Maybe it varies by industry, but I can't imagine any company I've ever worked for doing this:
1) First, the company receiving the call usually won't want to advertise to their competitors how much they're actually paying for labor.
2) Second, most companies are sensitive to the fact that it could harm their interviewees if the company for which they're currently working knew they were looking.
3) Third, legal issues have put in place policies at most medium to large companies in the U.S. that prevent doing anything other than confirming that a person is or is not an employee. No references, no salary info, no personal info, nothing. (With references, these policies are often ignored, but salary info is a different matter.)
That's not to say that I think lying is the best approach. Chances are a given company has an idea of what their competitors pay for a given level of experience.
"I'm currently making $X, but I believe that's below the market rate for my type of work and I really am looking for more like $Y."
If $Y is a reasonable number and you stick to your guns, you can probably get them to offer it.
Alternatively, if you don't particularly care about being honest, you could always just say "I'm currently making $Y" and there will never, ever be any way they'll ever know the difference. However, I think the first approach is more straightforward and just as effective.
So while everyone's coming out of the woodwork to declare themselves both creative and professional, I figured it was a good time to point out how this term grew out of the marketing of products like the Macintosh. I can't say this is how the term originated, but it's certainly where it's found its niche.
Several years ago, Apple had a problem finding a market for their desktop systems outside the domain of graphic artists and musicians, for whom the brand still had significant cachet.
They pursued a couple of strategies. The first, which most people are aware of, was finding a home market for audiovisual technologies like video editing and music, and bringing their low-end price point down to meet at least the affluent home user's preferences.
The second was to try to find ways to leverage the popularity of Macs among artists to the rest of the business community. "Think Different," while not so effective, was one stab at this. Another was to start referring to their systems' core market not as "artists" but as "creative professionals."
This had a couple of effects -- "creative professional" connotes not just an artist, but a financially successful (or at least self-sustaining) artist, which was a more favorable connotation from Apple's point of view.
Second, though, it was a sufficiently ambiguous term that it invited everyone, even those not in Apple's core market, to redefine themselves as a potential Mac buyer because they were both "creative" and "professional," even though from the context it was clear that Apple was using the term to mean graphic artists, filmmakers, musicians, writers, and publishers
I was not trying to knock sysadmins down a notch by saying "being a sysadmin does not make you a 'creative professional...'," but instead was pointing out that neither Apple (nor the authors of the comparison that this thread talks about) uses the term in a general sense to mean everyone who's a little bit of either.
Apple, of course, would love for people to say "Well, I'm creative, I'm professional, I guess I must be the target market they're talking about!" And that's precisely what several people have done in this thread. And that's exactly why talking about "creative professionals preferring Macs" is powerful marketing.
Well, let's just say that the article doesn't use "creative professional" in the all-encompassing sense you're reading into it. The article talked instead about "creative professionals" with whom the Mac has gained market traction, which means they're using the term, as many people do, as a code-word for "artist."
No need to be rude. Anyway, it still doesn't explain why they think what they're doing is relevant, given that they've identified a target market that doesn't care about what they're testing.
Later in the article, however, they do point out that they skipped all the graphics applications they could think of except POVRay because they didn't have access to the software.
"Personally, I don't know any people using MySQL who aren't both creative and professional."
Yeah, well, I doubt that even the authors of the article meant "creative professional" in the sense of anyone who'd learned a profession and applied creative problem-solving to their work. They meant it as buzzword-speak for "artist."
Anyway, most sysadmins I know look down their noses at artists just as much as the artists look down on sysadmins, so I'm not sure how elitism plays into this -- it's more of a cultural disconnect.
Starship Troopers did not portray a draft -- the idea was that the military was all-volunteer but you had to serve to earn the right to vote.
Anyway, as to the original article, many of my friends in the gaming industry (most of whom work for big players like EA, Blizzard, etc. where this problem is perhaps the worst) tend to agree with Dvorak. In fact, I knew one guy who quit EA after three months because the content at E3 depressed him so much.
Interestingly, he went back to EA later because he'd decided that as long as he had no control over the content and was only developing technology, he wouldn't let himself get worked up over it.
Meanwhile, in the film industry, where I work, there are lots of the same feelings but at least there's a history of interesting stuff popping up every once in a while that keeps people going.
