(Albini forgets to mention the procedes from publishing, other than the advance, but in this case it would have been something on the order of $0.08/track, at 10 tracks a record, $0.80/record, adds up to $200,000 for this band, coming straight from BMI/ASCAP, the record companies get none of this) Add up the figures for playing on the road, net income -$15,000.
No she is just in it for her own money, of course she lacked the insight or talent to come up with the rant on her own. However she has much better breasts than Steve Albini, so she gets a lot more press.
Only if it is covered by publishing rights paid by that station, when I used to work at a college station, we wre required to make sure the record was either BMI or ASCAP, as that is all we had rights to play.
Courtney love didn't justify Napster, oh no she said "Fuck napster"
from
Courtney Love takes on RIAA on SalonTechnology is not piracy
This opinion is one I really haven't formed yet, so as I speak about Napster now, please understand that I'm not totally informed. I will be the first in line to file a class action suit to protect my copyrights if Napster or even the far more advanced Gnutella doesn't work with us to protect us. I'm on [Metallica drummer] Lars Ulrich's side, in other words, and I feel really badly for him that he doesn't know how to condense his case down to a sound-bite that sounds more reasonable than the one I saw today.
I remember my neighbor had a phone in his truck. I believe it was UHF powered, he would call an operator, and they would make the call for him. If there was an incoming call there was some sort of hookup to the horn in the truck, an American, full sized 4x4, lots of horn power. Many of the contractors in the area subscribed to this service, and they all parked their trucks in front of the same bar after the hard construction workday. Sometimes there would be dualing horns going.
Two things here, 1) taping off the radio IS legal. Radio stations pay royaltys, and you pay a royalty for every blank cassette you own. 2) Have you ever taped off the radio? It is so much different than napster and the like that it isn't even funny
Considering the Themes project people themselves have come out and said, A) Apple is simply covering their asses, they had to do this, B) they are currently negotiating with Apple so that everyone is happy, C) the "Letter" was a legal formality. I would say this is simply a trademark issue which is not understood by anyone, other than the parties involved. The funniest thing here is this was a rumour of a cease and desist letter, and everyone went ballistic. Did Slashdot editors try to contact members of the Themes Project? For that matter did Macworld UK? This is shotty journalism at it's worst. If you want to change the world, you have to do your homework.
And MacCentral/Macworld:
>http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/0104/17.theme . shtml
>
>So much for keeping it in the family...
>
>Brian
>
>
>On 4/17/01 8:13 AM, Mathew White wrote:
>
> From the MacWorld.co.uk daily email news letter:
>
> 2) Apple lawyers target Mac Themes Project
> Apple has issued a cease and desist order against Mac Themes Project for
> creating a theme editor.
> > http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/main_news.cfm?NewsI D=2773
Although it's not my job, I'm wanting to post a news article on our
website that states we are not going to talk to the public about any
legal issues, and are ashamed that such a leak has occurred to tell
the general public of this, when all that were involved in the
project were told specifically NOT to inform anybody. When our
dealings with Apple are over, we will post what has happened and the
results in our news, and do not appreciate the speculation and
assumptions that have gone into this from the public at this time.
This is a legal issue that Apple had to raise to cover its collective
rear, and now we must make the case that we are legal and negotiate
with Apple what is to happen.
yadda yadda woo woo...anybody with better wording and such than me
that wants to state that we acknowledge that we recieved the e-mail,
but still don't reply to it publicly, etc...please let me and/or
smitty know so that we can post something. Remember, PUBLICLY we
want to be friendly towards Apple.
I still would like to personally kill whoever leaked this information
to the press, but I think our best response is to be friendly to
Apple in a post on our website at this time, still showing that good
faith in Apple that we mention in the letter we're sending to them in
reply.
Let me know your thoughts,
-SPOOF
P.S.- If anything else reaches the press before we or Apple post to
our website or they hold some PR or something on it, I *WILL* find
whoever leaked it.
So it looks like this is NO NEWS, just Apple making sure that it's Trademarks are safe.
