The problem with AI is that it is constantly being redefined.
This is pretty much just propaganda from the AI community.
At one point, a robot that would vaccum your house without you lifting a finger would have been considered an example of AI.
The original expectation was of a robot which could do household chores, like the robot from the Jetsons. That is, a robot which could operate a vacuum cleaner, answer the door and feed the dog.
We still don't have that. Instead we have the vacuming cockroach that is the Roomba.
It used to be that a computer that could beat a human grandmaster at chess would have sufficed as AI.
Yes, but the expectation was that the computer would be using more or less the same mental processes as a human grandmaster. Instead we got a really fast tic-tac-toe solver which had to be repeatedly rebooted in order to perform its job.
AI will always be 10+ years away if we keep redefining it to exclude any successes we achieve.
The greatest success of the AI community has been to gradually reduce expectations to a level that is easily achieved through classical process control and ordinary solid engineering.
Firstly, if you're going to propagandize, at least be good at it. You aren't.
Oh come off it.
I'm singularly unimpressed by your pigheaded distortions of Marxist theory and your facile and blunt application thereof to a wholly inappropriate medium and sphere of industry.
I've released tunes on labels both small and big; have you? I've recorded tracks in my home studio and written my own software (GPL'd no less) to do so; have you? I've recorded in professional studios; have you? I've managed tours; have you?
I ask because all you've done so far is blather in exceedingly general terms about things you obviously don't understand.
My head has long told me that this is an unsupported conclusion of the pro-corporate forces that are trying to control that slippery product called "music". There is no proof whatsoever that touring is only possible due to the promotions of the record companies.
Well, there are plenty of other possibilities. There are many, many heavily sponsored events and concerts, and there is a thriving (albeit much smaller) non-profit scene.
However, the sponsored events by and large rely on popular artists to draw a crowd. This popularity is mostly (but not always) the result of the promotion efforts of a record company.
The non-profit scene has some very interesting stuff going on, but it hasn't really shown the ability to grow its audience. Not in the last place because the few enterprising individuals who succeed in doing so are accused of having "sold out".
So although it certainly is true that touring is possible without the record companies, this is a bit like saying that life on earth can continue without human beings. It's true, but largely irrelevant.
And secondly, it's far more likely that touring itself was the cause of the rise of the record companies.
Exactly. Touring necessitated the kind of support provided by the record companies.
As one of the obvious nitwits who have been lulled by that perversity called Western civilization
The only perversion here is your silly rhetoric.
you engage in wilfull ignorance that bands existed before the Robber Barons (i.e. record companies) did.
Of course they did. I never claimed otherwise. But by and large they were signficantly worse off than they are today. They had less freedom, less money, and less support.
Of course, this supports the "amateur" nature of sustainable music production, and from other posts you are definitely against that.
Sustainable music production? You mean we are running out of notes? Oh, my!
epileptics are imperiled by viewing the flipping of the digits.
Nice turn of phrase. Pity you wasted it on Slashdot.
One thing that you should learn about talking on the Internet is that your lies and myths can be countered by someone knowledgable in about 1.2 seconds.
That in no way means that distributing something is the same as claiming to be the author, and that was the claim you made (with the flawed napster example)
OK. Whatever. <shrug>
For as far as they are public companies, they have a duty to their shareholders to maximize profit. Good art is a nice to have thing in that, but commercial value is the deciding factor.
This is just not true. The number of recordings, books and movies which fail or whose costs are never recouped is staggering. You might want to read "The Big Picture" by Edward Epstein. The entertainment industry is a lot less rational than you might think.
those are all still the exception and not the rule.
Excellence _is_ the exception. This has nothing to do with any real or perceived evilness of the record companies.
You may want to go listen to Prince for a bit to hear some more about recording companies and ethics and what they really do for an artist btw, he has some interesting experience to share there.
Bands tour and perform because it makes them the GREATER part of their livings from music.
Use your head, man. Where the hell do you think this money is coming from? Either it comes from ticket sales if the band is popular (and how do you think this happened?), or from a sponsor trying to build his brand (but again, then the band has to be popular in some sense first), or it comes from the record companies trying to promote their artist. They hope to recoup the costs by selling more records. So ultimately the funds don't come from the performance; they come from increased record sales as a result of the performance.
can crank out CDs like a major player), the NEW stereotypical amateur band can achieve a professional-level of exposure.
This is utterly and completely beside the point even if it were true. The point is how it benefits people if someone else starts copying and selling their product. This is why modern (digital) technology is disruptive. The quality of the demos is still pretty much as good or bad (mostly bad) as it was in the age of the 8-track.
