On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 15:34:56 -0800, Darren New wrote:

> 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?

I haven't read anything anywhere that says that she distributed tracks 
from a CD that she purchased.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 19:19:30 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

>  Any "copies" are charged at a lower cost, either to the
> copier, or the one receiving.

How would one even collect on that, though?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 09:39:03 +0000, Invisible wrote:

>> 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. 

That just comes with practice.  Practice that includes feedback that you 
learn from, that is.

> I'm
> not good at deciding what order to explain stuff in. (And I've very
> indecisive...)

That also comes with practice and feedback.  What really helps is to 
understand your audience - which requires asking prospective members of 
your audience what their experience is in the field you're presenting on.

> 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.

Exactly.  I've said before as a subject matter expert, it is hard to 
recognise what an audience doesn't know unless you're consciously aware 
that you know more than the audience.  What's intuitively obvious to you 
is so because of your experiences - but your audience may not have the 
same experiences.

> I haven't had the pleasure of working with a professional editor yet.

It can be really good - just depends on the editor.

>>> 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.

GIYF:

http://www.wikihow.com/Become-a-Sound-Engineer

5 seconds with Google turned that up.  No, it's not actually that 
difficult to learn how to learn something.  Based on that article, it 
seems the bottom line of the suggestion there is apprenticeship.

>> 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...

If they walk away knowing more than they came in with, then you did 
something worthwhile.  Doesn't matter why they didn't know it beforehand.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> not good at deciding what order to explain stuff in. 

When you know a whole bunch about a subject, that can happen. It just takes 
practice. And writing an outline first.

If you want to get good at this, write a page-long lesson on anything you 
like, twice a week, starting with an outline. In a few weeks, you should be 
able to finish the whole essay in 20 minutes. Show it to someone else each 
time, and ask where it was confusing.  In six months, you'll be able to sit 
down and whip out an essay that's comprehensible on pretty much any topic 
you know about (and not unlikely a whole bunch you know nothing about) in 
half an hour.

> 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.

Yep. Very important.

> I haven't had the pleasure of working with a professional editor yet.

That's what a good high school is for. ;-)

> Yeah. Logically, there must be books and courses and things somewhere 
> which explain how to do this properly. 

I would think you learn by sitting with other professional sound engineers. 
I wouldn't think "sound engineer" is something you could read about.

-- 
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:
> That doesn't preclude some illogical reason being reached, however - 
> after all, we are talking about legal matters - sometimes logic doesn't 
> apply.

This.

I'm not sure why anyone things the legal system has to come to logical 
conclusions. :-)

-- 
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:
> On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 15:34:56 -0800, Darren New wrote:
> 
>> 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?
> 
> I haven't read anything anywhere that says that she distributed tracks 
> from a CD that she purchased.

That's how they know she had them.  Also, that's how they came up with the 
damages: statutory amounts on distributing copyrighted materials.

-- 
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:
> On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 19:19:30 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> 
>>  Any "copies" are charged at a lower cost, either to the
>> copier, or the one receiving.
> 
> How would one even collect on that, though?

If it's via something like a kindle, you're really transferring rights, 
which is to say, issuing new keys from the license server. If it's not 
DRMed, you'd have to have it phone home.

-- 
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 Thu, 27 Jan 2011 11:04:35 -0800, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> That doesn't preclude some illogical reason being reached, however -
>> after all, we are talking about legal matters - sometimes logic doesn't
>> apply.
> 
> This.
> 
> I'm not sure why anyone things the legal system has to come to logical
> conclusions. :-)

Well, true - on that we're agreed. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 11:05:14 -0800, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 15:34:56 -0800, Darren New wrote:
>> 
>>> 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?
>> 
>> I haven't read anything anywhere that says that she distributed tracks
>> from a CD that she purchased.
> 
> That's how they know she had them.  

What, that she had the CDs?

> Also, that's how they came up with
> the damages: statutory amounts on distributing copyrighted materials.

True.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 11:05:56 -0800, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 19:19:30 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> 
>>>  Any "copies" are charged at a lower cost, either to the
>>> copier, or the one receiving.
>> 
>> How would one even collect on that, though?
> 
> If it's via something like a kindle, you're really transferring rights,
> which is to say, issuing new keys from the license server. If it's not
> DRMed, you'd have to have it phone home.

Which is hard to do with nonexecutable code (such as audio tracks on a 
CD).

Jim

Post a reply to this message