YTSEJAM Digest 5775
Today's Topics:
1) Re: Napzter
by Andreas Skarin <sdts@sdts.nu>
2) Jen's Funny Money
by Brian Hansen <bhansen10@yahoo.com>
3) My obligatory Napster post
by Dan Costello <axeman_dannl@juno.com>
4) Spoiler : NAPSTER mentioned in here!
by "Paul Evans" <evansp3@corp.earthlink.net>
5) Kevin Moore/Steve Tushar
by NuGgeTMaN <emoeglin@wezl.org>
6) RE: Spoiler : NAPSTER mentioned in here!
by "Souter, Jan-Michael" <JSouter@healthaxis.com>
7) paid to play
by "Souter, Jan-Michael" <JSouter@healthaxis.com>
8) Another bad Napster analogy...
by schew@interzone.com (Steve Chew)
9) Subject: chris' last vowels
by "Chris Ptacek" <someone@digitalrodent.com>
10) Beating Tshirts
by CyberDuke <duskob@mol.com.mk>
11) Napster
by Stixntrixx@aol.com
12) Re: Subject: chris' last vowels
by "Paul Tadday" <dreamryche@bigpond.com>
13) Re: paid to play
by Graham Borland <graham@picsel.com>
14) Re: Freakin' English guns in the Kitchen
by Chris Oates <aspect-lists@tinagh.org>
15) DVD order cancelled
by Bobby Tufino <slimegod@bellsouth.net>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 20:15:01 +0100
From: Andreas Skarin <sdts@sdts.nu>
To: ytsejam@torchsong.com
Subject: Re: Napzter
Message-ID: <3A9413B5.4E635C4F@sdts.nu>
CyberDuke wrote:
> While reading this a thing came to my mind. How is that different from
> owing a postcard with Mona Lisa, or a fake painting of it??? An mp3 is
> not the original music, it is a copy, by many folks a less quality copy.
If you would like an (almost) exact replica of the Mona Lisa, you'd still
have to pay for it.
-- Andreas Skarin Svenska Dream Theater-S=E4llskapet http://www.sdts.nu - mailto:sdts@sdts.nu------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 12:03:42 -0800 (PST) From: Brian Hansen <bhansen10@yahoo.com> To: ytsejam@torchsong.com Subject: Jen's Funny Money Message-ID: <20010221200342.75357.qmail@web12103.mail.yahoo.com>
Jens Johansson <jens+@panix.com> wrote:
> This is a very common pro-Napster argument. > They are not the same thing exactly, the same way "stealing and using a > $100 bill" and "using a copy of a $100 bill" are not the same exactly.
"Using a copy of a $100 bill" would be very stupid indeed. On a related tangent, there was a news story recently about someone who passed a phony US $200 bill. Since there is no real $200 bill made, the phony bill passer could not be charged with counterfitting. (Before anyone gets any bright ideas, he was charged with $200 worth of theft.)
my $100, BH
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices! http://auctions.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 15:12:16 -0500 From: Dan Costello <axeman_dannl@juno.com> To: ytsejam@torchsong.com Subject: My obligatory Napster post Message-ID: <20010221.151218.-478187.1.Axeman_dannl@juno.com>
All this talk of Napster and copyright infringement has got me itchin' for some new warez. I've been out of the loop for a while, anybody know any good warez sites??? :-)
-Dan. ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 13:32:38 -0800 From: "Paul Evans" <evansp3@corp.earthlink.net> To: <ytsejam@torchsong.com> Subject: Spoiler : NAPSTER mentioned in here! Message-ID: <008101c09c4d$d0cc7910$305ad9cf@it.earthlink.net>
The kinder, gentler Doc wrote:
> You're missing the logic because you assume tape trading is illegal I assume. <snip>
The logic I'm missing is how tape trading has anything at all to do with Napster facilitating the illegal distribution of music...
> Well, 128k or 160k or even 320k is far from perfect.
