Maybe you're not aware that every time you hear music on a jukebox, from a DJ, in a karaoke bar, hell, on hold or in an elevator, someone who runs that business has been required to pay a royalty to a recording artists' association.
Of course. And of that tiny fee, how much gets to the artists? Ultimately thay get maybe.01% of what they'd pay a live artist. Or likely, nothing, as the rights were often signed over to the record companies. And the parent post was about the limited demand; with cheap recorded music most of the demand is met by top-100 artists and session musicians.
Not that I'm advocating this idea, just pointing out the kind of thing that would help musicians as opposed to giant media conglomerates.
To be fair, the problem with allofmp3 is that they are collecting royalties but they are then lodged with a company that most (all?) of record companies have no revenue processing relationship with so the funds can't be passed on and distributed.
How hard is it to send a letter asking for an accounting and a cheque? They don't even do that, because if they did collect their royalties they couldn't keep calling ALLofMP3 pirates. (Well, knowing them, they probably could both take the money and say they were robbed.)
t's really not. Musicians want to play music all day. There's an over-abundance of musicians, yet they still wanna get paid. So they go to the government and get laws put in place they introduce artifical scarcity. The exact same thing happens in virtual worlds.
If the govt was making laws to help musicians, they'd ban recorded music from entertainment venues. No jukeboxes, no DJs, no Muzak, no karaoke, no lip-synching. If you wanted music, you'd have to pay someone to perform.
How much will Kazaa actually pay? Do they even have $100 million? $1 million? They probably stripped any assets fropm the company months ago and will just let it go bankrupt.
...1 bushel is about 9 US gallons...\,
It would have been friendly of the editors to provide a metric equivalent for the large percentage of their readership outside of the United States. Running GNU units on 1 bushel tells me that it is just over 35 liters.
Actually, it would have been even more pointless than the gallons conversion the submitter (not the editors, they never bother to edit) gave. The "thousands of bushels" remark is just away of saying "lots", using a unit assocated with agriculture.
"Warning, this upgrade might break your favourite website including online banking, shopping, and especially pr0n"
Every e-commerce site is going to be IE7 ready before it's released. There will be glitches, but with millions of customers at stake, they'll be solved pretty damn quick. (Of course, they may well break other browsers in the process, but that's another matter and MS will just try not to gloat about that too much.)
How about teaching a starving child how to farm, hunt, fish, live sustainably?
Farming? India is terribly overcrowded, many familes have no land. Hunting? Great idea. You'd be in competition with the poachers to wipe out the remaining wildlife. Fishing? Many fisheries are exhausted, mostly scooped up by large foreign trawlers.
"effect of extensive laptop use on children's health" is just a secondary concern (I'm not actually aiming my sarcasm at you here; I'm just curious how the Indian government could care about E.M. radiation when there are much larger concerns).
Their concern was not radiation, but eyesight -- squinting at a screen for hours a day; back strain, maybe RSI from typing. These are quite valid; there are bound to be obsessive users, whether coding or gaming.
I have been wondering how easy it is for a young child to keep the laptop batteries charged.
People seem to fixate on the crank/pedal whatever. If you've got any kind of power, you can just plug it in. I don't see it being much use to a really young (under 8) kid anyway.
I didn't start out cynical about computers in education; I spent years working in education, promoting the use of computers, and frankly didn't see many worthwhile results, with the possible exception of training a bunch of kids in the use of office software.
My daughter is 9 and I really don't see much point in her getting, or using, a computer for schoolwork any time soon. She uses mine as a game machine and to send photos to her friends (who she sees at school every day anyway). They have a computer class once a week, which seems to consist of using Wordpad or Paint to make simple documents. I wouldn't like them to spend more time using PCs, it's just a distraction from "real" learning.
However, the Negroponte plan, as I understand it, is meant to provide access to resources (eg, ebooks, the web) not available to students otherwise. (With my daughter, the problem is not access to books, it's persuading her to sit down and read them.) But the Indian report has a point: if the same amount of money was invested in printed books (which are extraordinarily cheap in India) and hiring more teachers, the results would likely be better than providing ebooks. Sadly, of course, if education had the budget priority to fund this programme, it would be at the expense of, not as well as, traditional tools.
So, can you offer a single good reason why anyone would reasonably use "Barney" or "Barbie" or "Pokemon" as keywords for a site featuring a naked woman with semen all over her face? Do you realize how silly you sound defending that?
It's quite easy to find sites where Pokemon and pornography would be both quite valid descriptive tags. For instance, Google gave this: "www.rusmysl.ru/pics/pokemon.html" (NB: NSFW, may be infected with popups, etc, take care) as the first of 5 million hits for "pokemon nude". And note that it's in Russia....
When you purchase anything like video or music, you have no right to the actual content. That is intellectual property that is not your's to do whatever you want with regardless of copyright law / licensing.
