I certainly agree that there is some value added by the infrastructure (especially the venues). I think there is even a place for the marketing types. I just think it's a shame that we desire music, so we enact copyright, and then 90% of our money is going toward things other than music. It all seems rather roundabout and inefficient - though at least an argument could be made that it is responsive to demand.
The source for the royalties was a SFGATE piece. It seemed reasonable, but like me they very well could be pulling numbers out of their behind:)
I think that once you get to a 1:10 return rate on your money, you might as well just let the government directly subsidize or give tax breaks for commissioning an artist to make a public domain work. Government is horribly inefficient, but that number's just atrocious, and the product that they put out stays out of the public domain for 90 years.
Yeah, that seems reasonable. I just couldn't find how common it was for people to buy sheet music. Your number assumes 7% of all men, women, and children buy sheet music... I think that might be a tad high - but I am completely pulling gut-feel numbers out of my ass.:)
I looked around some more and still can't add much. But it seems that royalties are typically 10% of total sales... so only $110 million is going to the author of the sheet music per year. Pop music, it seems the going rate is 12.5% - so it could be as high as $125 million.
Still, that's $125 million that the artists would not otherwise have, so the question becomes are we as a society getting a good return on our $1.1 billion investment?
Yeah I doubt those $5 sing-a-long books add up to a significant chunk of $1 billion, but I've had a hard time finding anything on google. I'm definitely being biased towards the US market - for all I know, there are countries where every household buys a bunch of sheet music every year.
No, not exactly. Unless you are referring to some past conversation which only took place inside your head.
Are you just trolling me? LOL. From our conversation:
Over 600 dead in Egypt. Thousands of terrible injuries, including gunshot wounds. Arrests were for whatever the police felt like and people, including journalists, were held without charge, in secret, and tortured by the regime. The entire duration of the protests were met with violent resistance by the regime, with dramatic running battles. The protestors had many and varied demands, but all coalesced around a single common one: Mubarak had to go. Once he was gone, the protests largely dissipated, and the military moved in with tanks and live ammo to clear the occupied public areas.
No, according to video taken by OWS protesters showing the police corralling the protestors away from the street. But if we're now arguing about whether or not the police commissioner was justified, I can at least see that you are accepting that police have the legal right to protect roadways. I'll take it.
LOL, are you even trying here? Of course you're a transparent hypocrite if you use audio cannons to enforce your "noise ordinances".
It's completely rational to make an ongoing problem worse for a short time in order to eventually solve the problem. If that seems hypocritical to you, it really is of no concern to me - the problem is solved. I'd rather be hypocritical if it means a lower chance of injury in resolving the situation.
The most heavily militarized police force in the country with a massive (and illegal) spy operation formed with the CIA does not have any tear gas in it's arsenal?
Correct. If you have information to the contrary that does not exist as a thought experiment, I would love to hear it - I'd hate to spread incorrect information.
So you're a mind reader now?
So you are claiming you looked up and read about the Cox vs. New Hampshire case before you replied to me about it not being relevant to OWS?
I don't give a shit whether Cox was 9-0 or 5-4
That's nine people who are better qualified to interpret the constitution than you. If it were 5-4 at least you could point to 4 other constitutional law experts that share your opinion.
one of their recent gems is giving warrantless searches a pass if the cops say they think they hear you destroying evidence
It was more narrow than that - the police were engaged in a chase of a drug dealer at the time, they smelled marijuana, and they heard the destruction of evidence. But at least in this case, you have Ginsburg who agrees with you. I happen to think drugs are a terrible reason to knock a door down, but that's an entirely different issue.
Except there is no such "reasonable" exception to the 1st Amendment
But then you go on to say that yelling fire in a crowded theater is a reasonable exception?
Ooo, caught in a double standard are we?
You don't see the difference between rules imposed by the people of a country and rules imposed by an unelected despot?
No, I'm making obvious commentary on selective retentiveness. No one is making a 1:1 comparison between OWS and Egypt any more than anyone makes a 1:1 comparison between Vietnam and Afghanistan.
