I would be shocked if a simple statement of truth got you modded flamebait (if you want an example of flamebait, I think my initial post is a fairly good example).
It is true that Clinton signed the DMCA into law.
Clinton is just another fascist. Nothing remarkable at all, especially considering the direction of our country lately.
Here we go. Found some data on what parties get donations from the MPAA and RIAA. Turns out it's about 2 to 1 to the Dems (as sourced by the Center for Responsive Politics). $41 million in 2002 (the biggest year).
I don't care if it's democrats or republicans. My main point stands. Corporations vote by buying legislators. The only vote we have left is our own money. Choose to donate to these bastards at your peril. Be you democrat or republican, any amount of money spent with corporations in either of these trade organizations is treason.:)
Early adopters are dumb Republicans. 35 bucks for a movie? 120 for a trilogy? How much for the player that may or may not have anything to play next year?
Stop giving these companies money. These companies have more of a vote in this "democracy" than you do. Vote with your dollar, don't support industries that lobby for crappy legislation.
Does this remind anyone of the current climate science "debate" where every single reputable phD feels strongly that humans are impacting the environment yet the shrillest and loudest of an incredibly small dissenting crowd (that happens to have powerful motives) are picked to broadcast their ignorance to the masses via the media?
Oh well. We might as well fold on this too, just like we'll fold on global warming and "democracy", let alone human rights. How can this not fail? It is in the conservative powers perceived best interest to make open communication and a free competative marketplace of ideas go away. It can only take power from the government. It will never empower the leaders.
I don't commit bombings, but I sure would cheer if one hit the GOP convention. The climate change deniers, the gay bashers, any one of 'em, worse for this country than the terrorists. Good God, the death of Jerry Falwell will bring more peace to the world than killing the top 100 leaders of al queda.
We'll never see eye to eye. I hate the right. HATE. I feel no need to compromise, and certainly no need to be civil.
Yeah, this country pretty much sucks the big one. We're racist, fascist, imperialist, and we're comfortable enough not caring. We're without conscience (or at least a voting majority are).
You are wrong. The world is changing and we're causing it. Unfortunately, the point of no return has been passed (mindshare wise). Not only do I no longer care, I am now doing everything I can to hasten our progress down this beautiful downward spiral.
Personally, I pollute as much as I legally can. I would drive a larger SUV if I could afford to burn the gas. I vote Republican. I donate to the RNC. I vote to take away gun ownership rights. In short, I will do everything in my power to remove the rights you have taken for granted and shown yourself to be so willing to trade away for some temporary piece of mind. Every one of your cowardly wishes are my command.
Why would I do this? Because I hate you and your children, and what they've selfishly taken from everyone else. I hate everyone who voted Bush, and I sincerely hope society reaps the what you've sewn.
ATI has proven itself to be unreliable and basically dishonest. Additionally, there is no money motive to do this. Linux users are such a tiny fraction of the graphic card buying market that there is no reason for them to do this work.
Sure would be nice to have open source drivers for any decent 3d graphics card under linux. But it's all about money. Corporations are beholden to their shareholders, and board members can even get sued for pursuing a non-profitable course of action. This would most certainly fall into the non-profitable category.
Please please please vote with your dollars (it's the only vote you have that counts in this country). Even if that means not buying another video card. You're only supporting crap buy purchasing ATI.
Companies should not be treated like citizens. Or, if they ARE treated like citizens, they should be just as accountable as citizens. They have the best of both worlds. They have more influence than you (just try getting heard by a congressmen without a lobbyist) over YOUR GOVERNMENT. For crying out loud. These entities are writing our laws AND influencing our legislative elections. Sure they can't vote, but they can sell the government the machines used to tabulate the count.
We need some severe curtailment of corporate rights. Immediately.
