An artist has every right to decide how to sell his or her own work. If I make a series of 3 paintings I am within my bounds to refuse to sell them individually.
But you can't stop me from splitting up the 3 paintings and selling them individually to others.
but how dare you tell them how they can sell something they created.
I can dare pretty easily. If someone decided the only way they would sell their work would be to take a 14-year child as a slave in payment, I'd feel pretty comfortable about telling them they couldn't do that, and call the police. I assume you would let them get away with that?
So that extra dollar gets you a physical disk you can make your own MP3's from, or if you want lossless, quality sound, FLAC format, (not an option when all you have is an MP3) all the packaging etc..
"All the packaging" is the reason I avoid buying CDs and buy online where possible. Oil is not a limitless resource, you know. What do you think plastic is made from? And then there's all the fuel used to ship those discs to retailers. It's a disgusting waste. Buying the tracks online is much more environmentally friendly - than there's all the shelf space it saves. Who has room for all those physical CDs and DVDs?
Still, I am proud to be a geek, but I do not consider myself a nerd.
So, you are proud to bite the heads off of chickens in a carnival show, but you aren't interested in technical and academic matters? Perhaps slashdot is not the right website for you? Sounds like you should be at www.chickenbeheaders.com.
Using Linux might make me a geek, but it does not make me a nerd.
I don't see how. Using Linux does not require you to bite the heads off of chickens.
The question was about costs on a per-track basis.
No it wasn't. For starters, it wasn't a question. Secondly, it never mentioned cost-per-track at all. This is the post I responded to:
It can't be that much. Giganews will give you 25GB for $12.99 which is about a 20th of a cent per megabyte, and that's what they're offering to consumers. Apple will be able to get much cheaper bandwidth. As a comparison it's a little vague but it shows us the ballpark we're in.
Where does that limit discussion to cost-per-track? It was just pointing out bandwidth costs, and those of a totally uncomparable service to boot.
Things that don't affect the per-track cost aren't really relevant to the discussion.
How do you figure? The topic of this discussion is Vivendi objecting to the terms of the iTunes contract. I don't see why the overall cost of running the iTunes service should be considered off-topic. It seems entirely pertinent.
What about all the marketing Apple does? What about the reviews they pay for from allmusic.com? Software development? Legal contracts? Technical liason with content providers over encoding issues, etc? There are way more overheads than just bandwidth. It's a much more complex business.
Chewing gum with razor blades in it? That's some synergistic monetizing right there, baby. The Wrigley's and Gilette business models in one neat package. Somebody get my VC on the phone.
I hope that everyonewho reads this (and the other similar opinions that will no doubt be echoed in this thread), understands that this is a neccesary evil that we must endure in order to enjoy the greater freedoms that the internet has to offer
Why do I have to endure it? I just go to sites that don't do this sort of crap.
How does using this software to provide help to students and faculty constitute donating labor to a private company?
Because it won't help students, it's just a ploy to keep a lame company afloat. If anything, it will hurt students and staff, as it takes tech support employees away from doing real work.
How would you know? Have you polled all slashdot readers? There are plenty of old people who have only recently accessed the internet, much less slashdot. It's a pretty faulty assumption to think that all people who are familiar with technology would rush to become slashdot users.
Have you ever looked at a picture on a monitor compared to a (quality) photo print of it?
Seeing as I've been a professional photographer for 15 years, I think that I'm rather familiar with that. A good monitor has a wider gamut than a print. A photographic print is better than a CMYK print, but a monitor can reproduce colors that a print cannot. Prints are very flat compared to a projected slide or image on a good monitor.
Projected slides, or looking directly at a slide or negative on a lightbox can outdo a monitor, but a print cannot. Why do you think you get those gamut warnings in Photoshop?
If you can't tell the difference, it's time to see the ophthalmologist, you may be colour-blind
Really? I was thinking you may be suffering from the same issue, if you can't see that a reflective print has a lower dynamic range than a monitor or projected slide.
Print has monitors beat on DPI and colour, hands down.
I don't see what DPI has to do with this discussion, since nobody mentioned it - we were talking about dynamic range.
Have you ever seen a monitor do a fluorescent colour realistically?
Yes, compared to a photo print or CMYK print, monitors do a much better job. If you're talking about printing with special flourescent inks as spot colors, that's a whole different kettle of fish. There's no way of previewing that correctly, other than doing proofs with the special ink. A monitor gets much closer than a printed proof can.
The new whiz-bang Dell monitors just recently got to 92% of the NTSC colour gamut, and that was a BIG step up from the average 70% for most consumer flat panels
I think you're talking out of your ass, because just about any monitor can beat the NTSC gamut.
