Part of what she's asking for isn't so bad, namely aggregate metrics or just general listening statistics. I've got some music on Pandora as well, and I can say that they make absolutely no information available about how many people are listening, how many listeners skip the song, how many listeners give the song a thumbs up or down, etc. Once the music goes in, the rest if a big mystery.
She loses me when she suggests that she should just magically be able to get her listeners' contact information without some sort of opt-in. As much as I would love an epic mailing list of anyone who has ever heard my work... yeah... no...
First off, what kind of dumbass would make a driverless car that can be hacked from the outside? The worst an intruder without physical access to the vehicle should be able to do is jam GPS, and even then a well-designed system should be able to use cached map data.
My data is largely anecdotal. I'm a TV/film/video game composer myself, and I'm networked in pretty hard with a lot of musicians/composers both on the work for hire side and on the recording artist side. Most of my closest associates are pretty dramatically in the middle class bracket, despite working on large projects that you've definitely heard of.
Since I'm not really that active on the recording artist side of things, I can't say that things like downloading affect me too much. But anytime copyright discussions come up, I feel like I need to weigh; a lot of arguments that center around recording artists and copyright have dramatic legal implications for the work I do.
As far as the chart you cited goes, it doesn't give separate data for different income brackets, so it's tough to take any conclusions from it. I can only say that, as a composer, I'm not out there playing live shows, so...
I would be careful here. While there very much is a rich "1%" of the creative class, there is also a rapidly shrinking low/middle income creative class that is affected by things like downloading.
I'm not necessarily commenting on the ethical implications of downloading or even the ethical implications of the RIAA suing you, but it's worth pointing out that there most professional musicians probably shouldn't be lumped in with mega rich artists.
All this switching back and forth between dynamic range compression and data compression makes my head hurt.
So to clear things up... dynamic range compression is a form of signal processing that is usually used to make the average level of a signal louder, hence the loudness wars.
Data compression probably doesn't need to be explained to this crowd. But you know... MP3s and stuff.
That noise reduction technology was really designed to reduce tape hiss inherent in the cassette tapes themselves and wouldn't reduce noise inherited from the master recording. It's likely that whatever choices were made during the recording and mastering stages of producing that particular album resulted in a noisy master.
3. Drop copyrights. Sorry, but copyrights are clearly an unenforceable construction in the digital age.
If that means businesses that relied on copyrights to make back their investment will have to instead find a new funding model, so be it.
Wait... you want to do away with copyright altogether?
Just think of all the "new funding models" that will be available:
I could write a sequel to the Harry Potter books. If I had been really quick about it, I could even have rushed out a sequel right after she had written the first book, but before she was done writing her second book. I could call it Harry Potter 2: Forbidden Lust and use her cover art from the original publication without paying for it!
Or maybe I could just take the text of Harry Potter and resell it under a new name, maybe Harvey Bowler and the Wizard's Rock!
For the cover art for Harvey Bowler, I'll just go online and find the coolest pictures I can find and use those. I won't have to pay the original artist for them at all! What a deal!
I could turn Harvey Bowler into a big budget movie. Fortunately, I won't have to pay any musicians to write music for it, since I can just take whatever music I want from anything else. There's this great artist who did a song I love that would be perfect for the end credits. I can use his music for free!
It's so obvious! Completely abolishing copyright is the only solution that makes sense! Let's do it!
As far as them being the biggest offender I was under the assumption that if I posted a video with Alan Parson Project as the background music I am fully allowed to use it under "Fair Use", as long as I'm not making a profit.
Fair use allows using copyrighted material for educational purposes, criticism, research, etc. Using a song for background music would not be considered fair use, especially if the entire song is used.
ASCAP/BMI/SESAC licensing fees cover public performance of a copyrighted work, which includes playing the recording in a bar, a cover band playing the song in a venue, playing the recording over the radio or on television, etc. The intention is to funnel some of the money that the venue is earning from playing your song back to the artist. These amounts tend to be relatively small, but prevent situations where radio stations, say, can make tons of money off of advertising around your song without paying anything at all to the artist.
