I don't think this compares to recorded music. Paying your admission fee to the amusement park is not buying a part of their property so of course someone who doesn't pay isn't stealing their property.
Right, i forgot about varicam. It has 4x the datarate of DV/DVCPRO so you can only fit 1/4 the time on a DVCPRO tape. I used a P2 camera on a shoot a few months ago and it would only put HD on the P2 cards and only DV on the built-in tape drive.
Its a $1000 consumer-based camera with double the color resolution per pixel compared to DV, so I don't think the thing has good enough optics for anyone to notice the difference between 4:2:2 and 4:4:4. Also, nobody said that HD requires 4:4:4 although I'm sure sony would like everyone to think so since they are the only one with a full aquisition solution (HDCAM SR)
Not to mention tape is cheaper than hard drives and you don't have to erase it when you run out of space, just stick another tape in. After capture, put your tapes on the shelf and you already have a backup of your source.
Tapes aren't going away yet, there are several HD formats in the pro video world that are tape-based, although they aren't mini-enough for consumer user. That's ok because HDV is pretty good for consumer video. Right now the only removable memory system in pro video uses solid state cards http://panasonic.com/business/provideo/p2/index.as p and they are kinda 'spensive for the size. Panny doesn't have a tape format that can take DVCPRO HD, just these P2 cards.
Uh, last time I checked you could get generic loratadine in every Walmart in the country. Claritin certainly was highly advertised.
Schering-Plough tried to sue keep the generics off the market, but the FTC shut them down. They also tried the trick I mentioned patenting the a substance that the body creates when taking claritin or the generic form, (that's what Clarinex is) but this didn't compel any courts to rule in their favor. Thus the generics can now be had. So it looks like Schering-Plough is not hesitant to use their legal team to boost profits. The generic companies did everything by the book so why make them face these expensive legal challenges?
Simvastatin is available generically despite the fact that Zocor was once the biggest-selling drug around. It has caused a price drop on all statins as a result.
Here, at least, merck does it right by actually competing in the MARKETPLACE instead of the courtroom. They lowered the price of Zocor when the generics came out. Plus it was a great kick in the balls to Pfizer, who had to lower Lipitor prices in response.
There are a lot of different drugs out there. The big-market ones that you see in tv ads are a thousand times more lucrative (or more) for the drug companies than the run-of-the-mill drugs. Sure, a company can make a generic of some drug that is not a big seller in branded form and didn't have a half-billion dollar marketing campaign behind it. There are lots of these. But enter the market with a generic of a drug formerly in a superbowl ad and the big company lawyers will sue you into submission.
There was another example of this where drug company A's patent on a symptom pill was about to expire, so they make some minor change to it, change the name and get another 10 years out of it. Meanwhile, drug company B releases a generic form of A's patent-expired drug and gets promptly sued by A for patent violation. "It's expired" you say, "how can they sue?" It's because company a sets up a cage of side patents around the drug, everything from how the pill is coated to broadly sweeping descriptions like "drug is delivered by a time-release mechanism". Even if these things have been used before on other drugs, even the same TYPE of drug, company A claims patent infrigement based on the "unique combination with our product". In another example, company A patents a substance that is created inside the body when a patient takes the branded or generic versions of their drug, therefor taking generics creates a patent violation in the patient's body! This is just a (cheap) way of of trying to outlaw generics.
So it looks to me like the legal team of a corporation is now required to become a profit center, rather than just provide protection for company interests. With rising drug costs far outpacing inflation AND the great profit increases for most drug companies, it seems like the legal teams and the multi-billion dollar marketing campaigns are paying off.
Where Frontalot and other rap about geeky things, I would say that Barman is geeky about rapping and wordplay. His subject matter is not overtly geeky but the amount of dedication he has to the craft of rhyming it astounding.
The MSR is fighting a losing battle because if they do truely come out with something innovative, it will get lost in a sea of mundane product announcements that ALL are tagged "innovative" by marketing. It's the company that cried "innovative". I just tune the word out when it comes to microsoft.
It adds a certain timbre to the vocal. I first noticed it when it was intentionally overused for effect, which sounds like Cher's "Believe", but then I started noticing that same type of vocal sound in places where it was not so obvious. Now when I point it out to my wife, she can hear it and asks me to stop telling her so she can just enjoy the song. My point was that I think the girls you mentioned ARE good singers, but when producers use these tools, I think it lowers the credibility of the singer.
