Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Don't sweep it under the rug as collateral dama (Score 1) 125

Don't claim copyright on every video, this will make you guilty of perjury under the DMCA. Claim copyright on one video and then claim that every other video appears to be a derived work of that video. This is exactly the mechanism that the big studios use.

Comment: Re:Don't sweep it under the rug as collateral dama (Score 2) 125

The perjury clause doesn't say what you think it says. If I own the rights on work A, to file a notice on work B, I claim that work B infringes work A. The perjury clause kicks in only if I do not own the rights to work A (or represent the person who does). If work B doesn't infringe, then that's a matter for the courts. This is quite annoying, but it does make sense. It's clear cut if works A and B are the same, but not in the case that B is a derived work of A. A court has to decide whether the use of A in B counts under fair use or not.

The counterbalance for this is that the DMCA does indemnify YouTube if they respond to a counternotice and reinstate the work. If you, the owner of work B, think it does not infringe then you send such a notice to YouTube. I then have no further recourse against YouTube and must take you to court directly.

The problem here is that it's very easy to automate sending takedown notices, but very hard to automate sending counter-notices. Mass-sending of automated takedown notices was something that the authors of the DMCA didn't foresee and the act probably needs amending to require the notice to explicitly state (under penalty of perjury) the person who has compared the works and their reason for believing that they are infringing.

Comment: Re:self-correcting (Score 1) 24

by PopeRatzo (#47434551) Attached to: These secular priests just keep slicing on the drive

And the Bible said it was OK to stone adulterers and that you shouldn't eat shellfish or touch your wife while she's menstruating.

Read the Gospel;

Which one? The ones that the Council of Nicea approved? Or the older ones or the ones Luther approved?

See that's the problem with religion: It's made by men and yet is supposed to be above the review of men.

Comment: Re:self-correcting (Score 1) 24

by PopeRatzo (#47432909) Attached to: These secular priests just keep slicing on the drive

Typo -- above should read: Martin Luther removed them from his Bible, and also wanted to remove a few other books as well --- James, for example.

So, you've proven my point. The Journal of Vibration and Control caught some improperly refereed articles and retracted them within four years. A system that works.

It took a millennium and a half for the reformation to try to straighten out Scripture. Except, with the Journal, it's an open process that is open for the involvement of the scientific community. With the Bible, it's a handful of people making changes because God told them to.

Science is a self-correcting system that has worked very well since before the first words of the Pentatuch were laid down by a handful of people pulling it out of their ass.

So which would you use to inform your life and society? If you said, "The Bible", then even God thinks you're a moron. Because, way before there was scripture, there was man's ability to reason.

Comment: Re:Making music (Score 1) 470

No, that's not what I'm saying. Not just recording. If you're trying to mix audio using the onboard audio chip on a PC, you're not going to get good results. It would mean you're plugging a set of headphones into a mini-stereo plug. If you're trying to mix even eight tracks from a DAW, unless you're just just remixing audio samples of already created music (which is fine by the way) you still have to have some way to input the music.

The problem is not the computer's ability to handle the audio data. The problem is the monitoring and if you're inputting control data via MIDI controllers. The audio hardware on a PC is just not able to handle it without horrible lag. You'll end up listening to what your fingers just played a second ago. Try and see what you're Macbook pro's audio subsystem is going to do with 40+ tracks of Kontakt samples in real time.

Why is this hard to understand? You can get pro-quality USB outboard audio for less than $100. You're already going to need some outboard gear (speakers, headphones, midi controllers and control surfaces), why are you freaking over a little 24-bit/96kHz audio interface that can be had for less than the price of your headphones?

Next you're going to tell me that you can create professional music on an iPad without external hardware.

Comment: self-correcting (Score 1) 24

by PopeRatzo (#47430611) Attached to: These secular priests just keep slicing on the drive

Publisher SAGE announced it was retracting 60 papers from 2010–2014 in the Journal of Vibration and Control, which covers acoustics, all connected to Peter Chen of National Pingtung University of Education, Taiwan.

You will note from the article, that the papers with questionable provenance were retracted in a public way.

What was the last time there was a retraction of inaccurate or harmful material from the Bible?

Comment: Re:Making music (Score 1) 470

I know more than one producer who uses plain old audio. Most music software has a "Render to audio file" feature that bypasses the audio subsystem completely.

And how would someone producing music that "bypasses the audio subsystem completely" know what music he's making if he cannot hear it? If someone told you that they produce professional-quality music using only the onboard audio hardware on their Mac or PC, they must think you are very gullible.

I believe you're mistaken. If you can point me to one professional music producer who uses only the onboard audio on his PC or Mac, I will refrain from calling you stupid.

Comment: Re:Idiots (Score 4, Insightful) 133

What the hell they are complaining about now? If court ruled that how Aereo previously defined itself was illegal, then obviously it has to change it. First they win now they complain about it?

As best I can tell, they are whining because they preferred the imaginary world where the lawsuit against Aereo was actually over whether the filthy, disruptive, upstarts shoudl be burned to the ground and have the earth beneath them salted, rather than whether they were more like an antenna rental service or more like a cable company.

Aereo obviously didn't want to be a cable company, hence its ongoing defense; but the tone of the rhetoric against them was never "Yeah, because of a raft of tedious reasons, Aereo ought to be classified as a cable company for regulatory purposes"; but rather a bunch of fire and brimstone nonsense about the signal-stealing piratepocalypse.

Comment: Re:Wish I could say I was surprised (Score 2) 167

by TheRaven64 (#47430255) Attached to: Peer Review Ring Broken - 60 Articles Retracted
In the UK, university research departments are assessed base on the Research Excellence Framework (REF, formerly the Research Assessment Exercise [RAE]). Each faculty member is required to submit 4 things demonstrating impact. These are typically top-tier conference or journal papers, but can also be artefacts or examples of successful technology transfer. The exercise happens every four years, so to get the top ranking you need to write one good paper a year. The only incentive for publishing in second-tier venues is meeting other people who might lead to interesting collaborations.

Prof: So the American government went to IBM to come up with a data encryption standard and they came up with ... Student: EBCDIC!"

Working...