The only problem is that I shouldn't have to jump through flaming hoops to avoid being a sheep.
I'd rather work hard at setting policy and providing feedback than sitting back and letting the 'sheep' get their due and having to work hard to spend 50$ on specialty cables and tools to circumvent useless technological and legal constraints.
The reason the ??AA have influence is because they represent a BUNCH of competitors in a market and thus have influence that depends more on people's desire for that commodity (music, movies) rather than a specific distributor/brand.
It's one big long joke. The point is that we learn from each other, and the claim that anything is truely original is usually false.
I personally think that most ideas come from people who don't have the money/time/resources to implement them.
And thats OK (tm), because if we wern't learning, er stealing, each others ideas, we wouldn't get anywhere.
Edison didn't really invent the lightbulb. He was smart, make no mistake, but awarding one person for an invention to me seems to almost always been an exersise in denying the collaberative nature of creativity and invention. Etc.
I think it is incredibly low to ask universities, which contribute an incalculable amount of research and knowledge that goes into making contemporary music and online distribution possible to act in a secretive manner regarding where students' tuition is going.
I think its totally scummy. Stop screwing around with our ability to make informed decisions. Well informed people make well educated people make people more likely to create value than Napster is obviously capable of.
> (don't get me started on the pro-piracy bullshit...violating copyright holder rights is "justified," while violating the copyright of the GPL is "evil")
You're argument relys on the notion that current law serves its intended functions in terms of promoting the creation of culture and technology. Can you prove that recognizing copyright law in its current form is inherently 'right' any more so than some say it's 'wrong'? And whats to prevent a law coming into effect that abolishes copyright law in its current form while strengthing the legal protection afforded to those who publish their source code? In fact, what's so contradictory about a law that would put all works in the public domain by force so long as derived works are equally free? You may not agree that such a law would serve its intended function to promote technology and the arts, but I don't see what is hypocritical about denouncing current copyright law while promoting the important stipulations in the GPL. Are you saying that we had it wrong when copyright law was only 20 years? We got it right the next time when it was extended? How about after that when it was 75 years after the death of the original author? Should copyright be tranferrable?
> So much uninformed opinion, outright false memes that never stop spreading ("640K is enough for anybody" is just one example) and bullshit that I could start a manure farm...
I am interested in whatever technique you employ to elude this axiomatic claim, and would like to subscribe to your newsletter. The fact of the matter is that your opinion is no more or less valid than many other opinions on slashdot that you disagree with. And since when was the Windows world any less steeped in the burning desire to not conceed to the strengths of alternative platforms on the market?
Lets face it: diversity is good. You're essentially making the moot point that people are biased. I think I speak for all of us when I say: DUH!
Its just another example of how a system that is supposed to serve humanity is exploited.
'Winning' the game is more important than whether or not the dynamics you used to win contribute to the intended goal of the system.
Which is to say, I don't think the stock market's purpose is to seperate idiots from their money, nor give that money to the con man. I hate to see the market gamed like that.
here's a concept: "the market" is a system of rules and laws.
there is no such thing as a free market, and as such, pointing out that a free market will always do things better begs the question: why do proponants of the free market so often defend laws like copyright, trade marks, trade secrets?
if you want a free market, you have to give up *all* legislation, period, end of story. until that time, I'll continue to know that the market AINT free, and that employees have as much right to form unions as CEOs have to form political lobby groups and industry special interest groups.
d'n'b, blissed out electronic jazz, electro-hiphop.. I can't explain it, and you may not like it. But some people do. I've been approached once or twice by parts of the industry and I've never performed live or have spent a cent on promotion.
You're joking right? We know the RFID tags is a joke, but since some have pointed out that similar plans are underway...
The fact that politicians routinely look for means of sweeping homeless people off the streets is ample enough evidence that homelessness has a very real cost on tourism, property value, etc.
