I wonder what could be in those missing segments.....
The officer making questionable comments on:
her race and lineage her history as an activist references to the KKK or other like minded groups allusions to lynching
Naw..... it's probably inconsequential material with no bearing on the incident at hand. They were just streamlining the file so that it would upload quicker. Yep, that must be it. /s
I used to be bothered by various retail clerks insisting that I provide some seemingly random bit of personal information at the conclusion of retail transactions.
I used to refuse to do so, wade through the gaped mouths, the anger and indignation, and the delay while a manager was called over to explain that providing such information isn't strictly speaking required.
Often I too would hear the refrain;
"None of our other customers has a problem providing this information."
With the implied, "So why am I being such a pain...."
Nowadays I avoid all of that drama by simply making stuff up.
Teller: "We need your Zip Code" Me: "Um 23412". Teller: "Thank you"
Teller: "We need your Phone number" Me: "Ah 508 990 5678". Teller: "Thank you"
In many cases I would agree with your distinction, unfortunately these particular extremists used Islam to justify their violence.
If they attacked Charlie because they hated cartoons, or perhaps just French cartoonists, they might have been terrorists who just happened to be Muslims.
They killed people because of (admittedly their not completely unique interpretation) the tenets of Islam. That makes them Islamic terrorists.
"Now, I'm not sure why legislation is required to inform companies that calling someone's cell phone twice a day is inappropriate...
That's easy, most companies believe it's their god given right to abuse, harass, demean, anyone at anytime if there's the remotest possibility doing so might [and apparently any percentage above zero is good enough] make them the tiniest amount of additional income.
The only surprising thing is that such a law restricting such behavior exists.
Once upon a time there was a river that was flooding the village. A brave pilot brought his single barge to the shore to rescue the people.
A wealthy man brought 100 pieces of luggage with him, trunks and suitcases, and baskets of knickknacks.
The pilot had 5 drums of fuel.
The towns people, some with only a single bag of all their worldly belongings, most with nothing tried to escape the rising water.
All but two towns people manage to get on board the barge.
As the water rises, the remaining people wail and gnash their teeth screaming at the pilot for wasting too much room with all that fuel If only the pilot wasn't so greedy, they too could be saved.
Other people, take up the call and start berating the greedy selfish pilot.
Meanwhile the wealthy man raises his voice to add;
"If the pilot wasn't so greedy, I wouldn't have had to leave my remaining luggage behind.
And the people say amongst themselves;
"See even the wealthy man agrees that the problem is the greed of that despicable pilot causing all of our troubles.
The quote makes perfect sense if you include the missing part.
Congress: OPM [the governmet] should have encrypted federal employee data.
Congress: Apple [not the government] has blood on its hands for encrypting user data.
There, does that help?
Congress is all for encryption that they can use to keep them safe.
On the other hand Congress is against encryption when it it used by others and thwarts their ability to run roughshod over the Constitution.
The government had mostly unencrypted access to everyone's data, as long as they followed the Constitution and did so legally. Since they have demonstrated that they can't help themselves, now they have to deal with mostly encrypted access to everyone's data.
It's their [the governments] own short sightedness that has caused this problem. No amount of;
"We only want to access data legally, with a court order..."
So when artists are complaining about streaming services....
So when artists are screaming over how streaming services are harming artists and impoverishing them, what they are really trying to say is that they think the purple should be even smaller than it is, so that their orange is a little bigger. Ignoring the big green elephant in the room.
According to the graphic the service is already handing over 62.4% of all revenue to compensate creators for the music they stream.
52.4% of which is going to the artists/labels.
Since the ratio of artist to label is about 14.9%, even if the streaming service gave the artists/labels another 20% [leaving the platform with only 0.8%] the artists share would only increase to about 9.78%. Of course the labels portion would balloon to an amazing about 55.82%.
So there you go, in the simple unbiased universal language of math. As most anyone who was paying attention has already been saying, it's not the streaming service that's harming artists, it's their contracts with the labels.
