since music is based on math anyway, i don't see why it isn't possible to write a program to generate pleasing music... or at the very least, some basic music themes.
true, computers are a long way away from replacing humans, namely since sometimes the most interesting piece of music to the human ear isn't always the most mathematically pleasing.
I read somewhere a long time ago that you can determine what a society values the most in their lives by who makes the most money in that society.
in today's society (I am speaking primarily about Western Society and the US in particular), we value entertainment above everything else and it shows. atheletes and actors/actresses top out making millions of dollars a year while teachers and other educators don't really make all that much. Ok, doctors DO make a lot of money too, but that can be blamed on the sheer amount of schooling required and importance of their job.
close behind entertainment are jobs that obsesss with making more money... Wall Street etc. Engineers and Businessmen etc.
what is my point? well, like the article said:
Of course, his claim that "studios are barely breaking even" falls on deaf ears when I hear about 9-digit salaries for individual actors in a big-name film that's just some rehash of an old concept.
they make that much money because society allowed them to. Maybe society is finally putting an end to it. the big screen won't die. eventually the studios will stop paying so much money for bloated "talent". sure, some big names will cry foul and kick and scream and demand respect etc, but with the advent of digital effects so readily available, i think someday we will see films on smaller budgets due to lower paychecks to the actors and possibly more lesser known stars.
now, athletes are a whole other topic altogether..
you got a point. the ACLU can go a bit wacko sometimes. but that goes for anything in extreme. people who extremely hate the present administration are wacko. those that extremely love it are wacko. and wackos (or is it, wackoes?) don't get along with other wackos.
i don't particularly like the ACLU, but they do serve as a reminder to keep things from getting too out of control... but sometimes they butt in when they could be of more use somewhere else, like coming up with some productive plans instead of always bashing others.
wow, i shoulda posted my response below as a reply here. (redheads losing their hair sooner). in fact i now remember a friend i knew from school who had light redish-blonde hair, however he kept it cut very short since his hair was thinning too.
heh, this revelation probably isn't so insightful for those geneticists out there, but it makes me more and more relieved that my mother's brown hair genes won the battle of my head.
Firstly: the decision in this case occurred in an Australian court, so there are no first amendment rights to be brandished anyway (and of course the ACLU has no presence). The merits or otherwise of the US Constitution/Bill of Rights are an unrelated issue - it is a simple fact that they do not apply outside the US.
point taken, however, i wasn't referring to the US constitution and trying to apply it in a foreign land. that would be silly. i only mentioned that little bit to let everyone know that i wasn't some civil liberties crusader out trying to rid of the world of censoring and banning anything. I am not like that and didn't want my post to be taken that way. sorry if i wasn't clear.
as for the rest, yea, in this case T3 was probly guilty, especially since it came to my attention that i misread and Joey wasn't even part of SPEWS. oh, and i agree it's not censoring, but if enough people adopt the list, it is effectively the same as censoring... though a full censorship of those stupid emails would be nice.
First, Joey has no known relationship to SPEWS. T3 deliberately or accidentally confused them because SPEWS does not publish contact info while Joey was visibly complaining about them.
point taken. also to the rest, i agree, if SPEWS begins to misbehave, it will lose power. i guess what sparked me to comment was my concern of lists of IP's being gathered and distributed in legit ways and the possibility of those lists being misused somehow. no i am not a government-hating paranoid nut:), the idea just hit me as i read that article.
I'm not aware of any vaguely popular blacklists that would add an IP/range on the strength of one random unknown person presenting what appeared to be a spam from that IP. That would obviously be ridiculous. Do you really think they would become as popular as they are if they were that stupid?
yea, i agree. but that australian news article didn't really go into detail of how SPEWS decides who stays and who gets banned. after a quick read of the the SPEWS faq it sounds like they have an automated system overseen by several admins. (news flash) and they only target known spammers and spammer friendly sites. and they stress that anyone who uses SPEWS does so willingly and knowing that some legitimate email could be bounced.
so i suppose in this case, i am sure it's probly a pretty benign system. however, like any banning list, there are people that must make the decisions what to ban and what not to ban. yea, overt spammers get banned, but what about the grey area? also, what about the ones who get banned for no reason? (SPEWS admits it happens and even has a full page dedicated to it.
what i was alluding to in my first post was that having any list like this is a form of censure-ship. though SPEWS says it is not:
from the faq:
Q10: Isn't SPEWS censorship?
