You are right, both the original poster and the one I replied to were quite civil, especially considering the forum.
I'm not sure I agree the question was rhetorical. The fact that the answer would appear to be obvious (i.e. there is no point), and the lack of a response from "Vista people," does not necessarily render the question rhetorical. Microsoft spent a great deal of shareholder money developing and marketing something that appears to offer no (real) advantage over the product it is designed to replace, other than a prettier interface. The question may seem rhetorical to you, perhaps less so to someone who has invested heavily in the company's stock.
hobo sapiens stuck his neck out and offered the opinion that Vengeance's post was "flamie," and I took the opportunity to ask him why he felt that way. His response - and yours as well - was enlightening.
I guess I didn't take his use of the word "hell" as "cursing and yelling," but I understand there are people who may see it as blasphemy and take offense. I tend to think of Flamebait as a statement that serves no other purpose than to provoke an emotional response. In fact, your statement 'If you have a wife/GF or are a person of female persuasion, then certainly you know "It's not what you say, it's how you say it"' could be considered a very sexist remark, and fits my definition of Flamebait more closely than the misuse of the word "hell" does. But these things are very subjective. I'm not asking you to defend your position, just trying to understand it.
Btw, I absolutely agree with you about the Offtopic (or Troll) mods when someone is obviously making a joke. Recently, I had someone come back and mod one of my posts Troll or Offtopic (I don't remember which) two days after the story was off the front page. I'm not disputing the moderation (either one would have been appropriate for that particular post) but that mod was either moderating posts that were days old (not the most effective use of mod points) or they received their mod points and decided to go back and settle scores.
What in the *hell* is the point of a pretty interface for your operating system, when it won't carry out basic operating system tasks efficiently?
The way you wrote that, you were asking for a flamebait mod.
At first, I thought you were being sardonic. As in, yes, there is a lot of inappropriate moderation on/.
Then I got to this:
while it doesn't validate the flamie-ness of your post
and I realized you were actually serious. Someone posts a legitimate question (what is the point of all this eye candy if it doesn't perform an operating system's most basic functions efficiently) and you accuse him of Flamebait. I think he asked a pointed, relevant question. But I see his second post, which attempted to clarify his point (which was perfectly clear and relevant in the first place) is now moderated Redundant. And, yes, I am Offtopic and bitching about the mods is like feeding a troll. But if you feel like responding, I would really like to know why you believe what he wrote was intended to start a "flame war."
Personally, I don't give a damn whether these sites contact people on my contacts list, as long as they keep providing me with the service that I signed up for.
You are mistaken. The "victim" in this case is the person on the contact list who gets spammed because their "friend" decided to turn their contact list over to these idiots. Both Flixter and the "friend" would end up on my blacklist.
Well, the comment I was replying to referred specifically to the French being called "surrender monkeys" since the second world war. If you have an example of the term being used prior to the Simpson episode I mentioned, then I stand corrected.
As far as a "50+ years tired" surrender joke getting a laugh out of you goes, if that's true then I have some knock-knock jokes that would probably have you in hysterics.
Good luck getting paid by SoundExchange if you're an indie artist who gets a bit of internet radio airplay.
Agreed. Indie artists are unlikely to see any of the money collected by SoundExchange. I was just pointing out that the fees are collected for all songs played, not just those of RIAA-affiliated artists.
Not true, the RIAA is completely behind this. The fee that this new hike collects goes directly to the RIAA and not the performers which is what the fee's for terrestrial radio go to.
Actually, the fee is collected by SoundExchange, and it is collected for all songs, not just those owned by RIAA-member record companies. Yes, the RIAA lobbied hard for this, but saying "ditch corporate music" will not solve this. If you record your own song, you own the copyright on that performance. If an Internet broadcaster plays your song, a royalty will be collected for it by SoundExchange. You are welcome to sign up with SoundExchange to receive compensation for the "airplay" your song received, less their fees of course.
