It's well known, for example... is (no offense) a pretty typical bit of linguistic programming designed to include the reader/listener without providing supporting evidence, you know.
It's pretty obvious that it's a bogus line... is right in line with that as well. I think opinions should remain opinions, rather than suggested as facts without sources. This should not have received any mod points except as "troll."
Sadly, I think the media's choice of dominant topics is much like that of the host of a party. If things get too politicized, they fear driving away someone in their audience. Since it's all about making the bucks, the media, like all forms of "entertainment" (which is what it's become) pitches to the lowest common denominator...particularly one that will offend the fewest people. If the worst anyone can say about a story (say, Paris Hilton) is "who cares", then they've done alright.
This same tragedy drives Hollywood, much of the mainstream music industry and other similar forums. If you can't unite most of your audience behind it, you are terrified to alienate them for fear that they won't return.
Goes to the heart of the issue, though. I keep wondering, if people wouldn't buy this stuff to begin with, why do they bother to "creatively acquire" it? Because they don't know if it's good or not? If you're watching a movie at a theater and it's terrible (at least where I live) and you leave before the film is done, you can get your money back. Albums don't work like that, but at this point there are many ways to sample the music from an artist without purchasing an entire record...even without torrenting it.
In addition, in the age of hypermass media, there are reviews, blogs, previews, clips, analysis, etc...that should at least give you an idea if it's worth having. That said, if you buy it and don't like it, you can resell it.
Now, some might say that's a pain, but with the resources available for determining if it might even be worthwhile, why download it at all?
I remember someone who downloaded "Chronicles of Riddick", citing, "I already know it sucks, so I don't want to pay for it." So why let it take up hard drive space? Because he wanted to watch how bad it sucked. Frankly, to me, that means he wanted two hours(ish) of entertainment, regardless of how he was deriving that entertainment. He should have paid for it.
Many bands will put low quality versions of their entire albums up on their site upon release. I've purchased a few records as a result of this because I could listen to selected tracks, and then if I liked the music, buy the high quality version on CD or (now) DRM free via iTunes.
Someone please explain this to me.
And for the record, the entertainment industry has *always* been about making money, as most industries are...and most industries in the modern day are interested in maximizing profit, for good or ill. It's just that the entertainment industry now has a product that we can access (legally or otherwise) virtually for free. As an industry, they are just following the trends of modern business. "Captive Audience." It might not be right, but that's how it works now. Don't give them your money if you don't like it, but don't use their products, either.
The solution to this situation seems so simple, since the industry can't make money if no-one is watching.
And if people start citing "the masses" who "are too stupid to not pay for it" then note: there is an audience, then, and they will cater to them. Movies are released to DVD now faster than ever before. Music is available in a variety of formats and distribution methods whereby the artist can still get paid. If you're still watching/listening/consuming anyway without paying for it, then you're just lying to yourself about the quality of the product to justify your behavior.
I can tell the difference. In blind tests, no less. Admittedly the accuracy goes down with increased bitrate, but I can hear the difference between many 24bit/96k recordings and Redbook.
Some of us actually listen to our music.
Have to agree about watermarking, though. Don't really care if they add a few extra bits as long as it doesn't frack with my audio.
In this world, it is a trivial enterprise to make vast libraries of culture and knowledge accessible to peasants in the jungle.
How? I mean, effectively. Will the peasants in the jungle even be interested in this panacea they're being offered? Or will it merely be someone thrusting "civilization" and "culture" upon them? Will they be interested in using computers to access this information, or will it merely homogenize them into the vast global monoculture?
It is trivial to find the idle time to set your hand to it.
Is it? Quality, anyone? Or have the great works of art that form the foundation of our history and culture been the work of hobbyists? Professional writers, musicians, painters, etc...have been around a long time, as much for the passion of their work as for the ability to pay their bills and put food on the table. In a world that is so quickly migrating to obtaining all this culture via a vast electronic network, how will these professionals (the one's who created the genuinely powerful, memorable, and quality material) be able to afford to continue to do so? Will the great works of tomorrow be the homogenized sound of Billy in his bedroom in his spare time, scarcely able to use the tools the develop such a work? When will he hone his skills? Has he heard of craft?
