From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V9 #121 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Wednesday, May 10 2000 Volume 09 : Number 121 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: traffic, blind faith, and the spencer davis group ["JH3" ] brew-ha-ha [BLATZMAN@aol.com] Re: traffic [Ben ] metallica in white hats [dmw ] Re: At least it's music this time... [Aaron Mandel ] Limey Communists! ["Thomas, Ferris" ] The Libyrinth countdown.... [The Great Quail ] Re: The Libyrinth countdown.... [overbury@cn.ca] Sigh. [The Great Quail ] Re: At least it's music this time... [Aaron Mandel ] Re: At least it's music this time... [dmw ] more copyright current events [Bayard ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 12:44:29 -0500 From: "JH3" Subject: Re: traffic, blind faith, and the spencer davis group From: Jason Thornton : >While certain aspects of Los Angeles culture do revolve around >the entertainment industry, it is not at all true that most people >in the area, or even a sizeable portion of them, care solely for >themselves or that industry. That is a gross misrepresentation, >expounded by the amount of attention everyone else in the >world pays to the entertainment sub-culture in Los Angeles. I have to agree with Jason here. We have a similar situation here in Peoria, Illinois, which as we all know is the heavy-construction- equipment capital of the world. It's easy for outsiders to assume that everyone here works in the heavy-construction-equipment industry, or in some occupation that directly supports it. But just because large numbers of people here drive earth-movers to and from work, or because one's social status is mostly determined by the size of one's back-hoe, or because more people wear logo merchandise that says "CAT" than says "Made in Hong Kong" does NOT mean this town is a one-trick pony. No, sirreee. Why, just the other day they opened a new sub shop just around the corner! Try shifting 2,000 metric tons of clean fill-dirt with a freakin' sandwich, why don'tcha! We even have a museum that *isn't* devoted to the history of heavy equipment manufacturing. (Admittedly, we also have about dozen museums which *are* devoted to the history of heavy equipment manufacturing, but that's beside the point.) And if immorality is your bag, then not only is Peoria THE strip-club mecca for the entire Midwest, there are like, TWO Wal-Marts! So I guess what I'm ultimately trying to say is, "never read any of my postings all the way through to the end." >Just because something immoral is done "online" hardly means >that this practice should be considered "above the law." Uh-oh... NOW you've done it... John "with allies like me, who needs enemies?" Hedges ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 10:52:05 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: At least it's music this time... But it's just a US issue here... sorry James and Noe and Stewart and Matt and Branscome and Tony and all you other folk... On Wed, 10 May 2000, Jason Thornton wrote: > > > --Jason "Metallica were the GOOD guys" Thornton > >This had better be a joke. > > Nope. Sorry. I refuse to defend thieves and pirates. Just because > something immoral is done "online" hardly means that this practice should > be considered "above the law." There was no law broken and no damage done. Copyright law protects copyright holders from having their work commercially exploited and the public and historical record from claims of false authorship and prior creation. Copyright law has traditionally held that as the owner of a copyright you can prevent the commercial distribution of your work (or a thing that is substantially your work) and to control the public performance or display of your work. Public performance and display have been altered, even to allow for broadcast of copyrigaudio recrodings over the radio royalty-free. (Does someone in radio want to pick this up and let me know what the legal issues can be?) Dubbing for personal use has ALWAYS been legal, regardless of medium. Even sharing your dubbed copies has been legal forever. Certainly big copyright holders have threatened people distributing copyrighted works freely, but it's never been proven whether or not those copryight holders had a legal leg to stand on. Copyright exists to protect the integrity of an author's work, not their ability to make money on that work. Metallica's music was being traded without commercial benefit (therefore not being used to promote an idea, product, individual or organization not endorsed by Metallica) nor with any change to its substance. Now, the exceptions here might be in the interpretation of the very new Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 (which specifically states that digital audio recording is NOT to be tried against copyright law, but only under th provisions of that act) and the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, neither of which has been tested in court at all. I believe that much of this legislation is illegal as written and will be overturned. You can point quickly to the decisions of the last two weeks regarding the mp3.com v. RIAA