original article
If you use the phrase "with glowing hearts" from the Canadian national anthem, prepare to be sued. The International Olympic Committee has trademarked the line and is prepared to sue anyone who uses it without their permission. "O Canada" is in the public domain, so its words may be used without government permission.
What is even more baffling to me is that even though the words are in the public domain, they are part of a national anthem. These words are supposed to belong to the citizens of Canada, not to the Olympic Committee.
The Committee has been known to limit free speech in other ways; for instance, during the Athens games, attendees wearing clothing with logos of companies that weren't sponsoring the games were forced to cover up these logos.
The IOC also has trademarked several other words and phrases pertaining to the Olympics, including "Winter" and "2010". I am interested to see how much they will fight for those. It seems like the IOC would have a hard time suing people for using words that common.
-Sara
WITH GLOWING HEARTS.
(In Canada, milk comes in bags. And I could be sued for this post :P)
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
99 Luft Problems
http://www.jay-zeezer.com/mp3/16_99_Luft_Problems.mp3
One of my favorite remixes is "99 Luft Problems." It's a mashup between "99 Problems" by Jay-Z and "99 Red Balloons" by Nena.
In November 2003, rapper Jay-Z released The Black Album. Along with the CD version, his record company also released an a capella version on vinyl to encourage DJs to remix his songs. In 2004, Danger Mouse infamously mashed this up with the Beatles' White Album.
A few days after the release of Danger Mouse's "Grey Album" a young indie-rocker named Mike from Philadelphia felt inspired to remix Jay-Z himself. Sticking with the colorful album theme, he mashed The Black Album with Weezer's eponymous debut known as "The Blue Album." The result: "The Black and Blue Album."
"99 Luft Problems" is not sampled from a Weezer song, but Mike nonetheless included it on his website as a bonus track to the Black and Blue Album. It is in my opinion the strongest, most danceable track on his site. It has a catchy chorus and a hilarious ending that I won't spoil for anybody.
One of my favorite remixes is "99 Luft Problems." It's a mashup between "99 Problems" by Jay-Z and "99 Red Balloons" by Nena.
In November 2003, rapper Jay-Z released The Black Album. Along with the CD version, his record company also released an a capella version on vinyl to encourage DJs to remix his songs. In 2004, Danger Mouse infamously mashed this up with the Beatles' White Album.
A few days after the release of Danger Mouse's "Grey Album" a young indie-rocker named Mike from Philadelphia felt inspired to remix Jay-Z himself. Sticking with the colorful album theme, he mashed The Black Album with Weezer's eponymous debut known as "The Blue Album." The result: "The Black and Blue Album."
"99 Luft Problems" is not sampled from a Weezer song, but Mike nonetheless included it on his website as a bonus track to the Black and Blue Album. It is in my opinion the strongest, most danceable track on his site. It has a catchy chorus and a hilarious ending that I won't spoil for anybody.
The thing that amazes me most is that this "Mike" fellow is a nobody - he is not a Deejay. Through preexisting creations of the musical giants around him, he was able to create something new. According to his website, this was his only experience as a DJ - the two weeks spent making this album are his first two. I'm not going to try and say that every song is good, but I can listen to half of these songs and almost convince myself they were remixed by a veteran. I advise any Jay-Z or Weezer fans to take a listen and see what you think.
"Say It Ain't December 4th", "Encore For Wayne", and "Public Service Holiday" stand out as the best of Mike's Weezer remixes. On his website is an audio/video mashup " 99 Problems With Buddy Holly." This video is really cool, but the song is weaker than "99 Luft Problems." Check out jay-zeezer.com to download this free album, but you might not want to blast these tunes when Grandma is around if you know what I mean.
- Jordan Morsberger
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Pirate Bay Co-Founder Plotting e-Book Plunder?
Direct Link
Peter Sunde is one of the founders of one of the largest anti-copyright websites. This website, as many people may already know, is The Pirate Bay. Sunde recently posted a blog asking anyone is they could send an Amazon Kindle, stating that he and a couple people from New Media Market were working on something. The writer of the article, Chris Snyder, along with a few others from WIRED, wrote back to Sunde asking about what he was up to. They had a hunch that he was trying to make something along the lines of an E-book. Sunde was very mysterious about his answer, only saying that if they sent the Kindle, they would soon find out. The workers at WIRED are hoping that Sunde will be able to do this, because Martin J. Thornkvist thinks otherwise. Thornkvist says "Book publishers- it's time to act. You have an amazing digital future ahead of you. Monetize it before some smart guy in a garage does it". Obviously he wants the major companies to make the major profits if something like an e-book comes out.
It would blow my mind if a digitalized novel hit the shelves made by Sunde. If the product was made by Sunde, it could be a major breakthrough in e-book history. As of now, an e-book can cost around $350, maybe Sunde would be able to make the price drop a good amount.
Friday, September 26, 2008
Pirate Bay Boycotts Press After Television Ambush
Pirate Bay is a controversial BitTorrent tracking site from Sweden and recently have found themselves caught up in conflict between the media and the father of two dead toddlers. Recently Pirate Bay has made the autopsy pictures of two murdered children available on their website. The site refuses to remove the links to the torrents of these photos because they feel it will violate freedom of speech and access to information. There is nothing illegal about what Pirate Bay is doing. Under Swedish law, most documents generated by the government are made available to the public unless specifically deemed secret by the courts. In the case of the pictures released they were not sealed by the court. The site also does not feel that this is an issue they should deal with, media is not targeting the individual who uploaded the photo or the current laws regarding how police information is released. The situation elevated when Peter Sunde the co-founder went to an interview with Sweden's TV4.
Going into the interview Peter Sunde made it apparent that he want to focus on policy and the issues of censorship and what gets published on the Internet. He also told the show's producers that he would not participate if the father of the children would be present. When he showed up on set the father was there waiting. Sunde did not want to participate in this interview because he felt they were not reporting on the real issues just trying to make something sensational out of blaming Pirate Bay. Now Pirate Bay has made the statement that they will not talk to media about the issue anymore.
This article was very interesting and it brought up an issue that really made me think. If I was living in Sweden right now I too might put most of the blame on Pirate Bay but in actuality there is more to the issue. The blame and can be distributed to the law and the individual who uploaded the picture. This is just another example of media trying to put blame in the wrong spot.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Slot Music: Good idea or short lived fad?
http://scitech.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/25/the-end-of-music-cds/
It seems that record companies are looking for a new way to market their music in stores. With CD sales on the decline, record companies have been looking for a new alternative to selling CDs. This newest alternative to downloading music and buying CDs is called Slot Music, developed by Sandisk. Slot Music cards are just micro SD cards with enough space to hold the songs from the album, the album cover art, lyrics, notes, and a little extra space if you want to put your own photos on it. All of the songs will be free of copy protection also. The SD cards can also play on many cell phones, some mp3 players, and many computers that have SD card ports. The SD cards are no bigger than your fingernail and all of the "Big Four" record companies have signed on. Wal-Mart and Best Buy have signed on to carry the devices.
While these micro SD cards with music might be a good gimmick to get more album sales because they're different, it's hard to see how it will be anything more than a fad. The reason CDs aren't selling as well isn't because of the lack of appeal or because you have to rip music from them, it's because mp3 players and online music stores are more convenient. You could even argue that Slot Music is a step backward because a lot of computers don't have micro SD ports, cars don't have Slot Music players, and iPods and Zunes don't have micro SD ports. You also don't get the physical album cover and the case that comes with the CD, which is one of the only upsides to buying a CD nowadays. It's a good idea, it just seems like it's too little too late to stop in store stales from dwindling.
It seems that record companies are looking for a new way to market their music in stores. With CD sales on the decline, record companies have been looking for a new alternative to selling CDs. This newest alternative to downloading music and buying CDs is called Slot Music, developed by Sandisk. Slot Music cards are just micro SD cards with enough space to hold the songs from the album, the album cover art, lyrics, notes, and a little extra space if you want to put your own photos on it. All of the songs will be free of copy protection also. The SD cards can also play on many cell phones, some mp3 players, and many computers that have SD card ports. The SD cards are no bigger than your fingernail and all of the "Big Four" record companies have signed on. Wal-Mart and Best Buy have signed on to carry the devices.
While these micro SD cards with music might be a good gimmick to get more album sales because they're different, it's hard to see how it will be anything more than a fad. The reason CDs aren't selling as well isn't because of the lack of appeal or because you have to rip music from them, it's because mp3 players and online music stores are more convenient. You could even argue that Slot Music is a step backward because a lot of computers don't have micro SD ports, cars don't have Slot Music players, and iPods and Zunes don't have micro SD ports. You also don't get the physical album cover and the case that comes with the CD, which is one of the only upsides to buying a CD nowadays. It's a good idea, it just seems like it's too little too late to stop in store stales from dwindling.
