From: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org (loud-fans-digest) To: loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Subject: loud-fans-digest V6 #17 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 Wednesday, January 18 2006 Volume 06 : Number 017 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: [loud-fans] warnings and promises ["Paul King" ] [loud-fans] interesting sony rootkit update [Jenny Grover ] Re: [loud-fans] warnings and promises [Jenny Grover ] Re: [loud-fans] warnings and promises (note: contains baseball analogy) [] Re: [loud-fans] warnings and promises (note: contains baseball analogy) [] Re: [loud-fans] warnings and promises ["Paul King" ] Re: [loud-fans] warnings and promises [2fs ] Re: [loud-fans] warnings and promises [Michael Mitton ] Re: [loud-fans] Fwd: [paisley-pop] NC Music History - The Happy Eggs [Gil] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 06:57:54 -0500 From: "Paul King" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] warnings and promises On 16 Jan 2006 at 22:56, 2fs (2fs ) spaketh these wourdes: > On 1/16/06, Paul King wrote: > > 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? *Not* paying the artist? That wasn't what I said... I said they weren't paying them *enough*. The artist still gets a small royalty that is denied them if you illicitly download music. > At any rate, if the artist is being hurt, > how come so many artists are perfectly complacent about downloading, > even encouraging it? Again, you are changing the parameters of the argument. Most of the supporters of free downloading are independent artists. And not even all independents are warm to the idea. For those that are, how many of them have a contract with a major label, or any label at all other than their own website? The artists that are most enthused about free downloading appear to have no contracts with big business that would tie their hands and own their music. There are few major labels that would allow their artists to freely distribute high-quality recordings for free on an on-going basis. I could see record companies doing it for short periods as a promotion, but I couldn't see them distributing entire albums for free. I like the idea that independent artists are promoting free downloading as a kind of rebellion against the old, exploitive business model. I hope it works for them, and maybe serve as an example to others to do the same. > 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. I strongly agree, but as opposed to what you suggested at the start, artists never record for free. If they did, you would have at least some moral basis for free downloading in protest of their exploitation. But since they get a small royalty, that is denied them by downloading. Now, taking into account your optimistic assertion that most people view mp3s as samplers which 'net surfers use to make purchase decisions later on (and let's say that it is true), they are still giving money to big business if these artists are with a major label. You can't have it both ways (at least, going strictly by your line of reasoning). If we ignore the big business connection, then I would agree with you. I am also in favour of the old fashioned notion that if you don't like a company's business practices, don't buy their stuff at all. That doesn't mean steal; that means you should have nothing to do with them. And if independent artists use free downloading as a promotional method, then great! > > 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. > Again, artists are receiving a royalty, so aren't you stealing from them as well? And yes I agree that the terms of their contracts tend to be exploitive, and major record execs deserve to be hung by their balls, but two wrongs don't make a "right". Copyright law only benefits the record company because the company tends to be the owner of the copyright. And artist usually hand over the ownership of the copyright to the company as part of their contract. The law isn't the problem, at least not in this case. I have heard some interesting arguments regarding how Copyright Law itself is a problem, but this usually is in connection with the spread of ideas and thought in society. In music, it is used in connection with the performance of a song by other artists as making the song have a life of their own beyond the artist. Think of old-fashioned tunes such as Woody Guthrie's "This Land Is Your Land", for example (although the lyrics have been watered down with age). With that song, most people tend to think of the song, not the artist. I apologise for not entertaining the rest of your interesting argument (I don't have time to, not that I don't want to). Maybe later. Paul King > 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 > > > __________ NOD32 1.1368 (20060116) Information __________ > > This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. > http://www.eset.