Er, bad phrasing. I considered it right after I posted, and got a 'Troll' moderation for my troubles.
Fair Use IS law, but it is not a right under law. It is a defence. (Granted, on many levels there's not much difference, but that wasn't my original point.) Quoth your link:
In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include...
Now, I am not a law student, but I think you stand on firmer ground with a parody, protected under your 1st Amendment right to free speech, than you do with calling sampling Fair Use.
He had another musician play some notes - it wasn't a sample from a copyrighted work. Surely there is a difference.
Yes, and it's only slight.
There are 2 types of copyright here : One, the copyright of the song itself (picture sheet music, lyrics), and the copyright of the recording.
The bassline would still be covered under the first, but only a sample of the bassline would be under the second.
If you have a CD of Mozart's 'Jupiter' Symphony, the copyright of the music has long-since expired (They didn't have Disney back then), but the particular recording you're listening to is copyrighted. In such a case, you couldn't sample the recording without permission, but you could certainly play it yourself. Er...you and your orchestra.
Indeed, you're right. And that's exactly what the current state of affairs is. Sample-heavy artists, typically pay specialized sample-clearing companies to track down and negotiate with the copyright holders. With few exceptions (anal-retentive artists), clearing dozens of samples is much, much, cheaper than getting sued for a single one.
The old saying that "it's easier to get forgiveness than permission" does not apply here.
OK. But there was no sample. It was a replayed bass line.
There are 2 types of copyright here : One, the copyright of the song itself (picture sheet music, lyrics), and the copyright of the recording.
If you have a CD of Mozart's 'Jupiter' Symphony, the copyright of the music has long-since expired (They didn't have Disney back then), but the particular recording you're listening to is copyrighted. In such a case, you couldn't sample the recording without permission, but you could certainly play it yourself. Er...you and your orchestra.
Microsoft has an OS X version of remote desktop available free from their website (amazingly). It actually works quite well.
Correction : It's a *client* for XP's Remote Desktop. You can't (as the parent was saying), access a remote OS X desktop from another machine without paying for Apple's software, or using something like VNC.
That said, I would expect a cheap, or possibly even free, version of Apple's Remote Desktop software (which is a bit over-powered for most people) to come out at the same time as 10.3 (it may even be built-in). Also, a release version of the X11 port is definitely going to be out then.
FreeNet, dispite it's merits, is probably the worst possible option in this case.
For one, the original server has plenty of bandwidth, and it isn't as though the file isn't going to be there later.
For just about any other server, the BitTorrent link would be ideal, as we're dealing with a high-demand file -- lots of people will be downloading this, and using the BT link is likely to be faster, as well as taking load off of the original server and it's mirrors. The link will probably still be quite fast for days or even weeks, and if it's not, the original sources are still there. FreeNet's breed of permanence just can't compete with that. Even if it outlasts a BitTorrent network, it will get progressively slower, and with higher latency.
You say that the link does not go down when people close the download window, but that *is* what happens when people shut of thier FreeNet nodes, having gotten the one file they were after. Nobody is going to start running a permanent node just to get one file, whereas BitTorrent is *designed* for this purpose.
FreeNet is capable of reacting to natural changes in popularity, but that's exceedingly slow compared to one person setting up a.torrent tracker for a file that is predictably popular.
I'm glad that something like FreeNet exists, but it is not the right tool for any job but anonymity. Use it if you truly believe in free speech (enough to not worry about the chance that you're supporting speech you may find offensive), but don't use it if you want to to get your Animatrix quickly.
first the Matrix 2, then T3... What's the message here? Fear technology? Screw that.
Actually, I think the message is "Pay $8 to see The Matrix:Reloaded on the day it comes out, and twice more the next week. And buy the DVD. And the special edition deluxe boxed set with 10 minutes of bonus material. Also, buy lots of buttery, buttery, popcorn. And soda, definitely lots of soda. Vote Republican. KaZaA supports terrorism. AOL-Time-Warner is your friend. AOL-Time-Warner will not enslave humanity, robots will. Fnord."
