From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V9 #211 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Saturday, July 29 2000 Volume 09 : Number 211 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: is it me? ["Noe Shalev" ] Queen Elvis error disc [DougMash@aol.com] Follow-up to my linguistic question [Sebastian Hagedorn ] Re: is it me? ["Ben" ] Re: polite tics (we want your body!) [Jeff Dwarf ] Re: is it me? ["Noe Shalev" ] Re: polite tics (we want your body!) [Eleanore Adams ] Re: Queen Elvis error disc [Bayard ] Re: Greek Question #21 ["Russ Reynolds" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 02:34:06 +0200 From: "Noe Shalev" Subject: Re: is it me? - -----Original Message----- From: Capuchin To: Nerdy Groovers Date: ùáú 29 éåìé 2000 00:50 Subject: RE: is it me? > > >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: > >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. I was sugesting my opinion to the digital media, yet I still feel I need to answer this. The very first and basic princip of copy right law, is indeed that an Idea couldn't be copyrighted. Ideas should be free. and should be shareable. distinguished from that are all expretions of Idea, they are subject to copyright and being trherefor subject to ownership. the idea was of course to motivate people to create and contribute society. Yet even in this method (based on the British Law) A personal relation has been acknowledged between a creator and it's creation. this relation treats the creation (again - an expretion never an Idea) as part of the creator personality, therefor should be protected. protection based normaly on the rigt to exploit the creation financialy but not exclusively - any other exploitation is monoplized too. being repruduceable is making it hard to the public to realise the meaning of being a property yet in our systems (all common law countries) the copyright started as result of the invention of printing, and the inroducing of mess reproduction of creations. a very close idea is implemented in patent law. lets say an individual has a comercial or industrial secret. we as society say to him: reveal your secret to us for the benefit of the public, and in return will give you a 20 years exclusivity in exploiting it. here's a motive for inventors to invite and benefit all society. We all think much the same about our cultural "inventors" this is their property and they are entitled to exploit it. and to deny other from doing it. Further more, a copyrighted creation is limited in time (in my country life of author +70 yrs and in the usa usualy life +50), after that time it becomes public domain. Most property is transfered to the ownership of the public as well. material property goes gradualy by way of taxation, intelctual goes at once by expiering. >> Down my street there's a beutiful house, amzing architecture >[snip] >> Do you sugest I could leave there, without the landlord permission? >[snip] > >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. > >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. Assume as I wrote in the original msg, no damage or even insuring the house and content, and as I said assume I out of there an hour b4 he wants to exploit it. this is as close as you can get to intelctual property. you come along with the answer: I don't use someone phisical property not bcz of a possible damage not bcz depriving him from doing it, I simply don't do it bcz it's *HIS* and not *MINE*. when I compose a song it's mine. when I write a story it's mine. And for my opinion regarding the digital idea isuue. I think all digital data that was relised first time should be free. I think the law should imply the first sale theory. which means an author loose is right to trace his intelctual property. if you put it out than you can't control it no more. this I think not bcz I deny his right, bcz I know that this is reality. and I believe this is for the benefit of our global community, yet I think the artist should be paid for his creation. In my country and in the European Union home recording is not violation of copyright. a very similar act is in the US too. in this laws artists get payed from a tax on empty tapes sold out. eventualy the consumer of empty hardware pays for the intelctual property they going to put in. the same could apply to a tax on ISPs according to trafic they manage. this way digital data would be free by nature and creators will get paid. another thing could be done by the music industry is to exemine economicaly and find other ways to make money out of music. in my country the population is small. selling of records is noever high. (20k copies is a gold) producing a cd costs almost the same here and in the state, yet the music industry treats cd's here as marketing aim for gigs (the oppsite is in the states) defining your product can show you where to make your money. video clips for instance cost mush more than the audio recording, and no one in the industry makes a penny out of them. the industry should find the proper way to benefit from music while leaving the music itself free for the end consumer. and this is not a dream comercial television works this way for over than 50 yrs. end consumer is not the payer of the product. and if you took the time and read up to here - I adire you ;-)) NOE ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 20:20:22 EDT From: DougMash@aol.com Subject: Queen Elvis error disc Just found a copy of Queen Elvis that has a mis-printed label on the disc. Instead of Queen Elvis info, it's the Madonna of the Wasps single info, but it's it regular Queen Elvis disc. Any documentation of this before, or do I have a super-rare find here? Would be funny if it was rare, because it was sitting in my CD store at $5.99 for nearly three years! Doug M. