Well...I think your alias pretty much is my response, but I'll respond all the same. That's my job.
> are you sure you have been reading Slashdot? You have a "low" user number....hmmmmm
Yes, I'm saying I read Slashdot.
> Everyone here understands the arguments perfectly, from both sides.
Of course. My mistake.
> You are a typical old model industry SLAG, and youre "i implimented ogg" Johnny Ryal BS doesnt wash at all.
I'm 28 years old, and don't see how you could know more than I've said in my post. As for my Ogg creds, I suggest you check with them before casting doubt.
> You should be reading Slashtot very carefully so that you understand the > strong feelings that are going to put you out of a job.
Somehow I think I have a good grasp on your feelings.
> It's also clear that you understand nothing about what is really happening in the marketplace.
It's true. The artists, labels and fans that depend on me have been scammed. And your highly-scientific survey of 500 people has near infinite external validity.
But more interestingly, where in my post did I state my opinion on the causality of P2P in regard to music purchasing?
> Everyone is entitled to fair use rights
I was looking for your specific response to my stated opinons on fair use, when I suddently realized I never made them. What are you talking about?
Thank you -- interesting perspective. What you're saying rings true.
I'm not sure why you feel I am aligned with the RIAA, though. Looking back at my original post, I should have been more clear on that issue, though it was never my intention to "take sides."
For the record, I support people downloading songs to see if they like them, or sometimes just keeping them. I advise my clients as such and have never found disagreement.
I master to Ogg for record companies, and have been doing so for a long time. I also use MP3, MP3 Pro and MP4. I would never and have never used WMA. Nor have I been asked to. Ogg is excellent; I've had no problems with it.
> All of the anti-p2p pundits cite the fact that the artists > deserve to get paid for their work. Since when have > artists ever gotten paid for their work?
The problem is with your logic. If you simply download the music, then the artist doesn't get paid. Your justification is you think artists are paid poorly, so...why pay them at all? You're not making any sense.
Everyone keeps talking about paying artists like they're these innocent victims who need our support. Do you think they care about you? Many artists are paid very well, and complain they're not paid enough. Who doesn't?
This is not to say that the RIAA isn't ripping off everyone, but things are much complex than you lay them out to be.
Many artists want the "middle men." So they can focus on their music, and other people can go about selling it. You may not put much value on that, but rest assured, they do.
I think that's a cool idea. If an artist decides that's what s/he wants, then great.
Often, more popular artists have a lot of expenses to meet, such as promotion. Say 1,000 new CDs are released each week. How do you separate yourself? The artists that I work with have often spent 1-2 years just working on that release, and s/he wants it promoted. That falls to the record company and sorry souls like me. This gets expensive quickly, but the artist needs to earn a lot to earn a living. Otherwise, they can't make music.
On the flip side, I've seen artists blame their labels for poor sales, when IMHO their album bombed because it simply wasn't very good.
I work as a publicist and producer in the pop music industry. And was the first person to implement the Ogg Vorbis format at a commercial record company.
OK, so what? So, I've read the same, tired posts, over and over, about P2P on Slashdot. Three things has become abundantly clear:
1) No one here seems to have a fucking clue about the music industry. 2) Nearly everyone here has a hyper-inflated sense of entitlement. 3) People seem to equate feeling strongly about something with being knowledgeable about it.
The music business is very complex. Record companies are not always "middlemen." Artists depend on them for many things. You don't -- that doesn't mean they're not important. And just because they sometimes rip off artists does not provide justification for you to do so. Blah blah blah.
Bill Evans
Programming vs. Computer Science
on
Too Old To Code?
·
· Score: 1
I'm seeing two discussions here--one about computer science and the other about programming.
Programming doesn't require a formal education, and sometimes it's a hinderance. As mentioned, companies don't want good code--they want fast code.
These types of programing jobs may be best for the (relatively) young, as experience and understanding are not as valued as current technical knowledge and energy level.
By contrast, you usually can't consider yourself a computer scientist until during your MS or PhD. Computer science lends itself to solving very different problems than programing. (I look at it like math and mathematics, or performing and song writing.)