On the other hand, streaming platforms get the artists music in front of many more people than would otherwise get to hear it. This creates new opportunities for an enterprising artist to actually make money than they have previously enjoyed.
I think you might have stumbled upon his _actual_agenda_:
"...he's wasting the time of lots and lots of smart people who should be focusing on making our communications more secure..."
You see he knows that what he wants isn't possible, he's just trying to slow things down by keeping all of the worlds top crypto minds tied up in this debate instead of focusing on making cryptography, stronger, more secure, easier to use, and by extension, more ubiquitous.
He's not stupid, quite the opposite, he's being very very devious. It's a good thing for us that you have seen through his ruse.
I think your misunderstanding stems from this sentence:
"If the intention of copyright is to better encourage the dissemination of ideas and knowledge..."
It's not [at least not the modern version of copyright].
The current intent of copyright is:
To ensure that every imaginable use of copyrighted material results in the maximum windfall to copyright holders [authors, their heirs, and most importantly publishers] for as long as possible.
Creating and disseminating a derivative work without prior compensation [regardless of how much the public might benefit] goes against the intent of copyright and should be stopped as soon as possible.
Doesn't the publishers actions make more sense now?
[none of the above statements should be taken as an indication that the author believes this state of affairs is in any way desirable or beneficial]
Social Security Numbers: Only for Social Security... they told us.
And Only for Tax Information... they told us.
And Only for Gov. Benefits.... they told us.
[and they really mean it] They make it illegal for the government to require it, without it being _specifically_authorized_by_law. But only for the Federal government.
Industry starts using it to tie every database together, state government starts requiring it. You have to use it when applying for a drivers license, and many states will go so far as to use them as your drivers number and print them on the license itself {Massachusetts did (does?) this and it's a metric ton of paperwork and hassle to get then NOT to use/print it on your license.}.
Finally the government just starts mandating them everywhere.
In a bit of surrealist comedy, the government spends lots of time/money warning people to:
"keep your social security number private"
At least we don't have to carry around a government issued ID, yet. [Though that might not be a bad idea, if you are in any way Hispanic looking and happen to live in Maricopa County, Arizona.]
Actually the government doesn't see this as a 5th Amendment issue at all.
See they aren't depriving _anyone_ of their constitutional rights (especially not the 5th amendment). The person wasn't seized, the money was. Money [unlike say a corporation] isn't citizen and therefore has no constitutional rights to violate.
There you go, nice, tidy, and above all, legal.
Until the courts strike down this legal fiction, along with that whole third party doctrine, and stop letting the government press charges against inanimate objects, the 5th amendment (as well as the 4th, and perhaps a few others) will be nothing more than a quaint idea.
While there may be no scientific proof linking WiFi radiation to poorer health outcomes, there are other areas of your life where there is ample evidence of the deleterious effects of WiFi radiation [especially if misconfigured].
In particular to your privacy. Whether it's unencrypted MITM snooping, smart meters broadcasting what you're watching, and even when you're at home. To nasty grams from overzealous lawyers.
So, yes WiFi can be hazardous, just not in the way people usually think it is.
We need to ban it because a mass murderer featured it, so.....
Hmmm, it appears that the rush to can the battle flag of the confederacy is due to the fact that the latest mass murderer incorporated it into his message ( at least that's what they are claiming ).
[well that and various SJW types have been trying to remove it from the public sphere for years, can't let any crisis go to waste now I guess]
So, the next time a hate group/mass murderer wraps themselves in 'old glory' we'll be falling over ourselves to remove the stars and stripes as well?
For example, the completely made up (I hope) Montana Minutemen believe that the United Nations in concert with European Socialists and other undesirables is trying to take over the United States. They believe in a literal reading of the Constitution, no gun laws, no central bank, no income taxes. America for the Americans.
They have a web site, a manifesto, and lots of YouTube videos consisting of members either wrapped in the American flag ('old glory, stars and stripes, etc.), or with the flag displayed prominently behind them and on their materials.
