From: owner-ecto-digest@smoe.org (ecto-digest) To: ecto-digest@smoe.org Subject: ecto-digest V6 #200 Reply-To: ecto@smoe.org Sender: owner-ecto-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-ecto-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk ecto-digest Thursday, July 13 2000 Volume 06 : Number 200 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: Spamster Spasms [jason and jill ] Today's your birthday, friends... [Mike Matthews ] re: spamster spasms [Tom Ditto ] Re: Spamster Spasms [Ted ] Re: Spamster Spasms [Joseph Zitt ] Re: spamster spasms [Ted ] Re: Spamster Spasms [jason and jill ] Re: spamster spasms [josh burnett ] Re: spamster spasms [Ted ] Re: Spamster Spasms [WretchAwry ] Re: Spamster Spasms [jburka@min.net] Indisciplined Lucy and some other comments ["Mieu d'Iscalio Sedai" ] RE: Spamster Spasms ["Sampson,Christopher" ] FW: spamster spasms [phil@tiaranetworks.com] Re: spamster spasms [three damons ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 02:05:24 -0400 (EDT) From: jason and jill Subject: Re: Spamster Spasms On Thu, 13 Jul 2000, Ted wrote: > So let me get this straight, you and every member of your community chip in tax money that goes > toward the purchase of one or two copies of any given book at market price, then the book is shared by > every member of your community (what is that 2 or 3 thousand people?) and the author gets royalties > from the purchase of 1 or 2 books, is that roughly how it works? > > jason and jill wrote: > > > Moron, the library paid the royalties. > Are you really this stupid, or just annoying? 1) The message I sent you was private mail. 2) Copyright. Equals copy plus right. Right to copy. Got it? Library buys copy from publisher. Library makes no copies. Only copy anyone uses is the one copy the library bought, unless library buys two copies, then people use two copies. Library buys three copies, three people can check out time. All copies paid for. No copies not paid for. If people want to have more copies borrowed at once, library BUYS more copies. Moronic ted lame attempt at allusion no work b/c in nitwit ted example one person buys and others make many copies. People make copies, violate copyright--right to make copies. Library doesn't make copies--no violate copyright. Ted put in killfile. Ted stupid. Jason ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 03:00:04 -0400 (EDT) From: Mike Matthews Subject: Today's your birthday, friends... i*i*i*i*i*i i*i*i*i*i*i *************** *****HAPPY********* **************BIRTHDAY********* *************************************************** *************************************************************************** ***************** Marion Kippers (Marion.Kippers@wkap.nl) ***************** ******************* Ellen Rawson (Silme@ix.netcom.com) ******************** *************************************************************************** -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- - -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- 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 Michael Stevens Sat August 12 1967 For Sale or Lease - -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 09:25:27 -0400 From: Tom Ditto Subject: re: spamster spasms Ted wants to know: > So let me get this straight, you and every member of your community chip in tax money > that goes > toward the purchase of one or two copies of any given book at market price, then the > book is shared by > every member of your community (what is that 2 or 3 thousand people?) and the author > gets royalties > from the purchase of 1 or 2 books, is that roughly how it works? > At its root, copyright is the right to copy. It can be construed as a right of control access to a single copy, as in a movie theater where admission is charged for a presentation, but in a library the premise is that no verbatim copies will be made from an entire archived version, fair use extracts notwithstanding. There is a caveat in American copyright law that allows a library to make a copy for storage in case the publicly circulated copy is destroyed. This would be particularly useful today with CD's. Scott aka Burp declares: > Do not necessarily fuck the artists but definitely Fuck The Lawyers! > > The copyright law is outdated. If the copyright law stays the way it is, > then we all should buy IBM stock for the ridiculous number of software > patents they own. > To me this the equivalent to reading some antiquated anti-sodomy laws that > are still around. > Get real. In my reality, there is a huge difference between patents (such as the purported IBM software licenses. He would have better said "Microsoft") and copyrights such as (p). The diatribe above is a perfect example of how Spamsters are justing acting out mindlessly. Their real motivation is to get their music for free, and they're prepared to get unreal themselves. For these burpsters, whatever rationalization works will suffice for the moment, and the illegal downloads go on and on. I've always found that fascists and anarchists meet in their belief that they can steal whatever they can get away with. In the former philosophy, if you have the