sorry; when I read the post by Michael's_A_Jerk, I must have missed the part when he said "US officials ARE participating." Moreover, as I RE-read it, I still can't find it.
I was merely assuming (blindly) that MAJ wanted to say since anarchy and rioting is still the general rule in Iraq, maybe other things might be a bit more important than restoring Joe Iraqi's ability to check his Yahoo mail.
You may affect a more badass image if people actually think you can spell better than a second grader.
you are *SO* right.
I just hope TheViffer doesn't come back and remind you that the direct objects normally associated with the verb "affect" are things that change in some way as a result of the "affect," while direct objects associated with the verb "effect" are brought about by the "effect." That would out-of-line.
Don't feel bad; I think it's great that you're trying out new words.
af-fect (tr.v)
To have an influence on or effect a change in:
Inflation affects the buying power of the dollar
ef-fect (tr.v)
To bring into existence, to produce as a result:
You may effect a more badass image if people actually think your grammar is better than an Anonymous Coward.
HAHAHAHAHAH! DIVX! Sorry this is a bit offtopic, but...
When I first talked about getting a DVD player, my dumbass step-dad (who LOVES to show off all the "wicked cash" he makes as an accountant) told me that DIVX would be the latest and greatest.
I hadn't heard about DIVX at that point, but he assured me that it would become the unquestioned standard, just as soon as there were enough people aware of its wonderful benefits.
I just chalk it up to the long list of reasons I'm convinced my Mom "traded down," along with the plastic fence, the way he totally assed my rewire of their phone system, and the vinyl siding on his modular home.
Meanwhile, Warner Music, a division of CNN's parent company AOL Time Warner, released the new Steely Dan album "Everything Must Go" on CD and DVD Audio, the latter being an encrypted, "rip-proof" format. ...and this will be 100% successful. No, really.
Even if the price of a CD topped $500, that still wouldn't justify stealing it. Also, I didn't mean to imply that it would when I expressed my support of file sharing.
Furthermore, if an artist/label doesn't want their music shared freely, it shouldn't be shared. Of course, we all know how likely that is to ever actually happen.
Lars Ulrich stated that his main motivation wasn't money, but rather principle. I don't believe it for a second, but even so, I can't force him to let me make a copy of his song for free, and he's got the right to spend his money in any manner he sees fit. Likewise, I can't argue with the principle he claims he is attempting to reinforce.
And yes, it's dubious at best for P2P-ers to justify their sharing of files by saying things like "If I like it, I always buy the CD; if not, I delete it," even if they're telling the truth. The even more nebulous "P2P actually helps sales by exposing more potential customers to the music," will raise eyebrows as long as its veracity is still an ongoing debate.
However, artists who try to police the trading of their music to such extremes in an effort to control theft vs. sales will only cut their own professional throats. I hate to keep using the highest profile example with metallica, because I was never a big fan of theirs, but now, I'll NEVER buy anything from them. And I know several people who were formerly fans of metallica, but have since expressed similar thoughts. The members of metallica made such a stink of Napster, it's impossible to forget how arrogant they are. That's a great way to lose fanbase.
Still, all of this is merely my opinion, which certainly can't be the most important or relevant, or I'd already be president of the RIAA.
;)
How fortuitous that you have kept such meticulous records of which musicians whose music you have stolen are associated with the RIAA and which musicians whose music you have stolen are NOT associated with the RIAA. Well, I can at see why you posted as an AC, since you're basically trying to avoid accountability for making a completely useless troll based in nothing resembling fact.
BUT... I'll bite, just in case some other retard sees what you posted and without thinking about it for half a second, assumes there's any validity to your imbecilic remark.
No one has said that there will be famous artists at CD Baby dot com; all that was said was that there is good music (fitting literally ANYone's taste) to be found on the site. Hell, if you could read at all, you would have seen that their tagline is
"CD Baby: a little CD store with the best new independent music."
Independent music? Hmmmmm... THAT sounds like RIAA material to ME. The fact that your little survey didn't take you all night should say something as well.
