Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Try again... 4? (Score 1) 223

by Em Adespoton (#49603923) Attached to: Grooveshark Shuts Down

Who would pay you to produce software and music if "the next level up" couldn't sell it on?

The consumers. You don't need a "next level up". Also, advertisers, corporations that want works for hire, any anyone else. Would you end up with individuals making millions off of one hit song? Probably not. But you'd end up with many more musicians than now actually able to make a living producing music.

Comment: Re: Try again... 4? (Score 1) 223

by Em Adespoton (#49603909) Attached to: Grooveshark Shuts Down

What you don't understand is that music production is expensive and if you want to be a musician you should be able to make a living at it without having to play I. Clubs every night. There is only one Mona Lisa by davinci, would you pay a lot for a copy? Just because it can be copied and distributed daily doesn't make it right. The artist and the label should be paid. How do you people live in a capitalist society and not understand the basic principal of our economic system. An artist mushy spend $100000 in studio expenses and instruments along with weeks of work and tons of creative effort. And you think you should just be able to get that stuff for free? You think the studio should provide a million dollar recording studio for free? Music and art are a business and just be user distribution mean gods changed doesn't change how the business works.

Let's take this assertion by assertion.

1) What you don't understand....

Are you sure I don't understand? Or maybe you're not getting part of what I was saying?

2) Music production is expensive

It doesn't have to be. As I said, I've produced music. I've also performed music and recorded music. I've never spent more than $100/sitting for studio time; if you don't go with the major labels, you don't have to pay the major fees -- and the equipment has got to the point where recording and production doesn't really cost all that much in real expenses -- even Garage Band can handle basic production tasks (but doesn't have the recording room, which IS a major sunk expense). These days, I just trade studio time for services, and it costs me nothing but my time (and keeps my ears sharp).

3) If you want to be a musician you should be able to make a living at it without having to play I. Clubs every night.

I've never played I. Clubs. Of course, as a musician, I've never made it my day job either. But I could easily do so simply using an indy producer and social media, and not sell myself to the major labels, who might or might not decide to promote me. There's lots of ways to make a living as a musician; just not as a pop star -- because just like sports stars, there's only room for a few of those. Entitlement doesn't put food on the table.

4) There is only one Mona Lisa....

I personally wouldn't pay for a copy. I can see it online, I can make duplicates, take photos of it, etc. Copies are in the public domain. And da Vinci isn't going to be making any money off it anyway -- and didn't have copyright on his side back in the day; people copied his work freely, and yet people still appreciate it. So how did he make a living? He was a good painter, and people paid him to paint things. I think this example kind of proves my point much better than it proves yours.

5) Just because it can be copied and distributed daily doesn't make it right.

So you think it's wrong that I can copy and distribute the Mona Lisa daily? Do you think it's wrong that Disney can copy and distribute such titles as Cinderella, Mulan, Pocohantas, etc. daily, and even charge money for them? Because that's also copying the works of others. Or is your problem only with works that were produced by people still alive, who are expecting a certain level of remuneration for what they created?

6) The artist and the label should be paid.

Time to review my comments you replied to. Personally, I think the artist should be paid a lot MORE. I think labels should for the most part be abolished. I think recording studios should get paid what they charge the musicians, and if demand drops because someone can do it for less, then they don't deserve to be paid more, just because they want it. Right now, the labels only use specific studios, and so the studios have a monopoly on the labels' musicians, and can charge what they want (which gets paid by the labels, and docked against the musicians' contract).

The bigger question, and the point I was raising is WHO should pay the artist? In my view, this should be either a patron, crowdfunding, or someone backing the work being produced, with the understanding that what's being produced is a cultural artifact, not a physical good.

7) How do you people live in a capitalist society and not understand the basic principal of our economic system.

Multiple parts here... "you people" -- you mean the large segment of informed people who disagree with your narrow view of music and how it can be owned?

"live in a capitalist society" -- how do you know where I live? As it turns out, I live in a socialist society (not a communist society, but a social society -- yes, society even has social as its root).

But even in a capitalist society, if you're really playing by pure capitalist rules, the copyright construct would be abolished. People would pay for capital, not for ideas. There'd be less music professionally produced, it would probably be less diverse, but there'd be a HUGE folk music scene with music that wasn't professionally produced. And people would sell their music services at the rate that matched the demand, instead of labels creating artificial scarcity based on restrictive laws. It seems that I'm not the one not understanding the basic principles of capitalism and capitalist economics here.

8) An artist mushy spend $100000 in studio expenses and instruments along with weeks of work and tons of creative effort.

