but the past 5 years I have heard nothing I couldn't easily create on my own PC with significant ease..

Either you listen to only the crappy techo/trance, or you should be making music yourself.. It doesn't take unique talent to produce music, reguardless of the genre. I could say the same thing about classical music, that nothing great has been done in the past 100 years.. Or pop music in the last 50 years.. I guess I just can't take seriously the opinions of someone who looks at a whole genre and claims there's nothing good only because %90 of what's produced now is not new.

Maybe I just have an unspoiled perspective of the genre, so when I come accross a good artist, I can see them for what they are, not how they compare to the rest of the artists out there..

Oh, right. I'm not going to start this flame war, and you shouldn't either. This no longer has anything to do with the topic at hand - Empeg/RioCar - so take this to the OffTopic board or drop it, please.

The S/N Ratio is getting high on this post - perhaps we need to find a better ground.

Hey Clown, I don't know why your directing that post at me, but in case you didn't notice, I only contributed probably no more than 5% of this discussion, if that.

Well I seriously doubt "classical" music of any realism could be produced on a PC, though this genre of music is where a good midi system really shines. With the right hardware/software it is good, but still not believeable.

"Trance/Techno" otoh is perfectly matched to the PC, and in fact quite a bit of what you hear in that genre today is being produced on PCs and mostly Macs.. If you are into making music on a PC you definitely need the application "Reason". Pretty cool app that will save you thousands on music hardware..

BTW, I am just being a smart-ass.. I respect most people's opinions...

So how do you move a thread to OT???

I never said classical music could be produced on a PC.. My point about classical music had nothing to do with being able to produce music on a PC.

Hmmm imo I can't take seriously opinions of someone who considers techno/trance "good music"

There isn't anything original in that genre coming out either

Well, next time you're near a good alternative music store, here's some stuff you might want to check out:

Shpongle - Are You Shpongled
Shpongle - Tales of the Inexpressible
Infected Mushroom - Classical Mushroom
Analog Pussy - Fight to Trance
Astral Projection - Another World
Growling Mad Scientists - The Growly Family
Logic Bomb - Headware
Space Tribe - Religious Experience

That's all psychadelic trance (some classic, some recent) - I've not been keeping up with the techno scene recently. If you can create any of that on your home PC then I suspect that you have a significant music production suite attached to it as well.

Please disregard anything that the guy on the radio refers to as Trance or Techno - that's almost always mainstream dance.

Rob

Of course it's "written on a PC or a Mac" (or even an ST!) - you have to run Cuebase on something! Of course that PC or Mac is also connected to a huge array of analog synths, wavestations, samplers and effect processors.

It's not uncommon for trance artists to also use live instruments, for example Raja Ram of Shpongle is a classical flautist.

I'd be happy to continue the debate in the Off Topic forum

Rob

Hey Rob, I remember Astral Projection from an older vinyl I've got laying around here somewhere. It was called "liquid sun". Great record, especially cass & slide's rework of it. Remember that one?
I've just D/L'ed Another world. Great tune. Will be on my wish list next week when I visit my vinyl shop.

Actualy, the total number of respondants of a poll does *not* need to approach the total number of BBS members, provided of course, the goal is to measure the BBS members. If that's the case, then based on how confident you want the result of the poll to be, (e.g. 95% confidence) and how accurate (+3 x%) you can actually mathematically work out the *exact* number of answers you need for a fairly good and reasonable answer. And typically yes, the number of poll respondants are the tiniest fraction of the membership of the sampling group. Strange but true.

Calvin

How do you feel about video rental? How do you feel about libraries with vast CD holdings?

Calvin

Calvin: Actually, the total number of respondants of a poll does *not* need to approach the total number of BBS members, provided of course, the goal is to measure the BBS members. If that's the case, then based on how confident you want the result of the poll to be, (e.g. 95% confidence) and how accurate (+3 x%) you can actually mathematically work out the *exact* number of answers you need for a fairly good and reasonable answer.

This would all be very true if the survey/poll were conducted with some semblance of a random sampling method and if the design/analysis took account of the potential biases (esp. of non-responders). For reasons that ninti elaborated on ("Not to mention the fact that it is a self-selected poll, and some groups may have more of an desire to answer than others, despite the anonymous nature. ...") this is hardly the case.

At least compared to the many self-selected Insta-Polls conducted by news organizations, this poll has a reasonably estimable N of possible respondants. Even then, the calculation of a traditional 90, 95% (or whatever) confidence interval would not be appropriate. About the best you can do on a self-selected poll like this (with a known possible respondant N) is to perform a sensitivity test -- take the n of non-responses and build 2 cases: Case 1 where all non-responses are assumed to be "Yes" and Case 2 where all non-responses are assumed to be "No". As you might guess, this gets a lot harder with an analysis of multiple-choice questions.

And typically yes, the number of poll respondants are the tiniest fraction of the membership of the sampling group. Strange but true.

Can you tell that Insta-Polls drive me nuts???

I knew you woulda perked up to that one. ;-) With a sig like that.

Yep there are plenty of preconditions. Another precondition is a normal distribution. In my case, I don't poll people. We have a prediction engine that we calibrate using a polling type system. We dial in the accuracy and confidence we want, and gun for good results.

Calvin

Even attempting to determine the percentage of error in a non-probability sample (self-selected) is futile.. Out of the 1625 registered users, only 110 voted during 1245 views and 70 posts. Unfortunately, the views are not unique so it can't even determine who read the poll and decided not to vote.

