Could you people please quit bitching about the one-button mouse? I bought a G4 three months ago, and guess what? The 2-button-and-scroll USB mouse that I bought to go with it was only $25.
Hey, when you buy a new PC, have they started giving you optical mice yet? I sure do love those little rubber balls! Sheesh.
Right now, with the price of CDs, many people question the role of middlemen on the album, and with the low price of recording technology, it is not impossible to self-produce one's own album. Many people illegally download as a means of "sticking it to the man" who takes too much of a chunk out of the album sales for his own company. Some entrepreneurs may consider cutting out more of the middlemen to save a buck in these times of low economy. However, anyone with real experience in the music biz, knows that the producer has a serious role to play in promoting, encouraging, and bookkeeping a band.
How has your role as producer changed over the past few years, what with the advent of file-sharing and the decline of the industry?
The U.S. doesn't have much authority to go after the people that pirate anime. The stereotypical point of sale for this stuff is Hong Kong. Though not everything comes out of there, obviously, the majority is printed and distributed from the Far East, not from within the U.S., and surely you've heard about the rampancy of piracy in countries like China, where more software, music, and movies are sold as pirated material than as the real thing. They have enough trouble as it is going after the niche stuff like anime.
It's important to keep the consumer aware about this stuff because most of it is something "we" have no control over. If you're ever in Boston, go to Tokyo Kid in Harvard Square, an anime-goods-only store, and check out their selection. They don't sell the video ripoffs, but they do have an extremely good selection of pirated CDs. Of course, you wouldn't know that the CDs are pirates. They look just like the real thing, except for the fine print that credits "Ever Anime" as the distributor.
Or check out eBay. I'ma hop over and type "Lain" into the search box and see what comes up. Choose the section of results from videos only. Of the 50 results on the first page, 4 of those results were people selling a region 1 DVD. The rest are selling region-free discs, and some aren't even shy about shipping directly from Hong Kong, Singapore, or Malaysia, while others are proud to be U.S. sellers. And if the sellers aren't even in the U.S., what jurisdiction does even eBay have to do about it? Are they going to go in and hand-pick out every pirate disc they find? Serious caveat-emptor.
Isn't this the purpose of the eBay rating systems, etc.?
Well, Slashdot's system gives good ratings to the majority of the people with something interesting to say. And you can just set your system up to block off most of the AC's. But then there's the few devoted trolls who sign up for 12 different accounts, jack them up to excellent karma, and then go posting goatsex links on every post they can until someone cuts them off. It doesn't happen often, but...
...Oh yeah, please mod this up so that I get away with posting my rant on homosexual nazi liberals in the next post.
Funny, after putting up with their dreadfully shitty DSL service, and waiting around for help with their dreadfully shitty phone service, who'da thought they'd be able to do something right?
There's nothing wrong with drinking in moderation. It's more the amount of activity you put into it. You don't do much more than sit around when you binge drink. Do marathon runners get tossed a bottle of Aquafina or a can of Blue Ribbon?
Think of it like this: Several corporations make donations to a candidate, explaining their issues and believing that said candidate is the one who will push their issues in Congress. Said candidate gets elected and pushes the bill. Where's the opposition lobby?
I think part of this guy's point is that when a corporation speaks up on an issue, they may be the only ones speaking up on the issue. If there isn't a well-organized effort to oppose the issue, and few civilians attempt to contact their legislators with their view of the issue, then the corporations' view may be the only view of the "public" that the legislators have to go on, and will vote for what they see as the majority opinion of the public.
Obviously, this guy is a little idealistic. Saying there's no corruption when money is involved is like saying my cornflakes won't get soggy when I pour milk over them. But the bottom line is: if you want something to happen, then you have to do it yourself and make sure your legislators know what the public opinion really is. You're the public after all; why don't YOU try lobbying?
IMHO, this was the most (unintentionally) interesting thing that he pointed out:
In a criminal trial, the government must prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to every member of a jury of twelve citizens. However, this standard is applicable only in criminal cases, not to civil actions like those brought by private industry. Civil actions are governed by a lower standard of proof.
