"One of the major reasons for going to a studio at all is the sound. No matter how good your mic is, if you record it in a square room you get standing waves and all kinds of acoustic crap, making it sound like you did your recording in a bathroom; furthermore, if you're not isolated, you pick up the ventilation system, the whir of the computer fans, and trucks (or ghetto blasters) driving by outside. There's only so much Pro Tools can do to compensate for a crappy input (I know, I've tried)."
Yeah, but, look, a band like Talking Heads recorded their album "Fear of Music" in their attic, in 1979, using the Record Plant's mobile unit, and shoving the cables through the window. They did the basic layout in 2 days.
Jerry Harrison - "
It meant that we had to play well on those days, but on the other hand it was a great advantage because we didn't have to get used to the sound of the room - we were already used to it, and could interact with it."
The music sounds pretty good to me (mind you, they had Brian Eno producing.)
I couldn't disagree more with your statement, Mr Anonymous:
"But because we, as a society, recognize that our civilization as a whole benefits when works are owned by no one and freely available to all, we seize works after a certain period of time."
We don't seize works.
A work that is copyrightable, is essentially free in it's nature. There are no natural inhibitions to it's freedom of movement or reproduction, aside from keeping it a secret. Whistle a tune, and someone else who hears it, can whistle it.
Copyright is a government-enforced, artificial protection; a social construct, underwritten ultimately by the use of force, which seeks to impose restrictions on what people (who are subject to the law) can freely do with the material in question.
When a copyrighted work's copyright protection ends, it is returned to the state that it originally had: that of freedom.
Your statement, is, to put it bluntly, arse about face: the property is not seized, there is no property (aside from an original, the seizure of which would be theft) which to seize.
Information is merely being set free of governmnet mandated monopoly.
"All you'll do is make us, in the public eye, look like we believe in breaking the law.
"
Laws can be made against anything. It doesn't mean it's actually wrong to do that thing.
I use Kazaa. I buy CDs. I've bought CDs because I've used Kazaa.
I plan to buy the new Radio Head album when it comes out, purely because of the "leaked" tracks, from "Hail To The Thief."
I've never bought a RadioHead album before in my life, and I'd never have probably heard the songs that made me want to buy the CD, in the first place, either.
It's not a black and white issue.
"Why? They were redistributing copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder. Isn't this what we all wanted? The RIAA went after the person that committed the offense and not the technology."
Yeah, but, y'know, so was granny and her knitting patterns.
Big fscking deal.
"However, once you sell those CDs, the law is clear that you have to delete any copies you made."
A law that's unenforceable, might as well be no law at all.
Re:Got a whole lotta hype
on
Brain Privacy
·
· Score: 1
Well, here's a very un-emotive story on the case (and one I hadn't seen before.) Although the article describes the matter in a way that leads me to think it was not as bad as it was made out in virtually every newspaper I read (broadsheets included) it's still relevant, I think.
Re:Got a whole lotta hype
on
Brain Privacy
·
· Score: 1
"You can sit around and hate whoever you like, it's when you act on it by assaulting others that it becomes a crime. Try another swing.."
I hate to burst your bubble, but just recently in Britain, the government (lead by that nice Mr Tony Blair) was trying to pass a law that would lock up people, indefinitiely, that were considered to have "personality disorders," on the basis that they might do some harm to someone.
Please do not underestimate the nefariousness of governments.
Maybe the RIAA et al, will start to listen to the people.
AOL [yes I use AOL, bite my shiny white arse] has a survey it's users can participate in, on it's internal homepage thing.
Here are the questions and results, as of just now:
Do you think online music trading is wrong?
84% No, it's the CD prices that should be illegal - 204,896
16% Yes, stealing is illegal, period - 39,978
Total votes: 244,874
What would most effectively curb music piracy?
54% Lower CD prices - 135,991
33% Nothing, it's too late - 82,687
6% Better pay services - 15,809
6% Threat of prosecution - 15,411
Total votes: 249,898
You'd think someone at AOL-TW would take note of this, since they're the ones asking. (As well as which of their members voted for what and may require "further investigation" as a result.)
I'm going to re-name myself RIAA@KaZaA, and send messages to people saying;
"We at the RIAA, think you're doing a great job promoting our artists to people who would otherwise be unaware of them due to stifled radio playlists. Keep up the good work.
"PS. There is another kazaa user pretending to be the RIAA saying things about illegally sharing files, ignore him. He's a troll."
I'm sure I heard Rumsfeld saying that the US would not interfere in Iraq's new government at all.
Of course this is from the guy who says, in the same press conference, that the children held at Guantanamo Bay, simultaneously, "are children," as found out by a detailed medical examination, and also "not children," barely a dozen sentences later.
Anyways, if Iraq is truly free then the newly formed Government, (By the Iraqis... for the Iraqis(TM),) will be able to chuck the Imperialist Whore's new Copyright Laws out, won't they?
" don't think it's available in the US as the author has won a prize as the most censored author in America but I'm sure Amazon.co.uk will sell you it. Remember to get the 2nd edition.
