When i was a kid i always had a keen interest in IT... I programmed in BASIC on my C64 and later the Amiga, i connected to BBS services, i took hardware apart and tried to understand how all the software worked, and i frequently tried out software or even entirely different operating systems i had downloaded or received on the front of magazines.
When I went to school, the IT class basically boiled down to "how to use wordperfect office", we typed letters in wordperfect, made graphs in quattro pro and made trivial forms in whatever the database application was called... The teachers generally had little or no interest or understanding of the subject, and were primarily teachers of a different subject who had been made to take the class and just followed from a book. School was mandatory so we just had to sit through this mind numbingly boring class..
When I left school and had the chance to go to college, it was basically going to be several years more of the same, only they had now moved to msoffice instead of wordperfect. One place i looked at did offer some courses in programming, but in order to qualify for those you had to sit through 2 years of msoffice first, and when I asked to go straight to the programming course i received an extremely patronising response. So since college wasn't mandatory, i didn't bother.
Instead, i found a small company where i was able to get a technical interview, demonstrated a decent level of technical knowledge and was working, gaining actual useful experience at the age of 16.
Since then i've seen people who have been through the education system, entering work in their mid 20s with mountains of student debt, no experience, and no real interest in the subject beyond "its a day job" who do the bare minimum to get by...
While it's a noble idea to teach programming in school, i can see it working out pretty badly for a number of reasons...
Schools are a poor environment to learn in, you have teachers who are patronising and out of touch with the kids, combined with numbers of kids who have no interest in learning anything who will apply peer pressure to other kids and drag them down too. Classes are generally boring, and many teachers try to stick to the victorian method of teaching with the class sitting in absolute silence while the teacher drones on.
I can also see this getting hijacked by "corporate bribery" in the guise of charity... Some company, most likely microsoft, will "donate" software that has a retail price of millions but a production cost of nothing, as both a tax writeoff and to ensure the schools teach a microsoft approved curriculum... So you won't be taught the basics of programming, nor will there be any mention of low level programming (heaven forbid anyone try to write replacements for ms software)... The class will end up as "how to use visual basic", teaching ms languages tied to ms platforms. You absolutely NEED to teach basic concepts, if you teach specific software then by the time kids leave school (as happened to me with wordperfect) that software will be obsolete and have been replaced with something different.
I saw a tv show recently about "problem students", it depicted 2 highly intelligent girls who had started becoming "troublemakers" in school despite having been top of their class in previous years, and the approach taken to them was to be absolutely anal about discipline.... The reason these girls were stirring trouble is because they were absolutely bored shitless by class. When you force an intelligent person to do a mundane task, their mind wanders. And the school's solution to this was to send these girls to sit in a teacher's office, where he berated them in an extremely patronising way, as well as anally enforcing the school uniform and preventing them from going to class because one piece of their uniform was not to spec.
Released version names perhaps, but the internal versions are what was described in the previous post..
Also xp and 7 aren't really major versions, since they were minor updates to the previous versions, major versions were 3.1 (first release), 4.0, 5.0 (2000), 6.0 (vista).
Also your specifically describing "NT", whereas "Windows" has had many more versions including the versions that were just applications running on top of dos.
This is a fairly minor vulnerability at best, in order for it to matter to you at all:
1, you have to be using reverse proxy mode 2, you have to have misconfigured your rewrite rules 3, you have to actually have some internal resources that are private
The webservers I run, aside from not using Apache in reverse proxy mode...
Some of them are in isolated dmz networks, so the only data you could get at is part of the public website anyway... The others are standalone webservers connected direct to the internet, a reverse proxy wouldn't get you anything you couldn't get to directly.
What percentage of apache users will actually fulfil all the criteria for this issue to even matter to them at all?
I would use such a service, even if an equivalent pirate service was available for free... On the basis that:
The pirates would not be offering a superior product, they would be offering the same product but with the added risk of it being illegal. With prices low enough that its effectively throw-away money there would be no reason to run the risk of using the illegitimate service. Also the pirate service is likely to be harder to find, likely to be less reliable and likely to have considerably less bandwidth available to it.
As it currently stands the pirates offer a better product, the price is just one part of it.
If you can produce a clone of a Mercedes M class then more power to you...
