Tupac image performs at Coachella [video]
thenextweb.com
thenextweb.com
Seriously cool stuff.
Bending time included.
Check for yourself with a timer:
1) http://www.online-stopwatch.com/
2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Empire
go.
Basically, that book is to blame for me converting from a slacker to a hacker.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzYssX-CcSY#t=1m37s
It really is quite amazing unless you're at a pretty significant angle to the screen, like in the nosebleed seats or to the extreme left/right.
It's interesting to see their videos from 2010, which are still quite realistic but look stilted compared to the Tupac projection.
And obviously these aren't really holograms. I'm not connected to this in any way, just looked it up earlier since none of the articles mentioned what was driving this.
Obviously nothing replaces the experience of being present, but if you can't go, or are just getting to a point in life where festivals seem like more exhaustion than they're worth, these live streams are amazing.
When you see Snoop Dogg 'performing' with Tupac you have to wonder where the money is flowing. Tupac's gone, perhaps his family is getting some pay back from the fact that an old recording of a song is played publicly. But what happens when Tupac suddenly records a new song? Would not surprise me to discover that the record companies are able to claim that they deserve all the money associated with that.
According to wikipedia, Suge Knight produced most of these posthumous albums[1]. I assume the royalty split was probably the usual percentages going to the label and distribution, and a much smaller fraction going to Tupac (or his estate in this case). So, all in all, probably no worse of a deal than most living artists can expect from major label contracts.
Somebody has to actually create that work and the performance -- presumably whoever does the work or commissions the work would inform themselves of any licensing issues before embarking on it.
I'm curious what you think the ideal scenario here would be?
See also Hatsune Miku/Vocaloid, which is a fully artificial pop star that's been selling out shows (as a hologram since 2009)
It would be in such bad taste that even the American recording industry wouldn't go near it. People already get upset that they use old entire recordings to produce new songs, and those are actually his lyrics and his voice.
There was a small amount of outrage at the time of its release, but it mostly focused on the fact that those constructed lyrics were endorsing other rappers (mostly Eminem's protégés also performing on the track), whom some fans felt Tupac would not have endorsed had he been alive.
It's one thing to construct some ad-libs, but to actually create a piece of art (i.e. an entire verse) is a whole different ball game. It would be like if someone took fragments of Picasso paintings, constructed an entirely new painting, and called it a Picasso.
I suppose it's conceivable that someone might try to do it, and it's apparently technically possible, but I think it would be roundly rejected.
Oh, I'd take that bet. I would even bet that the producers will claim to have been in touch with his spirit.
What in hell makes you believes the recording industry has good taste?
Is bear-baiting coming back, then?
But there are concerning moves to make copyright last essentially indefinitely and in the UK we've recently seen the Olympics be backed up by criminal rather than civil penalties for copyright-related offenses. Those things are worrying.
It is true that there's nothing in the original article about copyright or finance, but it is worth considering in the light of the fact that it's unlikely that the event or the other performers did this out of the goodness of their hearts. Follow the money.
Copyright infringement as part of trade has always been a criminal, not civil, matter in the UK.
Our ability to distinguish between what's real and what's not is diminishing at an astonishing rate.
Simultaneously, our technology is grossly outpacing our ability as a society to develop social mores and appropriate legal frameworks around the new things we can do.
Some years ago, I read an article about how when the telephone was first publicly sold, it came with an etiquette guide on how to use it appropriately and with consideration for others. That seems like a fantastic idea - would that we had done the same with cell phones fifteen years ago, let alone how we use incredibly powerful technologies today.
I'm sure purists might be dismayed but plenty of people watch doumentaries like "Don't Look Back" or "Stones in Exile" to experience a bit of that period.
All they use is soundforge, and it's trivial. You can achieve perfect results with modern software and algorithmic assistance.
http://www.damonchernavsky.com/News_Archive/October_2009/Hol...
Think about all the artists you could bring back and have perform for people when using this technology.
Honestly, I'm not at a show to watch somebody perform their music, I'm there to enjoy that music with a few hundred/thousand other people, and listen to it on a big stereo.
It's a socializing thing, not a consumption thing.
When you get older it's all about going to hear how well the band performs live and enjoy a tasty adult beverage. Most entertainment venues I visit now I end up standing toward the back.
Any suggestions?
It says Dre got Afeni's blessing and made a contribution to Tupac's foundation for his image rights, but I now wonder if this gives him and Aftermath Entertainment unrestricted rights to capitalize off Tupac's hologram in all future concerts.
It'd be easier for someone with a balaclava to rob the bank and plant the money in your house before an "anonymous tip", really.