Radiohead Remixing the Industry
http://blog.wired.com/music/2008/09/radiohead-launc.html
Radio launches their second widely available remix competition of their song "Reckoner". Their first remix was of "Nude". The sight got over 6 million hits. Even though "Nude" is in 3/4 time signature making it hard to remix. The contest to make the best remix of "Nude" cost $5 to enter and was very popular.
The new remix contest is of "Reckoner" an easier song being in 4/4 time. Remixable bits of it were released to the iTunes store. About a day and a half ago this contest started and already 236 remixes of the song have been made. The band also informed the remixers that the starting chord is C and the tempo is 103.4 beats per a minute. Also the samples for "Reckoner" are cheaper than the samples for "Nude" to further encourage people's creative outflow.
"Please remember if you wish to commercially exploit the stems in any way, you need permission from us. You don't have any legal ownership of this music simply by cutting it up or whatever." This was said to ensure mixers don't get any ideas about their creations. The Copyright still belongs to Radiohead.
Both these songs were taking from Radiohead's controversially marketed album "In Rainbows". Radiohead allowed people to name their own price for the downloadable version of the album on their website with $0 as an acceptable amount for two months. Many called them stupid, but analysts say it is likely Radiohead made more money from the $4-5 people gave them on their website than if "In Rainbows" had just been pirated. After two months the album came out on CD to good commercial success. I bought it and don't regret it.
I like Radiohead's music and I like their forward thinking market scheme even better. They are a hugely successful band and I hope their effect on the market they are in is very influential. Allowing their fans to remake their songs is an awesome privilege. Instead of bitching about their copyrights or their money, they go right up to their fans and allow them the chance to remix. They are cohesive to the new age of creativity. It is so exciting to see!
Radio launches their second widely available remix competition of their song "Reckoner". Their first remix was of "Nude". The sight got over 6 million hits. Even though "Nude" is in 3/4 time signature making it hard to remix. The contest to make the best remix of "Nude" cost $5 to enter and was very popular.
The new remix contest is of "Reckoner" an easier song being in 4/4 time. Remixable bits of it were released to the iTunes store. About a day and a half ago this contest started and already 236 remixes of the song have been made. The band also informed the remixers that the starting chord is C and the tempo is 103.4 beats per a minute. Also the samples for "Reckoner" are cheaper than the samples for "Nude" to further encourage people's creative outflow.
"Please remember if you wish to commercially exploit the stems in any way, you need permission from us. You don't have any legal ownership of this music simply by cutting it up or whatever." This was said to ensure mixers don't get any ideas about their creations. The Copyright still belongs to Radiohead.
Both these songs were taking from Radiohead's controversially marketed album "In Rainbows". Radiohead allowed people to name their own price for the downloadable version of the album on their website with $0 as an acceptable amount for two months. Many called them stupid, but analysts say it is likely Radiohead made more money from the $4-5 people gave them on their website than if "In Rainbows" had just been pirated. After two months the album came out on CD to good commercial success. I bought it and don't regret it.
I like Radiohead's music and I like their forward thinking market scheme even better. They are a hugely successful band and I hope their effect on the market they are in is very influential. Allowing their fans to remake their songs is an awesome privilege. Instead of bitching about their copyrights or their money, they go right up to their fans and allow them the chance to remix. They are cohesive to the new age of creativity. It is so exciting to see!
Facebook Recruits Street Troops To Grow in Germany
One of the largest fastest growing social networks, Facebook has been having trouble making its appearance know in Germany. Facebook is just ranked number 19 on the top 100 list in Germany which is ten positions behind StudiVZ, the local social network in Germany. Facebook has only been available in Germany since March of this year and it has only grown 200,000 members since then. As the largest social network in the German-speaking world, StudiVZ has over 10 million members while face book has about 800,000.
At the rate facebook is going now in Germany, it would take them over 20 years to catch up with StudiVZ. That's too long for any company to wait so Facebook has partnerd up with the promotion agency Shamboo. Shamboo has already started its efforts to help facebook by trying to get people to be Facebook ambassadors. These Facebook ambassadors would come up with challenges against each other to see who could recruit more facebook members. They would win non-cash prizes such as Iphones or Internships. StudiVZ has also attempted this method before facebook. They used their "campus captains" to recruit university students to be member of their site.
Facebook and StudiVZ use the same methods with slight differences. StudiVZ's campus captains never received any kinds of incentives, and Facebook had to use another company to help them.
Facebook will have a hard time in germany because they entered the market too late. Most users already had StudiVZ and most of them would not want to maintain two networks.
"Legion of Doom"
by David McCandless
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/6.03/doom_pr.html
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/6.03/doom_pr.html
The table turned in favor for hackers all over, when the PC game Doom hit the market its effect had tantalize hackers all over when the mediocre graphic art, and levels needed enhancements. Hackers ranging all over the world were allure by the games undistinguished features which ignited the unifying idea of reverse engineering by doing so hackers entirely revamp the game, creating immense add-ons features, innovating graphics along with imaginative levels that arrived from a large spectrum of the hackers from all over the world. John Carmack and John Romero are two individuals who stood out among a vast sea of hackers that were involved in this operation which in their kismet prove to be beneficial in the sense that they are the co creators of the online gaming sensation Doom and Quake.
John Carmack and John Romero both created the a million dollar revenue and followed that with Quake. Although the games prove to be lucrative, there was an escalating feud between the two innovated masterminds which resulted in a division of creative heads. John Romero branched off, creating a gaming production house called Ion Storm which is in the process of creating their first game, Daikatana, while John Carmack continues to pursue perfection of with revolutionary features and advancing the gaming experience.
With the success of Doom, hackers all over have been given an opportunity to seek a profession in which they love and enhance for gamers. Individuals like Kvernmo embrace this prospect by leaving
After the release of Doom, there was a stand still until three months of no activity, consecutively a team of students at
Because of John Carmack and John Romero the stereotypical image of hacking as an action that is negative, in this case it has provides employment opportunity to individuals intrigued by game graphics has well as an outlet of limitless creativity. Sequentially the idea of endless ingenuity is one that I have found to be unobtainable until this article; with copy right infringements tainting creativity and spreading lawsuits, it seem unreasonable. But after reading this article one really understands and respect the craftsmanship of hackers and community, because both Doom and Quake are great games which completely face lifted the game producing industry.
'Fair Use' in Digital Education
The Technology, Education, and Copyright Harmonization (TEACH) Act was created in 2002 and is an update to the Copyright Act developed in 1976. It now includes digital age ideas involving distance learning and online computer courses. Teachers and professors are now able to use materials such as pictures, sound clips, or video clips without getting permission from the copyright owner. The old Copyright Act (1976) was developed by Congress just to underline the ideas of what is considered ‘fair use’ when it comes to copyright laws. However there are limitations to this new addition to the ‘fair use’ list. This copyright images and sounds can only be used one way but not two way; meaning that there can be no video conferencing or links that can be easily accessed from anyone on the Internet. This is a great way for teachers to get students to interact and enjoy the courses without breaking any copyright laws or restricting teachers to using certain resources.
For many of us, the thought of taking an online class as credit for high school or college is not very new. I took two classes online through my high school, so I understand the concept and it makes sense: if your school doesn’t offer a class, why not figure out a way to take it. The online classroom has its advantages and disadvantages. While you get all of the credits that perhaps your school doesn’t offer, there is also the potential for Internet outages, computer errors, and communication problems. With this being said, it is really important for teachers on the other end of the computer to represent an idea visually, through video, power points, and sound clips. This, especially with visual learners, will make the online learning experience much more informative as well as enjoyable.
With Congress passing the “Fair Use” clause in 2002, online teachers’ resources expanded, making the online classroom even more of a success. Without copyright restrictions, teachers don’t have to be afraid to use work made by another teacher and they are now free to use resources as educational tools. Teachers and professors are not trying to make a profit or exploit someone else’s work, which I think justifies why Congress passed this clause allowing them to use someone else’s work, because it is obviously only intended for educational purposes.
http://www.eschoolnews.org/news/top-news/index.cfm?i=34757&CFID=12404842&CFTOKEN=25155153
For many of us, the thought of taking an online class as credit for high school or college is not very new. I took two classes online through my high school, so I understand the concept and it makes sense: if your school doesn’t offer a class, why not figure out a way to take it. The online classroom has its advantages and disadvantages. While you get all of the credits that perhaps your school doesn’t offer, there is also the potential for Internet outages, computer errors, and communication problems. With this being said, it is really important for teachers on the other end of the computer to represent an idea visually, through video, power points, and sound clips. This, especially with visual learners, will make the online learning experience much more informative as well as enjoyable.
