From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V10 #68 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Friday, March 9 2001 Volume 10 : Number 068 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Underwater Moonlight vinyl ["Marc Holden" ] Re: Quiz! ["matt sewell" ] Re: Quiz! [Michael R Godwin ] Day Tripper [The Great Quail ] Re: Quiz! ["matt sewell" ] Re: Underwater moonlight LP tracklist ["Jason R. Thornton" ] US Copyright law [Rob Gronotte ] Re: tapermaniax! [GSS ] Re: tipple burly surprise ["brian nupp" ] Re: US Copyright law [Christopher Gross ] Re: seriously OT DRM grumbles. [dmw ] Re: tapermaniax! [Bayard ] Re: US Copyright law [dmw ] free tix contest dc area [mel@scw.org] Cathode Ray Gun [Michael Wolfe ] Re: quiz [Ken Ostrander ] Re: US Copyright law [Rob Gronotte ] Food for children: Babar Ganoush ["Irish Airman" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 08:31:15 -0700 From: "Marc Holden" Subject: Underwater Moonlight vinyl The release date is still March 13th. The vinyl shipped about a week early--I haven't had the time to pick up the copies I ordered, which were in on Wednesday. Jeme--I am guessing that the dust you are talking about is normal household dust rather than worn off vinyl particles. Records often build up enough static charge to attract the dust from the air. Older turntable models often had a small brush to clean these particles from the grooves. I tried attaching one to the tone arm of a turntable I used to own, but noticed audible noise from other grooves especially during quieter parts of songs. Now I just clean the entire side of the record with a Discwasher pad before playing and have a separate stylus cleaning brush. Triple LP's (off the top of my head) George Harrison--All Things Must Pass Harrison & others--the Concerts for Bangladesh the Woodstock soundtrack Frank Zappa--Joe's Garage Acts 1, 2, & 3 (okay, this was two separate releases in the US, but I have the Chezch version on red, white, and blue vinyl and the British box set) Frank Zappa--Shut up and Play Your Guitar Frank Zappa--Thingfish Fillmore--the Final Days Beatles--Anthology 1 Beatles--Anthology 2 Beatles--Anthology 3 the Clash--Sandinista and a whole slew of compilations, bootlegs, and various artist samplers--Beatles, Kinks, Santana, Bowie, Pink Floyd (boots), etc. (just saw Ken's post, so part of this is a repeat. "Lather" was 4 records, btw.) I'm not going to bother with the CD's on this one. I really should be working right now... #1--"House of the Rising Sun"--the Animals (US) & "You Really Got Me"--the Kinks (UK) (das ist nicht so schlecht!) Marc "Shut up. Shut up, you American. You always talk, you Americans. You talk and you talk and you say "Let me tell you something..." and "I just want to say this...". Well you're dead now, so SHUT UP!" ---Mr. Death (the Grim Reaper), from Monty Python's the Meaning of Life ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 15:37:39 -0000 From: "matt sewell" Subject: Re: Quiz! Says Mr Godwin, who has so far kept his Soft Boys gig attendence a closely-guarded secret: >What was the first Beatles single _not_ about love? >What was the final Beatles single? > >I've checked on the second question and the answer they gave was >definitely wrong (Ballad of John and Yoko). My 'Rock File 4' says that the >last UK single was 'Let it be' and the the last US single was 'The long >and winding road'. But what was the Beatles first 'non-love' single? Their >second release 'Please Please Me' doesn't have love in the lyric. "Last night I said these words to my *love*" >Moving on a bit, 'I wanna hold your hand' doesn't mention love - the singer is >arguably just seeking reassurance. 'Hard day's night' is more about >working like a dog than about love. 'Ticket to ride' is about British >Railways fare policies (as is 'Day tripper', presumably), No, no. Ticket to Ryde is about a trip to the Isle of Wight... at least I always *thought* so... >the answer they gave was 'Paperback writer' which wasn't till 1966. > >Bah! Was Twist & Shout not a single? Shurely about dancing and, er shouting..? Cheers!Matt - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 16:04:52 +0000 (GMT) From: Michael R Godwin Subject: Re: Quiz! On Fri, 9 Mar 2001, matt sewell wrote: > Says Mr Godwin, who has so far kept his Soft Boys gig attendence a > closely-guarded secret: Bristol definitely. Oxford possibly. How about you? > "Last night I said these words to my *love*" *girl* I think... > No, no. Ticket to Ryde is about a trip to the Isle of Wight... at least I > always *thought* so... Maybe the Beatles were planning a 'Fabs at Sea' excursion :) - - MRG ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 11:06:33 -0800 From: The Great Quail Subject: Day Tripper >>arguably just seeking reassurance. 