Yeah, i see your point. I didn't correlate that part of my post with the parent's statement about the "death of IP", even though that was only part of my answer. To go off on a tangent a bit, I do think that despite the easy and free availability of media through the net, clever producers will find revenue streams that others haven't though of and that take advantage of the net's ability to copy data easily. Some forms of media may die, like maybe prime-time tv, but others will rise up in their place. Game developers will figure out non-invasive ways to secure their products, like maybe MAC-address based activation, or maybe PC gaming will die out to be replaced by console gaming that is harder to pirate. Who knows, but I believe what the parent said, its a fact and that we better start trying to figure it out.
I'm a musician, so I get your point and I don't think its always easy do play simple punk or rock, but that is besides the point. The poster suggested that if the pro's leave the scene, all we will be left with is bad musicians so maybe I didn't make myself clear. The pro scene has it's share of good and bad musicians as does the amature scene.
Oh, and I used to think that both singers you mentioned were good until I started hearing more autotune on their recordings. I'm not saying they can't sing well but gratuitous use of autotune makes me think that they can't keep in tune.
so what? the next time the kid wants an album all he has to do is go to his dad and get it. he could probably get free copies of the album anytime. Well, thats exactly what the CEO of Time Warner admitted to.
So what about the people who spend $1000+ on equipment but don't sell any music because it isn't very good. Should I have to pay for their equipment too? Nobody buys equipment as an "investment" on their future sales. Thats just foolish. Most musicians I know view income from sales or gigs as a way to purchase new or upgraded equipment.
Perhaps you could write music for film, TV, or videogames. Get to know sound production well and you could land a full-time gig as a sound editor for a video post house. Sound editors with musical skills are more valuable that those who aren't. Also, you could build up a following on the web for your band that could help increase ticket sales when you tour. There is an example where giving away MP3s would be beneficial. If I was a young musician today, i wouldn't be working towards a label deal, I would be full-on involved with the web to find my fanbase. It amazes me today that so many young bands are still awed at the prospect of a record contract. I see this in the musician wanted ads on craigslist all the time ("we have management and are courting labels") and when I talk to bands in the local scene. I just want to ask them, do you really want the 1000:1 chance that your band won't be worse off than before they signed, owing the label thousands for recoupables if their cd doesn't break 200,000 copies? And if they do, what is the chance that they will be the next multi-platinum artist and actually make a few million, another 1000:1? It;s ust as risky as the lotter, but you pay with your sweat and soul.
If the world is full of people creating music, and some do it for profit and some do it for love, what do you think will be left when the people doing it for profit leave the scene?
Um, less talented musicians? LOL! How many of the albums with a million+ sales are from really talented musicians?
content creation only costs money if you're trying to sell the content for a profit in today's market. Content creation on its own costs nothing but labor, and if it's a labor of love, you get emotionally paid.
Which means so much when it comes to paying a mortgage and educating and feeding your children. What if really talented musicians could actually make a living by creating music, so that they could do it all day long instead of only after they get home from their day job? Wouldn't that be better for everyone? Yes, it would. It would be cool, but it certainly won't be with the help of the labels. And probably not by selling your songs on the web but perhaps by playing shows, doing session work, or getting creative about incentives for fans to donate (like "Top donor in January gets their name in a song!") Nothing that the RIAA is doing to stem the tide of "stolen music" is going to help anyone but the record execs and their top artists.
I have only noticed the audio thing on my Nokia GSM phone. The motorola GSM phones my family uses don't do that and none of the CDMA phones I've had in the past (5 or 6, i think) did that. Sometimes does drive me nuts.
I have an LG from a few years ago that had a menu option for turning off the GPS/e911 but I don't know for sure if it actually did. I guess the only way to test it would be make a 911 call with it off and i never had an occasion to call 911 with it.
First, its incorrect that a federal law that phones have to have GPS. The law states (look upthread for link) just that it has to be locatable to route 911 calls correctly. This is done on non-gps phones by cell tower triangulation. This means that it wouldn't matter even if you could figure out a way to shut off the GPS, the phone's radio signal will still give away it's location. However, the (partially) good news is that the accuracy of location technology doesn't have to be in feet or even tens of feet. It just has to be good enough to know what township you are in in order to route 911 calls. So the feds won't know when you are actually in your mistress's house, just when you are in her town.