Things generally change very slowly in computer science, as opposed to the rapidly changing implementation side of things (programing). In CompSci, the issues are deeper, and often take much longer to understand so one can use them in a useful way. You end up specializing, and (often) that area becomes your field of research.
This explains, I think, the frequent complaints (including my own) of CS students regarding "book" and "real world" knowledge. The "real world" is usually interested in implenetation, which is usually based on Computer Science that's 10-30 years old.
So, I think programers are valuable at any age, but there's probably a larger market for seasoned computer scientists.
There's a lot of truth in this. The multi-tiered distribution system raises the cost of a CD substantially. The corporate culture of record companies, though, is to sell artists like brand names. That's where the rest of the money goes. Bill Evans open-source-music.org
Well, my heart is definately with you. Big bands don't get most of the money they generate. And they're thrown out like yesterday's news when they don't go gold anymore. I've been working on starting an open source music movement with several music industry leaders and well-known recording artists. Progress is slow, but we'll get there. Bill Evans open-source-music.org
It's worse than that. Usually, the band pays to record the CD, and many other costs. To do this, they basically take out a loan from the record company. Record company's only push records they think will sell. This is a seedy, often illegal process. Some artists get shelved, meaning that their recordins are not promoted or even released. Under contract, they cannot make any other recordings. Bill Evans
I've read quite a number of posts on this issue, and if there's one thing people can agree on, it's the importance of this issue.
As a producer and recording artist, I certainly have my own perspective, which may (or may not) be interesting.
The mainstream recording industry is historically not exactly friendly to artists. Basically, we're just audible dollar signs. The whole business of marketing music is certainly not an ethical or honest one, with fans and artists alike often paying the price.
Some of you already know how some of sketchier things get done, like how songs get added to playlists, how much money artists and producers get from record sales, what it costs to produce a record for the mainstream market, and how chart positions are acheived.
And I'll admit to having done some things I'm not comfortable with. It's hard not to in this business. Everyone gets a little dirty.
I'm a bit perplexed, though, why there is so much animosity directed toward Metallica. As much as I have no love for the recording establishment, I basically support what they're doing (in principle).
If you've worked in the industry, you probably know how difficult is to actually get paid for anything. Very little actually makes money in music. And when it does, everyone wants a piece--of the success, the credit, the recognition--and, the money.
I think consumers have over-inflated ideas about the lifestyle of successful musicans. (These, of course, have been fed to them largely by media and record company sources.) Even very successful writers, performers, producers and engineers, at the end of the day, often have very little to show for their effort.
I don't think anyone has anything against songs being traded around in an underground fashion. I don't think, though, that this is what Metallica is upset about.
There's a definite line between trading music with a free-flow of ideas, and stealing. Unfortunately, that line is difficult and (I think) often dangerous to define.
If people everyone trading MP3s really did just that, to foster exposure to new music and forms of expression, artists would be delighted. (Record companies, though, would probably not be. But they never are.)
Unfortunately, a lot of the MP3 trade has become people simply getting music for free instead of buying it. As much as some people want to say this isn't true, I think we all know it is. And if was just a bit of it going on (there's always been piracy), that would be OK. But we have a very different situation.
Then, there are some people who don't feel they should have to pay for music. Fair enough, but don't count on other people to pay for your music collection.
It's hard to take Limp's side, because Napster paid them $2,000,000.00. They're riding a great rollercoaster, and they're at the top right now. But see what they say in ten years, when those ASCAP checks don't cover the bills any more. And no radio station will play their single, no matter how much you pay them.
I don't blame Limp or Metallica--they're just doing what they can to survive in a business that cares for no one.
I guess I expect more from Slashdot readers, though, than "Fuck Metallic" and "I'm throwing out all my Metallica." Why is there so much anger? Metallica doesn't just support themselves from record sales, but a lot of other people in the extended organization. These people work hard and have families. And they never got rich.
I do find it hard to take Metallica seriously when talk about their "art", when they've basically been as much a part of the corporate machine as anyone else. I don't think they're heros or villains. They're just trying to get paid for their work.
I do think things need to change in this industry. I don't like the old ways of doing things, and I do think free speech is more important than money.
Slashdot Mirror
Well...I think your alias pretty much is my response, but I'll respond all the same. That's my job.
