What possible relevance has the concept of "fair use" in the context of something in the public domain? That's why the original poster used the words "never mind" and I ignored the issue in my post. You appear to have the wrong end of the stick.
And, compared to the total number of combinations of possible sounds (which for all intents and purposes is infinite), this number is rather small
Which just goes to show what a fucking stupid comparison that is. Let's take the set of possible melodies of only eight notes. There are 13^8 = 815730721 different combinations of the 13 notes plus rest. In fact, of course, if you then consider rhythm and allow each note to be a crotchet or quaver, there are 26^8 = 377801998336 different combinations. Subtract 13! as combinations which start with rests are indistinguishable, and you get a total of 371574977536 possible tunes. In the circumstances, to claim that combinatorics puts any meaningful check on the number of possible tunes is ludicrous.
jsm, not bothering to check whether subtracting 13! was the right thing to do since 1999.
Re:Shouldn't royalties go to the COMPOSERS?
on
Ring-Tone Royalties
·
· Score: 1
The composer actually does get some of the royalty; however, a recording contract will also usually specify a publishing contract under which the record company gets a slice.
The subject of your original post was about the relationship between the stock market capitalisation of the USA and the GDP of the USA. While any one company can have net revenues from overseas during a period of current account deficit, it is fanciful to believe that the whole market could be net exporters consistently with the observed current account. It would imply ludicrous import behaviour by the non-quoted corporate sector.
And your Kodak example does not work; repatriation of overseas profits is a positive item in the current a/c
people are not going to pay money to download ringtones.
Yes they are, and do. The newspapers here (UK) are full of ads trying to persuade you to call a premium rate number to download either a ringtone or a logo for a Nokia phone. Since these guys keep putting the ads in the paper, I'm guessing they make money.
But if your phone is playing a 3-second clip from a song (never mind if that song is 200+ years old and the copyright has long since expired, like Beethoven's Fifth or something), that really seems like it should fall under the doctrine of fair use
Why? Is it a parody, scholarly work, or other protected derivative work? Is it a backup or time-shift of a broadcast signal? No. It's the use of the major melodic theme of a piece of music without paying for it. Please don't weaken the concept of fair use by trying to shoehorn obvious ripoffs into it.
Historically a US company's market was almost all domestic. That is not true any more. A large US company often has 50% of it's revenue offshore.
If true, your theory would have the implication that the USA was selling more goods and services overseas than it imported. This is not true, to the tune of several billion dollars, and has not been for the last five years.
As far as I can tell, the VCs were holders of preferred stock, not common (ie -- they get $38m before anyone else). Thus, they own an economic claim on the company, but no share in the company itself. Therefore there could have been a legitimate meeting of the controlling shareholders which did not invite them. Their only protection would have been to make Greenspun sign a contract not to hold one, which they claim that he did, he claims he didn't and a court will decide. HTH.
Although I should admit that finding the algorithm itself would be mostly by chance.
Indeed it would, and on this basis might I invite you to send me $100 in return for a payment of $5000 the next time you are struck by a meteorite? Compared to randomly searching the space of algorithms for one that will compress a large file of white noise, my odds are quite absurdly generous.
Oh dear. Think about it. Is giving bulk discounts the action of a company with healthy demand, loads of product shifting, flying off the shelves, great guns?
Or is it the action of a company clogged to the U-bend with inventory (rapidly depreciating inventory at that) which needs to make a sale, any sale, ASAP to meet the next month's wage bill?
If you learn that it's "fewer" for countable nouns and "less" for mass nouns, you can save yourself a fair few embarrassing grammatical solecisms and make 2002 a rip-snorting year to remember!
Both you and Taco are unfairly misusing the term "fair use". Fair use is the First Amendment right which protects certain kinds of derivative works (parodies, reviews, and scholarly works, for the most part). Making an analog copy of a small section would certainly be good enough for any legitimate fair use you had in mind. Burning a perfect copy of the whole CD has nothing to do with fair use. You might have a case under "first sale", but this is not a First Amendment right -- it's a provision of the Copyright Act itself.
You're doing material harm to the genuine case for free speech by associating it with theft.
But why do you feel the need to reinvent every single important piece of social theory ever made in your own half-baked way? Is it some kind of situationist joke about Linux? Crack the spine on a book or two and you may find your questions have already been answered.
Just picking one example at random from an article littered with them:
what Hannah Arendt called the "authoritarian" logic of bureaucratic systems. (In our time, she might have added the monopolistic logic of "corporatist" systems as well.)
Hannah Arendt would not, because, having read Weber in her lifetime, she knew that corporate bureaucracies have the same internal dynamics as state bureaucracies. That's why the word is the same. Hannah Arendt also knew a lot about the various theories of bureaucracy, how they worked, what their characteristic behaviours were, which is why she would (and I do not mean this as an insult) have written a far better article on this subject than you have.
I don't have the ability to "tamper with posts" and have never done so. Anyone who says differently is lying.