Well, hit me over the head with a 2 ton heavy thing. I think I finally get your logic - mp3s are not perfect copies, therefore, Napster is no worse than tape trading.
Based on my own opinions on mp3 quality, I could almost agree with you ;-)
But not quite. You brought up the convenience factor, and the other major difference is the sheer volume of distribution Napster allows.
BTW, I have no problem with people Nap'ing/trading material that is not and never will be available for purchase. It's far better that bootlegs go for free than having some bastard making money off of them. It's solely the stuff that artists could/should be making money on that concerns me.
Oh well. We'll all never change.
Paul
P.S. The new Enchant album, Juggling Nine or Dropping Ten, is really quite good. Some outstanding lyrics. Kinda haunting in places too. You Napster guys should download it! :-)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 16:51:33 -0500 From: NuGgeTMaN <emoeglin@wezl.org> To: ytsejam@torchsong.com Subject: Kevin Moore/Steve Tushar Message-ID: <3A943865.1010005@wezl.org>
Anyone into Kevin Moore's recent stuff might wanna check out this article on Steve Tushar from Mix magazine
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 15:49:16 -0600 From: "Souter, Jan-Michael" <JSouter@healthaxis.com> To: "'ytsejam@torchsong.com'" <ytsejam@torchsong.com> Subject: RE: Spoiler : NAPSTER mentioned in here! Message-ID: <74ACE5A6CB89D3119E6F00609720274A037D1996@ISDCRE00>
Paul - thanks for the tip!
> -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Evans [SMTP:evansp3@corp.earthlink.net] > Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2001 3:39 PM > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Spoiler : NAPSTER mentioned in here! > <<snip>>
> P.S. The new Enchant album, Juggling Nine or Dropping Ten, is really > quite > good. Some outstanding lyrics. Kinda haunting in places too. You Napster > guys should download it! :-)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 15:54:28 -0600 From: "Souter, Jan-Michael" <JSouter@healthaxis.com> To: "'ytsejam@torchsong.com'" <ytsejam@torchsong.com> Subject: paid to play Message-ID: <74ACE5A6CB89D3119E6F00609720274A037D1998@ISDCRE00>
Hi Zartan! Why do you think reading and responding to Email is "playing on the internet?" Reading Email and browsing the Web (Internet) are pretty separate, don't ya think? :)
> -----Original Message----- > From: Zartan4@cs.com [SMTP:Zartan4@cs.com] > Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2001 8:33 AM > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Re: YTSEJAM digest 5771 > > > could the jam get any more self-indulgent? are you ALL geniuses and know > everything? it appears that way. how boring can this thing get? by the > way, > get a job and stop living on the ytsejam, or at least stop using it while > working. im always wondering why people think they should get paid for > playing on the internet. can i ask for an honest response as to how many > jammers are actually reading and responding while on the clock? the only > reason i can is because i dont have a job! :) > DT are good
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 19:14:22 -0500 (EST) From: schew@interzone.com (Steve Chew) To: ytsejam@torchsong.com Subject: Another bad Napster analogy... Message-ID: <m14VjOo-000IR1C@mail.interzone.com>
> >> Downloading an MP3 illegally (via Napster or whatever) is *not* >> the same as taking a TV from a store (or a CD even). In one case, you >> have taken a physical object and removed it from another person's >> possession (stealing the TV). In the other case, you have copied the >> product and left the original in the person's possession (download via >> Napster). This is really not the same thing (not to say that it is >> necessarily right either). Since they are not the same your analogy >> fails, you cannot conclude that the security guard and Napster are >> equally bad/wrong. > >This is a very common pro-Napster argument. > While it may be used by some people in defense of napster, it's hardly a pro-Napster argument. It's simply an argument that debunks the analogy that says copying and MP3 file is the same as theft of a physical object.
