I'm sure you probably realise this already, but I'll tell you anyway. IIRC Lars spoke his answers, hence the "you know", "well" and "um"... Personally, I thought he gave very good answers, especially for not being a big time Internet user.
There are good reasons why CDs from "indie" labels are as expensive (and sometimes more expensive) as CDs from the big labels.
- The indie labels are manufacturing way less overall, so they have to pay more per CD.
- The indie labels often do not have their own distribution channels so they have to piggy back on another company... and pay of course.
- Because they have less product, their overhead (offices, office supplies, employees) per CD is more.
Um... I'm out of ideas, but I'm sure there are more reasons. Any indie artists out there want to add?
The reason that CD prices are this expensive is that this is generally how expensive they were when the big labels jumped on board. Since then, the labels have made everything significantly cheaper for them, but have maintained the same high prices.
Re:Determining Canadian Citizenship [Serious]
on
iCraveTV To Relaunch
·
· Score: 1
I think we're even. I've been to all provinces and territories except for Newfoundland (I was in Nunavut, but before the split).
I see those polar bear license plates every day.
Northwest Territories: NT Yukon: YT (I think... could be YK)
What are you talking about? I used to volunteer at a radio station and we had to pay a fee for each song we played (can't remember what it's called). We also had to log everything we played so that it could be used to determine which artists get how much % of the cash.
Yeah. I know if I had a choice between paying $100 million for something that has a good chance of being completely legal and doing it for free I'd pay the money. Hands down.
The italics tag has been around for awhile. I wonder why browsers for people with disabilities haven't adapted. It's obvious that pretty much everyone doesn't care about accessibility. It's tough enough to get commercial sites that work with the previous version of IE or Netscape.
Modern websites must be really innaccessable these days. Frames, tables, the lack of alt tags, and even people who use gifs as their text.
I don't know how to fix this. The web is just getting too commercial and design based to worry much about accessibility.
What? Sorry, but your first method makes absolutely no sense to me.
If someone who is inadequately protected is on the Internet, how does that threaten you at all? Say they pass you a virus after being infected. You open it and either your anti-virus catches it or it doesn't. If it catches it (you're adequately prepared) then they are no threat to you. If it doesn't catch it then you're as inadequately protected as they are and shouldn't be complaining to them about their shoddy security.
As far as passing on viruses goes. The people who are not protected pose absolutely no threat to the people who are. I don't see what kicking them off of the Internet would do.
Why should anyone have to prove to you that Napster == lost sales? It's illegal and it's theft.
But... since you want hard proof. I um... know a guy who downloaded music off of Napster, and sold it to someone who would have definately bought the album in stores anyway, they even told him so ("Thanks. You just saved me $10). 1 case. Hard proof. Anything else you need?
Could anyone find the terms on register.com? After looking around the site for awhile I couldn't find it. Are they trying to hide it or something, or am I just being stupid and missing it?
Re:Artists need to protect their livelihoods
on
An MP3 Update
·
· Score: 1
Yeah, it is a good quote. Wish I could take credit for it. I heard about calling the World Wide Web the First World Web through my Multimedia prof. I don't know if she coined the term or heard it somewhere.
Now we just need to get people to start their sites with fww:)
Re:Artists need to protect their livelihoods
on
An MP3 Update
·
· Score: 1
"No room for poor people on the web anymore"
And there's tonnes of them on already?
If you don't think the web is at least half as exclusive as you're pretending it should be then you're mistaken.
The World Wide Web is poorly named. It should be called the First World Web.
Re:Open Source and Napster are conflicts of intere
on
An MP3 Update
·
· Score: 1
Don't you think that if they were aiming for banner impressions they would have put out 2 articles (one on mp3.com and one on Napster) instead of combining the two? This would have doubled the number of times the banners get shown.
I think there should definately be some restraints on access to the web./.ers have said themselves that filter programs do not work and are therefore innefectual at protecting our children from pornography, foul language, and other tasteless forms of expression. Excluding children and the people who publish such smut from the web is a great idea.
Now that I think about it, it's not only the web that's the problem, it's society. How about membership in our society be dependent on some sort of examination process? We can throw everyone else out or sterilize them or something. I mean we always say that everyone should have rights, but honestly, can we trust a hateful person with such rights?
