From: owner-ecto-digest@smoe.org (ecto-digest) To: ecto-digest@smoe.org Subject: ecto-digest V6 #198 Reply-To: ecto@smoe.org Sender: owner-ecto-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-ecto-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk ecto-digest Wednesday, July 12 2000 Volume 06 : Number 198 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Today's your birthday, friend... [Mike Matthews ] Re: Primacy equals value? [Neile Graham ] copyright law [dave ] Even more Napster ["Marcel Rijs" ] Re: Primacy equals value? [Steve VanDevender ] Re: Primacy equals value? [Neile Graham ] Re: Spamster Spasms [Michael Bowman ] Jenny Toomey and the Coalition for the Future of Music [Michael Curry ] Re: Spamster Spasms [three damons ] Mystery track [Andrew Fries ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 03:00:05 -0400 (EDT) From: Mike Matthews Subject: Today's your birthday, friend... i*i*i*i*i*i i*i*i*i*i*i *************** *****HAPPY********* **************BIRTHDAY********* *************************************************** *************************************************************************** ************** Larry Greenfield (graywolfwla@earthlink.net) *************** *************************************************************************** -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- - -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Larry Greenfield Tue July 11 1950 Virgo Rising; Gemini Moon Marion Kippers Tue July 13 1965 Kreeft Ellen Rawson Thu July 13 1961 Double Cancer Mitch Pravatiner Mon July 14 1952 Cancer Rich R. Wed July 14 1954 Cancer John Zimmer Sun July 16 1961 Cancer Dan Stark Sun July 16 1961 Cancer Cathy Guetzlaff Mon July 18 1955 Cancer Vlad Sat July 18 1970 Warning: severe tire damage Jani Pinola Thu July 20 1972 Jonquil Alvin Brattli Sun July 27 1969 Lefthanded Christy Eger Smith Thu July 27 1944 Horse Crossing Shirley Ye July 27 Lioness woj Sun July 28 1968 children at play John Relph Sat July 28 1962 Leo Bob Kollmeyer Wed July 28 1971 Leo Steve Lusky Tue July 29 1952 Bike! Kate Bush Wed July 30 1958 God Chuck Smith Wed July 30 1958 Reboot Yves Denneulin Fri July 30 1971 Lion-Heart Joel Kenyon Wed July 31 1963 Leo Eli Brandt August 05 Leo Martin Bridges Sat August 08 1970 BigGuy Happy Rhodes Mon August 09 1965 HolyGhost - -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 00:45:00 -0700 From: Neile Graham Subject: Re: Primacy equals value? At 12:27 AM -0500 7/11/00, Scott Burger wrote: >Personally, live performance still reigns in my mind as the primary source >and I hope that more people start agreeing with me. While I like live performances, they're not the be-all and end-all of music for me. I may be in the minority here but there are few artists I'll go out to see and I even frequently miss artists I really like. Some of it has to do with the horrible-ness of most venues, cigarette smoke, etc. etc. and a lot has to do with the fact that I have to be up for work at 6:00 (my partner gets up at 5:00), and some has to do with the price of many live shows. Some has to do with the audiences for many shows. For example, the price of Ani's shows in combination with her audience makes me stay away, though I've seen and enjoyed her in the past. I keep saying I won't go to see Tori again, but somehow I always do. But enough of it has to do with me having things to do with my time that I prize more than live shows, and there are many artists I happily will spend the money on for their cds but I wouldn't go to see live. I'm far more picky about whom I'll physically go to see. But then of course I'll drive for hours to see Veda live. I also would like to argue in favour of people being able to have time to perfect their art in the studio and do things that they're not able to do live. Creating a static work of art is not all bad, and I definitely think that artists should have monetary rewards for creating ones I like. And some people can't handle the touring life--does that mean they shouldn't become musicians? No, I think the idea of live performance being the main way for artists to make money is far too limiting. - --Neile - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Neile Graham ...... http://www.sff.net/people/neile ....... neile@sff.net Les Semaines: A Weekly Journal . http://www.sff.net/people/neile/semaines The Ectophiles' Guide to Good Music ....... http://www.smoe.org/ectoguide ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 06:59:25 -0400 From: dave Subject: copyright law Does this spell things out clearly enough? > An author of a copyrighted work has the following exclusive rights conferred by 17 USC §106: > > 1.to reproduce the work (e.g., to make copies) > 2.to prepare derivative works (e.g., translation, abridgment, condensation, adaptation) > 3.to distribute copies to the public (e.g., publish, sell, rental, lease, or lending) > 4.to perform the work publicly > 5.to display the work publicly I couldn't find any legal references to exemptions on this based on either of the following: 1. Not liking big corporations 2. Being a poor student who can't afford to buy anything Sorry. :/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 14:24:29 +0200 From: "Marcel Rijs" Subject: Even more Napster Hi all, Tired yet? I felt I had to contribute. Sorry... three damons wrote: > > Some people have been saying that the whole internet is a den of thieves. > > Do you agree with them? > > In light of the fact that a whole lot of illegal activity occurs daily thanks to > > e mail, renegade FTP servers, and strong encryption, > > perhaps we should outlaw the internet. > > actually, i'm a very strong advocate of > freedom of speech and freedom of the internet. Does that include websites devoted to rightwing groups? Sex with children and animals? Selling drugs over the web? Cut and paste pictures of celebrities who are supposedly nude? I could go on, but these are just a few of the uses made of the internet. It's clearly illegal but you don't seem so upset about that. > see, i think pot smokers SHOULDN'T be criminals. > i think what they are doing is criminal but moral. I don't agree with you but you won't see me cry out for outlawing all drug users in this drugfriendly (alas...) nation called the Netherlands. Come to Amsterdam, enjoy the pot as long as you can... > as for napster, i think it's piracy, but in some > very explicit circumstances moral. I think you should turn that around. Napster is moral, just as long as it's not used for the trading of music files of widely available music. The stuff I've downloaded so far is long deleted. Unsigned bands can also be found at Napster. And the "temporary theft" use is in essence legal too. You can own as much MP3's as you like as long as you have the _intent_ of buying the stuff whenever you can. That was the basis of taping songs from the radio in the 70's for me: I now have all those songs in some format. > the reason i get worked up over this is because i highly value art, > and i think unless there are some protections built into this thing, > artists will suffer. and there aren't such protections built into napster. Perhaps that's because such protections aren't feasible right now? And why protect? Is your telephone line protected from illegal use? > and the responses i see include things like, 'fuck the artists if they can't adapt'. Not the artists, mostly the moneygrabbing companies that claim to represent them.... Kind regards, Marcel Rijs afd. Communicatie marcel.rijs@kb.nl ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 11:37:01 -0700 (PDT) From: Steve VanDevender Subject: Re: Primacy equals value? Neile Graham writes: > No, I think the idea of live performance being the main way for artists to > make money is far too limiting. But audio recording as a way for musicians to create and distribute their work is a historically recent thing. Live performance used to be the _only_ way musicians or actors made money from their art, despite being "far too limiting", and yet we have Bach and Shakespeare and plenty of other famous art produced under those conditions. At the time audio recording started to become widely available, I'm certain there was plenty of handwringing about how it would be the death of music, because it would supplant live performance as the means by which musicians made money, and no one had conceived of how musicians would make money by distributing audio recordings. There was probably also plenty of concern over "pirating" live performances since any number of people could listen to the recording without the artist being paid as much as he or she would have had by doing the same number of performances. Of course, what audio recording ultimately did was allow musicians new kinds of freedom in creating their works and gave musicians vastly expanded audiences. The reason I draw these historical parallels is that this process of technology changing the economics of art has happened many times, and despite the fears many people expressed each time, art has survived and prospered, albeit with periods of upheaval and adaptation. I see no reason to believe that digital distribution will destroy art. But if people actually think about the process rather than being blindly critical and fearful, maybe we can get through the process again without as much upheaval. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 11:40:25 -0700 (PDT) From: Craig Gidney Subject: Bel Canto news Exclusive: Bel Canto gets an american release with bonus tracks Anneli Drecker confirmed us this morning that "Images", Bel Canto's latest album is to be released in America. The record is to be released on a new label called EQ8R, pronounce Equator, run by Peter and Vanessa Daoe who wanted Bel Canto to be their first act released on their label. The release is scheduled before October or early next year. To boost the sales, it will include at least two, possibly three bonustracks. Especially "Im Best´n Beis" will be a heartbreaker amongst the fans. Anneli played us the song a couple of months ago and we loved it immediately. (Check out Side-Line 31 in which an interview with Bel Canto was printed and in which the song was also mentionned). The extra bonus-tracks (tbc) will be: 1. Foolish Ship 2. Sun (Re-mix by Bel Canto) 3. Im Best´n Beis http://www.side-line.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get Yahoo! Mail – Free email you can access from anywhere! http://mail.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 12:26:54 -0700 From: Neile Graham Subject: Re: Primacy equals value? At 11:37 AM -0700 7/11/00, Steve VanDevender wrote: >Neile Graham writes: > > No, I think the idea of live performance being the main way for artists to > > make money is far too limiting. > >But audio recording as a way for musicians to create and distribute >their work is a historically recent thing. Live performance used to be >the _only_ way musicians or actors made money from their art, despite >being "far too limiting", and yet we have Bach and Shakespeare and >plenty of other famous art produced under those conditions. No, that's not true. They had patrons that paid the bills, and didn't live off live performance. >At the time audio recording started to become widely available, I'm >certain there was plenty of handwringing about how it would be the death >of music, because it would supplant live performance as the means by >which musicians made money, and no one had conceived of how musicians >would make money by distributing audio recordings. I don't think there was. The only handwringing was by the people trying to figure out how to make money by this. And you've got to remember that until recordings and radio the only popular music was folk music that people sang in their living rooms, kitchens, and at the local pub. And of course church music. Very few people heard Bach. Or saw Shakespeare for that matter, unless they lived in London. >The reason I draw these historical parallels is that this process of >technology changing the economics of art has happened many times, and >despite the fears many people expressed each time, art has survived and >prospered, albeit with periods of upheaval and adaptation. I see no >reason to believe that digital distribution will destroy art. But if >people actually think about the process rather than being blindly >critical and fearful, maybe we can get through the process again without >as much upheaval. This is all a new phenomenon. I don't think you can draw historical parallels, especially with situations as with Bach and Shakespeare, as they certainly weren't how you portray them. Bach was never popular music. Shakespeare was popular theatre, but he made his money on his ability to crank 'em out and on the aristocratic patronage of the theatre. I can't see us going back to a patronage system, but maybe that's the only way, and art will become a luxury again that the common people don't have. That will really suck, because I'm definitely one of the common people, and I recall there weren't any groundlings at Bach's performances. Personally, I think it has been liberating for artists to be able to make money on the work they produce, but don't particularly like the corporatization of popular culture. I would like to think that this is revolution against them, but I somehow don't think it will end up as one. But maybe, maybe. - --Neile - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Neile Graham ...... http://www.sff.net/people/neile ....... neile@sff.net Les Semaines: A Weekly Journal . http://www.sff.net/people/neile/semaines The Ectophiles' Guide to Good Music ....... http://www.smoe.org/ectoguide ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 13:18:59 -0700 (PDT) From: Michael Bowman Subject: Re: Spamster Spasms On Mon, 10 Jul 2000, three damons wrote: > Steve VanDevender wrote: > > > > you borrowed a book from someone or a library and read it without giving > > the author his or her one literal dime of royalties? Perhaps we should > > make it illegal to lend books privately and require libraries to charge > > royalty fees for book loans to be paid back to publishers (who, of > > course, will give only a fraction to the authors themselves). > > > libraries don't count. > > do you know