While it's not a forum/website with a list, it is a handy tool one can use to tell if an album is affiliated with an RIAA label or if you can buy it guilt-free:
http://www.magnetbox.com/riaa/
You are correct. Different journals charge different amounts. It really depends on the publisher and how much they want to milk out of the readership. There are some not for profit publishers, often scientific societies who are much more likely to be fair than big publishing conglomerates like Elsevier, who are more concerned with the bottom line.
Many major publishers (including Nature) now grant copyright to the authors of the paper. This wasn't the case in the past, but many publishers are making compromises that authors want. Another compromise is making articles freely available after a set time. Most journals do either 6 months, or a year. Anything older than that is freely available on the web. It's not a perfect system, but it's a step in the right direction. I think there's some hesitance, because you have a system in place that essentially works, and it would be foolish to just throw that away and replace it with something unproven.
As for societies that run journals, remember that the journals are probably the major fund raisers for those societies. Take away their ability to make money from journals, and you take away the existence of the society. Which is not a good thing for scientists.
If the farm is funded in whole or in part by the taxpayers, then ALL food produced must be made freely available to ALL taxpayers. I can see no room for argument there.
It depends on the journal, really. Most scientific journals have a very low readership level, at least compared with a magazine. It costs the same amount of money to print a magazine, no matter the size of the readership. So you get an economy of scale. If you have only 2000 readers, you're going to have to charge a lot from each reader to cover the costs.
"Theft" is a very specifc criminal offense, and it has a legal definition. And the Supreme Court has already ruled on this matter:
Copying Is Theft and Other Legal Myths
"But technically, file sharing is not theft.
A number of years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt with a man named Dowling, who sold "pirated" Elvis Presley recordings, and was prosecuted for the Interstate Transportation of Stolen Property. The Supremes did not condone his actions, but did make it clear that it was not "theft" -- but technically "infringement" of the copyright of the Presley estate, and therefore copyright law, and not anti-theft statutes, had to be invoked.
So "copying" is not "stealing" but can be "infringing." That doesn't have the same sound bite quality as Valente's position. "
According to RIAA lawyers, 10% is non-infringing
on
Kazaa Offices Raided
·
· Score: 1
---Do you really think that more than 1% of the traffic on Kazaa comes from legitimate sharing?---
In the hearing this week, RIAA lawyers claimed that there were 750 million files and only 10% of them were legal under copyright laws. Of course, this backfired a bit when the judge realized that meant 75 million legal transactions:
"So 10 percent is non-infringing?" Noonan asked. "That sounds like a lot of non-infringing files to me."
You have to understand that these disposable DVDs are the last thing that Blockbuster wants to see accepted. They make a large portion of their revenue (I've read 40%) from late fees. Eliminate the need to return the DVD, and eliminate the late fee, and nearly half of the money they make. Don't look for Blockbuster to do anything to help this format survive.
Well said. For another example, look at Apple's success with their own Apple Stores. Sure, they've cannibalized a lot of the independent Apple dealers, but they've brought those profits in-house. I work for a publishing company, and we make a lot more money selling our books directly to customers than we do selling them to Amazon at a discount.
Note that there was a huge battle over PCR, as Perken-Elmer Cetus owned the patent. Other companies could not sell "PCR Machines" without licensing the rights, and instead had to sell "Thermal Cyclers". Ditto for taq polymerase.
But are you willing to spend $1 for a decent enough copy of the one song you want off an album, rather than $18.99 for the higher quality cd and all the filler?
Remember though, that the iTMS only exists to sell iPods, at least that's how Apple's executives are looking at it. It doesn't have to be profitable, just drive sales of the highly profitable iPod.
Very few (very very few) artists actually make money from cd sales through a major label. Giving the recordings away isn't going to make much of a change in their bank accounts.
