From: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org (loud-fans-digest) To: loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Subject: loud-fans-digest V2 #184 Reply-To: loud-fans@smoe.org Sender: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk loud-fans-digest Thursday, May 23 2002 Volume 02 : Number 184 Today's Subjects: ----------------- [loud-fans] Memento DVD puzzles [Roger Winston ] Re: [loud-fans] more webcasting/CARP/RIAA stuff [jsharple@bls.brooklaw.ed] [loud-fans] me in a car, you in a bus [Miles Goosens Subject: [loud-fans] Memento DVD puzzles For anyone, like me, who bought the new MEMENTO Special Edition DVD release this week and has no patience for solving the "puzzles" before being able to view the extras, here's a very good guide: http://world.std.com/%7Etrystero/Memento_LE.html It includes how to get to the unadvertised "chronological edit" version of the movie. And God forbid, don't lose the little plastic paperclip that keeps the inserts in the package. Latre. --Rog ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 10:37:39 -0400 (EDT) From: jsharple@bls.brooklaw.edu Subject: Re: [loud-fans] more webcasting/CARP/RIAA stuff Quoting Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey : > Which reminds me of what's so very wrong about John Balzar's article > in > the _LA Times_ ("The Internet or a .45, It's Robbery of the Artist"): > he > says, "What is the distinction between robbing a person and robbing him > of > his ability to earn?" Good question: perhaps he should ask it of those > who > write up, enforce, and benefit from typical recording artist contracts. Jeffrey, I think you make a reasoning error here that is made frequently in this debate. Two wrongs don't make a right. You can't justify digital copying of copyrighted works by saying you think the artists are already getting a raw deal from the owners of the means of production. It's the Courtney Love fallacy. These are two distinctly separate issues and I think it's hopelessly counterproductive to conflate the two. "Hey, artist, you're only getting a chumpy two cents per unit, so I'll just take it for free." That strikes me as astonishingly cold-hearted. > He also writes, "If technology bestows a new right on its users to > 'share' > music, movies and stories without payment, what will be the incentive > to > make music, produce movies and write stories?" To which I would > respond: > anyone who's making music only to be paid is either naive or > meretricious > - and in neither case would I want to buy that music. Now, Jeff, that's just about the silliest thing I've ever heard you say. How on earth can you be so sure of what you're saying? You don't like Chuck Berry? He swears he only went into music because it paid better than anything else at the time. Have you interrogated each and every artists whose work you have enjoyed and determined to your satisfaction that financial reward is not their sole motivation to create? Sure, Balzar's question is disingenuous, and his article is crap (I'm on his side in the debate, but he doesn't provide any reasoning for his position, just self-righteousness). The better question is: if digital copying is allowed to proliferate unchecked, will it make the already-sorry financial outlook for artists so hopeless that fewer and fewer gifted persons will choose to dedicate their lives to the arts - thereby degrading the quality of the arts, for all of us? Balzar's question is foolish because it's meant to be rhetorical but there's actually a sensible reply: the creative drive is so strong in people there will always be art, even if there was zero chance of getting paid for it. But that's not the problem. I'm convinced our copyright laws are nothing short of pure genius (like most of the Constitution) and are largely responsible for the incredibly robust output of intellectual property this country has always enjoyed. But digital technology has caught up with these laws, and significantly altered the playing field. This is not home taping. The copyright laws need to be construed in a reasonable and equitable way to preserve the ideal balance between fair use and property rights. Whether the entertainment industry deals fairly with its artists is not only an entirely different issue, but one that is guaranteed to enflame emotions and cloud reasoning, so we're far better off if we keep the two issues well separated. > To not notice that these laws are intended *primarily* to protect > record/movie/etc. companies' profit streams, and will do nothing to > enhance artists' exposure or revenues, is to so thoroughly miss the > point > as to be making no argument at all. What are you saying, that the laws say 'all money recouped by blocking digital copying shall go directly into the big companies' pockets and the artists shall see none of it?' That's some pretty impressive lobbying. but people tend to > like to physically possess things they're fond of, which have value to > them. Otherwise, public transit would be more popular than it is, > isntead > of everyone driving around and having to park their own, personalized > vehicles. I don't think that analogy holds up at all. Sometimes I take the train and sometimes I use my car, for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with a fetish for personalized physical possession of things. JS - ------------------------------------------------- BROOKLYN LAW SCHOOL WEBMAIL: info.brooklaw.