A10: No, SPEWS is a list of areas of the Internet that some people do not wish to communicate with. Think of it as one group's Consumer Reports review of portions of the billions of Internet addresses. These are the ones SPEWS members have a poor opinion of. SPEWS is not anti-commerce and fully supports the USA's First Amendment and other nation's free speech protections. In fact, the USA's Supreme Court agrees with the SPEWS view. The creators of SPEWS are its main users and who it was designed for, if others decide to also use its data, they are exercising their own rights. No one is forced to use SPEWS.
no one is forced to abide to banned book lists either. in fact the caveat in the above faq answer closely mirrors the caveat in the pabbis banned book site at the link above that says essentially, that pabbis doesn't think books are bad, that is up to parents to decide. they just provide a list. SPEWS doesn't decide that they are bad, they just provide a list of spammers and companies do what they wish.
but like i said, upon further reading of the SPEWS site, i think they are probly a good thing in the end, but i still think that if used incorrectly (just like every single tool and technology ever created... yea, even sporks) it could become a bothersome hassle or even, in some wacko Brave New World scenario, a way to silence the voice of the people. we could have lists to ban IP's from known dissidant factions or unpopular opinions.
Kiddie Porn = BAD
Sunny Day in Spring = GOOD
KIDDIE PORN BAD!
just wanted to clear that little thing up RIGHT NOW!
don't know HOW i missed that while previewing.
ok, first off, i am not some ACLU nut. i am not here brandishing my first ammendment rights (i keep that safely in my pocket, out of sight)
i applaud efforts to keep kiddie porn (virtual too... though i realize that virtual porn technically is probly legal... but let us not open *that* can of worms today)
i think the library should carry banned books (like those heinous atrocities, Bridge to Terabitia and Hamlet and others
and i think spammers should rot in that circle of hell that Cerberus pukes all over. (ok, my Dante is rusty, i can't remember which circle, or if i got the puker right.. someone help me here)
but something seems fishy here. the company sued that one guy cos he "black-listed" their firm. the article didn't go into much detail, but it sounds as if that one guy, Joey McNicol, has quite a bit of power. i mean, what if i am a competitor of some company and i can convince Joey McNicol that their IP needs to be banned. as long as Joey McNicol is a true-blue swell guy, there is no way that can happen, but what if he isn't? i am in no way saying we need SPEWS regulated, but i wonder what some rather yucky worst case scenario - long term possible problems could arise from its misuse.
We are already in a kind of "war". Pac writes how the public will not stand for corporations jailing their sons and daughters, confiscating their properties and suing them into poverty. I agree, but the war I am talking about is more a mindset-shift or a completely revamping of the entertainment industry.
Many people here are talking about how the sales losses are "marginal" to the big bad industries. Either you would have spent money on the CD or DVD, or you wont. Most have made up their minds already... I agree to a point, but what about the ones who haven't made up their minds? Sure there will be losses, but I think the only thing that "illegally" downloading movies/music can do is ultimately help the entire situation.
A)if you are a true LotR fan, you will be in theaters on opening day and more than likely will buy the DVD.
