I was not talking about all forms of artwork. I was talking about music. Audiobooks are books, and should be protected as such. I am also of the opinion that various types of art should be protected differently, and appropriate to the medium. Free distribution of digital books needs to be regulated in it's own way. Assuming that the rules for music should be the same as those for images, text, spoken word, or other types of information is similar to saying that all drugs should be regulated the same exact way, regardless of their effects.
Focusing on live performances is the answer to all of this. Going to see a performance is an event, not just a regurgitation of the music that one can listen to on a CD. People do it for the thrill of the event, to socialize and be a part of a good time. By this token, I don't understand why any musician would not want their music to be shared by as many people as possible, even free of charge, as their primary source of advertising for their live shows. I really love those artists, mainstream or otherwise, who encourage the recording of their shows and not-for-profit (as in FREE) sharing of their music files or recorded performances between as many fans as possible.
If I hear a really awesome new song/album (for free), obtained for a file-sharing network, and I then IM my buddy and tell him that this new artist really kicks ass, and share my files with him, it costs neither of us anything. It costs the band a tiny fraction of their recording and distribution costs. If we both buy $30 concert tickets to the band's next show, then the band makes money. Repeat times 1000. Or 10 million. The more exposure a band has on file-sharing networks, the better, in this case, since their main focus is not their "ownership" and profit made from the sale of recordings of their music, but the money they make from their performances. Best of all, they stand to make the BULK of the profit off of their creativity, without some music execs or producers ripping them off.
Now if someone starts playing their songs live without their permission, or organized mass SALES of the artist's music without giving them a cut of it, then copyright law should protect them. And to me, this rewards the really good, talented musicians who do things their own way and put on great live performances, rather than the cookie-cutter, manufactured pop stars that the record companies rely on to make them money based on some digitally-enhanced, synthesized recording they did once in a studio, and that they go through the motions lip-synching live in order to "sell" their records.
If EVERY artist did this, then we'd see incredible new directions in music creativity take off, real talent making real money, and no need for all of the costs and debate over "ownership" of recordings.
All documented laws are open to interpretation. The point is that in this case, French courts are choosing to favor the common culture and each individual's right to share it with each other rather than the greedy recording industry's right to hike up prices on their music. For that, they are to be commended.
The "industry" rips us off to line their own pockets with CDs that cost only a couple of bucks each to produce (including the production costs of the music on them). If CDs were $5, many of us would buy 2-3 a week, and if the artists saw their fair share of that money rather than getting screwed by their managers, producers, and distributors, then they would make a nice living and would be encouraged to produce more music.
I, for one, recognize the artists' rights to make a living and be encouraged to create, but until the industry decides to pass along their profits to the artists, I'll swap files as I see fit and not feel the least bit guilty for taking money out of some record label's pocket.
The CDs I buy right now are mostly directly from the artists or their Web sites, where they are most likely to see a larger percentage of the profits.
Unfortunately, I doubt that the rest of the world will take seriously the personal crusade of a man named Dominique... I mean come on. It's a stripper name.
I think that joking was the whole point of posting a story like this on here to begin with. I mean, it really doesn't have any other point if not posted in humor. I really doubt the submitter expected 8 pages of sympathetic well-wishes when he submitted the story.
Chef's dad: Say, would you crackers like to hear about the time we saw the Loch Ness monster?
Stan: No, that's okay.
Chef's dad: Ooh, it must've been about seven, eight years ago. Me and the little lady was out on this boat, you see, all alone at night, when all of a sudden this huge creature, this giant crustacean from the paleolithic era, comes out of the water.
Chef's mom: We was so scared, Lord have mercy, I jumped up in the boat and I said "Thomas, what on earth is that creature?!"
Thomas: It stood above us looking down with these big red eyes,-
Chef's mom: Oh, it was so scary!
Thomas: -and I yelled. I said, "What do you want from us, monster?!" And the monster bent down and said, "...Uh I need about tree-fitty."
Kyle: What's tree-fitty?
Thomas: Three dollars and fifty cents.
Chef's mom: Tree-fitty.
Oh, they will still sell it to you. They'll sell you the latest Green Day CD that looks just like the unedited copy you can get for the same price at Best Buy, except for the tiny print that says "Edited" along the top spine of the case, and the huge blank spaces in the recording. I've been burned by this in both DVD and CD, and there is not always something to indicate the fact that you buying an edited version, let alone that another unedited version even exists.