Right to distribute is not the same as having created a work.
Evidently, but under copyright law the only person who has the right to distribute things (or to transfer that right) is the author. So the right to distribution and authorship are closely related.
Commercial enterprices interested in making money instead of art are also a very bad judge of the value of a work of art (unless you mean the direct commercial value maybe)
Yes and no. It would be true if all record companies and book publishers existed solely to generate as much profit as possible.
In reality, most record companies employ A&R execs and talent scouts who love music and know a lot more about music than the average Jim Bob. Similarly publishers seek out and nourish those writers they think are good.
The commercial motive is very strong, and probably only getting stronger, but still (fortunately) not the sole factor in determining whether a writer or a musician gets the deal.
If promoting art is the idea then maybe look again at that dreaded state funded public broadcasting corporation in the UK for an example of how that can be done.
I don't know what you mean by this. Presumably it's a sarcastic comment that purports to show that state funding can yield great art. I don't know why you brought it up. I certainly haven't disputed that and I don't see what bearing it has on the issue of unauthorized distribution.
And why did you forget to read and quote the lines just above it where I stated that I believe that it is quite valid for recording companies to charge for their services.
Yes, I noticed that, you seem to be confused about your attitudes towards the music industry. First you say they should be free to offer the service they're offering, then the next paragraph you make it sound like there is something unethical or unjust about that service. So what is it?
Are you just picking a few things you disagree with in order to repeat your argument over and over or something?
No.
Unlimited distribution makes it easier to get a larger public to know you and may very well help getting more people to see you perform live also.
Artists can grant unlimited distribution today. Very few do. Why? Because the number of artists that have used this route to gain major success is almost zero (and I'm being generous here). The alternative route, via the record companies, simply has a much better track record.
Furthermore, the files most shared on the P2P networks are those by major artists; Britney, etc. The argument that P2P leads people to discover new music and bands and that this might bring those bands riches and fame is totally unfounded.
Sponsorship and subsidies are quite important for symphonic music here, a lot less so for rock music.
Dig deeper and you'll find that most of the money comes from sponsors and subsidies, even for rock music -- unless, of course, the band is fairly popular, but then they fall outside of the scope of this argument.
This may be a bit less transparant maybe then record companies, the resulting art is generally of a much higher value then the next one trick pony act comming out of those recording companies.
Right, because artists like Madonna, Kurt Cobain, Prince, Michael Jackson, Snoop Dog, N.E.R.D., Missy Elliott are all one trick ponies...
But honestly, a decent street mucisian overhere can already make the equivalent of a few 100 USD a day.
Yes you did. You changed it from copying and/or distributing (for proffit or not) into taking credit for creating a work.
This is what copyright is. Copyright is the exclusive right of an author to distribute his work. If I distribute your work without your permission, I am implying that I have the right to distribute your work, in other words, that I'm the author (or at least have reached some sort of understanding with you regarding distribution of your work).
The person who distributed the work could try to write something new, fine with me, I trust my ability to do that better however.
"Better" applies to functional work such as chairs and software. It doesn't really apply to art. The market is a pretty good judge of the functionality of a product like a chair or a piece of software, but it's a remarkably poor judge of the value of a work of art.
Matter of fact is that virtually all artists contracted by recording companies have to pay a very substantial part of the cost of producing and marketing a record, and a record has to sell extremely well to break even on that.
You say this like it's some kind of injustice. Why shouldn't the record companies charge for their services? Basically they're extending huge credits to extremely risky clients. For every artist who makes it and generates sufficient revenue there are dozens who end up never making any money and who are written off.
This is somewhat different with smaller recording companies (cost of marketing is lower when there is less marketing done for example), but it is still not easy at all to make a proffit, let alone a living from that.
Yes; but how does unlimited distribution make this any easier?
On the other hand, I have half a dozen people in my friends circle alone who live from performing music (mostly rock and symphonic)
What you must ask yourself is where the money comes from. You will find that in almost all cases it comes from direct or indirect subsidies and/or sponsorships.
But sponsorships are exactly what record companies provide. The only difference is that in the case of record companies, the deal is a lot more transparent and the requirements of the record companies are a lot more stringent. But then, the potential payoff is a lot bigger.
I'm not trying to redress the argument to suit my needs.
You say that you don't care whether someone copies your work and makes money off of it, because you assume that people will come to you when the need new work.
What I'm trying to explain to you is that this assumption is not necessarily true. People will not come to you, they will come to the person that sold them the service or product; either because a contract compels them to do so or simply because this is how people work: they will seek to contact the people they have had previous contact with.