mob properly organized, you can bully your way into the victim's store and take whatever you want. In the latter, the victim has no right to own anything, so theft is perfectly acceptable. In either case, the end result is that property rights are subverted from their original intent and become subject to the whim of the moment. I've been reading recently about the invention of democracy in Athens 2600 years ago, and it is interesting to see how it went through spasms from anarachy to repression until it landed on a system where private property was carefully segregated from public resources. The evolution took this small community (about 20,000 people) on a hill about 200 years. The resolution of the current dilemma of a public utility (the internet) with the indisputable right of a creative artist to own her/his work bears some similarity. What we should be careful about is the lesson to be learned from these Greeks who found themselves for a while under what is now called Draconian law, where every infraction, no matter how trivial, was punished extraordinarily, typically by execution. Don't get me wrong, I'm not expecting Buchanan to be elected president and mandate that everyone who tests positive for unpatriotic DNA be put to death, but I do see the potential for some wild swings from the current liberties we all enjoy on the internet to some government repression due to the Napster situation. People who rationalize their theft have a negative impact on everyone else, because until they are reined in, the laws controlling them will not be considered harsh enough. All we need are these insulting epithets like "Fuck the lawyers" to get the lawyers to show some of the metal under their velvet gloves. Then we'll see who gets all fucked up. Tom ditto@taconic.net "So many voices, so few choices." ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 09:39:35 -0400 From: Ted Subject: Re: Spamster Spasms 1. Let me first apologize for replying to your original private post publicly, I wasn't paying attention to the "reply to" address, I just assumed it was a continuation of our public debate. 2. Having apologized, I must now beg to differ with you on this library copyright shell game. My librarian always told me that the only stupid question is the one not asked, it seems you don't agree. What you don't want to concede is the fact that authors are getting short changed by the present US System. What you also don't want to concede is the fact that the library doesn't have to seek the author's permission to do so. It is very easy to color a librarian as a thief in that case. Do I believe librarians are thieves? No, that would be silly. I belive the present system needs to be tweaked a little. Am I for artist's rights? Of course, I'm working on a CD myself. Are Napster users thieves? No. The recording industry is mud slinging, they are afraid of change, Universal fears losing it's monopoly. I will refrain kill filing you just in case you have a change of heart and wish to debate the issue in a civil tone. jason and jill wrote: > On Thu, 13 Jul 2000, Ted wrote: > > > So let me get this straight, you and every member of your community chip in tax money that goes > > toward the purchase of one or two copies of any given book at market price, then the book is shared by > > every member of your community (what is that 2 or 3 thousand people?) and the author gets royalties > > from the purchase of 1 or 2 books, is that roughly how it works? > > > > jason and jill wrote: > > > > > Moron, the library paid the royalties. > > > > Are you really this stupid, or just annoying? > > 1) The message I sent you was private mail. > > 2) Copyright. Equals copy plus right. Right to copy. Got it? Library > buys copy from publisher. Library makes no copies. Only copy anyone > uses is the one copy the library bought, unless library buys two copies, > then people use two copies. Library buys three copies, three people can > check out time. All copies paid for. No copies not paid for. If > people want to have more copies borrowed at once, library BUYS more > copies. Moronic ted lame attempt at allusion no work b/c in nitwit ted > example one person buys and others make many copies. People make > copies, violate copyright--right to make copies. Library doesn't make > copies--no violate copyright. > > Ted put in killfile. Ted stupid. > > Jason ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 09:36:48 -0400 From: Joseph Zitt Subject: Re: Spamster Spasms On Thu, Jul 13, 2000 at 02:05:24AM -0400, jason and jill wrote: > Are you really this stupid, or just annoying? I think this is pushing the edge of Ecto's general flame-free nature. Please count to ten and breathe, folks. - -- |> ~The only thing that is not art is inattention~ --- Marcel Duchamp <| | jzitt@metatronpress.com http://www.metatronpress.com/jzitt | | Latest CD: Jerusaklyn http://www.mp3.com/josephzitt | | Comma: Voices of New Music Silence: the John Cage Discussion List | ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 10:40:40 -0400 From: Ted Subject: Re: spamster spasms Tom Ditto wrote: > > > In my reality, there is a huge difference between patents (such as the purported > IBM software licenses. He would have better said "Microsoft") and copyrights > such as (p). > > The diatribe above is a perfect example of how Spamsters are justing acting out > mindlessly. Their real motivation is to get their music for free, and they're > prepared to get unreal themselves. For these burpsters, whatever rationalization > works will suffice for the moment, and the illegal downloads go on and on. Spamsters? Burpsters? Illegal downloads? Sticks and stones may break our bones. > > I've always found that fascists and anarchists meet in their belief that they > can steal whatever they can get away with. In the former philosophy, if you have > the mob properly organized, you can bully your way into the victim's store and > take whatever you want. In the latter, the victim has no right to own anything, > so theft is perfectly acceptable. In either case, the end result is that > property rights are subverted from their original intent and become subject to > the whim of the moment. So we can add Fascist to the long list of names the RIAA is calling the Napster community. This must explain Universal's declaration of war on the Germans. I had thought Mr. Bronfman was just drunk. btw- Say what you want about Mussolini, he did keep the trains running on time. > I've been reading recently about the invention of democracy in Athens 2600 years > ago, Is this a book you got from the library? > and it is interesting to see how it went through spasms from anarachy to > repression until it landed on a system where private property was carefully > segregated from public resources. The evolution took this small community (about > 20,000 people) on a hill about 200 years. The resolution of the current dilemma > of a public utility (the internet) with the indisputable right of a creative > artist to own her/his work bears some similarity. What we should be careful > about is the lesson to be learned from these Greeks who found themselves for a > while under what is now called Draconian law, where every infraction, no matter > how trivial, was punished extraordinarily, typically by execution. Don't get me > wrong, I'm not expecting Buchanan to be elected president and mandate that > everyone who tests positive for unpatriotic DNA be put to death, but I do see > the potential for some wild swings from the current liberties we all enjoy on > the internet to some government repression due to the Napster situation. > Those liberties you refer to were bought by anarchists bullying their way into America's indigenous people's store and taking whatever they wanted. God bless America. > > People who rationalize their theft have a negative impact on everyone else, > because until they are reined in, the laws controlling them will not be > considered harsh enough. Physician heal thyself. You are arguing for the laws enacted by a governing body who did exactly everything their laws proscribe. You are rationalizing their theft by arguing the rule of their law. (I hope you can see the humor here) > All we need are these insulting epithets like "Fuck the > lawyers" to get the lawyers to show some of the metal under their velvet gloves. > Then we'll see who gets all fucked up. 20 million Napster users (according to Napster CEO Hank Barry) against how many lawyers? We'll be out in the parking lot. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 10:48:02 -0400 (EDT) From: jason and jill Subject: Re: Spamster Spasms On Thu, 13 Jul 2000, Joseph Zitt wrote: > On Thu, Jul 13, 2000 at 02:05:24AM -0400, jason and jill wrote: > > > Are you really this stupid, or just annoying? > > I think this is pushing the edge of Ecto's general flame-free nature. Yeah, it is. > Please count to ten and breathe, folks. Reminder always appreciated. I've counted to ten and procmailed ted to /dev/null to remove the temptation. Jason ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 10:56:33 -0400 (EDT) From: josh burnett Subject: Re: spamster spasms On Thu, 13 Jul 2000, Ted wrote: > So we can add Fascist to the long list of names the RIAA is calling the Napster community. *sigh* You seem to keep doing this, Ted - when somebody disagrees with you about Napster, you blame their opinion on the RIAA. The RIAA didn't make that statement, a member of the Ecto mailing list did. I appreciate your opinion, but did it ever occur to you that somebody could simply disagree with you? You seem to want to say that everyone who does has been brainwashed by the RIAA or the big music companies. Well, I disagree with you, and I've never read anything the RIAA's said about Napster, and I'm the last person in the world to defend the actions of corporations. But I also happen to believe that intellectual property is one of the fundamental principles of a free society, and that Napster threatens intellectual property. > Is this a book you got from the library? Okay, now you're just getting on people's nerves. We've already gone over the library thing. It's apples and oranges. Get over it. > 20 million Napster users (according to Napster CEO Hank Barry) against how many lawyers? > We'll be out in the parking lot. Great logic