It's good to know you're doing it for the music, and you aren't some sellout who just wants money.
If I want to make music my living, I have to be able to pay the bills. That's not going to happen if my music is free. Music takes time and money to create, just like any other art. Do you see painters giving all of their best paintings away for free? Perhaps the ones that are already wealthy.
Making music for a living is different than selling out. If I wasn't "doing it for the music", I'd find myself a job in a cubicle and "do it for the company". It's always for the music. But a guy's gotta make a living.
If you don't want people transcoding your music, maybe you shouldn't have it on myspace?
That's not the point. Sure, I understand that it's possible to record my music with software like total recorder et al, but I would imagine the majority would not take the time to do so. With this new tool, it gives the majority a quick and painless way to get copies of my music.
Saying "You put it online, so you shouldn't mind people ripping it" is like telling a car dealership that they should accept that their cars are being stolen because they put them on display in their lot. Whether they get it through total recorder or this hack, it's still unlawful and wrong. But now just about anyone can do it.
As a musician with his songs on Myspace, I think this is completely unjust and horrible. I'm sure many musicians, artists and bands would agree with me when I say that if I wanted my music to be freely distributed, I would make it available for download on Myspace. This take the notion of "stealing" music to the next level; it really is stealing.
Music isn't free. Live with it.
I think we all know that with the internet and all the videos available now, attention spans are getting far too short for most people on the net to be able to actually *read* something. Countless times I've seen posts (mostly on digg) that say something along the lines of: "TFA too long...anyone have a summary????".
I can understand why he'd post a video, especially on the most popular video hosting site. People are just too lazy to read more than a paragraph. Or for that matter, write more than----
Create a useful and unique web page/business, and you will appear at the top of the list. Anything else is just cheating, and it's exactly what Google is trying to prevent.
I used to work for ATC, and I performed some of the measurements on the LRADs. They're pretty loud, and with the "kill tone" fed through it, it can pretty much stop you from being able to function. The kill tone is just a FM signal, I don't remember exactly the frequencies but it sounded something like 3kHz-8kHz at a 10Hz modulating rate. At 150 dB, you better have ear plugs.
Being a former employee of ATC, the creator of the HSS or "sonic laser", I can safely say that it doesn't anywhere near resemble a laser. The technology behind it is an ultrasonic carrier tone (somewhere around 40kHz) amplitude modulated by the incoming audio source. The smaller wavelength means a more "focused" angle of dispersion.
Having tested it, too, I can say it sounds like complete crap and can't be heard well from far away. The LRAD, however, is probably what they are using, and it is extremely loud (somewhere around 150 dBSPL at one meter, I believe). With the right tone fed through it, can be extremely painful.
I've been predicting the rise of indy music for quite some time now, and I believe this is a great tool that will further the movement. The state of the music industry and its bastardization of the art of music is in dire straits, and I believe it is only a matter of time before listeners will no longer be able to be "brainwashed" into listening to cookie cutter music.
I got the new Mars Volta album today for $6.99 at Best Buy. What an incredible deal for such an amazing piece of work.
It's funny, most of the albums I buy nowadays are under $10, and they are usually brand new from not-so-popular bands that truly are talented. And yet, albums by Britney Spears start off at $15 and up.
Maybe the solution to the general public is to stop listening to crap, and take the time to research and find new acts that actually have talent. The payoff is twofold: cheaper albums and better music.
Re:No room to complain
on
NYT on EA Games
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
How about working at least 60 hours a week, sometimes up to 100 hours, being paid $5.15 an hour in New York City? And this is after 4 years of college, with a degree.
That's what you have to do if you're starting out in the record industry (working at a major recording studio).
That's roughly $12,000 a year. $70,000 sounds like a dream. So as far as "$70K/year in a high-cost-of-living environment for 80 hour weeks in a highly skilled environment.", I kinda wish I had stayed in software.
"Irregardless isn't even a word"
"yes it is, it means without lack of regard"
Re:These sorts of questions apply to all devices..
on
Looking at Longhorn
·
· Score: 1
Another analogy is case-modders. Do neon lights make your computer run faster? Same logic. Pretty lights and cool designs make you the coolest kid on the block.
..and I don't think he has much of a case. Even though mp3's are inferior compared to uncompressed CD-audio, many people don't have the ears or the
brains to notice otherwise. And I know lots of people who download entire cd's, and haven't bought a CD in years.
Another thing I am tired of hearing people complain about is the cost of CD's. Sure, they can be considered expensive. I agree that the cost
of replication is way lower than what they sell CD's for. But replication is probably the cheapest step of the CD-making process. Next on the list
is the actual studio time spent recording the CD. But the real money-burner is promotion and distribution. Thousands, hundreds of thousands are spent
on replication and distribution and marketing just so regular people (including the non net-savvy) can hear about new music. So I think $12.99 is more than fair. Even $14.99.
