Posts like yours and (moreso) the posts that follow tell me that I no longer belong reading slashdot. Musicians deserve payment. Fuck off if you feel they do not. Sure the music companies don't deserve the majority of the payment, but that doesn't deter from the fact that, if I write a song, and you love said song, I should be able to reap some reward from it.
I don't have a problem with copyrights being shorter, although, I'd say 10 years is a hair short, 20-25 is plenty though. If I, personally, ever write anything that's copywritten (music, books, otherwise), it will be in my will that, if five years after my death, the piece is not 25 years old, any piece still remaining will be public domain. But, judging from the comments following your post, I just don't belong here anymore. I've been reading Slashdot for years, but I fear that I no longer follow the same mindset as this place, and even that I'll be brandished a troll for having this mentality.
I dislike patents, and frankly feel that, outside of perhaps medical applications, patents should be limited to 10 years and strictly enforced in favor of the patent holder (my old neighbor invented the spray attachment for sinks, never made more than a few hundred dollars off of his patent), but at the same time, should be limited. Patents on medication should be extremely limited in the case of sustaining meds (as in you have to keep using it), but extensive (35 years or so) in the case of curative meds (take it for six months tops and you'll never have to take it again).
I don't know. I'm starting to think that, when it comes to IP law, Slashdot is almost as bad as the creationists when it comes to evolution.
Yeah. The live and recorded sound industries. There's really minimal to no likely benefit to having speakers directly above someone over having speakers on the sides above them, especially in an array of 3 to a side (IE 7.1). Well planned sound effects shouldn't show any difference between directly above and stereo panned along side. Furthermore, the cases I can find where my head would go upwards for an overhead appearance (plane/aircraft flying overhead) should be low enough frequencies that it's difficult to define where it's eminating from in the first place.
Okay, so the effect is to force you to look away from the 3D in order to see a speaker? I don't get it at all. Speakers are already overhead in theaters and this shouldn't make much of a difference at all...
Still, overhead sound seems like a good idea for some kinds of movie.
In all of my audio courses, I was consistently reminded of one simple factor. Human beings are horrible at telling whether the sound is coming from above or below them. The way the ears work is by using a sort of radar effect, but we only have two that are theoretically exactly level and therefore cannot pinpoint vertical descripencies without necessitating the tilt of our heads, and I'm not a fan of watching a movie with my head on its side...
Would you care to explain how AMD/ATI's revenue is different because I choose to use Linux instead of windows?
I still paid the same amount of money for the card.
Furthermore, we all know for a fact (because it's happened for every other piece of hardware) that if they released the details needed for the Linux community to write it's own drivers, they'd never have to write another one for Linux, ever, AND they would benefit from being able to take the concepts and optimizations created by the Linux community and fold them into their windows drivers.
I'll bite, although I generally agree with you and will make a different case in a minute.
Their given revenue may currently be based off of a model where they spend X number of person hours on developing drivers for given hardware and devoting those hours to the less common user base of Linux in the degree to which it would theoretically be necessary would take more than the given hours.
On the second point, if they were to release all of their hardware specs, then, it's theoretically possible for someone with a bigger budget (Intel comes to mind) to come in, build these exact same chipsets in higher quantities and undercut AMD at sales.
Now, while neither of these are extremely strong arguments, they're the type I'd expect to hear from corporate honchos who don't really know as much as they should. Now my big argument is that, we, the Linux crowd, is some of the most outspoken individuals in computer. I have a half dozen friends who, every time they need a new computer, they ask me to come shopping with them. You find me a company that gives true, quality support for Linux, and I'll tell you which company I'm going to recommend over the other. Many Linux geeks are in charge of (or at least have a say in) specing systems for everything from corporate servers to company desktops as well. Sure, the boost in sales won't be apparent or even clearly directly correlated, but there'll likely be some improvements...
