From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V9 #210 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Friday, July 28 2000 Volume 09 : Number 210 Today's Subjects: ----------------- RE: is it me? [Aaron Mandel ] Re: is it me? ["Noe Shalev" ] RE: is it me? ["Brian Huddell" ] eels orchestra 2000 ["Stewart C. Russell" @ref] eels orchestra 2000 ["Stewart C. Russell" @ref] Re: comix ["Stewart C. Russell" @ref.collins.c] Re: polite tics [Eleanore Adams ] setlists ["Stewart C. Russell" @ref.collins.co] Re: Permatree update! ["Stewart C. Russell" @r] setlists ["Stewart C. Russell" @ref.collins.co] Re: Permatree update! [Bayard ] Gorgonzola ["Andrew D. Simchik" ] DVD ripping [Bayard ] RE: is it me? [Stephen Buckalew ] Questions #67 & 68 [Glen Uber ] Police Quiz Rolling Stone Wood Over 'Body' in Car ["Thomas, Ferris" ] RE: is it me? [Capuchin ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 09:57:12 -0400 (EDT) From: Aaron Mandel Subject: RE: is it me? On Thu, 27 Jul 2000, Brian Huddell wrote: > 2 years ago I started getting music for free on the Internet, and the > number of CDs I buy has continued to increase. okay, the tipping analogy was somewhat weak, though the comment posted earlier about how it's too expensive to buy CDs instead of downloading them was sort of asking for it. the question i continually ask myself is not just whether i'm buying as many CDs as i would without access to free copies, but whether i'm supporting the artists whose records i listen to the most. i'd be uncomfortable with a large library of downloaded albums unless those were the records i almost never listened to, in which case i am not sure why i would bother in the first place. still, there are a few records that i've taped and never purchased -- and if the difference in quality between a handmade tape and a purchased CD doesn't bother me, you can bet i don't feel like that's one of the musicians i feel bad about undermining. i've also had to kick my own ass to make sure that i'm not buying the records that are easy to find and dubbing the rest -- that's exactly what major labels would prefer to see, and it punishes the bands who profit most directly from having their discs bought. a ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 16:57:05 +0200 From: "Noe Shalev" Subject: Re: is it me? >The thing I'm doing that bothers you is listening to music that I haven't >paid for. Suppose I acquire a conscience and decide to atone by throwing >out all my MP3s. There, they're gone. Now everything's fine, right? No? >So it's the listening that constitutes an injustice to the artist, not just >the having? How many times do I have to listen before I've taken food off >the artist's table? I'll listen to entire albums (that I haven't paid for) >over and over in my friends houses and cars. A few people have said they >feel ok about downloading and listening to something as long as they don't >keep it, or make sure they buy it later. But the listening is the crime >right? > I must say that as a jurist who deals basically with copyrighted digital data, I think a change must take place if not in the law than at least in the basic thinking of the music industry. yet the question is not wether you would buy the cd or not. The issue is that intelctual property is a property. and you not alowed to use property that isn't yours. Down my street there's a beutiful house, amzing architecture. The house is for rent, but I'll never have the money to rent it. apparently not much do have the money, thus the house is empty. Do you sugest I could leave there, without the landlord permission? just untill he find someone to take the place. I won't do no harm' the opposite, it is proven that living in a house preserves it better than living it empty. All the best (and so is music) NOE ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 09:47:42 -0500 From: "Brian Huddell" Subject: RE: is it me? > The issue is that intelctual property is a > property. and you not alowed to use property that isn't yours. What constitutes use? That's got to be slippery as hell. Jeme? > Down my street there's a beutiful house, amzing architecture. The house is > for rent, but I'll never have the money to rent it. apparently not much do > have the money, thus the house is empty. Do you sugest I could > leave there, > without the landlord permission? just untill he find someone to take the > place. I won't do no harm' the opposite, it is proven that living > in a house > preserves it better than living it empty. I think that's the first analogy that really works. There has to be a consideration other than "harm" that makes it wrong for me to listen to music I haven't paid for. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 09:44:20 +0100 From: "Stewart C. Russell" @ref.collins.co.uk@ref.collins.co.uk@ref.collins.co.uk@ref.collins.co.uk@ref.collins.co.uk@ref.collins.co.uk@ref.collins.co.uk@ref.collins.co.uk Subject: eels orchestra 2000 If Eels come anywhere near where you live, go and see them. Their new show is quite delightful, complete with orchestral overture just like those big ol' Rogers & Hammerstein musicals. Just don't leave when the house lights go up -- they have some encore tricks you've never seen the likes of before. It was so much fun I didn't particularly mind not getting in to see Sleater-Kinney last night. Stewart ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 13:17:31 +0100 From: "Stewart C. Russell" @ref.collins.co.uk@ref.collins.co.uk@ref.collins.co.uk@ref.collins.co.uk@ref.collins.co.uk@ref.collins.co.uk@ref.collins.co.uk@ref.collins.co.uk@ref.collins.co.uk@ref.collins.co.uk@ref.collins.co.uk Subject: eels orchestra 2000 If Eels come anywhere near where you live, go and see them. Their new show is quite delightful, complete with orchestral overture just like those big ol' Rogers & Hammerstein musicals. Just don't leave when the house lights go up -- they have some encore tricks you've never seen the likes of before. It was so much fun I didn't particularly mind not getting in to see Sleater-Kinney last night. Stewart ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 09:44:27 +0100 From: "Stewart C. Russell" @ref.collins.co.uk@ref.collins.co.uk@ref.collins.co.uk@ref.collins.co.uk@ref.collins.co.uk@ref.collins.co.uk@ref.collins.co.uk@ref.collins.co.uk Subject: Re: comix Natalie Jacobs wrote: > > Especially don't forget George Herriman and Windsor McKay!! and Bud Neill. Bud Neill's dialogue will be completely impenetrable to anyone not from Glasgow, but his artwork is superb. He was playing with the relationship between the artist and the reader back in the 50's, when such things just weren't done -- and certainly not in a wee provincial newspaper. Most of his artwork was thrown away when The Glasgow Herald moved offices, but some has remained, reproduced and cherished. I have a limited edition Bud Neill print right in front of me on my desk. Stewart ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 13:00:42 -0700 From: Eleanore Adams Subject: Re: polite tics Oh, Steve, I agree all you say, and fear the outcome of this election......I love Nadar, but he may really screw us with some right wing Justices....Kiss a woman's right to herself and health goodbye eleanore ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 09:06:44 +0100 From: "Stewart C. Russell" @ref.collins.co.uk@ref.collins.co.uk@ref.collins.co.uk@ref.collins.co.uk@ref.collins.co.uk@ref.collins.co.uk@ref.collins.co.uk@ref.collins.co.uk@ref.collins.co.uk@ref.collins.co.uk@ref.collins.co.uk Subject: setlists Stephen Bailey sent me a couple of setlists for the ticket museum (http://homepages.enterprise.net/scruss/fegtickets.html -- which is getting a bit big now, must split it up). Who is it around here who collects them? Stephen sent ticket scans to match the setlists. Stewart - -- Stewart C. Russell Analyst Programmer, Dictionary Division stewart@ref.collins.co.uk HarperCollins Publishers use Disclaimer; my $opinion; Glasgow, Scotland ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 08:27:59 +0100 From: "Stewart C. Russell" @ref.collins.co.uk@ref.collins.co.uk@ref.collins.co.uk@ref.collins.co.uk@ref.collins.co.uk@ref.collins.co.uk@ref.collins.co.uk@ref.collins.co.uk@ref.collins.co.uk@ref.collins.co.uk@ref.collins.co.uk Subject: Re: Permatree update! Bayard wrote: > > The estimable Jill Sunderlin 'inestimable', surely? Round these parts, 'estimable' would be a mortal insult. Stewart ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 13:18:08 +0100 From: "Stewart C. Russell" @ref.collins.co.uk@ref.collins.co.uk@ref.collins.co.uk@ref.collins.co.uk@ref.collins.co.uk@ref.collins.co.uk@ref.collins.co.uk@ref.collins.co.uk@ref.collins.co.uk@ref.collins.co.uk@ref.collins.co.uk Subject: setlists Stephen Bailey sent me a couple of setlists for the ticket museum (http://homepages.enterprise.net/scruss/fegtickets.html -- which is getting a bit big now, must split it up). Who is it around here who collects them? Stephen sent ticket scans to match the setlists. Stewart - -- Stewart C. Russell Analyst Programmer, Dictionary Division stewart@ref.collins.co.uk HarperCollins Publishers use Disclaimer; my $opinion; Glasgow, Scotland ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 12:13:20 -0400 (EDT) From: Bayard Subject: Re: Permatree update! > 'inestimable', surely? Round these parts, 'estimable' would be a mortal > insult. http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=estimable a case like flammable/inflammable? what is the scottish definition? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 09:16:32 -0700 (PDT) From: "Andrew D. Simchik" Subject: Gorgonzola > From: Eclipse > > http://www.astradyne.co.uk/cheese/ Misunderstanding, I entered "Gorgonzola" as my name. The "cheese rating" for "Gorgonzola" is "Limburger." Whatever can that mean? Drew ===== Andrew D. Simchik: drew at stormgreen dot com http://www.stormgreen.com/ __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Kick off your party with Yahoo! Invites. http://invites.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 12:38:18 -0400 (EDT) From: Bayard Subject: DVD ripping does anyone here know how to rip DVDs (for purely backup purposes, of course) pls get in touch... ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 13:13:14 -0400 From: Stephen Buckalew Subject: RE: is it me? Brian, As I said....I'm being devil advocate. I see the gray areas you are talking about. I did get tapes and borrow CD's of friends in high school. The thing is eventually, digital copies will be identical to CD's. Then people will have no reason other than conscience to go buy the albums...unless they work copy protection into digital content. I do know people who say they wont ever buy music again because they can download it for free. Recording an album does cost money. And to distribute a CD takes money too. So people may not have the incentive to do elaborate recordings anymore. Maybe this won't matter: These days my philosophy about music is changing quite a bit (just so you know where I'm coming from). I'm less and less interested in "big" commercial music and "national" acts. Or even recorded music. I think of music as being closer to my local community these days rather than something coming out of some LA studio. Most evenings at parties, dances, or just informal get togethers, our local musical community pulls out our acoustic instruments, and we create a little magic for ourselves and those gathered with us. We play for *free* and for the one of the greatest, purest pleasures of being alive: music! Give me a campfire, my family, friends, and fellow musicians, and my fiddle or mandolin, and I'll take that over a perfectly mastered and recorded CD, Video, or MP3 any day. I'm not discounting the magic that can be created on a cd from an engineering standpoint, I find the art of engineering and mixing to be interesting as well, but I think at some point (IMO) the music got away from the people and their communities. just my little slant on music and culture....a viewpoint shared by some and not others, as are most viewpoints...and there is nothing wrong with that... S.B. *************************************************************** "...isn't it good to be lost in the wood..."--Syd Barrett *************************************************************** At 08:34 AM 7/28/00 -0500, you wrote: >The opposite of my downloading somebody's album isn't my buying it. I buy >all the CDs I can afford. > >The thing I'm doing that bothers you is listening to music that I haven't >paid for. Suppose I acquire a conscience and decide to atone by throwing >out all my MP3s. There, they're gone. Now everything's fine, right? No? >So it's the listening that constitutes an injustice to the artist, not just >the having? How many times do I have to listen before I've taken food off >the artist's table? I'll listen to entire albums (that I haven't paid for) >over and over in my friends houses and cars. A few people have said they >feel ok about downloading and listening to something as long as they don't >keep it, or make sure they buy it later. But the listening is the crime >right? > >I'm suggesting that there's a gray area here and the analogies people are >trying to apply aren't particularly gray. > >I'm surprised that there are so many fegs who didn't spend hours taping >their friends' records (and taping their records for their friends) in high >school and college. That seemed an essential formative activity for music >geeks. > >> Just to be *devils advocate*, as I'm pretty much a dullard deviod of pesky >> opinions: I sure would rather *steal* a lifetimes worth of food, stereos, >> appliances, etc. than buying them in the store. Can I come to your house >> and take all your stuff? I didnt think you'd mind, it really is only the >> money you made from your labor. >> >> I have my own philosophies about whether music should even be sold >> commercially. But the fact is that people (artists, the record industry, >> and distributors) did spend alot of money to provide you with >> that music in >> a recorded format. >> >> At 01:47 PM 7/27/00 -0500, you wrote: >> >and I have to admit with some shame that >> >those just aren't very compelling when compared with the cost of >> replacing >> >hundreds of albums. It's not going to happen. >> > >> > >> >> --- BLATZMAN@aol.com wrote: >> >> > I am one of those people who have made purchases >> >> > BECAUSE OF Napster. Is it >> >> > just me? Has anyone else on this made a purchase >> >> > because of Napster? >> >> >> >> i've made many! here are just a few off the top of my >> >> head >> >> >> >> cat power - moon pix >> >> xtc - apple venus vol. 1 >> >> moby - play >> >> skavoovie & the epitones - ripe >> >> john linnell - state songs >> >> kraftwerk - computer world >> >> >> >> =jbj= >> >> >> >> >> >> __________________________________________________ >> >> Do You Yahoo!? >> >> Kick off your party with Yahoo! Invites. >> >> http://invites.yahoo.com/ >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> > > > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 12:30:29 -0700 From: Glen Uber Subject: Questions #67 & 68 On 7/27/00 9:03 PM, brian nupp wrote: > Also, this is as far as I know the only studio song where both Matthew > Seligman and Andy Metcalfe appear on the same song. I'm at work and, thus, away