YTSEJAM Digest 5653
Today's Topics:
1) SFAM 1 year anniversary
by Kurt M Hampton <kurt.hampton@juno.com>
2) Re: symphonyx.com
by "Bill Blanchard" <wildbill2112@hotmail.com>
3) Re: Napster
by "Nathan Wilhelm" <wilh0038@tc.umn.edu>
4) Re: Napster
by Brian D Hayden <hayd0029@tc.umn.edu>
5) Re: four?
by Drew Schinzel <schi2299@fredonia.edu>
6) Re: All Symphony X fans, READ THIS!!!
by OPeCKiE Productions <emoeglin@wezl.org>
7) RE: MikeL Napsterrrr
by James Chris-SC4473 <Chris_James-SC4473@email.mot.com>
8) Napster multiquote
by Brian Hansen <bhansen10@yahoo.com>
9) RE: NAPSTERRRRR
by "Herbert, Jason" <jherbert@biccgeneral.com>
10) King Crimson
by Sum WhiteGuy <pokgaitsai@yahoo.com>
11) Re: Napster
by Chris Oates <aspect-lists@tinagh.org>
12) Napster revisited
by CyberDuke <duskob@mol.com.mk>
13) RE: YTSEJAM digest 5652
by "The Honorable Ari Goldmann" <agoldman@bates.edu>
14) Re: YTSEJAM digest 5652
by EvoReaper@aol.com
15) Re: symphonyx.com
by Amanda Rosenblum <mildew@ucla.edu>
16) re: Napster (LONG RANTY POST!!)
by Jens Johansson <jens@panix.com>
17) re: Napster (LONG RANTY POST!!)
by Jens Johansson <jens@panix.com>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 11:49:26 -0500
From: Kurt M Hampton <kurt.hampton@juno.com>
To: ytsejam@torchsong.com
Subject: SFAM 1 year anniversary
Message-ID: <20001026.114940.-3183631.1.Kurt.Hampton@juno.com>
Hey Gang,
I just thought Id say happy birthday to SFAM, released 1 year ago today
:)
Kurt
NP-Whiskey In the Jar Live chicago 1-4-00 METALLICA BABY!
ytsekurt on AOL instant messenger
Trade page-www.geocities.com/Kurt_labrie/Startpage.html
"Shut the f*ck up. Don't make me come down there and kick your f*cking
ass"
-James Labrie 4/16/97
________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 12:47:06 EDT
From: "Bill Blanchard" <wildbill2112@hotmail.com>
To: ytsejam@torchsong.com
Subject: Re: symphonyx.com
Message-ID: <F2665JWSyfdDRHCvcMp000006f3@hotmail.com>
That violates the cybersquatting laws in America and since Network Solutions
is a US company (I think), they could have a valid lawsuit on their hands if
Symphony X is trademarked or copyrighted.
"Wild" Bill
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 11:54:43 -0500
From: "Nathan Wilhelm" <wilh0038@tc.umn.edu>
To: <ytsejam@torchsong.com>
Subject: Re: Napster
Message-ID: <000c01c03f6d$70e64c20$56b96580@umn.edu>
>>Hi,
>>there are lots of arguments both for and against, but the bottom line is
>>this: Napster is aiding in distribution of copyrighted material to which
it
>>doesn't have any rights to. Basically it doesn't matter whether or not
>>Napster is making money out of it, or if it affects CD sales one way or
the
>>other or whatever. Someone may feel justified to download music because "I
>>wouldn't be able to get it otherwise", "I want to hear it before buying",
"I
>>can't afford to buy CDs" etc., but that doesn't change the fact that it is
>>ILLEGAL to do so. The copyright holder has every right to their material,
>>which includes deciding how and where they want to distribute it, be it
>>through Napster-like file sharing system or 5.25" computer floppies for
>>$58.99 each.
Thank you for being smart and realizing this! Because it seems not too many
people do! No matter what people say or what their opinions on the matter
are, it is copyright infringement. Even Limp Bizkit, who supports Napster,
is having their copyrights infringed upon and it is illegal. There is no
question whether this is legal or not. Unless Napster has an agreement with
the band and their label, it is illegal. Simple as that.
Nate
---------------------------------------------------
wilh0038@tc.umn.edu
http://dtmetropolis.virtualave.net
AOL IM: uofmtrumpet
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 12:09:49 -0500 (CDT)
From: Brian D Hayden <hayd0029@tc.umn.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list <ytsejam@torchsong.com>
Subject: Re: Napster
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.4.20.0010261209240.5295-100000@garnet.tc.umn.edu>
Obviously it's illegal. The question is, does illegal mean wrong. Two very
different things in my opinion.
