From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V8 #46 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Tuesday, February 9 1999 Volume 08 : Number 046 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: Atlas Sneezed [Joel Mullins ] Re: Atlas Sneezed [Capuchin ] Re: death of the record companies ["JH3" ] Re: Atlas Sneezed [Joel Mullins ] Re: R.E.M. & "Party of Five" [MARKEEFE@aol.com] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 09 Feb 1999 17:28:37 -0800 From: Joel Mullins Subject: Re: Atlas Sneezed > Joel Mullins pontificated: > >Well, I think you're overlooking the underlying theme in Rand's works. > >Her main point is that people should be paid according to their merit, > >instead of their need. This goes against the people who would say "Bill > >Gates is already a rich bastard, why does he need another 10 million?" > >But Rand would say that it doesn't matter if he needs it or not. All > >that matters is that he earned the money and so he deserves it. I > >completely agree with this. > > I think it's bullshit of the highest order. How does Gates > "merit" getting paid more money in the time it takes to give his nose a > good picking than most of us will see in a year? Does Gates work > harder than Mexican migrant workers who pick strawberries and get paid > 18 cents a pound? Not likely. Does Gates put himself in danger, > routinely facing death the way firefighters do? Nope. Is the upper > class somehow superior, morally and intelectually, to starving Somalians? > I sincerely doubt it. Come on, man. What exactly are you saying here? You don't think Bill Gates should get paid what he does? Okay, let's give Bill Gates a small salary of $30,000 a year. And with the leftover money, we can afford to pay those Mexican migrant workers $25,000 a year. Do you think that would be a better world? How old are you, Michael? And are you in college or attending college right now? If so, why do you this? Is it just because you want money, or is it because you want to improve yourself and your situation? Well, think about what the world would be like if you started paying everyone the same. How many people would stop trying to improve themselves? How many people would stop trying to improve the society in which they live. Why go to college or study or invent shit when you can make the same amount of money picking strawberries. If you want to return to a predominantly agricultural society, then I guess you've got some good ideas. Considering you have a computer and use the internet and most likely have Windows, I don't see how you can say any of those things. Do you ever buy CDs? Do you drive a car? What about the telephone? Do you use one of those? Did these Mexican migrant workers give us these things? I don't fucking think so! To use your example, they gave us strawberries. And there's not much demand for strawberries. I mean, I can live without strawberries, but cars and telephones and computers have made this world a much better place. Our world has become more effecient and more enjoyable. Have you ever seen a Robyn show, Michael? Well, if you start paying people according to what they need, then you never will again. You have to pay people according to what they can provide for the world. Bill Gates is no better than those guys picking strawberries. However, he did give us Microsoft, which happens to be a lot more valuable than a few pounds of strawberries. I'm really sorry that there are people starving in Somalia, but I don't think it's my moral responsibility to save them. I don't think it's Bill Gates' responsibility either. Now of course, you'd think that if someone had as much money as Bill Gates does, then that person would try to help out people in need. No one needs that much money. So, you might as well give away most of it and try to do some good. But if I ever become a multi-billionaire and someone tells me that it's my responsibility to use it in certain way, then I'm gonna tell that person to go fuck himself! > Are all of the people who go to bed hungry and > worry about their rent guilty of some original sin, and it's the > up to the rich to administer punishment? Of course not! Can any of you > come up with one rational reason, based on ethical principles, why things > should be the way they are? Just because he HAS it doesn't mean he's > EARNED it. I mean, jeez, the money didn't just materialize out of the > ether. It came from somewhere; there are all kinds of perfectly legal > ways to screw people over and wring them dry of resources. But that > doesn't mean they're right. You've got a good point here. The money didn't just materialize. It came from the pockets of everyone on this list and everyone else in the world who are reaping the benefits of Microsoft. Let's be honest about who gave Bill Gates his money. We did. > I have recently noticed a very old trend by people in privileged > positions towards self-congratulation, and especially among white males. > How did you get that massive fortune? With elbow grease! I pulled myself > up by my bootstraps! It's not good enough for us to be fortunate; people > who have more