in its day his music was just mass-produced commercial crap
Well, you are right in that his music was commercial. Mozart didn't have the luxury to be an independent artist, so he had to somewhat tone down his artisticity so people would actually buy it/come listen to it. The way he was still able to put artisticity into his music, which was very subtle so as not to offend his listeners like someone as Beethoven did, is what makes him stand out from the 'crowd' (of which we still know who? That's right, apart from guys like Mozart, Gluck and Hummel, composers from that day and age are mostly forgotten nowadays).
By the way, Bach received criticism in his day for expressing his artisticity like he did (which fortunately didn't stop him from writing what he wrote). Also, a lot of his works could easily be called commercial as well. After all, these composers all wrote because they had to make a living, not solely because they had the desire to express themselves artistically. But because Bachs polyphony is so advanced, his music absolutely doesn't sound like it's overly commercial. At the time of Mozart, musical language had already shifted to something much more 'easy listening'-like, which I guess is the reason for you to call it 'commercial crap'.
In this case, a penalty wouldn't be the point, but creating goodwill and copyright education would. So that in the future, said teenager wouldn't think of downloading music but go to an iTunes/whatever online store instead.
Which to me sounds like a pretty damn good idea. How about convincing everyone that buying really IS the right thing to do, instead of downloading? And that when you download anyway, they WILL find out, so you're not exactly performing an anonymous act? Right now, the record companies build outright hatred, and many people might, upon hearing about yet another unjust lawsuit, just think: "so what can I do that would hurt those record companies the most?" I know I do (but rest assured, I won't put things into practice).
I guess it's easier to drive down a road after someone else has paved it.
Exactly that. Excellent improvisors like Richard Grayson and Keith Jarrett are perfectly able to improvise in any music style - it's creating something new yet interesting that's difficult.
What happens when we have the ability to generate as much music of a particular style as we want?
Pretty much the same as when you ask a good improvisor to improvise as much music of a particular style as you want. It's the invention of an entirely new style that is a) probably way too much to ask of a computer program and b) very very hard to come up with nowadays.
For example, look up Richard Grayson on Youtube, who does exactly this (example for those too lazy to navigate: Star Wars theme in a Baroque style).
IMO, it's pretty cool to watch and listen to, but just doesn't fully compare to the works of the real composers.
Do a quick Google on "Spore pirated", just for fun. Page after page of links to articles about how Spore's DRM did affect pirating. Now if that hasn't reached EA...
Spoiler: it has, EA has in fact announced they'll use less obtrusive DRM in the future. Plus, they released this tool to reduce DRM obtrusiveness from certain games, including Spore.
Might it be possible that no one has bothered to actually take such a case to court? That's a serious question, I don't really know much about such cases. I can imagine not taking it to court, though; after all, it probably is one individual against someone or something with much larger influence, and it's not like there's much to be gained in suing...
Great! Since the days of Quake, level editors have become quite a bit more complicated, and though SketchUp! seemed like a great way to quickly make some maps, things like concave/convex planes etc. quickly made me abandon my own attempts at making L4D levels. Now with this guide I might make a good start.
Are you freaking kidding me? In France, you can't even wear a small catholic cross around your neck to a public school, unless it's well hidden under your shirt.
I'll go out on a limb saying that this isn't necessarily a symptom of the lack of freedom of speech. In the Netherlands (where I'm from), politicians are debating whether to ban certain symbols of muslim value, because of practical considerations but, alas, also because certain people experience discomfort seeing other people display these symbols. Would a ban be instated, I'd find it only fair if other such symbols would be banned as well. After all, why only go after muslims? (I'm not exactly in favor of banning religious symbols for other than practical reasons, mind you)
And in both France and Germany, books like "Mein Kampf" and so-called nazi paraphernalia are banned (not that this does any good mind you, it only makes the extreme right feel more victimized and it drove that kind of market for that stuff underground).
As it is in the Netherlands (for "Mein Kampf" at least). A little nuance though: I'm not sure about Germany or France, but in NL it's forbidden to replicate the book. Government hasn't got anything to do with what I own, so owning the book isn't forbidden.
In fact, even the ban on replication is being discussed because of exactly the issue regarding freedom of speech you address.
Also, considering WWII, I don't find it strange that extreme measurements are still in place. That's not to say it isn't about time they're dismissed, though.
Great advice, that seems like a marvelous remedy for all those artists I'd want to buy records from but have released their music under a label that funds the RIAA.
And in those countries you don't have 'citizens', you have 'subjects'.
