Jimi Hendrix's would be very difficult for a computer to mimic, as it is built on a great deal of imprecision and off-tones -- generally things that would be considered big mistakes except that it comes out sounding so good.
There was a short interview in Wired a while back where the guy from White Town talked about how his drum machine could give him any beat imaginable in perfect time at the touch of a button but it took him three days of programming to make it do a simple beat just slightly off-perfect.
To a computer Hendrix's playing would be considered to have an error every other note. To mathematically figure out which 'errors' are actually aesthetically pleasing, to what extent, and in what contexts, would be a huge undertaking (perhaps the same 'error' wouldn't work in any other context but the one in which it occurs),
The system in the article uses general music rules and adds "some randomness" and general human habits (like hitting the first beat of the measure slightly early) -- it doesn't mimic a particular person. - <SIG> "I am not trying to prove that I am right... I am only trying to find out whether." -Bertolt Brecht
My project isn't overdue, the client has just narrowed his perception of the universe to three dimensions. - <SIG> "I am not trying to prove that I am right... I am only trying to find out whether." -Bertolt Brecht
I have found that some Americans tend to have circular logic with regards to freedom (freedom is defined almost as "how America is" therefore the question of "is America free?" is self-referential)
As Mr. Katz observes, no person is perfect and freedom needs preserving
Yet he has not solved the problem. His new definition of freedom is "how the Internet is". The moment you decide any human-related entity is inherently free or inherently uncensorable, you are in trouble.
The best way to take something from someone is to convince them that no-one can take it away from them. - <SIG> "I am not trying to prove that I am right... I am only trying to find out whether." -Bertolt Brecht
I was just talking to a friend the other day about his education at the University of Waterloo (across the river from Detroit). He mentioned that while other schools had courses in programming languages like C, etc., at Waterloo instruction in specific languages was only in optional two-week non-credit workshops. The courses were about programming and assumed you knew the languages (for those outside of Canada: Waterloo is known for its tough math and comp sci programs) - <SIG> "I am not trying to prove that I am right... I am only trying to find out whether." -Bertolt Brecht
Well, it's great to see Slashdot used as a resource this way, but this could skew the whole continuum.
Slashdot consists mainly of references to news stories and commentary upon those stories. If people start writing news stories based on the commentary found on Slashdot, the whole world of journalism could implode. - <SIG> "I am not trying to prove that I am right... I am only trying to find out whether." -Bertolt Brecht
I guess so. Most places do have a note in their "terms of use" that you are granting them rights to use your words in perpetuity in any medium but Slashdot seems to be saying specifically the opposite. (Note that this would seem to be a deliberate choice) Though you are, of course granting the right to post your words on the web without any apparent limit.
+_+_+_+_+_+
"I am not trying to prove that I am right,
I am only trying to find out whether."
But if Lexis-Nexis isn't afraid of being shut down, they won't be paying anyone. This is how copyright lawsuits work. You threaten to throw someone in jail for their theft and then they decide to pay for what they took.
The same thing happened with the Lawsuit over the musical RENT - Lynn Thomson didn't actually want to force anyone to stop producing the show, but it's the way the law works --You have to say "Stop taking my work without permission" and sound like you're saying "you can't have it" when the response you really want is "Okay, how do I get permission?"
+_+_+_+_+_+
"I am not trying to prove that I am right,
I am only trying to find out whether."
Funny a week ago(ish) there was an article about databases and freedom. Most people's sentiment was that you have the right to republish info in the public domain
But this isn't "in the public domain." The publishers said "we'll pay you $X to print your article in Tueady's paper and if we want to publish it again we'll pay you again" and then later decided that "Tuesday's paper" included selling electronic copies in perpetuity (at a buck an article for the NYTimes!).
+_+_+_+_+_+
"I am not trying to prove that I am right,
I am only trying to find out whether."
I don't think it's the norm that the publication has rights to republish. But regardless of that, they didn't in this case.
These publications had specifically bought "First North American Serial Rights" (FNASR) from the authors -- this is supposed to mean that if your article appears on Sept. 28, 1999, they will have to pay you again if they want to sell a copy of it again after that date.
Because they had not bought specific rights to republish the articles after the first publication, the newspapers tried to argue that the inclusion in the database was part of the initial publication (even though some of the articles were written years before the databases existed). The ruling is that perpetual publication in a database is not part of FNASR
Under American law, FNASR is the default in the absence of specific terms to the contrary.
Of course, these days the freelance contract does include signing away electronic rights -- the articles in the suit were written 10 years ago.