from my CDs, so I can't confirm this. I thought both guys also played on a song on _Invisible Hitchcock_. It might have been "Falling Leaves" or "Mystic Trip" or one of those others with a keyboard part. This begs the question: Is Morris Windsor the musician who has appeared on the most songs with Robyn? I mean, with the Soft Boys stuff, the Egyptians stuff and his appearances on BSDR and Moss Elixir, there can't be anyone who's even close to Morris, can there? - -- Cheers! - -g- "I have two very rare photographs: one is a picture of Houdini locking his keys in his car; the other is a rare photograph of Norman Rockwell beating up a child. '' --Steven Wright )+()+()+()+()+()+()+()+()+()+()+()+()+( Glen Uber uberg (at) sonic dot net http://www.sonic.net/~uberg ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 16:23:42 -0400 From: "Thomas, Ferris" Subject: Police Quiz Rolling Stone Wood Over 'Body' in Car Thursday July 27 7:35 PM ET LONDON (Reuters) - British police quizzed Rolling Stones guitarist Ronnie Wood about a body in his car -- until it turned out to be a cardboard cut-out of actor and former footballer Vinnie Jones, the Sun tabloid said on Friday. Police and ambulance staff swarmed the rock star's Bentley after a woman in southwest London mistook the likeness of Jones, used to promote the movie ``Gone in 60 Seconds,'' for a corpse. ``She thought there had been a murder, but the cut-out is thin so he'd have to have been run over by a steamroller,'' Woods' wife Jo told the mass-circulation daily newspaper. Jones, a former midfielder for several English soccer clubs, was very much alive on Wednesday evening at the London premiere of the film. ______________________________________ Ferris Scott Thomas programmer McGraw-Hill Education 860.409.2612 ferris_thomas@mcgraw-hill.com (email) "The whole conviction of my life now rests upon the belief that loneliness, far from being a rare and curious phenomenon, is the central and inevitable fact of human existence." Thomas Wolfe, "God's Lonely Man" ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 14:10:55 -0700 (PDT) From: John Barrington-Jones Subject: Re: Questions #67 & 68 > This begs the question: Is Morris Windsor the > musician who has appeared on > the most songs with Robyn? I mean, with the Soft > Boys stuff, the Egyptians > stuff and his appearances on BSDR and Moss Elixir, > there can't be anyone > who's even close to Morris, can there? I think if you include live performances, Morris is the clear winner. Since breaking up the Soft Boys in 94, Morris has still played percussion and drums at select UK gigs. Mr. Metcalfe, to my knowledge, has NOT had this honor. =jbj= __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Kick off your party with Yahoo! Invites. http://invites.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 15:41:31 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: RE: is it me? I direct you guys first to my previous post on this subject... but I'll say a few words here at Brian's request. On Fri, 28 Jul 2000, Noe Shalev wrote: > I must say that as a jurist who deals basically with copyrighted digital > data, I think a change must take place if not in the law than at least in > the basic thinking of the music industry. yet the question is not wether you > would buy the cd or not. The issue is that intelctual property is a > property. and you not alowed to use property that isn't yours. Not in this country, it's not. The term "intellectual property" is misleading and clearly invented by corporate attorneys who want you to believe that ideas can be owned. Understand that our law is largely built on the ideas of a small group of rebel-minded rich white fellows in the late eighteenth century. One of these fellows wrote this: That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density at any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. This sounds very much like digital media to me. I get furious when people say that when the Courts uphold the right of the people to make copies of ideas they somehow didn't mean perfect copies. To call intellectual effluence "property" is to isolate the mind of every individual from every other. The sharing of ideas is the very foundation of all free society. Every idea of every individual is the product of every idea ever introduced to that person plus their creativity. To say that an idea wholly belongs to the person with the creative spark is to "steal" from the society that created all of the preliminary ideas and exposed the so-called "creator" to their inspirations. > Down my street there's a beutiful house, amzing architecture [snip] > Do you sugest I could leave there, without the landlord permission? [snip] Again, I refer you to my earlier post, but it bears repeating in light of the previous statements about the nature of ideas and the realization of that nature in today's technology: A physical thing is scarce. Taking that thing from another person (or potentially damaging that thing or making it otherwise unavailable) leaves the other person with less. An idea is infinitely reproducible. Taking an idea from