Your scenario is not even remotely realistic. In any population where a choice is conferred you will have people who choose "not to." So not EVERYONE will carry a gun if it's legal. If it were legal for students to carry weapons on campus (not "if a large number of VT students were all carrying concealed weapons") it is more likely that someone able to fight back would have been close enouogh to the offender to... well... fight back... than if it were not legal. The straw man is that "lots of students carrying guns would have saved lives." No one thinks that. "lots of students freely able to excercise their 2nd ammendment rights would have saved lives" is the contention.
Consider: You are carrying a concealed weapon and you hear gunfire coming from the room down the hall. You do not draw your weapon because you have had a mandatory GUN SAFETY CLASS. Instead you do the correct and responsible thing and phone the cops. Then you find a defensible position and hole up.
Additionally, as a previous poster has already pointed out, the right to bare arms certainly played a roll in how the Texas shooting wound up. Go ahead and read an account of that story and tell me that fewer people would've died if arms were restricted.
I hate what happened. I don't think that gun control is the answer unless you can control all guns. And you can't.
Whatever. It's clear that this guy wasn't following the rule about not carrying guns. Good thing his victims were too. It clearly did them a lot of good. Remember, once guns are illegal, no one will have them, not even criminals, so don't worry about it.
Obviously there's blockbuster and walmart. Try greencine.com for more independant films (and porn). Or gameznflix.com does both games (for every current console) and movies.
In short, Rails is a brilliant architecture, and Agile Web Development with Ruby on Rails is a great book.
I believe that not grokking MVC detracts from the value of your review, particularly with respect to your opinion of the architecture of Rails. Without understanding MVC, you can have no understanding of the design decisions they made, and as such, no qualified understanding of the architecture itself.
The worst part, in my estimation, is that this generation of MIMO technology isn't what the final 802.11n specification will look like. So purchasing MIMO today except for specific applications in which you need substantially higher throughput and range from a single device over interoperable, certified 802.11g means you're buying a dead-end device.
Just adding my 2 pennies. I recently purchased an ATI 9600 Pro. 3d simply does not work under linux (rhel3). No amount of recompiling, driver installing, XFree tweaking, and no amount of module probing insmoding or dead chicken waving would make it go. The forums I read all blame ATI's drivers. Many had success running certain distro/kernel/mobo/winex combinations. This lead to numerous hours of time wasting on my part, and marks the closest I've come to a full blown tempter tantrum since.... well last week (thanks ejb). This card also fails on XP playing Diablo 2. It's my fault for not researching enough before I hit submit. It's also my fault for being naively sucked in by ATI's supposedly more compatible new driver campaign.
Even if ATI cures cancer, I will never buy another product from them. This baby ain't worth the bathwater.
No, but if the bootlegger owns a record store (as in the case of the article) and a judge decides that it's not the artist's call who gets to produce copies of his live show, what then? The artist can release a copy of the concert, but guess what? It's already out there, and only $5.00 to boot. The artist can't match the price point (he doesn't own a record store). The bootlegger has a huge advantage now and the artist has less incentive to produce.
I have read the salon piece and actually agree with it. I don't, in fact, disagree with most of your reply. I do see some nits worth picking though.
First of all, bootlegs can be of equal quality to any live show the artist could hope to release (if it's ripped from the soundboard, which is possible with the tiny inline recorders available today). So, in that case it's not "apples vs. applesauce."
The ruling does not give the store owner legal authority to put out the bootlegged shows. He can still be sued by the RIAA for illegal distribution of copyrighted material. Plus, I'm sure there are other lesser charges that can be (or perhaps, "could have been" if double-jeopardy applies) brought against him, but the Feds chose to charge this particular guy with the statute that carried the heaviest penalties.
Everything I have posted has used the article as a premise. The Feds charged him with a crime (selling bootlegs), the judge said "that's no crime" and the FBI said "we'll look into it later." To me that's the court saying "selling bootlegs is okay by us."
In the case that the bootlegged recording is of high quality, the artist is indebted to a recording company for advances against the sale of their forthcoming live album, then yes it can definitely hurt the artist. Sure it's an edge case, and in fact, I'm not saying that the artists can't benefit from the free distribution of their material, I am only saying that the artists should get to sell their product on a level playing field. The field is not level with this judge's ruling.
