The thing about engraved literature or sheet music is that work went into the engraving process. If you scan it and use OCR to convert to pure text, for instance, you aren't really taking significant advantage of the engraving, especially one form of engraving over another. If you scan to an image then i guess you are, to an extent, but you're not benefitting from engraving the way you would be with the physical copy of the book (or other medium). BUT, if someone takes the time to convert a book to PDF, delineating chapters and refining the formatting, i think he legally and practically can claim ownership, editorship, or something of the sort. That's basically digital engraving, no? The fact that it's difficult to scan 500 pages of text doesn't mean we can't take advantage of another person doing it for us. I don't see how fair use principles are violated because someone scans and OCRs a text that i own, so i download it, but there are probably instances when it's not fair to P2P a text that i already own. One would be the case of an independent retailer or engraver performing the transfer and taking time and equipment to do so as permitted by the publisher of a book or by law. If everyone P2Ps that PDF doc without contributing, they have to realise that it won't be economically feasible for those people to perform that service, and they will have to rely on individuals doing such things for the good of humanity.
I, for one, would be more than happy to convert one text (say, a classic novel) into a quality PDF doc and share it with a community of people who do the same thing (there probably are some such communities, and of course PG comes close). I certainly wouldn't consume years of my life formatting documents for a bunch of people who aren't going to give anything back. Maybe there are some committed academics who would. So then there's just the question of whether it is fair to download PDFs or other docs of books currently under copyright which i have already purchased and have been converted by the publisher. Probably not legally, but i could transfer every book i own into electronic format, and if i did that, i'd have the same product as if i downloaded a copy done by someone else. So if it's the product that we pay for, well, i can get that for free by doing it myself, so it's inconsequential if i wouldn't pay for the service anyway, but if we pay for the work that a person put into the doc, then it's not right to download without paying.
Is there any room in your vision for artists that want to focus exclusively on their art and can do so because people find it worthwhile and are willing to pay for it?
In short, no. It's really not good for society to have a bunch of people who don't produce anything substantive but expect to be paid for it. Basically, they are expecting the rest of us to pay them for doing things they enjoy and giving us portrayals of ideas and perceptions. I know that if i don't like it, i don't have to buy it. But i also know that high art has been supported traditionally by wealthy patrons (who have excess funds to encourage art), and i know that in modern times, if i don't want to pay someone to partake of his art, i can find something just as good for free. Do i expect artists who currently make money to start doing it for free? No. Do i expect that artists who do quality work for free right now continue to develop their talents and give away as much as possible for free? Absolutely.
I would say to artists: If you want to make money, go into business or technology, and do art in your spare time. If you don't care much about money, or are independently wealthy, then feel free to pursue art or music full time. Personally, I quit my job which was a comfortable living in order to make music, and that was a choice i made knowing that i would always give away whatever i could and it was unlikely i'd become rich or even be able to support myself doing it. I remember years ago searching for people uploading my music on Napster without permission, and when i found them i sent them messages to say hi, thank you, and nothing else, even though they expected me to be angry with them. I've told people buying CDs from me to chip in and burn copies for each other and their friends, and i'm not unique in that. There are many artists who give away as much as they can possibly afford and perform for donations or for free (i know that people who don't have contact with underground art and music can't understand this concept and may not believe me). I guess it does depend on your vision for the arts (both high art and pop or folk art). I think that artists should expect nothing from society except that people take a moment to acknowledge or appreciate their creations, and i'm no hypocrite in that regard. I would accept what people are willing to give me for what i do if i were to resume a part-time or full-time music career, and if some people are unwilling or unable to purchase CDs or other music media, then let them enjoy it for free. They can pay for live performances, and if they're not interested in paying for anything i do, then i haven't really lost anything by them listening to my music. Maybe it's different for people who listen to a bunch of major label garbage (ok, the major labels are buying up the indies now, i know), but i just don't care if artists stop doing what they do because they can't afford it. There will be others after them, because the human desire to create is too strong to be suppressed for the sake of money.
Why would it be necessary for artists to focus exclusively on their art? I can't see how it makes a difference, except that they produce a greater volume of work and perhaps more quickly, but i sincerely doubt that it leads to greater quality, and i believe the opposite is true. It didn't work out all that poorly for JRR Tolkien, for example, to produce artwork in his spare time, and produced the best loved works of the 20th century. So maybe he could have made a bit more cash if he sat at home writing all day. I would say his life was much richer as the chair of the English dept. at Oxford, and i'm sure he would agree. He didn't need money to produce great work, but he did need the other components of his life.
