Don't forget that you need to program it to step above that emotional state when necessary, and wallow in it at times. And also that it's current actions will have future repercussions (sp?). And that sometimes there can be stuff that feels goods, but only feels good and really "isn't" good. If you do it the way you're planning, you'll have Bender from Futurama. Hmm, drinking makes me fell good, loop, repeat.
Far too many of us seem to worry too much about more or less irrelevant stuff (like sex)
ah, now I see why you would say
I would not be all that sad to see AI replace human beings.
If you put THE way that humans evolve, reproduce, and express ultimate emotion, under "irrelevant" status, it's easy to see why you think you consider yourself to be the same.
We can make the computer's sole goal be to maximize the total happiness of all the world's inhabitants.
Here's a crazy idea, why not do that with the inhabitants we already have? Forcing people is the WRONG way to do it, forcing computers to force us is even worse. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
because we know that it has no other goal then to help us.
YOU WILL STUDY THIS, IT WILL HELP YOU APPRECIATE BEAUTY. *patient gets up, computer breaks legs to "help" it concentrate" YOU WILL STUDY THIS IT WILL HELP YOU APPRECIATE BEAUTY.
Why not use this god-like ability (to create an AI better than us) to alleviate the strains of scarcity that make this world a place you don't want to live in?
Fight Club started out o.k, but degenerated quickly. The camera pans of Ed's apt are roughly similar to (and probably inspried by) the clothing descriptions in American Psycho, soon to be a very disturbing major motion picture in a theatre near you.
Being John Malkovich was a bit on the long side, but had some great moments (Malkovich as the puppet, M in his own head)
You forgot. "Microsoft uses uncompetitive busines practices to force new OS on unsuspecting businesses. Consumers still have little choice."
BTW, for those of you wanting to save time. 3 of those were written while looking at the same Microsoft press release, one ends "Finally, I'd like to announce that Windows 2000 Magazine has purchased my WinInfo newsletter and Web site, along with my SuperSite for Windows, a Web site dedicated to the future of Windows computing. ", and the China one has a couple interesting points, it should have been shared (Esp with the Linux/China rumors that get posted.)
It's a bit scary discovering an American who actually has a brain attached to the fingers that do all that typing
Yes, and even some of us try to use that brain to do something other than earn more money, not many, but some..
Seriously though, is the US _really_ that insular?
probably a lot worse than you think it is. Europe is a country, right?;)
Personally I enjoy immensely seeing my country through somebody else's eyes, if only for shock value (and it IS a shock). Defending the ideals you've been taught since birth is easy, admitting your faults is not.
to you and the few other 'peans (as it were), who can add a bit more perspective for those of us in the U.S. who are looking for it. It's something we are NOT exposed to on a regular basis (actually I think the 'Net is about the only place you'll find it). We live in a bubble here, a big nice one, but a bubble nonetheless.
Breaking the terms under which someone releases them to you is stealing, whether it happens to be easily copiable or not.
We can debate the definition of stealing in the digital realm all day long. I don't think what I'm doing is wrong. I consider it the equivelent of listening to the radio. Luckily, since I have the 'Net, I get to pick my own programming. The 'Net empowers people, as I'm sure you're aware. Now on to the examples.
I suppose if you copy photoshop and use it and give it to whoever you wish, as long as you don't sell it, that's okay
I don't consider Photoshop to be the same thing as an MP3. One it is a tool used to create content, rather than the content itself. Photoshop is not somethig you can turn on the radio and hear. Photoshop is not a cornerstone of our culture, music is.
What if you simply photocopy all the Tim O'Reilly books rather than buy them?
Why would I do that? I don't pay to go see Tim (or any of his authors) read thier books live. Why take the hours to copy something when I could spend those same hours making the money to buy it? MP3's make my listening efficient. Besides if you wanted to, you could just go here and print them out page by page.
I've seen numerous "examples" in various debates on this issue, and have yet to find one that fits or makes any discernable point by fitting.
You seem to have the very confused idea that stealing equals "Selling what I took".