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 02:57:30 +0200 From: Sebastian Hagedorn Subject: Follow-up to my linguistic question Hi! A few weeks ago I'd asked you to help me with a question: > a) The farmer that the cow that gave bad milk kicked died. > b) The farmer whom the cow that gave bad milk kicked died. > > Do you feel that one is better than the other? Do you think that the bad > sentence(s) violate the grammar or that they are simply "bad" sentences > because they are too hard to parse/understand? I got twelve responses for which I'd like to thank all those who sent them in. Let me give you some background as to why I wanted to know your opinions. John A. Hawkins argues in his 1994 book "A Performance Theory of Order and Constituency" that sentence a) is ungrammatical in English because of its structure (the self-embedded relative clause), which is said to be too complex. To put it in contrast with German he gives the following example: c) Der Bauer, der die Kuh, die schlechte Milch gab, schlachtete, ist krank. He argues that c) has the same structure as a), but that it is grammatical in German (it is!). I noticed immediately that Hawkins is comparing apples and oranges. c) does *not* have the same structure as a), because in a) the farmer is being kicked whereas in c) the farmer does the kicking (actually the slaughtering). Further, I had the idea that a) is ungrammatical in English not because of its structure, but rather because of the poor morphology of English. I'm not so sure now and actually it's entirely beside the point of my thesis ;-) Anyway, let me address a few issues that the replies brought up. - - A few people wrote that a) is not correct, because you can't use "that" to refer to persons. While that may be what textbooks tell you, it is not at all in line with the view modern linguistics generally take. Linguistics are these days primarily concerned with descriptive grammars, not prescriptive ones. Nobody can deny that it is common use to refer to persons with "that", which makes it grammatical 'per definitionem'. That does not entail that it would be adequate to use it in this way in a paper or a thesis... that's the difference between grammaticality (yes or no) and acceptability in a given situation (varies depending on the context). - - Some people missed commas in the sentences. Of course commas are part of orthography and not of grammar, but *still* it would be "wrong" to use commas (according to the Elements of Style etc.), because all the relative clauses above are restrictive. According to most style guides you only punctuate if you're using non-restrictive relative clauses... What really surprised me is that *nobody* felt that the sentences were ungrammatical because of their complexity. Sure enough, nobody liked them, but everyone said the sentences were too clumsy, cumbersome, or inelegant, which is a matter of acceptability, not grammaticality! So to me it looks like Hawkins is wrong in this respect. That's what I wanted to find out. Thanks for your help! Cheers, Sebastian - -- Sebastian Hagedorn Ehrenfeldgürtel 156, 50823 Köln, Germany http://www.spinfo.uni-koeln.de/~hgd/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 17:59:26 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: is it me? On Sat, 29 Jul 2000, Noe Shalev wrote: > I was sugesting my opinion to the digital media, yet I still feel I > need to answer this. The very first and basic princip of copy right > law, is indeed that an Idea couldn't be copyrighted. Ideas should be > free. and should be shareable. distinguished from that are all > expretions of Idea, they are subject to copyright and being trherefor > subject to ownership. This is when we enter the specific realm of US copyright and the constitutional provision that allows it. I understand the argument that the idea itself is not protected, but the specific expression of same is. And this is illustrated quite well in patent law (though in today's world both patent and copyright are FAR too long). An expression, however, exists for the benefit of others. If you were alone in a vacuum, you wouldn't need expression because there would be no observer. Expression is designed to be given away, not to be held within. And the purpose of that expression, hopefully, is to enlighten. And if the means is more important than the message (do not mistake this for the means being the message), then the message is not valuable. Expressions as property is a foot in the door to censorship (and started out exactly as that). It is a means for controlling the expression of others through license and coersion. > Assume as I wrote in the original msg, no damage or even insuring the house > and content, and as I said assume I out of there an hour b4 he wants to > exploit it. this is as close as you can get to intelctual property. > you come along with the answer: I don't use someone phisical property not > bcz of a possible damage not bcz depriving him from doing it, I simply don't > do it bcz it's *HIS* and not *MINE*. Not at all. I'm saying that there is no way for you to insure it to his satisfaction without knowing what his satisfaction IS. That is to say, you cannot ever insure the landlord's property without having a specific agreement with him. The value of his unique goods is not for you to determine, but for him to dictate and you to accept or deny. You are in no position to assume his acceptance. > when I compose a song it's mine. when I write a story