If it is not being infringed then they developer can go tell Apple to take a hike, however the article in question (I am guessing that 1% of the posters actually read the 200 or so words of it), is claiming that it is infringing under some "Lanham Act". I doubt that anyone here understands the "Lanham Act", and what it means to trademarks, and the defense of them.
Why did they fund MkLinux in 95 or 96? Long before funding open source projects created any hype. Corperations exist to make profits, by the law of the land (If they don't maximize profits, then shareholders can sue them for fucking up.) Apple believes that funding open source helps their bottom line. any corperation that funds open source projects can only do so if they believe it will help their bottom line. Apple seemed to "Get it" years ago, long before Linux was on the radar of hype. I am guessing that you where still watching the Smurfs in 95 so you are excused for being so ignorant of the facts. Anyway this seems to be a trademark case, and those are somewhat scary, as Trademarks are required to be defended, or else they can be lost. That facts should be more clear before accusations are bandied about.
This whole thing is stupid. If the "Waypoint" knows the name of the machine that it is connecting to why not simply build that information into NAT? In other words, we have a protocol such as HTTP/1.1 which sends a hostname in its header (The only way the waypoint can identify the host in question) So build a http filter into NAT. host1.mushmouth.com, and host2.mushmouth.com both point to the same IP, NAT can simply read the HTTP header and know that host1 requests go to host1, and host2 requests go to host2. A filter such as this can be made for protocols that name the machine in their heaaders. This "AVES" solution is typical PhD type overkill shit, gotta make it hard, cause I need to drag it out over years.
What Are you? An idiot!
Yes Apple, sony, and others get paid for people to license the use of Firewire (A whole $.25 that would be 2 bits, or a quarter per device). Intel gets paid to use USB. Inventors of technology deserve to get paid to develop new technology.
These are 2 different busses with 2 different uses.
First of all firewire doesn't require the cpu to do its work (why do you think intel hates it.) Firewire chips are just as cheap as USB chips. If not cheaper because they will be in all consumer electronic devices, not just computers and accessories. USB 1.1 had a place, USB 2.0 is no more useful than USB 1.1.
Are you kidding about show me a desktop that can deal with 1600 Mb/s? we are talking about the future here, but either way my desktop has no problem reading that sorts of speed from an untra wide scsi drive, so why would any other device be any different? USB will have a problem with higher speeds because it is very processor intensive.
maybe you only connect keyboards and mice to your machine.
USB 2.0 will deliver throughput of up to 480 megabits per second vs. FireWire's 400mbps or 12mbps for USB 1.1. That's up to 40 times faster than USB 1.1.
This is really misleading, due to either A) the first version of USB 2.0, which isn't even done yet is only supposed to do 120 Mbps. or B) The firewire standard is supposed to be able to do 1600 Mbps in future hardware, although we have been promised that for quite some time. I wish the writer of that article had compared either initial versions, or expected versions, not one of each.
The RIAA actually pays the artist, napster hasn't even paid BMI or ASCAP fees. Look at what Dave Lowery (an actual artist) has to say about this very point in his Napster thoughts rant.
You are responsible for paying publishing fees for every single copy out there. Thus you need to track the number of times a track is downloaded and make a micropayment for each one. BMI and ASCAP will get into the act as soon as they realize how much revenue they can get out of P2P companies.
The unfortunate thing is that when teams stop attracting crowds, because the team sucks, or the ticket prices are too high, the team then goes and tries to take the community or another community hostage and move the team. Then the local zealots show up and get public funding passed.
Why would you pay for your local team, you can just tune it in.
from mlb.com
"For $9.95, you can have access to every Major League Baseball game. and it's all easily accessible from MLB.com and the 30 club sites."
Slashdot Mirror
Touring is usually money losing, See the Steve Albini Baffler article if you don't believe me.
you want to make your point you might consider posting your source of that information.