B)if you aren't really a fan, you *might* see the movie in theaters and *might* rent the DVD.
if A downloads LotR, it will not affect sales since A will still watch the movie and buy the DVD. if B downloads LotR, it again will probably not affect sales since B probably wouldn't have watched it anyway.
the real problem is :
C) the person who isn't sure if he/she will like LotR. this person may or may not pay money for it. here is the central problem. what about the majority of people who aren't sure if they would watch/listen to certain movies/music? in the past there were few ways for C to determine whether he/she wanted to spend money on a product that may or may not satisfy. in those days, the movie theaters realized that they need to make trailers to advertise their movies and these trailers had to make the indecisive majority want to spend money on that movie. the same goes for music. why do the recording labels release singles? why do singles sound so trendy (usually)? why do they hype them up on the radio etc? to get people to buy the full CD, of course! the indecisive consumer *needs* advertisement to tell him/her what is favorable to buy.
group A (the true fans) will always support their favorite groups/movies/actors/singers/etc. maybe not quite to the extent as before the "evil net", but as true fans they will always be there. and until you can find a way to simulate live music and the atmosphere of a live concert, group A will to some extent still be there supporting what they like.
group B would never have supported the group/movie anyway, thus no one is losing any money or the money that is lost is fairly negligible.
group C is the problem. they are the majority and make up much of the target consumer class that the recording labels and movie labels advertise to. they haven't made their minds up yet. p2p and other means of electronic copying/sharing certainly allow some people to "check out" the music/movie before hand. oftentimes the reaction will be "eh, it's ok. I might have bought it, but I really dot like it enough to justify the exhorbant costs!" sometimes its "eh its ok. I have a few bucks, maybe I will buy it next time at the store." sometimes "this sucks. glad I didn't waste money on it" sometimes there is no reaction. other times its "this rocks! glad I didn't waste money on it!"
the people in this last group are the true offenders. the ones who truly enjoy the products but still do not pay up. the ones who, after "test driving" the product, do not buy it once they realize they would have bought it, had the p2p/etc technology not existed. in my opinion, movies and music labels made too much money in the past. perhaps we are on the edge of a completely new trend in creative products. people argue that without the big paychecks, people wont make new music or movies anymore. I doubt that. there are so many competent artists and actors and actresses and producers and directors and recording engineers out there, that once the big name, flashy, trendy, rich actors/actresses/artists "refuse" to work for "peanuts", the unknown and underpaid talent will take over. moviestars and rockers have been paid well. they were the best in the age they lived in and were thusly paid. however, with the ease of sharing, the mindset of the world will change.
the problem is, more and more people are refusing to be shepherded. being told what to buy and why. you have a chance to "preview" and opt to buy or not. the question of legality isn't the issue. the real issue is money and the prospects of huge payrolls disappearing. I agree that "stealing" is wrong, but define stealing. aren't record labels stealing when they pressure artists to record "popular" songs to bait and trick people into buying the rest of the album? what about movie studios only showing the "cool" clips from a movie in a trailer or even worse, showing practically the whole movie in a trailer? maybe it's not stealing, but its a bit misleading. point is, some ideas are going to have to change. lets face it, there will probably be a day when artists and moviestars won't be as famous and wealthy as they are now. unless the govt steps in and starts regulating everything, copying and sharing will continue. giant movie corporations will lose money. the RIAA will lose money Sony/etc will lose money. they wont be able to afford paying their high priced famous artists the sums they get now (this is mostly a moviestar problem relating with theater sales since music artist make quite a bit of their income via concerts). eventually the "lesser" talent (or just the ones not lucky enough to be "discovered") will get their chance at a more level playing field. and that I think is a good thing. in the end... as long as the large powerful forces of money and government and corporations dot interfere so much, (they are required in order to provide the adequate pressure to ensure this "evolution" proceeds smoothly), as long as there are enough people out there will clear heads and a sense of morality... I think the "entertainment world" will be in a much better, if not a more fair and level condition.
Ok, after reading the hype on the site I figured, "what the hey" and downloaded. I thought, hmmm let's try to "type" a word... for some reason the first word that I thought of was 'application. don't ask me why. well, I moved my mouse to the 'a' and proceeded to look for the 'p'. However, I honestly could not find the 'p' for the life of me. (remember, this is my first time) Anyway, after frantically searching for a few moments, I glanced to the left to see what the word said. To my surprise, it was 'application'!