than others have to be cut of a better cloth, too. I find > it revolting that these guys not only accumlate so much, but manage to so > effectively perpetuate this myth through capitalism that they are "worth > it". I have yet to meet any human being who was worth, in any way, 1000 > times more than any other human being. As the saying goes, we are all > just human. Yes, but we don't pay for a human being. We pay for a product. I can go down to my local record store and buy an old Billy Joel CD for around $9. But if I want to buy the *N Sync Christmas album, I'll most likely pay at least $13. Is that because *N Sync are better people, or "cut of a better cloth," as you say? No. Their CD is more expensive because there's more of a demand for it. Millions of screaming little girls are willing to pay $13 for the *N Sync album, whereas there aren't near as many people who are willing to pay that much for Billy Joel's Turnstiles. It doesn't matter whether or not you think *N Sync "deserves" their fame and fortunes. I'll be the first to say that they suck dick. But millions of little girls seem to disagree. Now, I'll agree that people who are born into extremely rich families, who never have to work a day in their life, do not deserve the fortune they have. But Bill Gates did "earn" his money. As far as I know, he wasn't rich when he was born. And I've also read interviews with him about how he treats his kids, or will treat them when he has them. (I can't remember if he has kids.) But he's always said that he would treat his kids as if he didn't have all that money. Basically, Bill Gates' children are not gonna just sit around like Billy Madison for the rest of their lives. > The flip side of the semi-conscious attitude that rich people > are hard working, upstanding, and deserving is that poor people are > stupid, slothful, and morally questionable. How many of us have > travelled through a run-down section of town and actively thought about > the location of our tire iron (or kryptonite lock, in my case), should > we need it in the case that we were mugged or assaulted or something? I > am afraid to say that I have to raise my hand here. This seems to be the > way of things in a society that asks questions like: "What were you > wearing the night he raped you? Did you tease or incite him?" Our > Calvinism runs deep, and it tells us that the victims are deserving of > their fate. I completely agree with this. I never said rich people were better or more intelligent. I better quit now. I have to write a paper or I'm gonna end up picking strawberries in Mexico for 18 cents a pound. Later Joel ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 16:14:14 -0800 (PST) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: Atlas Sneezed WOAH! I have to step in here (of course). One second. On Tue, 9 Feb 1999, Joel Mullins wrote: > Come on, man. What exactly are you saying here? You don't think Bill > Gates should get paid what he does? He's a thief and a liar and a cheat. He broke as many laws as billions he made. The government let him do it because a monopoly is good for emerging technology, but bad for business in general. So now it's payback time. > How old are you, Michael? And are you in > college or attending college right now? If so, why do you this? Is it > just because you want money, or is it because you want to improve > yourself and your situation? This is just rude and insulting. > Well, think about what the world would be > like if you started paying everyone the same. How many people would > stop trying to improve themselves? How many people would stop trying to > improve the society in which they live. This is a fairly valid point. It would take a generation or so to motivate people and some would still not be motivated. I think the unmotivated/motivated ratio would be too high to sustain things if folks were paid according to need. > Why go to college or study or > invent shit when you can make the same amount of money picking > strawberries. Have you ever fucking picked strawberries? I have. It's how we got by every summer. It's SHIT work. I'd rather go to college and inventing things any day. You get up at three or four. You get to the field before sun-up because strawberry season is summertime. You work all fucking day in the heat and you make about thirty dollars. I'm not blaming anyone for those working conditions because that's how strawberries grow and that's what the farmers can afford (they have land and pay heaps for it... they have to take a hit when the crop is bad, etc.) and that's what people will pay for strawberries. I assume its similar with other crops. > Considering you have > a computer and use the internet and most likely have Windows, I don't > see how you can say any of those things. I don't think Michael has a computer. eddie doesn't. But I have several and easily make up for it. > Do you ever buy CDs? Do you > drive a car? What about the telephone? Do you use one of those? Did > these Mexican migrant workers give us these things? I don't fucking > think so! To use your example, they gave us strawberries. And there's > not