Hey, did I say that? No! I said the users should be expected to *learn* something. God forbid...
Don't know about you or what a majority of MythTV users do, but I DON'T build dedicated PVRs
Then you're most certainly in the minority, and your needs may not be well served by Myth.
I just don't think it should come down to that for an entertainment app.
If that's all your Myth install is to you, then you're definitely in the minority. Myth isn't an "app". It's a software system, with a full client-server architecture. My own system is composed of a dedicated backend server, along with an HTPC in my livingroom, communicating over a 100mbps switched network. It's an entertainment center, and very much an appliance. But like any complex system, it requires knowledge to build and maintain. If you don't like that, tough shit, go find another product that fits your needs.
Actually, yes. What do you think EVERY other PVR software expects you to do?
Suffer with half the features, for a price.
The fact is, Myth gives a person who wants a powerful, customizable PVR a system which will do basically anything they could ever want. But it comes at the price of complexity. Is that a fault? Personally, I don't think so. It's simply the case that Myth isn't targeted at users who aren't willing to get their hands a little dirty.
It is just wrong to expect an end user for a PVR to even know what a database is
No offense, but that's fucking idiotic. If you're building a DIY PVR, and you decide to build it on top of Linux, it behooves you to understand the basics of system administration. This includes how to run a mysql database, among other things. Or were you just expecting the system to magically auto-maintain itself?
Is that Allofmp3.com is able to operate because they take advantage of a compulsory licensing scheme. Using this scheme, they pay a fee for each song they "broadcast" to a central Russian copyright entity, and this entity is then responsible for dispensing those fees to the artists.
Meanwhile, the CRB and SoundExchange form an *identical* arrangement, yet people on Slashdot bitch and complain about how unjust this system is. Funny, that...
(BTW, that's not to say the new rates the CRB is proposing are anything but ridiculous. But to say the system itself is unjust, and then applaud allofmp3, is, to say the least, incredibly hypocritical).
But a strong un-dying loyality in this day and age is very very difficult to find.
I agree. That's why I admire the Nazi's so much. I mean, you gotta thing a lot of 'em knew what they were doing was wrong, but damnit, they were loyal! And as we all know, loyalty is valuable above all else, including morality, integrity, etc...
Also, I was definitely talking (and still am) about civil courts
Ah, then you truly are misinformed. SE has no standing regarding civil suits. They simply act as a receiving and dispensing agency for license fees. Only the copyright holder or a designated agent thereof can bring forth a civil suit.
That does not negate SoundExchange fees, and that's the beef artists have. According to them, SE collects fees anyway.
Really? Where are these statements? What artists have made these claims? Have you heard them yourself, or were they just passed on by someone equally ignorant on the subject?
If that's true,
It's *not*. Christ, read the regulations. You either pay SE, or you pay the artists. That's it, that's all. SE only collects an administrative fee if they're being charged with collecting royalties, but if they're not, they're *completely* out of the loop. Period. End of story. I mean, what fees can SE extract if no money is passing through their hands??
That would be wonderful, but I'm afraid that it's not true. Everything I've read tells me that SoundExchange is the only game in town... forever.
Yeah, I did some digging, and it appears I was wrong, in that the CRB selects the designated agent. However, that doesn't change the fact that the compulsory license is still optional.
What if you don't want fees to be collected?
Then apply a blanket license to your material. As I've said elsewhere, the compulsory license is *optional* for broadcasters. You only need to pay it if you haven't already arranged a licensing agreement with the copyright holder. As this page says:
Does the Intended User Have to Use a Compulsory License?
No. The person wishing to make and distribute phonorecords of a nondramatic musical work may negotiate directly with the copyright owner or his or her agent. But, if the copyright owner is unwilling to negotiate or if the copyright owner cannot be contacted, the person intending to record the work may use the compulsory licensing provisions of the copyright law.
Months in court? What the fuck are you talking about? You go to court, you provide the license agreement, maybe subpoena the copyright holder, and the case is dismissed. And this is assuming the case was brought to trial in the first place (assuming a criminal prosecution is being attempted). Fortunately, your average prosecutor will likely not bother trying a case when there's clear evidence of no wrongdoing.
Honestly, how the fuck do you think the legal system works??
I should point out, I can't find any method of register a receiving agent with the CRB, so that part of my comment could very well be incorrect. The rest still stands, however.
Do you have any evidence that that is really how it works?
I do now, after some basic Google searching. See this page. To quote:
Does the Intended User Have to Use a Compulsory License?
No. The person wishing to make and distribute phonorecords of a nondramatic musical work may negotiate directly with the copyright owner or his or her agent. But, if the copyright owner is unwilling to negotiate or if the copyright owner cannot be contacted, the person intending to record the work may use the compulsory licensing provisions of the copyright law.
