>Quality. Rewarding the people who's hard work you enjoy?
But I do. Whenever someone I enjoy comes around, I pay to see them perform.
I do spend money on music, just not on pre-recorded music.
>Some will. Many won't be able to afford to spend as much time on music and what they can make won't be as high quality.
Quality musicians produce quality music. Sure, lots of post-production can make anyone sound great, but that's not really talent.
>Regardless of that, the music selection was awful. Like I said, there was some fantastic music on it (quite a few of my friends), but 90% of it was unlistenable.
Most people who make music simply aren't that good, and it's not a matter of the overall production value as much as lack of musical ability.
>If you think you should get free music from artists, what do YOU offer to the world?
I'm not a musician at all. I am a programmer, and I do give away (GPL) any code I don't write under contract.
>Out of curiosity, who are the last 10 musicians/groups that have passed through your CD/mp3/whatever player?
I mostly listen to net radio, so I can't say exactly what the last 10 were.
Things from my media collection I've listened to in the past week: Underworld - Born Slippy EP (seen twice live) Orbital - Orbital 2 (seen once live) Johnny Cash - Personal Jesus (dead) Hall and Oates - Greatest Hits (might see later this month) Dj Sy - Happy Hardcore live set (seen once live) Portishead - Dummy (never seen)
>Hope you enjoyed whats on Tv and in the theaters tonight because thats the last content that will ever be made with such a destructive attitude as yours.
Doubtful. Television will just start putting their advertisements within the shows themselves, and theatres are not threatened at all by downloadable movies since people actually like going out to a movie.
>Who is going to make the next Matrix?
Hopefully nobody. The last 2 were awful.
>Who is going to make a new album?
Doesn't matter one bit. I go out and see my music live.
>you think a bunch of linux-loving "information wants to be free" geeks are going to make the next million dollar spiderman movie in their bedrooms?
I can't even imagine where you came up with that idea.
>Grow up. people make stuff, people buy stuff.
Why buy something thats intrinsically free?
>If you dont want to pay for it, you cant have it.
But I can, and will continue to.
>you have NO rights to digital music, unless you make it, or you buy it.
> music is art. but that doesnt mean it must be done for free.
Nobody is saying that it should be, only that the days of selling canned music are almost over. Music is not a product, it's a performance. To be paid for it, you'll have to perform.
>So come up with a "much better way" of paying for it.
What could be better than free?
>So when the good musicians give up and find "new jobs" in something other than music,
Musicians will make music regardless of how much money they make. This is currently the case for 99% of the bands in existence, the ones who never even come close to making enough money to support themselves at it.
>are you really going to enjoy crappy, lo-fi, amatuer music?
I predict the rise of the small-time recording studio. Anyone with a computer and some talent can get software that allows them to produce near-studio quality music in their bedroom.
>Remember MP3.com?
I remember that it was basically sued out of existence.
>There were some great gems in there, but far and away, most of it was awful. That's what the future of music without payment sounds like.
And it's still an improvement over what we have now.
>Taking something offered for sale without rendering payment is UNJUST.
Just because something is offered for sale doesn't make getting that same thing for free somehow unjust. Take water for example. If I put a bucket out in my yard to collect rain water, my drinking that isn't being unfair to Evian because they want to sell me the same thing.
>Anyone who reckons that freely allowing people to take a product that costs money to make and giving copies to everyone on the internet for free, isnt going to wreck that industry must be smoking some serious drugs.
So? Who cares if an industry that can no longer support itself with an outdated business model stays in business or not? The only reason that the music 'industry' existed in the first place was as a means to distribute music to the people who want it. We've come up with a much better way of getting that music, thank you very much.
>OF COURSE it hurts the guys who make the digital content. In many cases they are rich superstars, but in a lot of cases they arent, and you are wrecking peoples incomes who might be no better off than you *just because you can*
People have been whining about technology taking their jobs away since the invention of the printing press. In the end, the technology *never* goes away and those people find new jobs.
