but firewalls usually come with IP Masquerading tools.
I'm glad other people have had more luck with their ISP's. I honestly couldn't understand WHY the lady running the class would DISCOURAGE firewall use -- the only thing I could think of was that they were actually trying to discourage IP Masquerading so people wouldn't be connecting more than their two-machine limit to the cable modem service.
especially since many hi-speed companies ACTIVELY DISCOURAGE YOU from setting up your own firewall to begin with. When I got my roadrunner cable modem, I had to go to a class where the lady who was running it actually said that a firewall "wasn't necessary" and tried real hard to convince us not to set one up... but that, I think, had more to do with the fact that a firewall allows you to connect as many machines as you want on the same IP address...
While the notion that "it's your responsibility to get yourself cleaned up" sounds good, it's an irresponsible one for an ISP to take when they've actively encouraged the stupidity in the first place.
A song that comes out squarely AGAINST mass bloodshed? Yep, that U2 is one of the most pro-terrorist bands I've ever heard. We need to ban 'em, but QUICK.
they stopped being fun when they went public. It's very sad to see the number of early, early supporters they've completely alienated with their mercenary ways. The musicians who support them -- MP3.com could do pretty much anything at this point and they'd still support them, which is a shame. The musicians who don't support MP3.com any longer... this isn't going to bring them back.
Professor X and Magneto weren't the best parts
on
Slashdot Meets X-Men
·
· Score: 1
Not that they were bad! They were really, really good. But the best part of the movie was without a doubt the guy who played Wolverine. You have to have read the comic books in order to understand, but after seeing him play Wolverine I can't picture ANYONE ELSE doing it.
In my opinion, he's done for Wolverine what Sean Connery did for James Bond: other people might play the character in the future, and even do it well, but they'll always be compared with the first, and usually lose.
I thought the movie was great. I thought it was as faithful to the comic as a live-action Hollywood film will ever get -- if you expected more I suspect you have little clue as to exactly how Hollywood works. And when the movie is available for purchase, I'll buy it (hopefully the director's cut, since my understanding is there's an extra hour of movie that got CUT in the final version). And when the sequel comes out, I'll be going to see that too (apprently the whole cast has signed on to a sequel, if rumors turn out to be facts).
They placed a 10 second at the front of every mp3 loaded to their site and paid the artist 5 cents a download. It was the only mp3 site that legit paid money to the artists. They're being sued by their ISP, who wants the patent.
You get used to the ads, to the point of ignoring them. A 10 second ad isn't really too much to bear as long as it's encoded correctly.. the real problem comes when the ad is encoded at a different bitrate than the song, and they're stuck together (it happened a few times, the mp3 player usually crashes, or else simply plays the 10 second ad and won't play the actual song.)
Big labels still sell CDs because the CDs aren't so much considered "music" as they are "something that a big-name band is selling" -- like a t-shirt that you can play on your stereo.
Small bands, however, don't have the hype behind them for their music to be considered anything other than music.
Whether you called them minstrels or jongueleurs or whatnot, there have always been people who have supported themselves by playing music. +----------------------------------------------- -------
Here's the thing: I do make my music available in the mp3 format! I WANT you to listen to my music first, to decide for yourself! If you don't like my music, for God's sake don't buy my CD, you'll only get really pissed off.
On the other hand, if it DOES reach that level of quality you're looking for, then please buy the CD...
The problem is the people who say "this is great music, and I don't even have to pay for it!"
Though in truth they're ripping off the artists LESS than the big labels. However, it seems that as the OMD's get more and more money, they start ripping off their artists more and more.
HOWEVER, they serve a useful purpose at the moment, and if any of them started trying to actively promote their sites and the artists on their sites they could be genuine sources of income for the people who use them...
Once upon a time AMP3.com actually WAS a genuine source of income, but they're currently embroiled in a legal battle with their ISP...
And your best point is that no one is entitled to make a living doing anything.
You're right... no one is. I am not entitled to be a full-time musician who can support myself, and in fact I may never, ever, ever get that chance. That's part of the risk of doing what I do, and part of the risk of doing what you do as well.
My concern is that a lot of people think that when they're using Napster they're helping strike out against the bad guys, and they're not. They're striking out against the little guys -- some of whom are lousy and some of whom are very good at what they do.
