“I’m not ready to dump the anticircumvention (of the DMCA),” Peters said in response to a question from an audience member who suggested as much. “I think that’s a really important part of our copyright owners’ quiver of arrows to defend themselves.”
Peters told summit attendees that at first she thought it was “stupid” to put the Copyright Office in the position of deciding whether certain locked content was problematic, but she eventually came around.
“It does bring attention to certain activities that maybe aren’t so great,” said the self-proclaimed “Luddite,” who confessed she doesn’t even have a computer at home. “In hindsight, maybe that’s not such a bad thing.”
>>You should drink decaf.
And you should spend less time running around the streets in your underwear. Using sexual attractiveness as a criterion for holding public office is just a little bit dodgy, don’t you think?
Or is it really that important to you if public officials watch YouTube videos and internet porn in their off hours?
Her physical appearance has absolutely nothing to do with the way she performs her job.
Geeze, we have people on here boasting they don’t own a TV. Whether that is by circumstance, choice, or design, that is as much a qualifier for Luddite as not owning a computer. And I suppose the same might be said for the latest whiz-bang kitchen appliance, or cordless drill, or robot vacuum cleaner.
#31 – And you should spend less time running around the streets in your underwear.
This is an honest question… What the fuck are you talking about?
Using sexual attractiveness as a criterion for holding public office is just a little bit dodgy, don’t you think?
There is no place in this thread or any thread where I ever used sexual attractiveness as a criterion for holding an office, and this includes the place where I said this: “I do imagine the look on her plain doughy little face…”
English is a language and words have meanings. I know thats a hard concept for many readers here, but saying that her face is doughy isn’t the same thing as saying doughy faced people aren’t qualified.
It was a quip. This is Dvorak.org. It’s where people with too much free time bloviate about shit they often know nothing about. I’m not testifying before Congress. I’m posting to a web blog. It is far far more important that I be entertaining than that I maintain any sort of civil decorum.
I have a job with lots of lag time… during which I post for fun… I think its fun to be snarky, and I think you’ve read enough of me to know that. If you think I am actually advocating that sexual attractiveness is a criteria that should be considered for holding a job then you are either reaching or illiterate… and I know you are literate.
Or is it really that important to you if public officials watch YouTube videos and internet porn in their off hours?
No…
It’s important that public officials who make decisions affecting copyright or who have job affected by the DMCA actually understand the technology that the DMCA regulates.
From her statements, I don’t think she does.
Again I say, a guy like Lawrence Lessig is the sort of person this job calls for. His good looks and almost stereotypically academic appearance invoke a feeling of trust with listeners as he talks about copyright related issues.
They have Robot Vacuum Cleaners nowadays ?!?!? Holy Cow!
And these are the people we trust to make decisions about technology for us.
#22: Beautifully said. Any open-minded hi-fidelity fan will acknowledge the debate between CD vs. vinyl, but I don’t know any that will dismiss vinyl outright. I own a CD player and a 26 year old Dual, and they’re both great.
#34, Luddite,
http://www.irobot.com/sp.cfm?pageid=122
The best stereo I ever heard was a big-ass tube model playing a vinyl disk. There’s just something about the sound… the warmth, the subtle overtones, etc.
That’s what it’s all about, Hop. There’s a atmosphere of musical realism that comes through even modest analog, that most digital gear filters out. Digital is, in most ways, objectively and technically more accurate. But music is not measurements. Even today, few people bother getting a digital playback chain that can compete with analog in terms of musical accuracy; not that it’s difficult or particularly expensive – people are just satisfied with mediocrity. Thank the “whatever” generation…
#22 – Lauren the Ghoti
It actually shows what YOU don’t know. And I didn’t resort to name calling and insulting labels as you do. BUT I WILL now you ignorant slut. It just so happens that I have over 4 hundred LPs in my collection, and several dozen 45rpms as well. And a $200 direct drive turntable. But I don’t buy LPs anymore. There just take up too much room, and reproduce too much scratch, pop, and grove noise. You’re the one who is ignorant for not knowing that CDs have no such noise problem. I’ve dealt with vinyls, reel to reel, and cassette tapes for 25 years. And I know from experience that CDs are a hell of a lot better. So knock off the “Sheeple” calling crap. Cause it only makes you sound supremely stupid. Which is most like the case.