Slashdot Mirror
since music is based on math anyway, i don't see why it isn't possible to write a program to generate pleasing music... or at the very least, some basic music themes.
true, computers are a long way away from replacing humans, namely since sometimes the most interesting piece of music to the human ear isn't always the most mathematically pleasing.
-John
I read somewhere a long time ago that you can determine what a society values the most in their lives by who makes the most money in that society.
in today's society (I am speaking primarily about Western Society and the US in particular), we value entertainment above everything else and it shows. atheletes and actors/actresses top out making millions of dollars a year while teachers and other educators don't really make all that much. Ok, doctors DO make a lot of money too, but that can be blamed on the sheer amount of schooling required and importance of their job.
close behind entertainment are jobs that obsesss with making more money... Wall Street etc. Engineers and Businessmen etc.
what is my point? well, like the article said:
Of course, his claim that "studios are barely breaking even" falls on deaf ears when I hear about 9-digit salaries for individual actors in a big-name film that's just some rehash of an old concept.
they make that much money because society allowed them to. Maybe society is finally putting an end to it. the big screen won't die. eventually the studios will stop paying so much money for bloated "talent". sure, some big names will cry foul and kick and scream and demand respect etc, but with the advent of digital effects so readily available, i think someday we will see films on smaller budgets due to lower paychecks to the actors and possibly more lesser known stars.
now, athletes are a whole other topic altogether..
-John
you got a point. the ACLU can go a bit wacko sometimes. but that goes for anything in extreme. people who extremely hate the present administration are wacko. those that extremely love it are wacko. and wackos (or is it, wackoes?) don't get along with other wackos.
i don't particularly like the ACLU, but they do serve as a reminder to keep things from getting too out of control... but sometimes they butt in when they could be of more use somewhere else, like coming up with some productive plans instead of always bashing others.
-John
wow, i shoulda posted my response below as a reply here. (redheads losing their hair sooner). in fact i now remember a friend i knew from school who had light redish-blonde hair, however he kept it cut very short since his hair was thinning too.
heh, this revelation probably isn't so insightful for those geneticists out there, but it makes me more and more relieved that my mother's brown hair genes won the battle of my head.
-John
Firstly: the decision in this case occurred in an Australian court, so there are no first amendment rights to be brandished anyway (and of course the ACLU has no presence). The merits or otherwise of the US Constitution/Bill of Rights are an unrelated issue - it is a simple fact that they do not apply outside the US.
point taken, however, i wasn't referring to the US constitution and trying to apply it in a foreign land. that would be silly. i only mentioned that little bit to let everyone know that i wasn't some civil liberties crusader out trying to rid of the world of censoring and banning anything. I am not like that and didn't want my post to be taken that way. sorry if i wasn't clear.
as for the rest, yea, in this case T3 was probly guilty, especially since it came to my attention that i misread and Joey wasn't even part of SPEWS. oh, and i agree it's not censoring, but if enough people adopt the list, it is effectively the same as censoring... though a full censorship of those stupid emails would be nice.
regards, John
First, Joey has no known relationship to SPEWS. T3 deliberately or accidentally confused them because SPEWS does not publish contact info while Joey was visibly complaining about them.
:), the idea just hit me as i read that article.
point taken. also to the rest, i agree, if SPEWS begins to misbehave, it will lose power. i guess what sparked me to comment was my concern of lists of IP's being gathered and distributed in legit ways and the possibility of those lists being misused somehow. no i am not a government-hating paranoid nut
-John
I'm not aware of any vaguely popular blacklists that would add an IP/range on the strength of one random unknown person presenting what appeared to be a spam from that IP. That would obviously be ridiculous. Do you really think they would become as popular as they are if they were that stupid?