Seriously though, I don't think there's some kind of serious anti-technology message behind these movies. Hell, they're mainly popular with people who love technology. Why?
Because they're movies about robots blowing shit up and robots getting their asses kicked by guys doing kung-fu.
When people get really excited about 'symbolism' and 'messages' in the Matrix, you have to remind them that the reason they went to see the original in the first place was because there were lots of guns, kung-fu, and a hot chick in a leather catsuit.
The real trouble is that the story of The Matrix just isn't that complex. In the end, it's an great action movie with a good sci-fi story, and not a great sci-fi movie with good action. I'm actually hoping that there aren't a lot of concrete answers, for fear that they'll be as filled with holes as say, the Star Wars prequels.
On the other hand, I think there's a good chance for your questions about the world prior to the Matrix to be answered in the sequels --
Wasn't there a first Matrix that crashed and burned due to the people not able to accept it as reality?
A friend of mine injured his brain by focusing on this and concluding that the even the 'outside' world was 'inside', and that Neo and friends were the ones who couldn't accept it as reality. Ouch.
More likely, though still only speculative, is that in order to 'wake up' all mankind, to "show them a world without borders or boundries", they'll 'simply' make the current matrix behave like the former, causing mass disbelief. Something about that whole 'red pill' buisiness makes me think this is possible.
Was there any debate at all over how long the Dark Storm would last, unless they had some way to clear it afterwards?
If this is explained at all, it will be in Revolutions. If the series is meant to end with humanity being freed, then the heroes are going to have to find some way to make 'the real world' not be a post-apocalypic wasteland. Otherwise, it's not much of a happy ending is it? "Thanks Neo, for taking us out of blissful ignorance and bringing us to this barren hellhole. Asshole."
When did the AI develop the spidery robots?
These were seen in The Second Renaissance, Part 1 -- before the big war. Likewise with the hovercraft. Gotta say that that one wasn't keeping me up at night. I figure that any decent AI capable of enslaving all of humanity must be capable of developing flying squid-bots of doom. I mean, that's what I would do...
I must confess that I'm not exactly sure how. A little Googling didn't tell me anything. I take it from your comment that they sold it all off, but I don't remember hearing about it. Oh well, whatever, nevermind.
It always piss me off that most of the Wintel users like you just don't have the basic intelligence to see anything beyond the market share.
Um...When did I say I use Windows? Or Intel? Or that I don't use a Mac? You sir, are a reactionary fucktard.
What I was saying was that Microsoft doesn't innovate at the same clip as Apple because their company doesn't rely on innovation to survive. Apple does, and obviously has become quite good at it. The only big misstep they've made in recent years was the G4 Cube, which was overpriced and underpowered, but hell, everyone still wanted one.
I definitely disagree with your claim that Apple has a larger quantity of software -- It's tricky to measure, I'll grant you, but Microsoft has a finger in just about every software pie I can think of. And they're an ISP, and they sell branded network hardware, and they make game controllers, and PC games, and have a game console, and so on.
Quality, of course, is in Apple's court, when they choose to play. Unfortunately, they only play home games, but they've got a great arena.
Can someone explain to me why every Longhorn preview includes a funny little analog clock? They're not actually keeping that in the OS, are they? They realize how rediculous it is, don't they?
The short answer is : Because they don't need to move fast.
Even Apple isn't much of a threat -- they've gained maybe a few percent of the market in recent years, but at the same time, Microsoft has a big stake in the company, and is still the dominant office suite on the Mac. Up until recently, they had the default browser, as well.
then they work at a company contributing nothing of substance
This is just a reminder that "The Matrix" is a product of the AOL Time-Warner corporation.
There is also a whole book out discussing the philosophy of the matrix, but IMHO it is weak.
There's a reason for that, and it's probably because it's a freakin' action movie about humanity being enslaved by robots. Sure sure, it got gears turning in the heads of a lot of people who aren't accustomed to thinking, but it's not, dispite it's many merits, a 'deep' film.
