Overrated! These people live and die (ok, well not die) by the share price - if they were paid millions of dollars a year and it negatively affected the share price by a fraction it wouldn't be worthwhile. Additionally, if they distribute salary to themselves from a purely fundamental analysis approach it should reduce the value of the company.
But whatever it takes to keep up moral and keep up the public image I guess. I have serious doubts that it is purely altrustic.
I have to use Windows for my job and I have my doubts about getting things to work exactly correctly through Virtual PC or the like.
I don't know what the big deal is with Windows, I've never had a problem with it - even though it isn't elegent or supposedly secure, I've just never had any security issues and things seem to work fine on it.
I am still afriad that somehow Apple or Microsoft will leave roadblocks that allow the simpler solution (dual boot) to be available to the market.
Since you seem to have it figured out, I'll ask you a couple of questions I've stumbled across:
1. How does justice work? It seems like a lot of people have gotten a way with a lot of bad stuff and it seems like a lot of good people have gotten screwed. Oh well tough luck.
2. What is consciousness? It seems kind of crazy.
3. What's with all of this love and family suff? Those brain chemicals are weird I guess.
4. Speaking of brain chemicals, how does this whole "free will" thing work? Do I have free will or don't I?
Well good luck! (cause I guess what it comes down to anyway, quantum theory and parallel dimension of luckyness and stuff)
That was the incidental part of my post and of course that has now generated three responses. It is just amazing how often that is the case in a forum where people feel compelled to believe they are experts in such widely diverging areas, that regardless of the relevance, grammar and usage is always the red herring of choice.
I thought the other post pointing out that the NYT used the word they way they did had far more of an impact that yours anyway.
I attended BYU and I will tell you that we go to great lengths to respect other people's beliefs. We Mormons are a group of people who have historically had many of our civil rights violated and we do not seek to repeat those sins on others.
And although the overwhelming majority of BYU professors believe in a personal God, and many students believe that beliveing in God is the "obvious" philosophical, metaphysical and spirtitual answer, and also that the majority of mainstream science is completely consistent with that belief and mainstream science is taught there -- mean spirited attacks of people's beliefs are met with swift critisism, even "outrage."
You don't think it would make the news if we introduced a class called "Atheism: bad logic and hard hearts?"
And if you want to let people have free publishing rights to your tunes and even further if you want to have people have freedom to copy your recordings more power to you. Just don't steal Guided By Voices.
Many, including from what I understand the music industry.
I think the lyrics and tunes are owned by a different entity than the recordings -- Like guided by voices songs are owned by needmoresongs.
Anyway these people didn't make these songs up so they don't really shouldn't get to say how they are distributed or get to publish them on their website.
So this model supposedly "worked" in this case -- If by working you mean a bunch of wealthy wasters and filfthy freeloaders put money into a sub par band's pocket.
Plenty of artists of all types (particularly those who actually rely on their work as their means to live) do not agree with your lame ass "Property is physical, not ethereal." statement.
The bottom line is that if a band wishes to charge for their recordings they should be allowed to do it.
You don't have to buy copies of their work, but millions of other people (including me!) are certainly willing to.
your signature is so retarted. I didn't vote republican in the last election and I'm not happy with things at all, but your straw man and bad equivication just bothered me enought to write this - in spite of the inevitable karma hit.
I'm also paranoid about anything with wireless networking (that it'll have FBI or general purpose backdoors), so that's another strike. None of these corps would even think twice about installing backdoors (Microsoft and Sony have been doing this for years, and I don't see Nintendo as a bastion of consumer rights).
Don't flatter yourself, nobody in the entire world cares what is on your gaming console.
This is a way (stunt) to try and show that they are legitimate and not just a one hit wonder. I don't imagine that every band would be best suited by starting to release records for free.
On the topic of the music industry:
I personally do not think that, as a music fan, that there is any problems with the way the industry is working at the moment at all. The big mainstream bands have plenty of outlets to promote their "artists." The rest have the internet where any band is able to offer emphasis tracks for download or streams to promote their music.
I couldn't care less if the major labels aren't making as much money as they'd like to, or if they are making more than they "should be."
aahhh the diversity of thought. The person who states what the majority of people slashdot already think gets modded to a "5."
You say "I love the art more than you do." To participate in your idiotic little pissing contest, I'll say Ted Leo loves the music more than you, he made the dream a reality.
As my appeal to authority continues.. Ted Leo is hardly a "yuppie," he's the real deal.