With Congress passing the “Fair Use” clause in 2002, online teachers’ resources expanded, making the online classroom even more of a success. Without copyright restrictions, teachers don’t have to be afraid to use work made by another teacher and they are now free to use resources as educational tools. Teachers and professors are not trying to make a profit or exploit someone else’s work, which I think justifies why Congress passed this clause allowing them to use someone else’s work, because it is obviously only intended for educational purposes.
http://www.eschoolnews.org/news/top-news/index.cfm?i=34757&CFID=12404842&CFTOKEN=25155153
Pirate Bay Wins Court Case, Italian Block Lifted
http://torrentfreak.com/pirate-bay-wins-court-case-italian-block-lifted-080925/
Pirate Bay Wins Court Case, Italian Block Lifted
By Ernesto
The Italian government was getting tired of copyright infringement. They have been blocking access to websites. Some websites they even just take off the internet. The Italian government had come down hard on a website by the name of Pirate Bay.
The government resorted to many different tactics to prevent or try and restrict the freedoms a user had on Pirate Bay’s website. Pirate Bay helps people find BitTorrent files (movies, tv shows, music, etc.). The Italian made it so it ran through a government server with restrictions of what could be downloaded. The popularity of the site still grew, so the government put an all out ban on Pirate Bay’s site from all computers in Italy. Until recently the Court of Bergamo decided that the block of ISP’s access to Pirate Bay was unlawful.
It was a good win for the people who dip their hands into Piracy in Italy. I have personally had a torrent website stop working on me because the government took it down. I believe the Court’s decision was the right one, the Pirate Bay website just directed you where to go and download these things. The person with the mouse clicking away at the URL’s is the person stealing, as well as the person sharing the files. Their punishment did not fit the crime.
- Ryan Wettlaufer
Pirate Bay Wins Court Case, Italian Block Lifted
By Ernesto
The Italian government was getting tired of copyright infringement. They have been blocking access to websites. Some websites they even just take off the internet. The Italian government had come down hard on a website by the name of Pirate Bay.
The government resorted to many different tactics to prevent or try and restrict the freedoms a user had on Pirate Bay’s website. Pirate Bay helps people find BitTorrent files (movies, tv shows, music, etc.). The Italian made it so it ran through a government server with restrictions of what could be downloaded. The popularity of the site still grew, so the government put an all out ban on Pirate Bay’s site from all computers in Italy. Until recently the Court of Bergamo decided that the block of ISP’s access to Pirate Bay was unlawful.
It was a good win for the people who dip their hands into Piracy in Italy. I have personally had a torrent website stop working on me because the government took it down. I believe the Court’s decision was the right one, the Pirate Bay website just directed you where to go and download these things. The person with the mouse clicking away at the URL’s is the person stealing, as well as the person sharing the files. Their punishment did not fit the crime.
- Ryan Wettlaufer
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Remix Contest - Vote for your favorites
Hey all,
I finally got around to putting up a survey so people can vote for their favorite remixes. To listen to the tunes go to our wiki page on remixes. Then please complete our survey. Feel free to vote for the remixes from both sections.
Thanks!!!
I finally got around to putting up a survey so people can vote for their favorite remixes. To listen to the tunes go to our wiki page on remixes. Then please complete our survey. Feel free to vote for the remixes from both sections.
Thanks!!!
Pandora On the Verge of Closing Shop
http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/pandora_on_the_verge_of_closing_shop.php
Pandora.com is an online music radio. This website was created in 2000 as a way to listen to music, while simultaneously discovering artists you might have never heard. For no cost users can create "radio stations" based around musicians and/or songs of their choice. The website is programmed in such a way that songs are streamed randomly, yet selectively. Pandora has recently received recognition as one of the best ways to listen to music via iPhone, but this beloved source of free music may be nearing the end of its run.
These days, CSO and Founder Tim Westergren is paying more money than ever to keep the website going. This is the result of heavily increased fees per song. Last year, these fees were implemented by a federal panel to every online service of this nature. Obviously, this hurts the creators of these websites financially. But in the past year, it is becoming anti-lucrative for Westergren to run Pandora. As you may already know, free websites make profit by selling advertisement space on the site. The number of ads have obviously increased on pandora.com, and this is not what Westergren had in mind for his free website where anyone can listen at all times. Many of Pandora's peers have already shut down due to financial issues.
The Pandora community, counting over one million registered users, are hoping Pandora's fate is not the same as others. There is a legal battle being fought, with Representative Howard L. Berman of California at the forefront. He is trying to work with SoundExchange, a representative group of musicians and record companies, to lower the recently jacked-up fees. Berman had had no luck thus far.
I have really enjoyed Pandora over the past year or two as a way to discover new artists and to hear music that I like for free. For example, last year, I was exposed to a few songs by Sigur Rós and Múm, two bands I had never heard before from Iceland. These songs were appealing and unique. I wanted to hear more from these artists, as well as similar music to diversify what I was listening to. Just for fun, I added Aphex Twin as well. So, I created one station that streams music by each of these three artists in addition to songs that Pandora thinks I might like by similar artists. Every time a new song plays, you can rate it "thumbs up" or "thumbs down," helping Pandora fine-tune your station to only play music that you like. I have listened to this station of mine for months. I can usually go an hour hearing only music that I like, even if I have never heard it before.
You may be wondering how such a large-scale free service like this is allowed to operate in this age of digital restriction. It is mainly because, while you can listen for free, you cannot download anything from Pandora; all audio files are streaming. You can click links that take you to amazon.com or the iTunes store to purchase music you like. Therefore, Pandora is not promoting piracy in any way, but rather, encouraging their listeners to purchase music they have discovered.
There are petitions on various websites to keep Pandora from closing down. While this might give Pandora's staff a greater desire to keep the site up and running, it ultimately could simply be a list of people who will be most let down when the money runs out for the home of "stations that only play music you like." Like the rest of the music world, it's all a matter of money.
- Jordan Morsberger
Pandora.com is an online music radio. This website was created in 2000 as a way to listen to music, while simultaneously discovering artists you might have never heard. For no cost users can create "radio stations" based around musicians and/or songs of their choice. The website is programmed in such a way that songs are streamed randomly, yet selectively. Pandora has recently received recognition as one of the best ways to listen to music via iPhone, but this beloved source of free music may be nearing the end of its run.
These days, CSO and Founder Tim Westergren is paying more money than ever to keep the website going. This is the result of heavily increased fees per song. Last year, these fees were implemented by a federal panel to every online service of this nature. Obviously, this hurts the creators of these websites financially. But in the past year, it is becoming anti-lucrative for Westergren to run Pandora. As you may already know, free websites make profit by selling advertisement space on the site. The number of ads have obviously increased on pandora.com, and this is not what Westergren had in mind for his free website where anyone can listen at all times. Many of Pandora's peers have already shut down due to financial issues.
The Pandora community, counting over one million registered users, are hoping Pandora's fate is not the same as others. There is a legal battle being fought, with Representative Howard L. Berman of California at the forefront. He is trying to work with SoundExchange, a representative group of musicians and record companies, to lower the recently jacked-up fees. Berman had had no luck thus far.
I have really enjoyed Pandora over the past year or two as a way to discover new artists and to hear music that I like for free. For example, last year, I was exposed to a few songs by Sigur Rós and Múm, two bands I had never heard before from Iceland. These songs were appealing and unique. I wanted to hear more from these artists, as well as similar music to diversify what I was listening to. Just for fun, I added Aphex Twin as well. So, I created one station that streams music by each of these three artists in addition to songs that Pandora thinks I might like by similar artists. Every time a new song plays, you can rate it "thumbs up" or "thumbs down," helping Pandora fine-tune your station to only play music that you like. I have listened to this station of mine for months. I can usually go an hour hearing only music that I like, even if I have never heard it before.
You may be wondering how such a large-scale free service like this is allowed to operate in this age of digital restriction. It is mainly because, while you can listen for free, you cannot download anything from Pandora; all audio files are streaming. You can click links that take you to amazon.com or the iTunes store to purchase music you like. Therefore, Pandora is not promoting piracy in any way, but rather, encouraging their listeners to purchase music they have discovered.
There are petitions on various websites to keep Pandora from closing down. While this might give Pandora's staff a greater desire to keep the site up and running, it ultimately could simply be a list of people who will be most let down when the money runs out for the home of "stations that only play music you like." Like the rest of the music world, it's all a matter of money.
- Jordan Morsberger
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Recent arrests a reminder that blogging comes with risks
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080918-recent-arrests-a-reminder-that-blogging-comes-with-risks.html
The United States court system has some troubles with how they should deal with bloggers. Recently some bloggers have been charged and forced to serve prison sentences. Two of the bloggers were in countries on the southern tip of Asia. In these countries the government try to control what their citizens say and think. They control the blogs in an attempt to control their populations. One of the bloggers was Gopalan Nair. He was punished for criticizing a judge that ruled in favor of the ruling family of Singapore. He is an American citizen living in Singapore. The fact that he was persecuted for blogging about his personal beliefs. In Malaysia another blogger was charged. The most recent case of a blogger being charged happened in Malaysia. The blogger Kickdefella posted a blog depicting an upside down Malaysian flag. This post was an attempt to organize a protest of the government. The result was that him and two other bloggers were arrested under security statutes. These cases against those who have blogged their ideas show that other countries may not be as tolerant of what people can say about their government. These cases hopefully do not reflect what is to come in this country. The FBI may begin to search blogs for some kind of information that can help them catch criminals.
