how about making part of the albums available, like this brilliant guy over here , and sell full cds cheap (what with viral marketing cutting overheads n all)?
i have been thinking about this quite a lot lately, since i'm kinda guilty of copying a lot of indie-music from friends without buying the cds: even though i could never afford even half price on every cd i've copied, i'm still paying for, lets say every tenth album.
i'm not sure if this is a working model, but i listen to more music nowdays, and in the end i pay more for music today than i did four five years ago - and i'm buying from indie-labels rather than big-biz.
when it comes to money; do gigs for money (and if you get 20'000 downloads, chances are people would pay more in order to see you perform) - the traditional route with ads n stuff is too expensive to manage for a small biz.
oh! and don't forget nifty t-shirts! never underestimate the power of nice t-shirts. and sweatshirts.
f64 : making crack remarks since the invention of crack
when i started at high-school, i spend the first year MUDding most of the time; i lost some 20kg because i was skipping meals, and my friends all thought i was sucking bong way too often cause i looked like a zombie.
i had online sex before irl-sex.
i guess what i want to say is, sure there is a market among kids for this kind of stuff, and if it's an easy UI it might hook people who otherwise are turned off by IRC or Telnet or even by having to switch between kazaa & ICQ for their comm needs.
i'm not saying it's "good" or anything, but since when has marketing sellable goods been directed by "good" intentions? it might just be the one app that manages to create a big enough community of people (and future microserfs who will not be able to change OS because microsoft has stored all their private data and will publish it if you try to divorce ms) to make online friends an (more so) accepted phenomenon of human relations; thereby releasing all hell onto earth in form of sociopathic computer-bound anemic freaks with special needs and demographically specialized products & services (oh, wait, we're here already...).
i, on the other hand, am still waiting for those communities that gibson envisioned (in mona lisa overdrive, was it?) where i can buy sweatshop-programmed street wear for my randewuuz in cyberspace.
i'd agree with the current modding of parent (-1), simply because the argument is heard and seen almost everywhere in different guises, so as earning credit on the quantity of pulication rather than quality of argument.
first off; the differences between individuals in any given group (gender, race, height) will always be greater than between two 'average' representative of two groups - that there are differences is interesting, but what's more interesting is what it is we choose to measure.
why the hell havn't we seen headlines "Blond fat people are family people!" or whatever? maybe it's because we choose to measure that which proves our theories?
and the very real patriarchy of today does socially condition men and women to take on roles according to their gender, not according with any 'free will', or even less 'instinct'.
and this this goes for scientists as well; after all, they are human and no less susceptable to social norms than the rest of us.
and to sum up the critique of parent; to chalk up even guidelines for how people can attain happiness in life according to their gender is very shallow, has little bearing on reality as i know it, and although there of course are men who are career driven and women who are caring and nurturing family people, it is contraproductive to assume that it is something nature-given.
"upwards of 500 scientists, all having invested years of their life to researching bigfoot, often giving up their carreers, have pronounced a fatwah against the family of Ray L. Wallace.
said one spokesperson: "the reward of $50.000 we offered for a captured bigfoot, will now be rewarded to those who bring us the heads of Mr Wallaces' family".
f64: making crack remarks since 1978 (the year crack was invented).
well, i firmly believe that by exposing the evils of market liberalism, i'm ensuring a more rapidly forthcoming revolution.
we shall tourture spammers using printed spam and the "one thousand paper-cuts death". (and rich pigs would have to work as many hours doing menial tasks as the size of their salary would suggest when compared to the per-hour salary of a clerk).
"if the revolution starts let me know, i'll be in the bath"
my dad bought a Mac Plus in -86 (as i recall it) as he was publishing a small immigrant newpaper (for Polish people living in Sweden), and wanted to do it using DTP instead of traditional methods (does anyone remember how magazines where done before DTP?), and at about that time i started playing Larry and using my rudimentary english to type "use rope on balcony".
ever since, i've stuck to the platform since it's the one i know, and due to the experiences i had using Windows & DOS computers.
one reason why some macintosh users get so attached to their computers (like i used to be, before i began working as an apple technician and became a cynical and hateful bastard) could be childhood traumas loading the mouse drivers in DOS, and being ridiculed by Windows us'ders (actual quote: -Mac isn't a real computer, it's a toy. You don't have to type anything!) enhanced the feeling of being the underdog (which Apple has been branding towards ever since).
so yes, although there might not be much difference in GUI nowdays, nor functionality, i believe it's the brand image of Apple that keeps, and attracts new, users.
having said that, i'm hereby stating my intentions on actually learning more about computers than just how to ResEdit my way to others' MacAdmin passwords, and get a cheapass laptop running Linux and wardrive gothenburg.