Most people would say that artists create from inspiration, so the notion of profit really shouldn't enter into creation of a work of art - profit comes after creation. I do it (write and/or perform music) to share or promote particular perceptions or ideas, to cleanse and organise my thoughts, and possibly for the prestige of it. If an artist doesn't have a day job, he/she will have to be paid or starve (and most are not paid). But what came first, the instinct to create, or the incentive of wealth? Maybe i'm being elitist, but if making money is the motivator for an artist to create, i really don't need to waste my time viewing/listening. If you want to make money, try to sell me a *product* that i can't get anywhere else, or for a better price. That product can incorporate or package your art, even high art. Don't try to sell me an *idea* or an *expression*. That should be for all people to appreciate, not for one to own and others to buy the right to appreciate. I would not pay for the idea of a Beethoven symphony or the right to listen to it, but i might pay to sit in a comfortable seat and see/hear an orchestra perform it well, or i might pay a modest price to own a CD that contains a neatly mastered recording with a jewel case, appropriately labeled on the spine and the CD itself so that i can make it a part of my library.
If some artists (photographers, painters, sculptors, poets, musicians, filmmakers) read this, please reply with the reasons why you create works of art. I suspect that most will say money plays a role in the creation of works of art, but i don't know how important money is to most artists.
You're right, this is tremendously advantageous to the consumer - no risk, relatively small price to pay for the product - but $100 million action movies with huge casts of players are kind of exceptional in the entertainment realm. People should realise that if they fail to go to the theatre or buy DVDs of Spiderman, Braveheart, etc., those types of movies might no longer be made. For musicians, though, it is different. They can sell music personally to fans. They can charge a fee for performing live music. They can even retain full ownership of the things they produce (or if you don't believe in IP, they can claim originality or authorship, which is just as good). The same goes for independent filmmakers. Also for painters, sculptors, writers. Charles Dickens, for example, did readings of his work, thereby providing a unique service that people were willing to pay to see and hear. His name still appears on the cover of his works.
Why are big-budget, large-cast movies unique? They can't be made by individuals or small groups of people, and they don't provide for an alternative medium that involves personal interaction between the fans and the people involved in their productions. The consumer can only choose whether to watch a DVD on a home TV or projection screen or watch a projection on a big screen at a theatre. The big problem may be that people feel even less obligated to support that type of venture and don't mind sharing/downloading it for free because of its impersonal nature and because they perceive that their individual actions will not affect the profitability (After all, what's $20.00 split 5,000 ways? Not much.). I don't agree with that view, and i see the need to support such movies if we want them for our entertainment. I've never downloaded a DVD movie. The last 2 movies i watched in theatres were Batman Begins and Spiderman II, because i know that not supporting big budget movies will be their downfall.
But when it comes to music, it doesn't take a huge budget to produce something good. Just talent, commitment, and a modicum of equipment.
Most artists will make alot from CD sales at concerts (much more than buying from a retailer or direct from the label). If you're not sure, ask the merch people whether the band will make more money from CD or t-shirt sales. Depending on volume, and design, colour, and size of logo(s), the t-shirt probably costs between 4 and 10 dollars to make, while a CD generally costs less than 2 dollars (for materials - an album might cost $500 or $100,000 to record and master). As a fan of the group/performer, it serves your interest to buy the music, because it shows the group/performer that people want to hear more new music and are willing to pay to support it. If the band is getting a bad deal from the label, then shame on the label for their avarice and shame on the band for not thoroughly reviewing the contract.
I know plenty of people who do artistic things for free or at a personal loss. They do it in order to share things with the people around them. The truth is that most good art is underground and most corporate "art" is not worth anything, much less the exorbitant price tags it carries. You're trying to equate artistry with employment. Most of the world's artists make very little money through their avocations. Even the "art" or entertainment that is being mass-marketed provides very little benefit to most of the artists involved. So basically, the most elite (re: popular) of musicians and actors, and the label/studio bigwigs - a small percentage of the entertainment industry - have much to lose, while people serious about their art, who do it for personal reasons and will likely never see significant profit, are either unaffected, hurt very little, or *helped* by the kinds of things that seem to bother a few rich people who really don't care the least bit about the people who consume their products. It would be nice if everyone were compensated according to the combination of his/her talent and the amount of work he/she puts into a product, but that isn't the case anymore, and so the artists of the future will be poor but committed idealists who will pour their hearts and souls into their work, and the art/entertainment world, and the consumer, will benefit as a result.