It's also kind of pitiful that I have to point out that humans seeing other humans suffer tend to suffer a little bit themselves. On the inside. Even if they put up a big front that generally involves the words, "Hey, *I* made my way, why can't they?"
Then again, this isn't the 'sensitive 90s', so I realize the popular cultural response-du-jour to my second point usually ranges from a snicker to a rhetorical question involving my overbearingly intolerable naivite. Is empathy dead?
Incidentally, I'm not conding the system either way. Ignoring a growing problem for the sake of up front expenses is kinda the antithesis of a well managed system, is it not?
I write adveritising servers and reporting engines, and thus I know quite abit about the online marketing world. Cost Per Thousand Impressions is a very common payout scheme.
Why don't you give me your car for free? You wouldn't have a problem with it, right, because you assert that by giving it to me for free, the value of the car is reduced to 0$. Magically, by giving it to me for free, you suddenly don't mind giving the car up, because it becomes worthless through the process of you giving it as a gift! Yeah, thats how it works!
PS.. the value of an 'intangible' is whatever people are willing to pay for it. In the case of Office 2003, that value is a little more than 20$ as evidenced by the millions of people who've paid more than 20$ for it.
Whats the value of providing you with your 'intangiable' current internet service (since you don't actually receive a physical object in return for your ISP fee?) Gee, its whatever you're currently paying for it.. it's not just the cost of the paper your bills are printed on.
More that its ironic that MS is bankrolling SCO to try and torpedo Linux, but their own technology is making it easier for the other side to obtain shreds of information we probably shouldnt be privy to.
All these revelations of the goings on between SCO and MS are so cute (or revelations on SCO thanks to MS tech in this case).. like two smitten children fumbling and tumbling over themselves.
This has certainly been an entertaining year in tech.
>Why hasn't James Brown sued any of the rap acts that have sampled his stuff? (and many, many, many hip hop songs have ripped off his stuff)
AS it was pointed out, James Browns drummer holds the distinction of being the most heavily sampled musician of all time.
In fact, one of his beats is an honest to god staple of rock and pop production (ignoring rap for the moment,) usually used quietly in the background to 'beef' up the live drum track. Sarah McLaughlan, etc, musicians like that regularly sample James Brown beats to sonicaly thicken a mix.
Eg: Talented musicians are good enough to make up their own notes and tonalities, so they don't have to play from the western 12 note scale or use the same V-I cadence that is in 90% of all songs ever written.
Whether or not you play an instrument (I play 5) has little to do with your value as a composer of original music. The same people who decry sampling or rapping as unoriginal probably don't know that all the Greats (from Beethoven to the Grateful Dead) either had people go to concerts to transcribe ('sample' the sheet music) competitors' songs, or based their entire careers on covers (in the case of the Grateful Dead.)
It is always amusing to see people try and establish a relationship between the process used to create music, and the relative originality or perceived value of that music.
String got writing credits on Puff Daddy's cover of Every Breath You take. (The cover is called "I'll be missing you.") I can't believe how many people think Puff Daddy got away with something there. Shit, Stevie Wonder got writing credits on "Wild Wild West", another unoriginal hiphop cover that most people think was blatantly ripped off.
Not that re-recording a bassline can get you out of copyright litigation, since copyright infringement has nothing to do with the bits, and everything to do with the order and arrangement of notes, regardless of what instrument plays it, or what key you transpose it to.
Slashdot Mirror
So the question is ... do you think you would go back to 50$-100$ a month if you couldn't get them for free?
The only problem is that I shouldn't have to jump through flaming hoops to avoid being a sheep.
I'd rather work hard at setting policy and providing feedback than sitting back and letting the 'sheep' get their due and having to work hard to spend 50$ on specialty cables and tools to circumvent useless technological and legal constraints.
The reason the ??AA have influence is because they represent a BUNCH of competitors in a market and thus have influence that depends more on people's desire for that commodity (music, movies) rather than a specific distributor/brand.
