At $200 a pop virtually nobody will go to concerts. So there's no income stream there at all.
And do the labels get a slice of the revenue from the concerts? Someone, somewhere is going to be fronting money to the artists for production, etc.
Right now, I'd wager many/most recording artists make nothing for their CD's etc. It's all sucked down by the labels as an advance. If you kill off the revenue stream from recorded music, the labels are gone. There is no motivation for them to advance anything to artists, at all.
At first glance you may think that's nirvana. Unfortunately recording music still isn't cheap. And recording, and marketing professionally, is quite expensive. Without a major label, selection will go down. WAY down. I'm friends with guys that have major label releases. And they have no expectation of paying back their advance. But without the album(s) they've released, they wouldn't be touring the US, either. And that's where they are making a living.
So if you remove the labels from the equation, suddenly they aren't able to tour the US and earn a living with music. And they are now a bar band you/me/anyone never hears from again. A net loss in my book.
And my point about the rights to the art, still applies. You're advocating that the existing system be torn out, without anything in place to replace the income the artits, and labels have been recieving.
I don't want control desperately. I'm merely aware of the constraints on the system. Someone, somewhere has to pay for art, or the selection will be greatly reduced. And it's far more likely that money will be paid, if it's a fairly small price ($10-15 per CD) than if the first person to pony up covers for the rest of us.
And don't even think of suggestion something along hte lines of the NEA, on a larger, international scale. That would be a horrible system as well. I don't want *any* government sponsored organization being the sole arbiter of culture, and art.
I don't think the system we have is perfect. But so far, I have yet to hear much in the way of proposals for systems that would work better.
Simply saying what we're doing now is bad, isn't good enough. How about a reasonable suggestion for a system to replace it with? $200 concert tickets to see a band at a club, isn't it. That's for sure. Doesn't begin to address the realities of the market, in any way.
Seems like capping it at life, doesn't take into account premature deaths. I think some accomodation should be made, past death. Not 75 years, by any means, but some period. Seems reasonable for an heir to get something for his antecedents labor.
Perhaps 14/28 years, or 14 past the creators death. Whichever comes first.
How do you propose paying for art outside the current system?
The way it operates now, the "cost" is spread among consumers. If only one payment is required, and after that it's free, then the cost for that first unit will go up. RADICALLY.
Once the cost goes up on that first unit, the buyer of it, will insist on some controls over it, once he's paid for it.
When I pay a plumber to fix my sink, that doesn't mean that everyone is then allowed to use my sink forever more. It's still mine. My asset to control, etc.
So if I pay a princely sum, for a particular piece of music from someone I like, I will expect similar controls over it's use henceforth. Otherwise there's no way anyone would ever pay out serious cash for art.
I think I'll quite happily stick with the current system over what I've just described. The system we have is not perfect. But it's a hell of a lot better than it could be, too.
FWIW I'm in favor of legalizing both as well. Within reason. At core I'm a libertarian.
Your blanket statement was that "If there is a demand, a supply will appear". And so I gave examples of situations where that is not the ideal situation, given no regulation.
Since they are the copyright holders, they are not violating their own copyright to release it in *any* way they see fit. Including leaking it to blogs.
Illegal drugs, of every sort. Be they coke, LSD, pot, etc, as well as Codiene, and over the counter, controlled substances.
Pimping drinks for teenagers, supplying minors with alchohol, etc.
Prostitution is a market based business as well.
While we're at it, how about traffic in other stolen goods. Actual physical items. There's a market for stolen paintings, that doesn't necessarily mean that it's a good thing.
Perhaps we need to stop trying to prevent counterfiet currency, while we're at it. There's certainly a market in bills. Of course if we counterfeit enough of them, there won't be a market anymore.
Hmm. Perhaps the fact that there's a possible market for something, doesn't immediately validate the sales of it, as being a good thing, eh?
They are NOT suggesting that they will sell patches to the OS or anything of the sort. They are merely saying that they *may* sell a utility that uninstalls scumware. That's all. MS is talking about selling an app to remove all the crud that people install without thinking. Spyware is NOT a result of buggy, insecure code. It's a result of users that click on anything that promises to "enhance" their user experience.
I never said in any way, or even implied in any way that Lego wasn't news, or interesting.