I think I've already covered that; it's provably false. It's the system that promotes current treatment of musical works that makes it cost so much for the artist. It's all about erecting barriers to entry to increase the value of each product released.

And weeks of work? Really? I spend YEARS on the stuff I create. I also do other things at the same time. Anything musically that's done in weeks is pretty much worthless, or is based almost totally on the works of others. And if you think a musician deserves money because they overspent on production, put in a few weeks on development and invested tons of creative effort... let me introduce you to the real world, where life doesn't work that way. I also write software. Some of it I've never got any money for at all, despite the fact that I know it's been used by others to make a profit. Most development houses spend months on new features, let alone the product itself.

Producing stuff takes LOTS of work. But you aren't entitled to making money just because you worked hard to produce something. People need to see value in it that makes them want to buy it. Usually, you do some market analysis first to see if you can find a buyer of your production services before you begin, or shortly after you begin, so that your sunk costs don't end up worthless.

On this note, it might be useful for more musicians to start using an agile methodology; work in sprints, produce something, make it available for consumption, and if people are willing to pay for it, use that money for the next round of development and production. If it turns out that nobody likes your work well enough to actually pay for it, quit while you're ahead, or figure out what you need to fix. You aren't entitled to being paid for it. Whether people borrow the ideas or not is beside the point.

9) And you think you should just be able to get that stuff for free? You think the studio should provide a million dollar recording studio for free?

I think you've totally missed my point. Why is it a million dollar recording studio in the first place? And everyone CAN get the "stuff" for free -- once it is shared, it's shared. You can't take it back again. That doesn't mean people should just go out and grab a product and distribute it for profit themselves; that's unfair competition. But it's also not what I was talking about. Some people are so caught up in a specific business model that they don't see how it harms society as a whole, and don't see the other alternatives that are already out there and being used, to make a living. Copyright is an imaginary construct; without it, music would be free. This is the point the GGP was making and that I agreed with.

10) Music and art are a business and just be user distribution mean gods changed doesn't change how the business works.

Businesses go bankrupt all the time; it's important how they execute their business plan. The current Labels-based music business is based on creating artificial monopolies at the expense of music in general, in order to funnel a large amount of money back to the middlemen. A business that doesn't turn a profit on its own merits doesn't survive, unless it is propped up by the government by things like copyright. This doesn't sound very capitalist, does it?

As I said before: Anyone who actually produces intellectual property who would feel threatened by things becoming free needs to take a hard look at why they feel threatened. Do they feel like they are currently being paid more than what they develop is actually worth on an open market?

Comment: Re:Duh? (Score 1) 72

by Em Adespoton (#49597599) Attached to: Space Radiation May Alter Astronauts' Neurons

On the other side, it seems like this should fund more research into methods to deflect the path of gamma radiation or transform its state. We know the Earth's atmosphere can do it, so why not develop our own deflection field? After all, we know where most of the gamma rays are coming from, and the rest of them would be just as random as they are here on earth. No need to "block" gamma radiation with something earth-sized; just deflect it enough that it is much less likely to hit a human, and provide a mechanism that will also render some of it non-ionizing by adjusting its moment or frequency. We know that energy can phase shift into matter and back, so why not use this knowledge to our advantage? Shift, bend, and let it shift back, pointing in a safer direction.

Comment: Re:Getting lost in the shuffle. (Score 1) 297

I think you misunderstood "acceptance" -- the GP was talking about accepting it for publishing; even if the methodology was not at the appropriate level to publish it. So now the only choice is to publish it, at which point the researchers will be judged based on work that likely needed refinement and so isn't up to the level of other published work, and the publishers will be judged on releasing a lower quality of research.

But it's possible that the research can stand on its own, and that a new reviewer is all it needs to get tweaked and ready for publication -- in which case, science will roll on as usual.

Comment: Re:Real problem, bad solution (Score 2) 297

That's a good link -- and to me it highlights something different: selection bias. Not of the people in the experiment, but of the people designing the experiment.

Instead of looking at it as "this person's a feminist, they're going to be biased to feminist results," look at it as "people who think to ask questions in this way tend to get this set of results, repeatedly. This will likely lead to them accepting the associated ideology." So instead of the studies proving the pre-conceived notions of the experimenters, what we could be seeing is the experiments selecting the appropriate experimenters. Since someone is unlikely to widely vary their methodology from one study to the next, they are likely to replicate the same "bias" purely because they are the same person going about things the same way.