Amen! I'm registered libertarian, and even though i don't agree with all the party's stances, i want the government out of my business, as well as the business of other private entities. What are we going to do, mandate by law that all private entities adopt all US government principles? That would make all private entities a part of the US government. Before people open their big don't-offend-my-sensibilities, i'm-entitled-to-do-whatever-i-want mouths, they should take off their spectacles and look out onto the horizon to see the ramifications of the ideas they support.
Is it just me, or are towers and components going the way of athletic shoes in looking absolutely disgusting? Why not go with something really classy, like baby blue with faux wood panels?;) Every effort the manufacturers make to "improve" the look of a system is another dollar from the pocket of the buyer, and for what? Maybe i just don't get it.
Why would an omnipotent, omniscient designer have to interfere with a process that he started? Surely God would know the outcome of any process before its beginning and would plan appropriately. The educated creationists believe that God directly created "kinds" of animals, each kind individually, and these kinds show a high degree of design. The distinct kinds of animals are also supposed to be purposeful - there are livestock, horse, cats, dogs, rodents, etc., each group fulfilling a different function. Many creationists (and ID proponents) believe that those kinds had the genetic material that flowed into different species in a fairly short period of time, all according to the plans of the designer. If you happen to be a Bible believer, you will find that God's work of creation is finished for the moment.
I'm not sure to which teachings of Jesus you are referring, but you have to remember that Jesus's earthly ministry, by his own admission, was to the Jews. As a Christian, I think that there are elements of truth in all other religions, but that Christianity is the only one that offers salvation by faith according to God's grace. Other religions have different teachings, some true and some false, but we Christians believe that we are saved through faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. If another religion doesn't adhere to the basic tenets of the Christian faith, I am comfortable calling it invalid, and I would invite its followers to talk to Christians about the differences between faiths. I have the kind of peace and contentment through my faith that people don't tend to get anywhere else, because the work of Christianity is already done, and all we have to do is believe. It's like accepting a gift. You don't have to accept it, but if you want it, it's there for you to have for free. Christianity is fundmentally different from other religions, which require works or ceremonies to be performed, or which rely on human abilities or ideas above God's strength.
And to those people, I say "knock yourself out". It would be a dangerous thing thing to do, considering the ridiculous increased demand placed on the heart, not to mention the tripling of your food budget. But people have paid for steroid use with their lives, just to look better, so I wouldn't expect this to be much different.
Special communication? The message of Christianity is that a relationship with God is freely available to all through Jesus Christ. So i assume that you're talking about some other religion, or some uniquely insane politician, neither of which has anything to do with Biblical creation.
Be realistic about it though. The authorities aren't going to go around arresting everyone, because it would be a huge waste of resources, it would bring many lawsuits (as it should), and it would ultimately be counterproductive to keeping the law, because it would lead to riots and animosity toward the police, whilst keeping law-abiding citizens in gaol and allowing crooks to run free for lack of resources. As an analogy, if you wanted to kill a person in New York City, you could get a shotgun and a million shells, and walk each street shooting in every direction, hoping to kill that person, or you could get a sniper rifle and a single round and put it in the guy's head. A crazy person might try the first one, but a sane person with that particular goal in mind would be wise to try the second method. (Note: I have no proclivity toward gun violence and do not advocate any form of assasination.)
As regards democracy, i would answer that the form of government in the UK is representative, so theoretically, government officials reflect the will of the people in policy making. This should serve as a shining example of the orderly functioning of representative democracy. So i'm not really sure what is the problem. When you elect a bunch of politicians who think the government needs to fully control everyone's lives, this is what you get. From what i've seen, the British people (and western Europeans in general) don't mind giving the government inordinate control over their lives. The real solution is localising and limiting government power, but that will never happen.
I but CDs, too, but they don't play on my cassette deck, and my CD player doesn't play DVDs or vinyl or anything else. So compatibility can be a problem with different formats and most future media will not be playable in current players. Not the same as vendor lockin, but it's the same result, isn't it? You either have to suck it up and buy a new format or expend the energy to convert.
You are a visionary, and in an ideal world, all of that would be true. But the record labels aren't going to can their cd distribution for a higher percentage of profit. They are going to keep producing the old media and try to add to their profits by also selling electronic copies of songs. Therefore, they demand that they maintain or increase profits on cd sales while they are developing new media, which they want to be profitable without cutting into cd sales. That way some jackass label exec can keep his job for a few years and blame someone else when his company's profits go down the toilet.
