From: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org (loud-fans-digest) To: loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Subject: loud-fans-digest V6 #16 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 Tuesday, January 17 2006 Volume 06 : Number 016 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: [loud-fans] warnings and promises ["Russell Keegstra" ] Re: [loud-fans] warnings and promises ["Pete O." ] Re: [loud-fans] warnings and promises [2fs ] [loud-fans] warnings and promises ["don't mine me" ] Re: [loud-fans] warnings and promises [Jenny Grover ] Re: [loud-fans] warnings and promises ["Bye Bye Blackbirds" ] Re: [loud-fans] warnings and promises [Steve Holtebeck ] Re: [loud-fans] warnings and promises [2fs ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 06:55:20 -0700 From: "Russell Keegstra" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] warnings and promises >...I think there really should be a truth in labeling law in > regards to them that makes it utterly clear ON THE OUTSIDE PACKAGING > what you're getting... > Jen I recently bought an album that had the usual sticker on the shrinkwrap (contains the hits! or something) that *exactly* covered up the copy protection warning printed on the booklet. Russ "We have impact, bearing 200, 8 miles." "Do you have an altitude?" "That's *impact*, sir. Ground level." Radio traffic from NASA Genesis probe recovery, September 8 2004 -- I'd say that NASA learned from Genesis, but Stardust was actually built *before* Genesis was. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 11:06:22 -0500 From: glenn mcdonald Subject: Re: [loud-fans] warnings and promises I see a lot of CDs with fairly forthright descriptions of their copyprotection (or what they think is their copyprotection, anyway) on the outside of the package. So far I've run into exactly one CD, ever, that my PowerBook/iTunes didn't cheerfully rip without comment, despite many of them sternly declaring, to no clear purpose, that a Macintosh wouldn't be able to even begin to comprehend their majesty. But clear warnings are really no virtue unless there's some alternative way to buy the same music, for some other price or on some other terms or from some other maker, which in the official music business at the moment there usually isn't, thus enter the unofficial music business to serve an obvious need. Is there really not a single person in LA who remembers enough of their college Economics course to suggest the innovative idea of changing their market fortunes by offering more and/or charging less? Evidence seems to indicate not. glenn ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 08:44:02 -0800 (PST) From: "Pete O." Subject: Re: [loud-fans] warnings and promises - --- glenn mcdonald wrote: > So far I've run into exactly one CD, > ever, that my PowerBook/iTunes didn't cheerfully rip Curious... which one? - - Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 11:50:08 -0600 From: 2fs Subject: Re: [loud-fans] warnings and promises On 1/16/06, glenn mcdonald wrote: > I see a lot of CDs with fairly forthright descriptions of their > copyprotection (or what they think is their copyprotection, anyway) > on the outside of the package. So far I've run into exactly one CD, > ever, that my PowerBook/iTunes didn't cheerfully rip without comment, > despite many of them sternly declaring, to no clear purpose, that a > Macintosh wouldn't be able to even begin to comprehend their majesty. > But clear warnings are really no virtue unless there's some > alternative way to buy the same music, for some other price or on > some other terms or from some other maker, which in the official > music business at the moment there usually isn't, thus enter the > unofficial music business to serve an obvious need. Fortunately there are very few CDs on the Evil-Bearing List that I'd want to hear - but should I acquire an evilotomized version courtesy of Mac- or Linux-loving friends, I would feel almost duty-bound to share it, on the grounds that plenty of people who did pay for it can't enjoy it. > Is there really not a single person in LA who remembers enough of > their college Economics course to suggest the innovative idea of > changing their market fortunes by offering more and/or charging less? > Evidence seems to indicate not. I think it's interesting that (even though bandwidth issues prevent their being as readily duplicable as songs) DVDs seem to sell pretty well - in part because they *do* offer value-added over just the movie (usually) and are (generally) priced reasonably. I can still remember when VHS tapes of movies were like fifty bucks - gotta be kidding me. And of course they were readily rentable and duplicable - so buying them was rather foolish. I think in one of his online articles Doug MW wrote about some suggestions for value-added materials (in CDs or DVDs - don't remember which) that wouldn't be duplicable - a reasonably good idea, if maybe hard to implement. Even something as simple as a variation on the old cereal boxtop idea - say, proof you've actually purchased one CD/DVD gives you discount (a serious one, not $1 off or something) on others by that artist or something - would help. - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 13:52:26 -0500 (EST) From: "don't mine me" Subject: [loud-fans] warnings and promises 2fs: "but should I acquire an evilotomized version courtesy of Mac- or Linux-loving friends, I would feel almost duty-bound to