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 10:33:34 -0500 From: Miles Goosens Subject: [loud-fans] me in a car, you in a bus Jeff, then Sharples: >but people tend to >> like to physically possess things they're fond of, which have value to >> them. Otherwise, public transit would be more popular than it is, >> isntead >> of everyone driving around and having to park their own, personalized >> vehicles. > >I don't think that analogy holds up at all. Sometimes I take the train and >sometimes I use my car, for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with a >fetish for personalized physical possession of things. Gotta agree with Sharples here. Plus John is lucky enough to live in a metropolis with oodles of cheap, reliable, readily available public transportation. U.S. cities since 1945 have been built expressly to make automobile use all but required. People move to the suburbs, the # of public transportation users goes down, public transit authorities eliminate routes and cut back on the frequency with which they serve the remaining routes, ridership (is that even a word?) goes down further, the transit authorities make more cuts, etc. It's a vicious cycle that ends up making public transportation unreliable, inconvenient, and *not* readily available. The distances between housing, shopping, and workplaces are also so great that walking or bicycling are often not viable options. These are structural factors that work against public transportation and for the automobile, and these have little or nothing to do with private choice. If Melissa and I wanted to give up our cars and take the bus, here's what we'd have to do: 1) Walk a mile to the nearest bus stop. Fun, fun, fun in your work clothes, especially at jobs where you have to look businesslike and a patina of perspiration isn't considered a viable fashion statement. Time elapsed: 15-20 minutes. I'm not even getting into the distinct possibility that we'd miss a bus and then have to wait another 15-20 minutes for the next bus (up to 60 additional minutes once you're past the 7-9 "rush hour"). 2) Ride the bus five miles to downtown Nashville. There aren't a lot of crosstown routes -- rather, they're all spokes that converge on Deaderick Street as the hub of the wheel -- so 99% of the time, if you need to change buses, you have to ride into downtown. Time elapsed: 25-40 minutes. 3) I'm now a block from my workplace, so my journey ends with a 40-60 minute commute that takes 20 minutes by car. However, Melissa still has to catch a connecting bus. Add 5-15 minutes to her commute while she waits for the Donelson bus. 4) Melissa now has to ride the Donelson bus to get to her workplace. Time elapsed: 25-45 minutes. Her total commute now clocks in at 1 hr 10 minutes to 1 hr 50 minutes, vs. a 15-minute drive. 5) Going home, it's steps 1-4 in reverse. Total commute time for Miles: 80-120 minutes vs. 40 minutes by car. Total commute time for Melissa: 140-220 minutes vs. 30 minutes. We'd love to make the ecologically-friendly choice here. If we lived in Chicago, New York, or London, we might well give up owning cars altogether. But given the amount of inconvenience and hassle required to ride a commuter bus in Nashville, plus the huge bite doing this would put into our free time and our time with each other, I think we're keeping the vehicles. I'm not arguing that Americans aren't disturbingly fond of their cars and might well choose to retain them even if they were suddenly given public transportation that took them everywhere they needed to go at any time they needed to go there. But there's a lot of factors that structure and limit the "car vs. walking/biking/public transportation" choices, and not all of them have to do with uncaring greedheads wanting to own shiny cool gas-guzzling behemoths. later, Miles ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 12:37:53 -0400 (EDT) From: Sue Trowbridge Subject: Re: [loud-fans] me in a car, you in a bus On Thu, 23 May 2002, Miles Goosens wrote: > I'm not arguing that Americans aren't disturbingly fond of their cars and > might well choose to retain them even if they were suddenly given public > transportation that took them everywhere they needed to go at any time they > needed to go there. But there's a lot of factors that