I've yet to hear any free music that was as good as music that cost money. I don't listen to a ton of major label bands, but I don't have any major label issues either.
I know the limits of my abilities and so I choose not to waste time listening to crap that I make when I can listen to actual brilliant musicians.
So you keep wanking away, and I'll continue to enjoy good music that costs money. Hopefully I wont have to subsidize all of you theives too heavily.
"Piracy has the very real potential of tipping movies into becoming an unprofitable industry, especially big-event films. If that happens, they will stop being made," said Mr. Jackson
"No studio is going to finance a film if the point is reached where their possible profit margin goes straight into criminals' pockets."
This isn't a studio executive, this is obviously someone who cares a great deal about movies. He dares to speak out against piracy. He knows that movies take corporate money to make.
The point is that a lot of you on here with your anarchistic view of media and all your moaning about DRM is motivated not buy a love of art, but a love of getting something for nothing. I am not an musician myself, but I consider myself a huge fan music. I have yet to read any artist's opinion on slashdot (and I don't count all you wankers who think that your guitar wankery hobby puts you in the ranks of an actual musician) - Diversity of thought is not a strong suite of slashdot - But I think you'll find quite a few real full time artists that don't want their work stolen - and they want to be compensated for their work
For example, read this interview question from gawker.com interviewing the great Ted Leo about his take on your anarchistic viwe.
"5. Got any quick opinions on big media, the RIAA, file-sharing or anything else that's affecting the landscape of the indie musician?
I'm really torn on file sharing. I have done it, I have benefited from finding some things that have been unavailable to me and that have opened up other doors for me to explore as a fan, and so I'm sure I'll probably do it again, but not to the extent that I feel it's my "right" to "own" a personal copy of something that someone else put sweat, thought, feeling, and money into -- the output of someone's true work -- without offering them something in return.
Two quick points: 1.) the notion that "music should be for everyone, and not owned" is tripped up by file sharing itself. If you're talking about having it out there in the ether, like just being broadcast on the radio or something, then that's one thing, but the very act of taking, keeping, and burning -- creating more hard copies of a hard copy -- means that you take into your ownership a version of this piece of work. So you're saying the artist and record label can't "own" it, but then you turn around and own it yourself? That shit ain't right. You're really just saying that you think you shouldn't have to pay for it. And to that, I say, if you ask nicely, you might get a copy, but if you think you have some entitlement to something, your request is falling on unsympathetic ears. 2.) As a promotional thing, it's great to have people passing your stuff around, and as an artist, it's awesome to know that people care. But when you exist in a world that sees you on tour 8 - 9 months out of the year, thus making it hard to hold down a different job, but you COULD, theoretically, be at least paying your bills with the work you do in your chosen field (that being, of course, making music), then it's easy to break down just what a dent excessive file sharing can put in your ability to keep doing what you're doing.
Check it -- Metallica are multi-millionaires. Who cares if they lose $100,000 to file sharing? I don't. But speaking for myself and my band, a few hundred downloads that aren't later backed up by purchases can be the difference between us paying rent or not. Ain't nobody in my band got health insurance, you know what I'm sayin'? I'm just talking about RENT. So yeah -- it hurts a bit, but I'm not going to tell people to not do it, it would just be nice if we could put all our cards on the table and forego some of the unproductive rhetoric that surrounds the issue. The RIAA can go fuck itself for all I care -- my interaction with that world is almost nil, and I really don't care if so-and-so has to put that last piece of bling they bought into hock. I'm just saying that there are people out there trying to do it righteously who could use a bit more support, and a good way to show it would be to give them something in return for what they give you. A musician can't download a guitar, you know?
"
Slashdot Mirror
Yes Jobs truly is a god
Overrated! These people live and die (ok, well not die) by the share price - if they were paid millions of dollars a year and it negatively affected the share price by a fraction it wouldn't be worthwhile. Additionally, if they distribute salary to themselves from a purely fundamental analysis approach it should reduce the value of the company.
But whatever it takes to keep up moral and keep up the public image I guess. I have serious doubts that it is purely altrustic.
I have to use Windows for my job and I have my doubts about getting things to work exactly correctly through Virtual PC or the like.
I don't know what the big deal is with Windows, I've never had a problem with it - even though it isn't elegent or supposedly secure, I've just never had any security issues and things seem to work fine on it.
I am still afriad that somehow Apple or Microsoft will leave roadblocks that allow the simpler solution (dual boot) to be available to the market.
about 80% of what comes out that I am interested in at the moment is available on www.emusic.com.