People did not and do not usually go to artists to buy their work, especially not musicians. People go to a distributor for that, and artists have to plea with distributors to get their work published.
So according to you musicians can't make money at all: the record companies rip them off and customers don't buy direct. The problem with this view is that it doesn't reflect reality.
You don't get it; I won't just copy your work, I'll claim credit for it, so that people come to me for new work, not to me.
This is exactly what has happened with Napster and it's descendants: when people hear a great tune, they don't go to the artist; they go to Napster to get more.
The only reason performances make marginal income is because there is an income flow from recorded music.
A venue costs X to rent. Promotion costs Y. The performer's fee and associated costs (travel, equipment rental, lodging, handlers) costs Z. These expenses have to be recouped from ticket sales, merchandise sales, and (possibly) sponsorships.
But sponsorships come with corporate strings attached, which is basically the situation we have now. So that's a no-no.
Merchandise sales are tiny. Merchandise is generally sold at just above or even below cost, and accounted as promotion costs.
What remains is ticket sales. How many tickets you sell depends on the performer, on the venue, and on the ticket price. These are all interconnected: if the performer is very famous, you can set a very high ticket price and rent a huge venue, generating huge revenue. But if the performer isn't famous (which is what we're talking about), you have to keep the ticket price down and less people will buy a ticket to boot. This means you generate modest revenue.
From this revenue you need to pay the venue, the promotion, and the performer's fee and associated costs. The venue generally has a fixed price so you can't skimp on that. Promotion is essential for a small band, otherwise nobody will show up. So you can't really skimp on that either. Few artists will settle for substandard equipment and/or lousy lodging, so you can't skimp on that. The only thing which remains which can be significantly reduced is the performer's fee.
So that's exactly what happens.
Shut that off, and things go back to the way they were for musicians, live performance and patrons.
In other words, with a few exceptions, you want musicians to stop being professionals and become amateurs. They'll have to accept the odd gig at a wedding or bachelor party here and there. Of course they won't be free to play what they really want to play at those occassions: they'll mostly be reduced to endlessly recycling a handful of evergreens. Which is how things used to be.
There's no reason why recorded music can't be the advertisement for live performance rather than the other way around.
The reason is that a recording scales to a huge audience; a live performance doesn't.
How did Homer (or the many homeric poets) support themselves before the days of copyright?
That's pretty damned irrelevant, unless you want to argue that life in Homeric times (with its slavery and perpetual wars) is by and large the same as it is today.
For example, a small artist is far better off doing every thing possible to have his music creations distributed freely to make a name for himself than suing the crap out of anyone who coppies hopeing that he gets some kind of million dollar record deal.
How does the small artist make money from this free distribution? How is he recompensed for the labor and effort that went into creating his music?
Translation, charge by the hour, charge for a concert, charge for public speaking, teaching, make a reputation for yourself... I'm sure if you're smart enough to create something usefull for society, then you're smart enough to figure out a way to capitalize on it without a government regulation that microcontrolls how everyone uses information at their disposal.
This is a nightmare scenario. Luckily it doesn't make much sense either.
Being smart doesn't mean you're a good artist. Being a good artist doesn't mean you're good at capitalizing your art. And art isn't "useful" in any meaningful sense of the word. This is the part that doesn't make sense.
A world in which good artists are forced to reduce themselves to blabbering, self-publicizing celebrities and media whores, that is the nightmare part.
Well, you might consider doing something called a live performance, and have people pay for seeing and hearing it?
The revenue an artist can expect from a performance is marginal. Oftentimes artists will perform for free just to get some exposure. And regardless, most people don't pay to see something they've never heard of.
I just fail to see why I should get compensated still from that point of on, I already did get compensated.
In that case you won't mind sending me all your work so I can resell it. Of course I won't compensate you; after all, you were already compensated.
Availability of my work to others just means more peopel get to see it, and more peopel ask me to create something new that they have a need for.
When's the last time you paid a writer or a musician to write a book or a song for you?
It's being able to tell what's on millions of people's minds at this very instant.
I don't know why that's so incredibly important. Furthermore this is to a large degree a derivate of whatever CNN/AP/MTV, and now, ImportantBlog, decides is important. So to know what's on "millions of people's minds" I might just as well read a paper.
1. There is a tremendous amount of energy in a barrel of oil. And the extraction costs can be amortized over millions of barrels.
2. All energy is not alike: the medium matters. The situation where it takes more than 1 oil barrel's worth of energy to extract 1 barrel of oil is still worthwhile if it means you've converted a cumbersome source of energy (i.e. solar, wind or nuclear) into one that's convenient (i.e. oil).
