I like pipe organs; Bach on a big pipe organ is awesome. (Re-reading that sentence it occoured to me that's probably the only time I properly used the now-trivialized word "awesome".) But lets move on...
I'm not much of a church goer, but whenever I'm in a new city I try to find out if there are any good pipe organs in town (a big city might have none, one, or a couple) and I will spend a Sunday morning in church.
They all sound different, and the church itself is as much a part of the sound as anything. Pipe organs in general have lots of power, the kind you feel as much as you hear.
I've spend most of my life in Audio, and I can tell you without any reservation at all that I've never heard a pipe organ properly reproduced on any sound system, period. Cannons? Yep. Full Orchestras? No problem. Rock n Roll? I've sworn I could reach out and touch musicians. Pipe Organ? I've heard it come close, but you always know.
So, these guys can't be faulted for lack of ambition.
A difficult concept to pull off; I would love to hear this attempt, which pretty much mandates that I go back and listen to the new organ when they rebuild it. My guess is the real deal will sound subtly better. It's a given that they will sound different, even though recreating a live insturment in the same room is less challenging than recreating something with a recording. But, since I've heard neither, that's just thinking out loud.
I was a bit suprised to learn they chose DT speakers because the wanted a bipolar; they make good gear but there are other bipolars I would have considered (maggies, for one; I've done church installs with them and they work very well in the typical acoustic space a church provides).
Having said that, I would have tried omnipolar speakers first; in my way of thinking they would have a better chance to reproduce the acoustic signature of pipes (omnipolar radiate 360 degrees, like an organ pipe does; bipolars radiate front + back but little to the sides).
The Carver amps were also a bit of a suprise; I've never found them to be top-notch although they're certainly better than average.
Of course, it all makes sense if go a bit crazy here and assume they were radical enough to have bought into some wild concept I've heard about called "A Budget".
I agree that Linux is the proper OS. If Bill IS the Antichrist (not to say he is, but...), the worshippers need to invite him into the fold to get that End Of The World thing going.
Note: the post I'm replying to is scored 0 due to it's posting anonymously; the whole post is reproduced at bottom for those that don't want to change browser preferences.
"... The environmentalists say the breaks in the forest inhibit deer from migrating..."
Yeah, if that's what they're saying, it's solid proof they don't have a clue about deer or their "migration habits".
Deer thrive on human activity; although they like treed areas for sleeping and hanging out when they're active during daytime, at night they do quite a bit of roaming open areas, and I often see deer feeding in farmland where there isn't a tree for a mile or more in any direction during daylight.
In a remote, forrested area I am intimitely familiar with, deer were unheard of 20 years ago; in fact they were unheard of 100 miles from there (the area is 300 miles north of where I live now, where deer have always been common). Saying you saw a deer would result in your friends buying you a quick trip to the Optomitrist.
In the time since, clearcuts between forrested areas (they don't mow down the whole thing, cuz they aren't allowed to) have promoted deer migration to the point where deer are common; car-deer accidents have gone from zero (and by zero I mean not a single one in the first 40 years a road through the area has existed) to dozens a year in the last 10 years.
I remember one day about 12 years ago when a photo of a deer 40 miles south of the town there made front page headlines.
You always see exactly the same patterns when transmission lines are cut through forrested areas. In other words, deer not only don't avoid open spaces, they actively employ them to migrate.
Original Post: trees (score 0) by Anonymous Coward
Actually, utility companies have been restricted by the EPA from cutting trees along the pole lines.
The environmentalists say the breaks in the forest inhibit deer from migrating, because they're afraid to cross open space. Anybody who has ever bagged a deer with a car knows about this issue first hand.
Just like the Alaska pipeline scares polar bear and caribou. Hell, they sleep on it for warmth.
In a press release First Energy spokesmen said that the report "totally vindicates us" and the blame "clearly lies with the uncontrolled and inherently dangerous actions of something called 'trees'. We are calling on Government Agencies to immediately ban the use, propegation, and distribution" of all trees, which "apparently reproduce unaided" by some "poorly understood virus-like activity".
From CNN Money's link: "... He noted that Ohio-based FirstEnergy (FE: Research, Estimates)'s failure to trim trees growing alongside major transmission lines contributed to the massive blackout...."
I read it. The fact remains that graphite can burn.
The South African Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) is a form of reator known as High-Temperature Gas-cooled Reactor (HTGR).
These differ from the Windscale reactor (UK) and Cherynobl reactor (Russia/Ukraine) in that the causes of the failures of these systems are eliminated by design.
" The estimated probablilty of significant radiation release has been estimated [to be] three orders of maginitude less than for PWR reactors. " This is good.
However:
" The main safety concern for HTGR is that intrusion of air in the vessel would lead to combustion of the graphite. "
We calls that fire caused by accident, and is directly related to the flammability of graphite, which is precisely what I mentioned in my first post.
I'm no nuclear expert, but I did pick up on the Graphite/Uranium construction mentioned in the Slashdot summary.
Graphite regulated nuclear systems, so far, are the ones that cause the "Big Scares" amongst the public. Chernobyl was a graphite regulated plant (Graphite/Water), as was the one that blew up in England in the late 1950's.
The problem is related to the inablility to shut them down quickly and safely once they "go off"; unlike water, graphite burns (A Bad Thing).
That's not to say they're inherently bad; there are a number of graphite regulated reactors in use; Russia and the UK still use them. Can they be properly maintained, so as to remain safe, in Africa?
Sure, that may well work just fine. Using a proper headset/microphone will work as well.
It's not the speech recogniton that's the problem, or iTunes itself as an application, (it's very scriptable as well as compliant with the preset phrases), it's how people expect it to work.
People need to take some steps to insure that the features are properly implemented. You did, so no problem. Another excellent option is to use a good quality noise-cancelling headset/microphone, but they're not cheap.
Some of the stories on this thread show that there are plenty of users who won't take the effort to insure success, but still expect it to work nonetheless. For that person, playing music while trying to voice-control your computer is likely to result in failure.
Bear in mind that Apple's voice recognition software was introduced in System 7 (in other words, before the release of Windows95) and that I used it quite effectively with a 75Mhz PPC 603 computer with 16MB or RAM and a 16Mhz 68030 with a whopping 8MB, oh, about a decade ago. In other words, I know it worked.
In other words, there is no technical reason why it won't work on a PocketPC, and it's not particularly amazing that it would. If it doesn't work when it's released, the only possible culprit is Microsoft's implementation.
Why don't I use it now? Because, it has no earthly use, except in very specific situations.
One poster complained that OSX's implementation doesn't work with iTunes, for example. It probably never will; voice recognition doesn't work when you are in a noisy envoirnment, because it "hears" everything, including the music playing nearby, which confuses it. This would be the same for any platform.
Back when Apple only had SCSI buses, you saw OEM & retrofit CD drives with that interface; since now everybody uses IDE for CD/DVD drives, they're not around anymore and nobody's making the newer (ie DVD-RW) drives in SCSI.
Having said that, you can put IDE CD drives in an SCSI controller-equipped external case if you want.
To kind of skirt around your question (does someone make them) and get to the meat of the matter:
CD/DVD drives aren't particularly fast, in terms of data in/out; it's not a demanding application of the bus. ATA-33 buses can keep the CD drive full of more data than it can use, so SCSI on CD/DVD really is a mis-application (extra cash, no possible improvement).
The standard rule of thumb is the speakers should be 1/2 the distance apart as the listener sits away from them.
For example, if your listening position is 15 feet from the speakers, then they should be 7.5 feet apart.