much demand for strawberries. I mean, I can live without > strawberries, but cars and telephones and computers have made this world > a much better place. Man, those farm workers give us cheap food so that we have the time and money to buy shit like computers and telephones and cars. If they stopped, you'd starve (or at least have to give up most of your nice things in exchange for the daily foraging). > You have to pay people according to what they can provide for > the world. Bill Gates is no better than those guys picking > strawberries. However, he did give us Microsoft, which happens to be a > lot more valuable than a few pounds of strawberries. To whom? Man, Microsoft is a really fucking bad example. > Now of course, you'd think that if someone had > as much money as Bill Gates does, then that person would try to help out > people in need. No one needs that much money. So, you might as well > give away most of it and try to do some good. But if I ever become a > multi-billionaire and someone tells me that it's my responsibility to > use it in certain way, then I'm gonna tell that person to go fuck > himself! That's perfectly fair. Nobody can tell you what to do with your stuff. But how much do you have to have before you will start giving to others? In all seriousness, I ask. If you have several billion dollars, how much would you give to people in need? Me, I'd give most of it. Easy. No contest. I wouldn't even think about keeping it. And believe you me, I'd keep a heap. I'd have toys and shit like you wouldn't believe. But I'd give most of it away. > You've got a good point here. The money didn't just materialize. It > came from the pockets of everyone on this list and everyone else in the > world who are reaping the benefits of Microsoft. Let's be honest about > who gave Bill Gates his money. We did. Not me. Not a fucking dime. And I've taken plenty from him. > But Bill Gates did "earn" his money. As far as I know, he wasn't rich > when he was born. And I've also read interviews with him about how he > treats his kids, or will treat them when he has them. (I can't remember > if he has kids.) But he's always said that he would treat his kids as > if he didn't have all that money. Basically, Bill Gates' children are > not gonna just sit around like Billy Madison for the rest of their > lives. You believe this? Bill Gates said he was going to found a humanitarian organization to improve things worldwide. Um... then he bought the Bettman Archive. Same week. I highly recommend someone like you kick back and watch Triumph of the Nerds. You get a more accurate idea of where Bill Gates got his money. And oh yeah... go to a Microsoft sales meeting. You'll see who's getting screwed. > I better quit now. I have to write a paper or I'm gonna end up picking > strawberries in Mexico for 18 cents a pound. Exactly (except you'd pick them in Oregon). I just wanted to put the other bracket on my position. Jeme. ________________________________________________________ J A Brelin Capuchin ________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 18:33:29 -0600 From: "JH3" Subject: Re: death of the record companies Dammit, these are getting waaaaay too lengthy. So, uh...anyway: >> What worries me is that we're teaching our beloved >> little brats to get everything they want from teevee, the internet, etc. >> at such an early age, they'll see *that* as the normal way to obtain >> almost anything. >Why does this WORRY you? That totally confuses me. You mean *you're* not worried about the idea of staking not only our entire economy, but our entire culture as well, on a disparate collection of computer hardware and programs written by people like *me*? I wish I had your confidence, brudda! But it also worries me in the sense that culture continues to become more and more disposable. Once a work of art goes from being a collectible artifact that you have to pay for to mere software that you can have for nothing, people tend to lose respect for it, and what it took to create it. And then they lose respect for the people who create it, and finally for the quality of the work itself. And finally you reach the point nobody wants to actually *do* it. But maybe that's just me. Like I say, I'm a pessimist. >> There's also the moral argument of people paying >> musicians for their work because it's their intellectual property >> and it's the right thing to do, but I doubt that'll deter people >> much longer. >Don't you trade tapes? How is that different? It's the artist saying (in >best cases) "Here is my product. Do with it what you will." And you do >just that. Do you pay the artist for their work? Not really. You go see >them when they're in town... you buy the record (but most of the money >either goes to the record company or into costs of production)... but >where are you paying the artist for their intellectual property? I'm not, I suppose. I never said *I* was moral, did I? (Or even that it would deter me.) I guess I don't feel so bad about trading live tapes because the artist didn't put any of his/her own money into producing the artifact, and they were doing the show