Which is why everyone's high-milage FF customers get to use that fast line at the security gate?
"Fast lines at security gates" are not a TSA affair, and the TSA won't enforce them. They require the airlines to do that themselves if they wish to. It's solely a matter of the airlines trying to offer a benefit for the frequent flyer -- the security measures are the same in both lines.
... and it seems to have one glaring deficiency. The portion of the statute which they're interpreting in the opinion assigns the copyright holder rights to "derivative works" based on the sound recordings, and they based their interpretation on another clause that limits the "derivative works" clause to actual manipulations of the sound recording.
So, the statute's structured to say "making derivative works is the copyright holder's right, and only those derivative works that satisfy A, B, and C are covered by this right." However, the appeals court appears to have read this to mean "If another work satisfies A, B, and C, it is a derivative work and therefore making it is an exclusive right of the copyright holder."
This is a transparent error in the court's reading the statute, particularly when they're establishing, as they explicitly state they are, a new rule of law.
I hope the defendants have clever lawyers and a taste for appeals!
The whole IT community went through this debate years ago.
It seems to me that the IT community tend to argue from their hearts rather than their heads when it comes to economic or social implications of software development methodologies (or related things like bug reporting and tracking.)
I was so wrong. Too bad I can't delete my earlier comment:
From the statute:
A person may obtain a compulsory license only if his or her primary purpose in making phonorecords is to distribute them to the public for private use, including by means of a digital phonorecord delivery.
I think the meaning of this section is going to be the core of the dispute.
But isn't the compulsory license ( 8 cents ) for selling audio recordings?
It's about creating and distributing audio recordings. There's no language in the statute limiting the use to which they can be put in any way whatsoever.
As others have pointed out, Apple's ad agency used an entirely new, original recording of a person singing the song in question.
Such use is covered by the compulsory license provisions of 17 USC 115, part of the copyright title of the United States Code:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/115.html
As long as Apple provided notice to the copyright holder (usually the publishing company that owns the publishing rights to the music and lyrics) and paid the compulsory license fee, they're in the clear. They do NOT need permission for this.
Furthermore, since Eminem's likeness and the sound of his voice were not used at all in the ad, it's highly unlikely that there's any merit at all to the assertion that he is somehow entitled to fees for an endorsement of their product.
Since the licenses described in 17 USC 115 are compulsory and the fees are explicitly spelled out, that chunk of statute probably precludes any further claims Eminem could make unless what they did in the commercial went beyond the scope of the compulsory license. Based on what I saw in those ads it almost certainly did not.
This one's probably dead on summary judgment. I'd be surprised if Apple even tried to settle this one for more than their projected legal costs to get to a ruling on that.
-- Mark
Boring or not, this is a *major* setback for NSI
on
Still More Sex.com
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
To the poster who said that this was just another stop along the way in a multi-year court case, that's not true -- the case would be DEAD except for this.
Honestly, as a domain name owner myself, I have a great interest in seeing NSI held accountable for this. Domain name dispute and transfer procedures, including NSI's implementation of them, are nutty and need fixing, and only this kind of case will make it happen.
Yes, I misspoke about the "binding precedent" thing. I was misconstruing the rule that a three-judge panel is not permitted to go outside the bounds of existing precedential rulings of the en banc
court.
Pardon me while I flog myself privately.:D
-- Mark
OK, I apologize for misspeaking. The limitations on three-judge panels are:
* they are not supposed to act contrary to precedent that has been set by an en banc court.
* their decisions can be cited as precedent unless they are inconsistent with the court's en banc decisions.
* their decisions cannot be cited as precedent if the court elects to re-hear the case en banc.:)
-- Mark
If I recall correctly, decisions of three-judge panels are only supposed to apply existing law to particular factual patterns, while the entire court sitting en banc may define new rules of law that are binding on the district courts in the circuit. Three-judge panels do not have that power, though they have considerable discretion to apply the law to a particular case.
I'm not a lawyer either, btw.
-- Mark
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe it varies by industry, but I can't imagine any company I've ever worked for doing this:
1) First, the company receiving the call usually won't want to advertise to their competitors how much they're actually paying for labor.
2) Second, most companies are sensitive to the fact that it could harm their interviewees if the company for which they're currently working knew they were looking.
