Absolutely!
I've just been given a huge pile of fantastic old vinyl by my Dad. Beatles, Dylan, etc etc. That he bought in the 60s / 70s when he was around my age.
Call me cynical but does really think they'll be handing their kids this year's iTunes Store purchases in 2040?
True, but an artist has several rights in regards to their work.
They have the right to authorise the communication (broadcast, transmission, diffusion) of their music - and, quite separately, the right to control the public performance of their work.
Businesses that play music via a radio, TV or other means are giving a public performance of the music and therefore require permission.
Keeping in mind I don't know specific UK law, but as an Australian here is my take on it.
This is NOT new! Public Performance rights belong to the copyright owner (the songwriter) and always have!
This is one of your basic rights as an artist. This is NOT some new RIAA tactic.
ANY venue that plays artist's work publicly requires a license - be it a cafe with the radio on, a bar with a TV on or a jukebox, and all the way up to a nightclub with a DJ or a live music venue otherwise they are violating the artist's rights and breaking copyright law!
Under Australian copyright law, if you are a songwriter, you are the exclusive owner of your music and lyrics. If people wish to use it they must get permission, and if necessary, pay a royalty. Any public performance of your work requires permission (a license) and royalty payment - this is totally separate from the broadcast or transmission licenses required by radio/TV stations.
APRA (Australasian Performing Right Association) is the non-profit org that manages all these licenses for Australian songwriters and collects royalties on their behalf. Businesses pay APRA a fee to get permission to play music publicly. For a cafe who want to play the radio its like $70 a year (19c a day). This pool of money is distributed to the songwriters as public performance royalties.
These guys didn't pay their license. So they broke the law. The only thing that makes this story in anyway newsworthy is that 200,000 pounds is an absurd damages claim.
Seems to me to be using the older Google Definitions results if it matches "what is x" but using the newer Google Q&A results (that the FA is talking about) if it matches "who is x".
Photoshop has a nice little bar at the top with sliders for brush size, opacity and hardness. If that is too far away how about [ to decrease brush size and ] to increase?
I use this system to generate passwords. They are easy to remember, but still complex.
Think of a song you know by heart.
Type the first letter of each word for say - the first 2 lines, or even the first verse.
Do a bit of replace letters with numbers - ala l33t speak or whatever.
So with this song: "Mary had a little lamb her fleece was white as snow, and everywhere that Mary went her lamb was sure to go". We get: Mh4llhfww4543tMwhlw5tg. Not too shabby.
Of course, until your learn it better, you might get some strange looks around the office if you break into song everytime you have to log in.
The premise there is that the world gets so overpopulated that they are forced to create 7 totally separate societies - one for each day - MondayWorld, TuesdayWorld, etc. Every house holds 7 families who are allowed to live one day a week and are placed in suspended animation for the other 6 days.
Thus peoples lives are the same length subjectively, but 7 times longer objectively. So subjectively, seasons only last about 2 weeks, etc.
The problem with good UI is that it is a blurry field. Straight out coders can't do it, straight out graphic designers can't do it.
Instructional designers can get closer, but a person needs a combination of all three to design decent UI.
But that is not enough. What is needed is serious user testing. I can't stress how important testing with novice users really is to
create quality UI, and it doesnt happen ANYWHERE near enough on open source/linux projects.
I see many people say 'OSS UI design sucks because graphic designers won't work for free'.
Actually, in my experience, graphic designers can be even worse UI designers than coders.
Many cannot grasp the concept that their pretty designs actually have to be interacted with, not just looked at.
The number of times i've had graphic designers design me an interface to implement that is completely unusable - or
even impossible to create... well, its a lot.
Now, don't get me wrong, coders suck at UI too, but for other reasons.
Coder/hacker/geek types generally do not want to spend time developing a UI they
do not need - particularly on OSS projects they are doing in their spare time.
As they are advanced computer users they do not require their UI be abstracted away
from the core functionality through the use of metaphor and pretty buttons.
Most are quite happy to pipe together big complex shell commands or manually edit complicated
configuration files in vi/emacs/whatever.
In fact many get enjoyment out of this sort of lower level hackery (myself included).
This translates across to GUI's developed by coders also.
They want highly advanced, very customisable and extendable interfaces, and many
don't particularly care if they are butt ugly - as long as the functionality is accessible (see slashdot (not to mention most linux apps)).
The problem is novice users don't want this. They need to have their hand held. And they get scared when functionality is not
abstracted enough for it to not be 'too computery'. If a novice user sees anything remotely techy, they get scared they will break something.
They want 'folders' and 'recycle bins' and big friendly buttons.
They want UI conistency between different programs.
And they want computers to handle all the details - not to have to wade through loads of options and settings.
Unfortunately, this is what pisses most techy people off about windows.
I personally hate it when windows does things without me telling it to, or hides functionality behind layers of UI crap.
These two crucial, core differences between the wants & needs of linux users/developers vs windows users is by far the biggest hurdle
in preventing linux becoming a desktop OS for the masses imo.
Getting geeks to create UI's usable by the masses is hard. Getting everyone who codes a linux app to do this, and to use
consistent UID throughout them is damn near impossible.
