I really don't see why it would be so hard to set up a net radio station and say "send us your music under a licence that allows it and we'll play it".
I'd like to get this straight. I've been told a number of contradicting things here. Some folks say that they CAN hit you for webcasting fees, whether or not you have permission from the copyright holders. Some folks say they can't do it justly, but they can harass you.
This has come up a fair bit in the context of a discussion inside of a non-profit musician's organization I work with. We actually get booking at a chain of bookstores (Border's) because our members do original music... presto, no ASCAP dues! But we're not certain we're on totally solid ground...
Re:But isn't ICANN affraid...
on
See Ya .su
·
· Score: 2
Possible the right thing to do is to give the domain name to the RIAA and MPAA....
And here I thought we were all a bunch of illiterate, know-nothing (but very vocal, none-the-less) geeks.
The above is hilarious and true: we often come off as a bunch of contrarian blowhards because, um, we often are.
HOWEVER.... think about how amazing this is for a sec. A few denizens of the "message-where-people-mouth-off-but-nothing-is-eve r-changed" scene made some astute observations and actually made a dent in the behavior of a large corporation.
Just an observation, but there simply must be such testimonials to be had. I know people who've gone Mac to PC/WinXP. Just two days ago, an old roomate who knew that I consistently buy Macintosh Hardware for my personal use (despite 15+ years experience with PCs and various *NIXs), called to gloat over the fact that his mother was going to replace her aging PowerMac 7200 with a PC and that clock speeds on Apple Machines were clearly inferior. I know a number of people who've made the same choice. They're out there.
Don't get me wrong. I don't think it's the wisest choice, and it's not one I'd ever make, but it's one that a number of people are deciding on, and it doesn't bother me much -- I think they'll suffer a bit more frustration and miss out on some better thought ought technology. But it happens.
I think Microsoft's problem with getting credible testimonies is a lot like the Bush administration's problem with a rationale for a war on Iraq. There are lots of very good rationales for a war on Iraq, but the administrations motives and goals are mixed and not directly related to some of the best reasons. Lacking the right moral base, they have trouble making a convincing case even where there's one to be had. If the company would stop trying to keep its stranglehold on power and go with a craftsman's focus on delivering the best products -- and if they could see themselves that way -- it'd be easier for them to just go about things honestly.
You mean, like all the OS X reviews in which they directly criticize problems of speed, performance, file metadata, and other issues?
Ars Technica is clearly interested in Apple's technology, but there's no fanboy drooling. Their assertions are nearly always backed up with some good technical logic and/or testing. Bias is not their problem.
The problem with Mac fanboys is they take PR as fact. Steve Jobs doesn't care about software reliability, he cares about make profits.
I have no doubt that he cares about both. Part of what powers the Steve Jobs reality distortion field is the he exudes a belief in what he's doing... the attention to detail, the aesthetics of the computing experience. It isn't an afterthought. Steve isn't always right, but it's really easy to believe he's trying to do The Right Thing (TM).
Illustrative quote: "the problem with Microsoft is that they have no taste" ie, they don't really care about the user experience (and note when I say here that user experience is not just about pretty UI, it's about easy of system administration, and power to do what you'd like to do) except as an afterthought. Whereas Apple has often been concerned with -- even passionate about creating a product they thought was done right.
Maybe I'm hypnotized by a mind ray. But I think that what it comes down to is that while Apple has to and is therefore concerned about profits and smart business, Apple is also headed by and made up mostly of craftsmen, while most other computing companies are headed by and made up of businessmen. Is there any way to prove this? I don't know. But their presentation has a more honest smell. And I find their products to be of a higher quality than the alternatives.
But there's nothing in the system that says, for example, that if you run something in one of these vaults that you've got to have the code signed, or you have to have things authenticated.
How is this possibly going to lead to greater security, then?
There's certainly no room for a second disk in my TiBook....
(Oh wait. I don't have TiBook... just a TI/994a! And my alarm is buzzing and I'm late for work. And my new Altima is actually an.... 85 Sentra Wagon !!!? Where is my beautiful house? Where is my beautiful wife?)
You may be right... I don't really wish it on anyone, and for the record, I find it horrible that someone is doing something like the DC area shootings. My words were "I'll kill ya'" trash talking rhetoric, and perhaps poorly choosen. I apologize.
But if anyone does post that stuff, they're a huge lamer.
(Kindof lacks the aesthetic force, don't you think?)
They could have dropped it for any number of reasons that had little to do with its income potential. For one thing, I'm sure the growth of their core product back then made the streamlined product look like pennies. If the "training wheels" theory is correct now, most people would have been putting them on between 1996 and 2000.
1997 was too early to drop a dialup business. Most people I know were barely getting their first dialup accounts by then, and AOL, Prodigy, and Compuserve were still major online services, if unquestionably in decline in compariosn to the web in general.