If you hit the page expecting someone you've heard streaming over the airwaves, you might find them, but it's not likely, since most artists who have reached that scale of marketability don't need it. The web site is only useful to bands whose target audience is aware of the site's existence, and no single website is as popular or ubiquitous as radio. To find music, search for a genre of music you know you already like. Or search for a famous artist to whom lesser-known bands will claim similarities. Search for "metallica," and you'll find over 170 matches, but none of the matches actually ARE metallica. But I'll bet you a dollar that if you LIKE metallica, you'll find music there that ISN'T metallica, but you still like.
The fact that you can't find any of your "non-RIAA" artists on CD Baby doesn't prove a flippin' thing, except that none of YOUR friends have set up pages for their bands there. Do your buddies a favor, and TELL them to register there! And while they're at it, mp3.com as well. How long could it take? The only reason they'd regret it is if they truly suck, and no one that hit the page ever cared to download.mp3s or purchase CDs. Some music is targeted to a very narrow audience, and registering there will always sell a few more discs that if it wasn't listed on the site. If you really think it's a waste of your time, forget it, but I hope someday you realize just how closed your mind really is.
By the way, Einstein... there was a time when mp3.com was as small as CD Baby is right now.
Well, actually, it's not "almost" ridiculous; in fact, it's not ridiculous at all.
This lawsuit and subesquent settlement has nothing to do with losing money due to P2P trading, so please don't try to associate the two. The RIAA has been ordered to pay damages that were caused when they conspired to raise prices of a commodity without the knowlege of the general public. Once again, that's CONSIPIRACY, which is ILLEGAL.
You're right about the way people steal music (to a point), but it's not hurting the RIAA as much as they want the public to believe. Hell, I'm a musician, and I think sharing.mp3 files is GREAT!.
As far as people creating their own music, some can, some can't. For example, I have a pretty good sense of rhythm and meter; my Dad is so devoid of rhythm that many a family member has joked about my being the "mailman's child." I love him, but I can only imagine what horrors he'd unleash if he were left to his own design for musical entertainment.
And since I'm already here anyway, please tell me what you meant here:
The creators can music do not have to give the rights that they do not want to give.
Being a musician, I have to agree 100% with this. I have found a TON of great music at CD Baby, and purchasing music there benefits the artist directly.
We all do it; we listen to.mp3s of a certain artist, and if there's only one song that's worth a damn, we scrap all the others, and most of the time the good one as well, since it will likely follow so many others into the hole where the tired one-hit-wonders are always abandoned, relegated to the Hey, Remember The 80's?-style radio shows.
If the project has a few good songs on it, or if it's one of those rare gems that is actually composed (sorry) entirely of good music, we buy the disc so:
a. the artist makes a little money, and
b. we can ensure the best quality.mp3 files for our personal stash.
I see nothing wrong with this, and my "musician side" has to concur with the likes of Alanis Morissette rather than Metallica; in the long run, it's a benefit to be able to reach the audience that will be able to appreciate your music than to try and track every single copy for the nickels and dimes. Plus, as Lars proved to the world, anyone who DOES is just a jackass.
IANARS (rock star), but with what insight I have gained about the industry has led me to always seek out the best source from the band's perspective to get my own copy of the CD. If they've got a website, I order it there. Granted, used CDs are cheaper, but the artist never sees a dime of that resale money. Of course, on the shinier side of that coin, if the RIAA gets any of it, it's a lot smaller cut if any at all (usually none, but not always).
And sorry, but this topic is just too close to perfect for my resistance to "insert shameless plug;"
you can hear one of my bands here.
;)
Verisign will definitely incorporate a "we were just as fooled as you were by all this" argument into their defense strategy. I doubt it will hold up at all, and I'm hoping it doesn't. Why register a domain name if you can't count on keeping it? There has to be a level of trust to which you can hold a business-transaction partner accountable.
From grandparent:
It's interesting that Verisign is being charged w/ a higher degree of liability... Yes, especially since none of Verisign's business involves anything to do with security.
Not sure if I qualify as "Logic Nazi," but I've got some conjecture to share as well, so here goes...
Whenever a plane "hits paydirt" as a result of hitting something else first (excepting other planes, of course), it seems the universal constant is a jet engine's intake manifold. A flock of birds, a weather balloon, a lost Australian Shepherd asking for directions, they all get sucked into the engine and wind up tearing it apart from the inside. IANA air traffic controller, but in my experience, that's the only reason a plane goes down as a result of an unexpected collision (excepting the ground of course).