Well considering that they don't even indicate anywhere on the packages that there were edits made, except in the most extremely small type and only in certain instances, I think they are still in the wrong. I hope you enjoy your 3-minute cut of Kill Bill, though.
I managed a Blockbuster for 2 years. Worst job I ever had. Seemed like every single day there was either a lawsuit pending from someone who got screwed over, or a mistake on late fees that I had to accept being screamed at about (like it was my own personal fault), or $500 in shoplifting loss (it happens when you have enough hours to staff only 1 employee most of the time). Nothing is more mind-numbing that repeatedly opening then closing like 2000 video/DVD cases per day to verify their contents.
I mean all retail jobs blow monkey dick, but this one blew Kong. I've never set foot in any Blockbuster store since I left.
From TFA: At one agency, 90 laptop computers were configured to search for a wireless connection while they were plugged in to a wireless network -- an easy way in for snoops and hackers.
I remember a sound track on my old Monty Python and the Holy Grail laserdisc that allowed you to watch the entire movie with all the dialogue having been dubbed into Japanese and then back into English again. One of the funniest things I've ever seen. Check it out if you can find a copy.
RT did not bash The Butterfly Effect. 105 out of 159 reviews that they listed bashed it. RT does not review movies. They just go to the other review sites and count how many good and bad reviews the film is getting. Big difference.
Those "ratings" on IMDB are the average ratings of the film in the minds of IMDB readers, which amounts to a bunch arbitrary numbers thrown out by mainstream moviegoers, for what that's worth (not much, in my view).
Slashdot Mirror
I was not talking about all forms of artwork. I was talking about music. Audiobooks are books, and should be protected as such. I am also of the opinion that various types of art should be protected differently, and appropriate to the medium. Free distribution of digital books needs to be regulated in it's own way. Assuming that the rules for music should be the same as those for images, text, spoken word, or other types of information is similar to saying that all drugs should be regulated the same exact way, regardless of their effects.
Focusing on live performances is the answer to all of this. Going to see a performance is an event, not just a regurgitation of the music that one can listen to on a CD. People do it for the thrill of the event, to socialize and be a part of a good time. By this token, I don't understand why any musician would not want their music to be shared by as many people as possible, even free of charge, as their primary source of advertising for their live shows. I really love those artists, mainstream or otherwise, who encourage the recording of their shows and not-for-profit (as in FREE) sharing of their music files or recorded performances between as many fans as possible.
If I hear a really awesome new song/album (for free), obtained for a file-sharing network, and I then IM my buddy and tell him that this new artist really kicks ass, and share my files with him, it costs neither of us anything. It costs the band a tiny fraction of their recording and distribution costs. If we both buy $30 concert tickets to the band's next show, then the band makes money. Repeat times 1000. Or 10 million. The more exposure a band has on file-sharing networks, the better, in this case, since their main focus is not their "ownership" and profit made from the sale of recordings of their music, but the money they make from their performances. Best of all, they stand to make the BULK of the profit off of their creativity, without some music execs or producers ripping them off.
Now if someone starts playing their songs live without their permission, or organized mass SALES of the artist's music without giving them a cut of it, then copyright law should protect them. And to me, this rewards the really good, talented musicians who do things their own way and put on great live performances, rather than the cookie-cutter, manufactured pop stars that the record companies rely on to make them money based on some digitally-enhanced, synthesized recording they did once in a studio, and that they go through the motions lip-synching live in order to "sell" their records.
If EVERY artist did this, then we'd see incredible new directions in music creativity take off, real talent making real money, and no need for all of the costs and debate over "ownership" of recordings.
All documented laws are open to interpretation. The point is that in this case, French courts are choosing to favor the common culture and each individual's right to share it with each other rather than the greedy recording industry's right to hike up prices on their music. For that, they are to be commended.
The "industry" rips us off to line their own pockets with CDs that cost only a couple of bucks each to produce (including the production costs of the music on them). If CDs were $5, many of us would buy 2-3 a week, and if the artists saw their fair share of that money rather than getting screwed by their managers, producers, and distributors, then they would make a nice living and would be encouraged to produce more music.
I, for one, recognize the artists' rights to make a living and be encouraged to create, but until the industry decides to pass along their profits to the artists, I'll swap files as I see fit and not feel the least bit guilty for taking money out of some record label's pocket.
