"While the rest of your statemenent may or may not be true(the fee being waived online or whatever)"
Go look for instance at this page and you can find out what's true. This is pretty easy to do. Then you can cut the innuendo and deal with the facts. But if you or anyone else doesn't want to be bothered, here's what it says:
For those music creators (composers, songwriters or lyricists) who apply online, membership is free.
For those music creators who apply on paper there is a one-time $25 (plus applicable taxes) processing fee.
To be fair, I should point out that if you are a publisher (i.e. one of those nasty people or organisations who screw over musicians) you have to pay a $50 one time fee.
I'm sorry you didn't do your homework and thus didn't get your royalties. Television broadcast royalties are among the highest paying, so that's too bad.
"going with SOCAN was my only option. The contract was void in any other case. Unless you happen to have a copy of the SRC's policies and my particular contract with you?(if you do, give it back, thief). "
I never said that the SRC would accept any terms, I just said it was within your rights to negotiate. Just as it is within the SRC's rights to say take a hike if you didn't want to deal with SOCAN. And if you don't like that you can take your creative work (or skills, if you were negotiating a contract that covered production) and go elsewhere. The right to walk is the right that both parties have. It's only in fantasyland that you always get everything on your terms.
Now it is true that at the moment there are many situations where you have to agree to royalty payments through SOCAN if you want the opportunity (just as I have to agree to payment by direct deposit in my job, just as a store may not accept the Discover card, whatever), but consider the alternative of no central rights society, with each and every individual creator having to negotiate on a case by case basis. The administrative overhead would increase exponentially, which would mean less money for things like creation.
As well, having to deal through SOCAN is not much of a burden. They DON'T charge creators for membership, and they actively work to track performances of your work. That's an advantage, not an inconvenience.
They are admittedly the only option in some cases, but if you don't like the way they work you still have the options of running for the democratically elected board, lobbying the existing board for change, or starting your own performing rights society. There used to be two in Canada, as there are in the US, as there are in some other countries. Under certain circumstances you may even be able to join the society of another country.
So it's not a perfect world, you can't always have everything on your own terms, but you do have options. Unfortunately, you chose the option of waiving your royalties when it wouldn't have cost you a penny.
SOCAN does not charge membership fees. There is a one time processing fee IF you apply on paper rather than online. Applying online is FREE.
If you did not join SOCAN for this reason alone then you are foolish. Either that or you are a troll spreading FUD.
You may be confusing SOCAN with something else, i.e. one of the many unions which have members working at the CBC.
As well, you are well within your rights to negotiate broadcast royalties with the CBC on your own. There are many cases where people do things like that, and in fact some cases where SOCAN itself recommends that!
Now I understand that the CBC may prefer to work with SOCAN members, but that is because dealing with a central not-for-profit society simplifies admin and lowers costs for them. That means more money for other things like producing new work.
"Maybe, but like any worker's union, this association DOESN'T work for the worker, but work for itself... and profit..."
SOCAN is not a union. You are not obligated to join it. You may be thinking of the Musician's union, which does control certain working opportunities.
SOCAN does not make profits. Everything above operating costs goes to its members. Any unclaimed royalties go to the Foundation, which gives the money to, you guessed it, composers and authors.
SOCAN is not like the record companies, which attempt to get money for themselves, and keep it from composers and authors. SOCAN fights to get the largest possible portion of royalties for composers and authors. In this sense at least, it is the 'good guy'.
If people want to discuss this, why not go at least look at their website so that you at least have some notion of what you are talking about.
... composers do support this. SOCAN is run by a board elected from its members, which are mostly composers. Not everyone agrees with this sort of thing (especially really grey areas like in this case), but many do.
A few things that people should know about SOCAN:
Unlike its US counterparts, SOCAN pays relatively decent royalties to composers and authors. They're certainly not at the level of European rights agencies, but they're not the pittance that gets payed south of the border, if that. So the money is going to artists, or at least most of it.
The fees involved are actually pretty trivial. Like as low as $90 Cdn a year. (I think that's about $5.75 US at this point;-) For a dentist, that's hardly going to break the bank.