The United States court system has some troubles with how they should deal with bloggers. Recently some bloggers have been charged and forced to serve prison sentences. Two of the bloggers were in countries on the southern tip of Asia. In these countries the government try to control what their citizens say and think. They control the blogs in an attempt to control their populations. One of the bloggers was Gopalan Nair. He was punished for criticizing a judge that ruled in favor of the ruling family of Singapore. He is an American citizen living in Singapore. The fact that he was persecuted for blogging about his personal beliefs. In Malaysia another blogger was charged. The most recent case of a blogger being charged happened in Malaysia. The blogger Kickdefella posted a blog depicting an upside down Malaysian flag. This post was an attempt to organize a protest of the government. The result was that him and two other bloggers were arrested under security statutes. These cases against those who have blogged their ideas show that other countries may not be as tolerant of what people can say about their government. These cases hopefully do not reflect what is to come in this country. The FBI may begin to search blogs for some kind of information that can help them catch criminals.
"Circuit Benders Flock to Midtown"
by Rachel Metz
http://www.wired.com/print/culture/lifestyle/news/2005/04/67388
http://www.wired.com/print/culture/lifestyle/news/2005/04/67388
The Big Apple became a
Circuit bending consists of taking apart an electronic item and exploring along with experimenting with the system’s wires consecutively to produce an innate sound. When individual is circuit bending them use an array of electronics which varies from the electronic spectrum, like a child toy similar to a Furby to a more advance electronically organized system like Nintendo. Regardless of its inner wiring, circuit benders can manipulate electronics to create an innovated sound that easily coincides with any main stream instrument producing a sound like no other.
The festival for circuit benders provoked the same emotion of which is parallel to that of a child in a candy shop, due to the numerous activities, workshops and live music production all relating to circuit bending. The activities at place help ignite those individual who were fairly new at this technique while the workshops help further the aptitude of experienced benders. Toward the events ending there was live music by bending musicians.
Although this article was written three years ago, I simply choose this article on the bases that it enhance my comprehension of what it means to be a circuit bender. I was unaware that there are organized events committed to this form of art along with the notion that although at times it may be difficult in reproducing the same sound when circuit bending objects, the raw and original aural are qualities that motivate circuit benders to excel by surpassing their own innate expertiseBlizzard v BnetD
As a former World of Warcraft and Warcraft III addict my interest peeked when the video game developer Blizzard popped up in the news. Blizzard has wasted many of my, and many others of our generation, time with incredibly addicting software. They are now in a law suite with BnetD. BnetD was an open source program that allowed gamers to play Blizzard's games online with other games. They were outside of Blizzard's own program Battle.net service. BnetD had reverse engineered Blizzard's Battle.net and created a service to benefit other gamers. Blizzard was not happy with there software being copied and are now suing BnetD for infringing on Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and Blizzard game's End User Licence Agreement (EULA). Blizz argues that the programmers of BnetD violated the DMCA's anti-circumvention provisions and Blizz's EULA's bti about no reverse engineering.
An organization know as the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and the firm of Day Casebeer Madrid & Batchelder defended BnetD saying that programmers should be able to make free software that works with commercial sold programs. They think this kind of activity should be allowed, because it the users of Blizz's games profit from programs such as BnetD and that it encourages creativity that is needed in this world. Court decided that BnetD was illegal though due to reverse engineering and emulating of Blizz's products was illegal as agreed in the EULA and DMCA.
The anti circumvention provisions of the DMCA has been widely criticized. It doesn't allow the market to grow, but stiffles it as companies have to find ways around using necessary hardware and software that have been copy written by large companies. It makes it impossible to base new programs off of older ones. It doesn't allow anything to grow or breath.
I think Blizzard is being ridicules. They especially should understand innovation and its values. They have already created the most widely played game that drains 15$ a month from it's users and is impossible to quit. Believe me it's impossible. I have been playing World of Warcraft (WoW)for 4 years (on and off)and have tried to stop upwards of 5 times now (not currently subscribed). Playing WoW if anything has made me realize how amazingly innovative of a company Blizz is. They churn out fresh ideas monthly hooking you deeper into the game. They've captured and enslaved (not an exaggeration) the imaginations of 10 million people. With how much money and innovation the company has it should at least be able to see BnetD's side and cut them some slack seeing as how the programmers of BnetD didn't make any $ off their product, but released it for the good of gamers. It isn't like this rogue company is sapping money and users away. Rather BnetD only encouraged people to play Blizz's video games. It enhanced their gaming experience only making it more addicting. In turn they probably made Blizz money in the long run. It is outrageous that Blizz would even thinking of suing the programmers of BnetD.
I agree with the EFF and their stand to encourage beneficial free software and innovation. I feel that Blizzard has been a little blinded by capitalism and the huge amounts of money they pull in. Blizz should look to their roots and realize that they also started as a near profitless software developer that only brought innovations to previously explored territory within the video game industry just like BnetD's creators.
An organization know as the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and the firm of Day Casebeer Madrid & Batchelder defended BnetD saying that programmers should be able to make free software that works with commercial sold programs. They think this kind of activity should be allowed, because it the users of Blizz's games profit from programs such as BnetD and that it encourages creativity that is needed in this world. Court decided that BnetD was illegal though due to reverse engineering and emulating of Blizz's products was illegal as agreed in the EULA and DMCA.
The anti circumvention provisions of the DMCA has been widely criticized. It doesn't allow the market to grow, but stiffles it as companies have to find ways around using necessary hardware and software that have been copy written by large companies. It makes it impossible to base new programs off of older ones. It doesn't allow anything to grow or breath.
I think Blizzard is being ridicules. They especially should understand innovation and its values. They have already created the most widely played game that drains 15$ a month from it's users and is impossible to quit. Believe me it's impossible. I have been playing World of Warcraft (WoW)for 4 years (on and off)and have tried to stop upwards of 5 times now (not currently subscribed). Playing WoW if anything has made me realize how amazingly innovative of a company Blizz is. They churn out fresh ideas monthly hooking you deeper into the game. They've captured and enslaved (not an exaggeration) the imaginations of 10 million people. With how much money and innovation the company has it should at least be able to see BnetD's side and cut them some slack seeing as how the programmers of BnetD didn't make any $ off their product, but released it for the good of gamers. It isn't like this rogue company is sapping money and users away. Rather BnetD only encouraged people to play Blizz's video games. It enhanced their gaming experience only making it more addicting. In turn they probably made Blizz money in the long run. It is outrageous that Blizz would even thinking of suing the programmers of BnetD.
I agree with the EFF and their stand to encourage beneficial free software and innovation. I feel that Blizzard has been a little blinded by capitalism and the huge amounts of money they pull in. Blizz should look to their roots and realize that they also started as a near profitless software developer that only brought innovations to previously explored territory within the video game industry just like BnetD's creators.
Downloadable content, with locks on the side
Digital Rights Management, or DRM for short, has long been a hassle for the consumers of digital downloads. Since there are so many DRM’s, the file you might have downloaded on iTunes won’t work on you Zune, you Zune/URGE files won’t play on iTunes, and then who knows what will play on your Creative mp3 player. And then, when your DRM provider goes down (e.g. MSN, Yahoo), all your music will be rendered completely useless. This has led to consumers getting fed up with downloading their music and not having control over it, so some turn to pirating. Since this completely defeats the purpose of having DRM in the first place, media outlets are being forced to turn to a new alternative.
So, movie studios, record labels, ISPs, and major technology companies are meeting to try and make a new domain based DRM. This idea gives the user full control of their download, but only within their own “domain.” This “domain” includes the user’s computers, mp3 players, TV, video game console, or whatever else can play media files in the house. The only time the DRM would be involved is when the music is transferred over the internet or onto a foreign device. Then the DRM would become enacted and prevent the user from transmitting his/her files over the internet or onto that other device. While this idea for a DRM has potential, it is unlikely that all the providers of media, internet companies, and device companies will all band together and accept this new idea.
In the current discussions mentioned in the article, some very big names are absent from the discussions. Apple, Samsung, Dell, and Disney are all absent from the discussions, with Apple being the company that has the most digital downloads currently and the most devices that play these files. The absence of Apple could lead to the whole idea falling apart because even if the new DRM comes out, users have already invested into Apple’s DRM and would be unlikely to change. And with the iPod completely dominating the mp3 player market (you know its dominating when you don’t even assume what type of product someone has, if it plays music and you haven’t seen it, it’s an iPod), it seems like bad business for Apple to go the other way. Even if all of the companies come on board with this, there is still the problem of enforcing it. The technological advances required for this kind of DRM to happen in a completely efficient way are unlikely in the near future, but it is still an attainable goal in the long run.