Theory is, an older person would have heard the MIT quote first; a younger person would have heard the UHF quote first.
But why would slashdot user ID correlate with age? Not everybody joins slashdot when their are young, and not everybody joined slashdot the first time they saw the site.
Who the f*** decided that sentences on the Internet shall no longer be formatted with two spaces after a period?!
I'm not sure if your.sig is serious or not, but the "two spaces after a sentence" convention died out with typewriters, and wasn't even a good idea in those days. It is to be avoided in all electronic typesetting. I hate it when people put those extra spaces in. You want extra space between sentences? Then change the layout rules in your software.
because you can do almost everything that TIFF can do, but with less complexity
Not supporting clipping paths (vectors) seems to fall well short of "almost all" that TIFF can do. It's a pretty major omission. Another question - does PNG handle CMYK images? Color profiles? Those are a pretty big deal, too.
I was so frustrated with the hoops and hacks necessary to move the tracks from my work machine to a cd for my commute, or heaven forbid another machine
What hacks are you talking about? When I've needed a CD, I just click "burn disc" in iTunes. When I need to move them to another machine, I just burn the files to a a disc, put them on a flash drive, or transfer them via the network. It's always been straightforward to me. Could you elaborate on the problems you had?
You download the tracks and get to play with them. Burn a cd for the car, pop it on a flash drive for a work mix, whatever.
Which is exactly what I do with tracks from the iTunes store.
No draconian file lock downs or feature crippling via built in "protection." It's music, not the NSA!
You do realize that Apple sells tracks on iTunes without copy protection or DRM, don't you? The word "draconian" seems out of place here. Apple aren't forcing you to buy the tracks, they aren't punishing you if you don't. You choose to buy or not, with full knowledge of the restrictions on the tracks. How can that be defined as "draconian"?
It really amazes me how people jump up to defend paying the same price as physical product music, for digital downloads that have 1/2 the usability of a good old cd or lp.
So, why aren't you blasting eMusic for selling tracks via this AT&T deal, which cost even more than the tracks from iTunes?
Anyway - the post I was responding to was accusing Apple of dishonesty. What does any of this have to do with Apple's honesty? They have always been totally up-front and straightforward about their products' features and their restrictions. Have they ever lied to you about what their products do?
Some people think it's worthwhile and will pay a premium for the convenience; other people think it's ridiculous & walk down to the lobby gift store to save three bucks (or the 7-11 next door to save $4).
Don't hotels usually have running water in the suites? Why would you do either of the above, when free water conveniently where you are?
Slashdot Mirror
ahem... statutes... sorry.
It is? Have you got some legal statues to cite on that one?
But you can't stop me from splitting up the 3 paintings and selling them individually to others.
but how dare you tell them how they can sell something they created.I can dare pretty easily. If someone decided the only way they would sell their work would be to take a 14-year child as a slave in payment, I'd feel pretty comfortable about telling them they couldn't do that, and call the police. I assume you would let them get away with that?
"All the packaging" is the reason I avoid buying CDs and buy online where possible. Oil is not a limitless resource, you know. What do you think plastic is made from? And then there's all the fuel used to ship those discs to retailers. It's a disgusting waste. Buying the tracks online is much more environmentally friendly - than there's all the shelf space it saves. Who has room for all those physical CDs and DVDs?
So, you are proud to bite the heads off of chickens in a carnival show, but you aren't interested in technical and academic matters? Perhaps slashdot is not the right website for you? Sounds like you should be at www.chickenbeheaders.com.
Using Linux might make me a geek, but it does not make me a nerd.I don't see how. Using Linux does not require you to bite the heads off of chickens.
No it wasn't. For starters, it wasn't a question. Secondly, it never mentioned cost-per-track at all. This is the post I responded to:
It can't be that much. Giganews will give you 25GB for $12.99 which is about a 20th of a cent per megabyte, and that's what they're offering to consumers. Apple will be able to get much cheaper bandwidth. As a comparison it's a little vague but it shows us the ballpark we're in.Where does that limit discussion to cost-per-track? It was just pointing out bandwidth costs, and those of a totally uncomparable service to boot.
Things that don't affect the per-track cost aren't really relevant to the discussion.How do you figure? The topic of this discussion is Vivendi objecting to the terms of the iTunes contract. I don't see why the overall cost of running the iTunes service should be considered off-topic. It seems entirely pertinent.
So?
What about all the marketing Apple does? What about the reviews they pay for from allmusic.com? Software development? Legal contracts? Technical liason with content providers over encoding issues, etc? There are way more overheads than just bandwidth. It's a much more complex business.