"whaddayamean i can't play with myself? it's a fucking playground, isn't it?"
the comparison doesn't hold; if i want to share something with other people i should be able to do so, but it's not the same thing as showing my mp3 collection down your throat.
and on another note; that spamming is profitable doesn't make it right, as has been suggested by some posters. i mean, land mines are profitable...
how long before one of the spammers sue the site for copyright infringement for making publicly available the end results (ie spam) of their hard and honest work?
i'm willing to bet my two cents on that the spammers will win the case.
>Now be honest, could the Spice Girls have sold any
>significant number of albums had they gone it on
>their own and distributed through the internet?
i guess this would be an argument for *any* music distribution system that doesn't depend on marketing.
frankly, to say that marketing (as it looks today) is a necessity for musicians to exist is to buy into what is presupposed by large labels (ie "we facilitate the release of less-commercial music thanks to our sales of a few mega-stars"), while a smaller, less industrialized way of distributing music might actually allow for "less-commercial" artist to prevail (using paypal, whatever), as well as slaughtering the giant corps (which in itself is good, since it gives the economic power, as well as the power of esthetics, back to the people who create and listen to music).
most of the interesting music i get nowdays comes through the internet; either as links in a mag or site, or using p2p filesharing and searching random words.
an unaffiliated plug would be mochipet who'm i found thorugh some glitch music site.
i know it's not addressing the issue of legislature in the US, but isn't it possible to just stream whatever audio through a foreign server (assuming such a server would be outside US jurisdiction)?
: f64 : piracy - the lazy revolution
as a photographer, and as someone who in one way or another will try to make a living of his sense of esthetic, i've been thinking about schemes to incorporate my anarchist views with my desire to be able to, well, eat and have somewhere to sleep.
in the anarchist society (in the far off future), results of ones work (intellectual as well as manual) is available to those who want it.
today, living in a parasitic capitalist society, short of four-finger-discount it's hard to make a living if you give your work away.
so anyway, the scheme i've come up with is to copyleft work for all purposes except commercial. that is, anyone can use my images as long as i am credited and they are not making a profit in any way from using them.
but to make a living of of this, one has to charge enough to cover costs, and make an overhead.
as one poster suggested, having multiple schemes available is one solution; unlimited rights to the images, but a heap of money for the setup, or charge hefty amounts per image copy. or something else.
it's all about being pragmatic as a photographer. someone has to make it worth your wile to pack your stuff, go to a wedding, setup, shoot, eat some cake, develop, copy, deliver.
if u feel that images taken by the guests are good enough, don't hire a photographer. if u want professional photos, pay up and make sure both parties agree on the conditions.
i for one never give my negatives away, but i guess i'm coming from a different place than a wedding photographer.
if you have mainly worked with magazines (as i), you get used to being fucked over with a broom by every editor trying to get you to sign away all your rights for eternity (not kidding), for use anywhere in the universe (still not kidding - it's an actual quote), and in a situation like that i either keep my rights, or don't sign.
in a situation like that, copyright actually is the less of two evils - either restrict access to your intellectual property (sic) or become a wage slave and make it harder for others to fight for their rights (insofar as having a job preference is a right, anyway).
homer: mmmm, caffeine - a bitter white alkaloid, C8H10N4O2, often derived from tea or coffee and used in medicine chiefly as a mild stimulant and to treat certain kinds of headache.