Filesharing is a very grey area of the law right now. By taking cases to civil court rather than trying individuals as more serious criminals, the RIAA would only have to garner the support of half the jury rather than the full 12 (or something like that, I'm not completely versed in civil law). It may be harder for them to win serious precedents in this manner, but it will be easier to win single judgements, which fits their bill of scaring filesharers straight to let them know that they actually could be punished for trading.
Seems like the majority of the names on this list are very "vanilla" names. The point? Ever known anyone who was "mike@hotmail.com"? You may know a "mike1325@hotmail.com". To have such a bland name without a number after it, chances are you would have had to have signed up for KaZaA a long time ago. In other words, Clear Channel could be going after the long-time offenders who have built up the biggest "criminal record" over time.
Are you allowed to duplicate user names on the KaZaA network?
It's just that Republicans are often the most egregious offenders.
Interestingly enough, it's really the left that controls the airwaves. While pundits may point out the rightist tabloids on MSNBC and FoxNews, far more of televised news is left-leaning. What's especially interesting is that a lower post mentions that Fox has already acquired enough airspace that would put them over the limit if the cap is removed. You would think the right would be more in support of letting one of their few friends get a little more elbowroom.
Of course, as it was noted in a later post, the administration is only fighting against the right to own more TV stations, not to own more radio space. And a quick look over at opensecrets notes that the only direct donations Clear Channel has made to political committees has been to the Republican side...
But the Bush administration has threatened to veto the funding because they support ever-larger corporations owning ever-bigger chunks of the spectrum that theoretically belongs to the public.
I swear that just read that the Bush administration is supporting a bill that detracts from the power of the corporation. I must be drunk again.
Kind of a dry article. All it really says is "I tried Linux. It took a while to set up. It wasn't too hard to use after setup. There were a lot of different software choices." To me, that's the big note of the story: that a rube took a look at Linux and couldn't believe that this platform had more than one viable word processor, browser, etc. "Look, Mom -- No monopoly!"
Because that's the same argument MTV uses. "We don't control people's tastes! We just give them what they want!" Selling people "what they want" usually means manipulation of such, and I fear that the big labels will now push artists to write one or two good songs apiece, give them their time in the limelight (or Limewire), and them throw them over for another single. And by another single, I mean another artist....Oh wait, that happens now, doesn't it?
That's a pretty Blade Runner view of the future of iTunes, and I admit that that first post was a bit strewed, but personally, I don't think I could ever sell singles alone if I were to make music. It would be selling a gimmick rather than a product. (Although I would have nothing against EP's.) I think that this should be a choice that comes down to the artist. As someone said in an earlier post, if Madonna wants to only sell albums and not whole singles, let her. And let anyone else who wants to as well. It's understandable that hearing Linkin Park and Madonna speak out against singles is much less convincing than hearing it from someone who needs the money, but ultimately, the length of material to release together should be the artists' decision rather than the corporations'.
"Mini-albums"? I believe they call those "EP's." Step out of Tower Records for a while and notice that most local/independent artists release nothing but singles and EP's until they have the clout to release full-length albums. Do you mean to say you'd rather national artists release EP's on a regular basis instead of full length albums? There is certainly a bit of a stigma that once you reach popularity level X you cannot release singles and EP's anymore; you can only release full-lengths. Maybe the variation of length would help out a little. It certainly couldn't hurt.
The last album I bought was from a local hiphop act named Akrobatik. There's a couple of real hip tracks on here (Balance, Hypocrite, Time), several real decent ones, and a couple I didn't really dig (Woman II, Wreck Dem). I purchased the album the week it came out at Newbury Comics for $10, pretty nice price for a local artist CD with 15 tracks on it (and a bonus track after the silence at the end).
Now what if I had gone online? Would I have listened to each song individually, decided I only like this and this and this and just pulled those out? To some extent, the listener has every right to say "I only like these songs, I only want to pay for these songs," but as an aspiring musician myself, I slightly fear the implications of that.