What you can then statisticly conclude is nothing more than of the 1625 users registered, atleast %6 of them have some ammount of mp3's on their empeg that they don't own the CD for. Of that %6, I would say that %30 of them are "illegal" copies, where the rest fall under fair use allowances. Ttrading between friends is legal, and downloading doesn't differentiate between free and illegal downloads.. I just downloaded 8 tracks from mp3.com, all legal.

Good point. The poll does not accurately gauge whether the downloaded tracks are legitimate or not. Therefore the poll is invalid.

Calvin

> Ttrading between friends is legal

I don't believe that to be true in most cases. The law is no different whether you downloaded it or ripped it from a friends CD, at least for the reciever.

110 reponses, huh? It's too bad it wasn't more scientific, because if it were that would easily be a good enough chunk of the users of the Empeg to give a very low probability of error.

I agree that the poll itself was not worded well enough to differentiate between legal and illegal downloads, but in the context of the conversation in the thread that brought about it, it seemed pretty clear to me that it meant illegal ones, and I voted accordingly. Perhaps my interpretation of the question was not shared by a lot of people, but your estimate that 70% of the people who said that they downloaded files are doing so completely legally seems rather high to me.

Trading between friends is legal in some countries.

Not the US.

Calvin

> Ttrading between friends is legal
I don't believe that to be true in most cases.

Trading between friends has been legal for a long time. The problem that the record industry has with all of this, is that the definition of "trading between friends" seems to change depending on who you're talking to. Some people seem to think that Napster was "trading between friends".

http://www.hrrc.org/html/ahra_summary.html
http://www.hrrc.org/html/ahra.html

Yang: Even attempting to determine the percentage of error in a non-probability sample (self-selected) is futile.

No disagreement. When I mention a sensitivity test, even that would be meaningless at this rate of response. Example: For a simple one-question survey with 1500 responding out of possible 1600 and a 60% (900/1500) "Yes" vote, you could assert that the true "Yes" is somewhere between 56 and 62 percent (b/w 900/1600 and 1000/1600). That's potentially useful information. If it were a 60% "yes" within 110 (out of 1600 potential) responses, well, I don't think there's any useful infomation there (except that you have a horrible response rate!!)

I couldn't find any text regarding the allowable copying of works for friends in those two links.

Calvin

I really don't believe that to be true. The fair use exemptions to the copyright law are pretty specific, and while the courts have weighed in a little to expand them (notably in the case of VCR "time-shifting"), I don't recall ever seeing, and couldn't just now find, an exemption or court case that specifically allowed copying friend's materials. In fact, I remember Metallica got a lot of flack during the Napster battle because in the liner notes of one of their old albums they admitted to sitting around copying each-others albums.

Eternalsun, my apologies for the blanket statement. You are correct, others countries do allow it. I gotta watch that U.S.-centricness in this wonderfully multi-state thing called the Internet.

I couldn't find any text regarding the allowable copying of works for friends in those two links.

Section 1008. Prohibition on certain infringement actions
No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.

Because it's not a right given by any law. It is however mostly unenforcable, so the legality of the action is pretty much a moot issue.

Edit: oops, I had forgotten about the Home Audio Recording Act.. means, if you don't sell it, you can't be found infringing when making digital copies. There have been no cases to date, of someone being prosecuted for having "illegal" copies of music. Only companies who make money through advertising/investments/subscriptiong are being sued.

if you don't sell it, you can't be found infringing when making digital copies.

More importantly: When using devices which make digital copies (CD recorders, digital audio tape, etc.), you are paying the record companies a royalty/tax through the sale of the device or the media. So they are actually happy when you make digital copies because they make money on the transaction.

The only thing is, now they're pissed because they can't tax the copies you transfer over a network. Only when you record these onto a taxed media do they make money.

As I've said before, Frank Zappa's statement and prepared statement to Congress in regard to the PMRC fiasco should be required reading for everyone. In it, he claims, not without reason, that the PMRC hearings were a smokescreen for the real issue, the private tax levied on consumers by the recording industry on blank recording media.

The fair use exemptions to the copyright law are pretty specific, and while the courts have weighed in a little to expand them (notably in the case of VCR "time-shifting")

I hope you aren't trying to say the courts have weighed in to expand the fair use provisions? If you take a look at the changes to copyright throughout the years i think you will find quite the opposite trend has been in place.

Unfortunately, the only thing a consumer with a PC and an empeg pays for is umm.. nothing. Since computers can make CD->mp3 recordings, but are excluded by the royalty section (1001), then the RIAA never gets a cent. The empeg is a player, and as has been found in court (the Diamond Rio case), isn't a recorder and is also excluded..

I also wonder about data vs music CDR disks.. are only the music ones taxed, because I don't think I've ever bought them.

Exactly, and that's what the RIAA is mainly upset about. Their primary concern is not for copyrights or artists, but whether or not they can charge their little tax and make their money off of the recording media.

> or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings

Well, the act protects people from getting sued for making copies for themselves. It doesn't say anything about distributing those copies to other people. If that interpretation was correct, then the non-commercial use of Napster would be legal as well.

> I hope you aren't trying to say the courts have weighed in to expand the fair use provisions? If you take a look at the changes to copyright throughout the years i think you will find quite the opposite trend has been in place.

It's been a mixed bag I think. I'll conceed that there is certainly enough court cases to support your position though.

If that interpretation was correct, then the non-commercial use of Napster would be legal as well.

No one got busted for the non-commercial use of Napster.

Napster itself, on the other hand, was a commercial organization and that's why it's no longer operating.