No longer is free enterprise a basic right of a producer; indeed, the government tends to want to ban anything it doesn't understand or doesn't consider to be "savory." What we need the most on this issue is a little common sense: live and let live.
yup. we live in authoritarian societies; namely within the corporate authoritarian society, which government server as much as it think it can get away with.
free enterprise shouldn't be the 'basic right' of a producer unless proven his/her intended products are harmless (and no, GMO's are not proven harmless); the way we do it today is regulations through government that supposedly protects us.
yeah. live and let live. the day we all live in the fluffy neo-liberal heaven where all are equal and have equal chance to succeed in a competing marketplace of free rational agents - drop me a note.
companies are not people; that they have protection under the first amendment tells more about the intentions on the creators of that amendment than about the actual moral rights of enteties such as companies.
and since this is/., isn't the idea to share knowledge, thereby putting it to scrutiny and improving upon it?
uhm. yeah. 'provable safe activities' such as gm & nuke power. i'll abstain to comment.
and insofar as me trying to 'ruin everybody elses' lives, well, i'd like others not trying to jeopardize the planet, our lives and our kids lives by the short term gains (which all corporations are driven by, you punter).
Slashdot Mirror
how about making part of the albums available, like this brilliant guy over here , and sell full cds cheap (what with viral marketing cutting overheads n all)?
i have been thinking about this quite a lot lately, since i'm kinda guilty of copying a lot of indie-music from friends without buying the cds: even though i could never afford even half price on every cd i've copied, i'm still paying for, lets say every tenth album.
i'm not sure if this is a working model, but i listen to more music nowdays, and in the end i pay more for music today than i did four five years ago - and i'm buying from indie-labels rather than big-biz.
when it comes to money; do gigs for money (and if you get 20'000 downloads, chances are people would pay more in order to see you perform) - the traditional route with ads n stuff is too expensive to manage for a small biz.
oh! and don't forget nifty t-shirts! never underestimate the power of nice t-shirts. and sweatshirts.
f64 : making crack remarks since the invention of crack
easy navigation is my aim; don't know if i've succeded with this one .
i guess this might be somewhat off topic since my site is nothing compared to high-traffic info-packed sites like www.bbc.com
when i started at high-school, i spend the first year MUDding most of the time; i lost some 20kg because i was skipping meals, and my friends all thought i was sucking bong way too often cause i looked like a zombie.
.sic lies
i had online sex before irl-sex.
i guess what i want to say is, sure there is a market among kids for this kind of stuff, and if it's an easy UI it might hook people who otherwise are turned off by IRC or Telnet or even by having to switch between kazaa & ICQ for their comm needs.
i'm not saying it's "good" or anything, but since when has marketing sellable goods been directed by "good" intentions? it might just be the one app that manages to create a big enough community of people (and future microserfs who will not be able to change OS because microsoft has stored all their private data and will publish it if you try to divorce ms) to make online friends an (more so) accepted phenomenon of human relations; thereby releasing all hell onto earth in form of sociopathic computer-bound anemic freaks with special needs and demographically specialized products & services (oh, wait, we're here already...).
i, on the other hand, am still waiting for those communities that gibson envisioned (in mona lisa overdrive, was it?) where i can buy sweatshop-programmed street wear for my randewuuz in cyberspace.
this
i'd agree with the current modding of parent (-1), simply because the argument is heard and seen almost everywhere in different guises, so as earning credit on the quantity of pulication rather than quality of argument.
first off; the differences between individuals in any given group (gender, race, height) will always be greater than between two 'average' representative of two groups - that there are differences is interesting, but what's more interesting is what it is we choose to measure.
why the hell havn't we seen headlines "Blond fat people are family people!" or whatever? maybe it's because we choose to measure that which proves our theories?
and the very real patriarchy of today does socially condition men and women to take on roles according to their gender, not according with any 'free will', or even less 'instinct'.
and this this goes for scientists as well; after all, they are human and no less susceptable to social norms than the rest of us.
and to sum up the critique of parent; to chalk up even guidelines for how people can attain happiness in life according to their gender is very shallow, has little bearing on reality as i know it, and although there of course are men who are career driven and women who are caring and nurturing family people, it is contraproductive to assume that it is something nature-given.
f64 : i love jesus but he wont lend me any money
this could explain much of what's been going on lately...
wasn't there a scene in burning chrome where people who met in cyberspace rented clothes for their avatars?
gibson should've taken out a patent...
f64 : making crack remarks while on crack
i've been trying for years to find the exact tuning and accenturation with which to say "hey baby, come on over here".
