Not even sure how to react to a spokesperson making a statement like this, it implies that we're so gullible and stupid that it's sort of freakish. Then again, in certain parts of the world it's been proven that a large portion of the populace can be made to believe the dumbest conspiracy theories and lies, so in that context it makes sense they'd try it.

It would seem pretty likely that there is a reasonable amount of correlation and overlap between anti-vaxxers and fervent anti-abortion support (not to even say anything of Qanon conspiracy believers or MAGAts).

The whole 'My Body, My Choice' argument is only valid when THEY use it, and they clearly get upset when anyone rubs it into their snout that it's PRECISELY the opposite of what they are trying to do to women seeking to control their own bodies, but oh boy they'll get bent out of shape when it's done to them or if anyone dares bring up the associated cognitive dissonance.

However we want to portray it, this truly feels like a bunch of hypocrites with extremely low self-awareness. Darwinism may eliminate a few anti-vaxxers, but the sad damage their behavior will do to the rest of us is truly sobering as well as preventable.

Hard to believe this is happening in the third decade of the 21st Century... https://www.lagrandeobserver.c...

Given the amount of profits they're raking in, it should be pretty trivial for Amazon/twitch to work out a blanket yearly license for ALL MUSIC from the three major labels and their publishers, and use the same software that's currently employed for detection to instead help compensate the copyright owners and songwriters when those works are played on the platform.

But someone in accounting has probably decided that doing so would lower shareholder profits by 0.014% so they won't let it happen, because lest we ever forget, these decisions appear to always just be about fiduciary duty to stockholders. If you can save a penny as a publicly traded company, it is your obligation to do so.

It would be so easy to do this, especially given the fact that Amazon Music already grants them a privileged relationship with the labels. As always with matters of copyright, these issues only ever get settled when the plaintiffs and their lawyers are forced to accept compromises, dragged kicking and screaming with no other choice but to begrudgingly go along.

Having been caught so many times in SNCF rail strikes, I can only say that this being made into law only makes sense if the government prevents SNCF employees from going on strike every few months, with the disastrous consequences this can engender such as what happened in the Winter 2019.

Yes the French rail system is fantastic, but when its employees decide to come to work and if planes are eliminated this might be a recipe for disaster, especially because the strikers will feel as if they have more leverage.

Very good in principle, but slippery slope...

Your comparisons aren't very accurate.

You're not factoring in the time it takes to go from city center to the airport (twice) so to some degree this is not so different once you compare both trips from city center to city center (which is where most people are).

Going to Nantes (city center) by rail ends up being much faster than having to haul to CDG or Orly airports, pass through security and all the rest and then do the same upon arrival.

And Marseille-Nice (connection from TGV at St Charles) does not take that long to make the whole trip 13 hours... unless exceptional circumstances or a rail strike, which unfortunately happens more often than we'd like.

Same here, and I am not sure that I'd want to answer a poll which doesn't offer an option for those of us who concurrently use multiple browsers.

Being that a significant percentage of the general population appears to be extremely gullible (see recent outlandish claims made during the US election campaign) and that they are prone to falling victim to gaslighting due to legendary low levels of self-awareness, this has proven to be an extremely effective tactic to slow down, delay or otherwise prevent any initiative from gaining traction with the public.

Sort of like the NAB (National Association of Broadcasters) mounting eminently successful lobbying campaigns which have enabled terrestrial radio to avoid paying performance royalties to sound recording owners (they only have to pay publishers) unlike what radio stations across the entire rest of the planet have to do. By claiming it would bankrupt them. All of this based on some temporary exemption initially granted to them by US Congress back around 1939 while the FM radio networks were being built up. (they're still being built up 80 years later as we speak)

The same exact reasoning applies to protecting Facebook's advertising revenue model, which is based on the monetization from micro-targeting users and tracking their every move. They can charge higher rates for this, and will see a marked decrease in said revenue if the tracking stops. Definitely worth enough billions to invest massive resources in an opinion-modifying crusade. For good effect, and besides their claims about this hurting small businesses they should also add that it will hurt children, war veterans and recently widowed suburban homeowners.

It pays to remember that on Facebook: Users Are The Product (...and their privacy a mere afterthought)

The RIAA are being so mind-numbingly predictable, and don't ever seem to mind being perceived as attack dogs. But what's mainly embarrassing here may be that these sorts of claims denote a reasonably poor understanding of the mechanism through which YouTube and the entire online world functions nowadays.