That is a response to the whining of the RIAA that "pirating" costs them potential sales. Well, heart disease does the same thing. The only way they would lose "sales" is if someone spends the money somewhere else to obtain the same product. Of course, online MP3's might seriously undermine the demand for CDs (the physical media), but I have yet to see evidence for that position. In my own life, it has proved the opposite. The RIAA is working very hard to keep the supply of it's product limited, which goes against both the ideals of music as an art form and the current nature of the product (given the Internet).
I see - so I suppose you send off checks to the artists you're "listening to" currently? Do you pick an arbitrary amount, or do you ask the artist.
Hell no. At least not under the current environment. But do I think that's a possibility in the future, yes. You've seen street musicians, no? Play a bit, ask for hand-outs. Move that to the web, set-up up a micropayment system, and such a model might be possible. Given the right artists who works hard to continually provide high quality service to their fans. Given a possible audience of 6,000,000,000 most talented musicians could find a niche to get comfy in. Couple this with selling cd's and touring (which is how many musicians have made a living since time was recorded), and I think it would be possible to build a music career. There are numerous other suggestions around, if you are an artist and wish to go this route, I think creativity might be a dang good quality to posess.
So we just need to do is indoctrinate society to do the right thing, and viola, problem solved!
Nope, just the idea that art should appeal to *you* and not someone you've been taught to think is better than you. To put it bluntly, I think this society (U.S) is severely fscked up when it comes to things like art and beauty, how to deal with them, and what they mean. I think it's a side effect of a number of influences, not the least of which is a media that focuses on appealing to the lowest common denominator and repetition, repetition, repetition. By convincing you so deeply that sharing is stealing, they've built a nice nest egg with which to sue.
Why? Many reasons, but I'll stick to one - almost no one is willing to pay for these mp3s you self distribute.
no, but many, including me, are willing to pay both for the CDs from which they came, and the gate/door fees for the places that they (the artists) are playing.
That makes it real hard to make a pro sounding CD, support a tour, or cut back on the dayjob a little to make more music. So as bad as the tradional model is, artists are forced to it simply because it is the only way they can hope to make any money.
And I think that is exactly the kind of attitude the RIAA will continue to enforce, through repetition, repetition, repetition. YOU CAN'T MAKE IT WITHOUT US. But, I don't think that's true any more. When the Net is as common as TV (which should be about 5 years now if trends continue to accelerate as they have been), I think the only thing that will keep it from working is artists thinking it won't. It will take an example to kick start the thing, but it will happen.
I'm still lost on your plan to protect the rights of artists.
I tell how I don't think the right way is to do it, the DMCA, and UCITA. I don't think taking rights (fair use, an origianl check vs. copyright) away from others is the best way to protect artists right to profit.
Complaining about the current model is easy. Coming up with a good solution is not.
True, it is easy to smell shit from a mile away, if it's a really big pile. But, what you are proposing we do is stick with the evil we know rather than face the one you fear.
I think popular culture in this country is very sick. I think it's part of the disease that leads to so much hate and violence here. I would like to see it change, and working from the ground up is a good way to do it. Yes, I'm a revolutionary, or perhaps evolutionary would be a better term. I see the potential for people to take back our culture from the 20 people who have been able to control it. People who have put aside ideals, or any notion of public responsibility, for a fat profit margin. I could go on and on about this, it's one of my passions, as I'm sure you've noticed, but that should suffice for now, you know where I stand and why I stand there.
(I never thought I would be arguing the ills of rampant capitalism with someone called "Commie", welcome to the 21st century (next year, ya nitpickers:))
Saying that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer is drivel, there's no evidence for this, and as a matter of fact, I would have to say that on the whole the standard of living has done nothing but increase, I know mine has.
That's because you're rich. So am I, and not complaining, but to say you aren't is pure drivel. And speaking of drivel, here's an article for you. I couldn't find the official study, but I know it's out there. Anyone?
In the US we take care of our poor as well, we just tend to do it without being forced to by the government.
justis, what America do you live in? This doesn't look like the one I do.
Not to put you off too much, but back up your position with *somthing*.
Oh, and the government did pay for(part of) my education. But the only reason I got the loans was that they knew I could pay them back, with interest.
You Napster users give nothing in return and then have the gall to claim this as your God-given right
So providing MY OWN resources to help promote their music is nothing? All that money I paid for concert tickets this last year is nothing? All those CD's I buy are nothing?