SOCAN also runs a foundation, which supports artists and helps create new music of all types.
So they're not exactly a draconian institution grabbing money for themselves. They are in my opinion often overzealous in their pursuit of their members rights, but they are after all (among other things) an advocacy group, and are supposed to take a biased stand. This is usually balanced out by groups adopting an equally biased but opposing position, and in the great Canadian tradition of compromise, something reasonable hopefully results.
As well, I rather doubt that any dentist has too much to fear here, as the line in this case between personal and commercial use is pretty blurred. This would be almost impossible to police, and I don't think anyone's being taken to court over $90 Cdn a year. But maybe those who are conciously using it commercially will be made aware of the licensing situation.
SOCAN is run by composer / members. I know a number of people who have sat on the board, which is elected by and from its members. These include publishers as well as composers, but the former are vastly outnumbered, so it's untrue to say it is not composers and authors driving this.
You're right. Windows is the best platform for specifically running a flower shop. If someone's going to buy a computer for that, go Windows.
For most people however, (i.e. 'the majority of software needs' as opposed to the majority of programs) their needs can be met with existing software on the Mac or Linux, or for that matter more obscure OSs.
This lack of specialized apps thing is a tired old red herring, since there are (IMO anyway) specific apps on the Mac which are not available on other platforms, or are the best apps of that type on any platform. This doesn't mean it's not possible to do something as well on Windows, Linux, or whathaveyou, and this situation is constantly shifting, but it continues to be true for some specialized field or another. I'm sure we could all come up with specialized apps which are the best of their type which only run on defunct platforms, but that doesn't mean that going on ebay and finding that ancient box is the best choice. There are many other factors.
I think that's a little unfair. I mean it can't be all things to all people. For most users I think it's just fine, and the fact that there are good and often free 3rd party apps available for those who want specific extensions is a strength not a weakness.
The same goes for the ability to tweak. How is that a bad thing for a polished and integrated OS? It just makes it more useful and powerful in my opinion. You can even run KDE or GNOME as your main desktop instead of Aqua/Quartz if you want to, although I can't imagine why one would.
That's simply because everybody developing java apps for windows or that wanted them to run on windows had to keep programming for the old 'embraced and extended' version of Java that the MS VM implemented, which was not Java 2 compliant.
Irrational my ass. I actually programmed for the frickin thing. To this day the possibility that a user might still be using the MS VM is a major pain in the ass for Java programmers.
Apple and HP aren't forcing anyone to buy an iPod, or use the iTunes music store. Yes those things are interdependent, but if you don't like that, show them by buying a different mp3 player, and using whatever software and online music service you want.
Oh yeah, but Apple prevents you from doing that by abusing their overwhelming monopoly in order to get you to do what they want.
No, wait, that's MS...
Except in this case Apple is forcing users to use their superior mp3 player to interface with their superior online music store. And if you don't agree with that appraisal, fine, but then why do you care? Just use something else. If there was any real competition to the Apple/iTMS combination nobody would be whining about this.
Wow. You're even sharper than Graham aren't you?
You picked a forum where you can say any nonsense you want and all that will happen is you'll get modded down.
This guy's not as sharp...
on
What You Can't Say
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
as he thinks he is.
"In a field like physics, if we disagree with past generations it's because we're right and they're wrong."
What a load of BS. If we disagree with the past in physics it's because our theories better fit the currently available data than the theories of the past. Doesn't mean we're right, something physicists often seem to forget.
"It could be that the scientists are simply smarter; most physicists could, if necessary, make it through a PhD program in French literature, but few professors of French literature could make it through a PhD program in physics"
Huh? Is this from a case study or his own prejudices and unquestioned acceptance of a 'fashionable' nerd belief: You have to be smarter to be in sciences than in humanities. I bet he doesn't know a single professor of French literature, or a thing about it; especially the details of studies at a doctoral level.
