 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 09:37:46 +0000, Invisible wrote:
>>> Drifting somewhat off topic here, but today you can buy software and
>>> hardware that lets you use a home PC to do almost everything that
>>> would be possible in a recording studio. (About the only bit you
>>> *can't* easily do is really high quality recording of acoustic
>>> signals. But if you're making synthesizer music like me, that's
>>> irrelevant.)
>>
>> Well, you can do it, but the capture equipment can get fairly pricey
>> (good mics aren't cheap).
>
> The one thing a recording studio does better than a bedroom is... well,
> recording.
>
> Good microphones aren't cheap. Nor are soundproofed rooms with flat
> acoustics. And rooms big enough to fit musical instruments in? Well...
Did I mention that I have some experience in recording?
Yes, good mics aren't cheap. Nor is an appropriate place.
Similarly, when writing, a good editor or technical reviewer isn't cheap.
>> Not quite the same as music production, sure. But we do have one guy
>> in the group who used to do broadcast-quality radio recordings (so he's
>> taught us a few tricks of the trade) and I have a little background in
>> sound systems myself.
>
> I'm sure most of it is fairly easy if you actually know what to look
> for.
Well, either it's easy or it's hard. The reality is that it's easy or
hard depending on one's experience and expertise.
>>> The difference, of course, is that me twiddling with the equaliser
>>> knob is no match for a professional mix engineer who knows WTF he's
>>> doing. And if you listen to the music I've made, you can tell it
>>> doesn't sound very good.
>>
>> Well, I've listened to it, and I thought it did sound good.
>
> Good, yes. Fantastic? No.
First rule of getting people to think you're good at something: Don't
tell them you suck at it. Let them form their own opinions.
I've been reading a good book (several, actually, but one in particular
that's relevant) about giving presentations. The target audience for
this book is lawyers presenting in court to a judge or jury, but many of
the points being made are more generic than for just that audience.
One of the points made was "It always seems worse to the speaker". Your
audience doesn't know what you missed or didn't say, because they haven't
heard it. So if you don't tell them "I meant to say 'x' and forgot",
they don't know. So don't tell them.
Something similar applies here, Andy.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 20:13:10 -0800, Darren New wrote:
>
>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> I think it could be legally argued that since the technology didn't
>>> erase- upon-playback that it was implied that the content might/could
>>> be viewed more than once.
>> Um, it's Sony's device playing back, not the copyright holder's device.
>> The fact that Sony didn't make it erase doesn't allow Sony to make
>> copies of someone *else's* video.
>
> But the question was about watching a time-shifted programme more than
> once...
>
> At least that was what I understood the question to be. Was I wrong?
I'm still failing to see the relevance.
The court ruled that you were allowed to record the live broadcast for the
purpose of playing it back once at a later time.
There was no decision about playing it back more than once.
Since there is a valid and legal use for Sony's recording technology, Sony
is not engaging in contributory copyright violation. (I.e., just like the
Xerox photocopier decision.)
I don't see how whether Sony's machine erases the content after you watch it
has anything to do with whether it's legal to watch it more than once, any
more than the fact the photocopier doesn't ever check for copyright notices
makes photocopying copyrighted textbooks universally legal.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"How did he die?" "He got shot in the hand."
"That was fatal?"
"He was holding a live grenade at the time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> I think the "making available" argument more or less takes it as read
> that she acquired the files illegally as well,
Why would you say that?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"How did he die?" "He got shot in the hand."
"That was fatal?"
"He was holding a live grenade at the time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/26/2011 3:09 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 10:22:14 +0000, scott wrote:
>
>> Or even adults who don't want to spend $750 to have a go at 10 games. If
>> piracy was impossible then maybe that adult would buy 1 or 2 games, but
>> to say the industry has lost $750 because he downloaded 10 games is
>> ridiculous.
>
> Indeed.
>
> Jim
You know.. I had this stupid (which is to say, reasonable, but the
industry would call it completely stupid) idea.. Why not allow copying
to someone else, since all this damn tech they are now getting out can
do it, with a caveat. Any "copies" are charged at a lower cost, either
to the copier, or the one receiving. Basically.. I buy a song for 99
cents, I want someone else to have it. Both of us are using wifi, or
something like Whispernet, enabled devices. Their copy is only say 33 cents.
Sure, they don't get the full 99 cents for the song, but they get
"something", instead of it being just ripped somehow, and played anyway,
and either the guy getting it for 33 cents isn't *able* to pay 99 cents
for thousands of songs each, or they will turn around and buy the damn
album for $10, or what ever.