Leaving behind an unsuccessful, underperforming, or obsolete technology in favor of something new is not the same thing as abandoning your existing user base.
This begs the question: if the technology is so threadbare as you make it out to be, then why do so many people keep using it? That is, your characterization is pure spin. One might turn the question around and ask, why the hell did Apple drop tried and true, familiar and standard technology?
Need a floppy drive, buy one (and they weren't that expensive, either). Again, no one was abandoned or left with nowhere to turn.
The availability of 3rd party solutions has no bearing whatsoever on Apple's concern for its legacy customers. One might even argue that the fact that 3rd parties had to step in indicates that Apple didn't address the needs of those customers with legacy equipment.
By this line of reasoning Apple might leave out the Classic runtime as well; after all, people can just buy one if they need to run Classic apps.
Again, dropping support for those technologies was necessary, but hardly equates to leaving the vast majority of their user base with unsupported legacy products.
No, they did that with OS X, which basically obsoleted all but the most recent Macs in one fell swoop.
Worry, instead, about OS support. It's quite plausible that at some point the OS will be developed exclusively for the Intel architecture. There'll be a grace period, of course, so they'll probably target the 2nd or 3rd generation of Intel based machines like they did with OS X (which also doesn't support the earlier generations of PPC Macs).
An increasing number of applications will require that OS, and since PPC owners can't run that OS, they will be out of luck.
Re:My iBook died two months ago...
on
New Apples Next Week
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Apple has a history of supporting their legacy customers for as long as is technically and financially feasable
No they don't.
Apple has abandoned SCSI and the floppy without any advance notice. Regardless of the merits of this decision, it wasn't very pleasant for those with an investment in SCSI hardware or floppies.
Prior to that was the clones/CHRP experiment. Apple pulled the plug on that one. Also not a lot of fun if you happened to have been following Apple on that.
Very recently, the iPod battery. Battery dead? Buy a new iPod. Great legacy support there as well.
As for software, here the examples of poor legacy support are almost too numerous to mention. QuickDraw GX, OpenDoc, Copland, Rhapsody: all of these were unceremoniously dumped by Apple, after they spent years telling developers to invest in it.
So honestly, no, Apple doesn't have a history of "supporting their legacy customers" at all. They have a history of moving on to the Next Big Thing.
the idea that its moral to deprive very sick people of treatment for the greater social good is kinda disturbing
As medical knowledge and skill increase, more and more people are diagnosed as suffering from some kind of affliction, and more and more treatment options appear.
If this development continues and at some point we invent a treatment for death, then are we morally obliged to keep everyone alive?
Oh man. I didn't quote Dijkstra. I quoted you quoting Dijkstra. Dijkstra never said those things.
I've never ever stated that current implementations get the concepts 100% right.
The point is that the concepts themselves aren't "100% right".
Should we despise current languages just because they only implement the original concepts to 95% instead of 100%, and therefore stick to the old and antiquated languages (which do still have their rights in certain areas, mind you, I have never disputed that fact!)?
The point is that the idea that things will get better if only we do X and Y is nonsense. Things do and will get better in the long run, but they do so because of the sacrifices made by talented and hard working people. Not because of some conceptual mirage.
Re:Why would you use this?
on
The New C Standard
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Christ you're an insufferable prat. And I say that not to insult you, but to inform you, lest it had escaped your notice.
Do you honestly believe that any of what you just said hasn't occurred to the original poster? A veteran of almost 20 years?
This discourse is so tired and worn-out that its only purpose is to serve as joke fodder on the Internet. And this is how it's been for ages, all the way back to when the first "Real Programmers don't eat quiche" jokes were being forwarded across Bitnet.
Let me quote Dijkstra:
Functional programming, structured programming, logical programming, constraints programming, p-code systems, object oriented programming, iterative development, patterns, open source development, pair programming, Extreme programming, managed code: each of these was heralded as the sine qua non of software development at its inception, only to get bogged down in messy detail once people actually started to build real-world systems with them. Bits and pieces survive here and there and percolate up in newer languages and designs, until every hint of the original glamour has vanished and they become just another fixture for pigeons to shit on.
And this is how progress is made, slowly and erratically, like a blind man groping about in the dark.
if we really believe that open source is a superior system of production, and therefore that it will drive out closed source in a free market, then why do we think we need infectious licensing?
What a crock. It's highly debatable whether "we" hold any such beliefs. But since Eric has a lot invested in that belief, he posits as a given what remains to be proven. Classic fallacy, and classic ESR.
Instead of falling into Eric's little rhetorical trap, let's examine the premises first, by asking whether open source does indeed lead to better products.