Like any general rule, and particularly with sound waves, where each object in the room as well as the volume of air inside the room affect the response, you may well find experimentation and some deviation from the suggested distance to be valuable. However, (unlike what most people's first instincts are) you are better to have stereo speakers seemingly too close to each other than too far apart.
In particular, watch the distance from the side and rear walls. Most speakers like to be a few feet from each; so if you only have a 10 foot wall beind the speakers, then 6' apart might be a good compromise (2' from side walls); you may even find that 5' works even better.
Different speakers react to placement in different ways, so you also may find your results deviate a bit from the norm. For example, some speakers like to be toed in a bit (turned so the front is pointing towards the listening position) while others work best when the fronts are parallel to the back wall.
Placing speakers too close to side walls generally affects sound quality negatively. Placing speakers too close to the back wall will tend to destroy the image as well.
Essentially you are dealing with the phase of the music; phase refers to the time response.
Probably the best example is our own ears themselves; the distance in space between our right and left ears is sufficent information for our brains to calculate the difference in time a sound takes to arrive at our ears. The brain then uses this information (millionths of a second difference in time for a single source sound to reach each ear) to place the source in space. I think it's obvious this works; we can easily tell (for example) where someone is standing even with our eyes closed.
When we have a system that preserves time relationships and place our speakers in such a way as to preserve that information when it reaches our listening position, we will quite clearly be able to localise sounds in space through a music system.
By the way, since all sound frequencies are essentially time-based, and by the ear/balloon example we can show that our brains do "hear" differences in time that would represent much higher frequencies than the commonly cited 20,000 Hz, there is a clue as to why some audiophiles find the 22.1Khz limit of CDs is audible (for example).
What we cannot detect is continuous tones of this frequency, it does not automatically follow that we cannot detect any information whatsoever about these higher frequencies. Just some insight into the minds of audiophiles, and the thinking behind many so-called "high-end" audio products.
From the PureTracks site: "... Based in Canada, and open all hours, the Puretracks* music store is operated by Moontaxi Media Inc., one of North America's leading online music providers. For more details about our affiliate and partner program please contact us at Partners@Puretracks.com...."
Moontaxi media is an internet broadcaster, the provider of canned music on Air Canada flights and your dentist's office, responsible for hundreds of internet streaming music channels, and a whole bunch of other things.
Sample: "... Distributing music to business establishments, such as resturants, hotels, condominiums, and hospitals...".
Or another, referring to the Streaming Radio business:
"... We provide everything to make a successful Internet Radio Station. We provide the licensed music, cleared for use on the Internet. We provide the programming expertise, making sure each affiliate is provided with music that fits its brand. [] We provide all the technology needed, including streaming media servers and web and radio player development ensuring a hassle free experience for our affiliates. [] And best of all, we provide the advertisers, allowing our affiliates to profit from their internet radio. What's more, above and beyond the profit potential, our affiliates get a branded Internet Radio service all their own, which helps keep customers coming back, and staying around longer...."
Sounds like a real hip crowd. Surely success can only follow. The [] indicate where I broke up their long-winded monoparagraphic style, so/.'ers could get through all that drivel.
By the way, a lot of their business is in the US. A lot.
Owned by EMI and Universal Music, it's fairly obvious that Apple's discussions with the CIRA were just a smokescreen to get the industry owned site up first.
* I think this is supposed to point to some notice about trademarks, the quote is verbaitm. But since the asterisk didn't point to anything at the site, I'm going to make one up for them:
"PureTracks... the robber barons your hippie parents warned you about."
This is cheaper than the deal Apple was forced to cut with the RIAA (C$ 0.99 is about $US 0.75 per song).
Unless they've signed a parallel agreement with the RIAA and can determine your physical location, Americans won't be able to take advantage of the lower price, though.
One wonders how they're going to pull it off, though. Apple reports that the 30c or so it gets to keep (70c to the RIAA members or whomever owns the electronic distribution rights) pretty much equals the cost of servers, bandwidth, etc.
Apple isn't making any money off it, at least not right now, costs equal or exceed their cut. (We will know this evening if they're actually losing money on it, the quarterly report is due today, 15Oct03).
The rights holders (probably some record company) get 70c, pay out probably a nickel, and keep the rest (no costs, beyond sending a secretary to the vault for a disk every once in a while. Walk once, collect forever). You decide who's gouging who.
I say pay out "probably a nickel" because that's the ballpark figure for payment of copyright royalties to the songwriterk, performer, etc. (Shared between them, by the way).
It migh be worse; the RIAA has just recently prepared a separtate copyright agreement with regard to electronic distribution, which I'm sure they are now threatening the artists to sign. It's inconcievable that they'd need a new agreement to pay the same nickel they're obliged to pay now; so it must be there to pay 'em less.
So, here's the pecking order so far (based on ten million songs) Apple $0, maybe sell a few more iPods though Artist $500,000 shared by 250,000 artists Record companies $ 6.5 million, pure sweet profit, baby
P2P music sharing is completely illegal in Canada. You cannot lend, sell, barter, give away or otherwise distribute copyrighted music unless you own such rights (trust me, you don't).
You can make copys. You cannot distribute music. Kind of makes P2P useless if the law says the only legal distribution is of original authorized CDs via sneakernet.
Turn on your stereo. Close your eyes. Can you place the musicians and instruments in space? The "image" should not be coming from your speakers, but in a "soundstage" between them; a good system will even place the images to the right and left (ie outside) the speakers.
A good image should also contain depth; ie some music should be coming behind and in front of other images. You should, for example, be able to place the snare drum exactly in space. Closing your eyes forces you to place images with your ears only.
If you don't hear that, it's probably your speaker placement. Place speakers at 1/2 the distance apart as you are from them. Try again.
The "image outlines" Phillips refers to are the relative size, and precision of the placed images. Audiophiles generally agree that if you can't have perfect sound, you can settle for imperfect sound that doesn't detract from the experience (ie tight, but too much bass is better than flabby, one-note bass).
If you're the kind of person that places your speakers in opposite corners of the room, well, you'll never hear a soundstage that way. Thus, no images, and no Image outlines, just sound coming from two distint points far apart.
Because the 2 speakers in a corner placement doesn't allow for time alignment, you tend to hear music coming from points that seems to be defined by the speaker cone itself.
You are right about the old news; FM radio based radar tracking of planes has been tested by the US military in the Washington DC area many times over the last few years; I believe (not positive) the first sucessful test was about 5 years ago.
Defense analysts correctly point out that such systems are very much able to track and target "stealth" type aircraft, such as the stealth fighter and bomber.
However, the stealth fighters shot down by the military of the former Yugoslavia didn't use such technology. Aided by over-confidence by the US military (the stealth planes flew the exact same flightpath each sortie) they used modern versions of the very first radar systems; vacum-tube based systems obtained from the former USSR.
These "primitive" radars use a different wavelength to track targets and can "see" steath aircraft easily; the steath fighter/bomber is designed to thwart "modern" radar systems.
I'm not going to challenge you basic position (that a CD costs more than a buck or two) because it's correct.
However, I would like to illustrate that the artists, lyricists and songwriters rarely get as much as a dollar from a CD.
There is a "statutory rate" for the creators of 5 to 8 cents per song of 5 minute or less (there are other rate structures for songs of different lenghts, and it varies from nation to nation, but for now lets leave it at that). This is not a minimum; in practice it's a maximum, never achieved.
Although recording contracts are essentially secret, lawyers who represent artists give us some insight as to what the contract looks like.
I just picked up the closest CD to my desktop, it has 11 songs. Most modern contracts pay 4 to 5 cents per song, a few strong artists (think Brittany) might get 6 or even 8. Let's call it 8x 11 for $US 0.88 for that particular disk.
