Moguta
-
Posts
461 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Articles
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Moguta
-
-
Happy birthday, ye patron saint of video game rearrangements!
We really appreciate all that you do. Also, if you need any coding help, my offer still stands.
-
Many congratulations are in order! About time you two tied the knot.
-
This is very awesome stuff. Great to hear something different from your usual. You should totally do an OCR mix in this style.
-
wait, what
Why the hell am I smiling in the serious shot?
Fail.
Srsly.
And, ZOMG! It's "Arrow"! Where'd all those other letters go?!? ;P
I gotta say, I had an awesome time at my first Otakon experience. Made me wish I'd stuck around for more than a day at the con. I knew it was going to be something different, but I was amazed at how satisfying it was just to glance around in entertained awe at all the different cosplays and art people had come up with.
As always, it was good to hang out with the community. Thanks, too, to the BBQers for accommodating my vegetarian-ness. You all are an awesome group to BS the day away with.
Y'know, except for that "Larry" dude.
-
It was certainly a night to remember.
(i.e. Seared into my brain for all eternity.)
-
Hmm... I think I'm actually gonna try out Otakon this year. I'll be there for Saturday, but I'm certainly not doing the hotel thing.
-
Liked your song so much, I used it in place of actual Sins music in this video capture of Sins with a weapons' graphics mod:
-
Topic title in need of some capitalization.
And sweet!
I actually still have the CD-ROM for this game. It can be a little buggy, and the interface is terrible compared to today's better games, but still it's a really awesome classic. No open world game since has been quite as big as Daggerfall. -
So, we gonna meet up anywhere? And is OCR representin' at this event with a table & all?
-
Jeebus you're everywhere Larry!
Except for Distant Worlds, evidently. ;P
-
I find it funny how people will say how Microsoft is a monopoly, yet Google has the most popular search engine, both Google Video and Youtube, their own browser, and now an OS. Does no one see that Google is quickly becoming a major force in anything to do with computer software?
Also, it's not so much whether a company is a monopoly or not... It's what said company does with its monopoly power.
So far, Google seems to be far less into market-abuse than Microsoft. Hell, the company has been quite pro-consumer! Just take a look at some of Google's recent initiatives if you need any proof. They've lobbied for net neutrality, they've been advocates of open source long before Microsoft begrudgingly began its OSS initiative, they've lobbied so consumers can in the future use -any- compatible device on a wireless phone network, they're trying to assemble the first complete-text library catalog of all published books, and they're giving this all to the consumer for FREE (as long as you can handle some ads).
Honestly, I don't understand how people can equate Google's dominance with Microsoft's anti-competitive monopoly.
I, for one, am looking forward to seeing exactly what shape this new OS takes.
-
The Distant Worlds concert just a couple weeks ago was pretty awesome. I'm sure the occasion probably drained a few people's budget and/or will to travel. But...
There is a Video Games Live performance coming up very soon that I'm surprised to see no mention of! Just this Friday (the 10th), they'll be at the Wolftrap in Washington D.C.
Anyone going?
LARRY EDIT:
List of attendees
djpretzel & the future Mrs. Pretzel
Palpable
diotrans
Mr. MAGFest
binary1230
Nick the Newbie
Big Adam
Kroze
Gamer Symphony Orchestra
justinj212
Grant Kirkhope
Mark Cromer
Sid Meier
Zeiram
Moguta
AcerBandit
-
Okay, so the thing is next week, and it looks like seats are starting to fill. Even if we don't have enough for a group discount, can we at least open the paypal-thing Larry was talking about so us that can go can sit together? I figure that if everyone contributes the cost of a full ticket, and we do end up getting a discount, then we all get a little moolah back the night of the concert. If we don't get a discount, oh well. Definitely don't want to miss out on this though (sorry if I seem impatient, I just don't want to not get a ticket, y'all!).
I totally agree with this sentiment/idea.
However, if I don't hear anything about a group buy within the next couple days, I'm gonna just get my own ticket. Where are ya, Larry?
-
*Hands up*
Y'know, if that wasn't already obvious.
-
So Larry, what's up with the group buy? We gonna make it to 15, or should I just buy my own?
Echoing this request for info, as the date is now only two weeks away, and I see some seating sections are already sold out...
-
Okay, so Mogu-ette already has plans the evening of this, but I'm definitely 100% in.
Let me know if we're able to get a group of tickets.
-
Are we trying to order group tickets, or just meeting up before & after?
Either way, put me down as a definite. Also, I may be able to persuade a certain Mogu-ette to come along as well. ^.^
-
Hold the phone. I've just got my debit card and was all set to donate, but then I find out you can't take debit card? Sorry guys, but that's the only way I can contribute.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought you could use a debit card in a PayPal transaction.
-
Another good site is CD Japan, I bought nearly all my VGM albums there.
-
I would reckon that near-totally debasing the viability of music-production as a career would have some effect on the need for music instructors. Advertisers wouldn't commission artists because without immaterial rights, they're already free to use everything anyone ever created. That leaves us with a huge oversupply of performers whom the pressure of competition will force to work for very poor money indeed.