To really break this cycle, you need to add some randomness from some outside force, such that a single person or group of people does not control the entire methodology of the study. Even if they are using methods to avoid bias, they are likely to always use the same methods, and so always get "affirming" results. In this, the single reviewer was correct, even though his assumptions of WHY he was correct are likely way off.

And yes, this line of thought completely affirms your comment about male vs female being incredibly stupid. If there's selection bias based on methodology, you're going to find men and women coming down on both sides -- there might be some clustering based on social norms of men vs. women, but that's a really fuzzy boundary at the best of times.

Comment: I think they just included this for his name.... (Score 1) 2

by Em Adespoton (#49596841) Attached to: Silver turns bacteria into deadly zombies

“This is an important aspect of [silver] that I’ve not seen anyone talk about before,” says molecular microbiologist Simon Silver of University of Illinois at Chicago, who was not involved in the research. "This paper is a new spin on it, to me, and I think rather a good one."

So they got Dr. Silver to comment on novel discoveries of how silver affects bacteria. Cute.

Comment: Manufacturing is only one of the sunk costs.... (Score 1) 2

by Em Adespoton (#49596681) Attached to: The $350 Apple Watch costs $84 to manufacture.

I'd like to know how quickly their other costs will be recouped at that price point... R&D, marketing, development, setting up new production systems, etc.

At that markup it will probably only take a couple of years, assuming people buy the thing. But I'd still like to know.

Comment: "Most cheating on consoles has been eradicated?" (Score 2) 62

by Em Adespoton (#49596653) Attached to: Game:ref's Hardware Solution To Cheating In eSports

Has most console cheating actually been eradicaated, or is it just that people aren't being caught anymore?

Also, consoles are closed systems, whereas a desktop computer is an open system. I see eSports going the way of car racing: different events test different skills. We all know that cars can go faster than human reflexes can manage. Enter Formula racing, which is kind of analogous to console racing: everyone gets the same basic hardware, and can only tweak within those constraints. By comparison, PC eSports are more like a cannonball run, where everything goes as long as you can afford it and don't get caught.

I can actually see mobile gaming becoming more of a sport, as the hardware is both more limited and more standardized. Then, of course, you'll get people running Android under emulation under some supercomputer with a bunch of system-level tweaks. But stuff like this can be investigated for winners (just like sports drug testing). And if they're not winning, why is it a problem?

Comment: Re:That escalated quickly (Score 1) 104

by Em Adespoton (#49596165) Attached to: Climatologist Speaks On the Effects of Geoengineering

...and then the country with less population, land mass, and wealth that's going to be completely flooded by what everyone else wants to do decides to stop the plans -- because they've got nuclear arms.

See, the thing is, they have nothing to lose, and no reason to play the voting game, which they know they will always lose. Sure, the entire country could move somewhere else -- but people tend to be resistant to that sort of idea unless it's backed with force.

This is why you see major dams flooding areas of countries that don't hold the power to topple the government. But the world is big enough that you're going to find people with the capabilities to destroy large parts of it pretty much everywhere.

Comment: Re:What? (Score 1) 223

by Em Adespoton (#49595899) Attached to: Grooveshark Shuts Down

I haven't traced back what the GP said, so I'm not exactly sure of the point of the parent.

However, where I come from, forests are for the most part public property. I grew up not only picking berries, but also picking mushrooms, and selling those on to distributors. Does this mean I was stealing for profit? Others were unable to pick those mushrooms after I did. However, I made sure to cut them appropriately so that a new bunch would grow back, and I put in the actual work of picking, sorting and transporting the mushrooms. My picking was only depriving other people of immediate mushroom gratification/profits from doing what I had done.

Now, if you live in a place where all forests are owned by individuals and corporations, then picking berries/mushrooms would indeed be theft/poaching. But I'd argue that "owning" that forest could be considered theft from people at large as well -- just like "owning" a public event such that any re-depiction of that event afterwards by anyone other than you is cultural theft. Yes, I'm talking about DIsney/IOC/etc. here.

Comment: Re:Try again... 4? (Score 1) 223

by Em Adespoton (#49595859) Attached to: Grooveshark Shuts Down

It was his decision to record music and sell it to the public.

Fixed.

If you enjoyed his work, he happens to have a sale going on...$10 for the album and you can enjoy it anytime you want. You can put it on your computer, ipod, cell phone and enjoy it anywhere.

But if you just download it and do the same, then you are taking money out of his pocket just the same as if you lifted a bag of chips from 7-11.

