I've never understood just how "the evidence is quite clear" in anti-piracy lawsuits. All the RIAA has to show are a bunch of logs saying these bits were shared by this IP address at time X. What gives such records any legal weight? After all, the industry goons are probably quite capable of faking any records they like.
In the same way, what's to stop me from suing my next door neighbor for copyright violation of, say, my Great American Novel (part I) that is on my open WAN in an unprotected folder. Supposing that I actually had a registered copyright, how could my neighbor defend him- or herself? Surely whether or not the file is on their machine is irrelevant... they could simply have deleted it after learning of my intent to sue.
IANAL, but it seems to me that any "evidence" produced by the RIAA is suspect merely because of its financial stake in the outcomes of these lawsuits. Similarly, any ISP that provides logs of IP addresses, etc., could easily be colluding with the Record Industry. The question really goes beyond music piracy to intellectually property suits in general in this era of massive amounts of digital content. Certainly, there are ways of authenticating data with encryption or whatever (I presume; I am no expert here), but why would an organization like the RIAA willingly utilize such methods, when they can more easily keep simple, fakable records of alleged-pirates' nefarious doings?
The reason one would generally think most matter would not be dark is that when stuff gets packed together close enough, you get lots of heat and pressure, which seems very often to result in fusion. That is, a very large amount of the stuff in the universe was just floating around minding its own business, until it got swept away and became part of a star. Of the matter in the Solar System, for example, maybe 99% (I am estimating... how far off is this?) is in the sun. In this context, the idea of 25% of the universe being dark matter, or 70% "dark energy" is more impressive.
Unfortunately, it seems largely recognized that the CD physical format *will* be going out style, and quite soon. While the digital collection may be almost perfectly preserved by backing up on burned discs, what protection do you have when manufacturers stop supporting CDs in favord of Music DVDs and the like? Then you are stuck ripping all your old, scratched up CDs to imperfect digital copies - a major hassle to say the least.
The only *real* benefit of physical media that remains is liner notes / album art. There just isn't a good pure-digital substitute for this, unless digital file formats increase in size enough to contain all the same material (which is a major tradeoff). Programs like Musicmatch and iTunes (and others too, I'm sure) have already begun including small.gif's of the album covers in the ID3 tags, and Musicmatch even allows you to view your mp3 collection as a grid of album art! While this is certainly progress, it's clear that we're not totally beyond the need for physical media.
That's almost a moot point, though, as the Industry has already decided that iTunes et al are the future. (Vis a vis, the recent Pepsi iTunes giveaway campaign... a certain precursor to an expanded marketing focus on legit downloads.) After all, it's been clear for some time that CDs, like every medium before them, are destined to be replaced. And if you think that delaying the switch, say, 5 years will make it any less of a pain, just ask the generations who had to switch from 8-tracks to casettes or vinyl to CD. I'm sure they also hoped that their "format [wouldn't] go out of style for quite a while."
As a last point, let me head off the notion that further switch to purely digital distribution will reduce the amount of personal contact with music experts. First of all, the vast majority (probably like 90%, although that number is made up) of buyers don't care what the guy at the counter thinks about music; they just buy what they see on MTV. Second, the remaining 10% or whatever are unable to get meaningful info at large-scale retailers like Tower, HMV, FYE,.... But this is irrelevant, because the main reasons they would need info are (a) recommendations, and (b) finding obscure albums and whatnot. The former - the essence of word-of-mouth popularity - can never really suffer, I think. The latter would be made *easier* by digitizing all CDs and distributing the tracks over searchable online databases. As for analogue media like vinyl, there is no reason why either the market for these goods or the commercial viability of the stores that sell them should be hurt.
As far as I'm concerned, if the record company has any say in what goes on a band's album, that is not a band I want to be listening to.
People will always buy complete albums because they trust the musicians they like to put out something that they are proud of. Maybe not every album "works", but for the most part, musicians have the good taste to make decent records.
With that in mind, I find myself using the "buy album" button on iTunes much more than "buy song". If I like an artist well enough to purchase their music, why shouldn't I buy it as they intended? If I know the music well enough to decide which songs are and aren't "good," then why am I buying it in the first place?