/.ers can give me a hint, i'd appreciate it.
no breakthrough as of yet; if any of you accousticly & socially inclined
f64 : crack remarks while on crack
not to mention that most of the people offering revards for a bigfoot probably did so knowing no-one would ever be able to claim them.
or to paraphrase mr burns: "i think i'll donate a million dollars to an orphage... when pigs can fly!"
f64 : making crack remarks while on crack!
"upwards of 500 scientists, all having invested years of their life to researching bigfoot, often giving up their carreers, have pronounced a fatwah against the family of Ray L. Wallace.
said one spokesperson: "the reward of $50.000 we offered for a captured bigfoot, will now be rewarded to those who bring us the heads of Mr Wallaces' family".
f64: making crack remarks since 1978 (the year crack was invented).
Power it with Vanilla Ice so at least some vanilla ice is cool!
f64 : crack remarks since 1978 (the year crack was invented).
well, i firmly believe that by exposing the evils of market liberalism, i'm ensuring a more rapidly forthcoming revolution.
we shall tourture spammers using printed spam and the "one thousand paper-cuts death". (and rich pigs would have to work as many hours doing menial tasks as the size of their salary would suggest when compared to the per-hour salary of a clerk).
"if the revolution starts let me know, i'll be in the bath"
my dad bought a Mac Plus in -86 (as i recall it) as he was publishing a small immigrant newpaper (for Polish people living in Sweden), and wanted to do it using DTP instead of traditional methods (does anyone remember how magazines where done before DTP?), and at about that time i started playing Larry and using my rudimentary english to type "use rope on balcony".
ever since, i've stuck to the platform since it's the one i know, and due to the experiences i had using Windows & DOS computers.
one reason why some macintosh users get so attached to their computers (like i used to be, before i began working as an apple technician and became a cynical and hateful bastard) could be childhood traumas loading the mouse drivers in DOS, and being ridiculed by Windows us'ders (actual quote: -Mac isn't a real computer, it's a toy. You don't have to type anything!) enhanced the feeling of being the underdog (which Apple has been branding towards ever since).
so yes, although there might not be much difference in GUI nowdays, nor functionality, i believe it's the brand image of Apple that keeps, and attracts new, users.
having said that, i'm hereby stating my intentions on actually learning more about computers than just how to ResEdit my way to others' MacAdmin passwords, and get a cheapass laptop running Linux and wardrive gothenburg.
"whaddayamean i can't play with myself? it's a fucking playground, isn't it?"
considering what i posted ages ago, i will now commence to predict the weather for the upcoming 3 years...
f64 : i have a lawyer and i'm not afraid of using it!
the comparison doesn't hold; if i want to share something with other people i should be able to do so, but it's not the same thing as showing my mp3 collection down your throat.
and on another note; that spamming is profitable doesn't make it right, as has been suggested by some posters. i mean, land mines are profitable...
f64 : i used to be stupid, now i'm not even that.
how long before one of the spammers sue the site for copyright infringement for making
publicly available the end results (ie spam) of their hard and honest work?
i'm willing to bet my two cents on that the spammers will win the case.
---
i'm not paranoid, just scared of 'them'.
"...Segway believes it has enough manufacturing capacity to meet demand..."
considering that they'll only get oh, 16-17 of these sold, i'm not surprized.
f64 : dada m'dah dada
>Now be honest, could the Spice Girls have sold any
>significant number of albums had they gone it on
>their own and distributed through the internet?
i guess this would be an argument for *any* music distribution system that doesn't depend on marketing.
frankly, to say that marketing (as it looks today) is a necessity for musicians to exist is to buy into what is presupposed by large labels (ie "we facilitate the release of less-commercial music thanks to our sales of a few mega-stars"), while a smaller, less industrialized way of distributing music might actually allow for "less-commercial" artist to prevail (using paypal, whatever), as well as slaughtering the giant corps (which in itself is good, since it gives the economic power, as well as the power of esthetics, back to the people who create and listen to music).
