"Exactly how are people taking "illicit" pictures with cell phones, that they couldn't take with ordinary digital cameras?"
What does "digital" have to do with anything?
Whatever they can do with "digital" cameras, they can do with a regular camera as well, possibly with higher resolution, or at least, with analog continuity in the resolution as opposed to digital pixelation.
"If you see someone with a camera, you take notice."
Ever since the Instamatic 126 hit the $20 price point, which was a LOT longer ago than any portable PHONE, the camera has been common enough not to notice.
"I've got my laptop setup to be a complete portable studio. Sure, this little guy would be fun to play around with, but it's a toy, it's not something that a musician would WORK with."
I agree, but then, it depends on the musician. I would like to hear the 4-bit crap that comes out of this thing, into a MoogerFooger LPF, for instance. The sort of folks who use circuit-bent instruments might make use of this toy.
Anti-Musicians are always looking for something different.
I've been building a synth based on a 6581 (C64 SID) chip. This gameboy thing is no cheezier than that.
> My (implied) intention was to say "copyrighted >music without explicit permission from the >copyright owner"
Lots of people seem to think it means something else, something much more restrictive. And they spread this belief. And the really frightening thing is, people accept it.
Re:King of 'Music', indeed
on
The Music Man
·
· Score: 1
"Songs? What about symphonies, string quartets, ballets, and operas?"
Transcription discs from USO shows?
Audience tapes of folk & bluegrass festivals?
Gospel choir happenings?
There's a lot this guy doesn't have. I'll bet he doesn't have bootlegs of Frank Zappa and the Mothers. Or locally produced stuff that had limited vinyl runs. Or anything at all, really, except for commercial music that isn't really in much danger of being lost.
I wish someone had done this for all the film from the 20's and 30's. Some very important stuff is lost there. Like almost every movie that Clara Bow made.
I doubt they will go after someone who would be willing and able to insist on *process* rather than simply caving in at the receipt of the first C&D letter, like all the other victims did.
If he is only consuming the media, and not distributing it, the RIAA has a tough row to hoe if they really wanted to make a case out of this. They don't tend to mess with people who would be inclined to mount a defense.
"He's a lawyer, but doesn't comprehend copyright law."
On the contrary. I think he does understand. He understands well enough to know that nothing is going to happen unless someone tries to sue him. He's a lawyer. It's going to take more than a single C&D letter to affect his actions. "They" would have to actually *take him to court* and if "they" lost, it might be VERY bad for the industry.
How many of the targets of the RIAA have actually been *lawyers*? How many have actually been willing to press the case to court, not waiving any right to any part of the process?
"a) downloading music is illegal, in the US at least"
What about artists who explicitly desire their music to be downloaded? It is copyright the artist, and also permitted to be distributed. Copyright and permission to distribute are two different things, not mutually exclusive.
I cannot reconcile your blanket statement that "downloading music is illegal", because the only way to interpret that, amounts to a violation of first amendment rights, since you should not be stripped of your copyright just because you want people to listen to your music.
I don't disagree that a certain amount of music is distributed counter to the artist or other copyright holder's wishes, but that does not justify the misconception that *all* copyrighted words are forbidden, or that *all* copyrighted music is not acceptable to download or share.
Linux is copyrighted. Is it illegal to download that?
Don't step on MY rights as a musician, just because you think someone else needs their rights protected.
Re:Obsessive Collecting
on
The Music Man
·
· Score: 1
"Mork & Mindy"
Was a Happy Days spinoff?
I did not know that.
I used to be a collector. I had on the order of 5000 vinyl records, spanning many genres and time periods. I also had almost every Marvel comic title betwen 1969 and 1980, including some that never even went into distribution. My family business had close ties to publishing, and that was the perk for me.
All gone in a matter of seconds in a house fire in 1996. Today, I don't actually buy or keep anything I won't use. I collect musical instruments now, but nothing that I don't actually play. Certainly nothing for the pure sake of collecting anymore.
