Let me state, right off the bat: this is not a troll.
While I agree with just about everybody here that reverse-engineering shouldn't be illegal, and you should be able to publish DeCSS, I just want to watch the DVD I bought legally for crying out loud, etc --
Let's keep the first amendment out of this, okay? DeCSS is code. It's not free expression, it's not an Art form. It's simply a useful tool that let's you watch DVDs on your linux box. It should be legal to distribute it, not because of free speech, but because you simply should be allowed to write code that let's you watch movies.
Rather than trying to shove the square peg of technology into the round hole of the 1st amendment, we should be addressing current technology laws. In a way, not calling shenanigans on the DMCA every chance you get implies your acceptance of it. If you fix the DeCSS problem with 1st amendment logic, you've fixed the DeCSS problem. But if you fix it by repealing the DMCA, you've fixed a whole lot of other problems as well.
Unless you don't just lend something out to someone, you make a temporary trade. Let's say we're both into fantasy fiction. I've got The Lord of the Rings, The Hobbit, and The Simillariowhatever. I want to see what this Harry Potter fuss is about. You've got the 5 Harry Potter books, and saw The Two Towers movie, and now want to read all Tolkien's stuff. So we trade for a predetermined period, say 5 months. If you decide to be a jerk and keep my books, no big deal, I've still got yours.
One problem I can see is disputes: say you spilled orange juice on my books and aren't willing to buy new ones. Or say you just spill a little on one page and I decide to be a jerk about it and demand you buy a new one.
But with some inventiveness, it just might work out.
Well, give it up. What brands have you used that are fine, or more importantly, what brands have failed for you? Here's my experience:
Lesson 1: Never get a CD-R w/o any printing on it. I got some (TDK, I think) that were just silver on the top, no branding or anything, and they burned just fine, but I found out later they could be scratched VERY easily. Scratched on the top, mind you. Apparently there was no protective layer over the foil, and you could just scratch it right off. I think they were meant to be printed on by some kind of CD printer.
My TDK's that I burned 2 years ago with the white surface (w/ branding) seem to be perfectly fine though. I also don't seem to have any problem with any imations that are as old.
I have one 2-year-old CD in which the foil appears to be harboring some kind of fungus. The brand is "K Hypermedia," I think I got it for free or really cheap. You probably get what you pay for. But the "fungus" is only on part of the edge, so it still plays fine. I have a handful of others of the same brand, which look okay.
disclaimer: I take semi-good to pretty-bad care of my CDs. They are routinely left out on the counter, desk, or wherever, and sometimes stacked in tall piles, when I don't feel like looking for the matching packaging.
Apparently Australia is paving the way here. eVACS, as I learned from another poster, is open-source and was used in the Australian Capital Territory elections in 2001. I think a great start would be to have some federal or state IT workers adapt it for use here in the states, and test it out in small-scale elections. Maybe by 2008 we'll be able to vote via the web, and we'll see lots more voter turnout and it'll be impossible to rig the election. A guy can dream...
Could be legal reasons. His contract could've specified "Prince or Johnathan Pinkerton Jr (or whatever it is)." It also could've said "Prince or any string of letters organized to describe the artist originally born as Johnathan Pinkerton Jr (or whatever it is)."
I'm pretty sure that Michael Jackson own the recording rights; the remaining Beatles must have some performing rights, I find it hard to believe they aren't allowed to perform their own songs. The way I understand it, Michael Jackson out-bid Paul McCartney for the recording rights. So I doubt Paul saw any money from their sale, if he was trying to buy them in the first place.
What I mean is, the original songwriter(s) should be granted perpetual (for the duration of copyright) control over the song, as an idea. This includes all rights, performance, recording, synchronization, etc. If they decide to make a recording of it, they can sell the recording rights to a label, and proceeds from the recording would be split 50/50. If someone wants to use the recording in a commercial, they would have to pay half to the label and half to the songwriters. But the songwriters, having control over the song as an idea, could always veto it.
I haven't worked out all the details yet, mostly because no one else seems to see this as a problem. But I think it's just sick that someone like Stefan Grossman is fed cease-and-desist orders if he tries to publish a book of Robert Johnson songs, despite the fact that he's one of the few people qualified to teach them. Robert is long dead, as are his family (I'm pretty sure) and any remnants of the studio that originally fronted the cash to record him.