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 09:03:54 -0500 From: Larry Tucker Subject: [loud-fans] Fwd: [paisley-pop] NC Music History - The Happy Eggs Hey Gil! Dig this. Check the link below. Pretty wild stuff. How many shows did y'all play Gill and what's the story of how you landed in San Francisco and hooked up with Game Theory? And give us an update on your solo project! - --Larry - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: michael slawter Date: Jan 16, 2006 10:06 AM Subject: [paisley-pop] NC Music History To: paisley-pop@yahoogroups.com Hello All, I posted a Happy Eggs song today on http://www.ncmusichistory.com/ This is the band that Gil Ray (Game Theory) was in before GT. It also features Jamie Hoover (Spongetones). I thought some folks here might enjoy this. Cheers, Michael To Post a message, send it to: paisley-pop@eGroups.com To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: paisley-pop-unsubscribe@eGroups.com Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/paisley-pop/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: paisley-pop-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 11:58:43 -0600 From: 2fs Subject: Re: [loud-fans] warnings and promises On 1/17/06, Paul King wrote: > On 16 Jan 2006 at 22:56, 2fs (2fs ) spaketh these wourdes: > > At any rate, if the artist is being hurt, > > how come so many artists are perfectly complacent about downloading, > > even encouraging it? > > Again, you are changing the parameters of the argument. I didn't know they'd been set. I thought we were just discussing issues surrounding downloading and copyright. Anyway... There are few major > labels that would allow their artists to freely distribute high-quality > recordings for free on an on-going basis. I could see record companies doing it > for short periods as a promotion, but I couldn't see them distributing entire > albums for free. Who's talking about "distributing entire albums for free"? I actually said it irritated me when mp3 blogs post entire albums - that to me is an abuse of the usefulness of mp3s. > I am also in favour of the old fashioned notion that if you don't like a > company's business practices, don't buy their stuff at all. That doesn't mean > steal; that means you should have nothing to do with them. And if independent > artists use free downloading as a promotional method, then great! This puts anyone who objects to any business practice in a practically-impossible position. Purity is impossible; almost every business engages in ethically dubious behavior, and to say that the best course of action is to refuse to buy anything from them (otherwise, it's implied, you're as morally compromised as they are) forces people to be hermits. One picks and chooses one's battles, one draws lines, one compromises. Anyway, let me back up and state a few principles: - -- Artists and companies have a property right in the music they create/distribute; - -- It is to the benefit of both artists and companies if more people are exposed to the artists' work - -- You can't unring a bell: the technology that allows uncontrolled distribution does exist. - -- Artists and companies should adapt their business model to that reality - rather than (in the case of companies) sue grandfathers for $10,000 because unbeknownst to them their 12-year-old grandson downloaded five movies (three of which were already in the family's collection) simply to see whether it "worked" (to take one recent example) - -- Copy protection that limits which systems can play the medium, that damages the integrity of the medium (sound-quality, video image), or that limits previously accepted after-purchase use by the consumer (i.e., prohibits making copies for one's own use) is not the way to go, both because it's defeatable (see above posts, esp. Michael Mitton's who pointed out (I think it was him) that the ease with which copy protection systems are overcome shows that it's not really what compnaies are after) and because it antagonizes consumers. - -- Limited downloading is an acceptable form of promotion (from the producer side) and sampling (from the consumer side), in that it can increase sales and interest in music. (I can't tell you how many CDs I've bought because I heard the artist's music first via an mp3 whether legally acquired (iTunes) or elsewhere - and in many cases I would not have heard or heard of the artist without the mp3.) I kind of compare it to newspapers: if someone leaves a paper sitting around a workplace or public place, if you pick it up and read it, you might be moved to buy the paper - but newspaper companies aren't running around trying to make papers readable only by their purchasers, or insisting they be read only in private, etc. They recognize that post-consumer distribution ultimately helps them - even if, in the short term and perhaps in some cases, it prevents some sales that, in some corporate ideal of control, might have happened. - -- Regularly downloading full albums that are readily available for sale is dubious. To use the newspaper analogy, it's as if everyday you went over to McDonald's and took him a paper that someone had left on the table. If you're determined that you want to regularly and fully consume a product (i.e., buy a CD rather than just hear a track), you should pay for it. THe problem is, it's hard to create a mechanism that allows and even encourages the second-last item while prohibiting or discouraging the