share it, on the grounds that plenty of people who did pay for it can't enjoy it." I hear this sentiment a lot, and I think it's really playing into the hands of those who want to force more draconian content protection measures onto the populace. You're giving them a reason to say "Even with the help of suncomm / mediamax, xcp, and whatever, the filesharer's *still* stole the shirts from our backs. So, dear legislators, we need your help to protect our business from our customers." If nobody bought the new Kate Bush record (for example) *and* nobody shared it on-line *and* it was clear that the record tanked because of its DRM, that might send a message that EMI (for example) would actually heed. Maybe. * Please don't write me back at this address; this is an outgoing-mail-only address, because addresses I use to post to archived mailing lists aren't safe from spammers. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 14:21:21 -0500 From: Jenny Grover Subject: Re: [loud-fans] warnings and promises glenn mcdonald wrote: > I see a lot of CDs with fairly forthright descriptions of their > copyprotection (or what they think is their copyprotection, anyway) > on the outside of the package. So far I've run into exactly one CD, > ever, that my PowerBook/iTunes didn't cheerfully rip without comment, > despite many of them sternly declaring, to no clear purpose, that a > Macintosh wouldn't be able to even begin to comprehend their majesty. We encountered one that not only couldn't be comprehended by the Mac, it got stuck in it and required jumping through hoops to get it out. That one was not labeled on the outside, but was labeled on the disc itself. It's a promo, so I don't know what the regular release looks like. Linux had no problem with it. When you are able to physically examine a disc before purchase, you can often determine if it's copy protected, but when you purchase online, as I have to do with most of my collection, about the only way you will find out if it's a copy protected disc is if there are customer reviews up alerting you to the fact. Online sellers are not being forthright about telling the public what they're buying. Jen ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 14:24:17 -0500 From: glenn mcdonald Subject: Re: [loud-fans] warnings and promises >> So far I've run into exactly one CD, >> ever, that my PowerBook/iTunes didn't cheerfully rip > > Curious... which one? It was David Bridie's _Hotel Radio_, and my strong suspicion is that the problem was a manufacturing defect, not a copy-protection victory, but since I'd mail-ordered it from Australia it was easier to get it into the computer via audio input than to trying exchanging it for a new CD... ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 14:26:09 -0500 From: Jenny Grover Subject: Re: [loud-fans] warnings and promises don't mine me wrote: >If nobody bought the new Kate Bush record (for example) *and* nobody >shared it on-line *and* it was clear that the record tanked because of its >DRM, that might send a message that EMI (for example) would actually heed. >Maybe. > > > The new Kate Bush is DRMed? And I had just been warming up a little to the idea of maybe acquiring it. Jen ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 14:42:54 -0500 (EST) From: "don't mine me" Subject: [loud-fans] warnings and promises Jen: "The new Kate Bush is DRMed? And I had just been warming up a little to the idea of maybe acquiring it." I don't actually know that it is -- I only know that there was some discussion about applying copy protection to it in the months prior to its release. (I haven't seen it on any of the lists of discs protected by XCP, the most controversial of the physical CD copy protection techniques.) But I think it's a good example of the kind of case the industry will need: an artist with a proven track record. Please don't write me back at this address; this is an outgoing-mail-only address, because addresses I use to post to archived mailing lists aren't safe from spammers. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 13:38:33 -0700 From: "Russell Keegstra" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] warnings and promises >> Jen: "The new Kate Bush is DRMed? And I had just been warming up a little to >> the idea of maybe acquiring it." > > I don't actually know that it is -- I only know that there was some > discussion about applying copy protection to it in the months prior to its > release. My copy isn't. Straight red book audio with no "extras". ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 10:13:25 -0800 From: Michael Mitton Subject: Re: [loud-fans] warnings and promises > Is there really not a single person in LA who remembers enough of > their college Economics course to suggest the innovative idea of > changing their market fortunes by offering more and/or charging less? > Evidence seems to indicate not. But this, I think, is exactly the problem. We need to get over the notion that all of this DRM is about stopping piracy. It's not. For example, given Sony's "rootkit" did absolutely nothing to hamper use on Mac, Linux, or Windows (if you're a little bit smart), anyone inclined to piracy is going to be a pirate. Honestly, do they really think any of these measures is going to stop P2P sharing or copies being sold alongside Rolex watches? No, DRM is about controlling exactly how you use the music, and the reason they want to do this is because someone took an economics