-Brian
--superhype!
On Thu, 26 Oct 2000, Nathan Wilhelm wrote:
> > >>Hi, > >>there are lots of arguments both for and against, but the bottom line is > >>this: Napster is aiding in distribution of copyrighted material to which > it > >>doesn't have any rights to. Basically it doesn't matter whether or not > >>Napster is making money out of it, or if it affects CD sales one way or > the > >>other or whatever. Someone may feel justified to download music because "I > >>wouldn't be able to get it otherwise", "I want to hear it before buying", > "I > >>can't afford to buy CDs" etc., but that doesn't change the fact that it is > >>ILLEGAL to do so. The copyright holder has every right to their material, > >>which includes deciding how and where they want to distribute it, be it > >>through Napster-like file sharing system or 5.25" computer floppies for > >>$58.99 each. > > Thank you for being smart and realizing this! Because it seems not too many > people do! No matter what people say or what their opinions on the matter > are, it is copyright infringement. Even Limp Bizkit, who supports Napster, > is having their copyrights infringed upon and it is illegal. There is no > question whether this is legal or not. Unless Napster has an agreement with > the band and their label, it is illegal. Simple as that. > > Nate > > --------------------------------------------------- > wilh0038@tc.umn.edu > http://dtmetropolis.virtualave.net > AOL IM: uofmtrumpet > > >
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 12:58:11 -0400 From: Drew Schinzel <schi2299@fredonia.edu> To: ytsejam@torchsong.com Subject: Re: four? Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20001026124918.00aa84f0@postoffice.cc.fredonia.edu>
Not that anyone was totally wrong or anything, but the -biggest- four media conglomerations are Time Warner (soon to be AOL TimeWarner), Disney, News Corporation (aka NewsCorp), and Viacom. Sony is big but isn't yet on the scale of these 4, and Seagram's is attempting to make a run at them. Another major player is the German corporation Bertelsmann.
TimeWarner owns multiple cable stations, book publishing companies, the largest cable network in the US, production studios, newspapers, theme parks, and just about anything else having to do with media that you can imagine. Ditto for Disney, minus the cable network (they -do- own cable channels). Viacom is a little smaller but still nearly as widely spread out, and NewsCorp seems to be focused on distribution channels and worldwide media (satellite systems in Asia, newspapers all over Australia and the UK, etc), though they still own their fair share of networks and studios.
Just thought I'd throw this into the mix - check out an exhaustive list of all the stuff these corporations own sometime, it'll blow your mind.
Drew
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 13:13:54 -0400 From: OPeCKiE Productions <emoeglin@wezl.org> To: ytsejam@torchsong.com Subject: Re: All Symphony X fans, READ THIS!!! Message-ID: <39F86652.587A8C68@wezl.org>
actually that's considered "cybersquatting" if it was intentionally taken for the purpose of profit...so there's legal issues that can be involved if needs be
Matt Molite wrote: > > To all the X'ers on the ytsejam, I'd like to alert you that some > idiot registered the domain names www.symphonyx.com AND > www.symphonyx.net, and not only did he create a half assed site, he > REFUSES TO GIVE THE ADDRESSES TO SYMPHONY X!
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 10:47:54 -0700 From: James Chris-SC4473 <Chris_James-SC4473@email.mot.com> To: "'ytsejam@torchsong.com'" <ytsejam@torchsong.com> Subject: RE: MikeL Napsterrrr Message-ID: <998D18C9C6DAD211879C0008C7F9F077030AAB2A@az10exm01.sat.mot.com>
Personally, I like Napster. However, Mike L has a good point about control of the names of the songs/artist. I downloaded a tune that said it was Satriani playing "Metal Mission Impossible". I already had the DT version of it, only to discover that someone had renamed the DT version to Satriani. If you listen closely and you know the artists music well, you could tell that it was NOT Satriani. Besides, there were good keyboards in it, and Joe does not use keyboards live. There should be some way to make the MP3 files read only once they are on Napster or wherever so that this cannot happen.
As far as this taking money away from the artist, I think that is crap. Think about how many CDs you bought based on Napster finds.... I personally have bought at least 10 or so, and I have only know about Napster for 6 mo. maybe. The record companies need something to put them in check also (a competitor so to speak).