Just last week, their members shot up a Texas Walmart. Sixty-three people killed, including twenty-two children. The YouTube video released moments after the incident explains that this Walmart was going to be used as a detention center by the United States Army, working under the direction of the secretary of the U.N. as a detention center to process U.S. citizens that refused to submit to the new U.N. overlords.
Of course there were several United States flags displayed prominently throughout.
Within hours, the call when up to remove that symbol of hate and oppression from the public sphere. Native American leaders give interviews about how their people were massacred by the thousands under that symbol of hate and oppression.
"How can anyone stand to have such a divisive symbol of hated, oppression, and genocide in predominant display?"
Apple, Google, and Walmart pull all American flags off the shelves (both digital and actual).
World War II vets and others try to make the case that it's about history not hate. It's the flag we hoisted over Okinawa and planted on the moon.
That doesn't matter. Because some people associate it with hated and oppression, that's all that counts. It was featured prominently by the group that shot up all those people just last week. Just how insensitive can you be? Are you one of those constitutionalists, those racist terrorists?
You don't think that could happen? It's already happening.
What's next, you'll need a special permit to purchase subversive books [see: Germany and Mein Kampf]?
So if flags are verboten, what's next? 'The Bible', 'The Koran', '1984'?
If freedom and the U.S. path of tolerance is to mean anything, I think we shouldn't be so quick to impoverish the marketplace of ideas. Popular ideas don't need protection, it's the currently unpopular ones that do.
Personally I would prefer that racists and others that I disagree with proudly wear their colors and march down our streets. At least I'll know who they are. The other option is to force them to keep to the shadows, fermenting hate and plotting in secret like a festering wound.
If there's to be any hope of change, their ideas need to be discussed, debated, examined. To simply outlaw the symbols, trappings, and ideas will only cause them to grow more extreme and dangerous.
Re: Taylor Swift says it's not for her but those starting; Masnick nuances that away claiming 3-months not paid doesn't matter.
[Speaking as someone without a chubby, lily-white, 1-percenter, Ivy League hand to wave in any direction]
First lets get this out of the way;
For one hit wonders it does suck.
Having said that, it was never about the artists. [I hope I didn't burst any bubbles.] It was an economically reasonable deal between the labels and Apple.
Why do I say it's reasonable?
Apple is risking capital to create the streaming service. Creating a streaming service isn't cheap and it certainly isn't free. Apple proposed having the labels share some of that risk initially and was willing to compensate them for that risk.
If the labels are willing to risk Apple's service going under in a short period of time by not getting paid for the first three months, then they will be rewarded with a higher percentage after that time.
Simple; Get paid a small standard amount, from day one. OR Take a chance and get no payment for three months, but a higher payment if Apple's service survives longer. The longer it lasts, the larger the reward.
Simple economics.
As a side benefit, if someone (like say Talyor Swift) makes too much of a ruckus, cave into their demands and get more publicity and goodwill while still not being any worse off than you would have been without the deal.
For Apple, it's a win-win, for the labels, it's a win-status quo, for the artists..... well no one was thinking of them anyway.
Just to add insult to injury, BMI, ASCAP, etc. don't actually pay every artist their due.
They lump all of the money together, take out their cut (of course) and then distribute the rest to the top x percent of the acts. What that percentage is, and how it's determined is left to the individual rights organizations discretion (any your imagination).
So, even if you are a composer or music writer, unless you are already a mega star you still won't get _anything_ from terrestrial radio.
It nice to see someone attempt a nuanced argument these days.
There's just so much wrong, or more importantly inconsequential about the whole Apple/Swift thing that I to was amazed [silly me] at how big a deal was made out of it.
As previously mentioned, terrestrial radio doesn't pay performers anything. In my opinion, that's how it should be. Streaming sites shouldn't have to either. Radio (terrestrial, satellite, or internet) is advertising for artists. Just because some entities want control and to squeeze out a few more pennies from a slightly more modern application doesn't make it right.
Many artists create/perform, few have ever managed to make a living from only their art. If anything, more artists can make a living through their art than could before. Even if fewer are able to win the musical lottery and live like royalty.
