"I think you're confusing 'artists' with 'owners'."
Fair enough.
Indeed, there is certainly a distinction between "artists" and "owners" (though certainly not always).
However, in the future that I've long envisioned, more authors would retain ownership over their work, and find new and better ways to make a living from it.
If the RIAA is bad, then let the authors build a new and better market for their work, and perhaps keep a bigger piece of the pie this time.
But file-sharing is taking that pie away, not just from the RIAA, but from the authors as well.
"Now, you may say that I don't know what I'm talking about because it's different when you're in the position of the artist, but guess what? I'm an alternative rock artist, I fully support P2P filesharing, and in fact I allow people to download entire albums for free off of my website."
But do you think that should be your decision to make? I think it's great that you welcome sharing, and that's exactly my point.
It's people like you who should be shared.
But again, do you think that your decision to share should apply to all musicians everywhere?
"If you're looking to be protected from the RIAA, there are other ways to give you a layer of security. Kazaa Lite K++ (download at OldVersion.com, v2.4.3 is likely the one you want) includes an IP Blocker extension built..."
Or (gasps!) don't copy unauthorized work, and instead share works by artists who welcome it.
I should also note that most of these "anonymizers" don't actually work, and using them might wind up with consiracy type penalites...
Now that the RIAA has to go through a much more complicated "John Doe" process, expect two changes:
1) They will have less of a chance to avoid suing younger people (or, really, their parents -- the likely name on the ISP account). Now that they must sue anonymously, they can't pick (or avoid) targets.
2) The days of the $3000 settlements are over. $3000 is actually cheap, given that these people typically have many thousands of tracks, and tracks sell for about $1 each anyway (ie. iTunes).
"I'm wanting to go SE at some point...what kind of stuff do you do?"
I started out doing mostly custom Web site development ('94-'98), midway I built a turnkey ecommerce system ('96-present) and most recently ('99-present) I've been selling software for playing music over the Web (ASP/PHP) -- see the sig below.
I like what I do. But, despite the common misconception, I probably work far more than I would if had a 'regular' job. (it's a lot harder to get away)
I don't know if it counts as a "job" but I've been self-employed since '94 or '95. And I'm happy. It can get stressful at times, but I'm addicted to the lifestyle...
I for one can't wait for all this DVD burner stuff to settle down. I'd love to have one, but I'm not so inclined to get one as long as there's a new format coming out every few days...
BUT remember NY's friendly 8.25% sales tax. When possible, it's best to buy via mail-order from a company that doesn't have a NY presence. And remember to ask about the return policy.
"Deep linking, on the World Wide Web, is the process of placing on a web page a hyperlink that points to a specific page or image within another website, as opposed to that website's main or home page. Such links are called deep links."
"Some commercial websites object to other sites making deep links into their content, either because it bypasses advertising on their main pages or, like The Wall Street Journal, they charge users for permanently-valid links. Many critics charge that such sites simply want to establish policies that will "license" such links to the highest bidder. They argue that links are a fundamental part of "user-oriented" web browsing."
Generally most sites welcome incoming traffic (especially ad-driven sites), but if some site doesn't welcome the traffic, it's it their perogative to block?
I see this all the time when people want to stop "leeching." Clearly this isn't a "leeching" situation, but rather a "deep linking" situation, but isn't it the right of the site-op to just redirect referrers from outside?
With the "solutions" that would legalize P2P by collecting a tax, and redistributing it to authors -- will they too exclude "offensive" work?
It strikes me as a pretty nasty freedom of speech issue.
Along those lines, I'm listening to Lenny Bruce's "To is a Preposition, Come is a Verb" right now. From All Music:
"Following Lenny Bruce's death in 1966, his mother allowed Douglas Records to
release these tapes that Bruce wanted to use in court during his obscenity
trials as part of his defense. Bruce couldn't believe he was being
continuously arrested for his words. He wanted to use these tapes as proof
to the judge and jury that he was not obscene, but that his bits were simply
being taken out of context. Bruce chose to ignore the irony that these same
tapes contained many of the bits that got him arrested in the first place."
I won't buy DRM'd audio tracks either -- but the real question is whether services like this can ever make it if unrestricted P2P keeps chugging along.
No doubt trojans are bad. BUT, it is worth noting that the EFF themselves are also considering systems that would "phone home" to a central server to track P2P use -- it's just that in their case, they want to do so to track P2P use so that authors can get paid.
That doesn't appeal to me either (the "getting paid" part is, of course, reasonable, but the "tracking what I do" part isn't)
"No, there is enough evidence at Janis Ians website to support this"
The premise that unregulated P2P helps CD sales is so silly I'm surprised that it's still discussed seriously. In fact on the generally pro-p2p Pho email list a recent thread had "P2P helps CD sales" as a meme that should be dropped.
Any technologist who understands that a CD is just data, and that broadband bandwidth is increasingly common, as are CD-RWs and nice printers and so on, knows perfectly well that the CD itself stands no chance.
And the "proof" based on Janis Ian is a bit tiresome too -- it's always that same one example. Sure, she might do ok -- largly due to all the press she gets for her position -- but that's not going to help the vast majority of other young and upcoming authors.