Chris
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 11:00:27 -0700 (PDT) From: Brian Hansen <bhansen10@yahoo.com> To: ytsejam@torchsong.com Subject: Napster multiquote Message-ID: <20001026180027.3136.qmail@web122.yahoomail.com>
Brad Plumb <bplumb@pi-r-squared.com> wrote:
> My point here was that the people downloading niche music, are not the > people burning cd's. The people burning cd's are generally 15 year old kids...
Wrong! I have friend who is 37 that just got on Napster. He has since spent his time downloading the worst crap from the 70's, 80's and 90's, and keeps burning "greatest hits" cds (He's reliving his "Angels Flight" days, ugh). Then he tries to make us listen to them. Nobody lost any money from this, but it's driving us crazy! This is music I don't want to be re-exposed to. I hate Napster.
(Does anyone out there even know what "Angels Flight" is? Damn, I'm getting old.)
Brian D Hayden <hayd0029@tc.umn.edu> wrote:
> I think any musician who is crying about Napster and has ever entered > voluntarily into the serf/slave system imposed by a major label is a > disgusting hypocrite who needs to look at the big picture. .... > Get real. WAke up. Fight the power.
Go Nader! (Sorry, people. I've been watching too much political theater lately.)
"Chris Ptacek" <someone@digitalrodent.com> wrote:
> Do a little research, and see what RIAA attributes the rise in sales to.
According to Al Gore, the Clinton/Gore administration caused the rise in cd sales. (Coincidently, Al Gore actually invented Napster, but he has learned not to always blurt out those voices in his head anymore...)
Go Nader!
Chris Oates <aspect-lists@tinagh.org> wrote:
> Programs like Napster (to exclude any Napster-specific complains, such > as the ones raised in Jens' web page) perform both a good service and a > bad one. Do we conclude that they are all bad because some people can do > bad things with them? ...(kinda like gun control?)
Now that's asking for trouble! (But I agree. Maybe we should take guns away from governments? They seem to be the most irresponsible with them...)
Michael Kizer <mike@ivorygate.com> wrote:
> Maybe I am just pissed off because I know people who have quit the > music business because they kept getting screwed over, and/or had to > concentrate on another line of work to make ends meat.
Yep, it's a bummer. But you're not blaming this on Napster are you? I believe this has been the status quo forever...
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Messenger - Talk while you surf! It's FREE. http://im.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 14:08:21 -0400 From: "Herbert, Jason" <jherbert@biccgeneral.com> To: "'ytsejam@torchsong.com'" <ytsejam@torchsong.com> Subject: RE: NAPSTERRRRR Message-ID: <6D70903196D4D11190680008C728A61D04094390@HQEXS01>
>Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 11:58:08 +1000 >From: "mikel@alphalink.com.au" <mikel@alphalink.com.au> >To: ytsejam@torchsong.com >Subject: NAPSTERRRRR >Message-ID: <39F78FB0.629D717@alphalink.com.au> > > >Just a few things- >I don't see how anyone could justify Napster. Ideally an artist, like any >tradesman, should have full control of how he chooses to distribute and >sell his work. If he wants to give it away for free, the internet provides lots >of good ways of doing this now..However Napster takes away this control and >undermines the fundamental copyright laws that protect artists. [snip]
Just a clarification: _Napster_ does not violate the copyright laws. Some of Napster's users do. The illegal copying and distributing of copyrighted material is done by users. One could argue that Napster makes this easier (obviously) and even that it actively encourages the copyright violations (less obvious), but the actual MP3's are not created by Napster. In fact, as I understand it, those files never touch Napster's servers.
Not taking a side either way, here, but previous Supreme Court rulings have found that a manufacturer can not be held liable for the illegal misuse of their product. Those suing Napster need to prove that Napster's INTENT was to facilitate the illegal dissemination of copyrighted material, rather than to help users share legitimate MP3's....
-Zircon the Blue
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 12:18:09 -0700 (PDT) From: Sum WhiteGuy <pokgaitsai@yahoo.com> To: ytsejam@torchsong.com Subject: King Crimson Message-ID: <20001026191809.7771.qmail@web1608.mail.yahoo.com>
> Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 18:36:37 EDT > From: IAmClay777@aol.com > > Hey, King Crimson is coming to DC soon, has anybody seen them > live? If so, > could you post a review or impression of the show? Tickets > are expensive > ($35) for a cheapass like me and the shows (both of them) are > during the > week, so I need to decide if it's worth going. >
I saw them on the '96 tour, but the lineup has changed since (it's the 96 lineup minus Bruford and Levin). That show ties for Best Concert I've Ever Been To (ties with Queensryche '91 and Rush T4E, and recently added: DT 8/00).
