The Moon doesn't have a dark side; and although I haven't listened to any of those albums, I would still prefer to have the choice of buying individual tracks.
For some works, offering them by individual tracks doesn't make sense - concept albums in particular.
It does to those who want individual tracks. Who doesn't it make sense to? You? Granted, I'm sure there are lots of people who would agree, but lots don't.
It would be interesting to see a survey about this posted somewhere that would get a lot of traffic (Slashdot is not a good place for that) to see what the real answer is...
Music, is in the ear of the listener... not in the layout of an album... whether laid out by the artist or the label...
What and how I listen to whatever I chose to listen to is, and should be, up to me.
Precisely. Thank you. That's what I've been having to explain to every single one of the zillions of people who seem to be replying with nothing but "to hell with what you want, someone you don't know has views that matter more than yours do".
They might well lose money. But it's their right to lose those sales and keep the work together if they so choose.
I never said otherwise -- I did however point out that I'm not going to cater to it because I don't like having other people impose their views on me, and I also think that whining that online sales don't do enough for you is kind of something you bring on yourself if you destroy one of the very things that is an advantage of online sales.
Wasn't it just a couple articles ago when everyone here was acknowledging that and holding it up as a great thing about online sales, and as a reason for why people download music off file sharing services, and now all of a sudden that's a violation of "artistic integrity" and yet another example of "to hell with what the customers want"?
Maybe they could also offer individual tracks for only 1 cent less than the price of the album...
If a whole album cost $1 on iTunes instead of $0.99, since all tracks are $0.99, I'd buy it. That falls within my range of "that's a fair price for one or two tracks that I really like and 8 that I don't". A buck each for bits I don't really want does not.
Look around iTunes (can't say much for other stores) and there are indeed album-only tracks. But I have never bought one because I don't see a single track I want as effectively worth the $10 they want for it (since I will never use the crap that's force-bundled with it that I do not want).
there are some albums which are created to listen to them in order (at least if you really want to enjoy it).
You mean, the way you like to hear them. I'm not you, and I have my own tastes. Sure, I have stuff in my collection that was originally placed in a certain order, and I can listen to it in that order if I want, but I enjoy it just as much when I don't. I "really enjoy" whatever the hell I really enjoy. Enjoy whatever you want, but don't think that everyone else wants what you want.
What's wrong with wanting to both maintain artistic integrity and not be exploited by the record companies?
The fact that you signed their self-serving contract? "Artistic integrity" seems to equate to "screw your views, mine are all that matter" when art and its intepretation is something that is in the mind of the viewer. It's snobbery to think that everyone who views or listen to your art is going to share your views, and elitist to whine when you discover that there are actually dissenting viewpoints out there and that those dissenting viewpoints are actually causing, in many cases, the low sales you use to justify your "that wouldn't do enough for me" comments.
CD sales are sliding. The "I don't want to have to buy it all when there's an alternative that can let me have just what I want and no more" is probably a big factor in this.
If you're an artist and you want to be treated fairly, sign with a place that does that. I hear good things about CD Baby...
Can you be sure, in advance, which tracks are "filler" and which aren't?
You can't be absolutely sure without hearing it all, but you can get a good idea from a preview clip if the sound agrees with your tastes, or doesn't. I've expanded my collection that way by listening to previews and then finding I really like the sound of a track, and I've found that my final like or dislike does align pretty well with my initial impression, when I do buy the track or listen to it in a friend's car or whatever.
Fine, but some artists do view an album as more than just a series of tracks.
And again, that's imposing someone else's views on mine and telling me that what I think doesn't matter, when on the contrary, it matters very much to me. When it comes to your imposed views costing me money, your imposed views can figuratively go to hell, because I don't have a ton of money to throw around just to indulge somebody I don't know. Want me to listen to it all even though I don't really want the rest of an album? Fine, don't charge me for it and I will but I won't pay for something I don't want. (this is why many features on cars are "options").
You should try this with a book - after all, who the heck is the author to decide that Chapter 7 comes immediately before Chapter 8?
A book chapter is not a self-contained item like a song is, unless it's part of, say, a single song that spans multiple CD tracks, but those aren't that common.