Chewing gum with razor blades in it? That's some synergistic monetizing right there, baby. The Wrigley's and Gilette business models in one neat package. Somebody get my VC on the phone.
Why do I have to endure it? I just go to sites that don't do this sort of crap.
Why can't it be both? It is a double standard, and it is also human nature.
Your statement is like saying "It's not an animal, it's a possum."
Because it won't help students, it's just a ploy to keep a lame company afloat. If anything, it will hurt students and staff, as it takes tech support employees away from doing real work.
Surely people with a technical background who go to MIT have better things to do than sign up for a lightweight site like slashdot.
How would you know? Have you polled all slashdot readers? There are plenty of old people who have only recently accessed the internet, much less slashdot. It's a pretty faulty assumption to think that all people who are familiar with technology would rush to become slashdot users.
Seeing as I've been a professional photographer for 15 years, I think that I'm rather familiar with that. A good monitor has a wider gamut than a print. A photographic print is better than a CMYK print, but a monitor can reproduce colors that a print cannot. Prints are very flat compared to a projected slide or image on a good monitor.
Projected slides, or looking directly at a slide or negative on a lightbox can outdo a monitor, but a print cannot. Why do you think you get those gamut warnings in Photoshop?
If you can't tell the difference, it's time to see the ophthalmologist, you may be colour-blindReally? I was thinking you may be suffering from the same issue, if you can't see that a reflective print has a lower dynamic range than a monitor or projected slide.
Print has monitors beat on DPI and colour, hands down.I don't see what DPI has to do with this discussion, since nobody mentioned it - we were talking about dynamic range.
Have you ever seen a monitor do a fluorescent colour realistically?Yes, compared to a photo print or CMYK print, monitors do a much better job. If you're talking about printing with special flourescent inks as spot colors, that's a whole different kettle of fish. There's no way of previewing that correctly, other than doing proofs with the special ink. A monitor gets much closer than a printed proof can.
The new whiz-bang Dell monitors just recently got to 92% of the NTSC colour gamut, and that was a BIG step up from the average 70% for most consumer flat panelsI think you're talking out of your ass, because just about any monitor can beat the NTSC gamut.
But why would slashdot user ID correlate with age? Not everybody joins slashdot when their are young, and not everybody joined slashdot the first time they saw the site.
Hmmm... monitors generally have a higher gamut than printed paper, don't they? Your comment seems a little backwards.
I'm not sure if your .sig is serious or not, but the "two spaces after a sentence" convention died out with typewriters, and wasn't even a good idea in those days. It is to be avoided in all electronic typesetting. I hate it when people put those extra spaces in. You want extra space between sentences? Then change the layout rules in your software.
Not supporting clipping paths (vectors) seems to fall well short of "almost all" that TIFF can do. It's a pretty major omission. Another question - does PNG handle CMYK images? Color profiles? Those are a pretty big deal, too.
What hacks are you talking about? When I've needed a CD, I just click "burn disc" in iTunes. When I need to move them to another machine, I just burn the files to a a disc, put them on a flash drive, or transfer them via the network. It's always been straightforward to me. Could you elaborate on the problems you had?
You download the tracks and get to play with them. Burn a cd for the car, pop it on a flash drive for a work mix, whatever.Which is exactly what I do with tracks from the iTunes store.
No draconian file lock downs or feature crippling via built in "protection." It's music, not the NSA!You do realize that Apple sells tracks on iTunes without copy protection or DRM, don't you? The word "draconian" seems out of place here. Apple aren't forcing you to buy the tracks, they aren't punishing you if you don't. You choose to buy or not, with full knowledge of the restrictions on the tracks. How can that be defined as "draconian"?
It really amazes me how people jump up to defend paying the same price as physical product music, for digital downloads that have 1/2 the usability of a good old cd or lp.So, why aren't you blasting eMusic for selling tracks via this AT&T deal, which cost even more than the tracks from iTunes?
Anyway - the post I was responding to was accusing Apple of dishonesty. What does any of this have to do with Apple's honesty? They have always been totally up-front and straightforward about their products' features and their restrictions. Have they ever lied to you about what their products do?
What's dishonest about that?
Also which other company can you buy the last year's computer at last year's prices today?What's dishonest about that? Did they advertise false prices?
What exactly is not honest or straightforward about Apple's products, services and corporate culture?
Don't hotels usually have running water in the suites? Why would you do either of the above, when free water conveniently where you are?
No, the iTunes store sells songs from independent artists and major labels. Thus making them direct competitors.
I've never played WoW in my life, so how could I possibly spend less time on it?