there - if a lot of people commit a crime, it must be okay. *sigh* Nobody would expect a carpenter or or a doctor or a factory worker to give their work away for free on the Internet. Musicians shouldn't have to either. I will not say anything else on this subject....I will not say anything else on this subject...I will not say anythign else on this subject... jcb Josh Burnett * http://www.freespeech.org/jcb/index.html (home) http://www.freespeech.org/jcb/dontsay/index.html (journal) AIM: joshjackal / ICQ: 23051834 "It's one of my faults that I can't quell my past" - Aimee Mann ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 12:19:07 -0400 From: Ted Subject: Re: spamster spasms josh burnett wrote: > On Thu, 13 Jul 2000, Ted wrote: > > > So we can add Fascist to the long list of names the RIAA is calling the Napster community. > > *sigh* You seem to keep doing this, Ted - when somebody disagrees with you > about Napster, you blame their opinion on the RIAA. The RIAA didn't make > that statement, a member of the Ecto mailing list did. I appreciate your > opinion, but did it ever occur to you that somebody could simply disagree > with you? I feel that if a person can use the highly inflammatory term "thief" about me, I can use the subtly more inflammatory term "RIAA" about them. Please allow me my slings and arrows if you allow them theirs. > You seem to want to say that everyone who does has been > brainwashed by the RIAA or the big music companies. I seem to want to say that the RIAA has encouraged their employees to go public on the matter and has supplied them with a list of "talking points" to raise in the media. One talking point list encourages (and this should be obvious) is to use the term "thief" as often as possible to encourage a prejudice among anyone who does not have a completely formed opinion. In other words, the shoe seems to fit. When a whole community of industry insiders are using the same vocabulary, don't you think that there might be a conspiracy? I have put myself into the discussion for just the opposite reason, my fear that all the RIAA's hired guns are going to win the public debate simply because the Napster Community doesn't have enough hired guns, aside from their CEO and a handful of lobbyists. Seagram / Universal's campaign is much more sleek than Napster's and much bigger, and I personally believe MP3 and decentralized internet is progress. I am hoping as the debate reaches congress more MP3 supporters will come forward to debate the hired guns. I do believe there are individuals such as yourself who have freely come to the decision that Napster = Theft, however the source of that propaganda was clearly the RIAA. > Well, I disagree with > you, and I've never read anything the RIAA's said about Napster, and I'm > the last person in the world to defend the actions of corporations. But I > also happen to believe that intellectual property is one of the > fundamental principles of a free society, And I agree with you on that fundamental principal... to a point.... > and that Napster threatens > intellectual property. > At this point we part ways. > > > Is this a book you got from the library? > > Okay, now you're just getting on people's nerves. We've already gone over > the library thing. It's apples and oranges. Get over it. Although it was intended to be humor, I don't think it's apples and oranges, and I'm willing to bet others don't either. It is a subtle point that goes right to the heart of the matter, the olde garde's irrational fear of the future. > > > > 20 million Napster users (according to Napster CEO Hank Barry) against how many lawyers? > > We'll be out in the parking lot. > > Great logic there - if a lot of people commit a crime, it must be > okay. *sigh* > It was a joke. Beneath the joke was the earnest belief that a decent agreement will come out of a meaningful debate and less name calling. It's hard to have one, but I haven't given up. > > Nobody would expect a carpenter or or a doctor or a factory worker to give > their work away for free on the Internet. Musicians shouldn't have to > either. Once again I agree with you to a point, but no artist should expect the wages Metallica makes (for example) for their work. Art becomes perverse when it is driven by economics. It wants to be free. > I will not say anything else on this subject....I will not say anything > else on this subject...I will not say anythign else on this subject... Thank you for your civility. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 12:11:11 -0500 From: WretchAwry Subject: Re: Spamster Spasms I'm surprised no one's mentioned yesterday's Congressional hearings, so I thought I'd better give a URL to an overview of what happened in case, well, no heard about it. :-) (This URL includes links to the witness statements) http://www.inside.com/story/Story_Cached/0,2770,6643_9,00.html At 07:01 PM 7/10/2000 -0400, three damons wrote: >Steve VanDevender wrote: > > > Some uses are clearly very ethical (such as only downloading MP3s of > > stuff they already own, > >why the HELL would someone want to do that when >shareware mp3 rippers are widely available and don't >require 20 mintues to download a song and don't require being online? I have DSL, am online 24/7 and it only takes me a couple of minutes to download a song if the other person has cable or better. 