The CDs I buy right now are mostly directly from the artists or their Web sites, where they are most likely to see a larger percentage of the profits.
Unfortunately, I doubt that the rest of the world will take seriously the personal crusade of a man named Dominique... I mean come on. It's a stripper name.
I think that joking was the whole point of posting a story like this on here to begin with. I mean, it really doesn't have any other point if not posted in humor. I really doubt the submitter expected 8 pages of sympathetic well-wishes when he submitted the story.
We're not joking about the fact that they were injured. We're joking about the fact that they are incredibly fucking stupid.
The ability to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the power of stupidity.
It's a US English vs. European English thing. We do collective nouns differently.
Chef's dad: Say, would you crackers like to hear about the time we saw the Loch Ness monster?
Stan: No, that's okay.
Chef's dad: Ooh, it must've been about seven, eight years ago. Me and the little lady was out on this boat, you see, all alone at night, when all of a sudden this huge creature, this giant crustacean from the paleolithic era, comes out of the water.
Chef's mom: We was so scared, Lord have mercy, I jumped up in the boat and I said "Thomas, what on earth is that creature?!"
Thomas: It stood above us looking down with these big red eyes,-
Chef's mom: Oh, it was so scary!
Thomas: -and I yelled. I said, "What do you want from us, monster?!" And the monster bent down and said, "...Uh I need about tree-fitty."
Kyle: What's tree-fitty?
Thomas: Three dollars and fifty cents.
Chef's mom: Tree-fitty.
You're both right. It's Bill Clinton with his pants down AND the virgin Mary. Surprise, surprise.
What a clever invention! I'll take 3.
Or more importantly, WWJDD?
why can't gay women get married under the church
Because Dubya has had cameras placed in all church basements for just this reason.
Anyone who creates thousands of clones of Scarlett Johansson is OK in my opinion. When can I buy one?
It should correctly read:
"not un-countering the notion that the workers today aren't not un-overloaded with information"
Everyone knows that spam should be rightfully sold in JARS, so that we can at least guess at what type of meat it might be before purchasing.
Oh, they will still sell it to you. They'll sell you the latest Green Day CD that looks just like the unedited copy you can get for the same price at Best Buy, except for the tiny print that says "Edited" along the top spine of the case, and the huge blank spaces in the recording. I've been burned by this in both DVD and CD, and there is not always something to indicate the fact that you buying an edited version, let alone that another unedited version even exists.
Well considering that they don't even indicate anywhere on the packages that there were edits made, except in the most extremely small type and only in certain instances, I think they are still in the wrong. I hope you enjoy your 3-minute cut of Kill Bill, though.
I managed a Blockbuster for 2 years. Worst job I ever had. Seemed like every single day there was either a lawsuit pending from someone who got screwed over, or a mistake on late fees that I had to accept being screamed at about (like it was my own personal fault), or $500 in shoplifting loss (it happens when you have enough hours to staff only 1 employee most of the time). Nothing is more mind-numbing that repeatedly opening then closing like 2000 video/DVD cases per day to verify their contents.
I mean all retail jobs blow monkey dick, but this one blew Kong. I've never set foot in any Blockbuster store since I left.
Anyone know if Wal-mart censors their DVD rentals like they do with their retail CDs/DVDs? I know I won't shop there for this reason.
From TFA: At one agency, 90 laptop computers were configured to search for a wireless connection while they were plugged in to a wireless network -- an easy way in for snoops and hackers.
How does one "plug in" to a wireless network?
I remember a sound track on my old Monty Python and the Holy Grail laserdisc that allowed you to watch the entire movie with all the dialogue having been dubbed into Japanese and then back into English again. One of the funniest things I've ever seen. Check it out if you can find a copy.
I don't think Speilberg could do a sci-fi movie.
You mean a sci-fi movie like Close Encounters or E.T.? Oops.
RT did not bash The Butterfly Effect. 105 out of 159 reviews that they listed bashed it. RT does not review movies. They just go to the other review sites and count how many good and bad reviews the film is getting. Big difference.
Those "ratings" on IMDB are the average ratings of the film in the minds of IMDB readers, which amounts to a bunch arbitrary numbers thrown out by mainstream moviegoers, for what that's worth (not much, in my view).
You mean James Garner is in it? Yick.