Regrettably so much of the commentary here merely constitutes more all too typical blinkered nerdish nonsense. Take a rigidly codified closed-world game, remove everything which makes it remotely interesting, reduce and abstract it until the very point of the game goes missing, then build a program which implements that and claim another victory for technology.
I'll be impressed when the poker bots bring their own money.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem with AI is that it is constantly being redefined.
This is pretty much just propaganda from the AI community.
At one point, a robot that would vaccum your house without you lifting a finger would have been considered an example of AI.
The original expectation was of a robot which could do household chores, like the robot from the Jetsons. That is, a robot which could operate a vacuum cleaner, answer the door and feed the dog.
We still don't have that. Instead we have the vacuming cockroach that is the Roomba.
It used to be that a computer that could beat a human grandmaster at chess would have sufficed as AI.
Yes, but the expectation was that the computer would be using more or less the same mental processes as a human grandmaster. Instead we got a really fast tic-tac-toe solver which had to be repeatedly rebooted in order to perform its job.
AI will always be 10+ years away if we keep redefining it to exclude any successes we achieve.
The greatest success of the AI community has been to gradually reduce expectations to a level that is easily achieved through classical process control and ordinary solid engineering.
Mea culpa.
Blocking a /16 means blocking some ~65000 IP addresses. Blocking a /24 means blocking around 16 million IP addresses.
/16's and /24's should consider wrapping their CAT5 in tin foil.
Over the past 6 months I've identified and recorded all SSH dictionary attacks on my machine. I've recorded exactly 211 IP addresses so far.
People who advocate blocking
Firstly, if you're going to propagandize, at least be good at it. You aren't.
Oh come off it.
I'm singularly unimpressed by your pigheaded distortions of Marxist theory and your facile and blunt application thereof to a wholly inappropriate medium and sphere of industry.
I've released tunes on labels both small and big; have you? I've recorded tracks in my home studio and written my own software (GPL'd no less) to do so; have you? I've recorded in professional studios; have you? I've managed tours; have you?
I ask because all you've done so far is blather in exceedingly general terms about things you obviously don't understand.
My head has long told me that this is an unsupported conclusion of the pro-corporate forces that are trying to control that slippery product called "music". There is no proof whatsoever that touring is only possible due to the promotions of the record companies.
Well, there are plenty of other possibilities. There are many, many heavily sponsored events and concerts, and there is a thriving (albeit much smaller) non-profit scene.
However, the sponsored events by and large rely on popular artists to draw a crowd. This popularity is mostly (but not always) the result of the promotion efforts of a record company.
The non-profit scene has some very interesting stuff going on, but it hasn't really shown the ability to grow its audience. Not in the last place because the few enterprising individuals who succeed in doing so are accused of having "sold out".
So although it certainly is true that touring is possible without the record companies, this is a bit like saying that life on earth can continue without human beings. It's true, but largely irrelevant.
And secondly, it's far more likely that touring itself was the cause of the rise of the record companies.
Exactly. Touring necessitated the kind of support provided by the record companies.
As one of the obvious nitwits who have been lulled by that perversity called Western civilization
The only perversion here is your silly rhetoric.
you engage in wilfull ignorance that bands existed before the Robber Barons (i.e. record companies) did.
Of course they did. I never claimed otherwise. But by and large they were signficantly worse off than they are today. They had less freedom, less money, and less support.
Of course, this supports the "amateur" nature of sustainable music production, and from other posts you are definitely against that.
Sustainable music production? You mean we are running out of notes? Oh, my!
epileptics are imperiled by viewing the flipping of the digits.
Nice turn of phrase. Pity you wasted it on Slashdot.
One thing that you should learn about talking on the Internet is that your lies and myths can be countered by someone knowledgable in about 1.2 seconds.
Yes, well. Instead I met you.
That in no way means that distributing something is the same as claiming to be the author, and that was the claim you made (with the flawed napster example)
OK. Whatever. <shrug>
For as far as they are public companies, they have a duty to their shareholders to maximize profit. Good art is a nice to have thing in that, but commercial value is the deciding factor.
This is just not true. The number of recordings, books and movies which fail or whose costs are never recouped is staggering. You might want to read "The Big Picture" by Edward Epstein. The entertainment industry is a lot less rational than you might think.
those are all still the exception and not the rule.
Excellence _is_ the exception. This has nothing to do with any real or perceived evilness of the record companies.
You may want to go listen to Prince for a bit to hear some more about recording companies and ethics and what they really do for an artist btw, he has some interesting experience to share there.
Yeah, they sure ruined him! *rolls eyes*
Bands tour and perform because it makes them the GREATER part of their livings from music.
