Fair enough, but if I were to take some music that I had a license to play, and notified the owner that I was modifying the contract, and then decided, without notifying/asking the owner that I was going to give someone else the license to play this music, and when confronted by the court on the issue, I told them that the owner can opt-out at any time, I'd be laughed out of the courtroom.
If this is legally ok for the corporations AND me then "Fool me once... etc.", but if we're talking double standard then yes I'm getting screwed.
All I would have asked for is a notification and an opt-in policy.
As for the FAQ: Read the mp3.com section carefully...
"At this time, only artists who have songs currently included in truSONIC playlists that are performed in businesses that use the truSONIC Business Music Service can log in to truSONIC's Artist Admin Area."
combined with the next section... "The fact that your music is not being actively performed in businesses at this time does not mean your music will not be selected in the future."
Shoot, I would have settled for an opt-in policy WITHOUT the notification.
The 'A' grew and morphed extensively since the time that I 'signed' it. (many emails informing me, yet no recourse for declining the service once they had a copy of my songs.)
Oh wait! I should have aimed my retained legal department at them, and used my massive financial assets to bring the bastards to their knees.
I don't have a large stake in this (i.e. day job and only a handful of songs), but the artists who do this for a living have indeed been screwed.
I'm a little irked that... 1) I never was notified that I had to opt-out 2) I've vitually lost the copyright on my songs through some fancy corporate wheelin' and dealin'.
The thing that I'm most worried about, though, is that someday I may be sued for having an 'unauthorized' copy (the masters) of my own music.:)
Actually, I put my music on mp3.com so that others could enjoy it (not to make money, not to advertise). I guess if there's even the slightest chance that another person will hear my works, it coincides with the original intent. Incidently, I have a day job, but have a great deal of sympathy for those who do this for a living.
Someone says that you stole something from them, only you didn't steal anything. Do you want this decided by a third party (concerned with upholding justice), or by the side with the biggest resources (muscle, lawyers, army)?
Look at your sample size. Here in Texas (or at least San Antonio) it seems that when I mention that I'm not decided about war, Iraq, Korea, etc. I get labeled as a extreme left wing wacko. Of course, it could simply be the demographics of the people we know. I don't know, but I've always liked the line from Men In Black... (something to the effect of) A person is a smart reasonable being, but people are stupid irrational creatures, and you know it.
But to turn that into an Internet connection, one end has to be plugged to an Internet backbone. There are many ways to do this. Put one end of the circuit at your business. Put one end at your school. Put one end in the machine room at a local ISP.
This reminds me of a skit...
How to make a million dollars and not pay taxes.
First, get a million dollars...
I agree, but I hope that they accept your entry as valid, now that you've pulled out. If they were truely interested in seeing a solution then what you've done is excellent... a dose of reality. However, I fear that this is a pet project, and because their 'experts' have told them that it will work, not even a valid R&D group can hold back the tide of cash-powered market-driven ignorance.
In some cases, yes, we need better parents. In other cases, it doesn't matter how skilled the parents are, the kids are going to do what they do. In yet more cases, the kids maybe influenced by their prefered media. The danger is blanket views/opinions/legislation. (The later being the most dangerous). None of these ever solve the problem, and we're lucky if they don't create more problems.
Would those boys have done this had there never been a doom/quake/violent movies/Barney/etc? Maybe, but there was something, in their perspective, that made them think that the world sucked enough to end other people's lives while taking their own.
Bush (et al) is adding to the problem when he says that it was violent media that caused this, but then again, so are you by stating that it is the parents and not violent media.
Quit trying to find a scapegoat, and pay attention to the individuals, not the statistics or the campaign rhetoric.
But as long as there are millions of teenage girls that dream of prince valiants (or teenage boys that scream that "no one understands me"), there will always be a recording company to build a construct(s) that will fit the bill... be it the Backstreet Boys or another Metallica.
I don't care what the RIAA does to protect 'their' artists (I don't listen to them), but it sure is amusing watching them try.
AP - New York - In a response to many outside consultation firms that have said, "If I can play it, I can rip it...", major recording companies have said that they will stop delivering content.
"We have finally got the message, says Mr. Suit, of Ynos Music Inc, "That's why we've quit delivering anything on our cd's. Some customers have started to complain, but we've given them $50 gift certificates towards any of our new 'No Content' line of merchandise." Fans can now go to their favorite music store and purchace these new cd's for the same price as the old 'content-full' cd's.
When we asked people to comment, the most popular response was a dumb look on their face followed by extreme confusion.
Emanuel Goldstein of 2600 fame was not available for comment (actually he said "WTF." but we didn't know what that meant.)
Chalk this up as another success for the record companies.
I can't quite figure out what you mean. The only thing I can guess is that you didn't pick up on the intended sarcasm. If this is not the case, then I sure can't figure out what advertisments or mp3's have to due with a 16 year old cracker.
This isn't Frankel's only escapade since becoming an AOL employee. In March, he and some Nullsoft colleagues wrote and posted Gnutella, a program similar to Napster that allows free trading of copyright music files over the Internet.
They say next that they'll distribute this AIM program via WuFTP and Netscape, two programs that also allow free trading of copyright music files over the Internet. Those pirating bastards!
Slashdot Mirror
This reminds me of the BBS days of the early to mid 90's. A step backward, really. And what of internet cafe's and such?
Now, I'm really bummed.