Copyright infringement is not "stealing" and cannot be equated to breaking into a lot to steal a car. It doesn't require breaking into anywhere and removing items, you are making a perfect copy and not depriving anyone of the original.
11) We didn't have computers back then, so piracy was impossible. No one was downloading MP3s of Bing Crosby. Believe it or not, laws that work in one time period might not work in others!
And copyright terms which made sense years ago when it was extremely costly to distribute media around the world, make very little sense now with the Internet... If anything, copyright terms should be very short now because its very easy to market your work to a worldwide audience. Of course big content is greedy, and wants to take advantage of modern technology while withholding those advantages from consumers.
4) Copyright is necessary. It needs reforms, but to think we could do without it entirely is childish. People who make things need to be able to get money for those things, instead of being forced to beg for donations.
The world got along quite nicely for a very long time without copyright, and china gets along just fine by pretty much ignoring it, we don't *need* it at all. There are plenty of ways to make a living without selling infinitely copyable media, for instance games could ship with hardware (ala arcade machines, or used as a sweetener with other hardware such as video cards) or be sold as a service (so the game is free but playing it online is not). Similarly, musicians can make money from live performances, you know actually doing work and getting paid not getting paid for work they did years ago.
I doubt i'd really want the $30 movie experience at home...
You touched on the idiots yelling at the screen, but add to that the idiots eating the nosiest possible food in the noisiest way (why do they sell such noisy food for consumption during movies?), or using mobile phones, or talking, or even falling asleep and snoring... The fact that the food and drink on offer is usually extremely poor quality and exceedingly unhealthy.. The seats are generally uncomfortable, excessively cramped and/or dirty, and you can quite often get someone extremely tall sat in front of you.
At home the screen may not be as big, but projectors are widely available these days and you can generally sit close enough to make up the difference... Also you will sit relatively straight to the screen, whereas in a cinema there are only a few seats which are in optimal locations while others will have a very poor view. Similarly you can get a pretty good surround sound system at home, and you can position yourself optimally in relation to it. And on the other hand, many cinema systems are old and outdated so might not even be as good as what you buy for home use.
Plus don't forget toilet breaks, once you've guzzled the ridiculous size soft drink they sold you, sooner or later you will need the toilet... At home you could pause, in a cinema you can't and will end up missing some of the movie.
As for a $60 meal, well someone actually has to prepare that meal for you, you can't just replicate one like they do in star trek, but you can replicate games and movies.
The reason those prices are low is *because* of the piracy, giving them a choice between no sales at all or some lower priced sales... Given that the development costs will have already been recouped and then some by the higher priced copies it's still 99% profit even at the reduced price.
Selling at the lower price worldwide would still bring in significant profits as well as increasing the number of online players and decreasing piracy, but publishers are simply greedy.
Also, games with a strong online component are not very appealing when you cannot afford decent connectivity (or its simply not available at all)... In a lot of these poorer countries it is only the rich who have internet access at all.
You might have had a point 20 years ago, but now...
HDTV has pretty much obsoleted PAL/NTSC.. Most TV sets made in quite some time are capable of supporting both PAL and NTSC equally well (I used to be able to switch between PAL/NTSC on the Amiga and my tv set had no problems, in the 90s! and i had no problem watching NTSC or PAL VHS tapes). Computer games are usually played on monitors, where VGA/SVGA/etc were always international. A lot of physical goods are shipped from China, which is actually closer to Australia than to the US. The article talks about digital goods, so distance doesn't matter anyway since they can be delivered over the internet.
People don't use drugs as a weapon to kill others, they take them themselves, and when done in a safe manner harms noone else.
And noone is suggesting a free for all, just that drugs should be regulated.
Doing so would eliminate or massively reduce drug related crime, save law enforcement a huge amount of money and bring in a large amount of tax revenue.
Drugs themselves would be safer as it would no longer be an underground activity, drugs would no longer be cut with other random substances and users would have an avenue for complaint if they received a sub standard product. The government could also keep track of who was purchasing and using drugs. Addicts would no longer be risking contracting HIV or similar illnesses through needle sharing etc...
And if drugs were legalised, there would no longer be any reason to operate a back street meth lab... Drugs would instead be manufactured in large factories, which can be situated well away from any neighbours and can have regulated safety procedures... Explosive chemicals are already processed every day in factories on an industrial scale with a relatively good safety track record.