Thanks for the info; it looks like that should work with older Macs as well, like my relatives have.
Hmm...I don't know about that. AFAIK, the only supported software is iTunes for OS X, and (blech!) MusicMatch Jukebox for Windows -- so, while the interface may be compatable, there'd be no way to make use of it.
... some blogs are informative and can reveal things deep in a person's soul that you would never realize.
Indeed, I never realized that bloggers had souls.
Ok, that was too easy. What I meant to say was that the only blogs I've ever found interesting tend to be the ones that few really consider a blog. Nobody calls Slashdot a blog, but it's got all of the technical qualities of one. The difference is that it isn't part of the 'blog community' (read : rediculous popularity contest) -- it doesn't run Movable Type, it doesn't zealously proclaim it's adherence to web standards, it doesn't have an Amazon wishlist, it isn't a 'freelance web developer'.
Surprisingly enough, it manages to be quite interesting, informative, insightful, and funny without those things.
Wrong...well, maybe. Hell, I don't know. No, you're right.
Yeah, I know AAC isn't proprietary, that wasn't my point, I was just countering the point raised in the (parent) letter.
On the other hand, even if the format is open, will the DRM be perfectly compatable? I think that's yet to be seen. I wouldn't be surprised if there were some glitches.
"Apple's iTunes Music store sold 275,000 tracks in its first 18 hours of operation. Impressive considering the connection problems people were having."
I think that some of those connection problems might have been caused by people downloading an average of 255 songs a minute. You know...maybe.
Digital songs you buy online will only work with Apple software or an Apple sanctioned portable player.
Wrong. Digital songs you buy online from Apple will only work with Apple software or on an Apple sanctioned portable player. Nothing new here. Quit bitching. Move along.
MPEG-2 Layer 3 is not significantly different than the typical MP3 (MPEG-1 Layer 3). I haven't researched it, but it may be exactly the same.
If you check the tags on a lot of MP3s found 'in the wild', they'll turn out to use MPEG-2. You don't need a different codec or anything, and as far as I can tell, the only reason they are ever found like that is because people assume it must be better because it's a higher number.
(Mods : I know it's off-topic, and a reply to an AC, but I just have to bitch.)
But what about the vast majority of the marijuana bought in the United States? It comes from drug cartels in Mexico and Latin America.
Wrong. The vast majority comes from within the US.
That money goes (indirectly, through your dealer)......to pay for rent, snacks, and a PlayStation.
Since we're talking about funding drug cartels and supporting terrorism, I suppose it's only fair to bring up Iran-Contra.
It's heroin that's the real killer.... a good deal comes from Southern Asia and Asia Minor, and is sold specifically to fund terrorist organizations in those parts of the world... So yeah, by buying drugs you really ARE supporting terrorism
Well, our government did pay those same terrorist organizations in hopes that they wouldn't sell drugs. Of course, being 'evil-doers', they didn't. Nor did they stop being terrorists.
Nevermind the fact that for the poor farmers of Afghanistan, it's easier to buy food with money from poppy fields than it is to grow food for your starving family. Funny how that still hasn't changed, dispite being 'liberated' by the US.
I don't care one way or another who uses drugs, but I do care when people believe the bullshit our own government spouts. The drug-money that reaches terrorists is a pitance next to the amount of pork in our anti-drug budget.
Slashdot Mirror
Er, bad phrasing. I considered it right after I posted, and got a 'Troll' moderation for my troubles.
:
Fair Use IS law, but it is not a right under law. It is a defence. (Granted, on many levels there's not much difference, but that wasn't my original point.) Quoth your link
In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include...
Now, I am not a law student, but I think you stand on firmer ground with a parody, protected under your 1st Amendment right to free speech, than you do with calling sampling Fair Use.
He had another musician play some notes - it wasn't a sample from a copyrighted work. Surely there is a difference.
Yes, and it's only slight.
