From: owner-ecto-digest@smoe.org (ecto-digest) To: ecto-digest@smoe.org Subject: ecto-digest V6 #201 Reply-To: ecto@smoe.org Sender: owner-ecto-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-ecto-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk ecto-digest Friday, July 14 2000 Volume 06 : Number 201 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: Spamster Spasms [three damons ] Re: FW: spamster spasms [Joseph Zitt ] Re: spamster spasms [Joseph Zitt ] Re: Spamster Spasms [Joseph Zitt ] Re: Spamster Spasms [three damons ] Re: Spamster Spasms [Joseph Zitt ] Re: Spamster Spasms [three damons ] Re: Spamster Spasms [Joseph Zitt ] song lyrics!!! ["ReNeEz DaBoMb" ] Re: Spamster Spasms [three damons ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 23:06:40 -0400 From: three damons Subject: Re: Spamster Spasms WretchAwry wrote: > > 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. i find this highly disturbing. for several reasons. none of which have to do with this topic. > 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. and i think that's an acceptable aspect, though if yudistribute the songs, it's still theivery. me, i'm waiting till i can afford a cd burner for my records,and then i'll copy them i'd like the cds more, i generally don't like background hiss and pops, and don't reallyhear the difference between digital and analog. > 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. if you bought a 25 dollar book, and lost it, would you feel pangs about copying it instead of buying it again? this point came up with someone else, and he basically felt entitled to perpetual ownership of any digital product he ever purchased. > 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! me, i'm going the other way. i've been buying less music, but that's ebcause i'm trying to track down some hard to find discs recentl;y, and they're expensive. 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. not camper van inquities? that's the one i have. hasn't heard they did another one. i did manage to get a hold of their third album recently. > 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? this is a fine line. i've tried to be very clear about what i feel is okay and what i don't, and my main objection to napster is the lack of safeguards. 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, you don't bathe either? 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. > who might those people be? - -- 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: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 22:44:37 -0400 From: Joseph Zitt Subject: Re: FW: spamster spasms On Thu, Jul 13, 2000 at 11:18:39AM -0700, phil@tiaranetworks.com wrote: > Yes, art does, and nearly always has, become perverse under economic > direction. Anyone who disagrees with this has obviously never seen network > TV. A classic logical error: the assumption that a single instance of a correlation proves that it is true in other (or all) cases. > With virtually any mass-produced craft, once money gets involved,it's > really not art any more; it's product. How large a distribution is "mass-produced"? Greater than 1? Greater than one million? > 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). Is great art impossible under externally imposed ideals? What do you think of the relevant works by Shostakovitch? What amount of wages do you think would be appropriate? $1/year? $100,000/year? How would the appropriate level be determined? > 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. And are you not doing the same in the questioned statements above? > 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. - -- |> ~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 22:48:37 -0400 From: Joseph Zitt Subject: Re: spamster spasms On Thu, Jul 13, 2000 at 10:56:37PM -0400, three damons wrote: > 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. Again: Ecto has been a close to flame-free zone. Statements like these endanger that state. At least one valued listmember has already been driven off. Please mind the temperature. (And a spell-check wouldn't hurt either.) - -- |> ~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 22:56:10 -0400 From: Joseph Zitt Subject: Re: Spamster Spasms On Thu, Jul 13, 2000 at 11:06:40PM -0400, three damons wrote: > > 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. > > > i find this highly disturbing. for several reasons. > none of which have to do with this topic. I'm curious as to why you find it disturbing, since it quite closely matches my own patterns. > if you bought a 25 dollar book, and lost it, > would you feel pangs about copying it instead of buying it again? I don't think that I would. > this point came up with someone else, and he basically felt > entitled to perpetual ownership of > any digital product he ever purchased. In the course of two mishaps, I lost several thousand records, tapes, and CDs. I don't feel that the thieves have the authority to insist that I no longer have the music. If it is wrong to have a copy of a work after it is stolen, then everyone who taped an album from his collection would be morally required to erase the tape if the album were stolen. Certainly that is not the case. - -- |> ~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: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 00:13:34 -0400 From: three damons Subject: Re: Spamster Spasms Joseph Zitt wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 13, 2000 at 11:06:40PM -0400, three damons wrote: > > > > 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. > > > > > > i find this highly disturbing. for several reasons. > > none of which have to do with this topic. > > I'm curious as to why you find it