and Napster v. RIAA decisions, but you will also findthat such broad interpretation of copyright law is rampant in low courts and almost without fail are overturned in higher courts. The most important decisions here would be the famous Sony v. Universal Studios, et al. and Sega v. Accolade. Both were found to be copyright violations on the part of the defendant in low California courts and both were overturned later in higher courts (the Superme and Ninth Circuit respectively). Sony v. Universal Studios, et al. is the famous Betamax Decision that was really the basis for modern decisions regarding personal use of copyrighted material. It is also important to note that the substance of the AHRA of 1992 is the substance of Universal Studios' claims of 1984 that were soundly rejected as needlessly impinging upon the rights of the public in the Betamax case. A few words on copyright law as a whole: In the last fifteen years, copyright holders have become more and more paranoid and have started claiming greater and greater priviledge over the public. The spirit of copyright and patent are falling by the wayside in favor of the get-rich-and-famous-quick notion that folks have when considering writing a book or inventing a new product. It is very important to look at the language used in the Constitution that grants Congress the power to enact copyright and patent law in the first place: To promote the progress of science and the useful arts by securing for a limited time to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective rights and discoveries ... This line is right in the middle of broad infinitives like "To declare war" and "To mint currency" and such. Note that it specifically states not just the power granted, but the purpose to which that power should strive. If copyright law does not promote science and the useful arts, it is not within the power of Congress to grant. My personal view, not upheld by the courts to date, is that the useful arts (as opposed to the fine arts, we're talking carpentry and printing) are to be protected by patent law and the sciences by copyright (one being in the world of things and the other in the world of ideas) and nowhere are the fine arts mentioned because the fine arts, by their nature, must constantly feed off each other and comment on one another. I also feel that, while patent law is mostly right (these days it's being misapplied with things like software patents and patents on ends rather than means) in that it secures exclusive right for a limited time, copyright law has been twisted within this century to grant unlimited exclusive use to authors of works. The period of copyright protection exceeds the life of the author. From the author's perspective, that is not a limited time. That is his time in its entirety. Copyright needed to be held longer than patent because of the nature of ideas versus goods. The useful arts spread quickly to adapt to changing methods and that which promotes progress is more easily determined. The sciences (and fine arts to a lesser extent) are more bogged down in doctrinal thought and communication was slower in times before this century and so it was sensible to leave pattent at a maximum of ten years and keep copyright up in the twenty-five year range. But today, as ideas travel as quickly as light and the volume of human knowledge of published ideas stays enormous and grows at a rate proportional to its size, copyright periods should be shorter, not longer. It is the money that is driving the law, not the promotion of progress within science and the useful arts. > --Jason "the best thing to come out of Hollywood was me" Thornton Actually, Viv's dad was born in Hollywood and he's a pretty swell guy. It could be called a dead heat, though. No, of course I'm not a lawyer, but all this copyright stuff makes me think it might be worth the effort. J. - -- ______________________________________________ J A Brelin Capuchin ______________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 13:52:44 EDT From: BLATZMAN@aol.com Subject: brew-ha-ha To say that the voters of the English requirement are not the ones effected by the law is just wrong. Everyone in the city is effected. If my kid has to sit in a class that spends half the time in spanish, I am sure some people would think that's great. But I think it's not appropriate. Tax dollars get spent on bilingual education. And we are all effected when a city becomes crippled by a lack of ability to communicate. And I guess I taught illegals, just by coincidence. 