I don't know what the competition for it was, but I remember that Samberg/Timberlake video well and found it hilarious. In fact, I remember the show Timberlake hosted as one of the best of last season. If you didn't think it was funny, you're entitled to your opinion, but for me it doesn't work as an example of the "low standards for winning an Emmy."
The only problem I would have with that is I like to pay in cash and not be on record with every manufacturer and retailer I do business with. I suppose if the credit card service acted as the intermediary, and protected your information rather than use it as a revenue source, it could work. Just the same, if it's not an "in-store rebate," I'm not interested.
It's a scam. If they really intended to give you the discount, they'd have an "instant rebate", meaning a price-cut in the store. The whole point of a mail-in rebate is to trick people into thinking things are cheaper than they are.
I'm of the opinion that the whole point of these "rebates" is to harvest the customer's name, address and whatever other information is typically requested.
I never mail them in. I base my purchasing decisions on the price I pay at the till.
Well, here's Twitter. I read/. pretty regularly at a low threshold, but I can't say he's jumped out at me either, depsite his 7523 (!) posts. He hasn't had a story accepted since last December, so I don't about "a single writer is manipulating the front page for his own ends", but that is a lot of comments. Maybe I'll go read some of them.
Rights holders and webcasters apparently have that option, but I don't know how it works, and whether the royalties would not be collected at all, or if you would have to apply to SoundExchange to be reimbursed for fees that are obviated by an existing agreement.
This also reminds me of discussions I read here re: the Zune attaching DRM to music files you "squirt" to your friends, regardless of the wishes of the copyright holder who may have licensed the work under something like Creative Commons.
Another thing that I don't think gets mentioned enough is the fact that most commercial and listener-supported Internet music stations are run by people who love music, and want to support artists. I truly believe the majority would be happy to pay a fair royalty if it was equally applied. The problem is these rates are out of this world, and they are not paid by the Terrestrial radio broadcasters. It's for these reasons that people like myself argue the rates' true purpose is to put independent artists and Internet broadcasters out of business, as they pose a threat to the control currently enjoyed by RIAA member labels. (I'm not saying any of this in response to anything you said, I just don't think it gets said enough in these discussions. The RIAA wants the public to believe Internet stations are freeloading, when in fact they are carrying a heavier load than their radio counterparts).
Yes, as has been discussed elsewhere in this thread, any station may negotiate their own agreements with the rights holders of the performances they play and bypass SoundExchange.
Whether or not a commercial or listener-supported station could sustain itself by exclusively playing performances they have negotiated separate deals for is another matter, but technically, yes they have that choice.
I shouldn't HAVE to be required to participate in that racket- which is all this is.
You don't. I over-stated the rules in my earlier post, as was pointed out here An independent artist could negotiate deals with webcasters and I suppose notify SoundExchange that they do not wish royalties to be collected on their behalf (or maybe the webcaster would advise SoundExchange of which artists they have deals with, I'm not sure exactly how it works).
It would be a lot of work for independent artists who either represent themselves or are signed with small labels. Not to mention the workload for webcasters who are doing everything themselves. Again, I have no doubt that the whole point is to make it difficult for these two groups, as they pose a threat to the RIAA's business model.
Perhaps if anything good comes out of this, it would be that independent artists could band together and form collectives to negotiate fair deals with independent (non-RIAA controlled) webcasters, similar to BMI and ASCAP which are, I believe, non-profit groups made up of artists, not a shadowy front for the recording industry like SoundExchange.
Any specific license agreement between the broadcaster and copyright holder is not subject to SoundExchange.
You're absolutely correct. I stated as much elsewhere, but you put it better. If a station wanted to, they could negotiate deals with independent (read non-RIAA) artists, and play their music exclusively. It's doubtful, however, that a commercial or listener-supported station could sustain itself with such a restrictive playlist. And - as you pointed out - they would spend all of their time in meetings with lawyers and agents rather than playing music.
Still, each deal negotiated with an independent would be a nail in the RIAA's coffin. And using their own system against them has a lot of appeal.