Anyhow, based on that experience and the experience of the many many live CDs of theirs that I own, they are a band you must see live if you like the studio material (relevent to this tour: THRAK and the construKction of light). If you like those, then GO SEE THEM.
Still not decided? go to www.kingcrimsontv.com and click on the media section. You need to sign up for an account (it's free, and just requires your e-mail IIRC). There you can hear, in their entirety, the first 4 warm-up shows from Nashville back in May (19-21). These were the first play-in-front-of-an-audience shows of the current lineup. Some minor technical problems but they are good.
They've added some material and changed a few things from the European tour, and the reviews of the early portion of the US tour that are coming in to Elephant Talk (KC mailing list) say the tour is a must see.
I bought my ticket for the 9:30 Club 11/8 show yesterday (along with the new Remasters of Red and LTiA). Now that the 11/9 show is on sale, I'll be picking up a ticket for that one tonight =) Yeah it's the middle of the week, but I'm coming down from Baltimore (right after work, skipping classes) to see them with no hesitation or reservations. I'm psyched!!!
I love KC...more so than DT (and I'm not ashamed to say that here! :-) )
Have any other questions, let me know.
On that note...it's been a banner year for concerts for me:
California Guitar Trio (5 times, twice w/ Tony Levin....and met D-Man at one) Dream Theater - twice Trey Gunn Band Tony Levin Yes Kansas Roger Waters TransAtlantic After Crying Richard Leo Johnson Spock's Beard
ANd then in 2 weeks I can add King Crimson - twice. :-) And possibly Tony Levin again.
Good year :-)
Jon. pokgaitsai@yahoo.com mau-tze@erols.com
NP: King Crimson, Larks' Tongues in Aspic (the new Remaster)
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Messenger - Talk while you surf! It's FREE. http://im.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 12:13:37 -0700 From: Chris Oates <aspect-lists@tinagh.org> To: ytsejam@torchsong.com Subject: Re: Napster Message-ID: <4.3.1.2.20001026121131.0373b6e8@pop3.norton.antivirus>
At 11:30 PM 10/25/2000, you wrote:
>Hi, >there are lots of arguments both for and against, but the bottom line is >this: Napster is aiding in distribution of copyrighted material to which it >doesn't have any rights to. Basically it doesn't matter whether or not >Napster is making money out of it, or if it affects CD sales one way or the >other or whatever. Someone may feel justified to download music because "I >wouldn't be able to get it otherwise", "I want to hear it before buying", "I >can't afford to buy CDs" etc., but that doesn't change the fact that it is >ILLEGAL to do so. The copyright holder has every right to their material, >which includes deciding how and where they want to distribute it, be it >through Napster-like file sharing system or 5.25" computer floppies for >$58.99 each.
Not entirely true. By my understanding, "Fair Use" specifies that an individual who has bought a CD may make copies for their friends to listen to. Thus, your friends wanting a dub of a CD you own is perfectly legal. Napster's argument is that their program falls under that category. The RIAA argues that napster users aren't "friends" and so are not covered...
I'm not making a decision on the matter, because I don't know where I stand, since I don't use Napster at all.
~Chris
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 21:53:41 +0200 From: CyberDuke <duskob@mol.com.mk> To: Ytsejam <ytsejam@torchsong.com> Subject: Napster revisited Message-ID: <39F88BC5.505C54C4@mol.com.mk>
A little annoying thing is that many bash Napster while I don't think these guys are much better. Is there ANYONE here who never possessed an illegal cassette copy of albums, or compilation stuff? Anyone? I don't think so! Al's post on the issue was pretty good. But even without cassettes if someone wants to steal he'll find a way.
I for one use Napser A LOT lately, I don't really care if by using it I break some current copyright law (anyway I was doing it with tapes for years already), because I end up buying the CDs I like.
And oh yeah, another thing obviously unknown to folks in certain hemispheres, what about the other hemispheres where you have close contact with ONLY illegal music? :) The choice is "Listen your fave music on illegal CD or don't listen it at all!" What would I choose? Hehe, think twice.
And I honestly don't give a nickle who and why thinks Napster is bad, .. I use it in good way = my conscience is crystal clear.