>I just checked mine and I can't find the article on the right to board a commercial airliner without proving you are who you say you are.
The constitution doesn't give you any rights. It gives the government the right to do specific things that may infringe yours. Please point out where the constitution gives the federal government the power to tell private airlines that they have to require ID of everyone.
>For one it's extremely expensive to build miles of solar panels. Not only that, the technology is improving all the time - we probably had something like 2.5% efficiency 15 years ago, now we have 10-15% and we'll be up into the low 20's hopefully soon.
>To add to all that, the problem of getting the supply anywhere is very hard. You can produce megawatts of the stuff, but it's all coming out as low voltage DC when everyone needs high voltage AC. That means you need huge inverters, which are very inefficient.
True, especially in the context of the parent post, but if everyone had these high-efficiency solar cells mounted on their roofs it would be less a problem.
>Yea, I already knew that. What I don't know is how that's relevant to the fact that you have absolutely no ground - legal, moral, or otherwise - to claim that you can distribute material which you have NOT purchased distribution rights for.
'Distribution rights'? What a bizarre concept. There is *nothing* stopping me from distributing anything except for physical reality. If I can copy it and I have the urge, I will certainly distribute it to anyone who wants it. If a matter replicator existed I'd do the exact same thing with my car, clothes, computer, whatever.
>4.) Unified coding model. No more fiddling with half the code in JavaScript and half on whatever you use on server side.
I call complete Bullshit on that comment. I use ASP.net on a daily basis, and if you want to do anything - and I mean *anything* - outside of the little tool box Microsoft has given you, you will have to use javascript on the client side and various tricks on the server side.
>One need not agree with the PATRIOT Act or the current administration's policies to acknowledge the reality of the terrorists' war on America
Terrorists cannot destroy America. Only our government can do so by passing laws like the PATRIOT act. It does next to nothing in stopping terrorists, but gives the government huge (unconstitutional) powers over normal citizens.
>The problem is, porn is addictive and it is destructive.
Really? Addictive in what way and destructive to whom?
>There is NOTHING positive it adds to a society or culture
It's a multi-billion dollar industry that employs thousands of people and brings enjoyment to millions.
>but the sexually depraved who crave for it and seek after it demand that we allow them to do so and call US the ones causing damage to society for calling their filthy habit for what it is.
Maybe because it's none of your business. If you don't like it, don't look at it, and watch your own damn kids.
I leave mine completely open too. Everything inside my network is secured (not a windows box in sight), so what's the real harm? Absolute worse case scenario would be that someone uses my network for something illegal like file sharing, because I would certainly never do so *cough*, and I have to explain to someone that that traffic didn't originate from my home.
>I *really* get a kick out of it when people buy an MP3 player and a pair of high-end earbuds. It's just plain inane.
Quoting someone on the HydrogenAudio forums:
"I think a lot of people thought that the test was going to be very easy (me included), "Come on, it's 128kbit! That sounds like crap, everybody knows that."....only to find out that there couldn't be found any major imperfections in the couple of samples tried. Sample 1 looks like it was one of the hardest ones to abx; very tough start, especially for someone who had set his mind on the assumtion above."
I'm betting that in any real test, you wouldn't fare any better.
>So, to go back to the parent's point, if each quantum event in the universe causes a sort of global fork(), what determines which PID our consciousness gets?
What I'm saying is that it gets both. There's a huge IMHO in front of that, of course. For every fork, there is an equally valid consciousness existing in both universes.
If the communication between universes is only possible on the scale of an atom or so, why would we expect to be able to experience them? We don't notice anything else that goes on at that level in our everyday lives.
I don't know if I really buy this either, but think I can see how it works.
>In more physical terms, why can we not tell the difference EWG and Copenhagen? If the state vector collapses, why; if it doesn't, why does it "look" like it does, to us?
Wouldn't quantum computing demonstrate multiple universes? All those calculations have to be going on somewhere...
