Never start a fight you can't win. That means two things - if you aren't stronger than your opponent, regroup, build support, and give yourself a fighting chance. Also - if you're still not stronger than your opponent, change the rules so you have the advantage. The British army outnumbered the Americans in the American Revolution, but the American's still won because they used unorthodox tactics.
That's not quite how corporations pay for their articles.
Oh sure, that's who I'm talking about. People paid to manipulate wikipedia in the interest of a corporation./sarcasm
I'm talking about the average wikinerd, who spends his or her spare time compiling huge lists, writing articles on even the most obscure relics from pop culture, and editing every little misspelling and fuck-you they see. The ones with user pages littered with barnstars and embarrassing userboxes detailing their interest in siberian huskies and stamp collecting. Your meat and potatoes wikipedian. They don't do it for money. They do it for the love of wikipedia. They are fucking hardcore!
Wikipedia has grown to be the biggest encyclopedia in the world without paying anybody. I don't see why they should start now. We all contribute to Wikipedia and expect nothing in return. That's how we pay for the articles - with our kindness.
We all agree the news is biased. Some say it has a left wing bias, others a right wing bias, and we all experience a little of both. Yet the stereotype of activist/journalist who willingly manipulates the facts to get their point across is untrue for most journalist's I've observed (save the obvious Bill O'Reileys of the world).
Recognize that a journalist's job is tough. It's up to them to get the facts, and nobody is willing to talk. People naturally distrust reporters, and their first instinct is to keep quiet. They don't want to be bothered by journalists. It's a hassle.
But in the end, the journalist has to get the facts. So they get quotes from anybody willing to speak to them. And usually, the only people willing to speak to journalists are those with an ideology to spread. Someone with an interest in how the news gets reported.They volunteer to be interviewed.
That's where most bias comes from: Not the reporters, but their sources. So naturally, if a bunch of non profits "generously contribute the news they've gathered" you can bet half of those groups are doing it to manipulate the news in their favor.
Look, twitter is a great way for businesses to communicate directly with their customers, learn about their needs and tastes, and project a caring public image. But twitter needs to have value to non-businesses as well, to attract those customers in the first place. Otherwise, Twitter will become a ghost town with companies advertising to nobody. Right now, twitter is doing a fine job attracting regular people to its service, but we must understand why they are signing up with twitter, and how they use their accounts before we can say twitter is a success.
In otherwords, twitter has value to people with businesses, but that isn't the same has having value to anyone who wants to communicate.
Combine this technology with the techniques used in the DIY Arduino Blimp Drone project discussed here before, add some offensive capabilities, and create our own surveillance droids to you know, keep the neighbor's kids off our lawn.
Don't kid yourself. Mainstream music did not suddenly become poor when piracy started. Music variety declined well before napster. The difference is, people had no alternatives before piracy. They settled for the bland stuff they heard on the radio. Now, piracy opens ears. People can listen to music that they could never find in record shops, and they are demanding more.
If you can't sell ice to eskimos, maybe you'd better stop selling ice. We all forget that before the phonograph, musicians made a living off live performances. Even current bands with albums make more money with their tours anyway. Isn't it possible to make a living on concerts alone, and give away recorded music to promote your live shows? Today's music scene breeds lazy artists, too passive to playout. Chumps who would rather churn out a few good albums and live off their success until their 90.
The indie scene is doing fine, as am I, but I know several great indie bands that won't or can't take that next step thanks to piracy.
What is the next step? Getting on a major label? Becoming a house hold name? Being a "rock star"? That idea needs to die, and it needs to die quick. As recording becomes less and less profitable, the industry won't be able to support that kind of thing for long. The indie bands you speak of should be happy that they can do what they love and make a decent living, and give up any dreams of becoming rock icons in the age of the famous-to-15-people youtube celebrity.
I'm also a touring musician, and I'm sick of this type of behavior coming from my peers. Whenever you have a hard time making money, you blame the customers. Bullshit. It's your job to attract the customers. It's not their job to hand over their money every time you play a note. You gotta figure out a way to get them to pay, and if downloads are making CDs unprofitable, change your fucking business model! It's called being a businessperson.