Where's the money gonna come from?
Brainstorm for other ideas on how you might get subsidized by our society without it being necessary to keep people isolated from what you've created, and throw your weight behind getting them into place.
You don't think artists try to do that all the time? Except for the large corporations and the elect few, art/music/writing/etc... is not all that lucrative a career choice unless you take advantage of every avenue you can possibly exploit to make money off of your work (and it is WORK.) Eliminating copyright makes it that much harder. Now, I'll be the first to admit that our copyright laws may have pushed the boundaries too far (I don't need a copyright that continues for an entire lifetime after I'm dead and gone, and frankly neither do my heirs), but eliminating copyright does not fix the problem.
This kind of mentality is part of what is killing the potential quality of art. Not the innovation part (for that I applaud you...artists should be innovative in all things, including how they do business), but the notion that anyone can do it, that it's easy, and soon everyone will do it and that's the end of that. Well, five minutes of fame on YouTube is fine, but that's it. It's no guarantee of establishing a place in culture except as a footnote. It's no guarantee of quality.
Soon, it will be trivial to provide a copy of every creative work ever made to every man, woman and child on earth.
At which point, the only thing holding us back from doing so will be small-minded dickheads harping about their "rights".
And then it occurs to me: this is all about the free lunch.
If you're a creator, stop thinking about copyright.
But if you're a consumer, get everything you can for as free as you can. If you're not willing to pay for quality, copy it. Spread it around. There was one copy that the artist made 65 cents off of. That's enough. That's all it's worth, because the copies are free.
Rights. Creators don't have rights. Only those looking for handouts do.
I have to agree with this. However, I'd add that the whole Analog vs Digital debate really comes down to CDs (the dominant delivery format and quality benchmark for file based delivery formats; aka "cd quality") having provided us for so long with the lowest possible quality that could fool most people's ears. 44.1/16 bit really is noticable if you are the kind of person who listens. I do not have golden ears, but I've done the blind tests on a variety of equipment with a variety of records.
In CD vs Vinyl, I prefer the vinyl version almost every time.
SACD vs Vinyl, however (still referring to stereo mixes here), SACD wins out. Cleaner, clearer, and there's that sense of space that just isn't there on a CD.
For those in doubt, compare Bonham's drums on "Rock and Roll" on both the CD and the vinyl.
I track now at 24 bit (always) and the highest multiple of the sample rate of my delivery medium. Disk space be damned.
"I agree with neither but typically those groups' protests do not involve breaking stuff and inviting chaos and mayhem. The lefties often do, that's part of their operating system."
The occasional murder of an abortion doctor not withstanding...
If you all would simply vote for Ron Jeremy we wouldn't have to worry about the RIAA, MPAA, Iraq or most everything else you complain about. Free porn for all!
Because frankly, what if I disagree with the policies of both canidates? As unheard of as it sounds, I have found that there are usually more than two sides to any story, and usually more than two options. It's just that American culture has become so polarized (and polarized sells) that we refuse (or perhaps are unable) to see alternatives to the "pro-this / anti-this" mentality. It's all very Nietzschian.
It does not work against my interest if I find neither major party desirable. In fact, given the tendency of the two major parties in non-election years to simply espouse the opposite of the other party, or to ignore genuinely relevant issues at all, I find it better to vote my conscience and let the major parties ping-pong for a few years until the next election rolls around. Sooner or later, more people might come around to a similar point of view.
They don't. Which leaves us with the one option you have available in a democracy that is more powerful than lobbying or writing your representatives. Vote for someone else.
I would like to bring up that third party voting has (for better or worse) happened even in some major elections (governerships, etc...) when people were disgruntled with the major party options. For those that suggest voting for a third party canidate is "hopeless" and "throwing your vote away", consider that it just takes enough people fed up with the status quo to change things.
From everyone's favorite reliable source (though these numbers are available through other sources as well):
Three quarters of the atmosphere lies within the troposphere, and the depth of this layer varies between 17 km at the equator and 7 km at the poles. The ozone layer, which absorbs ultraviolet energy from the Sun, is located primarily in the stratosphere, at altitudes of 15 to 35 km. The Kármán line, located within the thermosphere at an altitude of 100 km, is commonly used to define the boundary between the Earth's atmosphere and outer space. However, the exosphere can extend from 500 up to 10,000 km above the surface, where it interacts with the planet's magnetosphere.