Still, the whole DRM mess still seems unfair to the consumer and will probably further alienate consumers in the future, so maybe it would be in the interest of the companies providing this content to drop the DRMs and get users back on their side once again. But the idea presented in the article could work if executed correctly and if all of the companies step up and buy into the idea. Also, some consumers might understand that if they have it it’s theirs, but they can’t give it to anyone else. Obviously, there are some who won’t, but the RIAA has lawsuits for that.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2008/09/drm-sony-dece-a.html?cid=130475582
So, movie studios, record labels, ISPs, and major technology companies are meeting to try and make a new domain based DRM. This idea gives the user full control of their download, but only within their own “domain.” This “domain” includes the user’s computers, mp3 players, TV, video game console, or whatever else can play media files in the house. The only time the DRM would be involved is when the music is transferred over the internet or onto a foreign device. Then the DRM would become enacted and prevent the user from transmitting his/her files over the internet or onto that other device. While this idea for a DRM has potential, it is unlikely that all the providers of media, internet companies, and device companies will all band together and accept this new idea.
In the current discussions mentioned in the article, some very big names are absent from the discussions. Apple, Samsung, Dell, and Disney are all absent from the discussions, with Apple being the company that has the most digital downloads currently and the most devices that play these files. The absence of Apple could lead to the whole idea falling apart because even if the new DRM comes out, users have already invested into Apple’s DRM and would be unlikely to change. And with the iPod completely dominating the mp3 player market (you know its dominating when you don’t even assume what type of product someone has, if it plays music and you haven’t seen it, it’s an iPod), it seems like bad business for Apple to go the other way. Even if all of the companies come on board with this, there is still the problem of enforcing it. The technological advances required for this kind of DRM to happen in a completely efficient way are unlikely in the near future, but it is still an attainable goal in the long run.
Still, the whole DRM mess still seems unfair to the consumer and will probably further alienate consumers in the future, so maybe it would be in the interest of the companies providing this content to drop the DRMs and get users back on their side once again. But the idea presented in the article could work if executed correctly and if all of the companies step up and buy into the idea. Also, some consumers might understand that if they have it it’s theirs, but they can’t give it to anyone else. Obviously, there are some who won’t, but the RIAA has lawsuits for that.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2008/09/drm-sony-dece-a.html?cid=130475582
Woman Investigated for Linking to Police Web Site
A Wisconsin woman is suing the city of Sheboygan for a criminal investigation launched against her in what is being called a landmark case. What makes this case unique is the reason the plaintiff, Jennifer Reisinger, was investigated. The city targeted Reisinger for simply linking to the city’s police department web site.
According to Reisinger, Sheboygan city attorney Stephen McLean sent her a cease-and-desist notice ordering her to remove the link from her web site. The lawsuit reveals that Mayor Juan Perez told McLean to send the notice, even after he informed the mayor that consent was not needed to post a link to another web site. Frightened by McLean’s letter, Reisinger promptly removed the link from her site. The city didn’t stop there, though. The suit claims a criminal investigation was launched against Reisinger, even after she complied with the order.
Reisinger believes the city took these extreme measures in an effort to punish her for supporting a recall of the mayor. She says the city’s investigation hurt the image of her business and even resulted in death threats. After being informed by a police lieutenant that she was being investigated for the use of links to city government sites, Reisinger hired attorney Paul Bucher to represent her. He encouraged her to repost the link to the police department web site. The city withdrew its demands not to link to city web sites last November. Reisinger isn’t backing down though, instead filing a federal lawsuit which lists the city attorney, police chief, and city clerk as defendants. She is seeking $250,000 in compensatory damages, as well as unspecified punitive damages and declaratory relief, for what she calls a violation of her First Amendment rights.The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel spoke to Internet law and copyright specialist Bruce Boyden about the case. He believes that if the case were to go to trial, it would be the first of its kind. Boyden stated that some web sites require permission to link to them, but that he had never heard of a company enforcing violations where no copyright or trademark was violated. Internet links, like most speech, are not protected in some cases, such as copyright infringement and threatening language. While neither the lawsuit nor the cease-and-desist order indicate the way the link to the police department web site was used, Boyden says it appears to be legitimate.
Boyden also provided valuable commentary on the case. “Linking to the Web site is no different than listing the street address of the Sheboygan police department,” he said. “I have never heard that you can’t link to a government Web site that, by the way, is paid for with taxpayer money.”
Indeed, the city’s laughable demands would not apply to any comparable real-world scenarios. Permission would not be needed to distribute the police department’s street address. It needs to be available so people can locate the police station. Similarly, if linking to the police department’s web site were illegal, how would anyone be able to find it? A simple Google search yields several links to the police department’s web site (not to mention a street address, a phone number, and a map). By the city’s logic, should it not be a priority to investigate every search engine on the Internet? I probably don’t need to explain how illogical the city’s actions were. The mayor’s cease-and-desist order was a blatant abuse of power and just supports Reisinger’s view that he is not fit to hold public office. Jennifer Reisinger used her freedom of speech to combat a corrupt government, and the government used corruption to combat her freedom of speech.
Hopefully, this case will establish that a city cannot stop people from posting links to its web site. It would be a sad day when not only cannot ordinary people legally build upon the creations of others, but can’t even acknowledge their existence.Is Apple's success the result of luck or skill?
(click picture for original article)by. Don Reisinger
summary
This article is about Apple and how the company has been very successful over the past couple of years. Apple has recently reached a milestone that could change the computing business for good: its U.S. laptop market share has reached 10.6 percent during the second quarter of 2008. Apple is very successful, and its popularity is growing each day. Years ago no one would have thought apple would have survived or even be on top of the technology industry as it is today.
How did this happen? Microsoft fans would say that apples success is all luck, but apple zealots would disagree saying that it has nothing to do with luck, that it is the knowledge of knowing what the people want.In reality, Apple's success in the computing market is the by-product of both skillful positioning and a healthy dose of luck.
Steve Jobs know what he's doing, he knows all the right buttons to press to make everyone happy. He realized that the industry did not address the consumers desires. He knew what it took to make apple the success it is today, and that was to make it more than just a computer company. Apple had to branch out, creating other products while maintaining its computer focus. It was a risk that paid off well.
On the other hand, it was the poor management of Apples competitors that allowed Apple to succeed. Microsoft, Dell, Hewlett-Packard, and other companies were all focused on the wrong markets. Some companies thought that Windows was all they need to attract consumers, but people are looking for devices that say something about them. And for quite some time, those consumers have been looking for beauty which Apple. Apple has always understood that and does its best to make its computers more elegant than its competitors. Other companies are just starting to. I think its pretty clear that many PC manufacturers have just been lazy. Microsoft has been lazy. Apple, on the other hand, has been pretty much the only company to even try to think outside the box and do anything innovative. From physical appearance, to user interface. They get it and are consistently pushing forward. They have also done a good job of making there products desirable.
One thing that's strange about apple is that people that start using Apple products have a sense of loyalty to them unlike any other computer brand. And it's that phenomenon that Apple uses to its advantage and what keeps the press coming back for more. And in turn, Apple's customers keep coming back for more too.
-Ronald Hudson
"Apple wants to tie your shoes to your clothes with DRM"
Direct Link
Apple and Nike have had their Nike+Ipod sports kit for a while now, and have recently decided to kick it up a notch for us consumers. This new product, called "Smart Garment" is a gadget that, for lack of a better word, analyzes the clothing it is clipped onto. It analyzes the brand, and if the garment is not an approved, the device doesn't work.
"In this patent, Apple makes no attempt to hide the fact that it's essentially and attempt to enforce something like DRM on the pairing of clothing with technology". It is a scary thought to realize that a device could read the brand of your clothing and determine whether you wore the right outfit.
The reason behind this new gadget is what you would expect. The transmitter in the Nike+ shoes as of now, can be removed. Some people prefer their already worn in, comfortable sneakers, and just like to be able to track their run. The runners put the transmitter wherever else they can, like pouches or pockets, and clothing items that are not Nike+.TM. What Apple and Nike want to prevent are "thieves". They want the device to be used with ONLY Nike apparel, so that if the device was stolen from you, the thief would not be able to use it.
However, their is a little method to their madness. They are hoping to find a way to make it so the device can read the wear of your sneaker. "[I]n many cases, a runner will not notice that a running show has been worn down to the point where crucial support (arch, for example) has eroded thereby increasing the likelihood of injury." I say bravo if they succeed in this, because its always nice to have a heads up to broken ankles.
The Show With Ze Frank and Remixes for Ray
On March 17, 2006, comedian Ze Frank started a video blog. Sounds commonplace, but Ze set out with a mission- to do a show every (week)day for a year. Originally meant as a news commentary vlog, The Show With Ze Frank eventually evolved into a mix of news, music, comedy, inside jokes, and a vibrant interactive community.
The quirky and quickly moving show usually starred Ze in his apartment. Some episodes were funny, some serious, and some bittersweet. Moving slowly away from doing a daily show about news, Ze eventually presented projects to his viewers (whom he called "Sports Racers").