structure and limit > the "car vs. walking/biking/public transportation" choices, and not all of > them have to do with uncaring greedheads wanting to own shiny cool > gas-guzzling behemoths. The thing that I don't understand is why it's OK for the gummint to spend $$$$$ building & maintaining roads, but public transit is supposed to "pay for itself" via fares, etc. I learned to drive at an older age than most folks do (I think I was about 24). For the first couple years of my working life, I commuted via bus from my home north of Baltimore to downtown. The bus route went right through a couple of wealthy communities, Homeland & Guilford. I would estimate that 90% of my fellow riders were Black & Hispanic domestics and child care workers. The bus was so frustratingly unreliable that I actually wrote a column for the Baltimore Sun's editorial page complaining about how bad it was! Miles & Melissa are lucky that they have the option to own & drive cars; for a lot of low income people, 1-2 hour bus rides with several transfers are the only option they have. I would venture to say that BART in the Bay Area is one of the few public transit systems in the country that serves a variety of economic classes, from janitors to highly paid Financial District lawyers (not to mention middle-class computer programmers...). That's because the Bay Area, like NY, is one of the few areas where public transit truly IS the fastest way to travel. Otherwise, cars are always going to win -- except for the people who can't afford them. - --Sue, who has a lovely view of the daily I-80 traffic jam from her office window ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 12:41:34 -0400 (EDT) From: Aaron Mandel Subject: Re: [loud-fans] me in a car, you in a bus On Thu, 23 May 2002, Sue Trowbridge wrote: > The thing that I don't understand is why it's OK for the gummint to > spend $$$$$ building & maintaining roads, but public transit is supposed > to "pay for itself" via fares, etc. Which, hey!, brings us back to the context this questions was raised in, sort of... Sharples decried the comparison of labels-exploiting-artists with fans-downloading-unauthorizedly, but the point was not deciding which is abstractly worse; the point is that the government is being asked to swing its ax and spend its cash in service of reducing the latter. If the stated goal is improving artists' lot, I'd rather the government *did* concern itself with figuring out which actions help artists most with the least government intervention. That means comparing all the things that suck about being a musician, not just the things that Big Content is lobbying for the government to look at. Y'know? a ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 11:58:00 -0500 From: Miles Goosens Subject: Re: [loud-fans] me in a car, you in a bus At 12:37 PM 5/23/2002 -0400, Sue Trowbridge wrote: >On Thu, 23 May 2002, Miles Goosens wrote: > >> I'm not arguing that Americans aren't disturbingly fond of their cars and >> might well choose to retain them even if they were suddenly given public >> transportation that took them everywhere they needed to go at any time they >> needed to go there. But there's a lot of factors that structure and limit >> the "car vs. walking/biking/public transportation" choices, and not all of >> them have to do with uncaring greedheads wanting to own shiny cool >> gas-guzzling behemoths. > >The thing that I don't understand is why it's OK for the gummint to spend >$$$$$ building & maintaining roads, but public transit is supposed to "pay >for itself" via fares, etc. Exactly! It might make me a proverbial tax-and-spend liberal (we won't even get into how the people who use that epithet usually think it's great for the government to provide "corporate welfare" -- i.e., taxing and spending is cool if it gets spent on them!), but I can't see why our tax dollars don't go towards subsidizing things that we can't afford individually, but benefit the community in general, like mass transit. It'd be nice if mass transit could "pay for itself," but if it doesn't -- so what? I hate it when people say "government should be more like business." Government is a fundamentally different proposition, and should be treated as such. Government is a LOSS PROPOSITION in dollars and cents terms from the get go, but it's one for the common good. >Miles & Melissa are lucky that they have the option to own & drive cars; >for a lot of low income people, 1-2 hour bus rides with several transfers >are the only option they have. I agree, and had meant to make that point, but got more focused on refuting Jeff's suggestion than on the ugly socioeconomics that, outside of major metropolitan areas, are part and parcel of mass transit issues. It's the same here as what Sue talks about in Baltimore: the only people who ride the bus are the people who *have* to ride the bus, and