> are you sure you have been reading Slashdot? You have a "low" user number....hmmmmm
Yes, I'm saying I read Slashdot.
> Everyone here understands the arguments perfectly, from both sides.
Of course. My mistake.
> You are a typical old model industry SLAG, and youre "i implimented ogg" Johnny Ryal BS doesnt wash at all.
I'm 28 years old, and don't see how you could know more than I've said in my post. As for my Ogg creds, I suggest you check with them before casting doubt.
> You should be reading Slashtot very carefully so that you understand the
> strong feelings that are going to put you out of a job.
Somehow I think I have a good grasp on your feelings.
> It's also clear that you understand nothing about what is really happening in the marketplace.
It's true. The artists, labels and fans that depend on me have been scammed. And your highly-scientific survey of 500 people has near infinite external validity.
But more interestingly, where in my post did I state my opinion on the causality of P2P in regard to music purchasing?
> Everyone is entitled to fair use rights
I was looking for your specific response to my stated opinons on fair use, when I suddently realized I never made them. What are you talking about?
Thank you -- interesting perspective. What you're saying rings true.
I'm not sure why you feel I am aligned with the RIAA, though. Looking back at my original post, I should have been more clear on that issue, though it was never my intention to "take sides."
For the record, I support people downloading songs to see if they like them, or sometimes just keeping them. I advise my clients as such and have never found disagreement.
Bill Evans
> This is not about artist, it is about the record
> company....artist make money touring
Many artists prefer to focus on recording and do not tour at all. They depend on recording sales for all their income.
I master to Ogg for record companies, and have been doing so for a long time. I also use MP3, MP3 Pro and MP4. I would never and have never used WMA. Nor have I been asked to. Ogg is excellent; I've had no problems with it.
> All of the anti-p2p pundits cite the fact that the artists
> deserve to get paid for their work. Since when have
> artists ever gotten paid for their work?
The problem is with your logic. If you simply download the music, then the artist doesn't get paid. Your justification is you think artists are paid poorly, so...why pay them at all? You're not making any sense.
Everyone keeps talking about paying artists like they're these innocent victims who need our support. Do you think they care about you? Many artists are paid very well, and complain they're not paid enough. Who doesn't?
This is not to say that the RIAA isn't ripping off everyone, but things are much complex than you lay them out to be.
And please tell us, what, exactly do artists do?
Many artists want the "middle men." So they can focus on their music, and other people can go about selling it. You may not put much value on that, but rest assured, they do.
I think that's a cool idea. If an artist decides that's what s/he wants, then great.
Often, more popular artists have a lot of expenses to meet, such as promotion. Say 1,000 new CDs are released each week. How do you separate yourself? The artists that I work with have often spent 1-2 years just working on that release, and s/he wants it promoted. That falls to the record company and sorry souls like me. This gets expensive quickly, but the artist needs to earn a lot to earn a living. Otherwise, they can't make music.
On the flip side, I've seen artists blame their labels for poor sales, when IMHO their album bombed because it simply wasn't very good.
I work as a publicist and producer in the pop music industry. And was the first person to implement the Ogg Vorbis format at a commercial record company.
OK, so what? So, I've read the same, tired posts, over and over, about P2P on Slashdot. Three things has become abundantly clear:
1) No one here seems to have a fucking clue about the music industry.
2) Nearly everyone here has a hyper-inflated sense of entitlement.
3) People seem to equate feeling strongly about something with being knowledgeable about it.
The music business is very complex. Record companies are not always "middlemen." Artists depend on them for many things. You don't -- that doesn't mean they're not important. And just because they sometimes rip off artists does not provide justification for you to do so. Blah blah blah.
Bill Evans
I'm seeing two discussions here--one about computer science and the other about programming.
Programming doesn't require a formal education, and sometimes it's a hinderance. As mentioned, companies don't want good code--they want fast code.
These types of programing jobs may be best for the (relatively) young, as experience and understanding are not as valued as current technical knowledge and energy level.
By contrast, you usually can't consider yourself a computer scientist until during your MS or PhD. Computer science lends itself to solving very different problems than programing. (I look at it like math and mathematics, or performing and song writing.)