Heck you can't even check another person's email according to many service agreements, etc. One time i had a low storage quota that i couldn't get raised on a college system, and i was about to go into the wilderness for 3 months (no net access at all), so i emailed the sys admin to get permission to have someone else check my email while i was away, but they wouldn't even grant me permission to do that. I was just testing them, but what if an important email were returned to the sender because i couldn't legally have someone delete the crap for me? So basically, lots of access is technically unauthorised, but that's supposed to be the function of passwords. I know what you're saying and i agree with you, just wanted to make the point that a password is designed precisely to prevent unauthorised access. If the password isn't sufficient to do that, it's superfluous. It's not as if one would accidentally login with a different username. It's kind of like opening a door with a key. The assumption is that possessing a key gives you the right to open the door. In conclusion, i hate people so very much.
I'm from the Americas; therefore, i am an American. South Africans are from Africa; therefore, they are Africans. If they want to deny it, they're welcome to do so. I can also tell you that when i meet people from other parts of the world, they generally use the terms "America" and "the States" interchangeably. Furthermore, most Canadians that i know don't like being called "Americans", even though that's exactly what they are. So think whatever you want, but it's dishonest to project your thoughts onto the rest of the world. You may be well-read or well-travelled, but you are incorrectly assuming arrogance or ignorance based on your limited experience.
Well, while the RAF is worrying about pronouncing the extra "i" syllable that they have found so crucial to the continuation of western civilisation, Americans are installing in vehicles. Amazing how a bunch of illiterates can develop and implement robust new materials in military vehicles. The truth is, "aluminium" is an antiquated form in American English. Using that would be like using thee, thy, and thine. Sure they're correct, but unnecessary. Not that we should be looking to the English for the archetype of language usage anyway. In my experience, most of them think that they're incredibly eloquent, but a good many can't get through a sentence without stumbling about 12 times.
I'm not sure that the fact that there are reported or even proven abuses of a law is enough to condemn that law. Perhaps it needs to be modified, or just enforced properly. Look at traffic laws -- they can be enforced at the whim of an individual and there is very little oversight. That can cost the affected people freedoms and money. Yet, if we didn't have traffic laws, everyone who travels on roadways would suffer. I'm not trying to justify utilitarianism, but i am saying that we need laws on monitoring potential threats that permit action by law enforcement agencies, or we may all lose money and freedom. If the law has not been properly enforced, we have courts to sort that out. If the law proves to be truly harmful or vastly unpopular, it can be repealed, modified, or provided with a sunset clause. I think that a combination of these things is ongoing, and i encourage people to write, call, email representatives and senators with specific complaints or ideas. We may have very little touch with or control over our government, but we can do our best to bring specific issues to the attention of citizens, groups, and elected officials. It just isn't enough to say that since people have filed complaints, a law must be bad, as seen in the example of traffic laws. Remember, the very fact that we have specific laws to address these issues, as passed by elected representatives, and that we can discuss these things, and that court cases are being heard, means that our system of government is functioning as it always did (hey, life will never be perfect).
That's a brilliant analogy! Intelligent yet succinct. I wonder if it holds up even when considering that using bandwidth might slow an internet connection, but using light spilling out onto the sidewalk doesn't darken the porch. Also, assuming unlimited broadband, the owner of the computer/access point doesn't incur a cost, but if enough people piggyback wireless, the provider will lose available bandwidth, hence money, because of it. The same can't be said of the light. It doesn't cost the electric company any more if 100 people sit on the sidewalk reading books than if no one does.
Not sure why parent was modded redundant (maybe the sig?;p)
I think the point here is that the word "Stealth" can't be used in certain ways, because of confusion regarding brand recognition. Yes, the word "Stealth" has existed for 750 years, but the word "Nike", for example, has existed 3-4 times that long, and you're still not allowed to use it to brand sportswear. You could probably name your graphics card the Nike Accel 2000. IANAL; anyone who is feel free to jump in here. That being said, this guy is clearly bringing frivolous lawsuits in order to extort money from people who actually make things.
GP Poster is pretty much spot on. Unless there are some music industry insiders that might know better and let us know, I would assume that the master is not that expensive. I've done the business end of pressing three different discs (although, admittedly, not for a major label), and we got some IMO high quality stuff for low prices, including a pressing (discs only) of 1,000 with 2-colour on-disc design for 700 bucks. In jewel cases, discs can easily be done for 2 bucks apiece.
The record labels will get every possible cent out of the artists, mostly through contract math, and are not really in the charity business (although record companies may do some write-offs on the smaller advances, it's conceivable that they pursue legal means to recoup their investments). For the most part, record companies provide two things that independent bands can't: capital for recording and touring, and advertising by association. Any band that has enough money to record a decent album and press 1,000 copies should not sign with a record label unless they really know what they are doing (i.e., experience and a great contract), or have a close friend/relative at the label.