That's not to say there aren't ways for an artist to make money. Live performing, merchandising, speaking engagements, patronage, etc. are all ways that artists can monetized their art. It's been a bit of a fluke that selling copies of performances have been at all lucrative. If we want to be honest about things, even then it was mainly the labels and a very, very, very select few that benefited in any major way. The fact that selling copies of performances is disappearing as a revenue stream isn't the end of art (music/books/movies) as we know it. It's just a return to the way things always were.
Having said that, there are a few particulars that make Ms Taylor's efforts even less consequential.
Apple was negotiating with the labels, not artists (as usual). Apparently the labels agreed to accept a _larger_ percentage over the life of a stream in exchange for no payments for the first three months. The labels were looking toward the long tail. If you're a one hit wonder, sure your maximum play might be during the first three months of someone's subscription. As an artist you may loose out. As a label with a large catalog, you would most likely earn more accepting that higher rate. Assuming of course that Apple doesn't pull the plug in a year or so. That's the rub. If Apple kills the service in a relatively short time, the labels loose. If it says up for years, the labels are better off. All Apple's apparently agreed to do if go back to the _lower_ percentage from day one. Not only isn't that much of a sacrifice to Apple, it garnered them invaluable marketing and good will. Apple couldn't have paid for that kind of publicity.
On the matter of Taylor Swift's albums, those in the audience paying attention would have noticed that she was only threatening to keep her latest album "1989" off of Apple's service. That's because the labels have control of her previous work. It's only her latest (and I would assume any future works) that she has that level of control over.
In the end we are left with the situation of an immensely popular artist threatening to keep only her latest work off a streaming service in response for not receiving what in the vast majority of cases would be a pittance for three months and being paid slightly more per stream for as long as Apple's service exists. The same artist who's willing to foreclose an opportunity for up and coming artists to get the exposure they desperately need to succeed by fighting to remove free tiers from any streaming service. The 21 century equivalent of radio airplay, over what amounts to pennies of income.
In the end she isn't doing the next generation of artists, or anyone not as successful as herself, any favors.
------- {Here is an example of the kind of difference that we're talking about;
Imagine that every time someone took your book out of the library you got a check for one penny ($0.01). Apple wants to start a new library. At the Apple library Apple's proposed to give you no money at all for the first three months ($0.00). In exchange they are willing to give you two pennies every time take out your book forever after. Which is a better deal?
[these are e-books, so an unlimited number of people can check out your book at the same time.]
Year 1: 10,000 people check out your book.
A) one hit wonder = 9,000 people during the first three months, 1,000 people over the next 9 months.
B) established or up and coming artist = 3,000 first three months, 7,000 for the rest of the first year.
Years 2+: 3,000 people check out your book per year there after.
How much money would _someone_ make?
Year 1:
Apple's original offer: A) $20 for the first year. B) $140 for the first year.
Typical (Taylor Swift) model: A) $100 for the first year. B) $100 for the first year.
Years 2+:
Apple's original offer: $60 per year thereafter
Typical (Taylor Swift) model: $30 per year thereafter
Short lived 'books' do worse under Apple's plan. Everyone else is better off with Apple's proposal. In any event, it's not a large sum by any stretch. }
On the post: Police Cameras Are Valuable... But Not If They Can Alter The Videos
What could be in those missing segments...?
The officer making questionable comments on:
her race and lineage
her history as an activist
references to the KKK or other like minded groups
allusions to lynching
Naw..... it's probably inconsequential material with no bearing on the incident at hand. They were just streamlining the file so that it would upload quicker. Yep, that must be it. /s
On the post: Police Cameras Are Valuable... But Not If They Can Alter The Videos
Re:
On the post: Verizon Support Wants You To Know That Twitter Is A Perfectly Secure Way To Send Them Your Social Security Number
Re: "because most customers are OK with it"
I used to refuse to do so, wade through the gaped mouths, the anger and indignation, and the delay while a manager was called over to explain that providing such information isn't strictly speaking required.
Often I too would hear the refrain;
With the implied, "So why am I being such a pain...."
