http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/securit ... tall_.html
How many millions of people have to do something before it can be considered "ok" by democratic thought? We're not talking about genocide here, nor are people being driven into poverty. (Quite the contrary, the standard 6-record contract is far more damaging to a musician than file sharing and cd swapping)
These days I'm more concerned about how much corporate control of creative works and media will hurt us than government control.
Record labels suck
Record labels suck
Check out my YouTube channel: https://youtube.com/@davefancella?si=H--oCK3k_dQ1laDN
Be the devil's own, Lucifer's my name.
- Iron Maiden
Be the devil's own, Lucifer's my name.
- Iron Maiden
-
Tank Program
- Forum & Project Admin, PhD
- Posts: 6712
- Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2003 7:03 pm
-
Phytotron
- Formerly Oscilloscope
- Posts: 5042
- Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 10:06 pm
- Location: A site or situation, especially considered in regard to its surroundings.
- Contact:
Giant corporate record labels suck. "Tin-eared, graph-paper brained accountants instead of music fans call all the shots at giant record companies now. The lowest common denominator rules. Forget honesty. Forget creativity. The dumbest buy the mostest; that's the name of the game." And then they go on to spread it across filesharing networks.
Small, independent labels, generally speaking, don't suck. (And I don't mean mock "indie" labels that are actually just subsidiaries of larger corporate labels, like Miramax is to Disney.)
Small, independent labels, generally speaking, don't suck. (And I don't mean mock "indie" labels that are actually just subsidiaries of larger corporate labels, like Miramax is to Disney.)
I consider any record label affiliated with the RIAA to be a sucky label.
Haven't bought a CD in a long time....
Haven't bought a CD in a long time....
Check out my YouTube channel: https://youtube.com/@davefancella?si=H--oCK3k_dQ1laDN
Be the devil's own, Lucifer's my name.
- Iron Maiden
Be the devil's own, Lucifer's my name.
- Iron Maiden
Why? What's wrong with it, exactly? And don't give me crap about "it's stealing from the artists". The record labels had record high sales during the peak of Napster, and bands were doing better than ever as well. The difference between filesharing and radio is vast, but they both fill the same role. Same for the library, for that matter.
The fact that somebody needs to "authorize" this thing and that that somebody is a record label who holds the copyright (not the band, the band signs those rights away as part of the 6-record contract) shows us how broken our copyright laws are, not what's right or wrong in this case.
The fact that somebody needs to "authorize" this thing and that that somebody is a record label who holds the copyright (not the band, the band signs those rights away as part of the 6-record contract) shows us how broken our copyright laws are, not what's right or wrong in this case.
Check out my YouTube channel: https://youtube.com/@davefancella?si=H--oCK3k_dQ1laDN
Be the devil's own, Lucifer's my name.
- Iron Maiden
Be the devil's own, Lucifer's my name.
- Iron Maiden
Let me make this more clear, 
Sony are in trouble, they have breached the Lesser General Public license (LGPL), they didn’t distribute the source to there rootkit. Nor are they willing to give the code to anyone who is asking for it, which is what I’m really trying to say.
I’m sure when I was reading this license that any code that is linked to that is LGPL that they have to release it.... In any case, the Open Source community now wants sony satin spawn babies.
Dont by Sony Products of any kind.
Sony are in trouble, they have breached the Lesser General Public license (LGPL), they didn’t distribute the source to there rootkit. Nor are they willing to give the code to anyone who is asking for it, which is what I’m really trying to say.I’m sure when I was reading this license that any code that is linked to that is LGPL that they have to release it.... In any case, the Open Source community now wants
sony satin spawn babies.Dont by
Sony Products of any kind. Depends on how it's linked, but I won't get medievally pedantic on you over it. 
What's the lgpl code they linked to?
What's the lgpl code they linked to?
Check out my YouTube channel: https://youtube.com/@davefancella?si=H--oCK3k_dQ1laDN
Be the devil's own, Lucifer's my name.
