Patronage was horrible. You had to compose, perform, or do nothing, all based on what your royal sponsor demanded of the evening. You art would be filled with things only to please your king. See the music of Haydn for an example of this. In some cases, a patron would even modify the work of art however he desired. It sucks.
I realize that you were trying to contrast patronage with what we've got now, but I don't see the real difference between what you've described and being under contract to a major label.
Except that the copyright system in the U.S. wasn't created as a social welfare system for artist: it was created to encourage production which would enter the public domain soon enough.
Imagine if the estate of William Shakespeare still got a cut of every print and performance of his works. Would we every see them in high schools? How about Dickens or Twain? What if literature coursebooks had to pay huge sums of money for the right to republish thousand-year-old manuscripts?
Think I'm being disingenuous? I'm not. I should be able to freely use, remake, dramatize for the theater, and cut up over half of the movies on this list, but I couldn't find any listed as public domain in my ten-minute attempt. The Presley estate shouldn't still be making money off of music written and recorded fifty years ago, if indeed the estate is the entity holding the rights. Automatic extension has made it virtually impossible to know who actually holds the rights when you care enough to license that seventy-year-old movie for inclusion in your film.
The original Copyright Act offered protection for fourteen years, with an optional extension of another fourteen years. I don't see the problem with that or why it needed to be changed.
the author is going to have to be quite famous to get any audience to care to see him/her speak.
Saying that Dickens, Twain, and Roddenberry made money by speaking doesn't impact these points at all since they are on the short list of famous authors.
Copyright in the U.S. was not created as a social welfare device, but as an incentive to create. The question this research paper raises is whether strong copyright actually creates that incentive or not.
You keep calling other people dense, but I think it's you that doesn't get the argument that's occurring.
I didn't mention bands. I have no confusion about people paying to see a band. Paying to see an author speak is another matter. I could understand book (signing) tours, but the author is going to have to be quite famous to get any audience to care to see him/her speak.
The number of concerts would drop if musicians got a bigger percentage of the CDs.
The day copyright dies, the artistic output quality will drop drastically as few artists will work to benefit the leechers who will directly rip or remix existing art for personal use/gain.
I was rebutting these points, which are demonstrably false for artists who love their craft.
Artists being taken advantage of of is completely different issue. Don't conflate.
You obviously don't know any true artists. They produce whether anyone is buying their stuff or not. The ones that desire admiration do it in public. Most, however, would be just as happy trying to create the perfect piece and put it in a box which would only be discovered after the artist's death. Money has no meaning except to pay for the materials needed to produce the art, and food, shelter and drugs if there's enough money left after the art.
Look into history to find examples. You could, I guess, just find the musicians living out of their cars but which haven't pawned their guitars.
I read the first ten or so pages of the PDF before posting, and the intended audience was obviously not the media companies. I would guess that that audience would be law makers. The paper clearly states that social welfare for artists is not the intended consequence of copyrights, but that encouraging production is.
I found most of the arguments in the front section (which were probably more general and less supported than ones later in the paper) to be logical and well-reasoned, except for the part about authors generating income through speaking tours, which I doubt would be effective for any but the most famous.
I'll definitely read the rest of the paper this weekend.
She wrote a university paper about Napster and the legality of it, and she had separate user accounts for herself, her children, and guests on her computer. From those and the length of her on-line involvement, I'm going to say that she's at least a little nerdy.
Dial down the drama. It is all funneled through Opera's servers, because if the users knew how to forward a port from their router to their computer, then they could have had their own server for ages. With Opera's help, they can now enjoy their new freedom in Opera's walled garden.
Which is hilarious since the Opera Unite video talks about servers having all the power on the Internet now and how it needs to be democratized. Unite claims to do that. Then you try to enable a service and find out that you need to register for an account on their servers first. Meh.
Last I checked, Tomboy was installed for Lenny when you chose Gnome in Aptitude (because it was recommended, but not a dep). This argument should have occurred back then if at all.
This doesn't even mention small, independent games, (like any of Reflexive's stuff) which almost always use Vorbis files for the audio. I assume that's because the game can have a decoder without having to pay a distribution fee to someone. No matter the reason,.ogg is huge.
The actual article uses Big Buck Bunny and runs it through YouTube's own low-def (H.263+MP3) and high-def (H.264+AAC) encoders, then compares the videos to the same size videos done in OGG (Theora+Vorbis). The results? Up to personal interpretation, but OGG seems to win handily in both audio and video on low-res and be within spitting distance on high-def.
The goal of the experiment was to disprove the statement that switching to OGG would greatly increase bandwidth costs. It met that goal. Reading more into the experiment is unnecessary.
We enjoy fucking. We almost never "make love." Cuddling is fun and we do that often, but when it comes to sex, multiple orgasms are way more fun than a slow grind with some cuddling thrown in. We both agree after eight years of it.