how much they have to pay for books? Libraries pay the same for books as anyone else does. If we buy in quantity we even get a discount. Now, libraries *do* pay extra for many scientific society journals, but so would anyone else who isn't a member of the society in question. Michael Bowman ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 21:02:58 -0400 From: Michael Curry Subject: Jenny Toomey and the Coalition for the Future of Music http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,37463,00.html?tw=wn20000710 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 13:22:46 -0700 From: phil@tiaranetworks.com Subject: Hi! Hello all, I have been lurking on Ecto for a few weeks now, since my old friend and Ectophile Bill Mazur introduced me to the list. Bill and I have played music together on and off for years, and our musical tastes are very similar. I've been enjoying the discussions immensely and thought I would introduce myself. My name is Phil Hudson, I live in the redwoods in California, and I'm just about old enough to remember that the introduction of the compact cassette, with which we're now all familiar, inspired the same frantic piracy tirades from the record industry that the current MP3 technology is doing today. Prior to this, virtually the only people who ever taped existing musical content were small groups of "hobbyists", with expensive reel-to-reel decks. I haven't really formed an opinion on the Napster scenario, but I think that if the record companies had got their way 30 years ago, there wouldn't be any audio cassette recorders in existence outside of studios and bulk duplication plants. There would be only players for the labels' expensive pre-recorded tapes. My favorite label, currently is Northside records (www.noside.com), with which I'm sure many of you are familiar, as they feature such Northern European talents as Hedningarna ( Touring the USA this year!) and Vasen. For those of you interested in Slavic/Balkan women's ensembles, my favorite group in the SF Bay area is called "Kitka" (www.kitka.com) A group of vocal nightingales who have been recording and performing for about 10 years. You can check out short clips from their album at http://www.kitka.com/music/index.html. Their arrangements can be quite breathtaking. That's I know right now, (and I've just filled up my last brain cell, so I think I'll go sit down for a while). Luck and Blessings Phil ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 23:33:55 EDT From: SpiritWe@aol.com Subject: Rachael Sage: Indie Music Week Showcase/Nashville... RACHAEL SAGE will be performing in NASHVILLE for "INDIE MUSIC WEEK" - Thursday, July 13, Douglas Corner Café! [Unable to display image] **if you're in the area, please come on by, & if not, maybe you have friends there you can forward this info to? - we'd love to pack this groovy joint!** WHERE: The Douglas Corner Café (2106 - 8th Ave. South. / Nashville, TN) WHEN: 9PM sharp WHY: Because Indie Music Week is to MPress Records, as: Jellybeans are to Cockroaches. How's that for a nutritional braintwister? Hope to see some of y'all there! * * * PS - Don't forget, "Battle of the Babes" on MP3.com's in full swing! Vote for Rachael at: http://stations.mp3s.com/stations/43/battle_of_the_babes_-_stat.html Winning isn't everything. but it sure beats doing laundry. xoxoxo & peace, & thanks for supporting independence... - -Walter Parks, Rachael, Sylvia (our newest recruit! yay Sylveeeeeeaaaah), & The Folks @ MPress Records * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * www.rachaelsage.com www.mp3.com/rachaelsage Toll Free: 1.877.TRU.SAGE * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 00:28:37 -0400 From: three damons Subject: Re: Even more Napster Marcel Rijs wrote: > > Hi all, > > Tired yet? I felt I had to contribute. Sorry... > > three damons wrote: > > > Some people have been saying that the whole internet is a den of thieves. > > > Do you agree with them? > > > In light of the fact that a whole lot of illegal activity occurs daily thanks to > > > e mail, renegade FTP servers, and strong encryption, > > > perhaps we should outlaw the internet. > > > > actually, i'm a very strong advocate of > > freedom of speech and freedom of the internet. > > Does that include websites devoted to rightwing groups? yes. Sex with children and > animals? no and yes, in that i don't mind websites devoted to them or advocating them so much as i'd mind them posting material that would be illegal. > Selling drugs over the web? that's not fredom of speech. i don't think the internet should be regulated so much as selling drugs is already regulated and the internet should be under the aegis of those laws. >Cut and paste pictures of celebrities who > are supposedly