Using a copyrighted work within another work is something else entirely. "Another work" might refer to a stage play, a television show or film, an opera, and sometimes a staged presentation or demonstration. Those rights are called "grand rights" in the case of stage works and "sync rights" in the case of television or film and are not handled by ASCAP/BMI/SESAC. So, in cases where music is being used WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF ANOTHER WORK, explicit permission needs to be given by the copyright holder. The idea here is that, if Real Housewives of the OC wants to use your music as the opening of their show, they have to work it out with the composer/publisher and actually pay for that use.
Now... whether or not a political rally qualifies as a "dramatic work" is up for serious debate and is a question best left for a copyright lawyer. In the case of a television commercial, that is definitely something where explicit permission would need to be granted to use the song.
Before we rush to blame big media consolidation for the flood of crappy content, let us consider that "Mall Cop" made more money than "Inglorious Basterds,"District 9," and "Up in the Air ". The Hurt Locker has a box office ranking of #116 for that year. "Star Wars: Episode III" is the top film of 2005. The #2 film of 2010, "Tranformers: Revenge of the Fallen," has grossed over $400 million.
As long as people keep paying for crap, crap will continue to be made. It's a no brainer.
Let's pretend for a moment, that these people aren't just trolls looking for quick settlements. Difficult, I know.
But in what universe does it make sense for a patent holder to sue the end user? That would be like Apple suing a consumer for buying a Samsung tablet.
I would like to see one of the troll victims post an open letter that says something along the lines of, "Go away or prepare to be counter-sued into oblivion." Alas, TFA makes it sound like someone could try that and still lose.:(
No. The vast majority of artworks DON'T make their money in the first few months. That may be true for Britney Spears or the Star Wars prequels, but the vast majority of music and film is made by independent artists and may take years just to catch on. A one year term of copyright would be completely devastating to the art community.
I make music for a living. When I released my first album, it took months to get the music on Pandora radio and then took most of a year to start getting noticed and listened to. Now, after more than a year, sales are starting to happen, and I'm finally getting recognition and a little financial compensation for my work. If the copyright term were one year, Universal Pictures could take my music, use it as a soundtrack to one of their films, and pay me exactly $0. Kanye could take my album, do nothing but rap over it, make millions in the months following it's release without crediting me, and pay me $0. Sure, copyright protects the entertainment industry. It also protects artists when the entertainment industry wants to screw them.
Independent film would die tomorrow. What investor would put up money to help a young director make a film, when any distributor could hold out for a year and then release the film for free without compensating the director or the initial investors? Hell, in a one-year copyright world, another studio could legally have rushed to make Star Wars 2: The Adventures of Chewbacca, before Empire Strikes Back was even completed.
Copyright terms might be too long, but it's a HUGE mistake to think that cutting them down to nothing would make the art world a better, more fair place. Far from it.
Comments questioning the artistic merit of this piece are ignoring the last 100 years of art history. There is at this time a long and rich tradition of conceptual art that this piece fits into. Just look at Duchamp's Fountain and follow the history of conceptual art to today.
And while we might criticize a piece of conceptual art or even criticize the movement as a whole. Some art relies on technical skill. Some art, like this piece here, relies on conceptual insight or social awareness. I would argue that it's just bad form to dismiss an entire portion of art history because something's not made with oil paint or chiseled out of marble.
As for my opinion, the piece is interesting but far from brilliant.
Big ideas are happening all the time, but you can't look for them in all the old places and expect to find anything. We're making huge advances in neuroscience that are completely revolutionizing the way we look at the human mind. We're finding novel ways to collect energy, discovering new ways of communicating that are having powerful societal effects, making advances in artificially intelligent machines, moving the power of manufacturing into our homes with the promise of 3D-printing, building autonomous vehicles, putting space travel into the reach of civilians, changing our genes, developing regenerative medicine technologies, and on and on and on...
Slashdot Mirror
Part of what she's asking for isn't so bad, namely aggregate metrics or just general listening statistics. I've got some music on Pandora as well, and I can say that they make absolutely no information available about how many people are listening, how many listeners skip the song, how many listeners give the song a thumbs up or down, etc. Once the music goes in, the rest if a big mystery.
She loses me when she suggests that she should just magically be able to get her listeners' contact information without some sort of opt-in. As much as I would love an epic mailing list of anyone who has ever heard my work... yeah... no...