Read about the mechanics of disease spread with respect to viruses and you'll see why this does not happen.
Highly damaging viruses don't spread far.
Well, yes, but only if the virus distribution channel is dependant on its host.
In real life terms, a disease that is spread through a dirty water supply can be extremely more deadly than one that requires the host to infect others through close contact.
But, this notion is harder to apply to PC virii, as there aren't really other distribution channels available.
However, if someone wrote a virus that spread across the net, infecting PC's in the usual manner, but its payload destroyed all printers or PDAs or some other peripheral device connected to the host, it could be much more malicious, as destroying targets would not limit the spread of the virus.
Though I do agree with your point that today's virus writers want control, not damage.
I agree. I find the idea of someone's personal electronics devices being 'contagious' to those around them fascinating.
How about this. Leave an infected phone sitting in new york subway. It spreads amongst the passengers cell phones. The passengers arrive at their offices and infect all their co workers.
Hell, with the rise of WiFi enabled phones, etc maybe someone will write something that will sit fairly dormant on infected phones then leap across and infect workstations behind network firewalls.
Microsoft is NOT an innovator, so they need to get their ideas somewhere. I'd be willing to bet that they're biding their time, letting open source do free research and development for them.Then hand pick the best ideas for plugins, tabbed interfaces, etc...
No, CC are claiming they own the patent to the process of a venue taping the concert, and selling CD's at the merch stand after the gig. Thus "Instant Live CDs"
I think bands like Phish have done similar things but i'm not sure if that site would be prior art (they're not selling the discs AT the concert - but a day later online)
To curb piracy of their full value product, they released a Personal Learn Edition that made all the features of the full product available
While I think the reasoning behing the Personal Learning Edition was great, they implemented it poorly.
I developed an interest in 3D during uni, and explored 3Dsmax, lightwave, etc.
I was excited when I saw the PLE, so I grabbed it with the intention of learning.
No such luck.
The watermark on any finished product is a fine idea, but they place a huge watermark (and not exactly a subtle, transparent one) across the entire modelling view, which makes using the product for longer than about 20 minutes impossible unless you want a spliting headache.
This actually steered me away from Maya, so I ended up sticking with 3dsmax for my uni subjects.
Slashdot Mirror
My LPs are going to outlast my CDs.
Absolutely! I've just been given a huge pile of fantastic old vinyl by my Dad. Beatles, Dylan, etc etc. That he bought in the 60s / 70s when he was around my age. Call me cynical but does really think they'll be handing their kids this year's iTunes Store purchases in 2040?
True, but an artist has several rights in regards to their work.
They have the right to authorise the communication (broadcast, transmission, diffusion) of their music - and, quite separately, the right to control the public performance of their work.
Businesses that play music via a radio, TV or other means are giving a public performance of the music and therefore require permission.
Watch me get flamed...
Keeping in mind I don't know specific UK law, but as an Australian here is my take on it.
This is NOT new! Public Performance rights belong to the copyright owner (the songwriter) and always have!
This is one of your basic rights as an artist.
This is NOT some new RIAA tactic.
ANY venue that plays artist's work publicly requires a license - be it a cafe with the radio on, a bar with a TV on or a jukebox, and all the way up to a nightclub with a DJ or a live music venue otherwise they are violating the artist's rights and breaking copyright law!
Under Australian copyright law, if you are a songwriter, you are the exclusive owner of your music and lyrics. If people wish to use it they must get permission, and if necessary, pay a royalty. Any public performance of your work requires permission (a license) and royalty payment - this is totally separate from the broadcast or transmission licenses required by radio/TV stations.
APRA (Australasian Performing Right Association) is the non-profit org that manages all these licenses for Australian songwriters and collects royalties on their behalf. Businesses pay APRA a fee to get permission to play music publicly. For a cafe who want to play the radio its like $70 a year (19c a day).
This pool of money is distributed to the songwriters as public performance royalties.
These guys didn't pay their license. So they broke the law.
The only thing that makes this story in anyway newsworthy is that 200,000 pounds is an absurd damages claim.
refine it further with intitle:"do not distribute".
23 results.
Source code leaks from the ship...
Seems to me to be using the older Google Definitions results if it matches "what is x" but using the newer Google Q&A results (that the FA is talking about) if it matches "who is x".
Compare What is Slashdot? to Who is Slashdot?
"DaVinci Code" for being a bunch of unfounded hokum
Totally. All these books I keep buying from the fiction section always turn out to be completely made up!
Photoshop has a nice little bar at the top with sliders for brush size, opacity and hardness. If that is too far away how about [ to decrease brush size and ] to increase?
I've no idea how they built it
There's an info page of the building of the new edition under the game.
It's here
Though it doesn't give too many technical details.
I use this system to generate passwords. They are easy to remember, but still complex.
So with this song: "Mary had a little lamb her fleece was white as snow, and everywhere that Mary went her lamb was sure to go". We get: Mh4llhfww4543tMwhlw5tg. Not too shabby.
Of course, until your learn it better, you might get some strange looks around the office if you break into song everytime you have to log in.
Reminds me of 'Dayworld' by Phillip Jose Farmer.