nude? sure, they can do it. i'm also for celebrities suing those sites for infringing on trademarks/copyrites. what i am NOT for is somethng as extreme as the web site that listed the addresses of abortion doctors as a hitlist. prettymuch everything before that. > I could go on, but these are just a few of the uses made of the internet. It's clearly > illegal but you don't seem so upset about that. > > > see, i think pot smokers SHOULDN'T be criminals. > > i think what they are doing is criminal but moral. > > I don't agree with you but you won't see me cry out for outlawing all drug users in > this drugfriendly (alas...) nation called the Netherlands. Come to Amsterdam, enjoy > the pot as long as you can... i'm for more freedomin general. pot is a pretty harmless drug as far as those htings go. and if pot were legal than hemp would be, and we'd save our forests. > > as for napster, i think it's piracy, but in some > > very explicit circumstances moral. > > I think you should turn that around. Napster is moral, just as long as it's not used for > the trading of music files of widely available music. The stuff I've downloaded so far > is long deleted. Unsigned bands can also be found at Napster. And the "temporary > theft" use is in essence legal too. You can own as much MP3's as you like as long as > you have the _intent_ of buying the stuff whenever you can. that's a semantic argument. i stil think it's piracy, BUT, as i said, downloading deleted stuff is morally okay for me. That was the basis of taping > songs from the radio in the 70's for me: I now have all those songs in some format. > > > the reason i get worked up over this is because i highly value art, > > and i think unless there are some protections built into this thing, > > artists will suffer. and there aren't such protections built into napster. > > Perhaps that's because such protections aren't feasible right now? nah. dvds managed to get some encryption. sure, it's been broken, but the breakers got in trouble. And why protect? Is your > telephone line protected from illegal use? there are laws against people using my phone line for illegal use. > > and the responses i see include things like, 'fuck the artists if they can't adapt'. > > Not the artists, mostly the moneygrabbing companies that claim to represent them.... > i don't give a shit about them, but we need some form of them to survive. - -- What political correctness is: Make disparaging remarks about minorites of New York: get suspended for two weeks. Admit to covering up two murders that happened right in front of you: no supsension. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 00:38:27 -0400 From: three damons Subject: Re: Spamster Spasms Michael Bowman wrote: > > On Mon, 10 Jul 2000, three damons wrote: > > > Steve VanDevender wrote: > > > > > > you borrowed a book from someone or a library and read it without giving > > > the author his or her one literal dime of royalties? Perhaps we should > > > make it illegal to lend books privately and require libraries to charge > > > royalty fees for book loans to be paid back to publishers (who, of > > > course, will give only a fraction to the authors themselves). > > > > > > libraries don't count. > > > > do you know how much they have to pay for books? > > Libraries pay the same for books as anyone else does. If we buy in > quantity we even get a discount. > > Now, libraries *do* pay extra for many scientific society journals, but so > would anyone else who isn't a member of the society in question. > sorry. i was under the distinct impression that scientific journals had a special library rate, and assumed this applied to all books. - -- What political correctness is: Make disparaging remarks about minorites of New York: get suspended for two weeks. Admit to covering up two murders that happened right in front of you: no supsension. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 14:02:29 +1000 From: Andrew Fries Subject: Mystery track I invite you all to have a listen to this little something I just put on my server: http://www.zip.com.au/~afries/mystery.html I can't guarantee you'll like it, but I think I can guarantee you never heard this track or the artist. Yet for my money this stuff is right up there with the likes of Jorane and Basque... try it! - ------------------------------------------------------ "Today I want to talk about piracy and music. What is piracy? Piracy is the act of stealing an artist's work without any intention of paying for it. I'm not talking about Napster-type software. I'm talking about major label recording contracts." -- Courtney Love - ------ http://www.zip.com.au/~afries/hall.html ------- ------------------------------ End of ecto-digest V6 #198 **************************