I didn't have the energy to maintain the strength of your approach. I settled for a smaller suite of addresses, and when I suspected some vendor would be a Newsletter-Offender, then I parked them into the catchall acct.
I had to decide a while ago to separate companies' mainline product/service divisions with their marketing gnomes in the basement.
DRM *is* economically beneficial, but in an extremely strange way. This is my very rough version, details may vary.
Day 1: Game Released. Press announcement mentions "game includes software protections." Joseph Honorable Customer, Esq. in Hadleyville is proud to jump through the DRM hoop. Investors like that "steps were taken" and *give more money*.
Day 2: Game cracked James Almost Honorable Customer, Jr. half heartedly tries the crack, messes it up, then decides his church pastor was right and the damn pirates should go to hell anyway. He jumps through the DRM hoop. On Wall Street, stock goes up.
Day 3: DRM server crashes. On wall street, ShortSellers make their profit, Spin Doctors play it down, someone files a copyright suit. Lawyers and politicians make money.
"Free" might aquire yet another meaning, something like "Free as in a Dollar".
It might have to do with the "Consideration Exchanged" part of contract law. I'd forego a dollar's worth of benefit for software to slide by that rule on the software side. "A Dollar's benefit" could be interpreted like "A Dollar's worth of NYCL's time"... which would be a reply to a comment here.
Nah. That's where you underestimate the power of a really good agency.
Everyone else deals in plain, possibly even frozen bull turds as you describe. Skip that.
Now we can offer New, Proprietary Mixed-Species Cross Kingdom Blend Biological Debris which includes features such as High-Pigment Proportional Density which comes from a specially grown Archaeopteryx reconstructed from an Intelligently Designed matrix of historical remains.
It's an exercise in the tolerance equations of free speech. All communication outlets appear somewhere on the moderation spectrum. Tightly moderated content shows no visible trolls for very long, but risks losing edge content due to moderator predjudice. Unmoderated content allows anything, but risks being overrun in a kind of Tragedy of Commons class of fallacy.
Now that you know, "life just goes on". Trolls post, get downmodded as expected, and nothing really momentous has occurred. However, your sig is clearly trolling, which you know, and I don't yet know of a way to excise troll sigs.
(I'm risking a -1 Whoosh mod. So be it. I prefer to answer almost-genuine questions.)
The intent of my remark was that there are a few interlocking logical loops of where each musician thinks they stand in the scheme of things. We all know the RIAA thinks it is about Big Name Artists on purported behalf of whom the RIAA feels threatened when someone makes a copy.
However, you declared your current inability to rake in lawn bags full of cash, so you value exposure more at this stage. (If you miraculously later became a Big Name, you could conceivably switch sides, or take a modern decision to 'remember the roots'.)
These things are all nebulous as long as said artist hasn't declared their position. My theory runs as follows:
A. Plaintive calls for "musical toolboxes" have begun to emerge. "How can we study if it's all locked up?". Thus, you can and are offering your music as study fodder. I was fairly careful to declare my intents as "Attribution-Based". So far I have not seen any problem with scammers pretending that music is theirs wholesale; they just want to do stuff with music and create mashups, remixes, etc.
B. The Internet Community at large is like an ant farm. Left to itself, people do their thing and no one really makes headlines. Thus, if my random projects gain four smiles and a "LolKewl", then you have lost nothing. If someone breaks the glass cage and riles up all the ants, then the rules change. Should I, by an equivalent miracle of my own Earn a Dollar, kicking me into "commercial" status, then I would contact you to show respect as a Fragment Contributor.
The important thing is that unlike a typical label contract, I am not obligating myself to produce any tangible benefit to you. This is where I see the UltraModern trend: Let people do things with your music at the exposure stage, and then negotiate if someone strikes "Internet Gold".
Okay, I made up that kitschy/pseudo-catchy headline. But this topic is full of clashing logic.
If your post is full of the "I'll never be known" variation of lamenting, and you "released your album for free", then you must be amenable for your music to "float around".
I'll say it clearly: Do I have permission to engange in Attribution based derivative activities with your music? There are tons of eclectic ways to do things with music once the artist has forsaken the RIAA's favorite Strait-Jacket model.
For example, I don't especially care for your exact handling of your music themes, but there's promise here.
Giving you credit for a great pointer piece, the next question is how many onion layers of Sneaky/Stupid Microsoft engages in until we're all utterly numbed.
If I didn't know better, I'd say it's like the hustler who tosses you a round to lure you in, beats you Double or nothing, loses a round from drinking too much, then sobers up and wins another round again when you thought they were trashed.
Slashdot Mirror
"Damn that Lizard cabal ... I will bury them!"
I think it's Korea with tons of IE6 dependent pages. If a plugin like this works for them, it has value.
Can we go the other way? Make a weird plugin that can fake IE6 behavior so that we can let them escape from the rusty tyrannosaurus trap?
Child
"Mommy! That mean man tricked me into installing IE again. Make it go away!"
/ Child
Aves FTW!
Ogg went around discussing ways to contain meat.
Dear NYCL,
Can $3 get them a logo branded pen from your office? : )
You mean my unpublished Perma-Alpha site that uses these for spacing could get slashdotted? Hooray!
"Thank you for your subscription!".
Oh. Sorry. I renewed my subscription to Slashdot. Was I supposed to send it to you?