That's nothing. I've seen "Who's on First?" attributed to Adam Sandler. It seems that if anything's funny it's put as Weird Al or Adam Sandler (maybe more?). I'm guessing that this is because it's funny and the person wants to get it out. No one is really this dumb, are they? Maybe I'm just an optimist.
Have YOU ever read the Dune books? I'm about half way into the third one right now, and it has rained on Dune already. It may have even rained in the second book (I can't quite remember).
"They can't pick and choose the laws that they wish to uphold."
Why not? I do it all the time. I bet the majority of people here do it as well.
I only adhere to laws that I think make sense. Well, and I think I break some of the ones that I agree with (I really have to cut that out). I also probably break a lot of laws that I don't know about.
"Do you honestly believe that 11 years olds are mature enough to evaluate the risks and responsibilities of parenthood?"
What about 30 year olds who aren't mature enough to evaluate the risks and responsibilities of parenthood? I'm sure they're out there. Basing rape on how long you've been alive seems to be a bit off base. Although I suppose they don't really have a more practical way to protect children. Perhaps a clinical evaluation? *shrug*... I don't have the answer, I just don't think the above quote was put very well.
As others have mentionned, yes it is illegal and no you're not a pedophile.
An interesting twist on all of this, is that it's illegal for you to possess pictures of yourself naked if you're underage. You can't stand in the mirror and photograph yourself naked if you're under 18. Well... I suppose you could, but you'd be a criminal.
hm... I just thought of something. What if you photograph a mirror image of a naked underage person. Is it still child porn technically? Yeah... ok. Now that I've written it out, it sounds stupid, but technically it's not really a pornographic picture of an underage person.
The artists/record labels are definately getting the better end of the deal on this one (although I think they're still pushing for more). Here you have someone actively advertising your CDs, and paying you for it. I can't count the number of times I've known of someone that bought a CD because of a song she/he heard on the radio. If it weren't for radio (and MTV/Much Music) some CDs wouldn't sell half as much as they do now (completely unsubstantiated claim, deal with it).
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sure you probably realise this already, but I'll tell you anyway. IIRC Lars spoke his answers, hence the "you know", "well" and "um"... Personally, I thought he gave very good answers, especially for not being a big time Internet user.
There are good reasons why CDs from "indie" labels are as expensive (and sometimes more expensive) as CDs from the big labels.
- The indie labels are manufacturing way less overall, so they have to pay more per CD.
- The indie labels often do not have their own distribution channels so they have to piggy back on another company... and pay of course.
- Because they have less product, their overhead (offices, office supplies, employees) per CD is more.
Um... I'm out of ideas, but I'm sure there are more reasons. Any indie artists out there want to add?
The reason that CD prices are this expensive is that this is generally how expensive they were when the big labels jumped on board. Since then, the labels have made everything significantly cheaper for them, but have maintained the same high prices.
I think we're even. I've been to all provinces and territories except for Newfoundland (I was in Nunavut, but before the split).
I see those polar bear license plates every day.
Northwest Territories: NT
Yukon: YT (I think... could be YK)
What are you talking about? I used to volunteer at a radio station and we had to pay a fee for each song we played (can't remember what it's called). We also had to log everything we played so that it could be used to determine which artists get how much % of the cash.
Yeah. I know if I had a choice between paying $100 million for something that has a good chance of being completely legal and doing it for free I'd pay the money. Hands down.
The italics tag has been around for awhile. I wonder why browsers for people with disabilities haven't adapted. It's obvious that pretty much everyone doesn't care about accessibility. It's tough enough to get commercial sites that work with the previous version of IE or Netscape.
Modern websites must be really innaccessable these days. Frames, tables, the lack of alt tags, and even people who use gifs as their text.
I don't know how to fix this. The web is just getting too commercial and design based to worry much about accessibility.
What? Sorry, but your first method makes absolutely no sense to me.
If someone who is inadequately protected is on the Internet, how does that threaten you at all? Say they pass you a virus after being infected. You open it and either your anti-virus catches it or it doesn't. If it catches it (you're adequately prepared) then they are no threat to you. If it doesn't catch it then you're as inadequately protected as they are and shouldn't be complaining to them about their shoddy security.
As far as passing on viruses goes. The people who are not protected pose absolutely no threat to the people who are. I don't see what kicking them off of the Internet would do.
You can make copies of CDs you have purchased, not ones which you have borrowed. Get a little more familliar with the law before you make asumptions.
Here I was hoping to find a reasonable argument for the legality of mp3 downloading. Silly me.