This is what needs to happen to music. The Constitution was written when reproduction and distribution were a large if not the largest cost in the process of getting creative ideas out to the public. Therefore it made sense give authors exclusive control of reproduction/distribution. But today, reproduction/distribution have gotten so cheap it almost can't be measured (200 GB monthly data cap for $50 works out to 0.1 cents per 4 MB MP3). Insisting that authors retain control of reproduction/distribution doesn't reflect the reality of these price changes, and will lead to huge economic inefficiencies if allowed to persist. 100 years from now when everyone could potentially own a solar powered car by printing it on a 3D printer for $500 dollars (2012 dollars), do you really want the automakers holding the copyright on the design charging $30,000 per copy for "distribution"?
I was with you until that paragraph. First off, listening to music in MP3s is ridiculous now, given our storage devices available, but my issue isn't that.
The nearly zero cost of reproduction and distribution is why the industry is trying to hold onto traditional copyright law. By all rights, you should be paid for work you do. And when a lot of work was involved in making duplicate copies of your work and distributing them around the country, you deserved to be paid a lot for it. But now that those costs of dropped to near zero, the industry sees a huge profit opportunity - being paid per copy, while paying nearly nothing to make copies. No other industry works like this. If I construct a computer for a client, I get paid for that one computer. If I prepare a meal for a customer, I get paid for that one meal. If I stitch a tear in a shirt, I get paid for that one shirt. Only in the copyrighted industries do we have the concept that a person can work once, then get paid for it over and over without ever lifting a finger again. That idea made sense in old times because reproducing and distributing a work required much effort than lifting a finger. But now that it requires less effort than that, the law needs to change to reflect that economic reality.
You're talking about taking away the financial incentive for the person who does the creative work. The author (or composer, in this case) creates something and you're talking saying that that person doesn't need to get paid for it. So it costs you $0.0001 to download this song. It costs that artist studio time, mastering time, and creativity. Studio rates vary greatly from $25/hr-$100/hr, or in days, anywhere from $400-$4000 a day. Mastering can be as cheap as $100/song or as expensive as $5000 for 45 minutes of audio. So right there, you're talking about as little as $1500 for the studio time and $1000 for the mastering, but if they're a big name (or just rich and want to work with [insert name here]), it's going to be closer to $30,000 for the lot of it all. Now that's just flat fees, don't forget, if you have a producer, they usually get a cut of the profits.
I'm not saying that the current model is good. In fact, I'm saying it's bad. But taking away the financial incentive of the musician is painfully wrong on so many levels. Most of the time, the musician is putting in at least an hour of creativity on one song alone, not to mention the time spent rehearsing it, tweaking it, etc.
Maybe it's time for me to turn my/. card in, but I'm sick of hearing how the musician shouldn't make money off of their work. So they're in a different field, where their creativity is their income and they have a chance (about equal to that of winning the lotto) of hitting it big and being rich for their life. That's not something to be jealous of, that's something worth awing over.
Yes. This rubbed me the wrong way too. Gene's dad should have been proud like the day Gene was born. He should have shanghaied everyone he could, dragged them into the house, and sat them down in front of the TV.
I'm kind of assuming that that's what happened. He convince all the neighbors that they needed to watch his son's show and then, when they didn't like it or didn't understand it (more likely), he apologized for it. Maybe that's just me though.
IMHO, 3D is a director's cop out. When you have a 2D movie, the director is forced to put some focus here, there, or elsewhere. Every 3D movie I've seen (admittedly few and far between), has allowed you the ability to focus on anything you want. Sure the primary thing is probably in the foreground, but I can choose to focus at the background image. To me, this is detrimental to the movie experience, unless the director is using this ability to their advantage.
An example of using it to their advantage would be having something going on in the background, foreground, and middle ground with all three parts being at least somewhat relevant to the story. I prefer 2D for movies in both personal appreciation and artistic sense.
Oh, and I'm a contact wearer, but I've never had any significant issue with 3D because of it. When I wear my regular glasses instead, yes, there's a problem, but otherwise, never ran into one.