Among these projects were:
- to make an "earth sandwich" (place two pieces of bread directly across from each other on each side of the earth)
- to dress up vacuum cleaners and take pictures of them
- to create opening greetings for the show
- to compete in a "I Knows Me Some Ugly MySpace Showdown" (in which participants try to make the ugliest MySpace page possible)
- to write parts of the show itself
- and, to remix a song sung by a man named Ray.
Ze found a recording on the internet of a man named Ray singing a song to his daughter. Ray's daughter had apparently had a very bad day at work, so Ray recorded a short song to give her encouragement. The song, entitled "Whip Somebody's Ass", captured Ze's attention and he encouraged his viewers to create remixes of the song and to find Ray so these remixes could be presented to him.
Upwards of a hundred remixes were created and submitted to Ze Frank's website. Ze also asked viewers to submit pictures and short video clips to compile into a music video for Ray. Ray responded first with a letter, and eventually Ze traveled to meet him. Ray was delighted by the creativity that had sprung from a simple impromptu song he had recorded for his daughter.
Ze Frank compiled an amazing community in a way only possible through the internet. Though Ze lives in New York City, The Show With Ze Frank was watched every day (and can continue to be watched) by people across the globe. This past summer, Ze Frank started a project called Color Wars, in which Twitter users joined teams and completed creative challenges. However, The Show remains Ze's most famous endeavor.
(This author created a remix for Ray herself, but the reader can find that on his/her own in the archives :D)
Extra links:
Here is the original challenge episode (Warning: could be confusing if you have never watched the show before)and the wrap-up episode (less confusing, and we meet Ray!).
Ze also presented at TED!
The quirky and quickly moving show usually starred Ze in his apartment. Some episodes were funny, some serious, and some bittersweet. Moving slowly away from doing a daily show about news, Ze eventually presented projects to his viewers (whom he called "Sports Racers").
Among these projects were:
- to make an "earth sandwich" (place two pieces of bread directly across from each other on each side of the earth)
- to dress up vacuum cleaners and take pictures of them
- to create opening greetings for the show
- to compete in a "I Knows Me Some Ugly MySpace Showdown" (in which participants try to make the ugliest MySpace page possible)
- to write parts of the show itself
- and, to remix a song sung by a man named Ray.
Ze found a recording on the internet of a man named Ray singing a song to his daughter. Ray's daughter had apparently had a very bad day at work, so Ray recorded a short song to give her encouragement. The song, entitled "Whip Somebody's Ass", captured Ze's attention and he encouraged his viewers to create remixes of the song and to find Ray so these remixes could be presented to him.
Upwards of a hundred remixes were created and submitted to Ze Frank's website. Ze also asked viewers to submit pictures and short video clips to compile into a music video for Ray. Ray responded first with a letter, and eventually Ze traveled to meet him. Ray was delighted by the creativity that had sprung from a simple impromptu song he had recorded for his daughter.
Ze Frank compiled an amazing community in a way only possible through the internet. Though Ze lives in New York City, The Show With Ze Frank was watched every day (and can continue to be watched) by people across the globe. This past summer, Ze Frank started a project called Color Wars, in which Twitter users joined teams and completed creative challenges. However, The Show remains Ze's most famous endeavor.
(This author created a remix for Ray herself, but the reader can find that on his/her own in the archives :D)
Extra links:
Here is the original challenge episode (Warning: could be confusing if you have never watched the show before)and the wrap-up episode (less confusing, and we meet Ray!).
Ze also presented at TED!
RIAA Decries Attorney-Blogger as 'Vexatious' Litigator
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/09/riaa-decries-at.html
The article I’m reviewing deals with the issue of the “recording industry vs. the people.” It focuses on a specific attorney, Ray Beckerman, who is accused of being a “vexatious” litigator, or in other words he has been fighting his cases without sufficient evidence purely to cause aggravation. Beckerman has written an “anti-recording industry blog” that has post about all of his “baseless motions.” The RIAA (recording industry association of America) argues that these blogs “demeans the integrity of these judicial proceedings and warrants this imposition of sanctions."
Other attorney’s like Ray Beckerman who are fighting against the record companies are saying it is the RIAA that should be accused of vexatious conduct. One specifically, Lory Lybeck, argues that the RIAA has been participating in using “sham” litigation tactics to sue about 30,000 people in the past five years, some of whom were falsely accused and all using unlicensed investigators. Lybeck feels the accusations against Beckerman are “like irony and irony and irony.” He believes that the 30,000 lawsuits against the people were all just part of a “PR campaign based on a fundamental starting place of an illegal investigation by unlicensed investigators and then a threatening letter.”
I personally am on the side of the RIAA. I think people should have to pay for music. If you really like an artist and the work they produce the best way to support that is to buy their album and give money to all the people who put their work into making that album happen. Regardless of whether the lawyers are using vexatious methods to win his cases or not people who make copyrighted music available for free using file sharing systems should be punished. I understand that Ray Beckerman is just doing his job and defending his client to the best of his ability, but for him to use unethical ways to defend his clients is wrong.
-- ryan wettlaufer
The article I’m reviewing deals with the issue of the “recording industry vs. the people.” It focuses on a specific attorney, Ray Beckerman, who is accused of being a “vexatious” litigator, or in other words he has been fighting his cases without sufficient evidence purely to cause aggravation. Beckerman has written an “anti-recording industry blog” that has post about all of his “baseless motions.” The RIAA (recording industry association of America) argues that these blogs “demeans the integrity of these judicial proceedings and warrants this imposition of sanctions."
Other attorney’s like Ray Beckerman who are fighting against the record companies are saying it is the RIAA that should be accused of vexatious conduct. One specifically, Lory Lybeck, argues that the RIAA has been participating in using “sham” litigation tactics to sue about 30,000 people in the past five years, some of whom were falsely accused and all using unlicensed investigators. Lybeck feels the accusations against Beckerman are “like irony and irony and irony.” He believes that the 30,000 lawsuits against the people were all just part of a “PR campaign based on a fundamental starting place of an illegal investigation by unlicensed investigators and then a threatening letter.”
I personally am on the side of the RIAA. I think people should have to pay for music. If you really like an artist and the work they produce the best way to support that is to buy their album and give money to all the people who put their work into making that album happen. Regardless of whether the lawyers are using vexatious methods to win his cases or not people who make copyrighted music available for free using file sharing systems should be punished. I understand that Ray Beckerman is just doing his job and defending his client to the best of his ability, but for him to use unethical ways to defend his clients is wrong.
-- ryan wettlaufer
Flat World Knowledge: an open-source textbook revolution?
Direct link to article: click here
An obvious issue with college textbooks is that they are expensive. Averaging over $100 per book, they are hard to afford and as a result, students sometimes opt to simply not buy the books at all. This leads to unsatisfactory perforamance from students and to frustrated professors. Because the books are not being bought, authors are also jipped and recieve little to no profit for their work. Bottom line: the system is not working, and people are not happy.
Authors gain 15% of profits from the sales of their books. The first semester their book is used students buy new books, but from that point forward the number of new books purchased goes down until around the fourth semester, when the author is earning almost no money. This pressures the authors to put out new editions, and this is the point at which prices go back up for the majority of students.
Flat World is a publishing company that has proposed the idea to publish, for free, textbooks online. No accounts or passwords will be necessary -- the books will be available at a URL to everybody. Teachers will be able to mix different parts of the textbooks to virtually create their own books for their own courses. The company would also supply flashcards and other study guides. The paper versions of these products would be sold more cheaply than college textbooks are already.
Flat World's goals are admirable, and they might actually work, but there are barriers standing in the way. Authors in the teaching world are like brands in other markets -- teachers tend to select books written by more well-known authors. Therefore the key to gaining clients lies in persuading popular authors to sign with them. One of the ways they are trying to do this is by convincing them that they would earn more money this way. They would gross 20% of sales as opposed to the 15% they do now, and they would also receive revenue from the remixed textbooks created by professors and teachers. In order to make their system more appealing, Flat World is also releasing a series of textbooks in the format of comic books.
There are many positive aspects to Flat World's system of publishing. It would lower prices for students, increase revenue for authors, and market a way for teachers to create their own textbooks for the courses they teach. Now all they have to do is get authors to take the bait.
An obvious issue with college textbooks is that they are expensive. Averaging over $100 per book, they are hard to afford and as a result, students sometimes opt to simply not buy the books at all. This leads to unsatisfactory perforamance from students and to frustrated professors. Because the books are not being bought, authors are also jipped and recieve little to no profit for their work. Bottom line: the system is not working, and people are not happy.
Authors gain 15% of profits from the sales of their books. The first semester their book is used students buy new books, but from that point forward the number of new books purchased goes down until around the fourth semester, when the author is earning almost no money. This pressures the authors to put out new editions, and this is the point at which prices go back up for the majority of students.
Flat World is a publishing company that has proposed the idea to publish, for free, textbooks online. No accounts or passwords will be necessary -- the books will be available at a URL to everybody. Teachers will be able to mix different parts of the textbooks to virtually create their own books for their own courses. The company would also supply flashcards and other study guides. The paper versions of these products would be sold more cheaply than college textbooks are already.