When you sell an album, you sell the artist. You sell everything the artist does, whether or not every single track is radio-worthy. To some extent, I fear that I could throw a concert, play/sing some of my favorite tracks, and everyone gets up and goes to the bathroom. The ones that stay behind sit around yelling "Play the song I downloaded!" What I fear is that single-downloading turns more artists into one-hit wonders. That we sell the song rather than the artist. It could lower the connection artists have to their fans. With a return to one song selling over a whole album, we could fall even farther into writing songs to formulas trying to land that one big hit that will sell on iTunes. Face it: it's impossible for every song on an album to be on the far right side of the bell curve. Does that mean these songs are bad and don't deserve to be heard? Would you pay a dollar a piece even for the songs that aren't top-dollar?
Someone once said that iTunes is still not offering an alternative because every song costs the same, because low-budget artists should be able to offer their songs at a lower price. What if the title track on an album, the big money maker, sold for $1.50 to download, the two bigger tracks were 99 cents, and then the other tracks were 50 cents, enticing downloaders to sample the whole artist? I dunno. Right now, I still prefer CDs to download. CD's have better quality audio and I just enjoy having the physical thing in my hand. But I wouldn't count CD's out yet. Wouldn't it be great if CD's had to drop in price in order to compete with online sales? Maybe this competition is what will really be the best thing for us all. But then again, I just bought a great local artist's CD for $10, less than a dollar a track, so maybe it isn't so bleak yet after all...
Slashdot Mirror
What are the major differences between radio and file sharing?
You mean besides the fact that the producer/songwriters earn performance royalties from the radio?
Could you people please quit bitching about the one-button mouse? I bought a G4 three months ago, and guess what? The 2-button-and-scroll USB mouse that I bought to go with it was only $25.
Hey, when you buy a new PC, have they started giving you optical mice yet? I sure do love those little rubber balls! Sheesh.
Right now, with the price of CDs, many people question the role of middlemen on the album, and with the low price of recording technology, it is not impossible to self-produce one's own album. Many people illegally download as a means of "sticking it to the man" who takes too much of a chunk out of the album sales for his own company. Some entrepreneurs may consider cutting out more of the middlemen to save a buck in these times of low economy. However, anyone with real experience in the music biz, knows that the producer has a serious role to play in promoting, encouraging, and bookkeeping a band.
How has your role as producer changed over the past few years, what with the advent of file-sharing and the decline of the industry?
Gum-gum rocket punch!!!
The U.S. doesn't have much authority to go after the people that pirate anime. The stereotypical point of sale for this stuff is Hong Kong. Though not everything comes out of there, obviously, the majority is printed and distributed from the Far East, not from within the U.S., and surely you've heard about the rampancy of piracy in countries like China, where more software, music, and movies are sold as pirated material than as the real thing. They have enough trouble as it is going after the niche stuff like anime.
It's important to keep the consumer aware about this stuff because most of it is something "we" have no control over. If you're ever in Boston, go to Tokyo Kid in Harvard Square, an anime-goods-only store, and check out their selection. They don't sell the video ripoffs, but they do have an extremely good selection of pirated CDs. Of course, you wouldn't know that the CDs are pirates. They look just like the real thing, except for the fine print that credits "Ever Anime" as the distributor.
Or check out eBay. I'ma hop over and type "Lain" into the search box and see what comes up. Choose the section of results from videos only. Of the 50 results on the first page, 4 of those results were people selling a region 1 DVD. The rest are selling region-free discs, and some aren't even shy about shipping directly from Hong Kong, Singapore, or Malaysia, while others are proud to be U.S. sellers. And if the sellers aren't even in the U.S., what jurisdiction does even eBay have to do about it? Are they going to go in and hand-pick out every pirate disc they find? Serious caveat-emptor.
Isn't this the purpose of the eBay rating systems, etc.?
...Oh yeah, please mod this up so that I get away with posting my rant on homosexual nazi liberals in the next post.
Well, Slashdot's system gives good ratings to the majority of the people with something interesting to say. And you can just set your system up to block off most of the AC's. But then there's the few devoted trolls who sign up for 12 different accounts, jack them up to excellent karma, and then go posting goatsex links on every post they can until someone cuts them off. It doesn't happen often, but...
