Uh, well, He's still right. For a number of reasons.
Trent Reznor produces, tracks, and probably even mixes his records himself. Nine Inch Nails on record basically is Trent, and he's a good producer at this point, having a lot of experience, especially getting his own ideas onto tape. I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't also mix his records, as that's a pretty important creative extension of a recorded work.
Trent Reznor is Trent Reznor. If he were to sit down to discuss a record contract with a major label, he brings a lot more to the table than bands like Staind, The Darkness, or Britney Spears. He's already got household recognition, and With Teeth is a testament, people will buy his record no matter how bad it is. But this point is moot, because:
Trent Reznor owns Nothing Records. Or at least a part of it. Or runs it. I have no idea. But running with the idea that he owns it, if you follow my bullet points, so far he's already brought to the table every part of the recording process. In terms of actually making the cd, all that's left is pressing and distribution. I have no idea how much Nothing actually does, or how they're affiliated with any other major labels, but they could do anything from pressing the cd to distributing and promoting it as well, at which point, he has complete control from the one end to the other. But the main point is that he does so much of it himself, it makes no sense for him to give up his rights now. If a label wants all rights to a cd he's written, recorded, mixed, and pressed, he'd be an fool to agree. At this point, he's also made enough $$ to just press, distribute, and promote it himself. Maybe that's how Nothing started, I really have no idea how much of the process they handle.
Also, for the record (and I'm finding out with my band), it's not necessarily copyrights that they give away, but the publishing rights. IANA entertainment lawyer, but you get royalties in return for publishing rights, through a publishing company like BMI or ASCAP. I'm pretty sure the term "copyright" literally means your rights in terms of authorship, so no one else can say they authored your work. For instance, if you retain the copyright to your album, but your label holds exclusive publishing rights, they can do whatever they want with the media (well..as per the contract you signed), they just can't say anyone else recorded it. But IANA entertainment lawyer.
Yes, I was actually thinking about doing this this morning independently. It'd be hot to write a Qt app for my Zaurus to control the system from any room. Goddamn, I'mma go do this when I get home.
Bzzzt! That's his shitty speakers' fault! More likely than not, the wires going from his computer to his speakers are improperly shielded and are picking up electromagnetic interference. That really has little to do with "interference" as you'd tend to think of it, that is, one device messing up the broadcast/transmission mechanism/frequency of another device, the problem there is relatively lo-tech. Get better speakers, get better speaker cables (although with low-end consumer grade speakers, it's simply easier to get better speakers), or move the source of interference a bit. Sometimes, it's a matter of moving the computer desk farther away from the wall outlet if you've got older wiring, or in this case have your grandson not set his cell phone on the computer desk. I can't imagine that the field around the phone is very large, that should solve the problem.
You didn't really address my analogy at all, which was an extension of the one you were replying to in the first place. By hobby (and I don't wish by trade), I record bands. I know exactly what goes on during the making of a record. Audio was the analogy.
By contrast, a LOT more work goes into a record than a wedding photo shoot. And almost every aspect of photography: "lighting, posing, aperatures, and the technical aspects that go into making the photographers's previsualized concept into an actual photograph", is analagous to the recording process: mic type/placement, room choice, digital vs. tape, etc. etc. etc. And that's without "production", that is, not-always-so-gently guiding the musician(s) toward what you think will yield the best realization of their music. Wow, that sounds exactly like photographing a wedding...except several orders of magnitude more involved and abstract.
That was my point, that though even the best producers and engineers may get a cut of the sales, it's unheard of for them to keep any portion of the copyright for the work.
Uh, musicians create the music, just like the wedding planners and attendees create the wedding. By contrast, you're talking about capturing an event on film.
Let's see...there's..an analogy...somewhere around here...
Oh that's right, the studio engineers and producers! The engineers are very much concerned with capturing the moment in audio, and what's more, the producers are very much conerned with manipluating the moment to be the best it can be. Geez, that sounds exactly like what photographers do, yet engineers never get the copyright, and I've never heard of a producer getting the copyright (though in some cases, it wouldn't surprise me if he/she was awarded some part).