LAME -APS encoded mp3s averaging in price at about 20 cents a pop.
I think DRM is necessary to have an all-you-can-eat subscription though.
What I would like is itunes to:
A) Get a better selection of music
B) Start an all-you-can-eat subscription model.
Yes but some applications now use an "installer" which does voodoo and stuff.
.app packaged application concept when I learned about it (I am long time windows user)
I loved the whole
Since you seem to have it figured out, I'll ask you a couple of questions I've stumbled across:
1. How does justice work? It seems like a lot of people have gotten a way with a lot of bad stuff and it seems like a lot of good people have gotten screwed. Oh well tough luck.
2. What is consciousness? It seems kind of crazy.
3. What's with all of this love and family suff? Those brain chemicals are weird I guess.
4. Speaking of brain chemicals, how does this whole "free will" thing work? Do I have free will or don't I?
Well good luck! (cause I guess what it comes down to anyway, quantum theory and parallel dimension of luckyness and stuff)
JP
These types of things are the privilege of the enfranchised - who don't worry about messy things likes consequences.
A lot of this stuff could go sour and particularly if you were a minority or from the wrong side of the tracks you could have some real trouble.
No sulk.
That was the incidental part of my post and of course that has now generated three responses. It is just amazing how often that is the case in a forum where people feel compelled to believe they are experts in such widely diverging areas, that regardless of the relevance, grammar and usage is always the red herring of choice.
I thought the other post pointing out that the NYT used the word they way they did had far more of an impact that yours anyway.
A big thanks to all the people on slashdot regularly checking grammar and usage.
Google obviously hopes this will generate more revenue. It was nice while it lasted.
Incidently if anyone has any "spare" sites it is google but I prefer their "sparse" ones.
I attended BYU and I will tell you that we go to great lengths to respect other people's beliefs. We Mormons are a group of people who have historically had many of our civil rights violated and we do not seek to repeat those sins on others.
And although the overwhelming majority of BYU professors believe in a personal God, and many students believe that beliveing in God is the "obvious" philosophical, metaphysical and spirtitual answer, and also that the majority of mainstream science is completely consistent with that belief and mainstream science is taught there -- mean spirited attacks of people's beliefs are met with swift critisism, even "outrage."
You don't think it would make the news if we introduced a class called "Atheism: bad logic and hard hearts?"
And if you want to let people have free publishing rights to your tunes and even further if you want to have people have freedom to copy your recordings more power to you. Just don't steal Guided By Voices.
Many, including from what I understand the music industry.
I think the lyrics and tunes are owned by a different entity than the recordings -- Like guided by voices songs are owned by needmoresongs.
Anyway these people didn't make these songs up so they don't really shouldn't get to say how they are distributed or get to publish them on their website.
Write your own damn songs.
So this model supposedly "worked" in this case -- If by working you mean a bunch of wealthy wasters and filfthy freeloaders put money into a sub par band's pocket.
l then the only person losing out is you anyway.
Plenty of artists of all types (particularly those who actually rely on their work as their means to live) do not agree with your lame ass "Property is physical, not ethereal." statement.
The bottom line is that if a band wishes to charge for their recordings they should be allowed to do it.
You don't have to buy copies of their work, but millions of other people (including me!) are certainly willing to.
If you'll deny yourself of buying the reigning sound's "too much guitar"
http://www.intheredrecords.com/pages/order-us.htm
your signature is so retarted. I didn't vote republican in the last election and I'm not happy with things at all, but your straw man and bad equivication just bothered me enought to write this - in spite of the inevitable karma hit.
I'm also paranoid about anything with wireless networking (that it'll have FBI or general purpose backdoors), so that's another strike. None of these corps would even think twice about installing backdoors (Microsoft and Sony have been doing this for years, and I don't see Nintendo as a bastion of consumer rights).
Don't flatter yourself, nobody in the entire world cares what is on your gaming console.
You should go in to sales then.
Yes those Jews and the Rothschilds seem to run everything
This is a way (stunt) to try and show that they are legitimate and not just a one hit wonder. I don't imagine that every band would be best suited by starting to release records for free.
On the topic of the music industry:
I personally do not think that, as a music fan, that there is any problems with the way the industry is working at the moment at all. The big mainstream bands have plenty of outlets to promote their "artists." The rest have the internet where any band is able to offer emphasis tracks for download or streams to promote their music.
