>>By all measures, when you consider how long >>people have the music and how often they can go >>back and get "re-entertained" CDs truly are an >>incredible value for the money.
Well, lets take another angle on this. Since the actual cost of producing the physical CD is only a SMALL part of the whole equation, the lions share goes to the recording company, the artists, the cost of producing the music, the artwork, promotion, etc etc. Following so far? So once the music is produced, the medium that is used to convey it is an extremely small portion of the overall cost.
Following so far? Good.
Now explain the price discrepancy between an casette tape and a CD of the same 'artistic work'.
Oh yeah... there isn't any explanation, except for price gouging. I can buy BLANK CDR discs for $1 (with a jewel case). I can only imagine what it costs 'the industry' to stamp out CD's - maybe 40 cents? So why is a CD always at least $5 more than a tape. Cut the bullshit about 'quality' - they are post produced from the same master work.
The rise of Napster (et all) also comes from the fact that it is generally IMPOSSIBLE to buy A SINGLE SONG. If there is a song i like i have to drop down $20 for the CD. Give me a freaking break. Charge me $2/song - deliver it electronically and I'm responsible for supplying the medium. I'd spend a fortune. But that isn't possible. There isn't a legal way to do it.
Just as the recording industry has fought producers of custom, made to order compilation CD's (vending machines etc) in order to maximize profits. Well, the cows are tired of being milked.
People have been taken advantage of by the recording industry for a quite a while - the pendulum is swinging in the other direction. Be interesting to watch the subsequent oscillations.
Microsoft == Oracle == Sun == Apple ==...... etc etc etc.
They all behave exactly the same. Only the scale and public karma is different.
And before anybody starts crying that this isn't the case, lest us forget about Apple when they stood on the throats of their clone makers, and Sun - total control freaks, etc etc etc.
>Now, if the word processor manufacturers would >get off their butts and let the software >read/write Postscript... this would be a true >cross-platform, program indipendant,
GAK! Um no, this is a BadIdea(tm).
To review, Postscript is a NP complete language. That is - it isn't just a document description language (e.g. PDF) it's a full FREAKING language.
E.g. a document can also be a virus. And this isn't like the whole Outlook mess, where a virus script is passed around. Thedocument itself (or a piece of clipart, etc etc) would be the virus.
There is a reason why NeXT machines had a setting for 'Display EPS Securely', and the same reason that Apple has ditched PS for PDF.
not necessarily. The old saying goes "it's easier to get forgiveness than permission".
More likely they did try in advance (the mp3.com guys did say in earlier press releases that they HAD been negotiating with the RIAA et all when the lawsuit started) and then decided to force the industries hand. We've seen how unreceptive it is to change. You do have a somewhat better barganing position when you've built up a big client base "with their own music" (as the propaganda would say) then just going to the industry with a "i have a dream" pitch.
The entertainment industry isn't big about giving up control.
Re:doesn't have to be phones
on
Iridium Saved?
·
· Score: 1
i>>use the satellites to coordinate attacks on the >>world's major cities by its 15-mile-wide saucers
Not an intentional flame - just trying to spark discussion.
Linux runns well on 2cpus. 4 isn't bad and the kernel guys are working to improve it.
But 64?? How about wasting 60 of those CPU's. Whats the point. At this time if you want that many cpu's in the same box you should stick with IRIX, etc. Linux is working on it but it isn't even close yet......
Not all problems are nails. You shouldn't always try to hit them with your Linux hammer.
>>I've used demos of this package and compared to >>professional packages like Premiere it really >>packs a punch.
if MIcrosoft tried to do something like this they would be RAKED OVER THE COALS. Why is it OK for APPLE to release for free a product like this which will obviously damage the product sales for the rest of the companies in this market (not to mention them bundling it with certian models of macs).
If you don't complain about this you have no right to complain about the whole IE/Netscape deal.
This how you write a properly researched, low rhetoric article about a tech/sociological subjet. See how separate subjects aren't intermixed as if they were equal.
Assignment #3-Read the article again.
Assignment #4-Read the NYT DeCSS article
Assignment #5-Go back and read that awful mp3.com 'article' that you wrote last week.
Sorry John - but that doesn't get you off the hook.
The whole thrust of the piece is about downloading music for free.... metaphors about prohibition, etc etc.
my.mp3.com doesn't let you download music for free. Hence my annoyance. If i didn't know better I'd assume it DID because that is the slant of the whole report. It's like all those DeCSS stories that claimed that it was a tool 'that let you copy DVD's'. Anyone who did a second of reserach knew that wasn't the case, but those that are being EDUCATED by the column about the topic are being misled (whether deliberate or not is another debate). Sorry, but that's shoddy journalism in my book.