My car even came with a toolkit by default, which included the usual gear for changing the spare wheel as well as a couple of spanners, screwdrivers, pliers, sets of spare lightbulbs, spare fuses etc...
Except that in most cases you can buy more X64 systems for the same price or less to compensate for the performance difference... Also you can use GPUs if that is beneficial for what your doing.
MSSQL may currently run on Itanium but support is rapidly being dropped.. Not sure about DB2 but i doubt it runs on Itanium..
If a "high end" platform like IA64 has no major database support then it's pretty much screwed, companies rarely buy big boxes like this for much else.
Interestingly, Microsoft used to have a contract with DEC/Compaq/HP to continue producing Windows for Alpha, and for the "server" platform to be at parity with versions for other architectures... Compaq let them off the leash when they decided to drop Alpha.
Itanium in its earlier incarnations were actually pretty poor for large multi processor servers too, in that the multi processor support used a shared bus architecture... Shared bus doesn't scale very far, so makers of very large servers have to develop their own glue logic to connect many processors together.
The problems with IA64 were many, but the biggest one was closed source software... IA64 makes a very good Linux box, running an entirely open source stack but few if any closed source applications were ever ported to the platform.
Another problem was Intel making their own compiler instead of improving gcc, since the vast majority of software capable of running on ia64 is open source and most of that is generally (and sometimes can only be) compiled with gcc.
The effectiveness (as limited as it might be) of AV stems from the fact that there are lots of different products out there... If there is only a single monopoly product, then malware authors have a much easier time of it since they now only need to evade and/or disable one product.
Writers notes are not necessary to reproduce or modify the work... Source code is.
Without the source, you end up with an increasingly useless binary blob... Sooner or later the hardware its compiled to run on will no longer be available and it will become completely useless.
There are thousands of companies out there who have been screwed over by this, they have some ancient binary application that only runs on a very old system (dos, some old mainframe, vax/vms etc) and stores a large volume of important company data often going back years... The vendor who made the software no longer exists, or no longer supports the product... They can't migrate their data to a new system because there is no documentation about how its stored. The software may be full of security holes, or may depend on other software which is, none of which will ever be fixed.
Having the copyright expire on the software only solves a very small part of the problem, they would now be able to run more copies of the software without entering the grey area of abandonware... On the other hand, this doesn't help them to get the software running on modern systems, fix the bugs or security holes it has or migrate their data out of the software and into something that is actively being maintained.
Also being forced to release sourcecode that was 7 years old would force innovation, it would no longer be possible to make trivial modifications to existing products and continue re-releasing them... You would have to make sufficient modifications that they were actually worth something or people could just get the sourcecode and make those trivial mods themselves.
Something else i would advocate irrespective of copyright terms, is to provide sourcecode to customers with the products... Even if it's under restrictive terms (eg no copying, no distribution, any modifications become the property of the vendor, discussion of and distribution of source modifications is only permitted on a private forum operated by the vendor and to which only paying customers have logins)... This would benefit both users and developers, as users could fix bugs, produce unofficial ports etc, and the vendor could benefit from the effectively free coding being performed by users. There would be very little downside to this unless you had something to hide, compe
Movies make most of their money shortly after release, within 7 years chances are the movie has reached the point of being shown on tv and if it hasn't recouped its initial production cost chances are it never will.
Copyright terms should be strictly limited, 7 years as an absolute maximum possibly 5... Noone has the right to continue making money from something they did years ago without doing any additional work.
I would place other restrictions too, either outlaw any form of drm or require that a non encumbered version be available once the copyright expires.
Also with software, have the copyright period extend for 7 years or as long as the software continues to be actively supported, whichever is shorter, and with a requirement to release source code once the term expires.
It's not so easy to just move countries... The process is costly and not open to everyone, hence why you have so many illegal immigrants in various places.
Also you could argue that offering something on the internet, and then adding arbitrary restrictions based on the country a user is based in amounts to racism.
And yes, the more ridiculous and draconian copyright laws become the more people will feel justified in ignoring them.
Slashdot Mirror
When i was a kid i always had a keen interest in IT... I programmed in BASIC on my C64 and later the Amiga, i connected to BBS services, i took hardware apart and tried to understand how all the software worked, and i frequently tried out software or even entirely different operating systems i had downloaded or received on the front of magazines.