> "No law can be successfully imposed on a huge population that does not > morally support it and possesses easy means for its invisible evasion."
Allelujah!
"It's a pity that entertainment moguls are too wedged in to the past to recognize this"
Yes they are and and kick and bite and scream to keep the past. BUT, those greedy punks are pretty smart and I think there will be a MAJOR change in record companies way of working, they will find a way they get their slice ALSO in thie modern era. Once they see they can't control it they will change. But then we will change too and another smiliar program will be created, until the musical product becomes
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 17:06:38 -0400 From: "The Honorable Ari Goldmann" <agoldman@bates.edu> To: <ytsejam@torchsong.com> Subject: RE: YTSEJAM digest 5652 Message-ID: <NDBBIKGKKLCGJMPIJKOKIEEHCCAA.agoldman@bates.edu>
>Any of you guys ever here of a band called linkin park? I know they arent >prog but check out some of there stuff i think they are awesome. But still >Dreamtheater Always
They're on the Little Nicky soundtrack, are they not?
Ari
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 17:39:21 EDT From: EvoReaper@aol.com To: ytsejam@torchsong.com Subject: Re: YTSEJAM digest 5652 Message-ID: <d3.ba9c129.2729fe89@aol.com>
<< I normaly don't like to get in the middle of arguments,but people like this really piss me off. Your bitching at him and rippin his head off saying he's puttin words in SVs mouth and where the fuck did you hear this and i want teh exact pages blah blah, well who the fuck are you tao say this, and wear are you goddamn exact pages asshole. sorry, but i really hate people like this. i don't even know whos right. >>
Feel free to check any page concerning Vai's fling with Whitesnake on Vai.com, you'll plainly see things like, "It was a great time for me but I wanted to pursue..", things of the such. I've got no problem showing pages. You also most have not noticed the signature at the bottom of my post. "
"Yeah, I'd say your my biggest fan I've met so far, just don't shoot me, K?" Steve Vai 11-23-99
(Something Steve said to me before the show, after we had a little trivia game.)
I've spent the past 4-5 years devouring Steve's music and any knowledge about him. He's my biggest influence of all time, and I'm one of those fans who learns every bit of useless information I possibly can about the person, just because I'm like that.
I just don't like hearing things that are totally un-true said about someone else, especially someone who I look up to. Sorry for the hostile sound in my post, it was the end of a bad day and I let out on the Jam. I do take back the vulgarities I used, I could have picked a much better batch of words to use.
Andy "Yeah, I'd say your my biggest fan I've met so far, just don't shoot me, K?" Steve Vai 11-23-99
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 15:31:38 -0700 From: Amanda Rosenblum <mildew@ucla.edu> To: ytsejam@torchsong.com Subject: Re: symphonyx.com Message-ID: <39F8B0CA.EA3B7FEE@ucla.edu>
Well, I bet the bastard is getting a lot of traffic now. If at any point SX really wanted to fight for the domain, I'm sure they'd win. There was a battle between George Lucas and the owner of (I believe it was) tatooine.com, which was basically a personal site set up by a Star Wars fan. I just checked and I guess Lucasfilm did eventually get the domain, even though nothing is there. The bottom line is that you can't set up a domain whose name will "infringe or violate any trademark or intellectual property rights."
~~Amanda
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 19:38:19 -0400 From: Jens Johansson <jens@panix.com> To: ytsejam@torchsong.com Subject: re: Napster (LONG RANTY POST!!) Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.20001026193819.0083d6f0@localhost>
[Me (muttering): "Wow, I would never have thought that they could build ships this big! Fucking great food too, it seems. Yum. Hmm, wonder if there are any icebergs at this time of year and at the latitudes at which we will be crossing the North Atlantic?"
People in the crowd: "Such a splendid day, sunny weather just three minutes out of port. This lobster thermidor is exquisitely prepared! Just perfect! And holy guacamole, look at that magnificent grand stairway!!"]
[Brad Plumb] > Let's forget > the issue of artists losing money for a minute,
OK, but only if it's for a minute.
> However, with that said, I gotta be frank that I am somewhat of a believer > in free distribution (sorry Jens). The idea of free distribution has always > been around,
Correct. Until the last 100 years or so there was no firm copyright.
> but what Napster hit upon, imo, is not volume, but CONVENIENCE. > I can go on Napster and within a few minutes find a song that would have > taken me hours, or even days, to find by any other method.