About those shadows...typically my back yard is in shadow for half the day, and things grow quite well back there. Windmills seem to cast a limited shadow that moves throughout the day. Just saying...
Which is unfortunate, really. Sure, it's easier to keep an eye out for what we know, but I think it's important to consider how faulty many of our ideas about life, and particularly intelligent life may be. Assumptions like:
* Intelligent life wants to talk to us
* Intelligent life has the capability to talk to us
* Intelligent life has similar desires and ambitions as we do (or desires and ambitions at all)
* Intelligent life is necessarily spacefaring
Granted, we get caught in the trap of how we define intelligent life, but there could be many drastically different, unimagined yet intelligent beings out there that are nothing at all like us.
Despite our somewhat clumsy (but nevertheless impressive) grasp on technology in what seems a very short space of time, other lifeforms may fit entirely different criteria that we would still classify intelligent.
Must cry foul on this one. Musicians pre 1976 made money because it was expensive to make music? Doesn't make sense. Think you probably meant record companies, but the logic still doesn't apply. They made money because it was a better climate for musical creativity. They were more allowed to express themselves. The opportunity exists again now, only without the middle men of the record companies and distributors (note: distributors and record companies can still have their uses, however, if they choose to remain relevant.)
Granted, it is cheaper to make and duplicate music now compared to that era, and this should drive the cost of music down. However, there is an insistent mantra by many slashdotters that music is not scarce because it is easily copied and distributed for virtually no cost. To say, as the above says, that "there is no value associated with it and nobody should be paying anything for it any longer" suggests that songwriters might as well not bother anymore. And musicians should set down their instruments and not play (or certainly not record). The world can be content with the recorded music of the past century and that's it for the rest of time...that and whatever the amateurs want to churn out for their own self-satisfaction.
Because it's easy, right? No. It's not. Maybe I can buy all the tools necessary to construct a computer from scratch (CPU and all), but without some specialized knowledge, I'm probably going to do a shit job of it. Same goes for music. Some people put a lot of time and energy into their art and craft and technique. A lot of time. Others are hobbyists who enjoy doing it, but can only dedicate so much effort to it. Though there are those hobbyists who will occasionally be brilliant, it is usually the professional who consistently churns out quality material.
This is all to say that there is a kind of scarcity involved in the process of creating and distributing music. Modern prices may not be justified, but to say it should be "free" because duplication and distribution now costs "nothing" is like suggesting that corn flakes comes not from the work of farmers, but magically off the shelves of stores. When you buy one box, another one will appear next time you go shopping. Note: this is an illustration, not an apples to apples analogy here. Point is, the artist, musician, writers, engineers, etc...put a lot of creative and technical effort into their work. If you want what they worked on, you should pay for it. Otherwise, don't go duplicating and distributing their work simply because "you can." It's a disservice to art in general.
And for those who will point out that record companies often push out a large quantity of crap and that the artists rarely see much of a return anyway, CHANGE IT. Because hoarding, copying and P2Ping that material merely suggests that there is a demand for it, and demand is as relevant a place to start pricing something as supply. Without demand, all the supply in the world won't make RIAA's members one thin dime.
Consequently, they shouldn't give any indication of not paying for music. They shouldn't do it.
I'm not a marketing expert, but I would see college students as quite a good consumer market, even though they don't necessarily have disposable income (though they do often have a lot of available credit.) By that logic, if I priced something too high for them, and they weren't buying...in fact, they weren't even "stealing" it (or whatever term is slashdot acceptable), then I'd probably have to change the price point to appeal to them. Otherwise, no sale.
Now, I don't know where the RIAA gets their figures as to how much they've lost in "piracy", but if they what they are saying is total BS, then why are people worried about it? If you don't have "pirated" media, and you're not purchasing new media because you don't like the way business is being done, then you are in the right.