Flat World's goals are admirable, and they might actually work, but there are barriers standing in the way. Authors in the teaching world are like brands in other markets -- teachers tend to select books written by more well-known authors. Therefore the key to gaining clients lies in persuading popular authors to sign with them. One of the ways they are trying to do this is by convincing them that they would earn more money this way. They would gross 20% of sales as opposed to the 15% they do now, and they would also receive revenue from the remixed textbooks created by professors and teachers. In order to make their system more appealing, Flat World is also releasing a series of textbooks in the format of comic books.
There are many positive aspects to Flat World's system of publishing. It would lower prices for students, increase revenue for authors, and market a way for teachers to create their own textbooks for the courses they teach. Now all they have to do is get authors to take the bait.
Amplive Nixes Radiohead Remixes at Warner's Demand
This article is about one DJ's struggle to release a free album composed of remixes of Radiohead tracks from their album "In Rainbows."
But for those who don't know the story of the Radiohead album, here's some background. Radiohead surprised their fanbase when they announced that not only had they finished their seventh album, but they were letting everybody download it for whatever price they were willing to pay. This was revolutionary. Many people tried to say Radiohead was foolish and would make no money off of this, but they ended up making a couple dollars per album that was downloaded - which is greater than to the amount they would have received by releasing it the normal way. This album was available for free download for about two months, then it was taken off of their website for the album's in-store release January 1st, 2008. The album surprisingly sold very well in stores even after hundreds of thousands of listeners already had a digital copy.
A DJ/producer called Amplive from Oakland, California was inspired by this unique "pay what you want" format, and also by the ten songs themselves. He decided to remix several of these tracks and give them away to the public for free in January of this year. He titled his work "Rainydayz Remixes." This is a great example of how musicians can feed off of each other's creativity.
However, after announcing he was releasing these songs, Warner/Chappel, the band's record company, said Amplive did not have the rights to release this album. Their claim was that he did not get permission for this project, and this claim was justified. Amplive had not asked Radiohead if he could create and release Rainydayz Remixes.
Five weeks later, it was announced that Amplive finally received permission to release his remixes. The eight tracks are still available to download for FREE on Amplive's website.
After hearing Rainydayz Remixes, I can say that one or two of the remixes are great but, for the rest of the tracks, Amplive took what had been amazing musical compositions and made them uninteresting. But here's a link to the song I think stands out as the best track.
Video Tapez (featuring Del tha Funkee Homosapien)
- Jordan Morsberger
This article is about one DJ's struggle to release a free album composed of remixes of Radiohead tracks from their album "In Rainbows."
But for those who don't know the story of the Radiohead album, here's some background. Radiohead surprised their fanbase when they announced that not only had they finished their seventh album, but they were letting everybody download it for whatever price they were willing to pay. This was revolutionary. Many people tried to say Radiohead was foolish and would make no money off of this, but they ended up making a couple dollars per album that was downloaded - which is greater than to the amount they would have received by releasing it the normal way. This album was available for free download for about two months, then it was taken off of their website for the album's in-store release January 1st, 2008. The album surprisingly sold very well in stores even after hundreds of thousands of listeners already had a digital copy.
A DJ/producer called Amplive from Oakland, California was inspired by this unique "pay what you want" format, and also by the ten songs themselves. He decided to remix several of these tracks and give them away to the public for free in January of this year. He titled his work "Rainydayz Remixes." This is a great example of how musicians can feed off of each other's creativity.
However, after announcing he was releasing these songs, Warner/Chappel, the band's record company, said Amplive did not have the rights to release this album. Their claim was that he did not get permission for this project, and this claim was justified. Amplive had not asked Radiohead if he could create and release Rainydayz Remixes.
The impact of the big record company slamming the door in the face of an independent DJ was evident in many different online blog communities. Many people felt that Amplive should be able to release his remix album since he was not trying to make any money from it. He was just taking what was free to begin with and added his own touches, not to mention appearances by notable emcees such as Del tha Funkee Homosapien and Chali 2na of Jurassic 5. Amplive was told that he was not authorized to release any of this.
After hearing Rainydayz Remixes, I can say that one or two of the remixes are great but, for the rest of the tracks, Amplive took what had been amazing musical compositions and made them uninteresting. But here's a link to the song I think stands out as the best track.
Video Tapez (featuring Del tha Funkee Homosapien)
- Jordan Morsberger
Rip, Remix, Burn (Tools of the Cut & Paste Trade)
Just like Picasso making collages out of newspaper clippings out culture today are talking apart and mixing everything from audio to video. Some tools used include Photoshop, Garage Band, Technics SL-1210M5G, Final Cut Studio and Unreal Tournament Game Engine. Photoshop lets you mash, merge, and mangle images to create what ever the maker wants. Garage Band allows users to import samples, record live, and play virtual instruments. Technics SL-1210M5G can simulate the remix of old-school Technics turntables. Final Cut Studio is digital video editing for the masses. Unreal Tournament Game Engine gives everyone the opportunity to be a movie director of your own Animated film.
This article gave a good over view of the different technologies available for remixing. Each description sounds fun and interesting. But the most important part of the whole article was the first line which compares the acts of Picasso who is well known as a great artist and the creations of the modern day online culture. This point though not discussed in the article brings up the issue of what is legal and not what is art and not. There are many people who might believe that it is illegal to take someone else's work and remix it but the is what Picasso did in the collage. Some might also believe that the art being made is not original because they took from other people but so did Picasso. Overall this is a very good article.
The Father of Circuit Bending
In reading an interview developed by allsound.org, Q.R. Ghazala is considered an innovator in the idea of music, art, and technology. He has created musical instruments with the new development of circuit bending.
So, what is circuit bending? It is not only a way to create sounds and music, but it also is a way to express oneself with remixing while creating a new form of art. Usually using children’s toys, it is basically short-circuiting the devices that are battery powered to create new sounds that are projected through the original toy or by other means. Not only do people rearrange the circuits, they put switches and other devices to distort the original sound or even create a new one.
Ghazala perfected this newfound art and has created music and other art forms through the circuits like ‘bending’ cameras to create distorted images. He believes that every form of art represents the creator and all of their heart and soul that they have put into any other work. One of Ghazala’s artistic traits seems to be that he adds human and animal glass eyes to some of his works. He does this as a combination with the material plastic and wires to add an organic feel to the finished product. He creates albums of his musical sounds with the instruments he creates. Not only does Ghazala mess around the circuits and guess which wire sounds great where, he knows the science behind the idea of circuit bending, which I think helps him understand and create such elaborate works of art. Since he understands the art and the way it works, he can now prefect it.
One of Ghazala’s favorite inventions was the Incantor, or the circuit bent version of the famous toy, Speak&Spell. He loves the Incantor because it expresses the basic idea and perfect model of circuit bending and how it should work. The sound can be looped using a switch or a holding switch, which blends vowel sounds made by humans with abstract noises like electronic or music tones. Sometimes pressure creates new sounds, like a human figure touching a switch. He describes it as sounding like an ‘involved alien music ensemble’.
Ghazala is creating new sounds and images, but I seem to forget that he is taking and idea already made and building upon it and essentially remixing it. I do this because it seems like such a new and original idea that the previous uses don’t even seem relevant. I guess that is the point of remixes. We as a human society change and build upon what we already know to create something better, more convenient, or just more beautiful, and we have been doing it for years. Ghazala stated in the interview that ‘new materials inspire new thoughts’. For him these materials made from every day gadgets ARE new materials because he sees their potential uses in a different light and in a different way, so to him they are new and untouched.
http://www.anti-theory.com/links/Behind_the_Circuit_Bending/index.html
So, what is circuit bending? It is not only a way to create sounds and music, but it also is a way to express oneself with remixing while creating a new form of art. Usually using children’s toys, it is basically short-circuiting the devices that are battery powered to create new sounds that are projected through the original toy or by other means. Not only do people rearrange the circuits, they put switches and other devices to distort the original sound or even create a new one.
Ghazala perfected this newfound art and has created music and other art forms through the circuits like ‘bending’ cameras to create distorted images. He believes that every form of art represents the creator and all of their heart and soul that they have put into any other work. One of Ghazala’s artistic traits seems to be that he adds human and animal glass eyes to some of his works. He does this as a combination with the material plastic and wires to add an organic feel to the finished product. He creates albums of his musical sounds with the instruments he creates. Not only does Ghazala mess around the circuits and guess which wire sounds great where, he knows the science behind the idea of circuit bending, which I think helps him understand and create such elaborate works of art. Since he understands the art and the way it works, he can now prefect it.
One of Ghazala’s favorite inventions was the Incantor, or the circuit bent version of the famous toy, Speak&Spell. He loves the Incantor because it expresses the basic idea and perfect model of circuit bending and how it should work. The sound can be looped using a switch or a holding switch, which blends vowel sounds made by humans with abstract noises like electronic or music tones. Sometimes pressure creates new sounds, like a human figure touching a switch. He describes it as sounding like an ‘involved alien music ensemble’.