The judge in a recent copyright case (was it Eldred vs. Ashcroft?) said to the public domain proponents "So you basically want to make money off of other people's hard work?" It's ironic that in this and many other cases, long copyright is the exclusive tool that lets people make money off of others' work. But maybe copyright isn't the issue here, I was thinking. Maybe the issue here is the transfer of rights in the first place.
Check out any of my stuff (see sig). The later stuff sounds very professional, and it was all done using Pro Tools in my home on my mac. But still, it's not cheap. I never said hundreds of thousands, but I have thousands of dollars of equipment, maybe (but not more than) ten. A full band might need much more than that. Plus, it's not like you just buy the gear and all the sudden it sounds great. You need someone who knows how to record and mix. Now that may be you (as in the case of myself, or BT), but it takes a while to train your ear. Compare the quality of my "Nyla" CD (or "dry long so") to the mp3s I'm putting out now. The recent ones sound much more polished. Same gear, better technique.
As soon as a system arrives that allows artists to securely sell their own music online and make a profit, it's going to mean the death of the old-fashioned recording industry.
Book publishing? So Stephen King gets no royalties when they make a movie of one of his stories? I doubt it.
Writing code is like recording a song. The audio engineer "works for hire," like a programmer. The business owner, like the musician, has the vision. Two totally different things.
Well that's a relief. I've heard all over the place about the 10 cd limit, but people neglected to mention that it applies only to iTMS songs.
You know, it occurs to me that that's probably the best way to get useful information around here - write some crazy post about the thing you want to know more about, and wait for somebody to go "no, you're wrong. this is how it really is..." Slashdot - news for nerds. Resource for people too lazy to look stuff up.
Sorry for the all caps, but this boils my blood. Only allowing you to burn 10 cds with the same playlist is reprehensible. There are PLENTY of valid reasons for burning more than 10 of the same CD. For instance, I just recently burned about 15 cds of a recording I made of a guitar workshop, to share with the other participants. I'm sure glad I used toast on my OS9 machine instead of trying the use iTunes.
Granted, like I said, I haven't used iTunes to burn. So if this applies ONLY to CDs with iTMS songs on them, call me dumb and mod me down, because that's sorta sensible (but only a little).
But if I can only burn any playlist 10 times in iTunes, well shiver me timbers, because it makes me feel like sailing the high seas just to spite them.
Many musicians don't even know how to check their email, much less run Pro Tools. Also, as a producer, his job can't be replaced by a computer. To get a good sound, you still have to use a good studio and hire trained engineers.
Then, after the CD is finished, you can try to use technology to bypass traditional marketing, but right now, it's a joke. Selling your music directly isn't a problem for anyone. Marketing your music, that's the rub. Fancy as the internet is, the most effective way to sell music is to force-feed it to the people directly, through radio and MTV. That's not gonna change for a long time.
Right now, it's commonplace that a person or entity can own the rights to a song, even though they took no part in its creation (Michael Jackson owning the Beatles songs, Columbia owning Robert Johnson's tracks, etc.). Is there a good reason why the music community stands for this, because I can't think of one.
Wouldn't it be better for all music creators if an artist got 100% of the song rights, and split the recording rights with the label, 50/50; and this was mandated by law, and couldn't be signed away? Am I missing something? I would think that artists would be banding together in droves for this cause.
He had valid reasons for it - his label was in control of the name "Prince" and was being bitchy about it. That's why on that triple-CD set he has "slave" written on his cheek. So he changed his name so he could release music during the dispute, and after it was settled, changed it back. I don't know why he didn't just tell people that, but I figure there were legal reasons.
Interesting bit about your dad, nevertheless. Just goes to show you that lots of times, it's not that computers are hard to learn, or that old people are stupid, it's just that they don't care. Reminds me of that Homer quote: "Just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand."
Near-starvation and castration both bring unusual longevity, but few of us choose either option.
Wha?!? So I'll live longer if I chop off my balls and quit eating? No way that's true.
As for the rest of the article, no one dies from old age. People die from stuff like cancer, or heart failure because their arteries are too clogged. They may be able to stop (or slow) the aging process and keep someone's heart from deteriorating, but they can't keep them from munching on Lays.
If you're running OS9, go to www.digidesign.com and get yourself a copy of Pro Tools Free. Pro Tools is really intuitive and a lot of the pros (Beck, Bjork, Aerosmith, etc.) use it. Thing is, they mostly want you to buy their hardware to use their software, and I don't know if you can get it for OSX w/o dropping $400 for an mBox.