On the other hand, if you have "pirated" media, or are still buying at the prices they're asking for, you are part of the problem. The RIAA suddenly has some justification for their price points (in their minds) because they can claim they need to make up the difference from piracy, or that since you're buying anyway, it must be a reasonable price.
No-one needs music. It is a pleasure, a joy, an art, and a luxury, but it is not food, water, shelter, or clothing. Nevertheless, we desire it, and it will be there for some time to come, but if we want to continue seeing quality music, we need encourage reasonable behaviors toward it on the business side of things.
They can shove whatever they want down your throat, but if you don't buy, and if you don't consume it, they will have to change all the faster.
I thought the whole point of manufactured acts was that they didn't have to spend great wads of money on the artist, recording process, etc...and could spend it instead on marketing. They use tried and true producers, engineers and methods to create slick pop "hits" because it's relatively cheap compared to what they have to spend on bands and the like.
Are they paying too much on studio time and pampering? Well, probably. But I'd hate to be the artist in that contract, because those contracts can be borderline illegal (including strategically placed terms like "in perpetuity, throughout the universe")
Regarding price point, I don't see "free" as a black market price point. Someone did put work into it. Someone should be paid for it if it's going to be listened to. Period. I don't care how much it sucks, if people are going to "consume" a "product" they should provide due compensation to the creators and distributors of that content, without whom the content would not exist. To pay nothing for it is stealing. If you don't like the system, stop buying. No-one dies from not having had eaten their music today.
Otherwise, the system never changes for the better, because the industry can continue to claim that piracy is destroying them. It would be better if a complete lack of interest in mediocre product or lack of interest in their asking price could be justified without people hoarding thousands of unpaid for songs on digital storage devices.
Lest we forget, the Dead also had the benefit of a fine mist of substances percolating through the atmosphere at their gigs. This may have had some impact on the fanbase, because frankly I don't hear it clean and sober.
Just commentary. Not saying people shouldn't listen under the influence, but there is always more going on than just the music, it seems.
Agreed. I think Apple staked out the middle ground. You still have legal ways to change your content format. Record companies are happy. Apple is happily selling hardware. And apparently, as the leading digital music store in the world, the overall consumer seems fine with it, too.
Apples and oranges here. You are right, but not the way you think.
iTunes/iPod is not a monopoly. If there are alternatives out there that provide non DRM'd music, then the consumers should be flocking to them. They should be purchasing mp3 players other than the iPod. In this case, the market should do it's work, but clearly either a) it's not, or b) it is and the dominant choice is iTunes/iPod due to overall usability and compromise between the content creators and the end users.
iTunes DRM is not an open standard, nor does it need to be. Part of how it supports this compromise is by maintaining control this standard.
Since you can purchase music from other vendors and in other formats (non DRM mp3s, CDs...even vinyl in many cases), this is a problem of people wanting free and wanting it now. They can whine all they want about how they want to control their content, but if they truly do, they should shut up and start using their money to vote for them before a DRM oriented distributor *does* establish a monopoly in music.
And if you (not necessarily the esteemed parents above) just want your music for free because it's your right as a human being, go out there and make your own.
Sure. No DRM was a fabulous model in the days of Napster. I'm sure it would work even better in this age of increased bandwidth and storage capacity. Film and album budgets will shrink, and all productions will now be made out of Jimmy's bedroom with his $500 worth of gear on his P4. The quality will be superb.
DRM may not be the answer, but the mantra "no DRM" is not the answer either.
Mars is warmer this winter and so is my office. Correlated? Yes. Causative? That depends. Does it matter that I started using a space heater in my office this winter?
How about a little more data than "the martian icecaps are melting THEREFORE it's the suns's fault." I think we have a little more evidence than that here on Earth, at least according to a great number of scientists and observers. I admit, they could be heavily influenced by the discovery that government grants clearly provide great wealth for them compared to working for private corporations. "Hey kid, wanna make a million? Why not become a climate scientist!"
Slashdot Mirror
Sadly, I think the media's choice of dominant topics is much like that of the host of a party. If things get too politicized, they fear driving away someone in their audience. Since it's all about making the bucks, the media, like all forms of "entertainment" (which is what it's become) pitches to the lowest common denominator...particularly one that will offend the fewest people. If the worst anyone can say about a story (say, Paris Hilton) is "who cares", then they've done alright.