Use your head, man. Where the hell do you think this money is coming from? Either it comes from ticket sales if the band is popular (and how do you think this happened?), or from a sponsor trying to build his brand (but again, then the band has to be popular in some sense first), or it comes from the record companies trying to promote their artist. They hope to recoup the costs by selling more records. So ultimately the funds don't come from the performance; they come from increased record sales as a result of the performance.
can crank out CDs like a major player), the NEW stereotypical amateur band can achieve a professional-level of exposure.
This is utterly and completely beside the point even if it were true. The point is how it benefits people if someone else starts copying and selling their product. This is why modern (digital) technology is disruptive. The quality of the demos is still pretty much as good or bad (mostly bad) as it was in the age of the 8-track.
Right to distribute is not the same as having created a work.
Evidently, but under copyright law the only person who has the right to distribute things (or to transfer that right) is the author. So the right to distribution and authorship are closely related.
Commercial enterprices interested in making money instead of art are also a very bad judge of the value of a work of art (unless you mean the direct commercial value maybe)
Yes and no. It would be true if all record companies and book publishers existed solely to generate as much profit as possible.
In reality, most record companies employ A&R execs and talent scouts who love music and know a lot more about music than the average Jim Bob. Similarly publishers seek out and nourish those writers they think are good.
The commercial motive is very strong, and probably only getting stronger, but still (fortunately) not the sole factor in determining whether a writer or a musician gets the deal.
If promoting art is the idea then maybe look again at that dreaded state funded public broadcasting corporation in the UK for an example of how that can be done.
I don't know what you mean by this. Presumably it's a sarcastic comment that purports to show that state funding can yield great art. I don't know why you brought it up. I certainly haven't disputed that and I don't see what bearing it has on the issue of unauthorized distribution.
And why did you forget to read and quote the lines just above it where I stated that I believe that it is quite valid for recording companies to charge for their services.
Yes, I noticed that, you seem to be confused about your attitudes towards the music industry. First you say they should be free to offer the service they're offering, then the next paragraph you make it sound like there is something unethical or unjust about that service. So what is it?
Are you just picking a few things you disagree with in order to repeat your argument over and over or something?
No.
Unlimited distribution makes it easier to get a larger public to know you and may very well help getting more people to see you perform live also.
Artists can grant unlimited distribution today. Very few do. Why? Because the number of artists that have used this route to gain major success is almost zero (and I'm being generous here). The alternative route, via the record companies, simply has a much better track record.
Furthermore, the files most shared on the P2P networks are those by major artists; Britney, etc. The argument that P2P leads people to discover new music and bands and that this might bring those bands riches and fame is totally unfounded.
Sponsorship and subsidies are quite important for symphonic music here, a lot less so for rock music.
Dig deeper and you'll find that most of the money comes from sponsors and subsidies, even for rock music -- unless, of course, the band is fairly popular, but then they fall outside of the scope of this argument.
This may be a bit less transparant maybe then record companies, the resulting art is generally of a much higher value then the next one trick pony act comming out of those recording companies.
Right, because artists like Madonna, Kurt Cobain, Prince, Michael Jackson, Snoop Dog, N.E.R.D., Missy Elliott are all one trick ponies...
But honestly, a decent street mucisian overhere can already make the equivalent of a few 100 USD a day.
Nonsense.
Yes you did. You changed it from copying and/or distributing (for proffit or not) into taking credit for creating a work.
This is what copyright is. Copyright is the exclusive right of an author to distribute his work. If I distribute your work without your permission, I am implying that I have the right to distribute your work, in other words, that I'm the author (or at least have reached some sort of understanding with you regarding distribution of your work).
The person who distributed the work could try to write something new, fine with me, I trust my ability to do that better however.
"Better" applies to functional work such as chairs and software. It doesn't really apply to art. The market is a pretty good judge of the functionality of a product like a chair or a piece of software, but it's a remarkably poor judge of the value of a work of art.
Matter of fact is that virtually all artists contracted by recording companies have to pay a very substantial part of the cost of producing and marketing a record, and a record has to sell extremely well to break even on that.
You say this like it's some kind of injustice. Why shouldn't the record companies charge for their services? Basically they're extending huge credits to extremely risky clients. For every artist who makes it and generates sufficient revenue there are dozens who end up never making any money and who are written off.
This is somewhat different with smaller recording companies (cost of marketing is lower when there is less marketing done for example), but it is still not easy at all to make a proffit, let alone a living from that.
Yes; but how does unlimited distribution make this any easier?