The question is, will "Googlemail" be pronounced GOO-guhl-mail (as one would expect), or goo-GLEE-mail? The second way has the benefit of rhyming with "email."
1) "Recording device" means a photographic, digital or video camera, or other audio or video recording device capable of recording the sounds and images of a motion picture or any portion of a motion picture.1) "Recording device" means a photographic, digital or video camera, or other audio or video recording device capable of recording the sounds and images of a motion picture or any portion of a motion picture.
Note that the human brain's memory systems constitute an extremely advanced recording system for both the sounds and images of a film. Perhaps the MPAA (or whoever pushed this bill through) would have us pay our $10, then leave the theatre without seeing the movie?
Having recently obtained an XP computer, I can assert that everytime one boots up the system (which is to say, with quite some regularity;-), Microsoft already offers a persistent pop-up bubble prompting users to register for automatic updates. I think it is safe to say that the "average user" would certainly sign up just to be rid of the damn thing.
The article linked to in the parent makes several very interesting points. First, it focuses on the slump in singles sales, something that has been very under-reported at least in US media. It should be noted that this slump was already apparent when Apple's iTunes went online, and it almost certainly can be attributed in significant portion to filesharing services. After all, the idea of a single is to get a sample of the tracks available on the entire album, often before the album as a whole can be purchased. With filesharing making this possible for free (or for cheaps, via Apple and similar services), as opposed to a hefty $4-6 per disc, the choice for consumers seems to be an easy one. To reiterate, singles are almost definitely a market in which the effects of filesharing have been felt strongly.
That being said, Mr. Evans, do you think that this is a Bad Thing? Given the availability of new technology that improves the listening experience for consumers, not necessarily at the cost of artist compensation, does the single still have a place in today's music market? (If so, what is that place?)
The article linked to in the parent also mentions a surprising decline in UK album prices, apparently in response to supermarkets which can offer extremely low prices. It is interesting to note that as far as I've noticed, a similar price-war phenomenon has not manifested itself in the US. For Mr. Evans: do you have any thoughts on competition and pricing in the music industry? To what extent do the major labels operate as a music cartel? Also, I've heard that the major three labels control a ridiculous percentage of the market. I get the impression that you a somewhat smaller producer. As such what is your personal attitude towards this situation in music publishing?
Finally, as a music industry insider, what is your perception of the industry's attitude towards technology as a whole? Is enthusiasm to embrace services like iTunes prevalent, or do many distributors/producers of music still wish to cling to what many consider outdated business models for music publication?
If I go to sleep shortly after a long session of Diablo II, I will usually have a mana globe (blue) and a health globe (red) in my dreams... weird, huh?
Of course, I also see chess positions every time I close my eyes if I've been playing several games recently... maybe I'm just odd.
Yeah so I'm not a gamer and I'm not an animation expert, and I'm really far too lazy to actually read the article. However, I have a general question, that I think is on topic.
If I remember correctly, movie projectors run at something like 24 fps, no? And not many people have epileptic seizures at the movies because the image is "too jumpy". In fact, I would go so far as to say that movies, even animated ones, look better than the animations in Diablo II or Warcraft III, even viewed on my little brother's (admitedly long-since outdated) GeForce card.
So my question is, What gives? What the hell is this 147 fps business? Can humans even detect that many frame changes? If so, do +/- 20 or 30 fps matter that much, at that level? And why do movies at 24 fps look fine to me?
Anyone read The Big U by Neal Stephenson? I mention this only because his other work is obviously immensely popular among/.ers. This old book from his college days includes a very large-scale rail-gun project with results that you'll just have to read the book to find out about...;)
anyone ever played "War In Middle Earth"?
*INCREDIBLE* scope for a game from that era. Variable screen views, allowing one to focus on the entirety of middle earth, a smaller section, or merely on the characters on their journey. Pretty challenging too. Unfortunately, my floppies have degraded a bit too much to play from anymore;P
George Gaylord Simpson's The Dechonization of Sam MacGruder is to Jurassic Park what Lord of the Rings is to Roald Dahl (not to dis Dahl, but you get the picture).
