New TV schedule today – ESPNEWS at 1:30, 2:30, probably 3:30 and 4 depending on trades, then 5 and 5:15.
→ July 31, 2009
→ By
→ By
The collected thoughts of sportswriter, bookworm, & food critic Keith Law
New TV schedule today – ESPNEWS at 1:30, 2:30, probably 3:30 and 4 depending on trades, then 5 and 5:15.
Copyright © 2011 Curtail Theme on the Genesis Framework
Thanks for the tip on Swaptree, by the way. I’ve been trading like crazy and really making some great deals.
Keith,
If you added up your evaluations of all the different pitches for each pitcher in the league (e.g. fringe, fringe/average, average, above average, plus, etc.) and compiled the data per pitch for the whole league, what kind of bell curve would we be looking at? How many pitchers throw a “plus” fastball, etc.
Also, if you say someone throws a slider instead of a curveball, how do you make that determination? Based on speed or movement alone, or how it’s gripped/thrown? For example, some guys throw a faster curveball with a sharp 2-8 break that looks kind of like a slider, but is called a curveball.
Thanks.
Keith, just wanted to say thanks for banging out all those trade posts on your ESPN blog over the past few days. Your quick analysis on the deals has been much appreciated.
“Healthy Johnson gives Marlins what they need”
BSK-
a) Swaptree is great
b) Keith is right, “Watchmen” is a total piece of garbage
c) However, “Watchmen” can be traded for essentially EVERY SINGLE BOOK in all of swaptree, so stockpile your assets and trade accordingly. Seriously, if you have that book you can act like JP Ricciardi does with Roy Halladay.
Brian G-
You have hit on the true magic of SwapTree: hoarding highly tradeable goods you’d otherwise have no interest in. I’m no business or econ major, but the ability to do this become readily apparent. I have a few books that I can only trade for Nick Sparks or James Patterson, with a few other “top” books mixed it. I have no interest in any of these books, either what I own or what I can trade for. But realizing that some of the available books have far more trading potential, I make the swap anyway. Sure, I pay double ($5 instead of $2.50), but it’s still a deal. Anything else you’ve found that’s particularly tradeable?
BSK-
“Watchmen” seemed to have the most available options of the books I’ve come across (I traded it for Neyer’s “Green Monster”) but I know the “Post Secret” ones have a lot of swapping potential as well. I’d also highly recommend scouring your significant other’s CD collection and offering those; apparently there are a lot of people still into CDs, who knew?
I’ve been ripping my CD’s and trading them. Unfortunately, I had most of them stored in a CD binder, so I don’t have the cover art or cases. Most people are okay with this, but some people apparently still build CD collections. Go figure. I was going to swipe some from my partner, but I’m pretty sure she’d stab me if I did it without asking. You are treading on thin ice, my friend…
Ripping CD’s and then selling or bartering them is copyright infringement, not to mention completely unethical.
keith-
Sarcasm? First off, I know for a fact that ripping CD’s is not illegal. There were several lawsuits that attempted to thwart such actions (involving DVDs as well) and the courts ruled that the buyer had certain rights with what they did with the material upon receiving it, including making back-ups/copies for personal use.
As for trading or selling, I don’t know the details, but I hardly see how this would be any different than selling or trading any other good one has purchased.
If you WERE being sarcastic, do I owe someone $5?
I re-read the posts and realized their might have been some confusion. I have been ripping the music directly to my computer, and trading the original CD’s. I’m not swapping copies (Swaptree wouldn’t allow this anyway, though I suppose you could still get around it). I deliver the original CD and just keep the digital copies of the music for myself.
BSK-
I think Keith took you to mean you were selling/trading the burned copies, which would of course be rotten. By the way what are we calling ‘albums’ these days? If I say, “I am really looking forward to the new Conor Oberst ______ next month” what do we even call that? CD? Record? Album? ‘Digital Download’ just sounds awful.
Brian-
I think you’re right, hence my second post. I wasn’t clear in my first one, I realize. I think I say album. Then again, I lived most of my life post-album, so album was always more of an abstract term, as opposed to a specific type of media. You are right though, that it’s vague. Perhaps release? What’s interesting is whether or not artists will still release “albums”. Once everything is digital, would they really need to record a dozen songs? Couldn’t they just release songs as they go, cutting the fat and time wasted to create the filler for a full album? It will probably take years for the mentality to shift, but it SEEMS like the next logical step, no?
BSK-
Great point about the digital release being better than a standard album (I’m going with album too). I wrote for a music mag out of San Diego for 5 or 6 years (mostly indie/punk stuff) and would do interviews with bands whenever I’d get sick of listening to their crappy albums–most would admit that they have about 3-4 songs they were proud of but the rest were just there to make the labels happy…most of these bands just aren’t that prolific. I think the whole business model is so broken that we’ll end up with more bands self releasing downloads online for a few bucks per album. Most bands (at least the ones that I listen to) generally make more on live show sales (merch/ticket/bar) than they do on their crappy record label deal so they’re happy to more or less give the songs away if it gets us out to see them the next time they pass through town.
BSK, what you are doing is illegal. You may rip a CD for your own personal use, but you are creating a copy of a copyrighted work and then selling or bartering one of the two copies. It doesn’t matter which one; you have created two copies, with two owners, for which the copyright holder has been paid once. This is no different than buying a book, photocopying the entire text, and then selling the book at a used bookstore.