I've long thought that someone should assemble a compilation featuring nothing but hours of their laughter. (Which will be available for sampling, since they will continue to play archived material for a long time yet.)
The problem there is that it's almost definitely still legally copywritten material and therefore it would be a violation of copyright to sample their laughter and distribute it in any way, shape, or form without the express consent of the content owners, most likely being NPR... (standard slashdot disclaimer, IANAL, check with a lawyer, yadda yadda yadda.)
Oh, and apologies for fueling a copyright flamewar/trolling in advance...
It would have to be closer to having a Star-Trek quality hologram of, at the very least, the conductor. It's virtually impossible to do this without having people meet. As a (wind band) musician, it's virtually impossible for me to know exactly how to play my part without hearing the guy next to me, the girl in the flute section, the oboe, the percussionists, and seeing the conductor. Music is an art that, admittedly, blends some science in (theory is rather scientific), but it's still primarily an art that requires many individuals.
Seeing as it's not functional on Windows, DXi plugs are really a tough call. There's ways around it and running some in WINE works, but it's a bit of a difficult trick to try, last I checked. I left it up to a Gentoo install to get it working, and then my HD start failing smart status, so I have to put that project on hold for now until I can get that HD duped and replaced.
So go to the news and download the betas for Mac OS X, or go to your package manager and install it. Unless you're a Windows fanboy, in which case, you're SOL, Ardour doesn't exist on Windows.
Of the relatively few people i know that use pro tools, most have never ending trouble with having it actually function (at least on windows). Extra cost, plsus lock in, and lack of flexibility (comparatively) in workflow. I can see why people take issue with releasing something as 'open source' in a format that is hindering to the cause.
Even on Mac. I used to have to use it regularly, and you would still run into headaches. The worst part is, if you have issues, the stock response from (then DigiDesign, now) Avid is, "Alright, try deleting your DigiDesign Databases (easy step, quickly rebuilt by the application) and your preferences." I'm sorry, but if your solution is that I need to delete my preference files (which generally takes a good period of time to set up properly), I'm going to take issue with that, especially because it seems that it's getting corrupted by the software itself. After doing it once, I decided to save a backup of them right after they were configured.
Of course, the only other option is OMF/AAF, which, ironically, last I checked was not officially supported in Ardour, but is supported by pretty much everything else. Kind of a damned if you do, damned if you don't. Of course, if all that's going on is WAV files with no edits/comping/automation, than get off your lazy ass and spend fifteen minutes importing them. Anyone who works in audio, should know how to import however many wav files comprise the actual recording process, and it'll probably suit your mixing style better than someone else's layout.
3G isn't WiFi. By definition, WiFi is a wireless local area network based on 802.11, not just any wireless signal (such as 3G/4G, which, IIRC an iPhone or an iPad doesn't have 4G)...
Your perspective of intellectual property is badly skewed by comparing it to any other business model. Musicians need to be able to afford to make music, otherwise the only musicians you will find are the same rich farts who make the music industry what it is, and the people that live on the streets of your closest large metropolitan area.
I am a musician (credited and not), don't fuck around with my fucking livelihood because you have some haughty taughty idea that any form of Art (music is and should be appreciated as art, not background noise as everyone seems to treat it these days) is not good enough unless it can't be copywritten.
I'm done with feeding the troll, I leave you with the immortal words of John Cleese, "FUCK OFF!"
Music is the one thing, I think could be best protected by not calling it I.P. at all.
Music and intangibles should have NO protection and should be shared by the world to prevent parasitic business models from becoming a disease to them.
For instance.musicians could actually make a living playing live and promoting themselves by givng away their music. Talented musicians who weren't writers would make money just playing anyones tunes. The shift towards rewarding talent rather than ownership would have the effect of allowing the cream to rise.
Bad music would go nowhere due to lack of interest, people gravitate towards good music. The current industry only markets music made by the malleable, cooperative, willing to lose everything for fame. A poor filter by any standard. It explains a lot about quality of mainstream music vs. what's available.
I'd don't know about other media, but music deserves no protection for the best outcome universally.