You seem to have some respect for the 'geek factor' and the techno-prowess of those that read this site. Look how fast the this comment was moderated up. Seems the opinion isn't just mine.
Realize what your target audience is here . A lot of those that will read your columns on./ will know substantially more on the subject than u (that isn't necessarily a bad thing. A journalist can't be an expert in every topic that they report). But get your facts straight and don't try to mix topics in an imprecise or confusing way. The general public would be much more forgiving - but it won't happen here.
I'd be impressed if you (or somebody else) wrote a well thought out piece on the reality behind the whole my.mp3.com fiasco. Similar to what the NYTimes recently did with DeCSS.
Now normally I just read a JK column and shake my head, but:
>>Friday's ruling by a federal judge against MP3 >>was the clearest and most powerful blow yet >>struck against the by-now deeply ingrained >>tradition, especially among younger music >>lovers, of acquiring vast music libraries for >>free. MP3.com is certain to face stunning >>penalties.
John - please. The suit was about my.mp3.com, not about the main business of mp3.com. And it ISN'T about getting music for free. It's about control.
my.mp3.com lets you listen to music that YOU HAVE BOUGHT in a more convenient way. It is nothing like napster, or cutemx, or gnutella or
I'm sure it took you a fair amount of time to write this column. Could you *please* spend just a bit more time up front checking the facts first??
Re:Not that I am particularly happy about this, bu
on
MP3.com Loses In Court
·
· Score: 1
>>They were distributing copyrighted material >> without a license. Even if they were sure that >>the users alreay owned the CD's, the legality >>is still very questionable.
'Questionable' - not illegal. There is a real grey area here about to potential to be a 'proxy' for copywrited material. Since u have proved that u are a legal owner/licensee of the material, who is being deprived? and of what? We'll see what the courts have to say (please let this be an appealable ruling).
>>And with the availability of free ripping >>software, the usefulness of such a service is >>also rather questionable.
huh? That doesn't parse. I've registered about half of my CD collection with my.mp3.com (about 1400 tracks now). All CD's i have *bought*. I have a dsl line at home, and a T3 at work. I now have an instant 1400 track jukebox for anywhere that i can get an ethernet port. Why should i have to use 'free ripping software'? That would require me to a)waste additional hard disk space to store the data again b)waste EVEN more hard disk space to store the data anywhere that i want it (am i supposed to rip it for the office and for home?).
my.mp3.com ROCKS and doesn't hurt the industry. It only helps them. But this case isn't about copyright, it's about CONTROL.
If i can't use the CD's that i've purchased in a way that's convenient for me, i might as well just poach everything off napster......
>>I think you don't get it. The RIAA doesn't >>care if you listen to the CDs you already >>bought at all, that's not why they make them.
Nope - i get it very well:)
If i can buy a CD and listen to it anywhere (a la my.mp3.com) I will. I belive in supporting the artist in the same way I expect to get a paycheck every week for my work.
There is no way i'm going to haul around trucks of disks between, work, home, wherever-i-happen-to-be-on-any-given-day.
If i can have the freedom to use the music that I *bought*, then great. If i can't, well then i just might as well use Napster and poach it all.
I've got 10X more use out of my CD collection with my.mp3.com/BeamIt than I ever did with they physical discs. I have about 1400 tracs registered with mp3.com so far (about half of my ALL LEGAL CD's). Good job RIAA - push me away from legally buying your music....
This case has *NOTHING* to do with copyright. It has *EVERYTHING* to do with CONTROL.
I really hope this can be appealed. Look out dinosaurs - here comes the comet....
>>The tag probably runs up over $30k for the >> software and hardware together. Not quite:) You're off by a factor of 4. U can't touch a DS system for under 100K. But remember - thats dual monitor, dual 700Mhz P3, probably 512Meg memory and gigs and gigs and gigs of disk (memory is hazy, but i think they come standard with one hour uncompressed storage). May look like a lot but u get what u pay for. (ex softimage employee).
(guh? This has been moderated up to 3 already?!?!??)
>>Why bother with Quicktime? This is a serious >>question...what is preventing us from using >>MPEG?
(not intentally TOTAL flambait)...
Grab a cluestick. Maybe because there are things out there BETTER than MPEG? The sorensen codec is kickass for quality and file size.
>>Is there a qt2mpeg converter? What's stopping >>someone from writing one?
qt2mpeg would imply that you could decode the qt - so why not just play it back anyway....