Stop propagating this myth
Actually they make their money from publishing rights. Read the definitive state of finances for small bands
major lables: the problem with music
(Albini forgets to mention the procedes from publishing, other than the advance, but in this case it would have been something on the order of $0.08/track, at 10 tracks a record, $0.80/record, adds up to $200,000 for this band, coming straight from BMI/ASCAP, the record companies get none of this) Add up the figures for playing on the road, net income -$15,000.No she is just in it for her own money, of course she lacked the insight or talent to come up with the rant on her own. However she has much better breasts than Steve Albini, so she gets a lot more press.
Only if it is covered by publishing rights paid by that station, when I used to work at a college station, we wre required to make sure the record was either BMI or ASCAP, as that is all we had rights to play.
Courtney love didn't justify Napster, oh no she said "Fuck napster" from Courtney Love takes on RIAA on Salon Technology is not piracy This opinion is one I really haven't formed yet, so as I speak about Napster now, please understand that I'm not totally informed. I will be the first in line to file a class action suit to protect my copyrights if Napster or even the far more advanced Gnutella doesn't work with us to protect us. I'm on [Metallica drummer] Lars Ulrich's side, in other words, and I feel really badly for him that he doesn't know how to condense his case down to a sound-bite that sounds more reasonable than the one I saw today.
I remember my neighbor had a phone in his truck. I believe it was UHF powered, he would call an operator, and they would make the call for him. If there was an incoming call there was some sort of hookup to the horn in the truck, an American, full sized 4x4, lots of horn power. Many of the contractors in the area subscribed to this service, and they all parked their trucks in front of the same bar after the hard construction workday. Sometimes there would be dualing horns going.
Two things here, 1) taping off the radio IS legal. Radio stations pay royaltys, and you pay a royalty for every blank cassette you own. 2) Have you ever taped off the radio? It is so much different than napster and the like that it isn't even funny
Considering the Themes project people themselves have come out and said, A) Apple is simply covering their asses, they had to do this, B) they are currently negotiating with Apple so that everyone is happy, C) the "Letter" was a legal formality. I would say this is simply a trademark issue which is not understood by anyone, other than the parties involved. The funniest thing here is this was a rumour of a cease and desist letter, and everyone went ballistic. Did Slashdot editors try to contact members of the Themes Project? For that matter did Macworld UK? This is shotty journalism at it's worst. If you want to change the world, you have to do your homework.
And MacCentral/Macworld: >http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/0104/17.theme . shtmlI D=2773
>
>So much for keeping it in the family...
>
>Brian
>
>
>On 4/17/01 8:13 AM, Mathew White wrote:
>
> From the MacWorld.co.uk daily email news letter:
>
> 2) Apple lawyers target Mac Themes Project
> Apple has issued a cease and desist order against Mac Themes Project for
> creating a theme editor.
> > http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/main_news.cfm?News
Although it's not my job, I'm wanting to post a news article on our website that states we are not going to talk to the public about any legal issues, and are ashamed that such a leak has occurred to tell the general public of this, when all that were involved in the project were told specifically NOT to inform anybody. When our dealings with Apple are over, we will post what has happened and the results in our news, and do not appreciate the speculation and assumptions that have gone into this from the public at this time. This is a legal issue that Apple had to raise to cover its collective rear, and now we must make the case that we are legal and negotiate with Apple what is to happen. yadda yadda woo woo...anybody with better wording and such than me that wants to state that we acknowledge that we recieved the e-mail, but still don't reply to it publicly, etc...please let me and/or smitty know so that we can post something. Remember, PUBLICLY we want to be friendly towards Apple. I still would like to personally kill whoever leaked this information to the press, but I think our best response is to be friendly to Apple in a post on our website at this time, still showing that good faith in Apple that we mention in the letter we're sending to them in reply.
Let me know your thoughts,
-SPOOF P.S.- If anything else reaches the press before we or Apple post to our website or they hold some PR or something on it, I *WILL* find whoever leaked it. So it looks like this is NO NEWS, just Apple making sure that it's Trademarks are safe.
If it is not being infringed then they developer can go tell Apple to take a hike, however the article in question (I am guessing that 1% of the posters actually read the 200 or so words of it), is claiming that it is infringing under some "Lanham Act". I doubt that anyone here understands the "Lanham Act", and what it means to trademarks, and the defense of them.