they get horribly soaked when MTA decides to raise fares because "not enough people ride" the unreliable, inconvenient bus system. later, Miles ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 13:07:13 -0400 (EDT) From: Sue Trowbridge Subject: [loud-fans] From the Onion...or is it real?? OK, I'll shut up & actually begin my work day after I post this, but I thought this was a pretty remarkable news story. Way to go Denver ;) Is there *anything* that can't be commercialized?????? - --Sue Denver firm puts ads on signs for panhandlers - - - - - - - - - - - - - Denver May 22, 2002 | By Associated Press -- An advertising firm is handing out signs to panhandlers with a plug for the company -- a stunt homeless advocates say trivializes the plight of those on the streets. Laminated signs with snappy messages such as, "At Least I'm Not Spamming Your E-Mail," and "Hell, It Beats a Cubicle," have begun replacing cardboard placards normally waved by panhandlers at motorists. Dennis Wakabayachi, CEO of Sumaato Advertising, handed out the signs on Tuesday. Panhandlers are not paid to hold the signs. "Kind of synergistic, if you think about it," he said. "We're an ad agency, and in this tough market we have to do something to get attention." Homeless advocates said the signs focus attention in the wrong direction. "We're trying to create lasting solutions to homelessness, and certainly panhandling, and promoting that, are not going to get us there," said John Parvensky, president of the Colorado Coalition for the Homeless. "We've never encouraged folks to give to panhandlers or for people to go out and panhandle." One out of five panhandlers refused the signs, said Wakabayachi, who added that the stunt was designed to help the homeless. Bobby Harden, 27, had good luck when she used a sign that read: "The Market Sucks/ But I Offer a High Return On Your Investments: Good Karma." She said a woman stopped and handed her a $20 bill, saying: "`I need all the good karma I can get."' Mike Garvey said the only response he got to the sign was negative. "Some guy yelled out, 'Get a job!"' ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 13:09:04 -0400 (EDT) From: jsharple@bls.brooklaw.edu Subject: Re: [loud-fans] me in a car, you in a bus Quoting Aaron Mandel : Sharples decried the comparison of > labels-exploiting-artists > with fans-downloading-unauthorizedly, but the point was not deciding > which > is abstractly worse; the point is that the government is being asked > to > swing its ax and spend its cash in service of reducing the latter. Yeah but the government will usually only act to change the trade laws at the behest of parties who feel they are being unfairly injured, which doesn't automatically mean the proposed legislation is necessarily evil. And just to try to make my point a bit clearer: Jeff may very well be right that a certain bit of proposed legislation sucks - I don't know, I haven't looked into it myself - but I would prefer to hear it criticized on its own terms, not with this generalized gripe about how the record business is always screwing the little guy. Now doubt they often do, but it's more complex than that. JS If > the > stated goal is improving artists' lot, I'd rather the government *did* > concern itself with figuring out which actions help artists most with > the > least government intervention. That means comparing all the things > that > suck about being a musician, not just the things that Big Content is > lobbying for the government to look at. > > Y'know? > > a > - ------------------------------------------------- BROOKLYN LAW SCHOOL WEBMAIL: info.brooklaw.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 12:19:47 -0500 From: Chris Prew Subject: Re: [loud-fans] me in a car, you in a bus > I hate it when people say "government should be more > like business." Government is a fundamentally different proposition, and > should be treated as such. Government is a LOSS PROPOSITION in dollars and > cents terms from the get go, but it's one for the common good. THANK YOU! I get so tired of that phrase. "Would you run your business like that?" they say. Of course you wouldn't. Here's the problem (IMHO for all that follows); In good economic times, governments make lots of money on income taxes (unemployment down, wages up), sales tax (spending is up), investments doing well, etc. So that9s when the conservatives say "See, our taxes are too high, look at all the surplus money they have." So, we take all the money we've saved and give it away (usually to the upper classes & businesses, but I digress) rather than saving it for a rainy day when we will need it to prime the economic pump. Of course when the economy is bad, governments don't make as much money for the inverse of the above reasons, and since they gave all the excess money away when times were good, now they have no money for jobs programs, food shelves, etc. So we cut funding for social programs because we don't have the money -- and in hard times, when it is LEAST likely to do any good and hits the working classes the hardest, we contemplate raising taxes. Which, in a nutshell, is why government will never be run like a business - you'll never hear a business say "We're too profitable - we should probably cut our prices and give everyone a free rebate." Chris Who is, in the midst of the good times of summer for our restaurant, regularly storing away money for the lean Minnesota winter to come. Maybe government should be run more like a SMALL business rather than a BIG business. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 11:33:18 -0600 From: "Roger Winston" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] From the Onion...or is it real?? Sue Trowbridge on 5/23/2002 7:07:13 AM wrote: > OK, I'll shut up & actually begin my work day after I post this, but I > thought this was a pretty remarkable news story. Way to go Denver ;) Is > there *anything* that can't be commercialized?????? >> Denver firm puts ads on signs for panhandlers I tried to get my favorite panhandler at 6th & Lincoln to write "www.reignoffrogs.com" on his sign, but he wouldn't do it. I even offered him a free Reign of Frogs CD. You know, I might even have bought him a burrito from the Chipotle across the street, as long as he didn't want the steak one. Latre. --Rog ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 14:28:36 -0400 (EDT) From: Dave Walker Subject: [loud-fans] "no Mr. Bond, I expect you to die." John Sharples said: > Jeff may very well be right that a certain > bit of proposed legislation sucks - I don't know, I > haven't looked into it myself - but I would prefer > to hear it criticized on its own terms, not with > this generalized gripe about how the record business is always screwing > the little guy. Now doubt they often do, but it's more > complex than that. Okay, a Reader's Digest version of my problems with the CARP proposal (not to be confused with Napster/Kazaa/AudioGalaxy whatever -- they are entirely separate issues, though the RIAA likes to conflate the two): In a nutshell, internet broadcasters, large and small, are expected to cough up fees and submit to recordkeeping that is massively disproportionate to what terrestrial radio broadcasters currently have to do. Under the CARP proposal, a single stream being broadcast to a single listener (i.e. a broadcaster listening to his/her own stream for a year) would be liable for $184 in fees! In addition, broadcasters are expected to provide invasive information about their listener base, including unique user identifiers. I'm all for musicians getting paid, but this is a BAD LAW, one that aims primarily not to compensate artists, but to kill webcasting, dead. It's salt in the wounds that the musicians I support on my station likely won't see a dime of this "new revenue stream", they'll just have one less place to have their music heard. -d.w. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 14:31:18 -0400 (EDT) From: Michael Mitton Subject: Re: [loud-fans] me in a car, you in a bus On Thu, 23 May 2002, Sue Trowbridge wrote: > The thing that I don't understand is why it's OK for the gummint to spend > $$$$$ building & maintaining roads, but public transit is supposed to "pay > for itself" via fares, etc. I think there is a decent reason that public transit should be expected to 'pay for itself.' Basically, if it can't pay for itself, then we're spending more on the system than its worth to the people who use the system, which is to say, we're throwing resources down the drain. Or to put it another way (and somewhat, though not terribly simplistically): If it can't pay for itself, then if you offered only those people who actually ride the bus the choice between the present bus service system and a cash rebate equal to their share of the cost of the bus service system to forgo the system, more people would choose the rebate and cancel bus service than would choose continuing bus service. Or to put it another way: if it can't pay for itself, then it amounts to a subsidy to bus riders. But if it can't pay for itself, then the bus riders would prefer an equivalent subsidy in some other form (say, helping with rent.) (Not every bus rider would prefer this, of course, but the mythical sterotypical bus rider.) (The above just looks at bus riders. If you want an argument for why buses *shouldn't* pay for themselves, then go with the fact that non-bus riders receive an indirect benefit from people who choose to ride bus instead of car.) All of this is just as true for building roads--if they don't pay for themselves, they shouldn't be built. The problem obviously is that it's much harder to charge people for building specific roads. Tolls come close, gas taxes are also a proxy, but