:)
yea, i agree. but that australian news article didn't really go into detail of how SPEWS decides who stays and who gets banned. after a quick read of the the SPEWS faq it sounds like they have an automated system overseen by several admins. (news flash) and they only target known spammers and spammer friendly sites. and they stress that anyone who uses SPEWS does so willingly and knowing that some legitimate email could be bounced.
so i suppose in this case, i am sure it's probly a pretty benign system. however, like any banning list, there are people that must make the decisions what to ban and what not to ban. yea, overt spammers get banned, but what about the grey area? also, what about the ones who get banned for no reason? (SPEWS admits it happens and even has a full page dedicated to it.
what i was alluding to in my first post was that having any list like this is a form of censure-ship. though SPEWS says it is not:
from the faq:
Q10: Isn't SPEWS censorship?
A10: No, SPEWS is a list of areas of the Internet that some people do not wish to communicate with. Think of it as one group's Consumer Reports review of portions of the billions of Internet addresses. These are the ones SPEWS members have a poor opinion of. SPEWS is not anti-commerce and fully supports the USA's First Amendment and other nation's free speech protections. In fact, the USA's Supreme Court agrees with the SPEWS view. The creators of SPEWS are its main users and who it was designed for, if others decide to also use its data, they are exercising their own rights. No one is forced to use SPEWS.
no one is forced to abide to banned book lists either. in fact the caveat in the above faq answer closely mirrors the caveat in the pabbis banned book site at the link above that says essentially, that pabbis doesn't think books are bad, that is up to parents to decide. they just provide a list. SPEWS doesn't decide that they are bad, they just provide a list of spammers and companies do what they wish.
but like i said, upon further reading of the SPEWS site, i think they are probly a good thing in the end, but i still think that if used incorrectly (just like every single tool and technology ever created... yea, even sporks) it could become a bothersome hassle or even, in some wacko Brave New World scenario, a way to silence the voice of the people. we could have lists to ban IP's from known dissidant factions or unpopular opinions.
but those days are a few decades away still
-John
Kiddie Porn = BAD Sunny Day in Spring = GOOD KIDDIE PORN BAD! just wanted to clear that little thing up RIGHT NOW! don't know HOW i missed that while previewing.
ok, first off, i am not some ACLU nut. i am not here brandishing my first ammendment rights (i keep that safely in my pocket, out of sight)
i applaud efforts to keep kiddie porn (virtual too... though i realize that virtual porn technically is probly legal... but let us not open *that* can of worms today)
i think the library should carry banned books (like those heinous atrocities, Bridge to Terabitia and Hamlet and others
and i think spammers should rot in that circle of hell that Cerberus pukes all over. (ok, my Dante is rusty, i can't remember which circle, or if i got the puker right.. someone help me here)
but something seems fishy here. the company sued that one guy cos he "black-listed" their firm. the article didn't go into much detail, but it sounds as if that one guy, Joey McNicol, has quite a bit of power. i mean, what if i am a competitor of some company and i can convince Joey McNicol that their IP needs to be banned. as long as Joey McNicol is a true-blue swell guy, there is no way that can happen, but what if he isn't? i am in no way saying we need SPEWS regulated, but i wonder what some rather yucky worst case scenario - long term possible problems could arise from its misuse.
-John
We are already in a kind of "war". Pac writes how the public will not stand for corporations jailing their sons and daughters, confiscating their properties and suing them into poverty. I agree, but the war I am talking about is more a mindset-shift or a completely revamping of the entertainment industry. Many people here are talking about how the sales losses are "marginal" to the big bad industries. Either you would have spent money on the CD or DVD, or you wont. Most have made up their minds already... I agree to a point, but what about the ones who haven't made up their minds? Sure there will be losses, but I think the only thing that "illegally" downloading movies/music can do is ultimately help the entire situation.