Aside from my skepticism about AOL needing saving (since they are the biggest ISP out there, I understand), the challenges they face would be easy to deal with.
(1) Create a straight PPP dialup product, comes with a modern mail client and web browser (hey! Nescape/Mozilla might work...).
(2) Charge $5-7 per month LESS than current subscription rates. Yep, $15-$18 per month range.
So now, they have a streamlined faster product for those who want it, available at a competetive price. Meanwhile, there's still the implication that there is value added for the whole AOL package (which there probably is, speed issues and pop-ups aside), and they can still sell to users who like those features and/or need the training wheels. Simple and appealing. They might even get new users.
(And anybody who says ??? and PROFIT!! deserves to be the next sniper victim. Don't go there. It's not funny anymore.)
I'm serious. When it came to sets of network configurations, I didn't have to even think about how things were organized under OS X. You selected from a list of network setups (or created a new one) under a network control panel. Then, under each one of those, there were all the settings you needed to make dialup or ethernet or whatever kind of connectivity work (in tandem or seperately, I might add). Under XP, I visited three different control panels, and it wasn't clear to me how to make "sets" of settings for dialing, dialup, and TCP/IP settings. Nor was it clear how to get to each of these panels -- not all of them were easily found in the setting area. I had to use the "Find" command at one point. Which means I had to know what I was looking for. That's why my sister even needed help. My mom just needs help because she's afraid to try anything at all.
My favorite webcaster, Digitally Imported [di.fm], fully supports the bill.
But which bill do they support? The original one, or the current version? Do they even know?
That's the most worrisome aspect of this whole thing. The "bait-and-switch" manuever, replacing one bill by another but still under the same name/number, renders expressed support very unclear.
Sure, talk to your favorite webcaster. But if someone says "Support H.R. 5469" or "Don't support H.R. 5469" make sure you know which HR 5469 they're talking about.
I'd love to see this work. But I think the fact of the matter is that there's no way in heck or Utah that the majority of the population is going to care enough to resist the shiny lure of their favorite pop, country, or alt-rock band. Even one of my favorite "Indie" labels ( Razor and Tie records) may be part of the RIAA -- I'm not sure. How does a buyer know what's RIAA music anyway? How do you make an average buyer even care?
I've played with XP. Win 2k and XP do not suck. My opinion is that they're not as easy to use as OS X. And when things go south (they do on all computers), they're harder to fix...
Anyone think this is a non-sequitor? You're right... I should have hit preview... this is stuff from when I started to compose my thoughts. Sigh. Naked brain barf.
Windows machines may have been more difficult to use 15 years ago, but they've caught up... anyone who still thinks they are more difficult to use hasn't tried one.
It's not that XP is hard to use.. since Win 95, none of the Windowses has really been hard to use... although administration and installation of certain options hasn't been easy.
The thing is the way that Apple tends to think of the little things. I configured dialup connections for my sister and my mother recently. They use XP and OS X respectively. The XP connection wasn't hard per se, but the Apple stuff was easy-breezy: orthogonal seeming, conceptually accesible, easy to find the appropriate controls, etc.
Between these finishing touches and the hardware/software integration, I think it's likely I'll prefer using Apple stuff at home for some time to come.
I've played with XP. Win 2k and XP do not suck. My opinion is that they're not as easy to use as OS X. And when things go south (they do on all computers), they're harder to fix...
People don't seem to realize that digital components are as ubiquitous and cheap as many raw materials.
Which is exactly why the poster is right. Most consumers would not know what to do. They'd end up going along with the restrictions. Engineering majors would have their moments of fun when they're poor but clever college students with access to parts to build their own ADCs, but that's about it. And with most consumers running their Trustworthy Computing Platform, mucking about with the files in software won't be legal or easy.
This is all dependent on insane legislation, but we all should be well aware by now that sanity and the legislative process as we know it in the U.S. are not necessarily correlated.
Slashdot and Kuro5hin (and MetaFilter, and NewsForge, and a dozen other sites) probably have a pretty decent sized audience overlap. They're all different in some fairly significant ways, but they've got enough in common that many readers who like one will like another.
Given said audience overlap, discussion topic and/or weblogged sites will inevitable have some overlap. No "stealing" necessary.
Slashdot Mirror
I really don't see why it would be so hard to set up a net radio station and say "send us your music under a licence that allows it and we'll play it".
I'd like to get this straight. I've been told a number of contradicting things here. Some folks say that they CAN hit you for webcasting fees, whether or not you have permission from the copyright holders. Some folks say they can't do it justly, but they can harass you.
This has come up a fair bit in the context of a discussion inside of a non-profit musician's organization I work with. We actually get booking at a chain of bookstores (Border's) because our members do original music... presto, no ASCAP dues! But we're not certain we're on totally solid ground...