there is no equivalent to a "bus fare" for road building. If there were, then we can be sure an equal emphasis would be placed on road building paying for itself. - --Michael ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 15:15:02 -0400 From: Cyndy Patrick Subject: Re: [loud-fans] me in a car, you in a bus > I think there is a decent reason that public transit should be expected to > 'pay for itself.' Basically, if it can't pay for itself, then we're > spending more on the system than its worth to the people who use the > system, which is to say, we're throwing resources down the drain. When considering whether public transit pays for itself it's important to factor in some benefits that may be hard put a price tag on, such as fewer cars on the road (decreased traffic congestion) and cleaner air. Or even slightly-more-fit riders who walk a few blocks (or more) instead of driving door-to-door. I hate the idea of driving cars, and only use mine as a last resort, when biking-walking-public transportation are out. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 14:23:22 -0500 (CDT) From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: [loud-fans] me in a car, you in a bus On Thu, 23 May 2002, Michael Mitton wrote: > On Thu, 23 May 2002, Sue Trowbridge wrote: > > > The thing that I don't understand is why it's OK for the gummint to spend > > $$$$$ building & maintaining roads, but public transit is supposed to "pay > > for itself" via fares, etc. > > I think there is a decent reason that public transit should be expected to > 'pay for itself.' Basically, if it can't pay for itself, then we're > spending more on the system than its worth to the people who use the > system, which is to say, we're throwing resources down the drain. Or to > put it another way (and somewhat, though not terribly simplistically): If > it can't pay for itself, then if you offered only those people who > actually ride the bus the choice between the present bus service system > and a cash rebate equal to their share of the cost of the bus service > system to forgo the system, more people would choose the rebate and cancel > bus service than would choose continuing bus service. > > Or to put it another way: if it can't pay for itself, then it amounts to a > subsidy to bus riders. But if it can't pay for itself, then the bus > riders would prefer an equivalent subsidy in some other form (say, helping > with rent.) (Not every bus rider would prefer this, of course, but the > mythical sterotypical bus rider.) But as Miles (I think) pointed out, government is not a money-making proposition. More specifically, *no* mode of transportation makes a profit: not trains, not buses, not air travel, not automobiles, etc. - and to the extent that entities within those subsystems make money, it's largely traceable to a subsidy somewhere down the line. BTW, I guess the quickest way for me to start a discussion on Loudfans is to post late at night when I'm tired and don't bother sketching my reasoning clearly. So: I agree with Sharples' last paragraph in his initial response to my rant of last night: a fair system of compensation needs to be worked out to ensure that artists, publishers, and record companies (when the latter two are invovled) get paid. The reason I think it's at least reasonable to bring up BigRecordCo gouging in the context of this discussion is that most of the legislation - proposed and otherwise - has been driven by their interests, not artists'. (And yeah, I *do* think they're phenomenally successful lobbyists: see again Dave Walker's post that I quoted in my initial response.) They're aware that public sympathy is more likely to be with artists than with record company execs, so they play it as if this is about artists' interests - but their history in re those artists' interests is surely enough to at least question their sincerity on that score. As to my admittedly overbroad, and intentionally somewhat manifesto-like, blast against money as artistic motivator: okay, it's possible that someone might go into music intending to make money, do so, and still make good music. And despite his genius as a guitarist and songwriter (and not a bad businessman either, if I recall), I wouldn't want to use Chuck Berry as a model for personal behavior in just about any other area of life... I might note that, as Lou Reed said, "those were different times": to make money doing music *now* is a different animal than it was in the fifties. And if I had said what Sharples did - that artistic motivation is powerful enough in many that art would be created regardless of profit motive - I'd have been smarter. But Balzar's point seems to be that *not* passing legislation will lead to fewer artists making art. Maybe so...but since the *existing* barriers that prevent most artists from making money are so numerous and strong, Balzar's