They run the show because we pay them.
If we stop paying them, they die. We can have our way if we boycott media companies we don't like. I myself have never given a cent to those Disney crooks.
Inherit Shmerit. You can still be rich AND stupid with no inheritance needed. Just luck. Sure, you need to be smart to be a doctor or lawyer. But any idiot can be CEO if they kiss the right asses, have the right connections. And if they do a horrible job of running the company: bailout. Need proof that idiots make the most money? Think about everyone above you at your job - your bosses, managers, ect. Now think: Are they really smarter than you? The stereotype of the Pointy Haired boss exists for a reason.
Economically, they shouldn't be making new cars when they still haven't sold the ones they got. But this is different. Gm HAS to make these cars to stay on Obama's goodside.
Problem is, most "Indie Music" is really on a major label. Take Sub-Pop. Every band on Sub Pop has been called Indie at some point, and most think Sub Pop is an independent label. On the contrary. 49% of the label is owned by Warner Brothers. Sub Pop does not directly fund the RIAA, but every Sub Pop album you buy supports Warner Brothers, which does.
One can use RIAA Radar to cleanse their music collection, but it's not perfect, since it does not detect this sort of indirect RIAA support. Realistically, if one want's to boycott the RIAA, they might as well boycott the idea of record labels themselves. In an age where bands can make their own album with consumer recording equipment, and make it sound just as good or better than professional releases, then distribute that music with the most powerful communication medium known to humanity, why do we still have these record label middlemen?
Slashdot Mirror
Oops. You may be right on that one. I think I need to take a history class again :-(
That too.
Elephant scared of teeny tiny mouse.
Never start a fight you can't win. That means two things - if you aren't stronger than your opponent, regroup, build support, and give yourself a fighting chance. Also - if you're still not stronger than your opponent, change the rules so you have the advantage. The British army outnumbered the Americans in the American Revolution, but the American's still won because they used unorthodox tactics.
That's not quite how corporations pay for their articles.
Oh sure, that's who I'm talking about. People paid to manipulate wikipedia in the interest of a corporation. /sarcasm
I'm talking about the average wikinerd, who spends his or her spare time compiling huge lists, writing articles on even the most obscure relics from pop culture, and editing every little misspelling and fuck-you they see. The ones with user pages littered with barnstars and embarrassing userboxes detailing their interest in siberian huskies and stamp collecting. Your meat and potatoes wikipedian. They don't do it for money. They do it for the love of wikipedia. They are fucking hardcore!
For the last time, YES.
Wikipedia has grown to be the biggest encyclopedia in the world without paying anybody. I don't see why they should start now. We all contribute to Wikipedia and expect nothing in return. That's how we pay for the articles - with our kindness.
We all agree the news is biased. Some say it has a left wing bias, others a right wing bias, and we all experience a little of both. Yet the stereotype of activist/journalist who willingly manipulates the facts to get their point across is untrue for most journalist's I've observed (save the obvious Bill O'Reileys of the world).
Recognize that a journalist's job is tough. It's up to them to get the facts, and nobody is willing to talk. People naturally distrust reporters, and their first instinct is to keep quiet. They don't want to be bothered by journalists. It's a hassle.
But in the end, the journalist has to get the facts. So they get quotes from anybody willing to speak to them. And usually, the only people willing to speak to journalists are those with an ideology to spread. Someone with an interest in how the news gets reported.They volunteer to be interviewed.
That's where most bias comes from: Not the reporters, but their sources. So naturally, if a bunch of non profits "generously contribute the news they've gathered" you can bet half of those groups are doing it to manipulate the news in their favor.
Thank you for assuming what I like.
Look, twitter is a great way for businesses to communicate directly with their customers, learn about their needs and tastes, and project a caring public image. But twitter needs to have value to non-businesses as well, to attract those customers in the first place. Otherwise, Twitter will become a ghost town with companies advertising to nobody. Right now, twitter is doing a fine job attracting regular people to its service, but we must understand why they are signing up with twitter, and how they use their accounts before we can say twitter is a success.
