they don't compete all that much with the conventional audio/video stores.
Mine did. I made sure of it. The public appreciated it and our circulation went up. I know I'm not the only librarian in the country who kept their AV collection up to date. Are we gonna have movies when Blockbuster does? Well, no. Even with a good budget you can't afford to get everything at $100/copy. Especially when people damage them after a week. But we did get a few things right away. Music we were able to order the week it was released. Even Eminem.
And if you were really looking for something specific there was something you could do about it. You could ask us to order it (even before the release date) and we'd put a hold on it for you so you'd get it first. There is a reasonable chance that you can expect to find specific titles in a library collection.
I promise, librarians won't bite you if you ask for something to be purchased. (OK, maybe some will, but they are the sort of person who would bite you even if they weren't a librarian.) The number one goal is to make the collection suitable to the public. Purchase requests are a big part of that. Get your friends to ask too. Like I said, it can take some effort. But it can be done.
Of course, none of this supplants the inherent laziness in using P2P which I suspect will never be overcome. Especially here in America. All I can suggest is that the "travel to library + a little patience + $0" option will get you a CD that more often than not will sound perfect whereas downloading the CD may take some time due to crappy sounding mp3s, misnamed files, RIAA DoS attacks etc etc.
Not much of an argument, I'm sure. I just wanted to remind everyone that you do have options. That there is audio CD rental.
It can take a little work. What an archaic notion, huh? I must be old or something.
It's called your local library. A lot of times you won't even have to pay to rent the CDs. You can just borrow them free of charge. (Provided you don't damage or fail to return them.)
Or did you mean one that did not involve you leaving your domicile?
Put a little effort in to it. You can find lots of things at libraries. And what you can't find they will often get for you. Yes, I should know. That used to be my job. I was more than happy to buy things that people were asking for.
I can't really disagree with what you've said here. But I can't help asking (serious question, really): do people use mp3s because they want/need to play music on their computers, or, do people use their computers to play music because they want to use mp3s?
And nonetheless, I think my original point holds: computers are better at playing music than they are at playing movies. At the very least they are good enough at playing music to meet the needs of some people listening to music.
OTOH, I cannot match or exceed the experience of watching DVDs on my tv/stereo/couch by watching divxs (divxii? divxen?) on my computer. Yes, I am too lazy to go and look up the accepted plural of divx.
This is one of the many reasons people seem to be sticking with DVDs over Divx but want to move away from CDs and use mp3s. It has to do with how they (movies and music) are used differently in our lives.
I just hadn't noticed anyone else mention this so I thought I'd throw it out there.
I'd suspect (though I have no proof) that a significant factor here is that a good number of people do most of their music listening on their computer (at work or otherwise). This is certainly true for me. Thus the mp3 format is so popular. Small files that sound good. And they're easily accessible right at your desk.
A movie is a totally different experience. I will always choose to watch a movie on my 27" tv rather than a smaller (even 19" is too small) computer monitor. Screen size is important. And in addition to that my couch is more comfortable and my stereo speakers are better than my computer speakers. Why on earth would I watch movies on my computer? (OK, maybe while travelling but that's a different environment anyway.)
Not to mention what others have already brought up: Divx quality is noticeably lower than DVD quality, while mp3s can and do approach CD quality.
There. Those are my pre-coffee thoughts on the matter.
Yeah. You're making a difference. Does not change that the majority of people trading files are doing so for one reason: they want musicians (or other creative people) to do the work and they want to give nothing back.
For every single example of someone, like yourself, who does give back, how many do not? And, if it weren't for the tax, would you voluntarily contribute money to the artists?
Now, if this home recording tax were international, then we'd have something. And for the record I would support that idea. I'm sure countless people here would oppose it as being "unfair."
Even though I suggested I wouldn't be able to respond to replies immediately that does not mean I'm not interested in continuing the discussion. Nor does it mean that I would never reply. It just might take days, instead of hours.
OTOH, I'm aware that things come up which keep people from getting to less important stuff like slashdot. So if that's the case, I apologize.
Just trying to keep the ideas flowing. The worst thing that happens is that we both continue to re-examine and sharpen our arguments.
That's funny. I would have sworn that Diamond won that lawsuit making it perfectly legitimate for you to make mp3s from the CDs you own and listen to them on your personal mp3 player.
I hesitated posting this because it is not really my torch to bear. Finally though, I decided to toss this out there anyway. I'm in the midst of moving so I don't have much time to reply to replies - guess we'll just see how it goes. Consider it a 'speak now..." moment.
Generally speaking--and not intending to demean a musicians' effort--it takes much more time to produce any sizeable program than to produce music. Sure the musician may have been "thinking" of the music for years, becoming inspired, etc. but in the end it's just some number of hours in the recording/editing studio. Programming a decent sized program can be matters of months. One of my projects was actually 1.5 years.
Would you like some examples of albums that took more than 1.5 years to create? I could provide you with a few. I could provide you with even more examples of albums that took months. But let's look closer. In the 1.5 years spent on that project was any time spent pseudo-coding or plotting out what the program should do and how it should do it? If so, that would fall under "thinking" of the program, "becoming inspired" etc. Or, was every second of the 1.5 years spent typing in actual code? If you want to extend this argument to ridiculous proportions you could say that time spent compiling the code doesn't count toward the 1.5 years either. After all, you're not doing any work while it compiles, the compiler is. But isn't that going a little too far?
Music, especially good music, can take just as long as programming can. Saying you didn't intend to demean the efforts of musicians doesn't excuse you or make your demeaning statement go away. What if I say I think making good music takes more effort than programming does. Who's right then? Honestly, neither of us. Both activities take a great deal of effort. You just don't want to admit that.
Musicians, on the other hand, should make their money doing live performances. I don't think anyone would pay a programmer for live performances.