>How comes that this (imaginated?) free self only sees *one* universe? Or, in other words, now, in the present, what decided why did you take exactly the way you took in the past?
Imagine that you actually took both paths in the past, but can only see that one you are in. Once again, I have to say that no decision was ever made - since both choice were actually taken. If you were deciding about where to go to lunch and the choices were Subway and Quizno's, the universe split and you actually went to both but are only conscious of the path you're currently in.
If you're asking why "I" only experince this reality, the other you can equally validly ask the same question.
>It also seems to me that they *are* using light for this experiment, it just happens to be red laser light. I believe that this is just a complex wave interfernce pattern... but a parallel universe is far more sexy.
If it is just a complex interference pattern, how can individual photons reproduce the same pattern when there is nothing to interfere with?
>What decices where you/your conscience goes? Maybe this is the free will? I don't know but this bothers me.
Also, perhaps free will is just an illusion of the splitting. If for every choice you could make you actually do both, are you really making any choices?
Slashdot Mirror
>Quality. Rewarding the people who's hard work you enjoy?
But I do. Whenever someone I enjoy comes around, I pay to see them perform.
I do spend money on music, just not on pre-recorded music.
>Some will. Many won't be able to afford to spend as much time on music and what they can make won't be as high quality.
Quality musicians produce quality music. Sure, lots of post-production can make anyone sound great, but that's not really talent.
>Regardless of that, the music selection was awful. Like I said, there was some fantastic music on it (quite a few of my friends), but 90% of it was unlistenable.
Most people who make music simply aren't that good, and it's not a matter of the overall production value as much as lack of musical ability.
>If you think you should get free music from artists, what do YOU offer to the world?
I'm not a musician at all. I am a programmer, and I do give away (GPL) any code I don't write under contract.
>Out of curiosity, who are the last 10 musicians/groups that have passed through your CD/mp3/whatever player?
I mostly listen to net radio, so I can't say exactly what the last 10 were.
Things from my media collection I've listened to in the past week:
Underworld - Born Slippy EP (seen twice live)
Orbital - Orbital 2 (seen once live)
Johnny Cash - Personal Jesus (dead)
Hall and Oates - Greatest Hits (might see later this month)
Dj Sy - Happy Hardcore live set (seen once live)
Portishead - Dummy (never seen)
> nobody owns a song? interesting.
> nobody owns any creative work i take it?
You own a creative work for exactly as long as you keep it to yourself. As soon as someone else experiences it, they own it too.
>you think every musician in the world should be working in walmart to pay bills?
Most already do. What's a few more?
>you think good songwriters should all give up and get shelf stacking jobs.
Most already do. What's a few more?
>Ive read some pathetic justifications for theft in my time but this stupidity takes the biscuit.
You must not have much of a biscuit then.
If I can steal something from you and there is no chance that you'll ever know it's been stolen, I haven't really stolen anything.
>ncie one mate.
Thanks. The truth stands on its own.
>Hope you enjoyed whats on Tv and in the theaters tonight because thats the last content that will ever be made with such a destructive attitude as yours.
Doubtful. Television will just start putting their advertisements within the shows themselves, and theatres are not threatened at all by downloadable movies since people actually like going out to a movie.
>Who is going to make the next Matrix?
Hopefully nobody. The last 2 were awful.
>Who is going to make a new album?
Doesn't matter one bit. I go out and see my music live.
>you think a bunch of linux-loving "information wants to be free" geeks are going to make the next million dollar spiderman movie in their bedrooms?
I can't even imagine where you came up with that idea.
>Grow up. people make stuff, people buy stuff.
Why buy something thats intrinsically free?
>If you dont want to pay for it, you cant have it.
But I can, and will continue to.
>you have NO rights to digital music, unless you make it, or you buy it.
Rights, shmights. Nobody owns a song.
> music is art. but that doesnt mean it must be done for free.