Record companies pay perhaps 95% or so of royalties collected; they keep a portion to compensate them for promos, CDs used for airplay, etc. Now we're at 0.836, or $83.60 per 100 CDs.
Remainders (when they don't want to keep the disk in the catalog any longer) are paid at $0.00. Basically, these are the disks you find at $5 to $10 at the record store.
Keep in mind this is just an arbitrary example, but I think if you follow it through to it's natural conclusion, it's closer to $0.50 per disk for most artists, and in many cases is as low as $0.25. Like I said, it's unlikely even Brittany Spears is getting 8 cents.
This amount, whatever it may be, must be divided between all the content providers; in other words Lennon and McCartney got a much bigger share of the royalty cheques than Ringo or Harrison did, but in any case their share is a portion of the amounts mentioned above.
At the time (1960's), the total amount of the Bealtles' contract would be closer to 2 cents per song, and that's a permanent level. Artists from the 70's typically signed contracts for up to 4 cents/5minute song.
From this pool of funds, the cost of making the disk (studio time, video production, touring advances) is loaned to the artists, and it is deducted until paid in full, before a check ever shows up in the mailbox. Many, if not most, artists release second, third and fourth CDs without ever paying the advances off.
As a % of the total wholesale cost of CDs, the artists get a pretty measley share. In that respect, every dime (literally) counts, but the record companies make much more per disk than the artists ever do.
Again, I'm not disputing your basic premise, but I though you might be interested in learning a bit more about the whole costing process, and how it pertains to artists' royalties.
The statutory rate for Canada is $C 07.7 ($US 5.54 cents) per song of 5 minutes or less plus $C 01.54 per each additonal minute or part thereof.
The statutory rate for the US is $ 0.08 per song of 5 minutes or less plus $ 01.55 per minute or part thereof.
In each case, the statutory rates are in force to Dec31/03, but that's not to say they will rise in the new year (I don't have any info on that).
Interesting concept, I hope they get good use out of it for the next 3 months. After that, they're toast, because that's when (01Jan04) Canada's privacy legislation covers all businesses in Canada. Currently only firms that either:
a) transfer identity information over provincial boundaries b) collect information on behalf of the Federal or Provincial governments or c) are a government agency... are covered by the legislation.
A couple of points: a) The business must provide specific details as to what, if anything, they will do with personal information collected; b) They must get your specific permission to expand on whatever they said they would do with it when they collected the information; c) They must not collect more information than is absolutely neccessary to perform whatever purpose they described in a) above; d) The information must be collected for a bona fide reason; ie if they don't need your name to sell you a pack of gum for cash, forget it; e) If there is no bona fide business reason to collect such information, they must sell you whatever service they provide when you refuse to identify yourself.
I can casually see several legal objections to what the bars are intending to do. Look for this to die a quiet death.
I was speaking in very general terms, but you do raise an interesting point, and your grasp of the theory is excellent. Still, I'm going to try to defend my generalisation, just for our own entertainment.
Assuming a robust enough power supply, even if the load impedance is not optimum, moving closer to the theoretical ideal results in increased output in proportion to load impedance.
By far the vast majority of modern audio amplifiers turn into smoke when driving Rout = Rload, though.
More typically, a loudspeaker impedance is many times the amplifier's output impedance. With transistor output stages, Damping Factor is typically at least 200 and often greater than that (Damping Factor is defined as ouput impedance divided into 8; as per AES spefication).
For whatever reason, the Anthem amp used in the example below has an unusually low output impedance, but not unbelievably so (ie 0.10 ohms is common enough amongst solid state amplifiers).
This just happens to be the first one Google game me:
Anthem PVA 2 Stereo Power Amplifier (The Anthem is a well regarded high fidelity amplifier of modern design).
[Measured Performance] Power Output: [@1 Khz sine wave; 1% THD, 120V AC line voltage]: 8 ohms 119W/4 ohms 193W Output impedance: [measured @ 50 Hz, 120 V line voltage]; 0.02 ohms This particular amplifier is not specified to run into purely resistive loads of 2 ohms or less (protection circuits will trip), and the power output into 4 ohms reveals the power supply is just beginning to strain, but still it is a good result.
There are a very few designs that can do so; certainly I know of no car stereo amplifiers that can. (One hi-fi example that can is the QUAD 404 "current dumping" amplifier designed to drive electrostatic loudspeakers; the specification sheet states it can withstand a direct short for 5 minutes. If you look at the power vs impedance curve in the manual for the 404, output power at 8 ohms is 100wpc but falls with any deviation from the optimum 8 ohms; to zero at 16 or 0 ohms. Of course, it's a very unusual design, and the current dumping circuit hasn't been adopted by other makers).
Yeah, home theatre "consumer" recivers are pretty bad. If you can understand the spec sheet, you will discover that the power supply isn't robust to support all 5 or 6 or whatever channels at full power. The "500 Watt" designation is derived by testing one channel to full power (while the others are idle) and multiplying that by 5.
At least with home stereos we know how much power is being delivered to the device; car stereos typically rate the output based on the 14.6V available from the alternator if the lights, air, and whatever isn't running and the battery is fully charged (ie after you've driven for an hour).
Then they assume there really is 30 or so Amps available (questionable, if not downright impossible) to the stereo; measure one channel only at 1Khz (and easy load and always the hightest power rating) with a tone burst (no stress to the power supply, often called "peak" power) at 4 or possibly 2 or even 1 ohm (doubles and quadruples the power figure, respectively). Then they add those single channel figures up. Some even go as far as rounding off the power figure, spec'ing at 15 volts (cuz 14.6 rounds up to 15, right? Who could argue with that?).
It's just another case of consumers who either educate themselves (the specs are there, for you to read, if you want) or assume. Hot Tip: if the specs aren't there, they're hiding something.
However, if you're comparing 5 recievers at Best Buy and they all have the same relative price range and feature set, chances are everybody's using the same methodology. I think, as the basis for the HD lawsuit, it's weak.
There are people who are angry and are pretty happy about the lawsuit; to me that means that it wasn't just one HD purchase that pissed them off. The suit is a backlash because consumers are overwhelmed by the claims of practially everything you can buy, which in almost every single case require some thought to assess.
What the hell is 14 ounce denim, anyway? How come I can't get 20mpg when the EPA can in the same car I bought (and they use new models, which burn more gas than a slightly used engine does) only gets 17? What the hell does "Free" mean, anyway? Why does a price include the rebate, and why do I have to pay taxes on a "free" CD wallet?
I could go on, which is basically the whole point. Thanks for your comment.
Computers are complicated, expensive, and filled with jargon and (especially) numbers. Not confusing enough? Let's sue so that 80 GB can now become "78.96 GB; formatted capacity less".
Yeah, I know that you can find that out already; but if this guy wins, it will be in BIG letters. Ugly box gets uglier, overnight, but hey, We're Informed.
I know it's annoying. But it's not deceptive, when everybody in the industry does the exact same thing. If this guy actually gets a settlement, enterprising Slashdotters can get into the action:
Sue the TV makers. How come it says right on the box in big letters "27 inch TV" and in little letters "26 inches in Canada"? Does the TV shrink in some bizzare Quantum fashion if it gets booted off in Vancouver instead of Seattle? No, they're lying to you, but they tell the truth to those damn Canadians. Sue them.
My car says it has a 5.7 litre engine, but I find out (ah, the fine print) that it's not really that exact size. What's worse, every car maker does the same thing. Sue 'em.