90% of my coworkers were illegal, and the few that expressed interest in bettering themselves were all illegal. I just don't get some people. Comments like "because you were in an area where you were the only white guy means you don't have a problem with poor people... I'm not with you there" I really don't want to spell everything out. I'm sure you don't care. You don't know me, so when I say I don't have a problem with poor people you'll just have to believe me. I would not use public transportation in LA cause I think it is dangerous. Walking home from a bus stop isn't safe. And if my wife had to walk alone in the dark in some of areas where I lived, I wouldn't allow it. How can anyone have a problem with that? If you don't feel safe, don't risk it. I too lived in the Russian district! Fairfax and Santa Monica. It was pretty gross, and my apartment sucked the big one. Those pesky poor russians were always taking my parking!!!! (that WAS a joke) Some people act like English is bad. I am simply advocating everyone being able to communicate. It is not evil. One doesn't suddenly forget their native tongue. I've been told by my immigrant granparents that "back in the day" people wanted to learn English. From what I have seen in LA, there is a large population that resists it. We don't have infinite rescources, you know. Many of the illegals I know have fake social security numbers; many collect welfare. Countries don't have open borders for many reasons. Understand this much: I get it. I have just come to a different conclusion than some of you Dave ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 13:52:39 -0400 From: Ben Subject: Re: traffic Personally I do not care for this discussion. I don't like anything Steve Winwood recorded apart from the Spencer Davis Group. HAHAHAHAH.... ohhh I am good!!! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 14:51:48 -0400 (EDT) From: dmw Subject: metallica in white hats On Tue, 9 May 2000, Capuchin wrote: > > --Jason "Metallica were the GOOD guys" Thornton > > This had better be a joke. > J. they were, though! (note past tense) i can't say i endorse everything they ever did by a long shot, but the first two records were made with no major label involvement (elektra licensed _ride the lightning_ after the fact) with no radio support and no press blowjobs. back then, the guys did what they did damned well and were successful at it. and wonder of wonders, a post about copyright that didn't raise my dander. we're never going to see eye-toeye; i still think that the need for information to be free needs to be balanced with the need for artists to not be required to be independently wealthy. but i think sueing a third of a million fans is pretty dumb. - -- d. np pillbox _gimme what i want_ - - oh no, you've just read mail from doug = dmw@radix.net - get yr pathos - - www.pathetic-caverns.com -- books, flicks, tunes, etc. = reviews - - www.fecklessbeast.com -- angst, guilt, fear, betrayal! = guitar pop ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 15:00:59 -0400 (EDT) From: Aaron Mandel Subject: Re: At least it's music this time... On Wed, 10 May 2000, Capuchin wrote: > Public performance and display have been altered, even to allow for > broadcast of copyrigaudio recrodings over the radio royalty-free. > (Does someone in radio want to pick this up and let me know what the > legal issues can be?) i believe you're wrong here; we, like many (all?) radio stations, pay a flat royalty each year to BMI and ASCAP for the use of compositions they hold publishing rights on. and, wonder of wonders, they actually estimate our usage by looking at a few consecutive days of air (rather than an RIAA-style solution of assuming that they own approximately 100% of music). that said, i think the licenses in question are more or less automatic -- a band can't say "those fuckers at harvard aren't playing us if we have anything to say about it!". aaron ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 12:32:08 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: At least it's music this time... On Wed, 10 May 2000, Aaron Mandel wrote: > On Wed, 10 May 2000, Capuchin wrote: > > Public performance and display have been altered, even to allow for > > broadcast of copyrigaudio recrodings over the radio royalty-free. > > (Does someone in radio want to pick this up and let me know what the > > legal issues can be?) [pardon the typo in line two of my quoted material above, I went back to edit something and I think my screen didn't update as fast as my fingers were typing. --J.] > i believe you're wrong here; we, like many (all?) radio stations, pay a > flat royalty each year to BMI and ASCAP for the use of compositions they > hold publishing rights on. and, wonder of wonders, they actually estimate > our usage by looking at a few consecutive days of air (rather than an > RIAA-style solution of assuming that they own approximately 100% of > music). The publishing copmanies rather than the recording labels, eh? That's somewhat more sensible. I was confused slightly by something that happened a few weeks back that never quite sat right. The RIAA wanted royalties for folks who put streaming audio on their websites, but the broadcast companies threw a fit and the RIAA withdrew for the time being. Thanks for clearing that up. They pay the publishers, not the copyright holders of the specific recordings. But that still makes me question why the disparity. Anyone care to step up? Russ? Hal? > that said, i think the licenses in question are more or less > automatic -- a band can't say "those fuckers at harvard aren't > playing us if we have anything to say about it!". There must be some VERY specific regulations dealing with this... or is it perhaps a "gentleman's agreement" that