course. The ability to dictate how you use their music is the ability to price discriminate between customers. If you can segment markets between people who want the highest quality will full access to fair-use rights, people who want high quality but don't need backup copies, people who don't particularly care about quality but want it on their iPod, people who really only want one or two songs, or people who only want one or two songs and only want to listen to them once--then you get to sell to more people, only charging them all different prices. This is especially effective with music, movies, etc., where the marginal cost of producing a good is essentially zero. So the point isn't to offer more and charge less; it's to charge less only to those who aren't willing to pay more, and to charge as much as possible to those who are, and then use quality differences to be sure that the high-value customers don't switch to low price. Piracy is just the bugaboo they're using to dictate how we use content. And it's only going to get worse. Just listen to the legislation these guys are proposing for HDTV, or even analog content. Writing your Senator or Representative matters, so tell them to support the Digital Millenium Consumer Rights Act: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DMCRA mm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 15:05:20 -0600 From: 2fs Subject: Re: [loud-fans] warnings and promises On 1/16/06, don't mine me wrote: > 2fs: "but should I acquire an evilotomized version courtesy > of Mac- or Linux-loving friends, I would feel almost duty-bound to > share it, on the grounds that plenty of people who did pay for it > can't enjoy it." > > I hear this sentiment a lot, and I think it's really playing into the > hands of those who want to force more draconian content protection > measures onto the populace. You're giving them a reason to say "Even with > the help of suncomm / mediamax, xcp, and whatever, the filesharer's > *still* stole the shirts from our backs. So, dear legislators, we need > your help to protect our business from our customers." To which someone should reply, "Yes - but those who did buy the shirt found that it shrunk three sizes when they washed it; and you provided inadequate notice that they had to wash it only using your special water; and you provided no means for them to either exchange the shirt or know in advance that it's that kind of shirt." And of course shirts, unlike music, are material objects that can't be duplicated in the same way. > If nobody bought the new Kate Bush record (for example) *and* nobody > shared it on-line *and* it was clear that the record tanked because of its > DRM, that might send a message that EMI (for example) would actually heed. > Maybe. Note, however, that I haven't actually done any such thing... Unfortunately, not buying the Kate Bush CD wouldn't communicate anything...because most records out there are effectively bought by nobody, and low sales can always be attributed to any number of other factors - no matter how many bloggers proclaim that they're not buying CD X because of copy protection. In other words, while it's true at some level that openly filesharing plays into the industry's hands, it's pretty much impossible for consumers to play any other game. Other than, of course, on an individual basis by not buying such CDs and generally eschewing big labels. (And that, actually, is what's happening: I think I just read a couple weeks ago that indie labels continue to do well while the majors continue to slump.) I think the real problem is that the big industry's become entirely dependent upon the most casual and fickle buyers - and it's the most popular music that's also the most fileshared. Does the RIAA really care if some guy in New Hampshire puts up a copy of the new metal album on Dogsbreath Records by the Sweaty Corpsehuffers, which is then downloaded by fifteen people? No - they care about the thousands of folks sharing the already-popular stuff. The big labels are trying to maintain a sales model that no longer fits reality. (Ironic that people who are otherwise free-marketeers defend them here.) If filesharing cuts into sales, proportionately more so on larger-selling artists, take that into account in production: make fewer of those CDs. Don't rely so much on a small handful of titles providing the bulk of your profit; distribute your expectations of profit more sensibly amongst a number of different releases that cost less to make and can be profitable with lower levels of sales. Do something about the corrosive relationship with radio, whereby payola by any other name means you have to dump large sums into certain artists' promotional budgets, and whereby radio forces you to rely upon huge sales of a small number of artists; and instead try to do something to distribute the sales more evenly so you're not relying primarily on a small number of "clients" each of whose individual failure affects you catastrophically. Recognize - oh about ten years ago - that if you essentially had started your own streaming online radio, developed a model similar to iTunes, used lower-quality mp3s as promotional devices, and tried to meet your customers' expectations rather than antagonizing and suing them, they might not be fleeing you in droves. Twenty-five years ago, if you liked a particular song, for example, you could buy a single for a relatively low price. Now, you're often forced to buy the entire CD, at an