This sounds like a pretty big step back to me, but a lot of people I've talked to seem to hail the idea of eradicating copyright as very progressive. The thinking appears to be that for years now 'The Man' has been milking artists for money and depressing their creativity, but removing the oppressive copyright would set artists free to express and create and share and love and I guess next we could all gather round a bonfire and hold hands and procreate. phew it's getting hot in here
If you'll note, I never mentioned eliminating commercial copyright. In fact, I had explicitly stated that P2P will have no effect on it.
As to whether commercial copyright deserves to be repealed, I don't feel I'm knowledgeable enough about that to have an informed opinion. I do have a few books regarding that subject on my to-read list, though.
-
Most of our society is "artificial". Where does my yard stop and yours begin? That's artificial. Not a good argument... we force artificial distinctions on things all the time.
Oh, I agree with you there. Yards are completely enforceable artificial distinctions. But what you quoted wasn't the conclusion of my argument, rather it was the lead-in to the next paragraph, that I'll copy here for convenience:
"Now in order to make the system recognize this artificial distinction, and enforce non-commercial copyright, we have to prevent each file transfer of a forbidden work. Doing this is even more complex than the challenge of fairly distributing an internet music tax. To be done effectively, it must be performed at the ISP level (Darknets only require PC-to-PC connections, no servers necessary), disallow traffic encryption (so the ISP can peek inside what's being transferred), be able to quickly & effectively compare against a complete list of copyrighted content (so that internet traffic is not significantly slowed), and distinguish between distribution the copyright owner has & has not approved. Good luck with all that."
I don't believe that is an ideal situation. Again, if you look at all of the artists and musicians considered to be the greatest (by critics, academics, and the general public alike), these people weren't doing it for free. Anyone can make "good" music these days, largely because technology has made it easy. But GREAT music? Masterpieces? Without any sort of financial reward, artists will be forced to only make music in their spare time, and I simply have to disagree that this is a good thing at all. The romanticized view is that all musicians simply make music because they love doing it, and there is some truth to that, but I don't think it is any coincidence that all the great artists throughout history were full-timers.A community of free-timers isn't the ideal situation, I'll grant you that. But, on the other hand, there's nothing preventing someone in the OCR community from making a musical living. I certainly think that music professionals will still exist! I just don't see the field totally disappearing. After all, recorded music has only been around for about a century. As you mention, full-time musicians existed as far back as the Baroque period, 400 years ago.
The field may become much more competitive & shift away from recording sales. But there will still be need for the personal touch of performers, the catchy music backing an ad, the instruction of musical teachers, and so on.
-
I'm not taking anything personally at all, don't worry.
Good. I'd hate to incur the wrath of one of my favorite ReMixers, and a shttyjdgfgt at that!
I do understand the natural decine in demand because of the proliferation of music technology, but at the same time, piracy has had a lot to do with it too. The start of the hemorraghing of money in the recording industry coincided exactly with Napster coming into popularity...In my view, piracy is a natural consequence of the cost of distribution becoming nearly zero. Economics dictates that, other factors notwithstanding, the cheapest method will prevail. And in this case, the free work of citizens has replaced the for-profit work of business. The system doesn't care about non-commercial copyright, nor did it before. Previously each copy had a cost, so because of this & commercial copyright law, most people would incur the cost of getting it at the official source rather than those few illegal outfits. People did share tapes with their friends with impunity, but the reason proliferation stopped there was due to the costs of distribution. Non-commercial copyright has never been a factor!
The Internet has now enabled the wide-scale sharing that was never available before. And it doesn't differentiate between works which are forbidden for distribution and those which are allowed. That is an artificial distinction we are trying to force on certain pieces of information.
I don't think the death of copyright is inevitable, though. We just need to be both smart and aggressive about reacting to new technologies that could facilitate infringement. ie. BitTorrent is fine, but trackers need to comply with legal notices/subpoenas. If Darknets are becoming an issue then we need to rethink the infrastructure that makes them possible. The Internet isn't some mystical evolution of humanity. It's just a bunch of protocols run on giant server farms, facilitated by internet service providers. It can, and probably should, be changed over time.Now in order to make the system recognize this artificial distinction, and enforce non-commercial copyright, we have to prevent each file transfer of a forbidden work. Doing this is even more complex than the challenge of fairly distributing an internet music tax. To be done effectively, it must be performed at the ISP level (Darknets only require PC-to-PC connections, no servers necessary), disallow traffic encryption (so the ISP can peek inside what's being transferred), be able to quickly & effectively compare against a complete list of copyrighted content (so that internet traffic is not significantly slowed), and distinguish between distribution the copyright owner has & has not approved. Good luck with all that.
I think everyone should be worried about this, and I don't understand why no one is (well, except a few people.) I know art isn't a necessity, but I mean, does ANYBODY really think it would be preferable to live in a world where John Williams has to flip burgers from 9-5 before composing anything? Is that really going to make for better art?I have to agree with Skummel Maske. If Mr. Star Wars Theme is ever reduced to McDonalds, I'd overlook my vegetarian oath for one meal to experience a Williams-burger.