Based in mathematics? I'm pretty sure it'd be extremely formulaic.
And Xerox got their ideas from ....
It's one big long joke. The point is that we learn from each other, and the claim that anything is truely original is usually false.
I personally think that most ideas come from people who don't have the money/time/resources to implement them.
And thats OK (tm), because if we wern't learning, er stealing, each others ideas, we wouldn't get anywhere.
Edison didn't really invent the lightbulb. He was smart, make no mistake, but awarding one person for an invention to me seems to almost always been an exersise in denying the collaberative nature of creativity and invention. Etc.
I'm pretty sure super powers are not 'unique' to individual super heros.
Impulse and The Flash were friends, and they both had the exact same super power.
I think you're being overly sensitive. Whats next, trashing any song with a guitar as a rip off of Hendrix?
I think it is incredibly low to ask universities, which contribute an incalculable amount of research and knowledge that goes into making contemporary music and online distribution possible to act in a secretive manner regarding where students' tuition is going.
I think its totally scummy. Stop screwing around with our ability to make informed decisions. Well informed people make well educated people make people more likely to create value than Napster is obviously capable of.
> (don't get me started on the pro-piracy bullshit...violating copyright holder rights is "justified," while violating the copyright of the GPL is "evil")
You're argument relys on the notion that current law serves its intended functions in terms of promoting the creation of culture and technology. Can you prove that recognizing copyright law in its current form is inherently 'right' any more so than some say it's 'wrong'? And whats to prevent a law coming into effect that abolishes copyright law in its current form while strengthing the legal protection afforded to those who publish their source code? In fact, what's so contradictory about a law that would put all works in the public domain by force so long as derived works are equally free? You may not agree that such a law would serve its intended function to promote technology and the arts, but I don't see what is hypocritical about denouncing current copyright law while promoting the important stipulations in the GPL. Are you saying that we had it wrong when copyright law was only 20 years? We got it right the next time when it was extended? How about after that when it was 75 years after the death of the original author? Should copyright be tranferrable?
> So much uninformed opinion, outright false memes that never stop spreading ("640K is enough for anybody" is just one example) and bullshit that I could start a manure farm...
I am interested in whatever technique you employ to elude this axiomatic claim, and would like to subscribe to your newsletter. The fact of the matter is that your opinion is no more or less valid than many other opinions on slashdot that you disagree with. And since when was the Windows world any less steeped in the burning desire to not conceed to the strengths of alternative platforms on the market?
Lets face it: diversity is good. You're essentially making the moot point that people are biased. I think I speak for all of us when I say: DUH!
Its just another example of how a system that is supposed to serve humanity is exploited.
'Winning' the game is more important than whether or not the dynamics you used to win contribute to the intended goal of the system.
Which is to say, I don't think the stock market's purpose is to seperate idiots from their money, nor give that money to the con man. I hate to see the market gamed like that.
here's a concept: "the market" is a system of rules and laws.
there is no such thing as a free market, and as such, pointing out that a free market will always do things better begs the question: why do proponants of the free market so often defend laws like copyright, trade marks, trade secrets?
if you want a free market, you have to give up *all* legislation, period, end of story. until that time, I'll continue to know that the market AINT free, and that employees have as much right to form unions as CEOs have to form political lobby groups and industry special interest groups.
plug: nufunq
.. I can't explain it, and you may not like it. But some people do. I've been approached once or twice by parts of the industry and I've never performed live or have spent a cent on promotion.
d'n'b, blissed out electronic jazz, electro-hiphop
... if I can retain the copyright on the Shakespeare plays I produce whilst participating.
If thats not funny, you may need help. Morbid Edward Gorey style humour! Me likes!
You're joking right? We know the RFID tags is a joke, but since some have pointed out that similar plans are underway ...
The fact that politicians routinely look for means of sweeping homeless people off the streets is ample enough evidence that homelessness has a very real cost on tourism, property value, etc.