it's mine. Yes. But when another person sees that story or hear's that song (or vice versa, depending on the situation), that story or song ceases to be yours and becomes the other person's influence as much as it is your creation. And the information that is your song or story is now the other person's as well and you both have it... and you both have every right to use it. It just so happens that the law wants to encourage creation, so it only lets one of you gain commercially or financially from it. > And for my opinion regarding the digital idea isuue. I think all > digital data that was relised first time should be free. I think the > law should imply the first sale theory. which means an author loose is > right to trace his intelctual property. if you put it out than you > can't control it no more. this I think not bcz I deny his right, bcz I > know that this is reality. and I believe this is for the benefit of > our global community, Now you're talking. I think applying first sale to digital creations opens up exactly that opportunity. > yet I think the artist should be paid for his creation. In my country > and in the European Union home recording is not violation of > copyright. a very similar act is in the US too. in this laws artists > get payed from a tax on empty tapes sold out. eventualy the consumer > of empty hardware pays for the intelctual property they going to put > in. the same could apply to a tax on ISPs according to trafic they > manage. this way digital data would be free by nature and creators > will get paid. And yet, so quickly you go wrong. :) Seriously, there is a very big problem with schemes like the one you suggest: It assumes first and foremost that the recording media you buy will be used to record the works of others. This is demonstably false. Second, the proportion to which those tax-aquired funds would be doled to artists would be the subject of serious debate... and spreading that money evenly would result in a meaningless pennance paid to artists. I don't think you can keep up the preception of "caring for the artist" when the artist receives a check for US$8 three times each year. Also, it artificially increases the cost of recording media and puts the power to produce right back in the hands of the wealthy and takes it right out of the hands of the people. (I understand that the tax is not supposed to be that large, but any non-proportional tax has this effect.) Lastly, because data is data, there is no way to tell the difference between media bought for the recording of "intellectual property" and media bought for another purpose. If you say that this so-called "intellectual property" is ANY product of human intellectual endeavor, then EVERYONE who records ANYTHING original would be eligible for kick-backs of your taxes... and that means you get back what you paid in. Those kinds of schemes are enacted by cartels like the RIAA and BMI and ASCAP to ensure their own survival and not at all to promote creativity. > another thing could be done by the music industry is to exemine > economicaly and find other ways to make money out of music. in my > country the population is small. selling of records is noever high. > (20k copies is a gold) producing a cd costs almost the same here and > in the state, yet the music industry treats cd's here as marketing aim > for gigs (the oppsite is in the states) defining your product can show > you where to make your money. video clips for instance cost mush more > than the audio recording, and no one in the industry makes a penny out > of them. the industry should find the proper way to benefit from music > while leaving the music itself free for the end consumer. and this is > not a dream comercial television works this way for over than 50 yrs. > end consumer is not the payer of the product. It is, of course, agreed that recording companies should find another revenue stream or get out of the way. Their trusts and cartels are making every attempt to keep technology from improving the communication between individuals and the institution of something like equality. > and if you took the time and read up to here - I adire you ;-)) Your english is better than my Hebrew, but I don't know whether you meant "adore" or "admire". J. Oh, and the Law of Queen Anne is also known as the Statute of Anne. That is all. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin _______________________________________________ [cc] counter-copyright http://www.openlaw.org ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 20:51:57 -0400 From: "Ben" Subject: Re: is it me? Has anyone on this list downloaded an officially released Robyn Hitchcock CD in MP3 rather than buy the real thing from a store? Probably not (at least I hope not!). And I think this is because Robyn and other artists like him make music that you want to have in a proper form, you know you will listen to a million times and it may even be a life-changing thing for you. But to the average kid who sees whatever the flavor of the week band is on MTV at the moment and wants their hit song, of course they are going to just download a MP3 file for free rather than pay $15.00 for that hit (and an additional 50min of filler tracks). The more disposable the music is the less likely someone is going to be compelled to buy it - and the more casual the music fan, the less they care about music, the more likely they will be to go on Napster than go on CD-Now. Whether or not its illegal doesn't really matter because there are a million other ways to exchange MP3 files over the internet. The only way to stop all exchange of MP3's would be to shut down the internet! The artists and record companies are so worried over Napster because it is the EASIEST... it appeals to the casual, lazy listener who doesn't care enough to look for more than 5 minutes for a song, whose musical taste can be summed up in "whatever is on TRL". However, shutting down Napster and any other service that becomes to well-known by the general sheep, err I mean public, would probably satisfy the record companies if it made the process of finding the MP3's difficult enough that the casual fan would find it easier to pay for a CD (or pay for the download) then spend the time searching online. While they may be able to shut down programs designed specifically for sending MP3's, they could not shut down something like ICQ, or IRC chat rooms, or newsgroups, or other things which allow for the exchange of various types of files. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 22:54:01 -0700 (PDT) From: Jeff Dwarf Subject: Re: polite tics (we want your body!) Eleanore Adams wrote: > 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 except that a) in something like 85% of the counties in the US right now, you already can't get an abortion already because threats Operation Rescue and simular terrorist organization and other laws limiting accesss (24 hour periods to "think about it", etc). if it was formally outlawed, i think it would cause the backlash against the right wing that could mortally wound it. the two steps backward might be just what is ultimately needed to permanantly fortify that choice permanantly. granted as the proud owner of a penis, i am rather unlikely to get pregnant so this gamble scares me less than it quite understandably would if i didn't. but the fact is even WITH clinton/gore (and democratic congresses before them), the right to abortion has already been seriously infringed. ===== "Life is just a series of dogs." -- George Carlin __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Kick off your party with Yahoo! Invites. http://invites.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 10:15:13 +0200 From: "Noe Shalev" Subject: Re: is it me? - -----Original Message----- From: Capuchin To: Nerdy Groovers Date: ùáú 29 éåìé 2000 03:02 Subject: Re: is it me? >An expression, however, exists for the benefit of others. If you were >alone in a vacuum, you wouldn't need expression because there would be no >observer. Expression is designed to be given away, not to be held >within. Exactly!! and so are cars, TV sets tools and any other production made by one member of society and offered to others to buy. >Expressions as property is a foot in the door to censorship (and started >out exactly as that). It is a means for controlling the expression of >others through license and coersion. This is the opposite: censorship is the interfearence of government with the individuals expression. Copyright designed to give the expressor better control over his expression - self expression. >Not at all. I'm saying that there is no way for you to insure it to his >satisfaction without knowing what his satisfaction IS. That is to say, >you cannot ever insure the landlord's property without having a specific >agreement with him. The value of his unique goods is not for you to >determine, but for him to dictate and you to accept or deny. You are in >no position to assume his acceptance. His staisfaction U said and this is the key. Usualy in any other field you assume that there's a way to reaach a common objective meqasuring of insurance. but you acknowledge the right of an owner to demand even beyond reanoable terms in order to permit the usage of his property, this is exactly the moral acknowledgment of ownership which u lack when it comes to property of the intelect. >But when another person sees that story or hear's that song (or vice >versa, depending on the situation), that story or song ceases to be yours >and becomes the other person's influence as much as it is your >creation. And the information that is your song or story is now the other >person's as well and you both have it... and you both have every right to >use it. here you tuch the fifference between material and intelctual propertys: Being a puclic asset (e.g. not expendable, and repruduced without the intelctual and financial effort to be created on the first run, not every user of it becomes the owner of it. influenced- sure, enlighted sure, not co-owner. you can use the idae and you can use the inspiration, not the expression itself. If you buy the material the expression is fixeed on, you can use it as manny times as you like but it's not yours to copy, changfe or renting it out. >And yet, so quickly you go wrong. :) > >Seriously, there is a very big problem with schemes like the one you >suggest: > >It assumes first and foremost that the recording media you buy will be >used to record the works of others. This is demonstably false. it doesn't, it based on an evaluation, and spread much in the financialy design of an insurance: most members of society pay small negelected sums instead of some paying large some for the ability to do somthing and not to pay the large sum. >Second, the proportion to which those tax-aquired funds would be doled to >artists would be the subject of serious debate... and spreading that money >evenly would result in a meaningless pennance paid to artists. I don't >think you can keep up the preception of "caring for the artist" when the >artist receives a check for US$8 three times each year. Well this works very well in my country and in the European union. money is paid to the largest royalty organizations who oblliged by law to pay also artists who are not members, the sharing calculated according to their own tables of broadcasting and sales. and it works quite well. it is true that this settelment is an infrigment of the right to property, you force someone to deal his expression in a price set in advanced. the chioce left for him regards only the first sale - reveal, yet, in our constitutional law such harm to property is alowed under three conditions: 1/ by a law that suits the values of the state of Israel as a jewish and democrat state. 