Perhaps there are other intangibles that should be purposefully unprotected. I suspect so. Ideas?
So you're telling me that an author should get protection, but a composer should not? Then what's my motivation, as a musician, to compose something new and different? Everything that's already been written, I can choose to play, sell tickets to a show, and make money off of it. Why on Earth is this a good idea?!
Let's spin this around. We're on/. so I'm going to say that you're some sort of technological individual. Now let's say that you design a story for a video game. You've spent nine months on and off just writing this story, coming up with plot twists and planning out how the player will get to the end. As a result, you pitch the game to a company, THQ. THQ in turn says, this is a great storyline and make a game from it. Great! Nine months of you spending most of your free time working on this storyline. You must be thrilled! Then you realize that you don't get shit from it because the company has the writing and you don't have any copyright anymore?
Would you be motivated at all to do this? I sure as hell wouldn't. So why the fuck do you think that musicians would be motivated at all to make new music? The creative process is great and all, but without some form of pay, people cannot afford to be musicians first. There's a whole slew of musicians out there that I personally know who are better at doing a song than someone else, but you wouldn't pay fifty bucks a ticket to go hear Jake and the GWANS, would you?
And don't even let me get to the comment about "Bad music would go nowhere". If you truly believe that people are smart enough to ignore "bad music" why don't we today? For that matter, why do groups that have uncomplex, generic sounds exist today? "Good music" is so subjective and so opinionated...I'm done.
I was moreso thinking the fight between the main character and a (I can't for the life of me remember if it was individual or group of) nude student(s) got into a fight in the showers. Card goes into a decent degree of detail with it, which, I guess, could be construed as pornographic by an extremely loose definition.
Interesting scenario. My mentor's friend was going to play a fundraiser at a bar or some other public venue. He's in a record contract and an ASCAP artist. Now this is a little different than posting your songs online for free, but he was told by ASCAP lawyers that the venue would have to pay $XXXX in order to pay for the ASCAP licensing as they would be performing ASCAP songs. Obviously they could not afford this fine, so he came up with the idea that he would only use his own original compositions. The ASCAP lawyers stated that, because he was an ASCAP artist, his songs cannot be performed either without violating their licensing agreements. I don't think he's with ASCAP anymore.
Long story short...probably. Furthermore, ASCAP can make the *AAs look good, but at least the majority of the money ends up in the hands of the artist with ASCAP (or so I've been told by many ASCAP artists).
Yes it was. In fact, I believe it was even around the time that the cars involved in the survey were being made. Either right before or shortly thereafter. I'd still take an 08 Ford over an 08 GM and I would sell an 08 Chrysler to the first person dumb enough to buy it.
They cut you off after 40 hours a month unless you're willing to pay an extra $.99 to continue listening. If you want a better service you can also subscribe to Pandora One which gives you unlimited listening plus a bunch of perks for like 3 dollars a month. If they can get 100 of their current listeners to subscribe then they've made money at those rates.
There's still virtually no way that they've money at that point due to the way the government officially handles custom streams. (usual slashdot disclaimers ensuing, IANAL, I am not extremely well versed in this information, I just happen to have paid attention especially because it's two of my fields of knowledge, music and tech) A custom streaming station is considered a radio station and therefore is subject to the same royalties as any radio station. That being said, they have removed the 40 hr listening cap as of September, but they continue with ad support due to the extreme expense they are faced with. When you subscribe to Pandora One, they drop the ads.
This last bit is idle speculation, but I presume companies are willing to pay more for an ad on a service like Pandora where they have a captive audience. This would definitely help alleviate their costs, but it, most likely, would not be quite enough to subsidize the entire process (think of how many people you know who have/use Pandora and think of how many have Pandora One), so the individuals who purchase Pandora One are likely helping the rest of us out by doing so.
Slashdot Mirror
Posts like yours and (moreso) the posts that follow tell me that I no longer belong reading slashdot. Musicians deserve payment. Fuck off if you feel they do not. Sure the music companies don't deserve the majority of the payment, but that doesn't deter from the fact that, if I write a song, and you love said song, I should be able to reap some reward from it.
