Musicians are not generally eligible for royalties in the US music industry. Compulsory licenses were developed in the days of player pianos to keep a monopoly from cornering the market and industry. They do not apply to broadcast in any way. If I have a band and want to record a record of some composers song I write the copyright holder—almost always a studio although that is changing rapidly—tell him how many copies I want to make and pay the couple cents peer minute per song. This should apply to streaming, MP3 or CD release. It should be applied to synchronization and all rights.
Re: Re: "all the technology is there" -- But the morality isn't.
"You guys keep asserting that it's just lack of availability, but actually there's two words always tacked on to that for most people: for free. Those who aren't buying now won't buy any more."
This has been repeatedly proven incorrect over and over. Apple saved the music industry with their $0.99 music cost. Huge numbers of folks were willing to pay. What people will not pay for is being ripped off. Paying $12–14 for a CD with three or four new songs (one or two of which are good or maybe just OK) and the 20 minutes of covers on a 30 to 45 minute CD didn't cut it.
People are willing to pay. The classical music CD still does well but there you get high quality recordings with the CD having 60+ minutes of good music. I'd haply pay for a good CD of the USC performance of 'Carmina Burana' by Carl Orff in spite of the fact its online for free.
Why German politicians have given GEMA such a broad license to kill remains a mystery. But GEMA is running their line of credit low thanks to their greed and unreasonable demands including making schools pay for having students sing.
This looks like a great idea! Also extending the compulsory license to music syncronization would be necessary and beneficial. Sure some folks would not get huge royalties at one go bu they would get more a little at a time. In the past it wasn't uncommon to see someone who wanted to covert a song the contact the label and if they were not producing a lot of copies told "…go ahead don't bother us with a $$$ check…" or you send the check and it's never cashed—too much trouble and cost to bother with. Now its easy and simple to make money via the 'net on really small transactions with volume, and even if the volume is small the costs are negligible.
Today copyright is broken and badly in need of a fix, but that's a separate issue!
This could benefit everyone by providing some competition to the AT&T, Verizon, Time Warner, COMCAST oligopoly—which must be broken up.
But maybe its no big deal as they are already supplying NSA the data either directly or, via the UK or the Germans.
Autonomiious automobiles are currently a terrible idea
As a 20 year EMT—now retired to a first responder—I know from experience—that only 3 to 7 "accidents" are actually accidental. The other ones are caused by a failure of the same component in one or more vehicles—that is the nut behind the wheel! This argues in favor of these cars.
Against this are two things: today any computer program complex enough to do something interesting can't be completely debugged.
Second is the inherently faulty design of the car's control systems. They are all on one common buss and compromise of any system will compromise vital ones as well as the WiFi or the entertainment center. This means that today's cars are easily hacked remotely via things like the tire pressure sensors. There have been presentations at most of the recent hacking conferences on the vulnerabilities of today's cars. Unless these are systematically addressed; which the automakers aren't interested in doing, cars and trucks are increasingly hazardous!
Hopefully any autonomous vehicle will address these problems. But the lack of reliable software still remains.
The 15 mph bumpers are big heavy and expensive and don't work all that well. They can limit the damage to the car, but not other: vehicles, objects, pedestrians or even horses A 25mph bumper may be technically feasible but it will not be foam.
Besides needing massive government reform which we will not get so long as we do not have congressional term limits and don't tax bribes. Redesign of the internet is not possible because much of it is controlled by oligopolies who collude with each other: the cable providers Comcast and Time Warner being the worst, they work with the Telcos/Wireless providers AT&T and Verizon. They will not support nor permit any change that they do not approve and that keep them from getting $Bn/year from DoJ and NSA.
Not a bad point as a 20 year EMT and still a first responder I can say that most traffic accidents are not! maybe 3 to 4 in a hundred are. Drinking, eating, futzing with the radio, MP3 player, CD player, DVD player, texting, chatting on the cell phone (even the heads up ones), or messing with the in car navigation (better than trying to read directions or a map though) render yet one more driver dangerous at any speed!
These cars will have massive black boxes that record everything including video and audio from inside the car.
But without intelligent legislation at this point it will be determined by case law.
What about the case where the driver—who is supposed to back stop the car is inattentive (very likely), incapacitated (drunk, drugged, a sleep, or just employees bad judgement like today?
Now how about the car computer is hacked and it is driven by some one else into other cars or a bridge abutment?
Re: Computer drivers could be safer than human drivers
Well you don''t understand computers if you seriously think that! Current cars are subject to remote hacking of their computers and an least one suspected murder has occurred by that method. There is a Black Hat Conference paper on how to remotely control today's cars with $25 of hardware and a little code. So far Oracle hasn't managed to get the bugs out of JAVA in spite of over 10 years of massive efforts. What makes you think that a computer driver can be successfully debugged and protected from attack? I don't believe it.
