If I do a days work I get paid a days wage, I don't see why it should be that much different for Musicians.
Actually it isn't much different. As a composer I get paid one of two ways: either as an employee creating a work on commission (which is exactly the same as a programmer being paid a wage) or as a freelance who doesn't get paid until (or rather, unless) the royalties start coming in. Not both.
As a performer it's a similar deal: I can charge an hourly rate for playing on a recording for someone else, or I can fund my own recordings and attempt to make that money back in other ways. Again, this isn't dissimilar to a programmer's options (and before anyone says "performance royalties", click and read).
To be honest, I have been paid royalties and a fee (for advertisements), but this is because I was being paid an hourly rate as a performer to record pieces I'd composed in my own time; I could just as easily have let someone else play those instruments or let someone else compose, but I don't see anything wrong with working two jobs (even if people outside the industry fail to see a distinction between the two roles. If it helps, think programmer vs sysadmin: related field, overlapping skill set, but not the same and being one doesn't prevent you being the other at other times). Besides, anyone not bleeding the corporate world dry at every opportunity is being negligent;)
Bear in mind that unless I'm collecting a fee by working for someone else there is no guarantee that I'll make any money at all for my efforts, and merely posessing a copyright doesn't mean it's actually going to provide an income for it's entire duration. Royalties are directly related to sales and other uses; when people stop buying a recording is when the income stops, whether it's 6 months or 60 years later (though I have to admit 60 years is ridiculous).
If the time was reduced to 7-10 years this would surely promote creativity.
Not neccessarily: it well might encourage wave after wave of cover acts. What I could see happening is independents writing all the new music, the majors waiting until the rights expire to create new arrangements (which could be copyrightable derivative works), then re-releasing as safe, predicable and highly promoted acts without having to pay the original composers a cent. It could be giving the labels a free lunch, and I consider that the antithesis of promoting the arts.
The trade-off is making copyright duration short enough to encourage a musician to continue writing, but long enough to encourage other musicians to write instead of taking the easy way out for quick sales. Setting an exact time should not be done by pulling a random number out of a hat or by gut feeling, however, because basing a number on the highly visible 5% of chart-topping recordings would unduly affect the niche end of the market (which is the part of the industry that really deserves financial encouragement IMO). A statistics-based approach would be a better idea, since the point of limiting copyright duration isn't to prevent people getting rich* as some seem to think, it's to allow creative works to be freely accessable while they still retain social relevance.
However the artist should keep control if music was going to be used for other purpose other than listening (movie soundtrack or advert ) and be allowed to permit or deny such use.
Sounds reasonable, except I'd extend that to include derivative works for any commercial purpose so the scenario I described above is prevented. Non-commercial copying and derivative works are quite acceptable, possibly even desirable since a tune that becomes popular after the exclusive rights expire could still earn royalties from commercial uses it never would have seen when obscure...win/win as far as I can see.
BTW, I'm not trying to flame or lose karma (and let's face it, I'm going to moderation hell for this po
Your post is a perfect example of what I detest about Digg: the users, who appear to be a bunch of petty, spiteful little shits who can't accept a difference in opinion.
If Slashdot is so horrible, why waste your time here? Is the biggest thrill of your day, your wittiest retort to copy/paste an email address that's obviously a spam-trap anyway? Is your life so devoid of emotional security, meaning and purpose that defending a site that you don't own or operate while attempting to screw over someone on a site they don't own or operate makes you feel like you've achieved something?
What a sad, pathetic excuse for a human being you must be.
Ewe knead knot. What I was saying in my satirical way was: complaining about complaints about spelling mistakes has got to be the dumbest @#$% evr, complaining about spelling mistakes isn't quite there because even though it's not constructive, at least it's accurate.
And as for being modded "Insightful", I would have thought talking about correcting an expurgated expletive was a clue about the intended parody; apparently not obvious enough. I must remember to include the word "fart" in anything I mean to be funny, just so the other moderators know.
At that point an informed underling steps up to correct his superior's technical gaffe:
"I see. Whatever, we'll just make Bat Tyrant, Khazi and LameWare illegal. And any other computer program that uses the word "sharing", we don't want that. Minion, word it thusly".
This is very similar to the way that butterflies get the color in their wings.
Oh sure, they're just using the lasers to etch colourful designs onto their wings now, but give the little buggers a chance and they'll scale up the energy output. It's them or us, I tells you!
The police are hoping for a little temporary discretion from the media while terrorism cases (always an emotive point nowadays) are being investigated.
IMO the AFP should not expect that when they themselves leak details of the investigation to the media.
Care to fail again with another terrible and wrong example?