A recent article from BetaNews has analyed facts and figures on royalties currently paid by terrestrial radio stations to the three major performance royalty organizations (PROs) -- ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC -- and has determined that, under the new rates proposed last week by the Copyright Royalty Board (CRB), Internet radio stations operating in the U.S. would have to pay $2.3 billion in performance royalties annually, compared to $550 million for the more than 14,000 terrestrial radio stations combined.
I couldn't get to that article at BetaNews, and I'm not dusputing their contention that Internet radio is facing a huge bill from owners of the rights to sound recordings, but they have left out a few crucial elements in their description of what is occurring.
The fees payed to ASCAP, BMI and SESAC go to the composers of work, the first two are not-for-profit organizations who distribute most of the money they collect and all stations - terrestrial and Internet based - pay them.
They are based on a percentage of the station's income and amount to approximately three percent, according to the comentary I have read by the owner of an Internet radio station.
The "performance royalty" rates recently announced by the CRB are a fee collected by SoundExchange on behalf of record companies, they are charged on a "number of listeners times number of songs" baisis, and - thanks to the Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act of 1995 - they are paid by Internet broadcasters only. The rates for the period covering 2006 - 2010 are so extreme they threaten Internet radio as a viable model.
I don't doubt their projected figures, though. It's easy to arrive at them. Just estimate the number of people who listened to Internet radio music stations in 2006, multiply that by the number of songs you think got played and multiply that by $.0008.
Uh, moderators... This story is about the requirement for verifying identification in an online context, and about the difficulty of sometimes doing so.
How is my posting off topic?
Aha! You obviously did buy your low id, or you would have known that you were moderated "Offtopic" because the moderator didn't agree with you.
That should be the price paid to the public for the licensed, exclusive use of that part of our resource by a private party.
Broadcasters already pay to license the airwaves from the public, and they are not usually the copyright holder of the works they broadcast. I don't think copyright holders would permit broadcasters to use their work if the result would be that work entering the Public Domain.
Now, if you want to argue that Copyright should expire and the work should enter the Public Domain after a reasonable period of time, I'm right in there with you!
What we objected to is the US grabbing an innocent Canadian citizen on a stopover in New York and spiriting him away to Syria where he was imprisoned, kept in solitary confinement and tortured.
The RCMP had more that a little to do with that...
Thank you for the discussion, Robert. I think there are a lot of us hoping this won't turn out to be the "worst case scenario." A collective of webcasters - including the proprietors of my favorite Internet radio station - are hoping to negotiate a "percentage-of-revenue" style royalty payment structure with the RIAA that would fairly compensate artists for the use of their work, while allowing independent sites to survive. This is how the previous rate was calculated. Broadcasters - including heavy like AOL and yahoo - proposed a system based on revenue to the CRB during last year's hearings, but they were ignored. The Board went with the system proposed by SoundExchange, which bases payments on the number of listeners.
(Imagine the howls of protest if FM stations had to do the same).
Still, the idea has a chance, as the RIAA backed off similarly onerous fees in 2002. We can only hope. There may be alternative solutions, as you proposed in the post I am replying to, but it would be a shame for what are essentially small business people to have to leave their own country simply to pursue their passion.
By the way, I know this isn't really your axe to grind, but any attention you could give this issue on your blog, or in general communications you participate in, could only help. There is a very short window (two weeks) where appeals can be made. A public outcry sparked by some unwanted media attention might be enough to get them to back off these outrageous fees.
In case you are still wondering, the old rates expired in 2005. The Copyright Royalty Board has been holding hearings to determine what the rates will be for the period 2006 - 2010. Internet broadcasters have been paying the 2005 rate for their use of copyrighted material in 2006, knowing that the difference between that and the new rate would be payable once the new rates were announced.
I am not a lawyer (spelled out to emphasize how unqualified I am to comment on your point) but this is not new legislation. The Copyright Royalty Board has simply announce the rates that will be in effect from 2006 through 2010. The old rate structure expired in 2005.