Ghazala is creating new sounds and images, but I seem to forget that he is taking and idea already made and building upon it and essentially remixing it. I do this because it seems like such a new and original idea that the previous uses don’t even seem relevant. I guess that is the point of remixes. We as a human society change and build upon what we already know to create something better, more convenient, or just more beautiful, and we have been doing it for years. Ghazala stated in the interview that ‘new materials inspire new thoughts’. For him these materials made from every day gadgets ARE new materials because he sees their potential uses in a different light and in a different way, so to him they are new and untouched.
http://www.anti-theory.com/links/Behind_the_Circuit_Bending/index.html
Some remixes
I've posted the first group of remixes to our class wiki at http://www.zacharski.org/classes/2008/fall/mashup/index.php/Main/Remixes. In order to avoid any legal hassles, I've password protected that page with our usual password. These remixes include
- Lady GaGa - Poker Face (Extended Mix) - Matt Martin
- Laura's Project - Laura Donahue
- Yes We Can Remix - Ronald Hudson
- Bueller Battles the Pink Robots Pt. 1 - Sara Monk
- Untitled - Jordan Morsberger & Chad Hatch
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Network Neutrality: Fact vs. Fiction
http://www.freepress.net/files/nn_fact_v_fiction_final.pdf
The Net Neutrality: Fact vs. Fiction article I’m reviewing was written by the American Free Press, The Consumer’s Union, and the Consumer Federation of America in combination. The article was written to combat claims by anti net neutrality organizations and lobbyists who want to see network neutrality taken away. The writers attempt to refute 12 statements by the anti net neutrality organizations over the course of the article.
The issue of network neutrality has been around since the internet became public. Network neutrality is the basic idea that all content flowing over the internet has the same rights no matter who sends it. The idea that if a person sends an email over the internet, that email will be treated with the same priority as someone else sending another email and there will be no discrimination. The writers argue that if the baseline protection of network neutrality is taken away, the internet will enter an anti-competitive marketplace with only a few network companies allowed to make decisions.
The reason why the network companies want control of their own pipes is because they don’t have control of who they give internet to. They were given land grants and public funding to make the internet lines, but the internet service providers pay the network providers to use their network and the network company provides the bandwidth to the internet service providers. Then the consumers pay the internet service providers. This keeps it so the internet service providers and the network providers can’t bully the consumers by discriminating over bandwidth or jack up prices.
The basic fear expressed by the article is that if network neutrality is taken away, the broadband companies would be able to control everything about the internet. They could partner up and charge extreme prices that would put strain on regular consumers who needed the internet. They could control all of the data going down the internet whenever they wanted. They could also give increased internet access to certain people and companies if they controlled everything.
The article also focuses on claims made by lobbyists to the government that the writers interpret as false. These claims include claims by AT&T that they own the “pipes” in which the internet goes through, that companies won’t construct new networks, and that there is a lot of competition among the network companies, just to name a few. The writers get very emotionally involved in this bringing up facts about how the government granted most of the land where the companies build their pipes because it was under the assumption that they were doing a public service to the whole of the United States. They also refute the claims of widespread competition by claiming that the internet has become an irreplaceable commodity and there is always a demand for internet. To deal with the companies saying they won’t have any incentive to build new networks if there is still network neutrality, the writers say that there will always be a demand for faster and more reliable internet so they will always have to build new networks.
This article is obviously written from consumer’s point of view and does a good job in backing up the statements it makes against the network providers. But it is a completely biased article, so to say that they are necessarily right without knowing the whole story would be wrong. The article brings up many good points against network providers’ claims, and it would be interesting to see the writers of this article go up against representatives of the network companies in a debate.
Who Will Own Your Next Big Idea
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/98sep/copy.htm
The article opens with a story of the writer's friend who has had their story stolen and printed in a French magazine. This story is used to show a real world situation in which the common sense of a person may not be matched by what the laws state. The writer tells that intellectual property is any expression or idea that is owned by someone. This type of property is divided into three categories; copyright, patent, and trademark. Occasionally trade secrets is included in with the other three. Today the best definition of intellectual information is anything that can be made solid in the form of ones and zeros. In the past few years copyrighted material contributed over $400 billion dollars to the U.S. economy alone. This industry has been growing faster than the U.S. economy as a whole. This is the countries most important exports. It is widely believed that television, internet, and telephones will merge into a big hose that will dump massive amounts of intellectual property into our homes. If this occurs those that are making the profits will not be the ones that own the computers or televisions that transmit the data, but the people that own the information that is displayed. As the shift occurs from tangible forms of media to a world filled with electronic forms of media many new problems will arise. One of the biggest problems is that it is becoming increasingly harder for those who own the electronic property to actually charge money for their ideas and property. This is partly because substitutes can be provided for cheeper, this can drive the price of the actual product down to zero. Another problem that people these providers is facing is the increasing amount of piracy. This is much easier to accomplish in the digital age. As we enter the digital age a bootleg movie can be emailed to millions of people with the click of of a mouse. This is becoming much easier because because there is almost no cost for those that are distributing the pirated material. There are two answers to this problem. One is to eliminate copyright altogether. The group of people that feel that copyright laws should be done away with use the argument that " information wants to be free". The other side of the argument feel that copyright laws should be strengthened. An argument this group uses is that copyright laws are in the Constitution. These copyright laws make it so that Michael Jackson can make fortunes off the Beatle's music catalogue. George Washington's argument to Congress in order to enact copyright laws he told them that it would increase knowledge and he said " knowledge is the surest basis of public happiness."
James
Courtney Love Does the Math
http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/index.html
The beginning of the article starts off by talking about how little money the recording artists actually make from a record deal. The example that the author of the article used was that from a 4 person band, after all things have been paid off, each band member only makes $45,000. In contrast to this, the record label grosses ~$6.6 million, that’s 120 times the profit of the band members individually. Now, while it does make sense that the record label would gross more than the individual band members, it doesn’t make sense that they are grossing 120 times more than the band. The author also talks about current and past copyright law. Up until 1978, when the copyright on something ran out, that something would either go back to you or go back to your family to do with as they want. However, now, when a copyright runs out, the rights to that something are just sold off to the highest bidder. The author talks about how right now, many artists are fighting to gain control back of their names/band names from their respective record labels. The RIAA surprisingly enough, is helping the artists to gain back some of their rights. At the moment, the RIAA is also lobbying to make it even harder for artists to declare bankruptcy. Many artists and groups revert to declaring bankruptcy to avoid bad contract deals. The main example that the author uses is TLC, who received less than 2% of their $175 million in record sales. Later on in the article, the author starts talking about how she is fundamentally against piracy, but then looking at the statistics, “piracy” is actually good for the industry. Each year music downloads have gone up, but so have sales of CD’s and other forms of legitimate music purchases. The author argues that the digital age is actually better for the artist, because it makes their music far more accessible to the majority of their fan base. She says that the limited promotional time that their labels buy is not nearly enough for productive advertising. The internet is a much cheaper and widespread, so it is a far more efficient way of advertising than radio promotion or TV promotion. Ultimately, the author says that, since under the current system she is basically giving away his music for free, so there is no reason to be afraid of the evolving age of internet based music.
The beginning of the article starts off by talking about how little money the recording artists actually make from a record deal. The example that the author of the article used was that from a 4 person band, after all things have been paid off, each band member only makes $45,000. In contrast to this, the record label grosses ~$6.6 million, that’s 120 times the profit of the band members individually. Now, while it does make sense that the record label would gross more than the individual band members, it doesn’t make sense that they are grossing 120 times more than the band. The author also talks about current and past copyright law. Up until 1978, when the copyright on something ran out, that something would either go back to you or go back to your family to do with as they want. However, now, when a copyright runs out, the rights to that something are just sold off to the highest bidder. The author talks about how right now, many artists are fighting to gain control back of their names/band names from their respective record labels. The RIAA surprisingly enough, is helping the artists to gain back some of their rights. At the moment, the RIAA is also lobbying to make it even harder for artists to declare bankruptcy. Many artists and groups revert to declaring bankruptcy to avoid bad contract deals. The main example that the author uses is TLC, who received less than 2% of their $175 million in record sales. Later on in the article, the author starts talking about how she is fundamentally against piracy, but then looking at the statistics, “piracy” is actually good for the industry. Each year music downloads have gone up, but so have sales of CD’s and other forms of legitimate music purchases. The author argues that the digital age is actually better for the artist, because it makes their music far more accessible to the majority of their fan base. She says that the limited promotional time that their labels buy is not nearly enough for productive advertising. The internet is a much cheaper and widespread, so it is a far more efficient way of advertising than radio promotion or TV promotion. Ultimately, the author says that, since under the current system she is basically giving away his music for free, so there is no reason to be afraid of the evolving age of internet based music.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)