artificially high price (prices that should have dropped dramatically since the early '90s but have not). Compare to a situation like this one: I play ball with the industry by actually purchasing a CD - say, by the New Pornographers. Instead of saying, thank you for buying our actual CD, here's a coupon to download a high-quality version of a bonus track, that bonus track ("High Art, Local News") is available *only* if pay 4/5 the price of the actual CD *again* for a 128-encoded version of the album I already paid for in full CD quality. Can I download the individual track? Nope - - gotta buy the CD twice. Economically, that seems like a pretty strong incentive to acquire the track by other means. Or: Do I want to risk fucking up my computer by paying $15 for a "CD" that isn't a CD? Or would I rather protect my investment in my computer, costing 100 times that, by finding a safe copy of the same music? Can I pay for that safe copy and still benefit the industry? Nope - they won't allow it. - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 13:23:40 -0800 From: "Bye Bye Blackbirds" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] warnings and promises Moving away from the copy protection issue, but following up on the issue of industry economics, the new Big Takeover has an interesting interview with Death Cab for Cutie that gets into the phenomenon of spectacular indie success that can translate into benefits for bands that sign to majors. Apparently Death Cab was able to sell 300,000 copies of their albums as an indie band, so that when the majors came calling Death Cab was essentially able to dictate the terms they wanted and the major was confident that they didn't have to do much in the way of "building" an already well built act. Bright Eyes and Interpol are also mentioned as indie bands that sell major label quantities. This is contrasted with bands like Hole who were barely selling 15,000 as indies and were at the mercy of the majors who needed to invest a lot more in gaining them a sizeable audience ("needed" by major standards, of course--Joe Pernice makes a living at 50 to 60,000 copies, with the occasional Sears ad thrown in.) Anyhow, it's an interesting phenomenon that shows how the old major system of grooming an act for success while burying an act in debt and contractual nightmares is being avoided to the benefit of both the bands and the major labels! I'm thinking now of some aquaintences of mine who signed to a major over a year ago, and have spent the entire time being "groomed". They fought off firing members of their band who were deemed "too old", they've re-recorded some of their songs a million times, and there's still no album release in sight. I hate to think about how much money they must owe the label by now--they'd probably be in better shape if they'd done it themselves for a couple years. Or maybe they'l be the next Click Five..who knows... B ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 17:44:11 -0500 From: "Stewart Mason" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] warnings and promises All of this still underscores the fundamental problem with the major labels: I bought or downloaded (through eMusic, mostly) somewhere north of 1000 records in 2005. There was copy protection on exactly one of them, Natasha Bedingfield's UNWRITTEN. (Incidentally, this is an excellent example of chart pop done right, and it *should* have been a big hit. Unfortunately, it got caught in the copy protection cock-up and -- unfortunately for Ms. Bedingfield -- the album was recalled and impossible to purchase for most of the period that the single "These Words" was on the charts.) If someone who listens to as much music as I do only ran into copy-protection issues once, then their main problem isn't the copy protection, it's that they're releasing crap albums. S ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 17:59:40 -0600 From: 2fs Subject: Re: [loud-fans] warnings and promises On 1/16/06, Stewart Mason wrote: > All of this still underscores the fundamental problem with the major > labels: I bought or downloaded (through eMusic, mostly) somewhere > north of 1000 records in 2005. Jeezis. How do you find time to listen to all of 'em? Although I guess it helps that it's your job! I think I acquired somewhere in the neighborhood of 60-70 full-length CDs in 2005, and about the same in single tracks (i.e., I compiled them into 60-70 full-length mix CDs). And I still have several hundred unlistened-to mp3s from the "unlimited" eMusic days that I've not gotten around to listening to... I should look - but I'm pretty sure only a handful of those were released on major labels...and of those, almost all were by long-established acts (i.e., acts that developed first on indie labels). - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 16:26:11 -0800 (GMT-08:00) From: Steve Holtebeck Subject: Re: [loud-fans] warnings and promises From: Stewart Mason >All of this still underscores the fundamental problem with the major >labels: I bought or downloaded (through eMusic, mostly) somewhere >north of 1000 records in 2005. There was copy protection on exactly >one of them, Natasha Bedingfield's UNWRITTEN. (Incidentally, this is >an excellent example of chart pop done right, and it *should* have >been a big hit. Unfortunately, it got caught in the copy protection >cock-up and -- unfortunately for Ms. Bedingfield -- the album was >recalled and impossible to purchase for most of the