Care to apply some logic?
Let's try: having caught this person and obtained a confession that he trained some of the hijackers and knew of the plot, which you'd think would make him a valuable informant and known criminal who should be tried for aiding and abetting the largest terrorist attack on US soil, he was...released without charges.
Quoth Wikipedia:
Despite the relentless campaign of accusations and vilification on the part of the US and Australian governments, the US government decided in January not to charge Mr. Habib, based on a complete lack of evidence that would hold up in their secret military trial. At this point, Australia sought his release. On January 11, 2005, Australian Attorney-General Phillip Ruddock announced that Habib would be released without charge by the United States and repatriated to Australia within days.
Yet David Hicks, who was caught guarding a tank in Afghanistan, was incarcerated much longer, tried, imprisoned on return to Australia and released under strict parole conditions.
It really doesn't take a genius to figure out that the contents of Habib's confession must bear so little resemblence to other known intelligence that it wasn't even plausible, so citing it is an act of pure deperation on your part. And if you're thinking he agreed to be a mole, that's exactly what Al Qaeda would think too (they're fanatics, not idiots), so his ongoing intelligence value would be precisely zero, especially after Australia's Attorney General announced publicly that he would be under surveillance after his return.
You seem to think an unverifiable statement from an anonymous official in an unnamed department that is contradicted by events proves he actually was "an ununiformed combatant fighting our troops or implementing terror attacks" (which is what the OP demanded), or that intelligence agencies don't make mistakes or play politics. An accusation does not equate to guilt.
I don't presume to know the truth, but at least I know bullshit when I see it.
Slashdot Mirror
The real bug he needs fixed is the one up his arse.
If I do a days work I get paid a days wage, I don't see why it should be that much different for Musicians.
;)
Actually it isn't much different. As a composer I get paid one of two ways: either as an employee creating a work on commission (which is exactly the same as a programmer being paid a wage) or as a freelance who doesn't get paid until (or rather, unless) the royalties start coming in. Not both.
As a performer it's a similar deal: I can charge an hourly rate for playing on a recording for someone else, or I can fund my own recordings and attempt to make that money back in other ways. Again, this isn't dissimilar to a programmer's options (and before anyone says "performance royalties", click and read).
To be honest, I have been paid royalties and a fee (for advertisements), but this is because I was being paid an hourly rate as a performer to record pieces I'd composed in my own time; I could just as easily have let someone else play those instruments or let someone else compose, but I don't see anything wrong with working two jobs (even if people outside the industry fail to see a distinction between the two roles. If it helps, think programmer vs sysadmin: related field, overlapping skill set, but not the same and being one doesn't prevent you being the other at other times). Besides, anyone not bleeding the corporate world dry at every opportunity is being negligent
Bear in mind that unless I'm collecting a fee by working for someone else there is no guarantee that I'll make any money at all for my efforts, and merely posessing a copyright doesn't mean it's actually going to provide an income for it's entire duration. Royalties are directly related to sales and other uses; when people stop buying a recording is when the income stops, whether it's 6 months or 60 years later (though I have to admit 60 years is ridiculous).
If the time was reduced to 7-10 years this would surely promote creativity.
Not neccessarily: it well might encourage wave after wave of cover acts. What I could see happening is independents writing all the new music, the majors waiting until the rights expire to create new arrangements (which could be copyrightable derivative works), then re-releasing as safe, predicable and highly promoted acts without having to pay the original composers a cent. It could be giving the labels a free lunch, and I consider that the antithesis of promoting the arts.
The trade-off is making copyright duration short enough to encourage a musician to continue writing, but long enough to encourage other musicians to write instead of taking the easy way out for quick sales. Setting an exact time should not be done by pulling a random number out of a hat or by gut feeling, however, because basing a number on the highly visible 5% of chart-topping recordings would unduly affect the niche end of the market (which is the part of the industry that really deserves financial encouragement IMO). A statistics-based approach would be a better idea, since the point of limiting copyright duration isn't to prevent people getting rich* as some seem to think, it's to allow creative works to be freely accessable while they still retain social relevance.
However the artist should keep control if music was going to be used for other purpose other than listening (movie soundtrack or advert ) and be allowed to permit or deny such use.
Sounds reasonable, except I'd extend that to include derivative works for any commercial purpose so the scenario I described above is prevented. Non-commercial copying and derivative works are quite acceptable, possibly even desirable since a tune that becomes popular after the exclusive rights expire could still earn royalties from commercial uses it never would have seen when obscure...win/win as far as I can see.