I couldn't care less if the major labels aren't making as much money as they'd like to, or if they are making more than they "should be."
I think it's rechargeable though, so you've got that going for you.
I don't think they thought the battery part through or made any internal
p enetration/field/feasability/user/political
cost/benefit/product/marketing/witchcraft/budget/
studies related to your point.
You ought to email apple and let them know this is an issue for you.
*I could care less about the color screen.*
how much less could you care about it?
You choose to create your reality around your preconcieved beliefs.
well done!
I've never understood the anonymous coward thing
aahhh the diversity of thought. The person who states what the majority of people slashdot already think gets modded to a "5."
You say "I love the art more than you do." To participate in your idiotic little pissing contest, I'll say Ted Leo loves the music more than you, he made the dream a reality.
As my appeal to authority continues.. Ted Leo is hardly a "yuppie," he's the real deal.
I've yet to hear any free music that was as good as music that cost money. I don't listen to a ton of major label bands, but I don't have any major label issues either.
I know the limits of my abilities and so I choose not to waste time listening to crap that I make when I can listen to actual brilliant musicians.
So you keep wanking away, and I'll continue to enjoy good music that costs money. Hopefully I wont have to subsidize all of you theives too heavily.
"Piracy has the very real potential of tipping movies into becoming an unprofitable industry, especially big-event films. If that happens, they will stop being made," said Mr. Jackson
"No studio is going to finance a film if the point is reached where their possible profit margin goes straight into criminals' pockets."
This isn't a studio executive, this is obviously someone who cares a great deal about movies. He dares to speak out against piracy. He knows that movies take corporate money to make.
The point is that a lot of you on here with your anarchistic view of media and all your moaning about DRM is motivated not buy a love of art, but a love of getting something for nothing. I am not an musician myself, but I consider myself a huge fan music. I have yet to read any artist's opinion on slashdot (and I don't count all you wankers who think that your guitar wankery hobby puts you in the ranks of an actual musician) - Diversity of thought is not a strong suite of slashdot - But I think you'll find quite a few real full time artists that don't want their work stolen - and they want to be compensated for their work
For example, read this interview question from gawker.com interviewing the great Ted Leo about his take on your anarchistic viwe.
"5. Got any quick opinions on big media, the RIAA, file-sharing or anything else that's affecting the landscape of the indie musician?
I'm really torn on file sharing. I have done it, I have benefited from finding some things that have been unavailable to me and that have opened up other doors for me to explore as a fan, and so I'm sure I'll probably do it again, but not to the extent that I feel it's my "right" to "own" a personal copy of something that someone else put sweat, thought, feeling, and money into -- the output of someone's true work -- without offering them something in return.
Two quick points: 1.) the notion that "music should be for everyone, and not owned" is tripped up by file sharing itself. If you're talking about having it out there in the ether, like just being broadcast on the radio or something, then that's one thing, but the very act of taking, keeping, and burning -- creating more hard copies of a hard copy -- means that you take into your ownership a version of this piece of work. So you're saying the artist and record label can't "own" it, but then you turn around and own it yourself? That shit ain't right. You're really just saying that you think you shouldn't have to pay for it. And to that, I say, if you ask nicely, you might get a copy, but if you think you have some entitlement to something, your request is falling on unsympathetic ears. 2.) As a promotional thing, it's great to have people passing your stuff around, and as an artist, it's awesome to know that people care. But when you exist in a world that sees you on tour 8 - 9 months out of the year, thus making it hard to hold down a different job, but you COULD, theoretically, be at least paying your bills with the work you do in your chosen field (that being, of course, making music), then it's easy to break down just what a dent excessive file sharing can put in your ability to keep doing what you're doing.
Check it -- Metallica are multi-millionaires. Who cares if they lose $100,000 to file sharing? I don't. But speaking for myself and my band, a few hundred downloads that aren't later backed up by purchases can be the difference between us paying rent or not. Ain't nobody in my band got health insurance, you know what I'm sayin'? I'm just talking about RENT. So yeah -- it hurts a bit, but I'm not going to tell people to not do it, it would just be nice if we could put all our cards on the table and forego some of the unproductive rhetoric that surrounds the issue. The RIAA can go fuck itself for all I care -- my interaction with that world is almost nil, and I really don't care if so-and-so has to put that last piece of bling they bought into hock. I'm just saying that there are people out there trying to do it righteously who could use a bit more support, and a good way to show it would be to give them something in return for what they give you. A musician can't download a guitar, you know? "