Currently on iTunes a whole album costs $9.99, now I can walk into a music store and get the actual CD for $14.99.
1. How much is your time worth? 2. That's $14.99 plus tax.
Personally, if its only five bucks, I'd much rather have the CD. You get a pernament backup, the song lyrics and all of the other extras.
So you pay $9.99 and you make that permanent backup on a CDROM for whatever they cost nowadays (25 cents? 50 cents?)
If you buy it on iTunes, you have to make sure to burn it yourself or lose it forever, and you don't get the liner notes etc.
If liner notes are important to you, I guess for now you better buy the CD. The only time I read liner notes are for lyrics, and those are all readily available online.
Now, if the price per song increases, I'm guessing that the price of an album would increase as well.
Possibly. Or this may be precisely why they are raising track prices -- to persuade people to buy the full album rather than picking individual tracks.
Er... Because they have to hire more employees to handle the purchasing load...
Er... Because the Britney Spears needs a new swimming pool for her poodle... yeah!
Because they want to see what the market will bear? Because they want to recoup more of their costs and make more profit more quickly? These are all very normal things for companies to do, regardless of your hatred of the RIAA. I have no love lost for them either, but I try not to let it color my reasoning skills.
Isn't it time we just declare the RIAA a monopoly and start regulating it because, obviously, there is no competition.
Regulating it? What, has big label music suddenly become some necessity of society? What, you can't eat/live/sleep without some of that Brittney Spears you were just dissing?
How about this -- if you don't like the prices of their music, you don't buy the music. If your favorite artist is too expensive, you write them and let them know. Hell, try to organize a boycott by like-minded individuals.
You don't need government intervention, the market can handle this all on its own. I can already download great music from independent artists, I can bypass the RIAA altogether and listen to my favorite bands and local bands LIVE, etc.
Why don't we just stop handing the government more and more power over our lives? Why is the first reaction always to have the government take control of something we find distasteful? Slashdot has a monopoly on geek blogging, why not regulate it?
lol!. I guess for them it costs more than 65 cents to make a copy of a 4MB file and upload it to servers? This is utter crap. They actually expect us to believe that a digital version of a song is more expensive than it's CD version? Not that it is for us now, but if they raise prices...
I see that economics isn't your strong suit.
The executives did not say digital tracks cost more to create. What they likely meant by "artificially low," is that they may be losing money in terms of what they could make if they ONLY sold the music via the higher-priced CDs. Obviously they stand to make more money in the future as more and more people are buying digital music, and they can spend less money on CD production.
In addition, I hate to break it to you, but music actually does cost more than 65 cents per track to create! You understand that when an album is recorded, it costs money to do so, correct? Then you've got to advertise it, you've got to pay your employees, you've got to give (albeit tiny) royalties to your artists, etc. And if the track is priced "too low," and you don't sell that many, you may not recoup your costs. Just because you can record something and upload it for less than 65 cents has no bearing on the discussion.
always thought the old Soviet Union required authorisation for its citizens to travel between towns and provinces/states. Of course this is not the case on a free country;)?
That is correct, it is not a requirement in America. You are free to drive your car, ride your bike, or walk across America once you are in America.
However, if you would like to board a private aircraft, you will have to follow that airline's rules, which may require you to show your ID, even if the employee is misinformed about why that is required.
I just flew to Chicago a couple of weeks ago, and while the TSA person wanted to see my license, the airline attendant at the gate wanted only to see my boarding pass. Getting past the federally-run security checkpoint required ID. Getting on the plane itself did not.
Well... not exactly. The TSA agent wanted to match your face to your ID, and the name on your ID to your boarding pass. That, along with screening your carry-on luggage and body for "bad things," is what lets you get to the plane. At that point, if you are in that area of the airport, you have been screened and the boarding agent is only concerned with seeing your boarding pass. It is a fairly safe assumption for the boarding agent that you have already had your ID checked, and you wouldn't be allowed near her otherwise.
By the way, these kinds of changes were made to speed up boarding at the request of passengers. Initially after 9/11 they were checking ID even at the gates.
no, the airlines can't require whatever the hell they want.
if that were true, they'd be free to discriminate however they liked.