'Hard day's night' is more about >>working like a dog than about love. 'Ticket to ride' is about British > >>Railways fare policies (as is 'Day tripper', presumably), According to the Beatles themselves, "Day Tripper" is about a woman who pretends to like LSD and partying and everything, but wasn't really into the "scene" and was basically uncool. Sort of a prick-tease mixed with Dylan's Mr. Jones, perhaps? Of course the term itself is a pun on the railway fare, as is Jethro Tull's "Cheap Day Return." The Great "had to get a prog comment in there somewhere" 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 "The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents." -- H.P. Lovecraft ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 16:16:30 -0000 From: "matt sewell" Subject: Re: Quiz! Godwin-Thomas sa: >Hullo trees hullo sky! Bristol definitely. Oxford possibly. How about you? Oxford definitely, very possibly Brighton, not quite as possibly but still quite likely London... Incidentally, if logistics are a problem regarding the Oxford gig, we'd be more than happy to put you up... > > > "Last night I said these words to my *love*" > >*girl* I think... Yes, of course, I bow to your greater knolege (chiz, curses)... although ISTR that it's love in the second verse..? > > > No, no. Ticket to Ryde is about a trip to the Isle of Wight... at least I > > always *thought* so... > >Maybe the Beatles were planning a 'Fabs at Sea' excursion :) My mother recently told me that, although she was living in Portsmouth with crashable space in Cowes on the island, she still didn't want to go to the IOW festival... If they ever have another, I'll buy her a ticket... Cheers Matt - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 08:53:19 -0800 From: "Jason R. Thornton" Subject: Re: Underwater moonlight LP tracklist At 12:39 AM 3/9/01 -0800, Capuchin wrote: >It's not, strictly speaking, a 7-inch 45. The Innocent Boy side is 45rpm, >but the other side is 33.33333333333333333333333333333333333333333333rpm. I have a few U2 7-inchs from the "Joshua Tree" era that came this way: the "single" on the a-side at 45 rpm, and two "b-sides" on the other side at 33 1/3 rpm. I still have a number of 12-inch singles from the '80's that were at 45 rpm. You haven't lived until you've heard the extended dance remix of "Tumble And Twirl." >So I'd say the lever is more versatile but, again, it wasn't really >created by mankind. My vote goes to the condom. Versatile in so many ways. - --Jason "Not 'shoplifting,' John. 'Filesharing'" Thornton "Only the few know the sweetness of the twisted apples." - Sherwood Anderson ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 12:17:57 -0500 From: recount chocula Subject: tapermaniax! some more "has anybody transferred this to cd yet?" requests. the 6/21/00 great american music hall and 6/22/00 sweetwater shows. someone's asked me for a copies of both on cd. i have first gen cassette dubs of eddie's recordings which i would prefer not to transfer if i can avoid it. has anyone done the transfer? are there better recordings? also, is there any interest in a tapermaniax mailing list for discussion about recording robyn gigs, coordinating transfers, trading, etc.? i know bayard thinks it's a good idea. anyone else? would the feg populance be annoyed if such talk happened on fegmaniax? woj ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 12:28:19 -0500 (EST) From: Rob Gronotte Subject: US Copyright law > All of copyright law is unconstitutional. Hasn't stopped us yet. > > The first amendment specifically states that Congress shall make NO LAW > abridging the freedom of the press. This was an AMENDMENT to the > Constitution of the United States of America and therefore should override > any laws made in the name of Article I Section 8's provision for Congress > to pass laws 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 writings and discoveries. Sorry, this doesn't fly. It sasy CONGRESS may make no law. Congress didn't make the constitution. (In fact vice/versa, the Constitution made the Congress.) > (Let's see what other reasons we can find that support the > unconstitutionality of existing copyright law. Pretend you don't buy the > argument about the first amendment overriding this provision. [Hint #1: > No part of this says anything about transfering that exclusive right to > anyone other than the author or the inventor. Hint #2: Literature, > paintings, sculpture, and performance are all FINE arts, not useful arts. > Hint #3: A thing is not limited if it is infinitely and retro-actively > extendable.]) These hit the ground as well. Just because something is not mentioned in the Constitution