The shuttle has no jet engines, and there's not really a way to damage the rockets that propel the vehicle except creating a breach of some kind.
With that in mind, I'd imagine the damage likelihood would be extremely low (famous last words?) if a bird hit the shuttle during liftoff. Beyond the already high unlikelihood of an actual collision (NASA has played the percentage game quite a few times now), their small bodies are padded by a relatively huge volume of feathers, which would absorb most of the impact. I won't stray far enough offtopic to divulge details, but four ingredients: younger days, an old Victorian house with an open-air attic (or whatever construction guys would call that), pigeons pooping all over the place, and a bb gun. That thing could embed small metal spheres half an inch into hardwood stairs (won't tell you who still doesn't know about that, either), but when pigeon hunting, if it wasn't a head- or neck-shot, the bb would just bounce off, sometimes not even scaring away the damn pigeon. Now don't call the ASPCA, because that would be too far offtopic.
So anyway, to bring down the shuttle, the bird would have to try to impale the craft with its beak, and that's only possible if the bird is looking down (it it a faux pas to say FTSOA that the launch is vertical?). Now, I won't pretend to know that a bird definitely could/couldn't get out of the path of a large object moving at mach three, but I think it's fair to assume that most birds would see it in time to at least attempt flight (sorry, bad pun), and therefore be facing away from the shuttle, enabling the rocketing craft to hit the soft part of the bird first. So, of the multitudes of birds that hit the shuttle during each liftoff, only an infinitesimal percentage would collide beak-first. I doubt birds are of much concern to the shuttle crew.
AFA the rail gun analogy, it's actually like electromagnetic charges that repel, not opposites, which attract. Other than that, your statement is very true.
I probably shouldn't mention these small details, but without the existence of small details, this entire thread would likewise not exist, right?
All right, I just couldn't resist the correction. So I qualify.
Or at least the pot THOUGHT it was speaking to the kettle. It didn't even realize that the European standard for printing numbers exhibits an apparent reverse of the American usage of the period and the comma.
So, while an American might say there were "five thousand attendees" and type "5,000 attendees," someone else in--oh, I don't know, NORWAY?--would type "5.000 attendees."
The raindrop who lives up to his name quite well: is he a hypocrite for shouting the label "stupid," or is he merely ignorant? And is that any better?
Strange how some folks can never see around the corner, even living in a glass house.
Slashdot Mirror
I was merely assuming (blindly) that MAJ wanted to say since anarchy and rioting is still the general rule in Iraq, maybe other things might be a bit more important than restoring Joe Iraqi's ability to check his Yahoo mail.
But that's a ridiculous idea; I'm an idiot.
Hey, you gotta RELAX, guy! I'm not here to cause any trouble. I don't have any bombs; just relax!
You're absolutely right.
Why'd they do that? Saddam will only wind up beheading the sysadmins who did it when he gets back from Wal-Mart, picking up this week's armament.
you are *SO* right.
I just hope TheViffer doesn't come back and remind you that the direct objects normally associated with the verb "affect" are things that change in some way as a result of the "affect," while direct objects associated with the verb "effect" are brought about by the "effect." That would out-of-line.
Don't feel bad; I think it's great that you're trying out new words.
af-fect (tr.v)
To have an influence on or effect a change in:
Inflation affects the buying power of the dollar
ef-fect (tr.v)
To bring into existence, to produce as a result:
You may effect a more badass image if people actually think your grammar is better than an Anonymous Coward.
When I first talked about getting a DVD player, my dumbass step-dad (who LOVES to show off all the "wicked cash" he makes as an accountant) told me that DIVX would be the latest and greatest.
I hadn't heard about DIVX at that point, but he assured me that it would become the unquestioned standard, just as soon as there were enough people aware of its wonderful benefits.
I just chalk it up to the long list of reasons I'm convinced my Mom "traded down," along with the plastic fence, the way he totally assed my rewire of their phone system, and the vinyl siding on his modular home.
DIVX RULES!!!!
Exquisitely well said.
Meanwhile, Warner Music, a division of CNN's parent company AOL Time Warner, released the new Steely Dan album "Everything Must Go" on CD and DVD Audio, the latter being an encrypted, "rip-proof" format.
