I remember reading a short story by Isaac Asimov where he made the statement... (not quotes since I can't remember the EXACT wording...) The DNI (Direct Neural Interface) made a bigger and more immediate change to the world of style and fashion than any other invention in history. Nearly overnight, every human being shaved their head.
Or , something along those lines... It was a story about people who jacked in and starved to death rather than come back out (IIRC)
Personally, I believe it totally awesome that when linking to the reference article, that I get a full page advert for Dell that you can't avoid watching before you can skip by it.
Advertising on the article that announces your conviction of false advertising.
I used products from a company called XMARK at my previous job. They make locater tags and equipment. It works well, but even being in that business for the last 5 years... I don't remember any company selling residential equipment.
.
Maybe they (or their competitors) have a smaller unit that would work.
..Well, I'm of an age where I've never even seen an episode myself. But I certainly know who he was and what his significance continues to be: Every person who significantly inspired and mentored me as I've grown up was inspired themselves by this man as they grew up.
I'm very aware that I owe a lot to him... Indirectly.
I still contend that music itself (if not performance of music) was seen as a commodity and product before recorded music was invented, A valuable resource that powerful people controled; yeah, I'm on board with that. Even though it was the musicians that were managed (through patronages, commissions and sponsorships) and not the actuall music.
I still have reservations about calling it a "product" though...
But I'm content with simply dissagreeing with you on that. - Thanks for your input, either way.
The market for recorded music is never going to go away
I agree.
The point I was trying to make was slightly different. There will, I beleive, always be a market for music. However you yourself said "Recorded Music",, and not "Physical Compact Disks". So I think we are just trying to explain the same thing to each other from different directions.
I don't see how sheet music is any different from a CD
I never said it was. I used a recipe as a metaphore for sheetmusic and never mentioned a CD. I can see your point that the metaphore is not 100% air-tight, but they never are.
But so as to not simply dismiss your comment, I'll run with this and see where it goes...
Playing into this would be a requirement of skill (or craftsmanship, if we want to continue the metaphore). With a full set of sheetmusic, I can't listen to Swan Lake, even if I have all the insrtuments in front of me. If I have the instructions to fordge a samuri sword, I havn't anywhere near the skill to make one. But with a CD, all I need is a piece of equipment, and I get the desired ""product""
Thus CD's are a product because if you have one, you have ready access to what you paid for. Sheetmusic, recipes, and such require the skills of an artist to yeild the product, so having them doesn't equate to having the product. It seems to me this doesn't contradict defining them as intellectual property with intrinsic value. But they are not the product from the standpoint of the artist (musician).
Does that seem reasonable?
but you can't argue that the invention of recorded music ushered in the idea of copyright protection. I agee.
But I also never mentioned copyright protection in my original post. My point was that manufacturing a product is a different business model than providing a service. And, that without the ability to record music, it was only provided as a service. Then it became possible, but for generations, it was so difficult to do so, that an industry evolved to provide that product to the masses. Now, that peculiar situation has desolved and the people profitting from that industry have been too slow in adapting to the new situation.
I think you have it backwards. Music was a service because it had to be - there was no way to store it. Services are worse than products from a consumer point of view
OK, you say I have it backwards, but then you say that it IS the way I describe because of a lack of choice... I never addressed WHY music was a service in prehistoric times. I just mentinoed it originated that way. Music WAS indeed a service when it was first developed. - Or do you still disagree? If so, please explain.
Then Edison invents whatever technology evolved into the CD/iPod, and we now have music as products. Products are better from the consumer point of view,
I never addressed what is best for the consumer. Are you expecting a reply on that, or are you just ranting. - No problem if you're ranting... I just don't get how that's relevent to the conversation.
You say the RIAA is selling a service like it is a product. You have it the wrong way round - the RIAA are trying to sell a product (the music) like it is a service. They are trying to charge us again and again to listen to music.
Good point.
I was speaking of their original tactics. They are, in various ways, trying to adapt their business model to the new reality. For that, I can't blame them... I just think the whole idea is building on a bad foundation. Which apparently you agree with.
Sheet music is a listing of what components go into a piece of music. It is not the music that results. It's similar to the same way that copying my recipe is different than stealing a cake that I have made.
.
Cakes(music) are what people want, and pay for. Recipe's are what cooks (musicians) use to create them (incidentially, a cook might or might not have payed money for it). Just because I have a recipe doesn't mean that I have desert tonight.
I'm curious. Your words supported what I was saying (with who the serivce was for being a note, but not refute), but the overall tone seemed like you were dissagreeing...