All those artists back on the street after a fun two year ride with NOTHING to show for it but some of their own concert t-shirts, that's what record companies give back to the artist, walking papers when their product doesn't move as fast as the next one. Oh, and by the way, "you can't play your song anymore, we own it!"
Define steal for me. Then define intellectual property. Then define right. I'll be here waiting. And my "God-given" rights as you say, go a lot further than you think. It's those "Man-taken" ones that seem to cause the problems.
and while we're at it
but this post is just a thinly-veiled justification for theft.
I suggest you go read a Sony recording contract. And do a little studying up on the concept of a "protection racket" (the mob kind, not the IP one).
The whole point to Phish's music is that they stand for freewill and the freedom to enjoy life.
Embodied in the song "Free" or "Prince Caspian" or any other number of songs.
BTW, if anyone wants to check out some tunes from their marathon 7-1/2 midnight to dawn New Year's set here's a mirror, (and I should have another up on my site this weekend), BTW 75,000+ people paid $150-$175 to see this show, so keeping your phans happy can pay off. And while I'm at it, if you want official Phish merchandise, try here
Pardon me TWO hit-wonder. I stand corrected. BTW, I went to their official site to listen to some music, but those 1 minute Real streams didn't do the music much justice. Maybe I'll use Napster tonight and see if the are any good...
For a better list of artists who got pimped and shoved back on the street, visit here.
...straight from here. Not that I'd call out Salon for pandering or anything, you do need two sides to have a debate.
I can tell you exactly which artists will be most against napster, and that Creed guy is a perfect example. They are in a class affectionately known as One-Hit-Wonders. There is no doubt they would be against, or at least their agents would be against, Napster, since their entire body of useful work consists of about 3 minutes of music (coupled with 15 of fame).
Now before I get into long, winding arguments again, let me make this clear, I think we do need some form of intellectual copyright protection. HOWEVER, given the nature of the Internet and the nature of digital media, our current model for IP is laughable. The only way to enforce it would be to make what I do about once a week, (surf Napster for bands I just heard of), illegal. I am not a big fan of making ridiculously simple and common actions illegal. You shouldn't be forced to limit your choices in a "free" country.
The RIAA is running scared, expect FUD in large helpings, be prepared to see the word pirate thrown around like it's assumed to be the correct word. . It's not. I am not a pirate. Pirates steal things. Listening is not stealing. This is what happens in a capitalistic society when a billion dollar industry is made obsolete overnight. They don't wanna believe it, they don't wanna change, and dammit all the people that are taking their money are "evil pirates" (since they have a *right* to that money, since they convinced a generation of artists to sign over their life's work (for life+50 years, no less))
Copyright should protect the authors of original works to profit from them. If you want to look at it realisticaly, Napster TOTALLY DESTROYS the *real* pirates, those that SELL other artists works. Laws won't be enough to convince people that having 982,345 songs at your fingertips is somehow wrong. But what we can do, if we can keep this argument objective, is create an environment where people respect the copyrights of another because of the willingness of the original author to share. By enforcing these types of values, we can make it a moral decision that the only person who should be paid for a CD is the artist, not some pirater (be they corporate or independant). Personally I prefer a society that uses values to protect the rights or artists, rather than a government that enforces the rights of corporations at the point of a gun.
We are not immoral pirates, dammit, we like music!!
The aggravating thing is the local radio stations won't play local bands
And even when they do on a regular basis it's 2 in the morning on Sunday.
People forget that while the Internet is a global medium, it's great as a local one too. But, the penetration hasn't been there for local media outlets to flourish. Yet the highest percentage of users even now (based on age), are those most likely to be able to participate in a local music scene. So now "it just might work(tm)".
Bands are very willing to listen, especially the small nobodies with dreams in their eyes. I've seen eyes light up when I tell a half-drunk bassist that I'm setting up a local music site. A station (stream) DEDICATED to playing local music. "Wanna go out tonight?" "Sure, who's playing where and what do they sound like?" "Visist LocalSiteX and find out..."
yes, the rules were relaxed quite a bit with deregualation. The rules now are based on a percentage of total revenue in a market, as well as a hard cap of 8 media outlets per market. That can now be 8 radio station, or any combo or radio and TV, with the upper limit of TV being 2.