The strange thing is, I don't feel such a great personal loss from losing all that stuff, it's more like, I regret losing all that stuff that was in my care. I think I understand how the curator of the museum feels that lost The Scream.
Yeah, I get it. But PasteEater has a strong, valid point. There's a high barrier to entry in the pro audio world, it's not purely a technical barrier, and if you don't get over it, you crash on the floor and your product is a lost cause. I realize nothing that has an open source devel model is going to completely crash and burn to oblivion if it fails in the marketplace, but I'd go as far as to say the problem with DIGI/PT market penetration is even worse than trying to get a web browser to approach IE, or a word processor besides Word, or Gimp into the Photoshop world.
I wouldn't dream of trying to do my own studio work with ProTools, because if it's work for ME where I am both the producer and consumer, I'd rather pull out my fingernails with pliers than use that stuff.
"What kind of cables are you using if you don't mind me asking."
Mogami snakes for the main long runs, Neutrik connectors, and Gepco bulk cable, assembled locally on the bench by someone who cares, me. I have a couple of Conquest mic cables. I don't consider myself a pro, but I only want to do this crap once. As much wire as there is in my studio, very little of it shows. I'm real proud of that, and knowing that, even though a lot of my gear is crappy (analog synths, cheap-ish rack gear, etc.), the signal path is as good as it gets.
"And, at $800, I thought my DIGI-001 and LE 5.3.1 was a steal. I get a lot done with this painlessly."
You might have already read my posts bashing Digi/PT, but I understand your reasons. Trouble is, I don't think you can really explain this to most linux people, since most of us don't happen to be both computer engineers AND professional musicians and/or sound engineers.
99% don't even understand the problem after considering computer audio in terms of *playback*. Most of the rest, don't really understand the specific needs of a pro -- who might have to work with other musicians, different studios for production and post, contractural obligations, requirements such as sync to specific video formats, that sort of thing.
Some who *do* understand the issues, still seem to think that "pro quality" begins and ends with the signal path, user interface, and stability of the software.
I've spent more on cables than most are willing to spend on their whole system. (I'm nearly at a half mile of cables, just moving 8 channels around!)
LADSPA is good and useful, but by not being a VST/VSTi host, it missed the boat.
There are hundreds of good VST effects and instruments, some of them are as if made in heaven by angels, indispensible already. The market has voted with its feet. VST is the ASCII of software plugins, and RTAS is the EBCDIC.
Before you spend $1000 on Cakewalk or Cubase, get a $75 copy of Magix Music Studio 2005, or even a $15 copy of the 2004 version (being clearanced).
I have the option of using Sonar or Cubase, or anything else I might want. I stick mainly to two tools, FLStudio (the Producer Edition) and Magix Audio Studio, plus a handful of free plugins, plus a few things that are specific to my outboard gear (synth programmers, mostly, and MIDI-OX which I could not live without). Oh, and also I'm becoming more of an EnergyXT power user and advocate every day.
I have a $10,000/year budget for music, that includes instruments, software, room treatment, and anything else in the category. My style of music ranges from classical to original/contemporary, but does NOT include euro/dance/techno styles.
I could use any software I wanted, and I've stuck with Magix, FLStudio, and EnergyXT. Not only that, it troubles me that more people do not arrive at the same conclusion!
"You know, it wouldnt surprise me if certain software companies and trade groups paid people to denounce pieces of software in the OSS arena.."
No conspiracy theory is needed. Software that fills a niche, or does a job well, will spread like wildfire in the audio world. Look at EnergyXT, or FruityLoops for examples of really teriffic software that started out on a shoestring budget but is well-regarded among amateurs and professionals alike. There's nobody from Cakewalk or Digi getting into the forums to denounce that stuff.
I think you're misinterpreting the criticism.
Don't claim you've released something that will be the killer app for the DAW, that's for US to decide, not you.