Although not so proliffic as Heinlein or Asimov (the only book of his I like is I, Robot), Simpson represents SciFi at its best. A must-read.
Slashdot Mirror
I've never understood just how "the evidence is quite clear" in anti-piracy lawsuits. All the RIAA has to show are a bunch of logs saying these bits were shared by this IP address at time X. What gives such records any legal weight? After all, the industry goons are probably quite capable of faking any records they like.
... they could simply have deleted it after learning of my intent to sue.
In the same way, what's to stop me from suing my next door neighbor for copyright violation of, say, my Great American Novel (part I) that is on my open WAN in an unprotected folder. Supposing that I actually had a registered copyright, how could my neighbor defend him- or herself? Surely whether or not the file is on their machine is irrelevant
IANAL, but it seems to me that any "evidence" produced by the RIAA is suspect merely because of its financial stake in the outcomes of these lawsuits. Similarly, any ISP that provides logs of IP addresses, etc., could easily be colluding with the Record Industry. The question really goes beyond music piracy to intellectually property suits in general in this era of massive amounts of digital content. Certainly, there are ways of authenticating data with encryption or whatever (I presume; I am no expert here), but why would an organization like the RIAA willingly utilize such methods, when they can more easily keep simple, fakable records of alleged-pirates' nefarious doings?
The reason one would generally think most matter would not be dark is that when stuff gets packed together close enough, you get lots of heat and pressure, which seems very often to result in fusion. That is, a very large amount of the stuff in the universe was just floating around minding its own business, until it got swept away and became part of a star. Of the matter in the Solar System, for example, maybe 99% (I am estimating... how far off is this?) is in the sun. In this context, the idea of 25% of the universe being dark matter, or 70% "dark energy" is more impressive.
Unfortunately, it seems largely recognized that the CD physical format *will* be going out style, and quite soon. While the digital collection may be almost perfectly preserved by backing up on burned discs, what protection do you have when manufacturers stop supporting CDs in favord of Music DVDs and the like? Then you are stuck ripping all your old, scratched up CDs to imperfect digital copies - a major hassle to say the least.
.gif's of the album covers in the ID3 tags, and Musicmatch even allows you to view your mp3 collection as a grid of album art! While this is certainly progress, it's clear that we're not totally beyond the need for physical media.
.... But this is irrelevant, because the main reasons they would need info are (a) recommendations, and (b) finding obscure albums and whatnot. The former - the essence of word-of-mouth popularity - can never really suffer, I think. The latter would be made *easier* by digitizing all CDs and distributing the tracks over searchable online databases. As for analogue media like vinyl, there is no reason why either the market for these goods or the commercial viability of the stores that sell them should be hurt.
The only *real* benefit of physical media that remains is liner notes / album art. There just isn't a good pure-digital substitute for this, unless digital file formats increase in size enough to contain all the same material (which is a major tradeoff). Programs like Musicmatch and iTunes (and others too, I'm sure) have already begun including small
That's almost a moot point, though, as the Industry has already decided that iTunes et al are the future. (Vis a vis, the recent Pepsi iTunes giveaway campaign... a certain precursor to an expanded marketing focus on legit downloads.) After all, it's been clear for some time that CDs, like every medium before them, are destined to be replaced. And if you think that delaying the switch, say, 5 years will make it any less of a pain, just ask the generations who had to switch from 8-tracks to casettes or vinyl to CD. I'm sure they also hoped that their "format [wouldn't] go out of style for quite a while."
As a last point, let me head off the notion that further switch to purely digital distribution will reduce the amount of personal contact with music experts. First of all, the vast majority (probably like 90%, although that number is made up) of buyers don't care what the guy at the counter thinks about music; they just buy what they see on MTV. Second, the remaining 10% or whatever are unable to get meaningful info at large-scale retailers like Tower, HMV, FYE,
As far as I'm concerned, if the record company has any say in what goes on a band's album, that is not a band I want to be listening to.
