In my mind, there is no good music from any new bands out today. Name a popular band and I'll name the one they are trying to rip off...
So because a band invokes the memory of a previous band, they are "trying to rip them off," and therefore, are crap? Do I have this right?
As far as I can tell, this limits your 'good bands' list to only the fathers of the major genres. In your eyes, everyone else is ripping them off?
Fuck, I love music, too, man. I majored in music. I love all kinds of music. Some of these bands resemble earlier bands -- with a twist of their own. That's what makes a band unique. You can't expect every good band to start a new genre.
As someone ignorant about OLED technology... how exactly are they creating a mirror finish here. Is it dynamic? One minute it's translucent and not mirror-ish, the next minute it's reflective silver colored? I don't get it, and I don't speak "bork bork bork."
I assume much? No, I only assumed that you have some friends and family you would be leaving behind. Saying, "what do I care, I'll be dead," is pretty selfish.
Au contraire, if you check the fine print on your CD it specifically prohibits you from unauthorized "performances" of the songs contained therein.
I never said you could perform any song you wanted in public. I said if someone is giving a performance, that performance is not copyrightable, and you can record it as long as recording devices are allowed where you are listening.
This is also why the money bars collect at the door when a band is playing is called a "cover charge" - this is, theoretically, money that gets paid to ASCAP or one of it's cousins to compensate for the band playing "cover" songs that night.
That is interesting, I never heard the origins of that before.
On this aspect I am not sure. I think as long as they did not tell you the performance could not be recorded, you would be free to distribute it and sell it. Many bands stipulate you can record their performances as long as you don't sell the recordings. This makes me believe if you record something where no stipulates are given -- either for or against recording -- that you are free to record it, distribute it, and sell it. (As you said, as long as the composer gets his royalties.)
I am sure someone in the bootlegging community may have more info on this.
This is the same misinformation you were just sharing at the top of this discussion. Let me sum up my reply:
Performances are not copyrightable. The reason you can't record all performances is because the artists performing are free to set restrictions on what you are allowed to do in their venue. It has nothing to do with copyrights.
I have NEVER heard this before and I studied music for many years. There is a copyright on a RECORDED performance, even if there is none on the music pieces themselves. However, there is no copyright on the music you are hearing at a live performance.
The reason they can ban recording devices from a venue has nothing to do with copyright, only with restrictions that they are allowed to place on whether people attending the performance (be it music, live sports, etc) are allowed to use recording devices.
Take a look at the NBA announcement during a broadcast. They make it clear their BROADCAST is protected, copyrighted, etc... but the game play itself is not protected.
Most issues regarding copyrights and performances surround whether or not the people playing have the right to play a certain work in public. I believe this is where ASCAP enters the equation. If you buy the sheet music for a piece, you are being given permission to perform the work publically. If you record it and sell it, well then another deal has to be worked out.
How about "stupid consumers make cars disposable"... As an older, wiser man once said, "Never mind what they're selling / It's what you're buying". Vote with your money.
We have voted with our money. We want disposable cars.
Slashdot Mirror
In my mind, there is no good music from any new bands out today. Name a popular band and I'll name the one they are trying to rip off...
So because a band invokes the memory of a previous band, they are "trying to rip them off," and therefore, are crap? Do I have this right?
As far as I can tell, this limits your 'good bands' list to only the fathers of the major genres. In your eyes, everyone else is ripping them off?
Fuck, I love music, too, man. I majored in music. I love all kinds of music. Some of these bands resemble earlier bands -- with a twist of their own. That's what makes a band unique. You can't expect every good band to start a new genre.
It rolls right off the tongue!
"Flammable means inflammable? What a crazy country!" -Dr. Nick
"Hello everybody!"
"Fuck, I was thirsty!"
Please don't, he's still not on to the fact that his "tin foil" hats aren't made of tin either!
Unless he's saved them from the 50's.
As someone ignorant about OLED technology ... how exactly are they creating a mirror finish here. Is it dynamic? One minute it's translucent and not mirror-ish, the next minute it's reflective silver colored? I don't get it, and I don't speak "bork bork bork."
Yes, and as men we've sworn to take advantage of these issues!
I assume much? No, I only assumed that you have some friends and family you would be leaving behind. Saying, "what do I care, I'll be dead," is pretty selfish.
And apparantly still selfish, from the grave even.
That's unpossible!
Hey, that's my line!
Slashdot must get more "acceptable" stories than they can actually accept
D'ya think?
Of course you can trust him! The URL has the word "security" in it!
Actually that is just where the article is, the guy hosting the software is located here: http://exuberant.ms11.net/
No "secure" in the URL, so it can't be trusted!
Please do some research on the idea of "counter-suing" and you may understand that our system of justice and civil law is not too bad after all.
Summary: You can often get restitution for lawyer fees (and even damages) related to being sued when you are on the right side of the law.
Au contraire, if you check the fine print on your CD it specifically prohibits you from unauthorized "performances" of the songs contained therein.
I never said you could perform any song you wanted in public. I said if someone is giving a performance, that performance is not copyrightable, and you can record it as long as recording devices are allowed where you are listening.
This is also why the money bars collect at the door when a band is playing is called a "cover charge" - this is, theoretically, money that gets paid to ASCAP or one of it's cousins to compensate for the band playing "cover" songs that night.
That is interesting, I never heard the origins of that before.
I was hoping their proposed Maximum Aggregate Offering Price would be 1 x 10^100.
On this aspect I am not sure. I think as long as they did not tell you the performance could not be recorded, you would be free to distribute it and sell it. Many bands stipulate you can record their performances as long as you don't sell the recordings. This makes me believe if you record something where no stipulates are given -- either for or against recording -- that you are free to record it, distribute it, and sell it. (As you said, as long as the composer gets his royalties.)
I am sure someone in the bootlegging community may have more info on this.
This is the same misinformation you were just sharing at the top of this discussion. Let me sum up my reply:
Performances are not copyrightable. The reason you can't record all performances is because the artists performing are free to set restrictions on what you are allowed to do in their venue. It has nothing to do with copyrights.
I have NEVER heard this before and I studied music for many years. There is a copyright on a RECORDED performance, even if there is none on the music pieces themselves. However, there is no copyright on the music you are hearing at a live performance.
The reason they can ban recording devices from a venue has nothing to do with copyright, only with restrictions that they are allowed to place on whether people attending the performance (be it music, live sports, etc) are allowed to use recording devices.
Take a look at the NBA announcement during a broadcast. They make it clear their BROADCAST is protected, copyrighted, etc... but the game play itself is not protected.
Most issues regarding copyrights and performances surround whether or not the people playing have the right to play a certain work in public. I believe this is where ASCAP enters the equation. If you buy the sheet music for a piece, you are being given permission to perform the work publically. If you record it and sell it, well then another deal has to be worked out.
The article you linked to was posted 9 days after the interview. He may be a good engineer, but I doubt he's built a time machine.
No, you're Robin Hood.
And the "mix" will be 99:1 products-to-cash ratio.
How about "stupid consumers make cars disposable"... As an older, wiser man once said, "Never mind what they're selling / It's what you're buying". Vote with your money.
We have voted with our money. We want disposable cars.
And even they are overpriced!
How can a car being sold in a free market be "overpriced"?
It might be more than you're personally willing to pay for the car, but that is an entirely different matter.
he knows full well what people will make of this, and doesn't even care, he probably prides himself in the laughs he gets out of it.
No, rather I've found that nerds don't really understand why people think they are so nerdy.
I worked as a patent consultant briefly...
So YOU were that guy!