There are 2 types of copyright here : One, the copyright of the song itself (picture sheet music, lyrics), and the copyright of the recording.
The bassline would still be covered under the first, but only a sample of the bassline would be under the second.
If you have a CD of Mozart's 'Jupiter' Symphony, the copyright of the music has long-since expired (They didn't have Disney back then), but the particular recording you're listening to is copyrighted. In such a case, you couldn't sample the recording without permission, but you could certainly play it yourself. Er...you and your orchestra.
Indeed, you're right. And that's exactly what the current state of affairs is. Sample-heavy artists, typically pay specialized sample-clearing companies to track down and negotiate with the copyright holders. With few exceptions (anal-retentive artists), clearing dozens of samples is much, much, cheaper than getting sued for a single one.
The old saying that "it's easier to get forgiveness than permission" does not apply here.
OK. But there was no sample. It was a replayed bass line.
There are 2 types of copyright here : One, the copyright of the song itself (picture sheet music, lyrics), and the copyright of the recording.
If you have a CD of Mozart's 'Jupiter' Symphony, the copyright of the music has long-since expired (They didn't have Disney back then), but the particular recording you're listening to is copyrighted. In such a case, you couldn't sample the recording without permission, but you could certainly play it yourself. Er...you and your orchestra.
Parody is protected free speech under law.
Fair Use is not law.
So, while you're entirely right about there being new artistic uses, sampling in the Dr. Dre sense is a whole other animal.
Microsoft has an OS X version of remote desktop available free from their website (amazingly). It actually works quite well.
Correction : It's a *client* for XP's Remote Desktop. You can't (as the parent was saying), access a remote OS X desktop from another machine without paying for Apple's software, or using something like VNC.
That said, I would expect a cheap, or possibly even free, version of Apple's Remote Desktop software (which is a bit over-powered for most people) to come out at the same time as 10.3 (it may even be built-in). Also, a release version of the X11 port is definitely going to be out then.
FreeNet, dispite it's merits, is probably the worst possible option in this case.
.torrent tracker for a file that is predictably popular.
For one, the original server has plenty of bandwidth, and it isn't as though the file isn't going to be there later.
For just about any other server, the BitTorrent link would be ideal, as we're dealing with a high-demand file -- lots of people will be downloading this, and using the BT link is likely to be faster, as well as taking load off of the original server and it's mirrors. The link will probably still be quite fast for days or even weeks, and if it's not, the original sources are still there. FreeNet's breed of permanence just can't compete with that. Even if it outlasts a BitTorrent network, it will get progressively slower, and with higher latency.
You say that the link does not go down when people close the download window, but that *is* what happens when people shut of thier FreeNet nodes, having gotten the one file they were after. Nobody is going to start running a permanent node just to get one file, whereas BitTorrent is *designed* for this purpose.
FreeNet is capable of reacting to natural changes in popularity, but that's exceedingly slow compared to one person setting up a
I'm glad that something like FreeNet exists, but it is not the right tool for any job but anonymity. Use it if you truly believe in free speech (enough to not worry about the chance that you're supporting speech you may find offensive), but don't use it if you want to to get your Animatrix quickly.
first the Matrix 2, then T3... What's the message here? Fear technology? Screw that.
Actually, I think the message is "Pay $8 to see The Matrix:Reloaded on the day it comes out, and twice more the next week. And buy the DVD. And the special edition deluxe boxed set with 10 minutes of bonus material. Also, buy lots of buttery, buttery, popcorn. And soda, definitely lots of soda. Vote Republican. KaZaA supports terrorism. AOL-Time-Warner is your friend. AOL-Time-Warner will not enslave humanity, robots will. Fnord."
Seriously though, I don't think there's some kind of serious anti-technology message behind these movies. Hell, they're mainly popular with people who love technology. Why?
Because they're movies about robots blowing shit up and robots getting their asses kicked by guys doing kung-fu.
When people get really excited about 'symbolism' and 'messages' in the Matrix, you have to remind them that the reason they went to see the original in the first place was because there were lots of guns, kung-fu, and a hot chick in a leather catsuit.