How splendidly convenient for you! :)
(<sam kinison mode>And how many hours, or days, did that piece of music take to fucking.. **COMPOOOOOSE** AND **RECOOOOOOOORD**? OWW! OWWWWWW!!</sam kinison mode>)
> I'd be > interested in knowing exactly what the royalty issues are in that case. I > realize the above is no justification, but I am attempting to illustrate the > idea that Napster, or free distribution in general, is not a large threat.
The royalty issues are clear. Copying a track is a violation of copyright law. But a single act of copying is not a huge violation. Therein lies the rub. Each single infringing act is fairly innocent. Copying one track of, say, one of Yngwie's 80's Polygram releases deprives him of, say, $US 15 * 0.10 * 0.8 / 10 = 0.12 . And a little bit of money because he might also be the composer. Stealing 12 cents from someone is obviously not going to put anyone like Yngwie in the poorhouse. It's the aggregate effect that's very dangerous -- if the music copyright is eroded in the future due to services like Napster there's less incentive to make recordings in the future.
> What Napster does is make niche music more accessible, so that more > niche users than ever before can discover the same music (in the past it may > have been confined only to certain areas).
True. But wouldn't it be preferable if the copyright owners, instead of Napster inc., get to decide how their music will be available? At which bit rates? Which tracks? Where? Together with what advertising? No?
If anyone here can give me proof that they understand in some detail what happened in regards to broadcast rights the last century (in which, as we all know, radio was invented) and illuminate how this helped (or, ahem, was it perhaps... noo.. it couldn't have been....... hurt!??!) niche music I'll be willing to take up the argument from that point on. I'm getting cobol fingers from all this typing.. :\
OK so I have a dim, cynical view of copyright consumers' willingness to part with their cash. Just keep that in mind too. ;)
[coutermash] > One thing I have noticed, though, especially > after working as a "residential computer consultant" for my dormitory last > year and working directly with students, is that most of the college > students I worked with didn't give a shit as to whether they paid for > their music. At ALL. And most of them told me so in as many words.
Such a shock to me. I'm _soooo_ surprised. ;)
> As a future commercial musician and composer, I am deeply worried about > the current trend in attitudes toward copyright holders and the disregard > that is shown to them.
Right. In today's situation, musicians and composers are a lot more powerless and vulnerable than owners of other types of copyrights. (Future bandwidth / ease of copying / low data volume of audio carriers / public opinion / radio broadcast paradigm prevalent)
> The thing I never understood about this argument is that CDs DON'T cost > too much. Just because it costs 2 cents to make a CD doesn't mean that > you should only pay that much.
Maybe something like 12 US cents per song would work....
> Right there, without sales tax :) you've got a total of ten dollars for a > CD. Obviously my figures are not correct and are just an estimate of how > I interpret the way the business works, which is probably way off.
No, that was fairly accurate. Of course agreements vary widely as well...
> > And how many airports have you been hung over in, exactly? :) > Jens, I'm going to offer you a chance to re-word yourself because you're > not a native English-speaker, right? Did you really mean "hung over" or > did you mean "held over?" :D
I actually did mean to type "hung over in airports". :) _Held_ over in airports!?!?! That must include 30% of the Earth's population by now! What authority to opine about copyright law would being _held_ over in a bunch of distinct airports confer, exactly!?!? ;)
Especially that rarest bird of hangovers which my Finnish friends refer to as the "mandoliini krapula" in the horrid, humid halls of Barajas (Madrid) Airport carry a lot of weight in the courts, I've heard.
> And here's a little food for thought, people: Do you realize that Mozart's > Requiem (by the way, you can download a performance of my choir singing > the Mozart Requiem last April -- with me singing the bass solo -- at > http://cout.dhs.org/mozart_requiem/) was commissioned by a nobleman who > then took the completed work (which was completed by Mozart's student, > Sussmayr, after Mozart's death left it unfinished) and performed it for > his wife's memorial service as his OWN work?
Maybe even according to that time's laws, it _was_ his work. "Moral rights" weren't codified in any fashion, either...
[OPeCKiE Productions] > Napster solution...$10/month for subscriptions...legit cut goes to > artists...with 50million+ subscribers...even if half drop after the fees > are applied, that's still a crap-load of money...and it's advertising > potential for artists and record labels.
For some of us (= niche musicians), a flat fee would be unacceptable. So that scheme for instance would have to have some sort of _hard_ "opt-out." I would imagine very many copyright owners would opt and thus make the service useless.