The big problem with Napster (and BuyMusic for that matter), and the reason iTunes surpasses both of them: Ease of Use. I don't want to have to read the fine print on every single song. I just want to find it and grab it:
"Despite its flexibility, the service can also be confusing. Some songs in the Napster library can only be streamed, while others are only available for a 99-cent download, even if you're paying for the streaming service. Which songs fall into each category isn't clearly spelled out. Some users are liable to think they are signing up for unlimited access to the Napster library, only to find out that some tracks must be purchased separately."
" I was listening to Lucinda Williams' album Car Wheels on a Gravel Road when I ran into a glitch. I could hear all of "Lake Charles," but only 30 seconds of "I Lost It," a song from the same album. It turns out "I Lost It" was only available if I opted for the a la carte feature. I either had to buy the track for 99 cents or be content hearing just 30 seconds of it. What a pain."
Hmm, thinking about it, if the RIAA is willing to settle for $2000, as they seem to be, then if you download 100-150 albums (at $15-20 each), you come out ahead of the deal, even if you are one of the tiny minority they actually threaten to sue.
Well, there are over 400,000 songs available, and 200 indie labels have just been signed up. But there are certain artists who refuse to let their music be sold this way--Madonna, the Beatles, a few others (probably including Dave Matthews, if he's not available in the store). So complain to him, and his label, not Apple.
All those music and iPod sales to Windows users will go a long way towards keeping Apple profitable, and will help subsidize lots of R&D to keep you enveloped in delicious Apple-y goodness.
And stop being so elitist. So what, you can't show off to your Windows brethren and boast about your superiority? Get over it.
You have a point, which is why I said in my original post that InDesign is "arguably" better than Quark. The features are certainly more advanced, but in the publishing house where I work, the idea of retraining our Quark-efficient staff is holding us back.
Everyone here seems to be missing the point of this release. This is Adobe's attempt to kill off Quark. With InDesign, Adobe has arguably a better product than Quark, but most design houses have been slow to even give it a look. By selling the products design houses already use (Photoshop, Illustrator) as a package, and as a reasonably priced package ($1200 whereas Quark alone is $1000), they're going to put InDesign on the desktop of every graphic designer. Most will at least take a look, and many will probaby switch over. The production flow management tools are also a bonus.
Overall, CD sales did decline at the start of 2003. Compared to the first six months of 2002, retail unit shipments fell 9.8 percent to 245.2 million and revenue dropped 9.1 percent to a paltry $4.25 billion. Don't shed too many tears just yet though.
Over the same period, CD single sales surged by 162.4 percent in units and 173.5 percent in revenue. This raises an interesting question.
Most file traders go after songs one at a time. They pick and choose the tunes they like. Could it be the case that consumers don't see a good value in buying an entire CD for $16.99 when all they want is a couple of songs? The hike in single sales backs up this trend.
"how they tell the different between blank "data" CDs and blank "audio" CDs is a bit beyond me"
Blank audio cds are meant for use in audio cd burners. This is a device you hook up to your stereo, works like a tape deck except you burn cds. The manufacturers of these devices caved in to RIAA demands, and made them only work with "audio" cds, not regular data cds. The audio cds cost a bit more (because of the fee paid to the RIAA), and on the audio burner, you can't make a digital copy of an "audio cd", only an analog copy.
Your metaphors are way off. Putting files in a public shared file on a p2p network is different from leaving a window open. It's more like taking the items from your house and putting them out in the middle of the street for all to see. Or publishing a list of them in the newspaper. Putting your files out on a p2p network is an invitation for other network members to browse. It's not a violation of anyone's privacy.
--- the RIAA has taken vigilante action---
How exactly is issuing a subpoena and filing a lawsuit "vigilante action"?
--- we have safeguards in place to prevent this sort of thing in the real world, but since this is digital the RIAA is skipping over those safeguards---
In my real world, we have something called the DMCA, a poorly written and dangerous law that allows copyright holders to skip over those safeguards.