- Iron Maiden
Be the devil's own, Lucifer's my name.
- Iron Maiden
I guess it's a safe bet that Sony has a license for the mp3 patent? That being the reason you're not supposed to use LAME as an encoder anyway (not that that stops any of us, because we all know how evil software patents are).
Check out my YouTube channel: https://youtube.com/@davefancella?si=H--oCK3k_dQ1laDN
Be the devil's own, Lucifer's my name.
- Iron Maiden
Be the devil's own, Lucifer's my name.
- Iron Maiden
Well there’s also the fact that reported by someone, even if you don’t click the "Agree" button, but instead just close the window, it will install itself anyway.
Not to mention the fact that this software allows malicious users to completely hide files and there execution from the end user.
Another quick note is that websites have the ability to download and install software onto your computer without you knowing about it (because of the stupidity of sony ).
Also reported was Microsoft windows update will actually remove it, as they believe this to be a serious security threat to the operating systems infected with this malware.
Not to mention the fact that this software allows malicious users to completely hide files and there execution from the end user.
Another quick note is that websites have the ability to download and install software onto your computer without you knowing about it (because of the stupidity of
sony ).Also reported was Microsoft windows update will actually remove it, as they believe this to be a serious security threat to the operating systems infected with this malware.
Suck that sony.-
Phytotron
- Formerly Oscilloscope
- Posts: 5042
- Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 10:06 pm
- Location: A site or situation, especially considered in regard to its surroundings.
- Contact:
You're speaking primarily of what occurs with the giant corporate record labels that I've already said suck. However, even then it's still incorrect as a matter of ethical principle, and ethical principles matter. I have little to no sympathy for rich rock and pop stars and their corporate masters. They're unduly wealthy, having built that wealth on trash disguised as music, packaged and sold as nothing more than a commodity coupled with wagging dicks and tits, as Biafra put it. The only kind of artists they are is scam artists. If I were to stop there, and also give in to my more selfish and greedy impulses, then I too might think, "hell, screw 'em. I'm entitled to free recordings!"
But considering the situation of non-mainstream musicians might help one discard that and get down to the base ethics of the matter. These people create their own music. The quality of their music far exceeds that of commercial radio or MTV, but as mentioned in the quote above, that doesn't appeal to broad audiences. They commit their lives to it. They sign with an independent label, and the copyright remains with the musicians. They record and sell albums. They tour and play out regularly. They're "critically acclaimed" and gain national, even international, notoriety.
I know a guy who headed one of the most popular and successful non-mainstream bands of the past decade. Nevertheless, he was at one point having to paint houses for a living. Now, he's a waiter.
I know another who has been in hugely popular and successful non-mainstream bands since the early nineties. He's still active with one. They're known worldwide. He works in a record store.
I know a woman who has been in a handful of popular and successful non-mainstream bands since the early nineties, as well as having released a number of solo albums. On top of it, she's a visual artist. She had to move back in with her mother at one point because she couldn't pay the rent.
Yes, all this would all remain true even if filesharing didn't exist. You say, well, it doesn't affect them anyway because of the size of their audience. But it does, relatively speaking. For them, far more than with the rich f***ers, every record counts.
The point here is that a musician, or visual artist, or photographer, or writer, or computer programmer, or cabinet maker, or sculpter deserves both copyright ownership and legal protection of their work, as well as just compensation from those who listen to it, view it, or use it. If you enjoy a musician, band, artist, or performer, then it is only right—only ethical—that you should support them, and that includes financial support. Otherwise, you're just being a cheap, greedy, selfish bastard, no better than the corporate labels you slam.
That is, of course, unless the individual expressly and deliberately gives permission for it to be given away for free. Some are into that, as Chuck D famously is, or you guys with the open-source GNU GPL software deal. And that's fine; I have no objection to it whatsoever. Why? Because it's voluntary and sanctioned by the creator of the product. (Of course, many of those who do sanction and advocate this are either already wealthy, or view it as some sort of launching pad to future success—perhaps because they can't get any support for their music otherwise. This is by no means the case universally, but it should be taken into consideration.)