No one? The post I was replying to waaaay up at the top of this thread said:
Finally, take the Occupy Wall Street movement, also put down violently. If Egypt had cleared out Tahrir Square cl
Sheet music is only a 1.1 billion dollar industry, and it's share of the total "music industry" pie has gone from nearly 100% to nearly 0%. Clearly the producers of sheet music have "lost" in the sense the grandparent was talking about. I imagine (but I'm guessing) that most sheet music sales are commercial in nature - perhaps that is inevitable and we should only apply copyright to commercial transactions?
According to Apache, Libreoffice may be able to port from APL->LGPL, but Apache will likely not be able to port from LGPL->APL.
That's true, but they might get an email from the author allowing them to. It's only been a year - I imagine the authors would not be hard to track down.
It stands to reason that any increase in food production will lead to an increase in the total human population, which directly recreates the problem in a worse way for the next generation.
I agree that this seems like common sense, but shockingly, the opposite seems to occur.
Large family size seems correlated to food insecurity - big families are more often found in subsistence farming areas. Apparently people have many children when they feel insecure with the idea that you will have a better chance of getting care in old age, but who really knows the "why"...
So anyway, when you increase yields, you can reduce the number of people who are subsistence farmers, which actually reduces the birth rate.
I'm sure you are aware that in Europe and the US, birth rates are below maintenance levels, and those regions enjoy very high yield farming.
I run adblock, so I'm generally pretty much a free-tard. I use gmail, despite the ads.
I guess I'm only a freetard when the ads are not too bad. With the Kindle, I was wary of the advertising. But since you can pay Amazon the difference at any time and remove the ads, I decided to save $40 and give it a try. And I was pleasantly surprised to find the ads to be a non-issue. Heck, the models in the screensaver ads are actually pretty attractive, even in B&W:)
One only has to visit a Whole Foods to see what food would cost if it all was organic - and you'll have to pay attention, because much of the stuff there is still conventional.
You are wrong here. The incident where the NYC cops used the pepper spray on the girls was during an operation where they were trying to keep people on the sidewalk and off of the street with orange snowfence - the "barricades".
reduce noise congestion
Irrelevant to the Wall Street protests. Also hilarious, given the use of LRAD audio cannons to break up the protests. You were saying?
So law enforcement tools should be chosen not based on effectiveness of the technique, but on how hypocritical the method might sound to Uberbah? I'm going to disagree with you there. If a guy is using a weapon in a crime I have no problem with the police also using a weapon in a crime - no matter how ironic it might seem to you.
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. The law enforcement agency that has formed a partnership with the CIA and conducted massive surveillance on those living outside it's jurisdiction does not have tear gas.
So I'll believe you why? Your assertion has no basis.
As if you weren't actually aware that the Supreme Court has made countless rulings that are flatly unconstitutional,
So you went from not being aware of the decision at all until I mentioned it to constitutional law expert? The amazing thing is, you clearly didn't even read about the case before spouting off again. It was a small march of Jehovah's Witnesses marching down a public sidewalk... much smaller in scale than the OWS protests. It is DIRECTLY applicable, which is why I pointed you in that direction. A UNANIMOUS supreme court decision that has stood up for 70 years vs. your completely uninformed legal opinion.
What right did the Egyptians have to squat in the square?
What right did an unelected despot have to tell them not to?
The City of New York is not an undemocratic institution. The people of NYC get to set the rules for their public spaces.
If OWS had turned into an actual armed rebellion the U.S. government response would make Egypt's look like a riot at a football game.
Yes, well, the imaginary revolution that happened in your head is a LOT like Tahrir Square. Back here in reality, the two events had very little in common other than angry protestors and sleeping in parks.
You're one of those people that hears a comparison between the Afghanistan and Vietnam wars and gets his undies in a knot because Vietnam didn't have mountains and Afghanistan doesn't have jungles or a communist army.
Huh? No I'm not. Look, we can branch into a comparison of those two wars if you would like, but you're getting off-topic.