There are lots of reasons to need to keep and bear arms other than the need to have a check on Governmental power. Hunting, self-defense, recreation, the collection of rare or valuable firearms, etc, etc.
Your comment was modded up, though you completely miss my point. I wasn't talking oppressive countries here. For example, where I live arms are allowed but the right to them is not constitutionally empowered. You'll need a permit for them, and weapons are only available at special shops (as opposed to several countries I've been to where guns and other weapons are on display in the larger tobacco stores). This results in the general public not owning firearms. People that hunt do, as do people that collect guns. And that was exactly what I said, right? Restricted access to lethal arms.
And frankly, I'm quite content with that. Especially when people like you point out that weapons can be used for self defense. Man, that would be just the thing we need! Untrained people trying to shoot 'invaders' off their lawn! I can see how that worked on a ranch somewhere in the Wild West, but we live in a crowded, somewhat civilized 20th-century world now.
Plus, when do you think you'd be using your gun for self defence? If defending yourself would require bullets, you can count on your adversary wielding something way more dangerous than you own, not to mention his/hers ability to use it. I really don't think you'll be wanting to wave a gun in the face of danger, unless you're a cop or well trained.
However, it's not the restrictions they propose that matter. You might not care about them, and neither do I. What I do care about however is the trend of taking idiotic measures to prevent... Well, what actually? Bad stuff from happening? I know cars cause bad stuff to happen to people wandering at the wrong time in the wrong place, and yet cars aren't prohibited, nor is there some kind of 3-strikes-law in place. Yet, on the internet we have the file sharing thing, oh and we also have child porn. So let's cut people off internet and ban a load of websites from our country, and then some things will stop.
However, the trend will be set, and corporations will find their way to the ones writing laws. And of course someone will think of a way in which more money can be made. One might be curious as to what to expect, but it won't be pretty, I'm sure.
The idea that these people are somehow in the wrong for trying to exercise control over their own works is a bad mind virus, and I'm afraid that the tenor of stories like this are indicative of a fatal infection.
When I was young and we copied our friends' games on floppies (bad, bad me), we knew that this was illegal. However, we also knew that we'd never experience punishment, mostly due to the small scale at which our file copying took place. Bad mindset? Sure thing. I've grown up and buy my games now. Same thing for music.
Most people will agree that going after people illegally sharing their music for example isn't a bad thing. What IS bad is the draconian solutions being proposed. The fine rate in the US is way out of line. In France, you had the 3 strikes law (struck down for the moment). You have all kinds of guilty until proven otherwise nonsense. THAT is bad.
What's downright unacceptable is the way in which governments are apparently influenced by the large corporations. That's not called democracy but plutocracy. I personally find that indicative of a far more fatal infection.
If you aren't terrified of the average citizen than what argument can you come up with for disarming him?
Plenty, as any country in which the possession of arms is more sternly regulated can attest to. No need to be scared shitless of your citizens to deny them free access to lethal arms.
If the shit ever hit the fan to the point that an actual rebellion was underway it's a reasonably safe assumption that a large portion of the armed forces would side with the citizenry and not the government trying to oppress them.
I wouldn't be so sure of that. Soldiers are instructed to obey commands, and not so much to question them. By the time a sensible number of them will start questioning their superiors, damage will already have been done. Or a schism between army and citizens will have been created. Just look at all those countries whose armies do suppress the people.
Even more important: things just won't work that way. People won't start crowding the streets and the military won't be fighting them, as is the case in Iran, for example. Protests will be silenced long before that. This isn't an age in which armed conflicts will be fought out in a chivalrous manner.
...As opposed to people who would have died during Saddam's rule? Yes, the intelligence Bush got was faulty about the WMDs in Iraq, but you have to remember this is a dictator who not only invaded other countries but launched chemical warfare on his own people.
So let's try to get rid of this evil dictator by means of war, what a splendid idea! I see an awful lot of opportunities where Bush could have started a trend to police evil nations worldwide. Well, maybe another American president will...
The invasion of Afghanistan really should have happened sooner and with a more powerful attack. But after the 9/11 attacks, you couldn't exactly ignore a huge terrorist group that very successfully attacked the USA.
Terrorists aren't really locatable in one region or another. That's one of the reasons terrorism keeps reoccuring: it's just such a good strategy. Throwing large numbers of soldiers at it won't really work. I don't quite understand why the USA keeps trying to solve this kind of problem with military action only.