That doesn't make me any more agreeable to forking out money for stuff I don't like, and "I don't like that" is an individual judgment for everyone. I've had bands or artists recommended to me as good and then discovered that I don't care for them. That's fine; stuff I like is disliked by people I know. That's the way the world works.
They're complaining because they receive a pittance from each sale, while record company executives and shareholders (and Steve Jobs) become rich.
Then why did they sign contracts that specify those puny returns? While I do think the industry needs an overhaul, don't complain if you signed a contract! Lots of people don't read the fine print, don't take the time to read what they're agreeing to, and then act surprised when the other party upholds their end and executes the self-serving clauses they put in. If you don't like the deal, why did you sign your name to it? You weren't forced to. There's alternatives out there -- you should find them. Oh, and the music store doesn't make a huge profit. It holds its own and maybe a little more, according to Apple.
No. As an 'artist', you make the music you want to make. If you're lucky, people want to buy it. If you're not, it's kinda handy that you didn't give up the day job.
Not every artist has the luxury of holding down a day job while spending the time to make music. It can take a lot of time to do that. Not all music is mass-market manufactured. My favorite artists are artists and that's all they do.
Obviously, our views differ. If you like something, great. Buy it all. If I don't, I don't want to be forced into buying crap I don't want when it is no longer necessary to make all-or-nothing choices.
Perhaps. But don't you think that makes the complaint of "we aren't making enough from online sales" kind of silly? Maybe that's true because you're denying people what they want. You have to make people want to buy your music to make a go of it, and while most musicians do what they do because they love it, at some point you have to be mindful of making a living.
most people are going to miss a great deal of the point of the work as laid out by the artist.
And who is anyone to tell me how I should interpret art? Being able to not have to buy filler, or just stuff I don't want in general, is a huge advantage of iTMS and other shops like it. Shovel more stuff on me that I don't want (and force me to pay for it) and I buy nothing. You (the hypothetical artist/label/store) just lost a potential sale that way.
Yes, it was obvious even then. There are plenty of examples of prior art, just google for them.
"Just search Google" is not a valid citation; and, since the TiVo patents have been held to be valid upon a prior examination, it would seem that existing "prior art" was not accepted as valid prior art, so it would seem that no, the invention was not obvious at the time.
They patented being able to review one show while recording another. Wouldn't the VCR have prior art on this?
A VCR can only record the channel being fed into it, and has to position the tape in a particular position to write the data, so no.
The TiVo can read from one sector of the disk to play back a program and then x milliseconds later, write to another sector to write part of the program being fed into the tuner. Physically not possible for a VCR, but quite possible for a computer. (Technically speaking, it's not doing both tasks simultaneously, but computers are so fast at what they do that it's indistinguishable from true multitasking to humans).
This is not defensive patents - like the Wright bros who tried to take a toll from all airplane makers.
The Wright patent was about the wing-warping control system on aircraft. Part of the result of that litigation was that an alternate method (ailerons, elevators) was developed, which is now by far the most common method.
For anyone to compare a current Echostar DVR offering to an antiquated TiVo is just plain silly.
Oh, really? Then why is it that thousands of people who have used both TiVo and other products (like me; I've used TiVo, ReplayTV, and a generic) think that nobody can touch TiVo's usability? I'd say that there is quite a lot of opinion that TiVo really knows how to make something usable, and nobody else has managed anything more than a kludge.
There are also a lot of people out there who switch thinking the competition, being cheaper, must somehow be better... and then switch back because they find out that you really do get what you pay for.
Unfortunately, TiVo is legitimately losing business due to the cheap generic clones of their product, and that's why they filed suit.
To a skilled practitioner of the relevant art, at the time of the invention.
If it was so obvious, as you claim, then the question you replied to stands: why didn't it exist before? Surely, if it was that obvious (and therefore, would be obviously a good moneymaker and obviously something people would pay for) then DVRs would have existed prior to TiVo.
You are falling into the trap of "oh, that's as obvious as the wheel." And yet, if the wheel is so obvious to us now, why didn't ancient civilization X invent it and make all that construction a lot easier?