Ethics fail.
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/blue_jays_gm_confirms_there_never
Keith-
Not sure I agree with the ethical implications you cited, and as for the law, what I’ve read has told me it’s not illegal, but I would defer to people more versed on the law who can cite actual case law. I would argue that Swaptree is not unethical, because it utilized the specific 1-for-1 exchange that record companies themselves have advocated. They are on record as saying that they are not opposed to people sharing albums with friends or individuals; it is the mass distribution of pirated or otherwise copied works without a revenue stream to the companies/artists that they have a problem with.
As a consumer, upon buying the album, I have certain rights, including the right to copy it and the right to resell it. Engaging in one right does not limit my access to the other right. Freedroms fail.
Engaging in one right does not limit my access to the other right.
Wrong. So very, very wrong. You can not create a copy of a copyrighted work and then sell one of the two copies.
True, the RIAA may not prosecute you for this, but that doesn’t make it any less illegal or unethical. Copying an album and then selling or bartering it is theft.
First off, even if it is illegal, it is copyright infringement, not theft. Theft involves the illegal taking or possession of tangible goods. The courts have been very clear on this, as the prosecution, legal codes, and penalties for theft and copyright infringement vary greatly.
Along this line of thinking, that seems to imply that once I rip a CD, I have to maintain possession of it forever. Do I need to delete the rip if I want to trade it? I have to remove any songs from my iPod? Again, my rights to the use of a personal property should not be limited. Once I’ve paid for that CD, I have certain rights over how I use it, which are not limited because of how I exercise it. I am generally not in favor of piracy and agree that simply mass downloading/uploading of illegally shared content is illegal and wrong, but this is not what is happening here. Again, I am not selling or trading a copied version of a CD. I am trading the original version of the CD in it’s entirety after engaging in fair use of that CD, including ripping the digital content to a personal media device. If someone can present case law that demonstrates this is illegal, I can concede that point. But I do not consider it unethical, and even if it were illegal, laws do not necessarily equate to ethics.
I suppose we could go round-and-round on this, but absent further information, we might just be shouting in the wind.
BSK,
It is illegal because you are retaining the original material while receiving compensation in exchange for the same material. It’s sort of like the people who used to copy a computer game to their HDD and then return the original copy to the store for a refund or another piece of software. Would you do that?
Technically you do have to delete the music on your hard drive if you no longer have the original CD. Now I realize that is a little impractical because if you lose, break, throw away the CD that is impossible to enforce. I also don’t see anything ethically wrong in that case. However, planning on ripping CDs then selling or trading them is unethical as well because you are essentially getting free content.
At an even more basic level, by retaining your copy and selling the original, you’re costing the band a second sale. You pay “them” $10 for it, the other guy pays you $3 for the used rather than the band an additional $10 for a new copy. Singularly doesn’t seem like a big deal but the more trading/resale sites gain in popularity the higher the percentage of lost sales.
Adam/Dave-
Thanks for the info. I’m curious though, are you basing your sense of it’s illegality on actual case law and legislation, or perceptions of what the law intends? I would prefer not to do anything illegal or unethical, and am up to have the ethics challenged, but in terms of the law, would prefer more hard data for a determination. I realize that the ability to prosecute and the legality of a situation are very different. Regardless, I’m curious to hear what the actual law says about such issues, especially as the technology continues to develop.
I’m still a bit thrown off by the idea that, once copied/ripped, I can no longer trade, share, sell a CD. I understand the extended logic behind it, but practically, it seems a bit foolish. On the flip side, I have ran into instances where I paid for and downloaded music, somehow lost the data, and was told that I would have to re-buy the music. People may respond, “Well, that’s true of anything. If you buy a couch and lose it, you have to buy a new couch.” At the same time, there are not limitations on my usage of the couch, the way there are on intellectual property. It would seem that the inverse would need to hold true. If in purchasing the CD, I am not simply purchasing the physical access to the music, but the actual music itself, and therefore copying and selling/trading the music is infringement. Ergo, in legally buying a digital version of the music, I have rights to the digital copies of that music regardless of circumstance; I didn’t buy a set amount of bytes, I bought “music”. Thoughts?
You’re buying a singular copy of that music. Once you create and market a second, you’re overstepping your legal bounds.
It’s this hardline stance by the RIAA that is actually destroying the record industry itself (or one of the reasons at least). When an old media mentality runs up against a new technology you can either adapt and survive (TV/Movie companies being opposed and filing suit to stop the sale of VCRs and blank VHS tapes backing off and eventually embracing the concept) or fight a battle that you can’t possibly win (mp3 copying/downloading).
If you look at the CDs you own from major labels you’ll notice it says ANY copying is illegal, which *might* include personal copies if some people get their way (http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/04/sony-bmgs-head-lawyer-says-ripping-cds-is-stealing/) but that cat is of course out of the bag, through the door and half way down the block. However, plenty of indie rock labels (and probably some others but those are pretty much the only CDs that I still have around) don’t list any sort of ‘do not duplicate’ jargon at all, I’d guess because their business model isn’t built around individual album sales. If you look around a bit you’ll see some killer bands essentially giving away their entire catalog online (fanfarlo.com, at least for the early part of the Summer) just to generate interest in their band.
Yes, if I was some famous band or label I would ideally want every penny that I had coming to me but to come down 100% on either side of the issue is over simplified.