People will always buy complete albums because they trust the musicians they like to put out something that they are proud of. Maybe not every album "works", but for the most part, musicians have the good taste to make decent records.
With that in mind, I find myself using the "buy album" button on iTunes much more than "buy song". If I like an artist well enough to purchase their music, why shouldn't I buy it as they intended? If I know the music well enough to decide which songs are and aren't "good," then why am I buying it in the first place?
The question is, will "Googlemail" be pronounced GOO-guhl-mail (as one would expect), or goo- GLEE -mail? The second way has the benefit of rhyming with "email."
Shall I fax foo to you?
Naw, goo-GLEE-mail to me!
Hmm...
Having recently obtained an XP computer, I can assert that everytime one boots up the system (which is to say, with quite some regularity ;-), Microsoft already offers a persistent pop-up bubble prompting users to register for automatic updates. I think it is safe to say that the "average user" would certainly sign up just to be rid of the damn thing.
The article linked to in the parent makes several very interesting points. First, it focuses on the slump in singles sales, something that has been very under-reported at least in US media. It should be noted that this slump was already apparent when Apple's iTunes went online, and it almost certainly can be attributed in significant portion to filesharing services. After all, the idea of a single is to get a sample of the tracks available on the entire album, often before the album as a whole can be purchased. With filesharing making this possible for free (or for cheaps, via Apple and similar services), as opposed to a hefty $4-6 per disc, the choice for consumers seems to be an easy one. To reiterate, singles are almost definitely a market in which the effects of filesharing have been felt strongly.
That being said, Mr. Evans, do you think that this is a Bad Thing? Given the availability of new technology that improves the listening experience for consumers, not necessarily at the cost of artist compensation, does the single still have a place in today's music market? (If so, what is that place?)
The article linked to in the parent also mentions a surprising decline in UK album prices, apparently in response to supermarkets which can offer extremely low prices. It is interesting to note that as far as I've noticed, a similar price-war phenomenon has not manifested itself in the US. For Mr. Evans: do you have any thoughts on competition and pricing in the music industry? To what extent do the major labels operate as a music cartel? Also, I've heard that the major three labels control a ridiculous percentage of the market. I get the impression that you a somewhat smaller producer. As such what is your personal attitude towards this situation in music publishing?
Finally, as a music industry insider, what is your perception of the industry's attitude towards technology as a whole? Is enthusiasm to embrace services like iTunes prevalent, or do many distributors/producers of music still wish to cling to what many consider outdated business models for music publication?
If I go to sleep shortly after a long session of Diablo II, I will usually have a mana globe (blue) and a health globe (red) in my dreams... weird, huh?
Of course, I also see chess positions every time I close my eyes if I've been playing several games recently... maybe I'm just odd.
-Toad
Yeah so I'm not a gamer and I'm not an animation expert, and I'm really far too lazy to actually read the article. However, I have a general question, that I think is on topic.
If I remember correctly, movie projectors run at something like 24 fps, no? And not many people have epileptic seizures at the movies because the image is "too jumpy". In fact, I would go so far as to say that movies, even animated ones, look better than the animations in Diablo II or Warcraft III, even viewed on my little brother's (admitedly long-since outdated) GeForce card.
So my question is, What gives? What the hell is this 147 fps business? Can humans even detect that many frame changes? If so, do +/- 20 or 30 fps matter that much, at that level? And why do movies at 24 fps look fine to me?
-Toad
Since when do we take economic advise from a man who hosts a game show on Comedy Central?!
Seriously...
Anyone read The Big U by Neal Stephenson? I mention this only because his other work is obviously immensely popular among /.ers. This old book from his college days includes a very large-scale rail-gun project with results that you'll just have to read the book to find out about...;)
I highly recommend it.
-SAM
-ft
George Gaylord Simpson's The Dechonization of Sam MacGruder is to Jurassic Park what Lord of the Rings is to Roald Dahl (not to dis Dahl, but you get the picture).
Although not so proliffic as Heinlein or Asimov (the only book of his I like is I, Robot), Simpson represents SciFi at its best. A must-read.