doesn't mean that it can't be done by Congress. The Congress (mostly) says what cannot be done, not what can be done. That whole section about copyrights is unneccessary, even without it Congress could pass any copyright laws. On the opinion side, I can't beleive any reasonable person would not support reasonable copyright / Intellectual Property rights laws. Rob Why don't you come up and surf me sometime? --> http://www.patriot.net/users/rob ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 11:36:06 -0500 (CDT) From: GSS Subject: Re: tapermaniax! On Fri, 9 Mar 2001, recount chocula wrote: > also, is there any interest in a tapermaniax mailing list for discussion > about recording robyn gigs, coordinating transfers, trading, etc.? i know > bayard thinks it's a good idea. anyone else? would the feg populance be > annoyed if such talk happened on fegmaniax? Either a tapermaniax mailing list or just keeping the notes on this list would be ok by me. But I'm easy, I'm easy like Sunday midafternoon. gss np - pain, aziz ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 12:40:18 -0500 From: "brian nupp" Subject: Re: tipple burly surprise >From: grutness@surf4nix.com (James Dignan)> > >James (not taking bets on who'll be the first to name Yes's TFTO) > Tales was a double album, but Yessongs is a triple-doosie I beleive. Nuppy _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 12:47:47 -0500 (EST) From: Christopher Gross Subject: Re: US Copyright law On Fri, 9 Mar 2001, Rob Gronotte wrote: > On the opinion side, I can't beleive any reasonable person would not > support reasonable copyright / Intellectual Property rights laws. Well, people will believe all sorts of things. But I think there are a lot of people who accept the idea of copyright/intellectual property in theory, but still think that in practice our c/ip laws are being extended beyond what is reasonable. So no one out there can identify my Hungarian mystery liquor? I can't believe the Feg list would fail me like this. - --Chris np: Clannad, "Gaoth Barra Na dTonn" ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 13:07:52 -0500 (EST) From: dmw Subject: Re: seriously OT DRM grumbles. Jeme, Much as I respect your opinions, I think we have disagreements on the subject of intellectual property that are too fundamental to discuss productively. I don't think the problem is with intellectual property (and the notion of direct compensation for its creation) per se; I think the problem is that copyright holders are, certainly in the music world, the enabling corporations, NOT the creators themselves. That said -- On Thu, 8 Mar 2001, Capuchin wrote: > I'm a "legitimate user" because I purchased a copy of a thing and would > like to put it to my own personal uses. I think that INCLUDES watching it > and making copies. Do you disagree? Certainly it should include watching it (without regard, in my opinion, to what country you happened to be in when you purchased it, or which country you purchased it from). I don't agree that your personal use necessarily includes making copies without further qualification. I do agree that the DVD key system effectively dis-allows "fair use" access to the work. > > (i'm not going to get into the issue of those who want to watch movies > > on computer hardware -- yeah, well, whatever). > > Why is that "well, whatever"? oh god. believe it or not, i really didn't intend that as flame-bait, but i don't think i communicated what i really meant at all. let me try this: it is certainly technically possible to configure a computer system such that the display component provides a viewing experience comparable (or better than) watching a film on a TV, however, I do not believe that in practice this actually happens significantly often. in practice, the people i know who have computer hardware capable of this *also* tend to have "home theater" systems for watching movies. > > describe the ramifications of some of the proposed > > standards/behaviours to people, they almost universally react with > > shock and anger. > > But you have to explain to them. And most people don't have someone to > explain these things. It's just another acronym in the 8x10 glossy > pamphlet. "OOOH! CPRM with copy protection technology! I want that! > That means muy stuff is safe from hackers!" well, that's why i try to write about it without using big words. my ability to reach people as a journalist is somewhat limited at present, but i'm doing what i can. and i am far from alone -- i'm seeing a lot of press given to discussion of SDMI & CPRM protocols that reflects my anger and outrage. when this hits true mass consciousness, it's gonna blow up in everyones' faces. DVD was a sadly successful testcase, i