My boom box and my car stereo and my new 27", no, wait, 26" TV all say they put out 100 watts per channel, but later I find out that they're exempt from the FTC rules (glue a handle on 'em and they're "portable devices") about power specifications, and they really only put out 10 if you measure them like the law says real home stereos have to be measured. Sorry, can't sue 'em, those are the rules the FTC came up with when somebody sued 'em 25 years ago. Sorry.
Anyway, there's lots of these kinds of small annoyances, but consumers have to educate themselves. If everybody in a given product category is consistent, it's not such a big deal. If being annoying was grounds for a suit, we'd all spend the rest of our lives in court.
Some interesting scenarios. Keeping in mind that the courts in Canada must not only follow the letter of the law, but also the intent of the law, it's unlikely that Alice and Benoit would find themselves in any trouble at all.
Personally, I would be shocked if you could find a Crown Prosecutor anywhere in the land who would even lay a charge under those scenarios, given that she or he would almost certainly conclude there was no chance of conviction.
Someone who was offering large amounts of music to strangers anonymously would, on the other hand, be found to be in violation of both the letter and the intent of the law.
The US has very strong copyright law, because copyright and patents are enshrined in the Constitution. Thus, even if there was a consensus to change the law, it can be difficult or nearly impossible to do so.
One result of this is that it's illegal, period, to copy music in the US, which is similar to the situation in the UK, as it was in Canada before 1985.
Where the US differs is that a defence against the charge has been made and upheld by the courts. As precendence is very strong in US law, if you are charged as such, you can cite this judgement as a defense. In that case, the Judge used the phrase "fair use" in his decision, which is where the phrase comes from, not from the statues themselves.
It's somewhat akin to being charged with murder and arguing for an aquittal based on self-defense. Being right is unlikely to prevent the police from laying the charge; but does offer a defense if you are so charged. Similary, copying is illegal in the US buy you may employ the precedent-setting decision as your defense. It's not quite true to say you have a "right to fair use"; you really have a defense of "fair use" against a charge of copyright infringement. Hope that helps clairify it a bit.
In England it's probable that this particular defense has not been upheld by the courts or else, as in most Engish Common Law, a precendent must be considered by the court but is not binding. I'm not sure exactly what applies, but it may well be the latter, which would allow some to say that there is no defense to copying in the UK.
The good news is that Common Law does allow the use of precedents from other jurisdictions; it is up to the UK Judge to decide how much weight the US decision bears, but he does have to consider it if you present it as part of your defense. (In the US, he could ignore it).
Quite possibly UK copyright holders fear such a decision, and thus have not bothered to make a complaint against someone who copied a CD he owns to an mp3 player. Thus, the "no plans" statement, which avoids the risk that the copyright act might be watered down somehow by a fairly reasonable defense, which I think would be likely to work.
Refusing to have the act tested in the courts allows the BPI to take the "moral high ground" and doesn't limit their choice of tactics to lobby the consumer against downloading. They can be nasty (bullying) or nice (pleading various doom scenarios, inducing consumer guilt, etc.).
In Canada, it was the Canadian Recording Industry Association who pressed the government for the exemption to be granted to consumers, along with a compensatory levy. So, unlike the RIAA and the BPI, the CIRA actually endorsed copying of music. It is unlikely the Canadian government could have overcome the objections of the recording industry had the idea come from the government itself.
" He is wrong to state that downloading a copy from somebody else's P2P application is covered -- it is not "private copying" because the person offering that copy is already in violation...."
You are, of course correct.
Just to clarify; you can't distribute store-bought CDs either. There is nothing special or different if the source is a genuine paid-for CD or a copy of the same.
The levy is supposed to be set so that, on average, the amount paid for each disk, etc sold when added up represents the loss to the recording industry.
The premise is that copying is (and always has been; the first levies were on cassette tapes) so prevailent that society must take responsibility for what virtually everyone has done at one time or another.
Now, whether these goals are achieved is another matter, which I won't go into.
You are incorrect in assuming the levies are paid based on record sales. They are based on radio airplay in many markets, from Toronto to St. John's and Regina, and from college, rock, pop and who knows what format the various stations across the country might offer, and are sampled at many different times of the day.
It is, however, a "sample". Some artists will be over-compensated and others under-compensated. An artist can make a complaint and they will modify the sample if they find you get missed all the time.
A "blank CD" is different things to an independant record company and you and I. Assuming a run of 500 or more, even the smallest record company will be making CDs, not CD-Rs. There is no levy on non-recordable media. There is also no levy on media imported by individuals. If you don't like the levy, buy CD-Rs from the US.
US recording artists have an even stranger levy to compensate artists; a levy on DAT recorders (hardware). This is applied ONLY to the DAT recorders and tapes used to make the original albums in recording studios in the US.
The levy was designed to thwart consumer-level DAT machines which became available in the 1980's. Because the levy effectively destroyed the market for home DAT recorders (ie nobody bought them, except the pros who actually make records), a "levy solution" is resisted by both hardware makers which provide the tools necessary for copying (like SONY) and recording companies who want to destroy copying (like SONY) in the US.
The Copyright Act 1985 c-42 Canada is available here. It's been amended a few times (latest, April 2003) but those changes have little bearing on the slashdot subject. Users with little time want to check out Part VIII, Private Copying; and in particular Section 80; Copying for Private Use.
Some comments on the discussion so far: The Recording Industry Association of America represents US record companies. They don't now, and never have, anything to do with Canada or any other country.
The RIAA is a member of the IFPI, which represents the recording industry worldwide. Their website has a great link called "Anti-Piracy" and a defintion under What is Piracy? Please note the definition has not a word about dowloading, or copying a buddy's CD, but instead refers to what the RIAA tends to call Counterfeiting.
The Canadian Recording Industry Association (CIRA) is the body which represents the industry in Canada. They are the equivalent to the RIAA in that country and if anyone was suing anybody in Canada, they would be doing it, not the RIAA. Ever.
Uploading music is completely illegal in Canada, as is allowing it to be shared. CIRA can and probably will sue anyone who does it, and they will win. Damages, on the other hand, won't be even close to the numbers the US courts give out, which probably explains why they're not hiring a floorful of lawyers about it, so far.
What the Copyright Act allows, is the copying, for personal use, of music from any source. So, downloading is fine, as is borrowing the CD from the public library (most Canadian libraries have extensive music collections available) or a buddy, or any other source you can imagine. There are no restricitons, of any kind, on the source of the music you use to create a copy.
Steal a disk and copy it; the crime remains the theft of a $20 disk, not the copying of that "illegal" disk.
The restriction is only the person making the copy has any right to use it. You cannot lend, give away, or otherwise distribute a Personal Copy made under authorization of Section 80.
Thus, allowing your mp3s to be available to others via a shared drive or network is against the law in Canada, as is making a disk and giving it to Grandma for Christmas. Granny has to run her own burner. And moving to Canada would not protect any of those who the RIAA has sued recently; what they do is still against the law north of 49.
The US media, especially the RIAA, has done a great job of marketing their message worldwide, not just in their jurisdiction. Thus, almost every Canadian (and absolutely every journalist; lazy no check-facting idiots that they are) is completely unaware of the Act, or how it applies to copying. They all think it's illegal to burn CDs in Canada.
Slashdot Mirror
I like pipe organs; Bach on a big pipe organ is awesome. (Re-reading that sentence it occoured to me that's probably the only time I properly used the now-trivialized word "awesome".) But lets move on ...
...), the worshippers need to invite him into the fold to get that End Of The World thing going.
I'm not much of a church goer, but whenever I'm in a new city I try to find out if there are any good pipe organs in town (a big city might have none, one, or a couple) and I will spend a Sunday morning in church.
