So would I. But removing copyright laws would lower the artists profits to 0. 10% is better than 0.
I agree, I was not calling for a "removal" of copyright laws. I am not calling for GPL'ing all bit-information that exists. I am calling for a removal of the middle man, or at least lessening the middle man's "part" of the process.
You still need some amount of advertising so people know about it. While the distribution costs are lower, having content "roam around freely" would just mean that the content creators won't get paid for their work at all. And please don't bring up the tired old "they can make money off of performances" argument. Many content creators simply can't perform. And if the content they create is good, and others benefit from it, shouldn't that be good enough? Why do some people think content should always take the role of "loss leader"?
As an artist, I definitely agree with you. I need money to survive, and I need so sell my "art" to get that money. You're also correcct in saying that one needs to advertise to sell. However, how much do I really need to advertise?
I make very little money off of my art. Not enough to live on. But everyone once in a while, I sell something, have some stuff go to a show, or what not. If I put more time into it, I might be able to make enough to live on. Not millions, just a few tens of Ks a year to live. Now I am happy that a few people are able to make much $$$ out there; but what about all of the other artists that don't make the loads of $$$? Wouldn't they be willing to give their stuff away for free? or at least for very little? If I only had to pay $4 for the equivalent of a CD, I might be willing to try more stuff out. Spreading the revenues, fostering a greater variety of music.
I would like an economic model that reflects the internet and it's possibilities. I am willing to pay the artist, and whatever structure is needed for that artist to live. But I am not willing to pay for things that are outdated because of today's technology.
What about books that no one publishes anymore? The authors should be able to publish those on the web themselves (go to the author's site) for free, or very little? It's not like anyone's making money off of this stuff anyways.
Paying for art is ok, as long as the prices reflect the optimum way to spread the information.
This has to do with a lot more than just CD prices, it has to do with the right to spread information. Be that source code, software, books, journals, music, video content... you name it.
If big corporations are going to be able to abuse the system by "bribing" the government in order to get their "cut" of content, without any thoughts to the users, then we get to complain, and try to do something about it.
Let's face it, be it a musician, writer, etc. these people are getting 10% of what we pay. Where does all of that money go? Personally, I'd rather have it go directly to the artists, not to these corporations.
There are not more distribution costs, it's called the internet. We don't need extensive advertising if content can roam around freely. That's whay the entertainment groups are scared of: losing their monopoly on distribution of content.
I agree that we have entered (and for a few years now) the post-MS world. But post-MS doesn't mean good by any means.
There are still many issues with copyright laws (talk about an old instituion, more than 200 years old) that need to be solved. What was done with the Open-Source movement probably needs to be done with all information available on the net. Why do we need to buy books to pay publishers and their printing presses when we can distribute books, music, multimedia in general for free on the internet? Why do artists make $1 of their CDs when I buy them for $15? Shouldn't I just be paying them $1?
It's up to us to shatter the old institutions and introduce the Commercial model of the next century, but we should stop thinking just software, think everything!
for $450-$550 (NYC)... oh well, maybe I'll wait. I am starting to buy this whole "let's manufacture bad memory cards so the exporters can't get the stuff to work" theory...
That's why you run Linux from w/in VMware . That way you get the best out of a simulator, and a real OS.
A couple of years ago, what you said was true, but I know a lot of school have switched to the VMware/Linux combo recently because it offers many advantages. I do believe that off the VMware site, somewhere, they have some links to schools that use their software (CU in NY for example).
I've taken an OS course using NachOS and then took an Advanced OS course using Linux. I found that a big problem w/ NachOS (being a simulator) is that it was difficult to tell the difference between the hardware and the OS. You could go in there, and mess with the simulator to get around problems that a normal OS would have to deal with. This was a big problem. Also, the scope of NachOS is very limited, so that when you switch to a "real" OS like Linux you have to re-learn everything the right way... not always that much fun. Linux is well enouch documented, and the kernel is small enough (except for device drivers:)) that's it is a good OS to start with. Another interesting OS for research and education purposes is called FluxOS. It is a completely modular Operating System, which means you can take any component out and substitute one of your own w/ no dependencies (that's definitely not true of Linux). It is also meant as a reserach/education OS so it is very very very well documented. In 5-6 hours you can learn the basics well, and in a week you could be a FluxOS god. FluxOS uses components of other Open Source OSs such as Linux, FreeBSD, NetBSD, but it wraps them with code that makes them modular. Link to FluxOS project There's a link. The only big drawback is that you can't really benchmark with it (you can't do that with NachOS either) because it's non-standard.
Both the intro to OS and the advanced OS courses at Columbia University use linux. http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~nieh is the page of Prof. Nieh who teaches both courses. There are homeworks, etc. on that page that might be helpful. Since they could not afford to give root access to students at the school, and didn't want them to reboot machines constantly, they installed vmware (http://www.vmware.com) on the machines so that students could mess around with linux w/ little risk as far as messing up the systems. VMware also has some nice features to undo changes to disks, etc... good stuff! Some sample assignments: Writting Device Drivers (fairly easy). Adding a different scheduler to linux (such as lottery scheduling), etc.