think, but DIVX (the circuit city version) was a flop. i think there's a limit to the stupidity of the typical consumer. > > difficult for the consumer to have a given entertainment experience, > > the consumers aren't going to bother. > > Wow. I just can't agree with you there. > > People pay US$9 to go to the movies in some places. They accept this and > pay US$3.75 for a quart of sugar water and another US$3.75 for some okay.... first, the theatrical release side of the movie industry is far from healthy. fortunately for them, we all need places to take dates now and then. but how often do you hear someone speak of a movie and say he or she will "wait for it to come out on video" because it's worth a $3 rental, but NOT worth an $8 (or whatever) ticket? if you can't rent a video (let's strike the suffix -tape or -disc or - -whatever from that, i mean, rent a "movie" without regard to format) from blockbusters and play it in your movie machine, or you can't borrow it from your buddy and play it in your movie machine, i think most people won't bother. they'll just see what's on cable, or, the great big hope, see what else is out there outside the corporate cordon. i think some of these folks should read up on the ASCAP strike, and on the long term effect it had. > James Cameron thinks that movies are too cheap... and that the average > American considers going out to the movies to be EQUIVALENT to a stage > production or concert and would GLADLY pay US$15-$25 for a ticket! Then I think he's got rocks in his head. Or, a little softer, he maybe one of the, oh, five or six hollywood directors for which that might be true. > There are people out there who BELIEVE they are doing something wrong when > they dub a movie they've purchased or rented or a CD they bought or > borrowed. Yup, and you're arguing, for the most part, with one of them ;) Although i've come to believe guerilla tactics are called for in some cases. > > and businesses are not going to buy pieces of equipment once they > > understand that a single-point failure, in the most vulnerable part of > > that equipment, could theoretically require them to re-purchase all their > > software licenses. > > fly... but, again, most people won't ever notice. I don't believe that. But, hey, I don't believe that the next few years will be boring. Jeme, you've probably seen Jaron Lanier's little extrapolative piece which starts with a circa 2001 court-ordered Napster shutdown and ends about twelve years hence with a total police state, haven't you? If not, I'll dig it up and forward to you. It's provocative reading, but I still think there are limits to the sheepness of people. And people like you reinforce my belief in that proposition. - -- d. - - 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: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 12:58:51 -0500 (EST) From: Bayard Subject: Re: tapermaniax! the mysterious woj: > also, is there any interest in a tapermaniax mailing list for discussion > about recording robyn gigs, coordinating transfers, trading, etc.? i know > bayard thinks it's a good idea. anyone else? would the feg populance be > annoyed if such talk happened on fegmaniax? i was thinking more along the lines of, some of the tapers might be annoyed if they had to subscribe to fegmaniax. :) the mysterious rob: > On the opinion side, I can't beleive any reasonable person would not > support reasonable copyright / Intellectual Property rights laws. That's very interesting, considering that you then list your URL of secretly-obtained concert recordings. ;) Many would consider it reasonable to make making those tapes illegal. By the way, I'll be taping the Soft Boys at 5 gigs if you wanna trade. =b ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 13:18:41 -0500 (EST) From: dmw Subject: Re: US Copyright law On Fri, 9 Mar 2001, Rob Gronotte wrote: > Sorry, this doesn't fly. It sasy CONGRESS may make no law. Congress > didn't make the constitution. (In fact vice/versa, the Constitution made > the Congress.) Hey everyone, quick quiz -- y'all know, thanks to the helpful hint in the title, that the "Digital Millenium Copyright Act" was passed somewhere around 1998/9/2000, but when from when does the previous US Copyright Act date? Think it was written into the constitution? No. try 1977 (enacted in 1978). You can only stretch copyright's history back into the um, I think it was 17th century. Shakespeare did not enjoy copyright protection; piracy of his work was arguably a problem for him, if not for his longterm literary stature. > On the opinion side, I can't beleive any reasonable person would not > support reasonable copyright / Intellectual Property rights laws. But what's reasonable, there's the rub! I