In the Netherlands, copying a book or anything else in public libraries also is more expensive, which serves as yet another arrangement for allowing the copying of copyrighted works. Also, a similar mechanism was proposed for taxing other storage media, like hard drives and MP3 players.
Yet, the Dutch copyright watchdog finds this not being illegal of downloading for personal use a loophole in copyright law. Someone proposing some kind of law against it is only a matter of time.
Except they're free... And who would pay good money for a beta anyway, sounds like stupidity to me.
No, free beta apps that do their jobs well enough are for people like you and me, people that think it's cool to have their agendas online.
Business users use Outlook and/or Exchange. However, these 'casual users' of free beta apps DO provide valuable input - and they probably won't be abandoning their free beta apps as well, since those might not be bug-free yet, but ARE still in development - and, well, free.
So that's where Google is: they have their broad user base, providing them with the necessary info to improve their apps, and a considerable 'fan base' as a nice side effect. The next step would obviously be to get out of the beta stage, so the Google apps will be seen as mature enough to compete with the Serious Business level's applications!
Really, I think Google is employing a cool PR strategy here.
A risky assumption. New Zealanders might be witnessing the shed blood of thousands. Snuff in it's purest form! And you're all "Oh, this would probably just be lemonade!"
I don't know exactly about the USA, but where I live (Netherlands), certain court sessions are publicly accessible by any individual, even when not involved with the case in any way. Journalism students, for example, use these.
Now, wouldn't anything filmed in these public sessions be in the public domain anyway? As opposed to court sessions that are held "in chambers"?
Either you're illegally modded 'Insightful' instead of 'Funny', or I'm experiencing a quickly developing vision impairment that causes me to see words where they shoulnd't be...
This (small) documentary about Daniel Kish, a blind person using echolocation, suggests these blind people use this technique in a quite advanced manner. See the 'test' they perform on one of the blind people featured in the film, at about 4:20. Sounds like he's able to hear much, much more than just some surroundings. At the end, they even go out mountainbiking.
If ever I should become blind, I'd surely investigate in this technique.
Slashdot Mirror
in its day his music was just mass-produced commercial crap
Well, you are right in that his music was commercial. Mozart didn't have the luxury to be an independent artist, so he had to somewhat tone down his artisticity so people would actually buy it/come listen to it. The way he was still able to put artisticity into his music, which was very subtle so as not to offend his listeners like someone as Beethoven did, is what makes him stand out from the 'crowd' (of which we still know who? That's right, apart from guys like Mozart, Gluck and Hummel, composers from that day and age are mostly forgotten nowadays).
By the way, Bach received criticism in his day for expressing his artisticity like he did (which fortunately didn't stop him from writing what he wrote). Also, a lot of his works could easily be called commercial as well. After all, these composers all wrote because they had to make a living, not solely because they had the desire to express themselves artistically. But because Bachs polyphony is so advanced, his music absolutely doesn't sound like it's overly commercial. At the time of Mozart, musical language had already shifted to something much more 'easy listening'-like, which I guess is the reason for you to call it 'commercial crap'.
In this case, a penalty wouldn't be the point, but creating goodwill and copyright education would. So that in the future, said teenager wouldn't think of downloading music but go to an iTunes/whatever online store instead.
Which to me sounds like a pretty damn good idea. How about convincing everyone that buying really IS the right thing to do, instead of downloading? And that when you download anyway, they WILL find out, so you're not exactly performing an anonymous act? Right now, the record companies build outright hatred, and many people might, upon hearing about yet another unjust lawsuit, just think: "so what can I do that would hurt those record companies the most?" I know I do (but rest assured, I won't put things into practice).
I guess it's easier to drive down a road after someone else has paved it.
Exactly that. Excellent improvisors like Richard Grayson and Keith Jarrett are perfectly able to improvise in any music style - it's creating something new yet interesting that's difficult.
What happens when we have the ability to generate as much music of a particular style as we want?
Pretty much the same as when you ask a good improvisor to improvise as much music of a particular style as you want. It's the invention of an entirely new style that is a) probably way too much to ask of a computer program and b) very very hard to come up with nowadays.
For example, look up Richard Grayson on Youtube, who does exactly this (example for those too lazy to navigate: Star Wars theme in a Baroque style).
IMO, it's pretty cool to watch and listen to, but just doesn't fully compare to the works of the real composers.
That sounds better, but you're still in the car for that amount of time, whether you're driving or not...
Do a quick Google on "Spore pirated", just for fun. Page after page of links to articles about how Spore's DRM did affect pirating. Now if that hasn't reached EA...