[ptacek] > You guys may well do that. I believe you. But you are TOTALLY the > minority... I bet less than 5% of Napster users buy 80% of what they DL.
I would bet something like 500 Argentinian Pesos that this fraction is lower than 1%.
> People who subsist by means of exchanging money for food and shelter > tend not to believe so much in free distribution, since your belief requires > them to take advantage of the distribution of food at a soup kitchen or > applications at the McDonalds kitchen. If you're a programmer by trade, > what if your company decided to take your stock away, and not pay you for > services rendered, because they decide it's time for you to freely > distribute the goods and services they want. Oh, then it's wrong.
Could not have expressed this any better myself.
> I mean, you just take the money that you have for being > a musician (which is, I can tell you, because I think I know, A LOT) and go > on one of those WORLD TOURS on your bus. Maybe you even wreck a hotel room.
Yeah, being a musician is amazing. At every airport there's a guy with a bucket just pouring money over your head. And like you said: the hotels! Holy shit. Well, they don't pay cash, but every time you wreck a hotel room, the check for the wrecked room comes in the mail later. It never fails! :)
[Brad Plumb] > By my admittedly selfish and hyppocritical definition: yep ;) It's when > money is exchanged during all of this that I have a problem. > I guess I just don't see it as theft, and never will. But I do have a > problem when money is involved
Let's just get rid of all property then. It sure worked in the Soviet Union! :)
--- Jens. <jens@panix.com> (http://www.panix.com/~jens/)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 19:43:06 -0400 From: Jens Johansson <jens@panix.com> To: ytsejam@torchsong.com Subject: re: Napster (LONG RANTY POST!!) Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.20001026194306.00834c10@localhost>
[Al - The Ytse-ProGtologist] > Here's my opinion: The people loosing out are the POPULAR artists. > However, this has been true for YEARS. Why? Cassette tape recorders!
True.
> Their investment: A blank cassette. The only thing > that has changed is the method. That can can be blamed on technology > advancements. Is this any worse? That's your call.
But then of course, society responded with the imposition of the 'blank tape tax' [ say what you will about that. :) ]
> Those that wish to steal, will. They've always had that option since tape > recorders became available to home users back in the 50s.. (Open reel)
Of course. But should a venture-capital funded corporate entity be allowed to be directly encourage this?
I think it's 150% clear "Napster, inc." is has a lot of implicit, basic intent to aid people in committing music copyright violations. Much more so that manufacturers of compact cassettes, for instance. (to put it in a historical perspective for all of you other intellectual property law buffs out there. are there any out there?? help??)
> The niche artist can only gain revenue simply because they gain exposure. > [..] > the end product onto CD? Napster just makes theft more efficient.
Exactly. I wish I could say "at their profit", but as far as I know, they're too stupid to even turn a profit yet.
> Another intelligent solution was mentioned by Jim: (aka Roadie) > Limiting the the bitrate 56kbps.. That would be good enough to > determine if the material was worth purchasing.
I agree. That, to me, should be the _choice_ of any copyright holder (as it is under current law). :)
> Brian Hayden hit the nail on the head with his post in Jam 5651. > People are pointing their finger in the wrong direction.
Invalid reference to me, not in digest mode. And list heavily filtered.
[Paul Tadday] > A big HELL YEAH to that!!!! > Napster has opened up my eyes to so many awesome bands and a huge variety of > music that I otherwise would never have known existed!!! > Thanks to Napster I now know about, have bought cd's of and enjoy immensely, > bands such as... > The Gathering Symphony X Pain Of Salvation Explorer's Club > The Tea Party Opeth Amorphis > and a shitload of others!!! > It has also steered me away from some stuff that I otherwise would have > bought and been extremely disappointed with. Dissapointed enough to not want > to buy any music from bands that I wasn't prepared to take a punt on > otherwise!!! > My band isn't anywhere near as established as Jen's is and I take his point, > but to a young "unknown" band such as Cydonia, we will really appreciate > Napster when our cd is finished in January. The more exposure the better at > this stage of our career. > Cheers!
What can I say. :) Have fun! :)
I hope you're the kind of guy that weasels out of jury duty. :)
[Andreas Schaefer] > 1.) Copyright > Of course you as a musician and everybody who creates something unique > (writer, programmer etc.) owns the copyright to his work in the first place. > The concept of the copyright in its pure form is very clear and something > that nobody will deny (insert ludicrous exception here). > So now that we agree on your basic right to control your work, let's see > how the concept is weakend by introducing the concept of capitalism, i.e. > trading goods for money.