Things generally change very slowly in computer science, as opposed to the rapidly changing implementation side of things (programing). In CompSci, the issues are deeper, and often take much longer to understand so one can use them in a useful way. You end up specializing, and (often) that area becomes your field of research.
This explains, I think, the frequent complaints (including my own) of CS students regarding "book" and "real world" knowledge. The "real world" is usually interested in implenetation, which is usually based on Computer Science that's 10-30 years old.
So, I think programers are valuable at any age, but there's probably a larger market for seasoned computer scientists.
Actually, it's often the other way around.
There's a lot of truth in this. The multi-tiered distribution system raises the cost of a CD substantially. The corporate culture of record companies, though, is to sell artists like brand names. That's where the rest of the money goes. Bill Evans open-source-music.org
Well, my heart is definately with you. Big bands don't get most of the money they generate. And they're thrown out like yesterday's news when they don't go gold anymore. I've been working on starting an open source music movement with several music industry leaders and well-known recording artists. Progress is slow, but we'll get there. Bill Evans open-source-music.org
It's worse than that. Usually, the band pays to record the CD, and many other costs. To do this, they basically take out a loan from the record company. Record company's only push records they think will sell. This is a seedy, often illegal process. Some artists get shelved, meaning that their recordins are not promoted or even released. Under contract, they cannot make any other recordings. Bill Evans
I've read quite a number of posts on this issue, and if there's one thing people can agree on, it's the importance of this issue.
As a producer and recording artist, I certainly have my own perspective, which may (or may not) be interesting.
The mainstream recording industry is historically not exactly friendly to artists. Basically, we're just audible dollar signs. The whole business of marketing music is certainly not an ethical or honest one, with fans and artists alike often paying the price.
Some of you already know how some of sketchier things get done, like how songs get added to playlists, how much money artists and producers get from record sales, what it costs to produce a record for the mainstream market, and how chart positions are acheived.
And I'll admit to having done some things I'm not comfortable with. It's hard not to in this business. Everyone gets a little dirty.
I'm a bit perplexed, though, why there is so much animosity directed toward Metallica. As much as I have no love for the recording establishment, I basically support what they're doing (in principle).
If you've worked in the industry, you probably know how difficult is to actually get paid for anything. Very little actually makes money in music. And when it does, everyone wants a piece--of the success, the credit, the recognition--and, the money.
I think consumers have over-inflated ideas about the lifestyle of successful musicans. (These, of course, have been fed to them largely by media and record company sources.) Even very successful writers, performers, producers and engineers, at the end of the day, often have very little to show for their effort.
I don't think anyone has anything against songs being traded around in an underground fashion. I don't think, though, that this is what Metallica is upset about.
There's a definite line between trading music with a free-flow of ideas, and stealing. Unfortunately, that line is difficult and (I think) often dangerous to define.
If people everyone trading MP3s really did just that, to foster exposure to new music and forms of expression, artists would be delighted. (Record companies, though, would probably not be. But they never are.)
Unfortunately, a lot of the MP3 trade has become people simply getting music for free instead of buying it. As much as some people want to say this isn't true, I think we all know it is. And if was just a bit of it going on (there's always been piracy), that would be OK. But we have a very different situation.
Then, there are some people who don't feel they should have to pay for music. Fair enough, but don't count on other people to pay for your music collection.
It's hard to take Limp's side, because Napster paid them $2,000,000.00. They're riding a great rollercoaster, and they're at the top right now. But see what they say in ten years, when those ASCAP checks don't cover the bills any more. And no radio station will play their single, no matter how much you pay them.
I don't blame Limp or Metallica--they're just doing what they can to survive in a business that cares for no one.
I guess I expect more from Slashdot readers, though, than "Fuck Metallic" and "I'm throwing out all my Metallica." Why is there so much anger? Metallica doesn't just support themselves from record sales, but a lot of other people in the extended organization. These people work hard and have families. And they never got rich.
I do find it hard to take Metallica seriously when talk about their "art", when they've basically been as much a part of the corporate machine as anyone else. I don't think they're heros or villains. They're just trying to get paid for their work.
I do think things need to change in this industry. I don't like the old ways of doing things, and I do think free speech is more important than money.
Bill Evans
open-source-music.org