I think there is a market for a professional linux-based DAW box. Hardware+Software, in the $5,000 to $10,000 range. My DAW is somewhere in the middle of that range. And I'm the biggest Linux advocate in the world, but for practical reasons, my DAW is a Windows XP box.
"It's only pro-level when it does A) things better thanPro Tools B) things better than Logic C) things cheaper than both. Most importantly D) Has been through trial by fire."
You are correct, mostly, but it definitely does NOT need to be cheaper. A $1000 Linux DAW software that could outperform Samplitude would be fine, and would have a shot at being considered "Pro Level". Never mind that it runs on Linux. Make it a $10,000 20-channel DAW hardware/software combination in a silent, rackable form factor, that happens to run linux, and happens to be of sufficient quality and have the features pros need, and you've got a player in the market. I mean, why not?
ProTools is an example of vendor lock-in, nothing more. It's something you use because you have to, or because your contracts say you have to, or because your studio was designed around, and heavily invested in Digi. It gets the job done, well, and you won't walk away from the investment. But that doesn't make it the best value, or even the best choice for audio software or hardware.
Logic is dead. Samplitude is better anyway. Sonar hasn't stood the test of time, but it is probably better, judging by anecdotal evidence.
"Pro Tools has the same thing Apple has going for them - tight software/hardware integration."
Digi (ProTools) has something else -- a first-to-market legacy that is entrenched enough that they are actually specified by name in contracts, and are otherwise an absolute requirement in order to get some kinds of business. Yeah, you actually do the recording in the room that uses Logic, and the PT DAW hasn't even been powered up in months, but you have it when the customer asks.
But I agree with you, there is no software yet for a Linux system that, as delivered, earns the moniker "pro-level". It may *perform* to pro audio specs (the Jack driver on my Delta 1010 does that without any help at all!), and it may have some subset of features that are regarded as "pro level", but if an audio guy can't put it to use effectively, it has missed the boat.
I'd really like to see something in the spirit of the Tivo here. (Runs linux, customer may or may not know or care, linux is beside the point). A nice DAW box.
Hell, I'd settle for the fanless 4U short rack version of a Shuttle XPC and do it myself.
There isn't much in the world of audio production that FLStudio *can't* do. I believe it is the name that turns people off. FruityLoops is by far the best value in audio software. The coming version will even have sync-to-video, a feature that adds $500 to the price of something like Sonar. And I would *much* rather use FL than Sonar. Opinions vary, but I suppose there are people who get some satisfaction from having paid $1000 for a program, and need to justify it.
Pros working to specific contracturally agreed standards have things they must do. But I'm in charge of my studio (semi-pro, not very ghetto at all) and I use FL more than anything else.
It's good enough for Mike Oldfield. Works for me. best $150 I ever spent.
"Steinberg want developers to pay huge fees to be able to access the VST API."
I use more free VST plugins than commercial, and my favorite host (EnergyXT) is a $30 shareware registration. 100% Steinberg-free, no huge fees anywhere to be found.
"Windows and Mac still and always will rule for "pro" sound editing, unless protools, samplitude, propellerheads or any number of other companies port to windows."
I would consider the job done once and for all, if there were Linux versions of Magix and FruityLoops, the two best kept secrets (and by FAR the best values) in audio software.
If you really need something not offered by the combination of these two programs, you're into a production realm where you can afford whatever you want anyway.
The kind of person who spends $3000 on a one-channel preamp for a $10,000 microphone can argue with someone else about this.
Slashdot Mirror
"Exactly how are people taking "illicit" pictures with cell phones, that they couldn't take with ordinary digital cameras?"
What does "digital" have to do with anything?
Whatever they can do with "digital" cameras, they can do with a regular camera as well, possibly with
higher resolution, or at least, with analog continuity in the resolution as opposed to digital pixelation.
"If you see someone with a camera, you take notice."