For someone advocating clarity and open-mindedness he's rushing to a lot of conclusions. He seems to think that nerds and scientists are somehow more inclined to precise critical thought and openmindedness than others while at the same time demonstrating the contrary.
I've used a number of notation programs and I feel I should chime in on the Sibelius vs Finale argument.
Firstly I've dealt with publishers and for the most part they use neither Finale nor Sibelius, but specialized and sometimes inhouse alternatives. IME they are particularly critical of Finale's copy, and feel that it's not up to snuff for publishable work. Sibelius does fare slightly better in their eyes. In side by side tests Sibelius produces nicer copy, at least IMO.
Secondly Sibelius IS easier to learn and use than Finale.
Most importantly, it is a myth in my experience that Sibelius is a less powerful program than Finale. YES, you can set MIDI channels. YES, you can manipulate slurs in extreme ways. Read the manual people. Easy to learn doesn't mean everything is obvious. I've had many discussions with hardcore Finale users, and in every case the features which they felt were unique to Finale are implemented as well or better in Sibelius. (Could be some I'm not familiar with though; any candidates?)
In conclusion I'd say go with Sibelius, sounds like it's more than adequate for your needs, and you'll be happier in the long run.
I'm sorry you feel this way. I do understand that the way this is being reported is not what you wanted. Nevertheless I've followed this topic pretty closely both here and on MacSlash, and I can't recall anything which actually explains what 'putting the PPC collection into maintenance mode' actually means. These are your words. If, as I suspect, this is just an unfortunate choice of words, then just say so. Frankly if you had done this a long time ago it would have saved a lot of confusion.
BTW, your link in the preceding message doesn't seem to work.
That's fine and I respect it. But you didn't answer my questions.
I repeat:
What does 'putting the PPC collection into maintenance mode' mean? How is this different than before?
Are you saying there is no difference?
So then what does 'putting the PPC collection into maintenance mode' mean? How is this different than before? I'm sorry if I'm somehow being thick, but it seems that a lot of people have been mislead by this statement.
Slashdot Mirror
"Also the lack of midi output is odd. "
Nah, MIDI sucks. It's 80s technology. OSC is a far superior protocol. Why shove a hi res controller through 7 bits?
"While the rest of your statemenent may or may not be true(the fee being waived online or whatever)"
Go look for instance at this page and you can find out what's true. This is pretty easy to do. Then you can cut the innuendo and deal with the facts. But if you or anyone else doesn't want to be bothered, here's what it says:
For those music creators (composers, songwriters or lyricists) who apply online, membership is free.
For those music creators who apply on paper there is a one-time $25 (plus applicable taxes) processing fee.
To be fair, I should point out that if you are a publisher (i.e. one of those nasty people or organisations who screw over musicians) you have to pay a $50 one time fee.
I'm sorry you didn't do your homework and thus didn't get your royalties. Television broadcast royalties are among the highest paying, so that's too bad.
"going with SOCAN was my only option. The contract was void in any other case. Unless you happen to have a copy of the SRC's policies and my particular contract with you?(if you do, give it back, thief). "
I never said that the SRC would accept any terms, I just said it was within your rights to negotiate. Just as it is within the SRC's rights to say take a hike if you didn't want to deal with SOCAN. And if you don't like that you can take your creative work (or skills, if you were negotiating a contract that covered production) and go elsewhere. The right to walk is the right that both parties have. It's only in fantasyland that you always get everything on your terms.
Now it is true that at the moment there are many situations where you have to agree to royalty payments through SOCAN if you want the opportunity (just as I have to agree to payment by direct deposit in my job, just as a store may not accept the Discover card, whatever), but consider the alternative of no central rights society, with each and every individual creator having to negotiate on a case by case basis. The administrative overhead would increase exponentially, which would mean less money for things like creation.
As well, having to deal through SOCAN is not much of a burden. They DON'T charge creators for membership, and they actively work to track performances of your work. That's an advantage, not an inconvenience.
