My main point, however poorly stated, was that I need to be convinced of the grandparent's post that artists should not have to tour to pay the rent.
And poorly stated yet again. You'd do much better to keep your personal tastes out of the discussion. It only weakens your points.
And frankly, I don't need to convince you. It's already written into the law to protect these artists. A law that I support for the most part. If anything you need to convince me. But... since you mention it; The artist is taking a gamble with putting their music out there for sale. If you really know the game you know it costs money to put something together like this. The artist doesn't have the guaranteed payday that you have when you go to work. People have already proven that they're not willing to ante up if they can get away with it. By that fact alone I support copyright. Copyright helps to ensure that artists get paid for their gamble. Well worth it if you ask me and I've spent enough of my hourly wage to prove my convictions too.
Just because a bunch of sheep think that an artist is hot and have an artificial desire for the album fueled by expensive marketing doesn't make it right that these folks get to retire in their 20s. They haven't earned it, they've hit the jackpot, and to say that it's not right for artists to have to tour to promote their music is just silly.
Hit the jackpot by putting out a product that is considered good by the public at large. Even if you think it's worthless they provided something that a very large number of people think has value. This isn't "something that anyone can do". And it certainly has nothing to do with talent. Sorry that we can't all be on the bleeding edge of artistic merit like you.
The current model, where all the marketing gets behind a handful of mega-hitsters is bad for everyone. Poor artists can't compete with the marketing machines at the majors, so they have to sign the same all-or-nothing deals. While I'm sure everyone would love to write a "Disco Duck" song that keeps them in the money forever, I'm sure most musicians would be happy to make a decent living performing, writing music and earning their keep.
If it sells it sells. Why does someone always have to turn a thread about music marketing into some debate on artistic talent? These two things do not go hand-in-hand. Get over it!
Again, if you're using this song on your iPod, or it's being played on the radio and you're listening to it that means that it has entertainment value. Compensate the artist for God's sake! Why is that such a big deal? Why should an artist be forced to gamble even more of their own money and be forced to tour? Because you say so? Thank God others weren't so short sighted.
And copyright applies across the board. What are you going to tell painters and writers? To tour? I'm not going to be so lunkheaded as to bring my own ideals on what is and is not of the proper type of artistry to be worthy of payment. That being said; the produced works of an artist deserve to be protected, if for no other reason then to assure that they not only get compensated for their initial gamble but also to prevent their art from being molested by people who have decided what is and is not worth compensation based on some unknown and unquantifiable scale. It's insane to think that just because I don't like something that it should have no value to anyone ever.
There are a bunch of ways to fix the problem. Shortening copyright limits is one way.
This I can agree with to a point. There is a lot of debate on what is and is not a proper length of time for copyright. But that's for another day. I feel that I've gotten long winded enough.
Regulating the business practices of pimping organizations like the RIAA to ensure that artists get the majority of the money rather than ending up as musical sharecropper
But in the mean time you have a ton of debt you're trying to keep in control hoping for your big day to happen.
Music production costs and if they never get a big enough fan base to make these songs pay out more then a couple of cents per download these guys are going to give it up.
So what will we have? We'll have the same old pop names riding high, getting more of the publicity while smaller indy artists will struggle. And even if they get a bit of recognition? Great, they're going to make as much over 200 downloads as some other artists (as in pop) are going to make in a half a dozen. This is the same record company scam done in a new guise. It has nothing to do with paying an artist, it has to do with making the unpopular artist suffer until they're dead broke and have to give up the business. The best part of it? Amazon doesn't have to pay out! At least with the record companies they put some money and services up front.
For the most part all of this bitching and moaning has nothing to do about a fair price. Lets face it, people want music, they want it for free and they want to do it legally. But like the old axiom of "fast, good, cheap. Choose 2", these three elements can never come together in a situation where it is win-win for both the listener and the musician.
Most of the time when I see people on Slashdot talk about how things are "working out" with new music distribution models they normally forget to include the musician in the equation.
I don't care what anyone thinks about this. An artist shouldn't be forced to tour to pay the rent. Is it hard to accept making a lifetime's wage for a few years of work? Sure. But on the other hand it shouldn't be asking too much for the artist to cover the cost of overhead for putting out music, keep food on his plate and make a bit extra without having to live in the back of an Econoline van.