And it is true that art may not be as professional or polished in the future. However, just look at this site. We have here something that could possibly be a model of the future art world: A passionate community built around the appreciation & constructive judging of musical art. It manages to ensure quality without a profit motive.
Interestingly, I have also just finished reading a book on the mental processes of music. (This Is Your Brain on Music: The Science of a Human Obsession, by researcher Daniel J Levitin) In it, the author discusses the evolutionary basis for music... and one of the surprising things he mentions, is how primitive societies don't understand our culture's differentiation between musician and non-musician, singer and non-singer. The tribes express the opinion that if you can talk, you can be a singer, if you can hit a drum, you can be a musician. To tell them you aren't a singer is, to them, like saying you literally have no voice.
Music has had social value long before it ever had commercial value. Perhaps we are seeing a shift -- similar to the evolution of forums, blogs, and wikis -- from music as a consumable product to music as social interaction.
-
It's one thing for an artist that has had millions of dollars poured into him to "experiment". It's another thing for everyone else, ie. the other 99.999% of artists. I'm here in the trenches and I'm telling you for a fact that while it's much easier to be a musician today than it was before, the massive devaluation of music is REALLY killing the potential to make any real income from the sale of recorded music, and nothing is filling the gap. Even people that do write music on commission are finding it much harder to get paid - rates have gone way DOWN, not up.
Yes, Trent Reznor and Andrew Aversa are pretty far apart in popularity levels, I understand. I was using his example to prove a point: That he seems to see the change coming. It would be ridiculous to say that the both of you should experiment in the same ways, given that exposure gap.
Also, I hope nothing I'm saying has come across as an attack on you or your work... but this devaluation is to be expected, is it not? The cold reality is that a sudden explosion of "recording artists" and a near-zero cost of copy-distribution are effectively two very significant increases in music supply... naturally leading to less demand, lower prices, etc. :-/
So... I think the options are this. Creators can roll over, let their work get devalued, and have the industry pretty much fall apart, or we can try to fight for what's legitimately ours (copyright.)If the Internet eventually makes (non-commercial) copyright irrelevant, I'm not sure how fighting for it will help. Although, I admit, this is the weakest part of my assessment. Perhaps the point at which filesharing can be done with impunity is a point where it's too complex and inconvenient to be popular. It's difficult to be absolutely sure until we get there.
But I would advise anyone who lives off of recorded music to at least think about other avenues of revenue/employment. Because, unfortunately, I agree with what you said earlier, zircon. It "sounds pretty bad." :-\
-
Laws HAVE to change to match technology. If people just gave up every time a new technology came around, we wouldn't have a functioning legal system.
'tis true. I'm just saying that a law covering the ways bittorrent can violate copyright will not cover the next generation of technology. So the legislation process will have to be repeated all over again. But, if darknets end up being the next popular P2P method, I just don't see how the legal system can do anything to stop copyright infringement on them. Everything going on inside the network is hidden to those outside, and even those inside can only see so far.
So its either illegalize all anonymizing networks, or hire agents to "friend" suspected filesharers and go back to individual prosecution. Neither of those sound like particularly appealing, or plausible, options.
There is no monetary value to my work unless I can sell copies of it, or unless I'm specifically commissioned to do things. The latter, however, is far less common than the former. So basically, you're looking at artists being unable to recoup costs and make money, thus they are forced to make their money elsewhere, and can't spend as much time on their art. Sounds pretty bad.I think we're using "value" in two different senses. I was referring to the potential, in this manner: People don't pay specifically for copies of your work, but they pay for it because a copy happens to be identical to your original work. The value still lies with your original creation.
The actual funds come from the copies of that creation, yes. By all indications, though, this eventually will not be a significant source of funds. If commissions and works-for-hire don't bring in nearly as much... then, it seems it's the time for some creative thinking. Why do you think Trent Reznor has been experimenting so much?
If the violation of copyright is unenforceable then copyright itself is moot, so...Just non-commercial copyright violation seem to be hurtling toward being unenforceable, or at least unstoppable (effectively the same). Commercial copyright violations are still prosecutable, companies being quite public and funded better than your average filesharing family. The entirety of copyright would not disappear.
Modding consoles = Jail time
in General Discussion
Posted
From several of the above responses, it seems there is some confusion over what Mr. Crippen is being sued for. He is not being taken to court for the general act of modding a console. Much more specifically, he violated the DMCA by disabling a device's (game consoles') ability to prevent & control access to copyrighted material (games).
This is not at all analogous to including a CD burner in a computer, because a CD burner does not disable any copyright protection method. CDs, CD burners, and burnable data DON'T HAVE any copyright protection to disable.
This IS exactly analogous, though, to the lawsuits that have killed every DVD-backup/copying program that tries to enter the market. DVDs are encrypted, and any unauthorized device that attempts to break that encryption is illegal under the DMCA.