Just a question: why did you use all those extra syllables to create that horrible word, when it would be easier (and more correct) to simply use the word "legally"?
First the diehard lib says (btw, I'm a diehard lib) "if a company is harming society, the market will eventually shun that company and it will have to change its ways"
They/we do? Most liberals I know say that the free market is not enough to punish companies that harm society, thus we need to regulate businesses. Otherwise, why would we need to bother with environmental and safety laws and whatnot? The fact is that the free market only exists to make a profit, and they can easily deceive people about their effects on society.
Indeed, Apple's FairPlay [wikipedia.org] is quite nefarious as it infringes upon the copyrights of consumers (namely, the Fair Use rights granted in copyright law).
Pray tell, how exactly does FairPlay infringe upon a user's Fair Use rights?
If you want to go the legal route with music, you could find the physical CD on Ebay or Yahoo Auctions or Amazon or a myriad of other sites for most likely about the same price if not less...
Not always. Some smaller artists don't release CDs anymore, they just release through iTunes. And some older tracks are out of print, or were never released on CD, or are hard to find on CD. Online services mean having a massive back-catalog is a lot more feasible.
The iTMS wouldn't be nearly as profitable if everyone could simply and easily share the song files they bought.
So, you agree with the record industry's propaganda that that downloading music costs sales? I don't. If iTunes Store tracksa were DRM free, then I still wouldn't share them online. And other people share them online, even though there is DRM (they use software to strip the DRM). And people do share with their friends despite DRM, they burn to a CD and give them that.
Does this mean you agree with DRM? I thought the big anti-DRM argument was that DRM does not prevent piracy, so it doesn't benefit the company or the customer?
You lose significant quality in the second round of encoding.
I've tried this, and the loss of quality is barely noticeable. people keep saying this as though the re-encoded song will sound like it was recorded with a couple of tin cans with a string between them. It doesn't. Most people wouldn't notice at all, for the majority of tracks. Now classical musical enthusiasts with super-high-end stereos might, but your average pop consumer won't.
I wonder how many people who talk of this "significant" degredation have actually tried it? Or what your definition of "significant" is?
And what good does a copyright do to a dead man anyway?
Nothing. that was just to illustrate the point about how long it can take for radical new ideas to catch on. Fortunately many manage to earn their success before they die. But for many great works it takes a lot more than 5 years. Heck, many works take more than 5 years to make.
Not sure whether I believe that the offspring of a man who created something ought to be rich just because one of their parents was very clever.
No it doesn't. Millions upon millions of works are created all the time. A handful have any lasting value at all.
Right. And those are the ones with the most value to humanity. So, why should we discourage making great works that stand the test of time, and encourage disposable crap? I thought I made this point rather clear in my previous post.
Copyright does not care about what's good or bad, only what's popular.
And if the copyright term is too short, it only matters what is popular right now, or how quickly you can get it to market. This has an effect on the profitability of "good" versus "bad" works. Copyright may not care (how can it? It's not sentient), but it certainly has an effect.
Occording to relativity, anything travelling at the speed of light doesn't age, which means that the light doesn't age between it leaving its source and reaching you, which means that it is the same light as the past, so you are observing the past - in the present.
It might not "age" - but its appearance is altered on the trip, for example by traveling through the Earth's atmosphere. So, you are not observing the same thing as a local observer would have.
To use your china analogy, it's more like, if someone came from china, bringing a photograph they took before leaving, then when they show it to you, the photograph does show what things were like those 12 (or whatever) hours ago.
No it doesn't. This analogy really proves my point. Looking at a photo is nothing like looking at the person locally. A lot of information is lost and distorted. The photo is merely a representation of that person at that time, not the same thing as looking at that person with your eye.
This is the same as looking at light from the past; the light may have reached the present, but we're not looking at the light, we're looking at the image carried in the light, which is from the past. Disagree all you want, you'll find you're in the minority opinion.
I don't really care about being in the minority position. I think it's more important to be precise, and also to ponder the philosophical questions, rather than rely on cool-sounding cliches like "looking into the past" which are only going to limit our thinking about how the universe exists. The image is in the present, and it doesn't look exactly the same as the local image would.
Most of the stuff we know about the universe was only known/believed by a few heretics in the minority at one point. Einstein wasn't a particularly popular guy in his early days. Once upon a time, the majority believed the Earth was flat, etc.
Actually it is quite clear from your responses that you do not understand.
