only half of the cost of producing an album, and hence justifing the huge revenue slice the label gets, is the distribution. the other half is actually recording the record. time in a good studio with good engineers can cost as much as 1000$/hr.
Except that label do not pay for for the cost of recording. Typically they lend money to the artist and they are paid back from the CD sales.
That's why many "one-hit-wonders" artists wind up in serious debt. For example, TLC the group that won the "best-new-artist" grammy few years ago had to declare bankrupcy. Even though their CD sold several millions of copies, the artists made about $50K each that same year.
You have to realize that very small number of artists actually make any money from CD sales. And some of these can only do it while they're at the top of their popularity curve (eg. "Spice Girls").
One of my favorite blues guitar players is a guy named Anson Fundenburgh (he's from Texas) and here is what he said in an interview:
QUESTION: What advice can you give up coming wanna be's to the business?
ANSON FUNDERBURGH: Be true to the music that you like to play and not to be in the business for the money. You have to be in for the music itself.
For the artists that are not interested in the current pop-fashions the Internet gives them a means to easily reach a wider audience at a minimal cost.
the paradigms may be shifting. the prices may be exorbarant. but how does that justify STEALING the music?
How is it "stealing" when the person who "owns" it doesn't loose anything? Why do you "steal" music by listening to the radio? You "steal" music by watching MTV and flipping to other channels when the commercials come on.
What about the artists who we all so enjoy listening to? What happens if they cease to be payed for their efforts and no longer produce the music?
Musicians can make money the same way we all do, by working (i.e. performing). Most musicians who make great music are hardly know to a lot of people. Think of some of the best jazz musicians and how they made a living.
There are tons of performers out there who will never sell a million CDs and so big record companies are not interested in them.
Here are some of my favorites: Debbie Davies, Anson Fundenburg, or Ani Difranco. Have you heard of any of these people?
With Internet and MP3 these artist can reach a much wider audience of people who like their music. This is great, I don't need some stupid record executive picking my music for me.
A fourth and final card that should be played is the fact that more and more movie studios are using linux to render their scenes. It would be good publicity to show a list of movies put out by these major studios that have used beowulf clusters to cheaply render their CG scenes. Basically, show the government and the public that by preventing Linux's progress, the movie studios are biting the hand that feeds them. While it would legally do nothing, it would be a good PR move.
I see the banners now: "Linux! Good enough to make 'Titanic', but not good enough to see it"
This question refers to the larger issue of Internet distrubtion, and that is a legit answer. How do you allow for legal, copyrighted content distribution, without piracy? If I may coin a phrase, that is the "The Internet Dilemma." Noone is quite sure. We can talk about PKI and encryption, but we just don't know. And whoever can DEFINITIVELY answer this, will solve a monstrous problem.
The answer is simple. Provide value. If whatever you sell is cheaper to get via the internet for free (even if not legally), no one will buy your thing.
If on the other hand you can add something to whatever you sell so that it's more attractive to buy then you'll have customers.
For example, no one has to buy anything from Red Hat, yet they seem to be making money. That's because sometimes it's just less hassle to buy a CD for $50 bucks with a nice book, rather than download for hours (or even minutes).
The movie and music industry are addicted to their outrageous profits and they are fighting to keep the status quo. In longer term it's a losing game.
Recommended for those who believe that complex adaptive behavior can be explained without stooping to quantum mumbo-jumbo.
Considering what we know now about deterministic, but chaotic systems, and how complex behaviour arises from simple rules, I don't think we need to resort to quantum theory at all.
a book out about the same time as "Godel Escher Bach" w/ Doug Hofstadter and Stanislaw Lem ?
You must be thinking of "The Mind's I". Which is a collection of essays/stories compiled by Hoftsadter and Dennett, that included some of their essays along with stories from Lem.
The cool thing about Linux is that people are free to experiment with totally new kinds of user interfaces. Don't get locked into the same old ideas of Apple and MS.
The desktop metaphor is dead. Today's children use computers before they have desks.
Anyway here is an article on possible UI alternatives from Jacob Nielsen: The Anti-Mac Interface.
Well, we have made sure that Freenet is compatible with Kaffe and other similar Open Source Java efforts, and we will always ensure that it remains compatible with Open Source Java implementations.
Well, I can understand the choice of Java. But if you want to write a server in a language other than C++ or Java, you might consider Eiffel.
