I just wanted to point out that one of the presentors was named "Richard Superfine" which... is a dreadfully aweful pun. I guess his work was determined from the moment of birth...
Sure, musicians should focus on music... obviously. However... some musicians have hobbies, *gasp* and in some cases these hobbies include Internet savvy *gasp*, and in some cases, somebody thinking about things to write a web page about might want to include a bit about the band they're in. *gasp*
And, since I haven't quite figured out a practical reason for Sony to claim this right as integral to the business of pressing music onto CDs, I'm a bit... dismayed that they are including it in their contracts.
Thankfully, musicians do have other companies to sign with, and I hope to god this attempt at a shameless filching of rights will cost Sony a lot of contracts. Unfortunately I don't think it will. *shrug*
I can imagine them using this part of their contract with the band to say that any web site ABOUT the band is trademark infringement. I can only imagine a record company telling every fan of JoeBloeTinyBand who has a website to cease and desist, or face fines, because despite JoeBloeTinyBand's general happiness at having fan sites scattered about the internet, only the record company has a right to publish web sites ABOUT the band.
Actually, the more I write/think about this... the less likely I think it is to stand up in court... I guess at least in the US there are still some freedoms of the press. *shrug*
If the artist in question hasn't registered that domain name (with InterNIC, or whomever) how does Sony actually expect to hold up that contract? The artist in question doesn't have rights to it, just by having the name. We've been through this here before, and I think most of us agree that just naming a band doesn't give rights to.com.
So, this contract asks the artist to say "Hey, this thing I don't own... you now have rights to it!!"
The blood vessels in front of the photoreceptors supply blood (products) to the neurons in front of the photoreceptors, and are in fact, very sparse. The photoreceptors themselves are fed by the much more blood rich tissue BEHIND the receptors.
I don't mean to slag too hard, but... you're wrong.
Not that the human is sub-optimal. Amen to that, it's the only thing more cobbled together and less organized/rational than Microsoft source code, HOWEVER, there's a damn good reason that the light receptors are behind the retinal neurons. And had you taken the time to study receptor physiology in an even cursory way, you would have learned it. Quite simply, light receptors are far far far too energy greedy. To supply blood to the photo- receptors you could: A) put blood vessels between the receptors and the retinal neurons which means making the receptor cells themselves longer (bad... signal degredation of graded potentional neurons) B) put blood vessels in FRONT of the receptors (worse than putting the neurons there) C) put the neurons in FRONT of the receptors (*dingdingding* we have a winner!)
Just to clear up a bad example of how human form is poorly designed.
Slashdot Mirror
I just wanted to point out that one of the presentors was named "Richard Superfine" which... is a dreadfully aweful pun.
I guess his work was determined from the moment of birth...
Sure, musicians should focus on music... obviously.
However... some musicians have hobbies, *gasp* and in some cases these hobbies include Internet savvy *gasp*, and in some cases, somebody thinking about things to write a web page about might want to include a bit about the band they're in. *gasp*
And, since I haven't quite figured out a practical reason for Sony to claim this right as integral to the business of pressing music onto CDs, I'm a bit... dismayed that they are including it in their contracts.
Thankfully, musicians do have other companies to sign with, and I hope to god this attempt at a shameless filching of rights will cost Sony a lot of contracts. Unfortunately I don't think it will. *shrug*
host any and all Web sites relating to the artist
This is also part of the included clause...
I can imagine them using this part of their contract with the band to say that any web site ABOUT the band is trademark infringement. I can only imagine a record company telling every fan of JoeBloeTinyBand who has a website to cease and desist, or face fines, because despite JoeBloeTinyBand's general happiness at having fan sites scattered about the internet, only the record company has a right to publish web sites ABOUT the band.
Actually, the more I write/think about this... the less likely I think it is to stand up in court... I guess at least in the US there are still some freedoms of the press. *shrug*
If the artist in question hasn't registered that domain name (with InterNIC, or whomever) how does Sony actually expect to hold up that contract? The artist in question doesn't have rights to it, just by having the name. We've been through this here before, and I think most of us agree that just naming a band doesn't give rights to .com.
So, this contract asks the artist to say "Hey, this thing I don't own... you now have rights to it!!"
sounds like BS to me
The blood vessels in front of the photoreceptors supply blood (products) to the neurons in front of the photoreceptors, and are in fact, very sparse. The photoreceptors themselves are fed by the much more blood rich tissue BEHIND the receptors.
I don't mean to slag too hard, but... you're wrong.
Not that the human is sub-optimal. Amen to that, it's the only thing more cobbled together and less organized/rational than Microsoft source code, HOWEVER, there's a damn good reason that the light receptors are behind the retinal neurons. And had you taken the time to study receptor physiology in an even cursory way, you would have learned it. Quite simply, light receptors are far far far too energy greedy. To supply blood to the photo- receptors you could:
A) put blood vessels between the receptors and the retinal neurons which means making the receptor cells themselves longer (bad... signal degredation of graded potentional neurons)
B) put blood vessels in FRONT of the receptors (worse than putting the neurons there)
C) put the neurons in FRONT of the receptors (*dingdingding* we have a winner!)
Just to clear up a bad example of how human form is poorly designed.
Graud