The original analogy was that the artist considers the album one piece of work (a painting) and a particular song one pleasing, but incomplete view of that work (Mona's eyes).
It's still BS. If we were to hold them to that standard, then how do they justify releasing a single in the first place?
You wouldnâ(TM)t cut just they eyes out of the Mona Lisa and framed them just because thatâ(TM)s all thatâ(TM)s all you liked.
No. It's more like going to a da Vinci exhibit and only wanting to pay to see the Mona Lisa as opposed to the Mona Lisa and all of his other work.
A CD is a compilation of their âartâ(TM) even if parts of the art suck.
Compilation doesn't automatically connotate anything but the most vague associations: artist, genre, country. It doesn't automatically infer that the objects within are inseperable. I have an old school compilation that has 3 songs that I don't like. I program my CD player to skip those 3. I don't feel like I'm missing anything except for the excessive eyerolling that is caused by "The Wiki Song."
The difference is that the record companies would determine what songs to release as singles, with iTunes the consumer picks the single. Consumer choice... imagine that...
This is the real fear that the record companies have, one of their main monopolies - distribution - is being seriously undermined. They used to be able to say to artists "Hey we can get your album into every record store in America." Digital distribution says "Hey we can get you into half of the HOMES in America."
As long as they have their marketing machine though, they'll still be more than a few steps ahead.
Illegal Copying is illegal. Larceny - the unlawful and intentional taking of another personâ(TM)s property with the intent to deprive that person of said property permanently - is illegal. They are both bad. They are different offenses though. The RIAA has never charged any of the file sharers with theft. If they did, they would probably get laughed out of the courthouse.
Yes you can make a leap and say that since nobody bought the album that a potential sale, i.e. money, is lost. Unfortunately there is no way to truly quantify a lost sale in this matter since you can not assume that the downloader would have bought the album in the first place therefore you can't assume that any real money was lost. For every 10 downloaded albums there are potentially 10 lost sales but there are potentially 10 non-sales as well.
Also the fact that many people have beem downloading individual songs that haven't been for sale that way until recently has made determining any monetary loss (a very important part of determining the severity of a theft - or copyright infringement for that matter - charge) a very interesting matter. Think about the fact that the RIAA charge those college students the maximum amount - like 150 grand - for each work of art (which is ridiculous because of the fact that the "work of art" could be a 20 second interlude) and you could never get away with that prosecuting the theft of CDs.
But of course you don't get charged with copyright infringement when stealing CD's. You could steal a blank CD with a 15.99 retail price and get hit with the same charge as stealing top 10 "hit" album.
Exactly, ultimately they have to realize that the wheels are falling off of the Gravy Train and the bar has been raised as a result of consumer demand. These guys about face every minute. One second it's all about the fans, the next second it's all about the art. It can't be all about both at the same time so if they were smart they'd just accept the happy medium - which this a la carte download system appears to be nearing - and try to exploit it to their own benefit.
Definitely, that's probably a hell of a lot more than they made off of the industry despised $.99 cassette singles back in the day. If anything, it would seem like this could potentially make them (larger artists) more money. Since most of popular artists still sell millions regardless of totally free P2P and the economy, it would seem as if this would be nothing but gravy on top of what they normally make. Truthfully all than anyone can do on this right now is speculate until the numbers stablize.
Concept albums seem to be pretty rare these days so as many others have said, it's hard to think of this as anything other than "We want you to pay for the bullshit too!"
His skill and the right field porch that is 309' from home plate. He's a good player and every other part of the park compensates but a left-handed pull hitter can get some serious cheapies there.
The whole point of that commercial was that the woman asked him how long he had worked for the company and he said something like 6 months. Implying that.Net was the holy grail of business software allowing you to become efficient fast.
It's not hard to see why Microsoft would want to extend this thinking to their whole product line.
Anyway, I think Microsoft was smart not to add tabbed browsing and Sidebar functions in IE 6.0x since they are features that just end up confusing less-experienced users.
Come on now, most tab implementations are such that inexperienced users would never run into a tab anyway.
Uhhhh... has anybody EVER had to pay licensing fees to use IE? If not, there are a lot of Windows developers that need to be made aware that using the MSHTML control will cost them.
As far as I can tell that is just spin doctoring as AOL hasn't stated that it will actually USE IE. MS probably mandated that and the WMP line to make it sound like they have really "won."