>>Or for that matter why not just develop our OWN >>codec, free to the public and make/it/ the >>standard?
clue #2. Making a GOOD codec is NOT something that you're going to whip up over the weekend. This is something that is based on YEARS of signal processing and perceptual research.
Gak. I'm all for open source and write a lot of it myself, but people who assume that everything is _SIMPLE_ and _EASY_ drive me nuts....
a) I'll believe it when i see it (not to totally dismiss it, but a promise is just a promise). Can it do the quality of antialiasing, motion blur, depth of field and programmable shading that Renderman can? People with these promises usually forget THOSE are the things that make high quality rendering, not just high triangle counts and a fuzzy filter to hide the aliasing.......
b)Even if the algorithms are that much 'faster' the bandwidth issue still hasn't been resolved. Frames for TSII have multigigabyte texture and geometry databases. Renderman is incredible smart in how it goes geometry and texture caching and bucketing to be able to get the performance that it gets. An hour per frame may sound like a lot, but it's basically the fastest and highest quality commerical rendering package out there. There isn't another commerically available rendering package that could even swallow those scenes, let alone render them within an order of magnitude of time.
I've worked for years in the high end graphics business (one of the 'Big 2' software companies). High quality FMV will be coming eventually, but not from a box with a DVD drive and couple of megs of memory.
The PSII will be good, but lets keep things in perspective.
Slashdot Mirror
>>By all measures, when you consider how long
>>people have the music and how often they can go >>back and get "re-entertained" CDs truly are an
>>incredible value for the money.
Well, lets take another angle on this. Since the actual cost of producing the physical CD is only a SMALL part of the whole equation, the lions share goes to the recording company, the artists, the cost of producing the music, the artwork, promotion, etc etc. Following so far? So once the music is produced, the medium that is used to convey it is an extremely small portion of the overall cost.
Following so far? Good.
Now explain the price discrepancy between an casette tape and a CD of the same 'artistic work'.
Oh yeah... there isn't any explanation, except for price gouging. I can buy BLANK CDR discs for $1 (with a jewel case). I can only imagine what it costs 'the industry' to stamp out CD's - maybe 40 cents? So why is a CD always at least $5 more than a tape. Cut the bullshit about 'quality' - they are post produced from the same master work.
The rise of Napster (et all) also comes from the fact that it is generally IMPOSSIBLE to buy A SINGLE SONG. If there is a song i like i have to drop down $20 for the CD. Give me a freaking break. Charge me $2/song - deliver it electronically and I'm responsible for supplying the medium. I'd spend a fortune. But that isn't possible. There isn't a legal way to do it.
Just as the recording industry has fought producers of custom, made to order compilation CD's (vending machines etc) in order to maximize profits. Well, the cows are tired of being milked.
People have been taken advantage of by the recording industry for a quite a while - the pendulum is swinging in the other direction. Be interesting to watch the subsequent oscillations.
j
>couldn't we (the users) enter into a class-
>action lawsuit against Toysmart?
Sure you could, but remember this is part of their *bankruptcy* proceedings. They were trying to do it because they have no money!
Only thing a class action suit would do would make more money for some lawyers.
You can't get blood from a stone.
Microsoft == Oracle == Sun == Apple ==...... etc etc etc.
They all behave exactly the same. Only the scale and public karma is different.
And before anybody starts crying that this isn't the case, lest us forget about Apple when they stood on the throats of their clone makers, and Sun - total control freaks, etc etc etc.
Pick your poison.
>>you mean that's the reason PostScript is so slow
Yeah. they have to make sure it halts.
(doh! - yes, my mistake. Not enough coffee today).
>Now, if the word processor manufacturers would
>get off their butts and let the software >read/write Postscript... this would be a true >cross-platform, program indipendant,
GAK! Um no, this is a BadIdea(tm).
To review, Postscript is a NP complete language. That is - it isn't just a document description language (e.g. PDF) it's a full FREAKING language.
E.g. a document can also be a virus. And this isn't like the whole Outlook mess, where a virus script is passed around. Thedocument itself (or a piece of clipart, etc etc) would be the virus.
There is a reason why NeXT machines had a setting for 'Display EPS Securely', and the same reason that Apple has ditched PS for PDF.
>>It seems pretty obvious....
not necessarily. The old saying goes "it's easier to get forgiveness than permission".