Nowadays I avoid all of that drama by simply making stuff up.
Teller: "We need your Zip Code"
Me: "Um 23412".
Teller: "Thank you"
Teller: "We need your Phone number"
Me: "Ah 508 990 5678".
Teller: "Thank you"
(shrug...)
On the post: Charlie Hebdo Bows To Assassins' Veto, Hecklers' Veto; Will No Longer Mock Mohammed
Re: Censorship
If they attacked Charlie because they hated cartoons, or perhaps just French cartoonists, they might have been terrorists who just happened to be Muslims.
They killed people because of (admittedly their not completely unique interpretation) the tenets of Islam. That makes them Islamic terrorists.
On the post: Comcast Sued For Robocalling Woman 153 Times Over A Bill She'd Already Paid
That's easy, most companies believe it's their god given right to abuse, harass, demean, anyone at anytime if there's the remotest possibility doing so might [and apparently any percentage above zero is good enough] make them the tiniest amount of additional income.
The only surprising thing is that such a law restricting such behavior exists.
On the post: Sony To Court: Of Course We're Allowed To Contractually Screw Over Our Artists
Re: What about taxes?
Oh wait.... I think someone did.
-------------------------------------------------------
Once upon a time there was a river that was flooding the village. A brave pilot brought his single barge to the shore to rescue the people.
A wealthy man brought 100 pieces of luggage with him, trunks and suitcases, and baskets of knickknacks.
The pilot had 5 drums of fuel.
The towns people, some with only a single bag of all their worldly belongings, most with nothing tried to escape the rising water.
All but two towns people manage to get on board the barge.
As the water rises, the remaining people wail and gnash their teeth screaming at the pilot for wasting too much room with all that fuel If only the pilot wasn't so greedy, they too could be saved.
Other people, take up the call and start berating the greedy selfish pilot.
Meanwhile the wealthy man raises his voice to add;
And the people say amongst themselves;
On the post: Sony To Court: Of Course We're Allowed To Contractually Screw Over Our Artists
Depends on what you are talking about.... [Re: Majority]
62.4% of revenue is handed over to compensate creators.
Of that amount 45.6% goes to the labels.
45.6% is more than 50% of 62.4%.
Therefore the vast majority is going to the labels.
On the post: Just As FBI Looks To Undermine Encryption, Federal Government Searches For Better Encryption
Almost right.....
There, does that help?
Congress is all for encryption that they can use to keep them safe.
On the other hand Congress is against encryption when it it used by others and thwarts their ability to run roughshod over the Constitution.
The government had mostly unencrypted access to everyone's data, as long as they followed the Constitution and did so legally. Since they have demonstrated that they can't help themselves, now they have to deal with mostly encrypted access to everyone's data.
It's their [the governments] own short sightedness that has caused this problem. No amount of;
Is going to be believed.... nor should it be.
On the post: Sony To Court: Of Course We're Allowed To Contractually Screw Over Our Artists
So when artists are complaining about streaming services....
According to the graphic the service is already handing over 62.4% of all revenue to compensate creators for the music they stream.
52.4% of which is going to the artists/labels.
Since the ratio of artist to label is about 14.9%, even if the streaming service gave the artists/labels another 20% [leaving the platform with only 0.8%] the artists share would only increase to about 9.78%. Of course the labels portion would balloon to an amazing about 55.82%.
So there you go, in the simple unbiased universal language of math. As most anyone who was paying attention has already been saying, it's not the streaming service that's harming artists, it's their contracts with the labels.
On the other hand, streaming platforms get the artists music in front of many more people than would otherwise get to hear it. This creates new opportunities for an enterprising artist to actually make money than they have previously enjoyed.
On the post: FBI's James Comey: I Know All The Experts Insist Backdooring Encryption Is A Bad Idea, But Maybe It's Because They Haven't Really Tried
I think you've hit his _actual_ agenda
You see he knows that what he wants isn't possible, he's just trying to slow things down by keeping all of the worlds top crypto minds tied up in this debate instead of focusing on making cryptography, stronger, more secure, easier to use, and by extension, more ubiquitous.