Cubase seems to be the second most popular, among pros and home users alike. SX is really robust, and there are cheaper versions with less features.
Reason is the coolest thing in the world if you have a keyboard (you can get a midi controller for less than $100 if not) and want to do MIDI. I've been using Reason for everything but guitar and vocals lately.
If you want to fool around with loops, check out Ableton Live. Very fat. But you have to create the loops yourself in a seperate program (or record them in).
Bottom line: if you don't have an audio interface, get an mBox for $400 and you'll be all set with Pro Tools. If you do, get Cubase (unles digidesign came out with Pro Tools Free for OSX), and either way, get Reason for making loops.
Mics: can't go wrong with a Shure SM58 for vocals and an SM57 for instruments.
I think it's already trademarked, that's the thing. I saw him on Conan, and Conan joked around, "so if I made a 'Def Conan Show,' I'd have to clear it with you?," and he said "I wouldn't even let you do it, becuse I don't want to dilute my brand." This was as he was wearing "def" (or whatever brand he was promoting) jogging suit, shirt, shoes, socks, and underwear. No joke. Every single fucking thing he had on was branded with his brand. And you guys think Gates is bad...
yup, you (and an earlier poster) got it. Silly they may be, I soooo want one of those copperhead SGs. Without the "copperhead" on the neck, of course. I just think that "snakeskin" body looks so cool.
I don't use the "phat" spelling. Russell Simmons owns the IP to the word, and you have to pay him to use it. Same thing with "def." So if I made a CD called "Josh's Def Phatness," I'd get my ass sued from here to hell.
It isn't that I'm scared of getting sued, it's that I think he's a fucking dick for it, and I won't support his words.
Slashdot Mirror
Joke in subject line. This patented StreamLine(TM) mini-post brought to you by:
Thank you. You put it much better than I did.
Let me state, right off the bat: this is not a troll.
While I agree with just about everybody here that reverse-engineering shouldn't be illegal, and you should be able to publish DeCSS, I just want to watch the DVD I bought legally for crying out loud, etc --
Let's keep the first amendment out of this, okay? DeCSS is code. It's not free expression, it's not an Art form. It's simply a useful tool that let's you watch DVDs on your linux box. It should be legal to distribute it, not because of free speech, but because you simply should be allowed to write code that let's you watch movies.
Rather than trying to shove the square peg of technology into the round hole of the 1st amendment, we should be addressing current technology laws. In a way, not calling shenanigans on the DMCA every chance you get implies your acceptance of it. If you fix the DeCSS problem with 1st amendment logic, you've fixed the DeCSS problem. But if you fix it by repealing the DMCA, you've fixed a whole lot of other problems as well.
Unless you don't just lend something out to someone, you make a temporary trade. Let's say we're both into fantasy fiction. I've got The Lord of the Rings, The Hobbit, and The Simillariowhatever. I want to see what this Harry Potter fuss is about. You've got the 5 Harry Potter books, and saw The Two Towers movie, and now want to read all Tolkien's stuff. So we trade for a predetermined period, say 5 months. If you decide to be a jerk and keep my books, no big deal, I've still got yours.
One problem I can see is disputes: say you spilled orange juice on my books and aren't willing to buy new ones. Or say you just spill a little on one page and I decide to be a jerk about it and demand you buy a new one.
But with some inventiveness, it just might work out.
Well, give it up. What brands have you used that are fine, or more importantly, what brands have failed for you? Here's my experience:
Lesson 1: Never get a CD-R w/o any printing on it. I got some (TDK, I think) that were just silver on the top, no branding or anything, and they burned just fine, but I found out later they could be scratched VERY easily. Scratched on the top, mind you. Apparently there was no protective layer over the foil, and you could just scratch it right off. I think they were meant to be printed on by some kind of CD printer.
My TDK's that I burned 2 years ago with the white surface (w/ branding) seem to be perfectly fine though. I also don't seem to have any problem with any imations that are as old.
I have one 2-year-old CD in which the foil appears to be harboring some kind of fungus. The brand is "K Hypermedia," I think I got it for free or really cheap. You probably get what you pay for. But the "fungus" is only on part of the edge, so it still plays fine. I have a handful of others of the same brand, which look okay.
disclaimer: I take semi-good to pretty-bad care of my CDs. They are routinely left out on the counter, desk, or wherever, and sometimes stacked in tall piles, when I don't feel like looking for the matching packaging.