They are admittedly the only option in some cases, but if you don't like the way they work you still have the options of running for the democratically elected board, lobbying the existing board for change, or starting your own performing rights society. There used to be two in Canada, as there are in the US, as there are in some other countries. Under certain circumstances you may even be able to join the society of another country.
So it's not a perfect world, you can't always have everything on your own terms, but you do have options. Unfortunately, you chose the option of waiving your royalties when it wouldn't have cost you a penny.
Wrong again.
SOCAN does not charge membership fees. There is a one time processing fee IF you apply on paper rather than online. Applying online is FREE.
If you did not join SOCAN for this reason alone then you are foolish. Either that or you are a troll spreading FUD.
You may be confusing SOCAN with something else, i.e. one of the many unions which have members working at the CBC.
As well, you are well within your rights to negotiate broadcast royalties with the CBC on your own. There are many cases where people do things like that, and in fact some cases where SOCAN itself recommends that!
Now I understand that the CBC may prefer to work with SOCAN members, but that is because dealing with a central not-for-profit society simplifies admin and lowers costs for them. That means more money for other things like producing new work.
"Maybe, but like any worker's union, this association DOESN'T work for the worker, but work for itself... and profit..."
SOCAN is not a union. You are not obligated to join it. You may be thinking of the Musician's union, which does control certain working opportunities.
SOCAN does not make profits. Everything above operating costs goes to its members. Any unclaimed royalties go to the Foundation, which gives the money to, you guessed it, composers and authors.
SOCAN is not like the record companies, which attempt to get money for themselves, and keep it from composers and authors. SOCAN fights to get the largest possible portion of royalties for composers and authors. In this sense at least, it is the 'good guy'.
If people want to discuss this, why not go at least look at their website so that you at least have some notion of what you are talking about.
Cough.. troll
... composers do support this. SOCAN is run by a board elected from its members, which are mostly composers. Not everyone agrees with this sort of thing (especially really grey areas like in this case), but many do.
;-) For a dentist, that's hardly going to break the bank.
A few things that people should know about SOCAN:
Unlike its US counterparts, SOCAN pays relatively decent royalties to composers and authors. They're certainly not at the level of European rights agencies, but they're not the pittance that gets payed south of the border, if that. So the money is going to artists, or at least most of it.
The fees involved are actually pretty trivial. Like as low as $90 Cdn a year. (I think that's about $5.75 US at this point
SOCAN also runs a foundation, which supports artists and helps create new music of all types.
So they're not exactly a draconian institution grabbing money for themselves. They are in my opinion often overzealous in their pursuit of their members rights, but they are after all (among other things) an advocacy group, and are supposed to take a biased stand. This is usually balanced out by groups adopting an equally biased but opposing position, and in the great Canadian tradition of compromise, something reasonable hopefully results.
As well, I rather doubt that any dentist has too much to fear here, as the line in this case between personal and commercial use is pretty blurred. This would be almost impossible to police, and I don't think anyone's being taken to court over $90 Cdn a year. But maybe those who are conciously using it commercially will be made aware of the licensing situation.
That's actually completely untrue.
SOCAN is run by composer / members. I know a number of people who have sat on the board, which is elected by and from its members. These include publishers as well as composers, but the former are vastly outnumbered, so it's untrue to say it is not composers and authors driving this.
Sure. But I was being sarcastic about the parent's emphasis on the availability of specialized software.
For most people however, (i.e. 'the majority of software needs' as opposed to the majority of programs) their needs can be met with existing software on the Mac or Linux, or for that matter more obscure OSs.
This lack of specialized apps thing is a tired old red herring, since there are (IMO anyway) specific apps on the Mac which are not available on other platforms, or are the best apps of that type on any platform. This doesn't mean it's not possible to do something as well on Windows, Linux, or whathaveyou, and this situation is constantly shifting, but it continues to be true for some specialized field or another. I'm sure we could all come up with specialized apps which are the best of their type which only run on defunct platforms, but that doesn't mean that going on ebay and finding that ancient box is the best choice. There are many other factors.