Therefore, your patent is completely useless, and the only thing suing the manufacturer for patent violation will do is get your patent invalidated when you run out of the money to pay lawyers to defend it.
Excuse me, but you don't have to be rich to legitimately have an idea first. Some inventors become rich off their ideas, sure, but they didn't have a great idea because they were rich.
Show me the part of patent law that says "to be awarded a patent you have to make more then $x a year" or "you must have more than $x net worth".
With a little luck, the original judgment will be dismissed, perhaps even Tivo's obvious patent invalidated.
The idea of a DVR may be obvious now. But was it obvious then? TiVo was the first to market a DVR and they invented the market. The rest are just trying to profit off the idea (and producing inferior product while at it, something which ruins TiVo's reputation).
The only DVR you can really depend on is one you own outright and can make configuration changes to for the programming data source yourself (like a Myth box).
And if (I don't know if this applies here, just conjecturing) the patents apply to that code as well, and it can't be distributed anymore?
If someone has a legitimate patent, and the invention was non-obvious when the patent application was made, then the only source you can depend on is the inventor's, if they choose to be sole distributor.
The point of ethanol is that it is a pure hydrocarbon, so it burns far more cleanly, and that it does not require petroleum to produce, not directly (not counting any used in the farming process).
It contains less chemical energy per unit volume than gasoline does, so the mileage drop is normal. There is nothing wrong with your vehicle.
A woman? On Slashdot? Is the world about to explode Dogma-style now?
You got a problem with that? Next, you're going to say we women can't drive cars, can't fly airplanes, can't hold down a job, have to stay barefoot and pregnant all the time.
Yes, we're perfectly capable of posting on the web as much as you are.
Slashdot Mirror
The Moon doesn't have a dark side; and although I haven't listened to any of those albums, I would still prefer to have the choice of buying individual tracks.
...
For some works, offering them by individual tracks doesn't make sense - concept albums in particular.
It does to those who want individual tracks. Who doesn't it make sense to? You? Granted, I'm sure there are lots of people who would agree, but lots don't.
It would be interesting to see a survey about this posted somewhere that would get a lot of traffic (Slashdot is not a good place for that) to see what the real answer is
Music, is in the ear of the listener... not in the layout of an album... whether laid out by the artist or the label...
What and how I listen to whatever I chose to listen to is, and should be, up to me.
Precisely. Thank you. That's what I've been having to explain to every single one of the zillions of people who seem to be replying with nothing but "to hell with what you want, someone you don't know has views that matter more than yours do".
They might well lose money. But it's their right to lose those sales and keep the work together if they so choose.
I never said otherwise -- I did however point out that I'm not going to cater to it because I don't like having other people impose their views on me, and I also think that whining that online sales don't do enough for you is kind of something you bring on yourself if you destroy one of the very things that is an advantage of online sales.
Wasn't it just a couple articles ago when everyone here was acknowledging that and holding it up as a great thing about online sales, and as a reason for why people download music off file sharing services, and now all of a sudden that's a violation of "artistic integrity" and yet another example of "to hell with what the customers want"?
ahh slashdot.
Maybe they could also offer individual tracks for only 1 cent less than the price of the album...
If a whole album cost $1 on iTunes instead of $0.99, since all tracks are $0.99, I'd buy it. That falls within my range of "that's a fair price for one or two tracks that I really like and 8 that I don't". A buck each for bits I don't really want does not.
Look around iTunes (can't say much for other stores) and there are indeed album-only tracks. But I have never bought one because I don't see a single track I want as effectively worth the $10 they want for it (since I will never use the crap that's force-bundled with it that I do not want).
there are some albums which are created to listen to them in order (at least if you really want to enjoy it).
You mean, the way you like to hear them. I'm not you, and I have my own tastes. Sure, I have stuff in my collection that was originally placed in a certain order, and I can listen to it in that order if I want, but I enjoy it just as much when I don't. I "really enjoy" whatever the hell I really enjoy. Enjoy whatever you want, but don't think that everyone else wants what you want.
What's wrong with wanting to both maintain artistic integrity and not be exploited by the record companies?