Apparently Australia is paving the way here. eVACS, as I learned from another poster, is open-source and was used in the Australian Capital Territory elections in 2001. I think a great start would be to have some federal or state IT workers adapt it for use here in the states, and test it out in small-scale elections. Maybe by 2008 we'll be able to vote via the web, and we'll see lots more voter turnout and it'll be impossible to rig the election. A guy can dream...
Could be legal reasons. His contract could've specified "Prince or Johnathan Pinkerton Jr (or whatever it is)." It also could've said "Prince or any string of letters organized to describe the artist originally born as Johnathan Pinkerton Jr (or whatever it is)."
I'm pretty sure that Michael Jackson own the recording rights; the remaining Beatles must have some performing rights, I find it hard to believe they aren't allowed to perform their own songs. The way I understand it, Michael Jackson out-bid Paul McCartney for the recording rights. So I doubt Paul saw any money from their sale, if he was trying to buy them in the first place.
What I mean is, the original songwriter(s) should be granted perpetual (for the duration of copyright) control over the song, as an idea. This includes all rights, performance, recording, synchronization, etc. If they decide to make a recording of it, they can sell the recording rights to a label, and proceeds from the recording would be split 50/50. If someone wants to use the recording in a commercial, they would have to pay half to the label and half to the songwriters. But the songwriters, having control over the song as an idea, could always veto it.
I haven't worked out all the details yet, mostly because no one else seems to see this as a problem. But I think it's just sick that someone like Stefan Grossman is fed cease-and-desist orders if he tries to publish a book of Robert Johnson songs, despite the fact that he's one of the few people qualified to teach them. Robert is long dead, as are his family (I'm pretty sure) and any remnants of the studio that originally fronted the cash to record him.
The judge in a recent copyright case (was it Eldred vs. Ashcroft?) said to the public domain proponents "So you basically want to make money off of other people's hard work?" It's ironic that in this and many other cases, long copyright is the exclusive tool that lets people make money off of others' work. But maybe copyright isn't the issue here, I was thinking. Maybe the issue here is the transfer of rights in the first place.
Check out any of my stuff (see sig). The later stuff sounds very professional, and it was all done using Pro Tools in my home on my mac. But still, it's not cheap. I never said hundreds of thousands, but I have thousands of dollars of equipment, maybe (but not more than) ten. A full band might need much more than that. Plus, it's not like you just buy the gear and all the sudden it sounds great. You need someone who knows how to record and mix. Now that may be you (as in the case of myself, or BT), but it takes a while to train your ear. Compare the quality of my "Nyla" CD (or "dry long so") to the mp3s I'm putting out now. The recent ones sound much more polished. Same gear, better technique.
As soon as a system arrives that allows artists to securely sell their own music online and make a profit, it's going to mean the death of the old-fashioned recording industry.
Um, check out www.aimeemann.com. Yet, the record industry lives.
Book publishing? So Stephen King gets no royalties when they make a movie of one of his stories? I doubt it.
Writing code is like recording a song. The audio engineer "works for hire," like a programmer. The business owner, like the musician, has the vision. Two totally different things.
okay...you're dumb
Well that's a relief. I've heard all over the place about the 10 cd limit, but people neglected to mention that it applies only to iTMS songs.
You know, it occurs to me that that's probably the best way to get useful information around here - write some crazy post about the thing you want to know more about, and wait for somebody to go "no, you're wrong. this is how it really is..." Slashdot - news for nerds. Resource for people too lazy to look stuff up.
Sorry for the all caps, but this boils my blood. Only allowing you to burn 10 cds with the same playlist is reprehensible. There are PLENTY of valid reasons for burning more than 10 of the same CD. For instance, I just recently burned about 15 cds of a recording I made of a guitar workshop, to share with the other participants. I'm sure glad I used toast on my OS9 machine instead of trying the use iTunes.
Granted, like I said, I haven't used iTunes to burn. So if this applies ONLY to CDs with iTMS songs on them, call me dumb and mod me down, because that's sorta sensible (but only a little).
But if I can only burn any playlist 10 times in iTunes, well shiver me timbers, because it makes me feel like sailing the high seas just to spite them.