I don't have a problem with copyrights being shorter, although, I'd say 10 years is a hair short, 20-25 is plenty though. If I, personally, ever write anything that's copywritten (music, books, otherwise), it will be in my will that, if five years after my death, the piece is not 25 years old, any piece still remaining will be public domain. But, judging from the comments following your post, I just don't belong here anymore. I've been reading Slashdot for years, but I fear that I no longer follow the same mindset as this place, and even that I'll be brandished a troll for having this mentality.
I dislike patents, and frankly feel that, outside of perhaps medical applications, patents should be limited to 10 years and strictly enforced in favor of the patent holder (my old neighbor invented the spray attachment for sinks, never made more than a few hundred dollars off of his patent), but at the same time, should be limited. Patents on medication should be extremely limited in the case of sustaining meds (as in you have to keep using it), but extensive (35 years or so) in the case of curative meds (take it for six months tops and you'll never have to take it again).
I don't know. I'm starting to think that, when it comes to IP law, Slashdot is almost as bad as the creationists when it comes to evolution.
Yeah. The live and recorded sound industries. There's really minimal to no likely benefit to having speakers directly above someone over having speakers on the sides above them, especially in an array of 3 to a side (IE 7.1). Well planned sound effects shouldn't show any difference between directly above and stereo panned along side. Furthermore, the cases I can find where my head would go upwards for an overhead appearance (plane/aircraft flying overhead) should be low enough frequencies that it's difficult to define where it's eminating from in the first place.
Okay, so the effect is to force you to look away from the 3D in order to see a speaker? I don't get it at all. Speakers are already overhead in theaters and this shouldn't make much of a difference at all...
In all of my audio courses, I was consistently reminded of one simple factor. Human beings are horrible at telling whether the sound is coming from above or below them. The way the ears work is by using a sort of radar effect, but we only have two that are theoretically exactly level and therefore cannot pinpoint vertical descripencies without necessitating the tilt of our heads, and I'm not a fan of watching a movie with my head on its side...
I'm with you. Thanks for posting the part of the article that I have read (this is slashdot after all).
Would you care to explain how AMD/ATI's revenue is different because I choose to use Linux instead of windows? I still paid the same amount of money for the card.
Furthermore, we all know for a fact (because it's happened for every other piece of hardware) that if they released the details needed for the Linux community to write it's own drivers, they'd never have to write another one for Linux, ever, AND they would benefit from being able to take the concepts and optimizations created by the Linux community and fold them into their windows drivers.
I'll bite, although I generally agree with you and will make a different case in a minute.
Their given revenue may currently be based off of a model where they spend X number of person hours on developing drivers for given hardware and devoting those hours to the less common user base of Linux in the degree to which it would theoretically be necessary would take more than the given hours.
On the second point, if they were to release all of their hardware specs, then, it's theoretically possible for someone with a bigger budget (Intel comes to mind) to come in, build these exact same chipsets in higher quantities and undercut AMD at sales.
Now, while neither of these are extremely strong arguments, they're the type I'd expect to hear from corporate honchos who don't really know as much as they should. Now my big argument is that, we, the Linux crowd, is some of the most outspoken individuals in computer. I have a half dozen friends who, every time they need a new computer, they ask me to come shopping with them. You find me a company that gives true, quality support for Linux, and I'll tell you which company I'm going to recommend over the other. Many Linux geeks are in charge of (or at least have a say in) specing systems for everything from corporate servers to company desktops as well. Sure, the boost in sales won't be apparent or even clearly directly correlated, but there'll likely be some improvements...
