First off let me say I think it is reasonable for an artist (or a label) to want compensation for music
played on the radio. BUT why does the RIAA fucking monopoly have to get in there all the time?
Why should the RIAA / Congress decide how much airplay is worth to the artist or the radio station?
Why not create a market where each artist / label could decide the price of each song? Then if you want publicity you
could set the price at zero. If you think you are doing the radio station a favour letting them play your
music set the price high.
All the systems are automated these days anyway, the could add this if they wanted.
Re:What about piracy psycology though?
on
Piracy Economics
·
· Score: 1
Ah I see where you're coming from. Yes, that is something to think about. Not sure quite how it would work in his case though.
Re:What about piracy psycology though?
on
Piracy Economics
·
· Score: 1
You're still thinking inside the copyright box model which, as your friend has learned, just isn't going to work well anymore.
I have thought about this quite a lot. And I've hung about here enough to see all the arguments. I can see how free software writers can make a living selling books or consulting, or musicians could make money on live shows and merchandising (although that's another long discussion!). But this guy is a sound designer, that's what he does well. If he can't sell his sounds - just because people can take them and so do - then I can't see any benefit in him continuing to produce them. Which would be a shame both for the people who do pay and who don't.
Even if he could think up some business model where he did something tangential and gave away the sounds, isn't that a waste? Shouldn't he be spending his time doing what he's best at? Shouldn't people be paying for the bit of what he does that they want (the sounds!)? It just seems so inefficient.
I don't think the exposure one will cheer him up - it's a pretty small world he works in and pretty easy to reach people. The 14 year old basement dweller one might though!
Re:What about piracy psycology though?
on
Piracy Economics
·
· Score: 1
t's not that "information wants to be free" so much as it's just natural for people to share knowledge and culture. If your friends stuff is good and people really do want it they will pay him to produce more if he gives them a way to do so.
I'm not so sure, people have a way do pay him for the stuff already - we're not talking big bucks either - and there are plenty of demos on his site if people just want to spread the news! I would have thought that the people using his stuff would realise what a small operation he ran. That's why I wonder about the psychology of piracy. It seems to me that many musicians have convinced themselves that all the software tools and material they use is overpriced and made by huge megacorps* and that they have a right to take it for free. Maybe I'm wrong, but I've heard it a lot.
* actually a lot of music software is now produced by a few megacorps (apple,yamaha etc), but that's only because the small software houses were bought out... for surprisingly little money, which suggests to me they probably weren't over charging.
What about piracy psycology though?
on
Piracy Economics
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Thing that worries me about piracy is that people get used to it. Maybe MS can get market share through piracy. Maybe the RIAA can get viral marketing through piracy...
...but I know a guy who makes a living by creating drum and other sounds that people use to make electronic music. It's not a big operation, just him and one other guy. When you order a DVD he burns one by hand and mails it to you. Anyway, someone just uploaded ALL their products to Bittorrent, and he can see all these people posting about how cool they are and how they can't wait to download them. Needless to say he's pretty despondent.
And before people start with the 'information wants to be free' and 'find a new business model' - why should he? This is what he's good at, people want his stuff, why shouldn't they pay him for it? I mean, I have written free software... while earning a fat salary working on other stuff at a hitech corp. It's not so easy in other areas though.
The Department of Homeland Security will fund up to $25 million for the nearly $40 million superconductor cable, it calls "Project Hydra," after the mythical Greek monster that grew back multiple heads when one was severed.
Wasn't Hydra was the mythical monster that managed to think
of multiple ways to get government money in the name of fighting
terrorism each time one was cut off?
I did think of mentioning the 'titles are not copyrightable' thing... but I think that's just a quirk of current law. If you're going to argue that IP is just like physical property then why shouldn't titles be property too, and subject to the same ownership?
Yeah, you'll probably get modded down;)
But really I wasn't trying to attack the guy, just to illustrate what would follow from his plan, with examples he should understand.
Strange, in his article Helprin doesn't mention anything about HIM paying royalties to Shakespeare's
descendants for his use of the title
Winter's Tale for his novel (it is the name of, and a reference to a Shakespeare play). Presumably he should cough up something for the use of a similar plot device too.
No mention either of what he should be paying the descendants of every innovator in printing technology.
...is phishing sites that are not banks. Just look at all the phishing of myspace passwords for an example. This is bound to increase in the future as more of our lives move online. So, people need to be able to recognise phishing in many more cases than.bank will handle.
You can see from just the summary that they are too young and inexperienced - if they want to be taken seriously they should be asking for at least $5M. (hmmm, funny? insightful?)
This guy may be a sleazeball...
on
The HP Way 2.0
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
...but if all the dirt the summary writer can find on him is a firing 20 years ago and something he wrote while he was at Dartmouth (30 years ago??), I'm inclined to think he must be a saint.
(disclaimer: I used to work at HP, a looong time ago)
In a modern day (and underwater) version of Indiana Jones
I'm not quite getting it. Leaving aside the difficulties of shooting, who would stand in for the evil Nazis? I suppose they could have the Taliban in scuba gear.
I spend all day^H^H^H^H^H^H^H a few momentes when I would
not otherwise be productive, pimping my music round myspace (surely the
biggest resource hog on the net) and firefox holds up fine on my 256MB
Thinkpad (running ubuntu).
Slashdot Mirror
selling two of its Dimension desktop computers in in about 3,000 Wal-Marts
Who the hell is going to want to buy 1/1500th of a computer?
Jetted away for HP I think.