Slashdot Mirror
While it's not a forum/website with a list, it is a handy tool one can use to tell if an album is affiliated with an RIAA label or if you can buy it guilt-free: http://www.magnetbox.com/riaa/
You are correct. Different journals charge different amounts. It really depends on the publisher and how much they want to milk out of the readership. There are some not for profit publishers, often scientific societies who are much more likely to be fair than big publishing conglomerates like Elsevier, who are more concerned with the bottom line.
Many major publishers (including Nature) now grant copyright to the authors of the paper. This wasn't the case in the past, but many publishers are making compromises that authors want. Another compromise is making articles freely available after a set time. Most journals do either 6 months, or a year. Anything older than that is freely available on the web. It's not a perfect system, but it's a step in the right direction. I think there's some hesitance, because you have a system in place that essentially works, and it would be foolish to just throw that away and replace it with something unproven.
As for societies that run journals, remember that the journals are probably the major fund raisers for those societies. Take away their ability to make money from journals, and you take away the existence of the society. Which is not a good thing for scientists.
If the farm is funded in whole or in part by the taxpayers, then ALL food produced must be made freely available to ALL taxpayers. I can see no room for argument there.
It depends on the journal, really. Most scientific journals have a very low readership level, at least compared with a magazine. It costs the same amount of money to print a magazine, no matter the size of the readership. So you get an economy of scale. If you have only 2000 readers, you're going to have to charge a lot from each reader to cover the costs.
"Theft" is a very specifc criminal offense, and it has a legal definition. And the Supreme Court has already ruled on this matter: Copying Is Theft and Other Legal Myths "But technically, file sharing is not theft. A number of years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt with a man named Dowling, who sold "pirated" Elvis Presley recordings, and was prosecuted for the Interstate Transportation of Stolen Property. The Supremes did not condone his actions, but did make it clear that it was not "theft" -- but technically "infringement" of the copyright of the Presley estate, and therefore copyright law, and not anti-theft statutes, had to be invoked. So "copying" is not "stealing" but can be "infringing." That doesn't have the same sound bite quality as Valente's position. "
---Do you really think that more than 1% of the traffic on Kazaa comes from legitimate sharing?--- In the hearing this week, RIAA lawyers claimed that there were 750 million files and only 10% of them were legal under copyright laws. Of course, this backfired a bit when the judge realized that meant 75 million legal transactions: "So 10 percent is non-infringing?" Noonan asked. "That sounds like a lot of non-infringing files to me."
You have to understand that these disposable DVDs are the last thing that Blockbuster wants to see accepted. They make a large portion of their revenue (I've read 40%) from late fees. Eliminate the need to return the DVD, and eliminate the late fee, and nearly half of the money they make. Don't look for Blockbuster to do anything to help this format survive.
Well said. For another example, look at Apple's success with their own Apple Stores. Sure, they've cannibalized a lot of the independent Apple dealers, but they've brought those profits in-house. I work for a publishing company, and we make a lot more money selling our books directly to customers than we do selling them to Amazon at a discount.
Note that there was a huge battle over PCR, as Perken-Elmer Cetus owned the patent. Other companies could not sell "PCR Machines" without licensing the rights, and instead had to sell "Thermal Cyclers". Ditto for taq polymerase.
But are you willing to spend $1 for a decent enough copy of the one song you want off an album, rather than $18.99 for the higher quality cd and all the filler?
Remember though, that the iTMS only exists to sell iPods, at least that's how Apple's executives are looking at it. It doesn't have to be profitable, just drive sales of the highly profitable iPod.
Very few (very very few) artists actually make money from cd sales through a major label. Giving the recordings away isn't going to make much of a change in their bank accounts.
The big problem with Napster (and BuyMusic for that matter), and the reason iTunes surpasses both of them: Ease of Use. I don't want to have to read the fine print on every single song. I just want to find it and grab it:
"Despite its flexibility, the service can also be confusing. Some songs in the Napster library can only be streamed, while others are only available for a 99-cent download, even if you're paying for the streaming service. Which songs fall into each category isn't clearly spelled out. Some users are liable to think they are signing up for unlimited access to the Napster library, only to find out that some tracks must be purchased separately."