More likely they did try in advance (the mp3.com guys did say in earlier press releases that they HAD been negotiating with the RIAA et all when the lawsuit started) and then decided to force the industries hand. We've seen how unreceptive it is to change. You do have a somewhat better barganing position when you've built up a big client base "with their own music" (as the propaganda would say) then just going to the industry with a "i have a dream" pitch.
The entertainment industry isn't big about giving up control.
i>>use the satellites to coordinate attacks on the
>>world's major cities by its 15-mile-wide saucers
bring 'em on. i got my powerbook ready.
>>I'm pretty sure it's not a 64-way SMP box. It's
:)
>>16, 4 way SMP boxes in giant purple cabinets.
>>The article is misleading
Ah. That's different.
Not an intentional flame - just trying to spark discussion.
Linux runns well on 2cpus. 4 isn't bad and the kernel guys are working to improve it.
But 64?? How about wasting 60 of those CPU's. Whats the point. At this time if you want that many cpu's in the same box you should stick with IRIX, etc. Linux is working on it but it isn't even close yet......
Not all problems are nails. You shouldn't always try to hit them with your Linux hammer.
>>I've used demos of this package and compared to
>>professional packages like Premiere it really
>>packs a punch.
if MIcrosoft tried to do something like this they would be RAKED OVER THE COALS. Why is it OK for APPLE to release for free a product like this which will obviously damage the product sales for the rest of the companies in this market (not to mention them bundling it with certian models of macs).
If you don't complain about this you have no right to complain about the whole IE/Netscape deal.
Assignment #1-Read this article.
Assignment #2-Read it again.
This how you write a properly researched, low rhetoric article about a tech/sociological subjet. See how separate subjects aren't intermixed as if they were equal.
Assignment #3-Read the article again.
Assignment #4-Read the NYT DeCSS article
Assignment #5-Go back and read that awful mp3.com 'article' that you wrote last week.
Sorry John - but that doesn't get you off the hook.
./ will know substantially more on the subject than u (that isn't necessarily a bad thing. A journalist can't be an expert in every topic that they report). But get your facts straight and don't try to mix topics in an imprecise or confusing way. The general public would be much more forgiving - but it won't happen here.
The whole thrust of the piece is about downloading music for free.... metaphors about prohibition, etc etc.
my.mp3.com doesn't let you download music for free. Hence my annoyance. If i didn't know better I'd assume it DID because that is the slant of the whole report. It's like all those DeCSS stories that claimed that it was a tool 'that let you copy DVD's'. Anyone who did a second of reserach knew that wasn't the case, but those that are being EDUCATED by the column about the topic are being misled (whether deliberate or not is another debate). Sorry, but that's shoddy journalism in my book.
You seem to have some respect for the 'geek factor' and the techno-prowess of those that read this site. Look how fast the this comment was moderated up. Seems the opinion isn't just mine.
Realize what your target audience is here . A lot of those that will read your columns on
I'd be impressed if you (or somebody else) wrote a well thought out piece on the reality behind the whole my.mp3.com fiasco. Similar to what the NYTimes recently did with DeCSS.
Now normally I just read a JK column and shake my head, but:
>>Friday's ruling by a federal judge against MP3
>>was the clearest and most powerful blow yet
>>struck against the by-now deeply ingrained
>>tradition, especially among younger music
>>lovers, of acquiring vast music libraries for
>>free. MP3.com is certain to face stunning
>>penalties.
John - please. The suit was about my.mp3.com, not about the main business of mp3.com. And it ISN'T about getting music for free. It's about control.
my.mp3.com lets you listen to music that YOU HAVE BOUGHT in a more convenient way. It is nothing like napster, or cutemx, or gnutella or
I'm sure it took you a fair amount of time to write this column. Could you *please* spend just a bit more time up front checking the facts first??
>>They were distributing copyrighted material
>> without a license. Even if they were sure that
>>the users alreay owned the CD's, the legality
>>is still very questionable.
'Questionable' - not illegal. There is a real grey area here about to potential to be a 'proxy' for copywrited material. Since u have proved that u are a legal owner/licensee of the material, who is being deprived? and of what? We'll see what the courts have to say (please let this be an appealable ruling).
>>And with the availability of free ripping
>>software, the usefulness of such a service is
>>also rather questionable.
huh? That doesn't parse. I've registered about half of my CD collection with my.mp3.com (about 1400 tracks now). All CD's i have *bought*. I have a dsl line at home, and a T3 at work. I now have an instant 1400 track jukebox for anywhere that i can get an ethernet port. Why should i have to use 'free ripping software'? That would require me to
a)waste additional hard disk space to store the data again
b)waste EVEN more hard disk space to store the data anywhere that i want it (am i supposed to rip it for the office and for home?).
my.mp3.com ROCKS and doesn't hurt the industry. It only helps them. But this case isn't about copyright, it's about CONTROL.