Slashdot Mirror
Umm, the tape backup consortium?
The thing about engraved literature or sheet music is that work went into the engraving process. If you scan it and use OCR to convert to pure text, for instance, you aren't really taking significant advantage of the engraving, especially one form of engraving over another. If you scan to an image then i guess you are, to an extent, but you're not benefitting from engraving the way you would be with the physical copy of the book (or other medium). BUT, if someone takes the time to convert a book to PDF, delineating chapters and refining the formatting, i think he legally and practically can claim ownership, editorship, or something of the sort. That's basically digital engraving, no? The fact that it's difficult to scan 500 pages of text doesn't mean we can't take advantage of another person doing it for us. I don't see how fair use principles are violated because someone scans and OCRs a text that i own, so i download it, but there are probably instances when it's not fair to P2P a text that i already own. One would be the case of an independent retailer or engraver performing the transfer and taking time and equipment to do so as permitted by the publisher of a book or by law. If everyone P2Ps that PDF doc without contributing, they have to realise that it won't be economically feasible for those people to perform that service, and they will have to rely on individuals doing such things for the good of humanity.
I, for one, would be more than happy to convert one text (say, a classic novel) into a quality PDF doc and share it with a community of people who do the same thing (there probably are some such communities, and of course PG comes close). I certainly wouldn't consume years of my life formatting documents for a bunch of people who aren't going to give anything back. Maybe there are some committed academics who would. So then there's just the question of whether it is fair to download PDFs or other docs of books currently under copyright which i have already purchased and have been converted by the publisher. Probably not legally, but i could transfer every book i own into electronic format, and if i did that, i'd have the same product as if i downloaded a copy done by someone else. So if it's the product that we pay for, well, i can get that for free by doing it myself, so it's inconsequential if i wouldn't pay for the service anyway, but if we pay for the work that a person put into the doc, then it's not right to download without paying.
In short, no. It's really not good for society to have a bunch of people who don't produce anything substantive but expect to be paid for it. Basically, they are expecting the rest of us to pay them for doing things they enjoy and giving us portrayals of ideas and perceptions. I know that if i don't like it, i don't have to buy it. But i also know that high art has been supported traditionally by wealthy patrons (who have excess funds to encourage art), and i know that in modern times, if i don't want to pay someone to partake of his art, i can find something just as good for free. Do i expect artists who currently make money to start doing it for free? No. Do i expect that artists who do quality work for free right now continue to develop their talents and give away as much as possible for free? Absolutely.
I would say to artists: If you want to make money, go into business or technology, and do art in your spare time. If you don't care much about money, or are independently wealthy, then feel free to pursue art or music full time. Personally, I quit my job which was a comfortable living in order to make music, and that was a choice i made knowing that i would always give away whatever i could and it was unlikely i'd become rich or even be able to support myself doing it. I remember years ago searching for people uploading my music on Napster without permission, and when i found them i sent them messages to say hi, thank you, and nothing else, even though they expected me to be angry with them. I've told people buying CDs from me to chip in and burn copies for each other and their friends, and i'm not unique in that. There are many artists who give away as much as they can possibly afford and perform for donations or for free (i know that people who don't have contact with underground art and music can't understand this concept and may not believe me). I guess it does depend on your vision for the arts (both high art and pop or folk art). I think that artists should expect nothing from society except that people take a moment to acknowledge or appreciate their creations, and i'm no hypocrite in that regard. I would accept what people are willing to give me for what i do if i were to resume a part-time or full-time music career, and if some people are unwilling or unable to purchase CDs or other music media, then let them enjoy it for free. They can pay for live performances, and if they're not interested in paying for anything i do, then i haven't really lost anything by them listening to my music. Maybe it's different for people who listen to a bunch of major label garbage (ok, the major labels are buying up the indies now, i know), but i just don't care if artists stop doing what they do because they can't afford it. There will be others after them, because the human desire to create is too strong to be suppressed for the sake of money.