Ever since the Instamatic 126 hit the $20 price point, which was a LOT longer ago than any portable PHONE, the camera has been common enough not to notice.
> Hey, don't diss the C64's sound chip.
Hey, never! That's why I'm building my synth!
I do feel bad taking them out of C-64's though.
" The real issue is does forcing this HUGE extra effort onto their customers really worth it."
The answer lies in the fact that, despite doing what they did, they are enjoying record-breaking sales.
Do you think you can alter somone's behavior by throwing piles of money at them?
I agree, but then, it depends on the musician. I would like to hear the 4-bit crap that comes out of this thing, into a MoogerFooger LPF, for instance. The sort of folks who use circuit-bent instruments might make use of this toy.
Anti-Musicians are always looking for something different.
I've been building a synth based on a 6581 (C64 SID) chip. This gameboy thing is no cheezier than that.
>I know, to the activist this sounds like insanity
No, it's the reactionary who doesn't understand you.
I agree. Things have to get *much* worse before they become a catalyst for change.
> My (implied) intention was to say "copyrighted
>music without explicit permission from the
>copyright owner"
Lots of people seem to think it means something else, something much more restrictive. And they spread this belief. And the really frightening thing is, people accept it.
"Songs? What about symphonies, string quartets, ballets, and operas?"
Transcription discs from USO shows?
Audience tapes of folk & bluegrass festivals?
Gospel choir happenings?
There's a lot this guy doesn't have. I'll bet he doesn't have bootlegs of Frank Zappa and the Mothers. Or locally produced stuff that had limited vinyl runs. Or anything at all, really, except for commercial music that isn't really in much danger of being lost.
I wish someone had done this for all the film from the 20's and 30's. Some very important stuff is lost there. Like almost every movie that Clara Bow made.
"The RIAA'll be askin' fer yer booty, matey!"
I doubt they will go after someone who would be willing and able to insist on *process* rather than simply caving in at the receipt of the first C&D letter, like all the other victims did.
If he is only consuming the media, and not distributing it, the RIAA has a tough row to hoe if they really wanted to make a case out of this. They don't tend to mess with people who would be inclined to mount a defense.
"He's a lawyer, but doesn't comprehend copyright law."
On the contrary. I think he does understand. He understands well enough to know that nothing is going to happen unless someone tries to sue him. He's a lawyer. It's going to take more than a single C&D letter to affect his actions. "They" would have to actually *take him to court* and if "they" lost, it might be VERY bad for the industry.
How many of the targets of the RIAA have actually been *lawyers*? How many have actually been willing to press the case to court, not waiving any right to any part of the process?
"a) downloading music is illegal, in the US at least"
What about artists who explicitly desire their music to be downloaded? It is copyright the artist, and also permitted to be distributed. Copyright and permission to distribute are two different things, not mutually exclusive.
I cannot reconcile your blanket statement that "downloading music is illegal", because the only way to interpret that, amounts to a violation of first amendment rights, since you should not be stripped of your copyright just because you want people to listen to your music.
I don't disagree that a certain amount of music is distributed counter to the artist or other copyright holder's wishes, but that does not justify the misconception that *all* copyrighted words are forbidden, or that *all* copyrighted music is not acceptable to download or share.
Linux is copyrighted. Is it illegal to download that?
Don't step on MY rights as a musician, just because you think someone else needs their rights protected.
"Mork & Mindy"
Was a Happy Days spinoff?
I did not know that.
I used to be a collector. I had on the order of 5000 vinyl records, spanning many genres and time periods. I also had almost every Marvel comic title betwen 1969 and 1980, including some that never even went into distribution. My family business had close ties to publishing, and that was the perk for me.
All gone in a matter of seconds in a house fire in 1996. Today, I don't actually buy or keep anything I won't use. I collect musical instruments now, but nothing that I don't actually play. Certainly nothing for the pure sake of collecting anymore.