I, myself, would love to see programmers go on tour. I probably would pay a programmer some money to come fix up a little program for me. But he or she'd have to come to my house, to my city to do it. Even so, that's not a fair comparison. Playing a live show every night or (every other night) is not the same thing as spending a few hours coding a night.
Let's see you spend 8-12 months a year sleeping on a bus, or in hotels, running around on stage (yep, that's being athletic and staying in shape) every night with maybe one or two off here and there. Then come back and say that that is the only thing a musician should get paid for. And that if you're not doing that you shouldn't get any income. And that you should never get time off (like how programmers can get vacation time from work). Because if the musicians stop touring the income stops too. And where is the time to write new songs? While sleeping on the bus?
Or, consider this scenario. Musicians often have a hard time getting health insurance. (Just ask Willie Akins if you don't believe me.) Now what happens if a musician breaks a foot while on tour? This limits, especially if they are a drummer, their ability to participate in the only (according to you ) legitimate work a musician can do. Meanwhile, the medical bills are piling up, they've got no insurance and no way to make any income. Granted, breaking a foot will impede the recording process too. But my point is that by saying musicians should only get money from live performances you are saying that if they are injured they are not worth getting any income while they heal. Unless they happen to be rich and can afford all the bills without insurance they are screwed. (I don't actually expect you to care about that, I'm just pointing out a view from another angle.)
I propose that the only value of a programmer is fixing something when it goes wrong. The initial cost of the program should be zero. It's got cultural value as something computer users can share and discuss, but it has no economic value. From now on all of your programs should be available to everyone for free. We will only pay you to fix problems. That 1.5 years you spent on that one project is worthless. To make this match the 'on tour' philosophy a little better you have to come to my city to do it. You can fix it once, and everyone in this city (who shows up) can get the fix for a cost. Then you have to go to the next town to fix it for them. And so on and so on. That's the only way you should get to make money from programming. If you break a finger and can't program that's just too bad.
You do the recording, you're done and watch the money come in. With programming, if you're not constantly improving your product (i.e. spending more development time on it), your product will quickly fall off the radar screen.
How many musicians truly make a living off of a single album? I'm sure there are a few. Some probably do it off of one song. But it's hardly the majority. So, while programmers have to continue to improve their programs, musicians have to improve their music (writing new material etc etc.) or they, too, will drop off the radar.
For me, the value of recorded music is that I can buy a CD once, and then listen to the contents whenever I want however many times I want. I'm pretty selective so when I plunk down the money I'm pretty sure that 10 years from now I'll still be listening to that CD. 15 bucks is damn well worth 10 years of getting to listen to the music. 'Course, I'd rather pay the musicians directly, but that's another story.
They will be compensated. When they do concerts. If they want to earn more money, they'll have to work harder and do more concerts.
So let me get this straight. Musicians should spend months (note the plural there) working hard on music for you to enjoy for free unless they happen to play a show in your town and you happen to be able to make it? Pretty flimsy set of circumstances there. Meanwhile you get the benefits of their labor (listening to the recordings) while giving nothing back to them.
This is what you really want. You want the music and you don't want to reward the artist. All your rationalizations are just a façade to cover this up.
You see, your actions are just like what the RIAA does. (The specifics are different, but the intent and the outcome are the same.) They want to protect their income by screwing over the music fans and the musicians. The fans, in turn, want to protect their money by screwing over the RIAA and the musicians. Exactly how are you better?
How 'bout this: if you only think live music is worth paying for then only listen to live music. Get rid of every recording you have. If recorded music is really just a transitory experience for you, one of no economic value, then why do you need a collection of it? On the other hand, if the recording is worth keeping around, maybe it has some value to you. And maybe you could let the artist know that by helping them pay the rent, or have food, or pay medical bills. Even if they're not on tour.
To circle back around to programming, that would mean my proper channel for telling you that your program is not worth my money is to not use your program whatsoever.
What would be the motivation for musicians to continue to make music if they cannot make a living at it? Out of the goodness of their heart and for your benefit, even though you aren't willing to give them something back?
Like anything else of good quality, it takes a great deal of time and effort to create good music. If the musicians, especially the struggling ones who generally are more interesting, cannot make a living at making music, they'll have to make a living doing something else. After all, you gotta eat. Now, let's assume that some musicians will be driven to make music because they feel they absolutely have to. They'll have less time to make the good music we are all seeking because they'll be spending most of their time just trying to pay the rent and have food.
This is a bad thing.
If you don't want to pay the labels, at least pay the musician directly. Yes, you do owe them that much.
And I've heard the arguments about how they should go on tour and earn their money that way, but I don't buy it. That argument, when boiled down, says that the act of recording is worthless, should not be rewarded and only live music has value. If that is true, then why are you downloading recordings? You want to have a copy so it must hold some value for you. Or do you like to download and keep copies of music you hate?
Recorded music has value to me. It's a different value from a live show, but it's got value nonetheless. If you think only live music has value then I challenge you to put your keyboard where your mouth is and delete all the songs you have on your hard drive(s), mp3 players, cdr's and whatnot. While you're at it, go sell all the music you have bought in your lifetime. What's it to you - it's worthless anyway, right?
Now, we could make this more interesting and extend this 'music should be free' argument to its logical conclusion: there should be no money at all.
Then everything this is free. That would solve a lot of problems.
But only if the majority of music being "shared" online was of birds singing, running water etc etc.
Yes, I know recordings of that stuff exist, but I'd be willing to wager that it's not what most people use file-sharing systems to find.
So you have air, which occurs naturally, that you want to sell vs. a musician trying to make a living making music you like. One is available naturally and requires no human interaction. The other, generally, requires people to make it.
Why are all of you so against supporting the musicians? Forget the labels, send anonymous monetary donations directly to the artist. But do something for them. They're doing something for you.
