5 Feb
2013
5 Feb
'13
2:58 p.m.
Greetings,
I've been reading a lot of negative (read: vitriolic) commentary about
the world of Linux audio development and applications. I won't bother to
say where, just "the usual places" will have to suffice. Of greater
interest to me is the commentary itself - it seems to boil down to the
following plaints and lamentations (in no particular order) :
Too many distros.
Too many audio-optimized distros.
Not enough native plugins, esp. instruments.
Inconsistent support for VST/VSTi plugins.
Too many unstable/unfinished applications.
Too many "standards" (esp. wrt plugins).
Poor external/internal session management.
Poor support for certain modes of composition (think Ableton Live).
Lack of support for contemporary hardware.
Confusion re: desktops, and GUI toolkits.
Too difficult to set up audio system.
JACK is a pain.
Too much conflict/fragmentation within the development community.
I'm not so interested in comments on the commentary, I have my own, but
say what you will about the list. I figure that most denizens of these
lists already have ready replies and responses to these and other
criticisms, many of which have been voiced here previously. What I'm
more interested in is what *you* think is missing most or just plain
wrong about the situation. Please, try to speak your piece without
flames or dissing other developers and/or their work. Frankly speaking,
I've had enough of that crap, and I'm most thankful these days for such
forum amenities as "mute user" and autodiscard, along with the standard
filters found in mail clients.
<aside>
I'm reminded of John Cage's comments regarding the behavior of the NY
Philharmonic when they destroyed his equipment during the premire of
Atlas Eclipticalis, something to the effect that his concerns had ceased
to be musical and had become social, i.e. that he had to figure a way to
allow people to be free yet behave themselves with respect towards the
common goal (e.g. Cage's music and property). I'm going to guess that he
was still working on that up to his death.
</aside>
So, in your honest and bold opinion as user and/or developer, what do we
lack most and what can we do without that we already have ? Please feel
free to expand your remarks as you like. I'm planning an article on the
topic and will likely use selected comments, subject to approval of course.
Best,
dp
5 Feb
5 Feb
3:07 p.m.
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 9:58 AM, Dave Phillips <dlphillips(a)woh.rr.com> wrote:
I've been reading a lot of negative (read:
vitriolic) commentary about the
world of Linux audio development and applications. I won't bother to say
where, just "the usual places" will have to suffice. Of greater interest to
me is the commentary itself - it seems to boil down to the following plaints
and lamentations (in no particular order) :
The only thing I find lacking in Linux audio are good sample
libraries. If we had something comparable to the big Orchestral or
ethnic instrument libraries like EWQL, VSL, Kontakt, etc., have, I
could do 100% Linux in my studio.
Otherwise, I love Linux audio and can't stand having to deal with
Windows for any kind of audio work.
--
Brett W. McCoy -- http://www.brettwmccoy.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"In the rhythm of music a secret is hidden; If I were to divulge it,
it would overturn the world."
-- Jelaleddin Rumi
3:29 p.m.
Hey Dave,
let me give you my opinion.
Too many distros - don't see it as a problem
Too many audio-optimized distros - don't see it as a problem
Not enough native plugins, esp. instruments. - agree, big problem, would
not speak of instruments only, effects as well
Inconsistent support for VST/VSTi plugins. - don't see it as a problem if
we go for our own standard
Too many unstable/unfinished applications. - agree
Too many "standards" (esp. wrt plugins). - agree
Poor external/internal session management. - agree
Poor support for certain modes of composition (think Ableton Live). - agree
Lack of support for contemporary hardware. - probably, although I have no
data as to how big the problem is
Confusion re: desktops, and GUI toolkits. - i am confused as to why that
would be a problem with linux audio
Too difficult to set up audio system. - don't agree
JACK is a pain. - don't agree
Too much conflict/fragmentation within the development community. - don't
see it as a problem
I would have to comment more on the latter. I don't think it is bad or
unavoidable to have fragmentation and conflict. This is natural for most
human interaction. The problem, in my view, is that there are so few
developers (compared to, say, Windows Audio). And because there are so few
devs, fragmentation becomes a problem, since each developer is then just a
one man project with a small audience.
Cheers!
--
Louigi Verona
http://www.louigiverona.ru/
3:37 p.m.
On 02/05/2013 10:29 AM, Louigi Verona wrote:
Hey Dave,
let me give you my opinion.
Hi Louigi, I was waiting for your input. :)
Some short replies:
Lack of support for contemporary hardware. - probably, although I have
no data as to how big the problem is
I've found a simple metric. Just open a Sweetwater catalog to the pages
for computer audio interfaces and count the ones with Linux support.
Confusion re: desktops, and GUI toolkits. - i am
confused as to why
that would be a problem with linux audio
Problem for the developers, not so much for users.
I would have to comment more on the latter. I don't think it is bad or
unavoidable to have fragmentation and conflict. This is natural for
most human interaction. The problem, in my view, is that there are so
few developers (compared to, say, Windows Audio). And because there
are so few devs, fragmentation becomes a problem, since each developer
is then just a one man project with a small audience.
Good point, thank you for the input.
Best,
dp
4:17 p.m.
On Tue, 5 Feb 2013 18:29:06 +0300
Louigi Verona <louigi.verona(a)gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
I would have to comment more on the latter. I don't think it is bad or
unavoidable to have fragmentation and conflict. This is natural for most
human interaction. The problem, in my view, is that there are so few
developers (compared to, say, Windows Audio). And because there are so few
devs, fragmentation becomes a problem, since each developer is then just a
one man project with a small audience.
That's kind of true. If there were a few thousand more developers, for
example the different session management interfaces wouldn't be a
problem. If you have, say, 3 session management interfaces, and each
app supports one it effectively divides the number of apps you can use
by 3 if you need session mgmt. If there were thousands of developers
and as a result thousands of apps, there would still be a lot of apps
left to choose... But I don't think this will happen any time soon, so
I think it would be better for the existing developers to focus a bit
more on compatibility with other apps. Conclusion: We are few, so we
really need to work together on this ;)
3:42 p.m.
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 6:58 PM, Dave Phillips wrote:
Too many distros.
Too many audio-optimized distros.
Not enough native plugins, esp. instruments.
Inconsistent support for VST/VSTi plugins.
Too many unstable/unfinished applications.
Too many "standards" (esp. wrt plugins).
Poor external/internal session management.
Poor support for certain modes of composition (think Ableton Live).
Lack of support for contemporary hardware.
Confusion re: desktops, and GUI toolkits.
Too difficult to set up audio system.
JACK is a pain.
Too much conflict/fragmentation within the development community.
Some of these points are certainly bogus (VST, RTAS , DX and AU are
less than LADSPA , DSSI and LV, really?), but some are sound.
The core issue here is that the community is mostly comprised of a)
developers who b) have little to no experience of using state of the
art commercial software and c) are too self-centered.
The a) part means that typically teams are not capable of designing
usable UIs and presenting results of their work in an appealing manner
(one person cannot do everything). Hence people don't know even about
things we do well, or they see something they would never want to use,
even though deep inside the software is all nice and fluffy.
The b) part means that in a number of cases we are trying to do
something people think is stupid (and rightfully so). For instance,
the whole idea of separating MIDI sequencing from DAW features is,
frankly, retarded. Fortunately we seem to be past the point where
people argue that it's the right way to go till they are blue in the
face.
Finally, the c) part is all about fragmentation.
On the positive side, most production software on Linux now supports
native VSTs (I think, Rosegarden and OpenOctaveMidi are the only
exceptions), LV2 is gaining momentum, and JACK session seems to
silently have won the "connectivity war".
Personally, in 2013 I hope to see a Kickstarter campaign to record a
nice free SFZ library. Especially since some of the people in the
community *cough* Fons *cough* have the relevant experience and a lot
of expertise.
So, in your honest and bold opinion as user and/or
developer, what do we
lack most and what can we do without that we already have ? Please feel free
to expand your remarks as you like. I'm planning an article on the topic and
will likely use selected comments, subject to approval of course.
And thus a new uberthread begins :)
Alexandre Prokoudine
http://libregraphicsworld.org
3:47 p.m.
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 7:42 PM, Alexandre Prokoudine wrote:
Personally, in 2013 I hope to see a Kickstarter
campaign to record a
nice free SFZ library. Especially since some of the people in the
community *cough* Fons *cough* have the relevant experience and a lot
of expertise.
Oh, and that's something I would expect a project like MuseScore to organize.
Alexandre Prokoudine
http://libregraphicsworld.org
4 p.m.
I really like Alexandre Prokoudine's take on it.
I guess it does come down to the community being really small. Experience
shows that when many people are involved, sooner or later solutions are
created to many problems. In Linux Audio there are not many people and so
many things are not addressed at all. For instance, djing. People who say
"well there is Mixxx" clearly never worked with modern dj software such as
Traktor Pro, which was around 4 years ago and was already doing things that
I don't see Linux Audio even beginning to do in the next 4 years.
However, at this point I would also ask for a need to differentiate between
hobbyist software and commercial software done by professionals. If we
compare Linux Audio Hobbyist (again, simply meaning not a commercial
endeavor, not backed up by capital) with Windows Audio Hobbyist, I wonder
who wins. I think Linux Audio looks good in that regard. Although still,
the ability of Windows devs to use, say, VST format and all the hardware is
a point for them.
L.V.
4:15 p.m.
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 8:00 PM, Louigi Verona wrote:
However, at this point I would also ask for a need to
differentiate between
hobbyist software and commercial software done by professionals. If we
compare Linux Audio Hobbyist (again, simply meaning not a commercial
endeavor, not backed up by capital) with Windows Audio Hobbyist, I wonder
who wins.
And that, in a nutshell, explains the reason Dave had that
conversation elsewhere.
People do not readily admit that they use hobbyist software. In fact,
people do not readily use it. People tend to wish honing skills, which
is so much easier to do when you have a complex piece of software that
you learn step by step. Especially since there are hundreds of books
and tutorials, as well as thousands of users in forums to consult
with.
In other words, users look up to expertise. Not a typical hobbyist feature.
Alexandre Prokoudine
http://libregraphicsworld.org
4:08 p.m.
And what about Sonatina Symphonic Orchestra:
http://sso.mattiaswestlund.net
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 7:42 PM, Alexandre Prokoudine
wrote:
Personally, in 2013 I hope to see a Kickstarter
campaign to record a
nice free SFZ library. Especially since some of the people in the
community *cough* Fons *cough* have the relevant experience and a lot
of expertise.
Oh, and that's something I would expect a project like MuseScore
to organize.
4:11 p.m.
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Thomas Bonte <thomas.bonte(a)gmail.com> wrote:
And what about Sonatina Symphonic Orchestra:
http://sso.mattiaswestlund.net
It's a start, but is very inconsistent in quality, and if I recall,
most, if not all, of the samples sets are not chromatic (which means
you need to use pitch bend to get at notes that are not available).
--
Brett W. McCoy -- http://www.brettwmccoy.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"In the rhythm of music a secret is hidden; If I were to divulge it,
it would overturn the world."
-- Jelaleddin Rumi
4:12 p.m.
Let's hope this turns into a productive thread and not a flamewar, because
I think this really has potential.
My comments will be the way I see it, and how I understand it from other
musicians I've talked to about Linux audio and music production in general.
Generally, what I think is that what needs to be bridged is the knowledge
gap that hinders people from making the music they want. There are upsides
and downsides to using Linux in this sense, I do think it attracts more
technically proficient users and that that's a good thing in the long run,
but there's only so many of them. Musicians want to record and mess around
with music. They do not want to compile applications or scour the internet
for countless hours looking for suitable plugins.
I think most things can already be done in Linux, even with newer more
MIDI-based musical styels as electronic etc. The issue in my eyes lies with
having something unitary that you can just hand over to people and let them
start messing around themselves with minimal effort.
So in short, what I think is the main issues currently is basically lack of
documentation and "established workflows" that people can just simply get
into using. There's 10 ways to do one thing, and there's rarely information
available to find out easily to use either of the ways.
I got some plans for a small project that will revolve around just
providing a workflow for making electronic music, kind of like gathering
alot of information and provide easy access to a set of plugins, synths and
instruments that people just can start using. The plug-and-play idea I
guess. But that kinds of efforts is what I think is needed more, we do have
alot of very capable technology, people just need to know how to use it.
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 3:58 PM, Dave Phillips <dlphillips(a)woh.rr.com> wrote:
Greetings,
I've been reading a lot of negative (read: vitriolic) commentary about the
world of Linux audio development and applications. I won't bother to say
where, just "the usual places" will have to suffice. Of greater interest to
me is the commentary itself - it seems to boil down to the following
plaints and lamentations (in no particular order) :
Too many distros.
Too many audio-optimized distros.
Not enough native plugins, esp. instruments.
Inconsistent support for VST/VSTi plugins.
Too many unstable/unfinished applications.
Too many "standards" (esp. wrt plugins).
Poor external/internal session management.
Poor support for certain modes of composition (think Ableton Live).
Lack of support for contemporary hardware.
Confusion re: desktops, and GUI toolkits.
Too difficult to set up audio system.
JACK is a pain.
Too much conflict/fragmentation within the development community.
I'm not so interested in comments on the commentary, I have my own, but
say what you will about the list. I figure that most denizens of these
lists already have ready replies and responses to these and other
criticisms, many of which have been voiced here previously. What I'm more
interested in is what *you* think is missing most or just plain wrong about
the situation. Please, try to speak your piece without flames or dissing
other developers and/or their work. Frankly speaking, I've had enough of
that crap, and I'm most thankful these days for such forum amenities as
"mute user" and autodiscard, along with the standard filters found in mail
clients.
<aside>
I'm reminded of John Cage's comments regarding the behavior of the NY
Philharmonic when they destroyed his equipment during the premire of Atlas
Eclipticalis, something to the effect that his concerns had ceased to be
musical and had become social, i.e. that he had to figure a way to allow
people to be free yet behave themselves with respect towards the common
goal (e.g. Cage's music and property). I'm going to guess that he was still
working on that up to his death.
</aside>
So, in your honest and bold opinion as user and/or developer, what do we
lack most and what can we do without that we already have ? Please feel
free to expand your remarks as you like. I'm planning an article on the
topic and will likely use selected comments, subject to approval of course.
Best,
dp
______________________________**_________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@lists.**linuxaudio.org<Linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org>
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/**listinfo/linux-audio-user<http://lists.lin…
4:20 p.m.
On 02/05/2013 11:12 AM, Gabbe Nord wrote:
Let's hope this turns into a productive thread and
not a flamewar,
because I think this really has potential.
Hear the voice. To all: In the interest of clarity, please avoid dialog.
I want to know what the members of LAD and LAU think about the topic,
not each other (or Microsoft or Apple or Steinberg or [your hobby-horse
here]).
Best,
dp
4:29 p.m.
On 02/05/2013 11:20 AM, Dave Phillips wrote:
Hear the voice. To all: In the interest of clarity,
please avoid
dialog. I want to know what the members of LAD and LAU think about the
topic, not each other (or Microsoft or Apple or Steinberg or [your
hobby-horse here]).
Richard Stallman has made the case for freedom and free software. If it
is not doing everything you want, fix it or get it fixed.
4:53 p.m.
New subject: [LAD] So what do you think sucks about Linux audio ?
I'm not saying anything, but if I wanted to troll LAD/LAU, this topic
would be one of my first choices.
On 2/5/13, Dave Phillips <dlphillips(a)woh.rr.com> wrote:
On 02/05/2013 11:20 AM, Dave Phillips wrote:
... In the interest of clarity, please avoid
dialog.
Should have read "unproductive dialog", sorry.
Best,
dp
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
8:44 p.m.
On Tue, February 5, 2013 8:12 am, Gabbe Nord wrote:
I got some plans for a small project that will revolve
around just
providing a workflow for making electronic music, kind of like gathering
alot of information and provide easy access to a set of plugins, synths
That is one of the current goals (as yet unrealized) of UbuntuStudio. That
is to provide the applications and glue for a set of workflows with
documentation including tutorials. It is a big job. The workflows we
choose are not always going to be the right ones and we don't always have
someone who knows a workflow well enough to support it. Right now we have
more acoustic producers (use analog in for everything) that midi tracking
producers. We could use more help in this area. A good documented workflow
is much easier to support.
--
Len Ovens
www.OvenWerks.net
4:27 p.m.
My main complaint is not really about Linux, per se, but the whole DAW, etc.,
scene: Lack of interoperability!
I have a lot of Cakewalk files from the Windows days. Cannot do anything with
them besides play two tracks in Cakewalk-Express using WINE.
I have bought the Harrison Mix Deck (based on Ardour), but I need to be able
to integerate MIDI tools for which one of the other really good Linux DAWs
work better. And so on ...
In Windows, we do not really have sooo much choice. Maybe the "Big 3" and one
chooses one and lives with it. Linux affords much more choice but the choices
may be more specialized, have more distinctive strengths and weaknesses.
BTW, this is a professional list. Maybe I am showing my advanced age and
sensitivities but in my day, "sucks" was considered an expletive. Do we really
need to use such language among our colleagues?
4:34 p.m.
On Tue, 05 Feb 2013 18:26:24 +0200
David Baron <d_baron(a)012.net.il> wrote:
My main complaint is not really about Linux, per se,
but the whole DAW, etc.,
scene: Lack of interoperability!
I have a lot of Cakewalk files from the Windows days. Cannot do anything with
them besides play two tracks in Cakewalk-Express using WINE.
AATranslator is a Windows-based program that converts just about any
DAW's sessions to another. It works really well under WINE and has
let me work on sessions with Ardour that were started in another DAW
just fine. It's commercial software, but I have no problem supporting
such an effort with my cash.
--
======================================================================
Joe Hartley - UNIX/network Consultant - jh(a)brainiac.com
Without deviation from the norm, "progress" is not possible. - FZappa
4:34 p.m.
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 11:26 AM, David Baron <d_baron(a)012.net.il> wrote:
My main complaint is not really about Linux, per se,
but the whole DAW,
etc., scene: Lack of interoperability!
I have a lot of Cakewalk files from the Windows days. Cannot do anything
with them besides play two tracks in Cakewalk-Express using WINE.
AATranslator can convert those for you. It's a Windows program but
runs very well under Wine. I used it to convert some Pro Tools
sessions for Ardour/Mixbus. It can convert many other DAW sessions as
well.
--
Brett W. McCoy -- http://www.brettwmccoy.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"In the rhythm of music a secret is hidden; If I were to divulge it,
it would overturn the world."
-- Jelaleddin Rumi
5:42 p.m.
Disclaimer: I'm kind of out of the loop these days, only doing some
minor audio and music for my own games, using a custom engine.
(http://audiality.org - formerly known as ChipSound) I still work
primarily on Linux, and I use/support JACK, even in the games
themselves. Also, I'm on Gentoo (a rebuilt ex-Sabayon system), so not
using a dedicated audio distro.
Not particularly concerned with plugin APIs either at this point. A2
has its own unit API for the modular voices, but I'd consider that
internal, since this all runs "live" inside the games (can't use GPLed
plugins!), it's tightly integrated with the engine for performance
reasons - and it's all integer/fixed point. (I already had most of
that integer DSP code, and there are still potential target platforms
with crappy on nonexistent FP support...)
Either way, I have two main issues at this point:
1) Horrible latency with other APIs when using JACK.
I'm running a stack of ALSA emulation - PulseAudio - JACK - ALSA. It
"works," but I get ridiculous latencies (a second or more) with
applications using ALSA, and some applications just crash.
Unfortunately, SDL doesn't support PA nor JACK natively - so, I gave
up on that and just added a JACK driver to my sound engine instead.
(Yep, the next release of Kobo II will support JACK where available.)
I suspect it might be possible to improve the latency with the ALSA
emu/PA setup, but I haven't messed with it further. It was quite
enough of a PITA to get it to work at all...
2) Still haven't found a basic, solid MIDI sequencer.
I'll have another go at it one of these days, but my experiences so
far: countless dependencies on cutting edge libraries, crashes, lots
and lots of features I don't need, and missing features that I
absolutely do need.
I'm tempted to just go back to running some old Cakewalk version on a
Windoze box again... All I really need is a plain, not overly
cumbersome MIDI sequencer with piano roll, event list and a few basic
edit operations like cut/paste, quantize, velocity scale, transpose
etc. No audio, no plugins, no session management, no nothing! Oh,
except for that sustain pedal CC - I'm actually using that sometimes!
;-)
--
//David Olofson - Consultant, Developer, Artist, Open Source Advocate
.--- Games, examples, libraries, scripting, sound, music, graphics ---.
| http://consulting.olofson.net http://olofsonarcade.com |
'---------------------------------------------------------------------'
7:18 p.m.
On Tuesday 05 February 2013 18:26:24 David Baron wrote:
My main complaint is not really about Linux, per se,
but the whole DAW,
etc., scene: Lack of interoperability!
I have a lot of Cakewalk files from the Windows days. Cannot do anything
with them besides play two tracks in Cakewalk-Express using WINE.
That is because you have been ignoring that KMidimon reads and plays Cakewalk
WRK files. And my library drumstick-file is available under a free license,
offering this functionality to any interested developer.
For me, this says everything about the worse problem in the Linux audio
development community.
Regards
7:26 p.m.
New subject: [LAD] So what do you think sucks about Linux audio ?
Devin wrote:
"
*1.) Developer releases software.
2.) Users download software.
3.) Users don't give feedback, or give very little feedback, on software.
4.) Developer doesn't continue to develop software because (s)he's
unmotivated to continue due to a perceived lack of community interest
and/or because his/her requirements for the software are satisfied.
5.) Bit-rot ensues.*
"
This is very interesting because it displays that Linux, as a hobbyist
operating system, has a very different motivational set. While on Windows
developers won't typically start writing software unless they have
researched the market and are sure it will be used, on Linux a developer
usually writes software for himself.
In fact, I think even bigger software, like Qtractor, is written as a hobby
(Rui, correct me if I am wrong).
In other words, software on Linux is usually developer-driven, not
user-driven. And this constructs a totally different community and attitude
and method of communication. Linux, at its core, is an operating system for
developers, for people who want to write their own stuff.
To rephrase it, I would also say that Linux Audio as an environment lacks
competition. You don't have to worry your software is out of date or that
someone else introduced a new feature. What is seen as duplicating features
by many is really a mechanism for quality and innovation. Here, on Linux,
there is no such thing as market competition. And thus - no natural
selection of software, so to speak.
L.V.
8:12 p.m.
New subject: [LAD] So what do you think sucks about Linux audio ?
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 2:26 PM, Louigi Verona <louigi.verona(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
Here, on Linux, there is no such thing as market
competition. And thus -
no natural selection of software, so to speak.
if and when bitwig is released for linux, i suspect this will not be the
case anymore.
8:14 p.m.
New subject: [LAD] So what do you think sucks about Linux audio ?
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 12:12 AM, Paul Davis <paul(a)linuxaudiosystems.com>wrote;wrote:
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 2:26 PM, Louigi Verona <louigi.verona(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
Right, but question is - will the hobbyist software community be willing to
enter into a competition of that sort? Real competition will be when
several commercial enterprises compete, not when a commercial, well-funded
project competes with what people do in their free time.
--
Louigi Verona
http://www.louigiverona.ru/
Here, on Linux, there is no such thing as market
competition. And thus -
no natural selection of software, so to speak.
if and when bitwig is released for linux, i suspect this will not be the
case anymore.
9:17 p.m.
New subject: [LAD] So what do you think sucks about Linux audio ?
On Wed, February 6, 2013 7:12 am, Paul Davis wrote:
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 2:26 PM, Louigi Verona
<louigi.verona(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them, One Ring to bring them
all and in the darkness bind them...
We already have market competition. AVID, Apple, Microsoft, AMD, Nokia and
even Google actively work against anything the open source multimedia
developers are throwing at them. Intel is on the fence. They have a large
Linux department but don't make many contributions round here. We don't
here from ARM much either but TI, Qualcomm do support their employees
supporting this community. The strange thing is how many movie studios use
our tools but are not actively contributing to the community. There is a
pickup in radio stations though. However the bulk of the work that is done
is privately funded or research projects.
What sucks about Linux Audio is the guys who print as much money as they
want don't like open source multimedia. They see it as an existential
threat and do everything they can to cripple wider adoption of the tools,
products and services that open source multimedia folks provide.
Given that the Linux Audio Community is not in a position to fight on the
same level we are always the underdog. If I had the ability to print
billions of dollars and rack up trillions of dollars of debt with my
Hereditary Bankster Elite Buddies things would be very different for Open
Source Multimedia. If we didn't have to compete with Government
organisations backed by unlimited funds to make a sale of our products we
would be very busy.
In the meantime I have to feed my kids and pay the rent like every other
Joe who is not a member of the 1% or working for them. I face the choice
of starving to death to make a rental payment so I can have a place to
work 90 hours a week or being forced out of business if I can't pay my tax
on time. Whereas the competition are able to borrow billions from their
mates, create unlimited reserves of cash and never ever have to pay it
back. That really sucks!
Even companies that are generating billions of dollars thanks to open
source multimedia solutions like the ALSA project don't even try to give
anything back to the wider community. Where are the contributions from
the likes of Samsung and Google to Linux Audio and multimedia solutions?
Let alone all the smaller companies that are using our software for their
business products and refuse to chip in occasionally with some useful
contributions.There are many corporations that are quite happy to take the
work that has been done and profit from it but feel absolutely no
motivation to give anything back. That sucks!
--
Patrick Shirkey
Boost Hardware Ltd
Here, on Linux, there is no such thing as market
competition. And thus
-
no natural selection of software, so to speak.
if and when bitwig is released for linux, i suspect this will not be the
case anymore.
9:42 p.m.
New subject: [LAD] So what do you think sucks about Linux audio ?
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 1:17 AM, Patrick Shirkey wrote:
We already have market competition. AVID, Apple,
Microsoft, AMD, Nokia and
even Google actively work against anything the open source multimedia
developers are throwing at them. Intel is on the fence. They have a large
Linux department but don't make many contributions round here.
Right! Apple actively working against OpenCL and LLVM, Nokia actively
working against GStreamer, Google actively working against VP8...
OH WAIT....
:)
The strange thing is how many movie studios use
our tools but are not actively contributing to the community.
You mean, like Sony Imageworks who released and maintain Alembic,
OpenColorIO, and Open Shading Language?
Or like Disney who released Ptex and Partio.
Or like Pixar and OpenSubdiv?
Dude, what in the blazes are you talking about?
Alexandre Prokoudine
http://libregraphicsworld.org
8:56 p.m.
New subject: [LAD] So what do you think sucks about Linux audio ?
On 02/05/2013 07:26 PM, Louigi Verona wrote:
Devin wrote:
"
/1.) Developer releases software.
2.) Users download software.
3.) Users don't give feedback, or give very little feedback, on software.
4.) Developer doesn't continue to develop software because (s)he's
unmotivated to continue due to a perceived lack of community interest
and/or because his/her requirements for the software are satisfied.
5.) Bit-rot ensues./
"
This is very interesting because it displays that Linux, as a hobbyist
operating system, has a very different motivational set. While on
Windows developers won't typically start writing software unless they
have researched the market and are sure it will be used, on Linux a
developer usually writes software for himself.
In fact, I think even bigger software, like Qtractor, is written as a
hobby (Rui, correct me if I am wrong).
correct. has been, it is and will be, have no doubt about that.
In other words, software on Linux is usually
developer-driven, not
user-driven. And this constructs a totally different community and
attitude and method of communication. Linux, at its core, is an
operating system for developers, for people who want to write their own
stuff.
it just happens that i do eat my own dogfood, so maybe i count as
separate as a dev and as a user? :)
To rephrase it, I would also say that Linux Audio as
an environment
lacks competition. You don't have to worry your software is out of date
or that someone else introduced a new feature. What is seen as
duplicating features by many is really a mechanism for quality and
innovation. Here, on Linux, there is no such thing as market
competition. And thus - no natural selection of software, so to speak.
byee
--
rncbc aka Rui Nuno Capela
rncbc(a)rncbc.org
6 Feb
6 Feb
10:29 a.m.
New subject: [LAD] So what do you think sucks about Linux audio ?
On 02/05/2013 10:58 AM, Rui Nuno Capela wrote:
Both, but you're not your typical user. You've been developing your
excellent "dogfood" for years to match your taste preferences - which
may or may not really align with those of a non-developer. Or at least
with a regular user who hasn't had your dogfood before and doesn't have
your extensive experience with it to get them through the learning
process. Or a regular user who's coming from a comparable program that
simply does things differently.
Self-selection is a fundamental thing in open source. It's a fundamental
strength, and a fundamental weakness.
It's a strength in that motivated, passionate developers and users form
a community around a product, guiding its development and maintaining
everyone's motivation. Even helping fund things!
It's a fundamental weakness in that developers and users who don't like
the way a product does things or is being developed, self-select OUT by
choosing another product. They may even be subtly or not so subtly
encouraged to leave: "You don't like the way the program does things?
Then why don't you just go away and use something else?".
So - over time - a product's community comes to consist of people who
like the product, like how it works, think that's the way things should
work, complain when someone posts an idea that would change how things
are done, etc. (BTW, I'm one of that kind of community member.) So
whatever quirks the product began with are amplified, even become set in
stone, are angrily defended by community members when "outsiders" say it
makes no sense to do something in a way that may be completely,
inscrutably and seemingly-irrationally different from the way every
other similar program (or even common usability standard) does it.
(Yes, JPilot - just why DID you decide to use the common UI standard
ctrl-z UNDO key to bring up the dialog box for entering the user's Palm
OS password???? Is that really more useful than an UNDO function? I've
been using JPilot for ages, have never used a password on my Palm Pilot,
and I still hit ctrl-z expecting it to be UNDO!)
No offense intended, maybe I'm just getting old and crotchety. Newer
ain't always better - but the old ways aren't always best, either.
--
David
gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com
authenticity, honesty, community
http://clanjones.org/david/
http://dancing-treefrog.deviantart.com/
In other
words, software on Linux is usually developer-driven, not
user-driven. And this constructs a totally different community and
attitude and method of communication. Linux, at its core, is an
operating system for developers, for people who want to write their own
stuff.
it just happens that i do eat my own dogfood, so maybe i count as
separate as a dev and as a user? :)
5 Feb
5 Feb
9:36 p.m.
New subject: [LAD] So what do you think sucks about Linux audio ?
On Tue, February 5, 2013 11:26 am, Louigi Verona wrote:
In other words, software on Linux is usually
developer-driven, not
user-driven. And this constructs a totally different community and
attitude
and method of communication. Linux, at its core, is an operating system
for
developers, for people who want to write their own stuff.
Interesting, I have been thinking that making music (or video, graphics,
whatever art form) is another form of development. Many of the Linux DEs
are moving more towards a consumer interface role that makes them harder
to develop on. An audio computer for recording (audio or midi) or creating
sound is really a development machine and probably has similar as a code
development machine. Like being able to stuff lots of apps on the same
screen, manually set where your audio/midi is going to. Not only are the
DEs moving in this direction, but so is the hardware. There is nothing
wrong with this as most people who have computers use them as an
entertainment centre of some sort. It does make setting a computer up for
development more difficult.
--
Len Ovens
www.OvenWerks.net
7:56 p.m.
On Tuesday 05 February 2013 21:18:03 Pedro Lopez-Cabanillas wrote:
On Tuesday 05 February 2013 18:26:24 David Baron
wrote:
Thanks for that. I did not know it played the MIDI from these and had never
used kmidimon! I also have the original MIDI files which were simply imported
into Cakewalk. They are very densely post-processed and choke Timidity quite
easily. Still play fine through my rusty-trusty sw60xg card running as a
mpu401 (I have an oddball MB which has ... ISA slots!).
Kmidimon, of course, will not get me the audio tracks, the pre-existing mix-
automation, etc. Plugins, I would not expect. If I want to redo this material,
I would remix it anyway but I need to get it into a Linux DAW. So a
aatranslate, if the OLD files are compatible with Sonar, might be of help.
MIDI is the most "primitive" level and there is nearly full interoperabilty
through midi files. Workflow beyond that is the problem.
My main complaint is not really about Linux, per
se, but the whole DAW,
etc., scene: Lack of interoperability!
I have a lot of Cakewalk files from the Windows days. Cannot do anything
with them besides play two tracks in Cakewalk-Express using WINE.
That is because you have been ignoring that KMidimon reads and plays
Cakewalk WRK files. And my library drumstick-file is available under a
free license, offering this functionality to any interested developer.
For me, this says everything about the worse problem in the Linux audio
development community. 
5:09 p.m.
Hi Dave,
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 6:58 AM, Dave Phillips <dlphillips(a)woh.rr.com> wrote:
Not enough native plugins, esp. instruments.
I think this is one of the key problems with Linux audio. Part of the
problem is that there is no clear mechanism for (non-developer) users
to create their own instruments. Many VSTs are constructed with
modular DSP programs like synthedit and flowstone (formerly
synthmaker). There's probably an opportunity here for Ingen or a new
graphical DSP program based on Faust to fill this hole.
In general, I think that Linux audio has a lot of tools that help
users to create music, but not a lot of tools that help users create
their own tools (e.g. instruments, plugins, sample libraries, etc.) to
help others to create music.
On the development side, I think Aurélien and others like him have the
right idea in taking instruments/plugins that are specific to a Linux
audio application and porting them to LV2. There's a lot of awesome
instruments that are specific to applications (e.g. ALSA Modular
Synth, LMMS, etc.) that would generally be more useful if they were
LV2 plugins.
Poor external/internal session management.
Interacting with external hardware can be frustrating. Commercial
programs like Renoise account for external hardware in their workflows
(e.g. latency management, MIDI clock, MMC, etc.). Most Linux Audio
apps don't do this.
Too much conflict/fragmentation within the development
community.
I've been trying to write something about conflict and fragmentation
for the past 10 minutes. I think this is a complex issue. I'm not
able to find the words to communicate about it right now.
So, in your honest and bold opinion as user and/or
developer, what do we
lack most and what can we do without that we already have ?
As a developer, I'm missing a couple things:
1.) User feedback.
I can't stress this enough. I watch the download counts increase on
the applications I create, but I hardly ever get feedback. I'm
discouraged and frustrated by the lack of feedback.
2.) Non-code developers
We have a lot of dedicated open source developers writing Linux audio
apps, plugins, etc., but I have yet to meet an open source UI
designer, or an open source graphic artist. I think a lot of the apps
we create could benefit from the feedback of a user interface
experience expert.
There's probably more, but these are the two things that occur to me now.
Dave, this is an important topic. Thanks for taking it on.
--
Devin Anderson
surfacepatterns (at) gmail (dot) com
blog - http://surfacepatterns.blogspot.com/
midisnoop - http://midisnoop.googlecode.com/
psinsights - http://psinsights.googlecode.com/
synthclone - http://synthclone.googlecode.com/
5:21 p.m.
New subject: [LAD] So what do you think sucks about Linux audio ?
Short reply to you Devin. I agree with everything you write. A couple of
thoughts on how to adress some of the issues you raise:
User feedback. I always try and provide feedback and suggestions for
whatever I use, and I enjoy doing it too. I think alot of users would like
to do this too, but two general things is kind of lacking in this sense.
These are all general thoughts and nothing to you personally. I remember us
talking about synthclone and I appreciated that very much, so any negatives
shouldn't be taken personally by you ;) :
1. An easy way to provide this feedback, and encouragement to do so.
There's IRC, mailinglists and forums for this, but most apps actually lack
encouragement for feedback. Something as simple as writing "If you like
this software and have ideas/suggestions, please use [insert_method_here]
to contact us, all suggestions are appreciated!". The worst thing that
could happen is that the suggestion isn't used, but I think tons can be
gained by making the user feel more involved.
2. Appreciation for the feedback. Some devs are better then others on
this, but I sadly think it's fairly common that users who try and provide
feedback either get treated as complete idiots, or that the dev takes it as
some form of personal insult.
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 6:09 PM, Devin Anderson <surfacepatterns(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
Hi Dave,
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 6:58 AM, Dave Phillips <dlphillips(a)woh.rr.com>
wrote:
Not enough native plugins, esp. instruments.
I think this is one of the key problems with Linux audio. Part of the
problem is that there is no clear mechanism for (non-developer) users
to create their own instruments. Many VSTs are constructed with
modular DSP programs like synthedit and flowstone (formerly
synthmaker). There's probably an opportunity here for Ingen or a new
graphical DSP program based on Faust to fill this hole.
In general, I think that Linux audio has a lot of tools that help
users to create music, but not a lot of tools that help users create
their own tools (e.g. instruments, plugins, sample libraries, etc.) to
help others to create music.
On the development side, I think Aurélien and others like him have the
right idea in taking instruments/plugins that are specific to a Linux
audio application and porting them to LV2. There's a lot of awesome
instruments that are specific to applications (e.g. ALSA Modular
Synth, LMMS, etc.) that would generally be more useful if they were
LV2 plugins.
Poor external/internal session management.
Interacting with external hardware can be frustrating. Commercial
programs like Renoise account for external hardware in their workflows
(e.g. latency management, MIDI clock, MMC, etc.). Most Linux Audio
apps don't do this.
Too much conflict/fragmentation within the
development community.
I've been trying to write something about conflict and fragmentation
for the past 10 minutes. I think this is a complex issue. I'm not
able to find the words to communicate about it right now.
So, in your honest and bold opinion as user
and/or developer, what do we
lack most and what can we do without that we already have ?
As a developer, I'm missing a couple things:
1.) User feedback.
I can't stress this enough. I watch the download counts increase on
the applications I create, but I hardly ever get feedback. I'm
discouraged and frustrated by the lack of feedback.
2.) Non-code developers
We have a lot of dedicated open source developers writing Linux audio
apps, plugins, etc., but I have yet to meet an open source UI
designer, or an open source graphic artist. I think a lot of the apps
we create could benefit from the feedback of a user interface
experience expert.
There's probably more, but these are the two things that occur to me now.
Dave, this is an important topic. Thanks for taking it on.
--
Devin Anderson
surfacepatterns (at) gmail (dot) com
blog - http://surfacepatterns.blogspot.com/
midisnoop - http://midisnoop.googlecode.com/
psinsights - http://psinsights.googlecode.com/
synthclone - http://synthclone.googlecode.com/
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
5:35 p.m.
New subject: [LAD] So what do you think sucks about Linux audio ?
Hi Gabbe,
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 9:21 AM, Gabbe Nord <gabbe.nord(a)gmail.com> wrote:
1. An easy way to provide this feedback, and
encouragement to do so.
There's IRC, mailinglists and forums for this, but most apps actually lack
encouragement for feedback. Something as simple as writing "If you like this
software and have ideas/suggestions, please use [insert_method_here] to
contact us, all suggestions are appreciated!". The worst thing that could
happen is that the suggestion isn't used, but I think tons can be gained by
making the user feel more involved.
Excellent! This is a start. I can add something like this to the
'About' dialog of my applications.
Questions:
1.) What else can I do, as a developer, to make users feel more involved?
2.) On a similar note, what else can I do, as a developer, to make
developers feel more involved?
2. Appreciation for the feedback. Some devs are
better then others on
this, but I sadly think it's fairly common that users who try and provide
feedback either get treated as complete idiots, or that the dev takes it as
some form of personal insult.
I've seen developers do this. It's really unfortunate.
Thanks for your feedback! :)
--
Devin Anderson
surfacepatterns (at) gmail (dot) com
blog - http://surfacepatterns.blogspot.com/
midisnoop - http://midisnoop.googlecode.com/
psinsights - http://psinsights.googlecode.com/
synthclone - http://synthclone.googlecode.com/
6:33 p.m.
New subject: [LAD] So what do you think sucks about Linux audio ?
An idea is to make a popup that comes up occasionally (maybe once a month
or so) when starting/closing the application. This popup could do several
things that could increase the participation of users, for example:
a) Provide encouragement for involvement. Like "Do you like this
application? Help improve it by visiting our forums and let us know what
you think!".
b) Provide direct links to ongoing user surveys. This is a golden one for
any application I really think. In UI-design, contact and feedback from the
end-user (the people that actually use your application) is golden.
Especially for smaller development teams, where you've been
developing/designing the same application for very long, which of course
makes every part of the UI natural and intuitive to you
Since it's free and open source, people hopefully/likely won't mind helping
out this way. Not everyone has the economy to donate actual money to all
projects around there, but anyone can sit down and state pro's, con's and
perceived issues with the software. You just need an incentive (that the
dev actually care about what you think, and the fact that you can use the
software for free is probably usually very well enough) and an easy way of
doing it. An ongoing, shorter survey (5-10mins maybe) can give tons of very
very valid and good information form your actual users.
c) Provide an easy way to donate. Some people actually have a good income
and can without a doubt donate money. Nicely asking to donate spare cash if
you're satisfied could probably generate some donations this way, if people
also are somewhat frequently reminded of it.
I have some experience of both UI-design and the principles around that,
and also constructing good surveys, and I would love to help out in any way
I can. Like someone else in this thread said, not everyone can code, but
that shouldn't stop them from being able to contribute.
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 6:35 PM, Devin Anderson <surfacepatterns(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
Hi Gabbe,
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 9:21 AM, Gabbe Nord <gabbe.nord(a)gmail.com> wrote:
1. An easy way to provide this feedback, and
encouragement to do so.
There's IRC, mailinglists and forums for this, but most apps actually
lack
encouragement for feedback. Something as simple
as writing "If you like
this
software and have ideas/suggestions, please use
[insert_method_here] to
contact us, all suggestions are appreciated!". The worst thing that could
happen is that the suggestion isn't used, but I think tons can be gained
by
making the user feel more involved.
Excellent! This is a start. I can add something like this to the
'About' dialog of my applications.
Questions:
1.) What else can I do, as a developer, to make users feel more involved?
2.) On a similar note, what else can I do, as a developer, to make
developers feel more involved?
2. Appreciation for the feedback. Some devs are
better then others on
this, but I sadly think it's fairly common that users who try and provide
feedback either get treated as complete idiots, or that the dev takes it
as
some form of personal insult.
I've seen developers do this. It's really unfortunate.
Thanks for your feedback! :)
--
Devin Anderson
surfacepatterns (at) gmail (dot) com
blog - http://surfacepatterns.blogspot.com/
midisnoop - http://midisnoop.googlecode.com/
psinsights - http://psinsights.googlecode.com/
synthclone - http://synthclone.googlecode.com/
7:34 p.m.
New subject: [LAD] So what do you think sucks about Linux audio ?
HI Gabbe,
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 10:33 AM, Gabbe Nord <gabbe.nord(a)gmail.com> wrote:
An idea is to make a popup that comes up occasionally
(maybe once a month or
so) when starting/closing the application. This popup could do several
things that could increase the participation of users, for example:
a) Provide encouragement for involvement. Like "Do you like this
application? Help improve it by visiting our forums and let us know what you
think!".
I think this is a good idea. :)
b) Provide direct links to ongoing user surveys. This
is a golden one for
any application I really think. In UI-design, contact and feedback from the
end-user (the people that actually use your application) is golden.
Especially for smaller development teams, where you've been
developing/designing the same application for very long, which of course
makes every part of the UI natural and intuitive to you
Since it's free and open source, people hopefully/likely won't mind helping
out this way. Not everyone has the economy to donate actual money to all
projects around there, but anyone can sit down and state pro's, con's and
perceived issues with the software. You just need an incentive (that the dev
actually care about what you think, and the fact that you can use the
software for free is probably usually very well enough) and an easy way of
doing it. An ongoing, shorter survey (5-10mins maybe) can give tons of very
very valid and good information form your actual users.
I hadn't considered this. If I created such a survey, I would be
concerned that my own bias would be injected into the questions
themselves. Can you suggest a few sample questions that might exist
in such a survey?
c) Provide an easy way to donate. Some people actually
have a good income
and can without a doubt donate money. Nicely asking to donate spare cash if
you're satisfied could probably generate some donations this way, if people
also are somewhat frequently reminded of it.
I could add a mechanism like this to (a).
I have some experience of both UI-design and the
principles around that, and
also constructing good surveys, and I would love to help out in any way I
can. Like someone else in this thread said, not everyone can code, but that
shouldn't stop them from being able to contribute.
I can't speak for other developers, but I find your suggestions to be
very helpful.
On a personal note, I would absolutely love feedback on the UI design
of both midisnoop and synthclone. I don't have a problem with either
UI, but UI design is *not* my forte, and I have a bias about the
intuitiveness of both UIs, given that I built them.
Thank you for all your help and feedback. :)
--
Devin Anderson
surfacepatterns (at) gmail (dot) com
blog - http://surfacepatterns.blogspot.com/
midisnoop - http://midisnoop.googlecode.com/
psinsights - http://psinsights.googlecode.com/
synthclone - http://synthclone.googlecode.com/
6 Feb
6 Feb
10:51 a.m.
New subject: [LAD] So what do you think sucks about Linux audio ?
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 8:34 PM, Devin Anderson <surfacepatterns(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
I will for sure try and do some evaluation for you! I think I have enough
time for that this weekend even. I'll send you a personal e-mail about this
later today =) Love your enthusiasm/openness!.
Cheers
HI Gabbe,
I hadn't considered this. If I created such a
survey, I would be
concerned that my own bias would be injected into the questions
themselves. Can you suggest a few sample questions that might exist
in such a survey?
Generally, it's all about thinking about what you're actually after. For
example, simple open questions can be good (Like: "Do you experience any
issues using the interface? Please briefly describe them.") for getting a
general knowledge of where problems might lie. Maybe you've been messing
around with MIDI for several years and take for granted that your users
know that just aswell, when the fact might be that this is one of their
first experiences with MIDI. Also, leading questions are to be avoided
under any circumstances. For example "Do you like feature X?" is a bad way
of trying to find out if your features are good, as it implies you should
actually like feature X. If feature X shows up automatically in a question
like "Are there features you like in the program? If so, please describe
briefly which and why." it's way more accurate. I think the potential
"please the experimenter"-bias is a bit bigger here aswell when users might
feel they owe you to like the software as it's free, which also leads to
more biased answers unless handeled right.
But generally, starting off with fairly open questions to get a general
idea of what people have issues with is a good idea, until you have some
actual knowledge about what the issues might be.
http://www.nngroup.com/articles/ten-usability-heuristics/ <- that's also
something to take a brief look at. Those heuristics are frequently used
when doing quick training of evaluators for usability, and might be worth
looking into when looking over your own UI. Evaluation using this could be
very effective, and easily taught to people. Maybe we should look into
having a couple of people getting trained with that (resources available
online for free naturally, and training is fairly short) so we can aid
developers in Linux Audio if they want the help. I'll look into this, I'd
love to get some more experience with evaluation anyway.
c) Provide an easy way to donate. Some people
actually have a good income
and can without a doubt donate money. Nicely asking to donate spare cash
if
you're satisfied could probably generate some
donations this way, if
people
also are somewhat frequently reminded of it.
I could add a mechanism like this to (a).
I have some experience of both UI-design and the
principles around that,
and
also constructing good surveys, and I would love
to help out in any way I
can. Like someone else in this thread said, not everyone can code, but
that
shouldn't stop them from being able to
contribute.
I can't speak for other developers, but I find your suggestions to be
very helpful.
On a personal note, I would absolutely love feedback on the UI design
of both midisnoop and synthclone. I don't have a problem with either
UI, but UI design is *not* my forte, and I have a bias about the
intuitiveness of both UIs, given that I built them.
Thank you for all your help and feedback. :)
--
Devin Anderson
surfacepatterns (at) gmail (dot) com
blog - http://surfacepatterns.blogspot.com/
midisnoop - http://midisnoop.googlecode.com/
psinsights - http://psinsights.googlecode.com/
synthclone - http://synthclone.googlecode.com/
7 Feb
7 Feb
5:19 a.m.
New subject: [LAD] So what do you think sucks about Linux audio ?
On 02/06/2013 12:51 AM, Gabbe Nord wrote:
http://www.nngroup.com/articles/ten-usability-heuristics/ <- that's also
something to take a brief look at. Those heuristics are frequently used
when doing quick training of evaluators for usability, and might be
worth looking into when looking over your own UI. Evaluation using this
could be very effective, and easily taught to people. Maybe we should
look into having a couple of people getting trained with that (resources
available online for free naturally, and training is fairly short) so we
can aid developers in Linux Audio if they want the help. I'll look into
this, I'd love to get some more experience with evaluation anyway.
Thanks, Gebbe, for that link! Delightful summary and excellent rules of
thumb! I hope more programmers pay attention to them!
--
David
gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com
authenticity, honesty, community
http://clanjones.org/david/
http://dancing-treefrog.deviantart.com/
5 Feb
5 Feb
9:11 p.m.
New subject: [LAD] So what do you think sucks about Linux audio ?
On Tue, February 5, 2013 9:21 am, Gabbe Nord wrote:
2. Appreciation for the feedback. Some devs are
better then others on
this, but I sadly think it's fairly common that users who try and provide
feedback either get treated as complete idiots, or that the dev takes it
as
some form of personal insult.
Been there. Don't think the user is an idiot or insulting me, but do
sometimes feel like I am already using more of my families time than I
should and I don't need yet another problem. I think sometimes this
frustration shows in my responses and can be taken the wrong way. I am
very new to this stuff from a development point of view (just putting a
distro together from ready packaged apps and some bug fixing/tracing) and
am learning I don't have to answer right now. To use my time wisely.
--
Len Ovens
www.OvenWerks.net
5:28 p.m.
Great question, Dave. I've been running a semi-professional studio used
for recording client's songs (whatever they may be) for 3 years now, and
I've decided to use Linux. I'll list the issues I've experienced.
1. Lack of good synth / voice plugins. Admittedly, I've never tried to
get VST working in Ardour (and Mixbus), but if that really is as stable as
people seem to profess, I'll have to give it a shot. I need something like
EastWest Brass and Strings and such. Something *really* high-quality that
works as a plugin.
2. I need something akin to Beat Detective. More often than not,
horrible drummers come in, and it would be helpful if I could use a
software-based rhythm detection and correction software instead of
quantizing it by hand. I understand that Rhythm Ferret will eventually be
able to do this, but I haven't seen it working yet.
3. MIDI integration in the DAW. Ardour 3 will have this, and thank
heavens for that. Using Muse->Jack->Ardour works, but it's a bit
cumbersome.