90% of the music I've downloaded I presently own or have owned in the past. It takes more time (for me) to rip a song than to download it, and besides, my ripper is constantly busy making mp3s of my collection. I'd rather be downloading Milla's The Divine Comedy to listen to while my ripper is busy mp3'ing The Banderas or The Sallyangie or Lost In The Stars. Another aspect is that we still haven't hooked up so that I can rip mp3s from my LPs. I have over 1000 LPs, and there are many that I've never seen (or been able to obtain) on CD. Some never have been released on CD. If I see a song that I love that I have on vinyl, you bet I'll be downloading it in a heartbeat, 1) because I want to hear these things again, and 2) because when the time comes that I *can* make mp3s from vinyl, I'll be spending my time on those things that are fairly rare, such as Santra, Sonoko, 17 Pygmies, About 9 Times, Lee Morse, Valaida Snow, etc., etc.. One more aspect, for me personally, is singles. When I was but a wee teenybopper, I had an awesome singles collection. Over the years and through the myriad moves, most of those singles got lost, stolen, given away, cracked, warped or just plain destroyed. I feel no pangs of guilt for downloading songs I once bought. One for instance, I owned Bloodrock's "DOA" on a 7" single and I figured I'd never hear it again, but you bet I squealed with glee and downloaded it when I saw it on Napster (so, it wasn't as great as I remembered it, but...). A big chunk of my "Oldies" folder consists of songs I owned on singles. Beyond that, I've downloaded things that I was curious about, and really have discovered some wonderful new (to me) music. From Loop Guru to Qntal, Julie London to Laura Fygi, Googoosh to Louis Prima and Keely Smith. I've bought more music in the past month than I have in the last 5 years combined! Napster has gotten me excited about music again. Napster has even gotten me to do something that I'd never done before, in the 11 years that I've been on the Internet, and that's buy music via mail order. I saw on Napster that Pitch-A-Tent Records has just released an album of rarities, outtakes and live songs by my beloved Camper Van Beethoven, *and* that Camper's old violin player Jonathan has a new album out too. I sent off a money order the very next day for both of them. Napster as it exists now isn't going to last very much longer. No matter what happens with the pending lawsuits, it's bound to turn into a pay service in the near future. If, and this is a big if, Napster is crushed like a bug because of the litigation, the idea and thrill of it simply will not go away. In that case, we Napster lovers will just have to bide our time (or use Gnutella...ugh) until Sealand opens for business. Can't wait for that! (http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.07/) Napster has gotten me excited about sharing music again. Strange that my sharing music was in essence the reason this mailing list got started, and how so many people, at one point in time, learned about so many artists because of my sharing and my encouraging others to share (which they did!!). It was ok then, but not now? There are people here (and, no, I refuse to get into a tiff or a flame war with them personally) who thought I was pretty ok at one time, but now see me as a low down, dirty thief, who ought to have my door batter-rammed down, my computer confiscated and my self be hauled off to jail, at the very least. I'm sure drawing and quartering would be a pretty good thing too. Whatever. I know my heart is pure. Vickie ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 14:31:14 -0400 (EDT) From: jburka@min.net Subject: Re: Spamster Spasms vickie sez: > Napster has gotten me excited about sharing music again. Strange > that my sharing music was in essence the reason this mailing list > got started, and how so many people, at one point in time, learned > about so many artists because of my sharing and my encouraging > (which they did!!). It was ok then, but not now? We still share our insights about music here. We don't have to violate copyright to do it. Many of the last bunch of discs I've bought have been because of recommendations on ecto. If a description of something intrigued me -- especially if it was from someone whose opinion I trust -- I went to an artist or store website, downloaded samples which the artist had made available, and made a determination for myself. This is sharing new finds, this is sampling MP3s online before making a purchase, this is supporting an artist. At what point was it necessary for someone to disrepect the artist and their copyright by putting the entire album online for easy searching and downloading via napster? Why on earth would you trust the average 'net user to do the right thing and purchase an album, and even if you did, why usurp the artist's right to do things the way they want them done?! You're right, Vickie, I received tapes from you