In otherwords, twitter has value to people with businesses, but that isn't the same has having value to anyone who wants to communicate.
Business value != communication value.
Combine this technology with the techniques used in the DIY Arduino Blimp Drone project discussed here before, add some offensive capabilities, and create our own surveillance droids to you know, keep the neighbor's kids off our lawn.
I agree. Its a stupid channel and we shouldn't be forced to pay. That's why I don't get cable anymore.
Don't kid yourself. Mainstream music did not suddenly become poor when piracy started. Music variety declined well before napster. The difference is, people had no alternatives before piracy. They settled for the bland stuff they heard on the radio. Now, piracy opens ears. People can listen to music that they could never find in record shops, and they are demanding more.
If you can't sell ice to eskimos, maybe you'd better stop selling ice. We all forget that before the phonograph, musicians made a living off live performances. Even current bands with albums make more money with their tours anyway. Isn't it possible to make a living on concerts alone, and give away recorded music to promote your live shows? Today's music scene breeds lazy artists, too passive to playout. Chumps who would rather churn out a few good albums and live off their success until their 90.
The indie scene is doing fine, as am I, but I know several great indie bands that won't or can't take that next step thanks to piracy.
What is the next step? Getting on a major label? Becoming a house hold name? Being a "rock star"? That idea needs to die, and it needs to die quick. As recording becomes less and less profitable, the industry won't be able to support that kind of thing for long. The indie bands you speak of should be happy that they can do what they love and make a decent living, and give up any dreams of becoming rock icons in the age of the famous-to-15-people youtube celebrity.
I'm also a touring musician, and I'm sick of this type of behavior coming from my peers. Whenever you have a hard time making money, you blame the customers. Bullshit. It's your job to attract the customers. It's not their job to hand over their money every time you play a note. You gotta figure out a way to get them to pay, and if downloads are making CDs unprofitable, change your fucking business model! It's called being a businessperson.
And why can't Hanna Montana have more death and cursing in it, like the sopranos?
They run the show because we pay them. If we stop paying them, they die. We can have our way if we boycott media companies we don't like. I myself have never given a cent to those Disney crooks.
Lack of quality music hurting music industry more than downloads.
The teenager survived the strike, the chances of which are just 1 in a million - but with a nasty three-inch long scar on his hand.
Holy Shit, it's Harry Potter!
So I assume you know the secret to being rich then?
Inherit Shmerit. You can still be rich AND stupid with no inheritance needed. Just luck. Sure, you need to be smart to be a doctor or lawyer. But any idiot can be CEO if they kiss the right asses, have the right connections. And if they do a horrible job of running the company: bailout. Need proof that idiots make the most money? Think about everyone above you at your job - your bosses, managers, ect. Now think: Are they really smarter than you? The stereotype of the Pointy Haired boss exists for a reason.
Too late. Google "Church of Emacs".
A criminal gang that scams people out of their money with recorded music? Looks like the RIAA is inspiring copycat crimes.
Yeah right. "Pepsi Presents: Flavorium" Will never fit on the periodic table.
Economically, they shouldn't be making new cars when they still haven't sold the ones they got. But this is different. Gm HAS to make these cars to stay on Obama's goodside.
Problem is, most "Indie Music" is really on a major label. Take Sub-Pop. Every band on Sub Pop has been called Indie at some point, and most think Sub Pop is an independent label. On the contrary. 49% of the label is owned by Warner Brothers. Sub Pop does not directly fund the RIAA, but every Sub Pop album you buy supports Warner Brothers, which does.
One can use RIAA Radar to cleanse their music collection, but it's not perfect, since it does not detect this sort of indirect RIAA support. Realistically, if one want's to boycott the RIAA, they might as well boycott the idea of record labels themselves. In an age where bands can make their own album with consumer recording equipment, and make it sound just as good or better than professional releases, then distribute that music with the most powerful communication medium known to humanity, why do we still have these record label middlemen?