After thinking for a bit, I believe that's all of it. I've thoroughly
enjoyed using Linux, and my clients don't seem to care what I use
(especially when the resultant quality of their masters exceeds their
expectations by a long shot). I plan on using Linux for as long as I'm
able, but the lack of good pro-quality synth / voice plugins is hurting.
That said, I simply must say how awesome the FX plugins for Linux are.
Reverbs / delays / compressors / limiters / gates / EQs are all just as
good, if not better than, any other on any other platform. Kudos to those
at LinuxDSP, as well as everyone else developing these awesome plugins. I
can't wait to try out the Calf plugins, either! Those look like they're
really well done.
--Jason
www.advancedbudgetstudios.com
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 7:58 AM, Dave Phillips <dlphillips(a)woh.rr.com> wrote:
Greetings,
I've been reading a lot of negative (read: vitriolic) commentary about the
world of Linux audio development and applications. I won't bother to say
where, just "the usual places" will have to suffice. Of greater interest to
me is the commentary itself - it seems to boil down to the following
plaints and lamentations (in no particular order) :
Too many distros.
Too many audio-optimized distros.
Not enough native plugins, esp. instruments.
Inconsistent support for VST/VSTi plugins.
Too many unstable/unfinished applications.
Too many "standards" (esp. wrt plugins).
Poor external/internal session management.
Poor support for certain modes of composition (think Ableton Live).
Lack of support for contemporary hardware.
Confusion re: desktops, and GUI toolkits.
Too difficult to set up audio system.
JACK is a pain.
Too much conflict/fragmentation within the development community.
I'm not so interested in comments on the commentary, I have my own, but
say what you will about the list. I figure that most denizens of these
lists already have ready replies and responses to these and other
criticisms, many of which have been voiced here previously. What I'm more
interested in is what *you* think is missing most or just plain wrong about
the situation. Please, try to speak your piece without flames or dissing
other developers and/or their work. Frankly speaking, I've had enough of
that crap, and I'm most thankful these days for such forum amenities as
"mute user" and autodiscard, along with the standard filters found in mail
clients.
<aside>
I'm reminded of John Cage's comments regarding the behavior of the NY
Philharmonic when they destroyed his equipment during the premire of Atlas
Eclipticalis, something to the effect that his concerns had ceased to be
musical and had become social, i.e. that he had to figure a way to allow
people to be free yet behave themselves with respect towards the common
goal (e.g. Cage's music and property). I'm going to guess that he was still
working on that up to his death.
</aside>
So, in your honest and bold opinion as user and/or developer, what do we
lack most and what can we do without that we already have ? Please feel
free to expand your remarks as you like. I'm planning an article on the
topic and will likely use selected comments, subject to approval of course.
Best,
dp
______________________________**_________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@lists.**linuxaudio.org<Linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org>
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/**listinfo/linux-audio-user<http://lists.lin…
5:39 p.m.
Hi Dave,
2013/2/5 Dave Phillips <dlphillips(a)woh.rr.com>om>:
So, in your honest and bold opinion as user and/or
developer, what do we
lack most and what can we do without that we already have ? Please feel free
to expand your remarks as you like. I'm planning an article on the topic and
will likely use selected comments, subject to approval of course.
These days I rely a lot on Addictive drums, it's great but the whole
setup using the VST through Wine is very volatile, it works just fine
on my main composition machine but not so good on others so I'm really
fearing the day when it's upgrade time..
So, in short: I'm missing a decent, native, drum plugin.
The second thing is sound interfaces, for the moment I'm all set but
for the long term there should really exist a _good_ sound card with
open design, thereby securing it's availability.
Just my two ören,
Robert
5:42 p.m.
New subject: [LAD] So what do you think sucks about Linux audio ?
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 9:39 PM, Robert Jonsson wrote:
So, in short: I'm missing a decent, native, drum
plugin.
Which is what DrMr LV2 plug-in tried to be. Sadly, development seems
to have stopped.
Alexandre Prokoudine
http://libregraphicsworld.org
7:07 p.m.
New subject: [LAD] So what do you think sucks about Linux audio ?
Hi Dave!
This thread seems to have gathered a lot of replies and since I'm not home,
I can't read them right now. In the hope of not duplicating too much, here are
my thoughts:
The plugin-systems seem to get a little diverse. the problem from my
perspective is usability in text mode. These things have to be supported and
it's good to have them supported in one tool (or with one tool chain).
And yes I can see, that working on one plugin system (oir two for
instruments and effects) might not really be possible, since we are so many
and there are so many ideas knocking around, some incompatible). But that's a
price I pay everyday, for all the things I have.
Another problem is syncing MIDI and audio. Especially slaving things to
JACK. Mechanisms are there, but implementation is still rather application
dependent. This is for text-utilities.
The really audio optimised lowlatency kernel is a problewm. there still
appear to be a few patches and the discussion comes up regularly. I am
confused by that. I use the vanilla kernel and I am happy, but my system is
rather special.
Other than that, I am quiote happy. JACK audio is the best thing, that ever
happened to me, even JACK MIDI is getting more support. In Linux I have found
the best possible audio environment yet. I've only had second hand experience
with other operating systems. But I can honestly say, that my equipment is
working, it allows me to be very creative and ever more daring in my
processing.
One last damper is of course, that things are always on the move and if I
stay close to the edge, which is someties required, that means living with
appearing and disappearing bugs. that would happen on every system, only most
people don't get to see software in development. I'd rather be there, speak my
mind, get heard or silenced, than only getting finished products, which might
lack comfort in small ways, that can be so helpful.
Warmly yours
Julien
----------------------------------------
http://juliencoder.de/nama/music.html
7:23 p.m.
I use a quite narrow range of hardware and software (and that suits me) so the
problems I see are fairly limited.
The lead devs of the two applications I use most heavily, Rosegarden & Yoshimi,
are absolutely desperate for assistance. Although these programs do a lot
extremely well, there are plenty of rough edges that need smoothing, and people
just don't have the time. Critics would do well to stand back and consider
that almost all FLOSS projects are run on a spare time basis.
--
Will J Godfrey
http://www.musically.me.uk
Say you have a poem and I have a tune.
Exchange them and we can both have a poem, a tune, and a song.
8:56 p.m.
On Tue, February 5, 2013 6:58 am, Dave Phillips wrote:
So, in your honest and bold opinion as user and/or
developer, what do we
lack most and what can we do without that we already have ? Please feel
free to expand your remarks as you like. I'm planning an article on the
topic and will likely use selected comments, subject to approval of
course.
I am seeing a need for sip audio transport that connects natively with
jack. Not just telephone SW, but the higher quality streams as well (as
used by EBU for example). There probably needs to be some good
documentation that explains to developers the difference in philosophy of
jack compared to desktop applications. For example, a jack application
_should_ open jack ports when the application first starts up and not
close them until the application closes rather than opening the port just
when it is needed for sending sound. This is important for routing and
setting levels and adding effects and... In fact, with the switch over of
most desktops to pulseaudio (remember no flames :) ) even desktop use apps
could remain connected for as long as the app runs. (probably not possible
for things like browser plugins though)
--
Len Ovens
www.OvenWerks.net
10:56 p.m.
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 6:58 AM, Dave Phillips <dlphillips(a)woh.rr.com> wrote:
Greetings,
I've been reading a lot of negative (read: vitriolic) commentary about the
world of Linux audio development and applications. I won't bother to say
where, just "the usual places" will have to suffice. Of greater interest to
me is the commentary itself - it seems to boil down to the following
plaints and lamentations (in no particular order) :
Too many distros.
Too many audio-optimized distros.
Not enough native plugins, esp. instruments.
Inconsistent support for VST/VSTi plugins.
Too many unstable/unfinished applications.
Too many "standards" (esp. wrt plugins).
Poor external/internal session management.
Poor support for certain modes of composition (think Ableton Live).
Lack of support for contemporary hardware.
Confusion re: desktops, and GUI toolkits.
Too difficult to set up audio system.
JACK is a pain.
Too much conflict/fragmentation within the development community.
I'm not so interested in comments on the commentary, I have my own, but
say what you will about the list. I figure that most denizens of these
lists already have ready replies and responses to these and other
criticisms, many of which have been voiced here previously. What I'm more
interested in is what *you* think is missing most or just plain wrong about
the situation. Please, try to speak your piece without flames or dissing
other developers and/or their work. Frankly speaking, I've had enough of
that crap, and I'm most thankful these days for such forum amenities as
"mute user" and autodiscard, along with the standard filters found in mail
clients.
<aside>
I'm reminded of John Cage's comments regarding the behavior of the NY
Philharmonic when they destroyed his equipment during the premire of Atlas
Eclipticalis, something to the effect that his concerns had ceased to be
musical and had become social, i.e. that he had to figure a way to allow
people to be free yet behave themselves with respect towards the common
goal (e.g. Cage's music and property). I'm going to guess that he was still
working on that up to his death.
</aside>
So, in your honest and bold opinion as user and/or developer, what do we
lack most and what can we do without that we already have ? Please feel
free to expand your remarks as you like. I'm planning an article on the
topic and will likely use selected comments, subject to approval of course.
Best,
dp
The biggest problem is that there are more people talking than there are
people doing. There are a 100 people to tell you this or that UI is shit,
but absolutely no-one to step up and do something about it. Users assume
that they're going to get the same level of integration and customer
support from free-software that they get from some $7000 commercial product
and get irate when it doesn't happen. With very few exceptions, LAD
software is not written for 'the users', it is written for the needs of the
developers and gifted to the community without warranty. I think the
conflict comes up more in LAD than other free-software arenas simply
because music attracts more novice/non-technical types (particularly
annoying Windows trolls) than does, say, forensic data analysis. So the
second problem with LAD is unreasonable expectations. Nobody said the goal
of Linux Audio was to replace Non-Linux Audio. The goal of Linux Audio is
simply to provide free-software alternatives for people who give a shit
(this group consists mostly of the LAD developers themselves). Yes, the
many standards/approches can be annoying.. But since when is diversity a
bad thing? This is a living, organic process driven by people with very
limited time and resources. If you want it to move faster or work better,
all you need to do is stop running your mouth and help.
And the problem of there being no such thing as an open source graphic
designer or UX expert applies to all free-software, not just LAD.
11:09 p.m.
New subject: [LAD] So what do you think sucks about Linux audio ?
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 2:56 AM, J. Liles wrote:
The biggest problem is that there are more people
talking than there are
people doing. There are a 100 people to tell you this or that UI is shit,
but absolutely no-one to step up and do something about it.
That would be an exaggeration, although I see where you are coming from.
Now, this:
With very few exceptions, LAD software is not
written for 'the users', it is written for the needs of the developers and
gifted to the community without warranty.
kinda contradicts this:
Nobody said the goal of Linux Audio was to replace
Non-Linux
Audio. The goal of Linux Audio is simply to provide free-software
alternatives for people who give a shit (this group consists mostly of the
LAD developers themselves).
And then...
Yes, the many standards/approches can be
annoying.. But since when is diversity a bad thing?
Since dawn of times, J.
Creating a complex product requires certain expertise. Acquiring that
expertise is a matter of time and devotion, hence the amount of people
having it is rather small. Divided, they cannot make usable software
fast enough.
And the problem of there being no such thing as an
open source graphic
designer or UX expert applies to all free-software, not just LAD.
I really love how bravely you make use of hyperbole :) I'm not sure if
you ever stumbled upon 100% lack of imagination, but I assure you that
there will be people who will understand you literally. And that would
be quite a disaster.
Alexandre Prokoudine
http://libregraphicsworld.org
11:56 p.m.
on Tue, Feb 05, 2013 at 09:58:14AM -0500, Dave Phillips wrote:
Greetings,
I've been reading a lot of negative (read: vitriolic) commentary
about the world of Linux audio development and applications. I won't
bother to say where, just "the usual places" will have to suffice.
Of greater interest to me is the commentary itself - it seems to
boil down to the following plaints and lamentations (in no
particular order) :
i'd like to weigh in on some of these as well.
as i post here infrequently, a quick bit of background on me: i am an
electronic musician who also records real instruments, though
infrequently. i have been running Linux exclusively throughout my music
explorations.
i use renoise at the moment.
you can listen to my music at http://soundcloud.com/visinin if you'd
like.
Too many distros.
Too many audio-optimized distros.
i can't comment on these, having been using the same distribution (arch)
for the past 4 or so years.
Not enough native plugins, esp. instruments.
absolutely an issue. my workhorse plugin is Loomer Aspect (a
semi-modular synthesizer), which is a native Linux VST. I own several
more Loomer plugins and have been considering picking up a license for
DiscoDSP Discovery.
extent of the jam recently released his Digits synthesizer VST for linux
as well (http://extentofthejam.com/ if you haven't seen it), which is
nice. regardless, though.
Linux audio has this problem of critical mass. when energyXT came out,
nobody really released much new stuff. it was all jorgen porting stuff,
and then jucetice. highlife, discovery, loomer plugs...all fantastic,
certainly, but there's not much of it.
it will be interesting to see what happens if and when bitwig is
released. a lot of people are using JUCE now, and that makes porting at
least possible.
Inconsistent support for VST/VSTi plugins.
renoise's plugin support is pretty good. i would really like LV2 support
but that's not my decision to make.
Too many unstable/unfinished applications.
in order, i've used beast/BSE, seq24 routed into a bunch of fluidsynths,
csound with blue, some toying with ardour, energyXT and finally renoise.
some software i just never got working. i never figured rosegarden out
(but for a long time it couldn't do instrument plugins), compiling MusE
was hit or miss, LMMS is good but I had XT and renoise by then...and
every time i use ardour i crash it somehow. it doesn't seem to like my
little micro-editing aphex-twin-wannabe style.
Too many "standards" (esp. wrt plugins).
i really like LV2 but the documentation is nigh-impenetrable. i've made
a few comments to this effect on drobilla's blog, and i agree that an
LV2 book would go a long way.
side note: did anybody else see pitracker? somebody wrote an LV2 synth
host that runs on the raspberry pi.
https://github.com/Joeboy/pixperiments/tree/master/pitracker
Poor external/internal session management.
haven't tried any, i work entirely inside my host.
Poor support for certain modes of composition (think
Ableton Live).
absolutely. everybody likes to use ableton live here, but i still think
we're missing a really good NLE. hell, i own a REAPER license and use it
through wineasio occasionally just because it's so comfortable. i've
tried ardour3 but i crash it every time.
Lack of support for contemporary hardware.
i have to disagree here, actually! i would first like to shout out
daniel mack of caiaq for ensuring that all of the native instruments
audio interfaces work on linux, and fantastically well at that. i
recently picked up a focusrite saffire 2i2 and have had no problems at
all with it.
that said, the more pro it gets, the worse the support. i won't even
touch FFADO, i'm sorry, it's just never worked for me. i sold an echo
audiofire2 after i couldn't make it work and i have a secondhand
ultralite mk1 that just gathers dust.
it's interesting to me that manufacturers are starting to make
class-compliant devices just to make them work on apple's iDevices.
also, modern midi controller hardware works on a driver level but very
few programs support it.
Confusion re: desktops, and GUI toolkits.
as a dwm user, i will stay out of this one. i don't really like either
gtk or qt though, which sort of limits my options.
Too difficult to set up audio system.
i don't have any issues and i generally run vanilla kernels. lately i've
been playing with the -ck patchset with BFS and have been very happy
with it. i'm comfortable playing live (both djing with xwax and doing
live monome sets with my own software, rove) with this configuration.
maybe i'll drop the JACK buffer size a little.
JACK is a pain.
at least it's not pulseaudio. also, i haven't had any trouble setting
JACK up since i ditched my firewire interfaces. *that* was a nightmare.
but JACK on ALSA? buttery smooth.
JACK could perhaps be a bit better about autodiscovering soundcard
parameters. maybe my memory is failing me here, but i faintly recall
having issues when JACK couldn't get the sample format it wanted.
Too much conflict/fragmentation within the development
community.
maybe? i feel like it's a lot better than it used to be now that there's
just more software around.
it's interesting to me that free (source and/or beer) music software on
OSX and windows has come further than it has on Linux. off the top of
my head:
http://psycle.pastnotecut.org/portal.php
http://www.buzzmachines.com/
is it because of the userbase? is it because of the maturity and
availability of toolkits on other platforms? buzz's website has been
around since 2000. what was audio on linux like then? i'm thinking it
might be the userbase, or at least that makes more sense.
anyway, i've written quite a bit more here than i've intended, but i'm
absolutely up to discuss any of it.
thanks again, dave. you've been a fixture in this scene for as long as i
can remember.
peace,
-w
I'm not so interested in comments on the
commentary, I have my own,
but say what you will about the list. I figure that most denizens of
these lists already have ready replies and responses to these and
other criticisms, many of which have been voiced here previously.
What I'm more interested in is what *you* think is missing most or
just plain wrong about the situation. Please, try to speak your
piece without flames or dissing other developers and/or their work.
Frankly speaking, I've had enough of that crap, and I'm most
thankful these days for such forum amenities as "mute user" and
autodiscard, along with the standard filters found in mail clients.
<aside>
I'm reminded of John Cage's comments regarding the behavior of the
NY Philharmonic when they destroyed his equipment during the premire
of Atlas Eclipticalis, something to the effect that his concerns had
ceased to be musical and had become social, i.e. that he had to
figure a way to allow people to be free yet behave themselves with
respect towards the common goal (e.g. Cage's music and property).
I'm going to guess that he was still working on that up to his
death.
</aside>
So, in your honest and bold opinion as user and/or developer, what
do we lack most and what can we do without that we already have ?
Please feel free to expand your remarks as you like. I'm planning an
article on the topic and will likely use selected comments, subject
to approval of course.
Best,
dp
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
6 Feb
6 Feb
3:21 a.m.
William Light... Man.. This suggestions are super!!
I never hear before a lot of good softwares to do eletronic music in
Linux.. Thanks a Lot!!!
2013/2/5 William Light <wrl(a)illest.net>
on Tue, Feb 05, 2013 at 09:58:14AM -0500, Dave
Phillips wrote:
--
Esteban Viveros
(27) 8815 7170
(27) 3066 0359
(11) 95761 4125
(11) 2738 7868
www.bandpage.com/estebanviveros <http://soundcloud.com/estebanviveros>
https://www.facebook.com/estebanviveros.art
http://www.papodecompositor-es.blogspot.com.br/
http://expurgacao.art.br/
Greetings,
I've been reading a lot of negative (read: vitriolic) commentary
about the world of Linux audio development and applications. I won't
bother to say where, just "the usual places" will have to suffice.
Of greater interest to me is the commentary itself - it seems to
boil down to the following plaints and lamentations (in no
particular order) :
i'd like to weigh in on some of these as well.
as i post here infrequently, a quick bit of background on me: i am an
electronic musician who also records real instruments, though
infrequently. i have been running Linux exclusively throughout my music
explorations.
i use renoise at the moment.
you can listen to my music at http://soundcloud.com/visinin if you'd
like.
Too many distros.
Too many audio-optimized distros.
i can't comment on these, having been using the same distribution (arch)
for the past 4 or so years.
Not enough native plugins, esp. instruments.
absolutely an issue. my workhorse plugin is Loomer Aspect (a
semi-modular synthesizer), which is a native Linux VST. I own several
more Loomer plugins and have been considering picking up a license for
DiscoDSP Discovery.
extent of the jam recently released his Digits synthesizer VST for linux
as well (http://extentofthejam.com/ if you haven't seen it), which is
nice. regardless, though.
Linux audio has this problem of critical mass. when energyXT came out,
nobody really released much new stuff. it was all jorgen porting stuff,
and then jucetice. highlife, discovery, loomer plugs...all fantastic,
certainly, but there's not much of it.
it will be interesting to see what happens if and when bitwig is
released. a lot of people are using JUCE now, and that makes porting at
least possible.
Inconsistent support for VST/VSTi plugins.
renoise's plugin support is pretty good. i would really like LV2 support
but that's not my decision to make.
Too many unstable/unfinished applications.
in order, i've used beast/BSE, seq24 routed into a bunch of fluidsynths,
csound with blue, some toying with ardour, energyXT and finally renoise.
some software i just never got working. i never figured rosegarden out
(but for a long time it couldn't do instrument plugins), compiling MusE
was hit or miss, LMMS is good but I had XT and renoise by then...and
every time i use ardour i crash it somehow. it doesn't seem to like my
little micro-editing aphex-twin-wannabe style.
Too many "standards" (esp. wrt
plugins).
i really like LV2 but the documentation is nigh-impenetrable. i've made
a few comments to this effect on drobilla's blog, and i agree that an
LV2 book would go a long way.
side note: did anybody else see pitracker? somebody wrote an LV2 synth
host that runs on the raspberry pi.
https://github.com/Joeboy/pixperiments/tree/master/pitracker
Poor external/internal session management.
haven't tried any, i work entirely inside my host.
Poor support for certain modes of composition
(think Ableton Live).
absolutely. everybody likes to use ableton live here, but i still think
we're missing a really good NLE. hell, i own a REAPER license and use it
through wineasio occasionally just because it's so comfortable. i've
tried ardour3 but i crash it every time.
Lack of support for contemporary hardware.
i have to disagree here, actually! i would first like to shout out
daniel mack of caiaq for ensuring that all of the native instruments
audio interfaces work on linux, and fantastically well at that. i
recently picked up a focusrite saffire 2i2 and have had no problems at
all with it.
that said, the more pro it gets, the worse the support. i won't even
touch FFADO, i'm sorry, it's just never worked for me. i sold an echo
audiofire2 after i couldn't make it work and i have a secondhand
ultralite mk1 that just gathers dust.
it's interesting to me that manufacturers are starting to make
class-compliant devices just to make them work on apple's iDevices.
also, modern midi controller hardware works on a driver level but very
few programs support it.
Confusion re: desktops, and GUI toolkits.
as a dwm user, i will stay out of this one. i don't really like either
gtk or qt though, which sort of limits my options.
Too difficult to set up audio system.
i don't have any issues and i generally run vanilla kernels. lately i've
been playing with the -ck patchset with BFS and have been very happy
with it. i'm comfortable playing live (both djing with xwax and doing
live monome sets with my own software, rove) with this configuration.
maybe i'll drop the JACK buffer size a little.
JACK is a pain.
at least it's not pulseaudio. also, i haven't had any trouble setting
JACK up since i ditched my firewire interfaces. *that* was a nightmare.
but JACK on ALSA? buttery smooth.
JACK could perhaps be a bit better about autodiscovering soundcard
parameters. maybe my memory is failing me here, but i faintly recall
having issues when JACK couldn't get the sample format it wanted.
Too much conflict/fragmentation within the
development community.
maybe? i feel like it's a lot better than it used to be now that there's
just more software around.
it's interesting to me that free (source and/or beer) music software on
OSX and windows has come further than it has on Linux. off the top of
my head:
http://psycle.pastnotecut.org/portal.php
http://www.buzzmachines.com/
is it because of the userbase? is it because of the maturity and
availability of toolkits on other platforms? buzz's website has been
around since 2000. what was audio on linux like then? i'm thinking it
might be the userbase, or at least that makes more sense.
anyway, i've written quite a bit more here than i've intended, but i'm
absolutely up to discuss any of it.
thanks again, dave. you've been a fixture in this scene for as long as i
can remember.
peace,
-w
I'm not so interested in comments on the
commentary, I have my own,
but say what you will about the list. I figure that most denizens of
these lists already have ready replies and responses to these and
other criticisms, many of which have been voiced here previously.
What I'm more interested in is what *you* think is missing most or
just plain wrong about the situation. Please, try to speak your
piece without flames or dissing other developers and/or their work.
Frankly speaking, I've had enough of that crap, and I'm most
thankful these days for such forum amenities as "mute user" and
autodiscard, along with the standard filters found in mail clients.
<aside>
I'm reminded of John Cage's comments regarding the behavior of the
NY Philharmonic when they destroyed his equipment during the premire
of Atlas Eclipticalis, something to the effect that his concerns had
ceased to be musical and had become social, i.e. that he had to
figure a way to allow people to be free yet behave themselves with
respect towards the common goal (e.g. Cage's music and property).
I'm going to guess that he was still working on that up to his
death.
</aside>
So, in your honest and bold opinion as user and/or developer, what
do we lack most and what can we do without that we already have ?
Please feel free to expand your remarks as you like. I'm planning an
article on the topic and will likely use selected comments, subject
to approval of course.
Best,
dp
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
3:45 a.m.
New subject: [LAD] So what do you think sucks about Linux audio ?
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 6:56 PM, William Light <wrl(a)illest.net> wrote:
you can listen to my music at http://soundcloud.com/visinin if you'd
like.
some nice stuff in there. camphor and you was particularly appealing (to me)
.and
every time i use ardour i crash it somehow. it doesn't seem to like my
little micro-editing aphex-twin-wannabe style.
once we get ardour 3.0 out, i hope you'll give it a chance and report back
on the experience.
--p
1:09 p.m.
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 9:58 AM, Dave Phillips <dlphillips(a)woh.rr.com> wrote:
So, in your honest and bold opinion as user and/or developer, what do we
lack most and what can we do without that we already have ? Please feel
free to expand your remarks as you like. I'm planning an article on the
topic and will likely use selected comments, subject to approval of course.
Linux sucks often comes down to, I am not used to it so therefore it sucks
because I don't know it. There are many reasons for this, which I just
won't cover here, but there are also legitimate reasons to dislike using
Linux, or to think it isn't as good as some of the alternatives. To name a
few of my personal ones...
Documentation: I will come back to this.
Plugins:
While we have plugins, it is very difficult to tell exactly what is
decent or isn't without spending a lot of time with it. Some plugins sound
great, but seem to crash my session fairly often with little warning. You
can say this is a problem on other platforms as well, and you would be
correct to an extent when talking about plugins developed in the spare time
of someone, or other 'free' solutions that aren't supported. But I gotta
say, I can't think of the last time one of my commercial plugins crashed a
PT session. Hell even running them through Wine with Festige they are
pretty dang stable(I have had two instances I think where i had to restart
everything, Jack, Festige, etc. as they weren't processing audio correctly,
which may be as much Wine, Festige or any number of things as the
plugins). Many plugins sound horrible, but it is hard to identify these
without going through each of the hundreds of plugins available. And then
you get those few gems that sound great and are stable.
Audio Hardware:
Not just IO hardware, but that is huge as well. And I don't mean to say
this is the fault of the Linux Community, in many cases it is the
manufacturers, straight up. RME is good stuff, don't get me wrong, and I
love my RME interface. I also know that courtesy of FFADO etc. we have
many more selections than we used to and have some solid mid range things,
Focusrite and Echo Audio come to mind especially. I also found that with
little work I could get my Mackie Onyx-i series working if I cared to. All
well and good, but then we have things like Dante, which is picking up
steam in the live sound world, especially for multitrack recording, and
interfaces with a lot of live processing/mixers/etc. Or we have things
like a Metric Halo interface, or any number of interfaces coming out
nowadays that have onboard DSP effects or dynamics processing. The MH
units are a great example because of their flexible nature, but even more
basic like the onboard DSP on many Focusrite or Lexicon interfaces are not
supported. Or even more basic things like my Apogee Duet, which I see
there are reports of it working that doesn't seem to be to certain, I have
never bothered trying, or many interfaces without hardware controls that
depend on software control we just don't have software for. . And then of
course you get to the topic of things like Universal Audio's DSP cards, or
the SSL Duende, etc. All of these would be great for running commercial
plugins on, except we can't use them of course.
Audio 'Drivers':
This is still an issue, and it is an issue because the average user can't
download Ubuntu and install Ardour, and have it run without having to set
it up and tweak it. This is in part due to the blessing and curse both of
'choice' in that for most of us here, we know standard Ubuntu probably
isn't the best choice, or we know that we have to add realtime permissions
to our user, or half a dozen other things. But the average person from a
different OS that doesn't know Linux is going to download Ubuntu, or
Fedora, or whatever distribution they have heard of, or happen across first
in a Google search. Contrast this to OS X, user installs the OS, Download
the app, and runs it, and all permissions, setup etc. are taken care of for
them. Or on Windows where without tweaking at least the damn stuff
opens(Can't say that about the 'typical' Linux install with pro audio that
depends on Jack as it is looking for realtime permissions) even if it
doesn't run well.
Back to Documentation:
We lack a good single reference we can point people to for information.
linuxaudio.org is a start I suppose but I gotta say, if I go there thinking
as a new user looking for information on what hardware works with Linux for
audio, I could go to the site and have no freaking clue where to go from
there. It is set up much more for the people that already know Linux, as
opposed to the people that want to know more about Linux Audio because they
are interested in learning about it. And to clarify, yes I personally know
that under 'Resources' there are some good resources there, but as a new
user, the typical kind I generally have to help in IRC, or elsewhere this
would mean nothing. And even after clicking that it means little looking
at the list of things. I am picking on Linuxaudio.org but that is just one
example of many.
On #Ardour we have known for a long time that good documentation is
needed, but it wasn't till the past couple of years that something
happened. The FLOSS Manual is a strong start, but many people come to IRC
before finding it. What does that say when someone comes to IRC that knows
nothing about Linux, and in many cases might know nothing about IRC, before
they find the manual to a product? What does it say when the most common
question I see about Ardour is, does my hardware work with it? The most
common answer(That I myself give) yes so long as Jack works with it, or so
long as your OS works with it. I say this even though it means nothing to
the people using the hardware. We can send them to ALSA Matrix, or to
FFADO, or tell them so long as their device is 'class-compliant' it will
work, but damn, that is pretty painful compared to them just knowing if it
will work or not form the manufacturer. Even if they can find out if the
device works, they have no idea HOW to get it working if the distribtuion
doesn't do it for them, which leads to the second question, and on. And
what about devices that aren't listed? We list devices that are known to
work, but don't even address often devices that DON'T work, leading to lots
of questions about devices that won't work with Linux just because they
couldn't find a definitive answer anywhere that it wouldn't work. Again I
know FFADO does this to an extent certainly, but the ALSA Matrix for
example doesn't, and we are still sending people to multiple sites to
figure this out.
These are just a couple of examples. Documentation in general just needs
to be rethought as a community I think. But noone will ever be happy with
it, so maybe I am just a grumpy old coot telling you youngins to get off my
lawn as this has been gone around many times:)
Seablade
1:19 p.m.
2013/2/5 Dave Phillips <dlphillips(a)woh.rr.com>
Greetings,
I've been reading a lot of negative (read: vitriolic) commentary about the
world of Linux audio development and applications. I won't bother to say
where, just "the usual places" will have to suffice. Of greater interest to
me is the commentary itself - it seems to boil down to the following
plaints and lamentations (in no particular order) :
Too many distros.
Too many audio-optimized distros.
Not enough native plugins, esp. instruments.
Inconsistent support for VST/VSTi plugins.
Too many unstable/unfinished applications.
Too many "standards" (esp. wrt plugins).
Poor external/internal session management.
Poor support for certain modes of composition (think Ableton Live).
Lack of support for contemporary hardware.
Confusion re: desktops, and GUI toolkits.
Too difficult to set up audio system.
JACK is a pain.
Too much conflict/fragmentation within the development community.
One could be a professional with/without skills and/or an hobbyist
with/without skills, no matter who you are you need apps which doesn't turn
sound engineer or a guitar player or composer into a *nix OS student.
The majority of linux audio apps are such a mess to work with for the
majority of, let's say, pure musicians which in turn are not interested at
all in learning an OS to play music with a usb keyboard throug Qsynth,
record things with Ardour, use Guitarix, configure a soundcard, etc etc...
that's all.
So IMHO what really sucks is this overall geek approach of LAD vs end
users, there is no one to blame for that but nevertheless it prevents lots
of people to join.
regards
r
3:49 p.m.
On 02/06/2013 08:19 AM, Raffaele Morelli wrote:
So IMHO what really sucks is this overall geek approach of LAD vs end
users, there is no one to blame for that but nevertheless it prevents
lots of people to join.
I had to laugh at this. Every once in a while, I will search to see if
there are any new LADSPA or LV2 plugins. I often see plugins described
by their mathematical function, with NO hint of what it actually does.
If linux audio would like to get its foot in the door with guitarists,
defining available plugins only by math function is not the way to go
about it. It almost seems like some plugins exists only because they
were someone's class assignment (write a plugin using FFT).
--
---
My bands, CD projects, music, news, and pictures:
http://www.lateralforce.com
My blog, with commentary on a variety of things, including audio,
mixing, equipment, etc, is at:
http://audioandmore.wordpress.com
Staat heißt das kälteste aller kalten Ungeheuer. Kalt lügt es auch;
und diese Lüge kriecht aus seinem Munde: 'Ich, der Staat, bin das Volk.'
- [Friedrich Nietzsche]
4:19 p.m.
Am 06.02.2013 16:49, schrieb Al Thompson:
I had to laugh at this. Every once in a while, I will
search to see if
there are any new LADSPA or LV2 plugins. I often see plugins described
by their mathematical function, with NO hint of what it actually does.
If linux audio would like to get its foot in the door with guitarists,
defining available plugins only by math function is not the way to go
about it. It almost seems like some plugins exists only because they
were someone's class assignment (write a plugin using FFT).
Usually I
wouldn't answer on this topic, even if I have some concerns,
but I will repeat on this.
Because my last announcements here on this list was exactly about LV2
plug-ins for guitarist which indeed use at least FFT.
This release introduce the first LV2 plugs created
from the guitarix
amps. Well, they will perfectly fit into hotel sierra
* GxAmplifier tube 12ax7 tonestack sovtek cabinet 4x12
* GxAmplifier-II tube 12AT7 tonestack soldano cabinet AC30
* GxAmplifier-III tube 6C16 tonestack bassman cabinet 1x15
* GxAmplifier-IV tube 6V6 tonestack soldano cabinet mesa
* GxAmplifier-V tube 6DJ8 tonestack ampeg cabinet HighGain
there are mono and stereo versions of those amps included in the bundle
The time were I have to wrote class assignments is a couple of years ago.
I fail to see any description by math function.
But as well, I fail to see any user feedback at all on this.
5:44 p.m.
On 02/06/2013 11:19 AM, hermann meyer wrote:
Am 06.02.2013 16:49, schrieb Al Thompson:
For the record, I hadn't even thought about your plugins, because you
give a GOOD description of what it is, what it does, and a GREAT idea of
what it will sound like.
The ones I was talking about give ONLY a description like "FFT plugin"
or some such vague term. A typical audio user, or musician, is not
going to have ANY idea what that plugin is, what is would be used for,
or what its purpose is.
I consider your descriptions to be some of the best!
--
---
My bands, CD projects, music, news, and pictures:
http://www.lateralforce.com
My blog, with commentary on a variety of things, including audio,
mixing, equipment, etc, is at:
http://audioandmore.wordpress.com
Staat heißt das kälteste aller kalten Ungeheuer. Kalt lügt es auch;
und diese Lüge kriecht aus seinem Munde: 'Ich, der Staat, bin das Volk.'
- [Friedrich Nietzsche]
I had to laugh at this. Every once in a while, I
will search to see if
there are any new LADSPA or LV2 plugins. I often see plugins described
by their mathematical function, with NO hint of what it actually does.
If linux audio would like to get its foot in the door with guitarists,
defining available plugins only by math function is not the way to go
about it. It almost seems like some plugins exists only because they
were someone's class assignment (write a plugin using FFT).
Usually I
wouldn't answer on this topic, even if I have some concerns,
but I will repeat on this.
Because my last announcements here on this list was exactly about LV2
plug-ins for guitarist which indeed use at least FFT.
This release introduce the first LV2 plugs
created from the guitarix
amps. Well, they will perfectly fit into hotel sierra
* GxAmplifier tube 12ax7 tonestack sovtek cabinet 4x12
* GxAmplifier-II tube 12AT7 tonestack soldano cabinet AC30
* GxAmplifier-III tube 6C16 tonestack bassman cabinet 1x15
* GxAmplifier-IV tube 6V6 tonestack soldano cabinet mesa
* GxAmplifier-V tube 6DJ8 tonestack ampeg cabinet HighGain
there are mono and stereo versions of those amps included in the bundle
The time were I have to wrote class assignments is a couple of years ago.
I fail to see any description by math function.
But as well, I fail to see any user feedback at all on this.
7 Feb
7 Feb
5:17 a.m.
On 02/06/2013 07:44 AM, Al Thompson wrote:
On 02/06/2013 11:19 AM, hermann meyer wrote:
For plugins (and, really, all programs) there should be a good
description of what it does and how it DIFFERS from other programs that
do the same thing. I regularly see announcements about new or updated
audio apps that basically have a copy/paste of the changelog listing all
the bugs fixed/features added - but don't say a thing about what the
program actually does. The assumption seems to be, "Oh, everyone has
heard of my program and knows what it does!"
--
David
gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com
authenticity, honesty, community
http://clanjones.org/david/
http://dancing-treefrog.deviantart.com/
Am 06.02.2013 16:49, schrieb Al Thompson:
For the record, I hadn't even thought about your plugins, because you
give a GOOD description of what it is, what it does, and a GREAT idea of
what it will sound like.
The ones I was talking about give ONLY a description like "FFT plugin"
or some such vague term. A typical audio user, or musician, is not
going to have ANY idea what that plugin is, what is would be used for,
or what its purpose is.
I consider your descriptions to be some of the best! I had to laugh at this. Every once in a while, I
will search to see if
there are any new LADSPA or LV2 plugins. I often see plugins described
by their mathematical function, with NO hint of what it actually does.
If linux audio would like to get its foot in the door with guitarists,
defining available plugins only by math function is not the way to go
about it. It almost seems like some plugins exists only because they
were someone's class assignment (write a plugin using FFT).
Usually I
wouldn't answer on this topic, even if I have some concerns,
but I will repeat on this.
Because my last announcements here on this list was exactly about LV2
plug-ins for guitarist which indeed use at least FFT.
This release introduce the first LV2 plugs
created from the guitarix
amps. Well, they will perfectly fit into hotel sierra
* GxAmplifier tube 12ax7 tonestack sovtek cabinet 4x12
* GxAmplifier-II tube 12AT7 tonestack soldano cabinet AC30
* GxAmplifier-III tube 6C16 tonestack bassman cabinet 1x15
* GxAmplifier-IV tube 6V6 tonestack soldano cabinet mesa
* GxAmplifier-V tube 6DJ8 tonestack ampeg cabinet HighGain
there are mono and stereo versions of those amps included in the bundle
The time were I have to wrote class assignments is a couple of years ago.
I fail to see any description by math function.
But as well, I fail to see any user feedback at all on this. 
9 Feb
9 Feb
5:14 p.m.
On 02/06/2013 06:44 PM, Al Thompson wrote:
On 02/06/2013 11:19 AM, hermann meyer wrote:
> Am 06.02.2013 16:49, schrieb Al Thompson:
>> I had to laugh at this. Every once in a while, I will search to see if
>> there are any new LADSPA or LV2 plugins. I often see plugins described
>> by their mathematical function, with NO hint of what it actually does.
i guess the perpetrator is tim goetze of CAPS, he has a few distortion
plugins that go by names like "atan" and friends. while i don't use CAPS
daily because the types of music i work on rarely need it, i consider
his suite and its documentation just excellent, for those users who want
to gain some basic understanding of what they are doing. users that
don't can just buy guitar rig or a set of colorful stomp boxes and be
done with it.
--
Jörn Nettingsmeier
Lortzingstr. 11, 45128 Essen, Tel. +49 177 7937487
Meister für Veranstaltungstechnik (Bühne/Studio)
Tonmeister VDT
http://stackingdwarves.net
8:25 p.m.
Am 09.02.2013 18:14, schrieb Jörn Nettingsmeier:
On 02/06/2013 06:44 PM, Al Thompson wrote:
I guess that the CAPS plugins together with the TAP plugs are the most
known plugs in any OS`s together. They didn't need a famous announcement
which declare in amusing words what they do.
Well, the CAPS documentations are excellent.
hat up Tim
On 02/06/2013 11:19 AM, hermann meyer wrote:
> Am 06.02.2013 16:49, schrieb Al Thompson:
>> I had to laugh at this. Every once in a while, I will search to
>> see if
>> there are any new LADSPA or LV2 plugins. I often see plugins
>> described
>> by their mathematical function, with NO hint of what it actually does.
i guess the perpetrator is tim goetze of CAPS, he has a few distortion
plugins that go by names like "atan" and friends. while i don't use
CAPS daily because the types of music i work on rarely need it, i
consider his suite and its documentation just excellent, for those
users who want to gain some basic understanding of what they are
doing. users that don't can just buy guitar rig or a set of colorful
stomp boxes and be done with it.
10:23 p.m.
[hermann meyer]
Am 09.02.2013 18:14, schrieb Jörn Nettingsmeier:
Thank you very much Jörn and Hermann, it feels very good to read such
nice words from you whose appreciation I value especially highly.
The CAPS documentation, in case Al has been referring to it, has
indeed been written for an audience with some background in the field
(or willing to self-educate). It's unfortunate this might turn some
people away but as you say, there are lots of other roads that will
take you to similar places.
Cheers,
Tim
On 02/06/2013 06:44 PM, Al Thompson wrote:
I guess that the CAPS plugins together with the TAP plugs are the most known
plugs in any OS`s together. They didn't need a famous announcement which
declare in amusing words what they do.
Well, the CAPS documentations are excellent. On 02/06/2013 11:19 AM, hermann meyer wrote:
> Am 06.02.2013 16:49, schrieb Al Thompson:
>> I had to laugh at this. Every once in a while, I will search to see if
>> there are any new LADSPA or LV2 plugins. I often see plugins described
>> by their mathematical function, with NO hint of what it actually does.
i guess the perpetrator is tim goetze of CAPS, he has a few distortion plugins
that go by names like "atan" and friends. while i don't use CAPS daily
because
the types of music i work on rarely need it, i consider his suite and its
documentation just excellent, for those users who want to gain some basic
understanding of what they are doing. users that don't can just buy guitar rig
or a set of colorful stomp boxes and be done with it.
6 Feb
6 Feb
5:52 p.m.
On 02/06/2013 05:19 PM, hermann meyer wrote:
Am 06.02.2013 16:49, schrieb Al Thompson:
Whilst being a standalone project (i.e not a DAW/authoring tool) this is
one linux audio project which seems really committed to
interoperability. Its a huge effort to develop this way.
A question someone asked a thread or two back, do you suffer from not
enough feedback from users?
I had to laugh at this. Every once in a while, I
will search to see if
there are any new LADSPA or LV2 plugins. I often see plugins described
by their mathematical function, with NO hint of what it actually does.
If linux audio would like to get its foot in the door with guitarists,
defining available plugins only by math function is not the way to go
about it. It almost seems like some plugins exists only because they
were someone's class assignment (write a plugin using FFT).
Usually I
wouldn't answer on this topic, even if I have some concerns,
but I will repeat on this.
Because my last announcements here on this list was exactly about LV2
plug-ins for guitarist which indeed use at least FFT.
> This release introduce the first LV2 plugs created from the guitarix
6:27 p.m.
Am 06.02.2013 18:52, schrieb Brendan Jones:
On 02/06/2013 05:19 PM, hermann meyer wrote:
I didn't suffer, but to be honest, I receive a single user response for
the new LV2 amp plugs, to let me know about a bug related to a single
ardour3 function.
I believe I have fixed the bug, but I don't know, because I didn't use
ardour3. So I ask the reporter if it is fixed for him with the fix (last
release). I didn't get a answer anymore, I guess, yes, it is fixed. But
the bug in mantis tracker is still marked as open.
I must say that I have hopped for some time to get a bit user feedback,
I was open all the years for input from the "Community", but I've given
up on this.
I'm happy if from time to time other open source friends come along and
use our classes for there own projects, and talk a bit about. From time
to time developers join us and work a bit with us.
But from my experience, users still only grep what they can get and go
along. That the way it is, and I wouldn't change that anymore. So I do
it the way I like and share the results if I feel good.
That isn't only the case for linux, or special for audio, that happens
on windows and MAC as well.
If you give away your work for free, . . .
It wouldn't even help if you put big pop-ups on screen, or recently
reminders like it is done in shareware, so for developers like me, with
such a small side project, the only way is take it or leave.
From 28.000 source downloads I get at all 35 responses, hey that are
more then one out of thousand. ;-)
Still, I have no Idea how may users use the binary’s from the different
distributions, but hey, I wouldn't know it.
Am 06.02.2013 16:49, schrieb Al Thompson:
Whilst being a standalone project (i.e not a DAW/authoring tool) this
is one linux audio project which seems really committed to
interoperability. Its a huge effort to develop this way.
A question someone asked a thread or two back, do you suffer from not
enough feedback from users?
I had to laugh at this. Every once in a while, I
will search to see if
there are any new LADSPA or LV2 plugins. I often see plugins described
by their mathematical function, with NO hint of what it actually does.
If linux audio would like to get its foot in the door with guitarists,
defining available plugins only by math function is not the way to go
about it. It almost seems like some plugins exists only because they
were someone's class assignment (write a plugin using FFT).
Usually I
wouldn't answer on this topic, even if I have some concerns,
but I will repeat on this.
Because my last announcements here on this list was exactly about LV2
plug-ins for guitarist which indeed use at least FFT.
> This release introduce the first LV2 plugs created from the guitarix
6:42 p.m.
On Wed, 06 Feb 2013 19:27:41 +0100
hermann meyer <brummer-(a)web.de> wrote:
I must say that I have hopped for some time to get a
bit user feedback,
I was open all the years for input from the "Community", but I've given
up on this.
I'm happy if from time to time other open source friends come along and
use our classes for there own projects, and talk a bit about. From time
to time developers join us and work a bit with us.
But from my experience, users still only grep what they can get and go
along. That the way it is, and I wouldn't change that anymore. So I do
it the way I like and share the results if I feel good.
This is unfortunately the way of the world. There is a piece of my music on the
Internet Archive. It is listed as having over 8000 downloads, but there is not
a single comment :(
On the extremely rare occasions when I do get an email for any work on my own
website I am very grateful. My small contribution is to be sure *I* always thank
people for anything I use of theirs.
However, on the brighter side I do find that we are treated much better on these
lists. I guess we're all in the same boat!
--
Will J Godfrey
http://www.musically.me.uk
Say you have a poem and I have a tune.
Exchange them and we can both have a poem, a tune, and a song.
7 Feb
7 Feb
5:17 a.m.
On 02/06/2013 08:42 AM, Folderol wrote:
On Wed, 06 Feb 2013 19:27:41 +0100
hermann meyer <brummer-(a)web.de> wrote:
Hmm, does commenting on the Internet Archive require registering for yet
another user login? Kinda ashamed to say I never even noticed that the
Internet Archive even HAD a comment feature.
--
David
gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com
authenticity, honesty, community
http://clanjones.org/david/
http://dancing-treefrog.deviantart.com/
I must say that I have hopped for some time to
get a bit user feedback,
I was open all the years for input from the "Community", but I've given
up on this.
I'm happy if from time to time other open source friends come along and
use our classes for there own projects, and talk a bit about. From time
to time developers join us and work a bit with us.
But from my experience, users still only grep what they can get and go
along. That the way it is, and I wouldn't change that anymore. So I do
it the way I like and share the results if I feel good.
This is unfortunately the way of the world. There is a piece of my music on the
Internet Archive. It is listed as having over 8000 downloads, but there is not
a single comment :(
9 Feb
9 Feb
5:15 a.m.
On 02/07/2013 05:06 AM, drew Roberts wrote:
On Thursday 07 February 2013 00:17:37 david wrote:
It does provide a small additional barrier. But it's probably not a big
issue.
I suspect in the case of musicians and other artist-types - they're too
busy creating their own things to provide any feedback about the tools
they use. Someone painting a picture in oils probably never gives any
specific feedback to the company that made a brush they're using. The
most the company might get is indirect feedback: artist doesn't like the
brush, artist doesn't buy that brush again.
Now imagine that artist is supposed to give the brush manufacturer
detailed feedback: the bristles didn't spread out evenly when painting
with it, so the paint on one part of the brush went on thicker than
another part. I kind of doubt any artist would report that degree of
feedback to the manufacturer.
How does that connect with software? Software is much more complex than
a paintbrush, can have many more things go wrong with it. Reporting that
kind of detail for software is kind of necessary if the developer is
going to fix the problem. I doubt that the majority of users go to that
degree of detail unless it's a showstopper for them. And they may not
have the time for the developer to identify the problem, fix it, and for
the user to test the fix: They've got to have this recording session done.
One thing programs could do is keep logs. An error log could be usable
to at least start figuring out what went wrong.
--
David
gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com
authenticity, honesty, community
http://clanjones.org/david/
http://dancing-treefrog.deviantart.com/
Hmm, does commenting on the Internet Archive
require registering for yet
another user login?
I think this is one of the big issues why much commenting and feedback does
not happen. 
10 Feb
10 Feb
3:25 p.m.
On Saturday 09 February 2013 00:15:49 david wrote:
From:
david <gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com> (Alias J&J)
To:
"linux-audio-user" <linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org>
Date:
Yesterday 00:15:49
On 02/07/2013 05:06 AM, drew Roberts wrote:
Well, it is big enough that there are a lot of reports I would have made that
I did not.
I like to be helpful but I don't need a thousand accounts to manage.
Am I ignorant of some best practice that solves this problem? How does
everyone handle this issue themselves?
all the best,
drew
On Thursday 07 February 2013 00:17:37 david
wrote:
It does provide a small additional barrier. But it's probably not a big
issue. Hmm, does commenting on the Internet Archive
require registering for yet
another user login?
I think this is one of the big issues why much commenting and feedback
does not happen. 
4:08 p.m.
On Sun, 2013-02-10 at 10:25 -0500, drew Roberts wrote:
[snip] I like to be helpful but I don't need a
thousand accounts to manage.
[snip] How does everyone handle this issue themselves?
When subscribed to the user and/or devel mailing list, I report the bug
to that list and most of the times I'm not willing to subscribe to a
bugtracker, it depends to the kind of project, for larger projects, such
as desktop environments a mailing list can't replace a bugtracker
completely.
I try to pick out software where a coder or coders act after writing a
bugreport to the mailing list. For Linux audio I suspect Rui is the
coder who does fix bugs the fastest after receiving a report, so my
sequencer of choice is Qtractor.