anyway. I might also trade tapes of recordings that are out of print, and who knows, maybe if I tell a few people and help get the ball rolling, they'll see there's a market out there and reissue the stuff legitimately. I even try to avoid buying commercial bootlegs, unless they're XTC-related, in which case I can't resist because I MUST HAVE EVERYTHING. BTW: I drove to work today in a vehicle powered solely by my own sense of self-satisfaction. >How much >money is Robyn getting for Robynbase? I know you're not making any, but >you are using his intellectual property and repackaging it to fill a >different consumer demand. Does he deserve payment? You want to pony up? Ouch! Well, aside from the fact that none of us are making any money from it, what we're repackaging is information that's either readily obtainable in the public domain, or in the case of lyrics and guitar tabs, stuff we've all worked out for ourselves, mostly. Hopefully he'll see it (if he ever bothers to look) as the promotional tool it essentially is. And I suppose he *would* deserve payment, if money were changing hands. But it won't. (Admittedly, I'll personally be able to use it as a nice demo site.) Oh, and hey, don't let the cat out of the bag before it's properly suffocated! >Well, you did get my point. But I think the biggest reason artists want >control over their product is the money they might make on it. If there's >no money in selling recordings, there's no reason to maintain control. Sure, some artists probably don't care, and might care even less if they weren't making any money. But for many of them I have to believe that things like the packaging and the track order, and most importantly the idea of keeping a particular group of songs together in one place, would be essential to maintaning their own idea of quality, even if they were making the material available for free. Take away that control and you just get a lot of pissed-off artists. Think "Dune, The Long Version" here. (Okay, bad example.) >> It might not happen in our lifetimes, but eventually the infrastructure >> will exist to make it possible to download the equivalent of an >> entire audio CD in just a few seconds. >I can do it right now. Not from home... but from work. It actually takes >a couple of minutes (but less than five most of the time). And we're >considering upgrading our backbone (but that's not the bottleneck). Naaah, I won't be impressed until it's down to less than 10 seconds. Better yet, instantaneous! (And hey, didn't I already apologize for being so short-sighted? I live in an extremely rural area... we won't be getting cable out our way for at least another 300 years.) >> Musicians are going to have to come up >> with some awfully creative gimmicks to sell pre-packaged >> music once that starts happening. >Bingo. You're there. Now... why does it worry you? Just do something >else for a living and do music for yourself... or have pledge drives. But >you can't sell recordings unless you have something REALLY special as a >value-add. My point earlier was that a lot of people wouldn't want to get into music-making *to begin with* unless the potential was there to become rich and famous. If you're implying that the record labels' star-making machinery, and sales pressure in general, tends to corrupt the artistic worth of most musicians and their work, and that the quality of what's available music-wise in the future might improve or at least not get any worse as a result, I'd probably agree. But what *worries* me is that there'll be nothing in the future to provoke 15-year-old kids to pick up guitars and start doing interesting things with them. (Maybe "to get girls" will always be a reason, for the males at least, but I have a feeling that once the wealth and fame is taken away the whole idea of musician-as-sex-idol will start to wither away along with it.) And even if all they make is crap, at least they might have gained a healthy respect for what it takes to do it. Hopefully they'll do some Robyn covers. >BAH! I can't believe you guys think an artist would stop making and >distributing his music just because there's no money in it. Huh? Like they have a choice, usually!! But assuming that you're saying musicians who don't make money would keep at it as long as the means to distribute their work without any financial risk existed, well, maybe... but I still think that a lot of musicians *would* quit. Music history is littered with quitters. Take me, for example. But then again, maybe you're talking about "artists" in the truest sense of the word, and I'm actually talking about rock stars whose existence makes other people want to become musicians (and/or artists), or at least try. Then again, maybe not. I'm probably just being a dope. >The sex industry has always made money and always finds new ways to >use new technology. Well, you all know my feelings concerning the similarities between music and sex! If not: http://www.alternatech.net/jh3/silly/musnsex.htm. And Stephen Buckalew writes, about web-based advertising by musicos: >Whoa there! I would have thought my little "wink" would have indicated