third. That is, the benefit of the second-last item includes the cost of the last item. Also: part of me dislikes the whole notion of thinking of music as a product like anything else. It's not - not for the musician (who, although they invest economically in it, certainly doesn't do so because they expect financial return) and not for the consumer. There's a level at which asserting property rights over setting limited amounts of air into controlled vibration is a bit absurd. - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 13:38:22 -0500 From: Jenny Grover Subject: [loud-fans] interesting sony rootkit update http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/01/16/sony_bmg_rootkit_still_widespread/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 10:40:22 -0800 From: "Douglas Stanley" Subject: [loud-fans] B&S&TNP I'm surprised that I haven't seen any mention of Belle & Sebastian's upcoming North American tour. Opening will be the sure-to-bring-the-crowds-in-early The New Pornographers. That ought to inspire Mr. Murdoch to kick out the jams just a little bit. http://www.belleandsebastian.com/tour.php Doug S. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 14:26:44 -0500 From: Jenny Grover Subject: Re: [loud-fans] warnings and promises Anyone heard any results or further developments on the situation where ASCAP was threatening the Girl Scouts over singing copyrighted songs (including This Land is Your Land) at camp without paying a fee? (No, I'm not making this up). Jen ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 13:10:19 -0700 From: "Roger Winston" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] warnings and promises 2fs on 1/17/2006 10:58:43 AM wrote: > -- Limited downloading is an acceptable form of promotion (from the > producer side) and sampling (from the consumer side), in that it can > increase sales and interest in music. (I can't tell you how many CDs > I've bought because I heard the artist's music first via an mp3 > whether legally acquired (iTunes) or elsewhere - and in many cases I > would not have heard or heard of the artist without the mp3.) I would quibble a bit with this. Certainly it's true for me, you and everyone we know around here, but I'm not so sure it is for those outside of the music-obsessive circle. The people I know who illegally download songs or albums have no intention of ever buying them, and even think they have some sort of right to free music (no matter how much I try to set them straight). Whether those types of people outnumber the type who sample and buy - I don't know. But I'm betting it's pretty close. Latre. --Rog - -- FlasshePoint, yet another blog among millions: http://www.flasshe.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 14:57:39 -0600 From: 2fs Subject: Re: [loud-fans] warnings and promises (note: contains baseball analogy) On 1/17/06, Roger Winston wrote: > 2fs on 1/17/2006 10:58:43 AM wrote: > > > -- Limited downloading is an acceptable form of promotion (from the > > producer side) and sampling (from the consumer side), in that it can > > increase sales and interest in music. (I can't tell you how many CDs > > I've bought because I heard the artist's music first via an mp3 > > whether legally acquired (iTunes) or elsewhere - and in many cases I > > would not have heard or heard of the artist without the mp3.) > > I would quibble a bit with this. Certainly it's true for me, you and everyone we know around here, but I'm not so sure it is for those outside of the music-obsessive circle. The people I know who illegally download songs or albums have no intention of ever buying them, and even think they have some sort of right to free music (no matter how much I try to set them straight). Whether those types of people outnumber the type who sample and buy - I don't know. But I'm betting it's pretty close. And this is the problem with the industry staking its economic fortune on lifestyle-based consumers rather than music fans: they don't care about musicians, because they're not buying music, they're buying lifestyle-enhancing entertainment. Particularly when they're young, they can't conceive that the entertainers they enjoy aren't all millionaires (and for some of those folks, they might well be) and so are unsympathetic to the concept of a struggling musician. Britney Spears isn't a struggling musician (and, uh, wouldn't be even if she were struggling...but now I quibble). The industry's economic model is the equivalent of a baseball team that loads its lineup with nothing but (potential) home-run hitters...even if they can't play defense, run bases, or do much of anything except occasionally swat the ball out of the park. (And batting cleanup for the 1995 Maverick team, it's...Alanis Morissette!!) Talk to fans of those folks about the difficulty of pulling off a sacrifice squeeze play, and they'll just stare at you blankfaced. Same thing trying to tell mallrats that, yes, most musicians are not millionaires, aren't likely ever to become millionaires, and in many cases don't really care about becoming millionaires. Not to mention: so downloading has the potential to hurt record companies, if it's true that more people just steal