"
The New US edition is the one to go for, since the New (and old) UK edition is censored because of the UK's oppressive libel laws and the Official Secrets Act (the latter, I believe is the case.)
UK people should order it from american sites, not UK ones if you want the uncensored version, and make sure you go for the "New US Edition."
I may just be being a bit thick here, but I was under the impression that the tort reforms currently going through in the US (gone through?) were principally about curbing the ability of citizens to sue corporations.
Not only is the company possibly called "America Greeting" but the woman may simply be a nazi in her own right; it may be no reflection on the company.
She could be a nazi in her spare time.
Overheard real Nazi, "Grrr... don't you just hate those weekend nazis? It's all prim and proper; weekdays, and a fake stick-on mustache, and transfer swastika tattoos. Grrr!....
(I'm not picking on you, rogerd, lots of people have made the point you're making, and I'm responding to the whole thing.)
According to that logic, working for organised crime can be rationalised... oh hang on, what this telemarketing company is doing is effectively organised crime!
I don't agree. They didn't financially gain from their copyright infringement, so I, and I think any fair-minded person, would not call them the real pirates.
That's what I was thinking, only in a slightly different context.
How about we developed ourselves in the ethical sphere, instead of the physical. Most of the crap that seems to befall humans seems to be due to greed, selfishness, hate etc.
But, oh no, lets all go to Mars, and be complete shits to one another there!
Lets all be crappy to each other, but with the power to leap tall buildings! </sarcasm>
Actually, that's not the flaw in the three-election-cap. After all, if any party put out a horrible candidate in the first round, the other parties would put out a good candidate, and have a better chance at winning.
And why would all parties collude to put out bad candidates in the first rounds, anyway?
What is bad about the system is that only the candidates change.
If people are rejecting the candidates based on the party they're standing for, it's just a case of switcheroo, and the underlying reason (that the party and it's policies/corruption, are objectionable) is skirted over and isn't addressed.
A "None of the above" option is, however, necessary, I feel. It's impementation needs to address the issue of political parties being rejected, though, not just candidates.
Your voice conversation does not become the property of the telephone company when it's on their network; they can't monitor and vet that (that's the job of the NSA.)
TVs need a license (it funds the BBC.) Radios do not.
You only need a license if you have a tv reciever. You can, however, have two or three, or a hundred tv recievers per house with no additional license charge.
"Well, no. Corporations DON'T own our speech -- in our houses, in pubs, on the street, over IM, on bulletin boards, etc. Privately, you can say whatever the fuck you want and be as slanderous and liberlous and vindictive as you like.
But when you enter their arena -- when you post on a popular public website..."
...because a public webspace is corporate property?... err...
perhaps you'd like to rethink your analysis of this matter.
Besides, you list pubs, the street, IM, and bulletin boards as examples of private places, so maybe you need to have a long think about it.
Master Dogen, the founder of Soto Zen, said that one should act at all times in private, as if one were in public; no differentiation should be made.
I think he mentioned something about unseen beings having quite a good view of all our activities, and that we should not cause them offence.
Quite how one can wipe one's arse, or have a Tommy Tank, in such a situation, is beyond my feeble mind, but perhaps we need to look to the ways of the ancient sages for their advice in these uncertain times.
One thing's for certian, however: if we're going to be monitored by the government, then we need to be able to monitor their every activity also.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander, after all.
...disposable e-mail addresses, that self-destruct after a few forwards to your real e-mail address.
Set the number of forwards to 3, say, and after your registration confirmation e-mail and a couple of others, Spam Gourmet eats everything else.
You can also customise the e-mail addy, with the name of the subscription site, and leave the number of forwards high, so you can see who the site you registered with is passing your address to.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, but, look, a band like Talking Heads recorded their album "Fear of Music" in their attic, in 1979, using the Record Plant's mobile unit, and shoving the cables through the window. They did the basic layout in 2 days.
The music sounds pretty good to me (mind you, they had Brian Eno producing.)"But because we, as a society, recognize that our civilization as a whole benefits when works are owned by no one and freely available to all, we seize works after a certain period of time."
We don't seize works.
A work that is copyrightable, is essentially free in it's nature. There are no natural inhibitions to it's freedom of movement or reproduction, aside from keeping it a secret.
Whistle a tune, and someone else who hears it, can whistle it.
Copyright is a government-enforced, artificial protection; a social construct, underwritten ultimately by the use of force, which seeks to impose restrictions on what people (who are subject to the law) can freely do with the material in question.
When a copyrighted work's copyright protection ends, it is returned to the state that it originally had: that of freedom.
Your statement, is, to put it bluntly, arse about face: the property is not seized, there is no property (aside from an original, the seizure of which would be theft) which to seize.
Information is merely being set free of governmnet mandated monopoly.
Laws can be made against anything. It doesn't mean it's actually wrong to do that thing.
I use Kazaa. I buy CDs. I've bought CDs because I've used Kazaa.
I plan to buy the new Radio Head album when it comes out, purely because of the "leaked" tracks, from "Hail To The Thief."
I've never bought a RadioHead album before in my life, and I'd never have probably heard the songs that made me want to buy the CD, in the first place, either.
It's not a black and white issue.