Not to mention that a speaker is an external computer-controlled device, as 1.) most speakers attached to computers nowadays are not physically a part of the computer, and 2.) unlike and iPod, a speaker can do nothing on its own, without being 'controlled' by a signal source, not surprisingly in this case being the computer.
See that's his point, though. No, that guy was not stupid, because he was already giving you negatives from the film camera, and if he's doing that, he's either explicitly or (for all intents and purposes) implicitly waiving his copyrights to the images. However, if a professional photographer gave you the full res, raw image files, AND the film negatives, then later tried to prevent you from getting shitty-ass prints at WalMart by claiming authorship and full copyright privileges, he'd be (probably, who knows in this political climate) laughed out of court. Hell, he'd be laughed out of WalMart. That's just Intellectual Property Darwinism at work!
And http://ccmixter.com/ has a library or CC licensed songs that you're allowed to cut-up, reuse, etc. at free will. They're doing a cross-promotional contest dealie right now, where the best remixed songs (out of like 2, boo) by a Magnatune artist get a contract for the artist/dj/remixer/et al. In an interview with the CEO from Magnatune, he said he encourages his artists to release their songs for remixing (such as through CCMixter). My only qualm with that is most of the tracks on CCMixter are post-mixed 2-channel audio. Boo. The CEO said something about encouraging them to release multi-track audio files too, but I haven't seen any.
Man, they do realize that "XS4ALL" phonetically comes out to "Excess for all", and not "Access for all", right?..and I thought we Americans were decadent, sheesh.
Just because there is legal precedent for something in the United States does not mean you can't call bullocks on it. That's what makes this country great, aren't you a patriot? Legally, yes, this is relatively open and shut as far as patent law goes.
But that doesn't make this necessarily an ethically great decision. As someone mentioned earlier, Nintendo holds the patent for one "rumble" motor in both modular and fixed joysticks for video game systems. The patent being infringed upon specifically calls for two rumble motors in a controller with two analog joysticks. Mind you, that yes, that does seem like exactly what Sony was manufacturing without licensing the technology, I'm not claiming that Sony didn't infringe on anything.
My point though is that there is absolutely no "innovation" going on here. All that Immersion Corp. basically did was take an existing, patented technology, and increase the amount of doodads beyond what was previously patented. They didn't invent video games, nor joysticks, nor rumblin' game pads; they just moved in when they saw that someone hadn't made a broad, sweeping patent (like say, on rumblin' game pads in general), and that there would might be a profit to be had licensing this to big companies.
Now I'm no corporate crusader, and I'm no class warrior, but resorting to some of the most despicable practices amongst the biggest of the giants pretty much puts you on the same plane as them in my book. I'm not apologizing for Sony's negligence in licensing or working around existing patents, but neither will I sit on Immersion's side, just because they're the smaller company.
As I just mentioned before. Freedom of the Press, as defined by the Constitution, relates to the fact that the US government shall never restrict nor bar any article, based on content.
This case relates to the confidentiality between a journalist and his source. This has nothing to do with the First Amendment.
Please sit down. While I'm at it:
If you have trade secrets, you need to be very careful who you give them to, period. If a person you trust releases their secrets, its because you didn't do a good enough job of understanding that person.
Bullshit, I'm a partner in a small company, and when your company grows to larger than, say four people, this becomes impossible. Apple cannot simply "understand that person". Apple issues NDAs and whatever agreements they may to make sure that this legally does not happen.
Someone here is in clear and complete breach of agreement (as is dictated by the detail and clarity of the leaked information), obviously, you can see that is illegal. All Apple wants is for the website to tell them the source of the leak, so that they appropriately punish them.
Wait, wait, wait. The first amendment was included in the Constitution so that never would it be the case (as in England at the time), that journalists or publications would have their content censored or banned by the government for speaking ill of it, or its policy.
None of that is in question. Extend that to Apple. Apple is NOT suing so that the website gets shut down or their content restricted. Incorrect.
What IS happening, is Apple would like to know who the source of the information is, so that they can appropriately charge the person with breach of contract (which they ARE).