and I'm grateful that you shared music with me -- especially Happy. But you never dubbed any Happy albums for me, and you never gave me an album in a format that I could easily turn into a CD, which has been my preferred media for almost 17 years now. You also never gave me anything that I could share with 20 million people with no effort and no loss of quality. I believe that there is a significant distinction between the two acts. Why is that hard to see? > but now see me as a low down, dirty thief, who ought to have my door > batter-rammed down, my computer confiscated and my self be hauled off > to jail, at the very least. When I first heard about napster many months ago, I looked at, decided that it conflicted with the ethics by which I try to live (which includes supporting indie artists to the extent that I can), and removed it from my harddrive without up- or downloading anything. I'm responsible for my actions, and I'm not interested in enabling others who may be less scrupulous than I. Do I think Napster is inherently evil? Actually, no. But I think it enables people to easily do things I find at the very least distateful. > Whatever. I know my heart is pure. Fine. What, exactly, do you have to say about the other 20 million users? This whole argument is beyond tired, and I'm a little surprised that it's still going on here. jeff ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 13:33:26 -0700 From: "Mieu d'Iscalio Sedai" Subject: Indisciplined Lucy and some other comments Well, Napster seems like the topic of the moment, but I'd rather refrain from giving my own judgments. Anyway, the discussion here has been very informative to me, and in general much more intelligent than other discussions of the sort I have seen. Even if I'm not participating, I'm learning a lot. So thanks all for that! I don't remember who it was who brought up this band, but I bought _About the Black Eyed Girl_ and it has become one of my most favorite albums ever! I just really dig the message of the whole album and the characters involved in it (Lucy and Aladdin are people that could have come straight out of my black, convoluted mind!) However, I am new to the whole prog rock / prog metal genre and would like some more recommendations for someone who enjoyed Indisciplined Lucy a LOT. Since I don't know if this music is considered "Ecto" or not, it might be better if anyone with any suggestions could mail to me privately at mieu@ix.netcom.com -- thanks! Another thing... I am really, really sorry to hear about Happy being dropped from Samson. "Many Worlds Are Born Tonight" is the reason that I'm on this list today. My taste is different from the norm here, I guess, because I enjoyed Happy's newest album best and it never fails to inspire my writing. I tend not to be as inspired by the quieter, folk-like acoustic stuff that a lot of you enjoy, though I will still marvel at the talents of the musicians that fill the pantheons of Ecto regulars. Maybe someone could point me out to a mailing list with a broader taste in music? I love the discussions here, but I don't feel as encouraged to ramble about my own musical discoveries because 1) I feel so uninformed and idiotic compared to the rest of you and 2) my taste in music seems to be entirely different, or maybe just a little too eclectic. My favorites range from the current Indisciplined Lucy craze; to Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds; to VNV Nation and Apoptygma Berzerk; to more well artists like Madonna, Garbage and Metallica (who is generally disliked on this list, I see); to Ecto favorites like Loreena, Sarah McLachlan and Tori; to classical piano (I love Chopin... I've played off and on since 2nd grade and love trying his pieces whenever I have the chance) and flamenco guitar (Paco de Lucia!! *swoon*); to Cirque du Soleil (saw _Mystere_ and _O_ live in Las Vegas) and to Malice Mizer (a Japanese rock band that has become one of my biggest music obsessions to date). There's also Diamanda Galas, whom I mentioned once before, and Portishead, whose _Dummy_ is practically the soundtrack of my dark alter-ego. Basically, I try not to stay within one genre because I know that I'll be missing out on the music of some other insanely creative soul if I become too selective! Sure, there's some things I listen to that I rarely ever like, like folk rock, rap, country and Britney Spears/Backstreet Boys type music... but I'm not at all against trying! I actually really LIKED Lauryn Hill's _Miseducation_, and I wouldn't have even thought of listening to it if I just kept thinking that all rap is bad. Anyway (whew! I have this tendency to ramble!) ...all I really want is to be exposed to as broad a selection of new (and obscure!) music as possible, by people who have a similar philosophy to me. Anyone know another forum where I can possibly be enlightened in that way? Again, it'd be best if you mail me privately so I don't interrupt too much in the great discussion going on here. Well, I've said enough so I guess this is it from me. Thanks for reading, if in fact you did! - -- Mieu Sedai of the Green Ajah aka the Dark Siren Sally d'Iscalio