The fact that you signed their self-serving contract? "Artistic integrity" seems to equate to "screw your views, mine are all that matter" when art and its intepretation is something that is in the mind of the viewer. It's snobbery to think that everyone who views or listen to your art is going to share your views, and elitist to whine when you discover that there are actually dissenting viewpoints out there and that those dissenting viewpoints are actually causing, in many cases, the low sales you use to justify your "that wouldn't do enough for me" comments.
CD sales are sliding. The "I don't want to have to buy it all when there's an alternative that can let me have just what I want and no more" is probably a big factor in this.
If you're an artist and you want to be treated fairly, sign with a place that does that. I hear good things about CD Baby...
Can you be sure, in advance, which tracks are "filler" and which aren't?
You can't be absolutely sure without hearing it all, but you can get a good idea from a preview clip if the sound agrees with your tastes, or doesn't. I've expanded my collection that way by listening to previews and then finding I really like the sound of a track, and I've found that my final like or dislike does align pretty well with my initial impression, when I do buy the track or listen to it in a friend's car or whatever.
Fine, but some artists do view an album as more than just a series of tracks.
And again, that's imposing someone else's views on mine and telling me that what I think doesn't matter, when on the contrary, it matters very much to me. When it comes to your imposed views costing me money, your imposed views can figuratively go to hell, because I don't have a ton of money to throw around just to indulge somebody I don't know. Want me to listen to it all even though I don't really want the rest of an album? Fine, don't charge me for it and I will but I won't pay for something I don't want. (this is why many features on cars are "options").
You should try this with a book - after all, who the heck is the author to decide that Chapter 7 comes immediately before Chapter 8?
A book chapter is not a self-contained item like a song is, unless it's part of, say, a single song that spans multiple CD tracks, but those aren't that common.
That doesn't make me any more agreeable to forking out money for stuff I don't like, and "I don't like that" is an individual judgment for everyone. I've had bands or artists recommended to me as good and then discovered that I don't care for them. That's fine; stuff I like is disliked by people I know. That's the way the world works.
They're complaining because they receive a pittance from each sale, while record company executives and shareholders (and Steve Jobs) become rich.
Then why did they sign contracts that specify those puny returns? While I do think the industry needs an overhaul, don't complain if you signed a contract! Lots of people don't read the fine print, don't take the time to read what they're agreeing to, and then act surprised when the other party upholds their end and executes the self-serving clauses they put in. If you don't like the deal, why did you sign your name to it? You weren't forced to. There's alternatives out there -- you should find them. Oh, and the music store doesn't make a huge profit. It holds its own and maybe a little more, according to Apple.
No. As an 'artist', you make the music you want to make. If you're lucky, people want to buy it. If you're not, it's kinda handy that you didn't give up the day job.
Not every artist has the luxury of holding down a day job while spending the time to make music. It can take a lot of time to do that. Not all music is mass-market manufactured. My favorite artists are artists and that's all they do.
Obviously, our views differ. If you like something, great. Buy it all. If I don't, I don't want to be forced into buying crap I don't want when it is no longer necessary to make all-or-nothing choices.
Good albums don't contain filler material.
And mediocre albums have great songs on them.
Perhaps. But don't you think that makes the complaint of "we aren't making enough from online sales" kind of silly? Maybe that's true because you're denying people what they want. You have to make people want to buy your music to make a go of it, and while most musicians do what they do because they love it, at some point you have to be mindful of making a living.
most people are going to miss a great deal of the point of the work as laid out by the artist.
And who is anyone to tell me how I should interpret art? Being able to not have to buy filler, or just stuff I don't want in general, is a huge advantage of iTMS and other shops like it. Shovel more stuff on me that I don't want (and force me to pay for it) and I buy nothing. You (the hypothetical artist/label/store) just lost a potential sale that way.
Patentability depends on the obviousness of the invention, not the obviousness of the marketability of the invention.
And since the TiVo patents have been upheld as valid previously, it seems that the invention was indeed unobvious at the time of invention.
I know that this is Slashdot and all but not every patent is junk, and therefore unworthy of existence.