This has NOTHING AT ALL to do with the First Amendment, this has to do with legislation relating to journalists' sources. I'll admit freely that I don't know anything about legal precedent, BUT I can tell you that the case has NOTHING to do with the First Amendment.
the most successful military campaign in the history of warfare
I'm praying to god that either: a.) you're a troll, or b.) you're not yet of voting aga, and an out of control, fiery short bus full of special kids plows you over while you're walking to the comic book store.
Slashdot Mirror
Shin-ra, where we come!
Maybe we should.
Yaaayyy converting medium-bitrate WMA files to WAV, then RECOMPRESSING THEM using a different compression algorithm.
WHERE DO I SIGN UP?
Also, for the record (and I'm finding out with my band), it's not necessarily copyrights that they give away, but the publishing rights. IANA entertainment lawyer, but you get royalties in return for publishing rights, through a publishing company like BMI or ASCAP. I'm pretty sure the term "copyright" literally means your rights in terms of authorship, so no one else can say they authored your work. For instance, if you retain the copyright to your album, but your label holds exclusive publishing rights, they can do whatever they want with the media (well..as per the contract you signed), they just can't say anyone else recorded it. But IANA entertainment lawyer.
Yes, I was actually thinking about doing this this morning independently. It'd be hot to write a Qt app for my Zaurus to control the system from any room. Goddamn, I'mma go do this when I get home.
Bzzzt! That's his shitty speakers' fault! More likely than not, the wires going from his computer to his speakers are improperly shielded and are picking up electromagnetic interference. That really has little to do with "interference" as you'd tend to think of it, that is, one device messing up the broadcast/transmission mechanism/frequency of another device, the problem there is relatively lo-tech. Get better speakers, get better speaker cables (although with low-end consumer grade speakers, it's simply easier to get better speakers), or move the source of interference a bit. Sometimes, it's a matter of moving the computer desk farther away from the wall outlet if you've got older wiring, or in this case have your grandson not set his cell phone on the computer desk. I can't imagine that the field around the phone is very large, that should solve the problem.
You didn't really address my analogy at all, which was an extension of the one you were replying to in the first place. By hobby (and I don't wish by trade), I record bands. I know exactly what goes on during the making of a record. Audio was the analogy.
By contrast, a LOT more work goes into a record than a wedding photo shoot. And almost every aspect of photography: "lighting, posing, aperatures, and the technical aspects that go into making the photographers's previsualized concept into an actual photograph", is analagous to the recording process: mic type/placement, room choice, digital vs. tape, etc. etc. etc. And that's without "production", that is, not-always-so-gently guiding the musician(s) toward what you think will yield the best realization of their music. Wow, that sounds exactly like photographing a wedding...except several orders of magnitude more involved and abstract.
That was my point, that though even the best producers and engineers may get a cut of the sales, it's unheard of for them to keep any portion of the copyright for the work.
QED. Thanks for playing!
Uh, musicians create the music, just like the wedding planners and attendees create the wedding. By contrast, you're talking about capturing an event on film.
Let's see...there's..an analogy...somewhere around here...
Oh that's right, the studio engineers and producers! The engineers are very much concerned with capturing the moment in audio, and what's more, the producers are very much conerned with manipluating the moment to be the best it can be. Geez, that sounds exactly like what photographers do, yet engineers never get the copyright, and I've never heard of a producer getting the copyright (though in some cases, it wouldn't surprise me if he/she was awarded some part).
This very refreshing blast of availability is long overdue.
Out of context, this is the best sentence ever written.
Not to mention that a speaker is an external computer-controlled device, as 1.) most speakers attached to computers nowadays are not physically a part of the computer, and 2.) unlike and iPod, a speaker can do nothing on its own, without being 'controlled' by a signal source, not surprisingly in this case being the computer.
For instance, the player piano.
Yes, latkes would be delicious, right about now.
See that's his point, though. No, that guy was not stupid, because he was already giving you negatives from the film camera, and if he's doing that, he's either explicitly or (for all intents and purposes) implicitly waiving his copyrights to the images.
However, if a professional photographer gave you the full res, raw image files, AND the film negatives, then later tried to prevent you from getting shitty-ass prints at WalMart by claiming authorship and full copyright privileges, he'd be (probably, who knows in this political climate) laughed out of court. Hell, he'd be laughed out of WalMart. That's just Intellectual Property Darwinism at work!