That reminds me of another issue. Among other contributions I had to
drop translation of Qtractor for perhaps around a year now, because I
suffer from hardware issues, that I couldn't fix myself until now.
Hardware/driver issues make use of my time more than I can use the
computer and more than I can contribute and I guess I'm not the only
one.
Regards,
Ralf
11 Feb
11 Feb
2:31 p.m.
On Sunday 10 February 2013 11:08:02 Ralf Mardorf wrote:
When subscribed to the user and/or devel mailing list,
I report the bug
to that list and most of the times I'm not willing to subscribe to a
bugtracker,
Which mailing list? LAU and LAD or the various projects' lists?
If the projects, that is just another account to manage as I say.
all the best,
drew
2:34 p.m.
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 9:30 AM, drew Roberts <zotz(a)100jamz.com> wrote:
On Sunday 10 February 2013 11:08:02 Ralf Mardorf
wrote:
if you're not willing to participate in the managed handling of a bug, i'm
not interested in your bug.
of course, someone else might be, in which case you get lucky.
When subscribed to the user and/or devel mailing
list, I report the bug
to that list and most of the times I'm not willing to subscribe to a
bugtracker,
4:06 p.m.
On Monday 11 February 2013 09:34:13 Paul Davis wrote:
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 9:30 AM, drew Roberts
<zotz(a)100jamz.com> wrote:
For things that are important to me, sure. I did sign up for ardour for
instance.
But there are other things I may be just checking out or that don't matter
that much to me. I would like to help but I don't need to manage a thousand
accounts and I don't care to use the same password for lots of sites.
So again, is there some best practive I have missed?
all the best,
drew
On Sunday 10 February 2013 11:08:02 Ralf Mardorf
wrote:
> When subscribed to the user and/or devel mailing list, I report the bug
> to that list and most of the times I'm not willing to subscribe to a
> bugtracker,
if you're not willing to participate in the managed handling of a bug, i'm
not interested in your bug.
of course, someone else might be, in which case you get lucky.
4:13 p.m.
On Mon, 2013-02-11 at 11:06 -0500, drew Roberts wrote:
On Monday 11 February 2013 09:34:13 Paul Davis wrote:
Good phrased Drew, unfortunately English isn't my native language ;).
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 9:30 AM, drew Roberts
<zotz(a)100jamz.com> wrote:
For things that are important to me, sure. I did sign up for ardour for
instance.
But there are other things I may be just checking out or that don't matter
that much to me. I would like to help but I don't need to manage a thousand
accounts and I don't care to use the same password for lots of sites. On Sunday 10 February 2013 11:08:02 Ralf Mardorf
wrote:
> When subscribed to the user and/or devel mailing list, I report the bug
> to that list and most of the times I'm not willing to subscribe to a
> bugtracker,
if you're not willing to participate in the managed handling of a bug, i'm
not interested in your bug.
of course, someone else might be, in which case you get lucky. So again, is there some best practive I have missed?
I don't think so, I'm doing it exactly in the same way as you do and on
an Ubuntu Studio mailing list, was a discussion about where to report
bugs, since this is something a lot of people have to tinker with.
Regards,
Ralf
4:26 p.m.
On Monday 11 February 2013 11:13:21 Ralf Mardorf wrote:
On Mon, 2013-02-11 at 11:06 -0500, drew Roberts
wrote:
Well,
one thing I have been thinking of and would like some comments on if you all
do not have a best practice to recommend in its place is this:
Set up an OpenID or some such account(s) for the sole purpose of bug reports
etc. for these "non-important" logins and then handle my important stuff as I
do now.
On Monday 11 February 2013 09:34:13 Paul Davis
wrote:
Good phrased Drew, unfortunately English isn't my native language ;).
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 9:30 AM, drew Roberts
<zotz(a)100jamz.com> wrote:
For things that are important to me, sure. I did sign up for ardour for
instance.
But there are other things I may be just checking out or that don't
matter that much to me. I would like to help but I don't need to manage a
thousand accounts and I don't care to use the same password for lots of
sites. On Sunday 10 February 2013 11:08:02 Ralf Mardorf
wrote:
> When subscribed to the user and/or devel mailing list, I report the
> bug to that list and most of the times I'm not willing to subscribe
> to a bugtracker,
if you're not willing to participate in the managed handling of a bug,
i'm not interested in your bug.
of course, someone else might be, in which case you get lucky. So again, is there some best practive I have
missed?
I don't think so, I'm doing it exactly in the same way as you do and on
an Ubuntu Studio mailing list, was a discussion about where to report
bugs, since this is something a lot of people have to tinker with.
Regards,
Ralf
all the best,
drew
7 Feb
7 Feb
12:31 a.m.
On Wed, February 6, 2013 5:19 am, Raffaele Morelli wrote:
One could be a professional with/without skills and/or
an hobbyist
with/without skills, no matter who you are you need apps which doesn't
turn
sound engineer or a guitar player or composer into a *nix OS student.
For me to use Win/OSX I would first have to become a windows or OSX
student. Say what? Yes I have been using Linux (CLI, fvwm, KDE, Gnome,
xfce, X, Xorg) for years... since I found out OS/2 (2.*) was not going to
fill my needs (win3.1 was _SO_ bad it wasn't even worth considering). I
find win and or OSX confusing, slow (at least windows is, OSX boxes are
beyond my family budget anyway) and flaky. That is my personal experience.
I have figured out that this is because I know the quirks of my own OS so
well, I don't see them. I have found windows users (and OSX users to some
degree) are similarly blind to their own OSs problems. The general thing
with OSs is to choose your software first and get the system OS that goes
with it.
The majority of linux audio apps are such a mess to
work with for the
majority of, let's say, pure musicians which in turn are not interested at
all in learning an OS to play music with a usb keyboard throug Qsynth,
record things with Ardour, use Guitarix, configure a soundcard, etc etc...
that's all.
Pure musician? Them are the ones that sits by the side of the road and
plays and sings for dollars thrown in their hat. (no insult intended, I
have heard some fantastic music from people who make their living this way
and am happy they share it) Anyone who does any electric music has
something of a tinker in them. Human beings as a whole are successful at
surviving because they are not pure anything, but rather great
generalists.
So IMHO what really sucks is this overall geek
approach of LAD vs end
users, there is no one to blame for that but nevertheless it prevents lots
of people to join.
That may be true, there are all in one projects out there that try to
emulate some of the well known win/osx SW. I have found though that people
who start with them tend to move on to other things as they get used to
linux. As other people have said Linux is not a (name whatever OS here)
clone. It is not even anymore a unix clone. It has grown into it's own OS.
Yes there is a learning curve, but there is with any OS. It is just harder
to see the learning curve for the old OS one has been using for years than
for the new one when learning it.
If we step outside of audio into "normal desktop computing" (browsing,
office work, etc) the changeover time from Windows to Linux (or the other
way) is about 15 minutes or less. This is mostly due to commercial made SW
(Firefox and open office). Music will be the same... when linux has enough
musicians using linux for their work, commercial products will show up,
interfaces will just work, etc. because it will make money for that to be
so.
What I would like to see, is a tool that helps someone switch from one lib
to the new version. The original developer of gcdmaster is not moving it
from gnome/gtk2 to 3 (that I know). A utility that can point out any calls
to the old lib and give hints on what to do to change over to the new one.
Might help to keep these very useful one off programs from vanishing. I
have not found a program that I consider a replacement for gcdmaster.
Anything else I have tried to use to make a .toc file from, I have had to
edit by hand or run gcdmaster on an old install I keep to fix it. Any
other program I have used to create a toc/cue file has also created a
single file of the whole audio track for the cd instead of allowing the
original wave files to be used as is. I am not complaining about other
methods of making CDs, I am rather saying the upgrade path from one
version of lib to the next could be easier for the programer who is just
learning or has limited time. This might bring more people into audio
software development.
Note: if there is such a tool... I would like to try it. A tool for adding
jack as an audio driver to alsa/oss software would be really nice too...
sorry, I mean a tool to help people convert alsa/oss software to jack sw.
--
Len Ovens
www.OvenWerks.net
5:19 a.m.
On 02/06/2013 03:19 AM, Raffaele Morelli wrote:
2013/2/5 Dave Phillips
Greetings,
I've been reading a lot of negative (read: vitriolic) commentary
about the world of Linux audio development and applications. I won't
bother to say where, just "the usual places" will have to suffice.
Of greater interest to me is the commentary itself - it seems to
boil down to the following plaints and lamentations (in no
particular order) :
Too many distros.
Too many audio-optimized distros.
Not enough native plugins, esp. instruments.
Inconsistent support for VST/VSTi plugins.
Too many unstable/unfinished applications.
Too many "standards" (esp. wrt plugins).
Poor external/internal session management.
Poor support for certain modes of composition (think Ableton Live).
Lack of support for contemporary hardware.
Confusion re: desktops, and GUI toolkits.
Too difficult to set up audio system.
JACK is a pain.
Too much conflict/fragmentation within the development community.
One could be a professional with/without skills and/or an hobbyist
with/without skills, no matter who you are you need apps which doesn't
turn sound engineer or a guitar player or composer into a *nix OS student.
I'm sorry, but if you're a professional, *you know how to use your
tools*. Would you hire a carpenter who didn't know which end of a hammer
to use for driving a nail, or hauled out a chainsaw for doing some fine
veneer work while building a cabinet? What would you think of a
guitarist who never learned to set up their Fancy Big Stomp Box because
of all those "technical" things like sustain or reverb, etc? "I just
want to make sounds! Why do I have to know the difference between
sustain and reverb? I should be able to get what I want without having
to do anything!" ;-)
--
David
gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com
authenticity, honesty, community
http://clanjones.org/david/
http://dancing-treefrog.deviantart.com/
8:30 a.m.
2013/2/7 david <gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com>
On 02/06/2013 03:19 AM, Raffaele Morelli wrote:
Disagree, good musicians know or not how to use a fuzz box, a compressor,
eq, delay or even learn the workflow of a console.
On the opposite, the knowledge of these things doesn't turn you in a good
guitarist, and many good ones don't need/use this stuff at all.
Your carpenter is the equivalent of a bad musician... I would never get in
touch with him, but he should learn music first (not an OS).
There's absolutely no relation in being professional musician and the
knowledge of the "standard" linux audio workflow (setup jack, understand
the client/server thing, get rid of pulse, write .asoundrc, MIDI stuff...).
We must admit that win and mac "music-woriking-curve" is musch easier than
our penguin.
-r
2013/2/5 Dave Phillips
Greetings,
I've been reading a lot of negative (read: vitriolic) commentary
about the world of Linux audio development and applications. I won't
bother to say where, just "the usual places" will have to suffice.
Of greater interest to me is the commentary itself - it seems to
boil down to the following plaints and lamentations (in no
particular order) :
Too many distros.
Too many audio-optimized distros.
Not enough native plugins, esp. instruments.
Inconsistent support for VST/VSTi plugins.
Too many unstable/unfinished applications.
Too many "standards" (esp. wrt plugins).
Poor external/internal session management.
Poor support for certain modes of composition (think Ableton Live).
Lack of support for contemporary hardware.
Confusion re: desktops, and GUI toolkits.
Too difficult to set up audio system.
JACK is a pain.
Too much conflict/fragmentation within the development community.
One could be a professional with/without skills and/or an hobbyist
with/without skills, no matter who you are you need apps which doesn't
turn sound engineer or a guitar player or composer into a *nix OS student.
I'm sorry, but if you're a professional, *you know how to use your tools*.
Would you hire a carpenter who didn't know which end of a hammer to use for
driving a nail, or hauled out a chainsaw for doing some fine veneer work
while building a cabinet? What would you think of a guitarist who never
learned to set up their Fancy Big Stomp Box because of all those
"technical" things like sustain or reverb, etc? "I just want to make
sounds! Why do I have to know the difference between sustain and reverb? I
should be able to get what I want without having to do anything!" ;-)
4:38 p.m.
On Thu, February 7, 2013 12:30 am, Raffaele Morelli wrote:
We must admit that win and mac
"music-woriking-curve" is musch easier than
our penguin.
Only for those who started on the win/OSX box. "Intuitive" and "what you
are used to" for most people are about the same. Someone who has never
used win/OSX but has done all their computing on Linux will find win/OSx
harder. I don't have a Mac to play with, but some of my boxes have come
with windows on them... Windows is to hard to use, easier to wipe it off
and install a Linux. I get frustrated with windows every time I want to do
something, it makes me feel lost.
The easiest learning curve is what you learned first.
--
Len Ovens
www.OvenWerks.net
4:29 p.m.
2013/2/7 Len Ovens <len(a)ovenwerks.net>
On Thu, February 7, 2013 12:30 am, Raffaele Morelli wrote:
Don't misunderstand me, but on this list we are all pretty sure of certain
things the win/osx world has never faced with... just think about the whole
client/server basics of jack, this step (and many others) is beyond a
simple OS installation.
I wiped off win since 2005 but as far as I remember, the
cubase+reason+halion approach was quite straightforward for the majority of
people I knew, while the first thing I had to face with was a 2.4 kernel
compile with a capability.h tweaking, ardour was 0.97 :-)
Back to my point of view about the topic and quoting myself
what really sucks is this overall geek approach of LAD vs end users
linux (at least audio) community should remove this "gap" to let more users
in, those ones with less IT skills and interest focused on music.
-r
We must admit that win and mac
"music-woriking-curve" is musch easier
than
our penguin.
Only for those who started on the win/OSX box. "Intuitive" and "what you
are used to" for most people are about the same. Someone who has never
used win/OSX but has done all their computing on Linux will find win/OSx
harder. I don't have a Mac to play with, but some of my boxes have come
with windows on them... Windows is to hard to use, easier to wipe it off
and install a Linux. I get frustrated with windows every time I want to do
something, it makes me feel lost.
The easiest learning curve is what you learned first.
8 Feb
8 Feb
7:38 a.m.
On 02/06/2013 10:30 PM, Raffaele Morelli wrote:
2013/2/7 david <gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com
<mailto:gnome@hawaii.rr.com>>
On 02/06/2013 03:19 AM, Raffaele Morelli wrote:
2013/2/5 Dave Phillips
Greetings,
I've been reading a lot of negative (read: vitriolic)
commentary
about the world of Linux audio development and
applications. I won't
bother to say where, just "the usual places" will have to
suffice.
Of greater interest to me is the commentary itself - it
seems to
boil down to the following plaints and lamentations (in no
particular order) :
Too many distros.
Too many audio-optimized distros.
Not enough native plugins, esp. instruments.
Inconsistent support for VST/VSTi plugins.
Too many unstable/unfinished applications.
Too many "standards" (esp. wrt plugins).
Poor external/internal session management.
Poor support for certain modes of composition (think
Ableton Live).
Lack of support for contemporary hardware.
Confusion re: desktops, and GUI toolkits.
Too difficult to set up audio system.
JACK is a pain.
Too much conflict/fragmentation within the development
community.
One could be a professional with/without skills and/or an hobbyist
with/without skills, no matter who you are you need apps which
doesn't
turn sound engineer or a guitar player or composer into a *nix
OS student.
I'm sorry, but if you're a professional, *you know how to use your
tools*. Would you hire a carpenter who didn't know which end of a
hammer to use for driving a nail, or hauled out a chainsaw for doing
some fine veneer work while building a cabinet? What would you think
of a guitarist who never learned to set up their Fancy Big Stomp Box
because of all those "technical" things like sustain or reverb, etc?
"I just want to make sounds! Why do I have to know the difference
between sustain and reverb? I should be able to get what I want
without having to do anything!" ;-)
Disagree, good musicians know or not how to use a fuzz box, a
compressor, eq, delay or even learn the workflow of a console.
Because they've set out to learn it. They've learned to use their tools.
On the opposite, the knowledge of these things
doesn't turn you in a
good guitarist, and many good ones don't need/use this stuff at all.
Your carpenter is the equivalent of a bad musician... I would never get
in touch with him, but he should learn music first (not an OS).
There's absolutely no relation in being professional musician and the
knowledge of the "standard" linux audio workflow (setup jack, understand
the client/server thing, get rid of pulse, write .asoundrc, MIDI stuff...).
They're part of the tool set. Just like a Windows user might have to
learn to do some arcane non-music thing to make it work. A professional
learns how to do them. A smart professional learns how to do them in
such a way that they don't have to do them again. ;-)
A lot of that setup stuff is already dealt with by audio distributions
now. The only "setup" I had to do with Musix on my little effects box
was tell JACK which audio interface I wanted it to use. I fiddled with
period and such settings until I got a latency that works for me without
xruns. That was just experimenting a bit. Gave me an excuse to play with
stuff along the way. ;-)
We must admit that win and mac
"music-woriking-curve" is musch easier
than our penguin.
Having watched my musically-capable but technologically-inept friend try
three times to get and keep professionally-setup Windows audio systems
working ... no. It's not easy on the other platforms, either.
--
David
gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com
authenticity, honesty, community
http://clanjones.org/david/
http://dancing-treefrog.deviantart.com/
9:26 a.m.
2013/2/8 david <gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com>
On 02/06/2013 10:30 PM, Raffaele Morelli wrote:
<mildly ironic>...a professional is inside a recording studio or on stage
half his life, in the neighbourhood of is amp, guitar on his shoulder, with
N pedals at his feet, with N varying from 0 to infinity :-) </mildly ironic>
I believe we are not professionals Dave, we are music lovers and musicians
with enough IT skills to love Linux, playing mostly alone or in bands, with
ten shows/year (more or less), stucked to this mailing list, occasionally
with some music delivered (for free) on the internet, but if we ever have
to live 100% with music we would be starved to death :-(
regards
-r
One could be a professional with/without
skills and/or an hobbyist
with/without skills, no matter who you are you need apps which
doesn't
turn sound engineer or a guitar player or composer into a *nix
OS student.
I'm sorry, but if you're a professional, *you know how to use your
tools*. Would you hire a carpenter who didn't know which end of a
hammer to use for driving a nail, or hauled out a chainsaw for doing
some fine veneer work while building a cabinet? What would you think
of a guitarist who never learned to set up their Fancy Big Stomp Box
because of all those "technical" things like sustain or reverb, etc?
"I just want to make sounds! Why do I have to know the difference
between sustain and reverb? I should be able to get what I want
without having to do anything!" ;-)
Disagree, good musicians know or not how to use a fuzz box, a
compressor, eq, delay or even learn the workflow of a console.
Because they've set out to learn it. They've learned to use their tools.
On the opposite, the knowledge of these things doesn't turn you in a
good guitarist, and many good ones don't
need/use this stuff at all.
Your carpenter is the equivalent of a bad musician... I would never get
in touch with him, but he should learn music first (not an OS).
There's absolutely no relation in being professional musician and the
knowledge of the "standard" linux audio workflow (setup jack, understand
the client/server thing, get rid of pulse, write .asoundrc, MIDI
stuff...).
They're part of the tool set. Just like a Windows user might have to learn
to do some arcane non-music thing to make it work. A professional learns
how to do them. A smart professional learns how to do them in such a way
that they don't have to do them again. ;-) 
10:28 a.m.
On 02/08/2013 10:26 AM, Raffaele Morelli wrote:
They're part of the tool set. Just like a Windows
user might have to
learn to do some arcane non-music thing to make it work. A
professional learns how to do them. A smart professional learns how to
do them in such a way that they don't have to do them again. ;-)
<mildly ironic>...a professional is inside a recording studio or on
stage half his life, in the neighbourhood of is amp, guitar on his
shoulder, with N pedals at his feet, with N varying from 0 to infinity
:-) </mildly ironic>
I believe we are not professionals Dave, we are music lovers and
musicians with enough IT skills to love Linux, playing mostly alone or
in bands, with ten shows/year (more or less), stucked to this mailing
list, occasionally with some music delivered (for free) on the
internet, but if we ever have to live 100% with music we would be
starved to death :-(
Which is true for 99% of musicians using Windows tools (or Mac), too.
Some article mentioned it (I forgot the source): 'We did not invent the
term "starving artist" in the second half of the 20th century.'
Regards,
Flo
--
Florian Paul Schmidt
http://fps.io
7 Feb
7 Feb
4:41 p.m.
On 02/07/2013 12:19 AM, david wrote:
Conversely, I know a couple of guitarists who have NO idea how to do a
setup or neck adjustment on their guitar, and don't even own a soldering
iron or even care to know how to fix a cable.
--
---
My bands, CD projects, music, news, and pictures:
http://www.lateralforce.com
My blog, with commentary on a variety of things, including audio,
mixing, equipment, etc, is at:
http://audioandmore.wordpress.com
Staat heißt das kälteste aller kalten Ungeheuer. Kalt lügt es auch;
und diese Lüge kriecht aus seinem Munde: 'Ich, der Staat, bin das Volk.'
- [Friedrich Nietzsche]
One could be a
professional with/without skills and/or an hobbyist
with/without skills, no matter who you are you need apps which doesn't
turn sound engineer or a guitar player or composer into a *nix OS
student.
I'm sorry, but if you're a professional, *you know how to use your
tools*. Would you hire a carpenter who didn't know which end of a
hammer to use for driving a nail, or hauled out a chainsaw for doing
some fine veneer work while building a cabinet? What would you think
of a guitarist who never learned to set up their Fancy Big Stomp Box
because of all those "technical" things like sustain or reverb, etc?
"I just want to make sounds! Why do I have to know the difference
between sustain and reverb? I should be able to get what I want
without having to do anything!" ;-)
8 Feb
8 Feb
7:38 a.m.
On 02/07/2013 04:02 AM, Al Thompson wrote:
On 02/07/2013 12:19 AM, david wrote:
Conversely, I know a couple of guitarists who have NO idea how to do a
setup or neck adjustment on their guitar,
Sheesh! I can play guitar but I'm not a real guitarist- and I did that
kind of stuff to my electric guitar (when I had one)!
One could
be a professional with/without skills and/or an hobbyist
with/without skills, no matter who you are you need apps which doesn't
turn sound engineer or a guitar player or composer into a *nix OS
student.
I'm sorry, but if you're a professional, *you know how to use your
tools*. Would you hire a carpenter who didn't know which end of a
hammer to use for driving a nail, or hauled out a chainsaw for doing
some fine veneer work while building a cabinet? What would you think
of a guitarist who never learned to set up their Fancy Big Stomp Box
because of all those "technical" things like sustain or reverb, etc?
"I just want to make sounds! Why do I have to know the difference
between sustain and reverb? I should be able to get what I want
without having to do anything!" ;-)
and don't even own a soldering
iron or even care to know how to fix a cable.
Yah, our lead guitarist is just like that. All he knows how to do is
break'em.
I have a soldering iron and can solder, but I don't feel up to risking
my skills on either of the keyboards I use!
Fortunately, our rhythm guitarist's day job is electronics tech.
--
David
gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com
authenticity, honesty, community
http://clanjones.org/david/
http://dancing-treefrog.deviantart.com/
12:37 a.m.
On Wed, 6 Feb 2013, Raffaele Morelli wrote:
The majority of linux audio apps are such a mess to
work with for the
majority of, let's say, pure musicians which in turn are not
interested at all in learning an OS to play music with a usb keyboard
throug Qsynth, record things with Ardour, use Guitarix, configure a
soundcard, etc etc... that's all.
While we're talking about apps that are a mess to work with, I must
digress to say one app that's really impressed me the past few months
since I switched to it is Muse 2. Finally a sequencer that lets me do
whatever I want...
--
+ Brent A. Busby + "We've all heard that a million monkeys
+ Sr. UNIX Systems Admin + banging on a million typewriters will
+ University of Chicago + eventually reproduce the entire works of
+ James Franck Institute + Shakespeare. Now, thanks to the Internet,
+ Materials Research Ctr + we know this is not true." -Robert Wilensky
6 Feb
6 Feb
9:34 p.m.
I'm late to this thread, but I'd like to shine some light on why I
switched from Linux to Mac OS for my personal music work, and things
which I believe may continue to hold back Linux development. Keep in
mind that I've only picked at Linux audio for the last 5 years, so
maybe some of these complaints have since been addressed.
- Make it easier for authors to support Linux: I'm the author of a VST
plugin. I decided to go with VSTGUI for my Linux port. However,
despite being an open-source project, VSTGUI is somehow not supported
on Linux. Due to time constraints, this resulted in me just yanking
the GUI support from my Linux version. Also due to time constraints, I
was not able to produce an LV2 version which some people wanted. I get
that VST is technically not a free-free standard. But it's also the
most widely-supported plugin format, with a staggering number of free
plugins. Unless there's something I'm not seeing, this seems perfectly
support-able on Linux (it's halfway there already!).
- Fragmented and not well-supported plugin architectures: It seems
that plugins on Linux have gone through several phases. When I used
it, it was all DSSI. Now I guess it's LV2. I think the most promising
time was when Linux VST was gaining momentum, but now it seems that
maybe this isn't an accepted format on Linux. And don't say JACK--
that's for sharing audio between applications. If I go to KVRAudio.com
and search for Linux plugins, there are only 50.
- Make Linux friendlier for closed-source/commercial devs: Open source
is great; don't get me wrong! But music software and DSP are
specialized areas and DAW and associated software is incredibly
complex. I think for Linux to really succeed in this arena, it will
have to attract commercial development. Easier said than done, I know.
- In the same vein: One thing I notice is that many music packages on
Linux seem to be by-and-for programmers. It's all very flexible and
modular, but this is not necessarily convenient when your brain is in
"music making mode". Ask electronic musicians what their work flow is
like and design applications around that kind of feedback. On the
other hand, coders always want everything to be a modular synth. It's
literally the first kind of synth project everyone I know who's a
coder has done!
- Is there a good all-in-one sequencer for electronic music styles?
This was the thing that really made me switch. I was using Rosegarden
at the time. And I don't want to call out Rosegarden because I do
believe it's a wonderful piece of software for music notation. It just
wasn't suitable for my uses. It had issues handling a
reasonable-but-large amount of MIDI data on my 1ghz machine (I use
pitch wheel for vibrato), and I wasn't ever able to render my song
down to disk in a non-realtime mode. People pointed me to using JACK
freewheel mode, but it seemed like at the time this wasn't supported
by synth developers. Finally, there wasn't a way to use samples other
than SoundFonts (which, IMO, are both squarely within the consumer
realm and are not easily editable) -- again, this was a few years
back, so maybe this has all been addressed.
The irony is that, shortly after, Renoise came out for Linux! :) And
maybe Ardour is suitable for electronic music; I dunno. Like I said,
I've been partially out of the loop.
- Not knowing if your sound card will be supported. It's hard to shop
for sound devices with Linux. "Supported" may mean all kinds of
things. For example, I found issues with the AudioBox 1818VSL which
were down to ALSA incorrectly implementing the UAC2 standard. I do
realize that a lot of hardware support is down to the hardware
developers being more enthusiastic about Linux. But the bottom line
for would-be Linux musicians? You never know how sound hardware will
react with Linux. To be fair, this is still true of Windows to some
extent where latencies are concerned (but not with basic
functionality).
- Clearer documentation for ALSA would help (pretty please :))
Hopefully this isn't too harsh or outdated. And I don't want to just
heap criticism on Linux, because I think it has amazing potential. The
realtime kernels offer amazing performance, and so does ALSA-- I got a
netbook I was using for Maker Faire down to an incredibly low latency
on Linux. It performed much better than ASIO did on the same hardware.
It can be lightweight and incredibly customizable.
Bring on the software!
-Louis
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 6:58 AM, Dave Phillips <dlphillips(a)woh.rr.com> wrote:
Greetings,
I've been reading a lot of negative (read: vitriolic) commentary about the
world of Linux audio development and applications. I won't bother to say
where, just "the usual places" will have to suffice. Of greater interest to
me is the commentary itself - it seems to boil down to the following plaints
and lamentations (in no particular order) :
Too many distros.
Too many audio-optimized distros.
Not enough native plugins, esp. instruments.
Inconsistent support for VST/VSTi plugins.
Too many unstable/unfinished applications.
Too many "standards" (esp. wrt plugins).
Poor external/internal session management.
Poor support for certain modes of composition (think Ableton Live).
Lack of support for contemporary hardware.
Confusion re: desktops, and GUI toolkits.
Too difficult to set up audio system.
JACK is a pain.
Too much conflict/fragmentation within the development community.
I'm not so interested in comments on the commentary, I have my own, but say
what you will about the list. I figure that most denizens of these lists
already have ready replies and responses to these and other criticisms, many
of which have been voiced here previously. What I'm more interested in is
what *you* think is missing most or just plain wrong about the situation.
Please, try to speak your piece without flames or dissing other developers
and/or their work. Frankly speaking, I've had enough of that crap, and I'm
most thankful these days for such forum amenities as "mute user" and
autodiscard, along with the standard filters found in mail clients.
<aside>
I'm reminded of John Cage's comments regarding the behavior of the NY
Philharmonic when they destroyed his equipment during the premire of Atlas
Eclipticalis, something to the effect that his concerns had ceased to be
musical and had become social, i.e. that he had to figure a way to allow
people to be free yet behave themselves with respect towards the common goal
(e.g. Cage's music and property). I'm going to guess that he was still
working on that up to his death.
</aside>
So, in your honest and bold opinion as user and/or developer, what do we
lack most and what can we do without that we already have ? Please feel free
to expand your remarks as you like. I'm planning an article on the topic and
will likely use selected comments, subject to approval of course.
Best,
dp
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
7 Feb
7 Feb
5:34 a.m.
On 02/06/2013 11:34 AM, Louis Gorenfeld wrote:
- Make Linux friendlier for closed-source/commercial
devs: Open source
is great; don't get me wrong! But music software and DSP are
specialized areas and DAW and associated software is incredibly
complex. I think for Linux to really succeed in this arena, it will
have to attract commercial development. Easier said than done, I know.
Sorry, I disagree with that. I use a closed-source, commercial Linux
photo processing application all the time. Commercial software vendors
can certainly sell software in the Linux world.
I think the problem is that the number of apparent Linux pro audio users
is barely a bump in the Linux-using market, and not even above the
statistical noise level in the big pool of computer users. Further
remove from the pool of potential Linux customers those who for whatever
reason will not purchase commercial closed-source software (and will
probably spew floods of vitriol at the very thought of commercial
closed-source Linux software!). Porting their application to Linux,
testing, debugging, doing customer support - all cost money that they
(rightly or wrongly) see no chance of recouping. So why should they do a
Linux version, anyway?
--
David
gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com
authenticity, honesty, community
http://clanjones.org/david/
http://dancing-treefrog.deviantart.com/
5:41 a.m.
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 1:34 AM, Louis Gorenfeld wrote:
- Make Linux friendlier for closed-source/commercial
devs: Open source
is great; don't get me wrong! But music software and DSP are
specialized areas and DAW and associated software is incredibly
complex. I think for Linux to really succeed in this arena, it will
have to attract commercial development. Easier said than done, I know.
Do you? :)
I'm in conversation with several commercial audio software vendors
(both plugins and DAW) who already support Linux. Their experience is
quite different from yours, so I'm curious for how long exactly you
are out of loop.
Alexandre Prokoudine
http://libregraphicsworld.org
5:54 a.m.
Hmm, which DAW? I know that you can now get DiscoDSP plugins and
PianoTeq for Linux, which is fantastic. Those are both very good.
My experience personally has generally been that I have to be very
careful linking to specific versions of libraries (including something
as basic as libstdc++) and that closed binaries which aren't compiled
for a specific distro only go so far on Linux. I realize this can also
be an issue on other platforms, but it seems to be a problem to a
lesser extent.
But yes, I've been out of the loop as far as using Linux as my main
music workstation for some time. If more commercial devs continue to
embrace it, that is great news!
-Louis
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 9:41 PM, Alexandre Prokoudine
<alexandre.prokoudine(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 1:34 AM, Louis Gorenfeld
wrote:
- Make Linux friendlier for
closed-source/commercial devs: Open source
is great; don't get me wrong! But music software and DSP are
specialized areas and DAW and associated software is incredibly
complex. I think for Linux to really succeed in this arena, it will
have to attract commercial development. Easier said than done, I know.
Do you? :)
I'm in conversation with several commercial audio software vendors
(both plugins and DAW) who already support Linux. Their experience is
quite different from yours, so I'm curious for how long exactly you
are out of loop.
Alexandre Prokoudine
http://libregraphicsworld.org
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user 
6:40 a.m.
On 07/02/13 05:34, Louis Gorenfeld wrote:
- Make it easier for authors to support Linux: I'm
the author of a VST
plugin. I decided to go with VSTGUI for my Linux port. However,
despite being an open-source project, VSTGUI is somehow not supported
on Linux. Due to time constraints, this resulted in me just yanking
the GUI support from my Linux version. Also due to time constraints, I
was not able to produce an LV2 version which some people wanted. I get
that VST is technically not a free-free standard. But it's also the
most widely-supported plugin format, with a staggering number of free
plugins. Unless there's something I'm not seeing, this seems perfectly
support-able on Linux (it's halfway there already!).
It is not a technical point about only using free software ... it is a very real
copyright issue. VST is owned by Steinberg so unless you are willing to
ignore/reject Copyright and IP laws (which would be really problematic regarding
your other points about encouraging commercial software on Linux) then you are
very limited in how VST can be distributed in Linux. To change that you must
convince Steinberg to change the license they offer. A freely distributed
program obviously cannot pay Steinberg for every downloaded copy .. so no
license .. so the potential user must compile their own version of VST support.
See Dave Philips article ...
http://www.linuxjournal.com/node/1000192
The greater problem is the license for the VST SDK,
particularly this section
:
"2. The Licensee has no permission to sell, licence, give-away and/or
distribute the VST PlugIn Interface technology or parts of it in anyway, on
any medium, including the Internet, to any other person, including
sub-licensors of the Licensee or companies where the Licensee has any
involvement. This includes re-working this specification, or
reverse-engineering any products based upon this specification."
That passage expressly forbids the free distribution of the SDK source code,
excluding it from agreement with the terms of the GPL, nor can Linux-specific
improvements be added to the official codebase.
basically VST is a privately owned protocol and the owner makes money by selling
license for hosts, so distributing free hosts is not allowed. (Though compiling
a host for personal use apparently is OK?)
Simon
6:45 a.m.
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 10:39 AM, Simon Wise wrote:
It is not a technical point about only using free
software ... it is a very
real copyright issue. VST is owned by Steinberg so unless you are willing to
ignore/reject Copyright and IP laws (which would be really problematic
regarding your other points about encouraging commercial software on Linux)
then you are very limited in how VST can be distributed in Linux. To change
that you must convince Steinberg to change the license they offer. A freely
distributed program obviously cannot pay Steinberg for every downloaded copy
.. so no license .. so the potential user must compile their own version of
VST support.
See Dave Philips article ...
http://www.linuxjournal.com/node/1000192
This is an article from goddamn 2007! :) Long before VeSTige came about.
Alexandre Prokoudine
http://libregraphicsworld.org
6:54 a.m.
If I understand it correctly, you can compile free VSTs for Linux, you
just can't give away their SDK source code without going through the
form on Steinberg's website (just like with the Mac and Windows
versions). VSTSDK, the (fairly separate) component I had a problem
with, is legitimately open-sourced and Linux-centric improvements can
be made. I'm not seeing a problem here, unless there's something I'm
overlooking (always very possible with me :))
-Louis
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 10:45 PM, Alexandre Prokoudine
<alexandre.prokoudine(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 10:39 AM, Simon Wise wrote:
It is not a technical point about only using free
software ... it is a very
real copyright issue. VST is owned by Steinberg so unless you are willing to
ignore/reject Copyright and IP laws (which would be really problematic
regarding your other points about encouraging commercial software on Linux)
then you are very limited in how VST can be distributed in Linux. To change
that you must convince Steinberg to change the license they offer. A freely
distributed program obviously cannot pay Steinberg for every downloaded copy
.. so no license .. so the potential user must compile their own version of
VST support.
See Dave Philips article ...
http://www.linuxjournal.com/node/1000192
This is an article from goddamn 2007! :) Long before VeSTige came about.
Alexandre Prokoudine
http://libregraphicsworld.org
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
6:55 a.m.
That should've read VSTGUI in the second half.. (proof reading.. hrm).
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 10:54 PM, Louis Gorenfeld
<louis.gorenfeld(a)gmail.com> wrote:
If I understand it correctly, you can compile free
VSTs for Linux, you
just can't give away their SDK source code without going through the
form on Steinberg's website (just like with the Mac and Windows
versions). VSTSDK, the (fairly separate) component I had a problem
with, is legitimately open-sourced and Linux-centric improvements can
be made. I'm not seeing a problem here, unless there's something I'm
overlooking (always very possible with me :))
-Louis
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 10:45 PM, Alexandre Prokoudine
<alexandre.prokoudine(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 10:39 AM, Simon Wise wrote:
>
>> It is not a technical point about only using free software ... it is a very
>> real copyright issue. VST is owned by Steinberg so unless you are willing to
>> ignore/reject Copyright and IP laws (which would be really problematic
>> regarding your other points about encouraging commercial software on Linux)
>> then you are very limited in how VST can be distributed in Linux. To change
>> that you must convince Steinberg to change the license they offer. A freely
>> distributed program obviously cannot pay Steinberg for every downloaded copy
>> .. so no license .. so the potential user must compile their own version of
>> VST support.
>>
>> See Dave Philips article ...
>>
>> http://www.linuxjournal.com/node/1000192
>
> This is an article from goddamn 2007! :) Long before VeSTige came about.
>
> Alexandre Prokoudine
> http://libregraphicsworld.org
> _______________________________________________
> Linux-audio-user mailing list
> Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
> http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
6:57 a.m.
Louis,
You don't need the VST SDK since 2009 or so. Just use VeSTige.
Alexandre
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 10:54 AM, Louis Gorenfeld
<louis.gorenfeld(a)gmail.com> wrote:
If I understand it correctly, you can compile free
VSTs for Linux, you
just can't give away their SDK source code without going through the
form on Steinberg's website (just like with the Mac and Windows
versions). VSTSDK, the (fairly separate) component I had a problem
with, is legitimately open-sourced and Linux-centric improvements can
be made. I'm not seeing a problem here, unless there's something I'm
overlooking (always very possible with me :))
-Louis
8:24 a.m.
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 10:57 PM, Alexandre Prokoudine
<alexandre.prokoudine(a)gmail.com> wrote:
You don't need the VST SDK since 2009 or so. Just
use VeSTige.
I thought VeSTige only included an implementation of the host API, not
a full implementation of the VST SDK that would be required to build
VST plugins. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
--
Devin Anderson
surfacepatterns (at) gmail (dot) com
blog - http://surfacepatterns.blogspot.com/
midisnoop - http://midisnoop.googlecode.com/
psinsights - http://psinsights.googlecode.com/
synthclone - http://synthclone.googlecode.com/
4:44 p.m.
Maybe I'm being stubborn, but either way, I don't see a problem. My
understanding is anyone can freely click through the license and
download the SDK to compile from source, and that binaries can be
freely distributed. Like I said, it's not 100%-no-strings-attached
free, but it's also not a bad alternative considering how extremely
well-supported the standard is.
I also want to point out that even though Steinberg could've taken the
2.4 SDK offline to force people to adopt 3.0 that they didn't. So I
think they do listen to the needs of users and developers at least to
some extent, which makes the adoption of something like this less
worrisome in my mind.
But, this is derailing the topic...
-Louis
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 12:24 AM, Devin Anderson
<surfacepatterns(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 10:57 PM, Alexandre Prokoudine
<alexandre.prokoudine(a)gmail.com> wrote:
You don't need the VST SDK since 2009 or so.
Just use VeSTige.
I thought VeSTige only included an implementation of the host API, not
a full implementation of the VST SDK that would be required to build
VST plugins. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
--
Devin Anderson
surfacepatterns (at) gmail (dot) com
blog - http://surfacepatterns.blogspot.com/
midisnoop - http://midisnoop.googlecode.com/
psinsights - http://psinsights.googlecode.com/
synthclone - http://synthclone.googlecode.com/
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
4:49 p.m.
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 11:43 AM, Louis Gorenfeld
<louis.gorenfeld(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
Maybe I'm being stubborn, but either way, I
don't see a problem. My
understanding is anyone can freely click through the license and
download the SDK to compile from source, and that binaries can be
freely distributed.
this is wrong.
when you give someone else a GPL'ed application, you must be able (and
willing) to give them all the source code required to build the app
themselves. you cannot (legally) do that if the source includes the
steinberg VST SDK. ergo, you cannot distribute a binary that was built
using the VST SDK.
as has been pointed out, this is largely irrelevant - no linux apps that
support (even windows) VST plugins uses the steinberg VST SDK anymore,
given that we have vestige.
the issues with "VST plugins" at this point in time are NOT about the VST
SDK licensing, but about the hassles, perils and wisdom of hosting bits of
code written for Windows.
4:52 p.m.
when you give someone else a GPL'ed application,
you must be able (and
willing) to give them all the source code required to build the app
themselves. you cannot (legally) do that if the source includes the
steinberg VST SDK. ergo, you cannot distribute a binary that was built using
the VST SDK.
Good point. It would prevent GPL'd plug-ins. But couldn't someone come
up with a comparable license that would give the author rights but
also allow them to not supply all of the code?
as has been pointed out, this is largely irrelevant -
no linux apps that
support (even windows) VST plugins uses the steinberg VST SDK anymore, given
that we have vestige.
the issues with "VST plugins" at this point in time are NOT about the VST
SDK licensing, but about the hassles, perils and wisdom of hosting bits of
code written for Windows.
That's good news. What bits of code written for Windows are you
thinking of, assuming someone is making a true port of their plug-in
to Linux and not going through WINE?
-Louis
5:16 p.m.
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 11:52 AM, Louis Gorenfeld
<louis.gorenfeld(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
those of us using the GPL generally do so for fairly clear reasons. we're
not likely to throw it away just because ... steinberg.
when you give
someone else a GPL'ed application, you must be able (and
willing) to give them all the source code required to build the app
themselves. you cannot (legally) do that if the source includes the
steinberg VST SDK. ergo, you cannot distribute a binary that was built
using
the VST SDK.
Good point. It would prevent GPL'd plug-ins. But couldn't someone come
up with a comparable license that would give the author rights but
also allow them to not supply all of the code?
That's good news. What bits of code written for
Windows are you
thinking of, assuming someone is making a true port of their plug-in
to Linux and not going through WINE?
that isn't the case people are talking about. as i've said before on this
thread, there are two entirely different things meant by "VST plugin
support":
(1) support for windows VST plugins
(2) support for native linux VST plugins
most people want the fomer since it lets them migrate some of the most
critical elements of a windows-based workflow. the second has no technical
or license issues, but doesn't interest people in the same way, since the
number of native linux VST plugins is fairly small.
5:25 p.m.
> > when you give someone else a GPL'ed
application, you must be able (and
> > willing) to give them all the source code required to build the app
> > themselves. you cannot (legally) do that if the source includes the
> > steinberg VST SDK. ergo, you cannot distribute a binary that was built
> > using
> > the VST SDK.
Wait, I'm curious. I missed that you said "you cannot distribute a
binary that was built using the VST SDK". You mean if the plug-in is
under GPL, not in general, right?
those of us using the GPL generally do so for fairly
clear reasons. we're
not likely to throw it away just because ... steinberg.
I think I gave a better reason than "steinberg", but fair enough-- I
understand why some people would want to keep corporate hooks as far
away from Linux as possible.
-Louis
12:08 p.m.
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 1:54 AM, Louis Gorenfeld
<louis.gorenfeld(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
If I understand it correctly, you can compile free
VSTs for Linux, you
just can't give away their SDK source code without going through the
form on Steinberg's website (just like with the Mac and Windows
versions). VSTSDK, the (fairly separate) component I had a problem
with, is legitimately open-sourced and Linux-centric improvements can
be made. I'm not seeing a problem here, unless there's something I'm
overlooking (always very possible with me :))
true, except that
* linux-centric improvements require someone to do the work. you may have
noticed that such people are
in short supply.
* there is a perception that many (even a majority?) of plugin developers
use synthedit or juce, making
VSTGUI appear less and less relevant
* VSTGUI's original X Window implementation was based on Motif which was
nobody ever really used
on Linux. A later version (I think) switched to be directly based
on X Window itself, which is not
a bad choice, but doesn't make life particularly easy for host
developers
* plugin developers still have a tendency to want to do things in
windows-y ways, even though both VST
and VSTGUI attempt to convince them not to (GUI threading rules
are one example).
7:58 a.m.
On 02/06/2013 08:45 PM, Alexandre Prokoudine wrote:
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 10:39 AM, Simon Wise wrote:
Hmmm. Is it just me, or does it sound like VeSTige was
reverse-engineered? Which appears to be forbidden by the VST license?
--
David
gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com
authenticity, honesty, community
http://clanjones.org/david/
http://dancing-treefrog.deviantart.com/
It is not a technical point about only using free
software ... it is a very
real copyright issue. VST is owned by Steinberg so unless you are willing to
ignore/reject Copyright and IP laws (which would be really problematic
regarding your other points about encouraging commercial software on Linux)
then you are very limited in how VST can be distributed in Linux. To change
that you must convince Steinberg to change the license they offer. A freely
distributed program obviously cannot pay Steinberg for every downloaded copy
.. so no license .. so the potential user must compile their own version of
VST support.
See Dave Philips article ...
http://www.linuxjournal.com/node/1000192
This is an article from goddamn 2007! :) Long before VeSTige came about.
8:02 a.m.
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 11:58 AM, david wrote:
It was
This is an
article from goddamn 2007! :) Long before VeSTige came about.
Hmmm. Is it just me, or does it sound like VeSTige was reverse-engineered? Which appears to be forbidden by the VST license?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design
Alexandre Prokoudine
http://libregraphicsworld.org
8:14 a.m.
On 02/06/2013 10:02 PM, Alexandre Prokoudine wrote:
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 11:58 AM, david wrote:
It was
So clean room design begins with reverse-engineering the original.
Sounds like it violates the VST license terms, since they expressly
forbid reverse-engineering ...
--
David
gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com
authenticity, honesty, community
http://clanjones.org/david/
http://dancing-treefrog.deviantart.com/
This is
an article from goddamn 2007! :) Long before VeSTige came about.
Hmmm. Is it just me, or does it sound like VeSTige was reverse-engineered? Which appears to be forbidden by the VST license?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design
8:24 a.m.
On Thu, February 7, 2013 12:14 am, david wrote:
So clean room design begins with reverse-engineering the original.
Sounds like it violates the VST license terms, since they expressly
forbid reverse-engineering ...
I think what is being said is that vestige is effectively not VST and
therefore does not need to be licensed.
I am not adding any judgment as to the validity of this :)
--
Len Ovens
www.OvenWerks.net
On 02/06/2013 10:02 PM, Alexandre Prokoudine wrote:
Hmmm. Is it just me, or does it sound like VeSTige
was
reverse-engineered?
It was
Which appears to be forbidden by the VST license?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design
8:24 a.m.
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 12:14 PM, david wrote:
So clean room design begins with reverse-engineering the original. Sounds
like it violates the VST license terms, since they expressly forbid
reverse-engineering ...
I do realize that I sound pig-headed, but a license is an agreement.
If you didn't sign one, how can you possibly violate the terms?
"3. The Licensee has no permission to sell, licence, give-away and/or
distribute the Licensed Software Developer Kit or parts of it in any
way, on any medium, including the Internet, to any other person,
including sub-licensors of the Licensee or companies where the
Licensee has any involvement. This includes re-working this
specification, or reverse-engineering any products based upon this
specification."
The Licensee, Dave, is someone who has been granted a licence.
Alexandre Prokoudine
http://libregraphicsworld.org
Which appears to be forbidden by the VST license?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design
12:02 p.m.
On 07/02/13 16:24, Alexandre Prokoudine wrote:
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 12:14 PM, david wrote:
So clean room design begins with reverse-engineering the original. Sounds
like it violates the VST license terms, since they expressly forbid
reverse-engineering ...
I do realize that I sound pig-headed, but a license is an agreement.
If you didn't sign one, how can you possibly violate the terms?
I think you are right, assuming those who did the reverse engineering had never
accepted the Steinberg terms then I guess they can distribute their code ...
which certainly isn't VST but happens to work with plugins that are designed for
it. This is a well established practice ... GNU is Not Unix, samba just happened
to work with microsoft stuff and both survived intense legal scrutiny ... both
are very important projects.
I will buy commercial software occasionally if its worth it and runs on my
systems but I prefer to use FLOSS licensed stuff where the developers have made
their work publicly available ... for lots of reasons. However almost all the
hardware I have is commercial to some extent. Surely if we want commercial
hardware and software suppliers to respect and support Linux audio then we had
better also respect and support the licensing they choose to release their work
under, just as we expect them to respect the intentions of our copyleft
licenses. I do believe that long term the FLOSS approach is stronger in a
commercial as well as moral sense.
In this case it is clearly the intention of Steinberg not to allow FLOSS
implementations, even if their licensing has a legal loophole and is
ineffective. It is of course possible to reject the whole idea of IP, licenses
and so forth as invalid and unreasonable and go completely free. At least it is
you are a small enough target avoid the attentions of local law-enforcement
agencies, or perhaps if you live somewhere that does not enforce IP laws.
But then it would be natural for companies that think they depend on licensing
to reject us just as completely as we would reject them. Many hardware
manufacturers see themselves that way. I think they could readily find other
models of distribution and certainly several very successful corporations have
already made a lot of money by embracing FLOSS, but many companies do not (yet?)
see this. It is a bit difficult to work with audio without using something
commercial in the hardware chain, especially if you want cheaper hardware and
are not willing or able to spend huge amounts of time developing and tweaking
DIY hardware. Maybe one day we will develop affordable FLOS hardware, we already
have FLOSS plugin interfaces and perhaps effort is better spent supporting them.
Simon
Which appears to be forbidden by the VST license?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design
12:20 p.m.
On 07/02/13 20:04, Paul Davis wrote:
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 7:01 AM, Simon
Wise<simonzwise(a)gmail.com> wrote:
very interesting ... so the SDK license clause was trying to achieve something else?
I'm just reading the license, I don't have any other contact or means to know
their intention, so I'm very ready to believe they had other reasons but it
certainly reads as if they expect any host to get a license from them, and as
far as I am aware those licenses are only available with payment to them. That
would seem to exclude FLOSS distribution?