It's also kind of pitiful that I have to point out that humans seeing other humans suffer tend to suffer a little bit themselves. On the inside. Even if they put up a big front that generally involves the words, "Hey, *I* made my way, why can't they?"
Then again, this isn't the 'sensitive 90s', so I realize the popular cultural response-du-jour to my second point usually ranges from a snicker to a rhetorical question involving my overbearingly intolerable naivite. Is empathy dead?
Incidentally, I'm not conding the system either way. Ignoring a growing problem for the sake of up front expenses is kinda the antithesis of a well managed system, is it not?
fark.com
It was Colin Mochrie who did it.
He was kidding. Anybody who couln't see that ... c'mon we Canadians love making fun of ourselves. I can't believe you didn't spot the sarcasm.
The digitician industry is not nearly as glamorous as the porn industry depicts it to be.
I write adveritising servers and reporting engines, and thus I know quite abit about the online marketing world. Cost Per Thousand Impressions is a very common payout scheme.
:P
Ie, you're wrong.
Oooh, I love slipperly slopes like this ...
.. the value of an 'intangible' is whatever people are willing to pay for it. In the case of Office 2003, that value is a little more than 20$ as evidenced by the millions of people who've paid more than 20$ for it.
.. it's not just the cost of the paper your bills are printed on.
Why don't you give me your car for free? You wouldn't have a problem with it, right, because you assert that by giving it to me for free, the value of the car is reduced to 0$. Magically, by giving it to me for free, you suddenly don't mind giving the car up, because it becomes worthless through the process of you giving it as a gift! Yeah, thats how it works!
PS
Whats the value of providing you with your 'intangiable' current internet service (since you don't actually receive a physical object in return for your ISP fee?) Gee, its whatever you're currently paying for it
More that its ironic that MS is bankrolling SCO to try and torpedo Linux, but their own technology is making it easier for the other side to obtain shreds of information we probably shouldnt be privy to.
All these revelations of the goings on between SCO and MS are so cute (or revelations on SCO thanks to MS tech in this case) .. like two smitten children fumbling and tumbling over themselves.
This has certainly been an entertaining year in tech.
I love the Intarwebs power to turn a typo into a funny, well thought out rebuttal!
>Why hasn't James Brown sued any of the rap acts that have sampled his stuff? (and many, many, many hip hop songs have ripped off his stuff)
AS it was pointed out, James Browns drummer holds the distinction of being the most heavily sampled musician of all time.
In fact, one of his beats is an honest to god staple of rock and pop production (ignoring rap for the moment,) usually used quietly in the background to 'beef' up the live drum track. Sarah McLaughlan, etc, musicians like that regularly sample James Brown beats to sonicaly thicken a mix.
Why not take it up a notch?
Eg: Talented musicians are good enough to make up their own notes and tonalities, so they don't have to play from the western 12 note scale or use the same V-I cadence that is in 90% of all songs ever written.
Whether or not you play an instrument (I play 5) has little to do with your value as a composer of original music. The same people who decry sampling or rapping as unoriginal probably don't know that all the Greats (from Beethoven to the Grateful Dead) either had people go to concerts to transcribe ('sample' the sheet music) competitors' songs, or based their entire careers on covers (in the case of the Grateful Dead.)
It is always amusing to see people try and establish a relationship between the process used to create music, and the relative originality or perceived value of that music.
dont be silly.
String got writing credits on Puff Daddy's cover of Every Breath You take. (The cover is called "I'll be missing you.") I can't believe how many people think Puff Daddy got away with something there. Shit, Stevie Wonder got writing credits on "Wild Wild West", another unoriginal hiphop cover that most people think was blatantly ripped off.
Not that re-recording a bassline can get you out of copyright litigation, since copyright infringement has nothing to do with the bits, and everything to do with the order and arrangement of notes, regardless of what instrument plays it, or what key you transpose it to.