Another thing. I have an album that in the leaf has a message: "If you're going to copy this record for your friends, at least use a good tape." Most musicians/bands/performers take into account that for every record sold one is going to be copied for a friend. That's a far cry different, however, from making something freely and easily available to hundreds of thousands of anonymous people out there in the internet ether, as you already seem to be aware. So I won't elaborate on that.
As for your analogies to the radio and libraries. Radio stations only play select, licensed music—not entire albums without permission. Newly released books don't immediately go into libraries.
A better analogy to the radio would be a website like epitonic.com, or sites that stream music, as well as the fact that many bands with websites will now have a few free songs for you to download.
I'm not really sure why I bothered typing all this up to this extent. You clearly have an ideology with respect to all this, which is also tied up with your programming and whatnot. I don't expect I'll change your mind, especially since you seem roughly as bull-headed as I. But since you asked why, I answered. Put simply, I think it's just.
But considering the situation of non-mainstream musicians might help one discard that and get down to the base ethics of the matter. These people create their own music. The quality of their music far exceeds that of commercial radio or MTV, but as mentioned in the quote above, that doesn't appeal to broad audiences. They commit their lives to it. They sign with an independent label, and the copyright remains with the musicians. They record and sell albums. They tour and play out regularly. They're "critically acclaimed" and gain national, even international, notoriety.
I know a guy who headed one of the most popular and successful non-mainstream bands of the past decade. Nevertheless, he was at one point having to paint houses for a living. Now, he's a waiter.
I know another who has been in hugely popular and successful non-mainstream bands since the early nineties. He's still active with one. They're known worldwide. He works in a record store.
I know a woman who has been in a handful of popular and successful non-mainstream bands since the early nineties, as well as having released a number of solo albums. On top of it, she's a visual artist. She had to move back in with her mother at one point because she couldn't pay the rent.
Yes, all this would all remain true even if filesharing didn't exist. You say, well, it doesn't affect them anyway because of the size of their audience. But it does, relatively speaking. For them, far more than with the rich f***ers, every record counts.
The point here is that a musician, or visual artist, or photographer, or writer, or computer programmer, or cabinet maker, or sculpter deserves both copyright ownership and legal protection of their work, as well as just compensation from those who listen to it, view it, or use it. If you enjoy a musician, band, artist, or performer, then it is only right—only ethical—that you should support them, and that includes financial support. Otherwise, you're just being a cheap, greedy, selfish bastard, no better than the corporate labels you slam.
That is, of course, unless the individual expressly and deliberately gives permission for it to be given away for free. Some are into that, as Chuck D famously is, or you guys with the open-source GNU GPL software deal. And that's fine; I have no objection to it whatsoever. Why? Because it's voluntary and sanctioned by the creator of the product. (Of course, many of those who do sanction and advocate this are either already wealthy, or view it as some sort of launching pad to future success—perhaps because they can't get any support for their music otherwise. This is by no means the case universally, but it should be taken into consideration.)
Another thing. I have an album that in the leaf has a message: "If you're going to copy this record for your friends, at least use a good tape." Most musicians/bands/performers take into account that for every record sold one is going to be copied for a friend. That's a far cry different, however, from making something freely and easily available to hundreds of thousands of anonymous people out there in the internet ether, as you already seem to be aware. So I won't elaborate on that.
As for your analogies to the radio and libraries. Radio stations only play select, licensed music—not entire albums without permission. Newly released books don't immediately go into libraries.
A better analogy to the radio would be a website like epitonic.com, or sites that stream music, as well as the fact that many bands with websites will now have a few free songs for you to download.
I'm not really sure why I bothered typing all this up to this extent. You clearly have an ideology with respect to all this, which is also tied up with your programming and whatnot. I don't expect I'll change your mind, especially since you seem roughly as bull-headed as I. But since you asked why, I answered. Put simply, I think it's just.