my >less-than-enthusiasm towards this possible practice...or rather...I guess I >don't particularly care if someone goes out and solicits advertisements to >sell their music. Sorry Stephen, you seem to post even less frequently than I do, so I didn't realize that maybe you weren't being completely... well, you know. And I hope the fact that I don't quote the rest of your message doesn't put you off, but you were just explaining yourself, right? Until this: >wonder what kind of "day job" RH would have if >his music was for free? Professional whaler! Good luck. John "Strap yourself in and feel the G's" Hedges ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 09 Feb 1999 18:37:50 -0800 From: Joel Mullins Subject: Re: Atlas Sneezed Capuchin wrote: > > WOAH! I have to step in here (of course). One second. Okay, okay, okay. My examples were bad, I sounded rude and insulting when I didn't mean to, and obviously I don't know much about Bill Gates or Microsoft. This is why I usually stay out of these philosophical conversations, and I will from now on. I don't have the time to reply to all this shit. If someone wants to discuss the paradox in John Donne's The Canonization, then I'll gladly jump in. But I obviously don't express myself very well in discussions on philosophy. Michael, I apologize if I sounded rude and insulting. I didn't mean to. I was just trying to have a friendly debate. Anyway, I should really try to be more productive with my time. I'll save discussions on Rand, religion, and politics for those times when I'm drunk and stoned and sitting around a campfire. Later Joel > > On Tue, 9 Feb 1999, Joel Mullins wrote: > > Come on, man. What exactly are you saying here? You don't think Bill > > Gates should get paid what he does? > > He's a thief and a liar and a cheat. He broke as many laws as billions he > made. The government let him do it because a monopoly is good for > emerging technology, but bad for business in general. So now it's payback > time. > > > How old are you, Michael? And are you in > > college or attending college right now? If so, why do you this? Is it > > just because you want money, or is it because you want to improve > > yourself and your situation? > > This is just rude and insulting. > > > Well, think about what the world would be > > like if you started paying everyone the same. How many people would > > stop trying to improve themselves? How many people would stop trying to > > improve the society in which they live. > > This is a fairly valid point. It would take a generation or so to > motivate people and some would still not be motivated. I think the > unmotivated/motivated ratio would be too high to sustain things if folks > were paid according to need. > > > Why go to college or study or > > invent shit when you can make the same amount of money picking > > strawberries. > > Have you ever fucking picked strawberries? I have. It's how we got by > every summer. It's SHIT work. I'd rather go to college and inventing > things any day. > > You get up at three or four. You get to the field before sun-up because > strawberry season is summertime. You work all fucking day in the heat and > you make about thirty dollars. > > I'm not blaming anyone for those working conditions because that's how > strawberries grow and that's what the farmers can afford (they have land > and pay heaps for it... they have to take a hit when the crop is bad, > etc.) and that's what people will pay for strawberries. I assume its > similar with other crops. > > > Considering you have > > a computer and use the internet and most likely have Windows, I don't > > see how you can say any of those things. > > I don't think Michael has a computer. eddie doesn't. But I have several > and easily make up for it. > > > Do you ever buy CDs? Do you > > drive a car? What about the telephone? Do you use one of those? Did > > these Mexican migrant workers give us these things? I don't fucking > > think so! To use your example, they gave us strawberries. And there's > > not much demand for strawberries. I mean, I can live without > > strawberries, but cars and telephones and computers have made this world > > a much better place. > > Man, those farm workers give us cheap food so that we have the time and > money to buy shit like computers and telephones and cars. If they > stopped, you'd starve (or at least have to give up most of your nice > things in exchange for the daily foraging). > > > You have to pay people according to what they can provide for > > the world. Bill Gates is no better than those guys picking > > strawberries. However, he did give us Microsoft, which happens to be a > > lot more valuable than a few pounds of strawberries. > > To whom? Man, Microsoft is a really fucking bad example. > > > Now of course, you'd think that if someone had > > as much money as Bill Gates does, then that person would try to help out > > people in need. No one needs that much money. So, you might as well > > give away most of it and try to do some good. But if I ever become a > > multi-billionaire and someone tells me that it's my responsibility to > > use it in