This same tragedy drives Hollywood, much of the mainstream music industry and other similar forums. If you can't unite most of your audience behind it, you are terrified to alienate them for fear that they won't return.
Goes to the heart of the issue, though. I keep wondering, if people wouldn't buy this stuff to begin with, why do they bother to "creatively acquire" it? Because they don't know if it's good or not? If you're watching a movie at a theater and it's terrible (at least where I live) and you leave before the film is done, you can get your money back. Albums don't work like that, but at this point there are many ways to sample the music from an artist without purchasing an entire record...even without torrenting it.
In addition, in the age of hypermass media, there are reviews, blogs, previews, clips, analysis, etc...that should at least give you an idea if it's worth having. That said, if you buy it and don't like it, you can resell it.
Now, some might say that's a pain, but with the resources available for determining if it might even be worthwhile, why download it at all?
I remember someone who downloaded "Chronicles of Riddick", citing, "I already know it sucks, so I don't want to pay for it." So why let it take up hard drive space? Because he wanted to watch how bad it sucked. Frankly, to me, that means he wanted two hours(ish) of entertainment, regardless of how he was deriving that entertainment. He should have paid for it.
Many bands will put low quality versions of their entire albums up on their site upon release. I've purchased a few records as a result of this because I could listen to selected tracks, and then if I liked the music, buy the high quality version on CD or (now) DRM free via iTunes.
Someone please explain this to me.
And for the record, the entertainment industry has *always* been about making money, as most industries are...and most industries in the modern day are interested in maximizing profit, for good or ill. It's just that the entertainment industry now has a product that we can access (legally or otherwise) virtually for free. As an industry, they are just following the trends of modern business. "Captive Audience." It might not be right, but that's how it works now. Don't give them your money if you don't like it, but don't use their products, either.
The solution to this situation seems so simple, since the industry can't make money if no-one is watching.
And if people start citing "the masses" who "are too stupid to not pay for it" then note: there is an audience, then, and they will cater to them. Movies are released to DVD now faster than ever before. Music is available in a variety of formats and distribution methods whereby the artist can still get paid. If you're still watching/listening/consuming anyway without paying for it, then you're just lying to yourself about the quality of the product to justify your behavior.
Well, realistically you are correct for the majority of drivers. However, you clearly do not live in Los Angeles!
I'm surprised we haven't turned "idling" into some kind of quasi-religious liturgy. Or maybe we have...
I can tell the difference. In blind tests, no less. Admittedly the accuracy goes down with increased bitrate, but I can hear the difference between many 24bit/96k recordings and Redbook.
Some of us actually listen to our music.
Have to agree about watermarking, though. Don't really care if they add a few extra bits as long as it doesn't frack with my audio.
In this world, it is a trivial enterprise to make vast libraries of culture and knowledge accessible to peasants in the jungle.
How? I mean, effectively. Will the peasants in the jungle even be interested in this panacea they're being offered? Or will it merely be someone thrusting "civilization" and "culture" upon them? Will they be interested in using computers to access this information, or will it merely homogenize them into the vast global monoculture?
It is trivial to find the idle time to set your hand to it.
Is it? Quality, anyone? Or have the great works of art that form the foundation of our history and culture been the work of hobbyists? Professional writers, musicians, painters, etc...have been around a long time, as much for the passion of their work as for the ability to pay their bills and put food on the table. In a world that is so quickly migrating to obtaining all this culture via a vast electronic network, how will these professionals (the one's who created the genuinely powerful, memorable, and quality material) be able to afford to continue to do so? Will the great works of tomorrow be the homogenized sound of Billy in his bedroom in his spare time, scarcely able to use the tools the develop such a work? When will he hone his skills? Has he heard of craft?
Where's the money gonna come from?
Brainstorm for other ideas on how you might get subsidized by our society without it being necessary to keep people isolated from what you've created, and throw your weight behind getting them into place.