The premise there is that the world gets so overpopulated that they are forced to create 7 totally separate societies - one for each day - MondayWorld, TuesdayWorld, etc. Every house holds 7 families who are allowed to live one day a week and are placed in suspended animation for the other 6 days.
Thus peoples lives are the same length subjectively, but 7 times longer objectively. So subjectively, seasons only last about 2 weeks, etc.
Damn cool book.
The problem with good UI is that it is a blurry field. Straight out coders can't do it, straight out graphic designers can't do it. Instructional designers can get closer, but a person needs a combination of all three to design decent UI. But that is not enough. What is needed is serious user testing. I can't stress how important testing with novice users really is to create quality UI, and it doesnt happen ANYWHERE near enough on open source/linux projects.
I see many people say 'OSS UI design sucks because graphic designers won't work for free'. Actually, in my experience, graphic designers can be even worse UI designers than coders. Many cannot grasp the concept that their pretty designs actually have to be interacted with, not just looked at. The number of times i've had graphic designers design me an interface to implement that is completely unusable - or even impossible to create... well, its a lot.
Now, don't get me wrong, coders suck at UI too, but for other reasons. Coder/hacker/geek types generally do not want to spend time developing a UI they do not need - particularly on OSS projects they are doing in their spare time.
As they are advanced computer users they do not require their UI be abstracted away from the core functionality through the use of metaphor and pretty buttons. Most are quite happy to pipe together big complex shell commands or manually edit complicated configuration files in vi/emacs/whatever. In fact many get enjoyment out of this sort of lower level hackery (myself included).
This translates across to GUI's developed by coders also. They want highly advanced, very customisable and extendable interfaces, and many don't particularly care if they are butt ugly - as long as the functionality is accessible (see slashdot (not to mention most linux apps)).
The problem is novice users don't want this. They need to have their hand held. And they get scared when functionality is not abstracted enough for it to not be 'too computery'. If a novice user sees anything remotely techy, they get scared they will break something. They want 'folders' and 'recycle bins' and big friendly buttons. They want UI conistency between different programs. And they want computers to handle all the details - not to have to wade through loads of options and settings.
Unfortunately, this is what pisses most techy people off about windows. I personally hate it when windows does things without me telling it to, or hides functionality behind layers of UI crap.
These two crucial, core differences between the wants & needs of linux users/developers vs windows users is by far the biggest hurdle in preventing linux becoming a desktop OS for the masses imo. Getting geeks to create UI's usable by the masses is hard. Getting everyone who codes a linux app to do this, and to use consistent UID throughout them is damn near impossible.
Well, yes, but only if the virus distribution channel is dependant on its host.
In real life terms, a disease that is spread through a dirty water supply can be extremely more deadly than one that requires the host to infect others through close contact.
But, this notion is harder to apply to PC virii, as there aren't really other distribution channels available.
However, if someone wrote a virus that spread across the net, infecting PC's in the usual manner, but its payload destroyed all printers or PDAs or some other peripheral device connected to the host, it could be much more malicious, as destroying targets would not limit the spread of the virus.
Though I do agree with your point that today's virus writers want control, not damage.
For some reasons the title makes me think of the good professor.
"Linux and the printing of the barcodes and the GLABELS!"
I agree. I find the idea of someone's personal electronics devices being 'contagious' to those around them fascinating.
How about this. Leave an infected phone sitting in new york subway. It spreads amongst the passengers cell phones. The passengers arrive at their offices and infect all their co workers.
Hell, with the rise of WiFi enabled phones, etc maybe someone will write something that will sit fairly dormant on infected phones then leap across and infect workstations behind network firewalls.
And then patent them.
Fascist AA huh.
"Hi, my name's Stalin and I'm an alcoholic"
(everybody) "Hi, Stalin!"
I work in web management services in a government department in queensland, aus.
I use a pc running 98SE - so does everyone else in my department.
And yes, it is sad.
No, CC are claiming they own the patent to the process of a venue taping the concert, and selling CD's at the merch stand after the gig. Thus "Instant Live CDs"
I think bands like Phish have done similar things but i'm not sure if that site would be prior art (they're not selling the discs AT the concert - but a day later online)
You could always install this extension.
I am currently running Mozilla PowerMonkey.
This has been discussed on /. before.
Here you go
there were those little modem viruses that would continually dial 911?
How long till we see a worm that floods 911 using VoIP from all infected hosts?
My computer is FireWireless.
so you're saying we're either going to see iMaya or Maya.NET?
To curb piracy of their full value product, they released a Personal Learn Edition that made all the features of the full product available
While I think the reasoning behing the Personal Learning Edition was great, they implemented it poorly.
I developed an interest in 3D during uni, and explored 3Dsmax, lightwave, etc.
I was excited when I saw the PLE, so I grabbed it with the intention of learning.
No such luck.
The watermark on any finished product is a fine idea, but they place a huge watermark (and not exactly a subtle, transparent one) across the entire modelling view, which makes using the product for longer than about 20 minutes impossible unless you want a spliting headache.
This actually steered me away from Maya, so I ended up sticking with 3dsmax for my uni subjects.