Again I have not asked them for a license to distribute something under a FLOSS
license, so I do not know that it would be rejected. I am just assuming that
since many serious FLOSS projects will not distribute binary versions with VST
complied in that Steinberg did not allow this.
Simon
In this case it is clearly the intention of Steinberg not to allow FLOSS
implementations,
not true. or put even more clearly, it was *not* Steinberg's intention to
forbid FLOSS plugins or hosts.
12:31 p.m.
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 4:20 PM, Simon Wise wrote:
very interesting ... so the SDK license clause was
trying to achieve
something else?
It's a pretty standard SDK condition
E.g. http://www.adobe.com/devnet/photoshop/sdk/eula.html
"You may not reverse engineer, decompile or disassemble any portion of the
SDK."
Adobe is more liberal lately, though:
"To the extent that local law grants You the right to decompile
software in order to obtain information necessary to render the
software interoperable with other software, You shall first request to
Adobe in writing to provide You with the necessary information."
Alexandre Prokoudine
http://libregraphicsworld.org
12:42 p.m.
On 07/02/13 20:31, Alexandre Prokoudine wrote:
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 4:20 PM, Simon Wise wrote:
so is the lack of FLOSS VST host distribution because nobody bothered to ask
Steinberg for a license? or is it because Steinberg said no when asked?
Several hosts work well it seems, and have done so for some time, but their
developers seem to believe they cannot be distributed as FLOSS binaries.
Simon
very interesting ... so the SDK license clause
was trying to achieve
something else?
It's a pretty standard SDK condition
E.g. http://www.adobe.com/devnet/photoshop/sdk/eula.html
"You may not reverse engineer, decompile or disassemble any portion of the
SDK."
12:44 p.m.
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 4:42 PM, Simon Wise wrote:
so is the lack of FLOSS VST host distribution because
nobody bothered to ask
Steinberg for a license? or is it because Steinberg said no when asked?
What lack?
Qtractor? Check.
MusE? Check.
LMMS? Check.
Ardour? Check.
Alexandre Prokoudine
http://libregraphicsworld.org
1:32 p.m.
On 07/02/13 20:44, Alexandre Prokoudine wrote:
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 4:42 PM, Simon Wise wrote:
Except LMMS which as discussed uses non-Steinberg reverse engineered sources to
try to avoid Steinberg licensing clauses the others distribute binaries without
VST enabled and provide instructions for compiling with VST enabled after
downloading the appropriate files from Steinberg. You can certainly find
compiled versions around in places that defy the license and redistribute
anyway. You can alsp find lots of expensive commercial software available for
download without payment if you want as well, that's not the point.
This thread is at least in part about the perceived issues in Linux such as
having to compile your own versions and similar so-called geekishness. I am not
really convinced this matters much, someone who will benefit most from a Linux
set up will get over their fear of compiling, the command line and so forth soon
enough. But it does mean that most of the standard distributions will come with
VST disabled in these apps when first installed, and that the new user is forced
to learn some things sooner than is comfortable.
I think if someone wants a quick plug-and-play set up with defaults to suit the
'average' user and minimal exposure to the underlying system then they would
probably be better off using OSX anyway, and just hope all works as expected and
their chosen applications do what they wanted. Indeed for many what their
application can do becomes what they want soon enough, and quite often the
available tools determine the style rather than the other way around.
What a linux system offers is quite different - its modularity is a strength not
a weakness, it is much more configurable, it can be adapted to all kinds of
devices and workflows. But these advantages come at a cost ... a new user must
spend time finding out exactly what workflow they want, and then more time
understanding the system and setting it up to work well. A Linux system is more
suited to a musician that wants to use and understand it as one of their
instruments, or to someone who wants a more specialised and configurable
recording studio. A musician does not just pick up a guitar for the first time
one day and be happily producing music on it the next day, and a Linux system
also has a learning curve.
Simon
so is the lack of FLOSS VST host distribution
because nobody bothered to ask
Steinberg for a license? or is it because Steinberg said no when asked?
What lack?
Qtractor? Check.
MusE? Check.
LMMS? Check.
Ardour? Check.
1:50 p.m.
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 8:32 AM, Simon Wise <simonzwise(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Except LMMS which as discussed uses non-Steinberg reverse engineered
sources to try to avoid Steinberg licensing clauses the others distribute
binaries without VST enabled and provide instructions for compiling with
VST enabled after downloading the appropriate files from Steinberg. You can
certainly find compiled versions around in places that defy the license and
redistribute anyway. You can alsp find lots of expensive commercial
software available for download without payment if you want as well, that's
not the point.
there's a lot of confusion about this sort of thing. so lets be clear.
"VST" is a plugin API.
the phrase "VST plugins" typically refers to shared objects written for and
compiled to run on the Windows operating system.
the phrase "linux VST plugins" (or even just "lvxvst") refers to
plugins
that use the VST plugin API but are actually shared objects compiled to run
on Linux.
Supporting plugins written to run on another operating system has almost
nothing to do with supporting a plugin API. The fact that most users want
the former rather than the latter doesn't change this fact.
4:07 p.m.
On 07/02/13 21:50, Paul Davis wrote:
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 8:32 AM, Simon
Wise<simonzwise(a)gmail.com> wrote:
that's very true, and very relevant to the thread in general ... anyone saying
"Linux sucks because it isn't windows/OSX and my favourite tool is only written
for windows/OSX" should stay with the OS that runs their chosen app until they
get to a point they actually want to try other possibilities. Linux isn't, and
cannot be, a cheap (as in beer) clone of some other system.
There are several apps that will run on more than one system, so if Ardour for
example is your favourite DAW then you are lucky, thanks to Paul you can run it
on more than one OS so you have the choice. And there are solutions like virtual
machines or wine or cygwin or just multiple machines connected via audio or
networked ... all of which require a certain level of geekness and interest in
setting them up.
Simon
Except LMMS which as discussed uses non-Steinberg reverse engineered
sources to try to avoid Steinberg licensing clauses the others distribute
binaries without VST enabled and provide instructions for compiling with
VST enabled after downloading the appropriate files from Steinberg. You can
certainly find compiled versions around in places that defy the license and
redistribute anyway. You can alsp find lots of expensive commercial
software available for download without payment if you want as well, that's
not the point.
there's a lot of confusion about this sort of thing. so lets be clear.
"VST" is a plugin API.
the phrase "VST plugins" typically refers to shared objects written for and
compiled to run on the Windows operating system.
the phrase "linux VST plugins" (or even just "lvxvst") refers to
plugins
that use the VST plugin API but are actually shared objects compiled to run
on Linux.
Supporting plugins written to run on another operating system has almost
nothing to do with supporting a plugin API. The fact that most users want
the former rather than the latter doesn't change this fact.
1:50 p.m.
On Thu, 07 Feb 2013 21:32:24 +0800
Simon Wise <simonzwise(a)gmail.com> wrote:
A musician does not just pick up a guitar for the first time
one day and be happily producing music on it the next
day, and a Linux system
also has a learning curve.
Exactly. I heard this many times, back in Windows, in the German Game Soundtrack composer
community (the "pros").
"I don't want to fiddel with my system, it should just work" etc. etc.
Needles to say, that does say a lot about the character of those persons. Their music
sounds exactly the same: from low quality down to simple crap. "Learning how to use
an instrument, even a virtual one? Learn how music works? Bah! I do it all from the gut..
bla bla bla".
Learn your tools and instruments. If you don't want a tool, use another one. If that
means not using Linux Audio at all, so be it.
Nils
4:46 p.m.
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 5:49 PM, Nils Gey <ich(a)nilsgey.de> wrote:
Needles to say, that does say a lot about the character of those persons.
Their music sounds exactly the same: from low quality down to simple crap.
"Learning how to use an instrument, even a virtual one? Learn how music
works? Bah! I do it all from the gut.. bla bla bla".
Learn your tools and instruments. If you don't want a tool, use another
one. If that means not using Linux Audio at all, so be it.
Nils
I would not necessarily agree with this.
There is a difference between having a learning curve (all Windows
software, in fact, ANY software has a learning curve) and having a plain
inconvenient interface or lack of basic functionality.
If you have an example of something being done in a way that has a smaller
learning curve and a more pleasant workflow, with less mouse clicks, more
reliable results, more functionality, it is no wonder people would want
that.
Also, I cannot agree *at all* that a tool that is convenient to use is a
tool with which you can only produce "from low quality down to simple
crap". I am sorry, this is just plain incorrect.
What evidence there is that you can do better things musically with
Qtractor than with Ableton? Is Linux better because to render a song on
Ableton you just press a button and on Qtractor you have to channel midi to
a separate DAW, render audio separately from midi and then resync them in a
multi-channel sound editor? Does that make music better?
When you have trouble with the tools you use, you're gonna spend less time
doing actual music. I myself spent a year producing almost nothing and
learning to do things the Linux way, with my time divided between compiling
stuff and then figuring out how can I get some basic things done, like
render a looped soundtrack.
--
Louigi Verona
http://www.louigiverona.ru/
4:13 p.m.
On Thu, February 7, 2013 5:32 am, Simon Wise wrote:
I think if someone wants a quick plug-and-play set up
with defaults to
suit the
'average' user and minimal exposure to the underlying system then they
would
probably be better off using OSX anyway, and just hope all works as
expected and
their chosen applications do what they wanted. Indeed for many what their
application can do becomes what they want soon enough, and quite often the
available tools determine the style rather than the other way around.
Well that certainly says something about the "average" music. So someone
who is not happy to sound like their tools want them to has to learn
something more... or be un-happy. I know such a musician, they have a mac
and a sound interface, not sure what audio apps, but they do have the
money to buy whatever (paint houses by day). They don't use the computer
to do music. The stuff sits there, yet he uses it all the time to create
graphics.
I think there is a difference between the average user and the average
musician. There are enough users around who want to make music that keep
the win/OSX SW going and selling.
I think there are a lot of musicians who don't use computers because of
win/osx software.
--
Len Ovens
www.OvenWerks.net
12:47 p.m.
On 7 February 2013 12:31, Alexandre Prokoudine
<alexandre.prokoudine(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Adobe is more liberal lately, though:
"To the extent that local law grants You the right
So, complying with the law is now a sign of more liberal behaviour? :-)
N
--
Neil C Smith
Artist : Technologist : Adviser
http://neilcsmith.net
Praxis LIVE - open-source, graphical environment for rapid development
of intermedia performance tools, projections and interactive spaces -
http://code.google.com/p/praxis
OpenEye - specialist web solutions for the cultural, education,
charitable and local government sectors - http://openeye.info
12:50 p.m.
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 4:47 PM, Neil C Smith wrote:
Sure :)
In terms of a big corporation, which Adobe is, there's a huge
difference between "No, no, no -- you can't do that under any
circumstances, or else" and "You can do that if your local law is fine
about that, but do talk to us first". It takes a generation of lawyers
(literally) to go from the previous to the current state of affairs.
Alexandre Prokoudine
http://libregraphicsworld.org
"To the
extent that local law grants You the right
So, complying with the law is now a sign of more liberal behaviour? :-)
4:17 p.m.
On 07/02/13 20:50, Alexandre Prokoudine wrote:
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 4:47 PM, Neil C Smith wrote:
Sure :)
In terms of a big corporation, which Adobe is, there's a huge
difference between "No, no, no -- you can't do that under any
circumstances, or else" and "You can do that if your local law is fine
about that, but do talk to us first". It takes a generation of lawyers
(literally) to go from the previous to the current state of affairs.
Adobe is an interesting example in this context. Consider the PDF format.
I don't know the motivations behind their actions, though their intention to
make the protocol available for others to re-implement was very clear. This was
years before Steinberg introduced VST. Adobe certainly helped to make its own
protocol the almost ubiquitous choice by doing so (and it remained profitable
for them long term because of that ... they have sold many copies of the
editor). They were a lot smarter than Steinberg, they explicitly allowed
alternative implementations from the start while the protocol remained theirs.
This example was readily available for Steinberg to follow either originally or
later when VST was already established as one of the standards for plugins and
they considered possible options as Paul described in another post.
Simon
"To
the extent that local law grants You the right
So, complying with the law is now a sign of more liberal behaviour? :-)
12:42 p.m.
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 7:20 AM, Simon Wise <simonzwise(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 07/02/13 20:04, Paul Davis wrote:
i was in communication (both email and in person) with people at steinberg
in the early 2000's.
they had no particular antipathy to open source.
they had two problems:
(1) they did not want to see the VST spec diverge as a result of people
adding new features to the API
and distributing the result, and then over time more people
starting to use the extended version rather
than the one that steinberg controlled. hence: no redistribution
of the SDK.
(2) their lawyers. lots of people on this list under-estimate the
awareness that lawyers have for open
source issues. steinberg's (and later yamaha's too) simply didn't
really get the issues that open
source development had with their license terms, and as a result
were more than reluctant to modify
the license. in the end, inaction won out over action, as is
typically the case.
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 7:01 AM, Simon
Wise<simonzwise(a)gmail.com> wrote:
very interesting ... so the SDK license clause was trying to achieve
something else?
I'm just reading the license, I don't have any other contact or means to
know their intention, so I'm very ready to believe they had other reasons
but it certainly reads as if they expect any host to get a license from
them, and as far as I am aware those licenses are only available with
payment to them. That would seem to exclude FLOSS distribution?
In this case it is clearly the intention of
Steinberg not to allow FLOSS
implementations,
not true. or put even more clearly, it was *not* Steinberg's intention to
forbid FLOSS plugins or hosts.
1:55 p.m.
On 07/02/13 20:42, Paul Davis wrote:
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 7:20 AM, Simon
Wise<simonzwise(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 07/02/13 20:04, Paul Davis wrote:
i was in communication (both email and in person) with people at steinberg
in the early 2000's.
they had no particular antipathy to open source.
they had two problems:
(1) they did not want to see the VST spec diverge as a result of people
adding new features to the API
and distributing the result, and then over time more people
starting to use the extended version rather
than the one that steinberg controlled. hence: no redistribution
of the SDK.
(2) their lawyers. lots of people on this list under-estimate the
awareness that lawyers have for open
source issues. steinberg's (and later yamaha's too) simply didn't
really get the issues that open
source development had with their license terms, and as a result
were more than reluctant to modify
the license. in the end, inaction won out over action, as is
typically the case.
so the problem then was originally an unintended side effect of a different
policy. Then it was brought to their attention, at that time they considered it
seriously enough to consult their lawyers and make a serious response.
They actively decided not to change their policy and continued to refuse to
license FLOSS distribution of binaries for the next 10 years.
So a decade later it is no longer an oversight or mistake, it is now an active
"we don't care".
Simon
4:54 p.m.
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 8:54 AM, Simon Wise <simonzwise(a)gmail.com> wrote:
so the problem then was originally an unintended side effect of a
different policy. Then it was brought to their attention, at that time they
considered it seriously enough to consult their lawyers and make a serious
response.
They actively decided not to change their policy and continued to refuse
to license FLOSS distribution of binaries for the next 10 years.
So a decade later it is no longer an oversight or mistake, it is now an
active "we don't care".
steinberg has been sold twice during that interval. you might feel that
FLOSS issues are important. i can assure you that anyone who ever felt
remotely that way at steinberg in 2001 is either no longer at the company
or is so irrelevant to what its current owners do that it makes no
difference.
4:31 p.m.
On 07/02/13 22:06, Paul Davis wrote:
indeed, and if I wanted to use a lot of plugins that were not available for
Linux on a project I would use an OS that could run them ... on a second machine
if that was the way. If I want to use a tool somebody else has made then I need
to get the platform to run it on, and deal with their conditions for using it
... or find something different which fits my needs better. Certainly the
popularity of Steinberg protocols combined with their attitude to FLOSS is a
pain, though as you pointed out in a different reply plugins written for another
OS are problematic regardless of the protocol issues.
My preference for FLOSS determines many choices I make, but companies like
Steinberg see profits elsewhere and perhaps threats or irrelevance in the FLOSS
world. That's their choice, and mostly for me that means not using their type of
tool. Other companies however see profitable opportunities in the FLOSS
environment, though less so in audio than many other fields.
Simon
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 8:54 AM, Simon
Wise<simonzwise(a)gmail.com> wrote:
So a decade
later it is no longer an oversight or mistake, it is now an
active "we don't care".
steinberg has been sold twice during that interval. you might feel that
FLOSS issues are important. i can assure you that anyone who ever felt
remotely that way at steinberg in 2001 is either no longer at the company
or is so irrelevant to what its current owners do that it makes no
difference.
12:05 p.m.
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Simon Wise wrote:
In this case it is clearly the intention of Steinberg
not to allow FLOSS
implementations
Another reason why Linux audio sucks: the community is paranoid :)
Seriously, when Steinberg came up with that license, Linux audio was
nowhere close to be a threat. It still isn't.
Alexandre Prokoudine
http://libregraphicsworld.org
4:39 p.m.
On Thursday 07 February 2013 07:01:49 Simon Wise wrote:
Surely if we want commercial
hardware and software suppliers to respect and support Linux audio then we
had better also respect and support the licensing they choose to release
their work under
It may be that there are legal limits as to what can be limited via a license
which the license does not bother to mention.
I could write a software license that says you cannot use my software while
you are inhaling or exhaling. So, hold your breath and use quickly. Try to
get a court to enforce that.
all the best,
drew
8 Feb
8 Feb
7:38 a.m.
On 02/06/2013 10:24 PM, Alexandre Prokoudine wrote:
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 12:14 PM, david wrote:
So clean room design begins with reverse-engineering the original. Sounds
like it violates the VST license terms, since they expressly forbid
reverse-engineering ...
I do realize that I sound pig-headed, but a license is an agreement.
If you didn't sign one, how can you possibly violate the terms?
"3. The Licensee has no permission to sell, licence, give-away and/or
distribute the Licensed Software Developer Kit or parts of it in any
way, on any medium, including the Internet, to any other person,
including sub-licensors of the Licensee or companies where the
Licensee has any involvement. This includes re-working this
specification, or reverse-engineering any products based upon this
specification."
The Licensee, Dave, is someone who has been granted a licence.
Using something without agreeing to the terms (licence) under which the
provider of that something offers it is theft. "Of course I can steal
and use your $50000 software: I never agreed to your license!" "Of
course I can steal and use your car: I never agreed that it's yours!"
--
David
gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com
authenticity, honesty, community
http://clanjones.org/david/
http://dancing-treefrog.deviantart.com/
Which appears to be forbidden by the VST license?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design
11:50 a.m.
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 2:38 AM, david <gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
I do realize that I sound pig-headed, but a license is an agreement.
as has been patiently explained, vestige is a CLEAN ROOM reverse engineered
version of VST, that was created by someone who did NOT download the VST
SDK, did not USE the VST SDK to develop it, did not obtain anything from
steinberg to develop it.
making a parallel with theft is borderline offensive. do you not understand
what the term "clean room reverse engineering" means?
now of course, you're free to allege that vestige could not have been or
was not developed in "clean room" style, but that is an entirely separate
claim.
If you didn't sign one, how can you possibly
violate the terms?
"3. The Licensee has no permission to sell, licence, give-away and/or
distribute the Licensed Software Developer Kit or parts of it in any
way, on any medium, including the Internet, to any other person,
including sub-licensors of the Licensee or companies where the
Licensee has any involvement. This includes re-working this
specification, or reverse-engineering any products based upon this
specification."
The Licensee, Dave, is someone who has been granted a licence.
Using something without agreeing to the terms (licence) under which the
provider of that something offers it is theft. "Of course I can steal and
use your $50000 software: I never agreed to your license!" "Of course I can
steal and use your car: I never agreed that it's yours!"
12:14 p.m.
Am 08.02.2013 12:50, schrieb Paul Davis:
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 2:38 AM, david <gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com
<mailto:gnome@hawaii.rr.com>> wrote:
I do realize that I sound pig-headed, but a license is an
agreement.
If you didn't sign one, how can you possibly violate the terms?
"3. The Licensee has no permission to sell, licence, give-away
and/or
distribute the Licensed Software Developer Kit or parts of it
in any
way, on any medium, including the Internet, to any other person,
including sub-licensors of the Licensee or companies where the
Licensee has any involvement. This includes re-working this
specification, or reverse-engineering any products based upon this
specification."
The Licensee, Dave, is someone who has been granted a licence.
Using something without agreeing to the terms (licence) under
which the provider of that something offers it is theft. "Of
course I can steal and use your $50000 software: I never agreed to
your license!" "Of course I can steal and use your car: I never
agreed that it's yours!"
as has been patiently explained, vestige is a CLEAN ROOM reverse
engineered version of VST, that was created by someone who did NOT
download the VST SDK, did not USE the VST SDK to develop it, did not
obtain anything from steinberg to develop it.
Dave, as a addition: That have nothing to do with accept the license or
not, only, when you have sign the license, you cant do a CLEAN ROOM
reverse engineering of the VST SDK any more, because you have properly
had a look at the source. Therefrom you get a knowledge which you are
didn't allow to use.
making a parallel with theft is borderline offensive.
do you not
understand what the term "clean room reverse engineering" means?
now of course, you're free to allege that vestige could not have been
or was not developed in "clean room" style, but that is an entirely
separate claim.
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
3:23 p.m.
On Friday 08 February 2013 02:38:45 david wrote:
Using something without agreeing to the terms
(licence) under which the
provider of that something offers it is theft.
Of course it is not theft. It may or may not be illegal, but it is not theft.
If a group of kids sneak onto a field and play a ball game without the
owner's permission, even when the terms of use of the field are posted, they
do not get charged with theft.
Why must everything be theft, piracy, rape, treason, etc. Loaded words. Call
things what they are.
all the best,
drew
5:05 p.m.
Theft is when you deprive someone of their property. Infringing on a
contract is just that - infringing on a contract.
Not acting on prior agreement. It is not theft by any reasonable definition.
7:22 p.m.
On 02/08/2013 12:05 PM, Louigi Verona wrote:
Theft is when you deprive someone of their property.
Infringing on a
contract is just that - infringing on a contract.
Not acting on prior agreement. It is not theft by any reasonable
definition.
It would only be infringing on a contract if you had signed (or agreed
to) that contract. If the author says you can only use his software if
you agree to (sign) the contract, but you use it without agreeing to the
contract, then you aren't infringing on a contract, but you are using
his software without meeting his terms. Does it matter if his terms
amount to a demand for payment, or merely that you agree to his contract?
--
---
My bands, CD projects, music, news, and pictures:
http://www.lateralforce.com
My blog, with commentary on a variety of things, including audio,
mixing, equipment, etc, is at:
http://audioandmore.wordpress.com
Staat heißt das kälteste aller kalten Ungeheuer. Kalt lügt es auch;
und diese Lüge kriecht aus seinem Munde: 'Ich, der Staat, bin das Volk.'
- [Friedrich Nietzsche]
7:30 p.m.
Well, Al, problem is that copyright is a law. What that means is that the
government
has sort of "signed the contract" for you with anyone who creates any
content. This is
why in my view copyright is illegitimate because it is really a forced
contract.
As for the terms in the software, it is gray area. Read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EULA#Shrink-wrap_and_click-wrap_licenses
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 11:22 PM, Al Thompson <althompson58(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 02/08/2013 12:05 PM, Louigi Verona wrote:
--
Louigi Verona
http://www.louigiverona.ru/
Theft is when you deprive someone of their
property. Infringing on a
contract is just that - infringing on a contract.
Not acting on prior agreement. It is not theft by any reasonable
definition.
It would only be infringing on a contract if you had signed (or agreed
to) that contract. If the author says you can only use his software if
you agree to (sign) the contract, but you use it without agreeing to the
contract, then you aren't infringing on a contract, but you are using
his software without meeting his terms. Does it matter if his terms
amount to a demand for payment, or merely that you agree to his contract?
--
---
My bands, CD projects, music, news, and pictures:
http://www.lateralforce.com
My blog, with commentary on a variety of things, including audio,
mixing, equipment, etc, is at:
http://audioandmore.wordpress.com
Staat heißt das kälteste aller kalten Ungeheuer. Kalt lügt es auch;
und diese Lüge kriecht aus seinem Munde: 'Ich, der Staat, bin das Volk.'
- [Friedrich Nietzsche]
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
9 Feb
9 Feb
5:01 a.m.
On 02/08/2013 05:22 AM, drew Roberts wrote:
On Friday 08 February 2013 02:38:45 david wrote:
Not good examples to choose. If they sneak onto the field and play ball
and while doing so break the water fountain, it's called vandalism but
is really (underneath it) stealing the use of the water fountain from
both the owner of the field AND anyone else who wants to use it afterward.
But software and hard things like baseball diamonds are too different to
be good analogies.
Using something without agreeing to the terms
(licence) under which the
provider of that something offers it is theft.
Of course it is not theft. It may or may not be illegal, but it is not theft.
If a group of kids sneak onto a field and play a ball game without the
owner's permission, even when the terms of use of the field are posted, they
do not get charged with theft. Why must everything be theft, piracy, rape, treason,
etc. Loaded words. Call
things what they are.
You're the one who added "piracy, rape, treason". Why? None of them are
synonymous with copyright.
I consider it theft because it's stealing from the licenser/creator the
ability to control the use and distribution of their creation. If you
don't like the terms that the creator makes their creation available to
people, *go use a creation whose terms you agree with*.
--
David
gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com
authenticity, honesty, community
http://clanjones.org/david/
http://dancing-treefrog.deviantart.com/
10 Feb
10 Feb
3:22 p.m.
On Saturday 09 February 2013 00:01:23 david wrote:
I am certainly not the person who started using the terms piracy and pirates
to describe unauthorized copying of copyrighted works. Do you mean to say you
have never heard such a term used before in this context?
I have heard rape misused in similar fashions. I threw in treason for good
measure. Someone will find a way to throw that into the discourse soon
enough. Terrorism too soone enough probably.
On 02/08/2013 05:22 AM, drew Roberts wrote:
No, it is not stealing the use of the fountain. It is preventing the use until
it is fixed. And where is anything broken to the point where the copyright
holder (AND anyone else) when a file is copied without permission?
On Friday 08 February 2013 02:38:45 david wrote:
Not good examples to choose. If they sneak onto the field and play ball
and while doing so break the water fountain, it's called vandalism but
is really (underneath it) stealing the use of the water fountain from
both the owner of the field AND anyone else who wants to use it afterward. Using something without agreeing to the terms
(licence) under which the
provider of that something offers it is theft.
Of course it is not theft. It may or may not be illegal, but it is not
theft. If a group of kids sneak onto a field and play a ball game without
the owner's permission, even when the terms of use of the field are
posted, they do not get charged with theft.
But software and hard things like baseball diamonds are too different to
be good analogies.
***Exactly!*** Which is why you should not use a term like stealing which
refers to hard things when speaking of violating copyright. We have perfectly
good and accurate terms to describe such things. Other terms tend to get used
because they are more emotive.
Why must everything be theft, piracy, rape,
treason, etc. Loaded words.
Call things what they are.
You're the one who added "piracy, rape, treason". Why? None of them are
synonymous with copyright.
I consider it theft because it's stealing from the licenser/creator the
ability to control the use and distribution of their creation.
You are not stealing anything from the creator. They had that control before
they showed the work to anyone. Once they put it out in the public realm,
they gave up that ability. Copyright law tries to pretend that they have such
control still and provides penalties (and in my mind, way out of proportion
penalties) for excercising what we would otherwise be free to do in the
natural world, but nothing is stolen from anyone in this situation. Unless
perhaps copyright law steals our Freedom?
If you
don't like the terms that the creator makes their creation available to
people, *go use a creation whose terms you agree with*.
Just imagine that your water heater manufacturer told you you could only take
showers at 83 degrees F for no longer than 4 minutes. Your steak vendor told
you you had to eat it rare. Your musical instrument maker demanded 5% of any
money you earned while playing the instrument you bought from them. Etc.
all the best,
drew
3:37 p.m.
On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 10:22:29AM -0500, drew Roberts wrote:
You are not stealing anything from the creator. They
had that control before
they showed the work to anyone. Once they put it out in the public realm,
they gave up that ability.
They didn't give up anything, they counted on the law to protect them.
Just as they count on it for not being mugged. Using copyrighted
material simply because you easily can do it, and because *you* think
it doesn't affect the copyright holder at all, isn't any better than
beating up someone because you happen to be stronger, and afterwards
telling it was just for fun.
Ciao,
--
FA
A world of exhaustive, reliable metadata would be an utopia.
It's also a pipe-dream, founded on self-delusion, nerd hubris
and hysterically inflated market opportunities. (Cory Doctorow)
3:51 p.m.
On Sunday 10 February 2013 10:37:29 Fons Adriaensen wrote:
On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 10:22:29AM -0500, drew Roberts
wrote:
I don't do it because I choose to respect? / obey what I think is a terrible
law. Some would likely look down on me for that but there you go. That does
not stop me from stating what a horrid law I think it is though nor from
saying that violating that law and making unauthorised copies is not stealing
even if it is illegal.
Personally, I try to give as much attention as I can manage to those who
indicate they do not want to use such a law against me for doing normal
things with their works.
You are not stealing anything from the creator.
They had that control
before they showed the work to anyone. Once they put it out in the public
realm, they gave up that ability.
They didn't give up anything, they counted on the law to protect them.
Just as they count on it for not being mugged. Using copyrighted
material simply because you easily can do it, and because *you* think
it doesn't affect the copyright holder at all, isn't any better than
beating up someone because you happen to be stronger, and afterwards
telling it was just for fun.
Ciao,
all the best,
drew
4:10 p.m.
On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 10:51:07AM -0500, drew Roberts wrote:
That does not stop me from stating what a horrid law I
think it
is though nor from saying that violating that law and making
unauthorised copies is not stealing even if it is illegal.
You have all the right to that opinion, and to advocate changes
to copyright law (which indeed has some murky aspects which I'd
want to see changed).
OTOH, saying that something isn't stealing just amounts to
trying to redefine the meaning of that word so it's more or
pointless. And stating that an author who publishes his work
voluntarily gives up any ability to control it is little more
than whishfull thinking - just ask the author, who probably
knows his/her own intentions better that you do.
Ciao,
--
FA
A world of exhaustive, reliable metadata would be an utopia.
It's also a pipe-dream, founded on self-delusion, nerd hubris
and hysterically inflated market opportunities. (Cory Doctorow)
4:17 p.m.
On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 8:10 PM, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
pointless. And stating that an author who publishes
his work
voluntarily gives up any ability to control it is little more
than whishfull thinking - just ask the author, who probably
knows his/her own intentions better that you do.
In fact, I know a few type designers who are quite OK about 3rd party
modifications of their work provided they are asked for permission
first. Which is why they always pick a proprietary license for their
work -- exactly to discourage arbitrary modifications :) It might
sounds crazy or stupid, but fonts are kinda special -- unlike software
where it's easy to notify a user about an existing update, an outdated
font has a long, long time of life. And once it's out, it's out.
Alexandre Prokoudine
http://libregraphicsworld.org
11 Feb
11 Feb
2:42 p.m.
On Sunday 10 February 2013 11:10:17 Fons Adriaensen wrote:
On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 10:51:07AM -0500, drew Roberts
wrote:
The thing is, the changes that I have seen in my lifetime have only served to
make the situation worse. And I don't see much force being applied to make
the situatin better.
That does not stop me from stating what a horrid
law I think it
is though nor from saying that violating that law and making
unauthorised copies is not stealing even if it is illegal.
You have all the right to that opinion, and to advocate changes
to copyright law (which indeed has some murky aspects which I'd
want to see changed).
OTOH, saying that something isn't stealing just amounts to
trying to redefine the meaning of that word so it's more or
pointless.
No, those who call copyright violations stealing are trying to redefine the
word.
If someone approaches you in the street and bashes your face in with a bat,
permanently disfiguring you, he does not get charged before the courts
for "stealing" your good looks. There is another crime he is charged with.
If making unauthorized copies was clearly theft, we would not need copyright
law in the first place. People making such copies would be simply charged
with stealing just like those who pickpocket you would be.
When I say this, I am not trying to say it is right or wrong, that is a
different argument. I am saying it is not theft. Just as I would say it is
not assault and battery if someone called it that. Nor is it murder should
someone call it that. It is violating copyright, not those other things.
First, let's call it what it is. Then let's discuss if it is morally right or
wrong.
And stating that an author who publishes his work
voluntarily gives up any ability to control it is little more
than whishfull thinking - just ask the author, who probably
knows his/her own intentions better that you do.
So you tell a joke at work. Do you really think you have some inherent power
to stop that joke from being retold?
Ciao,
10 Feb
10 Feb
4:29 p.m.
On 02/10/2013 10:22 AM, drew Roberts wrote:
You are not stealing anything from the creator. They had that control before
they showed the work to anyone. Once they put it out in the public realm,
they gave up that ability. Copyright law tries to pretend that they have such
control still and provides penalties (and in my mind, way out of proportion
penalties) for excercising what we would otherwise be free to do in the
natural world, but nothing is stolen from anyone in this situation. Unless
perhaps copyright law steals our Freedom?
Is it your contention that a property owner gives up all rights to his
own property once he lets someone else see or hear it??
I think you are missing the point of a copyright. An owner doesn't give
up his rights to his property unless he releases it into the public
domain. Even if he agrees to license it for sale or use, he still
retains his rights to distribution or use. If, for example, someone
wants to license his song to use for a commercial, he can say no. If
someone wants to record a song he has written, the owner can either say
no, or else be compensated by a licensing fee. If a band member writes
a song for his band, he will receive royalties for the use of that song.
I'm a proponent of releasing music under alternative terms, but that
should be up to the owner, not the consumer. After all, to most
consumers, they would obviously prefer that EVERYTHING be free.
--
---
My bands, CD projects, music, news, and pictures:
http://www.lateralforce.com
My blog, with commentary on a variety of things, including audio,
mixing, equipment, etc, is at:
http://audioandmore.wordpress.com
Staat heißt das kälteste aller kalten Ungeheuer. Kalt lügt es auch;
und diese Lüge kriecht aus seinem Munde: 'Ich, der Staat, bin das Volk.'
- [Friedrich Nietzsche]
4:39 p.m.
New subject: Copyright issues, was Re: So what do you think sucks about Linux audio ?
Top-posting to note that the subject line should be changed when the
content of the thread has no more direct relevance to the original
topic. I do not say the new issues aren't important. Consider the
subject change an action towards better documentation, i.e. if I'm
looking for information regarding copyright issues I'm not likely to
start my search through a topic on what sucks about Linux audio. A lot
of good information is buried in the wrong threads here.
Best,
dp
On 02/10/2013 11:29 AM, Al Thompson wrote:
On 02/10/2013 10:22 AM, drew Roberts wrote:
You are not stealing anything from the creator.
They had that control before
they showed the work to anyone. Once they put it out in the public realm,
they gave up that ability. Copyright law tries to pretend that they have such
control still and provides penalties (and in my mind, way out of proportion
penalties) for excercising what we would otherwise be free to do in the
natural world, but nothing is stolen from anyone in this situation. Unless
perhaps copyright law steals our Freedom?
Is it your contention that a property
owner gives up all rights to his
own property once he lets someone else see or hear it??
I think you are missing the point of a copyright. An owner doesn't give
up his rights to his property unless he releases it into the public
domain. Even if he agrees to license it for sale or use, he still
retains his rights to distribution or use. If, for example, someone
wants to license his song to use for a commercial, he can say no. If
someone wants to record a song he has written, the owner can either say
no, or else be compensated by a licensing fee. If a band member writes
a song for his band, he will receive royalties for the use of that song.
I'm a proponent of releasing music under alternative terms, but that
should be up to the owner, not the consumer. After all, to most
consumers, they would obviously prefer that EVERYTHING be free.
11 Feb
11 Feb
2:58 p.m.
On Sunday 10 February 2013 11:29:11 Al Thompson wrote:
On 02/10/2013 10:22 AM, drew Roberts wrote:
See, your first mistake is to describe the person as a property owner without
qualifications.
Second, I do not speak of private, contracted "showings" but rather of
publication.
You are not stealing anything from the creator.
They had that control
before they showed the work to anyone. Once they put it out in the public
realm, they gave up that ability. Copyright law tries to pretend that
they have such control still and provides penalties (and in my mind, way
out of proportion penalties) for excercising what we would otherwise be
free to do in the natural world, but nothing is stolen from anyone in
this situation. Unless perhaps copyright law steals our Freedom?
Is it your contention that a property owner gives up all rights to his
own property once he lets someone else see or hear it??
I think you are missing the point of a copyright.
The point of copyright is to pervert this natural way of things. To give a
government protectecd monopoly where none would normally exist. I get the
point quite clearly.
And in this brave new internet connected world, I get that it cannot hope to
work without gutting freedom of speech and perhaps democracy itself.
The draconian situation we have today is still not good enough to protect the
works of the big copyright holders to their satisfaction. Open your eyes and
look at they laws they are asking for and often getting.
An owner doesn't give
up his rights to his property unless he releases it into the public
domain. Even if he agrees to license it for sale or use, he still
retains his rights to distribution or use. If, for example, someone
wants to license his song to use for a commercial, he can say no. If
someone wants to record a song he has written, the owner can either say
no, or else be compensated by a licensing fee. If a band member writes
a song for his band, he will receive royalties for the use of that song.
I know that is how copyright law sets things up to work. And look how borked
the situation is.
I'm a proponent of releasing music under alternative terms, but that
should be up to the owner, not the consumer. After all, to most
consumers, they would obviously prefer that EVERYTHING be free.
So, you are whistling a new tune in your room with the windows open. Jack is
walking by and hears some of it. It is catchy and he starts to whistle it as
he walks along. John standing at the bus stop a few blocks away hears it as
Jack passes. He too starts whistling the melody. He gets on the bus
whistling. All of the bus riders hear at. When they get off the bus at their
various stops they whistle it. Etc. In the absence of copyright law, do you
really think you have some power or right to prevent this situation? Some
right to be compensated by all of these people whistling without your
permission?
Oh, and by the way, to my ignorant understanding, if you hadn't yet written
down what you were whistling when Jack heard, you don't get to copyright it.
Oops. (I say ignorant as it may only happen if you perform it in public
first. Etc.)
all the best,
drew
3:02 p.m.
I would advice this short book for all those interested in a copyright
debate.
http://mises.org/document/3582
Although the book is called "Against IP", the first part gives a very
thorough and fair overview
of both sides. The arguments there are much deeper than the usual "artists
will starve
and we will have no music".
Also, I've written a little bit on the matter, plus I have a nice link
collection:
http://www.louigiverona.ru/?page=projects&s=writings&t=philosophy
Louigi.
10:39 p.m.
On 02/11/2013 10:02 AM, Louigi Verona wrote:
I would advice this short book for all those
interested in a copyright
debate.
http://mises.org/document/3582
Although the book is called "Against IP", the first part gives a very
thorough and fair overview
of both sides. The arguments there are much deeper than the usual
"artists will starve
and we will have no music".
I've read most of this book, and I think he makes some pretty radical
"assumptions" about things which are mostly irrelevant when dealing with
music. He seems to try to lump everything in with scientific
discoveries (boiling water to kill germs) or math functions (E=mc^2),
and comparisons to hard goods which may have limited quantities.
I'm going to read your writings and links on the subject so I can see
what your thoughts are on it.
--
---
My bands, CD projects, music, news, and pictures:
http://www.lateralforce.com
My blog, with commentary on a variety of things, including audio,
mixing, equipment, etc, is at:
http://audioandmore.wordpress.com
Staat heißt das kälteste aller kalten Ungeheuer. Kalt lügt es auch;
und diese Lüge kriecht aus seinem Munde: 'Ich, der Staat, bin das Volk.'
- [Friedrich Nietzsche]
10:44 p.m.
Are you sure we are talking about the same book? I know this book very
very well and I recall no wild assumptions and no lumping together.
Kinsella's position on IP is extremely clear and very well formulated. There
must be some misunderstanding there. In case you are interested, we can
connect by email and discuss this, but his approach is to look at property
rights.
It applies to music very well.
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 2:39 AM, Al Thompson <althompson58(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 02/11/2013 10:02 AM, Louigi Verona wrote:
--
Louigi Verona
http://www.louigiverona.ru/
I would advice this short book for all those
interested in a copyright
debate.
http://mises.org/document/3582
Although the book is called "Against IP", the first part gives a very
thorough and fair overview
of both sides. The arguments there are much deeper than the usual
"artists will starve
and we will have no music".
I've read most of this book, and I think he makes some pretty radical
"assumptions" about things which are mostly irrelevant when dealing with
music. He seems to try to lump everything in with scientific
discoveries (boiling water to kill germs) or math functions (E=mc^2),
and comparisons to hard goods which may have limited quantities.
I'm going to read your writings and links on the subject so I can see
what your thoughts are on it.
--
---
My bands, CD projects, music, news, and pictures:
http://www.lateralforce.com
My blog, with commentary on a variety of things, including audio,
mixing, equipment, etc, is at:
http://audioandmore.wordpress.com
Staat heißt das kälteste aller kalten Ungeheuer. Kalt lügt es auch;
und diese Lüge kriecht aus seinem Munde: 'Ich, der Staat, bin das Volk.'
- [Friedrich Nietzsche]
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
12 Feb
12 Feb
4:34 a.m.
On 02/11/2013 05:44 PM, Louigi Verona wrote:
Are you sure we are talking about the same book? I
know this book very
very well and I recall no wild assumptions and no lumping together.
Kinsella's position on IP is extremely clear and very well formulated.
There
must be some misunderstanding there. In case you are interested, we can
connect by email and discuss this, but his approach is to look at
property rights.
It applies to music very well.
I'll include a few quotes which led me to make my statement:
"In one recent case, the inventor of a new way to calculate a number
representing
the shortest path between two points—an extremely useful technique—was
not given patent protection
because this was “merely” a mathematical algorithm.47
But it is arbitrary and unfair to reward more practical inventors and
entertainment providers, such as the engineer
and songwriter, and to leave more theoretical science and math
researchers and philosophers unrewarded. The
distinction is inherently vague, arbitrary, and unjust."
"For example, your taking my lawnmower would not really deprive me of it
if I could conjure up another in the blink
of an eye. Lawnmower-taking in these circumstances would not be “theft.”
Property rights are not applicable to things
of infinite abundance, because there cannot be conflict over such things.
Thus, property rights must have objective, discernible borders, and must
be allocated in accordance with the first occupier
homesteading rule. Moreover, property rights can apply only to scarce
resources"
I'm still reading and absorbing. I am at odds with his stance in regards
to even infinite resources (or abundant resources) in certain
circumstances. For instance, if I were in a region with VAST amounts of
uninhabited space, and I decided to set up my camp in one certain
location, and "stake my claim," I would have a problem with someone else
coming along, kicking me off, and taking over my "claim," even though it
would be possible for me to simply move and find another area to settle
on. If a person took over my original area, they would be operating
under the assumption that they had a superior right to that specific plot.
--
---
My bands, CD projects, music, news, and pictures:
http://www.lateralforce.com
My blog, with commentary on a variety of things, including audio,
mixing, equipment, etc, is at:
http://audioandmore.wordpress.com
Staat heißt das kälteste aller kalten Ungeheuer. Kalt lügt es auch;
und diese Lüge kriecht aus seinem Munde: 'Ich, der Staat, bin das Volk.'
- [Friedrich Nietzsche]
6:39 a.m.
I'll include a few quotes which led me to make my
statement:
"In one recent case, the inventor of a new way to calculate a number
representing
the shortest path between two points—an extremely useful technique—was
not given patent protection
because this was “merely” a mathematical algorithm.47
But it is arbitrary and unfair to reward more practical inventors and
entertainment providers, such as the engineer
and songwriter, and to leave more theoretical science and math
researchers and philosophers unrewarded. The
distinction is inherently vague, arbitrary, and unjust."
Yeah, IP is not about copyright only, it is about patents as well. He is
referring to the
arbitrary nature of those laws, when they "reward" one thing but not
another.
So it is not about music per se, it is about the idea of IP itself.
"For example, your taking my lawnmower would not
really deprive me of it
if I could conjure up another in the blink
of an eye. Lawnmower-taking in these circumstances would not be “theft.”
Property rights are not applicable to things
of infinite abundance, because there cannot be conflict over such things.
Thus, property rights must have objective, discernible borders, and must
be allocated in accordance with the first occupier
homesteading rule. Moreover, property rights can apply only to scarce
resources"
I'm still reading and absorbing. I am at odds with his stance in regards
to even infinite resources (or abundant resources) in certain
circumstances. For instance, if I were in a region with VAST amounts of
uninhabited space, and I decided to set up my camp in one certain
location, and "stake my claim," I would have a problem with someone else
coming along, kicking me off, and taking over my "claim," even though it
would be possible for me to simply move and find another area to settle
on. If a person took over my original area, they would be operating
under the assumption that they had a superior right to that specific plot.
This is a delicate moment. Things is, as soon as you set up a camp, a camp
becomes
a finite resource. And now it can be taken away.
Now, imagine if, at the moment you set a camp, anyone can come over and
just copy it
and it can be done infinitely. Would conflict be possible?
Also, bodies are scarce resources. And so anything involving bodies would
have grounds
for conflict. Imagine a land of paradise where everything is
super-abundant. But you would
still have conflicts, since you have only one body and you have a limited
resource called
"time". And so even in paradise some property rules would get established
concerning bodies.
But it is a huge topic and challenging. I think you took the correct
approach to absorb it and
think it over.
--
Louigi Verona
http://www.louigiverona.ru/
2:28 p.m.
Louigi Verona <louigi.verona@...> writes:
I would advice this short book for all those interested in a copyright
debate.http://mises.org/document/3582Although the book is called "Against
IP",
the first part gives a very thorough and fair overview
of both sides. The arguments there are much deeper
than the usual "artists
will starveand we will have no music".
I just read through it on a flight. I admit, the first sentences gave me cause
to read it skeptically, by using the term "libertarian" but not as a
pejorative.
Conspicuously absent from his account is the situation of people who earn their
entire living by producing intellectual content. He tries to dismantle concepts
both of intellectual "property" and of contracts to protect an author's
labor,
but has no answers: it's a purely negative exercise. He invokes "fairness"
but,
in his view, if you write a book and I use materials that I own to reproduce the
text and sell it, profiting from work that I couldn't have produced on my own,
this is "fair." It's a silly conclusion: If I sell a copy of someone
else's
work, I could charge roughly the price of, say, a printed novel. If I sell a
sheaf of blank paper for the same cost, it would be fraud. My profits from
selling the copy depend on the value added by another's work. I didn't do the
work myself and I haven't paid for it, but I'd be earning profit based on it. He
has no answer for this. In fact, he simply pretends this scenario either doesn't
exist, or is insignificant. Effectively, he denies that the original author made
any meaningful contribution to the goods from which I'm profiting: It's MY blank
paper, and if I want to use it to copy your work, too bad. My material rights
trump your non-material labor. (Typical libertarian claptrap, blindly following
principles all the way through to stupid results.)
In his defense, he is quite good at reductio ad absurdum argumentation,
extending copyright or contractual protection into situations where the result
really is mad. But he assumes artistic creation is the same, without arguing
why. That's important. Reductio ad absurdum works by analogy. If the analogy is
false, then the absurdity proves nothing.
I wanted to be impressed. I'm not a big fan of copyright myself, and I hoped
this would provide some strong counterarguments. Unfortunately, merely declaring
that the artist's labor has no value worth protecting does not make it so.
I also think the opposition to "reward" that you expressed on your site needs to
explain why governments and other organizations are slashing arts funding, if it
really is inevitable that societies will provide fair funding for essential
human activities.
I don't think copyright is the answer, but it's also a mistake, I think, to
discard every economic protection of an artist's work because the current forms
of that protection are flawed. "It's a hard problem, so let's not try."
I'm not
buying it.
hjh
3:12 p.m.
Hey James!
Kinsella argues copyright from the point of view of non-aggression, i.e.
property rights.
As for your question, as to how will people make a living who do IP only?
Consider an analogy which is brought up often.
Say, there is a culture where women are being forced to marry men that their
family chooses. As you know, in many countries around the world in the past
this was standard stuff.
And now imagine someone saying that this is wrong and brings in his
argumentation.
And someone says - well, then how will my sister get married?
Or if you are against slavery, someone will tell you - well, then how will
the work
in this country be done if there are no slaves? Who will want to do it?
The real question is - I don't know. All I know is that forced
marriage/slavery/copyright are wrong and here are
my arguments.
I don't see a problem with that position.
As pointed out on my site, producing IP is necessary. How will people get
paid?
In various different ways. Just like they get paid now. In Russia copyright
law is
not enforced that much, yet Russia has scientists, composers, actors and
movie directors.
So they must be getting paid somehow.
L.V.
3:22 p.m.
"He invokes "fairness" but,
in his view, if you write a book and I use materials that I own to
reproduce the
text and sell it, profiting from work that I couldn't have produced on my
own,
this is "fair.""
By the way, I also consider that to be fair.
4:05 p.m.
On Feb 12, 2013 11:12 PM, "Louigi Verona" <louigi.verona(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Hey James!
Kinsella argues copyright from the point of view of non-aggression, i.e.
property rights.
Aggressive to whom? It doesn't answer the concern I raised.
Suppose: I own a DVD burner and a stack of blank DVDs. Kinsella would say
that it's my right to do *anything I want* with these material goods. If I
want to increase the value of the blank DVDs by printing onto them content
created by someone else, that's *just fine* because I own the material
goods. If I then sell these newly-valuable DVDs for higher than the cost of
the blank ones, I am earning a profit. The work that I did to earn that
profit is a tiny iota of the work that went into the content that I used,
but I am making money off of it and I am not paying the people who did the
hard work.
I benefit, but I didn't pay (either by paying the author or by adding my
own work to make something new, as Fair Use or Creative Commons allow).
That's... theft. And the author is justified in feeling violated. If it is
an aggressive act to punish me for using MY dvd burner to make money from
someone else's work, why is it not an aggressive act to steal that work in
the first place? Kinsella has a simple answer: Possession is everything.
Creative labor counts for nothing. Like all simple answers to hard
problems, it's wrong.
Ask a third grader if it's right for his desk mate to get a grade for work
that he didn't do. That will tell you what is fair by common sense.