I think that it should be up to the artist to decide whether or not to grant the audience this "right to copy" the show.
Love the Dead and how they approached the bootlegging thing. Should be done that way always. Also, more and more bootlegs are coming through the mixing boards these days and the free air recording equipment is getting better every day. I digress.;)
Here's my problem. The article says that a judge decided that store owners could sell bootlegged concerts. What chance does a struggling artist have against someone who runs a record shop and sells board ripped copies of your shows, if that artist wants to sell his own board recorded versions of the same show? Not much. Purists will always buy the "official" album, and may even buy the unofficial version, but not everyone is a purist.
I don't think that bootlegging should be illegal. I think that it should be legal with the artists consent. I think artists that refuse to allow board recorded bootlegs will be doing their fans a diservice and will eventually (hopefully) fall off the face.
but it also isn't fair to us when their copyright of recordings of their show is forever.
Jesus. Did you eat a whole box of dumbass this morning? Re-read the thread ass.
This is why we have LEGISLATION you moron. The courts ARE NOT there to correct the law, they are there to clearly say wheither or not the law is unconstitutional or clearly bad or not.
Not there to "correct" the law, merely to judge it's correctness. So if it's judged "incorrect" it's reinterpreted, not enforced, or stricken. Clearly the judicial system shapes law. They may not write it, but they damn sure define the meaning.
And I imagine you intended to say "However, if I bring a video camera to a concert to record the concert for future posterity" otherwise that is one apropos typo.
And no, if the artist whom you are paying to see feels that their show shouldn't be recorded, then you shouldn't be allowed to bring in your camera, no matter how "rediculous" it may seem to you. It should be the artists choice, you know the person producing the thing you're consuming. If you don't like it, find something else to consume. Leech.
I agree, and I wouldn't argue that hearing a bootleg makes a person less prone to see a concert (though it's certainly possible).
Basically, the ruling says that the record store owner can put bootlegged shows out for sale, but what if the artist wants to release a live cd? It will have to compete with a much less expensive version, right in the store. How many bands release live sets? I can't even begin to count. How many of those records wouldn't sell because a cheaper, identical version was available? I would guess that number depends on the amount of bootlegs produced. It's a pretty simple decision: buy the live cd of the show I saw for $20.00, or buy the live cd of the show I saw for $5.00. Guess which one benefits the artist?
I think file sharing helps record sales. I think selling bootlegged live albums helps no one but the bootlegger.
Let's start by addressing your concerns with my second and third paragraphs:
A percentage of the people buying the bootlegs will wind up short of ticket money? Are you fucking serious?
Yes. Clearly this is the case. A certain percentage of people will only be able to afford one or the other. Do you know some sort of magic math that allows for people of limitted means to purchase everything their hearts desire? Do you believe that being presented with the choice of "purchase infinitely replayable bootlegged live recording of expensive music show" or "pay through the nose for a concert you might not like" will have a singular and representative response?
If people are recording and distributing recordings of your shows for you, it's free advertisement.
I'll grant that more people may go to your show because your CD got bootlegged. That advertisement isn't free per se, because (according to you) each record that you didn't sell (possibly because someone downloaded it) affects your bottom line:
Recording artists do not make money off of recordings. Recording companies make money off of recordings. Artists almost always lose money on recording.
Why on earth would an artist lose money on a recording? There are several reasons, the fact that no one buys their album is certainly one. Spending the studio advance on bling bling is another. A crap album probably won't fly off the shelves.
Additionally, many artists do make money selling albums. Artists that lose money on record deals often have themselves to blame. Avarice does not avoid art. If the artist signs a crap contract, who's to blame? Live with not being a rock star, or deal with shady contracts.
Have you ever heard a live recording of a band you loved and then said to yourself, "Gee, I guess I can skip the concert now"?