Your logic is false, a non-sequitur.
A private company can require identification before allowing you to board their private aircrafts.
However, they would be wrong to tell people "it's the law." My guess is the employee should have been saying "it's our rules."
Personally, I wouldn't want to fly on an airline that didn't attempt to identify its passengers, and cross-check them against some "offender" databases.
You do not have a constitutionally mandated right to fly on an airplane!
Computers can't generate true random numbers (ok, at least I don't know of any current methods) but only pseudo random numbers. There's a precise mathematical description that gets you from one number to the next.
This is irrelevant. Everyone knows that inside the iPod there is a smoke machine and a tiny camera aimed at the column of smoke, and the iPod uses the random configurations of smoke patterns to figure out a perfectly random number to use for the next track to play.
Yet it still wouldn't prevent someone from playing a "random" string of songs in an order that someone could assign a pattern to it.
Explain to me how admitting to being biased makes him less honest politically? I'm really trying to make that work but it just doesn't wash.
Because his show routinely presents the right-wing in a bad light, and does not do as much on the crap from the left-wing. When he has left/right guests on, he routinely softballs the lefties, and asks pointed questions (well, for a daily show interview) of the right wingers.
Yes, he presents the "fake news," but it would be funnier if it wasn't tainted with bias. The show could be twice as funny if it would open itself up to cricitizing the left as well, but it generally doesn't.
What creates the ambience, if the audience doesn't?
Primarily the sounds the artist makes: putting his hands on the keys, sitting down, shuffling the music, turning the page, breathing, clearing his throat, etc.
I can't imagine that the audience would play anything except the largest part in the creation of it; since they'd likely outnumber the performer to such a large degree.
You don't even need an audience to record this piece. See above.
Jon Stewart is NOT brutally honest about politics. He would be funnier if he made fun of all sides equally, but he is definitely biased towards the left and has admitted as much.
The show is still hilarious, but only people that are biased towards the left think that Jon Stewart is brutally honest, politically...
I didn't give him permission to use my faint cough in the piece, maybe I can go sue him?
Nope. A similar example: how many paparazzi have ever been sued for taking pictures of celebrities in public, and publishing them? There's no legal standing for it.
What gives Cage any more right than anyone else wanting to record the audience?
Well, first of all I didn't say recording the AUDIENCE. I said AMBIENCE. Preferably you don't hear the audience in 4'33".
But anyway, Cage doesn't have more of a right to record an audience. However, the audience is there to hear a performance of 4'33". They are likely in a private venue, and the rules of the venue normally dictate you cannot record the performance without the consent of the artists involved. And even when they do give consent, it is normally with the caveat, "for your own private use."
Take the Cage recording. If someone had had the forethought to place a microphone of there own, right next to where the original was, could _they_ copyright the recording?
Yes. However, it is highly likely that Cage would not have given permission to record his piece being "played," so the point is moot.
Could I record what I hear at the Mall, and sell it?
No, I said "pure silence" not copyrightable. It's not.
Perhaps you should read the post a few above yours which had this...
I am familiar with the Cage piece, as I did mention it in my original post. Cage's written sheet music for the piece is copyrightable, and recordings of the work which include ambient sounds are copyrightable, but four minutes and thirty-three seconds of PURE SILENCE is not copyrightable.
The story you linked to also had two things you failed to mention:
1. The guy that got sued credited himself AND Cage on the CD, but forgot to pay Cage anything. (Doh.)
2. The matter was never solved in court, and it was never proved that he violated copyright. In fact, he stated, "Cage's publishers have finally been persuaded their case was, to say the least, optimistic." He settled out of court.
The device will help mobile phone users charge their phones while travelling in a bus, a car or a train. All they need to do is -- place the turbine against the wind flow.
Why didn't I think of it! A way to use the power of my car to charge my cell phone. Ingenious!
If I were to make my own MP3 silent tune of exactly the same length and put it online, would I be infringing their copyright?