It's a necessary consequence of Kinsella's argument that some idiot with a
DVD burner can spend a few hours copying content he didn't create, and he
has exercised his inviolable property right while the people who made that
profit possible -- on the basis of years of training and practice -- are
screwed. They get nothing. If this is fair, then fairness has no meaning.
(I am ignoring your follow-up email for this reason. To respond to it would
not further the discussion.)
(Note here, I'm beating Kinsella at his own game. His main stratagem is to
start with assertions that seem to be common sense, and lead them to a
surprising conclusion. I've done that to his premises, leading to the
conclusion that certain forms of theft deserve legal protection. Common
sense objects to the conclusion, making it highly likely that either the
premises or the reasoning, or both, are mistaken.)
Copyright is not a good solution, and the media industry's abuse of
copyright is appalling. But the failure of copyright to solve the problem
does not mean that there is no problem.
As pointed out on my site, producing IP is necessary.
How will people get
paid?
In various different ways. Just like they get paid
now. In Russia
copyright law is
not enforced that much, yet Russia has scientists,
composers, actors and
movie directors.
So they must be getting paid somehow.
Like you, I don't know what is the solution. I simply object to Kinsella's
denial that creative labor is worth anything.
hjh
4:47 p.m.
On Tuesday 12 February 2013 11:05:15 James Harkins wrote:
Payment before publication is one thought. If you search around you will find
others.
all thge best,
drew
On Feb 12, 2013 11:12 PM, "Louigi Verona"
<louigi.verona(a)gmail.com> wrote:
And you laboured to get them into the newly valuable state. Should you get
paid for that labour or not. Why is the creator not doing that labour as
well? Why can he not compete with you for the love of his fans?
Hey James!
Kinsella argues copyright from the point of view of non-aggression, i.e.
property rights.
Aggressive to whom? It doesn't answer the concern I raised.
Suppose: I own a DVD burner and a stack of blank DVDs. Kinsella would say
that it's my right to do *anything I want* with these material goods. If I
want to increase the value of the blank DVDs by printing onto them content
created by someone else, that's *just fine* because I own the material
goods. If I then sell these newly-valuable DVDs for higher than the cost of
the blank ones, I am earning a profit. The work that I did to earn that
profit is a tiny iota of the work that went into the content that I used,
but I am making money off of it and I am not paying the people who did the
hard work.
And since there is no monopoly involved, how exactly can you earn a *lot* more
than the next guy doing the same thing or than the original creator?
I benefit, but I didn't pay (either by paying the author or by adding my
own work to make something new, as Fair Use or Creative Commons allow).
That's... theft.
Please, it is not theft. It is currently a copyright violation.
And the author is justified in feeling violated.
Why exactly? Do you really feel like your are stealing when you tell a joke
that you did not make up yourself? Do you feel like you are stealing when you
perform a work from more then a few hundred years ago?
If it is
an aggressive act to punish me for using MY dvd burner to make money from
someone else's work, why is it not an aggressive act to steal that work in
the first place?
If you insist on using the word steal in this case, you are assuming your
desired outcome in the question you ask.
If you broke into the creators house and took his unpublished copy and
duplicated that, perhaps in the process claiming that you wrote it as well,
we will have a different discussion.
Kinsella has a simple answer: Possession is
everything.
Creative labor counts for nothing. Like all simple answers to hard
problems, it's wrong.
Ask a third grader if it's right for his desk mate to get a grade for work
that he didn't do. That will tell you what is fair by common sense.
So, this is not //. He must not only copy, but lie as well to get that grade.
Right?
It's a necessary consequence of Kinsella's argument that some idiot with a
DVD burner can spend a few hours copying content he didn't create, and he
has exercised his inviolable property right while the people who made that
profit possible -- on the basis of years of training and practice -- are
screwed.
Please explain why they are so *ignorant* as to not make those copies
themselves and sell them?
There is a world of material out there that it is legal to copy and sell. How
many do it? Why don't you if it is so easy to make money that way?
They get nothing. If this is fair, then fairness has
no meaning.
(I am ignoring your follow-up email for this reason. To respond to it would
not further the discussion.)
One thing they can do is to not publish in the first place until they get
something. Why in the world do you posit that they get nothing?
(Note here, I'm beating Kinsella at his own game. His main stratagem is to
start with assertions that seem to be common sense, and lead them to a
surprising conclusion. I've done that to his premises, leading to the
conclusion that certain forms of theft deserve legal protection. Common
sense objects to the conclusion, making it highly likely that either the
premises or the reasoning, or both, are mistaken.)
Copyright is not a good solution, and the media industry's abuse of
copyright is appalling. But the failure of copyright to solve the problem
does not mean that there is no problem.
Well, we seem to have had a world without copyright for a long time and we
seem to have had artistic creation in those times.
As pointed out on my site, producing IP is
necessary. How will people get
paid? In various different ways. Just like they get
paid now. In Russia
copyright law is
not enforced that much, yet Russia has
scientists, composers, actors and
movie directors.
So they must be getting paid somehow.
Like you, I don't know what is the solution. I simply object to Kinsella's
denial that creative labor is worth anything.
hjh
5:54 p.m.
Hey James!
Will respond to your letter a bit later, but just a quick clarification:
"Note here, I'm beating Kinsella at his own game. His main stratagem is to
start with assertions that seem to be common sense, and lead them to a
surprising conclusion."
He starts with standard libertarian property theory. Stephan Kinsella is a
very known libertarian. I am a libertarian as well and to me those
assertions are not news. Having quickly skimmed through your letter I think
it is a fair criticism, but I am sure I can respond and clear some of
Kinsella's premises.
--
Louigi Verona
http://www.louigiverona.ru/
6:16 p.m.
Hey James!
This is a more elaborate reply to your arguments.
1. "I simply object to Kinsella's denial that creative labor is worth
anything."
He does not say that it is not worth anything. He simply takes a property
approach to IP. It is not about value.
Intellectual property is a claim that there should be property rules in the
sphere of ideas. Thus, to analyze this
claim, we must analyze property theory.
2. "If I want to increase the value of the blank DVDs by printing onto them
content created by someone else, that's *just fine* because I own the
material goods. If I then sell these newly-valuable DVDs for higher than
the cost of the blank ones, I am earning a profit. The work that I did to
earn that profit is a tiny iota of the work that went into the content that
I used, but I am making money off of it and I am not paying the people who
did the hard work."
Right. Thing is - value has nothing to do with property rights. Property
rights appear as soon as there is rivalrousness.
To supply an example. Let's say you took someone's piece of marble and
created a statue out of it. Is it now your statue,
because you've added "value" to it?
Creation in itself does not give you any property rights. In fact, there is
no creation, there is always only changing matter
according to laws of physics.
3. Did you read the whole thing?
I am asking, because Stephan goes through all that in great detail.
L.V.
11:49 p.m.
On 02/12/2013 01:16 PM, Louigi Verona wrote:
Right. Thing is - value has nothing to do with property rights.
Property rights appear as soon as there is rivalrousness.
To supply an example. Let's say you took someone's piece of marble and
created a statue out of it. Is it now your statue,
because you've added "value" to it?
Creation in itself does not give you any property rights. In fact,
there is no creation, there is always only changing matter
according to laws of physics.
The flaw in your example is "you TOOK someone's piece of marble." You
may have added value to the marble FOR THE OWNER, if he likes your
statue. Or, you may have REDUCED it's value to the owner, if he
intended to use the marble for a counter top. The point being, that you
cannot base "increased value" arguments when you base your premise on
STEALING the item in the first place.
And the rivalrousness statement goes along with Kinsella's concept that
there can be no value in something unless there is a scarcity of that
item. In other words, he thinks it would be fine for others to demand
that YOU do one hour of work for them a day for free, and that is
acceptable until more than 24 people have made that same demand.
--
---
My bands, CD projects, music, news, and pictures:
http://www.lateralforce.com
My blog, with commentary on a variety of things, including audio,
mixing, equipment, etc, is at:
http://audioandmore.wordpress.com
Staat heißt das kälteste aller kalten Ungeheuer. Kalt lügt es auch;
und diese Lüge kriecht aus seinem Munde: 'Ich, der Staat, bin das Volk.'
- [Friedrich Nietzsche]
13 Feb
13 Feb
2:15 a.m.
I'll just answer a few points. Two people gave me point-by-point replies, and
responding in kind becomes an exponentially-growing time sink, so...
~~
3. Did you read the whole thing?
I am asking, because Stephan goes through all that in great detail.
~~
Yes, of course. He reaches a conclusion that I dispute. If the conclusion is
wrong, then either the premises are wrong, or the logical steps are wrong, or
both.
Actually, I can accept his reasoning if we understand it narrowly as a critique
of the idea of intellectual /property/. I'd agree with him that it's kind of
silly to regulate the use, or "ownership," of one's intellectual product in
the
same terms that we use for material property. His account of the flaws of
current approaches is convincing.
But, if it isn't property, then what is it? He seems to be saying that it's
*nothing*. This could be the faulty premise: that property is the only thing
that should matter in the law.
~~
He starts with standard libertarian property theory. Stephan Kinsella is a
very known libertarian.
~~
I'm not a libertarian. Anyway, if his point is that property theory doesn't
govern intellectual creation, then why does he seem to say that property theory
should rule out any and all protection for one's intellectual work?
From Drew:
~~
And you laboured to get them into the newly valuable state. Should you get
paid for that labour or not. Why is the creator not doing that labour as
well? Why can he not compete with you for the love of his fans?
~~
To the first question (should I get paid for copying?): I could also labor in my
home to convert pseudo-ephedrine into crystal meth. Should I get paid for that
labor? Here, society recognizes harmful effects on individuals and society as a
whole, so it prohibits that line of work. (Note, I'm in favor of legalizing and
regulating some recreational drugs, in the way alcohol is regulated now. I don't
use drugs other than alcohol and caffeine, but I've no wish to impose that on
others. Meth is pretty nasty stuff, though...)
So it's relevant to ask: Is there a harmful effect by allowing free copying of
others' work? I admit, I haven't researched this but my gut feeling is that
it's
far too simple just to deny any possibility that there even *could* be harm
here.
To the second: Such competition is not necessarily fair. Your expense to produce
the work in the first place is high. To recover that expense, you may have to
charge a higher price. My expenses are lower, so I can sell more cheaply, making
my product more attractive to buyers.
Without your work, I could not profit like this, so I owe you something. Why
should the law exempt me from that debt?
What do you both think about the GLEE "Baby Got Back" debacle?
hjh
2:53 a.m.
On Wed, 2013-02-13 at 02:15 +0000, James Harkins wrote:
I could also labor in my home to convert
pseudo-ephedrine into crystal
meth. Should I get paid for that labor?
Lithium and Water might add new jobs, fire brigade, medical staff,
housebuilding http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ypUVpwgcAA and if that
won't happen, than there will be new jobs for street workers and police.
So converting pseudoephedrine into crystal is service to the society.
That's what politicians are paid for, solving one problem by replacing
it with in the minimum one new problem. Btw. they are the same people
who decide about copyright laws.
6:42 a.m.
"The difference is that in your marriage example, and in slavery, the
person is forced against his will to comply. The woman is forced into
it, the slave is also forced.
A composer is not forced."
The public is forced to enter into an "agreement" with the composer.
Basically, copyright proponents say - if we do not force people to pay,
the won't. I believe this to be false.
"How much of this is still state-sponsored in Russia?"
I don't know. I do know that state-sponsorship is, in many cases, very poor.
6:45 a.m.
"Anyway, if his point is that property theory doesn't
govern intellectual creation, then why does he seem to say that property
theory
should rule out any and all protection for one's intellectual work?"
Because copyright ends up invading actual physical property.
You ask - what is copyright? It is a legislative method to invade other
people's
property without their consent. Just by writing something, I instantly get a
partial ownership of your body (you cannot perform my writing in public
without my permission), partial ownership of your pen, paper, computer
and printer (you cannot distribute my writing without my permission).
And you did not agree to any of this.
L.V.
6:49 a.m.
"The flaw in your example is "you TOOK someone's piece of marble."
You
may have added value to the marble FOR THE OWNER, if he likes your
statue. Or, you may have REDUCED it's value to the owner, if he
intended to use the marble for a counter top. The point being, that you
cannot base "increased value" arguments when you base your premise on
STEALING the item in the first place."
This is not a flaw - this is the main point of the example.
It shows that property right is not given by creation. The fact that
it was *you* who wrote the book does not give you any property rights
over the copy of the book someone else bought. He now owns it. The
fact that you wrote the story does not now give you any property right in
it.
"In other words, he thinks it would be fine for others to demand
that YOU do one hour of work for them a day for free, and that is
acceptable until more than 24 people have made that same demand."
Oh really? Can I have a quote?
4:29 p.m.
On 02/13/2013 01:49 AM, Louigi Verona wrote:
"In other words, he thinks it would be fine for others to demand
that YOU do one hour of work for them a day for free, and that is
acceptable until more than 24 people have made that same demand."
Oh really? Can I have a quote?
You have stated that others have a RIGHT to the results of your labor,
which means that they have a right to your labor.
You also have said that as long as there was no scarcity of a thing,
then a thing can no have value because there is no contentiousness. You
have said that people have equal claim to the product of your labor,
since you believe that they can do what they want with your creation
(copy your song and sell it, etc). If they have this equal right to
your song, it follows that they have equal say in what you do (change
the lyrics, use a different chord, add a solo here, etc). In a sense,
that makes them your boss.
You have 24 hours a day. By your thinking, it follows that as long as
you work less than 24 hours a day, people have a right to the results of
your labor because there is no contention over your time. Once there is
more work than can be done by you in 24 hour days, then your work has
value, because there is a scarcity and contentiousness.
I prefer to go by a "property" standard, because it doesn't lead to such
dystopian outcomes. Nobody has a "right" to your person except you.
Therefore, nobody has a "right" to your labors except yourself. Thus
nobody has a "right" to the results of your labor except yourself. You
are free to sell it, donate it, give it away, or make whatever
conditions you want on a transfer, but that is YOUR decision, and nobody
else's.
--
---
My bands, CD projects, music, news, and pictures:
http://www.lateralforce.com
My blog, with commentary on a variety of things, including audio,
mixing, equipment, etc, is at:
http://audioandmore.wordpress.com
Staat heißt das kälteste aller kalten Ungeheuer. Kalt lügt es auch;
und diese Lüge kriecht aus seinem Munde: 'Ich, der Staat, bin das Volk.'
- [Friedrich Nietzsche]
17 Feb
17 Feb
9:18 p.m.
On Wednesday 13 February 2013 11:29:16 Al Thompson wrote:
On 02/13/2013 01:49 AM, Louigi Verona wrote:
Where was this stated? Is it rather something you mistakenly asserted or
assumed?
Each hour is a limited resource. All hours of the day are not the same either.
When I was running my own business for years, I chared different rates
depending on the time of day and on the day of the week.
Did someone say they had a right to your labour? Or did they say they had a
natural right to make copies of what you published? If you publish something
without getting paid properly for the labour you put into it, why should that
be someone else's problem?
"In other words, he thinks it would be fine
for others to demand
that YOU do one hour of work for them a day for free, and that is
acceptable until more than 24 people have made that same demand."
Oh really? Can I have a quote?
You have stated that others have a RIGHT to the results of your labor,
which means that they have a right to your labor. You also have said that as long as there was no
scarcity of a thing,
then a thing can no have value because there is no contentiousness.
Personally, this may only be true if you are speaking for limited definitions
of value. (Such as monetary value, ie. something someone would be willing to
pay you for.) And even there, the convenience of having something plentiful
delivered to your liking may be worth paying for.
For example, if you are in a place like me, you will not get far trying to
sell "breathing" air to people you meet in your daily rounds. They just
breath what they want for free. (I think this may be what people refer to
when making such statement.) You will not get me to say that the air which I
breath for free has no value to me though, even though, like most people, I
will continues to breath it for free rather than start buying it from people
who want to sell it to me.
You
have said that people have equal claim to the product of your labor,
since you believe that they can do what they want with your creation
(copy your song and sell it, etc).
Again, was this said, or is this your conclusion?
If they have this equal right to
your song, it follows that they have equal say in what you do (change
the lyrics, use a different chord, add a solo here, etc). In a sense,
that makes them your boss.
Huh? How could they have a say in what you do? You are twisting things here.
They only have a say in what they do, perhaps starting with your published
stuff. If they want do do something different from you, your version will
still exist as you made it. Their version will also exist. It seems you want
to be their boss and tell them that they cannot do what they want with your
published work. Even after they may have legally purchased a copy from you.
Would you get a toilet installed from a plumber who told you you owed him a
dollar a flush and a dollar for everytime you sat on the seat, and an extra
dollar for every time you sat on the seat or flushed between the house of 6
am and 10 am?
You have 24 hours a day. By your thinking, it follows that as long as
you work less than 24 hours a day, people have a right to the results of
your labor because there is no contention over your time.
Sure there is contention over someone's time. If anything, they want to do
what they want to do with it. I know I want that with my time. If you want me
to do something that you want with my time, we have contention right there.
How do you miss this?
Once there is
more work than can be done by you in 24 hour days, then your work has
value, because there is a scarcity and contentiousness.
I prefer to go by a "property" standard, because it doesn't lead to such
dystopian outcomes. Nobody has a "right" to your person except you.
Therefore, nobody has a "right" to your labors except yourself. Thus
nobody has a "right" to the results of your labor except yourself.
So far, so good.
You
are free to sell it, donate it, give it away, or make whatever
conditions you want on a transfer, but that is YOUR decision, and nobody
else's.
Yes. Fine. (Perhaps there are some limits, we can discuss them if you like.)
Once you publish the result of your labour though, the situation changes. You
want the government to protect your right to control third party others even
after you make transfers.
all the best,
drew
13 Feb
13 Feb
7:44 a.m.
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Louigi Verona <louigi.verona(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
"Anyway, if his point is that property theory
doesn't
govern intellectual creation, then why does he seem to say that property
theory
should rule out any and all protection for one's intellectual work?"
Because copyright ends up invading actual physical property.
You ask - what is copyright? It is a legislative method to invade other
people's
property without their consent. Just by writing something, I instantly get
a
partial ownership of your body (you cannot perform my writing in public
without my permission), partial ownership of your pen, paper, computer
and printer (you cannot distribute my writing without my permission).
And you did not agree to any of this.
L.V.
_
I'm not sure I buy this argument.
Allow me to play devil's advocate, as I'm not sure I fully agree with the
position I'm about to present.
If I never see your writing, there is no way for me to copy it. In order to
copy it I must first see it. If you were to make your writing available
only under a conditional contract of sale (copyright) that states the
writing is not to be shared with anyone else, and that contract of sale is
made known prior to any exchange of said writing, then the only people that
ever see this writing and will be "forcefully" bound to the contractual
agreement are those that agree with it. No one is forced to not copy it if
they don't buy it, and by buying they enter into a contract of sale. In
other words, copyright does not try to remove things from the public
domain, it tries to prevent them from entering into the public domain in
the first place by restricting the sharing of those things to a community
of people who respect the conditions of it being shared.
The only cases where I feel like your argument could hold is when I am
forced to read or listen to your work due to public broadcasting. However,
except for perhaps some severe fascist states, it rarely happens that
people are forcefully exposed to media in the first place that they are
then denied the right to copy it against their will.
8:21 a.m.
I'm not sure I buy this argument.
Allow me to play devil's advocate, as I'm not sure I fully agree with the
position I'm about to present.
If I never see your writing, there is no way for me to copy it. In order
to copy it I must first see it. If you were to make your writing available
only under a conditional contract of sale (copyright) that states the
writing is not to be shared with anyone else, and that contract of sale is
made known prior to any exchange of said writing, then the only people that
ever see this writing and will be "forcefully" bound to the contractual
agreement are those that agree with it. No one is forced to not copy it if
they don't buy it, and by buying they enter into a contract of sale. In
other words, copyright does not try to remove things from the public
domain, it tries to prevent them from entering into the public domain in
the first place by restricting the sharing of those things to a community
of people who respect the conditions of it being shared.
The only cases where I feel like your argument could hold is when I am
forced to read or listen to your work due to public broadcasting. However,
except for perhaps some severe fascist states, it rarely happens that
people are forcefully exposed to media in the first place that they are
then denied the right to copy it against their will.
Your thinking is in the right direction. Indeed, if you are given a book
under contract, then you have to abide by the contract. But let's say you
decided to break the agreement and copied the book on the Internet or gave
it to your friends. All those people made no contract with the author and
thus they cannot be and should not be bound by the contract. What copyright
does is bind third parties, which never agreed to the contract.
There are other cases. Public broadcasting is one. You turn on your TV and
see Harry Potter. You were not presented with any contract. Why should you
be bound by any conditions? If the author of Harry Potter wanted to
distribute her book only under contract obligations, she should not have
let it broadcast on TV.
The other case is the one I mentioned - someone breaking a contract.
There are other options, like accidents. You leave a book on a bench.
Unless the book itself contains a full blown contract in it, there is no
way for Joe who finds the book to know. In fact, even if the contract is in
the book, Joe did not sign it.
Additionally, some things are just out there. You invent something. The
other person sees it. He has no contract with you. Why should he restrict
actions with his own body and his own property? What legitimate reason is
there to not act on a new knowledge you have?
Finally, if each time you enter a store and decide to buy a DVD, you were
explicitly told that you will not simply be able to share copies, but that
you should agree to not use the knowledge you gain from the DVD and act as
if you have no such knowledge, I am not sure most people would agree.
You watch Harry Potter. And, according to the contract a typical copyright
proponent would want you to sign, you hen have no right to act on the
knowledge you have acquired, namely, the plot, ideas, characters. All of
this is knowledge you now have in your brain. Copyright wants you to
pretend you only have this information in read-only format.
--
Louigi Verona
http://www.louigiverona.ru/
8:57 a.m.
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 5:21 PM, Louigi Verona <louigi.verona(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
Your thinking is in the right direction. Indeed, if you are given a book
Yes this was the point I was getting to. But I would disagree that
copyright itself binds third parties. The current implementation via
legislation and execution may do so, but that is a mistake in
implementation and not in principle. Implementations can be refined so long
as the principles are sound.
under contract, then you have to abide by the
contract. But let's say you
decided to break the agreement and copied the book on the Internet or gave
it to your friends. All those people made no contract with the author and
thus they cannot be and should not be bound by the contract. What copyright
does is bind third parties, which never agreed to the contract.
There are other cases. Public broadcasting is one. You
turn on your TV and
see Harry Potter. You were not presented with any contract. Why should you
be bound by any conditions? If the author of Harry Potter wanted to
distribute her book only under contract obligations, she should not have
let it broadcast on TV.
It is widely accepted public knowledge that the material on television is
covered under copyright. I know this when I turn it on, except for when I
am very young perhaps. So there is a contract in the same way that as you
say, "some things are just out there". Also the credits for television
programs and films contain explicit copyright information. TV is not public
domain, it is for the most part a private system of distribution that most
mentally functioning adults know the conditions of use for when we buy a
TV.
The other case is the one I mentioned - someone
breaking a contract.
There are other options, like accidents. You leave a book on a bench.
Unless the book itself contains a full blown contract in it, there is no
way for Joe who finds the book to know. In fact, even if the contract is in
the book, Joe did not sign it.
I assume this is explicitly why copyright information is placed at the
beginning of books. And again, this is a flaw with the implementation if
Joe were to be punished in such a case, and not with the principle itself.
Further there *is* a way for Joe to know if he pays attention at all
throughout life, as copyright is a well known fact of cultural life.
Pleading ignorance in such a case is not a sufficient defense.
Additionally, some things are just out there. You invent something. The
other person sees it. He has no contract with you. Why
should he restrict
actions with his own body and his own property? What legitimate reason is
there to not act on a new knowledge you have?
My understanding is that this is the reason why the distinction between
ideas and the execution of them is made in copyright and patent law.
Finally, if each time you enter a store and decide to buy a DVD, you were
explicitly told that you will not simply be able to
share copies, but that
you should agree to not use the knowledge you gain from the DVD and act as
if you have no such knowledge, I am not sure most people would agree.
You watch Harry Potter. And, according to the contract a typical copyright
proponent would want you to sign, you hen have no right to act on the
knowledge you have acquired, namely, the plot, ideas, characters. All of
this is knowledge you now have in your brain. Copyright wants you to
pretend you only have this information in read-only format.
Seems like a strawman to me. There are reasonable copyright proponents who
don't think suing people for acting on the knowledge of a plotline is a
reasonable thing to do, unless that action consists of seeking monetary
gain by directly copying the original content. Yes, there are also
unprincipled types who will look for any legal justification to gouge and
increase profit lines, but this has very little to do with copyright itself.
To be clear, I don't consider myself a copyright proponent as such. But I
do think that if a group of people wants to enter into a collective
agreement to share content in a certain way, that should be their right. If
I happen to come onto some of that content without having entered into
their covenant, then that community should take action against the one who
made that content available to me. If I take the content in full knowledge
that such a covenant exists, then I am acting inappropriately So yes, I
consider it a bad habit when I download an unpaid-for copy of a copyrighted
artwork in full knowledge that such copyright exists. The reason I might do
it is that I have desire, but desire in itself is not a justification to
deny the value of content. If anything, I think we should recognize that
creative content that produces desire does have real value, and that is the
reason we are so keen to copy it in the first place.
Anyway, this has all gotten way off the Linux Audio track, so I'll leave it
at that.
9:07 a.m.
"It is widely accepted public knowledge that the material on television is
covered under copyright. I know this when I turn it on, except for when I
am very young perhaps. So there is a contract in the same way that as you
say, "some things are just out there". Also the credits for television
programs and films contain explicit copyright information."
"Further there *is* a way for Joe to know if he pays attention at all
throughout life, as copyright is a well known fact of cultural life.
Pleading ignorance in such a case is not a sufficient defense."
Contract is always a two-side thing. A contract which is presented to me as
an ultimatum is not a contract. I may well be aware of copyright, but I am
not obliged to agree to it. So I do not plead ignorance, I plead
disagreement.
Do you propose I do not watch TV? If yes, it is the burden on content
creators and distributors to exclude unwanted public from their services,
not mine.
It is as if someone says that I can only use smth under particular
conditions and then throws this something into my window without me
agreeing first. And he then feels he has the right to sue me or consider me
to behave unfairly.
"But I do think that if a group of people wants to enter into a collective
agreement to share content in a certain way, that should be their right. If
I happen to come onto some of that content without having entered into
their covenant, then that community should take action against the one who
made that content available to me. If I take the content in full knowledge
that such a covenant exists, then I am acting inappropriately."
I would agree with this under particular circumstances. Under other
circumstances this might not be the case. It hugely depends on the
situation.
But what you are describing is voluntary interactions. I am all for that. I
am against copyright, which is an interaction from the state.
11:28 a.m.
On Wed, 2013-02-13 at 12:07 +0300, Louigi Verona wrote:
Contract is always a two-side thing. A contract which
is presented to
me as an ultimatum is not a contract. I may well be aware of
copyright, but I am not obliged to agree to it. So I do not plead
ignorance, I plead disagreement.
+1
3:25 p.m.
New subject: Changed: Copyright laws and such
On Wednesday 13 February 2013 03:57:33 michael noble wrote:
Well, the only "refining" I have seen happening in my lifetime is making
things worse, not better.
I would rather have no copyright law at all rather than the nasty copyright
law we currently have.
Those who think a reasonable copyright law makes sense might want to fight
hard to have the current laws made more reasonable because the folks who are
getting the changes they want introduced into the law are likely to push
things so far that the public demands that it be done atay with completely.
Copyright notices generally "lie" by omitting fair use and other exceptions.
And say things in ways as to misinform the general population.
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 5:21 PM, Louigi Verona
<louigi.verona(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
Your thinking
is in the right direction. Indeed, if you are given a book
> under contract, then you have to abide by the contract. But let's say
> you decided to break the agreement and copied the book on the Internet
> or gave it to your friends. All those people made no contract with the
> author and thus they cannot be and should not be bound by the contract.
> What copyright does is bind third parties, which never agreed to the
> contract.
Yes this was the point I was getting to. But I would disagree that
copyright itself binds third parties. The current implementation via
legislation and execution may do so, but that is a mistake in
implementation and not in principle. Implementations can be refined so long
as the principles are sound. There are other cases. Public broadcasting is
one. You turn on your TV
and see Harry Potter. You were not presented with any contract. Why
should you be bound by any conditions? If the author of Harry Potter
wanted to distribute her book only under contract obligations, she should
not have let it broadcast on TV.
It is widely accepted public knowledge that the material on television is
covered under copyright. I know this when I turn it on, except for when I
am very young perhaps. So there is a contract in the same way that as you
say, "some things are just out there". Also the credits for television
programs and films contain explicit copyright information. TV is not public
domain, it is for the most part a private system of distribution that most
mentally functioning adults know the conditions of use for when we buy a
TV.
Yes, but one deos not get to negotiate the contract. One does not sign the
contract. But one is held to the terms of the contract.
The other case is the one I mentioned - someone
breaking a contract.
There are other options, like accidents. You leave a book on a bench.
Unless the book itself contains a full blown contract in it, there is no
way for Joe who finds the book to know. In fact, even if the contract is
in the book, Joe did not sign it.
I assume this is explicitly why copyright information is placed at the
beginning of books. And again, this is a flaw with the implementation if
Joe were to be punished in such a case, and not with the principle itself.
Further there *is* a way for Joe to know if he pays attention at all
throughout life, as copyright is a well known fact of cultural life.
Pleading ignorance in such a case is not a sufficient defense.
Additionally, some things are just out there. You invent something. The
As I say above, those who consider themselves reasonable coppyright proponents
need to fight hard to see that the laws get made more reasonable.
other person sees it. He has no contract with
you. Why should he restrict
actions with his own body and his own property? What legitimate reason is
there to not act on a new knowledge you have?
My understanding is that this is the reason why the distinction between
ideas and the execution of them is made in copyright and patent law.
Finally, if each time you enter a store and decide to buy a DVD, you were
explicitly told that you will not simply be able
to share copies, but
that you should agree to not use the knowledge you gain from the DVD and
act as if you have no such knowledge, I am not sure most people would
agree. You watch Harry Potter. And, according to the contract a typical
copyright proponent would want you to sign, you hen have no right to act
on the knowledge you have acquired, namely, the plot, ideas, characters.
All of this is knowledge you now have in your brain. Copyright wants you
to pretend you only have this information in read-only format.
Seems like a strawman to me. There are reasonable copyright proponents who
don't think suing people for acting on the knowledge of a plotline is a
reasonable thing to do, unless that action consists of seeking monetary
gain by directly copying the original content. Yes, there are also
unprincipled types who will look for any legal justification to gouge and
increase profit lines, but this has very little to do with copyright
itself.
To be clear, I don't consider myself a copyright proponent as such. But I
do think that if a group of people wants to enter into a collective
agreement to share content in a certain way, that should be their right.
You do not explain how those who do not want to enter into this agreement can
do so.
If
I happen to come onto some of that content without having entered into
their covenant, then that community should take action against the one who
made that content available to me.
If that person was a party to the covenant.
If I take the content in full knowledge
that such a covenant exists, then I am acting inappropriately
Why? You may think the covenant is totally bogus.
What if I invented a cure for X terrible disease. What if I then said that as
the creator of this intellectual property it was my desire that only people
with Y characteristics should make use of this cure. What if I entered into
covenants with people willing to go alone with this.
Do you really think that if someone who did not meet my characteristics and
who was suffereing from X would be wrong in making use of Y should they come
upon the information? Would they be wrong for spreading to info to others
suffering from X?
So yes, I
consider it a bad habit when I download an unpaid-for copy of a copyrighted
artwork in full knowledge that such copyright exists. The reason I might do
it is that I have desire, but desire in itself is not a justification to
deny the value of content. If anything, I think we should recognize that
creative content that produces desire does have real value, and that is the
reason we are so keen to copy it in the first place.
Anyway, this has all gotten way off the Linux Audio track, so I'll leave it
at that.
all the best,
drew
4:37 p.m.
On 02/13/2013 03:21 AM, Louigi Verona wrote:
I'm not sure I buy this argument.
Allow me to play devil's advocate, as I'm not sure I fully agree
with the position I'm about to present.
If I never see your writing, there is no way for me to copy it. In
order to copy it I must first see it. If you were to make your
writing available only under a conditional contract of sale
(copyright) that states the writing is not to be shared with
anyone else, and that contract of sale is made known prior to any
exchange of said writing, then the only people that ever see this
writing and will be "forcefully" bound to the contractual
agreement are those that agree with it. No one is forced to not
copy it if they don't buy it, and by buying they enter into a
contract of sale. In other words, copyright does not try to remove
things from the public domain, it tries to prevent them from
entering into the public domain in the first place by restricting
the sharing of those things to a community of people who respect
the conditions of it being shared.
The only cases where I feel like your argument could hold is when
I am forced to read or listen to your work due to public
broadcasting. However, except for perhaps some severe fascist
states, it rarely happens that people are forcefully exposed to
media in the first place that they are then denied the right to
copy it against their will.
Your thinking is in the right direction. Indeed, if you are given a
book under contract, then you have to abide by the contract. But let's
say you decided to break the agreement and copied the book on the
Internet or gave it to your friends. All those people made no contract
with the author and thus they cannot be and should not be bound by the
contract. What copyright does is bind third parties, which never
agreed to the contract.
There are other cases. Public broadcasting is one. You turn on your TV
and see Harry Potter. You were not presented with any contract. Why
should you be bound by any conditions? If the author of Harry Potter
wanted to distribute her book only under contract obligations, she
should not have let it broadcast on TV.
The other case is the one I mentioned - someone breaking a contract.
There are other options, like accidents. You leave a book on a bench.
Unless the book itself contains a full blown contract in it, there is
no way for Joe who finds the book to know. In fact, even if the
contract is in the book, Joe did not sign it.
Additionally, some things are just out there. You invent something.
The other person sees it. He has no contract with you. Why should he
restrict actions with his own body and his own property? What
legitimate reason is there to not act on a new knowledge you have?
Finally, if each time you enter a store and decide to buy a DVD, you
were explicitly told that you will not simply be able to share copies,
but that you should agree to not use the knowledge you gain from the
DVD and act as if you have no such knowledge, I am not sure most
people would agree.
That's why things have copyright notices on them that are very specific
in their form and location.
--
---
My bands, CD projects, music, news, and pictures:
http://www.lateralforce.com
My blog, with commentary on a variety of things, including audio,
mixing, equipment, etc, is at:
http://audioandmore.wordpress.com
Staat heißt das kälteste aller kalten Ungeheuer. Kalt lügt es auch;
und diese Lüge kriecht aus seinem Munde: 'Ich, der Staat, bin das Volk.'
- [Friedrich Nietzsche]
3:08 p.m.
New subject: Changed: Copyright laws and such
On Wednesday 13 February 2013 02:44:50 michael noble wrote:
Copyright law is a *far* cry from a contract negotiated and entered into
freely by two consenting parties.
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Louigi Verona
<louigi.verona(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
"Anyway,
if his point is that property theory doesn't
govern intellectual creation, then why does he seem to say that property
theory
should rule out any and all protection for one's intellectual work?"
Because copyright ends up invading actual physical property.
You ask - what is copyright? It is a legislative method to invade other
people's
property without their consent. Just by writing something, I instantly
get a
partial ownership of your body (you cannot perform my writing in public
without my permission), partial ownership of your pen, paper, computer
and printer (you cannot distribute my writing without my permission).
And you did not agree to any of this.
L.V.
_
I'm not sure I buy this argument.
Allow me to play devil's advocate, as I'm not sure I fully agree with the
position I'm about to present.
If I never see your writing, there is no way for me to copy it. In order to
copy it I must first see it. If you were to make your writing available
only under a conditional contract of sale (copyright) that states the
writing is not to be shared with anyone else, and that contract of sale is
made known prior to any exchange of said writing, then the only people that
ever see this writing and will be "forcefully" bound to the contractual
agreement are those that agree with it.
Not by a long shot.
No one is forced to not copy it if
they don't buy it, and by buying they enter into a contract of sale. In
other words, copyright does not try to remove things from the public
domain, it tries to prevent them from entering into the public domain
Except when they retroactively extend the copyright terms right?
in
the first place by restricting the sharing of those things to a community
of people who respect the conditions of it being shared.
The only cases where I feel like your argument could hold is when I am
forced to read or listen to your work due to public broadcasting.
So you never drive your car with the windows down or walk along the street and
have someone pass by with music playing?
However,
except for perhaps some severe fascist states, it rarely happens that
people are forcefully exposed to media in the first place that they are
then denied the right to copy it against their will.
all the best,
drew
9:28 a.m.
On 02/13/2013 01:45 AM, Louigi Verona wrote:
"Anyway, if his point is that property theory
doesn't
govern intellectual creation, then why does he seem to say that
property theory
should rule out any and all protection for one's intellectual work?"
Because copyright ends up invading actual physical property.
You ask - what is copyright? It is a legislative method to invade
other people's
property without their consent. Just by writing something, I instantly
get a
partial ownership of your body (you cannot perform my writing in public
without my permission), partial ownership of your pen, paper, computer
and printer (you cannot distribute my writing without my permission).
And you did not agree to any of this.
I don't agree with this. Primarily because if you write something, you
aren't FORCING ANYONE to listen to it. Conversely though, if there were
no copyrights, then by the mere act of writing and releasing something,
you would be giving the rights to your life/time/labor to anyone who
cared to listen (or cared to copy).
How is that morally superior?
--
---
My bands, CD projects, music, news, and pictures:
http://www.lateralforce.com
My blog, with commentary on a variety of things, including audio,
mixing, equipment, etc, is at:
http://audioandmore.wordpress.com
Staat heißt das kälteste aller kalten Ungeheuer. Kalt lügt es auch;
und diese Lüge kriecht aus seinem Munde: 'Ich, der Staat, bin das Volk.'
- [Friedrich Nietzsche]
9:35 a.m.
True. You are not forcing anyone. However, when you release
something into the public, copyright sort of makes everyone agree
to the contract with you even if they don't want it.
How you can hear something or see something even if you did not
aim to do that, I listed in my response to Michael above.
Kinsella has a whole chapter about copyright as a contract.
To make clear, I am NOT against contracts. If you give me a book
under a contract, it is morally correct to abide by the contract.
Question is, can this duplicate a sort of copyright regime? Kinsella
argues that no. I argue the same. It is practically almost impossible.
One person violates the contract and the closed club of
contract agreements is compromised.
4:46 p.m.
On 02/13/2013 04:35 AM, Louigi Verona wrote:
True. You are not forcing anyone. However, when you
release
something into the public, copyright sort of makes everyone agree
to the contract with you even if they don't want it.
How you can hear something or see something even if you did not
aim to do that, I listed in my response to Michael above.
Kinsella has a whole chapter about copyright as a contract.
To make clear, I am NOT against contracts. If you give me a book
under a contract, it is morally correct to abide by the contract.
Question is, can this duplicate a sort of copyright regime? Kinsella
argues that no. I argue the same. It is practically almost impossible.
One person violates the contract and the closed club of
contract agreements is compromised.
So, when you need more money, do you fire up your color copier and run
some off??
You have not agreed to a contract to not do so have you. What is
different? The money may not be "copyrighted" in the same sense as "a
song," but the principle is the same, according to your logic.
--
---
My bands, CD projects, music, news, and pictures:
http://www.lateralforce.com
My blog, with commentary on a variety of things, including audio,
mixing, equipment, etc, is at:
http://audioandmore.wordpress.com
Staat heißt das kälteste aller kalten Ungeheuer. Kalt lügt es auch;
und diese Lüge kriecht aus seinem Munde: 'Ich, der Staat, bin das Volk.'
- [Friedrich Nietzsche]
6:33 p.m.
On Wed, 2013-02-13 at 11:46 -0500, Al Thompson wrote:
On 02/13/2013 04:35 AM, Louigi Verona wrote:
In German I often say something similar to: I don't like laws, they are
useless and only protect the evil, but something like the road traffic
act are commandments of sanity. I can't formulate it very good in
English, but perhaps you can imagine what I try to say.
True. You are not forcing anyone. However, when
you release
something into the public, copyright sort of makes everyone agree
to the contract with you even if they don't want it.
How you can hear something or see something even if you did not
aim to do that, I listed in my response to Michael above.
Kinsella has a whole chapter about copyright as a contract.
To make clear, I am NOT against contracts. If you give me a book
under a contract, it is morally correct to abide by the contract.
Question is, can this duplicate a sort of copyright regime? Kinsella
argues that no. I argue the same. It is practically almost impossible.
One person violates the contract and the closed club of
contract agreements is compromised.
So, when you need more money, do you fire up your color copier and run
some off??
You have not agreed to a contract to not do so have you. What is
different? The money may not be "copyrighted" in the same sense as "a
song," but the principle is the same, according to your logic.
3:30 p.m.
New subject: Changed: Copyright laws and such
On Wednesday 13 February 2013 04:28:45 Al Thompson wrote:
On 02/13/2013 01:45 AM, Louigi Verona wrote:
One would presumably not release the work to the public until one had gotten a
fair return on one's labour. Onbe would then have been paid fairly for one's
efforts without trying to exert unnatural control over the lives of others.
Without having to snoop into the actions of others to ensure that they were
complying with one's dictates.
Or, one would give away one's work as a gift or to further a casue one
believed in.
That seems morally superior.
all the best,
drew
"Anyway, if his point is that property
theory doesn't
govern intellectual creation, then why does he seem to say that
property theory
should rule out any and all protection for one's intellectual work?"
Because copyright ends up invading actual physical property.
You ask - what is copyright? It is a legislative method to invade
other people's
property without their consent. Just by writing something, I instantly
get a
partial ownership of your body (you cannot perform my writing in public
without my permission), partial ownership of your pen, paper, computer
and printer (you cannot distribute my writing without my permission).
And you did not agree to any of this.
I don't agree with this. Primarily because if you write something, you
aren't FORCING ANYONE to listen to it. Conversely though, if there were
no copyrights, then by the mere act of writing and releasing something,
you would be giving the rights to your life/time/labor to anyone who
cared to listen (or cared to copy).
How is that morally superior?
3:40 p.m.
New subject: Changed: Copyright laws and such
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 10:29 AM, drew Roberts <zotz(a)100jamz.com> wrote:
One would presumably not release the work to the public until one had
gotten a
fair return on one's labour.
that implies only a private audience (and one contract-bound to not "leak"
the work) until one reached whatever one deemed a fair return.
which in turn implies the notion that to get a larger return requires a
public release that (in what I perceive as your worldview) in turn implies
abandoment of any ability to restrict access to or use of one's work (even
though one might still get paid something for it).
effectively, you're arguing for "if you don't have a rich patron and you
expect the public to pay for your work, you must give up any control over
your work, in the hope that the public will pay you for it anyway".
given that most rich patrons want/need public distribution of the work you
do for them (think hollywood), i have a hard time understanding how this is
not tantamount to saying "if you want to get paid anything for your work,
you must give up all control over it".
4:22 p.m.
New subject: Changed: Copyright laws and such
On Wednesday 13 February 2013 10:40:30 Paul Davis wrote:
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 10:29 AM, drew Roberts
<zotz(a)100jamz.com> wrote:
Not at all, perhaps we are going to have to go to something like kickstarter /
indiegogo for funding to initial release for some.
Perhaps things will work just fine as they seem to in the fashion industry.
One would presumably not release the work to the
public until one had
gotten a
fair return on one's labour.
that implies only a private audience (and one contract-bound to not "leak"
the work) until one reached whatever one deemed a fair return.
which in turn implies the notion that to get a larger return requires a
public release that (in what I perceive as your worldview) in turn implies
abandoment of any ability to restrict access to or use of one's work (even
though one might still get paid something for it).
In actuality, one already gives up this ability as can be seen from the
constant cries of "piracy" killing the industry. For the calls for three
strikes and your off the net laws where strikes are accusations and not
convictions. But where you can be sure it is only going to happen when the
powerful accuse the weak, never when the weak accuse the powerful.
effectively, you're arguing for "if you don't have a rich patron and you
expect the public to pay for your work, you must give up any control over
your work, in the hope that the public will pay you for it anyway".
Please, this is really not the case. Although it is the fear.
given that most rich patrons want/need public distribution of the work you
do for them (think hollywood), i have a hard time understanding how this is
not tantamount to saying "if you want to get paid anything for your work,
you must give up all control over it".
Why should it be impossible for a movie to earn back its real costs in the
opening weekend?
Besides, if the only way for the current model to continue is to destroy
freedom and democracy, I know whcih I want to keep.
all the best,
drew
4:37 p.m.
New subject: Changed: Copyright laws and such
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 11:21 AM, drew Roberts <zotz(a)100jamz.com> wrote:
in your scenario, you cannot release to the public without giving up
control of your work. so how is this not the case?
not the movie! the score, or the costume design, or the FX used in the 7th
scene. did cameron pay me enough for the score before it came out? maybe,
maybe not. but now that the movie is in public release (in your scenario),
i've lost all control over my work, so any income i can derive from it now
is basically fortuitous.
On Wednesday 13 February 2013 10:40:30 Paul Davis
wrote:
that constitutes a private audience, with the twist that it is an audience
willing to pay for the work even before it is complete. conceptually, this
is no different than the patronage system that has supported artists for
centuries. it is still patronage, but just crowd sourced.
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 10:29 AM, drew Roberts
<zotz(a)100jamz.com> wrote:
"leak"
One would presumably not release the work to the
public until one had
gotten a
fair return on one's labour.
that implies only a private audience (and one contract-bound to not the work) until one reached whatever one deemed a
fair return.
Not at all, perhaps we are going to have to go to something like
kickstarter /
indiegogo for funding to initial release for some.
Perhaps things will work just fine as they seem to in the fashion industry.
it is necesssary and important to differentiate between what the law
requires and what technology implies. they are quite different. technology
has created the scenario in which digital copying is a fact of life, and we
must all deal with that. copyright (and other related) law did not create
that scenario and at present is powerless to prevent it.
which in turn implies the notion that to get a larger return requires a
public release that (in what I perceive as your worldview) in turn
implies
abandoment of any ability to restrict access to
or use of one's work
(even
though one might still get paid something for
it).
In actuality, one already gives up this ability as can be seen from the
constant cries of "piracy" killing the industry. effectively,
you're arguing for "if you don't have a rich patron and you
expect the public to pay for your work, you must give up any control over
your work, in the hope that the public will pay you for it anyway".
Please, this is really not the case. Although it is the fear.
given that most rich patrons want/need public distribution of the work
you
do for them (think hollywood), i have a hard time
understanding how this
is
not tantamount to saying "if you want to get
paid anything for your work,
you must give up all control over it".
Why should it be impossible for a movie to earn back its real costs in the
opening weekend?
Besides, if the only way for the current model to
continue is to destroy
freedom and democracy, I know whcih I want to keep.
i'm not arguing for the current model. but i'm certainly arguing against a
model where public release implies loss of all control over one's work.
--p
5:13 p.m.
New subject: Changed: Copyright laws and such
On Wednesday 13 February 2013 11:37:03 Paul Davis wrote:
it is necesssary and important to differentiate between what the law
requires and what technology implies.
Don't forget to include what morals / ethics require / permit.
in your scenario, you cannot release to the public without giving up
control of your work. so how is this not the case?
Are you worried about control or possible income? So long as you can make a
decent income, why would you insist on control of what others can do with
what they hear or purchase?
not the movie! the score, or the costume design, or the FX used in the 7th
scene. did cameron pay me enough for the score before it came out? maybe,
maybe not.
Well, why give it to him before he has paid you enough. Why must we limit
ourselves to doing business the way we have for the last X years when the
world has changed?
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 11:21 AM, drew Roberts
<zotz(a)100jamz.com> wrote:
Fine, but if it is a way that works and does not require the draconian
copyright laws we have today to support the creators, where is the problem
with it.
On Wednesday 13 February 2013 10:40:30 Paul Davis
wrote:
that constitutes a private audience, with the twist that it is an audience
willing to pay for the work even before it is complete. conceptually, this
is no different than the patronage system that has supported artists for
centuries. it is still patronage, but just crowd sourced. On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 10:29 AM, drew Roberts
<zotz(a)100jamz.com> wrote:
"leak"
One would presumably not release the work to the
public until one had
gotten a
fair return on one's labour.
that implies only a private audience (and one contract-bound to not the work) until one reached whatever one deemed a
fair return.
Not at all, perhaps we are going to have to go to something like
kickstarter /
indiegogo for funding to initial release for some.
> Perhaps things will work just fine as they seem to in the fashion
> industry.
Casn you speak to this point?
which in turn implies the notion that to get a
larger return requires a
public release that (in what I perceive as your worldview) in turn
implies
abandoment of any ability to restrict access to
or use of one's work
(even
though one might still get paid something for
it).
In actuality, one already gives up this ability as can be seen from the
constant cries of "piracy" killing the industry. they are quite different. technology
has created the scenario in which digital copying is a fact of life, and we
must all deal with that. copyright (and other related) law did not create
that scenario and at present is powerless to prevent it.
And so, let's snoop on everyone 24x7 and put the death penalty on copyright
violation in an effort to preserve the old business models. (I know you are
not saying this, I am takign it there in this point.) No. It is time to move
on and find other funding models or let the arts move to a hobby zone and not
a profession zone.
Again. If the choice is freedom and democracy vs. copyright law, I know which
I prefer.
effectively, you're arguing for "if you don't have a rich patron and
you expect the public to pay for your work, you must give up any
control over your work, in the hope that the public will pay you for it
anyway".
Please, this is really not the case. Although it is the fear. given
that most rich patrons want/need public distribution of the work
you
do for them (think hollywood), i have a hard time
understanding how
this
is
not tantamount to saying "if you want to get
paid anything for your
work, you must give up all control over it".
Why should it be impossible for a movie to earn back its real costs in
the opening weekend? but now that the movie is in public release (in your
scenario),
i've lost all control over my work, so any income i can derive from it now
is basically fortuitous.
Well, I am saying that I prefer no copyright law to what we have today. I am
saying that in my lifetime I have only seen things get worse.
How would you like to see things change? What is a workable system in your
mind?
Besides, if the only way for the current model to
continue is to destroy
freedom and democracy, I know whcih I want to keep.
i'm not arguing for the current model. but i'm certainly arguing against a
model where public release implies loss of all control over one's work.