Eiffel definition is controlled by a user organization (NICE), there is GNU Eiffel compiler in addition to several commercial ones. Plus Eiffel is very portable.
The only problem with Eiffel that there aren't as many libraries as there are for Java.
But to a certain degree I'd agree with you. The Internet has shaped our forms of communication like nothing else. When you can pass a message around the world in seconds, it makes for increased cultural exchanges.
Actually the telegraph reshaped the world's communications in the 19th century. Once the telegraph network was in place it was possible to pass a message around the world in seconds.
Until then the fastest way send a message was by horse at maybe 100 miles/day. Think about that paradigm shift.
I don't know about you, but I'm not perfect. I don't write all my code in assembly either. Iwrite it in C++ because I find it easier to break my work up into protected objects. Along the same lines, I don't always trust myself to design the very best interface for my software. I'd rather get it right then be right.
My current favorite programming language is Eiffel. You can express your designs much better in Eiffel than C++. You should check it out.
As far as getting a design right. How can you tell it's right unless you implement it? Except for very obvious things that have been tested by others before (like how do you design a hash table), you cannot tell a priori that a design is good.
Unless you have quite a bit of experience implementing systems you will not know how to design it.
Designing user interfaces is a completely different thing. This is not software design, but human factors design. I'm sure it wasn't an aircraft designer who thought that the knob that rasises and lowers the landing gear should be shaped like a wheel.
I don't know if its the right definition but i'm sure they didn't teach me that in school.
In Norman Mailer's book "Fire on the Moon" he described the difference between science and engineering. For example the science of how to go from Earth to the Moon was solved by Isaac Newton.
But to actually get people to the Moon required quite a bit of engineering.
In more general terms engineering is the art of building useful things on time and under budget.
...richie
P.S. See several books by Henry Petroski for more discussions of what engineering is.
Actually programming is design. The idea that programming and design are separate tasks leads into the problem thinking that 'cause someone can get a 20 line C++ program to compile he is a programmer.
The problems with "Software Designers" who don't code is opposite. They come up with wonderful "designs" that are completely impractical that cannot work. But at least they get to blame the programmers.
Even if you put up your own Web server, you have to connect to the Internet somehow. Big corporations can still try to bully your upstream provider into pulling the plug on you, and since big corporations own virtually all of our mass media outlets, perhaps it won't ever get on "60 Minutes"...
True, however if you connect via the phone company (i.e. DSL not Cable modem) you probably will have less trouble, as phone companies are less likely to try and police contents of your Web server.
Of course if you use AOL/TW then you probably will not be allowed to put up a web server.
If we become desperate we can always run dial-up UUCP or do radio-waves based networking, especially now that FCC allowed mini-radio stations...
Today, I am responsible for the content of my web site, and the buck stops here. If my ISP becomes co-responsible, what is going to happen to the personal website? What about controversial websites, that some find offensive? What about Free (speech) Software websites that some deep-pocketed lawyer-laden business finds offensive.
That's why we all need to put up web servers and be our own ISPs. Big corporations will have harder time bullying citizens excersizing their free speech. It doesn't look good on "60 Minutes".
Moreover, we have to make it easy for people who would otherwise use AOL, to set up their own web servers so that they can be in control of the "content" they want to create.
Do that to the phone company, you'll get ignored. Do that do a small ISP, you'll *still* get ignored. But do that to any ISP with a division between engineers and management, and your target is toast. Yeah, like AOL/TW...
That's why we all should become our own ISPs. Just get a DSL line into your house and run your own mail/web servers.
Slashdot Mirror
Except that label do not pay for for the cost of recording. Typically they lend money to the artist and they are paid back from the CD sales.
That's why many "one-hit-wonders" artists wind up in serious debt. For example, TLC the group that won the "best-new-artist" grammy few years ago had to declare bankrupcy. Even though their CD sold several millions of copies, the artists made about $50K each that same year.
One of my favorite blues guitar players is a guy named Anson Fundenburgh (he's from Texas) and here is what he said in an interview:
For the artists that are not interested in the current pop-fashions the Internet gives them a means to easily reach a wider audience at a minimal cost.
P.S. Click here for the entire interview.
PPS. I first heard this guy on public radio.
How is it "stealing" when the person who "owns" it doesn't loose anything? Why do you "steal" music by listening to the radio? You "steal" music by watching MTV and flipping to other channels when the commercials come on.