Artists already receive royalties for terrestrial radio. The metrics for tracking performances aren't very good, though.
First off, what kind of dumbass would make a driverless car that can be hacked from the outside? The worst an intruder without physical access to the vehicle should be able to do is jam GPS, and even then a well-designed system should be able to use cached map data.
Try BMW, for starters.
My data is largely anecdotal. I'm a TV/film/video game composer myself, and I'm networked in pretty hard with a lot of musicians/composers both on the work for hire side and on the recording artist side. Most of my closest associates are pretty dramatically in the middle class bracket, despite working on large projects that you've definitely heard of.
Since I'm not really that active on the recording artist side of things, I can't say that things like downloading affect me too much. But anytime copyright discussions come up, I feel like I need to weigh; a lot of arguments that center around recording artists and copyright have dramatic legal implications for the work I do.
As far as the chart you cited goes, it doesn't give separate data for different income brackets, so it's tough to take any conclusions from it. I can only say that, as a composer, I'm not out there playing live shows, so...
I would be careful here. While there very much is a rich "1%" of the creative class, there is also a rapidly shrinking low/middle income creative class that is affected by things like downloading.
I'm not necessarily commenting on the ethical implications of downloading or even the ethical implications of the RIAA suing you, but it's worth pointing out that there most professional musicians probably shouldn't be lumped in with mega rich artists.
How-to here.
McLovin: Muhammed is the most commonly used name on Earth, read a book for once.
Arizona proposes another batshit law.
The rest of the country is unsurprised.
Norton keeps me safe.
All this switching back and forth between dynamic range compression and data compression makes my head hurt.
So to clear things up... dynamic range compression is a form of signal processing that is usually used to make the average level of a signal louder, hence the loudness wars.
Data compression probably doesn't need to be explained to this crowd. But you know... MP3s and stuff.
Really. This will get some good buzz going in advance of Sony formally releasing the tracks.
That noise reduction technology was really designed to reduce tape hiss inherent in the cassette tapes themselves and wouldn't reduce noise inherited from the master recording. It's likely that whatever choices were made during the recording and mastering stages of producing that particular album resulted in a noisy master.
3. Drop copyrights. Sorry, but copyrights are clearly an unenforceable construction in the digital age. If that means businesses that relied on copyrights to make back their investment will have to instead find a new funding model, so be it.
Wait... you want to do away with copyright altogether?
Just think of all the "new funding models" that will be available:
I could write a sequel to the Harry Potter books. If I had been really quick about it, I could even have rushed out a sequel right after she had written the first book, but before she was done writing her second book. I could call it Harry Potter 2: Forbidden Lust and use her cover art from the original publication without paying for it!
Or maybe I could just take the text of Harry Potter and resell it under a new name, maybe Harvey Bowler and the Wizard's Rock!
For the cover art for Harvey Bowler, I'll just go online and find the coolest pictures I can find and use those. I won't have to pay the original artist for them at all! What a deal!
I could turn Harvey Bowler into a big budget movie. Fortunately, I won't have to pay any musicians to write music for it, since I can just take whatever music I want from anything else. There's this great artist who did a song I love that would be perfect for the end credits. I can use his music for free!
It's so obvious! Completely abolishing copyright is the only solution that makes sense! Let's do it!
As far as them being the biggest offender I was under the assumption that if I posted a video with Alan Parson Project as the background music I am fully allowed to use it under "Fair Use", as long as I'm not making a profit.
Fair use allows using copyrighted material for educational purposes, criticism, research, etc. Using a song for background music would not be considered fair use, especially if the entire song is used.
but only if you promise to buy REAL clothes this time.
ASCAP/BMI/SESAC licensing fees cover public performance of a copyrighted work, which includes playing the recording in a bar, a cover band playing the song in a venue, playing the recording over the radio or on television, etc. The intention is to funnel some of the money that the venue is earning from playing your song back to the artist. These amounts tend to be relatively small, but prevent situations where radio stations, say, can make tons of money off of advertising around your song without paying anything at all to the artist.