3) Third, legal issues have put in place policies at most medium to large companies in the U.S. that prevent doing anything other than confirming that a person is or is not an employee. No references, no salary info, no personal info, nothing. (With references, these policies are often ignored, but salary info is a different matter.)
That's not to say that I think lying is the best approach. Chances are a given company has an idea of what their competitors pay for a given level of experience.
-- Mark
"I'm currently making $X, but I believe that's below the market rate for my type of work and I really am looking for more like $Y."
If $Y is a reasonable number and you stick to your guns, you can probably get them to offer it.
Alternatively, if you don't particularly care about being honest, you could always just say "I'm currently making $Y" and there will never, ever be any way they'll ever know the difference. However, I think the first approach is more straightforward and just as effective.
-- Mark
1) and 2) were how I figured it out, after staring at it for a bit. 3) Didn't see it or make the connection. 4) Who's Zonk? -- Mark
Wouldn't hurt if the first paragraph mentioned that it's a game being reviewed.
Sure, it was posted to the game section, but on the front page it's kind of confusing.
> its just ...too gui for me
Put Terminal in your dock and then click on it once in a while. Your problem will clear right up.
-- Mark
So while everyone's coming out of the woodwork to declare themselves both creative and professional, I figured it was a good time to point out how this term grew out of the marketing of products like the Macintosh. I can't say this is how the term originated, but it's certainly where it's found its niche.
Several years ago, Apple had a problem finding a market for their desktop systems outside the domain of graphic artists and musicians, for whom the brand still had significant cachet.
They pursued a couple of strategies. The first, which most people are aware of, was finding a home market for audiovisual technologies like video editing and music, and bringing their low-end price point down to meet at least the affluent home user's preferences.
The second was to try to find ways to leverage the popularity of Macs among artists to the rest of the business community. "Think Different," while not so effective, was one stab at this. Another was to start referring to their systems' core market not as "artists" but as "creative professionals."
This had a couple of effects -- "creative professional" connotes not just an artist, but a financially successful (or at least self-sustaining) artist, which was a more favorable connotation from Apple's point of view.
Second, though, it was a sufficiently ambiguous term that it invited everyone, even those not in Apple's core market, to redefine themselves as a potential Mac buyer because they were both "creative" and "professional," even though from the context it was clear that Apple was using the term to mean graphic artists, filmmakers, musicians, writers, and publishers
I was not trying to knock sysadmins down a notch by saying "being a sysadmin does not make you a 'creative professional...'," but instead was pointing out that neither Apple (nor the authors of the comparison that this thread talks about) uses the term in a general sense to mean everyone who's a little bit of either.
Apple, of course, would love for people to say "Well, I'm creative, I'm professional, I guess I must be the target market they're talking about!" And that's precisely what several people have done in this thread. And that's exactly why talking about "creative professionals preferring Macs" is powerful marketing.
-- Mark
Well, let's just say that the article doesn't use "creative professional" in the all-encompassing sense you're reading into it. The article talked instead about "creative professionals" with whom the Mac has gained market traction, which means they're using the term, as many people do, as a code-word for "artist."
Read the article, it's all right there.
-- Mark
What does that have to do with testing web servers?
-- Mark
No need to be rude. Anyway, it still doesn't explain why they think what they're doing is relevant, given that they've identified a target market that doesn't care about what they're testing.
Later in the article, however, they do point out that they skipped all the graphics applications they could think of except POVRay because they didn't have access to the software.
Pretty weak.
-- Mark
Most web developers don't run their own servers. -- Mark
"Personally, I don't know any people using MySQL who aren't both creative and professional."
Yeah, well, I doubt that even the authors of the article meant "creative professional" in the sense of anyone who'd learned a profession and applied creative problem-solving to their work. They meant it as buzzword-speak for "artist."
Anyway, most sysadmins I know look down their noses at artists just as much as the artists look down on sysadmins, so I'm not sure how elitism plays into this -- it's more of a cultural disconnect.
-- Mark
"Thirdly, hardcore gamers are not the ones buying Apples, but rather, creative professionals.
So, we focus on workstation and server applications..."
How could anyone who has ever met a "creative professional" think they care about "workstation and server applications" like MySQL and Apache??
Sorry, guys, but being a sysadmin does not make you a "creative professional..."