Musicians can make money the same way we all do, by working (i.e. performing). Most musicians who make great music are hardly know to a lot of people. Think of some of the best jazz musicians and how they made a living.
There are tons of performers out there who will never sell a million CDs and so big record companies are not interested in them.
Here are some of my favorites: Debbie Davies, Anson Fundenburg, or Ani Difranco. Have you heard of any of these people?
With Internet and MP3 these artist can reach a much wider audience of people who like their music. This is great, I don't need some stupid record executive picking my music for me.
I see the banners now: "Linux! Good enough to make 'Titanic', but not good enough to see it"
No, no, no. The correct response is "I'll be happy to make this change for you. My fee is $500/hour". Those are wealthy organizations after all.
The answer is simple. Provide value. If whatever you sell is cheaper to get via the internet for free (even if not legally), no one will buy your thing.
If on the other hand you can add something to whatever you sell so that it's more attractive to buy then you'll have customers.
For example, no one has to buy anything from Red Hat, yet they seem to be making money. That's because sometimes it's just less hassle to buy a CD for $50 bucks with a nice book, rather than download for hours (or even minutes).
The movie and music industry are addicted to their outrageous profits and they are fighting to keep the status quo. In longer term it's a losing game.
Considering what we know now about deterministic, but chaotic systems, and how complex behaviour arises from simple rules, I don't think we need to resort to quantum theory at all.
You must be thinking of "The Mind's I". Which is a collection of essays/stories compiled by Hoftsadter and Dennett, that included some of their essays along with stories from Lem.
It presents a very compelling theory of how the mind works.
The desktop metaphor is dead. Today's children use computers before they have desks.
Anyway here is an article on possible UI alternatives from Jacob Nielsen: The Anti-Mac Interface.
What makes you think anyone would want to buy it?
Well, I can understand the choice of Java. But if you want to write a server in a language other than C++ or Java, you might consider Eiffel.
Eiffel definition is controlled by a user organization (NICE), there is GNU Eiffel compiler in addition to several commercial ones. Plus Eiffel is very portable.
The only problem with Eiffel that there aren't as many libraries as there are for Java.
The project sounds great, but why did you implement in a language that not an open standard?
I would also recomend the "Cyberiad" and "Tales of Pirx the Pilot".
I would think that "Fiasco" is little to advanced to a 13 year old, but I guess it depends on the person.
Actually the telegraph reshaped the world's communications in the 19th century. Once the telegraph network was in place it was possible to pass a message around the world in seconds.
Until then the fastest way send a message was by horse at maybe 100 miles/day. Think about that paradigm shift.
The internet is just improved on telegraph.
My current favorite programming language is Eiffel. You can express your designs much better in Eiffel than C++. You should check it out.
As far as getting a design right. How can you tell it's right unless you implement it? Except for very obvious things that have been tested by others before (like how do you design a hash table), you cannot tell a priori that a design is good.
Unless you have quite a bit of experience implementing systems you will not know how to design it.
Designing user interfaces is a completely different thing. This is not software design, but human factors design. I'm sure it wasn't an aircraft designer who thought that the knob that rasises and lowers the landing gear should be shaped like a wheel.
P.S. I'm not perfect either. I never said I was.
In Norman Mailer's book "Fire on the Moon" he described the difference between science and engineering. For example the science of how to go from Earth to the Moon was solved by Isaac Newton.
But to actually get people to the Moon required quite a bit of engineering.
In more general terms engineering is the art of building useful things on time and under budget.
P.S. See several books by Henry Petroski for more discussions of what engineering is.
The problems with "Software Designers" who don't code is opposite. They come up with wonderful "designs" that are completely impractical that cannot work. But at least they get to blame the programmers.
True, however if you connect via the phone company (i.e. DSL not Cable modem) you probably will have less trouble, as phone companies are less likely to try and police contents of your Web server.
Of course if you use AOL/TW then you probably will not be allowed to put up a web server.
If we become desperate we can always run dial-up UUCP or do radio-waves based networking, especially now that FCC allowed mini-radio stations...
That's why we all need to put up web servers and be our own ISPs. Big corporations will have harder time bullying citizens excersizing their free speech. It doesn't look good on "60 Minutes".
Moreover, we have to make it easy for people who would otherwise use AOL, to set up their own web servers so that they can be in control of the "content" they want to create.
That's why we all should become our own ISPs. Just get a DSL line into your house and run your own mail/web servers.