disturbing, since it quite closely > matches my own patterns. > one, he has dsl. i'm jealous. two, he's online 24/7. this disturbs me because the idea of leaving your computer attached to the world available to anyone freaks me. three, he spends that much of his time ripping his own cds and has to double his efficiency with napster. god, *I'M* a music freak and i only have 800 or so cds, and i'd only rip atmost 50% of that material. > > if you bought a 25 dollar book, and lost it, > > would you feel pangs about copying it instead of buying it again? > > I don't think that I would. > > > this point came up with someone else, and he basically felt > > entitled to perpetual ownership of > > any digital product he ever purchased. > > In the course of two mishaps, I lost several thousand records, tapes, > and CDs. I don't feel that the thieves have the authority to insist > that I no longer have the music. > > If it is wrong to have a copy of a work after it is stolen, then > everyone who taped an album from his collection would be morally > required to erase the tape if the album were stolen. Certainly that > is not the case. > not to HAVE a copy, but to DESERVE *TO* copy. - -- 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: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 23:33:11 -0400 From: Joseph Zitt Subject: Re: Spamster Spasms On Fri, Jul 14, 2000 at 12:13:34AM -0400, three damons wrote: > one, he has dsl. > i'm jealous. Ah. > two, he's online 24/7. > this disturbs me because the idea of leaving your computer > attached to the world available to anyone freaks me. Go and learn about proper firewalls, etc. (I'll skip my usual pro-Linux rant :-]) > three, he spends that much of his time ripping his own cds > and has to double his efficiency with napster. So some of us are obsessed :-) > god, *I'M* a music freak and i only have 800 or so cds, > and i'd only rip atmost 50% of that material. I'd probably only rip about 25% of my collection (currently about 2000 CDs, but I get about a dozen a week). Most of it is stuff that I don't listen to often, but do tend to pull out when I want to research something on it. (I have a near-complete John Cage collection, for example.) > > If it is wrong to have a copy of a work after it is stolen, then > > everyone who taped an album from his collection would be morally > > required to erase the tape if the album were stolen. Certainly that > > is not the case. > > > > not to HAVE a copy, but to DESERVE *TO* copy. If I still owned the purchased CD, I would have the right to copy it, and thus to have a copy. When the thieves made off with the CD, did they then remove my right to make and have the copy? If so, how were they granted that authority? - -- |> ~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: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 00:39:11 -0400 From: three damons Subject: Re: Spamster Spasms Joseph Zitt wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 14, 2000 at 12:13:34AM -0400, three damons wrote: > > > one, he has dsl. > > i'm jealous. > > Ah. > > > two, he's online 24/7. > > this disturbs me because the idea of leaving your computer > > attached to the world available to anyone freaks me. > > Go and learn about proper firewalls, etc. (I'll skip my usual > pro-Linux rant :-]) i'd love to get linux, but there are so many games for a windows base. and my hard drive really isn't big enough to partition. > > three, he spends that much of his time ripping his own cds > > and has to double his efficiency with napster. > > So some of us are obsessed :-) well, i have idiot tiny speakers and a nice stereo right behind me. i want a cd burner to make mix discs, and to burn lps. > > god, *I'M* a music freak and i only have 800 or so cds, > > and i'd only rip atmost 50% of that material. > > I'd probably only rip about 25% of my collection (currently about > 2000 CDs, but I get about a dozen a week). that's just screwed up. oddly enough, virtually none of my discs are bought without me having heard part of it. and 99% of the others are from groups i have discs of. buying a dozen a week would be nice if i were RICH!!! > > > > If it is wrong to have a copy of a work after it is stolen, then > > > everyone who taped an album from his collection would be morally > > > required to erase the tape if the album were stolen. Certainly that > > > is not the case. > > > > > > > not to HAVE a copy, but to DESERVE *TO* copy. > > If I still owned the purchased CD, I would have the right to copy it, > and thus to have a copy. > > When the thieves made off with the CD, did they then remove my right to > make and have the copy? > > If so, how were they granted that authority? > your 'right to copy' was contigent upong having the object which to copy. you HAVE no right to copy, technically speaking. what you have are allowances under 'fair use' to copy a work you had purchased. you aren't *entitled* to making that copy, you are *allowed* to, to make a semantic distinction. it also depends on what you're buying. with software, you're essentially purchasing a [permanent?] lease of use. with artistic products, you're purchasing a hard copy of the art, a physical thing. does this answer your question? i'm not sure. - -- 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: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 00:11:20 -0400 From: Joseph Zitt Subject: Re: Spamster Spasms On Fri, Jul 14, 2000 at 12:39:11AM -0400, three damons wrote: > > I'd probably only rip about 25% of my collection (currently about > > 2000 CDs, but I get about a dozen a week). > > > that's just screwed up. > > oddly enough, virtually none of my discs are bought > without me having heard part of it. > and 99% of the others are from groups i