So most of the DRM/Copyright arguments has nothing to do with creativity or a society bolstered by its art. It mostly has to deal with people being greedy and not wanting to shell out for what they've taken.
Blame the RIAA all you want, but people deserve to make a buck when they've produced something that you're willing to listen to more then once or twice.
Now, for everyone who wonders why cookie cutter pop songs sell....
While it's somewhat neat this is only going to make the unimaginative pop artist richer and the indie artist poorer. When this model goes live and pop goes for $$$$ don't sit there and ask why big labels only seem to produce pop. At least with the old static model the indie artist could still make a buck off a few sales instead of having to have half the iPod owning population buy their song to finally make the rent.
Or in a much shorter form: If you're a small artist with a small fanbase you're best off to avoid Amazon. Regardless of talent.
The real question is how often will this be used? Not every doctor is going to need this as, it seems, this is going to start out as a specialist item. Your local hospital may only have need for one of these things in the long run.
In any case this is a good step forward and I'm glad to hear about it...
Third parties need to focus more on winning state and local elections (even though that isn't fun, easy, or glamourous) because that's where the foundation is built for a national run. I've not seen any credible third party candidates running for anything except very high offices. Seems more like ego stroking for the folks running, to me.
I agree with you on these points in full. Not only does it give candidates a ladder they can climb to show that they have potential in a high office with some experience behind them but it also gets the public more familiar with the candidates platform if there are local offices held by politicians of the same party. I think that many people would agree with third party politics but as long as it's "just some crank running for president" it doesn't make it accessible by Joe Public.
If you're going for a simple majority in an election what difference does it make if the electoral college is there or not? I understand that it is a problem that a candidate can win without the popular vote but I don't see how this brings down a third party candidate. If anything it could benefit him.
If you think that voting for the candidate that best represents your outlook in politics is "throwing [your] vote away" it's pretty easy to understand why a third party hasn't won yet.
I agree. One of the better things about MySpace is that a user has a certain amount of control over what is and is not open to the public. This makes it a safer environment for kids who want to have pages and gives both the teen and the parent peace of mind to know that their information the is only available to a select crowd.
I seriously do not see why this is modded as a troll.
Problem is, it works as a money making venture, so other games follow the same suit rather than attempting to create games where content is for fun rather than for grind.
The solution to your problem is word it so that it seems new and exciting instead of rehashing what you've just done (and redone).
It gets old but most people don't realize this until after they've already gone through it a couple of times. The same can be said for most expansion packs MMORPG or not.
And I'll be honest, when creating a time waster of this nature I don't know what can really be done to make it progressive and still not throw long time players into mode that will cause of them to seek something a bit more understandable (ie. consistent).
While it could be done in such a manner I would have concerns if I were the RIAA:
1. By pursuing civil action first how does that help or hinder a potential criminal proceeding?
2. Could I get as much help from law enforcement since I wasn't charging the defendant with a criminal charge?
Think what you will of the RIAA but the legal aspects of not hitting the accused with criminal charges could be damaging to a case against them. But I an not a lawyer, that's why I'm asking these kinds of questions.
Can anyone please tell me why this does not seem to be the way that it works in this case?
What makes you think that it isn't working this way?
As a citizen I can request that charges be filed against a criminal. The police are merely there to enforce the law and the magistrate (or whomever) have to decide if there is enough evidence to prosecute.
It's like saying that if I were a store owner and I caught someone shop lifting... the police do not have to witness the act for the thief to face prosecution. Mind you, I still have to provide evidence. This is the reason for closed circuit cameras in most establishments.
This is no different. The theater owners still have to provide some level of evidence. Without this the magistrate will never let this see a courtroom.
Are you claiming that without blogging we'd still have Jimmy The Greek? Oh sorry... Imus had zero chance with or without blogging. Please get over yourself here.
Because it's Dvorak saying it, it must be false, but then even a blind squirrel finds a nut now and then.
Let's face facts, if you need for Dvorak to point a trend out to you the fact is that you probably weren't on "the bubble" to begin with. If this article is some kind of wake up call to you then you're probably so low on the food chain that you have little to worry about. I hear McDonalds is hiring.