A part of the article that I wish hadn't been cut (but it made sense to cut, because of the length) was a part where I said "the cat is out of the bag, the genie is out of the bottle, and no one is going to be able to put them back in their respective bag and bottle." Napster is here to stay, and I don't see as how there's any way to stop the damage that's being done. The music industry, as a whole lot of people have pointed out, is changing forever. I just wanted to make a point that a lot of people are ignoring -- there is a lot of friendly fire in this little turf war...
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying every musician should be a rock star. And I'm not saying that every musician should even be able to "make it" out there. But why is there an ideological problem with a musician being able to support themselves?
Making music does take skill, and time, and effort. Like every other profession out there, it requires that you practice and improve in order for your skills to be worth the time of other people.
How is it somehow ideologically WRONG for a musician to be able to try and making a living off their work, but it's ok for a teacher, or a programmer, or an automobile manufacturer to DEMAND that they be compensated for their time?
And how is it that it's ok not to pay for music but it's not ok to steal a novel or a painting? Writers, musicians and painters are all artists... some are just more "respectable" than others.
Q: What is the difference between a musician and an actor?
A: The actor gets paid.
Sure, I know that a lot of people "do music" just because they want to become filthy stinking rich, but why do you assume anyone who would like to make a living from their work automatically has that attitude?
The problem I see is NOT with MP3s, or artists giving away music for free. I don't have a problem with that... In fact, I do that on various sites.
The problem I have, and that other artists have, is the growing assumption that music must, absolutely be free and that artists have no right to expect to make money from the music they create. The idea that people will own the MP3 and buy the CD to get a better quality version, or whatever, that doesn't bother me. The idea that someone will download an MP3 and not buy the CD because they don't like the music, that doesn't bother me either. But the idea -- that seems to be growing -- that paying for music is somehow wrong and that all an artist should expect is to get paid from live performances, well, that does bother me more than a bit, especially since the market for live performances is going down the tubes, and has been longer than Napster's been around.
It is the prevalence of this attitude among Napster's supporters -- an attitude that Napster has been encouraging on the sly, I might add -- that is yet another nail in the coffin for indie musicians. And I'm not talking about the ones who want to be rock stars, I'm talking about the people who want nothing more than to make a living from the work they do...
is that if you fill them out and load them up to a site like MP3.com or Listensmart.com, a lot of those sites just strip them out. ID tags are an "unsupported" feature on a lot of those sites (at least, they were at one time, I'm not sure if that's been fixed yet) so most artists generally don't bother with them at all. +----------------------------------------------- -------
Internet companies are realizing that ad banners don't work, so they're trying to collect information that will collect as much information as they can about people for targeted advertising. Consumer privacy be damned. +----------------------------------------------- -------
will be bad... it's not like making music is the kind of thing that you can do well on a wednesday night.
I'm getting started in music, trying to build a home studio, and right now I don't have the time to make music the right way... consequently my recordings are not at the level that I would like them. I'd sure like to spend the time it would take to get 'em right, but I have a day job that requires my attention.
I don't particularly expect to ever graduate from part-time status, but I know other artists who really should, and I'd like to see them get the chance. +----------------------------------------------- -------
Hey, even if artists are only getting a few cents per CD sold, that's a few cents more than they'd be getting than if the song were pirated.
In fact, artists care more -- and it's because they make so little per CD sold. Every cent counts, every purchase counts. The Labels still make billions, the artists -- if they are very lucky, will make tens or hundreds of thousands. +----------------------------------------------- -------
If you're a small band, a successful tour might be that you break even. Or that you make just enough money to eat.
While huge bands can get 10,000 t-shirts sold a night, small bands have small audiences, and those audiences don't necessarily have enough money to pay for the club entrance fee and and $10 to $18 t-shirt. Not necessarily. And if you're a small band, people just might not care enough about you yet to buy your t-shirt.
I remember when Dave Matthews was just a bar band in Charlottesville -- we got him to play a few shows in our college in Fredericksburg, VA... No one came to see them! Well, about 18 or 20 of us did. The thing is, people had better things to do with their time because he wasn't a "name". (He does the best cover of "All along the watchtower" I've ever heard, btw). And he was a relatively successful musician at that time -- he had a steady gig in Charlottesville playing at a bar called Tracks (Trax? Can't remember), I mean, it was a steady, paying gig, and he was pretty popular in Charlottesville. But elsewhere?
My point is, if people haven't heard about you, they often just don't care about you.
As to Napster, I think it's kind of neat. I can see how the artists are concerned, though. Any artist who is currently successful has to work his or her ass off... even the ones you don't like and don't think have any talent. Artists are so used to being screwed over by labels and management and other artists that they find it difficult to imagine there being any other way. At the same time, I hope you'll understand if they're not to keen on things getting worse... and one scenario they see is that their entire careers will depend on whether or not people buy stuff at their live shows.