period that the >single "These Words" was on the charts.) If someone who listens to as >much music as I do only ran into copy-protection issues once, then >their main problem isn't the copy protection, it's that they're >releasing crap albums. How are you sure all those albums you didn't buy were "crap albums"? Just curious, - -Steve ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 21:36:04 -0500 From: "Stewart Mason" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] warnings and promises - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Holtebeck" > How are you sure all those albums you didn't buy were "crap albums"? If I'd heard them and liked them, I would have bought them. If I heard them and didn't buy them, I must not have liked them. Hence, "crap albums." It's certainly undeniable that there were very good albums released by both major and indie labels that I have not gotten around to hear yet. (I just recently told a friend of mine, "Yes, I'm sure Jens Lekman is every bit as awesome as you keep saying he is, but there's only so many hours in the day.") But thanks to our friends at Rhapsody, Yahoo Music and Virgin Digital (which is the one I've been subscribed to for some time, after trying out all three), it's easier than ever to know if something is for me before I drop the $8-$14 at Newbury Comics. S ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 22:16:45 -0500 From: Jenny Grover Subject: [loud-fans] arab strap US release? Does anyone know what the US release date is for Arab Strap's "The Last Romance"? I can't seem to find out anywhere. There is a promo of it up for sale on half.com, so it must be imminent, and I hesitate to buy the import because the US version has 2 more tracks on it, and there's the price issue, of course, but I just want to know how long I have to wait and when I should start looking again to order it. Jen ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 20:01:20 -0500 From: "Paul King" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] warnings and promises Yes, it is sad to see people publically admitting to doing this, especially since I am moving in the other direction. My only disagreement with "the industry" is big business's tendency to own the copyright of their artists, which usually amounts to ripping off the artist, so that even artists that make top-40 hits are destined for a relatively modest living. That is, they tend to earn a slim minority of the royalties. It's just that when you rip off music from big business, you are also hurting the artist, which is obviously an effect that no conscientious person intended. And you also are breaking Copyright Law. It all goes back to the notion of, if you don't like what the label is doing, don't give them your money by purchasing what they sell. But don't steal it either, since that really gives a different message, and not a message that is socially responsible. Paul King On 15 Jan 2006 at 17:02, Dennis (Dennis ) spaketh these wourdes: > I didn't see anything on loud-fans about this june '05 TWAS post, but > maybe I wasn't paying enough attention. Is the world now coming to an end? > > http://www.furia.com/page.cgi?type=twas&id=twas0503 > > __________ NOD32 1.1368 (20060116) Information __________ > > This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. > http://www.eset.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 22:56:12 -0600 From: 2fs Subject: Re: [loud-fans] warnings and promises On 1/16/06, Paul King wrote: > Yes, it is sad to see people publically admitting to doing this, especially since > I am moving in the other direction. > > My only disagreement with "the industry" is big business's tendency to own the > copyright of their artists, which usually amounts to ripping off the artist, so > that even artists that make top-40 hits are destined for a relatively modest > living. That is, they tend to earn a slim minority of the royalties. The record industry has always been notorious for ripping off artists, i.e., theft. > It's just that when you rip off music from big business, you are also hurting the > artist, which is obviously an effect that no conscientious person intended. Are you? If a label's not paying an artist, how is your not paying the label hurting the artist? At any rate, if the artist is being hurt, how come so many artists are perfectly complacent about downloading, even encouraging it? Because they know that most people use downloading as a sampler, not as a replacement - or at any rate, not as a replacement for music they really like. (I think it's interesting that some musicians who are strongly against downloading, etc., often argue nearly as much - or more so - on grounds of diminished sound quality - Fripp for example.) What hurts the artist is inequitable contracts, non-payment of royalties due, etc. etc. What hurts the artist most of all, though, is when no one hears the music. The first priority is to have one's music heard. A musician who becomes a musician to make money is...well, I'll be polite and say charmingly naive. Even musicians who sell lots of records still make more money touring, selling ancillary items, and via sponsorships than via airplay or sales...mostly due to what amounts to legalized theft via contract. And > you also are breaking Copyright Law. Well, yeah - but law should serve ethical behavior, not the other way around. That is, when the law benefits a thief, you shouldn't benefit the law. Copyright law has increasingly