I think you mean You're an idiot. I am no idiot, but I do try to reduce the amount of shit that flies around this forum.
I guess you can't read either. This is a TRADEMARK case, TRADEMARKS are required to be defended (Xerox, Photocopy), PATENTS are not.
Why did they fund MkLinux in 95 or 96? Long before funding open source projects created any hype. Corperations exist to make profits, by the law of the land (If they don't maximize profits, then shareholders can sue them for fucking up.) Apple believes that funding open source helps their bottom line. any corperation that funds open source projects can only do so if they believe it will help their bottom line. Apple seemed to "Get it" years ago, long before Linux was on the radar of hype. I am guessing that you where still watching the Smurfs in 95 so you are excused for being so ignorant of the facts. Anyway this seems to be a trademark case, and those are somewhat scary, as Trademarks are required to be defended, or else they can be lost. That facts should be more clear before accusations are bandied about.
This whole thing is stupid. If the "Waypoint" knows the name of the machine that it is connecting to why not simply build that information into NAT? In other words, we have a protocol such as HTTP/1.1 which sends a hostname in its header (The only way the waypoint can identify the host in question) So build a http filter into NAT. host1.mushmouth.com, and host2.mushmouth.com both point to the same IP, NAT can simply read the HTTP header and know that host1 requests go to host1, and host2 requests go to host2. A filter such as this can be made for protocols that name the machine in their heaaders. This "AVES" solution is typical PhD type overkill shit, gotta make it hard, cause I need to drag it out over years.
What Are you? An idiot! Yes Apple, sony, and others get paid for people to license the use of Firewire (A whole $.25 that would be 2 bits, or a quarter per device). Intel gets paid to use USB. Inventors of technology deserve to get paid to develop new technology.
however USB's bus sharing is terrible. So if you have 2 devices, a 1.1 and 2.0 the 2.0 device will only get half of the available 480 Mb/s.
These are 2 different busses with 2 different uses. First of all firewire doesn't require the cpu to do its work (why do you think intel hates it.) Firewire chips are just as cheap as USB chips. If not cheaper because they will be in all consumer electronic devices, not just computers and accessories. USB 1.1 had a place, USB 2.0 is no more useful than USB 1.1. Are you kidding about show me a desktop that can deal with 1600 Mb/s? we are talking about the future here, but either way my desktop has no problem reading that sorts of speed from an untra wide scsi drive, so why would any other device be any different? USB will have a problem with higher speeds because it is very processor intensive. maybe you only connect keyboards and mice to your machine.
firewire also has a clear upgrade path to 1600 Mbps
USB 2.0 will deliver throughput of up to 480 megabits per second vs. FireWire's 400mbps or 12mbps for USB 1.1. That's up to 40 times faster than USB 1.1. This is really misleading, due to either A) the first version of USB 2.0, which isn't even done yet is only supposed to do 120 Mbps. or B) The firewire standard is supposed to be able to do 1600 Mbps in future hardware, although we have been promised that for quite some time. I wish the writer of that article had compared either initial versions, or expected versions, not one of each.
You know lynching was very popular in the south once.
The RIAA actually pays the artist, napster hasn't even paid BMI or ASCAP fees. Look at what Dave Lowery (an actual artist) has to say about this very point in his Napster thoughts rant.
You are responsible for paying publishing fees for every single copy out there. Thus you need to track the number of times a track is downloaded and make a micropayment for each one. BMI and ASCAP will get into the act as soon as they realize how much revenue they can get out of P2P companies.
No worse you are going to have to listen to stories of the sexual exploits of 80 year old play by play guy.
The unfortunate thing is that when teams stop attracting crowds, because the team sucks, or the ticket prices are too high, the team then goes and tries to take the community or another community hostage and move the team. Then the local zealots show up and get public funding passed.
Why would you pay for your local team, you can just tune it in. from mlb.com "For $9.95, you can have access to every Major League Baseball game. and it's all easily accessible from MLB.com and the 30 club sites."