I have the OpenX, it came in the exact kind of package that it is designed to open which said "this is the last plastic package you wil struggle to open". I don't think it does that great a job anyway, I prefer regular kitchen scissors.
Thats a pretty clever idea. I think I'll look around for one with 3 outlets. My last bluetooth headseat (blueant x3), charges off USB *and* came with both 110->USB and lighter->USB chargers, so I can use the 12v one with your solution.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree, 12m is not a steep cost to do business in this arena.
It reminds me of those insider traders that got caught and made to pay fines that amounted to small fractions of their profits.
I don't think this compares to recorded music. Paying your admission fee to the amusement park is not buying a part of their property so of course someone who doesn't pay isn't stealing their property.
Right, i forgot about varicam. It has 4x the datarate of DV/DVCPRO so you can only fit 1/4 the time on a DVCPRO tape. I used a P2 camera on a shoot a few months ago and it would only put HD on the P2 cards and only DV on the built-in tape drive.
Its a $1000 consumer-based camera with double the color resolution per pixel compared to DV, so I don't think the thing has good enough optics for anyone to notice the difference between 4:2:2 and 4:4:4. Also, nobody said that HD requires 4:4:4 although I'm sure sony would like everyone to think so since they are the only one with a full aquisition solution (HDCAM SR)
Not to mention tape is cheaper than hard drives and you don't have to erase it when you run out of space, just stick another tape in. After capture, put your tapes on the shelf and you already have a backup of your source.
Tapes aren't going away yet, there are several HD formats in the pro video world that are tape-based, although they aren't mini-enough for consumer user. That's ok because HDV is pretty good for consumer video. Right now the only removable memory system in pro video uses solid state cards http://panasonic.com/business/provideo/p2/index.as p and they are kinda 'spensive for the size. Panny doesn't have a tape format that can take DVCPRO HD, just these P2 cards.
Schering-Plough tried to sue keep the generics off the market, but the FTC shut them down. They also tried the trick I mentioned patenting the a substance that the body creates when taking claritin or the generic form, (that's what Clarinex is) but this didn't compel any courts to rule in their favor. Thus the generics can now be had. So it looks like Schering-Plough is not hesitant to use their legal team to boost profits. The generic companies did everything by the book so why make them face these expensive legal challenges?
Here, at least, merck does it right by actually competing in the MARKETPLACE instead of the courtroom. They lowered the price of Zocor when the generics came out. Plus it was a great kick in the balls to Pfizer, who had to lower Lipitor prices in response.
There are a lot of different drugs out there. The big-market ones that you see in tv ads are a thousand times more lucrative (or more) for the drug companies than the run-of-the-mill drugs. Sure, a company can make a generic of some drug that is not a big seller in branded form and didn't have a half-billion dollar marketing campaign behind it. There are lots of these. But enter the market with a generic of a drug formerly in a superbowl ad and the big company lawyers will sue you into submission.
There was another example of this where drug company A's patent on a symptom pill was about to expire, so they make some minor change to it, change the name and get another 10 years out of it. Meanwhile, drug company B releases a generic form of A's patent-expired drug and gets promptly sued by A for patent violation. "It's expired" you say, "how can they sue?" It's because company a sets up a cage of side patents around the drug, everything from how the pill is coated to broadly sweeping descriptions like "drug is delivered by a time-release mechanism". Even if these things have been used before on other drugs, even the same TYPE of drug, company A claims patent infrigement based on the "unique combination with our product". In another example, company A patents a substance that is created inside the body when a patient takes the branded or generic versions of their drug, therefor taking generics creates a patent violation in the patient's body! This is just a (cheap) way of of trying to outlaw generics.
So it looks to me like the legal team of a corporation is now required to become a profit center, rather than just provide protection for company interests. With rising drug costs far outpacing inflation AND the great profit increases for most drug companies, it seems like the legal teams and the multi-billion dollar marketing campaigns are paying off.
Where Frontalot and other rap about geeky things, I would say that Barman is geeky about rapping and wordplay. His subject matter is not overtly geeky but the amount of dedication he has to the craft of rhyming it astounding.
You neglected to mention that EBN did this (originally) with videotape machines. Quite a bit more difficult than using Avid or FCP.