music rather than "borrow" it like wallpaper samples to buy later. But: what to do about that? My last overlong post mentioned several reasons why copy protection schemes aren't among the solutions. It'd be useful, too, if the industry would stop trying to get people to buy inessential products (like the 4,000th Who compilation) by baiting fans with one previously unreleased track. I mean, I get why the record companies do it...but it's nearly an invitation for that track to be bootlegged & downloaded. Sometimes I view it like I view the post office: two cents short on postage, and you have to pay. But you never get a refund if you put two cents extra on the mailpiece. HOw many times have I bought the complete Elvis Costello catalog? (Four.) Dammit, that should entitle me to at least a free single or something! ;-) Incidentally, the fact that Sony's rootkit has been found on (and made vulnerable) Defense Dept. computers (see the article Jenny linked to earlier today) means that Sony's much more of a terrorist than...well, nearly anybody that's been arrested and held in the dark so far. So, uh, right: buy Sony CDs and you're supporting terrorism! *That*'s not an extreme position! ;-) Anyway: should someone newish like the Coral suffer because people boycott Sony? If they're not going to make money because people don't want to buy the XCP-enabled CD and replacements are hard to find, wouldn't it be better at least for their music to be heard via downloading, even if - for the short term - - no money's coming their way? - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 14:38:26 -0800 (GMT-08:00) From: Steve Holtebeck Subject: Re: [loud-fans] warnings and promises (note: contains baseball analogy) From: 2fs >The industry's economic model is the equivalent of a baseball team >that loads its lineup with nothing but (potential) home-run >hitters...even if they can't play defense, run bases, or do much of >anything except occasionally swat the ball out of the park. (And >batting cleanup for the 1995 Maverick team, it's...Alanis >Morissette!!) Talk to fans of those folks about the difficulty of >pulling off a sacrifice squeeze play, and they'll just stare at you >blankfaced. So you're comparing the music industry to the 2001 Oakland Athletics? I don't get that analogy at all.. the music industry is the opposite of Billy Beane's Moneyball(tm) philosophy. Those A's had one third the payroll of the Yankees ($30M vs $100M+), but if Jeremy Giambi slides and/or Derek Jeter doesn't make that lucky backhanded throw, the A's are heading to the World Series, and the sporting world is saved from that Irish tenor's ridiculously long version of "God Bless America" during the 7th inning stretch of *every World Series game* at Yankee Stadium. But I guess if Giambi knew how to slide, he would've been on the Yankees, so I see one part of your point. - -Steve ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 18:08:01 -0500 From: "Paul King" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] warnings and promises On 17 Jan 2006 at 11:58, 2fs (2fs ) spaketh these wourdes: > Also: part of me dislikes the whole notion of thinking of music as a > product like anything else. It's not - not for the musician (who, > although they invest economically in it, certainly doesn't do so > because they expect financial return) and not for the consumer. > There's a level at which asserting property rights over setting > limited amounts of air into controlled vibration is a bit absurd. > I agree here. This also holds true with ideas, and the notion that ideas can be bought and sold as property. Or that nowadays the idea that you can patent a gene you discovered (which naturally occurred) as if it were your invention. But that opens up a whole other can of worms. :-) Paul King ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 18:21:11 -0500 From: "Paul King" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] warnings and promises I think your answer is here (SF Chronicle): http://tinyurl.com/atmew They seemed to have backed off early (days after their initial announcement). On 17 Jan 2006 at 14:26, Jenny Grover (Jenny Grover ) spaketh these wourdes: > Anyone heard any results or further developments on the situation where > ASCAP was threatening the Girl Scouts over singing copyrighted songs > (including This Land is Your Land) at camp without paying a fee? (No, > I'm not making this up). > > > Jen > > __________ NOD32 1.1369 (20060117) Information __________ > > This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. > http://www.eset.