Why would it be necessary for artists to focus exclusively on their art? I can't see how it makes a difference, except that they produce a greater volume of work and perhaps more quickly, but i sincerely doubt that it leads to greater quality, and i believe the opposite is true. It didn't work out all that poorly for JRR Tolkien, for example, to produce artwork in his spare time, and produced the best loved works of the 20th century. So maybe he could have made a bit more cash if he sat at home writing all day. I would say his life was much richer as the chair of the English dept. at Oxford, and i'm sure he would agree. He didn't need money to produce great work, but he did need the other components of his life.Most people would say that artists create from inspiration, so the notion of profit really shouldn't enter into creation of a work of art - profit comes after creation. I do it (write and/or perform music) to share or promote particular perceptions or ideas, to cleanse and organise my thoughts, and possibly for the prestige of it. If an artist doesn't have a day job, he/she will have to be paid or starve (and most are not paid). But what came first, the instinct to create, or the incentive of wealth? Maybe i'm being elitist, but if making money is the motivator for an artist to create, i really don't need to waste my time viewing/listening. If you want to make money, try to sell me a *product* that i can't get anywhere else, or for a better price. That product can incorporate or package your art, even high art. Don't try to sell me an *idea* or an *expression*. That should be for all people to appreciate, not for one to own and others to buy the right to appreciate. I would not pay for the idea of a Beethoven symphony or the right to listen to it, but i might pay to sit in a comfortable seat and see/hear an orchestra perform it well, or i might pay a modest price to own a CD that contains a neatly mastered recording with a jewel case, appropriately labeled on the spine and the CD itself so that i can make it a part of my library.
If some artists (photographers, painters, sculptors, poets, musicians, filmmakers) read this, please reply with the reasons why you create works of art. I suspect that most will say money plays a role in the creation of works of art, but i don't know how important money is to most artists.
You're right, this is tremendously advantageous to the consumer - no risk, relatively small price to pay for the product - but $100 million action movies with huge casts of players are kind of exceptional in the entertainment realm. People should realise that if they fail to go to the theatre or buy DVDs of Spiderman, Braveheart, etc., those types of movies might no longer be made. For musicians, though, it is different. They can sell music personally to fans. They can charge a fee for performing live music. They can even retain full ownership of the things they produce (or if you don't believe in IP, they can claim originality or authorship, which is just as good). The same goes for independent filmmakers. Also for painters, sculptors, writers. Charles Dickens, for example, did readings of his work, thereby providing a unique service that people were willing to pay to see and hear. His name still appears on the cover of his works.
Why are big-budget, large-cast movies unique? They can't be made by individuals or small groups of people, and they don't provide for an alternative medium that involves personal interaction between the fans and the people involved in their productions. The consumer can only choose whether to watch a DVD on a home TV or projection screen or watch a projection on a big screen at a theatre. The big problem may be that people feel even less obligated to support that type of venture and don't mind sharing/downloading it for free because of its impersonal nature and because they perceive that their individual actions will not affect the profitability (After all, what's $20.00 split 5,000 ways? Not much.). I don't agree with that view, and i see the need to support such movies if we want them for our entertainment. I've never downloaded a DVD movie. The last 2 movies i watched in theatres were Batman Begins and Spiderman II, because i know that not supporting big budget movies will be their downfall.
But when it comes to music, it doesn't take a huge budget to produce something good. Just talent, commitment, and a modicum of equipment.
Most artists will make alot from CD sales at concerts (much more than buying from a retailer or direct from the label). If you're not sure, ask the merch people whether the band will make more money from CD or t-shirt sales. Depending on volume, and design, colour, and size of logo(s), the t-shirt probably costs between 4 and 10 dollars to make, while a CD generally costs less than 2 dollars (for materials - an album might cost $500 or $100,000 to record and master). As a fan of the group/performer, it serves your interest to buy the music, because it shows the group/performer that people want to hear more new music and are willing to pay to support it. If the band is getting a bad deal from the label, then shame on the label for their avarice and shame on the band for not thoroughly reviewing the contract.
I know plenty of people who do artistic things for free or at a personal loss. They do it in order to share things with the people around them. The truth is that most good art is underground and most corporate "art" is not worth anything, much less the exorbitant price tags it carries. You're trying to equate artistry with employment. Most of the world's artists make very little money through their avocations. Even the "art" or entertainment that is being mass-marketed provides very little benefit to most of the artists involved. So basically, the most elite (re: popular) of musicians and actors, and the label/studio bigwigs - a small percentage of the entertainment industry - have much to lose, while people serious about their art, who do it for personal reasons and will likely never see significant profit, are either unaffected, hurt very little, or *helped* by the kinds of things that seem to bother a few rich people who really don't care the least bit about the people who consume their products. It would be nice if everyone were compensated according to the combination of his/her talent and the amount of work he/she puts into a product, but that isn't the case anymore, and so the artists of the future will be poor but committed idealists who will pour their hearts and souls into their work, and the art/entertainment world, and the consumer, will benefit as a result.