certain way, then I'm gonna tell that person to go fuck > > himself! > > That's perfectly fair. Nobody can tell you what to do with your stuff. > But how much do you have to have before you will start giving to others? > In all seriousness, I ask. If you have several billion dollars, how much > would you give to people in need? Me, I'd give most of it. Easy. No > contest. I wouldn't even think about keeping it. And believe you me, I'd > keep a heap. I'd have toys and shit like you wouldn't believe. But I'd > give most of it away. > > > You've got a good point here. The money didn't just materialize. It > > came from the pockets of everyone on this list and everyone else in the > > world who are reaping the benefits of Microsoft. Let's be honest about > > who gave Bill Gates his money. We did. > > Not me. Not a fucking dime. And I've taken plenty from him. > > > But Bill Gates did "earn" his money. As far as I know, he wasn't rich > > when he was born. And I've also read interviews with him about how he > > treats his kids, or will treat them when he has them. (I can't remember > > if he has kids.) But he's always said that he would treat his kids as > > if he didn't have all that money. Basically, Bill Gates' children are > > not gonna just sit around like Billy Madison for the rest of their > > lives. > > You believe this? > > Bill Gates said he was going to found a humanitarian organization to > improve things worldwide. Um... then he bought the Bettman Archive. Same > week. > > I highly recommend someone like you kick back and watch Triumph of the > Nerds. You get a more accurate idea of where Bill Gates got his money. > > And oh yeah... go to a Microsoft sales meeting. You'll see who's getting > screwed. > > > I better quit now. I have to write a paper or I'm gonna end up picking > > strawberries in Mexico for 18 cents a pound. > > Exactly (except you'd pick them in Oregon). > > I just wanted to put the other bracket on my position. > Jeme. > ________________________________________________________ > > J A Brelin Capuchin > ________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 19:57:40 EST From: MARKEEFE@aol.com Subject: Re: R.E.M. & "Party of Five" In a message dated 99-02-09 18:01:54 EST, you write: << > > I was thoroughly disappointed when I read that R.E.M. were rumoured to > > be making an appearance on the Fox program "Party of Five". > *I* was thoroughly disappointed when I heard that REM were making an > appearance on the Rosie O'Donnell show. I didn't see the show, but it > would have been a great bit of irony had they performed "It's The End Of > The World As We Know It" -- I certainly took it as some sort of > Apocalyptic prophecy fulfilled. So I wasn't the only whose ass was lost in a laughing fit over REM on MTV saying "we've come a long way without selling out" a few years ago? Oh man. If REM did everything unanimously, when Bill Berry said "I don't want to make another album" they shouldn't have made another album. Period. >> Aw, come on. I really like "Up," so I'm happy that they've finally done something worthwhile. It's been a while. And playing Rosie seems pretty far away from "the end of the world as we know it." Rosie's probably pretty cool (although I've never seen her show). I doubt they'd do it if they didn't think it would be fun. "Party of Five" seems pretty crass, though -- I'll give ya that! Maybe JLH will jump on stage and do some backup vox? [oof!] Or, who knows, maybe Stipe is an avid fan of the show. Who knows? Who cares? Think of this way: It's air time that's being kept away from the likes of N'Sync and the like. Wouldn't you rather the masses were listening to REM? I know I'd prefer to hear someone whistling "Daysleeper" over . . . well, I don't even know the name of one fuckin' N'Sync song. People, let's try to keep some perspective here. Isn't the "oh man, they sold out" routine a little tired? [except for U2; I still reserve the right to use the "oh man, they sold out" routine with just this one band] Are you any less of a sell out just because you sound like a lugubrious mixture of Pavement and Superchunk (guitar-based indie rock with high-voiced singer who can't actually sing or even vocalise in an interesting way)? Because they're on an indie label?! What major label would sign them?! Now, I'll grant you that major labels sign tons and tons of stuff that's equally as derivitive but just happens to sound like something between Bush and Beck . . . and, well, I don't know where I was going with that. Well, basically, if you like the music, then cut the artists some slack for trying to get it heard. If you don't like it, then don't pretend it's because they sold out. Just don't listen to it and move on. Admit it: If Robyn were on Rosie, you'd be really happy for him and would tape the show and watch it several times. - ------Michael K., np Wilco "Summer Teeth" (out 3/9) -- really growing on me; I may never come to find Jeff Tweedy's voice very exciting, but it's pleasant enough, and the music is great! - ------Michael K. ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V8 #46 ******************************