Many musicians don't even know how to check their email, much less run Pro Tools. Also, as a producer, his job can't be replaced by a computer. To get a good sound, you still have to use a good studio and hire trained engineers.
Then, after the CD is finished, you can try to use technology to bypass traditional marketing, but right now, it's a joke. Selling your music directly isn't a problem for anyone. Marketing your music, that's the rub. Fancy as the internet is, the most effective way to sell music is to force-feed it to the people directly, through radio and MTV. That's not gonna change for a long time.
Right now, it's commonplace that a person or entity can own the rights to a song, even though they took no part in its creation (Michael Jackson owning the Beatles songs, Columbia owning Robert Johnson's tracks, etc.). Is there a good reason why the music community stands for this, because I can't think of one.
Wouldn't it be better for all music creators if an artist got 100% of the song rights, and split the recording rights with the label, 50/50; and this was mandated by law, and couldn't be signed away? Am I missing something? I would think that artists would be banding together in droves for this cause.
He had valid reasons for it - his label was in control of the name "Prince" and was being bitchy about it. That's why on that triple-CD set he has "slave" written on his cheek. So he changed his name so he could release music during the dispute, and after it was settled, changed it back. I don't know why he didn't just tell people that, but I figure there were legal reasons.
Palm, on the other hand, are simply dumbasses.
But it seems in this corrupt world, anything innocent and beautiful will eventally be raped by those who have nothing to do but distroy purity.
In Soviet Russia, purity destroys you.
ever hear of spongeoform encephalitis?
I've heard of Spongebob Squarepants...
So I can intelligent
;)
Doesn't look like it...
Um, check out the title: "Tracking/non-notation."
Interesting bit about your dad, nevertheless. Just goes to show you that lots of times, it's not that computers are hard to learn, or that old people are stupid, it's just that they don't care. Reminds me of that Homer quote: "Just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand."
Near-starvation and castration both bring unusual longevity, but few of us choose either option.
Wha?!? So I'll live longer if I chop off my balls and quit eating? No way that's true.
As for the rest of the article, no one dies from old age. People die from stuff like cancer, or heart failure because their arteries are too clogged. They may be able to stop (or slow) the aging process and keep someone's heart from deteriorating, but they can't keep them from munching on Lays.
If you're running OS9, go to www.digidesign.com and get yourself a copy of Pro Tools Free. Pro Tools is really intuitive and a lot of the pros (Beck, Bjork, Aerosmith, etc.) use it. Thing is, they mostly want you to buy their hardware to use their software, and I don't know if you can get it for OSX w/o dropping $400 for an mBox.
Cubase seems to be the second most popular, among pros and home users alike. SX is really robust, and there are cheaper versions with less features.
Reason is the coolest thing in the world if you have a keyboard (you can get a midi controller for less than $100 if not) and want to do MIDI. I've been using Reason for everything but guitar and vocals lately.
If you want to fool around with loops, check out Ableton Live. Very fat. But you have to create the loops yourself in a seperate program (or record them in).
Bottom line: if you don't have an audio interface, get an mBox for $400 and you'll be all set with Pro Tools. If you do, get Cubase (unles digidesign came out with Pro Tools Free for OSX), and either way, get Reason for making loops.
Mics: can't go wrong with a Shure SM58 for vocals and an SM57 for instruments.
Microsoft ... for their one Linux server on there network
I'm sure you meant "for their one Linux server on that there network."
I think it's already trademarked, that's the thing. I saw him on Conan, and Conan joked around, "so if I made a 'Def Conan Show,' I'd have to clear it with you?," and he said "I wouldn't even let you do it, becuse I don't want to dilute my brand." This was as he was wearing "def" (or whatever brand he was promoting) jogging suit, shirt, shoes, socks, and underwear. No joke. Every single fucking thing he had on was branded with his brand. And you guys think Gates is bad...
yup, you (and an earlier poster) got it. Silly they may be, I soooo want one of those copperhead SGs. Without the "copperhead" on the neck, of course. I just think that "snakeskin" body looks so cool.
I don't use the "phat" spelling. Russell Simmons owns the IP to the word, and you have to pay him to use it. Same thing with "def." So if I made a CD called "Josh's Def Phatness," I'd get my ass sued from here to hell.
It isn't that I'm scared of getting sued, it's that I think he's a fucking dick for it, and I won't support his words.