Possible the right thing to do is to give the domain name to the RIAA and MPAA....
And here I thought we were all a bunch of illiterate, know-nothing (but very vocal, none-the-less) geeks.
e r-changed" scene made some astute observations and actually made a dent in the behavior of a large corporation.
The above is hilarious and true: we often come off as a bunch of contrarian blowhards because, um, we often are.
HOWEVER.... think about how amazing this is for a sec. A few denizens of the "message-where-people-mouth-off-but-nothing-is-ev
Slashdot changed something. Interesting, eh?
there weren't any such testimonials to be had
Just an observation, but there simply must be such testimonials to be had. I know people who've gone Mac to PC/WinXP. Just two days ago, an old roomate who knew that I consistently buy Macintosh Hardware for my personal use (despite 15+ years experience with PCs and various *NIXs), called to gloat over the fact that his mother was going to replace her aging PowerMac 7200 with a PC and that clock speeds on Apple Machines were clearly inferior. I know a number of people who've made the same choice. They're out there.
Don't get me wrong. I don't think it's the wisest choice, and it's not one I'd ever make, but it's one that a number of people are deciding on, and it doesn't bother me much -- I think they'll suffer a bit more frustration and miss out on some better thought ought technology. But it happens.
I think Microsoft's problem with getting credible testimonies is a lot like the Bush administration's problem with a rationale for a war on Iraq. There are lots of very good rationales for a war on Iraq, but the administrations motives and goals are mixed and not directly related to some of the best reasons. Lacking the right moral base, they have trouble making a convincing case even where there's one to be had. If the company would stop trying to keep its stranglehold on power and go with a craftsman's focus on delivering the best products -- and if they could see themselves that way -- it'd be easier for them to just go about things honestly.
You mean, like all the OS X reviews in which they directly criticize problems of speed, performance, file metadata, and other issues?
Ars Technica is clearly interested in Apple's technology, but there's no fanboy drooling. Their assertions are nearly always backed up with some good technical logic and/or testing. Bias is not their problem.
The problem with Mac fanboys is they take PR as fact. Steve Jobs doesn't care about software reliability, he cares about make profits.
I have no doubt that he cares about both. Part of what powers the Steve Jobs reality distortion field is the he exudes a belief in what he's doing... the attention to detail, the aesthetics of the computing experience. It isn't an afterthought. Steve isn't always right, but it's really easy to believe he's trying to do The Right Thing (TM).
Illustrative quote: "the problem with Microsoft is that they have no taste" ie, they don't really care about the user experience (and note when I say here that user experience is not just about pretty UI, it's about easy of system administration, and power to do what you'd like to do) except as an afterthought. Whereas Apple has often been concerned with -- even passionate about creating a product they thought was done right.
Maybe I'm hypnotized by a mind ray. But I think that what it comes down to is that while Apple has to and is therefore concerned about profits and smart business, Apple is also headed by and made up mostly of craftsmen, while most other computing companies are headed by and made up of businessmen. Is there any way to prove this? I don't know. But their presentation has a more honest smell. And I find their products to be of a higher quality than the alternatives.
But there's nothing in the system that says, for example, that if you run something in one of these vaults that you've got to have the code signed, or you have to have things authenticated.
How is this possibly going to lead to greater security, then?
There's certainly no room for a second disk in my TiBook....
(Oh wait. I don't have TiBook... just a TI/994a! And my alarm is buzzing and I'm late for work. And my new Altima is actually an.... 85 Sentra Wagon !!!? Where is my beautiful house? Where is my beautiful wife?)
You may be right... I don't really wish it on anyone, and for the record, I find it horrible that someone is doing something like the DC area shootings. My words were "I'll kill ya'" trash talking rhetoric, and perhaps poorly choosen. I apologize.
But if anyone does post that stuff, they're a huge lamer.
(Kindof lacks the aesthetic force, don't you think?)
They could have dropped it for any number of reasons that had little to do with its income potential. For one thing, I'm sure the growth of their core product back then made the streamlined product look like pennies. If the "training wheels" theory is correct now, most people would have been putting them on between 1996 and 2000.
1997 was too early to drop a dialup business. Most people I know were barely getting their first dialup accounts by then, and AOL, Prodigy, and Compuserve were still major online services, if unquestionably in decline in compariosn to the web in general.
Aside from my skepticism about AOL needing saving (since they are the biggest ISP out there, I understand), the challenges they face would be easy to deal with.
(1) Create a straight PPP dialup product, comes with a modern mail client and web browser (hey! Nescape/Mozilla might work...).
(2) Charge $5-7 per month LESS than current subscription rates. Yep, $15-$18 per month range.