Or, rebuffle scuffle, or, damn lightning kept me computerless last night.
Fast food is total crap. Cajun food is as American as it gets, and it's no worse for you than typical French fare. The same goes for Tex-Mex, barbeque, and other types of fusions.
Fast food is also what America is famous for. Where would Tex-Mex be without Mexico? What I was getting at is the variety of food we have in this country mostly comes from other places. It doesn't matter if you want Chinese, Japanese, Thai, Vietnamese, Lebanese, Italian, Mexican or anything else. The best places I have ever eaten have all had one thing in common: very little English is spoken in the restaurant. The only real exception here would be if you want pub food.
Music, of course, is a really subjective topic and I'm sure it would not be hard to find people who wouldn't even consider Scott Joplin or Robert Simpson to be in the running for Composer of the 20th century. But to swing over to the UK before I move to a broader world music area let me ask this. How do you know I wasn't referring to Dead Can Dance? Most certainly from the UK, most certainly not rock 'n' roll and most certainly not American. Care to direct me to American artists making music like they did?
Every culture has music unique to it. For example, some of my favorite music comes from Japan. Zydeco may be great, but you won't find any Zydeco artists sounding like Kodo or Geinoh Yamashirogumi.
(Bear with me, I am actually going somewhere with this...)
And while the Rockies may make Stonehenge look like pebbles, would you want to have been one of the people building it? 'Pebble' might not be the first word you'd use to describe it. Especially with the locking tongue and groove action they had going on with the stones on top of the vertical ones. Besides, the Rockies have little to do with America beyond that they just happen to be there. A better counterpoint would have been Rushmore or the Hoover Dam (which is quite stunning to see and is an engineering marvel). Once the playing field is opened up to naturally occuring beauty, well, you will find that everywhere. Kilimanjaro, perhaps?
I better tie this all together now. And I think a <soapbox> warning might be appropriate. In my initial post I was taking a lighthearted stab at America because it really can be viewed as a melting pot of world cultures. This is not a bad thing. But it doesn't mean that all the variety we enjoy here is "American." It just happens to be here. So let's not pretend that we came up with it. We owe to the rest of the world to remember what they have given to us. Of course, if you want to talk about Native American (for lack of a better term) culture that would be a different story. Should we wander down that road and talk about all the crap we put them through?
At the same time I was pointing out that for everything great in American culture, you can find something equally great in another culture that you can't get from America.
Then, toward the end I took a turn to the more serious talking about our inability to teach people to be responsible. Which it seems we somewhat agree on. IMO, America has a tendancy to take the tough issues, sweep them under a rug and act like we shouldn't talk about them. That's why we have all these problems with irresponsible behavior. Firearm handling, drinking and sex would be a good short list to start with. It is, like you said, as if we are afraid that talking about it will make people behave even worse when it comes to these areas. We do need good public education on how to approach these subjects so that people don't end up dead. But beyond covering just the topics I think we should look at the larger picture of why it is important to be responsible. This is the root of many problems we face in this country. The citizens don't bother to take responsibility for their actions nor do they bother to act responsibly in the first place. Overcoming that just might make us better citizens our our states, our country and the world. </soapbox>
It's fun to be erratic, inconsistent, cynical and optimistic. (Just so you know that I don't take myself too seriously...)
instead of two parties, we have the Republicans and the Republican-Wannabes
You might also call these parties the Dumbasses and the Jackasses. You figure out which is which...
The food, and the variety of food, is excellent.
Most of this food (particularly the 'variety' part) originated in other countries. All we do is find a way to make it less healthy than it ought to be.
The music is fantastic once you turn off the damn radio.
And start listening to music from the UK. Not that all Americans make bad music, but like food, a good portion of my favorite music comes from outside the US borders.
And you can't beat the scenery.
Cough, Stonehenge, cough. Seriously though, there are some beautiful parts to America. Do we really need all those stripmalls?
And it's not the gun laws that are so much of a shock as it is all the idiots who buy guns and leave them loaded, lying about where curious kids can go and kill themselves.
This is not the fault of the gun-makers so much as it is the USA's complete inability to teach responsible behavior to its own citizens. Not surprisingly, this is the same problem we have with excess drinking.
It's possible to be a responsible drinker just as it is possible to be a responsible gun owner. You just need someone to bother to teach you something about it.
Funny that you brought this up. I am learning to play bass guitar. And I studied percussion up through college. I switched to bass because I never really like playing the set that much - I was always more in to the gadgets and what not.
Maybe someday I will be in a band. You never know. But that still wouldn't mean we were any good or could make a living at it.
Given the hypothetical "if I download a song" that you brought up, I was asking if you would then hypothetically give them some money for it. You managed to dodge that question by saying how you don't download music.
I do find it interesting that you find value in what the distributors do, but not in what the musicians do when they record. If they didn't record anything the distributors would be meaningless. Don't you need both the recording and someone to distribute it? (They don't have to be different people.)
Personally, I place a higher value on the musician who makes music than I do the distributor. The distributor is providing a service too, but theirs is dependent on the former. It's pretty clear that we just disagree here. Still, I can't resist...
I don't buy the argument that I owe somebody money because I enjoy something. If they haven't done something for me personally, I don't think I owe them a thing.
First of all, "something" is way more vague than what we are talking about. We are talking about musicians making music you like. There's no value in that? That's not worth your money? If it's not, you have the option of not listening to recorded music. Only go to live shows. Yeah, I know there's the radio, but that is a different issue with different circumstances.
Second of all, they have done something for you personally. They made music you like.
Do I owe my neighbors because I enjoy looking at their well-manicured lawns?
If it raises your property value, you probably owe them they same in return. Keep your lawn looking nice so that their property value goes up too. Win-win.
Do I owe the birds because I enjoy hearing them sing?