You don't own the copyright, but you certainly DO have rights to use the content. At a minimum, to play/listen/watch/read it. And in most countries you have "fair use" rights that let you copy portions of it. These rights cannot be negated by small print on the object you only see after purchase; unless you happened to sign a contract at the point of sale.
If you can't spell, and even if you can, use spellcheck when submitting something to be read by upwards of a million people. Don't expect the editors to fix it.
There are laws against piracy, but they are weak in practice due to Fair Use and similar conventions. The state can't easily punish piracy because it's difficult to catch and difficult to prove.
But the state doesn't need to prosecute; the RIAAA et all can make civil suits, demanding huge cash payouts, under current law. And they rarely have to prove anything as the victims usually settle before trial.
Depends on what both parties agreed to. When I buy services from someone, I'll set up my expectations within the contract. My work agreement with my subcontractors contains over 4 paragraphs of assumptions like "You will not attempt to defraud [Company] or its customers." and "You will not attempt to harm, destroy, erase or reduce in functionality..." If you're buying services or items without a contract, I would consider that an "as-is" sale, and you better get a really good deal on it.
That's just crazy. You don't need to have a clause that says: "You will not attempt to defraud...". That's already a crime, it's not like someone is free to steal from you, or kill you, if they don't sign a contract specifying that.
The track still seems like a derivative work to me. It wouldn't be legal for somebody to release diffs (or say an ed script such that it contains none of the unmodified code) for the linux kernel
The diffs are in effect an encoded version of the kernel, you could regnerate the original programmatically. The commentary does not allow you to recreate the original soundtrack; let alone the movie (the soundtrack by itself being relatively worthless). And separately, parody and criticism are allowed wide latitude to use copyright material.
Granted, not quite a circle. But rather redundant and getting very close to the "it's wrong because it's illegal; it's illegal because it's wrong" argument one often hears about things like drugs.
some people don't like the fact that these activities are illegal.
Some people don't agree that this illegality you assert is a "fact", certainly not "all around the world", let alone think it's wrong.
Hong Kong had only been capitalist since 1841 because Britain owned them up until 1999.
1997. And in your first post you seemed to imagine HK was communist in 1949.
And there is a HUGE difference between "overtly" and "at all."
If you look at the composition of the current HK government, all are civil servants who were trained, and served, under the British colonial government. Everyone however has an eye on how things will play in Beijing, but Beijing's control is thus far subtle.
And anyway, who's going to tell Beijing to play by its rules? Nobody in China will, that's for sure!
China is a member of the UN, the WTO, and is holding the Olympics in 2008. They can't just tear up international treaties, several of which make conditions on the status of Hong Kong and civil rights here. A few weeks ago on July 1 we had the annual Democracy March in support of full democracy and an elected Chief Executive, and on June 4th there was the annual commemoration of the Tiananmen Massacre. Neither of these events could be held in any mainland China city, and both highly irritate Communist Party faithful, who however cannot prevent them.
The real problem with the Hong Kong film industry is that they have too many films and the quality has gone down a bit recently. It's not unheard of for big name actors over there to appear in 5 or more films a year. If you have enough time as an actor to do 5 or more films a year
No, that was 10 years ago. The bottom fell out of the movie market (partly because of what you say, an overheated market, financed often by Triads). Now far fewer movies are produced.
Slashdot Mirror
Coral caches are all dead, Google ONLY CACHES TEXT. The image links in Google cache point back to the original site.
Weigh the hassle, and messing around with hardware and software to fix Skype against just making an ordinary phone call over a normal wire.
Of course. And of that tiny fee, how much gets to the artists? Ultimately thay get maybe .01% of what they'd pay a live artist. Or likely, nothing, as the rights were often signed over to the record companies. And the parent post was about the limited demand; with cheap recorded music most of the demand is met by top-100 artists and session musicians.
Not that I'm advocating this idea, just pointing out the kind of thing that would help musicians as opposed to giant media conglomerates.
How hard is it to send a letter asking for an accounting and a cheque? They don't even do that, because if they did collect their royalties they couldn't keep calling ALLofMP3 pirates. (Well, knowing them, they probably could both take the money and say they were robbed.)
If the govt was making laws to help musicians, they'd ban recorded music from entertainment venues. No jukeboxes, no DJs, no Muzak, no karaoke, no lip-synching. If you wanted music, you'd have to pay someone to perform.
How much will Kazaa actually pay? Do they even have $100 million? $1 million? They probably stripped any assets fropm the company months ago and will just let it go bankrupt.
It would have been friendly of the editors to provide a metric equivalent for the large percentage of their readership outside of the United States. Running GNU units on 1 bushel tells me that it is just over 35 liters.
Actually, it would have been even more pointless than the gallons conversion the submitter (not the editors, they never bother to edit) gave. The "thousands of bushels" remark is just away of saying "lots", using a unit assocated with agriculture.