Hey, don't look at me. I voted for Roommatic.
Has anyone ever actually expected quality out of a product that has a "As Seen On TV!" sticker on it?
Um... How much does one license of Windows cost now? I think I'm converting.
...Heh. Just kidding. ...I'm giving up on the PC completely and buying a Mac. ^__^
Funny, after putting up with their dreadfully shitty DSL service, and waiting around for help with their dreadfully shitty phone service, who'da thought they'd be able to do something right?
...Right?
There's nothing wrong with drinking in moderation. It's more the amount of activity you put into it. You don't do much more than sit around when you binge drink. Do marathon runners get tossed a bottle of Aquafina or a can of Blue Ribbon?
Think of it like this: Several corporations make donations to a candidate, explaining their issues and believing that said candidate is the one who will push their issues in Congress. Said candidate gets elected and pushes the bill. Where's the opposition lobby?
I think part of this guy's point is that when a corporation speaks up on an issue, they may be the only ones speaking up on the issue. If there isn't a well-organized effort to oppose the issue, and few civilians attempt to contact their legislators with their view of the issue, then the corporations' view may be the only view of the "public" that the legislators have to go on, and will vote for what they see as the majority opinion of the public.
Obviously, this guy is a little idealistic. Saying there's no corruption when money is involved is like saying my cornflakes won't get soggy when I pour milk over them. But the bottom line is: if you want something to happen, then you have to do it yourself and make sure your legislators know what the public opinion really is. You're the public after all; why don't YOU try lobbying?
IMHO, this was the most (unintentionally) interesting thing that he pointed out:
In a criminal trial, the government must prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to every member of a jury of twelve citizens. However, this standard is applicable only in criminal cases, not to civil actions like those brought by private industry. Civil actions are governed by a lower standard of proof.
Filesharing is a very grey area of the law right now. By taking cases to civil court rather than trying individuals as more serious criminals, the RIAA would only have to garner the support of half the jury rather than the full 12 (or something like that, I'm not completely versed in civil law). It may be harder for them to win serious precedents in this manner, but it will be easier to win single judgements, which fits their bill of scaring filesharers straight to let them know that they actually could be punished for trading.
Check out some of the names on this list:
B.B.C@Kazaa
ERIKA@Kazaa
mike@Kazaa
joe@Kazaa
nikki@Kazaa
Seems like the majority of the names on this list are very "vanilla" names. The point? Ever known anyone who was "mike@hotmail.com"? You may know a "mike1325@hotmail.com". To have such a bland name without a number after it, chances are you would have had to have signed up for KaZaA a long time ago. In other words, Clear Channel could be going after the long-time offenders who have built up the biggest "criminal record" over time.
Are you allowed to duplicate user names on the KaZaA network?
It's just that Republicans are often the most egregious offenders.
Interestingly enough, it's really the left that controls the airwaves. While pundits may point out the rightist tabloids on MSNBC and FoxNews, far more of televised news is left-leaning. What's especially interesting is that a lower post mentions that Fox has already acquired enough airspace that would put them over the limit if the cap is removed. You would think the right would be more in support of letting one of their few friends get a little more elbowroom.
Of course, as it was noted in a later post, the administration is only fighting against the right to own more TV stations, not to own more radio space. And a quick look over at opensecrets notes that the only direct donations Clear Channel has made to political committees has been to the Republican side...
But the Bush administration has threatened to veto the funding because they support ever-larger corporations owning ever-bigger chunks of the spectrum that theoretically belongs to the public.
I swear that just read that the Bush administration is supporting a bill that detracts from the power of the corporation. I must be drunk again.
If we have to use a specialized language on the phone,
Oh, God, you mean...
Verizon guy: K4|\| j00 h34r nn3 |\|0\/\/?
Kind of a dry article. All it really says is "I tried Linux. It took a while to set up. It wasn't too hard to use after setup. There were a lot of different software choices." To me, that's the big note of the story: that a rube took a look at Linux and couldn't believe that this platform had more than one viable word processor, browser, etc. "Look, Mom -- No monopoly!"