Yeah, but, y'know, so was granny and her knitting patterns.
Big fscking deal.
A law that's unenforceable, might as well be no law at all.
Oh yeah, here's the link.
I hate to burst your bubble, but just recently in Britain, the government (lead by that nice Mr Tony Blair) was trying to pass a law that would lock up people, indefinitiely, that were considered to have "personality disorders," on the basis that they might do some harm to someone.
Please do not underestimate the nefariousness of governments.
AOL [yes I use AOL, bite my shiny white arse] has a survey it's users can participate in, on it's internal homepage thing.
Here are the questions and results, as of just now:
Do you think online music trading is wrong?
84% No, it's the CD prices that should be illegal - 204,896
16% Yes, stealing is illegal, period - 39,978
Total votes: 244,874
What would most effectively curb music piracy?
54% Lower CD prices - 135,991
33% Nothing, it's too late - 82,687
6% Better pay services - 15,809
6% Threat of prosecution - 15,411
Total votes: 249,898
You'd think someone at AOL-TW would take note of this, since they're the ones asking.
(As well as which of their members voted for what and may require "further investigation" as a result.)
"We at the RIAA, think you're doing a great job promoting our artists to people who would otherwise be unaware of them due to stifled radio playlists. Keep up the good work.
"PS. There is another kazaa user pretending to be the RIAA saying things about illegally sharing files, ignore him. He's a troll."
Of course this is from the guy who says, in the same press conference, that the children held at Guantanamo Bay, simultaneously, "are children," as found out by a detailed medical examination, and also "not children," barely a dozen sentences later.
Anyways, if Iraq is truly free then the newly formed Government, (By the Iraqis... for the Iraqis(TM),) will be able to chuck the Imperialist Whore's new Copyright Laws out, won't they?
"The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" by Greg Palast is available in the US and the UK.
The New US edition is the one to go for, since the New (and old) UK edition is censored because of the UK's oppressive libel laws and the Official Secrets Act (the latter, I believe is the case.)
UK people should order it from american sites, not UK ones if you want the uncensored version, and make sure you go for the "New US Edition."
Or that that was just a nice "side-effect."
She could be a nazi in her spare time.
Overheard real Nazi, "Grrr... don't you just hate those weekend nazis? It's all prim and proper; weekdays, and a fake stick-on mustache, and transfer swastika tattoos. Grrr!....
If McGee had done a version of Strawberry Shortarse... sorry...cake, exactly as the PA cartoon, it would be parody, legal, all quite legit.
If PA does exactly the same cartoon, it's illegal???
But that would make the law a complete and utter ars[ouch!]
Oww.... it hurts when you hit reality, running.
According to that logic, working for organised crime can be rationalised... oh hang on, what this telemarketing company is doing is effectively organised crime!
I don't agree. They didn't financially gain from their copyright infringement, so I, and I think any fair-minded person, would not call them the real pirates.
Bhutan, I was hearing on the BBC World Service last night, has made smoking illegal.
"How about improving on ourselves?"
That's what I was thinking, only in a slightly different context.
How about we developed ourselves in the ethical sphere, instead of the physical. Most of the crap that seems to befall humans seems to be due to greed, selfishness, hate etc.
But, oh no, lets all go to Mars, and be complete shits to one another there!
Lets all be crappy to each other, but with the power to leap tall buildings! </sarcasm>
After all, if any party put out a horrible candidate in the first round, the other parties would put out a good candidate, and have a better chance at winning.
And why would all parties collude to put out bad candidates in the first rounds, anyway?
What is bad about the system is that only the candidates change.
If people are rejecting the candidates based on the party they're standing for, it's just a case of switcheroo, and the underlying reason (that the party and it's policies/corruption, are objectionable) is skirted over and isn't addressed.
A "None of the above" option is, however, necessary, I feel. It's impementation needs to address the issue of political parties being rejected, though, not just candidates.
Sniffing packets is surveillance, isn't it?
Your voice conversation does not become the property of the telephone company when it's on their network; they can't monitor and vet that (that's the job of the NSA.)
You only need a license if you have a tv reciever. You can, however, have two or three, or a hundred tv recievers per house with no additional license charge.
So it's quite different.
But when you enter their arena -- when you post on a popular public website... "
perhaps you'd like to rethink your analysis of this matter.
Besides, you list pubs, the street, IM, and bulletin boards as examples of private places, so maybe you need to have a long think about it.
I think he mentioned something about unseen beings having quite a good view of all our activities, and that we should not cause them offence.
Quite how one can wipe one's arse, or have a Tommy Tank, in such a situation, is beyond my feeble mind, but perhaps we need to look to the ways of the ancient sages for their advice in these uncertain times.
One thing's for certian, however: if we're going to be monitored by the government, then we need to be able to monitor their every activity also.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander, after all.
Because, as we all know, the rabbit is the natural enemy of the cow.
Spam Gourmet
Set the number of forwards to 3, say, and after your registration confirmation e-mail and a couple of others, Spam Gourmet eats everything else.
You can also customise the e-mail addy, with the name of the subscription site, and leave the number of forwards high, so you can see who the site you registered with is passing your address to.