--p
all the best,
drew
3:02 p.m.
Louigi Verona <louigi.verona@...> writes:
~~
"Anyway, if his point is that property theory
doesn't
govern intellectual creation, then why does he seem to say that property
theory
should rule out any and all protection for one's
intellectual work?"
Because copyright ends up invading actual physical property.You ask - what is
copyright? It is a legislative method to invade other people's
property without their consent. Just by writing
something, I instantly get a
partial ownership of your body (you cannot perform my
writing in public without
my permission), partial ownership of your pen, paper, computer
and printer (you cannot distribute my writing without
my permission). And you
did not agree to any of this.
~~
I do not like arguments that proceed from pure principles to absurd results.
(This is the very thing I have always abhorred in libertarian thinking.)
I suppose that makes me a utilitarian (a philosophy with its own absurd
results).
I keep asking why material possession trumps all other considerations, and you
and Kinsella have no answer except "It does." I'm getting bored, frankly.
Returning, for example, to the "repeating a joke" example: it's a straw man,
because repeating a joke around the water cooler at work earns me no profit. I'm
not cutting into the original comedian's compensation. If I get up on stage and
charge admission, that's different. No one should give this kind of
counterexample a second thought, but Kinsella does. Yawn.
Purity of political thought very often masks injustice. I see no exception here.
The entire libertarian argument about copyright privileges the lazy owner of
material goods over the industrious intellectual creator. That libertarians
can't see the absurdity of this tells me that there is simply no common ground
for further discussion.
hjh
3:52 p.m.
New subject: Changed: Copyright laws and such
On Wednesday 13 February 2013 10:02:31 James Harkins wrote:
Returning, for example, to the "repeating a
joke" example: it's a straw
man, because repeating a joke around the water cooler at work earns me no
profit. I'm not cutting into the original comedian's compensation. If I get
up on stage and charge admission, that's different. No one should give this
kind of counterexample a second thought, but Kinsella does. Yawn.
You do know that copyright law disagrees with you though right?
Jokes, at least in the form of one liners and other short forms, cannot get
copyright protection.
Also, you might come up with a brand new "genre" which has never been heard
before. You get no protection for this creative work even if the genre goes
on to become the next big thing. Sorry, you song in that genre did not do too
well economically even though it had vast influence and the songs that
followed in the genre made millions for those artists. Copyright law says you
are owed squat.
I find it is copyright law that has no underlying unifying principles. It is
vague and arbitrary and what we have today is harmful to society and culture.
And I do not say this because I want to see creative folks go unrewarded.
all the best,
drew
14 Feb
14 Feb
2:27 p.m.
New subject: Changed: Copyright laws and such
drew Roberts <zotz@...> writes:
On Wednesday 13 February 2013 10:02:31 James Harkins wrote:
A misunderstanding here: I disagree both with copyright in its present form AND
with the libertarian arguments against copyright. I had stated previously that I
am not a fan of copyright, so I don't understand why you're answering my post as
if I were defending copyright.
I want to put copyright and contracts aside for a minute, and say something
about the ethics. (Law is a reflection of a society's ethics -- an imperfect
reflection, but still a reflection.)
If you create an intellectual product, and I want to do something with it --
distribute it, or create a new work based on the original -- common decency
calls for me to *ask permission*. To do it anyway without asking is rude or
disrespectful, maybe even dishonest.
Turning the pronouns around, if I make a bangin' dance track in SuperCollider,
and you email me to say you love it and you want to remix it, I'd be thrilled.
I'll even help you out -- I'll give you stems that I didn't release publicly.
I
bet a lot of musicians feel the same. But if I hear about your remix after the
fact... I might like the remix, but I'll also feel peeved that you just
appropriated my work without so much as a "good morning." Depending on how
you're releasing it, my reaction may range between mildly irritated and furious,
the latter especially if I release with a CC-BY-SA and you don't share alike.
This is my #1 beef with the libertarian point of view. Libertarians seem to be
saying that the rude bastard is fully justified in being a rude bastard, AND
that the law should protect his rude bastard-ness. And the original author, who
was rudely bastardized? Tough. They have declared, more or less a priori, that
material possession trumps all other considerations. Since the intellectual
product is not a material possession, the author has no recourse. Further, she
SHOULD have no recourse because any recourse is an "invasion" of the rude
bastard's property.
Thus we have an ethic that celebrates dishonorable behavior as an expression of
the ideal of free use of one's material resources, and disempowers someone who
has done honest, hard work. I choose not to endorse this ethic, and I'm afraid
that the discussion cannot progress as long as the primacy of material
possession is non-negotiable.
One of my problems with copyright is that the companies that enforce copyright
have no incentive to grant permission for derivative works. So, either nobody
makes derivative works (no fun) or people don't ask permission, which is
ethically dodgy. That's one reason why I don't enforce copyright on my own
works, but I do license as CC-BY-SA. (I used to add NC "non-commercial" to that,
but realized that it doesn't bother me if my work is used in a project that is
sold for money *as long as* it is also share-alike, i.e., permitting derivative
works.)
So, a question on my mind is, what mechanisms could the law use to discourage
people from being jerks and copying without asking? I don't have an answer, but
it seems to me that it's a more productive line of thought than paranoid
language of "invasion" and even, at one point, truly silly speculation about the
death penalty for copyright violators. I fail to see how any of that furthers
the discussion in any way, and I intend to ignore those portions of Louigi and
Drew's future posts that indulge in such (and I hope others follow suit).
hjh
Returning, for example, to the "repeating a
joke" example: it's a straw
man, because repeating a joke around the water cooler at work earns me no
profit. I'm not cutting into the original comedian's compensation. If I get
up on stage and charge admission, that's different. No one should give this
kind of counterexample a second thought, but Kinsella does. Yawn.
You do know that copyright law disagrees with you though right?
Jokes, at least in the form of one liners and other short forms, cannot get
copyright protection.
9:44 p.m.
New subject: Changed: Copyright laws and such
"If you create an intellectual product, and I want to do something with it
--
distribute it, or create a new work based on the original -- common decency
calls for me to *ask permission*. To do it anyway without asking is rude or
disrespectful, maybe even dishonest."
This is where we differ, at least on the surface of it. I think that it is
unethical
to make people ask you permission after you publicly released something.
When I release a tune or a story or an invention, I do not aim to become a
tyrant, who, by virtue of his work now has the world grant him a positive
obligation.
The common decency you speak about is not common to me. To me making
people asking permission is being a jerk.
I release all my works under a CC0 license, although I would gladly live in
a
non-copyright world, where I would not need to state any conditions. I see
no
justification to make people ask me. They can do so, but they are not
required
so.
And what is the reason to release something into the culture without making
it
free to become part of that culture by default? I really don't get it. To
me this
is like handing someone a candy, but never really letting it go.
How I have arrived to such a view is a whole different story, of course,
and we can
debate the arguments I have, although I would take it off LAU maybe. It is
sort of
music related though...
From what I have seen so far is that your own
counter-argument basically
rests on
an intuitive notion of "well this is wrong" which you seem to think
everyone should
share. Well, I don't.
Anyway, if you are interested, we can debate, if not, I did enjoy learning
your
position on the matter and consider this to have been a very pleasant
conversation on
a pretty complicated philosophical issue.
L.V.
15 Feb
15 Feb
12:25 a.m.
New subject: Changed: Copyright laws and such
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 6:44 AM, Louigi Verona <louigi.verona(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
This is where we differ, at least on the surface of
it. I think that it is
unethical
to make people ask you permission after you publicly released something.
When I release a tune or a story or an invention, I do not aim to become a
tyrant, who, by virtue of his work now has the world grant him a positive
obligation.
The common decency you speak about is not common to me. To me making
people asking permission is being a jerk.
You are reading in language which was never used to argue against a case
that was not made. He didn't claim that it was right to "make" people ask,
he just said that asking was the decent thing to do, something with which I
fully agree. The same technologies that make copying infinitely more easy
also make communication infinitely more easy, so I don't see why its an
invasion of liberty to seek permission for appropriation whenever possible.
5:05 a.m.
New subject: Changed: Copyright laws and such
I understand next to nothing of the issues discussed here.
Still...
Thought this may be of interest.
http://pyfound.blogspot.in/2013/02/python-trademark-at-risk-in-europe-we.ht…
Rusi
--
http://www.the-magus.in
http://blog.languager.org
6:58 a.m.
New subject: Changed: Copyright laws and such
James, Michael,
I understand what you are saying, however, by asking someone about
permission, you are basically giving him the power to say "No".
It would be a matter of decency or courtesy only if it would be notifying:
"Dear sir, I've used your tune in my play. Sincerely..."
If we are in a position when such "courtesy" means saying "Can I please
use
your tune in my play?", we are philosophically saying that the author has
the right to decide how you should employ your body and your property in a
certain way. I maintain that by making up an idea, you do not now gain
property rights in everything that uses that idea.
"Something smells rotten. Coulton did not "aim to become a tyrant" but FOX
Broadcasting came in, used his work, copyrighted it for themselves and
won't even give him credit by name. THEY are now the tyrants, but your view
would seem to suggest that Coulter should simply accept this."
Yeah. This rotten problem is called copyright. The problem is not in
Coulton not being able to stop FOX using his work, the problem in FOX being
able to stop others from using it.
If there was no copyright, FOX would just use it and not be able to exclude
others.
If there was no copyright, all art would be free. Always.
GPL and CC have meaning only in the world of copyright. They try to
partially undo it.
So to me it seems backwards to say that the problem is in that Coulton did
not use CC or similar. The problem is the copyright.
"If I say to a friend, "Here, have a bunch of candies, share with your
friends," and then I find out he hoarded it for himself, I'll think twice
about giving him candy in the future."
The difficulty with this analogy is that it is basically a contract
situation. Copyright is not a contract, it is a law that is enforced,
meaning it works by using physical force against anyone who disagrees, you
never agree to it.
Also, I have little regard for the sentiment that if I give something away
for free, others have to do the same. It is their business what to do with
it and it is not my call to decide how others live their life, unless they
are invading my property.
I can of course suggest this to them, but I cannot dictate it to them.
L.V.
7:13 a.m.
New subject: Changed: Copyright laws and such
On 02/15/2013 01:58 AM, Louigi Verona wrote:
If we are in a position when such "courtesy" means saying "Can I
please use your tune in my play?", we are philosophically saying that
the author has the right to decide how you should employ your body and
your property in a certain way. I maintain that by making up an idea,
you do not now gain property rights in everything that uses that idea.
Here's where we differ. You seem to claim that if *I* write a song on
my own, and *YOU* want to include that song in a play or movie, that if
I say "no," then I am deciding how you can use YOUR property. This is
simply not true. You can use your property any way you want, as long as
you don't kidnap MY property to do it. And claiming that my refusal to
grant a mechanical license for my copyright work results in my somehow
deciding how you can use YOUR BODY is gibberish.
A LOT of the examples you complain about are actually ABUSE of
copyright, rather than a flaw in the concept of copyright. It still
seems like you believe that if someone else writes a song, that you
honestly believe that you have superior rights over his property than he
does.
Each of us "owns" his own body. By extension, we each "own" whatever
we
produce out of thin air. If you claim that you somehow have a right to
what I have produced, that would mean that you believe that you own me,
and I am reduced to a position of slavery. Do you believe that you
would have a "right" to WHATEVER I produced? Is there a limit?? Would
I have to ask you to please leave me enough of my labor so that I may
feed my family or buy new strings for my guitar, or will you provide
those, in order than I could continue to produce things which you would
claim to have a right to?
--
---
My bands, CD projects, music, news, and pictures:
http://www.lateralforce.com
My blog, with commentary on a variety of things, including audio,
mixing, equipment, etc, is at:
http://audioandmore.wordpress.com
Staat heißt das kälteste aller kalten Ungeheuer. Kalt lügt es auch;
und diese Lüge kriecht aus seinem Munde: 'Ich, der Staat, bin das Volk.'
- [Friedrich Nietzsche]
7:30 a.m.
New subject: Changed: Copyright laws and such
Each of us "owns" his own body. By extension, we each "own" whatever
we
produce out of thin air. If you claim that you somehow have a right to
what I have produced, that would mean that you believe that you own me,
and I am reduced to a position of slavery.
I don't agree with this.
The problem is that you cannot produce anything out of thin air.
Saying "I created a story" is a metaphor. You took physical objects and
modified them
according to laws of physics, for instance, took paper and put ink on it in
certain patterns.
This is why I used the marble example several emails before. You always do
stuff
with physical property.
Also, I do not have a right to what you produced - I never said that. I
have the right to
my physical property, you have the right to yours. An idea is not property.
It is as
simple as that.
--
Louigi Verona
http://www.louigiverona.ru/
17 Feb
17 Feb
10:26 p.m.
New subject: Changed: Copyright laws and such
On Friday 15 February 2013 02:13:22 Al Thompson wrote:
On 02/15/2013 01:58 AM, Louigi Verona wrote:
Let's really spell out *exactly* what you are saying is happening here.
For instance I could answer like this:
It is not your property he is kidnaping. He may be making a copy of your
creation or a derivative of your creation though.
Let's say the facts in the case of the above answer are that you published a
recording of the song and he bought a copy of the CD that the song was on
from you or people you sold the copy to.
Or I could answer like this:
No,he certainly does not have a right to kidnap (actually steal) your song
from you. He should be charged with theft.
Let's say the facts in the case of the above answer are that you wrote and
recorded the song on your PC/DAW and he broke in and stole the hard disk on
which the only copy resided.
If we are in a position when such
"courtesy" means saying "Can I
please use your tune in my play?", we are philosophically saying that
the author has the right to decide how you should employ your body and
your property in a certain way. I maintain that by making up an idea,
you do not now gain property rights in everything that uses that idea.
Here's where we differ. You seem to claim that if *I* write a song on
my own, and *YOU* want to include that song in a play or movie, that if
I say "no," then I am deciding how you can use YOUR property. This is
simply not true. You can use your property any way you want, as long as
you don't kidnap MY property to do it. And claiming that my refusal to
grant a mechanical license for my copyright work results in my somehow
deciding how you can use YOUR BODY is gibberish.
So, he takes his body, does some work and gets paid. He goes to the store, he
buys a copy of your song and CD. He goes to another store and buys a box of
blank CDs. he goes to anotehr store and buys a PC with a CDRW drive in it. He
takes all of this home along with his body and sets everything up in his
office.
He sits down, fires up the PC and puts in the CD which he now owns which has
your song recorded on it. He uses his ripping program to rip it do his hard
disk. He then pops out that CD and pops in a blank. He tells his software to
write a copy of the songs from the CD he purchased to the blank CD he also
purchased.
You want the law to prevent him from doing this with his body and the things
he legally purchased. Correct? (Well, if this is not so, why speak of the
mechanical license here?)
A LOT of the examples you complain about are actually ABUSE of
copyright, rather than a flaw in the concept of copyright. It still
seems like you believe that if someone else writes a song, that you
honestly believe that you have superior rights over his property than he
does.
To make any sense at all, you need to distinguish between a published work and
one that is not yet published.
Each of us "owns" his own body. By extension, we each "own" whatever
we
produce out of thin air. If you claim that you somehow have a right to
what I have produced, that would mean that you believe that you own me,
and I am reduced to a position of slavery.
Again, published or not published?
Do you believe that you
would have a "right" to WHATEVER I produced? Is there a limit?? Would
I have to ask you to please leave me enough of my labor so that I may
feed my family or buy new strings for my guitar, or will you provide
those, in order than I could continue to produce things which you would
claim to have a right to?
all the best,
drew
15 Feb
15 Feb
7:42 a.m.
New subject: Changed: Copyright laws and such
On 15/02/13 14:58, Louigi Verona wrote:
I very much agree with your last couple of posts, except perhaps ...
Also, I have little regard for the sentiment that if I
give something away
for free, others have to do the same. It is their business what to do with
it and it is not my call to decide how others live their life, unless they
are invading my property.
I can of course suggest this to them, but I cannot dictate it to them.
You alluded to this earlier in the post by mentioning GPL and CC as efforts to
undo (or at least ameliorate some of the problems of) copyright laws ... for me
while current copyright laws remain enforceable I prefer to release stuff as GPL
so that I DO insist that redistributing that work involves an obligation to keep
it AND any improvements or adaptations to it, available to others.
Certainly I would prefer it if the copyright laws that permit some party to
adapt work which has been distributed freely and then claim some kind of
ownership of it to deny others access to it were thrown out. In this possible
and better world I would no longer feel the need to claim my dubious but
currently enforceable ownership in order to attach conditions to help keep the
work accessible to all. While the existing and deeply flawed legal situation
continues I do claim ownership and do make those restrictions, even while
arguing for changes to the law that would make those licenses, and others,
irrelevant.
Simon
7:45 a.m.
New subject: Changed: Copyright laws and such
"for me while current copyright laws remain enforceable I prefer to release
stuff as GPL so that I DO insist that redistributing that work involves an
obligation to keep it AND any improvements or adaptations to it, available
to others."
Sure, Simon, I agree completely!
Maybe I was not clear enough. Under copyright regime I consider CC and GPL
to be very useful, even necessary.
8:55 a.m.
New subject: Changed: Copyright laws and such
Louigi Verona <louigi.verona@...> writes:
James, Michael,I understand what you are saying,
however, by asking someone
about permission, you are basically giving him the power
to say "No".It would be
a matter of decency or courtesy only if it would be notifying: "Dear sir, I've
used your tune in my play. Sincerely..."If we are in a position when such
"courtesy" means saying "Can I please use your tune in my play?", we
are
philosophically saying that the author has the right to decide how you should
employ your body and your property in a certain way.
Incidentally, my comments to Louigi (quoted here) were off-list, because I don't
wish to clutter the list with my thoughts on copyright any further. So this will
be my last public post in this thread.
I can't escape the feeling that there is some wishful thinking here.
"Intellectual works are not property. You don't own them and you shouldn't be
able to object to anyone's use of them under any circumstances" -- to me this is
simply wishing away the problem. All the problems of unfair appropriation
remain, but... a-ha! If intellectual property isn't property, then *we don't
have to imagine solutions*. How convenient.
Actually, I could go along with the "not-property" approach in a perfect world,
where everyone shares their ideas freely. I would rather live in that world, but
I don't... and I don't want what happened to Jonathan Coulton to happen to me.
Well, it won't happen to me because the GLEE producers don't care about my
styles of music, but in theory, it could, and I object to that. Does that
curtail Louigi's freedom to make something out of my audio and copyright it (if
he wanted to)? Yes. Do I regret that? I guess I regret it only as much as Louigi
would regret using the work under terms I wouldn't agree to (and I guess that
wouldn't be much of a regret).
In an imperfect world, nobody is ever free to do every possible thing she wants
to do with her possessions. If people want to retain freedoms, they need to act
responsibly. When people act irresponsibly, society's response is law. We
wouldn't need speed limits if people drove at sane speeds of their own free
will... so we instate speed limits, and now you don't have the freedom to drive
as you like. Society felt it was unfair in the past that A could profit from B's
work without paying a debt to A, resulting in the ghastly mess that is copyright
law. *If people had not taken liberties with others' work in the first place,
there would have been no need for a law.* So now it's rather late in the day to
say simply that somehow creative workers will always be treated fairly, when the
very existence of copyright law is proof that fair treatment was never reliable
to begin with.
I look at libertarianism as a kind of radical manifesto. A manifesto usually
fails in practice, but it opens up room for communities to consider new ideas.
It's valuable in that respect, but in this case, too much pie-in-the-sky for my
taste.
hjh
2:30 p.m.
New subject: Changed: Copyright laws and such
On Friday 15 February 2013 03:55:40 James Harkins wrote:
Society felt it was unfair in the past that A could
profit from B's
work without paying a debt to A, resulting in the ghastly mess that is
copyright law.
For all of my reading, this is an inaccurate, romanticised telling of the
situation.
It was never meant to protect A or B but rather third parties.
all the best,
drew
9:04 a.m.
New subject: Changed: Copyright laws and such
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 3:58 PM, Louigi Verona <louigi.verona(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
If we are in a position when such "courtesy"
means saying "Can I please
use your tune in my play?", we are philosophically saying that the author
has the right to decide how you should employ your body and your property
in a certain way.
In a discussion of copyright, wherein the right of refusal
is enforceable by rule of law, you'd have a point. However, as a matter
only of ethics you do not lose any ability to do whatever you wish if I
refuse to grant you permission for something. You can choose to ignore my
wish if you so please.
To me, however, this all raises a question I've been meaning to ask
throughout this discussion. Why do you need to use my work in the first
place? Why can't you just whistle some other tune? Why can't you just use
some other song in your play? I would imagine the answer is because you
want to. Because something about that particular tune inspires you, or that
particular song makes you feel as though your play is better. I'm not
forcing you to have that desire. And I'm not forcing you to follow that
desire, but you will feel compelled to do so regardless. Copyright or no
copyright, you will not be free from this impulse. Your liberty to decide
how you should employ your body is constantly compromised by your own
desires, as it is for each and every one of us. I see plenty of arguments
for abolishing copyright on the grounds that it restricts fulfillment of
desires - why not abolish desire on the grounds that it restricts true
freedom of choice. The two seem about as plausible as each other to me
right now.
10:43 a.m.
New subject: Changed: Copyright laws and such
Fellas!
I am also not against going off-list with this.
Libertarian property theory is not wishful thinking. It is deductive
reasoning,
based on some self-evident axioms. I would suggest reading Hoppe on that.
Like this book: http://mises.org/document/431
First chapter logically shows why physical property is justified. This is
not
arbitrary.
My short article goes in the same direction, but in a more primitive manner,
perhaps:
http://www.louigiverona.ru/?page=projects&s=writings&t=philosophy&a…
So the argument that IP is not property has nothing to do with wishful
thinking,
it has to do with what is property and why do we need such a concept.
You might not agree with the argumentation, of course, but I left links so
that, if you
would want, you can go through them.
"I see plenty of arguments for abolishing copyright on the grounds that it
restricts fulfillment of desires - why not abolish desire on the grounds
that it restricts true freedom of choice. The two seem about as plausible
as each other to me right now."
My argument has nothing to do with desires, though. My argument is that IP
is not genuine
property and that "ideas" cannot be property at all. (I give reasons in the
article,
ideas are no scarce, they do not posses the property of rivalrousness).
And that any IP always ends up violating physical property rights of others.
In the end, I argue, it always comes down to someone taking away or trying
to control
physical property that belongs to you.
L.V.
10:44 a.m.
New subject: Changed: Copyright laws and such
I said I am fine with going off the list and... sent it to the list!
Apologize for that.
2:34 p.m.
New subject: Changed: Copyright laws and such
On Friday 15 February 2013 04:04:38 michael noble wrote:
I see plenty of arguments
for abolishing copyright on the grounds that it restricts fulfillment of
desires - why not abolish desire on the grounds that it restricts true
freedom of choice. The two seem about as plausible as each other to me
right now.
Are you serious?
I know abolishing copyright will be no walk in the park. We can't even seem to
manage decent reforms.
Some thoughts on a "Copyright Offensive"
http://zotzbro.blogspot.com/2007/04/some-thoughts-on-copyright-offensive.ht…
But abolishing a law and abolishing basic human nature seem to be magnitudes
apart and hopefully will remain so.
We really don't need to powerful to get their hands on that sort of power.
all the best,
drew
3:18 p.m.
New subject: Changed: Copyright laws and such
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 11:34 PM, drew Roberts <zotz(a)100jamz.com> wrote:
Are you serious?
Yes and no. I think you're as likely to do away with copyright as you are
to do away with desire simply because there are so many people who desire
copyright to exist. Is it a worthy battle to fight? I don't know. All I
know is that if we really want to talk about freedom then I think we need
to admit first of all to the entrapment inherent to human nature that stems
from desire. If we are not willing to start from that most basic point,
then most else seems like smokescreen - a kind of post
hoc justification for getting what we want. There's no harm in wanting
something, I just don't like dressing it up in moral arguments as though it
were something other than desire. To me that will just generate an endless
tit for tat of iterative argumentation from either side.
17 Feb
17 Feb
11:01 p.m.
New subject: Changed: Copyright laws and such
On Friday 15 February 2013 10:18:00 michael noble wrote:
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 11:34 PM, drew Roberts
<zotz(a)100jamz.com> wrote:
Most days I think I agree with you which is why I currently suggest a
copyright offensive instead:
http://zotzbro.blogspot.com/2007/04/some-thoughts-on-copyright-offensive.ht…
Are you serious?
Yes and no. I think you're as likely to do away with copyright as you are
to do away with desire simply because there are so many people who desire
copyright to exist. Is it a worthy battle to fight? I don't know.
However, people are already fighting the battle to abolish copyright and as I
have said on these lists recently, I would certainly prefer no copyright law
at all than the copyright laws we have today.
And some days I think that the so called copyright maximalists will push too
far and we will see a major backlash and perhaps even see them abolished.
All I
know is that if we really want to talk about freedom then I think we need
to admit first of all to the entrapment inherent to human nature that stems
from desire.
As in slaves to our own desires or even base desires? I can see the need to
speak to that.
If we are not willing to start from that most basic
point,
then most else seems like smokescreen - a kind of post
hoc justification for getting what we want. There's no harm in wanting
something, I just don't like dressing it up in moral arguments as though it
were something other than desire. To me that will just generate an endless
tit for tat of iterative argumentation from either side.
Well, I don't happen to like the greed is good language that is bandied about
when speaking of Free Markets myself. I also sometimes posit that a Free
Market may be necessary but it is certainly not sufficient.
all the best,
drew
15 Feb
15 Feb
2:19 p.m.
New subject: Changed: Copyright laws and such
On Thursday 14 February 2013 19:25:22 michael noble wrote:
I release my stuff BY-SA and GPL. I don't want you to ask about that stuff.
Send me a link to what you have done if you like. I do like being surprised
at how different things people do can be to what I had originally conceived.
Plus, permssion does not scale. It is monopoly firendly, not Freedom friendly
in a netwroked world.
all the best,
drew
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 6:44 AM, Louigi Verona
<louigi.verona(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
This is where
we differ, at least on the surface of it. I think that it
is unethical
to make people ask you permission after you publicly released something.
When I release a tune or a story or an invention, I do not aim to become
a tyrant, who, by virtue of his work now has the world grant him a
positive obligation.
The common decency you speak about is not common to me. To me making
people asking permission is being a jerk.
You are reading in language which was never used to argue against a case
that was not made. He didn't claim that it was right to "make" people ask,
he just said that asking was the decent thing to do, something with which I
fully agree. The same technologies that make copying infinitely more easy
also make communication infinitely more easy, so I don't see why its an
invasion of liberty to seek permission for appropriation whenever possible.
3:11 p.m.
New subject: Changed: Copyright laws and such
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 11:19 PM, drew Roberts <zotz(a)100jamz.com> wrote:
On Thursday 14 February 2013 19:25:22 michael noble
wrote:
ask,
If I had anything released in that sense you'd be welcome to it. Most of
what I do is live. The few recordings I have on soundcloud are just rough
live recordings from jams or improv shows. You are welcome to my puredata
patches I use for sequencing if that interests you.
I occasionally have an impulse to produce a recorded product for general
consumption but it doesn't interest me that much. I do enjoy the studio as
an instrument, as Eno puts it, but stereo recordings as artistic objects
lend themselves readily to misappropriation, and exposure to a potentially
unwilling public via portable stereo systems, as many have pointed out in
this discussion. The stereo system has become ubiquitous and to a certain
extent, I find it an unimaginative engagement with technology and sound. An
obvious exception for me might be something like generative apps which
process live inputs, like rjdj. In an age where stereo recordings can be so
easily reproduced, I think as creative artists we can do so much better
that producing stereo recordings. We want to talk about freedom, then why
not try unshackling ourselves from this system of distribution that is so
closely tied to the history of copyright and will be so for many many years
to come. Why not release everything in Ambisonic B-format, for example, a
patent-unencumbered surround format? But who knows, maybe next week I'll
change my mind and release a stereo recording. After all, I suppose that is
my right and my freedom.
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 6:44 AM, Louigi Verona
<louigi.verona(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
> This is where we differ, at least on the
surface of it. I think that it
> is unethical
> to make people ask you permission after you publicly released
something.
> When I release a tune or a story or an
invention, I do not aim to
become
a tyrant,
who, by virtue of his work now has the world grant him a
positive obligation.
The common decency you speak about is not common to me. To me making
people asking permission is being a jerk.
You are reading in language which was never used to argue against a case
that was not made. He didn't claim that it was right to "make" people
he just said that asking was the decent thing to
do, something with
which I
fully agree. The same technologies that make
copying infinitely more easy
also make communication infinitely more easy, so I don't see why its an
invasion of liberty to seek permission for appropriation whenever
possible.
I release my stuff BY-SA and GPL. I don't want you to ask about that stuff.
Send me a link to what you have done if you like. I do like being surprised
at how different things people do can be to what I had originally
conceived.
Plus, permssion does not scale. It is monopoly firendly, not Freedom
friendly
in a netwroked world.
all the best,
drew
17 Feb
17 Feb
10:13 p.m.
New subject: Changed: Copyright laws and such
On Thursday 14 February 2013 09:27:40 James Harkins wrote:
drew Roberts <zotz@...> writes:
Sorry, perhaps I lost sight of the fact what it was you who stated that
earlier.
On Wednesday 13 February 2013 10:02:31 James
Harkins wrote:
A misunderstanding here: I disagree both with copyright in its present form
AND with the libertarian arguments against copyright. I had stated
previously that I am not a fan of copyright, so I don't understand why
you're answering my post as if I were defending copyright. Returning, for example, to the "repeating a
joke" example: it's a straw
man, because repeating a joke around the water cooler at work earns me
no profit. I'm not cutting into the original comedian's compensation.
If I get up on stage and charge admission, that's different. No one
should give this kind of counterexample a second thought, but Kinsella
does. Yawn.
You do know that copyright law disagrees with you though right?
Jokes, at least in the form of one liners and other short forms, cannot
get copyright protection.
I want to put copyright and contracts aside for a minute, and say something
about the ethics. (Law is a reflection of a society's ethics -- an
imperfect reflection, but still a reflection.)
If you create an intellectual product, and I want to do something with it
-- distribute it, or create a new work based on the original -- common
decency calls for me to *ask permission*. To do it anyway without asking is
rude or disrespectful, maybe even dishonest.
To speak to this properly, we need to specify if this is a private, as yet
unpublished work or if it is a currently published work.
If it is not published, I have no right to do anything with it whatsoever. I
am most likely not even aware of its existenace unless you are trying to
raise the money you want before you then make it public.
If it is published, I do not think that decency calls for me to ask
permission. The law may currently require it but we are setting that aside.
My own working thoughts on the matter at this point go something like this:
If I start to earn more than my going rate somehow making use of your work, I
will voluntarily split the extra with you. (Again, not copyright law in play
here. Or sya with a work someone has under a Free license.)
Turning the pronouns around, if I make a bangin' dance track in
SuperCollider, and you email me to say you love it and you want to remix
it, I'd be thrilled. I'll even help you out -- I'll give you stems that I
didn't release publicly. I bet a lot of musicians feel the same.
Whereas I prefer to release all of my "sources" up front and under a Free,
copyleft license. I want to make it easy for people to get on with it as soon
as they may be insrpired.
But if I
hear about your remix after the fact... I might like the remix, but I'll
also feel peeved that you just appropriated my work without so much as a
"good morning." Depending on how you're releasing it, my reaction may
range
between mildly irritated and furious, the latter especially if I release
with a CC-BY-SA and you don't share alike.
If you use BY-SA, you can be sure I will be sharing alike. That is my
preferred license for my lyrics and such. (With no copyright law in the
world, you would just find my work.)
This is my #1 beef with the libertarian point of view. Libertarians seem to
be saying that the rude bastard is fully justified in being a rude bastard,
AND that the law should protect his rude bastard-ness.
See, I don't think we should have a criminal law to stop people being simply
rude. We can have social costs, sure. But criminal costs?
And the original
author, who was rudely bastardized? Tough. They have declared, more or less
a priori, that material possession trumps all other considerations.
See, no. If his bok say is sitting on lined paper that he wrote it on in a
drawer beside his bed, they have no right to it whatsoever. And that means
even if they break in and take possession of it.
Since
the intellectual product is not a material possession, the author has no
recourse.
Well, no, They stole the only copy of work. There is recourse.
Further, she SHOULD have no recourse because any
recourse is an
"invasion" of the rude bastard's property.
Can you spell it out exactly?
Thus we have an ethic that celebrates dishonorable behavior as an
expression of the ideal of free use of one's material resources,]
So the folks who wrote West Side Story did something dishonourable? If not,
what exactly are you saying? (Remember we still have copyrights and contracts
set aside, although I am not sure we need to leave contracts aside.)
and
disempowers someone who has done honest, hard work. I choose not to endorse
this ethic,
Unless we craft a law that forces someone to publish before they are paid for
their labour, how do we disempower those who do honest, hard work?
And just to be clear, honest, hard work does not deserve a guuantee of being
paid for by others. If, for instance, I go out onto a deserted public beach
and spend a week working hard in the hot sun digging a football sized hole
three feet deep, I may indeed have done honest work. It may have been hard
work too. Who should I demand pay me for that honest and hard work?
It is only if I set out to work at the behest of another and for an agreed
upon rate that I can reasonably demand payment from that person for the act
of working on what hey asked me to work on.
If I set out to work for myself on my own initiative and make something that I
like, I have my own reward. I have what I made. If someone gets wind that I
have this and they wnat it, they can buy it from me at an agreed upon price.
and I'm afraid that the discussion cannot progress
as long as
the primacy of material possession is non-negotiable.
One of my problems with copyright is that the companies that enforce
copyright have no incentive to grant permission for derivative works. So,
either nobody makes derivative works (no fun) or people don't ask
permission, which is ethically dodgy. That's one reason why I don't enforce
copyright on my own works, but I do license as CC-BY-SA. (I used to add NC
"non-commercial" to that, but realized that it doesn't bother me if my
work
is used in a project that is sold for money *as long as* it is also
share-alike, i.e., permitting derivative works.)
So, a question on my mind is, what mechanisms could the law use to
discourage people from being jerks and copying without asking?
Wait. From the license you already use (and so do I by the way) you already
give an indication that asking is not needed.
I don't have
an answer, but it seems to me that it's a more productive line of thought
than paranoid language of "invasion" and even, at one point, truly silly
speculation about the death penalty for copyright violators. I fail to see
how any of that furthers the discussion in any way,
It is simply to point out that even the current way out laws on the books do
not satisfy those who demand copyright work in the way they insist to protect
their way outdated business models.
and I intend to ignore
those portions of Louigi and Drew's future posts that indulge in such (and
I hope others follow suit).
No need to ignore me if you really want to first come to an understanding and
then to explore where we really agree and where we really disagree.
Sometimes, these things take a bit of back and forth.
hjh
all the best,
drew
13 Feb
13 Feb
11:13 a.m.
On Wed, 2013-02-13 at 09:42 +0300, Louigi Verona wrote:
"How much of this is still state-sponsored in
Russia?"
I don't know. I do know that state-sponsorship is, in many cases, very
poor.
No, in the former communistic states the situation for educated artists
was much better regarding to good payed jobs. I can't speak for Russia,
resp. former USSR, but I know statements of former musicians of the GDR.
The former GDR today still is the location were people I know here in
the Ruhrgebiet, go to give a concert or go to listen to a concert.
Former GDR is relatively far away from the Ruhrgebiet.
OTOH chances for freethinkers in those states were not that good ;),
OTOH years ago freedom in e.g. Western Germany had also some limits, I'm
a draft resister and the jail sentence on parole for my friends and me,
not to join the army of a nation that caused 2 world wars, was higher,
than the sentences for child rapist that time. The view that artists in
the former communistic states must have been conform with the
dictatorial regime, might be true, but I don't think it's different for
the western world ;).
12 Feb
12 Feb
11:36 p.m.
On 02/12/2013 11:46 AM, drew Roberts wrote:
Perhaps the composer IS making copies and selling them. That is his
right, since he owns the copyright. Or perhaps he ISN'T, because he has
decided for whatever personal reason that he doesn't want the work 'out
there.'
Explain who either of these situations would give YOU the right to make
copies of someone else's work and sell them.
It's a necessary consequence of
Kinsella's argument that some idiot with a
DVD burner can spend a few hours copying content he didn't create, and he
has exercised his inviolable property right while the people who made that
profit possible -- on the basis of years of training and practice -- are
screwed.
Please explain why they are so *ignorant* as to not make those copies
themselves and sell them?
There is a world of material out there that it is
legal to copy and sell. How
many do it? Why don't you if it is so easy to make money that way?
It's hardly easy to make money by SELLING what is available for FREE.
Sure, it happens. There are a few places on the internet where you can
pay to download something (like an owner's manual) that is available FOR
FREE on the manufacturer's website. Since the manufacturer in this case
makes it available for free, they aren't really ripping off the
manufacturer, but I'd say they are ripping off the consumer.
--
---
My bands, CD projects, music, news, and pictures:
http://www.lateralforce.com
My blog, with commentary on a variety of things, including audio,
mixing, equipment, etc, is at:
http://audioandmore.wordpress.com
Staat heißt das kälteste aller kalten Ungeheuer. Kalt lügt es auch;
und diese Lüge kriecht aus seinem Munde: 'Ich, der Staat, bin das Volk.'
- [Friedrich Nietzsche]
13 Feb
13 Feb
2:37 p.m.
On Tuesday 12 February 2013 18:36:44 Al Thompson wrote:
So, those Penguin folks are ripping off the consumer? I mean, you could
download the books from Project Gutenberg right? Should someone alert the
authorities that they are ripping off the consumers?
Here is a point you are ignoring. If you can't make money selling things that
are legal to copy and that can be obtained for free. How can you make money
selling things that are illegal to copy but are also available for free via
download however illegally? How do people sell knokcoff CDs and DVDs when
they are available as free downloads?
all the best,
drew
On 02/12/2013 11:46 AM, drew Roberts wrote:
Perhaps the composer IS making copies and selling them. That is his
right, since he owns the copyright. Or perhaps he ISN'T, because he has
decided for whatever personal reason that he doesn't want the work 'out
there.'
Explain who either of these situations would give YOU the right to make
copies of someone else's work and sell them.
Would it be OK with you if someone made those copies and gave them away
instead of selling them?
You are assuming the existance of copyright law *and* you are assumning that
it is morally and / or ethically right. You go to far. It is this that you
need to debate here.
I know I have no way to do this legally as things stand now. But from what I
see, as things stand now, it would not surprise me if a majority of the
people were commiting felonies with respect to copyright law.
Back in the early 80's, I was a proponent of copyright law in my country when
we basically didn't have one to speak of. At the time, I was more ignorant
and the general state of copyright laws were not as bad. Also, the state of
the world was such that they did not impact normal everyday activities or
regular folks as much. Things have gotten much worse.
If there were no copyright law, I would certainly have the right to make and
sell copies of published works. Just like these folks are making and selling
copies of books in the public domain:
http://www.us.penguingroup.com/static/pages/classics/hardcoverclassics/inde…
You cannot make a case of what is simply right and wrond by pointing to
existing copyright law. You can only make a case for what is legal and
illegal by doing that.
Unless you care to make the case that every law, everywhere and at all times
has been completely right.
1. If people got an automatic copyleft and not an automatic copyright.
2. If you had to register your work to get a copyright.
3. If copyright only lasted as long as current day patents.
4. If copyrgiht was only a civil issue adn not a criminal one.
5. If the creators could never part with more than 50% of their rights.
...
Do you see where I am heading?
It's
a necessary consequence of Kinsella's argument that some idiot with
a DVD burner can spend a few hours copying content he didn't create, and
he has exercised his inviolable property right while the people who made
that profit possible -- on the basis of years of training and practice
-- are screwed.
Please explain why they are so *ignorant* as to not make those copies
themselves and sell them? There is a world of material out there that it is
legal to copy and sell.
How many do it? Why don't you if it is so easy to make money that way?
It's hardly easy to make money by SELLING what is available for FREE.
Sure, it happens. There are a few places on the internet where you can
pay to download something (like an owner's manual) that is available FOR
FREE on the manufacturer's website. Since the manufacturer in this case
makes it available for free, they aren't really ripping off the
manufacturer, but I'd say they are ripping off the consumer.
2:54 p.m.
On Wed, 2013-02-13 at 09:37 -0500, drew Roberts wrote:
On Tuesday 12 February 2013 18:36:44 Al Thompson
wrote:
So, those Penguin folks are ripping off the consumer? I mean, you could
download the books from Project Gutenberg right? Should someone alert the
authorities that they are ripping off the consumers?
Here is a point you are ignoring. If you can't make money selling things that
are legal to copy and that can be obtained for free. How can you make money
selling things that are illegal to copy but are also available for free via
download however illegally? How do people sell knokcoff CDs and DVDs when
they are available as free downloads?
all the best,
drew
Full ACK with Drew's opinion :).
On 02/12/2013 11:46 AM, drew Roberts wrote:
Perhaps the composer IS making copies and selling them. That is his
right, since he owns the copyright. Or perhaps he ISN'T, because he has
decided for whatever personal reason that he doesn't want the work 'out
there.'
Explain who either of these situations would give YOU the right to make
copies of someone else's work and sell them.
Would it be OK with you if someone made those copies and gave them away
instead of selling them?
You are assuming the existance of copyright law *and* you are assumning that
it is morally and / or ethically right. You go to far. It is this that you
need to debate here.
I know I have no way to do this legally as things stand now. But from what I
see, as things stand now, it would not surprise me if a majority of the
people were commiting felonies with respect to copyright law.
Back in the early 80's, I was a proponent of copyright law in my country when
we basically didn't have one to speak of. At the time, I was more ignorant
and the general state of copyright laws were not as bad. Also, the state of
the world was such that they did not impact normal everyday activities or
regular folks as much. Things have gotten much worse.
If there were no copyright law, I would certainly have the right to make and
sell copies of published works. Just like these folks are making and selling
copies of books in the public domain:
http://www.us.penguingroup.com/static/pages/classics/hardcoverclassics/inde…
You cannot make a case of what is simply right and wrond by pointing to
existing copyright law. You can only make a case for what is legal and
illegal by doing that.
Unless you care to make the case that every law, everywhere and at all times
has been completely right.
1. If people got an automatic copyleft and not an automatic copyright.
2. If you had to register your work to get a copyright.
3. If copyright only lasted as long as current day patents.
4. If copyrgiht was only a civil issue adn not a criminal one.
5. If the creators could never part with more than 50% of their rights.
...
Do you see where I am heading?
It's
a necessary consequence of Kinsella's argument that some idiot with
a DVD burner can spend a few hours copying content he didn't create, and
he has exercised his inviolable property right while the people who made
that profit possible -- on the basis of years of training and practice
-- are screwed.
Please explain why they are so *ignorant* as to not make those copies
themselves and sell them? There is a world of material out there that it is
legal to copy and sell.
How many do it? Why don't you if it is so easy to make money that way?
It's hardly easy to make money by SELLING what is available for FREE.
Sure, it happens. There are a few places on the internet where you can
pay to download something (like an owner's manual) that is available FOR
FREE on the manufacturer's website. Since the manufacturer in this case
makes it available for free, they aren't really ripping off the
manufacturer, but I'd say they are ripping off the consumer.
7:04 p.m.
On 02/13/2013 09:37 AM, drew Roberts wrote:
Well, the Pengiun folks are breaking a law, since the things they copy
are public domain. They are not infringing any copyrights, and are not
making use of someone's property illegally. Are they "ripping people
off?" I don't know. Go ask their customers if they knew they could
have gotten all of that legally for free.
It's hardly easy to make money by SELLING
what is available for FREE.
Sure, it happens. There are a few places on the internet where you can
pay to download something (like an owner's manual) that is available FOR
FREE on the manufacturer's website. Since the manufacturer in this case
makes it available for free, they aren't really ripping off the
manufacturer, but I'd say they are ripping off the consumer.
So, those Penguin
folks are ripping off the consumer? I mean, you could
download the books from Project Gutenberg right? Should someone alert the
authorities that they are ripping off the consumers?
Here is a point you are ignoring. If you can't make money selling things that
are legal to copy and that can be obtained for free. How can you make money
selling things that are illegal to copy but are also available for free via
download however illegally? How do people sell knokcoff CDs and DVDs when
they are available as free downloads? From what I've seen, people buy pirated DVDs
because they either don't
have a DVD burner, or they believe that it is safer to
buy it for cash
at some flea market where there is no paper trail leading to them.
--
---
My bands, CD projects, music, news, and pictures:
http://www.lateralforce.com
My blog, with commentary on a variety of things, including audio,
mixing, equipment, etc, is at:
http://audioandmore.wordpress.com
Staat heißt das kälteste aller kalten Ungeheuer. Kalt lügt es auch;
und diese Lüge kriecht aus seinem Munde: 'Ich, der Staat, bin das Volk.'
- [Friedrich Nietzsche]
7:26 p.m.
On Wednesday 13 February 2013 14:04:33 Al Thompson wrote:
On 02/13/2013 09:37 AM, drew Roberts wrote:
Well, the Pengiun folks are breaking a law, since the things they copy
are public domain.
Is it safe to assume that that is a typo and you meant they are not breaking
the law since those works are in the public domain?
It's
hardly easy to make money by SELLING what is available for FREE.
Sure, it happens. There are a few places on the internet where you can
pay to download something (like an owner's manual) that is available FOR
FREE on the manufacturer's website. Since the manufacturer in this case
makes it available for free, they aren't really ripping off the
manufacturer, but I'd say they are ripping off the consumer.
So, those Penguin folks are ripping off the consumer? I mean, you could
download the books from Project Gutenberg right? Should someone alert the
authorities that they are ripping off the consumers?
Here is a point you are ignoring. If you can't make money selling things
that are legal to copy and that can be obtained for free. How can you
make money selling things that are illegal to copy but are also available
for free via download however illegally? How do people sell knokcoff CDs
and DVDs when they are available as free downloads? They are not infringing any copyrights, and are not
making use of someone's property illegally.
When did the book go from being the property of Dickens or his heirs to being
the property of the public? Does a bit of land work that way? Or a sofa?
So, why the claim that an artist could not make money if their published works
immediately went into the public domain?
How can the Penguin folks make money printing and selling these books when any
other company anywhere in the world can do the same without paying them a
fee?
Are they "ripping people
off?" I don't know. Go ask their customers if they knew they could
have gotten all of that legally for free.
From what I've seen, people buy pirated DVDs because they either don't
have a DVD burner, or they believe that it is safer to buy it for cash
at some flea market where there is no paper trail leading to them.
So, why do they buy from the people who do not support the artists they like
rather then from the people who do support the artists they like? What drives
them to do this to bands they love?
all the best,
drew
14 Feb
14 Feb
4:09 a.m.
On 02/13/2013 02:26 PM, drew Roberts wrote:
Yes, that's a safe, and correct, assumption!!! Dang it!
I would have to research Dickens' works, but I know that at one time,
copyrights were issued for a fixed term of years (17 comes to mind), and
could be renewed once. Then the laws were changed so that a copyright
was good for some number of years after an author's death.
They probably buy from the pirates for the reasons I stated, plus the
fact that the pirates sell their pirated DVDs for $5. Everyone claims
to love a particular band and their music, but nobody considers that by
buying the pirated DVD or CD, they are denying their "favorite artist"
whatever income they should have gotten from the sale of that CD/DVD.
--
---
My bands, CD projects, music, news, and pictures:
http://www.lateralforce.com
My blog, with commentary on a variety of things, including audio,
mixing, equipment, etc, is at:
http://audioandmore.wordpress.com
Staat heißt das kälteste aller kalten Ungeheuer. Kalt lügt es auch;
und diese Lüge kriecht aus seinem Munde: 'Ich, der Staat, bin das Volk.'
- [Friedrich Nietzsche]
Well, the Pengiun folks are breaking a law, since
the things they copy
are public domain.
Is it safe to assume that that is a typo and you meant they are
not breaking
the law since those works are in the public domain?
They are not
infringing any copyrights, and are not
making use of someone's property illegally.
When did the book go from being
the property of Dickens or his heirs to being
the property of the public? Does a bit of land work that way? Or a sofa?
How can the Penguin folks make money printing and
selling these books when any
other company anywhere in the world can do the same without paying them a
fee?
Maybe there's not a market for it, since the material is available for free.
From what
I've seen, people buy pirated DVDs because they either don't
have a DVD burner, or they believe that it is safer to buy it for cash
at some flea market where there is no paper trail leading to them.
So, why do they
buy from the people who do not support the artists they like
rather then from the people who do support the artists they like? What drives
them to do this to bands they love?
5:13 a.m.
"I keep asking why material possession trumps all other considerations, and
you
and Kinsella have no answer except "It does." I'm getting bored,
frankly."
I do not remember you asking me that, James.
There is a good answer to that, although it might require some reading. But
basically,
because we live in a world of scarce things and the point of property is to
resolve
otherwise inescapable conflict over rivalrous resources.
If you choose to trump material possession, you commit aggression. It is
called
"violence" and "stealing". When you hit another person, you violate
their
property rights,
since each person owns his body.
Obviously, if you disagree with libertarian property theory, then this is
the root of out
disagreement. I am curious whether you are actually familiar with it?
L.V.
2:41 p.m.
On 02/14/2013 06:13 AM, Louigi Verona wrote:
"I keep asking why material possession trumps all
other considerations,
and you
and Kinsella have no answer except "It does." I'm getting bored,
frankly."
I do not remember you asking me that, James.
There is a good answer to that, although it might require some reading.
But basically,
because we live in a world of scarce things and the point of property is
to resolve
otherwise inescapable conflict over rivalrous resources.
If you choose to trump material possession, you commit aggression. It is
called
"violence" and "stealing". When you hit another person, you violate
their property rights,
since each person owns his body.
Obviously, if you disagree with libertarian property theory, then this
is the root of out
disagreement. I am curious whether you are actually familiar with it?
L.V.
This thread is going nowhere. Please take it offline
8:54 a.m.
On Wed, 2013-02-13 at 23:09 -0500, Al Thompson wrote:
They probably buy from the pirates for the reasons I
stated, plus the
fact that the pirates sell their pirated DVDs for $5. Everyone claims
to love a particular band and their music, but nobody considers that by
buying the pirated DVD or CD, they are denying their "favorite artist"
whatever income they should have gotten from the sale of that CD/DVD.
Because making music isn't hard work :D. The music industry sells this
image!
Musicians are people who only have sex and take hard drugs 24/7. Some,
especially black musicians are the biggest criminal organization bosses.
That it's usually the other way around, that musicians work hard while
other people have parties, musicians are more likely philosophers than
criminal organization bosses, is something that nobody will belief.
If it's that easy I wonder why people who are tired of their averaged
jobs, won't simply become musicians. No wait, I guess it's because
musicians were born with super hero powers, super gifts.
All musicians look beautiful and healthy, while taking hard drugs 24/7,
they only need to avoid to get in contact with kryptonite.
This piracy only effects some mainstream music.
Yes, the other, the non-mainstream musicians have to suffer, but not
regarding to piracy, but regarding to the less good times for concerts
etc.. The "prime time" for concerts at interesting locations is for Till
Brönner, David Garrett and other mainstream crap. And by the way,
musicians such as those two are talented musicians, no doubts about
that, but I've got doubts, that what they sell is music ;).
So are you talking about the situation for the music industry or for the
musicians from the neighborhood? And is there something else interesting
regarding to copyright laws, than money? Is there any other topic
instead of money?
17 Feb
17 Feb
9:22 p.m.
On Wednesday 13 February 2013 23:09:47 Al Thompson wrote:
There is a market for it. I have bought such books in the past and will
happily do so again.
They probably buy from the pirates for the reasons I stated, plus the
fact that the pirates sell their pirated DVDs for $5. Everyone claims
to love a particular band and their music, but nobody considers that by
buying the pirated DVD or CD, they are denying their "favorite artist"
whatever income they should have gotten from the sale of that CD/DVD.
And so the artist is not doing a decent job of communication with his fans
then right?
You are aware that people are rasining up front money from fans to make their
albums right?
all the best,
drew
On 02/13/2013 02:26 PM, drew Roberts wrote:
Yes, that's a safe, and correct, assumption!!! Dang it!
I would have to research Dickens' works, but I know that at one time,
copyrights were issued for a fixed term of years (17 comes to mind), and
could be renewed once. Then the laws were changed so that a copyright
was good for some number of years after an author's death.
Right but does your land or sofa pass into the publics possession after a
period of time?
Well, the
Pengiun folks are breaking a law, since the things they copy
are public domain.
Is it safe to assume that that is a typo and you meant they are not
breaking the law since those works are in the public domain? They are
not infringing any copyrights, and are not
making use of someone's property illegally.
When did the book go from being the property of Dickens or his heirs to
being the property of the public? Does a bit of land work that way? Or a
sofa? How can the Penguin folks make money printing and
selling these books
when any other company anywhere in the world can do the same without
paying them a fee?
Maybe there's not a market for it, since the material is available for
free. From what
I've seen, people buy pirated DVDs because they either don't
have a DVD burner, or they believe that it is safer to buy it for cash
at some flea market where there is no paper trail leading to them.
So, why do they buy from the people who do not support the artists they
like rather then from the people who do support the artists they like?
What drives them to do this to bands they love?
12 Feb
12 Feb
11:08 p.m.
On 02/12/2013 10:12 AM, Louigi Verona wrote:
As for your question, as to how will people make a
living who do IP only?
Consider an analogy which is brought up often.
Say, there is a culture where women are being forced to marry men that
their
family chooses. As you know, in many countries around the world in the
past
this was standard stuff.
And now imagine someone saying that this is wrong and brings in his
argumentation.
And someone says - well, then how will my sister get married?
Or if you are against slavery, someone will tell you - well, then how
will the work
in this country be done if there are no slaves? Who will want to do it?
The real question is - I don't know. All I know is that forced
marriage/slavery/copyright are wrong and here are
my arguments.
I don't see a problem with that position.
The difference is that in your marriage example, and in slavery, the
person is forced against his will to comply. The woman is forced into
it, the slave is also forced.
Work will get done when those who need the work will pay a reasonable wage.
Women will get married when they find someone to whom they are attracted
and who is attracted to them.
A composer is not forced. He can choose how to release his works. He
can copyright them and expect to profit from any sales, or he can
release into the public domain and expect nothing. Or, he can release
using one of the alternate licensing schemes and hope that people will
compensate him for his property.
It's not too unlike a guy who pays for materials and training, and then
builds a house. In deciding what to do with his house, he can:
1) charge people $500/month to live in it
2) let people live in it for free
3) tell people that they can live in it and give him some money if they
want to and can afford it
As pointed out on my site, producing IP is necessary.
How will people
get paid?
In various different ways. Just like they get paid now. In Russia
copyright law is
not enforced that much, yet Russia has scientists, composers, actors
and movie directors.
So they must be getting paid somehow.
How much of this is still state-sponsored in Russia?
--
---
My bands, CD projects, music, news, and pictures:
http://www.lateralforce.com
My blog, with commentary on a variety of things, including audio,
mixing, equipment, etc, is at:
http://audioandmore.wordpress.com
Staat heißt das kälteste aller kalten Ungeheuer. Kalt lügt es auch;
und diese Lüge kriecht aus seinem Munde: 'Ich, der Staat, bin das Volk.'
- [Friedrich Nietzsche]
11:35 p.m.
On Tuesday 12 February 2013 18:08:36 Al Thompson wrote:
all the best,
drew
On 02/12/2013 10:12 AM, Louigi Verona wrote:
Untrue.
1. He gets a copyright whether he wants one or not. He is forced to have one
and he must make an effort to counteract this.
If copyright only existed when applied for and registered, it would not be
nearly as nasty.
2. A person can lawfully force a song writer to license his work to him for a
cover. He cannot refuse. (At least in some places. Do we have any laws that
force a person to let a member of the public use his car?)
As for your question, as to how will people make
a living who do IP only?
Consider an analogy which is brought up often.
Say, there is a culture where women are being forced to marry men that
their
family chooses. As you know, in many countries around the world in the
past
this was standard stuff.
And now imagine someone saying that this is wrong and brings in his
argumentation.
And someone says - well, then how will my sister get married?
Or if you are against slavery, someone will tell you - well, then how
will the work
in this country be done if there are no slaves? Who will want to do it?
The real question is - I don't know. All I know is that forced
marriage/slavery/copyright are wrong and here are
my arguments.
I don't see a problem with that position.
The difference is that in your marriage example, and in slavery, the
person is forced against his will to comply. The woman is forced into
it, the slave is also forced.
Work will get done when those who need the work will pay a reasonable wage.
Women will get married when they find someone to whom they are attracted
and who is attracted to them.
A composer is not forced. He can choose how to release his works. He
can copyright them and expect to profit from any sales, or he can
release into the public domain and expect nothing. Or, he can release
using one of the alternate licensing schemes and hope that people will
compensate him for his property.
You always assume copyright law to justify copyright law and how the world
works. You need to image no copyright law and describe how things would
naturally work. (Well, you obviously don't have to but if you only argue A is
right because we have a law that lets us do A, you are not going to convince
many whoe think A may not be right in the first place.
It's not too unlike a guy who pays for materials and training, and then
builds a house. In deciding what to do with his house, he can:
1) charge people $500/month to live in it
2) let people live in it for free
3) tell people that they can live in it and give him some money if they
want to and can afford it
It is completely different. You want the person to be able to prevent another
person from buying his own materials and piece of land and build a copy of
the the house.
As pointed out on my site, producing IP is
necessary. How will people
get paid?
In various different ways. Just like they get paid now. In Russia
copyright law is
not enforced that much, yet Russia has scientists, composers, actors
and movie directors.
So they must be getting paid somehow.
How much of this is still state-sponsored in Russia?
13 Feb
13 Feb
12:09 a.m.
On 02/12/2013 06:35 PM, drew Roberts wrote:
I never claimed that the house was a unique design. I merely state that
"the house" is a result of the owner investing time and material into
creating it. It is "his" house. He owns it, and it is within his
rights to completely control it's use.
--
---
My bands, CD projects, music, news, and pictures:
http://www.lateralforce.com
My blog, with commentary on a variety of things, including audio,
mixing, equipment, etc, is at:
http://audioandmore.wordpress.com
Staat heißt das kälteste aller kalten Ungeheuer. Kalt lügt es auch;
und diese Lüge kriecht aus seinem Munde: 'Ich, der Staat, bin das Volk.'
- [Friedrich Nietzsche]
Untrue.
1. He gets a copyright whether he wants one or not. He is forced to have one
and he must make an effort to counteract this.
If copyright only existed when applied for and registered, it would not be
nearly as nasty.
Well, due to the Hague Convention in the 80's, that is rather true,
although a composer can release under alternate licenses (or into the
public domain. Also, if the composer is the "publisher," he can simply
not enforce his copyright.
It's not
too unlike a guy who pays for materials and training, and then
builds a house. In deciding what to do with his house, he can:
1) charge people $500/month to live in it
2) let people live in it for free
3) tell people that they can live in it and give him some money if they
want to and can afford it
It is completely different. You want the person to be
able to prevent another
person from buying his own materials and piece of land and build a copy of
the the house.
2:46 p.m.
New subject: Changerd: Copyright laws and such
On Tuesday 12 February 2013 19:09:00 Al Thompson wrote:
On 02/12/2013 06:35 PM, drew Roberts wrote:
I never claimed that the house was a unique design. I merely state that
"the house" is a result of the owner investing time and material into
creating it. It is "his" house. He owns it, and it is within his
rights to completely control it's use.
Well, let's make it an original design then shall we. What then in your eyes?
all the best,
drew
Untrue.
1. He gets a copyright whether he wants one or not. He is forced to have
one and he must make an effort to counteract this.
If copyright only existed when applied for and registered, it would not
be nearly as nasty.
Well, due to the Hague Convention in the 80's, that is rather true,
although a composer can release under alternate licenses (or into the
public domain. Also, if the composer is the "publisher," he can simply
not enforce his copyright.
It's
not too unlike a guy who pays for materials and training, and then
builds a house. In deciding what to do with his house, he can:
1) charge people $500/month to live in it
2) let people live in it for free
3) tell people that they can live in it and give him some money if they
want to and can afford it
It is completely different. You want the person to be able to prevent
another person from buying his own materials and piece of land and build
a copy of the the house.
12 Feb
12 Feb
3:48 p.m.
On Tuesday 12 February 2013 09:28:14 James Harkins wrote:
I wanted to be impressed. I'm not a big fan of
copyright myself, and I
hoped this would provide some strong counterarguments. Unfortunately,
merely declaring that the artist's labor has no value worth protecting does
not make it so.
It is not thet the artist's labour necessarily has no value although, like a
plumber's labour, it might have no value.
It is more a question of the damage we do to society by trying to compensate
the artist for that labour via the laws of copyright rather than in some
other fashion.
all the best,
drew
3:52 p.m.
I would also question whether this is about "value" at all.
Objectivists, namely Ayn Rand, has the "value" argument and Kinsella
has a whole chapter devoted to it.
Valuing labor is a very confused approach. Labor is not something that
can be defined clearly enough to be "valued" in numbers or in other
quantifiable
way.
3:54 p.m.
I would also question whether this is about "value" at all.
Objectivists, namely Ayn Rand, has the "value" argument and Kinsella
has a whole chapter devoted to it.
Valuing labor is a very confused approach. Labor is not something that
can be defined clearly enough to be "valued" in numbers or in other
quantifiable
way.
11 Feb
11 Feb
7:16 p.m.
On 02/11/2013 09:58 AM, drew Roberts wrote:
See, your first mistake is to describe the person as a property owner without
qualifications.
Second, I do not speak of private, contracted "showings" but rather of
publication.
I am also talking about "published works."
I guess the first question I would ask you, is "do you believe that a
person has a right to profit from his efforts?"
The draconian situation we have today is still not
good enough to protect the
works of the big copyright holders to their satisfaction. Open your eyes and
look at they laws they are asking for and often getting.
Many of the laws that are on the books, are not directly a result of
"copyright law" necessarily, but rather from backroom deals, lobbying
(i.e. - bribes), and other compromises. Don't confuse the RIAA with
"copyright owners."
So, you are whistling a new tune in your room with the
windows open. Jack is
walking by and hears some of it. It is catchy and he starts to whistle it as
he walks along. John standing at the bus stop a few blocks away hears it as
Jack passes. He too starts whistling the melody. He gets on the bus
whistling. All of the bus riders hear at. When they get off the bus at their
various stops they whistle it. Etc. In the absence of copyright law, do you
really think you have some power or right to prevent this situation? Some
right to be compensated by all of these people whistling without your
permission?
Oh, and by the way, to my ignorant understanding, if you hadn't yet written
down what you were whistling when Jack heard, you don't get to copyright it.
Oops. (I say ignorant as it may only happen if you perform it in public
first. Etc.)
You don't have to "write it down," in the literal sense. But being in a
fixed form of some sort is required, as is "publication."
--
---
My bands, CD projects, music, news, and pictures:
http://www.lateralforce.com
My blog, with commentary on a variety of things, including audio,
mixing, equipment, etc, is at:
http://audioandmore.wordpress.com
Staat heißt das kälteste aller kalten Ungeheuer. Kalt lügt es auch;
und diese Lüge kriecht aus seinem Munde: 'Ich, der Staat, bin das Volk.'
- [Friedrich Nietzsche]
7:37 p.m.
Right. As if, if you write it down, then now you have the right to boss
everyone around and put them in jail for whistling a tune they heard
somebody else whistle.
12 Feb
12 Feb
2:32 p.m.
New subject: Changerd: Copyright laws and such
On Monday 11 February 2013 14:16:04 Al Thompson wrote:
Doesn't matter much to the person on the wrong end of those whacked laws now
does it.
Exaclty. And if you didn't fix it, you are not protected. And even if you did
happen to be recording when Jack walked by, do you really think you have some
*inherent* power / right to stop that long chain of folks from whistling
without your permission?
I invite you to seriously consider the questions in this post:
http://zotzbro.blogspot.com/2010/12/copyright-questions.html
all the best,
drew
On 02/11/2013 09:58 AM, drew Roberts wrote:
No. A person has a right to try and profit from their efforts, but that is
different.
See, your first mistake is to describe the person
as a property owner
without qualifications.
Second, I do not speak of private, contracted "showings" but rather of
publication.
I am also talking about "published works."
I guess the first question I would ask you, is "do you believe that a
person has a right to profit from his efforts?" The draconian situation we have today is still
not good enough to protect
the works of the big copyright holders to their satisfaction. Open your
eyes and look at they laws they are asking for and often getting.
Many of the laws that are on the books, are not directly a result of
"copyright law" necessarily, but rather from backroom deals, lobbying
(i.e. - bribes), and other compromises. Don't confuse the RIAA with
"copyright owners." So, you are whistling a new tune in your room
with the windows open. Jack
is walking by and hears some of it. It is catchy and he starts to whistle
it as he walks along. John standing at the bus stop a few blocks away
hears it as Jack passes. He too starts whistling the melody. He gets on
the bus whistling. All of the bus riders hear at. When they get off the
bus at their various stops they whistle it. Etc. In the absence of
copyright law, do you really think you have some power or right to
prevent this situation? Some right to be compensated by all of these
people whistling without your permission?
Oh, and by the way, to my ignorant understanding, if you hadn't yet
written down what you were whistling when Jack heard, you don't get to
copyright it. Oops. (I say ignorant as it may only happen if you perform
it in public first. Etc.)
You don't have to "write it down," in the literal sense. But being in a
fixed form of some sort is required, as is "publication."
4:17 p.m.
New subject: Changerd: Copyright laws and such
On Tue, 2013-02-12 at 09:32 -0500, drew Roberts wrote:
> > So, you are whistling a new tune in your
room with the windows open. Jack
> > is walking by and hears some of it. It is catchy and he starts to whistle
> > it as he walks along. John standing at the bus stop a few blocks away
> > hears it as Jack passes. He too starts whistling the melody. He gets on
> > the bus whistling. All of the bus riders hear at. When they get off the
> > bus at their various stops they whistle it. Etc. In the absence of
> > copyright law, do you really think you have some power or right to
> > prevent this situation? Some right to be compensated by all of these
> > people whistling without your permission?
And this is something that isn't seldom. It often happens that people
independently have the same idea, resp. the same antenna to receive the
idea, that is transcendental drifting in morphogenetic fields ;).
I don't believe in esoteric such as morphic resonance, but I know that
people can independently have the same idea.
Btw. girlfriends sometimes worried that some famous artists might have
stolen music I composed. They know songs I composed years before those
artist released nearly equal songs. I replied usually that it might be,
that those artists might have released a composition from their
grandparents, that already was composed before I was born. Btw. a
typically female thought. Men just play a song and if another one plays
this song too, they don't care about it, men usually even don't need to
mention, that it's their composition. For men the gratification was to
compose the song. That's not sexism, it's simply the truth ;p.
Creative people always will have new ideas and it can happen that some
ideas are identically or other people had the same idea years before.
There never ever was a connection between those people and the idea
wasn't published. This happens very often. We aren't completely unique.
The world will go on, even when we all are dead.
At the first go I only can imagine that some parts of the theories of
relativity are something very special, that precise formulated as they
are. Without Einstein we perhaps still need to wait for some important
knowledge. But most impressing things I can imagine are ideas different
people had at different places.
6:37 p.m.
New subject: Changerd: Copyright laws and such
On 02/12/2013 06:17 AM, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
On Tue, 2013-02-12 at 09:32 -0500, drew Roberts
wrote:
>>> So, you are whistling a new tune in your room with the windows open. Jack
>>> is walking by and hears some of it. It is catchy and he starts to whistle
>>> it as he walks along. John standing at the bus stop a few blocks away
>>> hears it as Jack passes. He too starts whistling the melody. He gets on
>>> the bus whistling. All of the bus riders hear at. When they get off the
>>> bus at their various stops they whistle it. Etc. In the absence of
>>> copyright law, do you really think you have some power or right to
>>> prevent this situation? Some right to be compensated by all of these
>>> people whistling without your permission?
As inventor Conrad Aiken said, "Don't worry about people stealing your
ideas. If they're original, you'll have to ram it down their throats."
--
David
gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com
authenticity, honesty, community
http://clanjones.org/david/
http://dancing-treefrog.deviantart.com/
10:56 p.m.
New subject: Changerd: Copyright laws and such
On 02/12/2013 09:32 AM, drew Roberts wrote:
Exaclty. And
if you didn't fix it, you are not protected. And even if you did
happen to be recording when Jack walked by, do you really think you have some
*inherent* power / right to stop that long chain of folks from whistling
without your permission?
There is a difference between walking down the street whistling a tune,
vs. recording a song for sale, or performing a song, especially for
profit (although, presumably the composer would be a member of a
"performing arts society" such as BMI or ASCAP, so a performance would
be 'licensed' as long as the venue is a member of those societies).
As for listening to a song being recorded, it's the same. Consider the
case of a studio musician who is hired to play on a song which is being
recorded. He can play the riffs to that song at home. He can whistle
them while he drives around. What he can not do is record the song as
his own and release it, without paying royalties (licensing fee).
You seem to think that a copyright prevents someone from whistling a
song while they walk, singing a song while they shower, or ponder the
song in their head while they daydream, and this is simply not the
case. A copyright prevents you from recording a song, or creating sheet
music, and providing copies to others. The "right of copying" remains
with the author/composer.
--
---
My bands, CD projects, music, news, and pictures:
http://www.lateralforce.com
My blog, with commentary on a variety of things, including audio,
mixing, equipment, etc, is at:
http://audioandmore.wordpress.com
Staat heißt das kälteste aller kalten Ungeheuer. Kalt lügt es auch;
und diese Lüge kriecht aus seinem Munde: 'Ich, der Staat, bin das Volk.'
- [Friedrich Nietzsche]
Oh, and
by the way, to my ignorant understanding, if you hadn't yet
written down what you were whistling when Jack heard, you don't get to
copyright it. Oops. (I say ignorant as it may only happen if you perform
it in public first. Etc.)
You don't have to "write it down," in the
literal sense. But being in a
fixed form of some sort is required, as is "publication."
11:08 p.m.
New subject: Changerd: Copyright laws and such
On Tue, 2013-02-12 at 17:56 -0500, Al Thompson wrote:
On 02/12/2013 09:32 AM, drew Roberts wrote:
Exaclty. And
if you didn't fix it, you are not protected. And even if you did
happen to be recording when Jack walked by, do you really think you have some
*inherent* power / right to stop that long chain of folks from whistling
without your permission?
There is a difference between walking down the street whistling a tune,
vs. recording a song for sale, or performing a song, especially for
profit (although, presumably the composer would be a member of a
"performing arts society" such as BMI or ASCAP, so a performance would
be 'licensed' as long as the venue is a member of those societies).
As for listening to a song being recorded, it's the same. Consider the
case of a studio musician who is hired to play on a song which is being
recorded. He can play the riffs to that song at home. He can whistle
them while he drives around. What he can not do is record the song as
his own and release it, without paying royalties (licensing fee).
You seem to think that a copyright prevents someone from whistling a
song while they walk, singing a song while they shower, or ponder the
song in their head while they daydream, and this is simply not the
case. A copyright prevents you from recording a song, or creating sheet
music, and providing copies to others. The "right of copying" remains
with the author/composer.
Shit happens!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7Jg4f5eF7M
99% are from a Bob Dylan song interpreted by Jimi Hendrix ;), it's just
missing heart and soul of Hendrix. IMO the most embarrassing musical
faux pas ever, since somebody must have noticed that this is "more
more", than less a copy of a very known song. Clapton might not notice
his mistake, but at least an engineer, best boy, or somebody else.
Oh, and
by the way, to my ignorant understanding, if you hadn't yet
written down what you were whistling when Jack heard, you don't get to
copyright it. Oops. (I say ignorant as it may only happen if you perform
it in public first. Etc.)
You don't have to "write it down," in the
literal sense. But being in a
fixed form of some sort is required, as is "publication."
11:25 p.m.
New subject: Changerd: Copyright laws and such
On Tuesday 12 February 2013 17:56:02 Al Thompson wrote:
On 02/12/2013 09:32 AM, drew Roberts wrote:
Exaclty. And if you didn't fix it, you are not protected. And even if you
did happen to be recording when Jack walked by, do you really think you
have some *inherent* power / right to stop that long chain of folks from
whistling without your permission?
There is a difference between walking down the street whistling a tune,
vs. recording a song for sale, or performing a song, especially for
profit (although, presumably the composer would be a member of a
"performing arts society" such as BMI or ASCAP, so a performance would
be 'licensed' as long as the venue is a member of those societies).
Yes there is. But if the song is really the property of another, why this
distinction? Is it his property to do with as he and he alone wishes and
authorizes or is it not?
And don't be too sure. I seem to remember reading of a store being sued
because an employee was singing songs to herself while stocking shelves.
Granted she was singing audibly.
Oh, and by the way, to my ignorant understanding, if
you hadn't yet
written down what you were whistling when Jack heard, you don't get to
copyright it. Oops. (I say ignorant as it may only happen if you
perform it in public first. Etc.)
You don't have to "write it down," in the literal sense. But being in a
fixed form of some sort is required, as is "publication."
As for listening to a song being recorded, it's the same. Consider the
case of a studio musician who is hired to play on a song which is being
recorded. He can play the riffs to that song at home. He can whistle
them while he drives around. What he can not do is record the song as
his own and release it, without paying royalties (licensing fee).
Again, why this arbitrary distinction about what someone can and cannot do
with the property of another? Is it OK if you opne and sit in another
person's car so long as you don't start it and drive it away?
You seem to think that a copyright prevents someone from whistling a
song while they walk, singing a song while they shower, or ponder the
song in their head while they daydream, and this is simply not the
case.
I know that. But why not? Based on the theory people seem to have that the
songs them make are their property and they should have the final say in how
they are used.
A copyright prevents you from recording a song, or
creating sheet
music, and providing copies to others. The "right of copying" remains
with the author/composer.
So does the right of public performance, right? Does performing while walking
down the street not count? What about a marching band?
I invite you to consider these Copyright Questions:
http://zotzbro.blogspot.com/2010/12/copyright-questions.html
I also invite you to consider if fashion designers make any money.
all the best,
drew
13 Feb
13 Feb
12:01 a.m.
New subject: Changerd: Copyright laws and such
On 02/12/2013 06:25 PM, drew Roberts wrote:
Well, I do know that marching bands pay licensing fees.
--
---
My bands, CD projects, music, news, and pictures:
http://www.lateralforce.com
My blog, with commentary on a variety of things, including audio,
mixing, equipment, etc, is at:
http://audioandmore.wordpress.com
Staat heißt das kälteste aller kalten Ungeheuer. Kalt lügt es auch;
und diese Lüge kriecht aus seinem Munde: 'Ich, der Staat, bin das Volk.'
- [Friedrich Nietzsche]
A copyright prevents you from recording a song,
or creating sheet
music, and providing copies to others. The "right of copying" remains
with the author/composer.
So does the right of public performance, right? Does
performing while walking
down the street not count? What about a marching band?
2:41 p.m.
New subject: Changerd: Copyright laws and such
On Tuesday 12 February 2013 19:01:39 Al Thompson wrote:
On 02/12/2013 06:25 PM, drew Roberts wrote:
Well, I do know that marching bands pay licensing fees.
But the single guy walking down the street whistling the tune does not have
to?
What about two friends then?
What is the magic number where it changes from being:
"Don't be such a fool, of course copyright does not restrict that!"
to:
"Don't be such a fool, of course it is stealing if they do that without paying
the songwriter!"
all the best,
drew
A
copyright prevents you from recording a song, or creating sheet
music, and providing copies to others. The "right of copying" remains
with the author/composer.
So does the right of public performance, right? Does performing while
walking down the street not count? What about a marching band?
2:47 p.m.
New subject: Changerd: Copyright laws and such
On Wed, 2013-02-13 at 09:41 -0500, drew Roberts wrote:
On Tuesday 12 February 2013 19:01:39 Al Thompson
wrote:
Full ACK, it would depend to the right of assembly of your country. Who
pays the collecting societies for roaring hooligans?
On 02/12/2013 06:25 PM, drew Roberts wrote:
Well, I do know that marching bands pay licensing fees.
But the single guy walking down the street whistling the tune does not have
to?
What about two friends then?
What is the magic number where it changes from being:
"Don't be such a fool, of course copyright does not restrict that!"
to:
"Don't be such a fool, of course it is stealing if they do that without paying
the songwriter!"
all the best,
drew A
copyright prevents you from recording a song, or creating sheet
music, and providing copies to others. The "right of copying" remains
with the author/composer.
So does the right of public performance, right? Does performing while
walking down the street not count? What about a marching band?
14 Feb
14 Feb
4:54 a.m.
New subject: Changerd: Copyright laws and such
When discussing copyright, keep in mind of the difference between these:
1. Sam bought a house. It is his house.
2. Sam wrote a book. It is his book.
In first case "his" talks about ownership.
In second case "his" stands for authorship.
Ownership does not equal authorship. Or if it does, you have to prove it.
L.V.
9:16 a.m.
New subject: Changerd: Copyright laws and such
On Thu, 2013-02-14 at 07:54 +0300, Louigi Verona wrote:
When discussing copyright, keep in mind of the
difference between
these:
1. Sam bought a house. It is his house.
2. Sam wrote a book. It is his book.
In first case "his" talks about ownership.
In second case "his" stands for authorship.
Ownership does not equal authorship. Or if it does, you have to prove
it.
And as mentioned before, money isn't the most important in life, resp.
even if money should be the most important in life, then regarding to
the copyright laws sharing knowledge etc. still is more important
regarding to money, because money just is an abstract medium of
exchange. Sharing knowledge and helping each other is important!
7 Feb
7 Feb
4:13 p.m.
On 02/07/2013 01:45 AM, Alexandre Prokoudine wrote:
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 10:39 AM, Simon Wise wrote:
See Dave Phillips article:
http://lwn.net/Articles/502183/
I also updated the original LJ article in 2010:
http://www.linuxjournal.com/content/linux-audio-plugin-update
Seems like every two years I have to update the plugins article.
Best,
dp
See Dave Philips article ...
http://www.linuxjournal.com/node/1000192
This is an article from goddamn 2007! :)
Long before VeSTige came about.
6 Feb
6 Feb
11:18 p.m.
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 11:58 PM, Dave Phillips <dlphillips(a)woh.rr.com>wrote;wrote:
What I'm more interested in is what *you* think is
missing most or just
plain wrong about the situation.
I started using linux for audio primarily for sooperlooper, which at the
time (over ten years ago i think) was the best if not the only EDP
emulation for any platform. It worked great then, and it still works great,
so from that perspective, nothing is wrong with linux audio for me, except
for the constant hand-wringing and complaining that something is wrong with
linux audio!
But of course, that is not the whole picture. Every now and then I wish
there was a native linux audiomulch equivalent, for example, but then I
usually get to thinking how wrong-headed such desires seem. Windows or OSX
never really evolved as audio platforms trying to emulate Windows or OSX so
much, they evolved as platforms for music creation in their own terms.
That's somewhat naive and an over simplification I realize, because for
sure different software packages emulated and influenced each other, and
even MS and Apple have always had their tensions about who truly innovated
various features (and even linux can stake a claim in that respect).
But my point is that expecting linux to be just like one of those platforms
seems dunderheaded to me. So one of the things wrong with linux audio (for
me) is the constant stream of expectations to replicate the experience of
other platforms. It may happen, but I don't think it is a worthy drive for
development. Yes, certain features may be worth emulating, but often times
I get the feeling that people have a working setup on another platform, and
then complain mostly because they have to give that up when they switch
platforms. They then get increasingly frustrated as they realize things
will just not be the same as they were when they had a working setup on the
other platform. Which often makes me question why some people switch at
all.
A lot of the points raised in this thread are perfectly valid I'm sure from
the perspective of the individuals raising them, and that's what this
thread is about, but I'm going to take a stand against what seems to a
trend of slagging the "audio geeks". For me that is exactly what makes
linux unique, interesting, fun, and yes, sometimes frustrating. It is a
system where the whole system is available to play and learn and grow as
you grow as a musician or sound designer. Its never-ending openness and
diversity limits its effectiveness in emulating windows or OSX, but linux
offers an open palette of learning opportunities. Linux has taught me more
about system design and the bigger picture of digital audio than Windows
and OSX ever did. Of course, that's hard to quantify because who knows what
might have happened if I didn't switch all those years ago (for one thing I
might have made more music and spent less time learning about systems), but
linux is what it is and I'd rather spend time taking advantage of what it
is and then bemoaning what it isn't, as difficult as that can be sometimes.
2 minor units of currency
Michael
11:36 p.m.
New subject: [LAD] So what do you think sucks about Linux audio ?
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 3:18 PM, michael noble <looplog(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 11:58 PM, Dave Phillips <dlphillips(a)woh.rr.com>wrote;wrote:
Very well put.
What I'm more interested in is what *you*
think is missing most or just
plain wrong about the situation.
I started using linux for audio primarily for sooperlooper, which at the
time (over ten years ago i think) was the best if not the only EDP
emulation for any platform. It worked great then, and it still works great,
so from that perspective, nothing is wrong with linux audio for me, except
for the constant hand-wringing and complaining that something is wrong with
linux audio!
But of course, that is not the whole picture. Every now and then I wish
there was a native linux audiomulch equivalent, for example, but then I
usually get to thinking how wrong-headed such desires seem. Windows or OSX
never really evolved as audio platforms trying to emulate Windows or OSX so
much, they evolved as platforms for music creation in their own terms.
That's somewhat naive and an over simplification I realize, because for
sure different software packages emulated and influenced each other, and
even MS and Apple have always had their tensions about who truly innovated
various features (and even linux can stake a claim in that respect).
But my point is that expecting linux to be just like one of those
platforms seems dunderheaded to me. So one of the things wrong with linux
audio (for me) is the constant stream of expectations to replicate the
experience of other platforms. It may happen, but I don't think it is a
worthy drive for development. Yes, certain features may be worth emulating,
but often times I get the feeling that people have a working setup on
another platform, and then complain mostly because they have to give that
up when they switch platforms. They then get increasingly frustrated as
they realize things will just not be the same as they were when they had a
working setup on the other platform. Which often makes me question why some
people switch at all.
A lot of the points raised in this thread are perfectly valid I'm sure
from the perspective of the individuals raising them, and that's what this
thread is about, but I'm going to take a stand against what seems to a
trend of slagging the "audio geeks". For me that is exactly what makes
linux unique, interesting, fun, and yes, sometimes frustrating. It is a
system where the whole system is available to play and learn and grow as
you grow as a musician or sound designer. Its never-ending openness and
diversity limits its effectiveness in emulating windows or OSX, but linux
offers an open palette of learning opportunities. Linux has taught me more
about system design and the bigger picture of digital audio than Windows
and OSX ever did. Of course, that's hard to quantify because who knows what
might have happened if I didn't switch all those years ago (for one thing I
might have made more music and spent less time learning about systems), but
linux is what it is and I'd rather spend time taking advantage of what it
is and then bemoaning what it isn't, as difficult as that can be sometimes.
2 minor units of currency
Michael
10 Feb
10 Feb
9:59 a.m.
I don't think Linux audio sucks at all when you compare it to whats
available for free on the other platforms - they suck in comparison if we
take commercial software out of it. If we're talking about commercial apps
and plugins then indeed Linux still has a long way to go.
My main issues with Linux Audio are mainly JACK related:
* JACK needs to become more plug-and-play. I think its a shame it still
offers no way to auto-detect optimal settings on any given setup and
instead the user has to find out what options to tweak then find the best
settings through trial and error.
* JACK can still fail to start and just leave the user with some pretty
cryptic errors as to why it failed. It is more verbose if the user has lsof
installed but under Debuntu at least lsof is not a dep of JACK and so isn't
guaranteed to be installed so the user has to know JACK or Linux well to
know that that should be installed too to get more descriptive errors.
Ideally, JACK, qjackctl and Cadence etc would say 'App/process xxx is
blocking JACK from starting. Would you like to kill it? Yes/No"
* JACK can't hot swap audio devices and so if the user wants this feature
they have to integrate PA with JACK which sadly still isn't straightforward
under many popular distros and then the user has to learn about how ALSA,
PA and JACK interact.
I'm hopeful my first two issues can and will be fixed eventually but I
doubt JACK will ever have device hotswap capability which admittedly isn't
something you're likely to do midway through an Ardour or whatever session
but would be lovely if it worked!
Thats about it. I think our community is absolutely fantastic and one of
the best things on the whole internet - everyone is so helpful and we have
a huge amount of talent and knowledge on here.
In fact, I'm a bit concerned that if Bitwig leads to an explosion of
commercial apps and plugins for Linux and LA busts out of its niche that
LA* will suffer a kinda Ubuntu/Android effect where these lists will get
swamped with newb questions and cause many of our valued members to
unsubscribe.
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 2:58 PM, Dave Phillips <dlphillips(a)woh.rr.com> wrote:
Greetings,
I've been reading a lot of negative (read: vitriolic) commentary about the
world of Linux audio development and applications. I won't bother to say
where, just "the usual places" will have to suffice. Of greater interest to
me is the commentary itself - it seems to boil down to the following
plaints and lamentations (in no particular order) :
Too many distros.
Too many audio-optimized distros.
Not enough native plugins, esp. instruments.
Inconsistent support for VST/VSTi plugins.
Too many unstable/unfinished applications.
Too many "standards" (esp. wrt plugins).
Poor external/internal session management.
Poor support for certain modes of composition (think Ableton Live).
Lack of support for contemporary hardware.
Confusion re: desktops, and GUI toolkits.
Too difficult to set up audio system.
JACK is a pain.
Too much conflict/fragmentation within the development community.
I'm not so interested in comments on the commentary, I have my own, but
say what you will about the list. I figure that most denizens of these
lists already have ready replies and responses to these and other
criticisms, many of which have been voiced here previously. What I'm more
interested in is what *you* think is missing most or just plain wrong about
the situation. Please, try to speak your piece without flames or dissing
other developers and/or their work. Frankly speaking, I've had enough of
that crap, and I'm most thankful these days for such forum amenities as
"mute user" and autodiscard, along with the standard filters found in mail
clients.
<aside>
I'm reminded of John Cage's comments regarding the behavior of the NY
Philharmonic when they destroyed his equipment during the premire of Atlas
Eclipticalis, something to the effect that his concerns had ceased to be
musical and had become social, i.e. that he had to figure a way to allow
people to be free yet behave themselves with respect towards the common
goal (e.g. Cage's music and property). I'm going to guess that he was still
working on that up to his death.
</aside>
So, in your honest and bold opinion as user and/or developer, what do we
lack most and what can we do without that we already have ? Please feel
free to expand your remarks as you like. I'm planning an article on the
topic and will likely use selected comments, subject to approval of course.
Best,
dp
______________________________**_________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@lists.**linuxaudio.org<Linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org>
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/**listinfo/linux-audio-user<http://lists.lin…
12:49 p.m.
On Sun, 2013-02-10 at 09:59 +0000, Dan MacDonald wrote:
* JACK needs to become more plug-and-play. I think its
a shame it
still offers no way to auto-detect optimal settings on any given setup
and instead the user has to find out what options to tweak then find
the best settings through trial and error.
How should it be done to auto-detect the best settings? IMO it's
impossible.
* JACK can still fail to start and just leave the user with some
pretty cryptic errors as to why it failed.
I experienced this very seldom, but it's true, I at least remember one
very strange example on jack devel mailing list a while ago. The output
lead into a completely wrong direction.
* JACK can't hot swap audio devices and so if the
user wants this
feature they have to integrate PA with JACK which sadly still isn't
straightforward under many popular distros and then the user has to
learn about how ALSA, PA and JACK interact.
Are there many cases when users need to switch the audio device?
[snip]
In fact, I'm a bit concerned that if Bitwig leads to an explosion of
commercial apps and plugins for Linux and LA busts out of its niche
that LA* will suffer a kinda Ubuntu/Android effect where these lists
will get swamped with newb questions and cause many of our valued
members to unsubscribe.
There's already energyXT, but it didn't cause such an explosion.
Regards,
Ralf
4:57 p.m.
Hi Ralf!
On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 12:49 PM, Ralf Mardorf
<ralf.mardorf(a)alice-dsl.net>wrote;wrote:
I switch audio device several times a day. Sometimes I'll use onboard
audio, sometimes I'll use my USB portable hifi output and sometimes I'll be
using my Focusrite. They all have their own use cases.
energyXT is in no way comparable in sheer hype and the music tech
industry/market interest thats surrounding Bitwig. energyXT is unlikely to
be counted in the top 50 DAWs now or at the time of its initial release.
Ableton and its offspring Bitwig are a BIG deal for Linux and music tech as
a whole as Ableton has enjoyed being one of the most popular music
production apps of recent years. Ableton has real market recognition which
Bitwig is inheriting and its very likely one of the top 5 most popular
music apps today. energyXT?
Whether you're into these sequencers or not, many people are so Bitwig is
big news Ralf - BIIIIIIG!!! :D
On Sun, 2013-02-10 at 09:59 +0000, Dan MacDonald
wrote:
Surely its possible to get an optimized JACK setup working better than it
does currently?
I'm not advocating JACK lose any of its options but what I'm thinking is
something like this. Lets call the way JACK gets started at present the
manual mode and I want to see an auto ('low latency scanner') mode added.
On first run, auto-mode would do something equivalent to running a stripped
down ecasound that would run a series of tests to determine the best
settings (for tracking) that your setup can currently achieve without
xruns. It would likely be up to the user to re-run the auto tests when they
change hardware unless auto mode scans for that too. Exactly what the test
would comprise of I'm not sure but maybe something like simulating a
tracking a few tracks w/ plugins added to each. JACK has a dummy audio
device so I'm presuming here that it could simulate recording sound too
else maybe this is impossible.
* JACK needs to become more plug-and-play. I
think its a shame it
still offers no way to auto-detect optimal settings on any given setup
and instead the user has to find out what options to tweak then find
the best settings through trial and error.
How should it be done to auto-detect the best settings? IMO it's
impossible.
* JACK can still fail to start and just leave the
user with some
pretty cryptic errors as to why it failed.
I experienced this very seldom, but it's true, I at least remember one
very strange example on jack devel mailing list a while ago. The output
lead into a completely wrong direction.
* JACK can't hot swap audio devices and so if
the user wants this
feature they have to integrate PA with JACK which sadly still isn't
straightforward under many popular distros and then the user has to
learn about how ALSA, PA and JACK interact.
Are there many cases when users need to switch the audio device?
[snip]
In fact, I'm a bit concerned that if Bitwig leads to an explosion of
commercial apps and plugins for Linux and LA busts out of its niche
that LA* will suffer a kinda Ubuntu/Android effect where these lists
will get swamped with newb questions and cause many of our valued
members to unsubscribe.
There's already energyXT, but it didn't cause such an explosion.
5:23 p.m.
On Sun, 2013-02-10 at 16:57 +0000, Dan MacDonald wrote:
Regards,
Ralf
Hi Ralf!
On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 12:49 PM, Ralf Mardorf
<ralf.mardorf(a)alice-dsl.net> wrote:
How should it be done to auto-detect the best
settings? IMO
it's
impossible.
Surely its possible to get an optimized JACK setup working better than
it does currently?
I'm not advocating JACK lose any of its options but what I'm thinking
is something like this. Lets call the way JACK gets started at present
the manual mode and I want to see an auto ('low latency scanner') mode
added. On first run, auto-mode would do something equivalent to
running a stripped down ecasound that would run a series of tests to
determine the best settings (for tracking) that your setup can
currently achieve without xruns. It would likely be up to the user to
re-run the auto tests when they change hardware unless auto mode scans
for that too. Exactly what the test would comprise of I'm not sure but
maybe something like simulating a tracking a few tracks w/ plugins
added to each. JACK has a dummy audio device so I'm presuming here
that it could simulate recording sound too else maybe this is
impossible.
Hi Dan :)
perhaps you want to record a guitar track with less latency, because
you're using Linux effects in real-time. You might get inaudible xruns
or completely no xruns at this song position, but to play the complete
song, you perhaps need to increase the latency, to avoid xruns, or at
least to avoid audible xruns.
IMO jack latency can be a construction area all the times and it's
possible to change the latency on the fly.
For MIDI set ups latency sometimes needs to be higher than for audio
track work.
An auto-detection at least must know, what kind of optimisation is
needed.
Are there many cases when users need to switch
the audio
device?
I switch audio device several times a day. Sometimes I'll use onboard
audio, sometimes I'll use my USB portable hifi output and sometimes
I'll be using my Focusrite. They all have their own use cases.
I can imagine that it has advantages for you, to switch between those
devices, but I don't think that there's the need to switch between a
Focusrite and an integrated device on the fly.
10:30 p.m.
On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 5:05 PM, <gerald.mwangi(a)gmx.de> wrote:
Auto mode for JACK latency is a good idea.
I have another proposition: a dedicated graphical front-end for jack
session. It could help users setup their workflow , by providing a list of
all the jack aware programs installed, categorized by type (sampler, daw,
synth). The program should aid in setting up a project , eg firing up
ardour with several tracks, firing up synths (lv2 instruments/hosts incl)
with presets selectable from the front-end with a preview sound. The
front-end could trigger the synth in question with a midi note when
selecting a preset. Lv2 plugins, that is pure audio effects, could also
listed with the ability to directly send a signal from the audio interface
through the selected plugin to quickly hear what it does. One could then
associate the selected plugin with, say a track in ardour, and another
plugin with a track in hydrogen or so.
what you are describing is basically the "monolithic app" experience (from
a user perspective) but created using a set of independent applications and
processes.
speaking personally, i think there are better things to do with our time.
3:55 p.m.
On Sun, February 10, 2013 1:59 am, Dan MacDonald wrote:
I don't think Linux audio sucks at all when you
compare it to whats
available for free on the other platforms - they suck in comparison if we
take commercial software out of it. If we're talking about commercial apps
and plugins then indeed Linux still has a long way to go.
My main issues with Linux Audio are mainly JACK related:
I agree with most, and they will just take time. (though "sucks" is rather
strong in this case)
* JACK needs to become more plug-and-play. I think its a shame it still
offers no way to auto-detect optimal settings on any given setup and
instead the user has to find out what options to tweak then find the best
settings through trial and error.
There are some settings that I feel should be user controlled. The SW
can't know what use you are going to use it for. There are already some
settings that do work with pretty much anything already and they are
default. They are a longer latency and just fine for many things. But even
one app may use more than one latency setting. For example, when tracking
with ardour, I use low latency. Then, when I start mixdown, I relax
latency so I have room to add effects, eq etc. Now ardour does allow
changing Jack's latency on the fly (guitarix does too) so maybe that is
ok. The thing is jack does so many different things, making it plug and
play would be easy if we made it dumber... for example take out the
firewire interface and the chances of grabbing the right audio device goes
way up... especially if the DE sets a correct default device. But then no
firewire. The way around this is to make ALSA drivers for FW :) but then
no net backend.
How about auto select HW monitor based on the card supporting it? No
thanks. My card does support it but it also has its own interface for
dealing with HW monitoring that includes an (almost) no latency mixer
(ice1712). So in my case PnP would be wrong. The reason an analog studio
has patch bays is for flexibility. A professional studio is not plug and
play. Flexibility is probably one of the number one reasons people like
Linux and jack.
Some of the things I would like to see in Linux... an ALSA driver for all
sound cards. The ability to use any onboard DSP of all sound cards. Pie in
the sky stuff right now, but if manufactures used a standard way of a)
interfacing with their on board DSP modules (midi/OSC for example) and b)
a standard way of loading their proprietary code blocks into their
interfaces (MIDI sysexec, whatever OSC uses, one of the old modem file
transfer protocols like xmodem that many MBs use for loading firmware) It
would actually be easier for the manufacture to maintain support for
win/mac let alone linux which would then take care of itself.
Yes it would be nicer to know more about the DSP in there so we could do
our own code and make even more use of the onboard DSP, but just getting
what we paid for without having to give up the flexibility of the linux
platform would be nice.
* JACK can't hot swap audio devices and so if the
user wants this feature
they have to integrate PA with JACK which sadly still isn't
straightforward
under many popular distros and then the user has to learn about how ALSA,
PA and JACK interact.
Pulse does not allow proper hot swapping of devices, use ALSA_in or
zita_a2j to do this. True it is not automated, but then my DE doesn't
implement focus follows mind either. UbuntuStudio does not auto open a USB
stick just because you plug it in even though xfce has this feature
available... because someone (idiot) may have plugged it in during the
perfect take. We do try to set things up to work right with the internal
audio IF, because that is what most newbies will try first.
In fact, I'm a bit concerned that if Bitwig leads
to an explosion of
commercial apps and plugins for Linux and LA busts out of its niche that
LA* will suffer a kinda Ubuntu/Android effect where these lists will get
swamped with newb questions and cause many of our valued members to
unsubscribe.
My experience with this is that as people use all in one apps first (LMMS
is popular with windows users) they learn about the flexibility of other
linux apps and switch. And if they don't, they are at least enjoying
themselves. Bitwig questions would get redirected to the Bitwig site
anyway. Things change. So far it has been mostly for the better.
--
Len Ovens
www.OvenWerks.net
11:25 a.m.
On 02/05/2013 03:58 PM, Dave Phillips wrote:
Greetings,
<snip>
I'm not so interested in comments on the
commentary, I have my own, but
say what you will about the list. I figure that most denizens of these
lists already have ready replies and responses to these and other
criticisms, many of which have been voiced here previously. What I'm
more interested in is what *you* think is missing most or just plain
wrong about the situation. Please, try to speak your piece without
flames or dissing other developers and/or their work.
[drum roll, the following with at least 15% THD and the distinct sound
of a 50s ribbon mike after long abuse:]
ask not what free software can do for you, ask what you can do for free
software!
[enter brass band with some heroic yet totally cheesy hymn arrangement,
think charles ives stealing frank zappa's reggae horn arrangement of the
stairway to heaven solo.]
free software, my friends, is a natural resource. complaining about the
lack of this or that is just about as clever or useful as complaining
about the utter lack of oil or rare earth metals on your home turf,
which unjustly prevents you from becoming the next rockefeller.
making linux audio more approachable to people who have not grasped this
basic fact has no benefits at all, neither to developers nor to users.
personally, i find my days of linux audio evangelism are over. it suits
my needs better than ever before, and i make very sure that people i
talk to are made aware of the treasure trove of linux audio tools.
and of course i assume the lotus position and put on my most radiating
smile when people who have just figured that i'm a sort of computer
person then start complaining about their problems with operating system
$FOO and how proprietary tool $BAR is just a millstone around their
necks. but that's it.
if they need guitar rig or protools or garageband, we can't give it to
them, so obviously they are better off on other platforms. that is good.
it's even better than turning them into frustrated converts who then
keep complaining how they can't run TDM or RTAS plugins or their VSTs
keep crashing or whatever.
if somebody decides to take the plunge (which also implies some other
basic skills, such as being able to use email in a constructive manner,
learning what IRC is, aiming at learning to compile one's own software,
and so on), i will try to share tricks and help out as best as i can.
but why press-gang perfectly happy users of proprietary software into
linux, or put up with jerks who think the world has to support their
personal way of composing? that's just the lamest thing i can imagine.
don't get me wrong, i think it's perfectly ok for non-programmers to try
and nudge developers gently towards what you think are good ideas. i do
it myself all the time, but i try to do it
_from_the_inside_of_a_project. that means i try to make myself a little
useful, subscribe to the mailing list, learn the software, build from
the latest dev tree, lose some productive time dealing with crashes and
try to provide useful feedback. only then do i sound off about what new
stuff i'd like to see.
anything else is just bikeshedding.
my 200 €.
jörn
--
Jörn Nettingsmeier
Lortzingstr. 11, 45128 Essen, Tel. +49 177 7937487
Meister für Veranstaltungstechnik (Bühne/Studio)
Tonmeister VDT
http://stackingdwarves.net
11:44 a.m.
New subject: [LAD] So what do you think sucks about Linux audio ?