I'm just saying that people were being paid for music before Edison's invention,
This post is pretty far from the original parrent, so I'm not sure exactly where this was aimed at, but If it was referencing my reference of Edison, I assure you I didn't mean to imply any contradiction.
My point was: 1)Musicians were paid to perform their music for the people . 2) Then, music became a product, and musicians were paid to produce a product (which then other people were paid for providing to the population) 3) Now, that anomily is in the process of being corrected and musicians are again getting money from the people for their music.
It's just that an industry sprung up in the intervening time, and now they are fighting to hold onto a business model that is based, at it's core, on a temporary anomily that is now fading away.
but Cuba does 'lend out' a phenomenal number of doctors to other countries.
While I admit that you are quoting what appears to be a reasonable piece of information; there is a detail that either you are unaware of, or are subverting to make a false point. - giving you the BoD, I'll assume you just don't know, and I'll procede without flaming.
The vast majority of the audience of this posting will have certain presumptions when you use the word Doctor. Those turn out to be false when put into the context of Cuban exports.
Now, Don't get me wrong... Providing trained medical personall to your neighbors can be acting along a noble motivation... But the issue is that these people are not Doctors. They have been run through a short customized training session and have the skills needed to tent to the common injurries and ailments found in that region. Then Cuba calls these entry-level medics "Doctors" and sends them abroad to hone their skills somewhere else
Again, that's a very valid and serious help to the local people, but that's not the same as sending people who have earned post-grad degrees and spend years in resedincy tending to all sorts of conditions. - THOSE people, Cuba keeps. And who could blame them?
For Fifteen THOUSAND Years ( I am NOT exagerating) Music was a service that people provided to each other.
Then, some guy (named Edison) created an anomily. A peculiar quirk of technology that turned it inot a PRODUCT.
Luckily, technology has come around to return Music to it's proper place. It is now, once again, a Service
That's hat really bug me about the music industry. They are trying to sell a Service, like it was a Product, and then they have the audasity to blame US for their problems. RIAA, here's a free clue for you. "Contempt of Business Model" is not a crime. Your market was a fluke; an abhoration of technology that has been corrected. Just like that buggy-whip manufacturer in the oft-quoted Danny Devito flick, your time has passed. Adapt, or die. Just like every body else.
Some of the Enterprise's reactors were decommissioned, and some were upgraded. But they did not replace all 8 of them with 2 Nimitz-class reactors.
They wanted to, mind you... It's just that the underlieing structure of the ship was designed with 8 reactors in mind, and there would have been more work retrofitting her that it would have took to make a new ship. So, like everything else that is designed by committee and requiring approval by multiple governmental departments, there were many compromises.
Slashdot Mirror
Or , something along those lines... It was a story about people who jacked in and starved to death rather than come back out (IIRC)
.
Seriously though. It would be the advertising coup of a lifetime.
.
That's the only one I know about...
I used to work for a hospital and they are pretty much the only group left.
What I miss most is having a service where the clients were given the number of a human-staffed service and those operators then keyed in the message.
.
Try
www.mapcommunications.com
That's exactly what they do. .
.
who's laughing now????
oh, wait...
How about some nice, big fractal images?
Advertising on the article that announces your conviction of false advertising.
Just wow.
.
Maybe they (or their competitors) have a smaller unit that would work.
Maybe THAT's why every time I move my hands they crack and rattle like a soup can full of chicken bones...
.
http://sourceforge.net/projects/dcl/
It's been so long since we set it up, I frankly don't remember the details... but it has been running for years now without incident.
enjoy!
.
I'm very aware that I owe a lot to him... Indirectly.
RIP
I still have reservations about calling it a "product" though...
But I'm content with simply dissagreeing with you on that. - Thanks for your input, either way.
I agree.
The point I was trying to make was slightly different. There will, I beleive, always be a market for music. However you yourself said "Recorded Music",, and not "Physical Compact Disks". So I think we are just trying to explain the same thing to each other from different directions.
I never said it was. I used a recipe as a metaphore for sheetmusic and never mentioned a CD. I can see your point that the metaphore is not 100% air-tight, but they never are.
But so as to not simply dismiss your comment, I'll run with this and see where it goes...
Playing into this would be a requirement of skill (or craftsmanship, if we want to continue the metaphore). With a full set of sheetmusic, I can't listen to Swan Lake, even if I have all the insrtuments in front of me. If I have the instructions to fordge a samuri sword, I havn't anywhere near the skill to make one. But with a CD, all I need is a piece of equipment, and I get the desired ""product""
Thus CD's are a product because if you have one, you have ready access to what you paid for. Sheetmusic, recipes, and such require the skills of an artist to yeild the product, so having them doesn't equate to having the product. It seems to me this doesn't contradict defining them as intellectual property with intrinsic value. But they are not the product from the standpoint of the artist (musician).