...and this will be 100% successful. No, really.
Even if the price of a CD topped $500, that still wouldn't justify stealing it. Also, I didn't mean to imply that it would when I expressed my support of file sharing.
Furthermore, if an artist/label doesn't want their music shared freely, it shouldn't be shared. Of course, we all know how likely that is to ever actually happen.
Lars Ulrich stated that his main motivation wasn't money, but rather principle. I don't believe it for a second, but even so, I can't force him to let me make a copy of his song for free, and he's got the right to spend his money in any manner he sees fit. Likewise, I can't argue with the principle he claims he is attempting to reinforce.
And yes, it's dubious at best for P2P-ers to justify their sharing of files by saying things like "If I like it, I always buy the CD; if not, I delete it," even if they're telling the truth. The even more nebulous "P2P actually helps sales by exposing more potential customers to the music," will raise eyebrows as long as its veracity is still an ongoing debate.
However, artists who try to police the trading of their music to such extremes in an effort to control theft vs. sales will only cut their own professional throats. I hate to keep using the highest profile example with metallica, because I was never a big fan of theirs, but now, I'll NEVER buy anything from them. And I know several people who were formerly fans of metallica, but have since expressed similar thoughts. The members of metallica made such a stink of Napster, it's impossible to forget how arrogant they are. That's a great way to lose fanbase.
Still, all of this is merely my opinion, which certainly can't be the most important or relevant, or I'd already be president of the RIAA.
;)
BUT... I'll bite, just in case some other retard sees what you posted and without thinking about it for half a second, assumes there's any validity to your imbecilic remark.
No one has said that there will be famous artists at CD Baby dot com; all that was said was that there is good music (fitting literally ANYone's taste) to be found on the site. Hell, if you could read at all, you would have seen that their tagline is
Independent music? Hmmmmm... THAT sounds like RIAA material to ME. The fact that your little survey didn't take you all night should say something as well.If you hit the page expecting someone you've heard streaming over the airwaves, you might find them, but it's not likely, since most artists who have reached that scale of marketability don't need it. The web site is only useful to bands whose target audience is aware of the site's existence, and no single website is as popular or ubiquitous as radio. To find music, search for a genre of music you know you already like. Or search for a famous artist to whom lesser-known bands will claim similarities. Search for "metallica," and you'll find over 170 matches, but none of the matches actually ARE metallica. But I'll bet you a dollar that if you LIKE metallica, you'll find music there that ISN'T metallica, but you still like.
The fact that you can't find any of your "non-RIAA" artists on CD Baby doesn't prove a flippin' thing, except that none of YOUR friends have set up pages for their bands there. Do your buddies a favor, and TELL them to register there! And while they're at it, mp3.com as well. How long could it take? The only reason they'd regret it is if they truly suck, and no one that hit the page ever cared to download .mp3s or purchase CDs. Some music is targeted to a very narrow audience, and registering there will always sell a few more discs that if it wasn't listed on the site. If you really think it's a waste of your time, forget it, but I hope someday you realize just how closed your mind really is.
By the way, Einstein... there was a time when mp3.com was as small as CD Baby is right now.
This lawsuit and subesquent settlement has nothing to do with losing money due to P2P trading, so please don't try to associate the two. The RIAA has been ordered to pay damages that were caused when they conspired to raise prices of a commodity without the knowlege of the general public. Once again, that's CONSIPIRACY, which is ILLEGAL .
You're right about the way people steal music (to a point), but it's not hurting the RIAA as much as they want the public to believe. Hell, I'm a musician, and I think sharing .mp3 files is GREAT!.
As far as people creating their own music, some can, some can't. For example, I have a pretty good sense of rhythm and meter; my Dad is so devoid of rhythm that many a family member has joked about my being the "mailman's child." I love him, but I can only imagine what horrors he'd unleash if he were left to his own design for musical entertainment.
And since I'm already here anyway, please tell me what you meant here:
The creators can music do not have to give the rights that they do not want to give.
We all do it; we listen to .mp3s of a certain artist, and if there's only one song that's worth a damn, we scrap all the others, and most of the time the good one as well, since it will likely follow so many others into the hole where the tired one-hit-wonders are always abandoned, relegated to the Hey, Remember The 80's?-style radio shows.