On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 3:25 PM, Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:
don't get me wrong, i think it's perfectly ok
for non-programmers to try and
nudge developers gently towards what you think are good ideas. i do it
myself all the time, but i try to do it _from_the_inside_of_a_project. that
means i try to make myself a little useful, subscribe to the mailing list,
learn the software, build from the latest dev tree, lose some productive
time dealing with crashes and try to provide useful feedback. only then do i
sound off about what new stuff i'd like to see.
anything else is just bikeshedding.
my 200 €.
I double that, sir :)
Alexandre Prokoudine
http://libregraphicsworld.org
1:12 p.m.
Am 10.02.2013 12:25, schrieb Jörn Nettingsmeier:
On 02/05/2013 03:58 PM, Dave Phillips wrote:
+me
Often it sucks me, that, with my limited knowledge of the English
language, I wasn't able to put things right on the point, like you have
done it here.
Gladly that others could do, and do it.
Many thanks for this.
hermann
Greetings,
<snip>
I'm not so interested in comments on the
commentary, I have my own, but
say what you will about the list. I figure that most denizens of these
lists already have ready replies and responses to these and other
criticisms, many of which have been voiced here previously. What I'm
more interested in is what *you* think is missing most or just plain
wrong about the situation. Please, try to speak your piece without
flames or dissing other developers and/or their work.
[drum roll, the following with at least 15% THD and the distinct sound
of a 50s ribbon mike after long abuse:]
ask not what free software can do for you, ask what you can do for
free software!
[enter brass band with some heroic yet totally cheesy hymn
arrangement, think charles ives stealing frank zappa's reggae horn
arrangement of the stairway to heaven solo.]
free software, my friends, is a natural resource. complaining about
the lack of this or that is just about as clever or useful as
complaining about the utter lack of oil or rare earth metals on your
home turf, which unjustly prevents you from becoming the next
rockefeller.
making linux audio more approachable to people who have not grasped
this basic fact has no benefits at all, neither to developers nor to
users.
personally, i find my days of linux audio evangelism are over. it
suits my needs better than ever before, and i make very sure that
people i talk to are made aware of the treasure trove of linux audio
tools.
and of course i assume the lotus position and put on my most radiating
smile when people who have just figured that i'm a sort of computer
person then start complaining about their problems with operating
system $FOO and how proprietary tool $BAR is just a millstone around
their necks. but that's it.
if they need guitar rig or protools or garageband, we can't give it to
them, so obviously they are better off on other platforms. that is
good. it's even better than turning them into frustrated converts who
then keep complaining how they can't run TDM or RTAS plugins or their
VSTs keep crashing or whatever.
if somebody decides to take the plunge (which also implies some other
basic skills, such as being able to use email in a constructive
manner, learning what IRC is, aiming at learning to compile one's own
software, and so on), i will try to share tricks and help out as best
as i can.
but why press-gang perfectly happy users of proprietary software into
linux, or put up with jerks who think the world has to support their
personal way of composing? that's just the lamest thing i can imagine.
don't get me wrong, i think it's perfectly ok for non-programmers to
try and nudge developers gently towards what you think are good ideas.
i do it myself all the time, but i try to do it
_from_the_inside_of_a_project. that means i try to make myself a
little useful, subscribe to the mailing list, learn the software,
build from the latest dev tree, lose some productive time dealing with
crashes and try to provide useful feedback. only then do i sound off
about what new stuff i'd like to see.
anything else is just bikeshedding.
my 200 €.
jörn
2:43 p.m.
New subject: So what do you think sucks about Linux audio ? OP reply.
Greetings,
I've spent this morning reading through the ~200 replies to the topic.
IMO the thread has devolved gracefully and I have the information I was
looking for.
I'll make a fuller reply after I get into my article, but it's clear
that the most pressing need is for more skilled developers. This is in
stark contrast to the scene in 2000 - at that time virtually every
member of LAU/LAD was a developer and/or technically involved user. Few
of us were "just musicians". Now it looks like the musicians outnumber
the devs, a not entirely unhappy situation, despite evident problems
rising from the imbalance.
A great "Thank you!" to everyone who replied. For the most part the
thread stayed on-topic, and I hope that your time was not wasted. I'll
notify the lists when the article is published and when it's publicly
readable (LWN subscribers get first look).
Best,
dp
4:18 p.m.
New subject: [LAD] So what do you think sucks about Linux audio ? OP reply.
On 02/10/2013 03:43 PM, Dave Phillips wrote:
Greetings,
Hi Dave,
I've spent this morning reading through the ~200
replies to the topic.
IMO the thread has devolved gracefully and I have the information I was
looking for.
I've been waiting for that to say: I can find nothing that sucks about
Linux Audio ('xept maybe ~200 w[h]ining users :))
Looking forward to your article,
robin
9:52 p.m.
New subject: [LAD] So what do you think sucks about Linux audio ? OP reply.
On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 8:43 AM, Dave Phillips <dlphillips(a)woh.rr.com>wrote;wrote:
Greetings,
I've spent this morning reading through the ~200 replies to the topic. IMO
the thread has devolved gracefully and I have the information I was looking
for.
I'll make a fuller reply after I get into my article, but it's clear that
the most pressing need is for more skilled developers. This is in stark
contrast to the scene in 2000 - at that time virtually every member of
LAU/LAD was a developer and/or technically involved user. Few of us were
"just musicians". Now it looks like the musicians outnumber the devs, a not
entirely unhappy situation, despite evident problems rising from the
imbalance.
It would be great if we could get more students involved in linux audio. 8
years ago, I picked up linux in order to program some DSP audio code that I
was thinking about. It really lowered the barrier of entry into audio
programming. I think more engineering students could get involved, knowing
some of the things you can do with linux.
My university didn't have an audio program--there were maybe just a few
engineers I knew that were strongly inclined to work on audio or
acoustics. There is a lack of collaboration between engineering and
art/music students here and very little direction from professors
concerning art and technology--but I see some of that beginning to change.
I think that linux is much more well known and it's easier than ever to get
started. So--might I suggest to do something more for student outreach?
What do you think would make a difference?
Chuck
9:56 p.m.
New subject: [LAD] So what do you think sucks about Linux audio ? OP reply.
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 1:52 AM, Charles Z Henry wrote:
I think that linux is much more well known and
it's easier than ever to get
started. So--might I suggest to do something more for student outreach?
What do you think would make a difference?
Off-top of my head, try to get involved with Google Summer of Code.
The graphics folks are traditionally well represented there: Blender,
GIMP, Krita, Inkscape, Scribus, OpenCV et al. Less so for video, and
even less for audio.
Alexandre Prokoudine
http://libregraphicsworld.org
11:20 p.m.
New subject: [LAD] So what do you think sucks about Linux audio ? OP reply.
On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Alexandre Prokoudine <
alexandre.prokoudine(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 1:52 AM, Charles Z Henry
wrote:
I think that linux is much more well known and
it's easier than ever to
get
started. So--might I suggest to do something
more for student outreach?
What do you think would make a difference?
Off-top of my head, try to get involved with Google Summer of Code.
The graphics folks are traditionally well represented
there: Blender,
GIMP, Krita, Inkscape, Scribus, OpenCV et al. Less so for video, and
even less for audio.
Alexandre Prokoudine
How about sponsoring good ol fashioned senior projects? Big and visible
events like Google Summer of Code will be good for some students who want a
summer project on their resumes, but there's a comparatively larger number
of students who need to do a senior project every year. Likewise the art
and music students need to create some kind of senior year portfolio or
recital.
I'm sure many of you in academics can (and do) encourage your students to
work with Linux. We may not need funding like GSOC, just some way to get
more recognition of using linux as a platform for academic projects.
Chuck
11:36 p.m.
New subject: [LAD] So what do you think sucks about Linux audio ? OP reply.
On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 17:20:03 -0600
Charles Z Henry <czhenry(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Alexandre Prokoudine
<
alexandre.prokoudine(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I'm wondering if more attention could be drawn to the Linux Audio Conference,
although I don't really know what would be the best way to achieve this, or
even whether it might be seen as too geeky for most people.
Incidentally I'm hoping to go this year (not registered yet), and for several
years I've thought about submitting some of my music, but the process seems
rather convoluted for what is almost a 'throwaway' item in the conference.
--
Will J Godfrey
http://www.musically.me.uk
Say you have a poem and I have a tune.
Exchange them and we can both have a poem, a tune, and a song.
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 1:52 AM, Charles Z Henry
wrote:
I think that linux is much more well known and
it's easier than ever to
get
started. So--might I suggest to do something
more for student outreach?
What do you think would make a difference?
Off-top of my head, try to get involved with Google Summer of Code.
The graphics folks are traditionally well
represented there: Blender,
GIMP, Krita, Inkscape, Scribus, OpenCV et al. Less so for video, and
even less for audio.
Alexandre Prokoudine
How about sponsoring good ol fashioned senior projects? Big and visible
events like Google Summer of Code will be good for some students who want a
summer project on their resumes, but there's a comparatively larger number
of students who need to do a senior project every year. Likewise the art
and music students need to create some kind of senior year portfolio or
recital.
I'm sure many of you in academics can (and do) encourage your students to
work with Linux. We may not need funding like GSOC, just some way to get
more recognition of using linux as a platform for academic projects.
Chuck
11:46 p.m.
New subject: [LAD] So what do you think sucks about Linux audio ? OP reply.
On 02/10/2013 06:36 PM, Folderol wrote:
I'm wondering if more attention could be drawn to the Linux Audio Conference,
although I don't really know what would be the best way to achieve this, or
even whether it might be seen as too geeky for most people.
Incidentally I'm hoping to go this year (not registered yet), and for several
years I've thought about submitting some of my music, but the process seems
rather convoluted for what is almost a 'throwaway' item in the conference.
Hey Will,
Unfortunately it doesn't look like I'll be able to make it this year,
but please do submit your music. A lot of music is played/performed at
the conference, and I think it could use a little more diversity. And
presentations about "this is how I made my music with Linux software"
are always welcome.
Best,
dp
12 Feb
12 Feb
3:26 p.m.
New subject: [LAD] So what do you think sucks about Linux audio ? OP reply.
On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 18:46:00 -0500
Dave Phillips <dlphillips(a)woh.rr.com> wrote:
On 02/10/2013 06:36 PM, Folderol wrote:
Hi Dave,
Looking at the conference website it seems I'm about a week too late to
contribute any music.
The idea of doing a presentation is an interesting (but also quite scary) one.
I have never done any public speaking at all, and wouldn't have a clue how to
arrange such a thing. Also I don't know what equipment I could expect to be on
hand.
However, I can see that the track "Ride With Yoshimi" I posted recently would
be
an ideal one for this as I used just about everything I know best on it
(however, it's 8 minutes long).
Would it work best as a talk over the actual playing music, or stepwise
examination of parts, or what? I really have no clue :(
I think the cut-off time for presentations is also only a couple of days away :(
--
Will J Godfrey
http://www.musically.me.uk
Say you have a poem and I have a tune.
Exchange them and we can both have a poem, a tune, and a song.
I'm wondering if more attention could be drawn to the Linux Audio Conference,
although I don't really know what would be the best way to achieve this, or
even whether it might be seen as too geeky for most people.
Incidentally I'm hoping to go this year (not registered yet), and for several
years I've thought about submitting some of my music, but the process seems
rather convoluted for what is almost a 'throwaway' item in the conference.
Hey Will,
Unfortunately it doesn't look like I'll be able to make it this year,
but please do submit your music. A lot of music is played/performed at
the conference, and I think it could use a little more diversity. And
presentations about "this is how I made my music with Linux software"
are always welcome.
Best,
dp
3:30 p.m.
New subject: [LAD] So what do you think sucks about Linux audio ? OP reply.
I myself would love to do a talk on electronic music, but unfortunately
I am not sure I will have the time to present it in writing.
L.V.
8:42 p.m.
New subject: [LAD] So what do you think sucks about Linux audio ? OP reply.
on Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 03:26:49PM +0000, Folderol wrote:
On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 18:46:00 -0500
Dave Phillips <dlphillips(a)woh.rr.com> wrote:
"Due to popular demand, the deadline for all Linux Audio Conference
submissions has been extended! It is now February 17th, 2013 (23:59
HAST)."
gogogogogo!
-w
On 02/10/2013 06:36 PM, Folderol wrote:
Hi Dave,
Looking at the conference website it seems I'm about a week too late to
contribute any music.
I'm wondering if more attention could be drawn to the Linux Audio Conference,
although I don't really know what would be the best way to achieve this, or
even whether it might be seen as too geeky for most people.
Incidentally I'm hoping to go this year (not registered yet), and for several
years I've thought about submitting some of my music, but the process seems
rather convoluted for what is almost a 'throwaway' item in the conference.
Hey Will,
Unfortunately it doesn't look like I'll be able to make it this year,
but please do submit your music. A lot of music is played/performed at
the conference, and I think it could use a little more diversity. And
presentations about "this is how I made my music with Linux software"
are always welcome.
Best,
dp The idea of doing a presentation is an interesting
(but also quite scary) one.
I have never done any public speaking at all, and wouldn't have a clue how to
arrange such a thing. Also I don't know what equipment I could expect to be on
hand.
However, I can see that the track "Ride With Yoshimi" I posted recently would
be
an ideal one for this as I used just about everything I know best on it
(however, it's 8 minutes long).
Would it work best as a talk over the actual playing music, or stepwise
examination of parts, or what? I really have no clue :(
I think the cut-off time for presentations is also only a couple of days away :(
--
Will J Godfrey
http://www.musically.me.uk
Say you have a poem and I have a tune.
Exchange them and we can both have a poem, a tune, and a song.
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
13 Feb
13 Feb
9:11 a.m.
New subject: [LAD] So what do you think sucks about Linux audio ? OP reply.
On 02/12/2013 04:26 PM, Folderol wrote:
Hi Dave,
Looking at the conference website it seems I'm about a week too late to
contribute any music.
Hello Will,
Afaik everything has been postponed to February 17th.
The idea of doing a presentation is an interesting
(but also quite scary) one.
I have never done any public speaking at all, and wouldn't have a clue how to
arrange such a thing. Also I don't know what equipment I could expect to be on
hand.
Just do it! And you can communicate your wishes with the organization
regarding equipment you need. I think the bare essentials will be
available (beamer + amplification).
However, I can see that the track "Ride With
Yoshimi" I posted recently would be
an ideal one for this as I used just about everything I know best on it
(however, it's 8 minutes long).
Would it work best as a talk over the actual playing music, or stepwise
examination of parts, or what? I really have no clue:(
Personally I'd be more interested in a stepwise examination of parts.
I think the cut-off time for presentations is also
only a couple of days away:(
True but I still have to enter my proposals too :)
Jeremy
14 Feb
14 Feb
6:54 p.m.
New subject: [LAD] So what do you think sucks about Linux audio ? OP reply.
On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 18:46:00 -0500
Dave Phillips <dlphillips(a)woh.rr.com> wrote:
On 02/10/2013 06:36 PM, Folderol wrote:
Well, I've taken the plunge and entered my submission. Well see if it's
accepted.
I'll be going regardless. I've decided to make a Wednesday to Wednesday week of
it, and will be travelling by rail. I'll be making it a daytime trip (spread
over 2 days) - what's the point of going though all that countryside and not
seeing any of it?
--
Will J Godfrey
http://www.musically.me.uk
Say you have a poem and I have a tune.
Exchange them and we can both have a poem, a tune, and a song.
I'm wondering if more attention could be drawn to the Linux Audio Conference,
although I don't really know what would be the best way to achieve this, or
even whether it might be seen as too geeky for most people.
Incidentally I'm hoping to go this year (not registered yet), and for several
years I've thought about submitting some of my music, but the process seems
rather convoluted for what is almost a 'throwaway' item in the conference.
Hey Will,
Unfortunately it doesn't look like I'll be able to make it this year,
but please do submit your music. A lot of music is played/performed at
the conference, and I think it could use a little more diversity. And
presentations about "this is how I made my music with Linux software"
are always welcome.
Best,
dp 
11 Feb
11 Feb
12:25 a.m.
New subject: [LAD] So what do you think sucks about Linux audio ? OP reply.
On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 11:36 PM, Folderol <folderol(a)ukfsn.org> wrote:
conference, and
usually they reply "Me? What do I know about <X>? People won't want to
talk
to me",
or "i'm not a pro in that field".
Of course that's not true at all. Absolutely everybody I've approached at
LAC's has
responded positively to me saying "I'm a student, trying to learn <x>, do
you have any advice?".
I don't think its really possible to be more welcoming, the target audience
says:
"musicians, composers, sound artists, software developers, researchers and
engineers".
Short of adding beginners & dabblers to that list, I don't know what to do
;)
even whether it might be seen as too geeky for most people.
Perhaps.. but I don't think
"geeky" is a showstopper.
> Incidentally I'm hoping to go this year (not registered yet), and for
> several
> years I've thought about submitting some of my music
Do, and hope to see you there! -H
I'm wondering if more attention could be drawn to
the Linux Audio
Conference,
Putting the cost factor aside, I don't see why not more students appear at
the LAC.
I've asked some of my fellow classmates if they want to attend <X
12:36 a.m.
New subject: LAC 2013, why not more students?
On Mon, 11 Feb 2013 00:24:58 +0000
Harry van Haaren <harryhaaren(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Putting the cost factor aside, I don't see why not
more students appear at the LAC.
For me it is just this.
I have registered, I even have something to say and there are 6 days left to submit a
paper.
But I have no job, live on my parents money and the cheapest way, that I know of, to get
from Cologne, Germany to Graz in time is to fly. By train is actually more expensive.
Anyway, I don't have the 170€ it would cost and then I have to sleep and eat somwhere
and something, too. I might submit a paper anyway and see to make it somehow.
I was thinking about raising funds on one of these sites like kickstarter, only in small
and for personal expenses. But somehow this feels wrong, and I wonder who would give
money. I would not ask my friends, relatives or Linux Audio people, that leaves only
strangers who stumble upon the link on this very site, so that is as unlikey as it gets
:)
Nils
4:11 p.m.
New subject: LAC 2013, why not more students?
So here is my kickback to this, as Nil's comments are the same reason I
don't go to many conferences, LAC included. Is there any reason that LAC
shouldn't possibly happen online? Here I am not just talking about
broadcast video necessarily, but thinking about the actual conference and
whether it might be able to be put in effect online, which seems to fit
with LAC especially.
Just musing out loud right now mind you, haven't really thought it through
much.
Seablade
On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 7:35 PM, Nils Gey <ich(a)nilsgey.de> wrote:
On Mon, 11 Feb 2013 00:24:58 +0000
Harry van Haaren <harryhaaren(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Putting the cost factor aside, I don't see why
not more students appear
at the LAC.
For me it is just this.
I have registered, I even have something to say and there are 6 days left
to submit a paper.
But I have no job, live on my parents money and the cheapest way, that I
know of, to get from Cologne, Germany to Graz in time is to fly. By train
is actually more expensive.
Anyway, I don't have the 170€ it would cost and then I have to sleep and
eat somwhere and something, too. I might submit a paper anyway and see to
make it somehow.
I was thinking about raising funds on one of these sites like kickstarter,
only in small and for personal expenses. But somehow this feels wrong, and
I wonder who would give money. I would not ask my friends, relatives or
Linux Audio people, that leaves only strangers who stumble upon the link on
this very site, so that is as unlikey as it gets :)
Nils
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
8:26 p.m.
New subject: LAC 2013, why not more students?
On Mon, 11 Feb 2013 11:10:58 -0500
Thomas Vecchione <seablaede(a)gmail.com> wrote:
So here is my kickback to this, as Nil's comments
are the same reason I
don't go to many conferences, LAC included. Is there any reason that LAC
shouldn't possibly happen online? Here I am not just talking about
broadcast video necessarily, but thinking about the actual conference and
whether it might be able to be put in effect online, which seems to fit
with LAC especially.
Just musing out loud right now mind you, haven't really thought it through
much.
Seablade
For me, it's very much about absorbing the atmosphere of the events and meeting
the people behind the ideas. There are dimensions of communication that are
simply not conveyed at all over any from of AV.
--
Will J Godfrey
http://www.musically.me.uk
Say you have a poem and I have a tune.
Exchange them and we can both have a poem, a tune, and a song.
12 Feb
12 Feb
4:07 a.m.
New subject: LAC 2013, why not more students?
I should clarify that when I asked about online I was meaning making sure
to have the ability to interact/converse/etc. Merely streaming to the net
doesn't provide this, and IRC only provides a very limited version of this.
Although I can see the thought of wanting to meet in person and absorb the
atmosphere.
Seablade
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 3:26 PM, Folderol <folderol(a)ukfsn.org> wrote:
On Mon, 11 Feb 2013 11:10:58 -0500
Thomas Vecchione <seablaede(a)gmail.com> wrote:
So here is my kickback to this, as Nil's
comments are the same reason I
don't go to many conferences, LAC included. Is there any reason that LAC
shouldn't possibly happen online? Here I am not just talking about
broadcast video necessarily, but thinking about the actual conference and
whether it might be able to be put in effect online, which seems to fit
with LAC especially.
Just musing out loud right now mind you, haven't really thought it
through
much.
Seablade
For me, it's very much about absorbing the atmosphere of the events and
meeting
the people behind the ideas. There are dimensions of communication that are
simply not conveyed at all over any from of AV.
--
Will J Godfrey
http://www.musically.me.uk
Say you have a poem and I have a tune.
Exchange them and we can both have a poem, a tune, and a song.
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
11:42 a.m.
New subject: LAC 2013, why not more students?
Hiho,
the streamteam of the LAC is working long hours each year to make
everything happen - and the video/audio streams are of quite high
quality each year, and the questions from IRC do add to the conference.
Any help to improve the online-ness of the LAC in addition to the
offline-ness is appreciated.
Suggestions are welcome, especially if backed up by work on making
these things happen.
sincerely,
Marije
On Mon, 11 Feb 2013 23:07:19 -0500
Thomas Vecchione <seablaede(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I should clarify that when I asked about online I was
meaning making
sure to have the ability to interact/converse/etc. Merely streaming
to the net doesn't provide this, and IRC only provides a very limited
version of this.
Although I can see the thought of wanting to meet in person and
absorb the atmosphere.
Seablade
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 3:26 PM, Folderol <folderol(a)ukfsn.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Feb 2013 11:10:58 -0500
> Thomas Vecchione <seablaede(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > So here is my kickback to this, as Nil's comments are the same
> > reason I don't go to many conferences, LAC included. Is there
> > any reason that LAC shouldn't possibly happen online? Here I am
> > not just talking about broadcast video necessarily, but thinking
> > about the actual conference and whether it might be able to be
> > put in effect online, which seems to fit with LAC especially.
> >
> > Just musing out loud right now mind you, haven't really thought it
> through
> > much.
> >
> > Seablade
>
> For me, it's very much about absorbing the atmosphere of the events
> and meeting
> the people behind the ideas. There are dimensions of communication
> that are simply not conveyed at all over any from of AV.
>
> --
> Will J Godfrey
> http://www.musically.me.uk
> Say you have a poem and I have a tune.
> Exchange them and we can both have a poem, a tune, and a song.
> _______________________________________________
> Linux-audio-user mailing list
> Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
> http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
>
12:58 p.m.
New subject: LAC 2013, why not more students?
2013/2/12 Marije Baalman <nescivi(a)gmail.com>om>:
Hiho,
the streamteam of the LAC is working long hours each year to make
everything happen - and the video/audio streams are of quite high
quality each year, and the questions from IRC do add to the conference.
Any help to improve the online-ness of the LAC in addition to the
offline-ness is appreciated.
Suggestions are welcome, especially if backed up by work on making
these things happen.
Radio stream with IDJC + voip calls from users ?
I guess many people on this list own (a) a mixer (b) N>0 mic (c) an
instrument or a band to play with :-)
It would be quite easy to join a conversation with the LAC speakers
and/or stream audio through the net with a workflow like this
Ardour -> ALSA -> Asterisk || Linphone || the "evil" skype ||
any-other-alsa-compliant-voip
my 0.02€
-r
--
L'unica speranza di catarsi, ammesso che ne esista una, resta affidata
all'istinto di ribellione, alla rivolta non isterilita in progetti,
alla protesta violenta e viscerale. (V. Evangelisti)
10:20 p.m.
New subject: LAC 2013, why not more students?
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 6:42 AM, Marije Baalman <nescivi(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hiho,
the streamteam of the LAC is working long hours each year to make
everything happen - and the video/audio streams are of quite high
quality each year, and the questions from IRC do add to the conference.
Any help to improve the online-ness of the LAC in addition to the
offline-ness is appreciated.
Suggestions are welcome, especially if backed up by work on making
these things happen.
That was actually a main point of me bringing this up, is to stir
conversation.
These days video conferencing are reaching new heights in effectiveness. I
am looking to move one of my audio classes that is more lecture based to a
video conference type setup for about 2/3 of the class. I am part of an
international team (Well actually have been part of several) that use video
conferencing to communicate/critique/etc.
Now that is great, but in all my cases above it is a smaller team of
people, usually no more than 10 or so active participants. That obviously
doesn't work for a conference how I have currently used it, my question is,
how can the broadcast method be pushed more towards something really
suitable for a conference instead. I feel like IRC is only a stepping
stone to it, and I personally feel like the people on this list are likely
the perfect group to innovate something different in this regards as well
considering the variety of backgrounds and common interest in audio and/or
visual communications.
Now all that being said, I don't have many ideas myself yet. A rework of
video conferencing to allow for a broadcast with videochat questions*(see
below for clarification) along with text based questions is a step, but I
wonder if that is all that is needed.
* What I see for video chat, would be a primary presenter, that people
could click a button to 'raise a hand' to ask a question and see them via
video when they ask the question, but not otherwise.
Another question or possibility would be, would it make a difference, for
example, to have satellite campuses for the conference. For instance the
cost from my side of the pond is much larger than someone in the EU
obviously, so what would it look like to do a satellite conference, which I
do annually with other conferences with decent success, and is there enough
interest? And what would that look like, as likewise I can only see
something non-standard working in this type of situation.
Seablade
13 Feb
13 Feb
2:56 a.m.
New subject: LAC 2013, why not more students?
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 5:19 PM, Thomas Vecchione <seablaede(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 6:42 AM, Marije Baalman <nescivi(a)gmail.com> wrote:
the formal program(mes) are the least effective part of LAC, IMO. what made
attending them worthwhile was the chance encounters in hallways, in
restaurants, in bars. these sorts of exchanges don't map well to video
conferencing.
in fact, i'd probably go as far as to say that video conferencing is
massively impeded when it is *not* preceded by in-person encounters by the
parties involved. this is true even of IRC to some extent, and the changes
i've had to meet various LA people (including you) have been enormous in
constructing my sense of an ability to communicate with them all.
Hiho,
the streamteam of the LAC is working long hours each year to make
everything happen - and the video/audio streams are of quite high
quality each year, and the questions from IRC do add to the conference.
Any help to improve the online-ness of the LAC in addition to the
offline-ness is appreciated.
Suggestions are welcome, especially if backed up by work on making
these things happen.
That was actually a main point of me bringing this up, is to stir
conversation.
6:35 a.m.
New subject: LAC 2013, why not more students?
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 9:56 PM, Paul Davis <paul(a)linuxaudiosystems.com>wrote;wrote:
the formal program(mes) are the least effective part of LAC, IMO. what
made attending them worthwhile was the chance encounters in hallways, in
restaurants, in bars. these sorts of exchanges don't map well to video
conferencing.
in fact, i'd probably go as far as to say that video conferencing is
massively impeded when it is *not* preceded by in-person encounters by the
parties involved. this is true even of IRC to some extent, and the changes
i've had to meet various LA people (including you) have been enormous in
constructing my sense of an ability to communicate with them all.
I won't disagree with this necessarily, but would you agree or disagree
that attending it in some fashion is better than not attending at all?
Some of this of course can be mitigated by the second point I brought up
about 'satellite' conference I think by the way, I run a downlink site for
one such occurance that is a conference held worldwide. We have about
200-300 people attend out of our area out of the hundreds of thousands that
attend it worldwide, and for those people that attend at our campus, they
may well tell you the same thing about the experience at our campus, even
though they weren't at the 'broadcast' location.
Seablade
10:51 a.m.
New subject: LAC 2013, why not more students?
On Wed, 2013-02-13 at 01:35 -0500, Thomas Vecchione wrote:
We have about 200-300 people attend out of our area
out of the
hundreds of thousands that attend it worldwide, and for those people
that attend at our campus, they may well tell you the same thing about
the experience at our campus, even though they weren't at the
'broadcast' location.
Such meeting place in different nations and in each nation at different
locations, such as universities and cultural centres is a nice idea for
the future. I suspect chances to use a cultural centre or an assembly
hall of an alternative commune in my hometown or neighbor towns for free
are fifty fifty. But I don't know the state of such facilities, I don't
stay in touch, last time I worked at a cultural centre (Oberhausen,
Altenberg) is 2 or 3 years ago. Contact to former squatters, now
alternative commune (e.g. Oberhausen, Ripshorster Str.) are completely
dropped. However, we have tons of such locations in the Ruhrgebiet. Free
perhaps means some kind of deal, but I think it's not impossible in the
Ruhrgebiet, Germany.
11 Feb
11 Feb
4:48 p.m.
New subject: LAC 2013, why not more students?
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 12:35 AM, Nils Gey <ich(a)nilsgey.de> wrote:
Harry van Haaren <harryhaaren(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Indeed I think that there are many (students & otherwise) who would attend
if there was more finances available. I "put it aside" as I don't think
there is anything the LAC organizers can do about that aspect.
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 4:10 PM, Thomas Vecchione <seablaede(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
Putting the cost factor aside, I don't see why
not more students appear
at the LAC.
For me it is just this.
Is there any reason that LAC shouldn't possibly
happen online?
I personally really enjoy the face-to-face chatting with like-minded
people. Conversation is a much faster medium, and ideas flow more easily. I
know when I send to list, I usually think more, and sometimes re-read my
messages before sending. To brainstorm and collaborate effectively I feel
it is fundamentally necessary to meet and have that fast interaction with
people that have similar goals or ideas. The LAC affords an opportunity for
this, I would see it as a great loss if it were to go entirely online.
8:15 p.m.
New subject: LAC 2013, why not more students?
Hiho,
the LAC was born out of a desire amongst Linux Audio Developers to meet
in person, rather than just online.
Nevertheless, all LAC's have been streamed live to the net, with an IRC
channel to ask questions, for those not able to come over to attend in
some way.
Since 2007 the LAC is "traveling" thereby enabling local people (and
different local people each time) to join the conference more easily,
and changing the distance needed to travel to attend in person each
time.
That said, I'm sure that some students in Graz may be able to provide
some couchsurf spaces for students (or other people with little money
to spend) coming from abroad to at least reduce the cost for
accommodation, a wiki page (which we usually have for the LAC) could
maybe facilitate arranging this?
Sincerely,
Marije
On Mon, 11 Feb 2013 16:48:09 +0000
Harry van Haaren <harryhaaren(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 12:35 AM, Nils Gey
<ich(a)nilsgey.de> wrote:
Harry van Haaren <harryhaaren(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Indeed I think that there are many (students & otherwise) who would
attend if there was more finances available. I "put it aside" as I
don't think there is anything the LAC organizers can do about that
aspect.
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 4:10 PM, Thomas Vecchione
<seablaede(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
Putting the cost factor aside, I don't see why
not more students
appear
at the LAC.
For me it is just this.
Is there any reason that LAC shouldn't
possibly happen online?
I personally really enjoy the face-to-face chatting with like-minded
people. Conversation is a much faster medium, and ideas flow more
easily. I know when I send to list, I usually think more, and
sometimes re-read my messages before sending. To brainstorm and
collaborate effectively I feel it is fundamentally necessary to meet
and have that fast interaction with people that have similar goals or
ideas. The LAC affords an opportunity for this, I would see it as a
great loss if it were to go entirely online. 
12 Feb
12 Feb
12:12 a.m.
New subject: [LAD] So what do you think sucks about Linux audio ? OP reply.
Hi Chuck and list
A few time ago I wrote in javascript some small code generator. A few
friends wanted to learn audio programming and I did it because it is not
easy to start with an API and sometimes the code wrap takes to much time.
These things also help me in some fast prototypes.
http://www.ime.usp.br/~fls/LADSPA-generator/LADSPA_generator.html
http://www.ime.usp.br/~fls/PDExternal-generator/PDExternal_generator.html
The main idea of both is to have a ready-to-use wraper and so one can
spend time really coding audio DSP.
Best regards
F Schiavoni
My university didn't have an audio program--there
were maybe just a few
engineers I knew that were strongly inclined to work on audio or
acoustics. There is a lack of collaboration between engineering and
art/music students here and very little direction from professors
concerning art and technology--but I see some of that beginning to change.
I think that linux is much more well known and it's easier than ever to
get
started. So--might I suggest to do something more for student outreach?
What do you think would make a difference?
Chuck
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
5:02 p.m.
New subject: [LAD] So what do you think sucks about Linux audio ? OP reply.
Flavio,
These are really awesome! Looks like a great way for newcomers to get
started. I usually start by copy/paste..find/replace from an existing
class, but have to remove anything that's specific to that class. You have
a better approach here.
Chuck
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 6:04 PM, <fls(a)rendera.com.br> wrote:
Hi Chuck and list
A few time ago I wrote in javascript some small code generator. A few
friends wanted to learn audio programming and I did it because it is not
easy to start with an API and sometimes the code wrap takes to much time.
These things also help me in some fast prototypes.
http://www.ime.usp.br/~fls/LADSPA-generator/LADSPA_generator.html
http://www.ime.usp.br/~fls/PDExternal-generator/PDExternal_generator.html
The main idea of both is to have a ready-to-use wraper and so one can
spend time really coding audio DSP.
Best regards
F Schiavoni
My university didn't have an audio
program--there were maybe just a few
engineers I knew that were strongly inclined to work on audio or
acoustics. There is a lack of collaboration between engineering and
art/music students here and very little direction from professors
concerning art and technology--but I see some of that beginning to
change.
I think that linux is much more well known and it's easier than ever to
get
started. So--might I suggest to do something more for student outreach?
What do you think would make a difference?
Chuck
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
8:04 p.m.
New subject: [LAD] So what do you think sucks about Linux audio ? OP reply.
Chuck,
Thanks for your reply. Just a few cents about: how to get students
involved in Linux audio development. We used this code generator in a kind
of DSP course. With this "wrapper" was possible to take some classic DSP
algorythms and create LADSPA plugins. Some results can be seen here:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/jaimeffects/
I'm pretty sure that these plugins are not new, awesome or anything. But
it was good to develop them and see them running.
cheers
f schiavoni
Flavio,
These are really awesome! Looks like a great way for newcomers to get
started. I usually start by copy/paste..find/replace from an existing
class, but have to remove anything that's specific to that class. You
have
a better approach here.
Chuck
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 6:04 PM, <fls(a)rendera.com.br> wrote:
Hi Chuck and list
A few time ago I wrote in javascript some small code generator. A few
friends wanted to learn audio programming and I did it because it is not
easy to start with an API and sometimes the code wrap takes to much
time.
These things also help me in some fast prototypes.
http://www.ime.usp.br/~fls/LADSPA-generator/LADSPA_generator.html
http://www.ime.usp.br/~fls/PDExternal-generator/PDExternal_generator.html
The main idea of both is to have a ready-to-use wraper and so one can
spend time really coding audio DSP.
Best regards
F Schiavoni
My university didn't have an audio
program--there were maybe just a
few
engineers I knew that were strongly inclined to
work on audio or
acoustics. There is a lack of collaboration between engineering and
art/music students here and very little direction from professors
concerning art and technology--but I see some of that beginning to
change.
I think that linux is much more well known and it's easier than ever
to
get
started. So--might I suggest to do something more for student
outreach?
What do you think would make a difference?
Chuck
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
14 Feb
14 Feb
2:08 p.m.
Dave Phillips wrote
Greetings,
I've been reading a lot of negative (read: vitriolic) commentary about
the world of Linux audio development and applications. I won't bother to
say where, just "the usual places" will have to suffice. Of greater
interest to me is the commentary itself - it seems to boil down to the
following plaints and lamentations (in no particular order) :
Too many distros.
Too many audio-optimized distros.
Not enough native plugins, esp. instruments.
Inconsistent support for VST/VSTi plugins.
Too many unstable/unfinished applications.
Too many "standards" (esp. wrt plugins).
Poor external/internal session management.
Poor support for certain modes of composition (think Ableton Live).
Lack of support for contemporary hardware.
Confusion re: desktops, and GUI toolkits.
Too difficult to set up audio system.
JACK is a pain.
Too much conflict/fragmentation within the development community.
I'm not so interested in comments on the commentary, I have my own, but
say what you will about the list. I figure that most denizens of these
lists already have ready replies and responses to these and other
criticisms, many of which have been voiced here previously. What I'm
more interested in is what *you* think is missing most or just plain
wrong about the situation. Please, try to speak your piece without
flames or dissing other developers and/or their work. Frankly speaking,
I've had enough of that crap, and I'm most thankful these days for such
forum amenities as "mute user" and autodiscard, along with the standard
filters found in mail clients.
<aside>
I'm reminded of John Cage's comments regarding the behavior of the NY
Philharmonic when they destroyed his equipment during the premire of
Atlas Eclipticalis, something to the effect that his concerns had ceased
to be musical and had become social, i.e. that he had to figure a way to
allow people to be free yet behave themselves with respect towards the
common goal (e.g. Cage's music and property). I'm going to guess that he
was still working on that up to his death.
</aside>
So, in your honest and bold opinion as user and/or developer, what do we
lack most and what can we do without that we already have ? Please feel
free to expand your remarks as you like. I'm planning an article on the
topic and will likely use selected comments, subject to approval of
course.
Best,
dp
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@.linuxaudio
Hi dp,
personally, I think the complaints (if referring to those coming from
outside the world of linux) are mainly about either a) lack of apps, or b)
lack of "plug-and-play" capabilities.
As a linux user for the last few years (no programming experience either), I
suppose it would be good to have things working "out-of-the-box" as best as
possible. People don't like to fiddle around, even though I do..
Having more apps available would be good, of course.
The VST instruments for Windows are in the hundreds, whereas for linux
they're in the dozens. Of course, many of the VST instruments aren't
necessarily all that great, to the solution is probably not in the sheer
"number" of instruments available, but in the quality.
I see many people using non-free instruments (kontact, etc) and I'd like to
see some of this technology spill over into linux. But I think it'd have to
be free, in order to get people to try it. --There's nothing like doing a
linux-based music performance for people who have only used Windows, to whet
their appetites!
There's an idea: free linux music concerts!! :D
brian
--
View this message in context:
http://linux-audio.4202.n7.nabble.com/So-what-do-you-think-sucks-about-Linu…
Sent from the linux-audio-user mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
2:37 p.m.
On Thu, February 14, 2013 6:08 am, briandc wrote:
personally, I think the complaints (if referring to
those coming from
outside the world of linux) are mainly about either a) lack of apps, or b)
lack of "plug-and-play" capabilities.
As a linux user for the last few years (no programming experience either),
I
suppose it would be good to have things working "out-of-the-box" as best
as
possible. People don't like to fiddle around, even though I do..
I think to answer these questions well, one has to look at the linux audio
world for what it is without any comparison to another OS. There is a
trade off between flexibility and performance as compared to plug and play
ease. The trick is to provide the ease while still providing the tools for
the flexibility. Personally I want flexibility first.
Having more apps available would be good, of course.
The VST instruments for Windows are in the hundreds, whereas for linux
they're in the dozens. Of course, many of the VST instruments aren't
necessarily all that great, to the solution is probably not in the sheer
"number" of instruments available, but in the quality.
A small number of good tools is better than a large number of bad or even
unknown tools. The real question is not "do I wish I had tool x" but
rather "can I make music with what I have?" and "do I wish I could do
this". In other words it is not about a missing tool but missing
functionality.
A person who has no win/mac experience has a different set of wants I think.
Many people moving from another OS, just want the experience they had on
that OS to continue.
--
Len Ovens
www.OvenWerks.net
16 Feb
16 Feb
8:54 a.m.
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 06:37:23AM -0800, Len Ovens wrote:
Many people moving from another OS, just want the
experience they had on
that OS to continue.
That's the trouble! I think you've hit the nail on the head there, and
not just audio work. One of the reasons I use Linux is precisely because
of the experience I've had with other OS's.
It's extremely rude to move into someone else's culture and then start
complaining loudly that it's not like the one you are used to.
--
"If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people
who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the
oppressing." --- Malcolm X
14 Feb
14 Feb
2:49 p.m.
On Thu, 2013-02-14 at 06:08 -0800, briandc wrote:
free linux music concerts!!
Somebody, at least the musician, has to pay the strings etc., even if
the location should be for free.
I always wonder what "music done with Linux" does mean.
Usually guitars are from Gibsanez and drums are from Perwig, mixers are
from Studeve and speakers are from Genetone etc. and if you record all
this with e.g. Ardour, than I would call it "music made with Gibsanez,
Perwig, Studeve, Genetone and Ardour (Linux version)".
I guess not that many people really make music just with a studio in a
box and even when using a virtual keyboard, at least some speakers are
needed that aren't Linux.
Interesting IMO is, that for music made with the studio in the box, when
done with Apple or Microsoft, while having billions of instruments and
effects in the end all only use the same few instruments and effects
from this billions. That's not bad, it's not different to using guitars
and _real_ keyboards, but it's strange that they all use it in the same
way. Nearly all modern recordings are mixed in the same style, do use
the instruments and effects in the same way.
So now my question. What exactly is missing for people who want a
complete studio in the box comparable with Apple and Microsoft.
I guess Linux does need, without judging possible usage and it doesn't
mean that I need it:
auto-tune
a different kind of vocoder
reverbs (I don't know if there are god reverbs for Appple and Microsoft,
at least I guess Linux reverbs can't compare with 19" gear)
lightweight, but anyway excellent multi-band compressor as plugin (I
once used one comparable to JAMin, but not nearly causing that much
load)
EQs (I disagree that they are all the same)
I'm not missing this, as mentioned before, I'm missing hardware support,
some sequencer options, such as muting clips for Qtractor ;) and sync,
e.g. the possibility to have something like jack transport, that enables
loop play. And a better audio quality, IOW no audio jitter, no xruns,
digital copies without issues, for what reason ever there are issues, I
guess one issue was (is) the order of jack IOs when looping an audio
signal from the output of an app to it's input.
18 Feb
18 Feb
9:25 a.m.
On 05/02/13 15:58, Dave Phillips wrote:
So, in your honest and bold opinion as user and/or
developer, what do we lack
most and what can we do without that we already have ?
I may be asking for the impossible, but what I'd really, really like, would
be something in the line of "Band in a box" and "The Jammer Pro":
software
that comps along when you're playing some instrument (guitar, in my case). In
those programs, you define the chords, the rhythm and a few presets, and you
get a nice comping to play along.
Besides that, the whole PulseAudio vs Jack stuff is a bit grating, but seems
more dependant on the distro packaging them than on the software itself. In
particular, in Ubuntu, it worked very well in Ubuntu 12.04 (you didn't need to
do anything special); but after upgrading to 12.10 it's stopped working (PA
doesn't play nice with Jack, you have to stop one to have the other working).
It's become almost a tradition for me to fix the sound system each Ubuntu
upgrade :-)
--
Roberto Suarez Soto We come from the land of the ice and snow
From the midnight sun where the hot springs blow
11:34 a.m.
On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 2:55 PM, Roberto Suarez Soto <talkingxouba(a)gmail.com
wrote:
On 05/02/13 15:58, Dave Phillips wrote:
So, in your honest and bold opinion as user and/or developer, what do we
Yeah I am surprised no ones mentioned pulseaudio yet (or Ive missed it)
My own experience: About 3-4 years ago it was so bad I switched from ubuntu
to debian.
In all fairness now
- debian has also started using pulse like it or not
- ubuntu is more well behaved. Not perfect but manageable
Note I am hardly in the pro-audio category. Type a few scores in musescore
and check them out is about as pro as I get.
Rusi
--
http://www.the-magus.in
http://blog.languager.org
lack
most and what can we do without that we already have ?
I may be asking for the impossible, but what I'd really, really
like, would be something in the line of "Band in a box" and "The Jammer
Pro": software that comps along when you're playing some instrument
(guitar, in my case). In those programs, you define the chords, the rhythm
and a few presets, and you get a nice comping to play along.
Besides that, the whole PulseAudio vs Jack stuff is a bit grating,
but seems more dependant on the distro packaging them than on the software
itself. In particular, in Ubuntu, it worked very well in Ubuntu 12.04 (you
didn't need to do anything special); but after upgrading to 12.10 it's
stopped working (PA doesn't play nice with Jack, you have to stop one to
have the other working). It's become almost a tradition for me to fix the
sound system each Ubuntu upgrade :-)
11:47 a.m.
On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 12:34:34 +0100, Rustom Mody <rustompmody(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Yeah I am surprised no ones mentioned pulseaudio yet
Simply because people who don't like pulseaudio, don't use it ;).
For non of my Linux pulseaudio is installed, this does include many Ubuntu
installs.
My own experience: About 3-4 years ago it was so bad I
switched from
ubuntu to debian.
Understandable, but useless, since they made it a hard dependency too and
doing this is comparable to buying a new car, when it's tank is empty.
If you don't want PA installed on your Linux, but you want to use packages
that hard depend to PA and you won't recompile gnome-settings-daemon and
what ever else now might depend to it, then build a dummy-package.
For your DEB based distros, you can do it with equivs.
http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/apt-howto/ch-helpers.en.html
For a default Ubuntu Studio you can simply remove pulseaudio, no need to
recompile something or to build an empty dummy package, that fakes that PA
is installed.
2:32 p.m.
On Mon, February 18, 2013 1:25 am, Roberto Suarez Soto wrote:
Besides that, the whole PulseAudio vs Jack stuff is a
bit grating,
Yes.
but
seems
more dependant on the distro packaging them than on the software itself.
In
particular, in Ubuntu, it worked very well in Ubuntu 12.04 (you didn't
need to
do anything special); but after upgrading to 12.10 it's stopped working
(PA
doesn't play nice with Jack, you have to stop one to have the other
working).
It's become almost a tradition for me to fix the sound system each Ubuntu
upgrade :-)
13.04 is already looking better with pa 3.* There seem to be patches being
added daily. Very active development.
I'm not advocating for PA. If you are setting up a box that has/uses no
desktop sound, I would not include PA. It does fill a need for some people
though.
--
Len Ovens
www.OvenWerks.net
4:44 p.m.
Le 18-02-2013 09:32, Len Ovens a écrit :
I'm not advocating for PA. If you are setting up a
box that has/uses
no
desktop sound, I would not include PA. It does fill a need for some
people
though.
I record using Ardour and I play media files using vlc and firefox (eg.
Youtube). Hardware is a 1010Lt card.
Do I need PA ? Last Friday, thanks to some help here I got to know the
pavucontrol utility which enables the turning off of the 'built-in
audio' functionality and the enabling of the Envy24 output.
There are a few choices in enabling Envy24, and all of them have to do
with either 'stereo' or 'surround'. So far I haven't tried Ardour on
this new Linux Mint machine (used Fedora/CCRMA for years, but F18 is not
nice at all so I switched - one nice thing with Mint is that for time to
time they issue a long-lasting release eg. Mint 13 is supported until
2017 - current is Mint 14, supported for a year, which is what I
currently use, until another long-lasting release is issued), so, so far
I haven't tried Ardour/jack on this new machine and I hope those
'stereo' and 'surround' things do not interfere with multi-track
recording.
I'm all for having a lean system, even with quad core CPU there's no
excuse in running stuff that is not needed.
On my previous Fedora 15 system I had to shut down jack for firefox to
have sound output. Do I need PA ? Can it be useful say, to have
jack/Ardour running and at the same time have media from firefox being
played or even recorded in Ardour ? Can PA play with jack ? Is that a
usefulness of having PA around ?
4:49 p.m.
On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 11:44 AM, <jonetsu(a)teksavvy.com> wrote:
On my previous Fedora 15 system I had to shut down jack for firefox to
have sound output.
Reading the JACK FAQ generally proves useful in such scenarios. I have
firefox playing sound via JACK for almost all content (including
flash/youtube).
6:56 p.m.
Le 18-02-2013 11:49, Paul Davis a écrit :
Reading the JACK FAQ
generally proves useful in
such
scenarios. I have firefox playing
sound via JACK
for almost all
content (including flash/youtube).
OK.
The 'routing Pulse Audio via Jack' could be interesting as it could seem
to preserve all PA capabilities. Unfortunately the link in 'how do I
route audio...' shows an empty page. Other approaches such as Alsa
loopback on flash plugin seems to be more involved. The 'how use Pulse
Audio and Jack' option 3 leads to a wiki page with a Server Internal
Error.
4235
days inactive
4248
days old
linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org
288 comments
58 participants
participants (58)
-
Al Thompson -
Alexandre Prokoudine -
Brendan Jones -
Brent Busby -
Brett McCoy -
briandc -
Charles Z Henry -
Chris Bannister -
Dan -
Dan MacDonald -
Dave Phillips -
david -
David Baron -
David Olofson -
Devin Anderson -
drew Roberts -
Esteban Viveros -
Florian Paul Schmidt -
fls＠rendera.com.br -
Folderol -
Fons Adriaensen -
Gabbe Nord -
gerald.mwangi＠gmx.de -
Harry van Haaren -
hermann meyer -
J. Liles -
James Harkins -
Jason Jones -
Jeremy Jongepier -
Joe Hartley -
Johannes Kroll -
jonetsu＠teksavvy.com -
josef.jurek＠gmail.com -
Julien Claassen -
Jörn Nettingsmeier -
Len Ovens -
Louigi Verona -
Louis Gorenfeld -
Marije Baalman -
michael noble -
Neil C Smith -
Nils Gey -
Patrick Shirkey -
Paul Davis -
Pedro Lopez-Cabanillas -
Raffaele Morelli -
Ralf Mardorf -
Robert Jonsson -
Robert Vogel -
Roberto Suarez Soto -
Robin Gareus -
Rui Nuno Capela -
Rustom Mody -
Simon Wise -
Thomas Bonte -
Thomas Vecchione -
Tim Goetze -
William Light