Yeah, you owe them the effort of cutting up the plastic rings that hold 6-packs together because birds can get caught in them and die.
Do I owe a pretty lady I like watching walk down the street?
Yeah, you owe her to not just think of her as some pretty lady whose purpose is only to be beautiful for your benefit. Or maybe you shouldn't stare at her so much. Some people don't like it. 'Course we are straying into apples/oranges with this one.
Do I owe God because I like looking at the mountains?
Absolutely and without question.
Do I owe Sprint because I like watching their cell phone ads?
Maybe you should sign up with Sprint...
What makes a musician so special?
If you have to ask this question, you shouldn't be listening to music.
There's always something you can do for someone else. Most people just don't bother because they are too busy thinking they are the most important thing running. Do you owe it to them? Yeah, maybe you do.
And what happens when the band you want to hear doesn't come around where you live? I can't recall the last time Radiohead came anywhere near where I live. Oh wait, yes I can. It was never.
And my budget doesn't quite support flying to the UK to see them perform. So, given that seeing them live is pretty much out of the question, I'd say that the number of times I have listened to their CDs far outweighs what I spent buying them.
And, I guess I am just cynical, but I don't think the majority of people local to me are going to be making music of interest. I guess I just don't buy that there is a high quantity of quality musicians lying about.
You could say I would rather listen to recordings of stuff I like than go see some crappy local band play live.
Further, touring takes a lot out of you. And I mean a lot. People cannot simply tour constantly - it's not healthy. So what should they do to make money while recovering from the tour? Should they get another job? That might leave them with precious little time to write new songs to go out and play on tour.
Thank God that Rush leave Canada when they tour. Can't wait to see them this time around.
I suggest to you that the "service" provided to you when you download a song is twofold:
1) that the song was recorded in the first place. that way you get to hear it.
2) you enjoy the song when you listen to it.
You do enjoy listening to the song, right? I mean, that's why you downloaded it, isn't it? For me, I find value in paying for a recording once, so that I can listen to it many many many times. That's better than having to pay every single time I want to hear it.
Blunt version: they recorded it once, you can pay for it once.
Record labels have horribly skewed what's paid to the artist which is why I would much rather pay the artist directly than go through the label system. But if the artist decides to go that route, who am I to say, "well, I disagree morally with your decision to use a label and get cheated out of good money, therefore I'm just going to download your music so you get nothing at all" ?
Or do you regularly donate money directly to the artists whose music you download? If you are not giving them anything and you are enjoying their music then you are getting something for nothing.
However, I do agree with one thing in this thread. Live music rocks! Anyone worth their weight in anything can pull off a good live show. And there's little better in the realm of music than seeing a great concert. Hell, there might not be anything better than a great live show.
But to say a recording is worth nothing is going a little far. And besides, I can think of a few bands that I really like who I'll probably never get to see live. Should I just enjoy their music without rewarding them?
I've found a couple of sites (this one in particular) that manage to sneak pop-ups past Mozilla's built in pop-up killer.
It's not a pr0n site - it does movie reviews - and the pop-ups don't always make it through. That is, there's not a specific way that I can tell you to make it happen. Sometimes I see it on the front page, other times it happens while browsing through the reviews. When I get home from work I'll post a screenshot as evidence.
I'm wondering what makes their method work-around unchecking "open unrequested windows."
I think the entire bookmark interface needs to be redesigned. It suffers from the classic, yet very annoying, programmer flaw: "I have a big monitor with a really high resolution so every one else out there must have the same thing." AKA "well, it looks good on my machine and that's all that matters."
I have lots of bookmarks. Probably too many. And it seems my choices are:
1) Do lots of up and down scrolling to find what I'm looking for. I hate that.
2) Create lots of folders/sub-folders/sub-sub-folders/sub-sub-sub-fo lders to keep the basic bookmark drop-down list within the bounds of my screen. Then I have to navigate several menu-levels deep to find what I am looking for. I hate that too.
Yeah, I could keep fewer bookmarks (and I do delete old ones from time to time) but where's the fun in that?
IANAP, but I know you guys can do better than that.
That came off a bit harsh. I do prefer Mozilla to any other browser. I just wish bookmarks were handled better.
I mean, they've already invaded the sporting world. Yeah, it's considerably easier to get away with it in that arena, but it can still sound pretty dumb. Visa Triple Crown? Nokia Sugar Bowl?
'Cause they grow so much sugar in Finland. (I guess sugar beets is close enough.)
Even if you can't get past the fact that we knew we were really voting for her, here's a thought: that the residents of Missouri preferred a dead Mel Carnahan to a living John Ashcroft says more about Ashcroft than it does about us.
. . . that I live in Missouri and there is a reason we did not elect Ashcroft to the Senate in the first place.
No more shrubbery in office! They've done enough damage. Yeah, I know my state "elected" him, but I sure as hell didn't vote that way.
-r
Re:The same music over and over again
on
Homogenized Music
·
· Score: 1
That might be a non-human, all-tape radio station. We have one where I live and they used to run the same tape for a week then change it for a new one. Lately they've been updating the tape more often.
Funny thing is that their playlist is more interesting than any other radio station around. And a bonus: with no DJ there is no mindless chatter between songs.
Gotta agree with this. One only has to watch 2001 to see how realistic models and camera tricks can appeaer to the viewer. And that came out, what, 9 years before ep. IV?
CGI can be useful here and there but just try to imagine what Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon would have looked like if they had not used ropes and pulleys with people (instead of machines) operating them.
Short version: when stuff isn't really there it's a lot easier to tell that it's not. When stuff is really there, it's really there.
Slashdot Mirror
they don't compete all that much with the conventional audio/video stores.