come under the sway of those who would (as Michael Mitton pointed out) want not just to passively sell product but to control it. They prevent acts that for years were allowable under fair-use principles, even when such restrictions actually limit potential sales. Case in point: it used to be permissible under fair use to assemble course-packets of copyrighted material, so long as that material was either given to students or sold at cost so no profit was involved. (That isn't a paraphrase of the actual law but of the practice.) Then, the laws were tightened (as a result of what admittedly was abuse of fair-use principles - that is, because the existing laws were violated; which is to say the existing laws should have been sufficient to deal with those illegal acts), to the extent that if I want to make a chapter of a book available to my students, I essentially have to violate copyright law to do it wihtout forcing them to buy the entire book. (This issue is somewhat fogged in recent years by the ability to scan the chapter and put it up on a privately accessible website under licensed systems like D2L ("Desire to Learn") - I don't know what the copyright issues may be there.) Copy shops around campus offer you two options: (1) have the shop seek permission to reproduce, which can take up to six months, and which publishers might deny; or (2) sign a form indemnifying the shop and taking on personal responsibility for any violation of copyright law your distribution of the course materials might involve. Given the exigencies of academic practice and our university's course-assignment procedures, the first option was often impossible. Regardless, one semester when I knew far enough in advance what I was teaching in fall, I used that option. One publisher (U of Indiana P, if anyone cared) prohibited me from using a chapter from a book they'd published. I e-mailed the press, and pointed out that (a) without such rights, my students would be very unlikely to read the writer's work, and therefore (b) would be far less likely to perhaps buy the writer's work. In other words, reproducing the chapter would cost the publisher nothing - prohibiting it *potentially* cost them money. Still, they refused. > It all goes back to the notion of, if you don't like what the label is doing, > don't give them your money by purchasing what they sell. But don't steal it > either, since that really gives a different message, and not a message that is > socially responsible. Who's receiving this "message"? And what defines the "social responsibility" that allows (back to the music industry) outright theft like that which denied payment to (one examlpe) the musicians who played on nearly all those great (and massively selling) Motown songs in the '60s? Okay: it would be far better if there were a way to directly benefit those musicians, rather than merely *not* benefiting the labels. (For a while there was a website that claimed to try to manage such things - - I'm pretty it collapsed though.) And do keep in mind this is coming from someone who's purchased legally some five or six thousand CDs (and continues to do so). So I've certainly done my bit to support the music industry - both the legitimate and the less-legitimate parts. And while we're at it: I rarely (illegally) download entire albums. If I do, it's generally because it's out of print. More often, my illegal downloading is, say, acquiring some stray song from 25 years ago that's otherwise available only by buying an entire CD full of songs I already own. The most common quasi-legal downloading I engage in is from a number of mp3 blogs (which generally do not post entire albums - - and the few who do kinda piss me off) - and often I end up buying albums from those artists, albums (and therefore sales to their record companies and royalties to the artists) I would not otherwise have purchased if I hand't heard the songs. (I say "quasi-legal" because it seems many record companies, particularly indies, have recognized that mp3 blogs are a great, and cheap, form of advertising. Which is why folks who run the best-known ones pretty clearly get advance copies directly *from* the labels. Ask the Arcade Fire, ask the Decemberists, ask Wolf Parade, ask the Fiery Furnaces what they think of mp3 blogs: they pretty much made their careers, at least in the beginning. And those bands' labels know it - in fact, in the case of Arcade Fire and Wolf Parade at least, it's why they signed the bands.) - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 23:00:04 -0600 From: 2fs Subject: Re: [loud-fans] warnings and promises On 1/16/06, 2fs wrote: . Case in point: it used to be > permissible under fair use to assemble course-packets of copyrighted > material, so long as that material was either given to students or > sold at cost so no profit was involved. (That isn't a paraphrase of > the actual law but of the practice.) Then, the laws were tightened I forgot to mention here: the laws were tightened so far that the university's libraries can no longer put more than a single copy of a book or article on reserve for a course. The absurdity is that there's a photocopy machine in the library. Of course, this too is somewhat rendered irrelevant by the ease with which print can be digitized these days: scan a document into Acrobat Reader and it doesn't matter about hard copies. - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ End of loud-fans-digest V6 #16 ******************************