Yeah. Especially when the live recording sucks. Were you expecting me to say "No. Never has listening to a sample of music affected my decision to spend more money obtaining said music."? Some bands don't sound good live. NOFX was so notorious for this they cut an album named "I heard they sucked live." Studio effects are so prevelant these days that everyone sounds like Cher (do you believe in life after love?), unless they play live, then they sound like Tom Waits.
Now, you seem to believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that artists need only to make money off of live performances, and should be happy that their music is being so widely heard (regardless of record contract obligations) because it will generate income for them. Worked great for the Dead and Phish didn't it? Should work for everyone else too. Right?
Let's journey to my favorite vacation spot at work: Idealist Land. In Idealist Land, artists are fairly compensated for their performances and give away their music freely on the internet. The RIAA has folded because their products are bland, homogenized and unattractive. Performances draw large crowds because the tickets are modestly priced and the artists aren't beholden to any large monopolies like TicketMaster. The audience forks over its money to hear the live show, and grabs a copy of it on the way out the door. Legislation has been passed so that internet radio can be broadcast freely, everyone has a highspeed wifi connection, Clear Channel implodes and it's no longer feast or famine for up and comers, sampling is re-legalized. Dogs and cats, living together...
It's a nice thought. The reality of today however is much different, and taking away an artists right to be the first to sell the product they've created is not a good solution (if, indeed, that is what this ruling means). The effect this ruling has is that artists don't have a choice. That's main problem and it stands regardless of whether or not it would benefit the artist to have their music distributed freely.
Pearl Jam made a lucrative choice to release a series of good live sets. If this r
Slashdot Mirror
I would be shocked if a simple statement of truth got you modded flamebait (if you want an example of flamebait, I think my initial post is a fairly good example).
It is true that Clinton signed the DMCA into law.
Clinton is just another fascist. Nothing remarkable at all, especially considering the direction of our country lately.
Here we go. Found some data on what parties get donations from the MPAA and RIAA. Turns out it's about 2 to 1 to the Dems (as sourced by the Center for Responsive Politics). $41 million in 2002 (the biggest year).
:)
I don't care if it's democrats or republicans. My main point stands. Corporations vote by buying legislators. The only vote we have left is our own money. Choose to donate to these bastards at your peril. Be you democrat or republican, any amount of money spent with corporations in either of these trade organizations is treason.
Have a nice day.
I'd love to see a source for that. Something showing donations by the organizations trade members to any congress critter in the last 10 years.
IIRC Orrin Hatch is a Republican.
Early adopters are dumb Republicans. 35 bucks for a movie? 120 for a trilogy? How much for the player that may or may not have anything to play next year?
Stop giving these companies money. These companies have more of a vote in this "democracy" than you do. Vote with your dollar, don't support industries that lobby for crappy legislation.
Does this remind anyone of the current climate science "debate" where every single reputable phD feels strongly that humans are impacting the environment yet the shrillest and loudest of an incredibly small dissenting crowd (that happens to have powerful motives) are picked to broadcast their ignorance to the masses via the media?
Oh well. We might as well fold on this too, just like we'll fold on global warming and "democracy", let alone human rights. How can this not fail? It is in the conservative powers perceived best interest to make open communication and a free competative marketplace of ideas go away. It can only take power from the government. It will never empower the leaders.
Did you just call me a terrorist?
I don't commit bombings, but I sure would cheer if one hit the GOP convention. The climate change deniers, the gay bashers, any one of 'em, worse for this country than the terrorists. Good God, the death of Jerry Falwell will bring more peace to the world than killing the top 100 leaders of al queda.
We'll never see eye to eye. I hate the right. HATE. I feel no need to compromise, and certainly no need to be civil.
Yeah, this country pretty much sucks the big one. We're racist, fascist, imperialist, and we're comfortable enough not caring. We're without conscience (or at least a voting majority are).
http://www.xkcd.com/c258.html
Thank you xkcd.