If you have authorization from the artist, SE has no standing to demand fees, as you've already negotiated a license. It's the very nature of a compulsory license that this is possible. Otherwise, the government would be removing from the artist the right to negotiate copyright on their own materials, which is *exceedingly* unlikely. Do I have any proof on hand? No. But anything else would be sheer, utter insanity.
even for music being streamed by the copyright holder or with their direct authorization
Christ, this is so wrong it makes me want to cry. Broadcasters have *always* had the option to secure rights with the artists, themselves. The compulsory license is simply another route for broadcasters who don't want to jump through those hoops. The point being, if you have direct authorization from the artist, you can tell SE to go fuck themselves.
Honestly, how is it people here get this shit so completely wrong?
SoundExchange has no idea how to create a viable business model.
That's because they aren't a fucking for-profit business.
SoundExchange is a non-profit organization charged with dispensing licensing fees to artists, fees charged based on a compulsory licensing scheme set up by the government. A scheme that is *optional* (the broadcasters can always deal with the artists directly, if they're willing to shoulder that cost burden). Further, they are simply the *default* collecting agency. An artists is free to register a different one with the CRB if they like.
You might want to educate yourself before spouting off and making yourself look like an idiot.
Broadcasters have *always* had the option of negotiating broadcast licensing deals with artists directly. The compulsory licensing scheme exists for one reason, to make it easy for radio stations to broadcast music without having to deal with each and every artist.
Jesus Christ, every time this damn conversation comes up, it's clear no one here has any idea how this actually works...
SoundExchange was selected by the Copyright Royalty Board as the default arbiter for royalties paid under the compulsory licensing scheme. There is *nothing* stopping an artist from selecting a different arbiter, and registering it with the CRB, at which point any compulsory licensing fees will be handled by that group. There is no "monopoly" here, because there is no business. At best, SoundExchange covers their operating costs. But there is no profit to be had. This is not a commercial venture.
they can block all but RIAA members and force membership.
No, they can't, and this statement makes it obvious you're just making things up as you go along.
Any artist, *any one*, can register with SoundExchange, in order to receive their share of the royalties, and they can do so *for free*. Further, internet radio stations don't become "members" with SE. They simply pay their compulsory fees to them. And SE has no choice but to accept those fees, and pay them out to artists who have registered with them. Such is the arrangement between SE and the CRB.
The fact is, the only thing discriminatory about this setup is the fee structure, and SE is *not* responsible for determining that. The CRB is. It just happens that the CRB is effectively rubber stamping the rate structure proposed by SE, that's all. In fact, the compulsory licensing mechanism, *as a concept*, is a very very good idea, otherwise radio stations would have to negotiate with each and every artist in order to secure broadcasting rights. The problem is that the CRB has been hijacked by industry interests... 'course, that's just business as usual in Washington, so I fail to see how that's surprising.
When the parole officer inspect his computer and see his VMware installation with a linux VM, they would probably put him back in jail.
Sure. If he used vmware. But, of course, I mentioned live CDs and USB keys for a reason...
But my point isn't that he can do it, but rather that government controls over what a person does on their computer are, ultimately futile, unless they watch him 24 hours a day. The best they could probably do is put a sniffer on his broadband connection, and make the use of encryption a violation of his parole ('course, that also outlaws any SSL-enabled websites, but so it goes, it *is* a punishment, after all).
Someone complained to "Points of View" and got read out. The answer: adverts aren't louder, they just *soulnd* louder.
Um, if I recall correctly, loudness is a PERCEPTUAL figure. So if it "sounds" louder, it IS louder.
Yeah... they sound louder because... get this... they're *compressed*, hence the whole point of this article. IOW, the peak amplitude of the waveform is still limited by the volume knob on your TV, but the entire waveform is running right around the peak, unlike the program the ad is interrupting.
I kind of knew Linus doesn't feel a compulsion to maintain neutrality in any number of issues, but still in the context of that whole "Is Intel sitting on 30nm chips" or whatever story, it kind of jumped out at me,
Why? The fact is, as far as hardware developers go, Intel has been pretty good about releasing specs to their gear. Perfect? No. But far better than nVidia, ATI, or any of the many WiFi card manufacturers. So, whether you believe in Intel conspiracy theories are not, doesn't change the fact that Linus is right.
"The good news is that a lot of hw manufacturers are actually doing the right thing. Intel in particular has improved wrt open source a lot, and for that reason I tend to suggest that when buying a machine, just make sure that you buy one with Intel graphics and wireless. That takes care of the two biggest annoyances right there."
Hmmm.