agree with you, yet I think many of the current copyright provisions are not only not-reasonable, but absurd, not to mention intrusive and dictatorial. And I have to admit that some very smart, reasonable people (if you don't take Jeme as an example, try Eben Moglen of the Columbia Law school, Robin Gross, John Perry Barlow and others of the EFF crew) seem to think that IP laws are fundamentally undercut by the (recent) effective capability to make copies valueless (since an infinite number of perfect copies can be generated for cost so close to zero as to scarcely be worth arguing over. - -- d. - - 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: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 18:19:42 -0000 From: mel@scw.org Subject: free tix contest dc area Delurking for a moment to mention that Olssons has some sort of contest for free tickets at the Soft Boys at the 9:30. To add to earlier threads.. I found Robyn through exposure to Queen Elvis era videos. Thankfully even though I was on a rock in the middle of the pacific we had 1 fabulous record store where I got all of his back stuff on cd and vinyl and even soft boys things. IODOT was my favorite as soon as I bought it and still is. Melissa whose jobs have all been in libraries ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 17:12:42 +0000 (GMT) From: Michael Wolfe Subject: Cathode Ray Gun The Quail clucked: >I like TV. I really get annoyed at the sanctimonious "I don't >own a TV and I am proud" crowd, or the "Turn off your TV and >read a book" nannies. TV is an essential part of modern American >pop culture, which may not be necessarily a good thing all the >time, but let's face it -- anyone who doesn't watch TV is weird, >and should probably move to France, or maybe Oregon. I don't know to what extent this is directed at me, (the "move to Oregon" bit makes me think it might be, just a little bit) but I'm not in the habit of mentioning my lack of a TV except when the subject is broached by someone else. (When I am asked if I saw such-and-such a program, or if I am forced to share space with one that I can't ignore.) To the extent that I am proud of my TV-lessness, it is because I recognize how powerful and seductive it is, and how much of a hold it had on me for so much of my childhood. Now, I just find that TV just rubs me completely the wrong way. The content and testimonials run seamlessly together into a shrill melange that is not entirely unlike reconstituted mashed potatoes. That's my take on it, anyway. If you get more out of it, more power to you. But I'm not going to sit in a room while someone scrapes their fingernails on a chalkboard just for the sake of not being called "weird". I can take it. I've been called worse. Heck, I've been called worse by you, even. I do have a sneaking suspicion that broadcast television is in no small part responsible for the depoliticization that allows things like the stuff Jeme describes to happen, but have remained more or less (I obviously bring it up now) silent on the issue, heretofore. I certainly haven't attained a level of evangelism that would prompt me to adhese any bumper stickers anywhere. I'd love to hear your response to a book called Rich Media, Poor Democracy, by Robert McChesney, Quail. It strikes me as essential reading for anyone who purports to consume media "critically." >And not >just for the junk, but really, there are a few good shows on TV, >and it's generally a nice way to check on the news and weather >and such, and its a great place to put candles and knick-knacks. For knick-knacks, a nice bureau is quite attractive, uses less power, and is much less likely to explode. >Oh, and VCRs, DVD players, and Playstations all seem to work >better when hooked up to a television. An old (and yes, potentially explosive) C-64 monitor's served me fine for years. - -Michael Wolfe ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 13:34:45 -0500 From: Ken Ostrander Subject: Re: quiz >What was the first Beatles single _not_ about love? ok, a song can be _about_ love and not mention love; so, with that in mind i have a list of the potentials in chronological order: hard day's night (what are those "things" that "you" does?), ticket to ride (end of love?), help (could be but not necessarily love). >What was the final Beatles single? so far? free as a bird. >> (I don't think All Things Must Pass quite counts...it's really a >> double-LP with a casual bonus EP. that "casual" third disk is the only one i ever seem to put on. i forgot about wings over america and that live 72 dead release. ken "back off boogaloo" the kenster np rough music blue aeroplanes ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 13:31:29 -0500 (EST) From: Rob Gronotte