Does that seem reasonable?
but you can't argue that the invention of recorded music ushered in the idea of copyright protection. I agee.But I also never mentioned copyright protection in my original post. My point was that manufacturing a product is a different business model than providing a service. And, that without the ability to record music, it was only provided as a service. Then it became possible, but for generations, it was so difficult to do so, that an industry evolved to provide that product to the masses. Now, that peculiar situation has desolved and the people profitting from that industry have been too slow in adapting to the new situation.
OK, you say I have it backwards, but then you say that it IS the way I describe because of a lack of choice... I never addressed WHY music was a service in prehistoric times. I just mentinoed it originated that way. Music WAS indeed a service when it was first developed. - Or do you still disagree? If so, please explain.
Then Edison invents whatever technology evolved into the CD/iPod, and we now have music as products. Products are better from the consumer point of view,I never addressed what is best for the consumer. Are you expecting a reply on that, or are you just ranting. - No problem if you're ranting... I just don't get how that's relevent to the conversation.
You say the RIAA is selling a service like it is a product. You have it the wrong way round - the RIAA are trying to sell a product (the music) like it is a service. They are trying to charge us again and again to listen to music.Good point.
I was speaking of their original tactics. They are, in various ways, trying to adapt their business model to the new reality. For that, I can't blame them... I just think the whole idea is building on a bad foundation. Which apparently you agree with.
Sheet music is a listing of what components go into a piece of music. It is not the music that results. It's similar to the same way that copying my recipe is different than stealing a cake that I have made.
.
Cakes(music) are what people want, and pay for. Recipe's are what cooks (musicians) use to create them (incidentially, a cook might or might not have payed money for it). Just because I have a recipe doesn't mean that I have desert tonight.
Seem reasonable, Buddy?
I'm curious. Your words supported what I was saying (with who the serivce was for being a note, but not refute), but the overall tone seemed like you were dissagreeing...
which was it?
This post is pretty far from the original parrent, so I'm not sure exactly where this was aimed at, but If it was referencing my reference of Edison, I assure you I didn't mean to imply any contradiction.
My point was: 1)Musicians were paid to perform their music for the people . 2) Then, music became a product, and musicians were paid to produce a product (which then other people were paid for providing to the population) 3) Now, that anomily is in the process of being corrected and musicians are again getting money from the people for their music.
It's just that an industry sprung up in the intervening time, and now they are fighting to hold onto a business model that is based, at it's core, on a temporary anomily that is now fading away.
While I admit that you are quoting what appears to be a reasonable piece of information; there is a detail that either you are unaware of, or are subverting to make a false point. - giving you the BoD, I'll assume you just don't know, and I'll procede without flaming.
The vast majority of the audience of this posting will have certain presumptions when you use the word Doctor. Those turn out to be false when put into the context of Cuban exports.
Now, Don't get me wrong... Providing trained medical personall to your neighbors can be acting along a noble motivation... But the issue is that these people are not Doctors. They have been run through a short customized training session and have the skills needed to tent to the common injurries and ailments found in that region. Then Cuba calls these entry-level medics "Doctors" and sends them abroad to hone their skills somewhere else
Again, that's a very valid and serious help to the local people, but that's not the same as sending people who have earned post-grad degrees and spend years in resedincy tending to all sorts of conditions. - THOSE people, Cuba keeps. And who could blame them?
Then, some guy (named Edison) created an anomily. A peculiar quirk of technology that turned it inot a PRODUCT.
Luckily, technology has come around to return Music to it's proper place. It is now, once again, a Service
That's hat really bug me about the music industry. They are trying to sell a Service, like it was a Product, and then they have the audasity to blame US for their problems. RIAA, here's a free clue for you. "Contempt of Business Model" is not a crime. Your market was a fluke; an abhoration of technology that has been corrected. Just like that buggy-whip manufacturer in the oft-quoted Danny Devito flick, your time has passed. Adapt, or die. Just like every body else.
I stand corrected.
.
I guess truth CAN be stranger than fiction.
.
You were kinda' right.
Some of the Enterprise's reactors were decommissioned, and some were upgraded. But they did not replace all 8 of them with 2 Nimitz-class reactors.
They wanted to, mind you... It's just that the underlieing structure of the ship was designed with 8 reactors in mind, and there would have been more work retrofitting her that it would have took to make a new ship. So, like everything else that is designed by committee and requiring approval by multiple governmental departments, there were many compromises.