The Digital Performance in Sound Recordings Act of 1995 and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 grant the copyright holder of the "performance" of a song the right to collect a royalty each time that "performance" is played on an Internet webcast. It doesn't matter whether the copyright holder is a member of SoundExchange or not, the royalty is collected regardless.
An artist apparently may choose to negotiate deals with webcasters. I am not sure exactly how this works, but it would require the webcaster to negotiate separate deals with the copyright holders of every "performance" they play. This would likely kill of most small webcasters as surely as the rates proposed by the CRB would.
Can't a web radio station continue to operate without paying royalties as long as they stick to independent labels?
No. The royalties are collected for all songs played, even those from independent labels. Independent artists have the option of registering with SoundExchange so they may receive royalties collected on their behalf, less SoundExchange's fee.
I don't really care about Slashdot Karma, or moderation for that matter. I browse comments at a low threshold, and generally drill down to read every comment in threads that interest me.
I don't think the initial moderation was "moderator bias," I think the mod was simply clueless. (S)he didn't get the joke.
It just sounds like a company wants to release a product that only works on Windows, and I'm pretty sure that's been done before.
The company you refer to and all of its assets are owned by the British taxpayer. Also, everyone in the UK who owns a television apparently pays a license fee specifically to support the BBC. If you are a British citizen, the "product" already belongs to you. So you shouldn't have to pay any additional costs (ie a Windows license) to access your property.
It's pretty much the same scenario as the push for governments to use open formats. The documents belong to the citizenry, and should be stored in a format that is accessible to all.
You wouldn't send in the lawyers when an artist gets busted for using or possessing drugs so he gets three months at Betty Ford instead of the prison time mere mortals can look forward to...
You seem to be suggesting that artists should be thrown in jail for drug use, as that's what (apparently) happens to everyone else. If that is the case where you live, I'm frankly shocked. Nobody, including artists, should be imprisoned for using drugs, or possessing drugs for personal use.
Now, if this thing taught kids to repair two-stroke engines, or basic agriculture, that would be impressive (and useful).
What makes you think it can't? In fact, that is exactly the point of OLPC: to be used as an educational tool. What you can teach a person with a general purpose device like a networked, self-powered, open source computer platform is pretty much limitless.
You are not alone feeling that way, judging from the number of people I know who use facebook etc, and post all manner of personal information. I also note how quickly people's phone numbers roll off their tongue when asked by random store clerks.
Personally, I'm a bit more guarded, but I can take these things too far, I admit.
If you follow the link in my last post, the person giving the talk - a skip tracer/pi, I guess you would call him - demonstrates what kind of information a person could legally obtain about you by knowing only your name, phone number and I think the city you live in (it's been a few months since I listened to it). The point he was making was that we are all making it easier on people like him to do his job, as we simply gush information about ourselves with our every action. Unfortunately, we are also making it easier on others to commit identity theft/fraud against us, by providing just the type of personal info that a bank may ask you to provide when you call in. I just dialed the 1-800 number for Visa and all they asked for was my Visa number (which a lot of stores still print out in full on their copy of the receipt) and the numbers for the month and year I was born (which you could get by googling me, or going to facebook or myspace, if I used either of those sites). After providing those two easily-obtained bits of info, I could have changed the mailing address for the account, ordered additional cards, applied for an increase in the limit, whatever.
My point wasn't to criticize you, but to point out that if you find a cel phone that tracks your whereabouts creepy, you may already have one, or you may have OnStar, which is the same thing. Or you may be providing information about yourself on your family blog that tells the "creeps" what they wanted to know anyway.
If your privacy matters to you, you need to be vigilant about it in all aspects of your life. If you're not willing/able to do that, there's not much point in worrying about what your cel phone is doing.
it's also ironic that if you click on his home page, he lists where he and his family were going to be in July
You've hit the nail precicely on the head. No need for cel phones to track you, we'll just check your blog, or your Myspace, or your Facebook. People will react with outrage to something like this, all-the-while spewing out private information.