No. First of all, no one has a copyright on any length of pure silence. You can copyright SOUND RECORDINGS. Pure silence is the absence of sound, and is therefore not copyrightable.
However, you could record yourself sitting in front of a piano (ala Cage) and the various ambient sounds recorded would technically be a unique work, and as the original author you would own the copyright on that SOUND RECORDING.
This guy is violating the DRM agreements that Apple set forth, so Apple could pursue him.
As explained above, the pure silence is not copyrightable, so the RIAA has no beef.
If the guy forgot to remove the album artwork from the file, then he is infringing the copyright of whoever owns the album artwork copyright, and they could sue him.
What is he really trying to prove? The point is lost on me due to his ineptitude.
But what's the processor utilization? On most systems, its usually less than 10 percent.
Regardless of the fact that you pulled that number out of your ass;-) there are many applications that are processor, not data, intensive. Also, in the case of servers that run multiple services, if one of your services has a problem and pegs out a CPU, your site is not completely crippled, and it is also much easier to remotely connect to the server to fix it. Ever try fixing a machine with one CPU that is completely pegged out due to one broken app?
In case you can't read, the Dell can't even do 720p. Mine can. 720p @ 16:9 is considered true HD quality. Another true HD format is 1080i @ 16:9. Mine is almost at that quality level. Rather than downsampling a 1920x1080 picture to 1024x768 like the Dell has to do, mine only has to downsample down to 1600x900. So yes, it is a hell of a lot sharper and closer to the 1080i standard than the Dell, and it is a true HDTV, unlike the Dell.
Slashdot Mirror
Currently on iTunes a whole album costs $9.99, now I can walk into a music store and get the actual CD for $14.99.
1. How much is your time worth?
2. That's $14.99 plus tax.
Personally, if its only five bucks, I'd much rather have the CD. You get a pernament backup, the song lyrics and all of the other extras.
So you pay $9.99 and you make that permanent backup on a CDROM for whatever they cost nowadays (25 cents? 50 cents?)
If you buy it on iTunes, you have to make sure to burn it yourself or lose it forever, and you don't get the liner notes etc.
If liner notes are important to you, I guess for now you better buy the CD. The only time I read liner notes are for lyrics, and those are all readily available online.
Now, if the price per song increases, I'm guessing that the price of an album would increase as well.
Possibly. Or this may be precisely why they are raising track prices -- to persuade people to buy the full album rather than picking individual tracks.
Because the cost of manufacturing has...
Er... Because they have to hire more employees to handle the purchasing load...
Er... Because the Britney Spears needs a new swimming pool for her poodle... yeah!
Because they want to see what the market will bear? Because they want to recoup more of their costs and make more profit more quickly? These are all very normal things for companies to do, regardless of your hatred of the RIAA. I have no love lost for them either, but I try not to let it color my reasoning skills.
Isn't it time we just declare the RIAA a monopoly and start regulating it because, obviously, there is no competition.
Regulating it? What, has big label music suddenly become some necessity of society? What, you can't eat/live/sleep without some of that Brittney Spears you were just dissing?
How about this -- if you don't like the prices of their music, you don't buy the music. If your favorite artist is too expensive, you write them and let them know. Hell, try to organize a boycott by like-minded individuals.
You don't need government intervention, the market can handle this all on its own. I can already download great music from independent artists, I can bypass the RIAA altogether and listen to my favorite bands and local bands LIVE, etc.
Why don't we just stop handing the government more and more power over our lives? Why is the first reaction always to have the government take control of something we find distasteful? Slashdot has a monopoly on geek blogging, why not regulate it?
lol!. I guess for them it costs more than 65 cents to make a copy of a 4MB file and upload it to servers? This is utter crap. They actually expect us to believe that a digital version of a song is more expensive than it's CD version? Not that it is for us now, but if they raise prices...
I see that economics isn't your strong suit.
The executives did not say digital tracks cost more to create. What they likely meant by "artificially low," is that they may be losing money in terms of what they could make if they ONLY sold the music via the higher-priced CDs. Obviously they stand to make more money in the future as more and more people are buying digital music, and they can spend less money on CD production.