"Hmmm" what? If you had a point, you might try making it next time... unless, of course, you were simply trolling.
Slashdot Mirror
That bigotic "Those dumb users" mindset
Hey, did I say that? No! I said the users should be expected to *learn* something. God forbid...
Don't know about you or what a majority of MythTV users do, but I DON'T build dedicated PVRs
Then you're most certainly in the minority, and your needs may not be well served by Myth.
I just don't think it should come down to that for an entertainment app.
If that's all your Myth install is to you, then you're definitely in the minority. Myth isn't an "app". It's a software system, with a full client-server architecture. My own system is composed of a dedicated backend server, along with an HTPC in my livingroom, communicating over a 100mbps switched network. It's an entertainment center, and very much an appliance. But like any complex system, it requires knowledge to build and maintain. If you don't like that, tough shit, go find another product that fits your needs.
Actually, yes. What do you think EVERY other PVR software expects you to do?
Suffer with half the features, for a price.
The fact is, Myth gives a person who wants a powerful, customizable PVR a system which will do basically anything they could ever want. But it comes at the price of complexity. Is that a fault? Personally, I don't think so. It's simply the case that Myth isn't targeted at users who aren't willing to get their hands a little dirty.
To my surprise, XBMC completely blows MythTV out of the water.
Weird, I had no idea you could plug a video capture card into an XBox, let alone set up XBMC to use it to record TV. Got any links?
It is just wrong to expect an end user for a PVR to even know what a database is
No offense, but that's fucking idiotic. If you're building a DIY PVR, and you decide to build it on top of Linux, it behooves you to understand the basics of system administration. This includes how to run a mysql database, among other things. Or were you just expecting the system to magically auto-maintain itself?
ROFL! You can't be serious! Consider:
.NET).
Array.Length
List.Count
I'm sure there are a million other examples (date handling, for example, is totally fucked up in
I've said for some time now, C# is actually a pretty decent language hobbled by a horrible class library.
Yeah, I *was* shooting for irony/sarcasm, but I suppose that may be too subtle for some...
Is that Allofmp3.com is able to operate because they take advantage of a compulsory licensing scheme. Using this scheme, they pay a fee for each song they "broadcast" to a central Russian copyright entity, and this entity is then responsible for dispensing those fees to the artists.
Meanwhile, the CRB and SoundExchange form an *identical* arrangement, yet people on Slashdot bitch and complain about how unjust this system is. Funny, that...
(BTW, that's not to say the new rates the CRB is proposing are anything but ridiculous. But to say the system itself is unjust, and then applaud allofmp3, is, to say the least, incredibly hypocritical).
Did you hear the *whooshing* sound? Do I need to explain it to you? :)
Bush's pleasure is the only principle that our country exists to serve.
What a coincidence, Clinton thought the same thing! The difference is, he almost got impeached for it...
But a strong un-dying loyality in this day and age is very very difficult to find.
I agree. That's why I admire the Nazi's so much. I mean, you gotta thing a lot of 'em knew what they were doing was wrong, but damnit, they were loyal! And as we all know, loyalty is valuable above all else, including morality, integrity, etc...
Also, I was definitely talking (and still am) about civil courts
Ah, then you truly are misinformed. SE has no standing regarding civil suits. They simply act as a receiving and dispensing agency for license fees. Only the copyright holder or a designated agent thereof can bring forth a civil suit.
That does not negate SoundExchange fees, and that's the beef artists have. According to them, SE collects fees anyway.
Really? Where are these statements? What artists have made these claims? Have you heard them yourself, or were they just passed on by someone equally ignorant on the subject?
If that's true,
It's *not*. Christ, read the regulations. You either pay SE, or you pay the artists. That's it, that's all. SE only collects an administrative fee if they're being charged with collecting royalties, but if they're not, they're *completely* out of the loop. Period. End of story. I mean, what fees can SE extract if no money is passing through their hands??
Yeah, I did some digging, and it appears I was wrong, in that the CRB selects the designated agent. However, that doesn't change the fact that the compulsory license is still optional.
What if you don't want fees to be collected?
Then apply a blanket license to your material. As I've said elsewhere, the compulsory license is *optional* for broadcasters. You only need to pay it if you haven't already arranged a licensing agreement with the copyright holder. As this page says:
Months in court? What the fuck are you talking about? You go to court, you provide the license agreement, maybe subpoena the copyright holder, and the case is dismissed. And this is assuming the case was brought to trial in the first place (assuming a criminal prosecution is being attempted). Fortunately, your average prosecutor will likely not bother trying a case when there's clear evidence of no wrongdoing.
Honestly, how the fuck do you think the legal system works??