Really?
First part is false if you live in the UK: format shifting is considered infringement, as it deprives the author of funds they could have gathered by providing it to you in that format.

"Just download it and do the same" -- are you saying that my iTunes downloads don't give me the same freedom to format shift as if I bought a CD?

"you are taking money out of his pocket just the same as if you lifed a bag of chips from 7-11" -- No. If I downloaded something without paying when I would have gladly paid $10 if the free version hadn't been available, I am depriving the author of potential profit. If I walk out of 7-11 without paying for physical goods, I've taken something with tangible value and deprived the store of it (and deprived them of selling it to someone else who would be willing to pay the $2.50).

Look at it this way: if an audio track is on a website next to a "donate" icon, anyone in the world can download it and donate. The cost is the cost to serve the bits, plus the sunk cost of producing the audio track.

If a bag of chips is sitting on a shelf next to a "donate" jar, anyone who is locally present can take the bag of chips. Once that's done, all that is left is the jar, possibly with some money in it.

Where things break down is that we have a concept built around the exchange of value. I might have a bag of chips, you might know how to fix a leaky faucet. In exchange for the bag of chips, I could a) fix your leaky faucet (this is exchange of goods for services) or b) tell you how to fix your faucet (exchange of goods for information). Music is exactly like the second one of these, even though some people conflate it with the first.

If I told you "you can't tell anyone else how to fix a leaky faucet without paying me first" you'd probably just ignore me.

Many music contracts are, however, written up this way, so that the distributor gets the right to say who can tell who (and how) how to fix that faucet. If someone breaks their agreement not to tell, and then tells a bunch of other people how to fix the faucet, are those other people suddenly taking money out of the pocket of the guy who sold this information to the distributor?

Think about that.

Comment: Re:Try again... 4? (Score 3, Interesting) 223

by Em Adespoton (#49595737) Attached to: Grooveshark Shuts Down

And as someone who has produced both software and music, I agree 100% with the parent on this. And I'm not posting AC :)

I get paid for what I produce, not for what other people experience/consume. This is the case for most developers of intellectual property. It's the next level up: the lawyers/distributors/vendors that require payment for distribution of intellectual property. A lot of their work would vanish if Congress made such a move, because their jobs are artificially created.

Anyone who actually produces intellectual property who would feel threatened by things becoming free needs to take a hard look at why they feel threatened. Do they feel like they are currently being paid more than what they develop is actually worth on an open market?

Comment: Re:If you didn't sing it... (Score 1) 223

by Em Adespoton (#49595657) Attached to: Grooveshark Shuts Down

You forgot about recording, producing, post-producing and distributing -- these all have copyright law attached to them too.

This is actually why recording companies exist -- they navigate the legal morass so that individuals don't have to.

However, it seems to me it'd make more sense these days to incorporate an entity for each album you produce, so that if someone takes umbrage with your composition/writing/performance/format/recording/production/post-production/distribution, you can just dissolve that incorporation and your own livelihood and the fate of all other music is still protected. And you wouldn't end up being beholden to a recording company who does pretty much the same thing, but takes most of the profits.

Comment: Re:US CAs are a risk... (Score 1) 314

by Em Adespoton (#49595485) Attached to: Mozilla Begins To Move Towards HTTPS-Only Web

I think people are coming at this from two sides. On the one side, there's the possibility of trusted CAs issuing duplicate certs for the same namespace. You can't really avoid this if you accept those CAs as trusted; the risk is the same no matter which CA you actually use.

However, on the other side, you have CAs being beholden to a local government, looking at rejection of certs, not acceptance. If I have a cert signed by a CA in a country that disagrees with something I post on my website, they can revoke my cert, preventing all access to my site without even going through the domain registrars.

And if you look at it this way, you can see that the upcoming CA issues will go down the exact same path Domain Registrars have walked for the past 20 years. From a deployment standpoint, there's really no difference between the two: they both involve a federated central authority that assigns a specific value to a specific grantee, to enable others to access said grantee. As the cost decreases, the abuse increases, as seen recently with such things as .ninja domains and their abuse. Free certs will be abused in similar ways.

So the only real benefit is that your encrypted data will be hidden amongst other encrypted data in transit, making on-the-wire (or on-the-wifi) analysis much more difficult. Verifying the endpoints and avoiding certificate abuse will become much more difficult, as there will be much more data to sort through. Even crowd-sourcing the reputation of certs can be gamed, if the abusers are anticipating it.

Today's scientific question is: What in the world is electricity? And where does it go after it leaves the toaster? -- Dave Barry, "What is Electricity?"

Working...