The MSR is fighting a losing battle because if they do truely come out with something innovative, it will get lost in a sea of mundane product announcements that ALL are tagged "innovative" by marketing. It's the company that cried "innovative". I just tune the word out when it comes to microsoft.
Too bad those pages are over 7 years old. There is tons of stuff they could add.
It adds a certain timbre to the vocal. I first noticed it when it was intentionally overused for effect, which sounds like Cher's "Believe", but then I started noticing that same type of vocal sound in places where it was not so obvious. Now when I point it out to my wife, she can hear it and asks me to stop telling her so she can just enjoy the song. My point was that I think the girls you mentioned ARE good singers, but when producers use these tools, I think it lowers the credibility of the singer.
Yeah, i see your point. I didn't correlate that part of my post with the parent's statement about the "death of IP", even though that was only part of my answer. To go off on a tangent a bit, I do think that despite the easy and free availability of media through the net, clever producers will find revenue streams that others haven't though of and that take advantage of the net's ability to copy data easily. Some forms of media may die, like maybe prime-time tv, but others will rise up in their place. Game developers will figure out non-invasive ways to secure their products, like maybe MAC-address based activation, or maybe PC gaming will die out to be replaced by console gaming that is harder to pirate. Who knows, but I believe what the parent said, its a fact and that we better start trying to figure it out.
I'm a musician, so I get your point and I don't think its always easy do play simple punk or rock, but that is besides the point. The poster suggested that if the pro's leave the scene, all we will be left with is bad musicians so maybe I didn't make myself clear. The pro scene has it's share of good and bad musicians as does the amature scene.
Oh, and I used to think that both singers you mentioned were good until I started hearing more autotune on their recordings. I'm not saying they can't sing well but gratuitous use of autotune makes me think that they can't keep in tune.
Wonder if "put on" means purchased or not.
So what about the people who spend $1000+ on equipment but don't sell any music because it isn't very good. Should I have to pay for their equipment too? Nobody buys equipment as an "investment" on their future sales. Thats just foolish. Most musicians I know view income from sales or gigs as a way to purchase new or upgraded equipment.
Perhaps you could write music for film, TV, or videogames. Get to know sound production well and you could land a full-time gig as a sound editor for a video post house. Sound editors with musical skills are more valuable that those who aren't. Also, you could build up a following on the web for your band that could help increase ticket sales when you tour. There is an example where giving away MP3s would be beneficial. If I was a young musician today, i wouldn't be working towards a label deal, I would be full-on involved with the web to find my fanbase. It amazes me today that so many young bands are still awed at the prospect of a record contract. I see this in the musician wanted ads on craigslist all the time ("we have management and are courting labels") and when I talk to bands in the local scene. I just want to ask them, do you really want the 1000:1 chance that your band won't be worse off than before they signed, owing the label thousands for recoupables if their cd doesn't break 200,000 copies? And if they do, what is the chance that they will be the next multi-platinum artist and actually make a few million, another 1000:1? It;s ust as risky as the lotter, but you pay with your sweat and soul.
I have only noticed the audio thing on my Nokia GSM phone. The motorola GSM phones my family uses don't do that and none of the CDMA phones I've had in the past (5 or 6, i think) did that. Sometimes does drive me nuts.
I have an LG from a few years ago that had a menu option for turning off the GPS/e911 but I don't know for sure if it actually did. I guess the only way to test it would be make a 911 call with it off and i never had an occasion to call 911 with it.
First, its incorrect that a federal law that phones have to have GPS. The law states (look upthread for link) just that it has to be locatable to route 911 calls correctly. This is done on non-gps phones by cell tower triangulation. This means that it wouldn't matter even if you could figure out a way to shut off the GPS, the phone's radio signal will still give away it's location. However, the (partially) good news is that the accuracy of location technology doesn't have to be in feet or even tens of feet. It just has to be good enough to know what township you are in in order to route 911 calls. So the feds won't know when you are actually in your mistress's house, just when you are in her town.
I have the OpenX, it came in the exact kind of package that it is designed to open which said "this is the last plastic package you wil struggle to open". I don't think it does that great a job anyway, I prefer regular kitchen scissors.
Thats a pretty clever idea. I think I'll look around for one with 3 outlets. My last bluetooth headseat (blueant x3), charges off USB *and* came with both 110->USB and lighter->USB chargers, so I can use the 12v one with your solution.