This is what needs to happen to music. The Constitution was written when reproduction and distribution were a large if not the largest cost in the process of getting creative ideas out to the public. Therefore it made sense give authors exclusive control of reproduction/distribution. But today, reproduction/distribution have gotten so cheap it almost can't be measured (200 GB monthly data cap for $50 works out to 0.1 cents per 4 MB MP3). Insisting that authors retain control of reproduction/distribution doesn't reflect the reality of these price changes, and will lead to huge economic inefficiencies if allowed to persist. 100 years from now when everyone could potentially own a solar powered car by printing it on a 3D printer for $500 dollars (2012 dollars), do you really want the automakers holding the copyright on the design charging $30,000 per copy for "distribution"?
I was with you until that paragraph. First off, listening to music in MP3s is ridiculous now, given our storage devices available, but my issue isn't that.
The nearly zero cost of reproduction and distribution is why the industry is trying to hold onto traditional copyright law. By all rights, you should be paid for work you do. And when a lot of work was involved in making duplicate copies of your work and distributing them around the country, you deserved to be paid a lot for it. But now that those costs of dropped to near zero, the industry sees a huge profit opportunity - being paid per copy, while paying nearly nothing to make copies. No other industry works like this. If I construct a computer for a client, I get paid for that one computer. If I prepare a meal for a customer, I get paid for that one meal. If I stitch a tear in a shirt, I get paid for that one shirt. Only in the copyrighted industries do we have the concept that a person can work once, then get paid for it over and over without ever lifting a finger again. That idea made sense in old times because reproducing and distributing a work required much effort than lifting a finger. But now that it requires less effort than that, the law needs to change to reflect that economic reality.
You're talking about taking away the financial incentive for the person who does the creative work. The author (or composer, in this case) creates something and you're talking saying that that person doesn't need to get paid for it. So it costs you $0.0001 to download this song. It costs that artist studio time, mastering time, and creativity. Studio rates vary greatly from $25/hr-$100/hr, or in days, anywhere from $400-$4000 a day. Mastering can be as cheap as $100/song or as expensive as $5000 for 45 minutes of audio. So right there, you're talking about as little as $1500 for the studio time and $1000 for the mastering, but if they're a big name (or just rich and want to work with [insert name here]), it's going to be closer to $30,000 for the lot of it all. Now that's just flat fees, don't forget, if you have a producer, they usually get a cut of the profits.
I'm not saying that the current model is good. In fact, I'm saying it's bad. But taking away the financial incentive of the musician is painfully wrong on so many levels. Most of the time, the musician is putting in at least an hour of creativity on one song alone, not to mention the time spent rehearsing it, tweaking it, etc.
Maybe it's time for me to turn my /. card in, but I'm sick of hearing how the musician shouldn't make money off of their work. So they're in a different field, where their creativity is their income and they have a chance (about equal to that of winning the lotto) of hitting it big and being rich for their life. That's not something to be jealous of, that's something worth awing over.
Because that arguement [sic] legalized slavery.
It also re-legalized alcohol in the United States.
ExEn a windows mobile xna converter to Android and iOS makes me really like Windows Mobile as a development platform.
What's wrong with developing on Enyo then?
Yes. This rubbed me the wrong way too. Gene's dad should have been proud like the day Gene was born. He should have shanghaied everyone he could, dragged them into the house, and sat them down in front of the TV.
I'm kind of assuming that that's what happened. He convince all the neighbors that they needed to watch his son's show and then, when they didn't like it or didn't understand it (more likely), he apologized for it. Maybe that's just me though.
IMHO, 3D is a director's cop out. When you have a 2D movie, the director is forced to put some focus here, there, or elsewhere. Every 3D movie I've seen (admittedly few and far between), has allowed you the ability to focus on anything you want. Sure the primary thing is probably in the foreground, but I can choose to focus at the background image. To me, this is detrimental to the movie experience, unless the director is using this ability to their advantage.
An example of using it to their advantage would be having something going on in the background, foreground, and middle ground with all three parts being at least somewhat relevant to the story. I prefer 2D for movies in both personal appreciation and artistic sense.
Oh, and I'm a contact wearer, but I've never had any significant issue with 3D because of it. When I wear my regular glasses instead, yes, there's a problem, but otherwise, never ran into one.