2/ for a deserved purpose. 3/ and in an extent no to exceede the necesary. it all aplies here. >Also, it artificially increases the cost of recording media and puts the >power to produce right back in the hands of the wealthy and takes it right >out of the hands of the people. (I understand that the tax is not >supposed to be that large, but any non-proportional tax has this effect.) The opposite is true. B4 that, only someone who can affore buying art, could use and enjoy it. much as only someone who can affore fixing his car and paying for a possible damage to another could have the luxury of driving a car. much as insurance spread the costs upon larger members of society allowing them the risk of driving a car, this makes the possibility for someone who can afoored a disk to by an empty tape and consume art. >Lastly, because data is data, there is no way to tell the difference >between media bought for the recording of "intellectual property" and >media bought for another purpose. If you say that this so-called >"intellectual property" is ANY product of human intellectual endeavor, >then EVERYONE who records ANYTHING original would be eligible for >kick-backs of your taxes... and that means you get back what you paid in. You sugest there are more creators than consumers? we are far from that. >It is, of course, agreed that recording companies should find another >revenue stream or get out of the way. Their trusts and cartels are making >every attempt to keep technology from improving the communication between >individuals and the institution of something like equality. I agree. Conservativity and shortsighting playing magor role here. >Your english is better than my Hebrew, but I don't know whether you meant >"adore" or "admire". > I'm not sure about the nuance but pick any or both All the best. and thanx for an enjoying *intelctual* experience. NOE ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 08:56:44 -0700 From: Eleanore Adams Subject: Re: polite tics (we want your body!) You are correct about this Jeff. Our rights have been under attack, especially through the 80's and 90's, not just legally, but illegally. And the rights have been eroding legally rapidly since 1992. I am very glad the Nebraska law was struck down in June, unconstitutional, since it put the life of a fetus above the health of a woman, but the majority was so very slim, and if the onlt reason it was struck is a woman's health, then there is not much left from roe still standing. This is why I can't vote for Nadar, even though I like him. I don't want to risk a conservative Bush in the White House. Go for the Gore! eleanore Jeff Dwarf wrote: > Eleanore Adams wrote: > > 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 > > except that a) in something like 85% of the counties in the US right > now, you already can't get an abortion already because threats > Operation Rescue and simular terrorist organization and other laws > limiting accesss (24 hour periods to "think about it", etc). if it was > formally outlawed, i think it would cause the backlash against the > right wing that could mortally wound it. the two steps backward might > be just what is ultimately needed to permanantly fortify that choice > permanantly. > > granted as the proud owner of a penis, i am rather unlikely to get > pregnant so this gamble scares me less than it quite understandably > would if i didn't. but the fact is even WITH clinton/gore (and > democratic congresses before them), the right to abortion has already > been seriously infringed. > > ===== > "Life is just a series of dogs." -- George Carlin > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Kick off your party with Yahoo! Invites. > http://invites.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 12:14:54 -0400 (EDT) From: Bayard Subject: Re: Queen Elvis error disc I could be wrong, but i seem to remember the misprint is common - perhaps even more common than the correctly printed QE disc! On Fri, 28 Jul 2000 DougMash@aol.com wrote: > Just found a copy of Queen Elvis that has a mis-printed label on the disc. > Instead of Queen Elvis info, it's the Madonna of the Wasps single info, but > it's it regular Queen Elvis disc. Any documentation of this before, or do I > have a super-rare find here? > Would be funny if it was rare, because it was sitting in my CD store at $5.99 > for nearly three years! > Doug M. > ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 09:17:02 -0700 From: "Russ Reynolds" Subject: Re: Greek Question #21 > On the Rhino release of Groovy Deco, the last track Kingdom of Love says it > is a "previously unissued mix." Is this the same version that was released > on the Nightride to Trinidad 12''? I could never tell the difference between the two. If anything it is probably a slightly different mix of the same recording. Is Jim Neill still on the list? Perhaps he can answer. I've always been intrigued by that track. It's been a while since I've listened to it but isn't the bridge ("ain't no way I'm gonna be...") missing or something? - -rUss ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V9 #211 *******************************