most of the interesting music i get nowdays comes through the internet; either as links in a mag or site, or using p2p filesharing and searching random words.
an unaffiliated plug would be mochipet who'm i found thorugh some glitch music site.
f64 : p2p - the lazy revolution
i know it's not addressing the issue of legislature in the US, but isn't it possible to just stream whatever audio through a foreign server (assuming such a server would be outside US jurisdiction)? : f64 : piracy - the lazy revolution
i spotted the thing imidietly! try finding the top secret airplane in this image!
as a photographer, and as someone who in one way or another will try to make a living of his sense of esthetic, i've been thinking about schemes to incorporate my anarchist views with my desire to be able to, well, eat and have somewhere to sleep.
in the anarchist society (in the far off future), results of ones work (intellectual as well as manual) is available to those who want it.
today, living in a parasitic capitalist society, short of four-finger-discount it's hard to make a living if you give your work away.
so anyway, the scheme i've come up with is to copyleft work for all purposes except commercial. that is, anyone can use my images as long as i am credited and they are not making a profit in any way from using them.
but to make a living of of this, one has to charge enough to cover costs, and make an overhead.
as one poster suggested, having multiple schemes available is one solution; unlimited rights to the images, but a heap of money for the setup, or charge hefty amounts per image copy. or something else.
it's all about being pragmatic as a photographer. someone has to make it worth your wile to pack your stuff, go to a wedding, setup, shoot, eat some cake, develop, copy, deliver.
if u feel that images taken by the guests are good enough, don't hire a photographer. if u want professional photos, pay up and make sure both parties agree on the conditions.
i for one never give my negatives away, but i guess i'm coming from a different place than a wedding photographer.
if you have mainly worked with magazines (as i), you get used to being fucked over with a broom by every editor trying to get you to sign away all your rights for eternity (not kidding), for use anywhere in the universe (still not kidding - it's an actual quote), and in a situation like that i either keep my rights, or don't sign.
in a situation like that, copyright actually is the less of two evils - either restrict access to your intellectual property (sic) or become a wage slave and make it harder for others to fight for their rights (insofar as having a job preference is a right, anyway).
ranting and raving if fun fun fun!
homer: mmmm, caffeine - a bitter white alkaloid, C8H10N4O2, often derived from tea or coffee and used in medicine chiefly as a mild stimulant and to treat certain kinds of headache.
bloody beatniks...
i would think that realmedia had passed on to the land of obsolete, crashing, ugly, software by now... can't they just give up?
oh well. let's give it a go, i guess...
f64 : better life through chemistry
-0S X uncrashable, you say? Challenge accepted!
ode to caffeine:
oh caffeine, oh caffeine
i love your fuzzy buzz
the shakes, the shivers
the drool upon my chin.
oh caffeine, oh caffeine
without you i cannot be
i do not breathe nor see
nor write in proper english
oh caffeine, oh caffeine
you will be my swift death
i pray that when my heart giveth up
my brain still buzzeth
: four 100mg caffeine pills a day
: better life through chemistry
No longer is free enterprise a basic right of a producer; indeed, the government tends to want to ban anything it doesn't understand or doesn't consider to be "savory." What we need the most on this issue is a little common sense: live and let live.
/., isn't the idea to share knowledge, thereby putting it to scrutiny and improving upon it?
yup. we live in authoritarian societies; namely within the corporate authoritarian society, which government server as much as it think it can get away with.
free enterprise shouldn't be the 'basic right' of a producer unless proven his/her intended products are harmless (and no, GMO's are not proven harmless); the way we do it today is regulations through government that supposedly protects us.
yeah. live and let live. the day we all live in the fluffy neo-liberal heaven where all are equal and have equal chance to succeed in a competing marketplace of free rational agents - drop me a note.
companies are not people; that they have protection under the first amendment tells more about the intentions on the creators of that amendment than about the actual moral rights of enteties such as companies. and since this is
uhm. yeah. 'provable safe activities' such as gm & nuke power. i'll abstain to comment.
and insofar as me trying to 'ruin everybody elses' lives, well, i'd like others not trying to jeopardize the planet, our lives and our kids lives by the short term gains (which all corporations are driven by, you punter).
imho, of course : f64