He's not stupid, quite the opposite, he's being very very devious. It's a good thing for us that you have seen through his ruse.
On the post: Copyright Takes Down High-Profile Translation Of Thomas Piketty's Comments On Germany & Greek Debt
MIstaken intent of copyright
It's not [at least not the modern version of copyright].
The current intent of copyright is:
Creating and disseminating a derivative work without prior compensation [regardless of how much the public might benefit] goes against the intent of copyright and should be stopped as soon as possible.
Doesn't the publishers actions make more sense now?
[none of the above statements should be taken as an indication that the author believes this state of affairs is in any way desirable or beneficial]
On the post: Aadhaar: Soon, In India, Everyone Will Be A Number
If it's established, it _WILL_ be abused.
Only for Social Security... they told us.
And Only for Tax Information... they told us.
And Only for Gov. Benefits.... they told us.
[and they really mean it] They make it illegal for the government to require it, without it being _specifically_authorized_by_law. But only for the Federal government.
Industry starts using it to tie every database together, state government starts requiring it. You have to use it when applying for a drivers license, and many states will go so far as to use them as your drivers number and print them on the license itself {Massachusetts did (does?) this and it's a metric ton of paperwork and hassle to get then NOT to use/print it on your license.}.
Finally the government just starts mandating them everywhere.
In a bit of surrealist comedy, the government spends lots of time/money warning people to:
At least we don't have to carry around a government issued ID, yet. [Though that might not be a bad idea, if you are in any way Hispanic looking and happen to live in Maricopa County, Arizona.]
On the post: TSA Asks America To LOL At Traveler Who Had $75,000 Taken From Him By Federal Agents
Re: When is this going to stop?
See they aren't depriving _anyone_ of their constitutional rights (especially not the 5th amendment). The person wasn't seized, the money was. Money [unlike say a corporation] isn't citizen and therefore has no constitutional rights to violate.
There you go, nice, tidy, and above all, legal.
Until the courts strike down this legal fiction, along with that whole third party doctrine, and stop letting the government press charges against inanimate objects, the 5th amendment (as well as the 4th, and perhaps a few others) will be nothing more than a quaint idea.
On the post: City Claims It Will Take 9,000 Hours And $79,000 To Fulfill Gawker's Request Emails Related To Abusive Police Officer
Files, what files, we don't need no stinkin files here....
Old email system is going offline so;
* Print out all old emails on thermal fax paper.
* Format all old hard drives
* Destroy all old backup tapes (we are going to a new system don't you know.)
Now some dunderhead wants copies of the old emails. So this entails:
* Pay someone to find those rolls of printed thermal paper.
* Pay some one to scan them back into a computer
-- Find a scanner to actually scan the roll of paper.
* Pay a programmer to parse the gargantuan image into separate records.
* Pay a programmer to write a program to OCR the scans of badly and inconsistently faded thermal paper (this is Texas after all)
* Pay a programmer to design a database, and write the program to populate the database with the above processed data.
* Pay a lawyer to vet the results of that search.
* Pay for the time for the police chief, the union boss, and anyone else with a vested interest to suggest things to redact.
* Pay for the responsive records to be printed out, marked up with black redacting ink and then scanned back into image files.
***Collect the fees and deliver the CD-ROM containing images of the responsive documents.
See, with all that work, $80,000 is a bargin.
On the post: With 'Pregnant Woman Mode,' Chinese Router Maker Begins Marketing To Paranoids
Well perhaps not physically...
In particular to your privacy. Whether it's unencrypted MITM snooping, smart meters broadcasting what you're watching, and even when you're at home. To nasty grams from overzealous lawyers.
So, yes WiFi can be hazardous, just not in the way people usually think it is.
On the post: UK Officials Hoping To Change Freedom Of Information Law To Include Less Of Both
I thought information wanted to be free.....
};>
On the post: South Carolina Massacre Results In Apple Going Flag-Stupid In The App Store
We need to ban it because a mass murderer featured it, so.....
