56 karma · joined November 11, 2008
I think Apple has really dropped the ball with the new Mac Pro - it is like the Cube, it looks cool but the Mac Pro is not a machine that requires form over function - people buy them to upgrade them, swap things in and out, stick them in racks, etc. Thunderbolt is not a replacement for pro use expandability - it just means a lot more cost + a lot more (very expensive) cables + a performance hit.
A good excuse for Apple to discontinue the Pro line eventually though - "hey we made this great new machine, but nobody bought it, so sorry"
DJ Tech Tools forums (a lot of stuff about controllerism and related hacking topics) - http://forums.djtechtools.com/
Create Digital Music - http://www.createdigitalmusic.com/
First comment, however, is I don't see search anywhere- do you have to login to get this?
I don't think many people are going to sign a legal agreement and then purposely claim other people's songs. The legal and financial liability from that is huge and much more direct.
There is no compulsory license for sound recordings in any territory for downloads or interactive streaming. You have to explicit permission from the copyright owner to make the recording available for download or interactive streaming, i.e. you can choose when to listen to it.
There is a compulsory license in most territories for the composition side, under certain specific conditions, in which an entity like Grooveshark would obtain a mechanical license for the composition from the copyright holder of the composition (usually music publishers) in advance of its public availability, and then account and pay royalties for its use. This requires Grooveshark to know the songwriters, publishers, and splits of each work, which is not something that comes from the user uploads. It may be the case that their terms of use pass this responsibility to the uploader.
In short, however, you need sets of permission (sound recording and composition) to legally distribute music for download or interactive streaming.
Video professionals doing rendering or compositing, ditto.
Not to mention the video cards available, plus being able to throw four full size drives directly on the SATA bus.
having said that, i'm not sure i would want to do business with a company with a hackable backend at all...
I have prey installed in stand-alone mode, but instead of having it check for a url, i just have cron running it every 30 minutes and emailing the photo and screenshot and other info to a gmail account i made. I figure if it gets stolen, I might not have time (or remember) to turn on the url before its too late.
I also have the firmware pw set (Macbook Pro) - not sure how easy this it to circumvent - if you can't circumvent it then you can't reformat that easily.
On the other side of it, if they are not really going to do Pro, then just don't do it all and stop mucking around and pretending - sell off the line to someone who can handle it properly - what they did by EOLing Shake was terrible terrible terrible
I think Apple's corporate culture and ego, however, doesn't lend itself at all to this market - this market requires communication and feedback between developers and end-users, and roadmaps of upgrades and bug fixes and features, all things that Apple doesn't do for the most part.
All in all it is a shame in any event - I had a friend who runs a video editing department with 20 editors, and they literally just completed a very large Final Cut Server install a few weeks before FCPX (not Final Cut Server compatible) and the very sudden EOL of Final Cut Server. Of course it will work fine for a while, until hardware/OS render it obsolete/incompatible, but what about bug fixes, support, etc?
eMusic's real fail is that there are one of the very few DSP (internet music retailers) that only account quarterly... almost everyone else is monthly.
syncs right now go from free to maybe 50k, unless it is a massive song (thing the Beatles) in a massive campaign or feature. the average network tv sync right now is prob around 5 grand all-in, meaning 2.5k goes to the owner of the sound recording copyright (the label or artist) and 2.5k goes to the owner of the composition (the songwriter(s) or publisher(s)).
Music publishers can take anywhere from 10% (for an admin deal) to 50% (for a co-publishing deal). Bigger percentages involve advances (recoupable payments against future royalties), but also much longer terms (5-10+ years).
Songwriters don't get publishing deals unless their songs are being performed or sold, and there are lots and lots of indie publishers out there, along with the majors as you mention.
In many territories outside of the US, artists and master recording copyright owners do get paid for public performance - in the UK for example PPL is one society that pays some of these rightsholders for public performance.