Partisan slashdot moderators are of course welcome to die in a fire themselves.
Have a nice day.
You are wrong. The world is changing and we're causing it. Unfortunately, the point of no return has been passed (mindshare wise). Not only do I no longer care, I am now doing everything I can to hasten our progress down this beautiful downward spiral.
Personally, I pollute as much as I legally can. I would drive a larger SUV if I could afford to burn the gas. I vote Republican. I donate to the RNC. I vote to take away gun ownership rights. In short, I will do everything in my power to remove the rights you have taken for granted and shown yourself to be so willing to trade away for some temporary piece of mind. Every one of your cowardly wishes are my command.
Why would I do this? Because I hate you and your children, and what they've selfishly taken from everyone else. I hate everyone who voted Bush, and I sincerely hope society reaps the what you've sewn.
Have a nice day.
ATI has proven itself to be unreliable and basically dishonest. Additionally, there is no money motive to do this. Linux users are such a tiny fraction of the graphic card buying market that there is no reason for them to do this work.
Sure would be nice to have open source drivers for any decent 3d graphics card under linux. But it's all about money. Corporations are beholden to their shareholders, and board members can even get sued for pursuing a non-profitable course of action. This would most certainly fall into the non-profitable category.
Please please please vote with your dollars (it's the only vote you have that counts in this country). Even if that means not buying another video card. You're only supporting crap buy purchasing ATI.
Companies should not be treated like citizens. Or, if they ARE treated like citizens, they should be just as accountable as citizens. They have the best of both worlds. They have more influence than you (just try getting heard by a congressmen without a lobbyist) over YOUR GOVERNMENT. For crying out loud. These entities are writing our laws AND influencing our legislative elections. Sure they can't vote, but they can sell the government the machines used to tabulate the count.
We need some severe curtailment of corporate rights. Immediately.
Your scenario is not even remotely realistic. In any population where a choice is conferred you will have people who choose "not to." So not EVERYONE will carry a gun if it's legal. If it were legal for students to carry weapons on campus (not "if a large number of VT students were all carrying concealed weapons") it is more likely that someone able to fight back would have been close enouogh to the offender to... well... fight back... than if it were not legal. The straw man is that "lots of students carrying guns would have saved lives." No one thinks that. "lots of students freely able to excercise their 2nd ammendment rights would have saved lives" is the contention.
Consider: You are carrying a concealed weapon and you hear gunfire coming from the room down the hall. You do not draw your weapon because you have had a mandatory GUN SAFETY CLASS. Instead you do the correct and responsible thing and phone the cops. Then you find a defensible position and hole up.
Additionally, as a previous poster has already pointed out, the right to bare arms certainly played a roll in how the Texas shooting wound up. Go ahead and read an account of that story and tell me that fewer people would've died if arms were restricted.
I hate what happened. I don't think that gun control is the answer unless you can control all guns. And you can't.
Whatever. It's clear that this guy wasn't following the rule about not carrying guns. Good thing his victims were too. It clearly did them a lot of good. Remember, once guns are illegal, no one will have them, not even criminals, so don't worry about it.
For that matter, most people doesn't consider early childhood trauma to be "cultural".
I agree.
PS -- "doesn't" should be "don't"
PPS -- Annoying, ain't it?
Obviously there's blockbuster and walmart. Try greencine.com for more independant films (and porn). Or gameznflix.com does both games (for every current console) and movies.
In short, Rails is a brilliant architecture, and Agile Web Development with Ruby on Rails is a great book.
I believe that not grokking MVC detracts from the value of your review, particularly with respect to your opinion of the architecture of Rails. Without understanding MVC, you can have no understanding of the design decisions they made, and as such, no qualified understanding of the architecture itself.
This was my only concern. Thanks for the review!
Now Sega can go back to making real games.
linky
The worst part, in my estimation, is that this generation of MIMO technology isn't what the final 802.11n specification will look like. So purchasing MIMO today except for specific applications in which you need substantially higher throughput and range from a single device over interoperable, certified 802.11g means you're buying a dead-end device.