They all sound different, and the church itself is as much a part of the sound as anything. Pipe organs in general have lots of power, the kind you feel as much as you hear.
I've spend most of my life in Audio, and I can tell you without any reservation at all that I've never heard a pipe organ properly reproduced on any sound system, period. Cannons? Yep.
Full Orchestras? No problem.
Rock n Roll? I've sworn I could reach out and touch musicians.
Pipe Organ? I've heard it come close, but you always know.
So, these guys can't be faulted for lack of ambition.
A difficult concept to pull off; I would love to hear this attempt, which pretty much mandates that I go back and listen to the new organ when they rebuild it. My guess is the real deal will sound subtly better. It's a given that they will sound different, even though recreating a live insturment in the same room is less challenging than recreating something with a recording. But, since I've heard neither, that's just thinking out loud.
I was a bit suprised to learn they chose DT speakers because the wanted a bipolar; they make good gear but there are other bipolars I would have considered (maggies, for one; I've done church installs with them and they work very well in the typical acoustic space a church provides).
Having said that, I would have tried omnipolar speakers first; in my way of thinking they would have a better chance to reproduce the acoustic signature of pipes (omnipolar radiate 360 degrees, like an organ pipe does; bipolars radiate front + back but little to the sides).
The Carver amps were also a bit of a suprise; I've never found them to be top-notch although they're certainly better than average.
Of course, it all makes sense if go a bit crazy here and assume they were radical enough to have bought into some wild concept I've heard about called "A Budget".
I agree that Linux is the proper OS. If Bill IS the Antichrist (not to say he is, but
Better safe than sorry, I say.
Note: the post I'm replying to is scored 0 due to it's posting anonymously; the whole post is reproduced at bottom for those that don't want to change browser preferences.
... The environmentalists say the breaks in the forest inhibit deer from migrating ..."
"
Yeah, if that's what they're saying, it's solid proof they don't have a clue about deer or their "migration habits".
Deer thrive on human activity; although they like treed areas for sleeping and hanging out when they're active during daytime, at night they do quite a bit of roaming open areas, and I often see deer feeding in farmland where there isn't a tree for a mile or more in any direction during daylight.
In a remote, forrested area I am intimitely familiar with, deer were unheard of 20 years ago; in fact they were unheard of 100 miles from there (the area is 300 miles north of where I live now, where deer have always been common). Saying you saw a deer would result in your friends buying you a quick trip to the Optomitrist.
In the time since, clearcuts between forrested areas (they don't mow down the whole thing, cuz they aren't allowed to) have promoted deer migration to the point where deer are common; car-deer accidents have gone from zero (and by zero I mean not a single one in the first 40 years a road through the area has existed) to dozens a year in the last 10 years.
I remember one day about 12 years ago when a photo of a deer 40 miles south of the town there made front page headlines.
You always see exactly the same patterns when transmission lines are cut through forrested areas. In other words, deer not only don't avoid open spaces, they actively employ them to migrate.
Original Post:
trees (score 0) by Anonymous Coward
Actually, utility companies have been restricted by the EPA from cutting trees along the pole lines.
The environmentalists say the breaks in the forest inhibit deer from migrating, because they're afraid to cross open space. Anybody who has ever bagged a deer with a car knows about this issue first hand.
Just like the Alaska pipeline scares polar bear and caribou. Hell, they sleep on it for warmth.
In a press release First Energy spokesmen said that the report "totally vindicates us" and the blame "clearly lies with the uncontrolled and inherently dangerous actions of something called 'trees'. We are calling on Government Agencies to immediately ban the use, propegation, and distribution" of all trees, which "apparently reproduce unaided" by some "poorly understood virus-like activity".
... He noted that Ohio-based FirstEnergy (FE: Research, Estimates)'s failure to trim trees growing alongside major transmission lines contributed to the massive blackout. ..."
From CNN Money's link:
"
I read it. The fact remains that graphite can burn.
The South African Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) is a form of reator known as High-Temperature Gas-cooled Reactor (HTGR).
These differ from the Windscale reactor (UK) and Cherynobl reactor (Russia/Ukraine) in that the causes of the failures of these systems are eliminated by design.
" The estimated probablilty of significant radiation release has been estimated [to be] three orders of maginitude less than for PWR reactors. " This is good.
However:
" The main safety concern for HTGR is that intrusion of air in the vessel would lead to combustion of the graphite. "
We calls that fire caused by accident, and is directly related to the flammability of graphite, which is precisely what I mentioned in my first post.
Source of quotes:
Hybrid Nuclear Reactors; Institut des Sciences Nucleaires; Grenoble, France
I'm no nuclear expert, but I did pick up on the Graphite/Uranium construction mentioned in the Slashdot summary.
Graphite regulated nuclear systems, so far, are the ones that cause the "Big Scares" amongst the public. Chernobyl was a graphite regulated plant (Graphite/Water), as was the one that blew up in England in the late 1950's.
The problem is related to the inablility to shut them down quickly and safely once they "go off"; unlike water, graphite burns (A Bad Thing).
That's not to say they're inherently bad; there are a number of graphite regulated reactors in use; Russia and the UK still use them. Can they be properly maintained, so as to remain safe, in Africa?
Sure, that may well work just fine. Using a proper headset/microphone will work as well.
It's not the speech recogniton that's the problem, or iTunes itself as an application, (it's very scriptable as well as compliant with the preset phrases), it's how people expect it to work.
People need to take some steps to insure that the features are properly implemented. You did, so no problem. Another excellent option is to use a good quality noise-cancelling headset/microphone, but they're not cheap.
Some of the stories on this thread show that there are plenty of users who won't take the effort to insure success, but still expect it to work nonetheless. For that person, playing music while trying to voice-control your computer is likely to result in failure.
Bear in mind that Apple's voice recognition software was introduced in System 7 (in other words, before the release of Windows95) and that I used it quite effectively with a 75Mhz PPC 603 computer with 16MB or RAM and a 16Mhz 68030 with a whopping 8MB, oh, about a decade ago. In other words, I know it worked.
In other words, there is no technical reason why it won't work on a PocketPC, and it's not particularly amazing that it would. If it doesn't work when it's released, the only possible culprit is Microsoft's implementation.
Why don't I use it now? Because, it has no earthly use, except in very specific situations.
One poster complained that OSX's implementation doesn't work with iTunes, for example. It probably never will; voice recognition doesn't work when you are in a noisy envoirnment, because it "hears" everything, including the music playing nearby, which confuses it. This would be the same for any platform.
Back when Apple only had SCSI buses, you saw OEM & retrofit CD drives with that interface; since now everybody uses IDE for CD/DVD drives, they're not around anymore and nobody's making the newer (ie DVD-RW) drives in SCSI.
Having said that, you can put IDE CD drives in an SCSI controller-equipped external case if you want.
To kind of skirt around your question (does someone make them) and get to the meat of the matter:
CD/DVD drives aren't particularly fast, in terms of data in/out; it's not a demanding application of the bus. ATA-33 buses can keep the CD drive full of more data than it can use, so SCSI on CD/DVD really is a mis-application (extra cash, no possible improvement).
The standard rule of thumb is the speakers should be 1/2 the distance apart as the listener sits away from them.
For example, if your listening position is 15 feet from the speakers, then they should be 7.5 feet apart.
Like any general rule, and particularly with sound waves, where each object in the room as well as the volume of air inside the room affect the response, you may well find experimentation and some deviation from the suggested distance to be valuable. However, (unlike what most people's first instincts are) you are better to have stereo speakers seemingly too close to each other than too far apart.