The "good design" police... have fun with it!
on
PHP 5 RC 1 released
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
For starters, I'd say that PHP is more a challenge to ASP than Perl.
(I see plenty of Windows users adding PHP to systems that already support ASP)
In any case, all the talk of "good" design ignores all the new and not hardcore coders who can play with something like PHP (as well as ASP) but not so much Perl.
(note aslo that Apple includes PHP on their OSX boxes)
My point is that, in my opinion, one of the things so nice with PHP is that it's just fun to play with. If some coders want to "inline" their code, let them, and let them have some fun, eh.
It's like the pre-Web days when "designers" got into scripting with HyperCard and Lingo.
"Personally, I think DJ Danger Mouse should have the right to remix without permission and distribute it as long as no profit is made. Now, If DJ Danger Mouse wants to make money with/off of the work, then permission needs to be given and royalities paid to The Beatles and Jay Z."
And you do know that DJ Danger Mouse pressed 3000 CDs, yes?
"It is indeed possible to create a Creative Commons license that bars someone from creating derivative works. However, this isn't entirely a contradiction."
Aw, come on! CC speaks in clear and positive terms about artists getting to make decisions -- "some rights reserved" -- and so on. One of those rights is "no derivative works" (which they themselves say can protect "artistic integrity").
And Lessig is clearly calling fot that same right to be taken away.
(obviously a CC license can't trump constitutional 'fair use' -- but remixes are not 'fair use' and in any case, Lessig's call applies to *all* use anyway)
That's the general problem with Lessig, EFF, etc. They're just as bad as the RIAA when they act as if they're speaking on behalf of artists' interests.
Given the recent Grey Tuesday brouhaha that followed the release of DJ
Danger Mouse's Grey Album, it's worth pausing for a moment to take a look at
the Creative Commons:
"We work to offer creators a best-of-both-worlds way to protect their works
while encouraging certain uses of them -- to declare 'some rights
reserved.'"
Among the rights an artist may choose to reserve when configuring their
Creative Commons license is "No Derivative Works," explained in cartoon
here:
Indeed, the Creative Commons' leading example musician is Roger McGuinn who:
"chose the Creative Commons license that maximizes a combination of free
distribution with artistic control and integrity." -- note that Roger
McGuinn chose "No Derivative Works."
However, the Grey Tuesday movement seeks to take that right away. Notably,
Larry Lessig (Creative Commons Chairman of the Board) commented in his blog:
"Should the law give DJ Danger Mouse the right to remix without permission?
I think so, though I understand how others find the matter a bit more grey."
"Should the law give DJ Danger Mouse a compulsory right to remix? That is,
the right, conditioned upon his paying a small fee per sale? Again, I think
so, and again, you might find this a bit less grey."
So, what exactly does Creative Commons mean by "some rights reserved" --
would it perhaps be more accurate if they said: "some rights reserved until
we can cook up a new compulsory license to take those rights away"?
Slashdot Mirror
...doesn't mean that it's not helpful to have in the discussion too. Methinks you need to take a deep breath, and relax, eh?
Here's the book in PDF, licensed under Creative Commons... (right-click, and save-as, to download a copy).
Fair enough.
Indeed, there is certainly a distinction between "artists" and "owners" (though certainly not always).
However, in the future that I've long envisioned, more authors would retain ownership over their work, and find new and better ways to make a living from it.
If the RIAA is bad, then let the authors build a new and better market for their work, and perhaps keep a bigger piece of the pie this time.
But file-sharing is taking that pie away, not just from the RIAA, but from the authors as well.
But do you think that should be your decision to make? I think it's great that you welcome sharing, and that's exactly my point.
It's people like you who should be shared.
But again, do you think that your decision to share should apply to all musicians everywhere?
Or (gasps!) don't copy unauthorized work, and instead share works by artists who welcome it.
I should also note that most of these "anonymizers" don't actually work, and using them might wind up with consiracy type penalites...
1) They will have less of a chance to avoid suing younger people (or, really, their parents -- the likely name on the ISP account). Now that they must sue anonymously, they can't pick (or avoid) targets.
2) The days of the $3000 settlements are over. $3000 is actually cheap, given that these people typically have many thousands of tracks, and tracks sell for about $1 each anyway (ie. iTunes).
I started out doing mostly custom Web site development ('94-'98), midway I built a turnkey ecommerce system ('96-present) and most recently ('99-present) I've been selling software for playing music over the Web (ASP/PHP) -- see the sig below.
I like what I do. But, despite the common misconception, I probably work far more than I would if had a 'regular' job. (it's a lot harder to get away)
I don't know if it counts as a "job" but I've been self-employed since '94 or '95. And I'm happy. It can get stressful at times, but I'm addicted to the lifestyle...
I for one can't wait for all this DVD burner stuff to settle down. I'd love to have one, but I'm not so inclined to get one as long as there's a new format coming out every few days...
BUT remember NY's friendly 8.25% sales tax. When possible, it's best to buy via mail-order from a company that doesn't have a NY presence. And remember to ask about the return policy.