If i can't use the CD's that i've purchased in a way that's convenient for me, i might as well just poach everything off napster......
>>I think you don't get it. The RIAA doesn't
:)
>>care if you listen to the CDs you already
>>bought at all, that's not why they make them.
Nope - i get it very well
If i can buy a CD and listen to it anywhere (a la my.mp3.com) I will. I belive in supporting the artist in the same way I expect to get a paycheck every week for my work.
There is no way i'm going to haul around trucks of disks between, work, home, wherever-i-happen-to-be-on-any-given-day.
If i can have the freedom to use the music that I *bought*, then great. If i can't, well then i just might as well use Napster and poach it all.
Poor RIAA - the dinosaurs just don't get it.
I've got 10X more use out of my CD collection with my.mp3.com/BeamIt than I ever did with they physical discs. I have about 1400 tracs registered with mp3.com so far (about half of my ALL LEGAL CD's). Good job RIAA - push me away from legally buying your music....
This case has *NOTHING* to do with copyright. It has *EVERYTHING* to do with CONTROL.
I really hope this can be appealed. Look out dinosaurs - here comes the comet....
>>I'm very tempted to purchase a classified
>>ad in the NY Times and publish the DeCSS
>>code in my ad...
Ooooh baby! I'd kick in cash to buy a REGULAR add to post this!
(i know - faux pas replying to yourself)
If memory serves, AT&T sold Unix(tm), to Novell, who then sold it to SCO (?).
Anyway - it's an owned and established tradmark. Bad Karma.
Doesn't AT&T still technically OWN the tradmark Unix(tm).
Looks like somebody is buckin to get his ass sued......
Since:
a) this is based on comments from Slashdot readers
b) proceeds are going to charity
c) and we all *know* about JK's support for open source...
**Where is the downloadable version**
... or did ya forget?
>>The tag probably runs up over $30k for the >> software and hardware together. Not quite :) You're off by a factor of 4. U can't touch a DS system for under 100K. But remember - thats dual monitor, dual 700Mhz P3, probably 512Meg memory and gigs and gigs and gigs of disk (memory is hazy, but i think they come standard with one hour uncompressed storage). May look like a lot but u get what u pay for. (ex softimage employee).
Everyone has their own opinions - though u are the first person i've heard say the original LOTR movie was anything but crap.
(guh? This has been moderated up to 3 already?!?!??)
/it/ the
>>Why bother with Quicktime? This is a serious
>>question...what is preventing us from using >>MPEG?
(not intentally TOTAL flambait)...
Grab a cluestick. Maybe because there are things out there BETTER than MPEG? The sorensen codec is kickass for quality and file size.
>>Is there a qt2mpeg converter? What's stopping
>>someone from writing one?
qt2mpeg would imply that you could decode the qt - so why not just play it back anyway....
>>Or for that matter why not just develop our OWN
>>codec, free to the public and make
>>standard?
clue #2. Making a GOOD codec is NOT something that you're going to whip up over the weekend. This is something that is based on YEARS of signal processing and perceptual research.
Gak. I'm all for open source and write a lot of it myself, but people who assume that everything is _SIMPLE_ and _EASY_ drive me nuts....
I'd love to see some commments from actual developers crunching for this box.
The SEGA Saturn was a multicpu box that developers HATED because it was a pain in the ass to develop for...........
a) I'll believe it when i see it (not to totally dismiss it, but a promise is just a promise). Can it do the quality of antialiasing, motion blur, depth of field and programmable shading that Renderman can? People with these promises usually forget THOSE are the things that make high quality rendering, not just high triangle counts and a fuzzy filter to hide the aliasing.......
b)Even if the algorithms are that much 'faster' the bandwidth issue still hasn't been resolved. Frames for TSII have multigigabyte texture and geometry databases. Renderman is incredible smart in how it goes geometry and texture caching and bucketing to be able to get the performance that it gets. An hour per frame may sound like a lot, but it's basically the fastest and highest quality commerical rendering package out there. There isn't another commerically available rendering package that could even swallow those scenes, let alone render them within an order of magnitude of time.
I've worked for years in the high end graphics business (one of the 'Big 2' software companies). High quality FMV will be coming eventually, but not from a box with a DVD drive and couple of megs of memory.
The PSII will be good, but lets keep things in perspective.