When I went to school, the IT class basically boiled down to "how to use wordperfect office", we typed letters in wordperfect, made graphs in quattro pro and made trivial forms in whatever the database application was called... The teachers generally had little or no interest or understanding of the subject, and were primarily teachers of a different subject who had been made to take the class and just followed from a book. School was mandatory so we just had to sit through this mind numbingly boring class..
When I left school and had the chance to go to college, it was basically going to be several years more of the same, only they had now moved to msoffice instead of wordperfect. One place i looked at did offer some courses in programming, but in order to qualify for those you had to sit through 2 years of msoffice first, and when I asked to go straight to the programming course i received an extremely patronising response. So since college wasn't mandatory, i didn't bother.
Instead, i found a small company where i was able to get a technical interview, demonstrated a decent level of technical knowledge and was working, gaining actual useful experience at the age of 16.
Since then i've seen people who have been through the education system, entering work in their mid 20s with mountains of student debt, no experience, and no real interest in the subject beyond "its a day job" who do the bare minimum to get by...
While it's a noble idea to teach programming in school, i can see it working out pretty badly for a number of reasons...
Schools are a poor environment to learn in, you have teachers who are patronising and out of touch with the kids, combined with numbers of kids who have no interest in learning anything who will apply peer pressure to other kids and drag them down too. Classes are generally boring, and many teachers try to stick to the victorian method of teaching with the class sitting in absolute silence while the teacher drones on.
I can also see this getting hijacked by "corporate bribery" in the guise of charity... Some company, most likely microsoft, will "donate" software that has a retail price of millions but a production cost of nothing, as both a tax writeoff and to ensure the schools teach a microsoft approved curriculum... So you won't be taught the basics of programming, nor will there be any mention of low level programming (heaven forbid anyone try to write replacements for ms software)... The class will end up as "how to use visual basic", teaching ms languages tied to ms platforms.
You absolutely NEED to teach basic concepts, if you teach specific software then by the time kids leave school (as happened to me with wordperfect) that software will be obsolete and have been replaced with something different.
I saw a tv show recently about "problem students", it depicted 2 highly intelligent girls who had started becoming "troublemakers" in school despite having been top of their class in previous years, and the approach taken to them was to be absolutely anal about discipline.... The reason these girls were stirring trouble is because they were absolutely bored shitless by class. When you force an intelligent person to do a mundane task, their mind wanders. And the school's solution to this was to send these girls to sit in a teacher's office, where he berated them in an extremely patronising way, as well as anally enforcing the school uniform and preventing them from going to class because one piece of their uniform was not to spec.
Released version names perhaps, but the internal versions are what was described in the previous post..
Also xp and 7 aren't really major versions, since they were minor updates to the previous versions, major versions were 3.1 (first release), 4.0, 5.0 (2000), 6.0 (vista).
Also your specifically describing "NT", whereas "Windows" has had many more versions including the versions that were just applications running on top of dos.
This is a fairly minor vulnerability at best, in order for it to matter to you at all:
1, you have to be using reverse proxy mode
2, you have to have misconfigured your rewrite rules
3, you have to actually have some internal resources that are private
The webservers I run, aside from not using Apache in reverse proxy mode...
Some of them are in isolated dmz networks, so the only data you could get at is part of the public website anyway...
The others are standalone webservers connected direct to the internet, a reverse proxy wouldn't get you anything you couldn't get to directly.
What percentage of apache users will actually fulfil all the criteria for this issue to even matter to them at all?
If only, the cinemas around here are alcohol free zones. That said, people are rowdy enough in them without adding alcohol to the mix...
I would use such a service, even if an equivalent pirate service was available for free... On the basis that:
The pirates would not be offering a superior product, they would be offering the same product but with the added risk of it being illegal. With prices low enough that its effectively throw-away money there would be no reason to run the risk of using the illegitimate service.
Also the pirate service is likely to be harder to find, likely to be less reliable and likely to have considerably less bandwidth available to it.
As it currently stands the pirates offer a better product, the price is just one part of it.
If you can produce a clone of a Mercedes M class then more power to you...
Copyright infringement is not "stealing" and cannot be equated to breaking into a lot to steal a car. It doesn't require breaking into anywhere and removing items, you are making a perfect copy and not depriving anyone of the original.