I should point out, I can't find any method of register a receiving agent with the CRB, so that part of my comment could very well be incorrect. The rest still stands, however.
I do now, after some basic Google searching. See this page. To quote:
If you have authorization from the artist, SE has no standing to demand fees, as you've already negotiated a license. It's the very nature of a compulsory license that this is possible. Otherwise, the government would be removing from the artist the right to negotiate copyright on their own materials, which is *exceedingly* unlikely. Do I have any proof on hand? No. But anything else would be sheer, utter insanity.
even for music being streamed by the copyright holder or with their direct authorization
Christ, this is so wrong it makes me want to cry. Broadcasters have *always* had the option to secure rights with the artists, themselves. The compulsory license is simply another route for broadcasters who don't want to jump through those hoops. The point being, if you have direct authorization from the artist, you can tell SE to go fuck themselves.
Honestly, how is it people here get this shit so completely wrong?
SoundExchange has no idea how to create a viable business model.
That's because they aren't a fucking for-profit business.
SoundExchange is a non-profit organization charged with dispensing licensing fees to artists, fees charged based on a compulsory licensing scheme set up by the government. A scheme that is *optional* (the broadcasters can always deal with the artists directly, if they're willing to shoulder that cost burden). Further, they are simply the *default* collecting agency. An artists is free to register a different one with the CRB if they like.
because its just an extortion racket.
You might want to educate yourself before spouting off and making yourself look like an idiot.
Broadcasters have *always* had the option of negotiating broadcast licensing deals with artists directly. The compulsory licensing scheme exists for one reason, to make it easy for radio stations to broadcast music without having to deal with each and every artist.
SoundExchange has been given monopoly status.
Jesus Christ, every time this damn conversation comes up, it's clear no one here has any idea how this actually works...
SoundExchange was selected by the Copyright Royalty Board as the default arbiter for royalties paid under the compulsory licensing scheme. There is *nothing* stopping an artist from selecting a different arbiter, and registering it with the CRB, at which point any compulsory licensing fees will be handled by that group. There is no "monopoly" here, because there is no business. At best, SoundExchange covers their operating costs. But there is no profit to be had. This is not a commercial venture.
they can block all but RIAA members and force membership.
No, they can't, and this statement makes it obvious you're just making things up as you go along.
Any artist, *any one*, can register with SoundExchange, in order to receive their share of the royalties, and they can do so *for free*. Further, internet radio stations don't become "members" with SE. They simply pay their compulsory fees to them. And SE has no choice but to accept those fees, and pay them out to artists who have registered with them. Such is the arrangement between SE and the CRB.
The fact is, the only thing discriminatory about this setup is the fee structure, and SE is *not* responsible for determining that. The CRB is. It just happens that the CRB is effectively rubber stamping the rate structure proposed by SE, that's all. In fact, the compulsory licensing mechanism, *as a concept*, is a very very good idea, otherwise radio stations would have to negotiate with each and every artist in order to secure broadcasting rights. The problem is that the CRB has been hijacked by industry interests... 'course, that's just business as usual in Washington, so I fail to see how that's surprising.
When the parole officer inspect his computer and see his VMware installation with a linux VM, they would probably put him back in jail.
Sure. If he used vmware. But, of course, I mentioned live CDs and USB keys for a reason...
But my point isn't that he can do it, but rather that government controls over what a person does on their computer are, ultimately futile, unless they watch him 24 hours a day. The best they could probably do is put a sniffer on his broadband connection, and make the use of encryption a violation of his parole ('course, that also outlaws any SSL-enabled websites, but so it goes, it *is* a punishment, after all).
Or use a LiveCD. Or a virtual machine. Or a USB external hard drive....
Someone complained to "Points of View" and got read out. The answer: adverts aren't louder, they just *soulnd* louder.
Um, if I recall correctly, loudness is a PERCEPTUAL figure. So if it "sounds" louder, it IS louder.
Yeah... they sound louder because... get this... they're *compressed*, hence the whole point of this article. IOW, the peak amplitude of the waveform is still limited by the volume knob on your TV, but the entire waveform is running right around the peak, unlike the program the ad is interrupting.
I kind of knew Linus doesn't feel a compulsion to maintain neutrality in any number of issues, but still in the context of that whole "Is Intel sitting on 30nm chips" or whatever story, it kind of jumped out at me,
Why? The fact is, as far as hardware developers go, Intel has been pretty good about releasing specs to their gear. Perfect? No. But far better than nVidia, ATI, or any of the many WiFi card manufacturers. So, whether you believe in Intel conspiracy theories are not, doesn't change the fact that Linus is right.
"Hmmm" what? If you had a point, you might try making it next time... unless, of course, you were simply trolling.