[well that and various SJW types have been trying to remove it from the public sphere for years, can't let any crisis go to waste now I guess]
So, the next time a hate group/mass murderer wraps themselves in 'old glory' we'll be falling over ourselves to remove the stars and stripes as well?
For example, the completely made up (I hope) Montana Minutemen believe that the United Nations in concert with European Socialists and other undesirables is trying to take over the United States. They believe in a literal reading of the Constitution, no gun laws, no central bank, no income taxes. America for the Americans.
They have a web site, a manifesto, and lots of YouTube videos consisting of members either wrapped in the American flag ('old glory, stars and stripes, etc.), or with the flag displayed prominently behind them and on their materials.
Just last week, their members shot up a Texas Walmart. Sixty-three people killed, including twenty-two children. The YouTube video released moments after the incident explains that this Walmart was going to be used as a detention center by the United States Army, working under the direction of the secretary of the U.N. as a detention center to process U.S. citizens that refused to submit to the new U.N. overlords.
Of course there were several United States flags displayed prominently throughout.
Within hours, the call when up to remove that symbol of hate and oppression from the public sphere. Native American leaders give interviews about how their people were massacred by the thousands under that symbol of hate and oppression.
"How can anyone stand to have such a divisive symbol of hated, oppression, and genocide in predominant display?"
Apple, Google, and Walmart pull all American flags off the shelves (both digital and actual).
World War II vets and others try to make the case that it's about history not hate. It's the flag we hoisted over Okinawa and planted on the moon.
That doesn't matter. Because some people associate it with hated and oppression, that's all that counts. It was featured prominently by the group that shot up all those people just last week. Just how insensitive can you be? Are you one of those constitutionalists, those racist terrorists?
You don't think that could happen? It's already happening.
What's next, you'll need a special permit to purchase subversive books [see: Germany and Mein Kampf]?
So if flags are verboten, what's next? 'The Bible', 'The Koran', '1984'?
If freedom and the U.S. path of tolerance is to mean anything, I think we shouldn't be so quick to impoverish the marketplace of ideas. Popular ideas don't need protection, it's the currently unpopular ones that do.
Personally I would prefer that racists and others that I disagree with proudly wear their colors and march down our streets. At least I'll know who they are. The other option is to force them to keep to the shadows, fermenting hate and plotting in secret like a festering wound.
If there's to be any hope of change, their ideas need to be discussed, debated, examined. To simply outlaw the symbols, trappings, and ideas will only cause them to grow more extreme and dangerous.
On the post: Taylor Swift Is Not The Savior Artists Need
Re: Taylor Swift says it's not for her but those starting; Masnick nuances that away claiming 3-months not paid doesn't matter.
First lets get this out of the way;
For one hit wonders it does suck.
Having said that, it was never about the artists. [I hope I didn't burst any bubbles.] It was an economically reasonable deal between the labels and Apple.
Why do I say it's reasonable?
Apple is risking capital to create the streaming service. Creating a streaming service isn't cheap and it certainly isn't free. Apple proposed having the labels share some of that risk initially and was willing to compensate them for that risk.
If the labels are willing to risk Apple's service going under in a short period of time by not getting paid for the first three months, then they will be rewarded with a higher percentage after that time.
Simple;
Get paid a small standard amount, from day one.
OR
Take a chance and get no payment for three months, but a higher payment if Apple's service survives longer. The longer it lasts, the larger the reward.
Simple economics.
As a side benefit, if someone (like say Talyor Swift) makes too much of a ruckus, cave into their demands and get more publicity and goodwill while still not being any worse off than you would have been without the deal.
For Apple, it's a win-win, for the labels, it's a win-status quo, for the artists.....
well no one was thinking of them anyway.
On the post: Taylor Swift Is Not The Savior Artists Need
Still only to the 'top' though [Re: Terri]
They lump all of the money together, take out their cut (of course) and then distribute the rest to the top x percent of the acts. What that percentage is, and how it's determined is left to the individual rights organizations discretion (any your imagination).
