And, if you don't like Scumbag EA memes and blog posts which lambaste microtransactions as a shitty business model, don't click them. Blogging exists as an open, participatory model - a "free market", if you will. And you're welcome to spend your time reading opinions from any niche you like, or refrain from spending that time.
But they did communicate, by virtue of having come from the same mitosis process. Lots of parallel compute systems don't require inter-node communication after the nodes have received their initial work packet. Remember those "distributed.net" RC5-cracking competition clients? All they needed was to be told what section of the keyspace they were responsible for searching, and then they ran autonomously after that.
Who's talking about neurons? If the 'computation' being performed is that of 'generating a phenotype' rather than something mundane like cognition, then every multicellular organism is a compute cluster, whether it has a nervous system or not.;)
And it doesn't matter. If you cover someone else work, hyper-accurate or lazily, you owe a license fee. It's in the copyright law.
Please let's not misinform. As others downthread have explained, it actually matters quite a lot because a licensed derivative work (like JoCo's cover arrangement) does not get the same protection as an original composition. The only rights JoCo has here, legally speaking, are rights to his audio recordings. What I'm trying to demonstrate in this thread is that those rights were indeed violated, let's not derail with red herrings about other rights which he doesn't have (but perhaps should. I don't personally think the cover-arrangements-are-automatically-the-property-of-the-owner-of-the-original policy makes much sense, but I don't think much about IP law does.)
Yep, I just grabbed the highest bitrate of the mp3 I could find on ZippyMegaSuperUploadSketchyMediaShareUploadFire.com or whatever. I'm not giving Glee money via the iTunes store for the purpose of this comparison - I'm just not.
I spent a couple minutes in Audacity trying unsuccessfully to do this, but all I have to work with (being on my Linux work computer) were fairly low-bitrate mp3s, and one artifact of frequency-domain compression schemes is that they produce phase distortion. I‘ll give it another try later from my music workstation with flac files (if i can find some.)
Listen to the Soundcloud link I posted. Use headphones. This is not a hyper-accurate note-for-note cover. If it were that, there would be all sorts of stereo phasing wildness going on in your ears, because they would be all confused by the Haas effect. That is not going on because the instrumentals are the same instrumental.
Here is a spectrogram comparison I made from the first 15 seconds of each song, starting from the attack of the second 'clap' sample. They're not identical obviously, owing to different mastering and compression on the tracks, in addition to the differing vocal performances going on over top. But, the spectral components they share in common are clear. If you look at that clap sample by itself, before the vocals and other instrumentation start up, they are obviously the same sample.
It also notes that JoCo has posted that that happened:
What's more, Coulton also believes that Glee's music directors also illegally sampled his version, noting specifically that the sound of a duck quacking...
and then it goes on, undaunted by that detail, to talk about the legal ramifications of JoCo's claim assuming that the above is false, even though it gives absolutely no reason to doubt that it is true.
https://soundcloud.com/alacrion/joco-v-glee Here is a demonstration of the claim's truth. Now, like, let's keep on talking about why JoCo's legal claim has no merit in some other hypothetical universe where the Glee people actually went to the trouble of re-recording it, even though they didn't in this universe.
What Glee released is not a "cover." It actually samples his recording. If they'd re-recorded all the instrumental parts in the exact style that JoCo arranged them, they'd be in the clear. But they didn't. They sang, karaoke-style, over his instrumental recordings.
From your link:
(If Glee's producers used clips of Coulton's actual recording, like the duck sound, it's different: that would be copyright infringement of his sound recording.)
All I can think while scrolling through this trainwreck is, "oh. this thread again."
Come on, Slashdot, let's hear ALL OVER AGAIN about how a particular demographic has myriad unfair advantages over others, and yet mysteriously, has not managed to leverage those advantages into a superior social or economic position. Do your worst.
Or, if the ASIO really needs the resources it says it needs, let them go to the Australian people with their hat in their hands and ask for volunteers to run an Aussie-Government 'network agent' on their Internet-connected PCs to help them catch child molesters and plane-bombers for the good of the homeland, and if appeals to patriotism don't do the trick, let them offer money, and we'll find out how much a person's Internet privacy sells for on the open market.
Slashdot Mirror
Well played.
Dick.
Given the way power makes people act, it is really hard to speak truth to them politely. There aren't many nice ways to tell someone they're a dick.
And, if you don't like Scumbag EA memes and blog posts which lambaste microtransactions as a shitty business model, don't click them. Blogging exists as an open, participatory model - a "free market", if you will. And you're welcome to spend your time reading opinions from any niche you like, or refrain from spending that time.
The meme I would use to describe Cliff Blezinski right now: old man yells at cloud
in a manner that can be quickly and conveniently unlocked by an average user?
You don't want to know about the core-dump phase.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09D8hAcUzms
This is probably because you envision all your clients being charming, pretty ladies.