Why not? If it's so clear, why don't you point it out? We are always observing the present moment. End of story. Even if the light is from the past, it's still in the present moment that we are perceiving it.
Of course, if they really want to gauge the popularity of artists, they could also start to look at how many people are searching for their music at BitTorrent sites or on Limewire.
But the Top 40 is not about gauging popularity. It's about gauging sales.
Honestly, I'd say 5 to 10 years is more than fair. If you haven't made money off of your stuff by then, then you're not likely to.
Except that history proves otherwise. If anything, it points to the opposite. This idea has the problem of penalizing people who are innovative and ahead of their time. Many of the greatest works of art are not understood or accepted by society for many years after their creation, and often not until the artist's death. On the flip-side, it rewards people who make superficial, faddish junk that is soon forgotten.
getting 300 people to a show can net you $1 a beer or $2-$4 per head. Also, you can upsell your new fans on items they can't easily copy, such as T-shirts, autographed posters, etc.
Are they musicians or merchandise vendors? Personally, I feel that music should be about the music. Not selling merchandise crap or alcohol. Gimmicks, fashion, and selling addictive substances are the exact opposite way that musicians should be going. For all of copyright's problems, at least it helps artists sell their actual art. Why should the alcohol companies, venues and textile companies (probably using child labor) get all the profits, while you disallow the ownership of the most direct product of an artist's work? That's just an incentive for people not to focus on the art, and focus on marketing instead.
No, I understand the concept perfectly. I just don't agree with it.
When you see something you are always seeing the past - what that object looked like when the light left it.
No, you are seeing the present - what the object looks like after the light from the object has traveled to you. The light can be altered along the way by various means - some nearly imperceptible changes, some dramatic changes (like the light being blocked completely by an object passing through the light). So, you are not observing the same light that left, you are observing the light after it has been through a long journey.
In any case, you are observing the present, not the past. The present moment here looks different to the present moment there. no time travel has occured. The light is the only thing that has traveled.
Think of it this way... when you see our sun, you are seeing how it looked 8 minutes ago. If the sun blew up right now (ignoring all the other issues associated with the sun exploding), you wouldn't see the explosion for another 8 minutes even though it already happened.
Yes, but you are still observing the present moment. Just because the light reaches you later doesn't mean you are observing the past. You are observing the present moment from your position. And if you wear sunglasses, for example, or a solar filter on a telescope, you are not observing the light as it left the sun - your sunglasses or telescope filter modifies the light on its journey.
Slashdot Mirror
Al Gore!
Just a question: why did you use all those extra syllables to create that horrible word, when it would be easier (and more correct) to simply use the word "legally"?
"Philanthropizing is hard work!" - Bill Gates
They/we do? Most liberals I know say that the free market is not enough to punish companies that harm society, thus we need to regulate businesses. Otherwise, why would we need to bother with environmental and safety laws and whatnot? The fact is that the free market only exists to make a profit, and they can easily deceive people about their effects on society.
Pray tell, how exactly does FairPlay infringe upon a user's Fair Use rights?
How do you get a CD through my IP connection? I haven't seen anyone else offer CDs through the iTunes Store. Not even Madonna or the Black Eyed Peas.
Not always. Some smaller artists don't release CDs anymore, they just release through iTunes. And some older tracks are out of print, or were never released on CD, or are hard to find on CD. Online services mean having a massive back-catalog is a lot more feasible.
So, you agree with the record industry's propaganda that that downloading music costs sales? I don't. If iTunes Store tracksa were DRM free, then I still wouldn't share them online. And other people share them online, even though there is DRM (they use software to strip the DRM). And people do share with their friends despite DRM, they burn to a CD and give them that.
Does this mean you agree with DRM? I thought the big anti-DRM argument was that DRM does not prevent piracy, so it doesn't benefit the company or the customer?
I've tried this, and the loss of quality is barely noticeable. people keep saying this as though the re-encoded song will sound like it was recorded with a couple of tin cans with a string between them. It doesn't. Most people wouldn't notice at all, for the majority of tracks. Now classical musical enthusiasts with super-high-end stereos might, but your average pop consumer won't.
I wonder how many people who talk of this "significant" degredation have actually tried it? Or what your definition of "significant" is?
Burn to CD, rip to MP3 or lossless format.
Any DVD player can play them, just not (legally) copy them.Not true, thanks to region coding.