You don't think artists try to do that all the time? Except for the large corporations and the elect few, art/music/writing/etc... is not all that lucrative a career choice unless you take advantage of every avenue you can possibly exploit to make money off of your work (and it is WORK.) Eliminating copyright makes it that much harder. Now, I'll be the first to admit that our copyright laws may have pushed the boundaries too far (I don't need a copyright that continues for an entire lifetime after I'm dead and gone, and frankly neither do my heirs), but eliminating copyright does not fix the problem.
This kind of mentality is part of what is killing the potential quality of art. Not the innovation part (for that I applaud you...artists should be innovative in all things, including how they do business), but the notion that anyone can do it, that it's easy, and soon everyone will do it and that's the end of that. Well, five minutes of fame on YouTube is fine, but that's it. It's no guarantee of establishing a place in culture except as a footnote. It's no guarantee of quality.
Soon, it will be trivial to provide a copy of every creative work ever made to every man, woman and child on earth.
At which point, the only thing holding us back from doing so will be small-minded dickheads harping about their "rights".
And then it occurs to me: this is all about the free lunch.
If you're a creator, stop thinking about copyright.
But if you're a consumer, get everything you can for as free as you can. If you're not willing to pay for quality, copy it. Spread it around. There was one copy that the artist made 65 cents off of. That's enough. That's all it's worth, because the copies are free.
Rights. Creators don't have rights. Only those looking for handouts do.
1) You weren't taking very good care of your vinyl, then. Well cared for vinyl rarely pops or snaps.
2) You tolerated the sound of cassette's over vinyl? With all that speed variation, the eventual bleed through and the overall frailty of the medium?
Then again, to be fair, I suppose if you had good playback equipment and took care of your cassettes, perhaps you might.
I have to agree with this. However, I'd add that the whole Analog vs Digital debate really comes down to CDs (the dominant delivery format and quality benchmark for file based delivery formats; aka "cd quality") having provided us for so long with the lowest possible quality that could fool most people's ears. 44.1/16 bit really is noticable if you are the kind of person who listens. I do not have golden ears, but I've done the blind tests on a variety of equipment with a variety of records.
In CD vs Vinyl, I prefer the vinyl version almost every time.
SACD vs Vinyl, however (still referring to stereo mixes here), SACD wins out. Cleaner, clearer, and there's that sense of space that just isn't there on a CD.
For those in doubt, compare Bonham's drums on "Rock and Roll" on both the CD and the vinyl.
I track now at 24 bit (always) and the highest multiple of the sample rate of my delivery medium. Disk space be damned.
"I agree with neither but typically those groups' protests do not involve breaking stuff and inviting chaos and mayhem. The lefties often do, that's part of their operating system."
The occasional murder of an abortion doctor not withstanding...
If you all would simply vote for Ron Jeremy we wouldn't have to worry about the RIAA, MPAA, Iraq or most everything else you complain about. Free porn for all!
Foul.
Because frankly, what if I disagree with the policies of both canidates? As unheard of as it sounds, I have found that there are usually more than two sides to any story, and usually more than two options. It's just that American culture has become so polarized (and polarized sells) that we refuse (or perhaps are unable) to see alternatives to the "pro-this / anti-this" mentality. It's all very Nietzschian.
It does not work against my interest if I find neither major party desirable. In fact, given the tendency of the two major parties in non-election years to simply espouse the opposite of the other party, or to ignore genuinely relevant issues at all, I find it better to vote my conscience and let the major parties ping-pong for a few years until the next election rolls around. Sooner or later, more people might come around to a similar point of view.
They don't. Which leaves us with the one option you have available in a democracy that is more powerful than lobbying or writing your representatives. Vote for someone else.
I would like to bring up that third party voting has (for better or worse) happened even in some major elections (governerships, etc...) when people were disgruntled with the major party options. For those that suggest voting for a third party canidate is "hopeless" and "throwing your vote away", consider that it just takes enough people fed up with the status quo to change things.
Because of attitudes like that.
The United States. A democracy of coin flipping.
From everyone's favorite reliable source (though these numbers are available through other sources as well):
Three quarters of the atmosphere lies within the troposphere, and the depth of this layer varies between 17 km at the equator and 7 km at the poles. The ozone layer, which absorbs ultraviolet energy from the Sun, is located primarily in the stratosphere, at altitudes of 15 to 35 km. The Kármán line, located within the thermosphere at an altitude of 100 km, is commonly used to define the boundary between the Earth's atmosphere and outer space. However, the exosphere can extend from 500 up to 10,000 km above the surface, where it interacts with the planet's magnetosphere.