>They are not the same thing exactly, the same way "stealing and using a >$100 bill" and "using a copy of a $100 bill" are not the same exactly. > Unfortunately, this is another poor analogy. Presumably the person copying the $100 bill intends to spend it and the store owner (or whomever) receives the copied $100 will *not* spend it since it is a fake. At that point, I've given you a worthless copy of a $100 for a CD and you no longer have the CD. That's an analogy which is similar to the stealing the physical CD one. Once again, it's not the same as downloading an MP3 where I haven't taken the original CD from you.
>Anyway, even though the original is still there, it is easily for anyone >with imagination to imagine that a person that obtained a copy of that >music file is less likely to buy the CD. And of course, someone else in >his turn can make a copy of that copy, etc. Is "less likely" equal to "a >lot less likely" or "just a little bit less likely?" That's a religious >issue. I lean toward the former, but I'm a cynical bastard with 20 years >experience of economics as relates to music. :) > > This argument is better where you argue that my copying of your CD might reduce the potential value of your CD since I am <some percentage here> less likely to buy your CD. This argument is much harder to prove however, so people go for the "theft" analogy. But, I think it's much closer to the heart of the matter.
Steve
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 17:27:41 -0600 From: "Chris Ptacek" <someone@digitalrodent.com> To: <ytsejam@torchsong.com> Subject: Subject: chris' last vowels Message-ID: <001301c09c5d$e3a66b80$7672fea9@enteract.com>
> Did you pick this username? There aren't enough consenants > in your name already? Now it just looks demonic.
Yeah, and to top it off, the A and E are silent. :)
- Chris "PTCK!"
Oh, and btw, I responded privately to Steve's point, and provided a better analogy, but any of you who want to see it... TOUGH! :)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 00:21:28 +0100 From: CyberDuke <duskob@mol.com.mk> To: Ytsejam <ytsejam@torchsong.com> Subject: Beating Tshirts Message-ID: <3A944D78.726A32A2@mol.com.mk>
> And I did a little "user testing" on a USPS priority mail bag. I > don't know what those bags are made of, but I stuffed 4 shirts in > there and proceeding to beat the living hell out of that bag for > half an hour. It emerged wrinkled but unscathed.
ROTFL!
Is this guy something or what? :)
So dude, when is the anti-acid testing?
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 21:25:21 EST From: Stixntrixx@aol.com To: <ytsejam@torchsong.com> Subject: Napster Message-ID: <67.100b36b2.27c5d291@aol.com>
Point #1: Some argue that Napster is just putting people in touch with each other to trade music, much like a tape trading tree (which several on the jam are more than familiar with). Any entity profiting from the unauthorized distribution of copyrighted materials (or the faciliation thereof) is committing an illegal act. When a record label wants to sell an album at the retail level, it usually employees the services of one or more distributors to do the job. Major labels own their own distribution arm, independents do not (which is the definition of a true independent label). If I employ the services of Distributor A to service an album to retail, and Distributor B buys a copy of the album, burns it on to a CD (making a new master, in effect) and sells it to the public without my permission, he is inviolation of numerous intellectual property laws. Now, in the case of Napster, they are not directly "selling" mp3s to the public. But they are selling the ability to get mp3s of! ! copyrighted material and have b ecome a multi-million dollar corporation in the process. So while money isn't being exhanged at the point of sale, it is being exchanged nevertheless and the artist, who's work is exploited in the process, does not get to share in the wealth. That's wrong.
Point #2: Songs are copyrighted once they are fixed in some tangible form. By default, the copyright of a song belongs to its author(s) unless there is another agreement to the contrary. As a copyright owner, you have the SOLE discretion as to where and how your work is to be exploited. If someone wants to use your work for any purpose, they must first gain your permission to do so, for which you will usually charge them a fee (or perhaps even grant them a gratis license...it's your choice). Your discretion in this matter is not proportional (neither directly nor inversely) to your wealth, success, etc. It is the same across the board. It doesn't matter if you've sold a million records or just one, you have equal protection under the law. If you deny someone permission to use your song, they cannot merely give you the finger and use it anyway.