The auto industry got Tucker. And the Author's Guild is still trying to stop Google Books. Those who adapt survive. A distant cousin of mine inherited the family buggy whip business back in the '70s. There were only two old guys still there and no apprentices. The were making dressage and carriage whips for the horsey set. He looked around at demand and started making custom signal whips (used by the BDSM set). He is up to 12 employees and has a 3 month backlog. He still makes the carriage whips etc. but his business has expanded with the times.
Theses comments miss the elephant in the room. All today's motor vehicles are dangerously dependant on computers. The onboard computer controls the brakes and in some cases the throttle as well as having the ability to fire the air bags. These are easily hacked remotely as seen from papers over the last several years at hackers' conferences. Waiting for a good time on the LA Freeway and firing the airbags in multiple cars would cause a disaster—not as big as 911 but not trivial. BTW if more than two airbags trigger the car is totaled by the insurance company!
All vehicles should be rigorously examined and required to pass independent security audits especially self driving cars.
This points out the total fallacy of photos being copyrighted. Most competent photographers in the same situation would have produced essentially the same picture as would have most competent amateurs! Ansel Adams produced some iconic pictures of American landmarks. I contend that any skilled photographer—given the same opportunities—would have produced similar results. Yes there is a creative element in photography, but skill is far more important to the end result.
I agree with Anonymous Coward, there is no such thing as a free service. But there are plenty cases where paid services delete features or drop products MS office offers myriad examples. e.g. drop caps. Some are just too much trouble to maintain. I suspect that there are lots of examples like Google Reader that are hard to maintain compared to alternate services that offer more opportunity.
This is why SaaS is a terrible idea. I use Adobe cloud myself but can easily move to Vegas if its discontinued. When you own the product if the cloud service is disrupted or discontinued you can still use the product. If you depend on SaaS then you are sooo screwed!!
BTW there is a do it yourself RSS reader in Perl and another in Python kicking around as programming examples. They are easy to get going but would be a major pain to maintain.
Like 3D this is a chicken and egg problem. There's no content so why buy a 3D or 4k TV? Yes you can convert to either in post, but the results are markedly inferior. With a few exceptions all the 3D movies have been dogs—Avatar being the notable exception. (The Avengers in 3D came of well too.) I saw Alice and a couple other films in both regular and 3D and the 3D detracted from the presentation of the story. Will the Hobbit be successful? That remains to be seen—but the reviews aren't positive. (The remark "I see reality all the time and I don't like it" summarizes a lot of feelings.) 4K is similar, you can up convert in post but the result is not good. Against 4k is that most folks sit way too far away from their TVs. To get the HD effect you need to sit between 2x to 3x the diagonal for normal HDTV. That's way closer than most folks are set up for or use. Further broadcast TV quality sucks big time and cable is often worse
Something that over 100,000 people have access to and most of those don't need the access is NOT a secret! The old saying "if one person knows its a real secret, if two know its maybe a secret, if three know its not" applies.
The ld50 for caffene in humans is not well established but is at least 60mg/kg. e.g. someone weighing 60kg (121.2 lbs) would need to consume ~3600mg of caffene. 18 cans of Monster?! Anyone would be barffing on their boots long before. That doesn't count the caffene being pissed away. There are medical conditions and drugs that are serious problems with caffene--but what is someone with those doing with caffene at all.
To be taken seriously there would need to be a pathologists autopsy report and toxicology screen.
I am going to say up front that none of these companies reports anything meaningful on sales. Apparently Amazon lost ~$30/unit on the ~22M original Fire but made ~$2k/year in media sales. (BTW the new Kindle has adds but you can optout for $15.) But that's a MCD¹ not a full up tablet. Apple makes a full up tablet and price gouges on it depending on their Kool factor. iTunes trails Amazon, B&N, Google and when, if ever, it hits MS on media selection except for music. Their pricing is not competitive with Amazon that's why they had to resort to illegal price fixing.
So here is the question that should have been addressed "Is there money to be made from a high priced tablet (laptop wannabe) or just on MCD and media?" IMHO the whole BYOD is silly. Why should I pay someone to type at word per minute on a screen while sitting on the commuter train? After all the stuff still needs to be brought into the intranet, edited (using a keyboard), and cleaned up. Did I really gain anything from those 90 minutes of commute time?
Maybe I'd be better off if the guy played Angry Birds or World or Warcraft and got into the office in a better mood and ready to do productive work.