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 20:48:09 -0500 From: Jenny Grover Subject: Re: [loud-fans] warnings and promises Paul King wrote: >I think your answer is here (SF Chronicle): > http://tinyurl.com/atmew > >They seemed to have backed off early (days after their initial announcement). > > This is the article I had read before. I just wondered if they really did back off completely and if the Scouts were back to singing old favorites or were still afraid to risk it. Jen ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 20:05:46 -0600 From: 2fs Subject: Re: [loud-fans] warnings and promises On 1/17/06, 2fs wrote: > I'm waiting for ASCAP to station spies on public streets and nab > pedestrians who start whistling copyrighted tunes: it's a "public > performance" after all! Please note that the final sentence of the above post is not meant to be a paraphrase of the Richard M. Sherman/Robert B. Sherman song "It's a Small World," which contains the lyric "it's a small world after all" and which is copyright 1964 by Wonderland Music Company Inc. (BMI). All rights reserved. - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 19:59:17 -0600 From: 2fs Subject: Re: [loud-fans] warnings and promises On 1/17/06, Paul King wrote: > I think your answer is here (SF Chronicle): > http://tinyurl.com/atmew > > They seemed to have backed off early (days after their initial announcement). > > On 17 Jan 2006 at 14:26, Jenny Grover (Jenny Grover ) spaketh these wourdes: > > > Anyone heard any results or further developments on the situation where > > ASCAP was threatening the Girl Scouts over singing copyrighted songs > > (including This Land is Your Land) at camp without paying a fee? (No, > > I'm not making this up). The article is dated way back in the ancient days of 1996. Still, the ASCAP's spokesperson's comments aren't a full backoff - more like, well, we're getting bad publicity so we won't pursue this, but we're not saying we were wrong. I'm waiting for ASCAP to station spies on public streets and nab pedestrians who start whistling copyrighted tunes: it's a "public performance" after all! - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 18:19:44 -0800 From: Michael Mitton Subject: Re: [loud-fans] warnings and promises > I agree here. This also holds true with ideas, and the notion that ideas can be > bought and sold as property. Or that nowadays the idea that you can patent a gene > you discovered (which naturally occurred) as if it were your invention. But that > opens up a whole other can of worms. :-) Good joke, except I don't think it's a different can of worms. The problems with patents and copyrights-from DRM in music to a patent to use a laser pointer as a cat toy--may require separate pieces of legislation to fix, but they stem from the same issue: No one reads the Constitution anymore. OK, that's overly dramatic, but still, here's what it has to say on the subject [The Feds have the power] "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;" We've come to believe (and to legislate accordingly) that copyright and patents exist to protect some notion of personal property rights over ideas. But that's a fairly new belief. We tend to ignore what our forbears explicitly said the purpose of these exclusive rights was to begin with--the promotion of the progress of science and useful arts. This seems to be a perfectly utilitarian look at the matter, and not exactly complicated. You obviously have to give some patent protection to drug companies if you want them to spend R&D on new drugs. And most musicians may not be doing it for the money, but we surely wouldn't have much to talk about on this list-serv if no musician ever had any control over what they wrote. The problem is that, for some reason, 50 years after an author's death wasn't long enough, as though there are writers who think to themselves, "I'd happily write this song if I earned royalties for 75 years after I die, but only 50? It's not worth my time!" This is what my earlier email was about (although specifically, not generally). We've established that DRM does nothing to stop piracy. All it does is make our lives more difficult, or force us to give up more money to the record companies by granting them even stronger monopoly power (power true monopolists only dream of). So DRM does nothing to protect the rights given to copyright holders. Rather, it extends those rights further than they were before. If you think this power grab will result in a sufficient amount of additional music to warrant the decrease in welfare of all non-musicians, then DRM is for you. (In fact, go read some of the promotional material, where they talk about all the great things DRM will do for consumers! Here's one for the protection scheme in upcoming Blu-Ray/HD-DVD players: http://www.aacsla.com/what/consumer_benefits/ See, they're really doing it for *us*) Now where did I leave my tin-foil hat, mm mm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 18:58:20 -0800 (PST) From: Gil Ray Subject: Re: [loud-fans] warnings and promises (note: contains baseball analogy) - --- Steve Holtebeck wrote: > But I guess if Giambi knew how to slide, he would've > been on the > Yankees, so I see one part of your point. Awesome, Steve! Gil ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 21:26:30 -0600 From: 2fs Subject: Re: [loud-fans] warnings and promises (note: contains baseball analogy) On 1/17/06, Steve Holtebeck wrote: > From: 2fs > >The industry's economic model is the equivalent of a baseball team > >that loads its lineup with nothing but (potential) home-run > >hitters...even if they can't play defense, run bases, or do much of > >anything except occasionally swat the ball out of the park. (And > >batting cleanup for the 1995 Maverick team, it's...Alanis > >Morissette!!) