OT: from sshmucks to the real schmucks! - VMS

This is a discussion on OT: from sshmucks to the real schmucks! - VMS ; This one is of a personal nature/interest and, IMHO, should concern all. http://tmesis.com/pesky_fly.html -- VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)COM "Well my son, life is like a beanstalk, isn't it?" http://tmesis.com/sig.jpg...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: OT: from sshmucks to the real schmucks!

  1. OT: from sshmucks to the real schmucks!

    This one is of a personal nature/interest and, IMHO, should concern all.

    http://tmesis.com/pesky_fly.html

    --
    VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)COM

    "Well my son, life is like a beanstalk, isn't it?"

    http://tmesis.com/sig.jpg

  2. Re: OT: from sshmucks to the real schmucks!

    VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
    > This one is of a personal nature/interest and, IMHO, should concern all.
    >
    > http://tmesis.com/pesky_fly.html
    >


    Mr Vaxman, may I ask if you run your own internet radio station, and if
    so, are we allowed to listen to it ?

    Some radio stations now prohibit listeners from oustide the USA due in
    part to that current ugliness with regards to royalties.

    Americans should pool their money and hire AlQueda to blow up RIAA and
    MPAA. Seems to me that these 2 organisations are shooting themselves in
    the gonads.

    They are blaming poor sales on MP3s and refusing to admit that they have
    been promopting the wrong type of noise for years and that this is the
    real reason people aren't interested in their product anymore.

  3. Re: OT: from sshmucks to the real schmucks!

    In article , JF Mezei writes:
    >
    >
    >VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
    >> This one is of a personal nature/interest and, IMHO, should concern all.
    >>
    >> http://tmesis.com/pesky_fly.html
    >>

    >
    >Mr Vaxman, may I ask if you run your own internet radio station, and if
    >so, are we allowed to listen to it ?


    The radio is Aural Moon. It's listed in the iTunes tuning pages under
    Classic Rock which is how I discovered it. The web site has link to
    the streams: http://www.auralmoon.com



    >Some radio stations now prohibit listeners from oustide the USA due in
    >part to that current ugliness with regards to royalties.


    This station has many international listeners that are still listening.
    I've met a few of them too that have travelled to see a gig here in the
    US recently.



    >Americans should pool their money and hire AlQueda to blow up RIAA and
    >MPAA. Seems to me that these 2 organisations are shooting themselves in
    >the gonads.


    The RIAA and Micro$haft! If they did so, the world would
    be calling AlQueda counter-terrorists!



    >They are blaming poor sales on MP3s and refusing to admit that they have
    >been promopting the wrong type of noise for years and that this is the
    >real reason people aren't interested in their product anymore.


    People turned to internet radio for an alternative from the commercial
    radio reverse peristaltic that the music industry has been vomiting up.
    Indie labels and artists recording, producing, distributing and selling
    their output themselves is hurting them. These record companies cheat
    the artists terribly. For example, and this was in the late '80s, a UK
    band I know well was signed to EMI. They made 15p on each album sold.
    The band is 5 members so they get 3p each. One album sold a million+
    copies. That's only 30,000 GBP from their album for each. Not a great
    big salary. Weigh that against the album selling for about 10GBP. EMI
    made out quite well. Why doesn't the RIAA wake up and ask themselves,
    "why are all of these indies and bands doing well now that they have
    been cut out of the loop?"

    I don't for one minute believe that the RIAA exists, as it claims, to
    protect the artist. They exists to protect the RIAA. They're like the
    unions -- only the union fees are not being extorted from the union's
    members but from the public. They see the public like a big trough of
    muney -- like most politicians do when it comes to taxation. Eventually
    the public with not have enough fodder to shovel into those troughs.

    Anyway, like my page said, I don't care if people listen to internet
    radio but they should be concerned that there are forces trying to put
    limits on and seize control of the internet.
    --
    VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)COM

    "Well my son, life is like a beanstalk, isn't it?"

    http://tmesis.com/drat.jpg

  4. Re: OT: from sshmucks to the real schmucks!

    Mr Vaxman, don't feel singled out.

    The RIAA equivalent in Canada is now going after HAIRDRESSERS ! yes,
    they want them to pay royalties for playing music in the hair dressing
    salons.

    I think that artists should tell their RIAA to cool it and be reasonable.