Another myth is that no royalty is due because the Sound Exchange royalties expired at the end of 2005. While the negotiated royalties set out below did technically expire at the end of the last year, by law, Internet radio services must continue to pay at the old rate until new rates are established. Any payments made are subject to retroactive adjustment when the new rates are established.
The old rates were tied to revenue, as are publishing royalties payable to ASCAP/BMI. The new rates are based on number of songs played multiplied by number of listeners, and represent a dramatic increase over the old ones.
But this is not new legislation, so I don't think ex post facto applies.
Slashdot Mirror
You are right, both the original poster and the one I replied to were quite civil, especially considering the forum.
I'm not sure I agree the question was rhetorical. The fact that the answer would appear to be obvious (i.e. there is no point), and the lack of a response from "Vista people," does not necessarily render the question rhetorical. Microsoft spent a great deal of shareholder money developing and marketing something that appears to offer no (real) advantage over the product it is designed to replace, other than a prettier interface. The question may seem rhetorical to you, perhaps less so to someone who has invested heavily in the company's stock.
hobo sapiens stuck his neck out and offered the opinion that Vengeance's post was "flamie," and I took the opportunity to ask him why he felt that way. His response - and yours as well - was enlightening.
I guess I didn't take his use of the word "hell" as "cursing and yelling," but I understand there are people who may see it as blasphemy and take offense. I tend to think of Flamebait as a statement that serves no other purpose than to provoke an emotional response. In fact, your statement 'If you have a wife/GF or are a person of female persuasion, then certainly you know "It's not what you say, it's how you say it"' could be considered a very sexist remark, and fits my definition of Flamebait more closely than the misuse of the word "hell" does. But these things are very subjective. I'm not asking you to defend your position, just trying to understand it.
Btw, I absolutely agree with you about the Offtopic (or Troll) mods when someone is obviously making a joke. Recently, I had someone come back and mod one of my posts Troll or Offtopic (I don't remember which) two days after the story was off the front page. I'm not disputing the moderation (either one would have been appropriate for that particular post) but that mod was either moderating posts that were days old (not the most effective use of mod points) or they received their mod points and decided to go back and settle scores.
Anyhow, thanks for replying.
At first, I thought you were being sardonic. As in, yes, there is a lot of inappropriate moderation on
Then I got to this:
and I realized you were actually serious. Someone posts a legitimate question (what is the point of all this eye candy if it doesn't perform an operating system's most basic functions efficiently) and you accuse him of Flamebait. I think he asked a pointed, relevant question. But I see his second post, which attempted to clarify his point (which was perfectly clear and relevant in the first place) is now moderated Redundant. And, yes, I am Offtopic and bitching about the mods is like feeding a troll. But if you feel like responding, I would really like to know why you believe what he wrote was intended to start a "flame war."
You are mistaken. The "victim" in this case is the person on the contact list who gets spammed because their "friend" decided to turn their contact list over to these idiots. Both Flixter and the "friend" would end up on my blacklist.
Well, the comment I was replying to referred specifically to the French being called "surrender monkeys" since the second world war. If you have an example of the term being used prior to the Simpson episode I mentioned, then I stand corrected.
As far as a "50+ years tired" surrender joke getting a laugh out of you goes, if that's true then I have some knock-knock jokes that would probably have you in hysterics.
that's your only joke.
Okay, you're wrong. The term "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" is from this episode of The Simpsons.
And that "joke" is getting pretty tired.
I almost shot coffee out my nose when I got to that part!
Agreed. Indie artists are unlikely to see any of the money collected by SoundExchange. I was just pointing out that the fees are collected for all songs played, not just those of RIAA-affiliated artists.
Actually, the fee is collected by SoundExchange, and it is collected for all songs, not just those owned by RIAA-member record companies. Yes, the RIAA lobbied hard for this, but saying "ditch corporate music" will not solve this. If you record your own song, you own the copyright on that performance. If an Internet broadcaster plays your song, a royalty will be collected for it by SoundExchange. You are welcome to sign up with SoundExchange to receive compensation for the "airplay" your song received, less their fees of course.