Slashdot Mirror
So would I. But removing copyright laws would lower the artists profits to 0. 10% is better than 0.
I agree, I was not calling for a "removal" of copyright laws. I am not calling for GPL'ing all bit-information that exists. I am calling for a removal of the middle man, or at least lessening the middle man's "part" of the process.
You still need some amount of advertising so people know about it. While the distribution costs are lower, having content "roam around freely" would just mean that the content creators won't get paid for their work at all. And please don't bring up the tired old "they can make money off of performances" argument. Many content creators simply can't perform. And if the content they create is good, and others benefit from it, shouldn't that be good enough? Why do some people think content should always take the role of "loss leader"?
As an artist, I definitely agree with you. I need money to survive, and I need so sell my "art" to get that money. You're also correcct in saying that one needs to advertise to sell. However, how much do I really need to advertise?
I make very little money off of my art. Not enough to live on. But everyone once in a while, I sell something, have some stuff go to a show, or what not. If I put more time into it, I might be able to make enough to live on. Not millions, just a few tens of Ks a year to live. Now I am happy that a few people are able to make much $$$ out there; but what about all of the other artists that don't make the loads of $$$? Wouldn't they be willing to give their stuff away for free? or at least for very little? If I only had to pay $4 for the equivalent of a CD, I might be willing to try more stuff out. Spreading the revenues, fostering a greater variety of music.
I would like an economic model that reflects the internet and it's possibilities. I am willing to pay the artist, and whatever structure is needed for that artist to live. But I am not willing to pay for things that are outdated because of today's technology.
What about books that no one publishes anymore? The authors should be able to publish those on the web themselves (go to the author's site) for free, or very little? It's not like anyone's making money off of this stuff anyways.
Paying for art is ok, as long as the prices reflect the optimum way to spread the information.
This has to do with a lot more than just CD prices, it has to do with the right to spread information. Be that source code, software, books, journals, music, video content ... you name it.
If big corporations are going to be able to abuse the system by "bribing" the government in order to get their "cut" of content, without any thoughts to the users, then we get to complain, and try to do something about it.
Let's face it, be it a musician, writer, etc. these people are getting 10% of what we pay. Where does all of that money go? Personally, I'd rather have it go directly to the artists, not to these corporations.
There are not more distribution costs, it's called the internet. We don't need extensive advertising if content can roam around freely. That's whay the entertainment groups are scared of: losing their monopoly on distribution of content.
I agree that we have entered (and for a few years now) the post-MS world. But post-MS doesn't mean good by any means.
There are still many issues with copyright laws (talk about an old instituion, more than 200 years old) that need to be solved. What was done with the Open-Source movement probably needs to be done with all information available on the net. Why do we need to buy books to pay publishers and their printing presses when we can distribute books, music, multimedia in general for free on the internet? Why do artists make $1 of their CDs when I buy them for $15? Shouldn't I just be paying them $1?
It's up to us to shatter the old institutions and introduce the Commercial model of the next century, but we should stop thinking just software, think everything!
for $450-$550 (NYC) ... oh well, maybe I'll wait. I am starting to buy this whole "let's manufacture bad memory cards so the exporters can't get the stuff to work" theory...
That's why you run Linux from w/in VMware . That way you get the best out of a simulator, and a real OS.
A couple of years ago, what you said was true, but I know a lot of school have switched to the VMware/Linux combo recently because it offers many advantages. I do believe that off the VMware site, somewhere, they have some links to schools that use their software (CU in NY for example).
I've taken an OS course using NachOS and then took an Advanced OS course using Linux. I found that a big problem w/ NachOS (being a simulator) is that it was difficult to tell the difference between the hardware and the OS. You could go in there, and mess with the simulator to get around problems that a normal OS would have to deal with. This was a big problem. Also, the scope of NachOS is very limited, so that when you switch to a "real" OS like Linux you have to re-learn everything the right way... not always that much fun. Linux is well enouch documented, and the kernel is small enough (except for device drivers :)) that's it is a good OS to start with. Another interesting OS for research and education purposes is called FluxOS. It is a completely modular Operating System, which means you can take any component out and substitute one of your own w/ no dependencies (that's definitely not true of Linux). It is also meant as a reserach/education OS so it is very very very well documented. In 5-6 hours you can learn the basics well, and in a week you could be a FluxOS god. FluxOS uses components of other Open Source OSs such as Linux, FreeBSD, NetBSD, but it wraps them with code that makes them modular.
Link to FluxOS project
There's a link. The only big drawback is that you can't really benchmark with it (you can't do that with NachOS either) because it's non-standard.
Both the intro to OS and the advanced OS courses at Columbia University use linux. http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~nieh is the page of Prof. Nieh who teaches both courses. There are homeworks, etc. on that page that might be helpful. Since they could not afford to give root access to students at the school, and didn't want them to reboot machines constantly, they installed vmware (http://www.vmware.com) on the machines so that students could mess around with linux w/ little risk as far as messing up the systems. VMware also has some nice features to undo changes to disks, etc... good stuff! Some sample assignments: Writting Device Drivers (fairly easy). Adding a different scheduler to linux (such as lottery scheduling), etc.