Mine did. I made sure of it. The public appreciated it and our circulation went up. I know I'm not the only librarian in the country who kept their AV collection up to date. Are we gonna have movies when Blockbuster does? Well, no. Even with a good budget you can't afford to get everything at $100/copy. Especially when people damage them after a week. But we did get a few things right away. Music we were able to order the week it was released. Even Eminem.
And if you were really looking for something specific there was something you could do about it. You could ask us to order it (even before the release date) and we'd put a hold on it for you so you'd get it first. There is a reasonable chance that you can expect to find specific titles in a library collection.
I promise, librarians won't bite you if you ask for something to be purchased. (OK, maybe some will, but they are the sort of person who would bite you even if they weren't a librarian.) The number one goal is to make the collection suitable to the public. Purchase requests are a big part of that. Get your friends to ask too. Like I said, it can take some effort. But it can be done.
Of course, none of this supplants the inherent laziness in using P2P which I suspect will never be overcome. Especially here in America. All I can suggest is that the "travel to library + a little patience + $0" option will get you a CD that more often than not will sound perfect whereas downloading the CD may take some time due to crappy sounding mp3s, misnamed files, RIAA DoS attacks etc etc.
Not much of an argument, I'm sure. I just wanted to remind everyone that you do have options. That there is audio CD rental.
It can take a little work. What an archaic notion, huh? I must be old or something.
-r
It's called your local library. A lot of times you won't even have to pay to rent the CDs. You can just borrow them free of charge. (Provided you don't damage or fail to return them.)
Or did you mean one that did not involve you leaving your domicile?
Put a little effort in to it. You can find lots of things at libraries. And what you can't find they will often get for you. Yes, I should know. That used to be my job. I was more than happy to buy things that people were asking for.
Just FYI.
-r
I can't really disagree with what you've said here. But I can't help asking (serious question, really): do people use mp3s because they want/need to play music on their computers, or, do people use their computers to play music because they want to use mp3s?
And nonetheless, I think my original point holds: computers are better at playing music than they are at playing movies. At the very least they are good enough at playing music to meet the needs of some people listening to music.
OTOH, I cannot match or exceed the experience of watching DVDs on my tv/stereo/couch by watching divxs (divxii? divxen?) on my computer. Yes, I am too lazy to go and look up the accepted plural of divx.
This is one of the many reasons people seem to be sticking with DVDs over Divx but want to move away from CDs and use mp3s. It has to do with how they (movies and music) are used differently in our lives.
I just hadn't noticed anyone else mention this so I thought I'd throw it out there.
-r
I'd suspect (though I have no proof) that a significant factor here is that a good number of people do most of their music listening on their computer (at work or otherwise). This is certainly true for me. Thus the mp3 format is so popular. Small files that sound good. And they're easily accessible right at your desk.
A movie is a totally different experience. I will always choose to watch a movie on my 27" tv rather than a smaller (even 19" is too small) computer monitor. Screen size is important. And in addition to that my couch is more comfortable and my stereo speakers are better than my computer speakers. Why on earth would I watch movies on my computer? (OK, maybe while travelling but that's a different environment anyway.)
Not to mention what others have already brought up: Divx quality is noticeably lower than DVD quality, while mp3s can and do approach CD quality.
There. Those are my pre-coffee thoughts on the matter.
-r
Yeah. You're making a difference. Does not change that the majority of people trading files are doing so for one reason: they want musicians (or other creative people) to do the work and they want to give nothing back.
For every single example of someone, like yourself, who does give back, how many do not? And, if it weren't for the tax, would you voluntarily contribute money to the artists?
Now, if this home recording tax were international, then we'd have something. And for the record I would support that idea. I'm sure countless people here would oppose it as being "unfair."
-r
Even though I suggested I wouldn't be able to respond to replies immediately that does not mean I'm not interested in continuing the discussion. Nor does it mean that I would never reply. It just might take days, instead of hours.
OTOH, I'm aware that things come up which keep people from getting to less important stuff like slashdot. So if that's the case, I apologize.
Just trying to keep the ideas flowing. The worst thing that happens is that we both continue to re-examine and sharpen our arguments.
-r
The main issue remains is so-called leaching. That is, those who take but do not give.
You mean like how people take music for free and do nothing to reward the person who created it?
Labels be damned, just give something back to the people doing the actual work.
-r
That's funny. I would have sworn that Diamond won that lawsuit making it perfectly legitimate for you to make mp3s from the CDs you own and listen to them on your personal mp3 player.
-r
I hesitated posting this because it is not really my torch to bear. Finally though, I decided to toss this out there anyway. I'm in the midst of moving so I don't have much time to reply to replies - guess we'll just see how it goes. Consider it a 'speak now..." moment.
Generally speaking--and not intending to demean a musicians' effort--it takes much more time to produce any sizeable program than to produce music. Sure the musician may have been "thinking" of the music for years, becoming inspired, etc. but in the end it's just some number of hours in the recording/editing studio. Programming a decent sized program can be matters of months. One of my projects was actually 1.5 years.
Would you like some examples of albums that took more than 1.5 years to create? I could provide you with a few. I could provide you with even more examples of albums that took months. But let's look closer. In the 1.5 years spent on that project was any time spent pseudo-coding or plotting out what the program should do and how it should do it? If so, that would fall under "thinking" of the program, "becoming inspired" etc. Or, was every second of the 1.5 years spent typing in actual code? If you want to extend this argument to ridiculous proportions you could say that time spent compiling the code doesn't count toward the 1.5 years either. After all, you're not doing any work while it compiles, the compiler is. But isn't that going a little too far?
Music, especially good music, can take just as long as programming can. Saying you didn't intend to demean the efforts of musicians doesn't excuse you or make your demeaning statement go away. What if I say I think making good music takes more effort than programming does. Who's right then? Honestly, neither of us. Both activities take a great deal of effort. You just don't want to admit that.