In particular, watch the distance from the side and rear walls. Most speakers like to be a few feet from each; so if you only have a 10 foot wall beind the speakers, then 6' apart might be a good compromise (2' from side walls); you may even find that 5' works even better.
Different speakers react to placement in different ways, so you also may find your results deviate a bit from the norm. For example, some speakers like to be toed in a bit (turned so the front is pointing towards the listening position) while others work best when the fronts are parallel to the back wall.
Placing speakers too close to side walls generally affects sound quality negatively. Placing speakers too close to the back wall will tend to destroy the image as well.
Essentially you are dealing with the phase of the music; phase refers to the time response.
Probably the best example is our own ears themselves; the distance in space between our right and left ears is sufficent information for our brains to calculate the difference in time a sound takes to arrive at our ears. The brain then uses this information (millionths of a second difference in time for a single source sound to reach each ear) to place the source in space. I think it's obvious this works; we can easily tell (for example) where someone is standing even with our eyes closed.
When we have a system that preserves time relationships and place our speakers in such a way as to preserve that information when it reaches our listening position, we will quite clearly be able to localise sounds in space through a music system.
By the way, since all sound frequencies are essentially time-based, and by the ear/balloon example we can show that our brains do "hear" differences in time that would represent much higher frequencies than the commonly cited 20,000 Hz, there is a clue as to why some audiophiles find the 22.1Khz limit of CDs is audible (for example).
What we cannot detect is continuous tones of this frequency, it does not automatically follow that we cannot detect any information whatsoever about these higher frequencies. Just some insight into the minds of audiophiles, and the thinking behind many so-called "high-end" audio products.
Hope that helps.
From the PureTracks site: ... Based in Canada, and open all hours, the Puretracks* music store is operated by Moontaxi Media Inc., one of North America's leading online music providers. For more details about our affiliate and partner program please contact us at Partners@Puretracks.com. ..."
...".
... We provide everything to make a successful Internet Radio Station. We provide the licensed music, cleared for use on the Internet. We provide the programming expertise, making sure each affiliate is provided with music that fits its brand. ..."
/.'ers could get through all that drivel.
... the robber barons your hippie parents warned you about."
"
Moontaxi media is an internet broadcaster, the provider of canned music on Air Canada flights and your dentist's office, responsible for hundreds of internet streaming music channels, and a whole bunch of other things.
Sample:
"... Distributing music to business establishments, such as resturants, hotels, condominiums, and hospitals
Or another, referring to the Streaming Radio business:
"
[]
We provide all the technology needed, including streaming media servers and web and radio player development ensuring a hassle free experience for our affiliates.
[]
And best of all, we provide the advertisers, allowing our affiliates to profit from their internet radio. What's more, above and beyond the profit potential, our affiliates get a branded Internet Radio service all their own, which helps keep customers coming back, and staying around longer.
Sounds like a real hip crowd. Surely success can only follow. The [] indicate where I broke up their long-winded monoparagraphic style, so
By the way, a lot of their business is in the US. A lot.
Owned by EMI and Universal Music, it's fairly obvious that Apple's discussions with the CIRA were just a smokescreen to get the industry owned site up first.
* I think this is supposed to point to some notice about trademarks, the quote is verbaitm. But since the asterisk didn't point to anything at the site, I'm going to make one up for them:
"PureTracks
This is cheaper than the deal Apple was forced to cut with the RIAA (C$ 0.99 is about $US 0.75 per song).
Unless they've signed a parallel agreement with the RIAA and can determine your physical location, Americans won't be able to take advantage of the lower price, though.
One wonders how they're going to pull it off, though. Apple reports that the 30c or so it gets to keep (70c to the RIAA members or whomever owns the electronic distribution rights) pretty much equals the cost of servers, bandwidth, etc.
Apple isn't making any money off it, at least not right now, costs equal or exceed their cut. (We will know this evening if they're actually losing money on it, the quarterly report is due today, 15Oct03).
The rights holders (probably some record company) get 70c, pay out probably a nickel, and keep the rest (no costs, beyond sending a secretary to the vault for a disk every once in a while. Walk once, collect forever). You decide who's gouging who.
I say pay out "probably a nickel" because that's the ballpark figure for payment of copyright royalties to the songwriterk, performer, etc. (Shared between them, by the way).
It migh be worse; the RIAA has just recently prepared a separtate copyright agreement with regard to electronic distribution, which I'm sure they are now threatening the artists to sign. It's inconcievable that they'd need a new agreement to pay the same nickel they're obliged to pay now; so it must be there to pay 'em less.
So, here's the pecking order so far (based on ten million songs)
Apple $0, maybe sell a few more iPods though
Artist $500,000 shared by 250,000 artists
Record companies $ 6.5 million, pure sweet profit, baby
P2P music sharing is completely illegal in Canada. You cannot lend, sell, barter, give away or otherwise distribute copyrighted music unless you own such rights (trust me, you don't).
You can make copys. You cannot distribute music. Kind of makes P2P useless if the law says the only legal distribution is of original authorized CDs via sneakernet.
Turn on your stereo. Close your eyes. Can you place the musicians and instruments in space? The "image" should not be coming from your speakers, but in a "soundstage" between them; a good system will even place the images to the right and left (ie outside) the speakers.
A good image should also contain depth; ie some music should be coming behind and in front of other images. You should, for example, be able to place the snare drum exactly in space. Closing your eyes forces you to place images with your ears only.
If you don't hear that, it's probably your speaker placement. Place speakers at 1/2 the distance apart as you are from them. Try again.
The "image outlines" Phillips refers to are the relative size, and precision of the placed images. Audiophiles generally agree that if you can't have perfect sound, you can settle for imperfect sound that doesn't detract from the experience (ie tight, but too much bass is better than flabby, one-note bass).
If you're the kind of person that places your speakers in opposite corners of the room, well, you'll never hear a soundstage that way. Thus, no images, and no Image outlines, just sound coming from two distint points far apart.
Because the 2 speakers in a corner placement doesn't allow for time alignment, you tend to hear music coming from points that seems to be defined by the speaker cone itself.
Hope that helps.
You are right about the old news; FM radio based radar tracking of planes has been tested by the US military in the Washington DC area many times over the last few years; I believe (not positive) the first sucessful test was about 5 years ago.
Defense analysts correctly point out that such systems are very much able to track and target "stealth" type aircraft, such as the stealth fighter and bomber.
However, the stealth fighters shot down by the military of the former Yugoslavia didn't use such technology. Aided by over-confidence by the US military (the stealth planes flew the exact same flightpath each sortie) they used modern versions of the very first radar systems; vacum-tube based systems obtained from the former USSR.
These "primitive" radars use a different wavelength to track targets and can "see" steath aircraft easily; the steath fighter/bomber is designed to thwart "modern" radar systems.
I'm not going to challenge you basic position (that a CD costs more than a buck or two) because it's correct.
However, I would like to illustrate that the artists, lyricists and songwriters rarely get as much as a dollar from a CD.
There is a "statutory rate" for the creators of 5 to 8 cents per song of 5 minute or less (there are other rate structures for songs of different lenghts, and it varies from nation to nation, but for now lets leave it at that). This is not a minimum; in practice it's a maximum, never achieved.
Although recording contracts are essentially secret, lawyers who represent artists give us some insight as to what the contract looks like.
I just picked up the closest CD to my desktop, it has 11 songs. Most modern contracts pay 4 to 5 cents per song, a few strong artists (think Brittany) might get 6 or even 8. Let's call it 8x 11 for $US 0.88 for that particular disk.
Record companies pay perhaps 95% or so of royalties collected; they keep a portion to compensate them for promos, CDs used for airplay, etc. Now we're at 0.836, or $83.60 per 100 CDs.