About those shadows...typically my back yard is in shadow for half the day, and things grow quite well back there. Windmills seem to cast a limited shadow that moves throughout the day. Just saying...
Which is unfortunate, really. Sure, it's easier to keep an eye out for what we know, but I think it's important to consider how faulty many of our ideas about life, and particularly intelligent life may be. Assumptions like:
* Intelligent life wants to talk to us
* Intelligent life has the capability to talk to us
* Intelligent life has similar desires and ambitions as we do (or desires and ambitions at all)
* Intelligent life is necessarily spacefaring
Granted, we get caught in the trap of how we define intelligent life, but there could be many drastically different, unimagined yet intelligent beings out there that are nothing at all like us.
Despite our somewhat clumsy (but nevertheless impressive) grasp on technology in what seems a very short space of time, other lifeforms may fit entirely different criteria that we would still classify intelligent.
Must cry foul on this one. Musicians pre 1976 made money because it was expensive to make music? Doesn't make sense. Think you probably meant record companies, but the logic still doesn't apply. They made money because it was a better climate for musical creativity. They were more allowed to express themselves. The opportunity exists again now, only without the middle men of the record companies and distributors (note: distributors and record companies can still have their uses, however, if they choose to remain relevant.)
Granted, it is cheaper to make and duplicate music now compared to that era, and this should drive the cost of music down. However, there is an insistent mantra by many slashdotters that music is not scarce because it is easily copied and distributed for virtually no cost. To say, as the above says, that "there is no value associated with it and nobody should be paying anything for it any longer" suggests that songwriters might as well not bother anymore. And musicians should set down their instruments and not play (or certainly not record). The world can be content with the recorded music of the past century and that's it for the rest of time...that and whatever the amateurs want to churn out for their own self-satisfaction.
Because it's easy, right? No. It's not. Maybe I can buy all the tools necessary to construct a computer from scratch (CPU and all), but without some specialized knowledge, I'm probably going to do a shit job of it. Same goes for music. Some people put a lot of time and energy into their art and craft and technique. A lot of time. Others are hobbyists who enjoy doing it, but can only dedicate so much effort to it. Though there are those hobbyists who will occasionally be brilliant, it is usually the professional who consistently churns out quality material.
This is all to say that there is a kind of scarcity involved in the process of creating and distributing music. Modern prices may not be justified, but to say it should be "free" because duplication and distribution now costs "nothing" is like suggesting that corn flakes comes not from the work of farmers, but magically off the shelves of stores. When you buy one box, another one will appear next time you go shopping. Note: this is an illustration, not an apples to apples analogy here. Point is, the artist, musician, writers, engineers, etc...put a lot of creative and technical effort into their work. If you want what they worked on, you should pay for it. Otherwise, don't go duplicating and distributing their work simply because "you can." It's a disservice to art in general.
And for those who will point out that record companies often push out a large quantity of crap and that the artists rarely see much of a return anyway, CHANGE IT. Because hoarding, copying and P2Ping that material merely suggests that there is a demand for it, and demand is as relevant a place to start pricing something as supply. Without demand, all the supply in the world won't make RIAA's members one thin dime.
Consequently, they shouldn't give any indication of not paying for music. They shouldn't do it.
I'm not a marketing expert, but I would see college students as quite a good consumer market, even though they don't necessarily have disposable income (though they do often have a lot of available credit.) By that logic, if I priced something too high for them, and they weren't buying...in fact, they weren't even "stealing" it (or whatever term is slashdot acceptable), then I'd probably have to change the price point to appeal to them. Otherwise, no sale.
Now, I don't know where the RIAA gets their figures as to how much they've lost in "piracy", but if they what they are saying is total BS, then why are people worried about it? If you don't have "pirated" media, and you're not purchasing new media because you don't like the way business is being done, then you are in the right.