So now, they have a streamlined faster product for those who want it, available at a competetive price. Meanwhile, there's still the implication that there is value added for the whole AOL package (which there probably is, speed issues and pop-ups aside), and they can still sell to users who like those features and/or need the training wheels. Simple and appealing. They might even get new users.
(And anybody who says ??? and PROFIT!! deserves to be the next sniper victim. Don't go there. It's not funny anymore.)
'orthogonal seeming'? Sheesh. Stop wasting our time.
I'm serious. When it came to sets of network configurations, I didn't have to even think about how things were organized under OS X. You selected from a list of network setups (or created a new one) under a network control panel. Then, under each one of those, there were all the settings you needed to make dialup or ethernet or whatever kind of connectivity work (in tandem or seperately, I might add). Under XP, I visited three different control panels, and it wasn't clear to me how to make "sets" of settings for dialing, dialup, and TCP/IP settings. Nor was it clear how to get to each of these panels -- not all of them were easily found in the setting area. I had to use the "Find" command at one point. Which means I had to know what I was looking for. That's why my sister even needed help. My mom just needs help because she's afraid to try anything at all.
Can someone who knows please explain the fee structures for broadcast radio and webcasting (either scheme) so we can get some numbers?
My favorite webcaster, Digitally Imported [di.fm], fully supports the bill.
But which bill do they support? The original one, or the current version? Do they even know?
That's the most worrisome aspect of this whole thing. The "bait-and-switch" manuever, replacing one bill by another but still under the same name/number, renders expressed support very unclear.
Sure, talk to your favorite webcaster. But if someone says "Support H.R. 5469" or "Don't support H.R. 5469" make sure you know which HR 5469 they're talking about.
So... what did the old bill actually say?
What does the new one actually say?
I really can't tell from the articles or the comments... can someone give a simple explanation of the fee structures?
I'd love to see this work. But I think the fact of the matter is that there's no way in heck or Utah that the majority of the population is going to care enough to resist the shiny lure of their favorite pop, country, or alt-rock band. Even one of my favorite "Indie" labels ( Razor and Tie records) may be part of the RIAA -- I'm not sure. How does a buyer know what's RIAA music anyway? How do you make an average buyer even care?
I've played with XP. Win 2k and XP do not suck. My opinion is that they're not as easy to use as OS X. And when things go south (they do on all computers), they're harder to fix...
Anyone think this is a non-sequitor? You're right... I should have hit preview... this is stuff from when I started to compose my thoughts. Sigh. Naked brain barf.
Windows machines may have been more difficult to use 15 years ago, but they've caught up... anyone who still thinks they are more difficult to use hasn't tried one.
It's not that XP is hard to use.. since Win 95, none of the Windowses has really been hard to use... although administration and installation of certain options hasn't been easy.
The thing is the way that Apple tends to think of the little things. I configured dialup connections for my sister and my mother recently. They use XP and OS X respectively. The XP connection wasn't hard per se, but the Apple stuff was easy-breezy: orthogonal seeming, conceptually accesible, easy to find the appropriate controls, etc.
Between these finishing touches and the hardware/software integration, I think it's likely I'll prefer using Apple stuff at home for some time to come.
I've played with XP. Win 2k and XP do not suck. My opinion is that they're not as easy to use as OS X. And when things go south (they do on all computers), they're harder to fix...
Does this refer to slashdot posts?
I'm posting this from Chimera .13 running under 10.1.2. The thing absolutely smokes IE 5.1 under every circumstance.
You may want to try iCab if that doesn't work out for you.
Got link?
I seem to remember there being a polarizing cover you could put over your plates that would keep it from bein photographed, too...
I think it'd be one shot in a million.
Oh c'mon, Biggs, it's just like hunting womp rats back home.
"I've become Big Brother, but I didn't mean to be," Mr. Graham said. "It's just that there's no money in education or scientific collaboration."
Good to know that personal principles are no match for market economics. Whew.
People don't seem to realize that digital components are as ubiquitous and cheap as many raw materials.
Which is exactly why the poster is right. Most consumers would not know what to do. They'd end up going along with the restrictions. Engineering majors would have their moments of fun when they're poor but clever college students with access to parts to build their own ADCs, but that's about it. And with most consumers running their Trustworthy Computing Platform, mucking about with the files in software won't be legal or easy.
This is all dependent on insane legislation, but we all should be well aware by now that sanity and the legislative process as we know it in the U.S. are not necessarily correlated.
Slashdot and Kuro5hin (and MetaFilter, and NewsForge, and a dozen other sites) probably have a pretty decent sized audience overlap. They're all different in some fairly significant ways, but they've got enough in common that many readers who like one will like another.
Given said audience overlap, discussion topic and/or weblogged sites will inevitable have some overlap. No "stealing" necessary.