Clear Channel Communications (the number 1 in total ownership) recently bought AMFM (who used to be Chancellor) who was the #3 owner at the time. The #2 is CBS/Infinity. I think CC owns in the neighborhood of 800 stations and CBS is around 600.
Massive cuts in programming are now practical as one DJ can run any number of stations. Playlists are also *roughly* standardized across highly departmentalized genres. By limiting playlists and cranking up repetition, they have made record companies very happy. The number of units sold per hour (minutes of commercials) has also steadily risen since deregualation, this is also true for television. Radio has about 15 units/hr and TV (at least the major networks) are pushing 18.
hmmm, this is a few days late, no one will ever read it. Hi Mom!
-- ba-bu-ba-ba-baaa, da-da-dum. Re-boot the ser-ver. ba-bu-ba-ba-baaa, da-da-dum. Re-boot the ser-ver.
Recordings of my music may create demand for my live performances. Why should I do anything to reduce the distribution of recordings?
You shouldn't, but those who make money off the recordings have a good reason too. Elflord, if you're listening, this is the point I've tried to make over and over for you. Open distribution of music can only help an artist (unless they suck, but we all start out sucking). Support artists by paying them directly, the best way to do this IS GO WHERE THEY ARE! (very easy when they come visit you).
Don't let billionaires tell you what is right and wrong. Lobby your congressmen. And especially support LIVE music, it really can't be beat.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't forget that you need to program it to step above that emotional state when necessary, and wallow in it at times. And also that it's current actions will have future repercussions (sp?). And that sometimes there can be stuff that feels goods, but only feels good and really "isn't" good. If you do it the way you're planning, you'll have Bender from Futurama. Hmm, drinking makes me fell good, loop, repeat.
--
then who is buying all these products and services that these robots are producing?
The same 5% of the population that makes up 50% of the spending now. Only in the future they'll have even BIGGER SUV's!
--
Far too many of us seem to worry too much about more or less irrelevant stuff (like sex)
ah, now I see why you would say
I would not be all that sad to see AI replace human beings.
If you put THE way that humans evolve, reproduce, and express ultimate emotion, under "irrelevant" status, it's easy to see why you think you consider yourself to be the same.
We can make the computer's sole goal be to maximize the total happiness of all the world's inhabitants.
Here's a crazy idea, why not do that with the inhabitants we already have? Forcing people is the WRONG way to do it, forcing computers to force us is even worse. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
because we know that it has no other goal then to help us.
YOU WILL STUDY THIS, IT WILL HELP YOU APPRECIATE BEAUTY. *patient gets up, computer breaks legs to "help" it concentrate" YOU WILL STUDY THIS IT WILL HELP YOU APPRECIATE BEAUTY.
Why not use this god-like ability (to create an AI better than us) to alleviate the strains of scarcity that make this world a place you don't want to live in?
--
Fight Club started out o.k, but degenerated quickly. The camera pans of Ed's apt are roughly similar to (and probably inspried by) the clothing descriptions in American Psycho, soon to be a very disturbing major motion picture in a theatre near you.
Being John Malkovich was a bit on the long side, but had some great moments (Malkovich as the puppet, M in his own head)
--
And with Active Directory Services,
Are those like Novell Directory Serives?
later, troll.
--
maybe it's bad for tomorrow, but the market will right itself with surprising ease, and at Internet speed, no less.
--
You forgot. "Microsoft uses uncompetitive busines practices to force new OS on unsuspecting businesses. Consumers still have little choice."
BTW, for those of you wanting to save time. 3 of those were written while looking at the same Microsoft press release, one ends "Finally, I'd like to announce that Windows 2000 Magazine has purchased my WinInfo newsletter and Web site, along with my SuperSite for Windows, a Web site dedicated to the future of Windows computing. ", and the China one has a couple interesting points, it should have been shared (Esp with the Linux/China rumors that get posted.)
--
you've spent too much time with microsoft. Those are bugs, not features.
--
what problem? Did he come back and say he was joking?
--
It's a bit scary discovering an American who actually has a brain attached to the fingers that do all that typing
;)
Yes, and even some of us try to use that brain to do something other than earn more money, not many, but some..
Seriously though, is the US _really_ that insular?
probably a lot worse than you think it is. Europe is a country, right?