Fair enough, but if I were to take some music that I had a license to play, and notified the owner that I was modifying the contract, and then decided, without notifying/asking the owner that I was going to give someone else the license to play this music, and when confronted by the court on the issue, I told them that the owner can opt-out at any time, I'd be laughed out of the courtroom.
If this is legally ok for the corporations AND me then "Fool me once... etc.", but if we're talking double standard then yes I'm getting screwed.
All I would have asked for is a notification and an opt-in policy.
As for the FAQ:
Read the mp3.com section carefully...
"At this time, only artists who have songs currently included in truSONIC playlists that are performed in businesses that use the truSONIC Business Music Service can log in to truSONIC's Artist Admin Area."
combined with the next section...
"The fact that your music is not being actively performed in businesses at this time does not mean your music will not be selected in the future."
Shoot, I would have settled for an opt-in policy WITHOUT the notification.
The 'A' grew and morphed extensively since the time that I 'signed' it. (many emails informing me, yet no recourse for declining the service once they had a copy of my songs.)
Oh wait! I should have aimed my retained legal department at them, and used my massive financial assets to bring the bastards to their knees.
I don't have a large stake in this (i.e. day job and only a handful of songs), but the artists who do this for a living have indeed been screwed.
I'm a little irked that...
:)
1) I never was notified that I had to opt-out
2) I've vitually lost the copyright on my songs through some fancy corporate wheelin' and dealin'.
The thing that I'm most worried about, though, is that someday I may be sued for having an 'unauthorized' copy (the masters) of my own music.
Actually, I put my music on mp3.com so that others could enjoy it (not to make money, not to advertise). I guess if there's even the slightest chance that another person will hear my works, it coincides with the original intent. Incidently, I have a day job, but have a great deal of sympathy for those who do this for a living.
Excellent! Now we can hook it up to the US's nuclear missle launch mechanism, and we'll all be safe!
Do you want to play a game?
Linking dangerously, huh?
Slashdot links to webpage in question...
We read the article, now we're all terrorists!
Wow, judging from the amount of venom in that last comment, it must really suck to be you.
You have my pity (wanted or not).
::close up of Hugo Weaving::
"You must cast this ape, this... one ape of doom, from the Empire State Building."
I can't wait!
Someone says that you stole something from them, only you didn't steal anything. Do you want this decided by a third party (concerned with upholding justice), or by the side with the biggest resources (muscle, lawyers, army)?
Look at your sample size. Here in Texas (or at least San Antonio) it seems that when I mention that I'm not decided about war, Iraq, Korea, etc. I get labeled as a extreme left wing wacko. Of course, it could simply be the demographics of the people we know. I don't know, but I've always liked the line from Men In Black... (something to the effect of)
A person is a smart reasonable being, but people are stupid irrational creatures, and you know it.
I agree with your take on the probability of the info's usefulness, but I had to laugh when I saw your sig.
Very Offtopic...
1963 - Assasination of President Kennedy
We get signal.
What happen?
Somebody set us up the slashdot.
IT'S YOU!
CmdrTaco: How are you, gentlemen?
All your shuttle are belong to us... (etc)
Did they even consider the impact on modems, or those actually interested in fidelity (truth) or do AtoD's become federally controlled devices?
This reminds me of a skit...
How to make a million dollars and not pay taxes.
First, get a million dollars...
LESBI
This poses a marketing problem.
At least it's not LEZBO
Circumventing the PDF format by discussing it's weaknesses.
Say hi to Skylarov for me.
Perhaps this is your calling...
Start the ground work (or join the pango project, etc.)
You might be suprised how far a little help/sweat goes...
Yeehaw
In some cases, yes, we need better parents. In other cases, it doesn't matter how skilled the parents are, the kids are going to do what they do. In yet more cases, the kids maybe influenced by their prefered media. The danger is blanket views/opinions/legislation. (The later being the most dangerous). None of these ever solve the problem, and we're lucky if they don't create more problems.
Would those boys have done this had there never been a doom/quake/violent movies/Barney/etc? Maybe, but there was something, in their perspective, that made them think that the world sucked enough to end other people's lives while taking their own.
Bush (et al) is adding to the problem when he says that it was violent media that caused this, but then again, so are you by stating that it is the parents and not violent media.
Quit trying to find a scapegoat, and pay attention to the individuals, not the statistics or the campaign rhetoric.
But as long as there are millions of teenage girls that dream of prince valiants (or teenage boys that scream that "no one understands me"), there will always be a recording company to build a construct(s) that will fit the bill... be it the Backstreet Boys or another Metallica.
I don't care what the RIAA does to protect 'their' artists (I don't listen to them), but it sure is amusing watching them try.
[/ramble mode]
"We have finally got the message, says Mr. Suit, of Ynos Music Inc, "That's why we've quit delivering anything on our cd's. Some customers have started to complain, but we've given them $50 gift certificates towards any of our new 'No Content' line of merchandise." Fans can now go to their favorite music store and purchace these new cd's for the same price as the old 'content-full' cd's.
When we asked people to comment, the most popular response was a dumb look on their face followed by extreme confusion.
Emanuel Goldstein of 2600 fame was not available for comment (actually he said "WTF." but we didn't know what that meant.)
Chalk this up as another success for the record companies.
They say next that they'll distribute this AIM program via WuFTP and Netscape, two programs that also allow free trading of copyright music files over the Internet. Those pirating bastards!
I'm just trying to protect the artists!
The Other Nate