Contrarily, in my opinion, copyright without capitalism is meaningless. (Speaking as someone that has recorded -- by some weird fucking proxy agreement -- under the Melodyia label. You know, the Soviet state label. That happen to anyone else here? A bit vexing when that happens, isn't it? :))
> As soon as you sign a contract with a record company you lose some control > over your copyright. In laymens terms, you usually sign a deal that allows > them to distribute copies of your work and in return you get money.
Yes. You trade control for convenience and mass marketing possibilities.
> In your case it's probably that Strato gets a specific amount > of money as an advance = a "loan" to produce your next album and this > advance will be be payed back with the earnings from the actual record > sales).
That's pretty accurate.
> In addition to whatever agreement you have with you record company, > they'll tell you how much records they sold and how often a specific song was > played on the radio and you'll receive royalies according to these numbers.
Something like that, yes.
> By the time your work is distributed through various channels (record > companies, distributors, wholesale chains, record stores) you already lost > a great amount of control over your intellectual property while you still > own "copyright".
Yes.
> Napster is just another channel where intellectual property is traded > without control of the original owner. Difference: you don't get royalties, > record companies don't earn money. If Napster were making any money off > that concept without having a contract with you or sending you the appropiate > royalties, I could see this as theft.
How about if they're losing money? I guess it's sort of like theft, but really stupid. Like someone robbing you, and then burning the bills.
> Therefore "Napster bad" (J.Hetfield :-) > If Napster doesn't make any money... well it's just another way of > distribution without consent of the owner of intellectual property - just > like tapetrading, video-copying or making copies of a picture.
It's more well organized. And it sets a dangerous precedent.
> Conclusion: > Whatever your point on the program called "Napster" is, you better get used > to the idea of not having 100% control over your intellectual property. > Let me quote a key sentence from an article in Wired 10/2000 p.240: > "No law can be successfully imposed on a huge population that does not > morally support it and possesses easy means for its invisible evasion." > [ ... ] > Let me present you another quote from the same > Wired article: "The war is on, all right, but to my mind it's over. The > future will win; there will be no property in cyberspace. [..] It's a pity > that entertainment moguls are too wedged in to the past to recognize this, > because now they are requiring us to fight a war anyway. So we'll fatten > lawyers with a fortune that could be spent fostering and distributing > creativity. And we may be forced to watch a few pointless public executions > - Shawn Fanning's cross awaits - when we could be employing such condemned > genius in the service of a greater good."
So, "the cat is out of the bag already, so deal with it". This is exactly the sort of argument more intelligent Napster proponents make, and which to me is at the very core of the discussion.
Well, as an example, they said that ("the cat is out of the bag") about MDMA (aka "Ecstasy" in the 80's: "It's not a controlled drug, because it's not on any controlled drug schedule! It's free! It's A-OK!" Guess what. Society (which sometimes does the right thing, something does the wrong thing, as always depending on your point of view and level of understanding) decided that trafficking and sale of MDMA should be severely restricted. And there you have it. All of a sudden MDMA *REEEALLY* *BAAAAAD!* Quickquickquick, sell all of your http://my.MDMA.com stock!
We're moveing toward a more information-oriented society. Information is intangible. But society can protect it, and trafficking in it. Strong crypto might even get outlawed, some day, who knows. If you find that concept outrageous (as I do myself) consider the apparent absurdity in the fact that you can't print your own Deutschmark notes and start using them. Just pieces of paper with ink on them, right? Wrong. *Very* wrong!! :)
Wired's hot air notwithstanding. ;)
Anyway, a public and very bloody execution sets an important precedent. BTW I would love to use a printout of recent mp3.COM stock prices as my desktop were it not for the fact that I have a friend that foolishly invested a bit of her savings money in that company.
Sorry everyone, fucking enough already, the great Django is knocking on the door, time for "a few" brews. We're actually doing some radio thing tonight at 0030 or 0130, so any listeners in Chile or Argentina keep your ears pegged. I think the program is called Ave Cesare or something like that. Whoa, maybe it was 0130. We'll be well toasted by then. Could be more fun than this post -- no references to any damned TLA's for sure. :)
--- Jens. <jens@panix.com> (http://www.panix.com/~jens/)
------------------------------
End of YTSEJAM Digest 5653 **************************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Apr 01 2004 - 19:07:42 EST