broadcasting has with the publishers to prevent messy legal troubles? Such widespread agreements are not unheard of. Quite curious about this. J. - -- ______________________________________________ J A Brelin Capuchin ______________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 15:40:31 -0400 From: "Thomas, Ferris" Subject: Limey Communists! In a desperate attempt to break from the Anglo-Fascist rants that have been going on lately, I'll interject that, "By the end of this year, any e-mail to or from a friend or business in England can be read by a British intelligence agent at MI5 headquarters in London." Check it out: http://www.csmonitor.com/durable/2000/05/05/p1s1.htm Pretty intrusive, if you ask me. Do I dare toss two bits into the ring on the arguments of late? Ugh. Education in one language, yes. One for operating a motor vehicle? Please. I would get a bigger hoot out of mandatory re-testing over the age of sixty, myeself. ______________________________________ Ferris Scott Thomas programmer McGraw-Hill Technology Division 195 Scott Swamp Road Farmington, CT 06032 860.409.2612 860.677.5405 (fax) ferris_thomas@mcgraw-hill.com (email) "We keep you alive to serve this ship, so row well... and live" - Ben Hur ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 15:38:26 -0400 From: The Great Quail Subject: The Libyrinth countdown.... I'm sorry to interfere on this discussion of racism, advertisement, and public transportation, but I do have some news as to what exactly I have been doing the last month. (Aside from sticking English-only Playskool ads all over my Big Wheel.) First of all, as T.S. Eliot once said, "April is the cruelest month." I'm sure he originally meant this out of deference for the Aztec Quail Day, but it nevertheless applied to me as well. I am a man who never ever ever thought he would even notice the stock market, let alone -- gasp?! -- be affected by it. But I paid dearly for my happy ignorance, for the day after the NASDAQ nose-dived, our main investor pulled out. It was unethical, back-handed, and motivated by only selfish panic. It caused major shock-waves, and almost sank my fledgling endeavor. We lost over half our budget! Some consequences include losing our CEO, who will sign off in June, and postponing the PR and launch party. So much for dreams of glory; but then again "hubris" is a good word to occasionally re-learn. The GOOD news is that the original investor, Stanley "Bless his Joycean heart" Goldstein, bent over backwards to find new capital, and managed to float the company until the end of the year. (Of course, this begins Round Two of "Hunt for Venture Capitalists," a game very similar to the game of the exact same name as played by Eddie and his Tewists; but the object and indeed the tools of the hunt are quite different, from what I hear.) We have a greatly reduced budget, but we are still alive! (Cue lightning flash and ominous thunder.) The other bit of good news is that the site is nearing completion! In fact, you can take a sneak peak at http://www.TheModernWord.com. We will publicly announce the site in about a week, after we've fleshed out the framework, filled in the blanks, and squashed the bugs. Indeed, a main "new" area of the site -- "The Gallery" -- won't be online until Friday. I believe that the search engine is not functional yet, but the survey is, so feel free to take it of you wish. If anyone is interested in helping, I can always use more cool "quotes of the day," "literary trivia questions of the day," or "literary words of the day." Please refrain from sending me a list of errors, as we are talking care of most of the obvious ones the rest of this week. Anyway, there it is! I will make an announcement when things are all official-like, after which I may actually be able to sit back and relax a bit. It's been a gruelling last five weeks, but I am happy with the final site, and looking forward to popping open a bottle of champagne and inviting Norman Mailer over for dinner and a fist-fight. - --Quail ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The Great Quail, Keeper of the Libyrinth: http://www.libyrinth.com Do you want to see what human eyes have never seen? Look at the moon. Do you want to hear what ears have never heard? Listen to the bird's cry. Do you want to touch what hands have never touched? Touch the earth. Verily I say that God is about to create the world. --J.L. Borges ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 15:51:15 -0400 From: overbury@cn.ca Subject: Re: The Libyrinth countdown.... On 10 May 00, at 15:38, The Great Quail wrote: > The other bit of good news is that the site is nearing completion! In > fact, you can take a sneak peak at http://www.TheModernWord.com. No, I can't! This happens: ===== While trying to retrieve the URL: http://www.themodernword.com/ The following error was encountered: Connection Failed The system returned: (111) Connection refused This means that: The remote site or server may be down. Please try again soon. ====== ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 15:57:59 -0400 From: The Great Quail Subject: Sigh. The URL has been working fine for