And http://ccmixter.com/ has a library or CC licensed songs that you're allowed to cut-up, reuse, etc. at free will. They're doing a cross-promotional contest dealie right now, where the best remixed songs (out of like 2, boo) by a Magnatune artist get a contract for the artist/dj/remixer/et al. In an interview with the CEO from Magnatune, he said he encourages his artists to release their songs for remixing (such as through CCMixter). My only qualm with that is most of the tracks on CCMixter are post-mixed 2-channel audio. Boo. The CEO said something about encouraging them to release multi-track audio files too, but I haven't seen any.
Man, they do realize that "XS4ALL" phonetically comes out to "Excess for all", and not "Access for all", right? ..and I thought we Americans were decadent, sheesh.
Don't forget OpenWare!
A J2EE developer still not using Spring, Hibernate, etc.?!? Sweet Jesus, that is an arcane art, sir.
I like how no one at the FreeBSD organization responded back in time to be published. Those are my boys
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Hold on.
Just because there is legal precedent for something in the United States does not mean you can't call bullocks on it. That's what makes this country great, aren't you a patriot? Legally, yes, this is relatively open and shut as far as patent law goes.
But that doesn't make this necessarily an ethically great decision. As someone mentioned earlier, Nintendo holds the patent for one "rumble" motor in both modular and fixed joysticks for video game systems. The patent being infringed upon specifically calls for two rumble motors in a controller with two analog joysticks. Mind you, that yes, that does seem like exactly what Sony was manufacturing without licensing the technology, I'm not claiming that Sony didn't infringe on anything.
My point though is that there is absolutely no "innovation" going on here. All that Immersion Corp. basically did was take an existing, patented technology, and increase the amount of doodads beyond what was previously patented. They didn't invent video games, nor joysticks, nor rumblin' game pads; they just moved in when they saw that someone hadn't made a broad, sweeping patent (like say, on rumblin' game pads in general), and that there would might be a profit to be had licensing this to big companies.
Now I'm no corporate crusader, and I'm no class warrior, but resorting to some of the most despicable practices amongst the biggest of the giants pretty much puts you on the same plane as them in my book. I'm not apologizing for Sony's negligence in licensing or working around existing patents, but neither will I sit on Immersion's side, just because they're the smaller company.
As I just mentioned before. Freedom of the Press, as defined by the Constitution, relates to the fact that the US government shall never restrict nor bar any article, based on content.
This case relates to the confidentiality between a journalist and his source. This has nothing to do with the First Amendment.
Please sit down. While I'm at it:
If you have trade secrets, you need to be very careful who you give them to, period. If a person you trust releases their secrets, its because you didn't do a good enough job of understanding that person.
Bullshit, I'm a partner in a small company, and when your company grows to larger than, say four people, this becomes impossible. Apple cannot simply "understand that person". Apple issues NDAs and whatever agreements they may to make sure that this legally does not happen.
Someone here is in clear and complete breach of agreement (as is dictated by the detail and clarity of the leaked information), obviously, you can see that is illegal. All Apple wants is for the website to tell them the source of the leak, so that they appropriately punish them.
Wait, wait, wait. The first amendment was included in the Constitution so that never would it be the case (as in England at the time), that journalists or publications would have their content censored or banned by the government for speaking ill of it, or its policy.
None of that is in question. Extend that to Apple. Apple is NOT suing so that the website gets shut down or their content restricted. Incorrect.
What IS happening, is Apple would like to know who the source of the information is, so that they can appropriately charge the person with breach of contract (which they ARE).
This has NOTHING AT ALL to do with the First Amendment, this has to do with legislation relating to journalists' sources. I'll admit freely that I don't know anything about legal precedent, BUT I can tell you that the case has NOTHING to do with the First Amendment.
And, just to make things clear, in the 1980s, the US had tremendously favorable relations with Iraq.
the most successful military campaign in the history of warfare
I'm praying to god that either: a.) you're a troll, or b.) you're not yet of voting aga, and an out of control, fiery short bus full of special kids plows you over while you're walking to the comic book store.
Goddamn though, Tim Horton's is worth hauling your ass to an ATM for.