD store or Wal Mart ? And you get to pay that same amount for a product with no liner notes, no art work, no jewel case, and in an inferior audio format ? Now, I realize that you have the ability to download whatever and whenever, but does that really make up for losing those amenities while continuing to assist the expansion of the industry's already enormous profit margins ? Remember, when you buy this stuff you're still supporting the RIAA and the MPAA, both of which are aggresively anti-privacy and anti-choice. In the RIAA's instance they are also very aggresively anti-music, being primarily interested in the continued careers of their singing cash cows (Rod Stewart, Elton John, Celine Dion, Carlos Santana, Britney, Madonna, and the rest of that crapazola crew).
(rant-on)
I'm reminded of my chain-smoking friend who insists he's a Democrat, yet with every pack he smokes he's contributing to the success of the Republicans he so despises. Say what you will, but in a corporate plutocracy (i.e., the new USA) you vote with your purchases, not your ballot. Organizations such as the RIAA are also behind the continuing assault on the public domain and the further restriction of your rights of ownership. The only way to stop such people from acquiring more power over your life is for you to *stop giving it to them* !
(rant-off)
Btw, I'm obviously not very savvy re: iTunes so I welcome any and all civil corrections to my assumptions.
Last year I received notice of a Rebirth clone for Linux called Reborn. The programmer sent me a copy (no source, but he was planning to release it), I tested it, it was great sounding and great fun. Within days he received a C&D from Propellerheads claiming copyright infringement of their interface. I thought that was pretty outrageous, since P-heads software had copied the Roland interface. However, the programmer informed me that in fact P-heads *did* pay Roland for the right to use their interface designs on Rebirth. He also pointed out that the people at P-heads were quite civil about the whole thing and even offered him a job. All well & good, except that Linux still doesn't have a Rebirth clone. P-heads apparently have no inclination to release a Linux version of Rebirth. Bummer... Oh, btw: If someone were to create a software emulation of Roland's MKS-70 I'd really be impressed, it's still one of Roland's finest synths.
I prefer: "I'd rather have a free bottle in front of me than a pre-frontal lobotomy"... but that's just me... ;)
have so many children ?
Because his organ had no stops...
(Btw, thanks for the technical info !)
Sorry, I just can't leave it alone... In his "Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television" Jerry Mander points out that the more heavily advertised a product, the more the advertisers are aware of the fundamental fact that YOU DON'T NEED THIS PRODUCT. Advertising is ALL about creating need. If you believe you actually need Coke or Pepsi then you're already lost, "You are a slave, Neo"... Personally I despise the thing, and my life is enriched immensely simply by not watching it at all. In a nutshell, without televsion I have more time for everything else. Just my two drachmas, but I tell my students that every hour spent in front of that tube is an hour utterly wasted. Well, what's to be expected from a junk and throw-away culture if not junk and throw-away lives ? I choose better for myself. Frankly, I'm a believer in the motto "You can't be free if you watch TV"... Okay, you may now return to your regularly scheduled programming...
This is a serious post, so please take it seriously. What, in truth, does anyone do at your company ? I mean , besides Darl & Co. making pronouncement after pronouncement, what do the rank and file employees really do ? Do you write code ? Do you debug existing code ? Are you selling stuff ? What stuff are you selling ? Do you write documentation ? About what ? Are you working support lines ? Seriously, I'm wondering about this because it seems like a crappy job to work for people like Darl. I mean, it's pretty obvious that he doesn't care about SCO's product line (which to us out here seems to consist only of lawsuits). Do you stand to personally make out well financially from an outcome favorable to SCO ? Do you like working at SCO ? Do you feel that you're doing creative and/or useful work there ? Really, does anyone actually work at SCO ?
You cannot be free when you're watching television. Television is not now nor has it ever been about freedom. Blow it up, stop watching the foul thing, do something useful. Digital or analog, crap is still crap, and a gilded turd is still a turd. Your eyes cannot tell if something stinks. Follow your nose. Read Mander's "Four Arguments For The Elimination Of Television". Grow up, think for yourself. You need absolutely nothing from the MPAA or the RIAA.
Given the Bush administration's avowed policy of thwarting any other nation's attempt at building a comparable military technology (viz the rancor directed at North Korea and Iran, both of which have nuclear capability) I'm wondering how the US military perceives this rather impressive tech advance from China.
Btw, there's probably little hope left for the US reviving the space program as long as Bush is in office. He and his friends are making far too much money from cost overruns in Iraq. When the administration can ask for $90 billion (US) to "rebuild" Iraq, it seems evident to me that there's less than 0 interest in such a program. Science, education, and social programs are things of the past, as far as the Bush administration is concerned.