It's sad that people get so bombarded with ads that they become numb to them.
There are so many sadder things in life. In any case, it's a moot point because if you don't like the ads you can pay $40 extra for the ad-free version.
As the owner of an ad-supported Kindle, I couldn't disagree more. The only ads are at the bottom of the main menu screen (where all of the available books in your library are listed) and the "screen saver". Totally unobtrusive.
That's got to be part of it. It can't be uniqueness... "lion" is a lot more common than "10.7".
Google is weird, though: mac 10.7: About 17,800,000 results mac lion: About 591,000,000 results 10.7: About 121,000,000 results lion: About 460,000,000 results
That's right, MORE results for mac lion then for lion:)
I don't know why, but Google does much better with named versions. I long ago learned to look for "Tiger" or "Lion" for MacOS advice and the Ubuntu animal-of-the-week when searching for Ubuntu advice. Searching for Windows 7 advice can be troublesome... I've found some success trying "win7" first.
We go to parks. We don't invade actual homes. Attempting to blend the two concepts makes for a horrible comparison.
OK, but that's why I said "What if they just camped out on the little strip of municipal property between the street and your lawn?". You ignored that.
but demanding help.
Demanding help for what?
Arab Spring protestors do/did not have demands as to "how"
They uniformly demanded the removal of the current dictator.
Why do you have two standards regarding this style of protest?
Because the "style of protest" is completely different. I already laid out why I feel they are completely different, and see little reason to repeat myself.
Occupy protestors must be economists to be valid?
No. But they must have some kind of actionable demand. General unhappiness is not a demand. I asked one of them in Philly, "What would make you leave this park tomorrow?" and he couldn't answer me in any coherent way. I realize that one idiot does not represent an entire movement, but I heard the same thing on NPR in an interview with two members of the leadership.
You say you allow people to own dogs and that some people will abuse them. but by virtue of your comparison, you also say that the authorities have the right to be the ones to abuse them. I simply say that this is wrong. Have your bullshit call back.
You can't admit when you are wrong.
There is no democracy in the use of force.
So you oppose jail for all non-violent crimes, then? So what should happen to me if I never pay my taxes? What if I'm a banker that broke laws that screwed a bunch of 99-percenters? No violence, no jail, right? Can't even force them to appear in front of a judge, because they might resist and get hurt.
How many ballot initiatives have you witnessed to reflect the democracy of pepper spraying a seated protestor?
That's a straw man - I've already agreed with you on the UC Davis incident. Few could defend that, let alone get a ballot initiative passed endorsing it.
Laying prone on a highway is dangerous and is in no way comparable to sitting in a park.
It could be done in a safe way. One could get two friends who gradually slow down their vehicles to a stop. Once the highway is at a stop, there would be no danger at all - in fact the highway would be safer than when it was moving. The protest would demonstrably save lives and injuries by halting the flow of traffic. For added safety, you could jam up traffic where it is already stopped - toll booths or traffic lights, for instance.
Your comparison isn't even rational.
No, it's just inconsistent with your worldview, which I find very naive and selfish.
I'm reluctant to continue this debate with you, because, again... conflation. There is a logic to your thoughts which I can appreciate, but your analogous references serve to re-define reality, rather than accurately describe it.
I share your reluctance, but continue because you seem to have enough intelligence to reason with. I have a feeling the discussion would be more cordial in person, but such is the nature of the internet. I feel like the reality you see is a very narrow subset of the larger reality. Even the word "reality" means different things depending on where you are standing... surely you can appreciate that?
With respect to both of our reasoning, it's not an inaccurate statement to present that; You think it's okay to enable a system which will harm the harmless.
I don't think that quite captures my opinion on the matter. I think the government is a necessary evil. Absent the government, people will hurt one another to get what they want. It is only when people feel th
Slashdot Mirror
I certainly agree that there is some value added by the infrastructure (especially the venues). I think there is even a place for the marketing types. I just think it's a shame that we desire music, so we enact copyright, and then 90% of our money is going toward things other than music. It all seems rather roundabout and inefficient - though at least an argument could be made that it is responsive to demand.
