Possibly because:
1: The were directly emplyed to write and play music for them by kings, nobles and rich merchants?
2: Beggar musicians who travelled around while begging and playing music.
3: Hobby musicians who made music while having another job by the side.
But if they are not people, then they can be forced to work for free or be abused in other ways without any way to stop it. Under such a system, if you become homeless, you're essentially prohibited from becoming a citizen again.
Correction: The only way to actually stop copying is to stop CREATION as well. This means that the "perfect" and "working" DRM prevents "dangerous" files from being played back. The only way to create material is therefore to have the key to authorize the files.
Of course, only the record industry will have the keys for authorizing audio data. The result is that only licensed musicians can spread their music.
Fuck DRM.
Effective DRM on music "copying" only is impossible because as long as music can be produced, it can be copied. Hence the only effective DRM is to make it impossible for a single individual to produce music without permission of the "industry".
This gives two advantages to the record industry:
1: They control exactly WHO can produce music (this means that if you aren't signed, you can't produce music)
2: People can't copy their music
"the higher the poly count, the more corners there are"
You forgot the countering factor.
The higher the poly count, the less visually intrusive each individual corner becomes.
"That's why i support this legislation, gentlemen. Not only would the toilets be cleaner if people where made to pee out the windows, we would be selling umbrellas by the MILLIONS"
Let me quote the rest of what he said:
"The (proposed directive) uses vague language and unclear standards that increase or add uncertainty to (the software and IT) market that is very much in a state of flux,"
This guy does not seem to want unenforcable laws considering that he doesn't support this directive.
This is something that's bothering me to no end:
"He should of done..."
"She could of..."
It looks like it's getting more and more accepted too.
Makes me wish i had a licence to kill, and a good gun.
Depends on your style. I mostly do soundtrack-style stuff so i don't need to record anything. Everything is software.
I do have a small mixer table if the need arises to record something, though.
A fast computer isn't really necessary. After all, most modern music programs (Sonar, Cubase, et al) support freezing which saves both cpu and ram. It depends on how complex stuff you want to do.
Drums can be done synthetically.
You're also missing a very important detail: If you have a band, each member already has the instruments they are proficent at playing. I doubt you'll encounter a guitarist who doesn't own a guitar, or a drummer who doesn't own a drumkit.
Of course, if you want to mic up the drums that'll cost a bit and require some tweaking to get a good sound. Otherwise you can just hire a studio, it isn't too expensive.
Practice at home (or whever) and then make a final recording in the studio.
No. It does not REQUIRE regulation.
1: New area of freedom opens up*
2: Some people "abuse" it
3: People in power uses the "abuse" as an excuse for regulation
(this one is without the "profit!" part, but i'm sure you can squeeze that in somewhere)
Slashdot Mirror
Possibly because: 1: The were directly emplyed to write and play music for them by kings, nobles and rich merchants? 2: Beggar musicians who travelled around while begging and playing music. 3: Hobby musicians who made music while having another job by the side.
But if they are not people, then they can be forced to work for free or be abused in other ways without any way to stop it. Under such a system, if you become homeless, you're essentially prohibited from becoming a citizen again.
It's funny that in sweden it's cheaper with broadband than with dialup.
"why is there a sense of entitlement on the part of some slashdotters to everything that isnt bolted to the floor?"
Why does everything that is not bolted to the floor need to be bolted to the floor?
"while the US came out with nuclear power" Heh. Hehehehehehe... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Correction: The only way to actually stop copying is to stop CREATION as well. This means that the "perfect" and "working" DRM prevents "dangerous" files from being played back. The only way to create material is therefore to have the key to authorize the files.
Of course, only the record industry will have the keys for authorizing audio data. The result is that only licensed musicians can spread their music.
Why is that relevant to this discussion? Besides: Who gives a fuck about punk rock?
Fuck DRM. Effective DRM on music "copying" only is impossible because as long as music can be produced, it can be copied. Hence the only effective DRM is to make it impossible for a single individual to produce music without permission of the "industry". This gives two advantages to the record industry: 1: They control exactly WHO can produce music (this means that if you aren't signed, you can't produce music) 2: People can't copy their music
"the higher the poly count, the more corners there are" You forgot the countering factor. The higher the poly count, the less visually intrusive each individual corner becomes.
I'm not defending the Dresden issue if that's what you think.
Interesting however was that the bomb was not aiming for the factory. It was aiming to kill as many civilians as possible.
What the flying fuck are you blabbering about?
"That's why i support this legislation, gentlemen. Not only would the toilets be cleaner if people where made to pee out the windows, we would be selling umbrellas by the MILLIONS"
Let me quote the rest of what he said: "The (proposed directive) uses vague language and unclear standards that increase or add uncertainty to (the software and IT) market that is very much in a state of flux," This guy does not seem to want unenforcable laws considering that he doesn't support this directive.
This is something that's bothering me to no end: "He should of done..." "She could of..." It looks like it's getting more and more accepted too. Makes me wish i had a licence to kill, and a good gun.
An egg is not a chicken.
Sounds like something out of System Shock 2. Awesome game :P
"and one doctor who's name escapes me"
Fredric Wertham. He did convert (if that's the right word) before his death, though. He saw that he wasn't right in all cases.
Mos def'nitly...
I don't watch television. The musicians i encounter i've met in the studio or privately. Why should i care about television to meet/see musicians?
Depends on your style. I mostly do soundtrack-style stuff so i don't need to record anything. Everything is software.
I do have a small mixer table if the need arises to record something, though.
A fast computer isn't really necessary. After all, most modern music programs (Sonar, Cubase, et al) support freezing which saves both cpu and ram. It depends on how complex stuff you want to do.
Drums can be done synthetically.
You're also missing a very important detail:
If you have a band, each member already has the instruments they are proficent at playing. I doubt you'll encounter a guitarist who doesn't own a guitar, or a drummer who doesn't own a drumkit.
Of course, if you want to mic up the drums that'll cost a bit and require some tweaking to get a good sound. Otherwise you can just hire a studio, it isn't too expensive.
Practice at home (or whever) and then make a final recording in the studio.
You only need a computer and a midi keyboard. Nothing else... Unless you want to go "acoustic" for some reason.
No. It does not REQUIRE regulation. 1: New area of freedom opens up* 2: Some people "abuse" it 3: People in power uses the "abuse" as an excuse for regulation (this one is without the "profit!" part, but i'm sure you can squeeze that in somewhere)
Ya. Ya. Yaya. Ya?
That question is not as relevant as the question of WHY the webcam can be turned on by unknown entities in the first place.