This is Steve Rambam's take on privacy, lot's of fun if you haven't already listened to it.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know what the competition for it was, but I remember that Samberg/Timberlake video well and found it hilarious. In fact, I remember the show Timberlake hosted as one of the best of last season. If you didn't think it was funny, you're entitled to your opinion, but for me it doesn't work as an example of the "low standards for winning an Emmy."
The only problem I would have with that is I like to pay in cash and not be on record with every manufacturer and retailer I do business with. I suppose if the credit card service acted as the intermediary, and protected your information rather than use it as a revenue source, it could work. Just the same, if it's not an "in-store rebate," I'm not interested.
I'm of the opinion that the whole point of these "rebates" is to harvest the customer's name, address and whatever other information is typically requested.
I never mail them in. I base my purchasing decisions on the price I pay at the till.
Tell that to the Liberal Party of Canada.
Well, here's Twitter. I read /. pretty regularly at a low threshold, but I can't say he's jumped out at me either, depsite his 7523 (!) posts. He hasn't had a story accepted since last December, so I don't about "a single writer is manipulating the front page for his own ends", but that is a lot of comments. Maybe I'll go read some of them.
Why not? The DMCA passed the House by voice vote, and the Senate by "unanimous consent."
I'm sure when the city of Tuttle OK's traffic cams start pointing at random subjects, Jerry Taylor will threaten to call the FBI again.
Rights holders and webcasters apparently have that option, but I don't know how it works, and whether the royalties would not be collected at all, or if you would have to apply to SoundExchange to be reimbursed for fees that are obviated by an existing agreement.
This also reminds me of discussions I read here re: the Zune attaching DRM to music files you "squirt" to your friends, regardless of the wishes of the copyright holder who may have licensed the work under something like Creative Commons.
Another thing that I don't think gets mentioned enough is the fact that most commercial and listener-supported Internet music stations are run by people who love music, and want to support artists. I truly believe the majority would be happy to pay a fair royalty if it was equally applied. The problem is these rates are out of this world, and they are not paid by the Terrestrial radio broadcasters. It's for these reasons that people like myself argue the rates' true purpose is to put independent artists and Internet broadcasters out of business, as they pose a threat to the control currently enjoyed by RIAA member labels. (I'm not saying any of this in response to anything you said, I just don't think it gets said enough in these discussions. The RIAA wants the public to believe Internet stations are freeloading, when in fact they are carrying a heavier load than their radio counterparts).
You think that's bad, the guy in the next office to mine has a coffee cup that reads "World's Greatest Dad!"
You are absolutely correct. By attaching their unwanted, unauthorized ads to the web page you requested, they are in fact stealing your bandwidth.
Yes, as has been discussed elsewhere in this thread, any station may negotiate their own agreements with the rights holders of the performances they play and bypass SoundExchange.
Whether or not a commercial or listener-supported station could sustain itself by exclusively playing performances they have negotiated separate deals for is another matter, but technically, yes they have that choice.
You don't. I over-stated the rules in my earlier post, as was pointed out here An independent artist could negotiate deals with webcasters and I suppose notify SoundExchange that they do not wish royalties to be collected on their behalf (or maybe the webcaster would advise SoundExchange of which artists they have deals with, I'm not sure exactly how it works).
It would be a lot of work for independent artists who either represent themselves or are signed with small labels. Not to mention the workload for webcasters who are doing everything themselves. Again, I have no doubt that the whole point is to make it difficult for these two groups, as they pose a threat to the RIAA's business model.
Perhaps if anything good comes out of this, it would be that independent artists could band together and form collectives to negotiate fair deals with independent (non-RIAA controlled) webcasters, similar to BMI and ASCAP which are, I believe, non-profit groups made up of artists, not a shadowy front for the recording industry like SoundExchange.
You're absolutely correct. I stated as much elsewhere, but you put it better. If a station wanted to, they could negotiate deals with independent (read non-RIAA) artists, and play their music exclusively. It's doubtful, however, that a commercial or listener-supported station could sustain itself with such a restrictive playlist. And - as you pointed out - they would spend all of their time in meetings with lawyers and agents rather than playing music.