How is this one a troll?
I've given up on the moderation system here. I browse at -1 and decide for myself who is "insightful" and who is a "troll."
I couldn't get to that article at BetaNews, and I'm not dusputing their contention that Internet radio is facing a huge bill from owners of the rights to sound recordings, but they have left out a few crucial elements in their description of what is occurring.
The fees payed to ASCAP, BMI and SESAC go to the composers of work, the first two are not-for-profit organizations who distribute most of the money they collect and all stations - terrestrial and Internet based - pay them.
They are based on a percentage of the station's income and amount to approximately three percent, according to the comentary I have read by the owner of an Internet radio station.
The "performance royalty" rates recently announced by the CRB are a fee collected by SoundExchange on behalf of record companies, they are charged on a "number of listeners times number of songs" baisis, and - thanks to the Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act of 1995 - they are paid by Internet broadcasters only. The rates for the period covering 2006 - 2010 are so extreme they threaten Internet radio as a viable model.
I don't doubt their projected figures, though. It's easy to arrive at them. Just estimate the number of people who listened to Internet radio music stations in 2006, multiply that by the number of songs you think got played and multiply that by $.0008.
A few billion wouldn't suprise me.
Aha! You obviously did buy your low id, or you would have known that you were moderated "Offtopic" because the moderator didn't agree with you.
It's called the phone book. In most places, you have to pay to stay out of it.
Broadcasters already pay to license the airwaves from the public, and they are not usually the copyright holder of the works they broadcast. I don't think copyright holders would permit broadcasters to use their work if the result would be that work entering the Public Domain.
Now, if you want to argue that Copyright should expire and the work should enter the Public Domain after a reasonable period of time, I'm right in there with you!
That's what i get for reading /. when I'm half asleep. In my defense, they look sort of alike, and they're both named "crocodile something" ...
I thought Steve Irwin was Crocodile Dundee
I should watch it. They don't like it when you write about it either.
The RCMP had more that a little to do with that
Like this?
That may be so, but I understand why it gets on some people's chimes.
They are also a net importer of oil from Canada. Maybe it's time to turn off the tap.
Thank you for the discussion, Robert. I think there are a lot of us hoping this won't turn out to be the "worst case scenario." A collective of webcasters - including the proprietors of my favorite Internet radio station - are hoping to negotiate a "percentage-of-revenue" style royalty payment structure with the RIAA that would fairly compensate artists for the use of their work, while allowing independent sites to survive. This is how the previous rate was calculated. Broadcasters - including heavy like AOL and yahoo - proposed a system based on revenue to the CRB during last year's hearings, but they were ignored. The Board went with the system proposed by SoundExchange, which bases payments on the number of listeners.
(Imagine the howls of protest if FM stations had to do the same).
Still, the idea has a chance, as the RIAA backed off similarly onerous fees in 2002. We can only hope. There may be alternative solutions, as you proposed in the post I am replying to, but it would be a shame for what are essentially small business people to have to leave their own country simply to pursue their passion.
By the way, I know this isn't really your axe to grind, but any attention you could give this issue on your blog, or in general communications you participate in, could only help. There is a very short window (two weeks) where appeals can be made. A public outcry sparked by some unwanted media attention might be enough to get them to back off these outrageous fees.
Okay, I'll stop bugging you about this now.
In case you are still wondering, the old rates expired in 2005. The Copyright Royalty Board has been holding hearings to determine what the rates will be for the period 2006 - 2010. Internet broadcasters have been paying the 2005 rate for their use of copyrighted material in 2006, knowing that the difference between that and the new rate would be payable once the new rates were announced.
Check out this site for insight, including this:
The old rates were tied to revenue, as are publishing royalties payable to ASCAP/BMI. The new rates are based on number of songs played multiplied by number of listeners, and represent a dramatic increase over the old ones.
But this is not new legislation, so I don't think ex post facto applies.