Nobody is saying that it should be, only that the days of selling canned music are almost over. Music is not a product, it's a performance. To be paid for it, you'll have to perform.
>So come up with a "much better way" of paying for it.
What could be better than free?
>So when the good musicians give up and find "new jobs" in something other than music,
Musicians will make music regardless of how much money they make. This is currently the case for 99% of the bands in existence, the ones who never even come close to making enough money to support themselves at it.
>are you really going to enjoy crappy, lo-fi, amatuer music?
I predict the rise of the small-time recording studio. Anyone with a computer and some talent can get software that allows them to produce near-studio quality music in their bedroom.
>Remember MP3.com?
I remember that it was basically sued out of existence.
>There were some great gems in there, but far and away, most of it was awful. That's what the future of music without payment sounds like.
And it's still an improvement over what we have now.
>Taking something offered for sale without rendering payment is UNJUST.
Just because something is offered for sale doesn't make getting that same thing for free somehow unjust. Take water for example. If I put a bucket out in my yard to collect rain water, my drinking that isn't being unfair to Evian because they want to sell me the same thing.
>Anyone who reckons that freely allowing people to take a product that costs money to make and giving copies to everyone on the internet for free, isnt going to wreck that industry must be smoking some serious drugs.
So? Who cares if an industry that can no longer support itself with an outdated business model stays in business or not? The only reason that the music 'industry' existed in the first place was as a means to distribute music to the people who want it. We've come up with a much better way of getting that music, thank you very much.
>OF COURSE it hurts the guys who make the digital content. In many cases they are rich superstars, but in a lot of cases they arent, and you are wrecking peoples incomes who might be no better off than you *just because you can*
People have been whining about technology taking their jobs away since the invention of the printing press. In the end, the technology *never* goes away and those people find new jobs.
Strong Bad also showed up on the same character's chest in one episode of Angel.
>I don't know which is worse, the idea that you think your statement comparing legal and universally physical boundaries is somehow logical
I only made the comparison in response to those who would call copyright infringement theft. I agree that it's not logical.
>or the fact that "matter replicator" actually became a part of that brainfart you called a post.
At one time it was impractical to copy music. Now anybody can do it. If your brain is too small to see the parallel, that's not my problem.
>I just checked mine and I can't find the article on the right to board a commercial airliner without proving you are who you say you are.
The constitution doesn't give you any rights. It gives the government the right to do specific things that may infringe yours. Please point out where the constitution gives the federal government the power to tell private airlines that they have to require ID of everyone.
>For one it's extremely expensive to build miles of solar panels. Not only that, the technology is improving all the time - we probably had something like 2.5% efficiency 15 years ago, now we have 10-15% and we'll be up into the low 20's hopefully soon.
Actually, it looks like it could be 50% soon..
>To add to all that, the problem of getting the supply anywhere is very hard. You can produce megawatts of the stuff, but it's all coming out as low voltage DC when everyone needs high voltage AC. That means you need huge inverters, which are very inefficient.
True, especially in the context of the parent post, but if everyone had these high-efficiency solar cells mounted on their roofs it would be less a problem.
>Yea, I already knew that. What I don't know is how that's relevant to the fact that you have absolutely no ground - legal, moral, or otherwise - to claim that you can distribute material which you have NOT purchased distribution rights for.
'Distribution rights'? What a bizarre concept. There is *nothing* stopping me from distributing anything except for physical reality. If I can copy it and I have the urge, I will certainly distribute it to anyone who wants it. If a matter replicator existed I'd do the exact same thing with my car, clothes, computer, whatever.
>4.) Unified coding model. No more fiddling with half the code in JavaScript and half on whatever you use on server side.
I call complete Bullshit on that comment. I use ASP.net on a daily basis, and if you want to do anything - and I mean *anything* - outside of the little tool box Microsoft has given you, you will have to use javascript on the client side and various tricks on the server side.
I suppose I am safe as long as my name isn't Padilla or Hamdi...