Someone please make a live cd that destroys spyware. Even if it just starts a wine session and runs adaware or spybot or whatever.
Just adding my 2 pennies. I recently purchased an ATI 9600 Pro. 3d simply does not work under linux (rhel3). No amount of recompiling, driver installing, XFree tweaking, and no amount of module probing insmoding or dead chicken waving would make it go. The forums I read all blame ATI's drivers. Many had success running certain distro/kernel/mobo/winex combinations. This lead to numerous hours of time wasting on my part, and marks the closest I've come to a full blown tempter tantrum since.... well last week (thanks ejb). This card also fails on XP playing Diablo 2. It's my fault for not researching enough before I hit submit. It's also my fault for being naively sucked in by ATI's supposedly more compatible new driver campaign.
Even if ATI cures cancer, I will never buy another product from them. This baby ain't worth the bathwater.
No, but if the bootlegger owns a record store (as in the case of the article) and a judge decides that it's not the artist's call who gets to produce copies of his live show, what then? The artist can release a copy of the concert, but guess what? It's already out there, and only $5.00 to boot. The artist can't match the price point (he doesn't own a record store). The bootlegger has a huge advantage now and the artist has less incentive to produce.
I have read the salon piece and actually agree with it. I don't, in fact, disagree with most of your reply. I do see some nits worth picking though.
First of all, bootlegs can be of equal quality to any live show the artist could hope to release (if it's ripped from the soundboard, which is possible with the tiny inline recorders available today). So, in that case it's not "apples vs. applesauce."
The ruling does not give the store owner legal authority to put out the bootlegged shows. He can still be sued by the RIAA for illegal distribution of copyrighted material. Plus, I'm sure there are other lesser charges that can be (or perhaps, "could have been" if double-jeopardy applies) brought against him, but the Feds chose to charge this particular guy with the statute that carried the heaviest penalties.
Everything I have posted has used the article as a premise. The Feds charged him with a crime (selling bootlegs), the judge said "that's no crime" and the FBI said "we'll look into it later." To me that's the court saying "selling bootlegs is okay by us."
In the case that the bootlegged recording is of high quality, the artist is indebted to a recording company for advances against the sale of their forthcoming live album, then yes it can definitely hurt the artist. Sure it's an edge case, and in fact, I'm not saying that the artists can't benefit from the free distribution of their material, I am only saying that the artists should get to sell their product on a level playing field. The field is not level with this judge's ruling.
I think that it should be up to the artist to decide whether or not to grant the audience this "right to copy" the show.
Love the Dead and how they approached the bootlegging thing. Should be done that way always. Also, more and more bootlegs are coming through the mixing boards these days and the free air recording equipment is getting better every day. I digress. ;)
Here's my problem. The article says that a judge decided that store owners could sell bootlegged concerts. What chance does a struggling artist have against someone who runs a record shop and sells board ripped copies of your shows, if that artist wants to sell his own board recorded versions of the same show? Not much. Purists will always buy the "official" album, and may even buy the unofficial version, but not everyone is a purist.
I don't think that bootlegging should be illegal. I think that it should be legal with the artists consent. I think artists that refuse to allow board recorded bootlegs will be doing their fans a diservice and will eventually (hopefully) fall off the face.
but it also isn't fair to us when their copyright of recordings of their show is forever.
Jesus. Did you eat a whole box of dumbass this morning? Re-read the thread ass.
This is why we have LEGISLATION you moron. The courts ARE NOT there to correct the law, they are there to clearly say wheither or not the law is unconstitutional or clearly bad or not.
Not there to "correct" the law, merely to judge it's correctness. So if it's judged "incorrect" it's reinterpreted, not enforced, or stricken. Clearly the judicial system shapes law. They may not write it, but they damn sure define the meaning.
And I imagine you intended to say "However, if I bring a video camera to a concert to record the concert for future posterity" otherwise that is one apropos typo.