Yes, it was obvious even then. There are plenty of examples of prior art, just google for them.
"Just search Google" is not a valid citation; and, since the TiVo patents have been held to be valid upon a prior examination, it would seem that existing "prior art" was not accepted as valid prior art, so it would seem that no, the invention was not obvious at the time.
They patented being able to review one show while recording another. Wouldn't the VCR have prior art on this?
A VCR can only record the channel being fed into it, and has to position the tape in a particular position to write the data, so no.
The TiVo can read from one sector of the disk to play back a program and then x milliseconds later, write to another sector to write part of the program being fed into the tuner. Physically not possible for a VCR, but quite possible for a computer. (Technically speaking, it's not doing both tasks simultaneously, but computers are so fast at what they do that it's indistinguishable from true multitasking to humans).
This is not defensive patents - like the Wright bros who tried to take a toll from all airplane makers.
The Wright patent was about the wing-warping control system on aircraft. Part of the result of that litigation was that an alternate method (ailerons, elevators) was developed, which is now by far the most common method.
For anyone to compare a current Echostar DVR offering to an antiquated TiVo is just plain silly.
... and then switch back because they find out that you really do get what you pay for.
Oh, really? Then why is it that thousands of people who have used both TiVo and other products (like me; I've used TiVo, ReplayTV, and a generic) think that nobody can touch TiVo's usability? I'd say that there is quite a lot of opinion that TiVo really knows how to make something usable, and nobody else has managed anything more than a kludge.
There are also a lot of people out there who switch thinking the competition, being cheaper, must somehow be better
Unfortunately, TiVo is legitimately losing business due to the cheap generic clones of their product, and that's why they filed suit.
To a skilled practitioner of the relevant art, at the time of the invention.
If it was so obvious, as you claim, then the question you replied to stands: why didn't it exist before? Surely, if it was that obvious (and therefore, would be obviously a good moneymaker and obviously something people would pay for) then DVRs would have existed prior to TiVo.
You are falling into the trap of "oh, that's as obvious as the wheel." And yet, if the wheel is so obvious to us now, why didn't ancient civilization X invent it and make all that construction a lot easier?
Hindsight is 20/20 but foresight is 20/2000.
Therefore, your patent is completely useless, and the only thing suing the manufacturer for patent violation will do is get your patent invalidated when you run out of the money to pay lawyers to defend it.
Excuse me, but you don't have to be rich to legitimately have an idea first. Some inventors become rich off their ideas, sure, but they didn't have a great idea because they were rich.
Show me the part of patent law that says "to be awarded a patent you have to make more then $x a year" or "you must have more than $x net worth".
With a little luck, the original judgment will be dismissed, perhaps even Tivo's obvious patent invalidated.
The idea of a DVR may be obvious now. But was it obvious then? TiVo was the first to market a DVR and they invented the market. The rest are just trying to profit off the idea (and producing inferior product while at it, something which ruins TiVo's reputation).
The only DVR you can really depend on is one you own outright and can make configuration changes to for the programming data source yourself (like a Myth box).
And if (I don't know if this applies here, just conjecturing) the patents apply to that code as well, and it can't be distributed anymore?
If someone has a legitimate patent, and the invention was non-obvious when the patent application was made, then the only source you can depend on is the inventor's, if they choose to be sole distributor.
I'm sure it is (am not a farmer, don't know any, so I don't know for sure) -- but consider that there is also a lot of it used to produce gasoline.
With a choice between clean + dirty and dirty + dirty, I'll take the first option.
Plus, ethanol is a renewable resource. Gasoline is not.
The point of ethanol is that it is a pure hydrocarbon, so it burns far more cleanly, and that it does not require petroleum to produce, not directly (not counting any used in the farming process).
It contains less chemical energy per unit volume than gasoline does, so the mileage drop is normal. There is nothing wrong with your vehicle.
A woman? On Slashdot? Is the world about to explode Dogma-style now?
You got a problem with that? Next, you're going to say we women can't drive cars, can't fly airplanes, can't hold down a job, have to stay barefoot and pregnant all the time.
Yes, we're perfectly capable of posting on the web as much as you are.