11) We didn't have computers back then, so piracy was impossible. No one was downloading MP3s of Bing Crosby. Believe it or not, laws that work in one time period might not work in others!
And copyright terms which made sense years ago when it was extremely costly to distribute media around the world, make very little sense now with the Internet... If anything, copyright terms should be very short now because its very easy to market your work to a worldwide audience. Of course big content is greedy, and wants to take advantage of modern technology while withholding those advantages from consumers.
4) Copyright is necessary. It needs reforms, but to think we could do without it entirely is childish. People who make things need to be able to get money for those things, instead of being forced to beg for donations.
The world got along quite nicely for a very long time without copyright, and china gets along just fine by pretty much ignoring it, we don't *need* it at all. There are plenty of ways to make a living without selling infinitely copyable media, for instance games could ship with hardware (ala arcade machines, or used as a sweetener with other hardware such as video cards) or be sold as a service (so the game is free but playing it online is not). Similarly, musicians can make money from live performances, you know actually doing work and getting paid not getting paid for work they did years ago.
I doubt i'd really want the $30 movie experience at home...
You touched on the idiots yelling at the screen, but add to that the idiots eating the nosiest possible food in the noisiest way (why do they sell such noisy food for consumption during movies?), or using mobile phones, or talking, or even falling asleep and snoring... The fact that the food and drink on offer is usually extremely poor quality and exceedingly unhealthy.. The seats are generally uncomfortable, excessively cramped and/or dirty, and you can quite often get someone extremely tall sat in front of you.
At home the screen may not be as big, but projectors are widely available these days and you can generally sit close enough to make up the difference... Also you will sit relatively straight to the screen, whereas in a cinema there are only a few seats which are in optimal locations while others will have a very poor view. Similarly you can get a pretty good surround sound system at home, and you can position yourself optimally in relation to it.
And on the other hand, many cinema systems are old and outdated so might not even be as good as what you buy for home use.
Plus don't forget toilet breaks, once you've guzzled the ridiculous size soft drink they sold you, sooner or later you will need the toilet... At home you could pause, in a cinema you can't and will end up missing some of the movie.
As for a $60 meal, well someone actually has to prepare that meal for you, you can't just replicate one like they do in star trek, but you can replicate games and movies.
The reason those prices are low is *because* of the piracy, giving them a choice between no sales at all or some lower priced sales... Given that the development costs will have already been recouped and then some by the higher priced copies it's still 99% profit even at the reduced price.
Selling at the lower price worldwide would still bring in significant profits as well as increasing the number of online players and decreasing piracy, but publishers are simply greedy.
Also, games with a strong online component are not very appealing when you cannot afford decent connectivity (or its simply not available at all)... In a lot of these poorer countries it is only the rich who have internet access at all.
You might have had a point 20 years ago, but now...
HDTV has pretty much obsoleted PAL/NTSC..
Most TV sets made in quite some time are capable of supporting both PAL and NTSC equally well (I used to be able to switch between PAL/NTSC on the Amiga and my tv set had no problems, in the 90s! and i had no problem watching NTSC or PAL VHS tapes).
Computer games are usually played on monitors, where VGA/SVGA/etc were always international.
A lot of physical goods are shipped from China, which is actually closer to Australia than to the US.
The article talks about digital goods, so distance doesn't matter anyway since they can be delivered over the internet.
Log entries are "cryptographically hashed along with the hash of the previous entry in the file" resulting in a verifiable chain of entries.
So this means that in order for someone malicious to modify a log entry, all they really need to do is then re-hash all subsequent entries?
Well, the update service is to make up for the lack of an update system built into the OS...
The rest can really be done without.
Try Linux if you want sensible printer drivers, especially for HP printers... No helper apps, uses the update service already built into the OS etc.
People don't use drugs as a weapon to kill others, they take them themselves, and when done in a safe manner harms noone else.
And noone is suggesting a free for all, just that drugs should be regulated.
Doing so would eliminate or massively reduce drug related crime, save law enforcement a huge amount of money and bring in a large amount of tax revenue.
Drugs themselves would be safer as it would no longer be an underground activity, drugs would no longer be cut with other random substances and users would have an avenue for complaint if they received a sub standard product. The government could also keep track of who was purchasing and using drugs.
Addicts would no longer be risking contracting HIV or similar illnesses through needle sharing etc...