You win the internet.
UFOs shooting dinosaurs
The worst part is picking the laser shrapnel out of the dinosaur meat.
The source for the royalties was a SFGATE piece. It seemed reasonable, but like me they very well could be pulling numbers out of their behind :)
I think that once you get to a 1:10 return rate on your money, you might as well just let the government directly subsidize or give tax breaks for commissioning an artist to make a public domain work. Government is horribly inefficient, but that number's just atrocious, and the product that they put out stays out of the public domain for 90 years.
Yeah, that seems reasonable. I just couldn't find how common it was for people to buy sheet music. Your number assumes 7% of all men, women, and children buy sheet music... I think that might be a tad high - but I am completely pulling gut-feel numbers out of my ass. :)
I looked around some more and still can't add much. But it seems that royalties are typically 10% of total sales... so only $110 million is going to the author of the sheet music per year. Pop music, it seems the going rate is 12.5% - so it could be as high as $125 million.
Still, that's $125 million that the artists would not otherwise have, so the question becomes are we as a society getting a good return on our $1.1 billion investment?
Yeah I doubt those $5 sing-a-long books add up to a significant chunk of $1 billion, but I've had a hard time finding anything on google. I'm definitely being biased towards the US market - for all I know, there are countries where every household buys a bunch of sheet music every year.
No, not exactly. Unless you are referring to some past conversation which only took place inside your head.
Are you just trolling me? LOL. From our conversation:
If you want actual figures and a big list of sources, you will find information here that expands upon my paragraph.
According to the same police commissioner
No, according to video taken by OWS protesters showing the police corralling the protestors away from the street. But if we're now arguing about whether or not the police commissioner was justified, I can at least see that you are accepting that police have the legal right to protect roadways. I'll take it.
LOL, are you even trying here? Of course you're a transparent hypocrite if you use audio cannons to enforce your "noise ordinances".
It's completely rational to make an ongoing problem worse for a short time in order to eventually solve the problem. If that seems hypocritical to you, it really is of no concern to me - the problem is solved. I'd rather be hypocritical if it means a lower chance of injury in resolving the situation.
The most heavily militarized police force in the country with a massive (and illegal) spy operation formed with the CIA does not have any tear gas in it's arsenal?
Correct. If you have information to the contrary that does not exist as a thought experiment, I would love to hear it - I'd hate to spread incorrect information.
So you're a mind reader now?
So you are claiming you looked up and read about the Cox vs. New Hampshire case before you replied to me about it not being relevant to OWS?
I don't give a shit whether Cox was 9-0 or 5-4
That's nine people who are better qualified to interpret the constitution than you. If it were 5-4 at least you could point to 4 other constitutional law experts that share your opinion.
one of their recent gems is giving warrantless searches a pass if the cops say they think they hear you destroying evidence
It was more narrow than that - the police were engaged in a chase of a drug dealer at the time, they smelled marijuana, and they heard the destruction of evidence. But at least in this case, you have Ginsburg who agrees with you. I happen to think drugs are a terrible reason to knock a door down, but that's an entirely different issue.
Except there is no such "reasonable" exception to the 1st Amendment
But then you go on to say that yelling fire in a crowded theater is a reasonable exception?
Ooo, caught in a double standard are we?
You don't see the difference between rules imposed by the people of a country and rules imposed by an unelected despot?
No, I'm making obvious commentary on selective retentiveness. No one is making a 1:1 comparison between OWS and Egypt any more than anyone makes a 1:1 comparison between Vietnam and Afghanistan.
No one? The post I was replying to waaaay up at the top of this thread said:
Consider Sheet music. It's trivial reprint this
Sheet music is only a 1.1 billion dollar industry, and it's share of the total "music industry" pie has gone from nearly 100% to nearly 0%. Clearly the producers of sheet music have "lost" in the sense the grandparent was talking about. I imagine (but I'm guessing) that most sheet music sales are commercial in nature - perhaps that is inevitable and we should only apply copyright to commercial transactions?