    And I think that any CD that is "protected" by the RIAA should have the
    RIAA logo on it so we know to avoid buying it.

  5. Re: OT: from sshmucks to the real schmucks!

    In article <77884$469ff84f$cef8887a$30474@TEKSAVVY.COM>, JF Mezei writes:
    >
    >
    >Mr Vaxman, don't feel singled out.
    >
    >The RIAA equivalent in Canada is now going after HAIRDRESSERS ! yes,
    >they want them to pay royalties for playing music in the hair dressing
    >salons.


    I don't own the radio station I listen to... a guy in San Diego does.
    Listeners have suggested that the server be moved to another country.
    The problem is that this is happening everywhere... the US, the UK,
    you say in Canada... unless the servers are moved to Antarctica, the
    probability of getting away from somebody wanting to impose usurious
    fees is close to nil. At least, in Antarctica the process cooling is
    cheaper! I don't know about internet connectivity and I'd wager a
    good bet that the latency would be pretty abysmal.


    >I think that artists should tell their RIAA to cool it and be reasonable.


    ....but the RIAA doesn't care about the artists.


    >And I think that any CD that is "protected" by the RIAA should have the
    >RIAA logo on it so we know to avoid buying it.


    Now that's a GRRRRREAT! idea. Boycott the buggers and maybe, just maybe
    they'll wake up and hear the bell tolling.... nah! They'll stupidly put
    themselves out of business with their greed.

    --
    VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)COM

    "Well my son, life is like a beanstalk, isn't it?"

    http://tmesis.com/drat.html

  6. Re: OT: from sshmucks to the real schmucks!

    JF Mezei wrote:
    > Mr Vaxman, don't feel singled out.
    >
    > The RIAA equivalent in Canada is now going after HAIRDRESSERS ! yes,
    > they want them to pay royalties for playing music in the hair dressing
    > salons.
    >
    > I think that artists should tell their RIAA to cool it and be reasonable.
    >
    > And I think that any CD that is "protected" by the RIAA should have the
    > RIAA logo on it so we know to avoid buying it.


    I don't see why anyone should be surprised! The copyright owners expect
    to be paid for the use of their copyrighted material. When you buy a
    CD, or an old style vinyl record, you get a license for personal use;
    e.g. home, family, and guests, if any. You cannot buy the same CD and
    use it to supply "elevator music" in any commercial environment without
    paying additional royalties for the privilege. Neither can you
    broadcast it over the radio waves or the internet without paying a
    royalty therefore.

    Same deal with software! You can't legally use VMS without a license of
    some sort any more than you can use Windows without such a license; that
    the license normally is included in the purchase price of your PC
    doesn't mean that there isn't one.

    If you write and sell software for a living, don't you expect to be
    paid? If you sold one copy to me and I made two copies for two friends
    without any additional payment, would you feel you had been ripped off?
    If those two friends each made two copies for for two of their
    friends. . . .?




  7. Re: OT: from sshmucks to the real schmucks!

    In article <46A00864.2090803@comcast.net>, "Richard B. Gilbert" writes:
    >{...snip...}
    >paying additional royalties for the privilege. Neither can you
    >broadcast it over the radio waves or the internet without paying a
    >royalty therefore.


    Therein, you are wrong. Well, not wrong but you don't know that there
    is a great disparity in the royalty structure. That has been the major
    premise of the IREA (Internet Radio Equity Act). Internet broadcasters
    are paying higher royalty rates already than do the AM/FM and satellite
    radio broadcasters.



    >Same deal with software! You can't legally use VMS without a license of
    >some sort any more than you can use Windows without such a license; that
    >the license normally is included in the purchase price of your PC
    >doesn't mean that there isn't one.
    >
    >If you write and sell software for a living, don't you expect to be
    >paid?


    In some cases, you can't possess it with out license.

    Here's a typical example: http://tmesis.com/dllic.html



    > If you sold one copy to me and I made two copies for two friends
    >without any additional payment, would you feel you had been ripped off?
    > If those two friends each made two copies for for two of their
    >friends. . . .?


    I have made "sampler" CDs for friends. I burn low quality MP3s and
    never any from artists that I DO NOT know personally. The RIAA had
    tried to thwart CD copying in the beginning by requiring CD copiers
    to use special media. This was quickly proved a blunder when soft-
    ware was released to rip and burn on computers using standard data
    CDRs. Artists *DO* deserve to get paid for their artisitc output.
    They aren't getting it from the fees collected by the RIAA. There
    is nothing in this effort that make me believe it is anything more
    then an attempt to control broadcast content like the large commer-
    cial concerns have done with regular over-the-air broadcast radio.