I've long thought that someone should assemble a compilation featuring nothing but hours of their laughter. (Which will be available for sampling, since they will continue to play archived material for a long time yet.)
The problem there is that it's almost definitely still legally copywritten material and therefore it would be a violation of copyright to sample their laughter and distribute it in any way, shape, or form without the express consent of the content owners, most likely being NPR... (standard slashdot disclaimer, IANAL, check with a lawyer, yadda yadda yadda.)
Oh, and apologies for fueling a copyright flamewar/trolling in advance...
Hire a composer to write the stuff as copyright free...
It would have to be closer to having a Star-Trek quality hologram of, at the very least, the conductor. It's virtually impossible to do this without having people meet. As a (wind band) musician, it's virtually impossible for me to know exactly how to play my part without hearing the guy next to me, the girl in the flute section, the oboe, the percussionists, and seeing the conductor. Music is an art that, admittedly, blends some science in (theory is rather scientific), but it's still primarily an art that requires many individuals.
Seeing as it's not functional on Windows, DXi plugs are really a tough call. There's ways around it and running some in WINE works, but it's a bit of a difficult trick to try, last I checked. I left it up to a Gentoo install to get it working, and then my HD start failing smart status, so I have to put that project on hold for now until I can get that HD duped and replaced.
So go to the news and download the betas for Mac OS X, or go to your package manager and install it. Unless you're a Windows fanboy, in which case, you're SOL, Ardour doesn't exist on Windows.
Of the relatively few people i know that use pro tools, most have never ending trouble with having it actually function (at least on windows). Extra cost, plsus lock in, and lack of flexibility (comparatively) in workflow. I can see why people take issue with releasing something as 'open source' in a format that is hindering to the cause.
Even on Mac. I used to have to use it regularly, and you would still run into headaches. The worst part is, if you have issues, the stock response from (then DigiDesign, now) Avid is, "Alright, try deleting your DigiDesign Databases (easy step, quickly rebuilt by the application) and your preferences." I'm sorry, but if your solution is that I need to delete my preference files (which generally takes a good period of time to set up properly), I'm going to take issue with that, especially because it seems that it's getting corrupted by the software itself. After doing it once, I decided to save a backup of them right after they were configured.
Of course, the only other option is OMF/AAF, which, ironically, last I checked was not officially supported in Ardour, but is supported by pretty much everything else. Kind of a damned if you do, damned if you don't. Of course, if all that's going on is WAV files with no edits/comping/automation, than get off your lazy ass and spend fifteen minutes importing them. Anyone who works in audio, should know how to import however many wav files comprise the actual recording process, and it'll probably suit your mixing style better than someone else's layout.
...was it a tetrahedran or a monolith?
3G isn't WiFi. By definition, WiFi is a wireless local area network based on 802.11, not just any wireless signal (such as 3G/4G, which, IIRC an iPhone or an iPad doesn't have 4G)...
Your perspective of intellectual property is badly skewed by comparing it to any other business model. Musicians need to be able to afford to make music, otherwise the only musicians you will find are the same rich farts who make the music industry what it is, and the people that live on the streets of your closest large metropolitan area.
I am a musician (credited and not), don't fuck around with my fucking livelihood because you have some haughty taughty idea that any form of Art (music is and should be appreciated as art, not background noise as everyone seems to treat it these days) is not good enough unless it can't be copywritten.
I'm done with feeding the troll, I leave you with the immortal words of John Cleese, "FUCK OFF!"
Music is the one thing, I think could be best protected by not calling it I.P. at all. Music and intangibles should have NO protection and should be shared by the world to prevent parasitic business models from becoming a disease to them. For instance.musicians could actually make a living playing live and promoting themselves by givng away their music. Talented musicians who weren't writers would make money just playing anyones tunes. The shift towards rewarding talent rather than ownership would have the effect of allowing the cream to rise. Bad music would go nowhere due to lack of interest, people gravitate towards good music. The current industry only markets music made by the malleable, cooperative, willing to lose everything for fame. A poor filter by any standard. It explains a lot about quality of mainstream music vs. what's available. I'd don't know about other media, but music deserves no protection for the best outcome universally. Perhaps there are other intangibles that should be purposefully unprotected. I suspect so. Ideas?