another person DOUBLES the idea. You have it and so does the person from which you got it. There is no damage and no harm. To apply that to your hypothetical, moving into another's house makes that house unavailable to the owner. Moving in also puts you in a position to potentially damage that house and whether or not you have an agreement to compensate the owner for those damages (or if those damages are, to the owner, not compensable, like family heirlooms, etc.) could be in dispute. In other words, taking posession of property that is not yours removes that property from another person's personal stockpile. This is the opposite of how ideas work. On Fri, 28 Jul 2000, Stephen Buckalew wrote: > The thing is eventually, digital copies will be identical to CD's. > Then people will have no reason other than conscience to go buy the > albums...unless they work copy protection into digital content. I do > know people who say they wont ever buy music again because they can > download it for free. > > Recording an album does cost money. And to distribute a CD takes money > too. So people may not have the incentive to do elaborate recordings > anymore. Maybe this won't matter: That's right. Recordings of music are no longer "valuable" the way they were before. That is to say, the commercial value of recordings has dipped to very near zero. There is no scarcity in recordings when media is cheap and transfer methods are near (or in some cases) perfect. I think it's been shown fairly well on this list that artists don't make too much money selling recordings. In fact, it is probably BECAUSE artists couldn't make money doing it themselves that the record companies came to be in the first place. Eighty years ago the means of recording commercially were VERY expensive and it wasn't worth the sales to the artist to make quality copies of their recordings at all... but the record companies could leverage the asset of their recording and duplicating equipment and make some money from the artists' music and in exchange the artist got notoriety and sold more shows. The record companies turned their power of recorded music into a cartel of copyright and exclusive distribution arrangements and leveraged the public into consuming MOST of their music through recorded media. And now the two most scarce and costly means of business for the record companies (duplication and distribution) have become almost trivially inexpensive in the US. They are now falling back on their third and weakest hold, copyright. WARNING: WHAT FOLLOWS IS LONG AND POTENTIALLY DULL. FEEL FREE (AND *PLEASE DO*) SKIP DOWN TO THE "_END_OF_BORING_PART_" TAG. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED. Copyright in this country goes back to the Constitution and before that to the Laws of Queen Anne and colonial common law (and that was adapted from laws on cencorship and OH, could I go on about THAT... copyright exists because the ruling class wanted to know who was printing what, establishing that "seditious, treasonable and unlicensed books" were outlawed... license schemes to prevent the public from sharing information that is dangerous to government is as old the printing press, it seems). The first real copyright law was the Copright Act of 1709 and it is the first with words that make sense to us today (although it's interesting to note that they take away the right to publish books cheaply and freely "to promote learning"... very odd indeed). Essentially this act was an effort to put control of printing back in the hands of the Stationer's Company that controlled printing during the censorship era. And while that fact is probably true and rarely disputed, it is this reading of the law and this promotion of learning that became the spirit of U.S. copyright law. However, even the Copyright Act of 1709 is MUCH more sensible than today's US copyright law and much closer to copyright law even at the turn of the last century before big business started writing their own ticket with regard to "intellectual property". In particular, it grants exclusive right of commercial publication to the author for 21 years or, if the author chooses to do so, the author may license his copyright to a publisher for 14 years and, at the end of that period, regain his copyright and license it again for another 14 years. If that were the law today, ALL of the records of the 1960s would be freely available today and there would be no such thing as a "hard to find" classic gripped by a greedy producer. The emphasis would be on quality of the reproduction and not merely on the artificial control granted by copyright. Just so you know, no copyright has expired in the US since World War II. The Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act grants an ADDITIONAL twenty years to existing copyrights and future copyrights. The recording (and motion picture, when there's a difference) companies are trying to build a system that gives them eternal rights and not those "for a limited time" like the U.S. Constitution allows (see, at any given moment it's for a limited time... but it's forever on the "twenty year extension" plan). Speaking of the U.S. Constitution, I'd like to say a few more words on the provision that allows for copyright and patent in the first place. Article I Section 8 enumerates the powers of Congress. Congress cannot make law that isn't "necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers". The wording is as follows: The Congress shall have Power... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries; This doesn't mean that Congress MUST secure such rights. It just means that Congress CAN. Copyright is not something that "shall not be infringed" as the Bill of Rights so often states the protections of the people against government. It is, quite rightly, something that Congress may choose to enact if it seems beneficial to the Republic. Judicial interpretation of the intent behind that secured, exclusive right clearly states that the exclusive right shall only regard commercial copying activities and unauthorized distribution for commercial or financial gain (it is, of course, important to note that commercial and financial gain are listed separately and can mean different things from on another -- not all commercial activities involve finances). Copyright is not a "right", that's just an unfortunate misinterpretation of a term that is made up of two words that meant very different things in the sixteenth century than they do today. _END_OF_BORING_PART_ Anyway, the point is that the people have been duped for many years into thinking that the copies that you buy are the only valid copies and anything else is stealing. No such thing. The money spent to produce a CD or record in a nice studio is promotional cost by a musical artist. Now, in recent years we've come upon a new breed called a "recording artist" who is slightly different from a musician, really. His art is in the mastery of the recording equipment and not necessarily in another musical instrument. However, artists have always existed whose end product had no commercial value. Joining those ranks will now be artists of the written word and melodic composition artists of the recording equipment. There's always work for hire (like the portait painters of old, an artist will still be able to create original works for the personal enjoyment of patrons). > These days my philosophy about music is changing quite a bit (just so > you know where I'm coming from). I'm less and less interested in "big" > commercial music and "national" acts. Or even recorded music. I think > of music as being closer to my local community these days rather than > something coming out of some LA studio. You're feeling the effect of that "loss of value" I mentioned earlier. I don't think commercial value is necessarily independent of other kind of value. I think a thing of low commercial value (a commonplace thing) is usually of low personal value as well. There is appreciation of a quality commonplace object, but it is still a commonplace object. Now, original composition and performance is rather uncommon and finding someone who takes their musical craft to the realm of art is, in my opinion, priceless. Of course, my opinion, being a commonplace and infinitely reproducible thing, may well be valueless... unless you consider yourself a Patron of Jeme. > Most evenings at parties, dances, or just informal get togethers, our > local musical community pulls out our acoustic instruments, and we > create a little magic for ourselves and those gathered with us. We > play for *free* and for the one of the greatest, purest pleasures of > being alive: music! Give me a campfire, my family, friends, and fellow > musicians, and my fiddle or mandolin, and I'll take that over a > perfectly mastered and recorded CD, Video, or MP3 any day. You mean you'd rather go there than get the T-shirt? Amazing. Corporate America doesn't think you exist anymore. > I'm not discounting the magic that can be created on a cd from an > engineering standpoint, I find the art of engineering and mixing to be > interesting as well, but I think at some point (IMO) the music got > away from the people and their communities. > > just my little slant on music and culture....a viewpoint shared by > some and not others, as are most viewpoints...and there is nothing > wrong with that... I very much appreciated it, Stephen. By the way, if we lose this Napster case (and make no mistake, Napster is a private company fighting the good fight for the public, just like Sony in 1983), we won't lose access to free music. That horse, to paraphrase Judge Kaplan from the MPAA v. 2600 trial, is out of the barn and locking it now won't do anybody any good. But what we might lose is the right to collaborate with one another and adapt the ideas of yesterday into the ideas of tomorrow. Where two or more are gathered, there is Conspiracy and Sedition and it must be put down. Remember, ideas are for personal use only! J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin _______________________________________________ [cc] counter-copyright http://www.openlaw.org ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V9 #210 *******************************