In addition, I hate to break it to you, but music actually does cost more than 65 cents per track to create! You understand that when an album is recorded, it costs money to do so, correct? Then you've got to advertise it, you've got to pay your employees, you've got to give (albeit tiny) royalties to your artists, etc. And if the track is priced "too low," and you don't sell that many, you may not recoup your costs. Just because you can record something and upload it for less than 65 cents has no bearing on the discussion.
Devil's Advocate mode off.
You do have a say... tell your representatives to stop funding private companies.
The fact that you could stand here and deliver that joke is so sad.
always thought the old Soviet Union required authorisation for its citizens to travel between towns and provinces/states. Of course this is not the case on a free country ;)?
That is correct, it is not a requirement in America. You are free to drive your car, ride your bike, or walk across America once you are in America.
However, if you would like to board a private aircraft, you will have to follow that airline's rules, which may require you to show your ID, even if the employee is misinformed about why that is required.
I just flew to Chicago a couple of weeks ago, and while the TSA person wanted to see my license, the airline attendant at the gate wanted only to see my boarding pass. Getting past the federally-run security checkpoint required ID. Getting on the plane itself did not.
Well... not exactly. The TSA agent wanted to match your face to your ID, and the name on your ID to your boarding pass. That, along with screening your carry-on luggage and body for "bad things," is what lets you get to the plane. At that point, if you are in that area of the airport, you have been screened and the boarding agent is only concerned with seeing your boarding pass. It is a fairly safe assumption for the boarding agent that you have already had your ID checked, and you wouldn't be allowed near her otherwise.
By the way, these kinds of changes were made to speed up boarding at the request of passengers. Initially after 9/11 they were checking ID even at the gates.
no, the airlines can't require whatever the hell they want.
if that were true, they'd be free to discriminate however they liked.
Your logic is false, a non-sequitur.
A private company can require identification before allowing you to board their private aircrafts.
However, they would be wrong to tell people "it's the law." My guess is the employee should have been saying "it's our rules."
Personally, I wouldn't want to fly on an airline that didn't attempt to identify its passengers, and cross-check them against some "offender" databases.
You do not have a constitutionally mandated right to fly on an airplane!
Computers can't generate true random numbers (ok, at least I don't know of any current methods) but only pseudo random numbers. There's a precise mathematical description that gets you from one number to the next.
This is irrelevant. Everyone knows that inside the iPod there is a smoke machine and a tiny camera aimed at the column of smoke, and the iPod uses the random configurations of smoke patterns to figure out a perfectly random number to use for the next track to play.
Yet it still wouldn't prevent someone from playing a "random" string of songs in an order that someone could assign a pattern to it.
What party line am I following?
You think he'd be MORE honest if he PRETENDED not to favour the left? If he acted in a way that hid his true feelings?
When I said honest about politics, what I meant was he needs to treat both sides equally.
There's precious little to ridicule the democrats about at the moment.
Hahaha... good one. Gee, might you be biased also?
Explain to me how admitting to being biased makes him less honest politically? I'm really trying to make that work but it just doesn't wash.
Because his show routinely presents the right-wing in a bad light, and does not do as much on the crap from the left-wing. When he has left/right guests on, he routinely softballs the lefties, and asks pointed questions (well, for a daily show interview) of the right wingers.
Yes, he presents the "fake news," but it would be funnier if it wasn't tainted with bias. The show could be twice as funny if it would open itself up to cricitizing the left as well, but it generally doesn't.
What creates the ambience, if the audience doesn't?
Primarily the sounds the artist makes: putting his hands on the keys, sitting down, shuffling the music, turning the page, breathing, clearing his throat, etc.
I can't imagine that the audience would play anything except the largest part in the creation of it; since they'd likely outnumber the performer to such a large degree.
You don't even need an audience to record this piece. See above.
Jon Stewart is brutally honest about the media.
Jon Stewart is NOT brutally honest about politics. He would be funnier if he made fun of all sides equally, but he is definitely biased towards the left and has admitted as much.