have discs of. > > buying a dozen a week would be nice if i were RICH!!! Rich is relative :-) While I get things without having heard them, I'm somewhat consciously building a library. As a composer myself, it's good to have reference texts about, and the Washington DC public library system is not exactly known for its devotion to experimental music :-). I get most of my CDs from forcedexposure.com (though since I dropped through the Bay Area last week, I hit Amoeba Music in SF and Berkeley and Rasputin in Berkeley and got about 20, mostly used). It beats having a drug habit :-) > your 'right to copy' was contigent upong having the object which to > copy. > > you HAVE no right to copy, technically speaking. what you have are > allowances under 'fair use' to copy > a work you had purchased. > > you aren't *entitled* to making that copy, you are *allowed* to, > to make a semantic distinction. But who gave the thieves the authority to determine what I am allowed to do? > it also depends on what you're buying. > > > with software, you're essentially purchasing a [permanent?] lease of > use. If someone steals my Microsoft Office CD, am I thus morally bound to erase it from my hard drive? > with artistic products, you're purchasing a hard copy of the art, > a physical thing. This assumes that "artistic products" refers to a very narrow subset of the visual arts, and ignores all other media. > does this answer your question? i'm not sure. A music CD is neither of the above, so it really doesn't address the issue. - -- |> ~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: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 00:20:24 -0500 From: "ReNeEz DaBoMb" Subject: song lyrics!!! Now in the spirit of the list.. I thought I would try to start a new thread... so heres the question(s)... 1. What is your favorite Happy song lyric... 2. WHat is your least favortie... here's mine... My Fave. is "I am a scary girl, with a scary mind..." my least fave. is "The woman just stared whlie the cat lay dieing, uh" ~Renee N.P. Matrix ST...I love the def Tones!!! N.R. Jack Kerouac's On the Road - -- We have the sky to think about, and the world to lie apon... and to live's to fly...so don't ask why, just shake the dust off of your wings and the tears out of your eyes. ~Townes Van Zandt (Thanx again Townes...) - -- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 01:22:45 -0400 From: three damons Subject: Re: Spamster Spasms Joseph Zitt wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 14, 2000 at 12:39:11AM -0400, three damons wrote: > > > > I'd probably only rip about 25% of my collection (currently about > > > 2000 CDs, but I get about a dozen a week). > > > > > > that's just screwed up. > > > > oddly enough, virtually none of my discs are bought > > without me having heard part of it. > > and 99% of the others are from groups i have discs of. > > > > buying a dozen a week would be nice if i were RICH!!! > > Rich is relative :-) > > While I get things without having heard them, I'm somewhat consciously > building a library. As a composer myself, it's good to have reference > texts about, and the Washington DC public library system is not exactly > known for its devotion to experimental music :-). I get most of my CDs > from forcedexposure.com (though since I dropped through the Bay Area > last week, I hit Amoeba Music in SF and Berkeley and Rasputin in > Berkeley and got about 20, mostly used). whats forcedexposure? > It beats having a drug habit :-) > > > > your 'right to copy' was contigent upong having the object which to > > copy. > > > > you HAVE no right to copy, technically speaking. what you have are > > allowances under 'fair use' to copy > > a work you had purchased. > > > > you aren't *entitled* to making that copy, you are *allowed* to, > > to make a semantic distinction. > > But who gave the thieves the authority to determine what I am > allowed to do? when you buy a car, it comes with a warranty. who gives thieves the right to deny you your warranty just because they steal your car? > > it also depends on what you're buying. > > > > > > with software, you're essentially purchasing a [permanent?] lease of > > use. > > If someone steals my Microsoft Office CD, am I thus morally bound to > erase it from my hard drive? sigh. i JUST explained that. you're leasing use. in theory, the cd-rom is unimportant. the copy on you comuter is unimportant. liscening agreements generally specify how many computers you are allowed to use the software you are leasing on. besides, i think you're morally bound to do everythng in your power to topple microsoft. since you asked. > > with artistic products, you're purchasing a hard copy of the art, > > a physical thing. > > This assumes that "artistic products" refers to a very narrow subset > of the visual arts, and ignores all other media. no it doesn't. you purchase a hard copy of music when you buy a cd. you prucahse a hard copy of a movie when you buy a dvd or vhs tape.--- wait, wait. now, i realize the semantics you're using, or thin i do. i used 'hard copy' here specifically because ithink purchasing a copy of an album over the internet would be different in ways i didn't want to discuss. looking at your question, perhaps i should have said 'physical copy'. > > does this answer your question? i'm not sure. > > A music CD is neither of the above, so it really doesn't address the > issue. > the issue. if you buy a cd, are you allowed, morally or legally, to make a copy of it for personal use? yes. now, if you don't OWN a copy of said cd, but still have purchased in at one time in your life, are you also allowed? me, i think that answer is no. - -- 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 #201 **************************