a few days -- of course the very MOMENT I send a mass e-mailing, it craps out! Hopefully it will be back online in a bit.... Jeme -- maybe you can tell me why oh why technology does these sort of things? - --Quail ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The Great Quail, K.S.C. (riverrun Discordian Society, Kibroth-hattaavah Branch) For fun with postmodern literature, New York vampires, and Fegmania, visit Sarnath: http://www.rpg.net/quail "With the quail you had to stay on the move... Quail was king. Only the quail exploded upward into the sky and made your heart bang away so madly in your ribcage." --Tom Wolfe ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 16:03:29 -0400 (EDT) From: Aaron Mandel Subject: Re: At least it's music this time... On Wed, 10 May 2000, Capuchin wrote: > I was confused slightly by something that happened a few weeks back > that never quite sat right. The RIAA wanted royalties for folks who > put streaming audio on their websites, but the broadcast companies > threw a fit and the RIAA withdrew for the time being. i'll repeat that i'm fumbling here too, but my understanding is that the line is pretty clearly drawn legally between making copies and "performance", which includes playing recordings. making copies falls into the area of the copyright holder, while performance is up to the publishing companies. i suspect there are weird historical reasons for this involving someone making a fortune on sheet music or what have you, but if there are i don't know them. you can guess how the RIAA prefers to construe any kind of computer playback as being "making a copy", but without legal backing for their theories, they do have to back down sometimes. i believe there was a case between one of the publishing companies and a restaurant. the restaurant had the radio on in the background, and were accused of having an unlicensed commercial performance. i would have to look up the details, which the vagueness of my memory won't help with. > There must be some VERY specific regulations dealing with this... or > is it perhaps a "gentleman's agreement" that broadcasting has with the > publishers to prevent messy legal troubles? Such widespread > agreements are not unheard of. i'm not sure what part of it you're referring to -- there's no winking going on that i know of. ASCAP sells blanket licenses at varying rates... a college, for instance, pays something like 17 cents per student per year to cover all dances, rallies and whatever else goes on. they can do this, of course, because it's not worth it to bust a frat party for blasting "Tubthumping" without a license but they can threaten legal action against the college as a whole if there's a standing practice of playing songs owned by ASCAP at semi-public or commercial events, which of course there is. something like that. a ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 16:18:26 -0400 (EDT) From: dmw Subject: Re: At least it's music this time... On Wed, 10 May 2000, Capuchin wrote: > > that said, i think the licenses in question are more or less > > automatic -- a band can't say "those fuckers at harvard aren't > > playing us if we have anything to say about it!". > > There must be some VERY specific regulations dealing with this... or is > it perhaps a "gentleman's agreement" that broadcasting has with the > publishers to prevent messy legal troubles? Such widespread agreements > are not unheard of. i don't think that they're automatic at all, but i think the publishers tend to look the other way for college (non-commercial) radio. in the old days, records used to routinely say "not licensed for public performance or broadcast" on them (even promo copies! if i recall correctly) which cd's usually don't, but i'm pretty certain that doesn't reflect any substantive change. i also remember that at wumd we used to have to schedule a minimum percentage of community oriented and/or educational material. i'm more familar with the public peformance side: most of the clubs i play in pay yearly dues to both bmi and ascap based on the number of performances in the year, the capacity of the club, and an arcane formula for estimating the number of covered songs played. (you can see the relevant forms at the bmi and ascap sites, last time i checked.) i understand that some clubs which enforce a strict originals-only policy are trying to fly under the bmi & ascap radio, but in that case you can't legally even play music in between sets. - -- d. by the way, we're playing a free show this saturday afternoon, 4pm the gallery at 433 I st NW, there's ART paintings sculpture, mixed media, etc. refreshments provided, children welcome (we'll try not to be the guttermouth punks that we sometimes impersonate). we'll be operating in semi-acoustic mode in the grand faux unplugged mode and we'll shake the routine up a bit in some unpredictable way or other. e-me if you need more info. np freedy johnston _live at 33 1/3_ (how does this man ever find the record he's looking for? frank sinatra filed next to the embarrassment!?) - - oh no, you've just read mail from doug = dmw@radix.net - get yr pathos - - www.pathetic-caverns.com -- books, flicks, tunes, etc. = reviews - - www.fecklessbeast.com -- angst, guilt, fear, betrayal! = guitar pop ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 16:24:20 -0400 (EDT) From: dmw Subject: Re: At least it's music this time... On Wed, 10 May 2000, Aaron Mandel wrote: > i'm not sure what part of it you're referring to -- there's no winking > going on that i know of. ASCAP sells blanket licenses at varying > rates... a college, for instance, pays something like 17 cents per student > per year to cover all dances, rallies and whatever else goes on. they can > do this, of course, because it's not worth it to bust a frat party for > blasting "Tubthumping" without a license but they can threaten legal > action against the college as a whole if there's a standing practice of > playing songs owned by ASCAP at semi-public or commercial events, which of > course there is. something like that. aha! i withdraw the remark about the publishing companies ignoring non commercial radio in light of this illuminating new info. i was drawing my conclusions based on my certain knowledge that licenses were NOT part of the WUMD annual budget; but it makes much more sense that that was a college entertainment fee level issue that we never dealt with directly. come to think of it, i think there was a $45 entertainment fee charged to all ft students in excess of tuition...or something like that. - -- d. np still new freedy. gorgeous. - - oh no, you've just read mail from doug = dmw@radix.net - get yr pathos - - www.pathetic-caverns.com -- books, flicks, tunes, etc. = reviews - - www.fecklessbeast.com -- angst, guilt, fear, betrayal! = guitar pop ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 16:45:41 -0400 (EDT) From: Bayard Subject: more copyright current events Coincidentally, Keith Hanlon a past and future feg and fegband, send me this, this very morning. Not sure if he's on the list at the moment so I'll give it to you now (with a promise for more robyn-specific stuff as time permits.) Don Henley Decries 'Work-for-Hire' Bill Mark Brow The controversial "work-for-hire" copyright bill that will take away songs and master recordings from the artists who make them is a "done deal" in the House of Representatives, says Don Henley — and he blames his fellow artists for letting it slide through. "They're so self-centered … they're so naive," Henley fumes. "The irony of this is the rock and roll community has been able to organize itself for any number of other causes having to do with the welfare of the planet. But we can't get it together to help ourselves." An amendment to the 1976 Copyright Act was quietly introduced late last year on behalf of the Recording Industry Association of America. Instead of the rights to recordings reverting to the artists after 35 years, as current law states, recordings would be reclassified as "works for hire," with the record labels keeping the rights to them forever. The amendment was attached to an unrelated bill about satellites that was signed into law in November. The House Intellectual Subcommittee, however, agreed to hold hearings on the bill after artists, including Henley, raised a fuss.The bill was originally intended to clarify copyright law as it applied to films, which are more a collaborative effort, Henley says. The RIAA pushed to have it extended to music as well, despite the fact that many rock albums are a more singular vision by a particular artist. "That's the lame-ass argument they're using," Henley says. Despite an outcry from Henley, Sheryl Crow, and a few others, the bill is moving along. "The RIAA has it all locked up," Henley says. "We're going to lose this. "This is our legacy for our children and grandchildren — our endowment, our trust fund," Henley says. "We're going to get screwed. We're going to get railroaded right out of this. And I cannot get people to respond to me. We've gotten responses from Billy Joel and Bonnie Raitt and the usual people who give a s--t. Everyone else, there's been a deafening silence. Streisand, of course, is her usual aloof self. Her manager said, 'Well, we'll send you a check for a thousand bucks.' So here's Sheryl and I out here alone, basically trying to save everybody's ass. And we're not getting any help." After passing the House, the bill would go to the Senate. "I don't know whether to just say 'F--k it' and let it go or try to wait and get some relief in the Senate," Henley says. "We've heard rumblings that this House subcommittee may very well, with prodding from the record companies, interpret that recordings have always been works for hire. It would be retroactive. Me and everybody else would be screwed. "I don't know what to do. I've sent out letters and packets. I've made phone calls, and everybody's too busy being a f--king artist. And they're all going to be sorry one of these days. It makes me angry at all my peers in the business because everybody's so goddamn complacent and naive." _______________________________________________ Orchestraville: Dark, twisted pop music http://www.orchestraville.com ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V9 #121 *******************************