" I was listening to Lucinda Williams' album Car Wheels on a Gravel Road when I ran into a glitch. I could hear all of "Lake Charles," but only 30 seconds of "I Lost It," a song from the same album. It turns out "I Lost It" was only available if I opted for the a la carte feature. I either had to buy the track for 99 cents or be content hearing just 30 seconds of it. What a pain."
Hmm, thinking about it, if the RIAA is willing to settle for $2000, as they seem to be, then if you download 100-150 albums (at $15-20 each), you come out ahead of the deal, even if you are one of the tiny minority they actually threaten to sue.
Apple has just put out a help document for musicians looking to sell songs through the iTMS: http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=931 91
Well, there are over 400,000 songs available, and 200 indie labels have just been signed up. But there are certain artists who refuse to let their music be sold this way--Madonna, the Beatles, a few others (probably including Dave Matthews, if he's not available in the store). So complain to him, and his label, not Apple.
All those music and iPod sales to Windows users will go a long way towards keeping Apple profitable, and will help subsidize lots of R&D to keep you enveloped in delicious Apple-y goodness. And stop being so elitist. So what, you can't show off to your Windows brethren and boast about your superiority? Get over it.
The other good news here is that Jobs announced that they've signed on 200 independent labels to provide music. Woo-hoo!
You have a point, which is why I said in my original post that InDesign is "arguably" better than Quark. The features are certainly more advanced, but in the publishing house where I work, the idea of retraining our Quark-efficient staff is holding us back.
Everyone here seems to be missing the point of this release. This is Adobe's attempt to kill off Quark. With InDesign, Adobe has arguably a better product than Quark, but most design houses have been slow to even give it a look. By selling the products design houses already use (Photoshop, Illustrator) as a package, and as a reasonably priced package ($1200 whereas Quark alone is $1000), they're going to put InDesign on the desktop of every graphic designer. Most will at least take a look, and many will probaby switch over. The production flow management tools are also a bonus.
From The Register
Overall, CD sales did decline at the start of 2003. Compared to the first six months of 2002, retail unit shipments fell 9.8 percent to 245.2 million and revenue dropped 9.1 percent to a paltry $4.25 billion. Don't shed too many tears just yet though.
Over the same period, CD single sales surged by 162.4 percent in units and 173.5 percent in revenue. This raises an interesting question.
Most file traders go after songs one at a time. They pick and choose the tunes they like. Could it be the case that consumers don't see a good value in buying an entire CD for $16.99 when all they want is a couple of songs? The hike in single sales backs up this trend.
Here's a cheaper way to get similar results. 1) Take a bee wing 2) Put it really close to your eye
"how they tell the different between blank "data" CDs and blank "audio" CDs is a bit beyond me"
Blank audio cds are meant for use in audio cd burners. This is a device you hook up to your stereo, works like a tape deck except you burn cds. The manufacturers of these devices caved in to RIAA demands, and made them only work with "audio" cds, not regular data cds. The audio cds cost a bit more (because of the fee paid to the RIAA), and on the audio burner, you can't make a digital copy of an "audio cd", only an analog copy.
Your metaphors are way off. Putting files in a public shared file on a p2p network is different from leaving a window open. It's more like taking the items from your house and putting them out in the middle of the street for all to see. Or publishing a list of them in the newspaper. Putting your files out on a p2p network is an invitation for other network members to browse. It's not a violation of anyone's privacy.
--- the RIAA has taken vigilante action---
How exactly is issuing a subpoena and filing a lawsuit "vigilante action"?
--- we have safeguards in place to prevent this sort of thing in the real world, but since this is digital the RIAA is skipping over those safeguards---
In my real world, we have something called the DMCA, a poorly written and dangerous law that allows copyright holders to skip over those safeguards.