    It deeply concerns me too that if they get away with forcing their
    will on this aspect of the internet, what is next???

    --
    VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)COM

    "Well my son, life is like a beanstalk, isn't it?"

    http://tmesis.com/drat.html

  8. Re: OT: from sshmucks to the real schmucks!

    VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
    > In article <77884$469ff84f$cef8887a$30474@TEKSAVVY.COM>, JF Mezei
    > writes:
    >>
    >>
    >> Mr Vaxman, don't feel singled out.
    >>
    >> The RIAA equivalent in Canada is now going after HAIRDRESSERS ! yes,
    >> they want them to pay royalties for playing music in the hair
    >> dressing salons.

    >
    > I don't own the radio station I listen to... a guy in San Diego does.
    > Listeners have suggested that the server be moved to another country.
    > The problem is that this is happening everywhere... the US, the UK,
    > you say in Canada... unless the servers are moved to Antarctica, the
    > probability of getting away from somebody wanting to impose usurious
    > fees is close to nil. At least, in Antarctica the process cooling is
    > cheaper! I don't know about internet connectivity and I'd wager a
    > good bet that the latency would be pretty abysmal.



    Maybe there's a past business model to learn from:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Sealand



  9. Re: OT: from sshmucks to the real schmucks!

    On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 06:32:44 -0700, John Smith wrote:

    > VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
    >> In article <77884$469ff84f$cef8887a$30474@TEKSAVVY.COM>, JF Mezei
    >> writes:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Mr Vaxman, don't feel singled out.
    >>>
    >>> The RIAA equivalent in Canada is now going after HAIRDRESSERS ! yes,
    >>> they want them to pay royalties for playing music in the hair
    >>> dressing salons.

    >>
    >> I don't own the radio station I listen to... a guy in San Diego does.
    >> Listeners have suggested that the server be moved to another country.
    >> The problem is that this is happening everywhere... the US, the UK,
    >> you say in Canada... unless the servers are moved to Antarctica, the
    >> probability of getting away from somebody wanting to impose usurious
    >> fees is close to nil. At least, in Antarctica the process cooling is
    >> cheaper! I don't know about internet connectivity and I'd wager a
    >> good bet that the latency would be pretty abysmal.

    >
    >
    > Maybe there's a past business model to learn from:
    >
    > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Sealand
    >

    What a fun read.



    --
    PL/I for OpenVMS
    www.kednos.com

  10. Re: OT: from sshmucks to the real schmucks!

    On Jul 20, 7:34 am, VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
    > In article <46A00864.2090...@comcast.net>, "Richard B. Gilbert" writes:
    >
    > >{...snip...}
    > >paying additional royalties for the privilege. Neither can you
    > >broadcast it over the radio waves or the internet without paying a
    > >royalty therefore.

    >
    > Therein, you are wrong. Well, not wrong but you don't know that there
    > is a great disparity in the royalty structure. That has been the major
    > premise of the IREA (Internet Radio Equity Act). Internet broadcasters
    > are paying higher royalty rates already than do the AM/FM and satellite
    > radio broadcasters.
    >
    > >Same deal with software! You can't legally use VMS without a license of
    > >some sort any more than you can use Windows without such a license; that
    > >the license normally is included in the purchase price of your PC
    > >doesn't mean that there isn't one.

    >
    > >If you write and sell software for a living, don't you expect to be
    > >paid?

    >
    > In some cases, you can't possess it with out license.
    >
    > Here's a typical example:http://tmesis.com/dllic.html
    >
    > > If you sold one copy to me and I made two copies for two friends
    > >without any additional payment, would you feel you had been ripped off?
    > > If those two friends each made two copies for for two of their
    > >friends. . . .?