Amen! I'm registered libertarian, and even though i don't agree with all the party's stances, i want the government out of my business, as well as the business of other private entities. What are we going to do, mandate by law that all private entities adopt all US government principles? That would make all private entities a part of the US government. Before people open their big don't-offend-my-sensibilities, i'm-entitled-to-do-whatever-i-want mouths, they should take off their spectacles and look out onto the horizon to see the ramifications of the ideas they support.
Is it just me, or are towers and components going the way of athletic shoes in looking absolutely disgusting? Why not go with something really classy, like baby blue with faux wood panels? ;) Every effort the manufacturers make to "improve" the look of a system is another dollar from the pocket of the buyer, and for what? Maybe i just don't get it.
Why would an omnipotent, omniscient designer have to interfere with a process that he started? Surely God would know the outcome of any process before its beginning and would plan appropriately. The educated creationists believe that God directly created "kinds" of animals, each kind individually, and these kinds show a high degree of design. The distinct kinds of animals are also supposed to be purposeful - there are livestock, horse, cats, dogs, rodents, etc., each group fulfilling a different function. Many creationists (and ID proponents) believe that those kinds had the genetic material that flowed into different species in a fairly short period of time, all according to the plans of the designer. If you happen to be a Bible believer, you will find that God's work of creation is finished for the moment.
I'm not sure to which teachings of Jesus you are referring, but you have to remember that Jesus's earthly ministry, by his own admission, was to the Jews. As a Christian, I think that there are elements of truth in all other religions, but that Christianity is the only one that offers salvation by faith according to God's grace. Other religions have different teachings, some true and some false, but we Christians believe that we are saved through faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. If another religion doesn't adhere to the basic tenets of the Christian faith, I am comfortable calling it invalid, and I would invite its followers to talk to Christians about the differences between faiths. I have the kind of peace and contentment through my faith that people don't tend to get anywhere else, because the work of Christianity is already done, and all we have to do is believe. It's like accepting a gift. You don't have to accept it, but if you want it, it's there for you to have for free. Christianity is fundmentally different from other religions, which require works or ceremonies to be performed, or which rely on human abilities or ideas above God's strength.
What we do have is a huge mass of humanity trying desperately for three square meals a day
I think the timecube would say that we should get four cubic meals a day.
Thank you, Dr. Gene Ray, cubic and wisest human
And to those people, I say "knock yourself out". It would be a dangerous thing thing to do, considering the ridiculous increased demand placed on the heart, not to mention the tripling of your food budget. But people have paid for steroid use with their lives, just to look better, so I wouldn't expect this to be much different.
Special communication? The message of Christianity is that a relationship with God is freely available to all through Jesus Christ. So i assume that you're talking about some other religion, or some uniquely insane politician, neither of which has anything to do with Biblical creation.
What, no wheels and no propellor? What kind of a windup toy is this?
Be realistic about it though. The authorities aren't going to go around arresting everyone, because it would be a huge waste of resources, it would bring many lawsuits (as it should), and it would ultimately be counterproductive to keeping the law, because it would lead to riots and animosity toward the police, whilst keeping law-abiding citizens in gaol and allowing crooks to run free for lack of resources. As an analogy, if you wanted to kill a person in New York City, you could get a shotgun and a million shells, and walk each street shooting in every direction, hoping to kill that person, or you could get a sniper rifle and a single round and put it in the guy's head. A crazy person might try the first one, but a sane person with that particular goal in mind would be wise to try the second method. (Note: I have no proclivity toward gun violence and do not advocate any form of assasination.)
As regards democracy, i would answer that the form of government in the UK is representative, so theoretically, government officials reflect the will of the people in policy making. This should serve as a shining example of the orderly functioning of representative democracy. So i'm not really sure what is the problem. When you elect a bunch of politicians who think the government needs to fully control everyone's lives, this is what you get. From what i've seen, the British people (and western Europeans in general) don't mind giving the government inordinate control over their lives. The real solution is localising and limiting government power, but that will never happen.
I but CDs, too, but they don't play on my cassette deck, and my CD player doesn't play DVDs or vinyl or anything else. So compatibility can be a problem with different formats and most future media will not be playable in current players. Not the same as vendor lockin, but it's the same result, isn't it? You either have to suck it up and buy a new format or expend the energy to convert.
You are a visionary, and in an ideal world, all of that would be true. But the record labels aren't going to can their cd distribution for a higher percentage of profit. They are going to keep producing the old media and try to add to their profits by also selling electronic copies of songs. Therefore, they demand that they maintain or increase profits on cd sales while they are developing new media, which they want to be profitable without cutting into cd sales. That way some jackass label exec can keep his job for a few years and blame someone else when his company's profits go down the toilet.