Musicians, on the other hand, should make their money doing live performances. I don't think anyone would pay a programmer for live performances.
I, myself, would love to see programmers go on tour. I probably would pay a programmer some money to come fix up a little program for me. But he or she'd have to come to my house, to my city to do it. Even so, that's not a fair comparison. Playing a live show every night or (every other night) is not the same thing as spending a few hours coding a night.
Let's see you spend 8-12 months a year sleeping on a bus, or in hotels, running around on stage (yep, that's being athletic and staying in shape) every night with maybe one or two off here and there. Then come back and say that that is the only thing a musician should get paid for. And that if you're not doing that you shouldn't get any income. And that you should never get time off (like how programmers can get vacation time from work). Because if the musicians stop touring the income stops too. And where is the time to write new songs? While sleeping on the bus?
Or, consider this scenario. Musicians often have a hard time getting health insurance. (Just ask Willie Akins if you don't believe me.) Now what happens if a musician breaks a foot while on tour? This limits, especially if they are a drummer, their ability to participate in the only (according to you ) legitimate work a musician can do. Meanwhile, the medical bills are piling up, they've got no insurance and no way to make any income. Granted, breaking a foot will impede the recording process too. But my point is that by saying musicians should only get money from live performances you are saying that if they are injured they are not worth getting any income while they heal. Unless they happen to be rich and can afford all the bills without insurance they are screwed. (I don't actually expect you to care about that, I'm just pointing out a view from another angle.)
I propose that the only value of a programmer is fixing something when it goes wrong. The initial cost of the program should be zero. It's got cultural value as something computer users can share and discuss, but it has no economic value. From now on all of your programs should be available to everyone for free. We will only pay you to fix problems. That 1.5 years you spent on that one project is worthless. To make this match the 'on tour' philosophy a little better you have to come to my city to do it. You can fix it once, and everyone in this city (who shows up) can get the fix for a cost. Then you have to go to the next town to fix it for them. And so on and so on. That's the only way you should get to make money from programming. If you break a finger and can't program that's just too bad.
You do the recording, you're done and watch the money come in. With programming, if you're not constantly improving your product (i.e. spending more development time on it), your product will quickly fall off the radar screen.
How many musicians truly make a living off of a single album? I'm sure there are a few. Some probably do it off of one song. But it's hardly the majority. So, while programmers have to continue to improve their programs, musicians have to improve their music (writing new material etc etc.) or they, too, will drop off the radar.
For me, the value of recorded music is that I can buy a CD once, and then listen to the contents whenever I want however many times I want. I'm pretty selective so when I plunk down the money I'm pretty sure that 10 years from now I'll still be listening to that CD. 15 bucks is damn well worth 10 years of getting to listen to the music. 'Course, I'd rather pay the musicians directly, but that's another story.
They will be compensated. When they do concerts. If they want to earn more money, they'll have to work harder and do more concerts.
So let me get this straight. Musicians should spend months (note the plural there) working hard on music for you to enjoy for free unless they happen to play a show in your town and you happen to be able to make it? Pretty flimsy set of circumstances there. Meanwhile you get the benefits of their labor (listening to the recordings) while giving nothing back to them.
This is what you really want. You want the music and you don't want to reward the artist. All your rationalizations are just a façade to cover this up.
You see, your actions are just like what the RIAA does. (The specifics are different, but the intent and the outcome are the same.) They want to protect their income by screwing over the music fans and the musicians. The fans, in turn, want to protect their money by screwing over the RIAA and the musicians. Exactly how are you better?
How 'bout this: if you only think live music is worth paying for then only listen to live music. Get rid of every recording you have. If recorded music is really just a transitory experience for you, one of no economic value, then why do you need a collection of it? On the other hand, if the recording is worth keeping around, maybe it has some value to you. And maybe you could let the artist know that by helping them pay the rent, or have food, or pay medical bills. Even if they're not on tour.
To circle back around to programming, that would mean my proper channel for telling you that your program is not worth my money is to not use your program whatsoever.
-r
I will no longer pay for music, period.
What would be the motivation for musicians to continue to make music if they cannot make a living at it? Out of the goodness of their heart and for your benefit, even though you aren't willing to give them something back?
Like anything else of good quality, it takes a great deal of time and effort to create good music. If the musicians, especially the struggling ones who generally are more interesting, cannot make a living at making music, they'll have to make a living doing something else. After all, you gotta eat. Now, let's assume that some musicians will be driven to make music because they feel they absolutely have to. They'll have less time to make the good music we are all seeking because they'll be spending most of their time just trying to pay the rent and have food.
This is a bad thing.
If you don't want to pay the labels, at least pay the musician directly. Yes, you do owe them that much.
And I've heard the arguments about how they should go on tour and earn their money that way, but I don't buy it. That argument, when boiled down, says that the act of recording is worthless, should not be rewarded and only live music has value. If that is true, then why are you downloading recordings? You want to have a copy so it must hold some value for you. Or do you like to download and keep copies of music you hate?
Recorded music has value to me. It's a different value from a live show, but it's got value nonetheless. If you think only live music has value then I challenge you to put your keyboard where your mouth is and delete all the songs you have on your hard drive(s), mp3 players, cdr's and whatnot. While you're at it, go sell all the music you have bought in your lifetime. What's it to you - it's worthless anyway, right?
Now, we could make this more interesting and extend this 'music should be free' argument to its logical conclusion: there should be no money at all.
Then everything this is free. That would solve a lot of problems.
-r
But only if the majority of music being "shared" online was of birds singing, running water etc etc.
Yes, I know recordings of that stuff exist, but I'd be willing to wager that it's not what most people use file-sharing systems to find.
So you have air, which occurs naturally, that you want to sell vs. a musician trying to make a living making music you like. One is available naturally and requires no human interaction. The other, generally, requires people to make it.