I didn't have the energy to maintain the strength of your approach. I settled for a smaller suite of addresses, and when I suspected some vendor would be a Newsletter-Offender, then I parked them into the catchall acct.
I had to decide a while ago to separate companies' mainline product/service divisions with their marketing gnomes in the basement.
I think you mean Myspace.
Yep.
Low UID memes have now officially Idled Slashdot.
DRM *is* economically beneficial, but in an extremely strange way. This is my very rough version, details may vary.
Day 1: Game Released.
Press announcement mentions "game includes software protections."
Joseph Honorable Customer, Esq. in Hadleyville is proud to jump through the DRM hoop.
Investors like that "steps were taken" and *give more money*.
Day 2: Game cracked
James Almost Honorable Customer, Jr. half heartedly tries the crack, messes it up, then decides his church pastor was right and the damn pirates should go to hell anyway. He jumps through the DRM hoop.
On Wall Street, stock goes up.
Day 3: DRM server crashes.
On wall street, ShortSellers make their profit, Spin Doctors play it down, someone files a copyright suit. Lawyers and politicians make money.
"Free" might aquire yet another meaning, something like "Free as in a Dollar".
It might have to do with the "Consideration Exchanged" part of contract law. I'd forego a dollar's worth of benefit for software to slide by that rule on the software side. "A Dollar's benefit" could be interpreted like "A Dollar's worth of NYCL's time"... which would be a reply to a comment here.
They're Shards.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0083791/
The Dark Crystal (1982)
Redundancy, redundancy, redundancy, redundancy.
Redundancy, redundancy, redundancy, redundancy.
COME ON!!!! Whooo!!!
Except Joe is in IT. I'm betting the Sprinkler was a manager.
Too bad he switched keyboards with the CEO.
You're good. I almost got whooshed.
That's the problem with +5 Funny comments.
I bet he's not even going to do this! I could have used that cardboard to stabilize the table at my favorite cafe.
Nah. That's where you underestimate the power of a really good agency.
Everyone else deals in plain, possibly even frozen bull turds as you describe. Skip that.
Now we can offer New, Proprietary Mixed-Species Cross Kingdom Blend Biological Debris which includes features such as High-Pigment Proportional Density which comes from a specially grown Archaeopteryx reconstructed from an Intelligently Designed matrix of historical remains.
I'll bite.
It's an exercise in the tolerance equations of free speech. All communication outlets appear somewhere on the moderation spectrum. Tightly moderated content shows no visible trolls for very long, but risks losing edge content due to moderator predjudice. Unmoderated content allows anything, but risks being overrun in a kind of Tragedy of Commons class of fallacy.
Now that you know, "life just goes on". Trolls post, get downmodded as expected, and nothing really momentous has occurred. However, your sig is clearly trolling, which you know, and I don't yet know of a way to excise troll sigs.
(I'm risking a -1 Whoosh mod. So be it. I prefer to answer almost-genuine questions.)
No insult was implied, sir.
The intent of my remark was that there are a few interlocking logical loops of where each musician thinks they stand in the scheme of things. We all know the RIAA thinks it is about Big Name Artists on purported behalf of whom the RIAA feels threatened when someone makes a copy.
However, you declared your current inability to rake in lawn bags full of cash, so you value exposure more at this stage. (If you miraculously later became a Big Name, you could conceivably switch sides, or take a modern decision to 'remember the roots'.)
These things are all nebulous as long as said artist hasn't declared their position. My theory runs as follows:
A. Plaintive calls for "musical toolboxes" have begun to emerge. "How can we study if it's all locked up?". Thus, you can and are offering your music as study fodder. I was fairly careful to declare my intents as "Attribution-Based". So far I have not seen any problem with scammers pretending that music is theirs wholesale; they just want to do stuff with music and create mashups, remixes, etc.
B. The Internet Community at large is like an ant farm. Left to itself, people do their thing and no one really makes headlines. Thus, if my random projects gain four smiles and a "LolKewl", then you have lost nothing. If someone breaks the glass cage and riles up all the ants, then the rules change. Should I, by an equivalent miracle of my own Earn a Dollar, kicking me into "commercial" status, then I would contact you to show respect as a Fragment Contributor.
The important thing is that unlike a typical label contract, I am not obligating myself to produce any tangible benefit to you. This is where I see the UltraModern trend: Let people do things with your music at the exposure stage, and then negotiate if someone strikes "Internet Gold".
Best Regards,
TaoPhoenix
Okay, I made up that kitschy/pseudo-catchy headline. But this topic is full of clashing logic.
If your post is full of the "I'll never be known" variation of lamenting, and you "released your album for free", then you must be amenable for your music to "float around".
I'll say it clearly: Do I have permission to engange in Attribution based derivative activities with your music? There are tons of eclectic ways to do things with music once the artist has forsaken the RIAA's favorite Strait-Jacket model.
For example, I don't especially care for your exact handling of your music themes, but there's promise here.
Giving you credit for a great pointer piece, the next question is how many onion layers of Sneaky/Stupid Microsoft engages in until we're all utterly numbed.
If I didn't know better, I'd say it's like the hustler who tosses you a round to lure you in, beats you Double or nothing, loses a round from drinking too much, then sobers up and wins another round again when you thought they were trashed.
Rain mod points on this gang, if he's right this an unbelieveable ace in the hole for Rationality!
No, they'd make a movie out of it, and it would do brilliantly at the box office. Then they could sue people for copying it.
Ouroboros FTW!