My comment was ENTIRELY to the fact that it wasn't news ANYMORE. And hadn't been for almost 5 years.
It's the next best thing to a re-post. It's a posting about someone that has been on/. repeatedly for far more recent items. And if anyone cared to look at the more recent stuff, they would have seen this item, which predates Eric appearing on/. for the first time.
According to the bloody dictionary, news is "1 a : a report of recent events"
Eric's desk has been featured on Slashdot, 4 +YEARS ago. He built it in Aug of 2000. The Slashdot story was posted Aug 27, of the same year. He's made the front page of Slashdot 3 more times since.
He built the clock in January. 8 months before the desk, and the story.
This emphatically does NOT qualify as news anymore. No way, no how.
What is it the editors do here again? Anything useful?
No matter how much it may pain you, as a/. reader.
It's an application you can voluntarily install. They aren't forcing anything, on anyone, other than trying to enforce copyright compliance on people they are pretty sure are sharing.
If you don't want their application checking out your machine, don't install the damn thing.
Thanks to HIPAA it's almost impossible to get at medical records. A friend of mine works at a major medical center, and they have shit locked down even from internal staff.
Maybe it will be ferrous enough, that the MRI will just remove it for you.
A friend works for the Radiology dept at UCSF and one of the interns there got impaled recently when he took a cart into the MRI room, and just barely got his arm between something ferrous, and the patient.
Slashdot Mirror
So they will be able to continue to produce things you like.
At $200 a pop virtually nobody will go to concerts. So there's no income stream there at all.
And do the labels get a slice of the revenue from the concerts? Someone, somewhere is going to be fronting money to the artists for production, etc.
Right now, I'd wager many/most recording artists make nothing for their CD's etc. It's all sucked down by the labels as an advance. If you kill off the revenue stream from recorded music, the labels are gone. There is no motivation for them to advance anything to artists, at all.
At first glance you may think that's nirvana. Unfortunately recording music still isn't cheap. And recording, and marketing professionally, is quite expensive. Without a major label, selection will go down. WAY down. I'm friends with guys that have major label releases. And they have no expectation of paying back their advance. But without the album(s) they've released, they wouldn't be touring the US, either. And that's where they are making a living.
So if you remove the labels from the equation, suddenly they aren't able to tour the US and earn a living with music. And they are now a bar band you/me/anyone never hears from again. A net loss in my book.
And my point about the rights to the art, still applies. You're advocating that the existing system be torn out, without anything in place to replace the income the artits, and labels have been recieving.
I don't want control desperately. I'm merely aware of the constraints on the system. Someone, somewhere has to pay for art, or the selection will be greatly reduced. And it's far more likely that money will be paid, if it's a fairly small price ($10-15 per CD) than if the first person to pony up covers for the rest of us.
And don't even think of suggestion something along hte lines of the NEA, on a larger, international scale. That would be a horrible system as well. I don't want *any* government sponsored organization being the sole arbiter of culture, and art.
I don't think the system we have is perfect. But so far, I have yet to hear much in the way of proposals for systems that would work better.
Simply saying what we're doing now is bad, isn't good enough. How about a reasonable suggestion for a system to replace it with? $200 concert tickets to see a band at a club, isn't it. That's for sure. Doesn't begin to address the realities of the market, in any way.
I wasn't suggesting anything like a long term of holding it, after the creators death.
But I think it's not unreasonable to allow inheritance to pass along the rights to a created work, for a short period of time.
Seems like capping it at life, doesn't take into account premature deaths. I think some accomodation should be made, past death. Not 75 years, by any means, but some period. Seems reasonable for an heir to get something for his antecedents labor.
Perhaps 14/28 years, or 14 past the creators death. Whichever comes first.
How do you propose paying for art outside the current system?
The way it operates now, the "cost" is spread among consumers. If only one payment is required, and after that it's free, then the cost for that first unit will go up. RADICALLY.
Once the cost goes up on that first unit, the buyer of it, will insist on some controls over it, once he's paid for it.
When I pay a plumber to fix my sink, that doesn't mean that everyone is then allowed to use my sink forever more. It's still mine. My asset to control, etc.
So if I pay a princely sum, for a particular piece of music from someone I like, I will expect similar controls over it's use henceforth. Otherwise there's no way anyone would ever pay out serious cash for art.