    >
    > I have made "sampler" CDs for friends. I burn low quality MP3s and
    > never any from artists that I DO NOT know personally. The RIAA had
    > tried to thwart CD copying in the beginning by requiring CD copiers
    > to use special media. This was quickly proved a blunder when soft-
    > ware was released to rip and burn on computers using standard data
    > CDRs. Artists *DO* deserve to get paid for their artisitc output.
    > They aren't getting it from the fees collected by the RIAA. There
    > is nothing in this effort that make me believe it is anything more
    > then an attempt to control broadcast content like the large commer-
    > cial concerns have done with regular over-the-air broadcast radio.
    >
    > It deeply concerns me too that if they get away with forcing their
    > will on this aspect of the internet, what is next???
    >
    > --
    > VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)COM
    >
    > "Well my son, life is like a beanstalk, isn't it?"
    >
    > http://tmesis.com/drat.html


    I'm with VAXMAN on this. The recording industry sucks donkey kong.

    AEF


  11. Re: OT: from sshmucks to the real schmucks!

    In article ,
    JF Mezei wrote:

    > VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
    > > This one is of a personal nature/interest and, IMHO, should concern all.
    > >
    > > http://tmesis.com/pesky_fly.html
    > >

    >
    > Mr Vaxman, may I ask if you run your own internet radio station, and if
    > so, are we allowed to listen to it ?
    >
    > Some radio stations now prohibit listeners from oustide the USA due in
    > part to that current ugliness with regards to royalties.


    Picking various stations at random from the selection offered by iTunes,
    I haven't noticed this.
    >
    > They are blaming poor sales on MP3s and refusing to admit that they have
    > been promopting the wrong type of noise for years and that this is the
    > real reason people aren't interested in their product anymore.


    I haven't bought a single CD since 2001 as the result of hearing
    something new (to me) on mainstream radio. Before that, I would do so
    regularly.

    --
    Paul Sture

  12. Re: OT: from sshmucks to the real schmucks!

    AEF wrote:
    > On Jul 20, 7:34 am, VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
    >
    >>In article <46A00864.2090...@comcast.net>, "Richard B. Gilbert" writes:
    >>
    >>
    >>>{...snip...}
    >>>paying additional royalties for the privilege. Neither can you
    >>>broadcast it over the radio waves or the internet without paying a
    >>>royalty therefore.

    >>
    >>Therein, you are wrong. Well, not wrong but you don't know that there
    >>is a great disparity in the royalty structure. That has been the major
    >>premise of the IREA (Internet Radio Equity Act). Internet broadcasters
    >>are paying higher royalty rates already than do the AM/FM and satellite
    >>radio broadcasters.
    >>
    >>
    >>>Same deal with software! You can't legally use VMS without a license of
    >>>some sort any more than you can use Windows without such a license; that
    >>>the license normally is included in the purchase price of your PC
    >>>doesn't mean that there isn't one.

    >>
    >>>If you write and sell software for a living, don't you expect to be
    >>>paid?

    >>
    >>In some cases, you can't possess it with out license.
    >>
    >>Here's a typical example:http://tmesis.com/dllic.html
    >>
    >>
    >>> If you sold one copy to me and I made two copies for two friends
    >>>without any additional payment, would you feel you had been ripped off?
    >>> If those two friends each made two copies for for two of their
    >>>friends. . . .?

    >>
    >>I have made "sampler" CDs for friends. I burn low quality MP3s and
    >>never any from artists that I DO NOT know personally. The RIAA had
    >>tried to thwart CD copying in the beginning by requiring CD copiers
    >>to use special media. This was quickly proved a blunder when soft-
    >>ware was released to rip and burn on computers using standard data
    >>CDRs. Artists *DO* deserve to get paid for their artisitc output.
    >>They aren't getting it from the fees collected by the RIAA. There
    >>is nothing in this effort that make me believe it is anything more
    >>then an attempt to control broadcast content like the large commer-
    >>cial concerns have done with regular over-the-air broadcast radio.
    >>
    >>It deeply concerns me too that if they get away with forcing their
    >>will on this aspect of the internet, what is next???
    >>
    >>--
    >>VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)COM
    >>
    >> "Well my son, life is like a beanstalk, isn't it?"
    >>
    >>http://tmesis.com/drat.html

    >
    >
    > I'm with VAXMAN on this. The recording industry sucks donkey kong.
    >
    > AEF
    >


    IMHO, the product sucks too!

    I buy an occasional classical CD but the "popular" stuff just hurts my ears!


  13. Re: OT: from sshmucks to the real schmucks!

    In article <%vNni.38$Zi.11@newsfe12.lga>, VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG writes:
    > This one is of a personal nature/interest and, IMHO, should concern all.
    >
    > http://tmesis.com/pesky_fly.html
    >


    Are you trying to increase the technical content of this forum?