But they did communicate, by virtue of having come from the same mitosis process. Lots of parallel compute systems don't require inter-node communication after the nodes have received their initial work packet. Remember those "distributed.net" RC5-cracking competition clients? All they needed was to be told what section of the keyspace they were responsible for searching, and then they ran autonomously after that.
Who's talking about neurons? If the 'computation' being performed is that of 'generating a phenotype' rather than something mundane like cognition, then every multicellular organism is a compute cluster, whether it has a nervous system or not. ;)
Imagine a Beowulf cluster of these babies.
Wait, I guess that's like basically just a person.
Perhaps because they're still running plain old 32-bit XP.
know how to program a Rockwell Automation Retro-Encabulator? There's good money in that...
Those people should probably not correspond from their university email, and instead sign up for a Gmail account. It's free, you know.
You mean, nine million one hundred and ten thousand? good lord.
And it doesn't matter. If you cover someone else work, hyper-accurate or lazily, you owe a license fee. It's in the copyright law.
Please let's not misinform. As others downthread have explained, it actually matters quite a lot because a licensed derivative work (like JoCo's cover arrangement) does not get the same protection as an original composition. The only rights JoCo has here, legally speaking, are rights to his audio recordings. What I'm trying to demonstrate in this thread is that those rights were indeed violated, let's not derail with red herrings about other rights which he doesn't have (but perhaps should. I don't personally think the cover-arrangements-are-automatically-the-property-of-the-owner-of-the-original policy makes much sense, but I don't think much about IP law does.)
Yep, I just grabbed the highest bitrate of the mp3 I could find on ZippyMegaSuperUploadSketchyMediaShareUploadFire.com or whatever. I'm not giving Glee money via the iTunes store for the purpose of this comparison - I'm just not.
I spent a couple minutes in Audacity trying unsuccessfully to do this, but all I have to work with (being on my Linux work computer) were fairly low-bitrate mp3s, and one artifact of frequency-domain compression schemes is that they produce phase distortion. I‘ll give it another try later from my music workstation with flac files (if i can find some.)
Listen to the Soundcloud link I posted. Use headphones. This is not a hyper-accurate note-for-note cover. If it were that, there would be all sorts of stereo phasing wildness going on in your ears, because they would be all confused by the Haas effect. That is not going on because the instrumentals are the same instrumental.
http://s9.postimage.org/qq104s1zh/joco_glee_comparison.gif
Here is a spectrogram comparison I made from the first 15 seconds of each song, starting from the attack of the second 'clap' sample. They're not identical obviously, owing to different mastering and compression on the tracks, in addition to the differing vocal performances going on over top. But, the spectral components they share in common are clear. If you look at that clap sample by itself, before the vocals and other instrumentation start up, they are obviously the same sample.
It also notes that JoCo has posted that that happened:
What's more, Coulton also believes that Glee's music directors also illegally sampled his version, noting specifically that the sound of a duck quacking...
and then it goes on, undaunted by that detail, to talk about the legal ramifications of JoCo's claim assuming that the above is false, even though it gives absolutely no reason to doubt that it is true.
https://soundcloud.com/alacrion/joco-v-glee Here is a demonstration of the claim's truth. Now, like, let's keep on talking about why JoCo's legal claim has no merit in some other hypothetical universe where the Glee people actually went to the trouble of re-recording it, even though they didn't in this universe.
since they also used Coulton's unique additions to the song
irrelevant
and possibly stole his audio
super, super relevant. Everyone in this post who is glossing over that part is completely missing the point, legally speaking.
What Glee released is not a "cover." It actually samples his recording. If they'd re-recorded all the instrumental parts in the exact style that JoCo arranged them, they'd be in the clear. But they didn't. They sang, karaoke-style, over his instrumental recordings.
From your link:
(If Glee's producers used clips of Coulton's actual recording, like the duck sound, it's different: that would be copyright infringement of his sound recording.)
You seem to be under the misapprehension that the OP said "Male nurses and educators more prone to misconduct." Check yourself.
All I can think while scrolling through this trainwreck is, "oh. this thread again."
Come on, Slashdot, let's hear ALL OVER AGAIN about how a particular demographic has myriad unfair advantages over others, and yet mysteriously, has not managed to leverage those advantages into a superior social or economic position. Do your worst.
Alternatively, women face a much greater burden to be taken seriously in their profession than men do, and less leeway leads to cleaner habits.
You've contradicted yourself, unless your point is that a human eye isn't part of a human.
Or, if the ASIO really needs the resources it says it needs, let them go to the Australian people with their hat in their hands and ask for volunteers to run an Aussie-Government 'network agent' on their Internet-connected PCs to help them catch child molesters and plane-bombers for the good of the homeland, and if appeals to patriotism don't do the trick, let them offer money, and we'll find out how much a person's Internet privacy sells for on the open market.