Can't you just use a computer program?
---^ parse error at '
Can not recover
falling back to default reply
w00t FRIST POST!
You could at least try to slashdot the guy's site, it is^H^Hwas kind of cool.
...Write slashdot posts? I'm finding it rather a strain at the moment.
I forget who said it first, but the fastest way to lose an argument is to exaggerate
Aren't you exaggerating a bit there? Wouldn't it be faster to start dribbling and jabbing yourself in the face with a pen? (for instance)
First off let me say I think it is reasonable for an artist (or a label) to want compensation for music played on the radio. BUT why does the RIAA fucking monopoly have to get in there all the time? Why should the RIAA / Congress decide how much airplay is worth to the artist or the radio station? Why not create a market where each artist / label could decide the price of each song? Then if you want publicity you could set the price at zero. If you think you are doing the radio station a favour letting them play your music set the price high.
All the systems are automated these days anyway, the could add this if they wanted.
Ah I see where you're coming from. Yes, that is something to think about. Not sure quite how it would work in his case though.
You're still thinking inside the copyright box model which, as your friend has learned, just isn't going to work well anymore.
I have thought about this quite a lot. And I've hung about here enough to see all the arguments. I can see how free software writers can make a living selling books or consulting, or musicians could make money on live shows and merchandising (although that's another long discussion!). But this guy is a sound designer, that's what he does well. If he can't sell his sounds - just because people can take them and so do - then I can't see any benefit in him continuing to produce them. Which would be a shame both for the people who do pay and who don't.
Even if he could think up some business model where he did something tangential and gave away the sounds, isn't that a waste? Shouldn't he be spending his time doing what he's best at? Shouldn't people be paying for the bit of what he does that they want (the sounds!)? It just seems so inefficient.
I don't think the exposure one will cheer him up - it's a pretty small world he works in and pretty easy to reach people. The 14 year old basement dweller one might though!
t's not that "information wants to be free" so much as it's just natural for people to share knowledge and culture. If your friends stuff is good and people really do want it they will pay him to produce more if he gives them a way to do so.
I'm not so sure, people have a way do pay him for the stuff already - we're not talking big bucks either - and there are plenty of demos on his site if people just want to spread the news! I would have thought that the people using his stuff would realise what a small operation he ran. That's why I wonder about the psychology of piracy. It seems to me that many musicians have convinced themselves that all the software tools and material they use is overpriced and made by huge megacorps* and that they have a right to take it for free. Maybe I'm wrong, but I've heard it a lot.
* actually a lot of music software is now produced by a few megacorps (apple,yamaha etc), but that's only because the small software houses were bought out... for surprisingly little money, which suggests to me they probably weren't over charging.
Thing that worries me about piracy is that people get used to it. Maybe MS can get market share through piracy. Maybe the RIAA can get viral marketing through piracy...
...but I know a guy who makes a living by creating drum and other sounds that people use to make electronic music. It's not a big operation, just him and one other guy. When you order a DVD he burns one by hand and mails it to you. Anyway, someone just uploaded ALL their products to Bittorrent, and he can see all these people posting about how cool they are and how they can't wait to download them. Needless to say he's pretty despondent.
And before people start with the 'information wants to be free' and 'find a new business model' - why should he? This is what he's good at, people want his stuff, why shouldn't they pay him for it? I mean, I have written free software... while earning a fat salary working on other stuff at a hitech corp. It's not so easy in other areas though.
</RANT>Wasn't Hydra was the mythical monster that managed to think of multiple ways to get government money in the name of fighting terrorism each time one was cut off?
I did think of mentioning the 'titles are not copyrightable' thing... but I think that's just a quirk of current law. If you're going to argue that IP is just like physical property then why shouldn't titles be property too, and subject to the same ownership?
Yeah, you'll probably get modded down ;)
But really I wasn't trying to attack the guy, just to illustrate what would follow from his plan, with examples he should understand.
Strange, in his article Helprin doesn't mention anything about HIM paying royalties to Shakespeare's descendants for his use of the title Winter's Tale for his novel (it is the name of, and a reference to a Shakespeare play). Presumably he should cough up something for the use of a similar plot device too.
No mention either of what he should be paying the descendants of every innovator in printing technology.
...is phishing sites that are not banks. Just look at all the phishing of myspace passwords for an example. This is bound to increase in the future as more of our lives move online. So, people need to be able to recognise phishing in many more cases than .bank will handle.
You can see from just the summary that they are too young and inexperienced - if they want to be taken seriously they should be asking for at least $5M. (hmmm, funny? insightful?)
...but if all the dirt the summary writer can find on him is a firing 20 years ago and something he wrote while he was at Dartmouth (30 years ago??), I'm inclined to think he must be a saint.
(disclaimer: I used to work at HP, a looong time ago)
Cisco routers to blame for most of the rest of the internet's non-outage.
You, Sir, are a genius. Have you considered a Hollywood career? Combining 2 sequels into one movie - a masterstroke.
I'm not quite getting it. Leaving aside the difficulties of shooting, who would stand in for the evil Nazis? I suppose they could have the Taliban in scuba gear.
Good thinking. I mean, if they were launching the disk without the drive (or even the other way round) it would be a lot less likely to succeed.
I spend all day^H^H^H^H^H^H^H a few momentes when I would not otherwise be productive, pimping my music round myspace (surely the biggest resource hog on the net) and firefox holds up fine on my 256MB Thinkpad (running ubuntu).
Yeah, yeah, JFK and Monroe, sure. But not Elvis.