I think it has to do more with smarter kids understanding what they have to lose if they have an "accident".
I'm sure other studies have shown that smarter kids, on average, come from better off parents, financially speaking. Being that these kids aren't dumb they see the downfall of parenthood at the time that they should be headed off to further education and career building.
Coming from a school district where we have the haves and have nots pretty well represented it never surprised me to find the lower class students being the ones getting knocked up.
What does strike me as odd as that the lower class either doesn't seem to have made this connection or they just plainly don't care. We certainly didn't need a study to see this in action.
Because lots of people respect him and their opinions can be swayed by his comments.
I don't think that lots of people need Ebert's opinion in this case. For the most part people align themselves with others who fortify their own ideals. It doesn't speak well of Ebert to have those voicing their support for him, the only thing that they're supporting is the words that came out of his mouth at that point in time.
Without Ebert we're still going to have a mass of people who view gaming as less of a pastime then watching "the game" on Sunday or re-runs of M*A*S*H. The artistic or potential artistic merits of gaming aren't even a question to these people and citing Ebert only makes them feel justified, Ebert didn't turn them on to a new way of thinking. A lot of people do that with quotes from other mouthpieces around here like John Dvorak. Even though John is mostly wrong in his predictions there are those who will latch onto his words as true wisdom when he speaks out on something that they have convictions over.
Forget Ebert. His "supporters" didn't need for him to take up the banner of the anti-gaming sect. He follows them as much as they follow him.
Honestly, I think it's going to help the RIAA by showing that they need more help from the powers that be to enforce what the law. I'm seriously thinking this could land some of the students in a lot more trouble then the university thinks.
Slashdot Mirror
My main point, however poorly stated, was that I need to be convinced of the grandparent's post that artists should not have to tour to pay the rent.
And poorly stated yet again. You'd do much better to keep your personal tastes out of the discussion. It only weakens your points.
And frankly, I don't need to convince you. It's already written into the law to protect these artists. A law that I support for the most part. If anything you need to convince me. But... since you mention it; The artist is taking a gamble with putting their music out there for sale. If you really know the game you know it costs money to put something together like this. The artist doesn't have the guaranteed payday that you have when you go to work. People have already proven that they're not willing to ante up if they can get away with it. By that fact alone I support copyright. Copyright helps to ensure that artists get paid for their gamble. Well worth it if you ask me and I've spent enough of my hourly wage to prove my convictions too.
Just because a bunch of sheep think that an artist is hot and have an artificial desire for the album fueled by expensive marketing doesn't make it right that these folks get to retire in their 20s. They haven't earned it, they've hit the jackpot, and to say that it's not right for artists to have to tour to promote their music is just silly.
Hit the jackpot by putting out a product that is considered good by the public at large. Even if you think it's worthless they provided something that a very large number of people think has value. This isn't "something that anyone can do". And it certainly has nothing to do with talent. Sorry that we can't all be on the bleeding edge of artistic merit like you.
The current model, where all the marketing gets behind a handful of mega-hitsters is bad for everyone. Poor artists can't compete with the marketing machines at the majors, so they have to sign the same all-or-nothing deals. While I'm sure everyone would love to write a "Disco Duck" song that keeps them in the money forever, I'm sure most musicians would be happy to make a decent living performing, writing music and earning their keep.
If it sells it sells. Why does someone always have to turn a thread about music marketing into some debate on artistic talent? These two things do not go hand-in-hand. Get over it!
Again, if you're using this song on your iPod, or it's being played on the radio and you're listening to it that means that it has entertainment value. Compensate the artist for God's sake! Why is that such a big deal? Why should an artist be forced to gamble even more of their own money and be forced to tour? Because you say so? Thank God others weren't so short sighted.
And copyright applies across the board. What are you going to tell painters and writers? To tour? I'm not going to be so lunkheaded as to bring my own ideals on what is and is not of the proper type of artistry to be worthy of payment. That being said; the produced works of an artist deserve to be protected, if for no other reason then to assure that they not only get compensated for their initial gamble but also to prevent their art from being molested by people who have decided what is and is not worth compensation based on some unknown and unquantifiable scale. It's insane to think that just because I don't like something that it should have no value to anyone ever.