-dr.badass
The real trouble is that the story of The Matrix just isn't that complex. In the end, it's an great action movie with a good sci-fi story, and not a great sci-fi movie with good action. I'm actually hoping that there aren't a lot of concrete answers, for fear that they'll be as filled with holes as say, the Star Wars prequels.
On the other hand, I think there's a good chance for your questions about the world prior to the Matrix to be answered in the sequels --
Wasn't there a first Matrix that crashed and burned due to the people not able to accept it as reality?
A friend of mine injured his brain by focusing on this and concluding that the even the 'outside' world was 'inside', and that Neo and friends were the ones who couldn't accept it as reality. Ouch.
More likely, though still only speculative, is that in order to 'wake up' all mankind, to "show them a world without borders or boundries", they'll 'simply' make the current matrix behave like the former, causing mass disbelief. Something about that whole 'red pill' buisiness makes me think this is possible.
Was there any debate at all over how long the Dark Storm would last, unless they had some way to clear it afterwards?
If this is explained at all, it will be in Revolutions. If the series is meant to end with humanity being freed, then the heroes are going to have to find some way to make 'the real world' not be a post-apocalypic wasteland. Otherwise, it's not much of a happy ending is it? "Thanks Neo, for taking us out of blissful ignorance and bringing us to this barren hellhole. Asshole."
When did the AI develop the spidery robots?
These were seen in The Second Renaissance, Part 1 -- before the big war. Likewise with the hovercraft. Gotta say that that one wasn't keeping me up at night. I figure that any decent AI capable of enslaving all of humanity must be capable of developing flying squid-bots of doom. I mean, that's what I would do...
-dr.badass
Actually, yes. The Largest In The World
(And no, it's not a goatse link.)
You might want to double-check that.
I must confess that I'm not exactly sure how. A little Googling didn't tell me anything. I take it from your comment that they sold it all off, but I don't remember hearing about it. Oh well, whatever, nevermind.
It always piss me off that most of the Wintel users like you just don't have the basic intelligence to see anything beyond the market share.
Um...When did I say I use Windows? Or Intel? Or that I don't use a Mac? You sir, are a reactionary fucktard.
What I was saying was that Microsoft doesn't innovate at the same clip as Apple because their company doesn't rely on innovation to survive. Apple does, and obviously has become quite good at it. The only big misstep they've made in recent years was the G4 Cube, which was overpriced and underpowered, but hell, everyone still wanted one.
I definitely disagree with your claim that Apple has a larger quantity of software -- It's tricky to measure, I'll grant you, but Microsoft has a finger in just about every software pie I can think of. And they're an ISP, and they sell branded network hardware, and they make game controllers, and PC games, and have a game console, and so on.
Quality, of course, is in Apple's court, when they choose to play. Unfortunately, they only play home games, but they've got a great arena.
Can someone explain to me why every Longhorn preview includes a funny little analog clock? They're not actually keeping that in the OS, are they? They realize how rediculous it is, don't they?
Why is MS so much slower than Apple?
The short answer is : Because they don't need to move fast.
Even Apple isn't much of a threat -- they've gained maybe a few percent of the market in recent years, but at the same time, Microsoft has a big stake in the company, and is still the dominant office suite on the Mac. Up until recently, they had the default browser, as well.
then they work at a company contributing nothing of substance
This is just a reminder that "The Matrix" is a product of the AOL Time-Warner corporation.
There is also a whole book out discussing the philosophy of the matrix, but IMHO it is weak.
There's a reason for that, and it's probably because it's a freakin' action movie about humanity being enslaved by robots. Sure sure, it got gears turning in the heads of a lot of people who aren't accustomed to thinking, but it's not, dispite it's many merits, a 'deep' film.
Thanks for the info; it looks like that should work with older Macs as well, like my relatives have.
Hmm...I don't know about that. AFAIK, the only supported software is iTunes for OS X, and (blech!) MusicMatch Jukebox for Windows -- so, while the interface may be compatable, there'd be no way to make use of it.