Personally I enjoy immensely seeing my country through somebody else's eyes, if only for shock value (and it IS a shock). Defending the ideals you've been taught since birth is easy, admitting your faults is not.
--
to you and the few other 'peans (as it were), who can add a bit more perspective for those of us in the U.S. who are looking for it. It's something we are NOT exposed to on a regular basis (actually I think the 'Net is about the only place you'll find it). We live in a bubble here, a big nice one, but a bubble nonetheless.
--
aaah, but you're forgetting, according to USWest "Life's better here." Which has a whole lot more to do with the Rockies than the phone service.
--
Keaton, in Gung Ho!, although the title character doesn't appear in the movie. ;)
(I figured a cultural joke would be best placed in a cultural thread, if you don't get it...sorry)
--
You should talk to this guy (be sure to visit the toilet).
--
>>>>Geeks with Guns march on congress over DMCA act
]try as i may, i cannot find ANY thing funny in the last one
hmm, did you see Homer's remake of Mel Gibson's remake of Mr Smith Goes to Washington?
Now THAT was funny.
--
Breaking the terms under which someone releases them to you is stealing, whether it happens to be easily copiable or not.
:))
We can debate the definition of stealing in the digital realm all day long. I don't think what I'm doing is wrong. I consider it the equivelent of listening to the radio. Luckily, since I have the 'Net, I get to pick my own programming. The 'Net empowers people, as I'm sure you're aware. Now on to the examples.
I suppose if you copy photoshop and use it and give it to whoever you wish, as long as you don't sell it, that's okay
I don't consider Photoshop to be the same thing as an MP3. One it is a tool used to create content, rather than the content itself. Photoshop is not somethig you can turn on the radio and hear. Photoshop is not a cornerstone of our culture, music is.
What if you simply photocopy all the Tim O'Reilly books rather than buy them?
Why would I do that? I don't pay to go see Tim (or any of his authors) read thier books live. Why take the hours to copy something when I could spend those same hours making the money to buy it? MP3's make my listening efficient. Besides if you wanted to, you could just go here and print them out page by page.
I've seen numerous "examples" in various debates on this issue, and have yet to find one that fits or makes any discernable point by fitting.
You seem to have the very confused idea that stealing equals "Selling what I took".
That is a response to the whining of the RIAA that "pirating" costs them potential sales. Well, heart disease does the same thing. The only way they would lose "sales" is if someone spends the money somewhere else to obtain the same product. Of course, online MP3's might seriously undermine the demand for CDs (the physical media), but I have yet to see evidence for that position. In my own life, it has proved the opposite. The RIAA is working very hard to keep the supply of it's product limited, which goes against both the ideals of music as an art form and the current nature of the product (given the Internet).
I see - so I suppose you send off checks to the artists you're "listening to" currently? Do you pick an arbitrary amount, or do you ask the artist.
Hell no. At least not under the current environment. But do I think that's a possibility in the future, yes. You've seen street musicians, no? Play a bit, ask for hand-outs. Move that to the web, set-up up a micropayment system, and such a model might be possible. Given the right artists who works hard to continually provide high quality service to their fans. Given a possible audience of 6,000,000,000 most talented musicians could find a niche to get comfy in. Couple this with selling cd's and touring (which is how many musicians have made a living since time was recorded), and I think it would be possible to build a music career. There are numerous other suggestions around, if you are an artist and wish to go this route, I think creativity might be a dang good quality to posess.
So we just need to do is indoctrinate society to do the right thing, and viola, problem solved!
Nope, just the idea that art should appeal to *you* and not someone you've been taught to think is better than you. To put it bluntly, I think this society (U.S) is severely fscked up when it comes to things like art and beauty, how to deal with them, and what they mean. I think it's a side effect of a number of influences, not the least of which is a media that focuses on appealing to the lowest common denominator and repetition, repetition, repetition. By convincing you so deeply that sharing is stealing, they've built a nice nest egg with which to sue.
Why? Many reasons, but I'll stick to one - almost no one is willing to pay for these mp3s you self distribute.
no, but many, including me, are willing to pay both for the CDs from which they came, and the gate/door fees for the places that they (the artists) are playing.