I think you are right about that - I was just addressing the issue of licensing.
According to Apache, Libreoffice may be able to port from APL->LGPL, but Apache will likely not be able to port from LGPL->APL.
That's true, but they might get an email from the author allowing them to. It's only been a year - I imagine the authors would not be hard to track down.
It stands to reason that any increase in food production will lead to an increase in the total human population, which directly recreates the problem in a worse way for the next generation.
I agree that this seems like common sense, but shockingly, the opposite seems to occur.
Large family size seems correlated to food insecurity - big families are more often found in subsistence farming areas. Apparently people have many children when they feel insecure with the idea that you will have a better chance of getting care in old age, but who really knows the "why"...
So anyway, when you increase yields, you can reduce the number of people who are subsistence farmers, which actually reduces the birth rate.
I'm sure you are aware that in Europe and the US, birth rates are below maintenance levels, and those regions enjoy very high yield farming.
I was just being a smartass. :)
I run adblock, so I'm generally pretty much a free-tard. I use gmail, despite the ads.
I guess I'm only a freetard when the ads are not too bad. With the Kindle, I was wary of the advertising. But since you can pay Amazon the difference at any time and remove the ads, I decided to save $40 and give it a try. And I was pleasantly surprised to find the ads to be a non-issue. Heck, the models in the screensaver ads are actually pretty attractive, even in B&W :)
One only has to visit a Whole Foods to see what food would cost if it all was organic - and you'll have to pay attention, because much of the stuff there is still conventional.
And yet, I notice you don't have a little star next to your user ID here on the very ad-supported Slashdot...
As you have documented the brutality in Egypt?
Yes, exactly.
facilitate traffic
Irrelevant to the Wall Street protests.
You are wrong here. The incident where the NYC cops used the pepper spray on the girls was during an operation where they were trying to keep people on the sidewalk and off of the street with orange snowfence - the "barricades".
reduce noise congestion
Irrelevant to the Wall Street protests. Also hilarious, given the use of LRAD audio cannons to break up the protests. You were saying?
So law enforcement tools should be chosen not based on effectiveness of the technique, but on how hypocritical the method might sound to Uberbah? I'm going to disagree with you there. If a guy is using a weapon in a crime I have no problem with the police also using a weapon in a crime - no matter how ironic it might seem to you.
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. The law enforcement agency that has formed a partnership with the CIA and conducted massive surveillance on those living outside it's jurisdiction does not have tear gas.
So I'll believe you why? Your assertion has no basis.
As if you weren't actually aware that the Supreme Court has made countless rulings that are flatly unconstitutional,
So you went from not being aware of the decision at all until I mentioned it to constitutional law expert? The amazing thing is, you clearly didn't even read about the case before spouting off again. It was a small march of Jehovah's Witnesses marching down a public sidewalk... much smaller in scale than the OWS protests. It is DIRECTLY applicable, which is why I pointed you in that direction. A UNANIMOUS supreme court decision that has stood up for 70 years vs. your completely uninformed legal opinion.
What right did the Egyptians have to squat in the square?
What right did an unelected despot have to tell them not to?
The City of New York is not an undemocratic institution. The people of NYC get to set the rules for their public spaces.
If OWS had turned into an actual armed rebellion the U.S. government response would make Egypt's look like a riot at a football game.
Yes, well, the imaginary revolution that happened in your head is a LOT like Tahrir Square. Back here in reality, the two events had very little in common other than angry protestors and sleeping in parks.
You're one of those people that hears a comparison between the Afghanistan and Vietnam wars and gets his undies in a knot because Vietnam didn't have mountains and Afghanistan doesn't have jungles or a communist army.
Huh? No I'm not. Look, we can branch into a comparison of those two wars if you would like, but you're getting off-topic.
It's sad that people get so bombarded with ads that they become numb to them.