BTW, I'm not trying to flame or lose karma (and let's face it, I'm going to moderation hell for this po
We should focus our efforts on exporting all our gas-guzzling vehicles over there instead
Plans are afoot, but it's only in the early stages.
That's not a waste, it's a network security diagram.
Heavy clickers are also relatively more likely to visit auctions, gambling, and career services sites
So basically they're unemployable opportunists with no ability to assess risks.
The surprise here is that it took three companies working together to figure this out.
I most strongly disagree. IE is flamebait: use it, and you will get burned.
Your post is a perfect example of what I detest about Digg: the users, who appear to be a bunch of petty, spiteful little shits who can't accept a difference in opinion.
If Slashdot is so horrible, why waste your time here? Is the biggest thrill of your day, your wittiest retort to copy/paste an email address that's obviously a spam-trap anyway? Is your life so devoid of emotional security, meaning and purpose that defending a site that you don't own or operate while attempting to screw over someone on a site they don't own or operate makes you feel like you've achieved something?
What a sad, pathetic excuse for a human being you must be.
Ewe knead knot. What I was saying in my satirical way was: complaining about complaints about spelling mistakes has got to be the dumbest @#$% evr, complaining about spelling mistakes isn't quite there because even though it's not constructive, at least it's accurate.
And as for being modded "Insightful", I would have thought talking about correcting an expurgated expletive was a clue about the intended parody; apparently not obvious enough. I must remember to include the word "fart" in anything I mean to be funny, just so the other moderators know.
At that point an informed underling steps up to correct his superior's technical gaffe:
"I see. Whatever, we'll just make Bat Tyrant, Khazi and LameWare illegal. And any other computer program that uses the word "sharing", we don't want that. Minion, word it thusly".
Now all the hot 18 year old chicks that read slashdot...
Wow, that's some parallel universe you come from! Where's the interdimensional portal???
I wonder what would happen if every account suddenly added "Cowboy Neal" to the Interests field.
They'd lose all their advertising revenue. Who wants a bunch of lunatics as their market?
...don't let anyone take naked photos of you, 'cuz they *will* end up online, and it will be *hilarious*.
I was hoping for "awe inspiring", or at least "impressive". Way to dent a guy's ego...
so how do they know what's what?
Port 6881==bad.
And that's probably as sophisticated as it will get.
You misspelled "loser", and I can't even guess what you were aiming for with @#$%.
the site's doing everything in its power to -be- Digg down to the very look and feel, and failing miserably.
Surely failing to imitate Digg is a good thing...
Conversely, imagine if Apple's ad campaign was "Think More"...not a bad principle, but hardly a slogan to sell more computers.
That story has more car analogies than an average /. thread.
Or to put it another way, if car analogies were like cars on a highway...
From the summary:
This is very similar to the way that butterflies get the color in their wings.
Oh sure, they're just using the lasers to etch colourful designs onto their wings now, but give the little buggers a chance and they'll scale up the energy output. It's them or us, I tells you!
...use lasers? Scary!
"Och, someone save me from the wee turtles! They were too fast for me!"
The police are hoping for a little temporary discretion from the media while terrorism cases (always an emotive point nowadays) are being investigated.
IMO the AFP should not expect that when they themselves leak details of the investigation to the media.
WD40 was preceeded by 39 unsuccessful formulas, and Edison took a few thousand tries to get the light bulb right...
You omitted superstition or lack of education.
He didn't have a problem with that form of robbery, eh?
He's a manager. That makes him one of the bandits.
Care to apply some logic?
Let's try: having caught this person and obtained a confession that he trained some of the hijackers and knew of the plot, which you'd think would make him a valuable informant and known criminal who should be tried for aiding and abetting the largest terrorist attack on US soil, he was...released without charges.
Quoth Wikipedia:
Yet David Hicks, who was caught guarding a tank in Afghanistan, was incarcerated much longer, tried, imprisoned on return to Australia and released under strict parole conditions.
It really doesn't take a genius to figure out that the contents of Habib's confession must bear so little resemblence to other known intelligence that it wasn't even plausible, so citing it is an act of pure deperation on your part. And if you're thinking he agreed to be a mole, that's exactly what Al Qaeda would think too (they're fanatics, not idiots), so his ongoing intelligence value would be precisely zero, especially after Australia's Attorney General announced publicly that he would be under surveillance after his return.
You seem to think an unverifiable statement from an anonymous official in an unnamed department that is contradicted by events proves he actually was "an ununiformed combatant fighting our troops or implementing terror attacks" (which is what the OP demanded), or that intelligence agencies don't make mistakes or play politics. An accusation does not equate to guilt.
I don't presume to know the truth, but at least I know bullshit when I see it.