That makes it real hard to make a pro sounding CD, support a tour, or cut back on the dayjob a little to make more music. So as bad as the tradional model is, artists are forced to it simply because it is the only way they can hope to make any money.
And I think that is exactly the kind of attitude the RIAA will continue to enforce, through repetition, repetition, repetition. YOU CAN'T MAKE IT WITHOUT US. But, I don't think that's true any more. When the Net is as common as TV (which should be about 5 years now if trends continue to accelerate as they have been), I think the only thing that will keep it from working is artists thinking it won't. It will take an example to kick start the thing, but it will happen.
I'm still lost on your plan to protect the rights of artists.
I tell how I don't think the right way is to do it, the DMCA, and UCITA. I don't think taking rights (fair use, an origianl check vs. copyright) away from others is the best way to protect artists right to profit.
Complaining about the current model is easy. Coming up with a good solution is not.
True, it is easy to smell shit from a mile away, if it's a really big pile. But, what you are proposing we do is stick with the evil we know rather than face the one you fear.
I think popular culture in this country is very sick. I think it's part of the disease that leads to so much hate and violence here. I would like to see it change, and working from the ground up is a good way to do it. Yes, I'm a revolutionary, or perhaps evolutionary would be a better term. I see the potential for people to take back our culture from the 20 people who have been able to control it. People who have put aside ideals, or any notion of public responsibility, for a fat profit margin. I could go on and on about this, it's one of my passions, as I'm sure you've noticed, but that should suffice for now, you know where I stand and why I stand there.
(I never thought I would be arguing the ills of rampant capitalism with someone called "Commie", welcome to the 21st century (next year, ya nitpickers
--
Saying that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer is drivel, there's no evidence for this, and as a matter of fact, I would have to say that on the whole the standard of living has done nothing but increase, I know mine has.
That's because you're rich. So am I, and not complaining, but to say you aren't is pure drivel. And speaking of drivel, here's an article for you. I couldn't find the official study, but I know it's out there. Anyone?
In the US we take care of our poor as well, we just tend to do it without being forced to by the government.
justis, what America do you live in? This doesn't look like the one I do.
Not to put you off too much, but back up your position with *somthing*.
Oh, and the government did pay for(part of) my education. But the only reason I got the loans was that they knew I could pay them back, with interest.
--
You Napster users give nothing in return and then have the gall to claim this as your God-given right
So providing MY OWN resources to help promote their music is nothing? All that money I paid for concert tickets this last year is nothing? All those CD's I buy are nothing?
All those artists back on the street after a fun two year ride with NOTHING to show for it but some of their own concert t-shirts, that's what record companies give back to the artist, walking papers when their product doesn't move as fast as the next one. Oh, and by the way, "you can't play your song anymore, we own it!"
Define steal for me. Then define intellectual property. Then define right. I'll be here waiting. And my "God-given" rights as you say, go a lot further than you think. It's those "Man-taken" ones that seem to cause the problems.
and while we're at it
but this post is just a thinly-veiled justification for theft.
I suggest you go read a Sony recording contract. And do a little studying up on the concept of a "protection racket" (the mob kind, not the IP one).
--
The whole point to Phish's music is that they stand for freewill and the freedom to enjoy life.
Embodied in the song "Free" or "Prince Caspian" or any other number of songs.
BTW, if anyone wants to check out some tunes from their marathon 7-1/2 midnight to dawn New Year's set here's a mirror, (and I should have another up on my site this weekend), BTW 75,000+ people paid $150-$175 to see this show, so keeping your phans happy can pay off. And while I'm at it, if you want official Phish merchandise, try here
--
Pardon me TWO hit-wonder. I stand corrected. BTW, I went to their official site to listen to some music, but those 1 minute Real streams didn't do the music much justice. Maybe I'll use Napster tonight and see if the are any good...
For a better list of artists who got pimped and shoved back on the street, visit here.
--
...straight from here. Not that I'd call out Salon for pandering or anything, you do need two sides to have a debate.
I can tell you exactly which artists will be most against napster, and that Creed guy is a perfect example. They are in a class affectionately known as One-Hit-Wonders. There is no doubt they would be against, or at least their agents would be against, Napster, since their entire body of useful work consists of about 3 minutes of music (coupled with 15 of fame).