Subject: Re: US Copyright law > But what's reasonable, there's the rub! I agree with you, yet I think > many of the current copyright provisions are not only not-reasonable, but > absurd, not to mention intrusive and dictatorial. And I have to admit > that some very smart, reasonable people (if you don't take Jeme as an > example, try Eben Moglen of the Columbia Law school, Robin Gross, John > Perry Barlow and others of the EFF crew) seem to think that IP laws are > fundamentally undercut by the (recent) effective capability to make copies > valueless (since an infinite number of perfect copies can be generated for > cost so close to zero as to scarcely be worth arguing over. I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. Is it that copies can be made so cheaply by anyone that there will be no profit possible and therefore no incentive to make them? Unfortunately if that were to be true, there would also be no incentive (economic anyway) for the original creator to make copies of his work available. And I do think that IP laws could become unreasonable, but not that the are now, at least as enforced. Cap mentioned that some people think they are doing something wrong by making copies of CDs, videos, etc., for their own use, but this happens so often that obviously many (most?) people don't feel bad enough to stop. And I don't think the government has declared copying things for a friend to be illegal; if they have it has certainly never been enforced, unless someone is making a profit from it. Rob Why don't you come up and surf me sometime? --> http://www.patriot.net/users/rob ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 13:44:17 -0500 From: "Irish Airman" Subject: Food for children: Babar Ganoush Drew wrote-- >"Baba Ganoush" also fits well in the parody of "Metal Guru" Weird Al >never >wrote. >Perhaps because it's hard to find words that rhyme with "Ganoush." A mispronunceation of louche, since no one knows how to pronounce it anyway. K--who -loves- a bad rhyme. (and is waiting for Hitchcock to someday top in awefulness Warren Zevon's combination of "gender" and "Warring Blender") _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 13:45:26 -0500 (EST) From: dmw Subject: Re: US Copyright law On Fri, 9 Mar 2001, Rob Gronotte wrote: > I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. Is it that copies can be > made so cheaply by anyone that there will be no profit possible and > therefore no incentive to make them? I want to re-emphasize that this is not my view, and I'm nto the best-suited to defend it, but yeah -- copyright originally dealt with tangible objects. there's this whole thing called first-sale doctrine, which is what allows used book- and record-stores, which, arguably, serve a valuable social function, allowing works to remain in circulation even when they're not profitable for a company to produce. copies with no intrinsic value, and a production cost of zero, undeniably throw a new twist in things. > Unfortunately if that were to be true, there would also be no incentive > (economic anyway) for the original creator to make copies of his work > available. This is the subject of a great deal of debate. I'm so blinded by my personal experience that it's hard for me to see around -- I've spent ten thousand dollars recording an album, and i hope i can sell a few of the damned things, because I'm going to be in debt for years. ANd i have another one I want to do. BUT it's also true that the second record will exist somewhere sometime if I have to pauperize myself to do it -- I'm not doing the record to make money, but I do hope to defray some of my circumstances. > And I do think that IP laws could become unreasonable, but not that the > are now, at least as enforced. Cap mentioned that some people think they > are doing something wrong by making copies of CDs, videos, etc., for their > own use, but this happens so often that obviously many (most?) people > don't feel bad enough to stop. And I don't think the government has > declared copying things for a friend to be illegal; if they have it has > certainly never been enforced, unless someone is making a profit from it. Well, it wasn't in the the US, but the recent arrest of a Napster user in Holland made world-wide headlines. Make no mistake, copying things for a friend IS illegal, without regard to whether you make a profit from it or not. In practice, it's usually not worth the expense to prosecute a crime when the presumed damages are so low. It's usually not worth the government's time to prosecute jay walkers either. - -- d. - - 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 ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V10 #68 *******************************