Why are all of you so against supporting the musicians? Forget the labels, send anonymous monetary donations directly to the artist. But do something for them. They're doing something for you.
-r
Or, rebuffle scuffle, or, damn lightning kept me computerless last night.
Fast food is total crap. Cajun food is as American as it gets, and it's no worse for you than typical French fare. The same goes for Tex-Mex, barbeque, and other types of fusions.
Fast food is also what America is famous for. Where would Tex-Mex be without Mexico? What I was getting at is the variety of food we have in this country mostly comes from other places. It doesn't matter if you want Chinese, Japanese, Thai, Vietnamese, Lebanese, Italian, Mexican or anything else. The best places I have ever eaten have all had one thing in common: very little English is spoken in the restaurant. The only real exception here would be if you want pub food.
Music, of course, is a really subjective topic and I'm sure it would not be hard to find people who wouldn't even consider Scott Joplin or Robert Simpson to be in the running for Composer of the 20th century. But to swing over to the UK before I move to a broader world music area let me ask this. How do you know I wasn't referring to Dead Can Dance? Most certainly from the UK, most certainly not rock 'n' roll and most certainly not American. Care to direct me to American artists making music like they did?
Every culture has music unique to it. For example, some of my favorite music comes from Japan. Zydeco may be great, but you won't find any Zydeco artists sounding like Kodo or Geinoh Yamashirogumi.
(Bear with me, I am actually going somewhere with this...)
And while the Rockies may make Stonehenge look like pebbles, would you want to have been one of the people building it? 'Pebble' might not be the first word you'd use to describe it. Especially with the locking tongue and groove action they had going on with the stones on top of the vertical ones. Besides, the Rockies have little to do with America beyond that they just happen to be there. A better counterpoint would have been Rushmore or the Hoover Dam (which is quite stunning to see and is an engineering marvel). Once the playing field is opened up to naturally occuring beauty, well, you will find that everywhere. Kilimanjaro, perhaps?
I better tie this all together now. And I think a <soapbox> warning might be appropriate. In my initial post I was taking a lighthearted stab at America because it really can be viewed as a melting pot of world cultures. This is not a bad thing. But it doesn't mean that all the variety we enjoy here is "American." It just happens to be here. So let's not pretend that we came up with it. We owe to the rest of the world to remember what they have given to us. Of course, if you want to talk about Native American (for lack of a better term) culture that would be a different story. Should we wander down that road and talk about all the crap we put them through?
At the same time I was pointing out that for everything great in American culture, you can find something equally great in another culture that you can't get from America.
Then, toward the end I took a turn to the more serious talking about our inability to teach people to be responsible. Which it seems we somewhat agree on. IMO, America has a tendancy to take the tough issues, sweep them under a rug and act like we shouldn't talk about them. That's why we have all these problems with irresponsible behavior. Firearm handling, drinking and sex would be a good short list to start with. It is, like you said, as if we are afraid that talking about it will make people behave even worse when it comes to these areas. We do need good public education on how to approach these subjects so that people don't end up dead. But beyond covering just the topics I think we should look at the larger picture of why it is important to be responsible. This is the root of many problems we face in this country. The citizens don't bother to take responsibility for their actions nor do they bother to act responsibly in the first place. Overcoming that just might make us better citizens our our states, our country and the world.
</soapbox>
It's fun to be erratic, inconsistent, cynical and optimistic. (Just so you know that I don't take myself too seriously...)
-r
instead of two parties, we have the Republicans and the Republican-Wannabes
You might also call these parties the Dumbasses and the Jackasses. You figure out which is which...
The food, and the variety of food, is excellent.
Most of this food (particularly the 'variety' part) originated in other countries. All we do is find a way to make it less healthy than it ought to be.
The music is fantastic once you turn off the damn radio.
And start listening to music from the UK. Not that all Americans make bad music, but like food, a good portion of my favorite music comes from outside the US borders.
And you can't beat the scenery.
Cough, Stonehenge, cough. Seriously though, there are some beautiful parts to America. Do we really need all those stripmalls?
And it's not the gun laws that are so much of a shock as it is all the idiots who buy guns and leave them loaded, lying about where curious kids can go and kill themselves.
This is not the fault of the gun-makers so much as it is the USA's complete inability to teach responsible behavior to its own citizens. Not surprisingly, this is the same problem we have with excess drinking.
It's possible to be a responsible drinker just as it is possible to be a responsible gun owner. You just need someone to bother to teach you something about it.
-r
Funny that you brought this up. I am learning to play bass guitar. And I studied percussion up through college. I switched to bass because I never really like playing the set that much - I was always more in to the gadgets and what not.
Maybe someday I will be in a band. You never know. But that still wouldn't mean we were any good or could make a living at it.
-r
Given the hypothetical "if I download a song" that you brought up, I was asking if you would then hypothetically give them some money for it. You managed to dodge that question by saying how you don't download music.
I do find it interesting that you find value in what the distributors do, but not in what the musicians do when they record. If they didn't record anything the distributors would be meaningless. Don't you need both the recording and someone to distribute it? (They don't have to be different people.)
Personally, I place a higher value on the musician who makes music than I do the distributor. The distributor is providing a service too, but theirs is dependent on the former. It's pretty clear that we just disagree here. Still, I can't resist...
I don't buy the argument that I owe somebody money because I enjoy something. If they haven't done something for me personally, I don't think I owe them a thing.
First of all, "something" is way more vague than what we are talking about. We are talking about musicians making music you like. There's no value in that? That's not worth your money? If it's not, you have the option of not listening to recorded music. Only go to live shows. Yeah, I know there's the radio, but that is a different issue with different circumstances.
Second of all, they have done something for you personally. They made music you like.