But, heck, it's still fun to check your site's Alexa stats anyway... ;)
I stand by my use. From wikipedia: deep linking:
"Deep linking, on the World Wide Web, is the process of placing on a web page a hyperlink that points to a specific page or image within another website, as opposed to that website's main or home page. Such links are called deep links."
"Some commercial websites object to other sites making deep links into their content, either because it bypasses advertising on their main pages or, like The Wall Street Journal, they charge users for permanently-valid links. Many critics charge that such sites simply want to establish policies that will "license" such links to the highest bidder. They argue that links are a fundamental part of "user-oriented" web browsing."
I see this all the time when people want to stop "leeching." Clearly this isn't a "leeching" situation, but rather a "deep linking" situation, but isn't it the right of the site-op to just redirect referrers from outside?
Shhhh. Please don't let us know what you're talking about!
With the "solutions" that would legalize P2P by collecting a tax, and redistributing it to authors -- will they too exclude "offensive" work?
It strikes me as a pretty nasty freedom of speech issue.
Along those lines, I'm listening to Lenny Bruce's "To is a Preposition, Come is a Verb" right now. From All Music:
"Following Lenny Bruce's death in 1966, his mother allowed Douglas Records to release these tapes that Bruce wanted to use in court during his obscenity trials as part of his defense. Bruce couldn't believe he was being continuously arrested for his words. He wanted to use these tapes as proof to the judge and jury that he was not obscene, but that his bits were simply being taken out of context. Bruce chose to ignore the irony that these same tapes contained many of the bits that got him arrested in the first place."
I won't buy DRM'd audio tracks either -- but the real question is whether services like this can ever make it if unrestricted P2P keeps chugging along.
That doesn't appeal to me either (the "getting paid" part is, of course, reasonable, but the "tracking what I do" part isn't)
The premise that unregulated P2P helps CD sales is so silly I'm surprised that it's still discussed seriously. In fact on the generally pro-p2p Pho email list a recent thread had "P2P helps CD sales" as a meme that should be dropped.
Any technologist who understands that a CD is just data, and that broadband bandwidth is increasingly common, as are CD-RWs and nice printers and so on, knows perfectly well that the CD itself stands no chance.
And the "proof" based on Janis Ian is a bit tiresome too -- it's always that same one example. Sure, she might do ok -- largly due to all the press she gets for her position -- but that's not going to help the vast majority of other young and upcoming authors.
(I see plenty of Windows users adding PHP to systems that already support ASP)
In any case, all the talk of "good" design ignores all the new and not hardcore coders who can play with something like PHP (as well as ASP) but not so much Perl.
(note aslo that Apple includes PHP on their OSX boxes)
My point is that, in my opinion, one of the things so nice with PHP is that it's just fun to play with. If some coders want to "inline" their code, let them, and let them have some fun, eh.
It's like the pre-Web days when "designers" got into scripting with HyperCard and Lingo.
Everybody's welcome.
Speak for yourself.
So that we can all enjoy the peace-of-mind of knowing that we're all about to die, in advance. ;)
And you do know that DJ Danger Mouse pressed 3000 CDs, yes?
Aw, come on! CC speaks in clear and positive terms about artists getting to make decisions -- "some rights reserved" -- and so on. One of those rights is "no derivative works" (which they themselves say can protect "artistic integrity").
And Lessig is clearly calling fot that same right to be taken away.
(obviously a CC license can't trump constitutional 'fair use' -- but remixes are not 'fair use' and in any case, Lessig's call applies to *all* use anyway)
That's the general problem with Lessig, EFF, etc. They're just as bad as the RIAA when they act as if they're speaking on behalf of artists' interests.
Given the recent Grey Tuesday brouhaha that followed the release of DJ Danger Mouse's Grey Album, it's worth pausing for a moment to take a look at the Creative Commons:
"We work to offer creators a best-of-both-worlds way to protect their works while encouraging certain uses of them -- to declare 'some rights reserved.'"
Among the rights an artist may choose to reserve when configuring their Creative Commons license is "No Derivative Works," explained in cartoon here:
http://creativecommons.org/images/comics/10.gif
Indeed, the Creative Commons' leading example musician is Roger McGuinn who: "chose the Creative Commons license that maximizes a combination of free distribution with artistic control and integrity." -- note that Roger McGuinn chose "No Derivative Works."
However, the Grey Tuesday movement seeks to take that right away. Notably, Larry Lessig (Creative Commons Chairman of the Board) commented in his blog:
http://www.lessig.org/blog/archives/001754.shtml
"Should the law give DJ Danger Mouse the right to remix without permission? I think so, though I understand how others find the matter a bit more grey."
"Should the law give DJ Danger Mouse a compulsory right to remix? That is, the right, conditioned upon his paying a small fee per sale? Again, I think so, and again, you might find this a bit less grey."
So, what exactly does Creative Commons mean by "some rights reserved" -- would it perhaps be more accurate if they said: "some rights reserved until we can cook up a new compulsory license to take those rights away"?
Well then, you may as well make it a new protocol:
slashdot://