argument seems awfully weak: it may be true that if I tried to run across the freeway at rush hour I might trip and sprain my ankle, and I certainly don't want a sprained ankle - but there are so many better reasons preventing me from running across the freeway that it seems silly to introduce sprained ankles as a possible disincentive. (And if I'm damned determined to run across the freeway, saying "but you might sprain your ankle" is unlikely to deter me.) Finally, back to the public transit thing: Certainly, people like John, and Sue and Joe, and so forth, who live in major urban areas with developed public transportation and roads too clogged to encourage reliance on cars, are likely to see its benefits. But as Miles pointed out (and my late-night phrasing was such that it appeared I disagreed with him - - and I don't), most of us live in no such place. What I was really thinking of are proposals to create a very versatile, small-tram -based public transportation system that could do nearly as well as cars as getting you where you want, when you want, but which would do away with the need for parking - since the vehicles don't *belong* to you, and circulate freely. There are obvious logistical problems with any such proposal, but many of them have been worked out - and for many folks involved int he proposals, the chief barrier to their acceptance (aside from the usual initial capitalization) is the fact that people *want* to own their own cars; they have an attachment to them that is far more than merely practical. (FWIW, Rose knows a whole lot more about such urban planning ideas than I do - but she's not on the list, alas...) Cars form a large part of many people's identities - and the point of my comparison was that being an artist is similar, in that it has a personal and psychological value for many of those who so identify themselves that would be there regardless of whatever other benefits, material or social, that might come their way from their being artists. And any argument that attempts to wean people away from their cars that *doesn't* take into account such feelings is doomed to failure, just as is any attempt to negotiate digital music reproduction that fails to understand artists' extra-economic motivations - and that fails to understand record companies' *primarily* economic motivations (often inimical to artists' interests). ..................... (last line courtesy of Spin, who got up from my lap and stepped on the keyboard for a while.) - --Jeff J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society www.uwm.edu/~jenor/ADS.html ::playing around with the decentered self is all fun and games ::until somebody loses an I. last played: purring lap-cat ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 15:58:22 -0400 From: Stewart Mason Subject: Re: [loud-fans] me in a car, you in a bus At 02:23 PM 5/23/2002 -0500, Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey wrote: >Finally, back to the public transit thing: Certainly, people like John, >and Sue and Joe, and so forth, who live in major urban areas with >developed public transportation and roads too clogged to encourage >reliance on cars, are likely to see its benefits. But as Miles pointed out >(and my late-night phrasing was such that it appeared I disagreed with him >- and I don't), most of us live in no such place. What I was really >thinking of are proposals to create a very versatile, small-tram -based >public transportation system that could do nearly as well as cars as >getting you where you want, when you want, but which would do away with >the need for parking - since the vehicles don't *belong* to you, and >circulate freely. There are obvious logistical problems with any such >proposal, but many of them have been worked out - and for many folks >involved int he proposals, the chief barrier to their acceptance (aside >from the usual initial capitalization) is the fact that people *want* to >own their own cars; they have an attachment to them that is far more than >merely practical. There's actually another option that I would love to see gain further acceptance: the Zipcar (see www.zipcar.com for details). Zipcars are basically built on the same principle as the white bicycles of Amsterdam: they're parked in public lots around Boston, Brookline and Cambridge, you rent them by the hour or the day for those errands that are too onerous to use the T for, and when you're done with them, you put them back and your credit card is billed for however long you had the car and however many miles you drove, plus a $75 annual fee. It's cheaper than renting by the day through a regular car rental agency (the maximum daily rental is $55 with taxes and fees included), plus the insurance and gas are paid for out of your fees, so it's unbelievably cheaper than owning a car. If you're like me and you only need to drive *maybe* once