You certainly do have the ability to tamper with posts (unlimited moderator points), and I will go further and say that you've abused this privilege in the past. Wanna make me prove it? But note that, if I have to go to the effort, I'm not going to want to waste the material unearthed on a single slashdot comment.
And that, dear chap, is because the Post-it notes patent is *very specific*, and patents the *device* which 3M invented, rather than the *idea* of glue on paper. Rather like the Amazon One-Click patent.
Slashdot Mirror
What possible relevance has the concept of "fair use" in the context of something in the public domain? That's why the original poster used the words "never mind" and I ignored the issue in my post. You appear to have the wrong end of the stick.
Which just goes to show what a fucking stupid comparison that is. Let's take the set of possible melodies of only eight notes. There are 13^8 = 815730721 different combinations of the 13 notes plus rest. In fact, of course, if you then consider rhythm and allow each note to be a crotchet or quaver, there are 26^8 = 377801998336 different combinations. Subtract 13! as combinations which start with rests are indistinguishable, and you get a total of 371574977536 possible tunes. In the circumstances, to claim that combinatorics puts any meaningful check on the number of possible tunes is ludicrous.
jsm, not bothering to check whether subtracting 13! was the right thing to do since 1999.
The composer actually does get some of the royalty; however, a recording contract will also usually specify a publishing contract under which the record company gets a slice.
And your Kodak example does not work; repatriation of overseas profits is a positive item in the current a/c
Yes they are, and do. The newspapers here (UK) are full of ads trying to persuade you to call a premium rate number to download either a ringtone or a logo for a Nokia phone. Since these guys keep putting the ads in the paper, I'm guessing they make money.
Why? Is it a parody, scholarly work, or other protected derivative work? Is it a backup or time-shift of a broadcast signal? No. It's the use of the major melodic theme of a piece of music without paying for it. Please don't weaken the concept of fair use by trying to shoehorn obvious ripoffs into it.
If true, your theory would have the implication that the USA was selling more goods and services overseas than it imported. This is not true, to the tune of several billion dollars, and has not been for the last five years.
well I hope you'll at least *dress* him differently.
Massively redundant, I know, but mine was the best execution of this extremely obvious joke.
As far as I can tell, the VCs were holders of preferred stock, not common (ie -- they get $38m before anyone else). Thus, they own an economic claim on the company, but no share in the company itself. Therefore there could have been a legitimate meeting of the controlling shareholders which did not invite them. Their only protection would have been to make Greenspun sign a contract not to hold one, which they claim that he did, he claims he didn't and a court will decide. HTH.
Yes. Specifically, it's called "ludicrously overpriced insurance that only a sucker would ever accept".
Indeed it would, and on this basis might I invite you to send me $100 in return for a payment of $5000 the next time you are struck by a meteorite? Compared to randomly searching the space of algorithms for one that will compress a large file of white noise, my odds are quite absurdly generous.
yeah, and I can spell "cunt".
Actually, my handle is spelt "jsm".
jsm
I know how to spell "Jonathan". My friends all know how to spell "Jonathan". .... etc, etc
I know Jonathan Swift. Jonathan Swift was a friend of mine. Roblimo, you're no Jonathan Swift.
I played around with the Dada Engine for hours and never got it to churn out Slashbot bullshit like that. How big is your grammar file?
Or is it the action of a company clogged to the U-bend with inventory (rapidly depreciating inventory at that) which needs to make a sale, any sale, ASAP to meet the next month's wage bill?
Anyone? Bueller?
If you learn that it's "fewer" for countable nouns and "less" for mass nouns, you can save yourself a fair few embarrassing grammatical solecisms and make 2002 a rip-snorting year to remember!
Is it just me or does this sound like "The third best football team in Cleveland"?
You're doing material harm to the genuine case for free speech by associating it with theft.
Just picking one example at random from an article littered with them:
what Hannah Arendt called the "authoritarian" logic of bureaucratic systems. (In our time, she might have added the monopolistic logic of "corporatist" systems as well.)
Hannah Arendt would not, because, having read Weber in her lifetime, she knew that corporate bureaucracies have the same internal dynamics as state bureaucracies. That's why the word is the same. Hannah Arendt also knew a lot about the various theories of bureaucracy, how they worked, what their characteristic behaviours were, which is why she would (and I do not mean this as an insult) have written a far better article on this subject than you have.
I can hardly wait .....
You certainly do have the ability to tamper with posts (unlimited moderator points), and I will go further and say that you've abused this privilege in the past. Wanna make me prove it? But note that, if I have to go to the effort, I'm not going to want to waste the material unearthed on a single slashdot comment.
And that, dear chap, is because the Post-it notes patent is *very specific*, and patents the *device* which 3M invented, rather than the *idea* of glue on paper. Rather like the Amazon One-Click patent.
I see that your definition of "acting" doesn't posting your misogynistic fantasies on a major website, then?