Using a copyrighted work within another work is something else entirely. "Another work" might refer to a stage play, a television show or film, an opera, and sometimes a staged presentation or demonstration. Those rights are called "grand rights" in the case of stage works and "sync rights" in the case of television or film and are not handled by ASCAP/BMI/SESAC. So, in cases where music is being used WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF ANOTHER WORK, explicit permission needs to be given by the copyright holder. The idea here is that, if Real Housewives of the OC wants to use your music as the opening of their show, they have to work it out with the composer/publisher and actually pay for that use.
Now... whether or not a political rally qualifies as a "dramatic work" is up for serious debate and is a question best left for a copyright lawyer. In the case of a television commercial, that is definitely something where explicit permission would need to be granted to use the song.
Caller: Hi, I'm calling from... er... Google... and it says here in this text file that you have a credit card number on file with us. Is that right?
Victim: Yes, that's right.
Caller: Cool. Would you mind giving me that account number so I can verify your identity?
Victim: Let me get my card...
Before we rush to blame big media consolidation for the flood of crappy content, let us consider that "Mall Cop" made more money than "Inglorious Basterds,"District 9," and "Up in the Air ". The Hurt Locker has a box office ranking of #116 for that year. "Star Wars: Episode III" is the top film of 2005. The #2 film of 2010, "Tranformers: Revenge of the Fallen," has grossed over $400 million.
As long as people keep paying for crap, crap will continue to be made. It's a no brainer.
Let's pretend for a moment, that these people aren't just trolls looking for quick settlements. Difficult, I know.
But in what universe does it make sense for a patent holder to sue the end user? That would be like Apple suing a consumer for buying a Samsung tablet.
I would like to see one of the troll victims post an open letter that says something along the lines of, "Go away or prepare to be counter-sued into oblivion." Alas, TFA makes it sound like someone could try that and still lose. :(
We just need to give students real, live human hearts to study. MWUAHAHAHAA!!
No. The vast majority of artworks DON'T make their money in the first few months. That may be true for Britney Spears or the Star Wars prequels, but the vast majority of music and film is made by independent artists and may take years just to catch on. A one year term of copyright would be completely devastating to the art community.
I make music for a living. When I released my first album, it took months to get the music on Pandora radio and then took most of a year to start getting noticed and listened to. Now, after more than a year, sales are starting to happen, and I'm finally getting recognition and a little financial compensation for my work. If the copyright term were one year, Universal Pictures could take my music, use it as a soundtrack to one of their films, and pay me exactly $0. Kanye could take my album, do nothing but rap over it, make millions in the months following it's release without crediting me, and pay me $0. Sure, copyright protects the entertainment industry. It also protects artists when the entertainment industry wants to screw them.
Independent film would die tomorrow. What investor would put up money to help a young director make a film, when any distributor could hold out for a year and then release the film for free without compensating the director or the initial investors? Hell, in a one-year copyright world, another studio could legally have rushed to make Star Wars 2: The Adventures of Chewbacca, before Empire Strikes Back was even completed.
Copyright terms might be too long, but it's a HUGE mistake to think that cutting them down to nothing would make the art world a better, more fair place. Far from it.
In his spare time he works on ice-nine and various other potentially apocalyptic substances.
Comments questioning the artistic merit of this piece are ignoring the last 100 years of art history. There is at this time a long and rich tradition of conceptual art that this piece fits into. Just look at Duchamp's Fountain and follow the history of conceptual art to today.
And while we might criticize a piece of conceptual art or even criticize the movement as a whole. Some art relies on technical skill. Some art, like this piece here, relies on conceptual insight or social awareness. I would argue that it's just bad form to dismiss an entire portion of art history because something's not made with oil paint or chiseled out of marble.
As for my opinion, the piece is interesting but far from brilliant.
http://xkcd.com/915/
Big ideas are happening all the time, but you can't look for them in all the old places and expect to find anything. We're making huge advances in neuroscience that are completely revolutionizing the way we look at the human mind. We're finding novel ways to collect energy, discovering new ways of communicating that are having powerful societal effects, making advances in artificially intelligent machines, moving the power of manufacturing into our homes with the promise of 3D-printing, building autonomous vehicles, putting space travel into the reach of civilians, changing our genes, developing regenerative medicine technologies, and on and on and on...
That's no run-on sentence. It's a space station.
However, there IS incorrect comma usage in the first sentence of the summary, and the last two are fragments. Yay, pedantry!!