It's already like that, you say? Well, in a way almost, but not quite.
Honestly. You can rationalize it by saying "they're only getting less than 10% anyway," but the other alternitive is that they get NOTHING. +----------------------------------------------- -------
Because in those days before copyright, it was still understood that music was a profession... and live music was pretty much the only way you could earn your keep.
There were no recording devices, so if you wanted to hear music you had to pay for some guy to come over and play it for you.
Those were good days for the touring musician.
Those days, however, are pretty much over. Clubs by and large prefer DJ's to musicians, it's harder and harder for musicians to get well-paying gigs unless they're really well known or unless they're cover bands. These days there is a lot of music out there that is pretty useless to see live, anyway -- dance music is for dance, electronica is a very studio-driven genre and it's hard to cart a studio around with you wherever you go.
For those musicians who still have the ability to go out there and tour and get people to pay to see them play live, then free distribution isn't so much a problem -- because people will still come to their shows. For musicians who DON'T tour or CAN'T tour -- musicians who make music that doesn't translate well live, musicians who use expensive equipment that doesn't travel well, etc., there's no real way to make a profit from touring. And they get screwed.
The days before copyright were also the days before mass market distribution of recorded music. The days of mass market distribution of recorded music changed the landscape of music, both for good and bad, and anyone who wants to make a living making music has to try and find a way to work within it to a certain extent.
Certainly it's a good idea to try and change the way it works. I can tell you without a doubt that it's NECESSARY to do so. Still, when an amp breaks and needs to be fixed, when you need to get the equipment necessary to press your own CDs b/c the labels aren't interested in you, when you need to buy new guitar strings fer Pete's sake, that takes money. There are physical costs to making free music, things that cost more than just time.
So how do you solve this problem? You've made the point that once upon a time people DID make a living without copyright, but once it arrived the business changed -- so how do you expect us to even attempt to make a living? If you have a real answer, I really want to hear it.
Slashdot Mirror
I use Road Runner too. Though I understand it's run differently in different locations.
Although, when all is said and done, if this Nimda thing can be spread through email, a firewall wouldn't really do much good anyway.
but firewalls usually come with IP Masquerading tools.
I'm glad other people have had more luck with their ISP's. I honestly couldn't understand WHY the lady running the class would DISCOURAGE firewall use -- the only thing I could think of was that they were actually trying to discourage IP Masquerading so people wouldn't be connecting more than their two-machine limit to the cable modem service.
especially since many hi-speed companies ACTIVELY DISCOURAGE YOU from setting up your own firewall to begin with. When I got my roadrunner cable modem, I had to go to a class where the lady who was running it actually said that a firewall "wasn't necessary" and tried real hard to convince us not to set one up... but that, I think, had more to do with the fact that a firewall allows you to connect as many machines as you want on the same IP address...
While the notion that "it's your responsibility to get yourself cleaned up" sounds good, it's an irresponsible one for an ISP to take when they've actively encouraged the stupidity in the first place.
A song that comes out squarely AGAINST mass bloodshed? Yep, that U2 is one of the most pro-terrorist bands I've ever heard. We need to ban 'em, but QUICK.
Sheesh.
they stopped being fun when they went public. It's very sad to see the number of early, early supporters they've completely alienated with their mercenary ways. The musicians who support them -- MP3.com could do pretty much anything at this point and they'd still support them, which is a shame. The musicians who don't support MP3.com any longer... this isn't going to bring them back.
In my opinion, he's done for Wolverine what Sean Connery did for James Bond: other people might play the character in the future, and even do it well, but they'll always be compared with the first, and usually lose.
I thought the movie was great. I thought it was as faithful to the comic as a live-action Hollywood film will ever get -- if you expected more I suspect you have little clue as to exactly how Hollywood works. And when the movie is available for purchase, I'll buy it (hopefully the director's cut, since my understanding is there's an extra hour of movie that got CUT in the final version). And when the sequel comes out, I'll be going to see that too (apprently the whole cast has signed on to a sequel, if rumors turn out to be facts).
+----------------------------------------------
They placed a 10 second at the front of every mp3 loaded to their site and paid the artist 5 cents a download. It was the only mp3 site that legit paid money to the artists. They're being sued by their ISP, who wants the patent.