A few weeks ago I watched "Apollo 13" again. Considering the history presented in that movie I had to wonder if the US would ever know such days again in my own lifetime. Sadly, I doubt it.
This is my opinion. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
92 issues ?? Yowza ! How many of those did Lansdale write (or have anything to do with) ? I recall purchasing only the first three or four, then I couldn't find any further releases. Probably because I live in the middle of nowhere... :(
from the song "Pretty Boy Floyd" :
As through this life I travel
I've seen lots of funny men
Some will rob you with a six-gun
And some with a fountain pen...
It's "Lansdale", and I'd say he's even better known for his "Night They Missed The Horror Show", which is truly one of the most outrageous extreme horror stories I've ever read. He's also the author of the short-lived "Jonah Hex" comics, as well as the sometimes-yea, sometimes-nay series of novels starring the unlikely duo of Hap Collins (ass-kicking young white trash) and Leonard Pine (even better ass-kicking aging black fag). I read anything and everything I can find by Joe, so if you ever meet him in Nacogdoches TX please tell him he's got a *monstrous* fan in Findlay OH !
Check out James Berardinelli's review at http://movie-reviews.colossus.net/. My favorite line: "Based on indisputable facts..." ! I can't wait to see this movie, but it'll probably never show in my home town. Time to take another trip...
I bought a Z23 recently because 1) it was cheap and 2) because the labeling very specifically indicated Linux support. It even specifically referred to my distro (at that time RH 7.2). After four frustrating days of trying to make it work I finally just returned it and got my money back. IMO Lexmark misrepresents their Linux support. The excellent LinuxPrinting.org site lists the Z23 as a "Paperweight", and IMO that evaluation is spot-on. Hey Lexmark: I'll never purchase your products again, so you can take your cartridges and stuff 'em yourself !
I recently had an eye-opening experience with Win2k. A computer-illiterate friend of mine managed to acquire the SoBig and Blaster diseases so badly that his Win98 machine was brought to a near standstill. I decided to upgrade it to Win2k for him (BIG mistake). My first try was successful, everything went smooth as silk, and I returned the box to him with confidence that it would be a far more satisfying machine. Alas, I had forgotten how inherently insecure MS OS's really are (I've used nothing but Linux since 1996 or so), and the next day I received a panic'd call, bewailing the machine's even poorer performance (friend had gone on-line and quickly reacquired the worm and the virus). Okay, my bad, I should have known better, so I called in the help of a friend who knows how to secure a Microsoft system. We reinstalled Win2k and then spent (I kid you not) nearly three hours upgrading and hardening the system against intrusion. You probably know the drill: get the patch, apply it, reboot, get the next patch, apply it, reboot, and so on and so on ad nauseam. Maybe you like Win2k, and maybe you're savvy enough to harden it yourself, but you should ask yourself why MS doesn't do so when the system comes out of the box. There are in fact a lot of other good reasons to despise MS, but the basic security issues are truly in first place. Never again will I assist anyone with a MS system on their machine. My advice will be to either stop using a computer or learn how to use Linux. Draconian solution ? Jeez, a near idiot can learn enough about using Linux in the time it takes to harden a system that costs considerably more than any mainstream Linux distro and really delivers so much less.
I wrote my book using vi. All the editing was done via Word, which was enough experience to teach me that: 1) Word sucked bad gas as a writer's tool and 2) Word rocked as an editing environment. My publisher utilized a template (DOT file) that greatly simplified the exchanges between me and my editors, so I have to grudgingly admit that Word has its uses. OTOH I could no way see myself using it to actually write my texts. Vi provides the tools I want as a writer, all from the keyboard, all very fast, all out of my way until I need them. And a little knowledge about regular expressions goes a long way in vi too...
Emacs rocks too, but I learned vi first and better.
Danaeos dona ferentes...
"I fear Greeks bearing gifts", heard in the Trojan crowd admiring the big wooden horse.
Good advice then, good advice now.
That's a logo they used to put on t-shirts they gave away to retailers.
As a professional musician I've decided that I'll purchase their strings exclusively. Bless their heads for making the right decision for the right reasons !