The threat of an $X00 speeding ticket doesn't seem to deter them from dangerous driving...
Why not give it to them the way they want?
Because that's the same argument MTV uses. "We don't control people's tastes! We just give them what they want!" Selling people "what they want" usually means manipulation of such, and I fear that the big labels will now push artists to write one or two good songs apiece, give them their time in the limelight (or Limewire), and them throw them over for another single. And by another single, I mean another artist. ...Oh wait, that happens now, doesn't it?
That's a pretty Blade Runner view of the future of iTunes, and I admit that that first post was a bit strewed, but personally, I don't think I could ever sell singles alone if I were to make music. It would be selling a gimmick rather than a product. (Although I would have nothing against EP's.) I think that this should be a choice that comes down to the artist. As someone said in an earlier post, if Madonna wants to only sell albums and not whole singles, let her. And let anyone else who wants to as well. It's understandable that hearing Linkin Park and Madonna speak out against singles is much less convincing than hearing it from someone who needs the money, but ultimately, the length of material to release together should be the artists' decision rather than the corporations'.
"Mini-albums"? I believe they call those "EP's." Step out of Tower Records for a while and notice that most local/independent artists release nothing but singles and EP's until they have the clout to release full-length albums. Do you mean to say you'd rather national artists release EP's on a regular basis instead of full length albums? There is certainly a bit of a stigma that once you reach popularity level X you cannot release singles and EP's anymore; you can only release full-lengths. Maybe the variation of length would help out a little. It certainly couldn't hurt.
The last album I bought was from a local hiphop act named Akrobatik. There's a couple of real hip tracks on here (Balance, Hypocrite, Time), several real decent ones, and a couple I didn't really dig (Woman II, Wreck Dem). I purchased the album the week it came out at Newbury Comics for $10, pretty nice price for a local artist CD with 15 tracks on it (and a bonus track after the silence at the end).
Now what if I had gone online? Would I have listened to each song individually, decided I only like this and this and this and just pulled those out? To some extent, the listener has every right to say "I only like these songs, I only want to pay for these songs," but as an aspiring musician myself, I slightly fear the implications of that.
When you sell an album, you sell the artist. You sell everything the artist does, whether or not every single track is radio-worthy. To some extent, I fear that I could throw a concert, play/sing some of my favorite tracks, and everyone gets up and goes to the bathroom. The ones that stay behind sit around yelling "Play the song I downloaded!" What I fear is that single-downloading turns more artists into one-hit wonders. That we sell the song rather than the artist. It could lower the connection artists have to their fans. With a return to one song selling over a whole album, we could fall even farther into writing songs to formulas trying to land that one big hit that will sell on iTunes. Face it: it's impossible for every song on an album to be on the far right side of the bell curve. Does that mean these songs are bad and don't deserve to be heard? Would you pay a dollar a piece even for the songs that aren't top-dollar?
Someone once said that iTunes is still not offering an alternative because every song costs the same, because low-budget artists should be able to offer their songs at a lower price. What if the title track on an album, the big money maker, sold for $1.50 to download, the two bigger tracks were 99 cents, and then the other tracks were 50 cents, enticing downloaders to sample the whole artist? I dunno. Right now, I still prefer CDs to download. CD's have better quality audio and I just enjoy having the physical thing in my hand. But I wouldn't count CD's out yet. Wouldn't it be great if CD's had to drop in price in order to compete with online sales? Maybe this competition is what will really be the best thing for us all. But then again, I just bought a great local artist's CD for $10, less than a dollar a track, so maybe it isn't so bleak yet after all...
Great. In those old sci-fi flicks, they used to kill the guy, pull the eye out of his socket, and use it to bypass the retinal scanners. Now, it's:
"This is Agent 003. The president is dead. I repeat, the president is dead, and they've taken his buttocks. Get the security system changed. Now."
"We can't do it, sir! A virus is blocking our entry into the system!"
"Goddammit, I want every man on the streets looking for that ass!"
Yeah, I was kinda disappointed when it didn't talk about small robots curing my allergies...
Nah, if you really want to start a domain name rivalry, let Massachusetts register .sox.red...