- -------
You get used to the ads, to the point of ignoring them. A 10 second ad isn't really too much to bear as long as it's encoded correctly.. the real problem comes when the ad is encoded at a different bitrate than the song, and they're stuck together (it happened a few times, the mp3 player usually crashes, or else simply plays the 10 second ad and won't play the actual song.)
+----------------------------------------------
My point was:
- -------
Big labels still sell CDs because the CDs aren't so much considered "music" as they are "something that a big-name band is selling" -- like a t-shirt that you can play on your stereo.
Small bands, however, don't have the hype behind them for their music to be considered anything other than music.
+----------------------------------------------
Whether you called them minstrels or jongueleurs or whatnot, there have always been people who have supported themselves by playing music.- -------
+----------------------------------------------
Never having been involved in the industry, I'll defer to your experience. Apparently actors get screwed about as much as musicians do...
- -------
+----------------------------------------------
Here's the thing: I do make my music available in the mp3 format! I WANT you to listen to my music first, to decide for yourself! If you don't like my music, for God's sake don't buy my CD, you'll only get really pissed off.
- -------
On the other hand, if it DOES reach that level of quality you're looking for, then please buy the CD...
The problem is the people who say "this is great music, and I don't even have to pay for it!"
+----------------------------------------------
Though in truth they're ripping off the artists LESS than the big labels. However, it seems that as the OMD's get more and more money, they start ripping off their artists more and more.
- -------
HOWEVER, they serve a useful purpose at the moment, and if any of them started trying to actively promote their sites and the artists on their sites they could be genuine sources of income for the people who use them...
Once upon a time AMP3.com actually WAS a genuine source of income, but they're currently embroiled in a legal battle with their ISP...
+----------------------------------------------
And I know it's a hard business to get into -- but I also know that when you're acting, you're getting paid.
- -------
+----------------------------------------------
And your best point is that no one is entitled to make a living doing anything.
- -------
You're right... no one is. I am not entitled to be a full-time musician who can support myself, and in fact I may never, ever, ever get that chance. That's part of the risk of doing what I do, and part of the risk of doing what you do as well.
My concern is that a lot of people think that when they're using Napster they're helping strike out against the bad guys, and they're not. They're striking out against the little guys -- some of whom are lousy and some of whom are very good at what they do.
A part of the article that I wish hadn't been cut (but it made sense to cut, because of the length) was a part where I said "the cat is out of the bag, the genie is out of the bottle, and no one is going to be able to put them back in their respective bag and bottle." Napster is here to stay, and I don't see as how there's any way to stop the damage that's being done. The music industry, as a whole lot of people have pointed out, is changing forever. I just wanted to make a point that a lot of people are ignoring -- there is a lot of friendly fire in this little turf war...
+----------------------------------------------
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying every musician should be a rock star. And I'm not saying that every musician should even be able to "make it" out there. But why is there an ideological problem with a musician being able to support themselves?
- -------
Making music does take skill, and time, and effort. Like every other profession out there, it requires that you practice and improve in order for your skills to be worth the time of other people.
How is it somehow ideologically WRONG for a musician to be able to try and making a living off their work, but it's ok for a teacher, or a programmer, or an automobile manufacturer to DEMAND that they be compensated for their time?
And how is it that it's ok not to pay for music but it's not ok to steal a novel or a painting? Writers, musicians and painters are all artists... some are just more "respectable" than others.
Q: What is the difference between a musician and an actor?
A: The actor gets paid.
Sure, I know that a lot of people "do music" just because they want to become filthy stinking rich, but why do you assume anyone who would like to make a living from their work automatically has that attitude?
+----------------------------------------------
The problem I see is NOT with MP3s, or artists giving away music for free. I don't have a problem with that... In fact, I do that on various sites.
The problem I have, and that other artists have, is the growing assumption that music must, absolutely be free and that artists have no right to expect to make money from the music they create. The idea that people will own the MP3 and buy the CD to get a better quality version, or whatever, that doesn't bother me. The idea that someone will download an MP3 and not buy the CD because they don't like the music, that doesn't bother me either. But the idea -- that seems to be growing -- that paying for music is somehow wrong and that all an artist should expect is to get paid from live performances, well, that does bother me more than a bit, especially since the market for live performances is going down the tubes, and has been longer than Napster's been around.
It is the prevalence of this attitude among Napster's supporters -- an attitude that Napster has been encouraging on the sly, I might add -- that is yet another nail in the coffin for indie musicians. And I'm not talking about the ones who want to be rock stars, I'm talking about the people who want nothing more than to make a living from the work they do...