If the project has a few good songs on it, or if it's one of those rare gems that is actually composed (sorry) entirely of good music, we buy the disc so:
I see nothing wrong with this, and my "musician side" has to concur with the likes of Alanis Morissette rather than Metallica; in the long run, it's a benefit to be able to reach the audience that will be able to appreciate your music than to try and track every single copy for the nickels and dimes. Plus, as Lars proved to the world, anyone who DOES is just a jackass.IANARS (rock star), but with what insight I have gained about the industry has led me to always seek out the best source from the band's perspective to get my own copy of the CD. If they've got a website, I order it there. Granted, used CDs are cheaper, but the artist never sees a dime of that resale money. Of course, on the shinier side of that coin, if the RIAA gets any of it, it's a lot smaller cut if any at all (usually none, but not always).
And sorry, but this topic is just too close to perfect for my resistance to "insert shameless plug;"
you can hear one of my bands here.
;)
zedmelon
Verisign will definitely incorporate a "we were just as fooled as you were by all this" argument into their defense strategy. I doubt it will hold up at all, and I'm hoping it doesn't. Why register a domain name if you can't count on keeping it? There has to be a level of trust to which you can hold a business-transaction partner accountable.
From grandparent:
It's interesting that Verisign is being charged w/ a higher degree of liability...
Yes, especially since none of Verisign's business involves anything to do with security.
Whenever a plane "hits paydirt" as a result of hitting something else first (excepting other planes, of course), it seems the universal constant is a jet engine's intake manifold. A flock of birds, a weather balloon, a lost Australian Shepherd asking for directions, they all get sucked into the engine and wind up tearing it apart from the inside. IANA air traffic controller, but in my experience, that's the only reason a plane goes down as a result of an unexpected collision (excepting the ground of course).
The shuttle has no jet engines, and there's not really a way to damage the rockets that propel the vehicle except creating a breach of some kind.
With that in mind, I'd imagine the damage likelihood would be extremely low (famous last words?) if a bird hit the shuttle during liftoff. Beyond the already high unlikelihood of an actual collision (NASA has played the percentage game quite a few times now), their small bodies are padded by a relatively huge volume of feathers, which would absorb most of the impact. I won't stray far enough offtopic to divulge details, but four ingredients: younger days, an old Victorian house with an open-air attic (or whatever construction guys would call that), pigeons pooping all over the place, and a bb gun. That thing could embed small metal spheres half an inch into hardwood stairs (won't tell you who still doesn't know about that, either), but when pigeon hunting, if it wasn't a head- or neck-shot, the bb would just bounce off, sometimes not even scaring away the damn pigeon. Now don't call the ASPCA, because that would be too far offtopic.
So anyway, to bring down the shuttle, the bird would have to try to impale the craft with its beak, and that's only possible if the bird is looking down (it it a faux pas to say FTSOA that the launch is vertical?). Now, I won't pretend to know that a bird definitely could/couldn't get out of the path of a large object moving at mach three, but I think it's fair to assume that most birds would see it in time to at least attempt flight (sorry, bad pun), and therefore be facing away from the shuttle, enabling the rocketing craft to hit the soft part of the bird first. So, of the multitudes of birds that hit the shuttle during each liftoff, only an infinitesimal percentage would collide beak-first. I doubt birds are of much concern to the shuttle crew.
AFA the rail gun analogy, it's actually like electromagnetic charges that repel, not opposites, which attract. Other than that, your statement is very true.
I probably shouldn't mention these small details, but without the existence of small details, this entire thread would likewise not exist, right?
All right, I just couldn't resist the correction. So I qualify.
- zedmelon
BTW, we all caught it, but we also knew what he meant.
...said the pot to the kettle.
Or at least the pot THOUGHT it was speaking to the kettle. It didn't even realize that the European standard for printing numbers exhibits an apparent reverse of the American usage of the period and the comma.
So, while an American might say there were "five thousand attendees" and type "5,000 attendees," someone else in--oh, I don't know, NORWAY?--would type "5.000 attendees."
The raindrop who lives up to his name quite well: is he a hypocrite for shouting the label "stupid," or is he merely ignorant? And is that any better?
Strange how some folks can never see around the corner, even living in a glass house.