-- Mark
Starship Troopers did not portray a draft -- the idea was that the military was all-volunteer but you had to serve to earn the right to vote.
Anyway, as to the original article, many of my friends in the gaming industry (most of whom work for big players like EA, Blizzard, etc. where this problem is perhaps the worst) tend to agree with Dvorak. In fact, I knew one guy who quit EA after three months because the content at E3 depressed him so much.
Interestingly, he went back to EA later because he'd decided that as long as he had no control over the content and was only developing technology, he wouldn't let himself get worked up over it.
Meanwhile, in the film industry, where I work, there are lots of the same feelings but at least there's a history of interesting stuff popping up every once in a while that keeps people going.
Toshiba? Wow, I was just thinking of putting on some legwarmers and dancing around to the Pointer Sisters.
"Fast lines at security gates" are not a TSA affair, and the TSA won't enforce them. They require the airlines to do that themselves if they wish to. It's solely a matter of the airlines trying to offer a benefit for the frequent flyer -- the security measures are the same in both lines.
-- Mark
Oooh, ooh, I've got it!
oh, wait, maybe it's
oh, I'm confused, my head hurts.
-- Mark
So, the statute's structured to say "making derivative works is the copyright holder's right, and only those derivative works that satisfy A, B, and C are covered by this right." However, the appeals court appears to have read this to mean "If another work satisfies A, B, and C, it is a derivative work and therefore making it is an exclusive right of the copyright holder."
This is a transparent error in the court's reading the statute, particularly when they're establishing, as they explicitly state they are, a new rule of law.
I hope the defendants have clever lawyers and a taste for appeals!
It seems to me that the IT community tend to argue from their hearts rather than their heads when it comes to economic or social implications of software development methodologies (or related things like bug reporting and tracking.)
From the statute:
A person may obtain a compulsory license only if his or her primary purpose in making phonorecords is to distribute them to the public for private use, including by means of a digital phonorecord delivery.
I think the meaning of this section is going to be the core of the dispute.
-- Mark
It's about creating and distributing audio recordings. There's no language in the statute limiting the use to which they can be put in any way whatsoever.
-- Mark
As others have pointed out, Apple's ad agency used an entirely new, original recording of a person singing the song in question.
Such use is covered by the compulsory license provisions of 17 USC 115, part of the copyright title of the United States Code:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/115.html
As long as Apple provided notice to the copyright holder (usually the publishing company that owns the publishing rights to the music and lyrics) and paid the compulsory license fee, they're in the clear. They do NOT need permission for this.
Furthermore, since Eminem's likeness and the sound of his voice were not used at all in the ad, it's highly unlikely that there's any merit at all to the assertion that he is somehow entitled to fees for an endorsement of their product.
Since the licenses described in 17 USC 115 are compulsory and the fees are explicitly spelled out, that chunk of statute probably precludes any further claims Eminem could make unless what they did in the commercial went beyond the scope of the compulsory license. Based on what I saw in those ads it almost certainly did not.
This one's probably dead on summary judgment. I'd be surprised if Apple even tried to settle this one for more than their projected legal costs to get to a ruling on that.
-- Mark
To the poster who said that this was just another stop along the way in a multi-year court case, that's not true -- the case would be DEAD except for this. Honestly, as a domain name owner myself, I have a great interest in seeing NSI held accountable for this. Domain name dispute and transfer procedures, including NSI's implementation of them, are nutty and need fixing, and only this kind of case will make it happen.
Yes, I misspoke about the "binding precedent" thing. I was misconstruing the rule that a three-judge panel is not permitted to go outside the bounds of existing precedential rulings of the en banc court. Pardon me while I flog myself privately. :D
-- Mark
OK, I apologize for misspeaking. The limitations on three-judge panels are: * they are not supposed to act contrary to precedent that has been set by an en banc court. * their decisions can be cited as precedent unless they are inconsistent with the court's en banc decisions. * their decisions cannot be cited as precedent if the court elects to re-hear the case en banc. :)
-- Mark
If I recall correctly, decisions of three-judge panels are only supposed to apply existing law to particular factual patterns, while the entire court sitting en banc may define new rules of law that are binding on the district courts in the circuit. Three-judge panels do not have that power, though they have considerable discretion to apply the law to a particular case. I'm not a lawyer either, btw. -- Mark