Heck you can't even check another person's email according to many service agreements, etc. One time i had a low storage quota that i couldn't get raised on a college system, and i was about to go into the wilderness for 3 months (no net access at all), so i emailed the sys admin to get permission to have someone else check my email while i was away, but they wouldn't even grant me permission to do that. I was just testing them, but what if an important email were returned to the sender because i couldn't legally have someone delete the crap for me? So basically, lots of access is technically unauthorised, but that's supposed to be the function of passwords. I know what you're saying and i agree with you, just wanted to make the point that a password is designed precisely to prevent unauthorised access. If the password isn't sufficient to do that, it's superfluous. It's not as if one would accidentally login with a different username. It's kind of like opening a door with a key. The assumption is that possessing a key gives you the right to open the door. In conclusion, i hate people so very much.
I'm from the Americas; therefore, i am an American. South Africans are from Africa; therefore, they are Africans. If they want to deny it, they're welcome to do so. I can also tell you that when i meet people from other parts of the world, they generally use the terms "America" and "the States" interchangeably. Furthermore, most Canadians that i know don't like being called "Americans", even though that's exactly what they are. So think whatever you want, but it's dishonest to project your thoughts onto the rest of the world. You may be well-read or well-travelled, but you are incorrectly assuming arrogance or ignorance based on your limited experience.
Well, while the RAF is worrying about pronouncing the extra "i" syllable that they have found so crucial to the continuation of western civilisation, Americans are installing in vehicles. Amazing how a bunch of illiterates can develop and implement robust new materials in military vehicles. The truth is, "aluminium" is an antiquated form in American English. Using that would be like using thee, thy, and thine. Sure they're correct, but unnecessary. Not that we should be looking to the English for the archetype of language usage anyway. In my experience, most of them think that they're incredibly eloquent, but a good many can't get through a sentence without stumbling about 12 times.
I'm not sure that the fact that there are reported or even proven abuses of a law is enough to condemn that law. Perhaps it needs to be modified, or just enforced properly. Look at traffic laws -- they can be enforced at the whim of an individual and there is very little oversight. That can cost the affected people freedoms and money. Yet, if we didn't have traffic laws, everyone who travels on roadways would suffer. I'm not trying to justify utilitarianism, but i am saying that we need laws on monitoring potential threats that permit action by law enforcement agencies, or we may all lose money and freedom. If the law has not been properly enforced, we have courts to sort that out. If the law proves to be truly harmful or vastly unpopular, it can be repealed, modified, or provided with a sunset clause. I think that a combination of these things is ongoing, and i encourage people to write, call, email representatives and senators with specific complaints or ideas. We may have very little touch with or control over our government, but we can do our best to bring specific issues to the attention of citizens, groups, and elected officials. It just isn't enough to say that since people have filed complaints, a law must be bad, as seen in the example of traffic laws. Remember, the very fact that we have specific laws to address these issues, as passed by elected representatives, and that we can discuss these things, and that court cases are being heard, means that our system of government is functioning as it always did (hey, life will never be perfect).
That's a brilliant analogy! Intelligent yet succinct. I wonder if it holds up even when considering that using bandwidth might slow an internet connection, but using light spilling out onto the sidewalk doesn't darken the porch. Also, assuming unlimited broadband, the owner of the computer/access point doesn't incur a cost, but if enough people piggyback wireless, the provider will lose available bandwidth, hence money, because of it. The same can't be said of the light. It doesn't cost the electric company any more if 100 people sit on the sidewalk reading books than if no one does.
Not sure why parent was modded redundant (maybe the sig? ;p)
I think the point here is that the word "Stealth" can't be used in certain ways, because of confusion regarding brand recognition. Yes, the word "Stealth" has existed for 750 years, but the word "Nike", for example, has existed 3-4 times that long, and you're still not allowed to use it to brand sportswear. You could probably name your graphics card the Nike Accel 2000. IANAL; anyone who is feel free to jump in here. That being said, this guy is clearly bringing frivolous lawsuits in order to extort money from people who actually make things.
The record labels will get every possible cent out of the artists, mostly through contract math, and are not really in the charity business (although record companies may do some write-offs on the smaller advances, it's conceivable that they pursue legal means to recoup their investments). For the most part, record companies provide two things that independent bands can't: capital for recording and touring, and advertising by association. Any band that has enough money to record a decent album and press 1,000 copies should not sign with a record label unless they really know what they are doing (i.e., experience and a great contract), or have a close friend/relative at the label.