The show is still hilarious, but only people that are biased towards the left think that Jon Stewart is brutally honest, politically...
I didn't give him permission to use my faint cough in the piece, maybe I can go sue him?
Nope. A similar example: how many paparazzi have ever been sued for taking pictures of celebrities in public, and publishing them? There's no legal standing for it.
What gives Cage any more right than anyone else wanting to record the audience?
Well, first of all I didn't say recording the AUDIENCE. I said AMBIENCE. Preferably you don't hear the audience in 4'33".
But anyway, Cage doesn't have more of a right to record an audience. However, the audience is there to hear a performance of 4'33". They are likely in a private venue, and the rules of the venue normally dictate you cannot record the performance without the consent of the artists involved. And even when they do give consent, it is normally with the caveat, "for your own private use."
Take the Cage recording. If someone had had the forethought to place a microphone of there own, right next to where the original was, could _they_ copyright the recording?
Yes. However, it is highly likely that Cage would not have given permission to record his piece being "played," so the point is moot.
Could I record what I hear at the Mall, and sell it?
Yes.
Hmm, silence not copyrighted you say?
No, I said "pure silence" not copyrightable. It's not.
Perhaps you should read the post a few above yours which had this...
I am familiar with the Cage piece, as I did mention it in my original post. Cage's written sheet music for the piece is copyrightable, and recordings of the work which include ambient sounds are copyrightable, but four minutes and thirty-three seconds of PURE SILENCE is not copyrightable.
The story you linked to also had two things you failed to mention:
1. The guy that got sued credited himself AND Cage on the CD, but forgot to pay Cage anything. (Doh.)
2. The matter was never solved in court, and it was never proved that he violated copyright. In fact, he stated, "Cage's publishers have finally been persuaded their case was, to say the least, optimistic." He settled out of court.
Relying on the large bandwidth requirements as a way of preventing someone from recording something seems to me to be incredibly shortsighted...
The device will help mobile phone users charge their phones while travelling in a bus, a car or a train. All they need to do is -- place the turbine against the wind flow.
Why didn't I think of it! A way to use the power of my car to charge my cell phone. Ingenious!
If I were to make my own MP3 silent tune of exactly the same length and put it online, would I be infringing their copyright?
No. First of all, no one has a copyright on any length of pure silence. You can copyright SOUND RECORDINGS. Pure silence is the absence of sound, and is therefore not copyrightable.
However, you could record yourself sitting in front of a piano (ala Cage) and the various ambient sounds recorded would technically be a unique work, and as the original author you would own the copyright on that SOUND RECORDING.
This guy is violating the DRM agreements that Apple set forth, so Apple could pursue him.
As explained above, the pure silence is not copyrightable, so the RIAA has no beef.
If the guy forgot to remove the album artwork from the file, then he is infringing the copyright of whoever owns the album artwork copyright, and they could sue him.
What is he really trying to prove? The point is lost on me due to his ineptitude.
But what's the processor utilization? On most systems, its usually less than 10 percent.
;-) there are many applications that are processor, not data, intensive. Also, in the case of servers that run multiple services, if one of your services has a problem and pegs out a CPU, your site is not completely crippled, and it is also much easier to remotely connect to the server to fix it. Ever try fixing a machine with one CPU that is completely pegged out due to one broken app?
Regardless of the fact that you pulled that number out of your ass
1280 vertical lines * 720 horizontal lines * 20 bit color * 30 frames / 1 sec
=
552,960,000 bits / sec
That's how they prevent recording.
Strange, my time warner HD PVR records HD just fine.
So that's what, more almost 1080i than the Dell?
In case you can't read, the Dell can't even do 720p. Mine can. 720p @ 16:9 is considered true HD quality. Another true HD format is 1080i @ 16:9. Mine is almost at that quality level. Rather than downsampling a 1920x1080 picture to 1024x768 like the Dell has to do, mine only has to downsample down to 1600x900. So yes, it is a hell of a lot sharper and closer to the 1080i standard than the Dell, and it is a true HDTV, unlike the Dell.
You can't count.