Every e-commerce site is going to be IE7 ready before it's released. There will be glitches, but with millions of customers at stake, they'll be solved pretty damn quick. (Of course, they may well break other browsers in the process, but that's another matter and MS will just try not to gloat about that too much.)
Farming? India is terribly overcrowded, many familes have no land. Hunting? Great idea. You'd be in competition with the poachers to wipe out the remaining wildlife. Fishing? Many fisheries are exhausted, mostly scooped up by large foreign trawlers.
Their concern was not radiation, but eyesight -- squinting at a screen for hours a day; back strain, maybe RSI from typing. These are quite valid; there are bound to be obsessive users, whether coding or gaming.
People seem to fixate on the crank/pedal whatever. If you've got any kind of power, you can just plug it in. I don't see it being much use to a really young (under 8) kid anyway.
My daughter is 9 and I really don't see much point in her getting, or using, a computer for schoolwork any time soon. She uses mine as a game machine and to send photos to her friends (who she sees at school every day anyway). They have a computer class once a week, which seems to consist of using Wordpad or Paint to make simple documents. I wouldn't like them to spend more time using PCs, it's just a distraction from "real" learning.
However, the Negroponte plan, as I understand it, is meant to provide access to resources (eg, ebooks, the web) not available to students otherwise. (With my daughter, the problem is not access to books, it's persuading her to sit down and read them.) But the Indian report has a point: if the same amount of money was invested in printed books (which are extraordinarily cheap in India) and hiring more teachers, the results would likely be better than providing ebooks. Sadly, of course, if education had the budget priority to fund this programme, it would be at the expense of, not as well as, traditional tools.
images.google.com/images?q=pokemon+xxx
It's quite easy to find sites where Pokemon and pornography would be both quite valid descriptive tags. For instance, Google gave this: "www.rusmysl.ru/pics/pokemon.html" (NB: NSFW, may be infected with popups, etc, take care) as the first of 5 million hits for "pokemon nude". And note that it's in Russia....
You don't own the copyright, but you certainly DO have rights to use the content. At a minimum, to play/listen/watch/read it. And in most countries you have "fair use" rights that let you copy portions of it. These rights cannot be negated by small print on the object you only see after purchase; unless you happened to sign a contract at the point of sale.
If you can't spell, and even if you can, use spellcheck when submitting something to be read by upwards of a million people. Don't expect the editors to fix it.
Naturally, that feature requires you to have a TV tuner card. Their app tunes you in to your local CBS affiliate. No buffering!
Go to your preferences and try selecting "simple design". Some of the graphics misalign, but otherwsie its much more legible, IMHO.
But the state doesn't need to prosecute; the RIAAA et all can make civil suits, demanding huge cash payouts, under current law. And they rarely have to prove anything as the victims usually settle before trial.
That's just crazy. You don't need to have a clause that says: "You will not attempt to defraud...". That's already a crime, it's not like someone is free to steal from you, or kill you, if they don't sign a contract specifying that.
The diffs are in effect an encoded version of the kernel, you could regnerate the original programmatically. The commentary does not allow you to recreate the original soundtrack; let alone the movie (the soundtrack by itself being relatively worthless). And separately, parody and criticism are allowed wide latitude to use copyright material.
| I DIDN'T SAY THAT. I said it's not illegal EVERYWHERE as you stated.
Granted, not quite a circle. But rather redundant and getting very close to the "it's wrong because it's illegal; it's illegal because it's wrong" argument one often hears about things like drugs.
some people don't like the fact that these activities are illegal.
Some people don't agree that this illegality you assert is a "fact", certainly not "all around the world", let alone think it's wrong.
1997. And in your first post you seemed to imagine HK was communist in 1949.
And there is a HUGE difference between "overtly" and "at all."
If you look at the composition of the current HK government, all are civil servants who were trained, and served, under the British colonial government. Everyone however has an eye on how things will play in Beijing, but Beijing's control is thus far subtle.
And anyway, who's going to tell Beijing to play by its rules? Nobody in China will, that's for sure!
China is a member of the UN, the WTO, and is holding the Olympics in 2008. They can't just tear up international treaties, several of which make conditions on the status of Hong Kong and civil rights here. A few weeks ago on July 1 we had the annual Democracy March in support of full democracy and an elected Chief Executive, and on June 4th there was the annual commemoration of the Tiananmen Massacre. Neither of these events could be held in any mainland China city, and both highly irritate Communist Party faithful, who however cannot prevent them.
The real problem with the Hong Kong film industry is that they have too many films and the quality has gone down a bit recently. It's not unheard of for big name actors over there to appear in 5 or more films a year. If you have enough time as an actor to do 5 or more films a year
No, that was 10 years ago. The bottom fell out of the movie market (partly because of what you say, an overheated market, financed often by Triads). Now far fewer movies are produced.