Uhhhh... that's more than AOLTW is getting for the Hawks and Thrashers, and the Braves are only worth about $430 million. You're telling me that AOLTW is trying everything that they can to sell off these teams for less than a "drop in the bucket?"
I did say "According to The Architect", I was just addressing the question posed by the parent of my post. I pretty much agree that there are tremendous implications of the last 5 minutes of the film with respect to the validity of what everyone in the story has said and believes about The Matrix.
That would be the entire human race. The humans in Zion were doomed anyway. The whole purpose of going through the other door was to select a few people from Zion to build a new Zion while the others died. Selecting the other door not only lets the machines destroy Zion with Neo not saving a single soul, but it also kills the "pink nuggets" as you call them because it allegedly leads to some foul up in the Equilibrum of The Matrix.
Did anybody else think Final Fantasy X during the last 20 minutes of the film?
According to the first movie, the current year in the real world was circa 2199. The current year in the Matrix was circa 1999 (the height of human civilization).
Probably because he's a horrible actor whose screen time makes many people cringe in T2. The dialouge for the film was corny in general but he couldn't deliver a line to Canada riding an ICBM.
Because it's a "sin" in the sense of the whole point of the web to deny people content by requiring a plug in just to READ and SEE PICTURES. Some people just want to read info about the movie on their own terms without shit clicking and spinning (and SOUNDING - ARRRGH) all over the place. It would take a very small amount of time to put the contents (which on sites like this are generally relatively sparse) in a plain HTML page. Normally, once it's done it's done so there would be minimal updating required after the fact.
I went to the site and the Flash does nothing but waste time. I click on a link and it takes 20 seconds of loading animations and whiz bang bullshit to get to what I want to see. I get there and I have to strain to read it because of the tiny ass font that I would at least be able to adjust if it were HTML.
Slashdot Mirror
Or the reason why Mozilla gives you the option to disallow scripts to resize browser windows.
The original analogy was that the artist considers the album one piece of work (a painting) and a particular song one pleasing, but incomplete view of that work (Mona's eyes).
It's still BS. If we were to hold them to that standard, then how do they justify releasing a single in the first place?
You wouldnâ(TM)t cut just they eyes out of the Mona Lisa and framed them just because thatâ(TM)s all thatâ(TM)s all you liked.
No. It's more like going to a da Vinci exhibit and only wanting to pay to see the Mona Lisa as opposed to the Mona Lisa and all of his other work.
A CD is a compilation of their âartâ(TM) even if parts of the art suck.
Compilation doesn't automatically connotate anything but the most vague associations: artist, genre, country. It doesn't automatically infer that the objects within are inseperable. I have an old school compilation that has 3 songs that I don't like. I program my CD player to skip those 3. I don't feel like I'm missing anything except for the excessive eyerolling that is caused by "The Wiki Song."
The difference is that the record companies would determine what songs to release as singles, with iTunes the consumer picks the single. Consumer choice... imagine that...
This is the real fear that the record companies have, one of their main monopolies - distribution - is being seriously undermined. They used to be able to say to artists "Hey we can get your album into every record store in America." Digital distribution says "Hey we can get you into half of the HOMES in America."
As long as they have their marketing machine though, they'll still be more than a few steps ahead.
Illegal Copying is illegal. Larceny - the unlawful and intentional taking of another personâ(TM)s property with the intent to deprive that person of said property permanently - is illegal. They are both bad. They are different offenses though. The RIAA has never charged any of the file sharers with theft. If they did, they would probably get laughed out of the courthouse.
Yes you can make a leap and say that since nobody bought the album that a potential sale, i.e. money, is lost. Unfortunately there is no way to truly quantify a lost sale in this matter since you can not assume that the downloader would have bought the album in the first place therefore you can't assume that any real money was lost. For every 10 downloaded albums there are potentially 10 lost sales but there are potentially 10 non-sales as well.
Also the fact that many people have beem downloading individual songs that haven't been for sale that way until recently has made determining any monetary loss (a very important part of determining the severity of a theft - or copyright infringement for that matter - charge) a very interesting matter. Think about the fact that the RIAA charge those college students the maximum amount - like 150 grand - for each work of art (which is ridiculous because of the fact that the "work of art" could be a 20 second interlude) and you could never get away with that prosecuting the theft of CDs.
But of course you don't get charged with copyright infringement when stealing CD's. You could steal a blank CD with a 15.99 retail price and get hit with the same charge as stealing top 10 "hit" album.