Spoiler: it has, EA has in fact announced they'll use less obtrusive DRM in the future. Plus, they released this tool to reduce DRM obtrusiveness from certain games, including Spore.
Might it be possible that no one has bothered to actually take such a case to court? That's a serious question, I don't really know much about such cases. I can imagine not taking it to court, though; after all, it probably is one individual against someone or something with much larger influence, and it's not like there's much to be gained in suing...
Except when you want to play the newest games demanding DX11 they don't...
But why even declare the illegal income? Wouldn't it be much more convenient to, say, launder it?
Great! Since the days of Quake, level editors have become quite a bit more complicated, and though SketchUp! seemed like a great way to quickly make some maps, things like concave/convex planes etc. quickly made me abandon my own attempts at making L4D levels. Now with this guide I might make a good start.
Are you freaking kidding me? In France, you can't even wear a small catholic cross around your neck to a public school, unless it's well hidden under your shirt.
I'll go out on a limb saying that this isn't necessarily a symptom of the lack of freedom of speech. In the Netherlands (where I'm from), politicians are debating whether to ban certain symbols of muslim value, because of practical considerations but, alas, also because certain people experience discomfort seeing other people display these symbols. Would a ban be instated, I'd find it only fair if other such symbols would be banned as well. After all, why only go after muslims? (I'm not exactly in favor of banning religious symbols for other than practical reasons, mind you)
And in both France and Germany, books like "Mein Kampf" and so-called nazi paraphernalia are banned (not that this does any good mind you, it only makes the extreme right feel more victimized and it drove that kind of market for that stuff underground).
As it is in the Netherlands (for "Mein Kampf" at least). A little nuance though: I'm not sure about Germany or France, but in NL it's forbidden to replicate the book. Government hasn't got anything to do with what I own, so owning the book isn't forbidden. In fact, even the ban on replication is being discussed because of exactly the issue regarding freedom of speech you address.
Also, considering WWII, I don't find it strange that extreme measurements are still in place. That's not to say it isn't about time they're dismissed, though.
announced plans to introduce a filter not entirely different from the thing the Australian wants
No idea why I have missed this in the news. Do you happen to have a link or so? Seems about time to write some MP's.
Great advice, that seems like a marvelous remedy for all those artists I'd want to buy records from but have released their music under a label that funds the RIAA.
And in those countries you don't have 'citizens', you have 'subjects'.
There are lots of reasons to need to keep and bear arms other than the need to have a check on Governmental power. Hunting, self-defense, recreation, the collection of rare or valuable firearms, etc, etc.
Your comment was modded up, though you completely miss my point. I wasn't talking oppressive countries here. For example, where I live arms are allowed but the right to them is not constitutionally empowered. You'll need a permit for them, and weapons are only available at special shops (as opposed to several countries I've been to where guns and other weapons are on display in the larger tobacco stores). This results in the general public not owning firearms. People that hunt do, as do people that collect guns. And that was exactly what I said, right? Restricted access to lethal arms.
And frankly, I'm quite content with that. Especially when people like you point out that weapons can be used for self defense. Man, that would be just the thing we need! Untrained people trying to shoot 'invaders' off their lawn! I can see how that worked on a ranch somewhere in the Wild West, but we live in a crowded, somewhat civilized 20th-century world now.
Plus, when do you think you'd be using your gun for self defence? If defending yourself would require bullets, you can count on your adversary wielding something way more dangerous than you own, not to mention his/hers ability to use it. I really don't think you'll be wanting to wave a gun in the face of danger, unless you're a cop or well trained.
However, it's not the restrictions they propose that matter. You might not care about them, and neither do I. What I do care about however is the trend of taking idiotic measures to prevent... Well, what actually? Bad stuff from happening? I know cars cause bad stuff to happen to people wandering at the wrong time in the wrong place, and yet cars aren't prohibited, nor is there some kind of 3-strikes-law in place. Yet, on the internet we have the file sharing thing, oh and we also have child porn. So let's cut people off internet and ban a load of websites from our country, and then some things will stop.
However, the trend will be set, and corporations will find their way to the ones writing laws. And of course someone will think of a way in which more money can be made. One might be curious as to what to expect, but it won't be pretty, I'm sure.
The idea that these people are somehow in the wrong for trying to exercise control over their own works is a bad mind virus, and I'm afraid that the tenor of stories like this are indicative of a fatal infection.