The strange thing is, I don't feel such a great personal loss from losing all that stuff, it's more like, I regret losing all that stuff that was in my care. I think I understand how the curator of the museum feels that lost The Scream.
"You are not at all talking about the same thing. "Prior art" in patent law automatically does a blow to your patent (assuming it is the same thing)."
For certain values of "automatically", which could include decades of litigation and millions of dollars.
Yeah, I get it. But PasteEater has a strong, valid point. There's a high barrier to entry in the pro audio world, it's not purely a technical barrier, and if you don't get over it, you crash on the floor and your product is a lost cause. I realize nothing that has an open source devel model is going to completely crash and burn to oblivion if it fails in the marketplace, but I'd go as far as to say the problem with DIGI/PT market penetration is even worse than trying to get a web browser to approach IE, or a word processor besides Word, or Gimp into the Photoshop world.
I wouldn't dream of trying to do my own studio work with ProTools, because if it's work for ME where I am both the producer and consumer, I'd rather pull out my fingernails with pliers than use that stuff.
"What kind of cables are you using if you don't mind me asking."
Mogami snakes for the main long runs,
Neutrik connectors, and Gepco bulk cable, assembled locally on the bench by someone who cares, me.
I have a couple of Conquest mic cables.
I don't consider myself a pro, but I only want to do this crap once. As much wire as there is in my studio, very little of it shows. I'm real proud of that, and knowing that, even though a lot of my gear is crappy (analog synths, cheap-ish rack gear, etc.), the signal path is as good as it gets.
"I ran out of cash! =)"
I budgeted $1500 for cables for my home studio, mostly just moving 8 channels around. It wasn't enough.
"As soon as you say "Pro Tools" eyes light up, that's for sure."
Heh. I'd be more interested in what kind of cables are in the back of your patchbays. And what's in your mic closet.
"And, at $800, I thought my DIGI-001 and LE 5.3.1 was a steal. I get a lot done with this painlessly."
You might have already read my posts bashing Digi/PT, but I understand your reasons. Trouble is, I don't think you can really explain this to most linux people, since most of us don't happen to be both computer engineers AND professional musicians and/or sound engineers.
99% don't even understand the problem after considering computer audio in terms of *playback*.
Most of the rest, don't really understand the specific needs of a pro -- who might have to work with other musicians, different studios for production and post, contractural obligations, requirements such as sync to specific video formats, that sort of thing.
Some who *do* understand the issues, still seem to think that "pro quality" begins and ends with the signal path, user interface, and stability of the software.
I've spent more on cables than most are willing to spend on their whole system. (I'm nearly at a half mile of cables, just moving 8 channels around!)
>It is not meant to duplicate VST
LADSPA is good and useful, but by not being a VST/VSTi host, it missed the boat.
There are hundreds of good VST effects and instruments, some of them are as if made in heaven by angels, indispensible already. The market has voted with its feet. VST is the ASCII of software plugins, and RTAS is the EBCDIC.
Before you spend $1000 on Cakewalk or Cubase, get a $75 copy of Magix Music Studio 2005, or even a $15 copy of the 2004 version (being clearanced).
I have the option of using Sonar or Cubase, or anything else I might want. I stick mainly to two tools, FLStudio (the Producer Edition) and Magix Audio Studio, plus a handful of free plugins, plus a few things that are specific to my outboard gear (synth programmers, mostly, and MIDI-OX which I could not live without). Oh, and also I'm becoming more of an EnergyXT power user and advocate every day.
I have a $10,000/year budget for music, that includes instruments, software, room treatment, and anything else in the category. My style of music ranges from classical to original/contemporary, but does NOT include euro/dance/techno styles.
I could use any software I wanted, and I've stuck with Magix, FLStudio, and EnergyXT. Not only that, it troubles me that more people do not arrive at the same conclusion!
"You know, it wouldnt surprise me if certain software companies and trade groups paid people to denounce pieces of software in the OSS arena.."