Exactly, ultimately they have to realize that the wheels are falling off of the Gravy Train and the bar has been raised as a result of consumer demand. These guys about face every minute. One second it's all about the fans, the next second it's all about the art. It can't be all about both at the same time so if they were smart they'd just accept the happy medium - which this a la carte download system appears to be nearing - and try to exploit it to their own benefit.
Definitely, that's probably a hell of a lot more than they made off of the industry despised $.99 cassette singles back in the day. If anything, it would seem like this could potentially make them (larger artists) more money. Since most of popular artists still sell millions regardless of totally free P2P and the economy, it would seem as if this would be nothing but gravy on top of what they normally make. Truthfully all than anyone can do on this right now is speculate until the numbers stablize.
Concept albums seem to be pretty rare these days so as many others have said, it's hard to think of this as anything other than "We want you to pay for the bullshit too!"
His skill and the right field porch that is 309' from home plate. He's a good player and every other part of the park compensates but a left-handed pull hitter can get some serious cheapies there.
The whole point of that commercial was that the woman asked him how long he had worked for the company and he said something like 6 months. Implying that .Net was the holy grail of business software allowing you to become efficient fast.
It's not hard to see why Microsoft would want to extend this thinking to their whole product line.
Come on now, most tab implementations are such that inexperienced users would never run into a tab anyway.
Uhhhh... has anybody EVER had to pay licensing fees to use IE? If not, there are a lot of Windows developers that need to be made aware that using the MSHTML control will cost them.
As far as I can tell that is just spin doctoring as AOL hasn't stated that it will actually USE IE. MS probably mandated that and the WMP line to make it sound like they have really "won."
Uhhhh... that's more than AOLTW is getting for the Hawks and Thrashers, and the Braves are only worth about $430 million. You're telling me that AOLTW is trying everything that they can to sell off these teams for less than a "drop in the bucket?"
I did say "According to The Architect", I was just addressing the question posed by the parent of my post. I pretty much agree that there are tremendous implications of the last 5 minutes of the film with respect to the validity of what everyone in the story has said and believes about The Matrix.
That would be the entire human race. The humans in Zion were doomed anyway. The whole purpose of going through the other door was to select a few people from Zion to build a new Zion while the others died. Selecting the other door not only lets the machines destroy Zion with Neo not saving a single soul, but it also kills the "pink nuggets" as you call them because it allegedly leads to some foul up in the Equilibrum of The Matrix.
Did anybody else think Final Fantasy X during the last 20 minutes of the film?
Uhhh... according to The Architect, he sacrificed the entire human race by not going through the door on his right.
According to the first movie, the current year in the real world was circa 2199. The current year in the Matrix was circa 1999 (the height of human civilization).
Whatever that's worth.
Right... so let's lose twice the experience!
Too bad the W3C spec says that if the type for an input element is not specified that it should be assumed to be a text input box.
There are a few valid snippets using this exploit above that still crash IE.
How has Netware reversed this position? Because they don't release NEARLY as many patches as MS?
And interestingly enough, UT is the benchmark that is owned by the slower (compared to P4) Athlons.
Well actually this ruling gives much more reason for you to be doing those things.
I'm sure that the $30 million paycheck that he got didn't hurt.
:-)
Just the sound of that is a fountain of youth.
Probably because he's a horrible actor whose screen time makes many people cringe in T2. The dialouge for the film was corny in general but he couldn't deliver a line to Canada riding an ICBM.
Just my opinion of course.
Because it's a "sin" in the sense of the whole point of the web to deny people content by requiring a plug in just to READ and SEE PICTURES. Some people just want to read info about the movie on their own terms without shit clicking and spinning (and SOUNDING - ARRRGH) all over the place. It would take a very small amount of time to put the contents (which on sites like this are generally relatively sparse) in a plain HTML page. Normally, once it's done it's done so there would be minimal updating required after the fact.
I went to the site and the Flash does nothing but waste time. I click on a link and it takes 20 seconds of loading animations and whiz bang bullshit to get to what I want to see. I get there and I have to strain to read it because of the tiny ass font that I would at least be able to adjust if it were HTML.
Sorry... I'll stop now.
Those TPC-C Price Performance numbers are awesome but has anybody noticed that the rig runs $227,000???????
Damn... talk about Enterprise pricing!!!!!