The same goes for the ability to tweak. How is that a bad thing for a polished and integrated OS? It just makes it more useful and powerful in my opinion. You can even run KDE or GNOME as your main desktop instead of Aqua/Quartz if you want to, although I can't imagine why one would.
Irrational my ass. I actually programmed for the frickin thing. To this day the possibility that a user might still be using the MS VM is a major pain in the ass for Java programmers.
Uh, a virtual machine on windows that actually works and complies with the language standard? Have you ever tried to program for the MS one? Ack...
Apple and HP aren't forcing anyone to buy an iPod, or use the iTunes music store. Yes those things are interdependent, but if you don't like that, show them by buying a different mp3 player, and using whatever software and online music service you want.
Oh yeah, but Apple prevents you from doing that by abusing their overwhelming monopoly in order to get you to do what they want.
No, wait, that's MS...
Except in this case Apple is forcing users to use their superior mp3 player to interface with their superior online music store. And if you don't agree with that appraisal, fine, but then why do you care? Just use something else. If there was any real competition to the Apple/iTMS combination nobody would be whining about this.
Wow. You're even sharper than Graham aren't you? You picked a forum where you can say any nonsense you want and all that will happen is you'll get modded down.
as he thinks he is.
"In a field like physics, if we disagree with past generations it's because we're right and they're wrong."
What a load of BS. If we disagree with the past in physics it's because our theories better fit the currently available data than the theories of the past. Doesn't mean we're right, something physicists often seem to forget.
"It could be that the scientists are simply smarter; most physicists could, if necessary, make it through a PhD program in French literature, but few professors of French literature could make it through a PhD program in physics"
Huh? Is this from a case study or his own prejudices and unquestioned acceptance of a 'fashionable' nerd belief: You have to be smarter to be in sciences than in humanities. I bet he doesn't know a single professor of French literature, or a thing about it; especially the details of studies at a doctoral level.
For someone advocating clarity and open-mindedness he's rushing to a lot of conclusions. He seems to think that nerds and scientists are somehow more inclined to precise critical thought and openmindedness than others while at the same time demonstrating the contrary.
While I could have been enjoying longhorn all that time
You mean in 200? when it actually comes out and is more than just repeatedly delayed vaporware.
I've used a number of notation programs and I feel I should chime in on the Sibelius vs Finale argument.
Firstly I've dealt with publishers and for the most part they use neither Finale nor Sibelius, but specialized and sometimes inhouse alternatives. IME they are particularly critical of Finale's copy, and feel that it's not up to snuff for publishable work. Sibelius does fare slightly better in their eyes. In side by side tests Sibelius produces nicer copy, at least IMO.
Secondly Sibelius IS easier to learn and use than Finale.
Most importantly, it is a myth in my experience that Sibelius is a less powerful program than Finale. YES, you can set MIDI channels. YES, you can manipulate slurs in extreme ways. Read the manual people. Easy to learn doesn't mean everything is obvious. I've had many discussions with hardcore Finale users, and in every case the features which they felt were unique to Finale are implemented as well or better in Sibelius. (Could be some I'm not familiar with though; any candidates?)
In conclusion I'd say go with Sibelius, sounds like it's more than adequate for your needs, and you'll be happier in the long run.
I'm sorry you feel this way. I do understand that the way this is being reported is not what you wanted. Nevertheless I've followed this topic pretty closely both here and on MacSlash, and I can't recall anything which actually explains what 'putting the PPC collection into maintenance mode' actually means. These are your words. If, as I suspect, this is just an unfortunate choice of words, then just say so. Frankly if you had done this a long time ago it would have saved a lot of confusion.
BTW, your link in the preceding message doesn't seem to work.
That's fine and I respect it. But you didn't answer my questions.
I repeat:
What does 'putting the PPC collection into maintenance mode' mean? How is this different than before?
Are you saying there is no difference?
So then what does 'putting the PPC collection into maintenance mode' mean? How is this different than before? I'm sorry if I'm somehow being thick, but it seems that a lot of people have been mislead by this statement.
Mainenance means that we continue to maintain and support the packages.
So then no new packages or further development for PPC?