The only CD store in my benighted burb is a long-surviving store owned & managed by one man. He has no particular concern either for music or his employees (he won't allow any government labor law stuff to be posted in the break rooms) but he sure does know how to make a dollar. He's posted the industry's "Who cares about illegal downloading?" screed in the front window of the store, while he cheerfully buys & sells used CDs from which the artists *and* the RIAA see absolutely $0. Amazing. He pays a top price of $4.00 for a must-be-clean disc (usual payout is $2), and no cash actually trades hands: he issues a credit slip for use in the store. Now, this guy makes up to 1/3 of his profits from selling used CDs. Whatever he "pays" for the used discs he makes up for by selling them at three to four times the credit value. The RIAA wants to do something for artists ? Why don't they go after guys like him ? To reiterate: he resells discs and pockets every cent of the money. The artists see *nothing*, nor do the record companies. So somehow it's all right for him to make a profit on selling used CDs, but it's piracy for you to trade them with your friends (yeh, yeh, I know that's a loose statement, it's there for the argument's sake). He also rips out the "Not for resale" notice from the hundreds of promos he receives weekly from the industry, then he sells them in the used section. And the RIAA does nothing about this sort of theft. What hypocrisy. Their claims of being necessary are falling upon deaf ears, while their actions expose them as an organization bent only on making as much money as possible by defining, controlling, and exploiting a popular music culture of their own manufacture.
Mr. Oppenheim remarks: "If art of any form is going to survive and flourish in our culture, we need to support it and protect it."
This is a cynical and ingenuous statement. Perhaps Matt believes that is the goal of his organization, but its aims appear now to have more to do with lining its executives' pockets than with the promotion of the arts. The music industry wants us to believe that without them there would be no more music, no more arts. What crap. People would still write, play, and even record & distribute music. People did plenty of that before there was a music industry. The only difference would be... no music industry ! Which of course means no more fat cats, no more industry control of popular culture, no more middlemen whose main purpose in all of this is to keep their jobs.
And yes, Matt, some of us have considered that whole infrastructure from Sheryl Crow to the clerk at the local CD store and everyone in between. The Internet indeed threatens the existence of that infrastructure, and it is in the way of such things that your industry would rather fight than switch. I find it still ludicrous that iMusic and similar services are being touted so loudly, when the total amount spent on a CD's number of songs still comes to what you'd pay for a CD in the store. Yes, we get to choose the tunes, but we actually get less (no packaging, no Easter eggs, no value added) for the same money. Which means your industry can charge essentially the same amount of money for the product while eliminating the infrastructure you yourself want us to care so much about. Hmm...
Here's a real idea, Matt: Why doesn't your industry get it together to place kiosks in my local CD store, kiosks that are basically high-speed connections to a content delivery service. These stands would let me select or even design the CD cover material, then I could download and burn the content to disc right then & there, I get the jewel case and all. Hey, if I spend enough maybe you guys could throw in a little extra value, kinda like all the bonus material you get from a DVD. You think a store with maybe twenty of those kiosks would do a bumpin' business ?
So there's an idea, Matt. I haven't copyrighted or patented it yet, so I'll let you have it for free. Go ahead, share it with your friends. I'm releasing it on the Internet under the GPL anyway...
I'm still astonished at the number of people who believe that television exists in order to provide programs. Television exists solely for the purpose of providing another advertising medium, for everything from footwear to politicians. The quality of programming is quite secondary to the networks first consideration: advertising dollars. They don't utilize those dollars to create "better TV programs", there's no such thing. The shows exist only to sucker viewers into watching the advertisements, and although you can say, "Oh, I always mute the commercials", the visuals are still effective at capturing attention (often far more so than the programs). It's also worth noting that television advertising works on the same basis as email spam: sure, YOU don't respond to those Nike and Coke ads, but someone sure as hell does, and the take from even a tiny percentage of viewers is significant enough to warrant the continued domination of television by its advertisers. Btw, in his book "Four Arguments For The Elimination Of Television" Jerry Mander notes that the more heavily a product is advertised the less there is an actual need for it. So while you never see an advertisement for whole wheat or organic farming you'll see plenty for soft drinks, antiperspirants, and yes, even automobiles and beer. You might like that stuff but you don't really NEED it. That is known up front in the advertising industry, so they must continue to blare their wares, else in a very short time you will forget about their product and discover that you simply don't need it.
As an aside, I was told by a former jingles writer for the J. Walter Thompson Agency that he once conferred with representatives for a major brewing company here in the US. The reps told him they were targeting what they termed the "reparative drinker", i.e., the 30% of American drinkers who consume 60% of their product. These are the people who don't have a babe girlfriend, a fast cool car, or any talent for sports. But the advertisers know that their job is to convince those people that if they just drink their beer then at least they'll FEEL like they got the babe, the car, and the talent. In short, drinking their beer "repaired" those deficincies, and it's the advertiser's work to convince those people to keep drinking, as opposed to actually doing something to improve their real lives.
As a last comment, I've lost track of the number of friends who tell me about their attention-deficit out-of-control kids, and then tell me that "All those kids want to do is watch TV". What those kids will really remember is the ads. Makes me wonder what Hitler might have accomplished with television...
It's by the Velvet Underground, it's called "The Gift".