There are a bunch of ways to fix the problem. Shortening copyright limits is one way.
This I can agree with to a point. There is a lot of debate on what is and is not a proper length of time for copyright. But that's for another day. I feel that I've gotten long winded enough.
Regulating the business practices of pimping organizations like the RIAA to ensure that artists get the majority of the money rather than ending up as musical sharecropper
But in the mean time you have a ton of debt you're trying to keep in control hoping for your big day to happen.
Music production costs and if they never get a big enough fan base to make these songs pay out more then a couple of cents per download these guys are going to give it up.
So what will we have? We'll have the same old pop names riding high, getting more of the publicity while smaller indy artists will struggle. And even if they get a bit of recognition? Great, they're going to make as much over 200 downloads as some other artists (as in pop) are going to make in a half a dozen. This is the same record company scam done in a new guise. It has nothing to do with paying an artist, it has to do with making the unpopular artist suffer until they're dead broke and have to give up the business. The best part of it? Amazon doesn't have to pay out! At least with the record companies they put some money and services up front.
For the most part all of this bitching and moaning has nothing to do about a fair price. Lets face it, people want music, they want it for free and they want to do it legally. But like the old axiom of "fast, good, cheap. Choose 2", these three elements can never come together in a situation where it is win-win for both the listener and the musician.
Most of the time when I see people on Slashdot talk about how things are "working out" with new music distribution models they normally forget to include the musician in the equation.
I don't care what anyone thinks about this. An artist shouldn't be forced to tour to pay the rent. Is it hard to accept making a lifetime's wage for a few years of work? Sure. But on the other hand it shouldn't be asking too much for the artist to cover the cost of overhead for putting out music, keep food on his plate and make a bit extra without having to live in the back of an Econoline van.
So most of the DRM/Copyright arguments has nothing to do with creativity or a society bolstered by its art. It mostly has to deal with people being greedy and not wanting to shell out for what they've taken.
Blame the RIAA all you want, but people deserve to make a buck when they've produced something that you're willing to listen to more then once or twice.
/rant
Now, for everyone who wonders why cookie cutter pop songs sell....
While it's somewhat neat this is only going to make the unimaginative pop artist richer and the indie artist poorer. When this model goes live and pop goes for $$$$ don't sit there and ask why big labels only seem to produce pop. At least with the old static model the indie artist could still make a buck off a few sales instead of having to have half the iPod owning population buy their song to finally make the rent.
Or in a much shorter form: If you're a small artist with a small fanbase you're best off to avoid Amazon. Regardless of talent.
The real question is how often will this be used? Not every doctor is going to need this as, it seems, this is going to start out as a specialist item. Your local hospital may only have need for one of these things in the long run.
In any case this is a good step forward and I'm glad to hear about it...
Now, where did I put that pack of Camels???
Now we know where all those bottles go. They've formed their own damn planet!
But which version of Outlook? Outlook 2007 no longer uses IE as it's HTML viewer but rather uses the Word 2007 HTML viewer.
Third parties need to focus more on winning state and local elections (even though that isn't fun, easy, or glamourous) because that's where the foundation is built for a national run. I've not seen any credible third party candidates running for anything except very high offices. Seems more like ego stroking for the folks running, to me.
I agree with you on these points in full. Not only does it give candidates a ladder they can climb to show that they have potential in a high office with some experience behind them but it also gets the public more familiar with the candidates platform if there are local offices held by politicians of the same party. I think that many people would agree with third party politics but as long as it's "just some crank running for president" it doesn't make it accessible by Joe Public.
If you're going for a simple majority in an election what difference does it make if the electoral college is there or not? I understand that it is a problem that a candidate can win without the popular vote but I don't see how this brings down a third party candidate. If anything it could benefit him.
If you think that voting for the candidate that best represents your outlook in politics is "throwing [your] vote away" it's pretty easy to understand why a third party hasn't won yet.
If you don't think that the community isn't already fractured you're living in denial.
Why should I stay where I'm not wanted, living under a regime I did not elect, without the benefits I could find in another Western country?
These are good questions. What are you waiting for? Go on, get moving. Don't let the door hit you on the ass.