:)
A)if you are a true LotR fan, you will be in theaters on opening day and more than likely will buy the DVD. B)if you aren't really a fan, you *might* see the movie in theaters and *might* rent the DVD.
if A downloads LotR, it will not affect sales since A will still watch the movie and buy the DVD. if B downloads LotR, it again will probably not affect sales since B probably wouldn't have watched it anyway.
the real problem is :
C) the person who isn't sure if he/she will like LotR. this person may or may not pay money for it. here is the central problem. what about the majority of people who aren't sure if they would watch/listen to certain movies/music? in the past there were few ways for C to determine whether he/she wanted to spend money on a product that may or may not satisfy. in those days, the movie theaters realized that they need to make trailers to advertise their movies and these trailers had to make the indecisive majority want to spend money on that movie. the same goes for music. why do the recording labels release singles? why do singles sound so trendy (usually)? why do they hype them up on the radio etc? to get people to buy the full CD, of course! the indecisive consumer *needs* advertisement to tell him/her what is favorable to buy.
group A (the true fans) will always support their favorite groups/movies/actors/singers/etc. maybe not quite to the extent as before the "evil net", but as true fans they will always be there. and until you can find a way to simulate live music and the atmosphere of a live concert, group A will to some extent still be there supporting what they like.
group B would never have supported the group/movie anyway, thus no one is losing any money or the money that is lost is fairly negligible.
group C is the problem. they are the majority and make up much of the target consumer class that the recording labels and movie labels advertise to. they haven't made their minds up yet. p2p and other means of electronic copying/sharing certainly allow some people to "check out" the music/movie before hand. oftentimes the reaction will be "eh, it's ok. I might have bought it, but I really dot like it enough to justify the exhorbant costs!" sometimes its "eh its ok. I have a few bucks, maybe I will buy it next time at the store." sometimes "this sucks. glad I didn't waste money on it" sometimes there is no reaction. other times its "this rocks! glad I didn't waste money on it!"
the people in this last group are the true offenders. the ones who truly enjoy the products but still do not pay up. the ones who, after "test driving" the product, do not buy it once they realize they would have bought it, had the p2p/etc technology not existed. in my opinion, movies and music labels made too much money in the past. perhaps we are on the edge of a completely new trend in creative products. people argue that without the big paychecks, people wont make new music or movies anymore. I doubt that. there are so many competent artists and actors and actresses and producers and directors and recording engineers out there, that once the big name, flashy, trendy, rich actors/actresses/artists "refuse" to work for "peanuts", the unknown and underpaid talent will take over. moviestars and rockers have been paid well. they were the best in the age they lived in and were thusly paid. however, with the ease of sharing, the mindset of the world will change.
the problem is, more and more people are refusing to be shepherded. being told what to buy and why. you have a chance to "preview" and opt to buy or not. the question of legality isn't the issue. the real issue is money and the prospects of huge payrolls disappearing. I agree that "stealing" is wrong, but define stealing. aren't record labels stealing when they pressure artists to record "popular" songs to bait and trick people into buying the rest of the album? what about movie studios only showing the "cool" clips from a movie in a trailer or even worse, showing practically the whole movie in a trailer? maybe it's not stealing, but its a bit misleading. point is, some ideas are going to have to change. lets face it, there will probably be a day when artists and moviestars won't be as famous and wealthy as they are now. unless the govt steps in and starts regulating everything, copying and sharing will continue. giant movie corporations will lose money. the RIAA will lose money Sony/etc will lose money. they wont be able to afford paying their high priced famous artists the sums they get now (this is mostly a moviestar problem relating with theater sales since music artist make quite a bit of their income via concerts). eventually the "lesser" talent (or just the ones not lucky enough to be "discovered") will get their chance at a more level playing field. and that I think is a good thing. in the end... as long as the large powerful forces of money and government and corporations dot interfere so much, (they are required in order to provide the adequate pressure to ensure this "evolution" proceeds smoothly), as long as there are enough people out there will clear heads and a sense of morality... I think the "entertainment world" will be in a much better, if not a more fair and level condition.
flames away
-John
Ok, after reading the hype on the site I figured, "what the hey" and downloaded. I thought, hmmm let's try to "type" a word... for some reason the first word that I thought of was 'application. don't ask me why. well, I moved my mouse to the 'a' and proceeded to look for the 'p'. However, I honestly could not find the 'p' for the life of me. (remember, this is my first time) Anyway, after frantically searching for a few moments, I glanced to the left to see what the word said. To my surprise, it was 'application'!
I am almost afraid to try it again...