That would be a sane solution. Its *not quite* a viable one when most
such content is *not* through such systems, but its an idea.
Course, had they not been total idiots, they could have provided a
ripper on ever CD, which could only produce a lower grade copy. *Then*
they could have claimed real damage, since the intent of *allowing* the
copy was the encourage purchase of the full quality, and bypassing it
had the effect of denying them a real sale. (Yeah, still a weak
argument, in many ways, but its the same argument made now, without
*any* justifications, or facts, or attempt to provide a legit alternative.)
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospam com> wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 09:39:30 +0000, Invisible wrote:
>
> > On 24/01/2011 10:09 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> >
> >> And so it is that I spend about $130/month on a basic digital cable
> >> package and end up skipping through commercials.
> >
> > Hey, don't worry. When I eventually get somewhere of my own to live, I
> > will have to pay money to fund the BBC, even though I don't watch TV or
> > listen to the radio. The fact that the building doesn't contain a TV
> > apparently is no excuse.
>
> We would happily pay the BBC license fee if we could in order to watch
> uncut BBC programmes.
me too! Andrew's a freak! :p
but, hey!, thanks for financing Monthy Python, BBC Documentaries, Hitchhiker's
Guide to the Galaxy, The Blue Planet, Faulty Towers, Dr. Who and many other
stupendous TV shows...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 27/01/2011 03:48 AM, nemesis wrote:
> Andrew's a freak! :p
Why thank you for bringing this to my attention, I was entirely unaware
of this fact. :-P
> but, hey!, thanks for financing Monthy Python, BBC Documentaries, Hitchhiker's
> Guide to the Galaxy, The Blue Planet, Faulty Towers, Dr. Who and many other
> stupendous TV shows...
Interestingly, you don't have to pay any license fee to buy the DVD of
any of these. I actually have a huge stack of David Attenborough DVDs in
my bedroom. Unfortunately, this kind of thing is no longer shown in TV.
I guess they figured that popularity contests are much more profitable
than high-brow "intelligent" programming...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Yes, good mics aren't cheap. Nor is an appropriate place.
>
> Similarly, when writing, a good editor or technical reviewer isn't cheap.
I consider myself to be moderately good at explaining complex ideas.
What I utterly suck at is writing anything of any significant size. I'm
not good at deciding what order to explain stuff in. (And I've very
indecisive...)
Having somebody else review it helps. They're the ones who point out
that you've neglected to explain something because it's just so utterly
obvious to you that you forgot somebody else wouldn't necessarily know this.
I haven't had the pleasure of working with a professional editor yet.
>> I'm sure most of it is fairly easy if you actually know what to look
>> for.
>
> Well, either it's easy or it's hard. The reality is that it's easy or
> hard depending on one's experience and expertise.
Yeah. Logically, there must be books and courses and things somewhere
which explain how to do this properly. I mean, professional sound
engineers don't just pop up out of the ground. They have to learn from
*somewhere*. Chances of you or me finding this information? Negligible.
> First rule of getting people to think you're good at something: Don't
> tell them you suck at it. Let them form their own opinions.
Well, it depends on whether you want credit for other people's
ignorance, or credit because you actually did something worthwhile...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 22:48:49 -0500, nemesis wrote:
> but, hey!, thanks for financing Monthy Python, BBC Documentaries,
> Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, The Blue Planet, Faulty Towers, Dr.
> Who and many other stupendous TV shows...
Indeed, though we in the US did finance them (retroactively) as well
through PBS (originally) and BBC America now.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 09:24:46 +0000, Invisible wrote:
> you don't have to pay any license fee to buy the DVD of any of these.
Of course not, because you bought the DVDs.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 15:34:23 -0800, Darren New wrote:
> I don't see how whether Sony's machine erases the content after you
> watch it has anything to do with whether it's legal to watch it more
> than once,
Since it's a semi-permanent storage medium, it would seem to me to be
faulty logic to assume that legally you can only view the content once.
That doesn't preclude some illogical reason being reached, however -
after all, we are talking about legal matters - sometimes logic doesn't
apply.
> any more than the fact the photocopier doesn't ever check for
> copyright notices makes photocopying copyrighted textbooks universally
> legal.
Some copiers do that now, see the "3 dot pattern" method of preventing a
copier/scanner from copying/scanning restricted materials.
(Though it's not universal, of course)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