I think I'll quite happily stick with the current system over what I've just described. The system we have is not perfect. But it's a hell of a lot better than it could be, too.
FWIW I'm in favor of legalizing both as well. Within reason. At core I'm a libertarian.
Your blanket statement was that "If there is a demand, a supply will appear". And so I gave examples of situations where that is not the ideal situation, given no regulation.
A free market depends on certain property rights.
The crime that's punished is against the person leaking/distributing the file. That's not 10,000 people. That's the person that started sharing it.
Since they are the copyright holders, they are not violating their own copyright to release it in *any* way they see fit. Including leaking it to blogs.
Other examples of a free market at work:
Illegal drugs, of every sort. Be they coke, LSD, pot, etc, as well as Codiene, and over the counter, controlled substances.
Pimping drinks for teenagers, supplying minors with alchohol, etc.
Prostitution is a market based business as well.
While we're at it, how about traffic in other stolen goods. Actual physical items. There's a market for stolen paintings, that doesn't necessarily mean that it's a good thing.
Perhaps we need to stop trying to prevent counterfiet currency, while we're at it. There's certainly a market in bills. Of course if we counterfeit enough of them, there won't be a market anymore.
Hmm. Perhaps the fact that there's a possible market for something, doesn't immediately validate the sales of it, as being a good thing, eh?
Then yeah, I'd say they're a startup.
You really have to ask if he values his time?
but you can't see because the site is down. But trust us. It rocks. Honest.
Just a momentary glitch, I swear.
They are NOT suggesting that they will sell patches to the OS or anything of the sort. They are merely saying that they *may* sell a utility that uninstalls scumware. That's all. MS is talking about selling an app to remove all the crud that people install without thinking. Spyware is NOT a result of buggy, insecure code. It's a result of users that click on anything that promises to "enhance" their user experience.
that he built 5 years ago. It's always been a working model.
If you look at his portfolio, he has it sorted by date. Where do you think I got the dates in my post from?
A) I have made the front page before.
B) My comment was basically to point out that this was a glorified re-post essentially. And that it certainly wasn't anything new, at all.
I never said in any way, or even implied in any way that Lego wasn't news, or interesting.
/. repeatedly for far more recent items. And if anyone cared to look at the more recent stuff, they would have seen this item, which predates Eric appearing on /. for the first time.
My comment was ENTIRELY to the fact that it wasn't news ANYMORE. And hadn't been for almost 5 years.
It's the next best thing to a re-post. It's a posting about someone that has been on
According to the bloody dictionary, news is "1 a : a report of recent events"
Eric's desk has been featured on Slashdot, 4 +YEARS ago. He built it in Aug of 2000. The Slashdot story was posted Aug 27, of the same year. He's made the front page of Slashdot 3 more times since.
He built the clock in January. 8 months before the desk, and the story.
This emphatically does NOT qualify as news anymore. No way, no how.
What is it the editors do here again? Anything useful?
No matter how much it may pain you, as a /. reader.
It's an application you can voluntarily install. They aren't forcing anything, on anyone, other than trying to enforce copyright compliance on people they are pretty sure are sharing.
If you don't want their application checking out your machine, don't install the damn thing.
Someone on /. commenting on an article, without reading it first.
Say it isn't so.
Thanks to HIPAA it's almost impossible to get at medical records. A friend of mine works at a major medical center, and they have shit locked down even from internal staff.
I wasn't even close to suggesting that it had your name, or anything of the sort. Just that it has some way of identifying "you" to some system.
Maybe it will be ferrous enough, that the MRI will just remove it for you.
A friend works for the Radiology dept at UCSF and one of the interns there got impaled recently when he took a cart into the MRI room, and just barely got his arm between something ferrous, and the patient.
News flash.
Any hospital you've ever visited already has a unique ID (your SSN) linked to you.
Read the linked article.
It's a unique ID tag. That's ALL.
The chip won't have ANY data other than "who" you are. And to get any additional data you have to link into the hospital records.
And the police don't have a chance of getting in to those records thanks to privacy laws on medical records.
STOP THE FEARMONGERING.
It's a paper bracelet with your name on it. That's all. You just won't lose this one.