And if drugs were legalised, there would no longer be any reason to operate a back street meth lab...
Drugs would instead be manufactured in large factories, which can be situated well away from any neighbours and can have regulated safety procedures... Explosive chemicals are already processed every day in factories on an industrial scale with a relatively good safety track record.
My car even came with a toolkit by default, which included the usual gear for changing the spare wheel as well as a couple of spanners, screwdrivers, pliers, sets of spare lightbulbs, spare fuses etc...
Except that in most cases you can buy more X64 systems for the same price or less to compensate for the performance difference... Also you can use GPUs if that is beneficial for what your doing.
MSSQL may currently run on Itanium but support is rapidly being dropped..
Not sure about DB2 but i doubt it runs on Itanium..
If a "high end" platform like IA64 has no major database support then it's pretty much screwed, companies rarely buy big boxes like this for much else.
Interestingly, Microsoft used to have a contract with DEC/Compaq/HP to continue producing Windows for Alpha, and for the "server" platform to be at parity with versions for other architectures... Compaq let them off the leash when they decided to drop Alpha.
Itanium in its earlier incarnations were actually pretty poor for large multi processor servers too, in that the multi processor support used a shared bus architecture... Shared bus doesn't scale very far, so makers of very large servers have to develop their own glue logic to connect many processors together.
The problems with IA64 were many, but the biggest one was closed source software... IA64 makes a very good Linux box, running an entirely open source stack but few if any closed source applications were ever ported to the platform.
Another problem was Intel making their own compiler instead of improving gcc, since the vast majority of software capable of running on ia64 is open source and most of that is generally (and sometimes can only be) compiled with gcc.
The effectiveness (as limited as it might be) of AV stems from the fact that there are lots of different products out there...
If there is only a single monopoly product, then malware authors have a much easier time of it since they now only need to evade and/or disable one product.
Writers notes are not necessary to reproduce or modify the work...
Source code is.
Without the source, you end up with an increasingly useless binary blob... Sooner or later the hardware its compiled to run on will no longer be available and it will become completely useless.
There are thousands of companies out there who have been screwed over by this, they have some ancient binary application that only runs on a very old system (dos, some old mainframe, vax/vms etc) and stores a large volume of important company data often going back years...
The vendor who made the software no longer exists, or no longer supports the product...
They can't migrate their data to a new system because there is no documentation about how its stored.
The software may be full of security holes, or may depend on other software which is, none of which will ever be fixed.
Having the copyright expire on the software only solves a very small part of the problem, they would now be able to run more copies of the software without entering the grey area of abandonware... On the other hand, this doesn't help them to get the software running on modern systems, fix the bugs or security holes it has or migrate their data out of the software and into something that is actively being maintained.
Also being forced to release sourcecode that was 7 years old would force innovation, it would no longer be possible to make trivial modifications to existing products and continue re-releasing them... You would have to make sufficient modifications that they were actually worth something or people could just get the sourcecode and make those trivial mods themselves.
Something else i would advocate irrespective of copyright terms, is to provide sourcecode to customers with the products... Even if it's under restrictive terms (eg no copying, no distribution, any modifications become the property of the vendor, discussion of and distribution of source modifications is only permitted on a private forum operated by the vendor and to which only paying customers have logins)... This would benefit both users and developers, as users could fix bugs, produce unofficial ports etc, and the vendor could benefit from the effectively free coding being performed by users.
There would be very little downside to this unless you had something to hide, compe
Movies make most of their money shortly after release, within 7 years chances are the movie has reached the point of being shown on tv and if it hasn't recouped its initial production cost chances are it never will.
Copyright terms should be strictly limited, 7 years as an absolute maximum possibly 5... Noone has the right to continue making money from something they did years ago without doing any additional work.
I would place other restrictions too, either outlaw any form of drm or require that a non encumbered version be available once the copyright expires.
Also with software, have the copyright period extend for 7 years or as long as the software continues to be actively supported, whichever is shorter, and with a requirement to release source code once the term expires.
It's not so easy to just move countries... The process is costly and not open to everyone, hence why you have so many illegal immigrants in various places.
Also you could argue that offering something on the internet, and then adding arbitrary restrictions based on the country a user is based in amounts to racism.
And yes, the more ridiculous and draconian copyright laws become the more people will feel justified in ignoring them.
And who decides which artists get that tax revenue?