Another side comment: freelance work is rarely "work for hire" -- in fact they are usually opposites. "Work for hire" means that the product produced is a product of the corporation and not the individual -- a product is "work for hire" by default only if it is part of the job description of a salaried employee. Other cases would require specific contract terms. In freelance journalistic writing, "work for hire" terms are generally considered completely unnacceptable (of course, it's different for writing marketing copy, etc.) If it were "work for hire" the publication would own the copyright and have all rights exlusively.
For one site I'm working on, whois lmda.org is "not found" but www.lmda.org can be visited (not that there's anything there yet).
An "on hold" domain name I've been waiting to become available was "not found," so I fired off the e-mail registration template I had ready-made for such an occaision, and got a "this domain is already registered" error in return.
Some whois requests returned "Sorry, you shouldn't see this record" but trying them again immediately worked. (What is this message? When would this show up when things are working properly?)
Slashdot Mirror
There was a short interview in Wired a while back where the guy from White Town talked about how his drum machine could give him any beat imaginable in perfect time at the touch of a button but it took him three days of programming to make it do a simple beat just slightly off-perfect.
To a computer Hendrix's playing would be considered to have an error every other note. To mathematically figure out which 'errors' are actually aesthetically pleasing, to what extent, and in what contexts, would be a huge undertaking (perhaps the same 'error' wouldn't work in any other context but the one in which it occurs),
The system in the article uses general music rules and adds "some randomness" and general human habits (like hitting the first beat of the measure slightly early) -- it doesn't mimic a particular person.
-
<SIG>
"I am not trying to prove that I am right... I am only trying to find out whether." -Bertolt Brecht
My project isn't overdue, the client has just narrowed his perception of the universe to three dimensions.
-
<SIG>
"I am not trying to prove that I am right... I am only trying to find out whether." -Bertolt Brecht
:-)
-
<SIG>
"I am not trying to prove that I am right... I am only trying to find out whether." -Bertolt Brecht
As Mr. Katz observes, no person is perfect and freedom needs preserving
Yet he has not solved the problem. His new definition of freedom is "how the Internet is". The moment you decide any human-related entity is inherently free or inherently uncensorable, you are in trouble.
The best way to take something from someone is to convince them that no-one can take it away from them.
-
<SIG>
"I am not trying to prove that I am right... I am only trying to find out whether." -Bertolt Brecht
I was just talking to a friend the other day about his education at the University of Waterloo (across the river from Detroit). He mentioned that while other schools had courses in programming languages like C, etc., at Waterloo instruction in specific languages was only in optional two-week non-credit workshops. The courses were about programming and assumed you knew the languages (for those outside of Canada: Waterloo is known for its tough math and comp sci programs)
-
<SIG>
"I am not trying to prove that I am right... I am only trying to find out whether." -Bertolt Brecht
Slashdot consists mainly of references to news stories and commentary upon those stories. If people start writing news stories based on the commentary found on Slashdot, the whole world of journalism could implode.
-
<SIG>
"I am not trying to prove that I am right... I am only trying to find out whether." -Bertolt Brecht
+_+_+_+_+_+
The same thing happened with the Lawsuit over the musical RENT - Lynn Thomson didn't actually want to force anyone to stop producing the show, but it's the way the law works --You have to say "Stop taking my work without permission" and sound like you're saying "you can't have it" when the response you really want is "Okay, how do I get permission?"
+_+_+_+_+_+
But this isn't "in the public domain." The publishers said "we'll pay you $X to print your article in Tueady's paper and if we want to publish it again we'll pay you again" and then later decided that "Tuesday's paper" included selling electronic copies in perpetuity (at a buck an article for the NYTimes!).
+_+_+_+_+_+
+_+_+_+_+_+
These publications had specifically bought "First North American Serial Rights" (FNASR) from the authors -- this is supposed to mean that if your article appears on Sept. 28, 1999, they will have to pay you again if they want to sell a copy of it again after that date.
Because they had not bought specific rights to republish the articles after the first publication, the newspapers tried to argue that the inclusion in the database was part of the initial publication (even though some of the articles were written years before the databases existed). The ruling is that perpetual publication in a database is not part of FNASR
Under American law, FNASR is the default in the absence of specific terms to the contrary.
Of course, these days the freelance contract does include signing away electronic rights -- the articles in the suit were written 10 years ago.
Another side comment: freelance work is rarely "work for hire" -- in fact they are usually opposites. "Work for hire" means that the product produced is a product of the corporation and not the individual -- a product is "work for hire" by default only if it is part of the job description of a salaried employee. Other cases would require specific contract terms. In freelance journalistic writing, "work for hire" terms are generally considered completely unnacceptable (of course, it's different for writing marketing copy, etc.) If it were "work for hire" the publication would own the copyright and have all rights exlusively.
The National Writer'a Union site has the full text of the ruling.
+_+_+_+_+_+