One would think they'd at least have one or two capable technology consultants informing them of these realities, and of their poor chances of it succeeding. More than a bit surreal actually.

All three of the major labels own a significant, non-trivial stake in Spotify. The less is paid out in royalties, the more potential profit in quarterly earnings (when they materialize, at this moment the company isn't profitable yet).
But the obvious difference is that these labels will be able to pocket more profits which were realized by shaving the razor-thin margins because they'll get stock dividends from Spotify, whereas if they had been collecting royalties from number of plays they're contractually obligated to share some of this income with the artists.

There probably are some bean-counter that made sophisticated projections showing that they're going to pocket more profits that way. Also it's quite similar to the payola system which they brazenly employed in earlier decades by paying radio station program directors to play the music they were keen on pushing onto the public

Isn't it the way capitalism always works? Never count on anyone being kind or fair.

An obvious solution to this would be to require that labels divest themselves from ownership to avoid such conflicts of interest, which would appear to be nothing but wishful thinking.

OBS provides functionality for streamers to record their entire streams locally with a minimum of fuss. For anyone to complain about this is akin to saying that Twitch has an obligation to keep providing access to stored files (not sure where the 10 years comes from, Twitch deletes material after 90 days in the best of cases from what I understood) and that some people are up in arms because it was their only copy?

That's sad stuff right here if they are able to figure out all the rest of the complex tech required by gaming, but somehow haven't grasped the basic concept of self-reliance when it comes to maintaining proper archival copies of their own content.

The more interesting question raised may really be that affiliate revenue is dependent on views after a stream (not just during one), and obviously if the videos get deleted then it cuts into streamers' revenue as partner or affiliate. if they want people to watch these videos containing copyrighted content, they'll have to find (and pay for) alternate hosting platforms, and this is obviously going to be requiring time, effort as well as some expense to keep them online.

This had historically been the case until a few years ago; however when last surveyed earlier in the year it seems that over two-thirds of Pro Tools users have switched over to Windows. (And yes, Pro Tools still arguably seems to have the market cornered when it comes to professional studio-grade audio work)

While this trend might be reversed a bit now that Apple has finally taken steps to refresh their product line, it would seem unlikely they'll be switching back to machines costing double or triple what the equivalent hardware would roughly be when running Windows. Especially because when compared to previous incarnations Windows 10 has now becine pretty reasonably stable when running mission-critical real-time recording and mixing apps...

From a user perspective, - and while I won't deny that Hans Zimmer will rejoice at the prospect of be able to load his orchestral libraries in 1.5 TB of RAM in one of these new machines - I would be more concerned about this new MacPro breaking many standards of compatibility for the rest of 'normal users' as to what peripherals and software (especially plugins) can be used to immediately get going and remain productive now that's they've plunked down the price of a car for this machine.

This obsession with sleek form at the expense of (!) the purpose of the machine itself hasn't been something I've found very enticing. And over the years it's been getting progressively worse... clickety-click...

After decades of supporting their hardware, including these fancy overpriced hipster-oriented designer laptops with as few ports as possible I've recently moved on to more practical offerings at down-to-earth prices, be it from Dell, ASUS or Lenovo. Keeping the status symbol in the coatcheck hasn't been as difficult as anticipated, and Windows 10 or Ubuntu are pretty damn usable for most tasks. Not to say anything of the cornucopia of fantastic software now available to me, compared to the lackluster offerings that run on OS-X. Yes, WineBottler does help with that sometimes, but at the end of the day it's about the software, not the OS.

It's always useful to keep in mind that (rather than our opinions on their designs) public companies only care about a single thing: $$. So vote with your wallet, this is the only language they ever seem to understand.

Now OTOH, if the complaint is about clinging to status symbol brands no matter the cost in wasted productivity, not sure this is the right forum to discuss such matters.

Maybe these features will appeal to a subset of the company's customers?

But (as many others here seem to feel) the current product should remain available for those who do not want to be burdened with all of these extra bells and whistles.

Otherwise it'll be time to migrate elsewhere, which is the only language corporate entities usually understand and take action on in cases like this.

Finally someone who might get technology. On that alone, I'd give him a chance FFS... instead of being stuck with the pontificating tribe elders who only see a 'series-of-tubes'.

I mean, that's how WeChat does it. There's no escaping the fact that a seamless, integrated all-in-one platform is the unavoidable present (not the future).

As long as we're given an opt-in for such integration. Because if we're not, I am pretty sure millions will cancel their accounts and be OUT in a microsecond... (myself among them).