So, even if you are a composer or music writer, unless you are already a mega star you still won't get _anything_ from terrestrial radio.
Excepting exposure of course.
On the post: Taylor Swift Is Not The Savior Artists Need
Taylor Swift, nice but inconsiquential argument
There's just so much wrong, or more importantly inconsequential about the whole Apple/Swift thing that I to was amazed [silly me] at how big a deal was made out of it.
As previously mentioned, terrestrial radio doesn't pay performers anything. In my opinion, that's how it should be. Streaming sites shouldn't have to either. Radio (terrestrial, satellite, or internet) is advertising for artists. Just because some entities want control and to squeeze out a few more pennies from a slightly more modern application doesn't make it right.
Many artists create/perform, few have ever managed to make a living from only their art. If anything, more artists can make a living through their art than could before. Even if fewer are able to win the musical lottery and live like royalty.
That's not to say there aren't ways for an artist to make money. Live performing, merchandising, speaking engagements, patronage, etc. are all ways that artists can monetized their art. It's been a bit of a fluke that selling copies of performances have been at all lucrative. If we want to be honest about things, even then it was mainly the labels and a very, very, very select few that benefited in any major way. The fact that selling copies of performances is disappearing as a revenue stream isn't the end of art (music/books/movies) as we know it. It's just a return to the way things always were.
Having said that, there are a few particulars that make Ms Taylor's efforts even less consequential.
Apple was negotiating with the labels, not artists (as usual). Apparently the labels agreed to accept a _larger_ percentage over the life of a stream in exchange for no payments for the first three months. The labels were looking toward the long tail. If you're a one hit wonder, sure your maximum play might be during the first three months of someone's subscription. As an artist you may loose out. As a label with a large catalog, you would most likely earn more accepting that higher rate. Assuming of course that Apple doesn't pull the plug in a year or so. That's the rub. If Apple kills the service in a relatively short time, the labels loose. If it says up for years, the labels are better off. All Apple's apparently agreed to do if go back to the _lower_ percentage from day one. Not only isn't that much of a sacrifice to Apple, it garnered them invaluable marketing and good will. Apple couldn't have paid for that kind of publicity.
On the matter of Taylor Swift's albums, those in the audience paying attention would have noticed that she was only threatening to keep her latest album "1989" off of Apple's service. That's because the labels have control of her previous work. It's only her latest (and I would assume any future works) that she has that level of control over.
In the end we are left with the situation of an immensely popular artist threatening to keep only her latest work off a streaming service in response for not receiving what in the vast majority of cases would be a pittance for three months and being paid slightly more per stream for as long as Apple's service exists. The same artist who's willing to foreclose an opportunity for up and coming artists to get the exposure they desperately need to succeed by fighting to remove free tiers from any streaming service. The 21 century equivalent of radio airplay, over what amounts to pennies of income.
In the end she isn't doing the next generation of artists, or anyone not as successful as herself, any favors.
-------
{Here is an example of the kind of difference that we're talking about;
Imagine that every time someone took your book out of the library you got a check for one penny ($0.01). Apple wants to start a new library. At the Apple library Apple's proposed to give you no money at all for the first three months ($0.00). In exchange they are willing to give you two pennies every time take out your book forever after. Which is a better deal?
[these are e-books, so an unlimited number of people can check out your book at the same time.]
Year 1: 10,000 people check out your book.
A) one hit wonder = 9,000 people during the first three months, 1,000 people over the next 9 months.
B) established or up and coming artist = 3,000 first three months, 7,000 for the rest of the first year.
Years 2+: 3,000 people check out your book per year there after.
How much money would _someone_ make?
Year 1:
Apple's original offer:
A) $20 for the first year.
B) $140 for the first year.
Typical (Taylor Swift) model:
A) $100 for the first year.
B) $100 for the first year.
Years 2+:
Apple's original offer:
$60 per year thereafter
Typical (Taylor Swift) model:
$30 per year thereafter
Short lived 'books' do worse under Apple's plan. Everyone else is better off with Apple's proposal. In any event, it's not a large sum by any stretch. }
Next >>