In which case, they could hold me for a couple of years without a lawyer or a phone call.
>One need not agree with the PATRIOT Act or the current administration's policies to acknowledge the reality of the terrorists' war on America
Terrorists cannot destroy America. Only our government can do so by passing laws like the PATRIOT act. It does next to nothing in stopping terrorists, but gives the government huge (unconstitutional) powers over normal citizens.
My current magnetic bumper sticker (because I always laugh when I see someone with a campaign sticker from 3 years ago on their car):
Regime Change In DC
Anybody But Bush
I have voted libertarian in the last 3 presidential elections, but Bush has convinced me that I have to vote against him.
So what store am I stealing from when I download the latest Wham! mp3 from Soulseek?
>The problem is, porn is addictive and it is destructive.
Really? Addictive in what way and destructive to whom?
>There is NOTHING positive it adds to a society or culture
It's a multi-billion dollar industry that employs thousands of people and brings enjoyment to millions.
>but the sexually depraved who crave for it and seek after it demand that we allow them to do so and call US the ones causing damage to society for calling their filthy habit for what it is.
Maybe because it's none of your business. If you don't like it, don't look at it, and watch your own damn kids.
I leave mine completely open too. Everything inside my network is secured (not a windows box in sight), so what's the real harm? Absolute worse case scenario would be that someone uses my network for something illegal like file sharing, because I would certainly never do so *cough*, and I have to explain to someone that that traffic didn't originate from my home.
> I'd wonder why songs are encoded from 16 bits / 44100 hz, while our ear can hear a difference with 96 khz/32bits
No, they can't. I challenge you to find a single double-blind test (as this one was) that shows anyone who can hear the difference.
>I *really* get a kick out of it when people buy an MP3 player and a pair of high-end earbuds. It's just plain inane.
...only to find out that there couldn't be found any major imperfections in the couple of samples tried. Sample 1 looks like it was one of the hardest ones to abx; very tough start, especially for someone who had set his mind on the assumtion above."
Quoting someone on the HydrogenAudio forums:
"I think a lot of people thought that the test was going to be very easy (me included), "Come on, it's 128kbit! That sounds like crap, everybody knows that.".
I'm betting that in any real test, you wouldn't fare any better.
>So, to go back to the parent's point, if each quantum event in the universe causes a sort of global fork(), what determines which PID our consciousness gets?
What I'm saying is that it gets both. There's a huge IMHO in front of that, of course. For every fork, there is an equally valid consciousness existing in both universes.
If the communication between universes is only possible on the scale of an atom or so, why would we expect to be able to experience them? We don't notice anything else that goes on at that level in our everyday lives.
I don't know if I really buy this either, but think I can see how it works.
>In more physical terms, why can we not tell the difference EWG and Copenhagen? If the state vector collapses, why; if it doesn't, why does it "look" like it does, to us?
Wouldn't quantum computing demonstrate multiple universes? All those calculations have to be going on somewhere...
>How comes that this (imaginated?) free self only sees *one* universe? Or, in other words, now, in the present, what decided why did you take exactly the way you took in the past?
Imagine that you actually took both paths in the past, but can only see that one you are in. Once again, I have to say that no decision was ever made - since both choice were actually taken. If you were deciding about where to go to lunch and the choices were Subway and Quizno's, the universe split and you actually went to both but are only conscious of the path you're currently in.
If you're asking why "I" only experince this reality, the other you can equally validly ask the same question.
>It also seems to me that they *are* using light for this experiment, it just happens to be red laser light. I believe that this is just a complex wave interfernce pattern... but a parallel universe is far more sexy.
If it is just a complex interference pattern, how can individual photons reproduce the same pattern when there is nothing to interfere with?
>What decices where you/your conscience goes? Maybe this is the free will? I don't know but this bothers me.
Also, perhaps free will is just an illusion of the splitting. If for every choice you could make you actually do both, are you really making any choices?