Sex is animalistic. It's instinctual. Why do you need to make it something else?
Only one Senator on either side opposed the Patriot Act, the piece of legislation which semi-authorized the "executive trespasses." Pres. Obama has gone on record since his election for supporting warrantless wiretaps.
In short, OrangeTide isn't the only one who think that there would be only "superficial differences."
Well, if your time is really worth something, then you can spend that 11.5 hours on the train working, whereas you'd only get 6.5 working hours travelling by car.;) The train system in the U.S. isn't so good, but if there's incentive to improve it, you can have a situation like 2.5 hours for the travel at a fifth of the cost for the plane ticket.
BTW, Busan to Seoul is a 4-hour car trip, but I can get on the KTX (train) and do it in two. You just need decent infrastructure.
Buy your domain through Google and get Google Apps for Your Domain for free. Set up aliases for your main account for all the sites you register for. You don't need the catch-all, then, and you get GMail's excellent spam filtering. Keep an IMAP mail client with local copies turned on and you have an automatic backup of all your mail.
"Frankly speaking, the first question, I would like to apologize that, if you look at Asus booth we've decided not to display this product," he said. "I think you may have seen the devices on Qualcomm's booth but actually, I think this is a company decision so far we would not like to show this device. That's what I can tell you so far. I would like to apologize for that." -- http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9133813
Asus didn't actually want to show off the hardware, though, which I think is a strange thing indeed since the tech industry seems quite excited about the product and it looked ready to ship.
When asked about rumors that Asustek faced pressure from Microsoft and Intel over the use of Android and Snapdragon in the Eee PC, Tsang said "no, pressure, none."
Intel spokesman Nick Jacobs said, "our customers are always free to make the choices they want," and declined further comment on "rumors and speculation."
Unless, of course, you are a netbook manufacturer which wants to put a dual-core Atom in your product. Intel has promised to "penalize" manufacturers that do that.
Obviously, I don't believe a thing coming out of their mouths.
Slashdot Mirror
Patronage was horrible. You had to compose, perform, or do nothing, all based on what your royal sponsor demanded of the evening. You art would be filled with things only to please your king. See the music of Haydn for an example of this. In some cases, a patron would even modify the work of art however he desired. It sucks.
I realize that you were trying to contrast patronage with what we've got now, but I don't see the real difference between what you've described and being under contract to a major label.
Except that the copyright system in the U.S. wasn't created as a social welfare system for artist: it was created to encourage production which would enter the public domain soon enough.
Imagine if the estate of William Shakespeare still got a cut of every print and performance of his works. Would we every see them in high schools? How about Dickens or Twain? What if literature coursebooks had to pay huge sums of money for the right to republish thousand-year-old manuscripts?
Think I'm being disingenuous? I'm not. I should be able to freely use, remake, dramatize for the theater, and cut up over half of the movies on this list, but I couldn't find any listed as public domain in my ten-minute attempt. The Presley estate shouldn't still be making money off of music written and recorded fifty years ago, if indeed the estate is the entity holding the rights. Automatic extension has made it virtually impossible to know who actually holds the rights when you care enough to license that seventy-year-old movie for inclusion in your film.
The original Copyright Act offered protection for fourteen years, with an optional extension of another fourteen years. I don't see the problem with that or why it needed to be changed.
From my original post:
... except for the part about authors generating income through speaking tours, which I doubt would be effective for any but the most famous.
From another one of my posts:
the author is going to have to be quite famous to get any audience to care to see him/her speak.
Saying that Dickens, Twain, and Roddenberry made money by speaking doesn't impact these points at all since they are on the short list of famous authors.
Copyright in the U.S. was not created as a social welfare device, but as an incentive to create. The question this research paper raises is whether strong copyright actually creates that incentive or not.
You keep calling other people dense, but I think it's you that doesn't get the argument that's occurring.
They're not going to make any serious money by charging at the door for it, though, which was what the paper was talking about.
I didn't mention bands. I have no confusion about people paying to see a band. Paying to see an author speak is another matter. I could understand book (signing) tours, but the author is going to have to be quite famous to get any audience to care to see him/her speak.
The number of concerts would drop if musicians got a bigger percentage of the CDs.
The day copyright dies, the artistic output quality will drop drastically as few artists will work to benefit the leechers who will directly rip or remix existing art for personal use/gain.
I was rebutting these points, which are demonstrably false for artists who love their craft.
Artists being taken advantage of of is completely different issue. Don't conflate.
You obviously don't know any true artists. They produce whether anyone is buying their stuff or not. The ones that desire admiration do it in public. Most, however, would be just as happy trying to create the perfect piece and put it in a box which would only be discovered after the artist's death. Money has no meaning except to pay for the materials needed to produce the art, and food, shelter and drugs if there's enough money left after the art.