On the other hand, I have half a dozen people in my friends circle alone who live from performing music (mostly rock and symphonic)
What you must ask yourself is where the money comes from. You will find that in almost all cases it comes from direct or indirect subsidies and/or sponsorships.
But sponsorships are exactly what record companies provide. The only difference is that in the case of record companies, the deal is a lot more transparent and the requirements of the record companies are a lot more stringent. But then, the potential payoff is a lot bigger.
I'm not trying to redress the argument to suit my needs.
You say that you don't care whether someone copies your work and makes money off of it, because you assume that people will come to you when the need new work.
What I'm trying to explain to you is that this assumption is not necessarily true. People will not come to you, they will come to the person that sold them the service or product; either because a contract compels them to do so or simply because this is how people work: they will seek to contact the people they have had previous contact with.
People did not and do not usually go to artists to buy their work, especially not musicians. People go to a distributor for that, and artists have to plea with distributors to get their work published.
So according to you musicians can't make money at all: the record companies rip them off and customers don't buy direct. The problem with this view is that it doesn't reflect reality.
I don't mind you copying my work when you find it
You don't get it; I won't just copy your work, I'll claim credit for it, so that people come to me for new work, not to me.
This is exactly what has happened with Napster and it's descendants: when people hear a great tune, they don't go to the artist; they go to Napster to get more.
The only reason performances make marginal income is because there is an income flow from recorded music.
A venue costs X to rent. Promotion costs Y. The performer's fee and associated costs (travel, equipment rental, lodging, handlers) costs Z. These expenses have to be recouped from ticket sales, merchandise sales, and (possibly) sponsorships.
But sponsorships come with corporate strings attached, which is basically the situation we have now. So that's a no-no.
Merchandise sales are tiny. Merchandise is generally sold at just above or even below cost, and accounted as promotion costs.
What remains is ticket sales. How many tickets you sell depends on the performer, on the venue, and on the ticket price. These are all interconnected: if the performer is very famous, you can set a very high ticket price and rent a huge venue, generating huge revenue. But if the performer isn't famous (which is what we're talking about), you have to keep the ticket price down and less people will buy a ticket to boot. This means you generate modest revenue.
From this revenue you need to pay the venue, the promotion, and the performer's fee and associated costs. The venue generally has a fixed price so you can't skimp on that. Promotion is essential for a small band, otherwise nobody will show up. So you can't really skimp on that either. Few artists will settle for substandard equipment and/or lousy lodging, so you can't skimp on that. The only thing which remains which can be significantly reduced is the performer's fee.
So that's exactly what happens.
Shut that off, and things go back to the way they were for musicians, live performance and patrons.
In other words, with a few exceptions, you want musicians to stop being professionals and become amateurs. They'll have to accept the odd gig at a wedding or bachelor party here and there. Of course they won't be free to play what they really want to play at those occassions: they'll mostly be reduced to endlessly recycling a handful of evergreens. Which is how things used to be.
There's no reason why recorded music can't be the advertisement for live performance rather than the other way around.
The reason is that a recording scales to a huge audience; a live performance doesn't.
How did Homer (or the many homeric poets) support themselves before the days of copyright?
That's pretty damned irrelevant, unless you want to argue that life in Homeric times (with its slavery and perpetual wars) is by and large the same as it is today.
For example, a small artist is far better off doing every thing possible to have his music creations distributed freely to make a name for himself than suing the crap out of anyone who coppies hopeing that he gets some kind of million dollar record deal.
... I'm sure if you're smart enough to create something usefull for society, then you're smart enough to figure out a way to capitalize on it without a government regulation that microcontrolls how everyone uses information at their disposal.
How does the small artist make money from this free distribution? How is he recompensed for the labor and effort that went into creating his music?
Translation, charge by the hour, charge for a concert, charge for public speaking, teaching, make a reputation for yourself
This is a nightmare scenario. Luckily it doesn't make much sense either.
Being smart doesn't mean you're a good artist. Being a good artist doesn't mean you're good at capitalizing your art. And art isn't "useful" in any meaningful sense of the word. This is the part that doesn't make sense.
A world in which good artists are forced to reduce themselves to blabbering, self-publicizing celebrities and media whores, that is the nightmare part.
Well, you might consider doing something called a live performance, and have people pay for seeing and hearing it?
The revenue an artist can expect from a performance is marginal. Oftentimes artists will perform for free just to get some exposure. And regardless, most people don't pay to see something they've never heard of.
I just fail to see why I should get compensated still from that point of on, I already did get compensated.
In that case you won't mind sending me all your work so I can resell it. Of course I won't compensate you; after all, you were already compensated.
Availability of my work to others just means more peopel get to see it, and more peopel ask me to create something new that they have a need for.