Why should anyone have to prove to you that Napster == lost sales? It's illegal and it's theft.
But... since you want hard proof. I um... know a guy who downloaded music off of Napster, and sold it to someone who would have definately bought the album in stores anyway, they even told him so
("Thanks. You just saved me $10). 1 case. Hard proof. Anything else you need?
Could anyone find the terms on register.com? After looking around the site for awhile I couldn't find it. Are they trying to hide it or something, or am I just being stupid and missing it?
Yeah, it is a good quote. Wish I could take credit for it. I heard about calling the World Wide Web the First World Web through my Multimedia prof. I don't know if she coined the term or heard it somewhere.
:)
Now we just need to get people to start their sites with fww
"No room for poor people on the web anymore"
And there's tonnes of them on already?
If you don't think the web is at least half as exclusive as you're pretending it should be then you're mistaken.
The World Wide Web is poorly named. It should be called the First World Web.
Don't you think that if they were aiming for banner impressions they would have put out 2 articles (one on mp3.com and one on Napster) instead of combining the two? This would have doubled the number of times the banners get shown.
I think there should definately be some restraints on access to the web. /.ers have said themselves that filter programs do not work and are therefore innefectual at protecting our children from pornography, foul language, and other tasteless forms of expression. Excluding children and the people who publish such smut from the web is a great idea.
Now that I think about it, it's not only the web that's the problem, it's society. How about membership in our society be dependent on some sort of examination process? We can throw everyone else out or sterilize them or something. I mean we always say that everyone should have rights, but honestly, can we trust a hateful person with such rights?
Isn't ILOVEYOU specifically targeted at Windows? Someone want to fill me in on the news here?
If I'm missing something, please let me know. This isn't a troll, I honestly don't see what the deal is.
I never understood what the deal was with people who are loyal to a codec. They refuse to see any weaknesses in _their_ codec.
The worst, I find, are some of the nAVI people.
I like DivX and was very excited when it came out (looked better than VCD and was half the size), but I'd jump to anything better in a second.
Do you have more information about SuperVCD?
That's nothing. I've seen "Who's on First?" attributed to Adam Sandler. It seems that if anything's funny it's put as Weird Al or Adam Sandler (maybe more?). I'm guessing that this is because it's funny and the person wants to get it out. No one is really this dumb, are they? Maybe I'm just an optimist.
"Occasionally, due to bad moderation ... a Non-Linux article slips through..."
Sorry. Just thought that was too funny.
"he struck up a deal with the locals"
Wouldn't that require some social skills?
Have YOU ever read the Dune books? I'm about half way into the third one right now, and it has rained on Dune already. It may have even rained in the second book (I can't quite remember).
"They can't pick and choose the laws that they wish to uphold."
Why not? I do it all the time. I bet the majority of people here do it as well.
I only adhere to laws that I think make sense. Well, and I think I break some of the ones that I agree with (I really have to cut that out). I also probably break a lot of laws that I don't know about.
"Do you honestly believe that 11 years olds are mature enough to evaluate the risks and responsibilities of parenthood?"
What about 30 year olds who aren't mature enough to evaluate the risks and responsibilities of parenthood? I'm sure they're out there. Basing rape on how long you've been alive seems to be a bit off base. Although I suppose they don't really have a more practical way to protect children. Perhaps a clinical evaluation? *shrug*... I don't have the answer, I just don't think the above quote was put very well.
"Curing" homosexual people with LSD doesn't seem much of a feat. You could probably "cure" heterosexual people with LSD.
As others have mentionned, yes it is illegal and no you're not a pedophile.
An interesting twist on all of this, is that it's illegal for you to possess pictures of yourself naked if you're underage. You can't stand in the mirror and photograph yourself naked if you're under 18. Well... I suppose you could, but you'd be a criminal.
hm... I just thought of something. What if you photograph a mirror image of a naked underage person. Is it still child porn technically? Yeah... ok. Now that I've written it out, it sounds stupid, but technically it's not really a pornographic picture of an underage person.
The artists/record labels are definately getting the better end of the deal on this one (although I think they're still pushing for more). Here you have someone actively advertising your CDs, and paying you for it. I can't count the number of times I've known of someone that bought a CD because of a song she/he heard on the radio. If it weren't for radio (and MTV/Much Music) some CDs wouldn't sell half as much as they do now (completely unsubstantiated claim, deal with it).