On the other hand, if you have "pirated" media, or are still buying at the prices they're asking for, you are part of the problem. The RIAA suddenly has some justification for their price points (in their minds) because they can claim they need to make up the difference from piracy, or that since you're buying anyway, it must be a reasonable price.
No-one needs music. It is a pleasure, a joy, an art, and a luxury, but it is not food, water, shelter, or clothing. Nevertheless, we desire it, and it will be there for some time to come, but if we want to continue seeing quality music, we need encourage reasonable behaviors toward it on the business side of things.
They can shove whatever they want down your throat, but if you don't buy, and if you don't consume it, they will have to change all the faster.
I thought the whole point of manufactured acts was that they didn't have to spend great wads of money on the artist, recording process, etc...and could spend it instead on marketing. They use tried and true producers, engineers and methods to create slick pop "hits" because it's relatively cheap compared to what they have to spend on bands and the like.
Are they paying too much on studio time and pampering? Well, probably. But I'd hate to be the artist in that contract, because those contracts can be borderline illegal (including strategically placed terms like "in perpetuity, throughout the universe")
Regarding price point, I don't see "free" as a black market price point. Someone did put work into it. Someone should be paid for it if it's going to be listened to. Period. I don't care how much it sucks, if people are going to "consume" a "product" they should provide due compensation to the creators and distributors of that content, without whom the content would not exist. To pay nothing for it is stealing. If you don't like the system, stop buying. No-one dies from not having had eaten their music today.
Otherwise, the system never changes for the better, because the industry can continue to claim that piracy is destroying them. It would be better if a complete lack of interest in mediocre product or lack of interest in their asking price could be justified without people hoarding thousands of unpaid for songs on digital storage devices.
Lest we forget, the Dead also had the benefit of a fine mist of substances percolating through the atmosphere at their gigs. This may have had some impact on the fanbase, because frankly I don't hear it clean and sober.
Just commentary. Not saying people shouldn't listen under the influence, but there is always more going on than just the music, it seems.
Agreed. I think Apple staked out the middle ground. You still have legal ways to change your content format. Record companies are happy. Apple is happily selling hardware. And apparently, as the leading digital music store in the world, the overall consumer seems fine with it, too.
1) Not illegal. Burn to CD. Re-rip. It's designed to work that way.
2) I sincerely hope that you bought your mac/ipod setup before you started opposing vendor lockout. Otherwise, YOU ARE THE PROBLEM.
Apples and oranges here. You are right, but not the way you think.
iTunes/iPod is not a monopoly. If there are alternatives out there that provide non DRM'd music, then the consumers should be flocking to them. They should be purchasing mp3 players other than the iPod. In this case, the market should do it's work, but clearly either a) it's not, or b) it is and the dominant choice is iTunes/iPod due to overall usability and compromise between the content creators and the end users.
iTunes DRM is not an open standard, nor does it need to be. Part of how it supports this compromise is by maintaining control this standard.
Since you can purchase music from other vendors and in other formats (non DRM mp3s, CDs...even vinyl in many cases), this is a problem of people wanting free and wanting it now. They can whine all they want about how they want to control their content, but if they truly do, they should shut up and start using their money to vote for them before a DRM oriented distributor *does* establish a monopoly in music.
And if you (not necessarily the esteemed parents above) just want your music for free because it's your right as a human being, go out there and make your own.
Sure. No DRM was a fabulous model in the days of Napster. I'm sure it would work even better in this age of increased bandwidth and storage capacity. Film and album budgets will shrink, and all productions will now be made out of Jimmy's bedroom with his $500 worth of gear on his P4. The quality will be superb.
DRM may not be the answer, but the mantra "no DRM" is not the answer either.
For example:
Mars is warmer this winter and so is my office. Correlated? Yes. Causative? That depends. Does it matter that I started using a space heater in my office this winter?
How about a little more data than "the martian icecaps are melting THEREFORE it's the suns's fault." I think we have a little more evidence than that here on Earth, at least according to a great number of scientists and observers. I admit, they could be heavily influenced by the discovery that government grants clearly provide great wealth for them compared to working for private corporations. "Hey kid, wanna make a million? Why not become a climate scientist!"
But I'm probably just overreacting.