Still, each deal negotiated with an independent would be a nail in the RIAA's coffin. And using their own system against them has a lot of appeal.
The Digital Performance in Sound Recordings Act of 1995 and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 grant the copyright holder of the "performance" of a song the right to collect a royalty each time that "performance" is played on an Internet webcast. It doesn't matter whether the copyright holder is a member of SoundExchange or not, the royalty is collected regardless.
An artist apparently may choose to negotiate deals with webcasters. I am not sure exactly how this works, but it would require the webcaster to negotiate separate deals with the copyright holders of every "performance" they play. This would likely kill of most small webcasters as surely as the rates proposed by the CRB would.
They do if they play music.
And, by the way, no "radio" stations pay these royalties, only web stations. You probably knew that, but if you didn't, you do now.
No. The royalties are collected for all songs played, even those from independent labels. Independent artists have the option of registering with SoundExchange so they may receive royalties collected on their behalf, less SoundExchange's fee.
I don't really care about Slashdot Karma, or moderation for that matter. I browse comments at a low threshold, and generally drill down to read every comment in threads that interest me.
I don't think the initial moderation was "moderator bias," I think the mod was simply clueless. (S)he didn't get the joke.
Whoever modded you Redundant needs to grow a sense of humour.
The company you refer to and all of its assets are owned by the British taxpayer. Also, everyone in the UK who owns a television apparently pays a license fee specifically to support the BBC. If you are a British citizen, the "product" already belongs to you. So you shouldn't have to pay any additional costs (ie a Windows license) to access your property.
It's pretty much the same scenario as the push for governments to use open formats. The documents belong to the citizenry, and should be stored in a format that is accessible to all.
I'm with you on that.
You seem to be suggesting that artists should be thrown in jail for drug use, as that's what (apparently) happens to everyone else. If that is the case where you live, I'm frankly shocked. Nobody, including artists, should be imprisoned for using drugs, or possessing drugs for personal use.
Actually, this shouldn't surprise us. They haven't lived up to their end of the copyright bargain, either.
What makes you think it can't? In fact, that is exactly the point of OLPC: to be used as an educational tool. What you can teach a person with a general purpose device like a networked, self-powered, open source computer platform is pretty much limitless.
You are not alone feeling that way, judging from the number of people I know who use facebook etc, and post all manner of personal information. I also note how quickly people's phone numbers roll off their tongue when asked by random store clerks.
Personally, I'm a bit more guarded, but I can take these things too far, I admit.
If you follow the link in my last post, the person giving the talk - a skip tracer/pi, I guess you would call him - demonstrates what kind of information a person could legally obtain about you by knowing only your name, phone number and I think the city you live in (it's been a few months since I listened to it). The point he was making was that we are all making it easier on people like him to do his job, as we simply gush information about ourselves with our every action. Unfortunately, we are also making it easier on others to commit identity theft/fraud against us, by providing just the type of personal info that a bank may ask you to provide when you call in. I just dialed the 1-800 number for Visa and all they asked for was my Visa number (which a lot of stores still print out in full on their copy of the receipt) and the numbers for the month and year I was born (which you could get by googling me, or going to facebook or myspace, if I used either of those sites). After providing those two easily-obtained bits of info, I could have changed the mailing address for the account, ordered additional cards, applied for an increase in the limit, whatever.
My point wasn't to criticize you, but to point out that if you find a cel phone that tracks your whereabouts creepy, you may already have one, or you may have OnStar, which is the same thing. Or you may be providing information about yourself on your family blog that tells the "creeps" what they wanted to know anyway.
If your privacy matters to you, you need to be vigilant about it in all aspects of your life. If you're not willing/able to do that, there's not much point in worrying about what your cel phone is doing.
You've hit the nail precicely on the head. No need for cel phones to track you, we'll just check your blog, or your Myspace, or your Facebook. People will react with outrage to something like this, all-the-while spewing out private information.
This is Steve Rambam's take on privacy, lot's of fun if you haven't already listened to it.