A cuddly baby tapir.
In any case, the greatest threat is always Chuck Norris.
They'd better watch out, because in Sealand, they could easily get boarded by Kevin Costner.
There isn't a good correlation if an artist offers their songs for free - because then there would be no sales, regardless of how popular they are.
Looks more like an echidna to me.
That's not true! I use maple syrup. Some people use chocolate topping, but it pales in comparison.
That's what they want you to think.
Nothing. that was just to illustrate the point about how long it can take for radical new ideas to catch on. Fortunately many manage to earn their success before they die. But for many great works it takes a lot more than 5 years. Heck, many works take more than 5 years to make.
Not sure whether I believe that the offspring of a man who created something ought to be rich just because one of their parents was very clever.Good thing I never suggested that, isn't it?
Right. And those are the ones with the most value to humanity. So, why should we discourage making great works that stand the test of time, and encourage disposable crap? I thought I made this point rather clear in my previous post.
Copyright does not care about what's good or bad, only what's popular.And if the copyright term is too short, it only matters what is popular right now, or how quickly you can get it to market. This has an effect on the profitability of "good" versus "bad" works. Copyright may not care (how can it? It's not sentient), but it certainly has an effect.
It might not "age" - but its appearance is altered on the trip, for example by traveling through the Earth's atmosphere. So, you are not observing the same thing as a local observer would have.
To use your china analogy, it's more like, if someone came from china, bringing a photograph they took before leaving, then when they show it to you, the photograph does show what things were like those 12 (or whatever) hours ago.No it doesn't. This analogy really proves my point. Looking at a photo is nothing like looking at the person locally. A lot of information is lost and distorted. The photo is merely a representation of that person at that time, not the same thing as looking at that person with your eye.
This is the same as looking at light from the past; the light may have reached the present, but we're not looking at the light, we're looking at the image carried in the light, which is from the past. Disagree all you want, you'll find you're in the minority opinion.I don't really care about being in the minority position. I think it's more important to be precise, and also to ponder the philosophical questions, rather than rely on cool-sounding cliches like "looking into the past" which are only going to limit our thinking about how the universe exists. The image is in the present, and it doesn't look exactly the same as the local image would.
Most of the stuff we know about the universe was only known/believed by a few heretics in the minority at one point. Einstein wasn't a particularly popular guy in his early days. Once upon a time, the majority believed the Earth was flat, etc.
Why not? If it's so clear, why don't you point it out? We are always observing the present moment. End of story. Even if the light is from the past, it's still in the present moment that we are perceiving it.
But the Top 40 is not about gauging popularity. It's about gauging sales.
Except that history proves otherwise. If anything, it points to the opposite. This idea has the problem of penalizing people who are innovative and ahead of their time. Many of the greatest works of art are not understood or accepted by society for many years after their creation, and often not until the artist's death. On the flip-side, it rewards people who make superficial, faddish junk that is soon forgotten.
Are they musicians or merchandise vendors? Personally, I feel that music should be about the music. Not selling merchandise crap or alcohol. Gimmicks, fashion, and selling addictive substances are the exact opposite way that musicians should be going. For all of copyright's problems, at least it helps artists sell their actual art. Why should the alcohol companies, venues and textile companies (probably using child labor) get all the profits, while you disallow the ownership of the most direct product of an artist's work? That's just an incentive for people not to focus on the art, and focus on marketing instead.
No, I understand the concept perfectly. I just don't agree with it.
When you see something you are always seeing the past - what that object looked like when the light left it.No, you are seeing the present - what the object looks like after the light from the object has traveled to you. The light can be altered along the way by various means - some nearly imperceptible changes, some dramatic changes (like the light being blocked completely by an object passing through the light). So, you are not observing the same light that left, you are observing the light after it has been through a long journey.
In any case, you are observing the present, not the past. The present moment here looks different to the present moment there. no time travel has occured. The light is the only thing that has traveled.
Think of it this way... when you see our sun, you are seeing how it looked 8 minutes ago. If the sun blew up right now (ignoring all the other issues associated with the sun exploding), you wouldn't see the explosion for another 8 minutes even though it already happened.Yes, but you are still observing the present moment. Just because the light reaches you later doesn't mean you are observing the past. You are observing the present moment from your position. And if you wear sunglasses, for example, or a solar filter on a telescope, you are not observing the light as it left the sun - your sunglasses or telescope filter modifies the light on its journey.