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.
... some blogs are informative and can reveal things deep in a person's soul that you would never realize.
Indeed, I never realized that bloggers had souls.
Ok, that was too easy. What I meant to say was that the only blogs I've ever found interesting tend to be the ones that few really consider a blog. Nobody calls Slashdot a blog, but it's got all of the technical qualities of one. The difference is that it isn't part of the 'blog community' (read : rediculous popularity contest) -- it doesn't run Movable Type, it doesn't zealously proclaim it's adherence to web standards, it doesn't have an Amazon wishlist, it isn't a 'freelance web developer'.
Surprisingly enough, it manages to be quite interesting, informative, insightful, and funny without those things.
Just my couple of pennies.
Wrong...well, maybe. Hell, I don't know. No, you're right.
Yeah, I know AAC isn't proprietary, that wasn't my point, I was just countering the point raised in the (parent) letter.
On the other hand, even if the format is open, will the DRM be perfectly compatable? I think that's yet to be seen. I wouldn't be surprised if there were some glitches.
"Apple's iTunes Music store sold 275,000 tracks in its first 18 hours of operation. Impressive considering the connection problems people were having."
I think that some of those connection problems might have been caused by people downloading an average of 255 songs a minute. You know...maybe.
Digital songs you buy online will only work with Apple software or an Apple sanctioned portable player.
Wrong. Digital songs you buy online from Apple will only work with Apple software or on an Apple sanctioned portable player. Nothing new here. Quit bitching. Move along.
MPEG-2 Layer 3 is not significantly different than the typical MP3 (MPEG-1 Layer 3). I haven't researched it, but it may be exactly the same.
If you check the tags on a lot of MP3s found 'in the wild', they'll turn out to use MPEG-2. You don't need a different codec or anything, and as far as I can tell, the only reason they are ever found like that is because people assume it must be better because it's a higher number.
LSD is dying.
Oh wait, that's BSD.
Oh, so easy to get the two confused. No wonder I've been seeing daemons!
They're called ID3 tags. Use them.
/genre/band/album - date/track 8 - song name.mp3.
That'd be great, except that most ID3 tag fields hold even fewer than 64 characters.
Or store your files like
That's better, but then you may run into the fact that you're limited to 255 characters in a pathname, and only 8 directories deep.
Another option, depending on the application, is to just tar/gzip a directory and use a short name on the archive.
Marketing people love to trumpet all kinds of fantasy based figures when they talk about CPU spead.
The troth is that the only CPU mesure that matters is how long dose it take to rip and encode a DVD to DivX
Well, you know, it's probably not a good idea for marketing people to show DVD-ripping times, given the dubious legality.
(Mods : I know it's off-topic, and a reply to an AC, but I just have to bitch.)
...to pay for rent, snacks, and a PlayStation.
... a good deal comes from Southern Asia and Asia Minor, and is sold specifically to fund terrorist organizations in those parts of the world ... So yeah, by buying drugs you really ARE supporting terrorism
But what about the vast majority of the marijuana bought in the United States? It comes from drug cartels in Mexico and Latin America.
Wrong. The vast majority comes from within the US.
That money goes (indirectly, through your dealer)...
Since we're talking about funding drug cartels and supporting terrorism, I suppose it's only fair to bring up Iran-Contra.
It's heroin that's the real killer.
Well, our government
did pay those same terrorist organizations in hopes that they wouldn't sell drugs. Of course, being 'evil-doers', they didn't. Nor did they stop being terrorists.
Nevermind the fact that for the poor farmers of Afghanistan, it's easier to buy food with money from poppy fields than it is to grow food for your starving family. Funny how that still hasn't changed, dispite being 'liberated' by the US.
I don't care one way or another who uses drugs, but I do care when people believe the bullshit our own government spouts. The drug-money that reaches terrorists is a pitance next to the amount of pork in our anti-drug budget.
-dr.badass