Remainders (when they don't want to keep the disk in the catalog any longer) are paid at $0.00. Basically, these are the disks you find at $5 to $10 at the record store.
Keep in mind this is just an arbitrary example, but I think if you follow it through to it's natural conclusion, it's closer to $0.50 per disk for most artists, and in many cases is as low as $0.25. Like I said, it's unlikely even Brittany Spears is getting 8 cents.
This amount, whatever it may be, must be divided between all the content providers; in other words Lennon and McCartney got a much bigger share of the royalty cheques than Ringo or Harrison did, but in any case their share is a portion of the amounts mentioned above.
At the time (1960's), the total amount of the Bealtles' contract would be closer to 2 cents per song, and that's a permanent level. Artists from the 70's typically signed contracts for up to 4 cents/5minute song.
From this pool of funds, the cost of making the disk (studio time, video production, touring advances) is loaned to the artists, and it is deducted until paid in full, before a check ever shows up in the mailbox. Many, if not most, artists release second, third and fourth CDs without ever paying the advances off.
As a % of the total wholesale cost of CDs, the artists get a pretty measley share. In that respect, every dime (literally) counts, but the record companies make much more per disk than the artists ever do.
Again, I'm not disputing your basic premise, but I though you might be interested in learning a bit more about the whole costing process, and how it pertains to artists' royalties.
The statutory rate for Canada is $C 07.7 ($US 5.54 cents) per song of 5 minutes or less plus $C 01.54 per each additonal minute or part thereof.
The statutory rate for the US is $ 0.08 per song of 5 minutes or less plus $ 01.55 per minute or part thereof.
In each case, the statutory rates are in force to Dec31/03, but that's not to say they will rise in the new year (I don't have any info on that).
Interesting concept, I hope they get good use out of it for the next 3 months. After that, they're toast, because that's when (01Jan04) Canada's privacy legislation covers all businesses in Canada. Currently only firms that either:
... are covered by the legislation.
a) transfer identity information over provincial boundaries b) collect information on behalf of the Federal or Provincial governments
or c) are a government agency
A couple of points:
a) The business must provide specific details as to what, if anything, they will do with personal information collected;
b) They must get your specific permission to expand on whatever they said they would do with it when they collected the information;
c) They must not collect more information than is absolutely neccessary to perform whatever purpose they described in a) above;
d) The information must be collected for a bona fide reason; ie if they don't need your name to sell you a pack of gum for cash, forget it;
e) If there is no bona fide business reason to collect such information, they must sell you whatever service they provide when you refuse to identify yourself.
I can casually see several legal objections to what the bars are intending to do. Look for this to die a quiet death.
You are of course correct.
I was speaking in very general terms, but you do raise an interesting point, and your grasp of the theory is excellent. Still, I'm going to try to defend my generalisation, just for our own entertainment.
Assuming a robust enough power supply, even if the load impedance is not optimum, moving closer to the theoretical ideal results in increased output in proportion to load impedance.
By far the vast majority of modern audio amplifiers turn into smoke when driving Rout = Rload, though.
More typically, a loudspeaker impedance is many times the amplifier's output impedance. With transistor output stages, Damping Factor is typically at least 200 and often greater than that (Damping Factor is defined as ouput impedance divided into 8; as per AES spefication).
For whatever reason, the Anthem amp used in the example below has an unusually low output impedance, but not unbelievably so (ie 0.10 ohms is common enough amongst solid state amplifiers).
This just happens to be the first one Google game me:
Anthem PVA 2 Stereo Power Amplifier (The Anthem is a well regarded high fidelity amplifier of modern design).
[Measured Performance]
Power Output: [@1 Khz sine wave; 1% THD, 120V AC line voltage]: 8 ohms 119W/4 ohms 193W
Output impedance: [measured @ 50 Hz, 120 V line voltage]; 0.02 ohms
This particular amplifier is not specified to run into purely resistive loads of 2 ohms or less (protection circuits will trip), and the power output into 4 ohms reveals the power supply is just beginning to strain, but still it is a good result.
There are a very few designs that can do so; certainly I know of no car stereo amplifiers that can. (One hi-fi example that can is the QUAD 404 "current dumping" amplifier designed to drive electrostatic loudspeakers; the specification sheet states it can withstand a direct short for 5 minutes. If you look at the power vs impedance curve in the manual for the 404, output power at 8 ohms is 100wpc but falls with any deviation from the optimum 8 ohms; to zero at 16 or 0 ohms. Of course, it's a very unusual design, and the current dumping circuit hasn't been adopted by other makers).
You may find this link interesting;
Output Impedance Source Impedance and Load Impedance
You obviously have a better grasp of the theory than I do; all I have is 25 years of practical experience in Audio. Still, it's served me well so far.
Regards.
Yeah, home theatre "consumer" recivers are pretty bad. If you can understand the spec sheet, you will discover that the power supply isn't robust to support all 5 or 6 or whatever channels at full power. The "500 Watt" designation is derived by testing one channel to full power (while the others are idle) and multiplying that by 5.
At least with home stereos we know how much power is being delivered to the device; car stereos typically rate the output based on the 14.6V available from the alternator if the lights, air, and whatever isn't running and the battery is fully charged (ie after you've driven for an hour).
Then they assume there really is 30 or so Amps available (questionable, if not downright impossible) to the stereo; measure one channel only at 1Khz (and easy load and always the hightest power rating) with a tone burst (no stress to the power supply, often called "peak" power) at 4 or possibly 2 or even 1 ohm (doubles and quadruples the power figure, respectively). Then they add those single channel figures up. Some even go as far as rounding off the power figure, spec'ing at 15 volts (cuz 14.6 rounds up to 15, right? Who could argue with that?).
It's just another case of consumers who either educate themselves (the specs are there, for you to read, if you want) or assume. Hot Tip: if the specs aren't there, they're hiding something.
However, if you're comparing 5 recievers at Best Buy and they all have the same relative price range and feature set, chances are everybody's using the same methodology. I think, as the basis for the HD lawsuit, it's weak.
There are people who are angry and are pretty happy about the lawsuit; to me that means that it wasn't just one HD purchase that pissed them off. The suit is a backlash because consumers are overwhelmed by the claims of practially everything you can buy, which in almost every single case require some thought to assess.
What the hell is 14 ounce denim, anyway? How come I can't get 20mpg when the EPA can in the same car I bought (and they use new models, which burn more gas than a slightly used engine does) only gets 17? What the hell does "Free" mean, anyway? Why does a price include the rebate, and why do I have to pay taxes on a "free" CD wallet?
I could go on, which is basically the whole point. Thanks for your comment.
Computers are complicated, expensive, and filled with jargon and (especially) numbers. Not confusing enough? Let's sue so that 80 GB can now become "78.96 GB; formatted capacity less".
Yeah, I know that you can find that out already; but if this guy wins, it will be in BIG letters. Ugly box gets uglier, overnight, but hey, We're Informed.
I know it's annoying. But it's not deceptive, when everybody in the industry does the exact same thing. If this guy actually gets a settlement, enterprising Slashdotters can get into the action:
Sue the TV makers. How come it says right on the box in big letters "27 inch TV" and in little letters "26 inches in Canada"? Does the TV shrink in some bizzare Quantum fashion if it gets booted off in Vancouver instead of Seattle? No, they're lying to you, but they tell the truth to those damn Canadians. Sue them.
My car says it has a 5.7 litre engine, but I find out (ah, the fine print) that it's not really that exact size. What's worse, every car maker does the same thing. Sue 'em.