+----------------------------------------------
is that if you fill them out and load them up to a site like MP3.com or Listensmart.com, a lot of those sites just strip them out. ID tags are an "unsupported" feature on a lot of those sites (at least, they were at one time, I'm not sure if that's been fixed yet) so most artists generally don't bother with them at all.- -------
+----------------------------------------------
Internet companies are realizing that ad banners don't work, so they're trying to collect information that will collect as much information as they can about people for targeted advertising. Consumer privacy be damned.- -------
+----------------------------------------------
What does this do that hooking your stereo up to the sound card of a networked PC doesn't?- -------
+----------------------------------------------
...since you quoted the Bible to defend her philosophy. :)
- -------
+----------------------------------------------
I'm getting started in music, trying to build a home studio, and right now I don't have the time to make music the right way... consequently my recordings are not at the level that I would like them. I'd sure like to spend the time it would take to get 'em right, but I have a day job that requires my attention.
I don't particularly expect to ever graduate from part-time status, but I know other artists who really should, and I'd like to see them get the chance.- -------
+----------------------------------------------
In fact, artists care more -- and it's because they make so little per CD sold. Every cent counts, every purchase counts. The Labels still make billions, the artists -- if they are very lucky, will make tens or hundreds of thousands.- -------
+----------------------------------------------
While huge bands can get 10,000 t-shirts sold a night, small bands have small audiences, and those audiences don't necessarily have enough money to pay for the club entrance fee and and $10 to $18 t-shirt. Not necessarily. And if you're a small band, people just might not care enough about you yet to buy your t-shirt.
I remember when Dave Matthews was just a bar band in Charlottesville -- we got him to play a few shows in our college in Fredericksburg, VA... No one came to see them! Well, about 18 or 20 of us did. The thing is, people had better things to do with their time because he wasn't a "name". (He does the best cover of "All along the watchtower" I've ever heard, btw). And he was a relatively successful musician at that time -- he had a steady gig in Charlottesville playing at a bar called Tracks (Trax? Can't remember), I mean, it was a steady, paying gig, and he was pretty popular in Charlottesville. But elsewhere?
My point is, if people haven't heard about you, they often just don't care about you.
As to Napster, I think it's kind of neat. I can see how the artists are concerned, though. Any artist who is currently successful has to work his or her ass off... even the ones you don't like and don't think have any talent. Artists are so used to being screwed over by labels and management and other artists that they find it difficult to imagine there being any other way. At the same time, I hope you'll understand if they're not to keen on things getting worse... and one scenario they see is that their entire careers will depend on whether or not people buy stuff at their live shows.
It's already like that, you say? Well, in a way almost, but not quite.
+----------------------------------------------
Honestly. You can rationalize it by saying "they're only getting less than 10% anyway," but the other alternitive is that they get NOTHING.- -------
+----------------------------------------------
There were no recording devices, so if you wanted to hear music you had to pay for some guy to come over and play it for you.
Those were good days for the touring musician.
Those days, however, are pretty much over. Clubs by and large prefer DJ's to musicians, it's harder and harder for musicians to get well-paying gigs unless they're really well known or unless they're cover bands. These days there is a lot of music out there that is pretty useless to see live, anyway -- dance music is for dance, electronica is a very studio-driven genre and it's hard to cart a studio around with you wherever you go.
For those musicians who still have the ability to go out there and tour and get people to pay to see them play live, then free distribution isn't so much a problem -- because people will still come to their shows. For musicians who DON'T tour or CAN'T tour -- musicians who make music that doesn't translate well live, musicians who use expensive equipment that doesn't travel well, etc., there's no real way to make a profit from touring. And they get screwed.
The days before copyright were also the days before mass market distribution of recorded music. The days of mass market distribution of recorded music changed the landscape of music, both for good and bad, and anyone who wants to make a living making music has to try and find a way to work within it to a certain extent.
Certainly it's a good idea to try and change the way it works. I can tell you without a doubt that it's NECESSARY to do so. Still, when an amp breaks and needs to be fixed, when you need to get the equipment necessary to press your own CDs b/c the labels aren't interested in you, when you need to buy new guitar strings fer Pete's sake, that takes money. There are physical costs to making free music, things that cost more than just time.
So how do you solve this problem? You've made the point that once upon a time people DID make a living without copyright, but once it arrived the business changed -- so how do you expect us to even attempt to make a living? If you have a real answer, I really want to hear it.
+----------------------------------------------