I agree. One of the better things about MySpace is that a user has a certain amount of control over what is and is not open to the public. This makes it a safer environment for kids who want to have pages and gives both the teen and the parent peace of mind to know that their information the is only available to a select crowd.
I seriously do not see why this is modded as a troll.
Problem is, it works as a money making venture, so other games follow the same suit rather than attempting to create games where content is for fun rather than for grind.
The solution to your problem is word it so that it seems new and exciting instead of rehashing what you've just done (and redone).
It gets old but most people don't realize this until after they've already gone through it a couple of times. The same can be said for most expansion packs MMORPG or not.
And I'll be honest, when creating a time waster of this nature I don't know what can really be done to make it progressive and still not throw long time players into mode that will cause of them to seek something a bit more understandable (ie. consistent).
While it could be done in such a manner I would have concerns if I were the RIAA:
1. By pursuing civil action first how does that help or hinder a potential criminal proceeding?
2. Could I get as much help from law enforcement since I wasn't charging the defendant with a criminal charge?
Think what you will of the RIAA but the legal aspects of not hitting the accused with criminal charges could be damaging to a case against them. But I an not a lawyer, that's why I'm asking these kinds of questions.
After all, it looks much like Digg already.
Small claims court is for civil trials, not criminal.
If people are going to make grandiose statements like this it would be best to understand a bit about the legal system.
Can anyone please tell me why this does not seem to be the way that it works in this case?
What makes you think that it isn't working this way?
As a citizen I can request that charges be filed against a criminal. The police are merely there to enforce the law and the magistrate (or whomever) have to decide if there is enough evidence to prosecute.
It's like saying that if I were a store owner and I caught someone shop lifting... the police do not have to witness the act for the thief to face prosecution. Mind you, I still have to provide evidence. This is the reason for closed circuit cameras in most establishments.
This is no different. The theater owners still have to provide some level of evidence. Without this the magistrate will never let this see a courtroom.
Don Imus is another.
Are you claiming that without blogging we'd still have Jimmy The Greek? Oh sorry... Imus had zero chance with or without blogging. Please get over yourself here.
And from where I sit Sony is doing just fine.
Where is that idiot with the goatcx photo when it's finally appropriate?
Because it's Dvorak saying it, it must be false, but then even a blind squirrel finds a nut now and then.
Let's face facts, if you need for Dvorak to point a trend out to you the fact is that you probably weren't on "the bubble" to begin with. If this article is some kind of wake up call to you then you're probably so low on the food chain that you have little to worry about. I hear McDonalds is hiring.
I think it has to do more with smarter kids understanding what they have to lose if they have an "accident".
I'm sure other studies have shown that smarter kids, on average, come from better off parents, financially speaking. Being that these kids aren't dumb they see the downfall of parenthood at the time that they should be headed off to further education and career building.
Coming from a school district where we have the haves and have nots pretty well represented it never surprised me to find the lower class students being the ones getting knocked up.
What does strike me as odd as that the lower class either doesn't seem to have made this connection or they just plainly don't care. We certainly didn't need a study to see this in action.
Yeah, but he lost a lot of weight after eating Siskel. Does that mean that Siskel was the ultimate diet food that everyone is looking for?
Because lots of people respect him and their opinions can be swayed by his comments.
I don't think that lots of people need Ebert's opinion in this case. For the most part people align themselves with others who fortify their own ideals. It doesn't speak well of Ebert to have those voicing their support for him, the only thing that they're supporting is the words that came out of his mouth at that point in time.
Without Ebert we're still going to have a mass of people who view gaming as less of a pastime then watching "the game" on Sunday or re-runs of M*A*S*H. The artistic or potential artistic merits of gaming aren't even a question to these people and citing Ebert only makes them feel justified, Ebert didn't turn them on to a new way of thinking. A lot of people do that with quotes from other mouthpieces around here like John Dvorak. Even though John is mostly wrong in his predictions there are those who will latch onto his words as true wisdom when he speaks out on something that they have convictions over.
Forget Ebert. His "supporters" didn't need for him to take up the banner of the anti-gaming sect. He follows them as much as they follow him.
Honestly, I think it's going to help the RIAA by showing that they need more help from the powers that be to enforce what the law. I'm seriously thinking this could land some of the students in a lot more trouble then the university thinks.