So you're telling me that an author should get protection, but a composer should not? Then what's my motivation, as a musician, to compose something new and different? Everything that's already been written, I can choose to play, sell tickets to a show, and make money off of it. Why on Earth is this a good idea?!
Let's spin this around. We're on /. so I'm going to say that you're some sort of technological individual. Now let's say that you design a story for a video game. You've spent nine months on and off just writing this story, coming up with plot twists and planning out how the player will get to the end. As a result, you pitch the game to a company, THQ. THQ in turn says, this is a great storyline and make a game from it. Great! Nine months of you spending most of your free time working on this storyline. You must be thrilled! Then you realize that you don't get shit from it because the company has the writing and you don't have any copyright anymore?
Would you be motivated at all to do this? I sure as hell wouldn't. So why the fuck do you think that musicians would be motivated at all to make new music? The creative process is great and all, but without some form of pay, people cannot afford to be musicians first. There's a whole slew of musicians out there that I personally know who are better at doing a song than someone else, but you wouldn't pay fifty bucks a ticket to go hear Jake and the GWANS, would you?
And don't even let me get to the comment about "Bad music would go nowhere". If you truly believe that people are smart enough to ignore "bad music" why don't we today? For that matter, why do groups that have uncomplex, generic sounds exist today? "Good music" is so subjective and so opinionated...I'm done.
I was moreso thinking the fight between the main character and a (I can't for the life of me remember if it was individual or group of) nude student(s) got into a fight in the showers. Card goes into a decent degree of detail with it, which, I guess, could be construed as pornographic by an extremely loose definition.
Interesting scenario. My mentor's friend was going to play a fundraiser at a bar or some other public venue. He's in a record contract and an ASCAP artist. Now this is a little different than posting your songs online for free, but he was told by ASCAP lawyers that the venue would have to pay $XXXX in order to pay for the ASCAP licensing as they would be performing ASCAP songs. Obviously they could not afford this fine, so he came up with the idea that he would only use his own original compositions. The ASCAP lawyers stated that, because he was an ASCAP artist, his songs cannot be performed either without violating their licensing agreements. I don't think he's with ASCAP anymore.
Long story short...probably. Furthermore, ASCAP can make the *AAs look good, but at least the majority of the money ends up in the hands of the artist with ASCAP (or so I've been told by many ASCAP artists).
Yes it was. In fact, I believe it was even around the time that the cars involved in the survey were being made. Either right before or shortly thereafter. I'd still take an 08 Ford over an 08 GM and I would sell an 08 Chrysler to the first person dumb enough to buy it.
They cut you off after 40 hours a month unless you're willing to pay an extra $.99 to continue listening. If you want a better service you can also subscribe to Pandora One which gives you unlimited listening plus a bunch of perks for like 3 dollars a month. If they can get 100 of their current listeners to subscribe then they've made money at those rates.
There's still virtually no way that they've money at that point due to the way the government officially handles custom streams. (usual slashdot disclaimers ensuing, IANAL, I am not extremely well versed in this information, I just happen to have paid attention especially because it's two of my fields of knowledge, music and tech) A custom streaming station is considered a radio station and therefore is subject to the same royalties as any radio station. That being said, they have removed the 40 hr listening cap as of September, but they continue with ad support due to the extreme expense they are faced with. When you subscribe to Pandora One, they drop the ads.
This last bit is idle speculation, but I presume companies are willing to pay more for an ad on a service like Pandora where they have a captive audience. This would definitely help alleviate their costs, but it, most likely, would not be quite enough to subsidize the entire process (think of how many people you know who have/use Pandora and think of how many have Pandora One), so the individuals who purchase Pandora One are likely helping the rest of us out by doing so.