Not to say the RIAA is always right, but if music pirating wasn't making the record companies lose money, why would they be so against it? If they lost no money, it would be a great
marketing scheme. But they lose money. Not as many people buy CD's.
Slashdot Mirror
If I want to make music my living, I have to be able to pay the bills. That's not going to happen if my music is free. Music takes time and money to create, just like any other art. Do you see painters giving all of their best paintings away for free? Perhaps the ones that are already wealthy.
Making music for a living is different than selling out. If I wasn't "doing it for the music", I'd find myself a job in a cubicle and "do it for the company". It's always for the music. But a guy's gotta make a living.
That's not the point. Sure, I understand that it's possible to record my music with software like total recorder et al, but I would imagine the majority would not take the time to do so. With this new tool, it gives the majority a quick and painless way to get copies of my music.
Saying "You put it online, so you shouldn't mind people ripping it" is like telling a car dealership that they should accept that their cars are being stolen because they put them on display in their lot. Whether they get it through total recorder or this hack, it's still unlawful and wrong. But now just about anyone can do it.
As a musician with his songs on Myspace, I think this is completely unjust and horrible. I'm sure many musicians, artists and bands would agree with me when I say that if I wanted my music to be freely distributed, I would make it available for download on Myspace. This take the notion of "stealing" music to the next level; it really is stealing. Music isn't free. Live with it.
I think we all know that with the internet and all the videos available now, attention spans are getting far too short for most people on the net to be able to actually *read* something. Countless times I've seen posts (mostly on digg) that say something along the lines of: "TFA too long...anyone have a summary????". I can understand why he'd post a video, especially on the most popular video hosting site. People are just too lazy to read more than a paragraph. Or for that matter, write more than----
No dungeon master worth his weight in geldings goes anywhere without his... twenty-sided die!
I thought Couch-Surfing was sleeping on random people's couches when you don't have a place to stay.
Create a useful and unique web page/business, and you will appear at the top of the list. Anything else is just cheating, and it's exactly what Google is trying to prevent.
I used to work for ATC, and I performed some of the measurements on the LRADs. They're pretty loud, and with the "kill tone" fed through it, it can pretty much stop you from being able to function. The kill tone is just a FM signal, I don't remember exactly the frequencies but it sounded something like 3kHz-8kHz at a 10Hz modulating rate. At 150 dB, you better have ear plugs.
In the excitement, it seems I forgot how to count. Two words.
=D
Use these greasemonkey scripts to get rid of all that crap.
If he left a CD AND a letter, why didn't he just leave the directions to the family fortune on the letter? You disappoint me, Jeff Rothenberg.
Having tested it, too, I can say it sounds like complete crap and can't be heard well from far away. The LRAD, however, is probably what they are using, and it is extremely loud (somewhere around 150 dBSPL at one meter, I believe). With the right tone fed through it, can be extremely painful.
Just tap into Google's nation wide network
wait. whoops.
Hooray!
Nothing is really secure.
The XUL Namespace
Euh? Does that make it 10 million seconds?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Book_of_Mozilla
It's funny, most of the albums I buy nowadays are under $10, and they are usually brand new from not-so-popular bands that truly are talented. And yet, albums by Britney Spears start off at $15 and up.
Maybe the solution to the general public is to stop listening to crap, and take the time to research and find new acts that actually have talent. The payoff is twofold: cheaper albums and better music.
That's what you have to do if you're starting out in the record industry (working at a major recording studio).
That's roughly $12,000 a year. $70,000 sounds like a dream. So as far as "$70K/year in a high-cost-of-living environment for 80 hour weeks in a highly skilled environment.", I kinda wish I had stayed in software.
"Irregardless isn't even a word"
"yes it is, it means without lack of regard"
Another analogy is case-modders. Do neon lights make your computer run faster? Same logic. Pretty lights and cool designs make you the coolest kid on the block.
Another thing I am tired of hearing people complain about is the cost of CD's. Sure, they can be considered expensive. I agree that the cost of replication is way lower than what they sell CD's for. But replication is probably the cheapest step of the CD-making process. Next on the list is the actual studio time spent recording the CD. But the real money-burner is promotion and distribution. Thousands, hundreds of thousands are spent on replication and distribution and marketing just so regular people (including the non net-savvy) can hear about new music. So I think $12.99 is more than fair. Even $14.99.
Not to say the RIAA is always right, but if music pirating wasn't making the record companies lose money, why would they be so against it? If they lost no money, it would be a great marketing scheme. But they lose money. Not as many people buy CD's.