No conspiracy theory is needed. Software that fills a niche, or does a job well, will spread like wildfire in the audio world. Look at EnergyXT, or FruityLoops for examples of really teriffic software that started out on a shoestring budget but is well-regarded among amateurs and professionals alike. There's nobody from Cakewalk or Digi getting into the forums to denounce that stuff.
I think you're misinterpreting the criticism.
Don't claim you've released something that will be the killer app for the DAW, that's for US to decide, not you.
I think there is a market for a professional linux-based DAW box. Hardware+Software, in the $5,000 to $10,000 range. My DAW is somewhere in the middle of that range. And I'm the biggest Linux advocate in the world, but for practical reasons, my DAW is a Windows XP box.
"It's only pro-level when it does A) things better thanPro Tools B) things better than Logic C) things cheaper than both. Most importantly D) Has been through trial by fire."
You are correct, mostly, but it definitely does NOT need to be cheaper. A $1000 Linux DAW software that could outperform Samplitude would be fine, and would have a shot at being considered "Pro Level".
Never mind that it runs on Linux. Make it a $10,000
20-channel DAW hardware/software combination in a silent, rackable form factor, that happens to run linux, and happens to be of sufficient quality and have the features pros need, and you've got a player in the market. I mean, why not?
ProTools is an example of vendor lock-in, nothing more. It's something you use because you have to, or because your contracts say you have to, or because your studio was designed around, and heavily invested in Digi. It gets the job done, well, and you won't walk away from the investment. But that doesn't make it the best value, or even the best choice for audio software or hardware.
Logic is dead. Samplitude is better anyway. Sonar hasn't stood the test of time, but it is probably better, judging by anecdotal evidence.
"Pro Tools has the same thing Apple has going for
them - tight software/hardware integration."
Digi (ProTools) has something else -- a first-to-market legacy that is entrenched enough that they are actually specified by name in contracts, and are otherwise an absolute requirement in order to get some kinds of business. Yeah, you actually do the recording in the room that uses
Logic, and the PT DAW hasn't even been powered up in months, but you have it when the customer asks.
But I agree with you, there is no software yet for a Linux system that, as delivered, earns the moniker "pro-level". It may *perform* to pro audio specs (the Jack driver on my Delta 1010 does that without any help at all!), and it may have some subset of features that are regarded as "pro level", but if an audio guy can't put it to use effectively, it has missed the boat.
I'd really like to see something in the spirit of the Tivo here. (Runs linux, customer may or may not know or care, linux is beside the point). A nice DAW box.
Hell, I'd settle for the fanless 4U short rack version of a Shuttle XPC and do it myself.
There isn't much in the world of audio production that FLStudio *can't* do. I believe it is the name that turns people off. FruityLoops is by far the best value in audio software. The coming version will even have sync-to-video, a feature that adds $500 to the price of something like Sonar. And I would *much* rather use FL than Sonar. Opinions vary, but I suppose there are people who get some satisfaction from having paid $1000 for a program, and need to justify it.
Pros working to specific contracturally agreed standards have things they must do. But I'm in charge of my studio (semi-pro, not very ghetto at all) and I use FL more than anything else.
It's good enough for Mike Oldfield. Works for me. best $150 I ever spent.
"Steinberg want developers to pay huge fees to be able to access the VST API."
I use more free VST plugins than commercial, and my favorite host (EnergyXT) is a $30 shareware registration. 100% Steinberg-free, no huge fees anywhere to be found.
"Windows and Mac still and always will rule for "pro" sound editing, unless protools, samplitude, propellerheads or any number of other companies port to windows."
I would consider the job done once and for all, if there were Linux versions of Magix and FruityLoops, the two best kept secrets (and by FAR the best values) in audio software.
If you really need something not offered by the combination of these two programs, you're into a production realm where you can afford whatever you want anyway.
The kind of person who spends $3000 on a one-channel preamp for a $10,000 microphone can argue with someone else about this.