a week, Zipcars are totally the way to go. They're in New York, Denver and Washington DC now too, but this strikes me as something that would be useful anywhere. Stewart NP: Consonant, s/t (new band with Burma's Clint Conley -- this is my favorite MoB-related release since Volcano Suns broke up) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 16:08:21 -0400 (EDT) From: jsharple@bls.brooklaw.edu Subject: Re: [loud-fans] me in a car, you in a bus Quoting Stewart Mason : > NP: Consonant, s/t (new band with Burma's Clint Conley -- this is my > favorite MoB-related release since Volcano Suns broke up) Grahame and Card and I saw Consonant open for Luna at the 9:30 last weekend. I liked them a lot, though my compatriots were less enthralled. To me, they were instantly recognizable as a *Boston band* - I had a palpable flashback to late-80's Boston during their set...they had a real Dumptruck/Volcano Suns/Zulus/Big Dipper vibe to them. Throw in a little Sunny Day Real Estate. If that's your thing, worth a spin. By the way, it was my first seeing Luna (after a comical number of close calls) and I was suitably blown away. I agree with Grahame that the lead guitarist is the hero of that band, and that snappy number Britta is the Faye Dunaway of indie rock. JS - ------------------------------------------------- BROOKLYN LAW SCHOOL WEBMAIL: info.brooklaw.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 16:08:15 -0400 (EDT) From: jsharple@bls.brooklaw.edu Subject: Re: [loud-fans] me in a car, you in a bus Quoting Stewart Mason : > NP: Consonant, s/t (new band with Burma's Clint Conley -- this is my > favorite MoB-related release since Volcano Suns broke up) Grahame and Card and I saw Consonant open for Luna at the 9:30 last weekend. I liked them a lot, though my compatriots were less enthralled. To me, they were instantly recognizable as a *Boston band* - I had a palpable flashback to late-80's Boston during their set...they had a real Dumptruck/Volcano Suns/Zulus/Big Dipper vibe to them. Throw in a little Sunny Day Real Estate. If that's your thing, worth a spin. By the way, it was my first seeing Luna (after a comical number of close calls) and I was suitably blown away. I agree with Grahame that the lead guitarist is the hero of that band, and that snappy number Britta is the Faye Dunaway of indie rock. JS - ------------------------------------------------- BROOKLYN LAW SCHOOL WEBMAIL: info.brooklaw.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 16:28:47 -0400 From: jenny grover Subject: Re: [loud-fans] me in a car, you in a bus Stewart Mason wrote: > NP: Consonant, s/t (new band with Burma's Clint Conley -- this is my > favorite MoB-related release since Volcano Suns broke up) Oooh! Thank you for posting that. I didn't know it was out yet. I headed right over to the Fenway page and ordered a copy :) Jen ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 15:26:39 -0500 (CDT) From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: [loud-fans] From the Onion...or is it real?? On Thu, 23 May 2002, Sue Trowbridge wrote: > Denver firm puts ads on signs for panhandlers > > - - - - - - - - - - - - > Denver > > May 22, 2002 | By Associated Press -- > > An advertising firm is handing out signs to panhandlers with a plug for > the company -- a stunt homeless advocates say trivializes the plight of > those on the streets. > Dennis Wakabayachi, CEO of Sumaato Advertising, handed out the signs on > Tuesday. Panhandlers are not paid to hold the signs. > > "Kind of synergistic, if you think about it," he said. "We're an ad > agency, and in this tough market we have to do something to get > attention." "Synergistic"? Oh - so *that's* how ad execs say "sinking to a new low in exploitation." I mean, I get pissed in a pet-peevey way about the extent to which people are willing to advertise things for free (logo-bearing clothing, etc.), but at least they're doing so voluntarily, and receiving *some* benefit from it (not freezing their asses off, not being arrested for public nudity...). Why not just tattoo the messages on the backs of the homeless, and then nail their bodies to a billboard? Solves *two* problems at once! - --Jeff J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society www.uwm.edu/~jenor/ADS.html ::The dog-eared pages, the highlighted passages, the margin ::notations...this book has actually been read: it can't be a student's! __Jose Chung__ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 14:24:42 -0700 From: "me" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] From the Onion...or is it real?? > "Synergistic"? has everyone seen the google logo today? how about the George site? http://chroniclesofgeorge.nanc.com/index.htm brianna - -- "Drag me, drop me, treat me like an object." - -- ------------------------------ End of loud-fans-digest V2 #184 *******************************