When I was young and we copied our friends' games on floppies (bad, bad me), we knew that this was illegal. However, we also knew that we'd never experience punishment, mostly due to the small scale at which our file copying took place. Bad mindset? Sure thing. I've grown up and buy my games now. Same thing for music.
Most people will agree that going after people illegally sharing their music for example isn't a bad thing. What IS bad is the draconian solutions being proposed. The fine rate in the US is way out of line. In France, you had the 3 strikes law (struck down for the moment). You have all kinds of guilty until proven otherwise nonsense. THAT is bad.
What's downright unacceptable is the way in which governments are apparently influenced by the large corporations. That's not called democracy but plutocracy. I personally find that indicative of a far more fatal infection.
If you aren't terrified of the average citizen than what argument can you come up with for disarming him?
Plenty, as any country in which the possession of arms is more sternly regulated can attest to. No need to be scared shitless of your citizens to deny them free access to lethal arms.
If the shit ever hit the fan to the point that an actual rebellion was underway it's a reasonably safe assumption that a large portion of the armed forces would side with the citizenry and not the government trying to oppress them.
I wouldn't be so sure of that. Soldiers are instructed to obey commands, and not so much to question them. By the time a sensible number of them will start questioning their superiors, damage will already have been done. Or a schism between army and citizens will have been created. Just look at all those countries whose armies do suppress the people.
Even more important: things just won't work that way. People won't start crowding the streets and the military won't be fighting them, as is the case in Iran, for example. Protests will be silenced long before that. This isn't an age in which armed conflicts will be fought out in a chivalrous manner.
So, where was your need to bear arms again?
...As opposed to people who would have died during Saddam's rule? Yes, the intelligence Bush got was faulty about the WMDs in Iraq, but you have to remember this is a dictator who not only invaded other countries but launched chemical warfare on his own people.
So let's try to get rid of this evil dictator by means of war, what a splendid idea! I see an awful lot of opportunities where Bush could have started a trend to police evil nations worldwide. Well, maybe another American president will...
The invasion of Afghanistan really should have happened sooner and with a more powerful attack. But after the 9/11 attacks, you couldn't exactly ignore a huge terrorist group that very successfully attacked the USA.
Terrorists aren't really locatable in one region or another. That's one of the reasons terrorism keeps reoccuring: it's just such a good strategy. Throwing large numbers of soldiers at it won't really work. I don't quite understand why the USA keeps trying to solve this kind of problem with military action only.
In the Netherlands, copying a book or anything else in public libraries also is more expensive, which serves as yet another arrangement for allowing the copying of copyrighted works. Also, a similar mechanism was proposed for taxing other storage media, like hard drives and MP3 players.
Yet, the Dutch copyright watchdog finds this not being illegal of downloading for personal use a loophole in copyright law. Someone proposing some kind of law against it is only a matter of time.
This guy seems eager for attention anyway. I have seen this very same video about half a year ago. Can't find the original anywhere, of course...
Except they're free... And who would pay good money for a beta anyway, sounds like stupidity to me.
No, free beta apps that do their jobs well enough are for people like you and me, people that think it's cool to have their agendas online.
Business users use Outlook and/or Exchange. However, these 'casual users' of free beta apps DO provide valuable input - and they probably won't be abandoning their free beta apps as well, since those might not be bug-free yet, but ARE still in development - and, well, free.
So that's where Google is: they have their broad user base, providing them with the necessary info to improve their apps, and a considerable 'fan base' as a nice side effect. The next step would obviously be to get out of the beta stage, so the Google apps will be seen as mature enough to compete with the Serious Business level's applications!
Really, I think Google is employing a cool PR strategy here.
A risky assumption. New Zealanders might be witnessing the shed blood of thousands. Snuff in it's purest form! And you're all "Oh, this would probably just be lemonade!"
I don't know exactly about the USA, but where I live (Netherlands), certain court sessions are publicly accessible by any individual, even when not involved with the case in any way. Journalism students, for example, use these.
Now, wouldn't anything filmed in these public sessions be in the public domain anyway? As opposed to court sessions that are held "in chambers"?
Either you're illegally modded 'Insightful' instead of 'Funny', or I'm experiencing a quickly developing vision impairment that causes me to see words where they shoulnd't be...
This (small) documentary about Daniel Kish, a blind person using echolocation, suggests these blind people use this technique in a quite advanced manner. See the 'test' they perform on one of the blind people featured in the film, at about 4:20. Sounds like he's able to hear much, much more than just some surroundings. At the end, they even go out mountainbiking.
If ever I should become blind, I'd surely investigate in this technique.