Do I owe my neighbors because I enjoy looking at their well-manicured lawns?
If it raises your property value, you probably owe them they same in return. Keep your lawn looking nice so that their property value goes up too. Win-win.
Do I owe the birds because I enjoy hearing them sing?
Yeah, you owe them the effort of cutting up the plastic rings that hold 6-packs together because birds can get caught in them and die.
Do I owe a pretty lady I like watching walk down the street?
Yeah, you owe her to not just think of her as some pretty lady whose purpose is only to be beautiful for your benefit. Or maybe you shouldn't stare at her so much. Some people don't like it. 'Course we are straying into apples/oranges with this one.
Do I owe God because I like looking at the mountains?
Absolutely and without question.
Do I owe Sprint because I like watching their cell phone ads?
Maybe you should sign up with Sprint...
What makes a musician so special?
If you have to ask this question, you shouldn't be listening to music.
There's always something you can do for someone else. Most people just don't bother because they are too busy thinking they are the most important thing running. Do you owe it to them? Yeah, maybe you do.
-r
And what happens when the band you want to hear doesn't come around where you live? I can't recall the last time Radiohead came anywhere near where I live. Oh wait, yes I can. It was never.
And my budget doesn't quite support flying to the UK to see them perform. So, given that seeing them live is pretty much out of the question, I'd say that the number of times I have listened to their CDs far outweighs what I spent buying them.
And, I guess I am just cynical, but I don't think the majority of people local to me are going to be making music of interest. I guess I just don't buy that there is a high quantity of quality musicians lying about.
You could say I would rather listen to recordings of stuff I like than go see some crappy local band play live.
Further, touring takes a lot out of you. And I mean a lot. People cannot simply tour constantly - it's not healthy. So what should they do to make money while recovering from the tour? Should they get another job? That might leave them with precious little time to write new songs to go out and play on tour.
Thank God that Rush leave Canada when they tour. Can't wait to see them this time around.
-r
I suggest to you that the "service" provided to you when you download a song is twofold:
1) that the song was recorded in the first place. that way you get to hear it.
2) you enjoy the song when you listen to it.
You do enjoy listening to the song, right? I mean, that's why you downloaded it, isn't it? For me, I find value in paying for a recording once, so that I can listen to it many many many times. That's better than having to pay every single time I want to hear it.
Blunt version: they recorded it once, you can pay for it once.
Record labels have horribly skewed what's paid to the artist which is why I would much rather pay the artist directly than go through the label system. But if the artist decides to go that route, who am I to say, "well, I disagree morally with your decision to use a label and get cheated out of good money, therefore I'm just going to download your music so you get nothing at all" ?
Or do you regularly donate money directly to the artists whose music you download? If you are not giving them anything and you are enjoying their music then you are getting something for nothing.
However, I do agree with one thing in this thread. Live music rocks! Anyone worth their weight in anything can pull off a good live show. And there's little better in the realm of music than seeing a great concert. Hell, there might not be anything better than a great live show.
But to say a recording is worth nothing is going a little far. And besides, I can think of a few bands that I really like who I'll probably never get to see live. Should I just enjoy their music without rewarding them?
-r
as promised.
I know everyone has been waiting with baited breath...
-r
I've found a couple of sites (this one in particular) that manage to sneak pop-ups past Mozilla's built in pop-up killer.
It's not a pr0n site - it does movie reviews - and the pop-ups don't always make it through. That is, there's not a specific way that I can tell you to make it happen. Sometimes I see it on the front page, other times it happens while browsing through the reviews. When I get home from work I'll post a screenshot as evidence.
I'm wondering what makes their method work-around unchecking "open unrequested windows."
Has anyone else seen something like this?
-r
I think the entire bookmark interface needs to be redesigned. It suffers from the classic, yet very annoying, programmer flaw: "I have a big monitor with a really high resolution so every one else out there must have the same thing." AKA "well, it looks good on my machine and that's all that matters."
I have lots of bookmarks. Probably too many. And it seems my choices are:
1) Do lots of up and down scrolling to find what I'm looking for. I hate that.
2) Create lots of folders/sub-folders/sub-sub-folders/sub-sub-sub-f
Yeah, I could keep fewer bookmarks (and I do delete old ones from time to time) but where's the fun in that?
IANAP, but I know you guys can do better than that.
That came off a bit harsh. I do prefer Mozilla to any other browser. I just wish bookmarks were handled better.
-r
I mean, they've already invaded the sporting world. Yeah, it's considerably easier to get away with it in that arena, but it can still sound pretty dumb. Visa Triple Crown? Nokia Sugar Bowl?
'Cause they grow so much sugar in Finland. (I guess sugar beets is close enough.)
-r
Strange, but she doesn't look very dead to me.
Even if you can't get past the fact that we knew we were really voting for her, here's a thought: that the residents of Missouri preferred a dead Mel Carnahan to a living John Ashcroft says more about Ashcroft than it does about us.
-r
. . . that I live in Missouri and there is a reason we did not elect Ashcroft to the Senate in the first place.
No more shrubbery in office! They've done enough damage. Yeah, I know my state "elected" him, but I sure as hell didn't vote that way.
-r
That might be a non-human, all-tape radio station. We have one where I live and they used to run the same tape for a week then change it for a new one. Lately they've been updating the tape more often.
Funny thing is that their playlist is more interesting than any other radio station around. And a bonus: with no DJ there is no mindless chatter between songs.
-r
Gotta agree with this. One only has to watch 2001 to see how realistic models and camera tricks can appeaer to the viewer. And that came out, what, 9 years before ep. IV?
CGI can be useful here and there but just try to imagine what Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon would have looked like if they had not used ropes and pulleys with people (instead of machines) operating them.
Short version: when stuff isn't really there it's a lot easier to tell that it's not. When stuff is really there, it's really there.
-r