And no, if the artist whom you are paying to see feels that their show shouldn't be recorded, then you shouldn't be allowed to bring in your camera, no matter how "rediculous" it may seem to you. It should be the artists choice, you know the person producing the thing you're consuming. If you don't like it, find something else to consume. Leech.
I agree, and I wouldn't argue that hearing a bootleg makes a person less prone to see a concert (though it's certainly possible).
Basically, the ruling says that the record store owner can put bootlegged shows out for sale, but what if the artist wants to release a live cd? It will have to compete with a much less expensive version, right in the store. How many bands release live sets? I can't even begin to count. How many of those records wouldn't sell because a cheaper, identical version was available? I would guess that number depends on the amount of bootlegs produced. It's a pretty simple decision: buy the live cd of the show I saw for $20.00, or buy the live cd of the show I saw for $5.00. Guess which one benefits the artist?
I think file sharing helps record sales. I think selling bootlegged live albums helps no one but the bootlegger.
Let's start by addressing your concerns with my second and third paragraphs:
A percentage of the people buying the bootlegs will wind up short of ticket money? Are you fucking serious?
Yes. Clearly this is the case. A certain percentage of people will only be able to afford one or the other. Do you know some sort of magic math that allows for people of limitted means to purchase everything their hearts desire? Do you believe that being presented with the choice of "purchase infinitely replayable bootlegged live recording of expensive music show" or "pay through the nose for a concert you might not like" will have a singular and representative response?
If people are recording and distributing recordings of your shows for you, it's free advertisement.
I'll grant that more people may go to your show because your CD got bootlegged. That advertisement isn't free per se, because (according to you) each record that you didn't sell (possibly because someone downloaded it) affects your bottom line:
Recording artists do not make money off of recordings. Recording companies make money off of recordings. Artists almost always lose money on recording.
Why on earth would an artist lose money on a recording? There are several reasons, the fact that no one buys their album is certainly one. Spending the studio advance on bling bling is another. A crap album probably won't fly off the shelves.
Additionally, many artists do make money selling albums. Artists that lose money on record deals often have themselves to blame. Avarice does not avoid art. If the artist signs a crap contract, who's to blame? Live with not being a rock star, or deal with shady contracts.
Have you ever heard a live recording of a band you loved and then said to yourself, "Gee, I guess I can skip the concert now"?
Yeah. Especially when the live recording sucks. Were you expecting me to say "No. Never has listening to a sample of music affected my decision to spend more money obtaining said music."? Some bands don't sound good live. NOFX was so notorious for this they cut an album named "I heard they sucked live." Studio effects are so prevelant these days that everyone sounds like Cher (do you believe in life after love?), unless they play live, then they sound like Tom Waits.
Now, you seem to believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that artists need only to make money off of live performances, and should be happy that their music is being so widely heard (regardless of record contract obligations) because it will generate income for them. Worked great for the Dead and Phish didn't it? Should work for everyone else too. Right?
Let's journey to my favorite vacation spot at work: Idealist Land. In Idealist Land, artists are fairly compensated for their performances and give away their music freely on the internet. The RIAA has folded because their products are bland, homogenized and unattractive. Performances draw large crowds because the tickets are modestly priced and the artists aren't beholden to any large monopolies like TicketMaster. The audience forks over its money to hear the live show, and grabs a copy of it on the way out the door. Legislation has been passed so that internet radio can be broadcast freely, everyone has a highspeed wifi connection, Clear Channel implodes and it's no longer feast or famine for up and comers, sampling is re-legalized. Dogs and cats, living together...
It's a nice thought. The reality of today however is much different, and taking away an artists right to be the first to sell the product they've created is not a good solution (if, indeed, that is what this ruling means). The effect this ruling has is that artists don't have a choice. That's main problem and it stands regardless of whether or not it would benefit the artist to have their music distributed freely.
Pearl Jam made a lucrative choice to release a series of good live sets. If this r