Look into history to find examples. You could, I guess, just find the musicians living out of their cars but which haven't pawned their guitars.
I read the first ten or so pages of the PDF before posting, and the intended audience was obviously not the media companies. I would guess that that audience would be law makers. The paper clearly states that social welfare for artists is not the intended consequence of copyrights, but that encouraging production is.
I found most of the arguments in the front section (which were probably more general and less supported than ones later in the paper) to be logical and well-reasoned, except for the part about authors generating income through speaking tours, which I doubt would be effective for any but the most famous.
I'll definitely read the rest of the paper this weekend.
She wrote a university paper about Napster and the legality of it, and she had separate user accounts for herself, her children, and guests on her computer. From those and the length of her on-line involvement, I'm going to say that she's at least a little nerdy.
Dial down the drama. It is all funneled through Opera's servers, because if the users knew how to forward a port from their router to their computer, then they could have had their own server for ages. With Opera's help, they can now enjoy their new freedom in Opera's walled garden.
Which is hilarious since the Opera Unite video talks about servers having all the power on the Internet now and how it needs to be democratized. Unite claims to do that. Then you try to enable a service and find out that you need to register for an account on their servers first. Meh.
Last I checked, Tomboy was installed for Lenny when you chose Gnome in Aptitude (because it was recommended, but not a dep). This argument should have occurred back then if at all.
That's just what she says to keep your ego intact. "It's OK, honey. We can just cuddle. I don't really need an orgasm."
But the cost of the H.264 licenses are vanishingly small compared to the extra bandwidth cost of using Theora for a company like Google or Apple.
You should RTFA since it attempts to rebut that exact statement.
I agree with your post except -- iPod doesn't have a 90% market share in most place. In fact, it's quite rare in Asia, as far as I can tell.
This doesn't even mention small, independent games, (like any of Reflexive's stuff) which almost always use Vorbis files for the audio. I assume that's because the game can have a decoder without having to pay a distribution fee to someone. No matter the reason, .ogg is huge.
The actual article uses Big Buck Bunny and runs it through YouTube's own low-def (H.263+MP3) and high-def (H.264+AAC) encoders, then compares the videos to the same size videos done in OGG (Theora+Vorbis). The results? Up to personal interpretation, but OGG seems to win handily in both audio and video on low-res and be within spitting distance on high-def.
The goal of the experiment was to disprove the statement that switching to OGG would greatly increase bandwidth costs. It met that goal. Reading more into the experiment is unnecessary.
We enjoy fucking. We almost never "make love." Cuddling is fun and we do that often, but when it comes to sex, multiple orgasms are way more fun than a slow grind with some cuddling thrown in. We both agree after eight years of it.
Sex is animalistic. It's instinctual. Why do you need to make it something else?
Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha
BREATHE
Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha
How can he grab the bottom of the window if the bottom of the window is off the screen and he can't even see the "OK" button?
Only one Senator on either side opposed the Patriot Act, the piece of legislation which semi-authorized the "executive trespasses." Pres. Obama has gone on record since his election for supporting warrantless wiretaps.
In short, OrangeTide isn't the only one who think that there would be only "superficial differences."
Well, if your time is really worth something, then you can spend that 11.5 hours on the train working, whereas you'd only get 6.5 working hours travelling by car. ;) The train system in the U.S. isn't so good, but if there's incentive to improve it, you can have a situation like 2.5 hours for the travel at a fifth of the cost for the plane ticket.
BTW, Busan to Seoul is a 4-hour car trip, but I can get on the KTX (train) and do it in two. You just need decent infrastructure.
Buy your domain through Google and get Google Apps for Your Domain for free. Set up aliases for your main account for all the sites you register for. You don't need the catch-all, then, and you get GMail's excellent spam filtering. Keep an IMAP mail client with local copies turned on and you have an automatic backup of all your mail.
The Gecko EduBook uses AA batteries and the SoC uses 1.2 watts..
"Frankly speaking, the first question, I would like to apologize that, if you look at Asus booth we've decided not to display this product," he said. "I think you may have seen the devices on Qualcomm's booth but actually, I think this is a company decision so far we would not like to show this device. That's what I can tell you so far. I would like to apologize for that." -- http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9133813
Asus didn't actually want to show off the hardware, though, which I think is a strange thing indeed since the tech industry seems quite excited about the product and it looked ready to ship.
When asked about rumors that Asustek faced pressure from Microsoft and Intel over the use of Android and Snapdragon in the Eee PC, Tsang said "no, pressure, none."
Intel spokesman Nick Jacobs said, "our customers are always free to make the choices they want," and declined further comment on "rumors and speculation."
Unless, of course, you are a netbook manufacturer which wants to put a dual-core Atom in your product. Intel has promised to "penalize" manufacturers that do that.
Obviously, I don't believe a thing coming out of their mouths.
I hit womprats in my Tandy Model I, which only had 4K.