Point #3: With all that being said, I actually like Napster. It's a great source for live and otherwise unreleased songs (which is still technically copyright infringement, not concerning commercially available material and therefore a moot point). It is also a great promotional tool for the unsigned act, allowing you to reach a huge audience of people that have a definite passion for music and are of a slightly higher economic bracket (as evidenced by the presence of a computer in their home). I view Napster as something akin to the free goods a record company distributes in promotion of an upcoming release (artists rarely get paid on these as well). As a struggling musician, my outlook is that while I might lose that one record sale, if that person likes what he hears, the money will be more than made up for in concert attendance and merchandising, to say nothing of the increased word-of-mouth I would receieve (which itself could lead to more sales because not everybody has ! ! a computer nor a CD-Burner). The record companies, of course, do not share in concert ticket sales nor merchandising (well, they won't share in your merchandising if you're smart and have some leverage), hence their concern.
Point #4: Having said that, #3 reflects MY PERSONAL OUTLOOK. If a copyright holder does not agree, it is his right to preserve the integrity of his copyright in any way he sees fit (see #2) That right must be respected at all costs.
Richie
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 16:03:49 +1100 From: "Paul Tadday" <dreamryche@bigpond.com> To: <ytsejam@torchsong.com> Subject: Re: Subject: chris' last vowels Message-ID: <002801c09c8c$dc25e780$238336cb@PaulTadday>
So how the hell DO you pronounce it Chris?? ;)
----- Original Message ----- ]From: Chris Ptacek <someone@digitalrodent.com> > > Yeah, and to top it off, the A and E are silent. :) > > - Chris "PTCK!" >
------------------------------
Date: 22 Feb 2001 10:10:20 +0000 From: Graham Borland <graham@picsel.com> To: ytsejam@torchsong.com Subject: Re: paid to play Message-ID: <86n1bf6nar.fsf@picsel.com>
"Souter, Jan-Michael" <JSouter@healthaxis.com> writes:
> Hi Zartan! Why do you think reading and responding to Email is > "playing on the internet?" Reading Email and browsing the Web > (Internet) are pretty separate, don't ya think? :)
The Internet is not The Web. The Internet is *everything* - email, web, FTP, Napster, ICQ, IRC, gopher, etc. The whole lot.
-- Graham Borland Picsel Technologies Ltd graham@picsel.com Glasgow, Scotland
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 06:08:32 -0800 From: Chris Oates <aspect-lists@tinagh.org> To: ytsejam@torchsong.com Subject: Re: Freakin' English guns in the Kitchen Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.2.20010222060544.0488ce58@pop.tinagh.org>
At 10:45 AM 2/20/2001, you wrote: >Personally, >I only take exception to the "anti-gun" lyrics of "Gun >God". And while I could debate the subject all day, as >you know, I didn't want to bring up "guns" >specifically on the Ytsejam. It seems obvious to me, >but I'll just add that advocating gun-rights does NOT >equal advocating shooting people. I am in agreement >with any lyrics that are against shooting people...
While I personally feel that the second amendment is largely outdated (i.e. I support gun control in some forms) I still think the song's lyrics are stupid. :) I know that the issue is a lot more complex than "people who like guns like to shoot other people" but the song just takes the most simplistic view, which just serves to make the songwriter look ignorant.
~Chris
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 12:58:01 -0500 From: Bobby Tufino <slimegod@bellsouth.net> To: ytsejam@torchsong.com Subject: DVD order cancelled Message-ID: <3A955329.5ADBB6D0@bellsouth.net>
Hey. Anyone fucking pissed because they got an email from CDNow about their order of the DT DVD being cancelled because it is deleted from their catalog?! I am! Strangely enough....I searched CDNow and it seems to still be available although now it's backordered (it wasn't when I ordered it) and it's only 20% off as opposed to the 30% off it was when I ordered it. WHAT THE FUCK!!!! Anyone know anything about this?
Bobby
------------------------------
End of YTSEJAM Digest 5775 **************************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Apr 01 2004 - 19:10:52 EST