http://ecstasy.simplenet.com/mieu/ A man is less likely to become great the more he is dominated by reason: few can achieve greatness -- and none in art -- if they are not dominated by illusion. - -- Mr. Doctor of Devil Doll ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 18:20:53 -0700 From: wraith Subject: hello >hello all...i'm new to the mailing list and have been watching the >string tumbling forth for about a week...all i can say is... > >"information must be free...or we'll pay for our every word" > >and guys just because someone's not as "enlightened" or as quick on >the uptake as you happen to be. gives you no reason to be down right >nasty...god i mean that's gotta be the number one problem in this >world and the biggest problem i have with people...did you got get >that do on to other's thing... i'm not even a Christian and i got >it...let's all play nice... > >:) > >i am also sorry to hear happy is no longer on samson but then on the >other hand she was on her own long before she ever entered the chaos >of the pop music dominated "industry". as she called out to all of >us with her early siren song...so to will she call until the end of >time...and now she has so many of us singing along... > >> >>Maybe someone could point me out to a mailing list with a broader taste >>in music? I love the discussions here, but I don't feel as encouraged to >>ramble about my own musical discoveries because 1) I feel so uninformed >>and idiotic compared to the rest of you and 2) my taste in music seems >>to be entirely different, or maybe just a little too eclectic. My >>favorites range from the current Indisciplined Lucy craze; to Nick Cave >>and the Bad Seeds; to VNV Nation and Apoptygma Berzerk; to more well >>artists like Madonna, Garbage and Metallica (who is generally disliked >>on this list, I see); to Ecto favorites like Loreena, Sarah McLachlan >>and Tori; to classical piano (I love Chopin... I've played off and on >>since 2nd grade and love trying his pieces whenever I have the chance) >>and flamenco guitar (Paco de Lucia!! *swoon*); to Cirque du Soleil (saw >>_Mystere_ and _O_ live in Las Vegas) and to Malice Mizer (a Japanese >>rock band that has become one of my biggest music obsessions to date). >>There's also Diamanda Galas, whom I mentioned once before, and >>Portishead, whose _Dummy_ is practically the soundtrack of my dark >>alter-ego. Basically, I try not to stay within one genre because I know >>that I'll be missing out on the music of some other insanely creative >>soul if I become too selective! Sure, there's some things I listen to >>that I rarely ever like, like folk rock, rap, country and Britney >>Spears/Backstreet Boys type music... but I'm not at all against trying! >>I actually really LIKED Lauryn Hill's _Miseducation_, and I wouldn't >>have even thought of listening to it if I just kept thinking that all >>rap is bad. > >another mailing list may be good to be part of... but i don't think >ecto's really all about a "folk" music rhythm or even a set group of >music. happy's musics more about the feeling she give's you and >almost everyone who hears it...i've given countless copies of any >album i had to people, people from all walks of life. each one heard >the message and sang along... > >i think this mailing list is more like that..happy just showed us >with "many worlds" that she to moves in many orbits...she defies >category...and so to should the music we pass here...."cause the >needy are everyone" > >you and i seem to have a similar eclectic approach to music, as it >seems from my travels, do most of the happy fans.. happy's about >open minds open ears and open hearts...not genre's and labels and >sure as hell not record labels.(fuck off samson...ahum sorry about >that my evil twin) > >we are happy's label, each one of us... and its our job to work for >her... she's done so much for us.... > >this has been an e.mortal service announcement,,,thank you... > >to be e.mortal >emortal@emortal.org > >always remember... >"little things brake >circuitry burns >time flies while my little world turns >every day comes >everyday goes >100 years and nobody...." ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 10:40:25 -0400 From: "Sampson,Christopher" Subject: RE: Spamster Spasms No big fanfare, folks... Only mentioning it because there are a might few for whom it may be interesting... y'all know where to find me. I will indulge my impulse to say that it's mostly been fun (and strange, but strange is fun... usually). Lately, however, it's gotten tedious. I'll be here, but, I *won't* be ecto. See ya. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 11:18:39 -0700 From: phil@tiaranetworks.com Subject: FW: spamster spasms Whoo hoo! I just joined the group and find a flame war in progress. I'm keeping my head down and my tin hat on, but I wanted to address a couple of the points that Ted brought up: >>>(TED)".....Once again I agree with you to a point, but no artist should expect the wages Metallica makes (for example) for their work. Art becomes perverse when it is driven by economics. It wants to be free....." Yes, art does, and nearly always has, become perverse under economic direction. Anyone who disagrees with this has obviously never seen network TV. With virtually any mass-produced craft, once money gets involved,it's really not art any more; it's product. Ted, art (or Art, if you prefer)requires freedom of ideals; personally, I don't think artists like ANYONE should expect the wages they get for what they do (nor athletes, movie stars or Bill Gates or Pat Buchanan). There is, however, a phrase: "whatever the market will bear" - If people price themselves out of the market they have no-one to blame but themselves and their own greedy ideals, but if people are buying their product for whatever price or reason, then the authors, et al, OWN that money- it belongs to them. I recently saw a Rolls-Royce on the road with a bumper sticker; " It's not my fault you're poor". You cannot simply help yourself to another's property because you feel that they have more than they should be allowed; you're simply setting your up own opinions as the supreme arbiter of right and wrong. Personally, I think Metallica's money-grubbing actions stink, but I support the right of ownership that permits them to get whatever they can for their product. Welcome to the machine. Phil ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 22:56:37 -0400 From: three damons Subject: Re: spamster spasms Ted wrote: > > josh burnett wrote: > > > On Thu, 13 Jul 2000, Ted wrote: > > > > > So we can add Fascist to the long list of names the RIAA is calling the Napster community. > > > > *sigh* You seem to keep doing this, Ted - when somebody disagrees with you > > about Napster, you blame their opinion on the RIAA. The RIAA didn't make > > that statement, a member of the Ecto mailing list did. I appreciate your > > opinion, but did it ever occur to you that somebody could simply disagree > > with you? > > I feel that if a person can use the highly inflammatory term "thief" about me, > I can use the subtly more inflammatory term "RIAA" about them. > Please allow me my slings and arrows if you allow them theirs. the difference is one is factually accurate. you've decided that you don't like the connotations of the truth. > > You seem to want to say that everyone who does has been > > brainwashed by the RIAA or the big music companies. > > I seem to want to say that the RIAA has encouraged their employees to go public on the matter and > has supplied them with a list of "talking points" to raise in the media. One talking point list encourages > (and this should be obvious) is to use the term "thief" as often as possible to encourage a prejudice > among anyone who does not have a completely formed opinion. In other words, the shoe seems to fit. > When a whole community of industry insiders are using the same vocabulary, don't you think that there > might be a conspiracy? i hear they killed jfk too. > I have put myself into the discussion for just the opposite reason, my fear that all the RIAA's hired guns > are going to win the public debate simply because the Napster Community doesn't have enough hired guns, > aside from their CEO and a handful of lobbyists. Seagram / Universal's campaign is much more sleek than Napster's and much bigger, and I personally believe MP3 and > decentralized internet is progress. anarchy is progres sover tyrranny. niether is as good as democracy. > > Okay, now you're just getting on people's nerves. We've already gone over > > the library thing. It's apples and oranges. Get over it. > > Although it was intended to be humor, > I don't think it's apples and oranges, and I'm willing to bet others don't either. > It is a subtle point that goes right to the heart of the matter, the olde garde's > irrational fear of the future. old people aren't afraid of libraries. > > Nobody would expect a carpenter or or a doctor or a factory worker to give > > their work away for free on the Internet. Musicians shouldn't have to > > either. > > Once again I agree with you to a point, but no artist should expect the wages Metallica makes (for example) > for their work. Art becomes perverse when it is driven by economics. It wants to be free. this is the biggest bunch of bullshit i've ever seen. you talk about propoganda and you say dumb things liek this which don't exhibit any thought. [1] anything valued by poeple becomes valuable. metallica's music is valued neough to become valuable. no artist should *expect* wages like that, but no artist should be *denied* wages like that either. [2] art does not become perverse when driven by economics. some of the best drama in history has been on commercial television. some of the best music has been released on commercial labels. economics may often dilute art, but not always. worse is the implication that there's something wrong with wanting to make a living off of one's art. [3] art doesn't want to be free. that's an empty, meaningless statement. art wants nothing. people want things to be free, because then they can possess those things for free. iow, people are opposed to spending money. - -- 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. ------------------------------ End of ecto-digest V6 #200 **************************