There are so many sadder things in life. In any case, it's a moot point because if you don't like the ads you can pay $40 extra for the ad-free version.
I have mine rooted but the ads are so innocuous that I haven't even bothered to kill them, and it would be free.
As the owner of an ad-supported Kindle, I couldn't disagree more. The only ads are at the bottom of the main menu screen (where all of the available books in your library are listed) and the "screen saver". Totally unobtrusive.
That's got to be part of it. It can't be uniqueness... "lion" is a lot more common than "10.7".
Google is weird, though:
mac 10.7: About 17,800,000 results
mac lion: About 591,000,000 results
10.7: About 121,000,000 results
lion: About 460,000,000 results
That's right, MORE results for mac lion then for lion :)
I don't know why, but Google does much better with named versions. I long ago learned to look for "Tiger" or "Lion" for MacOS advice and the Ubuntu animal-of-the-week when searching for Ubuntu advice. Searching for Windows 7 advice can be troublesome... I've found some success trying "win7" first.
We go to parks. We don't invade actual homes. Attempting to blend the two concepts makes for a horrible comparison.
OK, but that's why I said "What if they just camped out on the little strip of municipal property between the street and your lawn?". You ignored that.
but demanding help.
Demanding help for what?
Arab Spring protestors do/did not have demands as to "how"
They uniformly demanded the removal of the current dictator.
Why do you have two standards regarding this style of protest?
Because the "style of protest" is completely different. I already laid out why I feel they are completely different, and see little reason to repeat myself.
Occupy protestors must be economists to be valid?
No. But they must have some kind of actionable demand. General unhappiness is not a demand. I asked one of them in Philly, "What would make you leave this park tomorrow?" and he couldn't answer me in any coherent way. I realize that one idiot does not represent an entire movement, but I heard the same thing on NPR in an interview with two members of the leadership.
You say you allow people to own dogs and that some people will abuse them. but by virtue of your comparison, you also say that the authorities have the right to be the ones to abuse them. I simply say that this is wrong. Have your bullshit call back.
You can't admit when you are wrong.
There is no democracy in the use of force.
So you oppose jail for all non-violent crimes, then? So what should happen to me if I never pay my taxes? What if I'm a banker that broke laws that screwed a bunch of 99-percenters? No violence, no jail, right? Can't even force them to appear in front of a judge, because they might resist and get hurt.
How many ballot initiatives have you witnessed to reflect the democracy of pepper spraying a seated protestor?
That's a straw man - I've already agreed with you on the UC Davis incident. Few could defend that, let alone get a ballot initiative passed endorsing it.
Laying prone on a highway is dangerous and is in no way comparable to sitting in a park.
It could be done in a safe way. One could get two friends who gradually slow down their vehicles to a stop. Once the highway is at a stop, there would be no danger at all - in fact the highway would be safer than when it was moving. The protest would demonstrably save lives and injuries by halting the flow of traffic. For added safety, you could jam up traffic where it is already stopped - toll booths or traffic lights, for instance.
Your comparison isn't even rational.
No, it's just inconsistent with your worldview, which I find very naive and selfish.
I'm reluctant to continue this debate with you, because, again... conflation. There is a logic to your thoughts which I can appreciate, but your analogous references serve to re-define reality, rather than accurately describe it.
I share your reluctance, but continue because you seem to have enough intelligence to reason with. I have a feeling the discussion would be more cordial in person, but such is the nature of the internet. I feel like the reality you see is a very narrow subset of the larger reality. Even the word "reality" means different things depending on where you are standing... surely you can appreciate that?
With respect to both of our reasoning, it's not an inaccurate statement to present that; You think it's okay to enable a system which will harm the harmless.
I don't think that quite captures my opinion on the matter. I think the government is a necessary evil. Absent the government, people will hurt one another to get what they want. It is only when people feel th
Yeah, I read this as "Discredited Scientist Makes New Prediction!"
I'm, uh, married to an English major who went on to get her JD and then MD - so take what I said as a joke.
Thousands of Starbucks baristas with English Literature degrees disagree!