Son, I’m a musician, an electronics tech and a recording engineer. I built my first studio before you were born. I own over 6000 LPs, many from the ’60s and ’70s – and most of them have ZERO pops, ticks or groove noise. They sound exactly like CDs except better. You see, I know how to maintain them. I also wouldn’t play them on any $200 toy turntable. My table is almost identical to this one. It’s called a Goldmund Studietto Mk. II. It’s handbuilt in Switzerland and it set me back $2200, second hand, 8 years ago. Plus the cartridge (what sheeple like you call the “needle”), which was $1400. The Audioquest Lapis X3 cables that connect it to my preamp cost more than your entire turntable. So forgive me if I’m not impressed, OK? 🙂
If it makes you feel any better, I once owned a $200 turntable, when I was 10 years old.
Of course improperly cared-for LPs sound worse than CDs on your toy stereo. However, on a grown-up’s audio system, they are generally the next best thing to the original master tapes.
Y’know, it’s generally better to have some idea of what you’re talking about before you shoot your mouth off around others – who might be just a wee bit farther along than you… in the meantime, take a look at some real hi-fi systems and components, including a couple of over-$30,000 turntables for playing those “inferior” LPs… and a pair of $200,000 German mbl speaker systems. Definitely not for sheeple.
Enjoy your “hell of a lot better” CDs, amigo !
#41, Lauren,
I understand your point but think you went too far. If you need to spend that kind of money to attain good playback then you have a problem. When you start buying such high end merchandise then the increase in perfection will be imperceptible. No one over the age of 5 has sufficient hearing left to discern the discretion such “perfect” systems claim. Especially considering you have been a musician, your hearing has taken a hit over the years. We all have some hearing lost.
A CD is giving the same reproduction as those Master Reels. Much better than any vinyl could. So if you want the closest thing to what was laid down in the studio, then a CD is it. THAT is the sound the artist, musician, engineer, and or producer was striving for.
On the other hand, if you want some distortion in your music, then analog might be better suited to your needs. But the thing with “perfect” analog is it is a perceived quality, not a measurable quality. Sort of like taking a McBurger and salting it to your taste. If you want filet mignon then invite the musicians home.
Utter nonsense, Fusion.
I don’t “need” to spend that much money for ‘good’ playback, I demand superlative playback, because I am not the typical person for whom music is mere ‘entertainment.
“When you start buying such high end merchandise then the increase in perfection will be imperceptible. No one over the age of 5 has sufficient hearing left to discern the discretion such “perfect” systems claim.”
Who fed you that line of crap, Fusion? Anyone with normal hearing can detect the magical sense of reality that is possible with a high-end system. Hearing loss doesn’t enter into it. People can and do lose the extreme ends – mostly the upper end – of the 20-20kHz human audible spectrum, but it has little impact on the ability to discern the subtle detail that an accurate system is capable of reproducing.
The only people who ever make such silly statements are people who have never heard a genuine high-end system with quality source material. Just having an “expensive stereo” is meaningless. You can spend $50,000 on the wrong, mismatched components and it’ll sound markedly inferior to a properly integrated and set-up $2500 system. There’s more to it tham just the price.
The Law of Diminishing Returns sets in fairly early, and few audiophiles don’t realize it. A basic, simple $350 table / arm / cartridge combination, the minimum entry-level player, such as the Music Hall mmf 2 will deliver high-end sound, but with many limitations. If you spend ten times that amount, the sound will be improved significantly, but it certainly won’t be ten times better – likewise, you could spend well over $100,000 on LP playback – and the improvement over a $3500 setup will be fairly subtle. No one claims that this stuff is cost-effective. It’s not supposed to be. It’s supposed to perform.
“A CD is giving the same reproduction as those Master Reels. Much better than any vinyl could.”
Now, that, my friend, is simply an idiotic statement. A CD cannot even remotely compare to a 15ips 1″ half-track analog master tape. The very idea is a joke.
Philips & Sony, the co-developers of the Compact Disc, jumped the gun in their rush to get it on the market. Had they waited 12-18 more months, the state of audio digital signal processing advancing at the rate it was at the time, we would have a considerably better format than the crappy, inadequate 16 bits sampled at 44.1kHz we’ve been stuck with all these years, at least 20 bit wordlength @ 88.2kHz, the audible superiority of which is glaringly obvious to virtually anyone.
Way back there in the ’80s, the slogan for CD was “Perfect Sound Forever”, which we now know to be a pathetic joke. Besides the far-from-forever longevity of silver discs, that coarse resolution has proven over all these years to be shit. After great gobs of development money and tens of thousands of man-years of work, and today we have CD players that can actually, with some carefully-mastered discs, sound quite acceptable. But the fact remains that an LP on one of those $350 turntables produces music with an sense of authenticity and realism that a $50,000 CD player can not. Sorry.