When's the last time you paid a writer or a musician to write a book or a song for you?
It's being able to tell what's on millions of people's minds at this very instant.
I don't know why that's so incredibly important. Furthermore this is to a large degree a derivate of whatever CNN/AP/MTV, and now, ImportantBlog, decides is important. So to know what's on "millions of people's minds" I might just as well read a paper.
1. There is a tremendous amount of energy in a barrel of oil. And the extraction costs can be amortized over millions of barrels.
2. All energy is not alike: the medium matters. The situation where it takes more than 1 oil barrel's worth of energy to extract 1 barrel of oil is still worthwhile if it means you've converted a cumbersome source of energy (i.e. solar, wind or nuclear) into one that's convenient (i.e. oil).
Leaving behind an unsuccessful, underperforming, or obsolete technology in favor of something new is not the same thing as abandoning your existing user base.
This begs the question: if the technology is so threadbare as you make it out to be, then why do so many people keep using it? That is, your characterization is pure spin. One might turn the question around and ask, why the hell did Apple drop tried and true, familiar and standard technology?
Need a floppy drive, buy one (and they weren't that expensive, either). Again, no one was abandoned or left with nowhere to turn.
The availability of 3rd party solutions has no bearing whatsoever on Apple's concern for its legacy customers. One might even argue that the fact that 3rd parties had to step in indicates that Apple didn't address the needs of those customers with legacy equipment.
By this line of reasoning Apple might leave out the Classic runtime as well; after all, people can just buy one if they need to run Classic apps.
Again, dropping support for those technologies was necessary, but hardly equates to leaving the vast majority of their user base with unsupported legacy products.
No, they did that with OS X, which basically obsoleted all but the most recent Macs in one fell swoop.
Don't worry about the application binaries.
Worry, instead, about OS support. It's quite plausible that at some point the OS will be developed exclusively for the Intel architecture. There'll be a grace period, of course, so they'll probably target the 2nd or 3rd generation of Intel based machines like they did with OS X (which also doesn't support the earlier generations of PPC Macs).
An increasing number of applications will require that OS, and since PPC owners can't run that OS, they will be out of luck.
Apple has a history of supporting their legacy customers for as long as is technically and financially feasable
No they don't.
Apple has abandoned SCSI and the floppy without any advance notice. Regardless of the merits of this decision, it wasn't very pleasant for those with an investment in SCSI hardware or floppies.
Prior to that was the clones/CHRP experiment. Apple pulled the plug on that one. Also not a lot of fun if you happened to have been following Apple on that.
Very recently, the iPod battery. Battery dead? Buy a new iPod. Great legacy support there as well.
As for software, here the examples of poor legacy support are almost too numerous to mention. QuickDraw GX, OpenDoc, Copland, Rhapsody: all of these were unceremoniously dumped by Apple, after they spent years telling developers to invest in it.
So honestly, no, Apple doesn't have a history of "supporting their legacy customers" at all. They have a history of moving on to the Next Big Thing.
the idea that its moral to deprive very sick people of treatment for the greater social good is kinda disturbing
As medical knowledge and skill increase, more and more people are diagnosed as suffering from some kind of affliction, and more and more treatment options appear.
If this development continues and at some point we invent a treatment for death, then are we morally obliged to keep everyone alive?
Do you honestly believe that any of what you just said hasn't occurred to the original poster? A veteran of almost 20 years?
This discourse is so tired and worn-out that its only purpose is to serve as joke fodder on the Internet. And this is how it's been for ages, all the way back to when the first "Real Programmers don't eat quiche" jokes were being forwarded across Bitnet.Functional programming, structured programming, logical programming, constraints programming, p-code systems, object oriented programming, iterative development, patterns, open source development, pair programming, Extreme programming, managed code: each of these was heralded as the sine qua non of software development at its inception, only to get bogged down in messy detail once people actually started to build real-world systems with them. Bits and pieces survive here and there and percolate up in newer languages and designs, until every hint of the original glamour has vanished and they become just another fixture for pigeons to shit on.
And this is how progress is made, slowly and erratically, like a blind man groping about in the dark.
Fred Brooks was right: there is no silver bullet.
Instead of falling into Eric's little rhetorical trap, let's examine the premises first, by asking whether open source does indeed lead to better products.
Regrettably so much of the commentary here merely constitutes more all too typical blinkered nerdish nonsense. Take a rigidly codified closed-world game, remove everything which makes it remotely interesting, reduce and abstract it until the very point of the game goes missing, then build a program which implements that and claim another victory for technology.
I'll be impressed when the poker bots bring their own money.