Now before I get into long, winding arguments again, let me make this clear, I think we do need some form of intellectual copyright protection. HOWEVER, given the nature of the Internet and the nature of digital media, our current model for IP is laughable. The only way to enforce it would be to make what I do about once a week, (surf Napster for bands I just heard of), illegal. I am not a big fan of making ridiculously simple and common actions illegal. You shouldn't be forced to limit your choices in a "free" country.
The RIAA is running scared, expect FUD in large helpings, be prepared to see the word pirate thrown around like it's assumed to be the correct word. . It's not. I am not a pirate. Pirates steal things. Listening is not stealing. This is what happens in a capitalistic society when a billion dollar industry is made obsolete overnight. They don't wanna believe it, they don't wanna change, and dammit all the people that are taking their money are "evil pirates" (since they have a *right* to that money, since they convinced a generation of artists to sign over their life's work (for life+50 years, no less))
Copyright should protect the authors of original works to profit from them. If you want to look at it realisticaly, Napster TOTALLY DESTROYS the *real* pirates, those that SELL other artists works. Laws won't be enough to convince people that having 982,345 songs at your fingertips is somehow wrong. But what we can do, if we can keep this argument objective, is create an environment where people respect the copyrights of another because of the willingness of the original author to share. By enforcing these types of values, we can make it a moral decision that the only person who should be paid for a CD is the artist, not some pirater (be they corporate or independant). Personally I prefer a society that uses values to protect the rights or artists, rather than a government that enforces the rights of corporations at the point of a gun.
We are not immoral pirates, dammit, we like music!!
--
The aggravating thing is the local radio stations won't play local bands
And even when they do on a regular basis it's 2 in the morning on Sunday.
People forget that while the Internet is a global medium, it's great as a local one too. But, the penetration hasn't been there for local media outlets to flourish. Yet the highest percentage of users even now (based on age), are those most likely to be able to participate in a local music scene. So now "it just might work(tm)".
Bands are very willing to listen, especially the small nobodies with dreams in their eyes. I've seen eyes light up when I tell a half-drunk bassist that I'm setting up a local music site. A station (stream) DEDICATED to playing local music. "Wanna go out tonight?" "Sure, who's playing where and what do they sound like?" "Visist LocalSiteX and find out..."
Hmm, time to get to work.
--
yes, the rules were relaxed quite a bit with deregualation. The rules now are based on a percentage of total revenue in a market, as well as a hard cap of 8 media outlets per market. That can now be 8 radio station, or any combo or radio and TV, with the upper limit of TV being 2.
Clear Channel Communications (the number 1 in total ownership) recently bought AMFM (who used to be Chancellor) who was the #3 owner at the time. The #2 is CBS/Infinity. I think CC owns in the neighborhood of 800 stations and CBS is around 600.
Massive cuts in programming are now practical as one DJ can run any number of stations. Playlists are also *roughly* standardized across highly departmentalized genres. By limiting playlists and cranking up repetition, they have made record companies very happy. The number of units sold per hour (minutes of commercials) has also steadily risen since deregualation, this is also true for television. Radio has about 15 units/hr and TV (at least the major networks) are pushing 18.
hmmm, this is a few days late, no one will ever read it. Hi Mom!
--
ba-bu-ba-ba-baaa, da-da-dum. Re-boot the ser-ver.
ba-bu-ba-ba-baaa, da-da-dum. Re-boot the ser-ver.
Hmm, you might want to go hear Los Lobos before you trash e'm. I saw them less than a month ago, and it was a great show.
but everything else they've ever done sucks.
I'd like to see your list of everyting else, unless (and this is my guess) those are the only songs you've ever heard.
--
Thank you, thank you, thank you.
Recordings of my music may create demand for my live performances. Why should I do anything to reduce the distribution of recordings?
You shouldn't, but those who make money off the recordings have a good reason too. Elflord, if you're listening, this is the point I've tried to make over and over for you. Open distribution of music can only help an artist (unless they suck, but we all start out sucking). Support artists by paying them directly, the best way to do this IS GO WHERE THEY ARE! (very easy when they come visit you).
Don't let billionaires tell you what is right and wrong. Lobby your congressmen. And especially support LIVE music, it really can't be beat.
--