    8-)


  14. Re: OT: from sshmucks to the real schmucks!

    In article <46A11228.7010308@comcast.net>, "Richard B. Gilbert" writes:
    >
    > I've often thought that each generation's music is intended to gross out
    > the previous generation!
    >
    > It has been many years since I've heard any "popular" music that I
    > wanted to hear more than once. There's damned little that I've wanted
    > to hear even once!


    I haven't been able to listen to rap and consider it music, just
    talking with music in the background.

    Although there have been changes of labels like disco and punk, I
    haven't heard anything new since Jimmy Hendrix. I got tired of
    hearing rehashes of the same old thing some time in the 70s.

    About a decade ago a young friend told me we "didn't have Jon Bovi".
    I haven't heard him do anything that wasn't done before. Popular
    music just hasn't changed since the early 70s like it did in the
    30s, 40s, 50s, and 60s.


  15. Re: OT: from sshmucks to the real schmucks!

    In article , koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes:
    >
    >
    >In article <%vNni.38$Zi.11@newsfe12.lga>, VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG writes:
    >> This one is of a personal nature/interest and, IMHO, should concern all.
    >>
    >> http://tmesis.com/pesky_fly.html
    >>

    >
    > Are you trying to increase the technical content of this forum?
    >
    > 8-)


    At least it's somewhat computer related! Beats the piss outta the right
    wing religious and the left wing agenda drivel that has been clogging my
    newsreader.

    --
    VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)COM

    "Well my son, life is like a beanstalk, isn't it?"

    http://tmesis.com/drat.html

  16. Re: OT: from sshmucks to the real schmucks!

    In article ,
    "Tom Linden" wrote:

    > On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 06:32:44 -0700, John Smith wrote:
    >
    > > VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
    > >> In article <77884$469ff84f$cef8887a$30474@TEKSAVVY.COM>, JF Mezei
    > >> writes:
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>> Mr Vaxman, don't feel singled out.
    > >>>
    > >>> The RIAA equivalent in Canada is now going after HAIRDRESSERS ! yes,
    > >>> they want them to pay royalties for playing music in the hair
    > >>> dressing salons.
    > >>
    > >> I don't own the radio station I listen to... a guy in San Diego does.
    > >> Listeners have suggested that the server be moved to another country.
    > >> The problem is that this is happening everywhere... the US, the UK,
    > >> you say in Canada... unless the servers are moved to Antarctica, the
    > >> probability of getting away from somebody wanting to impose usurious
    > >> fees is close to nil. At least, in Antarctica the process cooling is
    > >> cheaper! I don't know about internet connectivity and I'd wager a
    > >> good bet that the latency would be pretty abysmal.

    > >
    > >
    > > Maybe there's a past business model to learn from:
    > >
    > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Sealand
    > >

    > What a fun read.


    Something which isn't mentioned there is that there was opposition to
    them setting up a secure data centre there, at the government level. I
    don't recall the details, but I do remember a reports of a US consultant
    on his way there being stopped at UK immigration/customs.

    At the end of the day, unless they were going to use satellite
    communications, they were going to be at the mercy of the governments
    either side of the English Channel who could ultimately disconnect their
    cables.

    --
    Paul Sture

    Sue's OpenVMS bookmarks:
    http://eisner.encompasserve.org/~stu...bookmarks.html

  17. Re: OT: from sshmucks to the real schmucks!

    Bob Koehler wrote:
    > In article <46A11228.7010308@comcast.net>, "Richard B. Gilbert"
    > writes:
    >>
    >> I've often thought that each generation's music is intended to gross
    >> out the previous generation!
    >>
    >> It has been many years since I've heard any "popular" music that I
    >> wanted to hear more than once. There's damned little that I've
    >> wanted to hear even once!

    >
    > I haven't been able to listen to rap and consider it music, just
    > talking with music in the background.


    True enough, but try listening to MC Solaar (French rap) - quite cool.

    http://www.amazon.com/s/103-6492126-...a-20&index=ble
    nded&link%5Fcode=qs&field-keywords=solaar&sourceid=Mozilla-search

    --
    OpenVMS - The never-advertised operating system with the dwindling ISV
    base.



+ Reply to Thread