My boom box and my car stereo and my new 27", no, wait, 26" TV all say they put out 100 watts per channel, but later I find out that they're exempt from the FTC rules (glue a handle on 'em and they're "portable devices") about power specifications, and they really only put out 10 if you measure them like the law says real home stereos have to be measured. Sorry, can't sue 'em, those are the rules the FTC came up with when somebody sued 'em 25 years ago. Sorry.
Anyway, there's lots of these kinds of small annoyances, but consumers have to educate themselves. If everybody in a given product category is consistent, it's not such a big deal. If being annoying was grounds for a suit, we'd all spend the rest of our lives in court.
Some interesting scenarios. Keeping in mind that the courts in Canada must not only follow the letter of the law, but also the intent of the law, it's unlikely that Alice and Benoit would find themselves in any trouble at all.
Personally, I would be shocked if you could find a Crown Prosecutor anywhere in the land who would even lay a charge under those scenarios, given that she or he would almost certainly conclude there was no chance of conviction.
Someone who was offering large amounts of music to strangers anonymously would, on the other hand, be found to be in violation of both the letter and the intent of the law.
Hope that helps.
The US has very strong copyright law, because copyright and patents are enshrined in the Constitution. Thus, even if there was a consensus to change the law, it can be difficult or nearly impossible to do so.
One result of this is that it's illegal, period, to copy music in the US, which is similar to the situation in the UK, as it was in Canada before 1985.
Where the US differs is that a defence against the charge has been made and upheld by the courts. As precendence is very strong in US law, if you are charged as such, you can cite this judgement as a defense. In that case, the Judge used the phrase "fair use" in his decision, which is where the phrase comes from, not from the statues themselves.
It's somewhat akin to being charged with murder and arguing for an aquittal based on self-defense. Being right is unlikely to prevent the police from laying the charge; but does offer a defense if you are so charged. Similary, copying is illegal in the US buy you may employ the precedent-setting decision as your defense. It's not quite true to say you have a "right to fair use"; you really have a defense of "fair use" against a charge of copyright infringement. Hope that helps clairify it a bit.
In England it's probable that this particular defense has not been upheld by the courts or else, as in most Engish Common Law, a precendent must be considered by the court but is not binding. I'm not sure exactly what applies, but it may well be the latter, which would allow some to say that there is no defense to copying in the UK.
The good news is that Common Law does allow the use of precedents from other jurisdictions; it is up to the UK Judge to decide how much weight the US decision bears, but he does have to consider it if you present it as part of your defense. (In the US, he could ignore it).
Quite possibly UK copyright holders fear such a decision, and thus have not bothered to make a complaint against someone who copied a CD he owns to an mp3 player. Thus, the "no plans" statement, which avoids the risk that the copyright act might be watered down somehow by a fairly reasonable defense, which I think would be likely to work.
Refusing to have the act tested in the courts allows the BPI to take the "moral high ground" and doesn't limit their choice of tactics to lobby the consumer against downloading. They can be nasty (bullying) or nice (pleading various doom scenarios, inducing consumer guilt, etc.).
In Canada, it was the Canadian Recording Industry Association who pressed the government for the exemption to be granted to consumers, along with a compensatory levy. So, unlike the RIAA and the BPI, the CIRA actually endorsed copying of music. It is unlikely the Canadian government could have overcome the objections of the recording industry had the idea come from the government itself.
"... Ran a Server to download music ..." ? Why would you do that?
If you meant, "Ran a Server to share music" then I get it. The reason is the answer changes depending on which wording you use. Repeat after me:
Downloading music in Canada from anywhere, is fine. Nolo problemo.
Sharing even one mp3 from "a Server" is a crime in Canada; you could get sued just like in the US.
" He is wrong to state that downloading a copy from somebody else's P2P application is covered -- it is not "private copying" because the person offering that copy is already in violation. ..."
You are, of course correct.
Just to clarify; you can't distribute store-bought CDs either. There is nothing special or different if the source is a genuine paid-for CD or a copy of the same.
The levy is supposed to be set so that, on average, the amount paid for each disk, etc sold when added up represents the loss to the recording industry.
The premise is that copying is (and always has been; the first levies were on cassette tapes) so prevailent that society must take responsibility for what virtually everyone has done at one time or another.
Now, whether these goals are achieved is another matter, which I won't go into.
You are incorrect in assuming the levies are paid based on record sales. They are based on radio airplay in many markets, from Toronto to St. John's and Regina, and from college, rock, pop and who knows what format the various stations across the country might offer, and are sampled at many different times of the day.
It is, however, a "sample". Some artists will be over-compensated and others under-compensated. An artist can make a complaint and they will modify the sample if they find you get missed all the time.
A "blank CD" is different things to an independant record company and you and I. Assuming a run of 500 or more, even the smallest record company will be making CDs, not CD-Rs. There is no levy on non-recordable media. There is also no levy on media imported by individuals. If you don't like the levy, buy CD-Rs from the US.
US recording artists have an even stranger levy to compensate artists; a levy on DAT recorders (hardware). This is applied ONLY to the DAT recorders and tapes used to make the original albums in recording studios in the US.
The levy was designed to thwart consumer-level DAT machines which became available in the 1980's. Because the levy effectively destroyed the market for home DAT recorders (ie nobody bought them, except the pros who actually make records), a "levy solution" is resisted by both hardware makers which provide the tools necessary for copying (like SONY) and recording companies who want to destroy copying (like SONY) in the US.
The Copyright Act 1985 c-42 Canada is available here. It's been amended a few times (latest, April 2003) but those changes have little bearing on the slashdot subject. Users with little time want to check out Part VIII, Private Copying; and in particular Section 80; Copying for Private Use.
Some comments on the discussion so far:
The Recording Industry Association of America represents US record companies. They don't now, and never have, anything to do with Canada or any other country.
The RIAA is a member of the IFPI, which represents the recording industry worldwide. Their website has a great link called "Anti-Piracy" and a defintion under What is Piracy? Please note the definition has not a word about dowloading, or copying a buddy's CD, but instead refers to what the RIAA tends to call Counterfeiting.
The Canadian Recording Industry Association (CIRA) is the body which represents the industry in Canada. They are the equivalent to the RIAA in that country and if anyone was suing anybody in Canada, they would be doing it, not the RIAA. Ever.
Uploading music is completely illegal in Canada, as is allowing it to be shared. CIRA can and probably will sue anyone who does it, and they will win. Damages, on the other hand, won't be even close to the numbers the US courts give out, which probably explains why they're not hiring a floorful of lawyers about it, so far.
What the Copyright Act allows, is the copying, for personal use, of music from any source. So, downloading is fine, as is borrowing the CD from the public library (most Canadian libraries have extensive music collections available) or a buddy, or any other source you can imagine. There are no restricitons, of any kind, on the source of the music you use to create a copy.
Steal a disk and copy it; the crime remains the theft of a $20 disk, not the copying of that "illegal" disk.
The restriction is only the person making the copy has any right to use it. You cannot lend, give away, or otherwise distribute a Personal Copy made under authorization of Section 80.
Thus, allowing your mp3s to be available to others via a shared drive or network is against the law in Canada, as is making a disk and giving it to Grandma for Christmas. Granny has to run her own burner. And moving to Canada would not protect any of those who the RIAA has sued recently; what they do is still against the law north of 49.
The US media, especially the RIAA, has done a great job of marketing their message worldwide, not just in their jurisdiction. Thus, almost every Canadian (and absolutely every journalist; lazy no check-facting idiots that they are) is completely unaware of the Act, or how it applies to copying. They all think it's illegal to burn CDs in Canada.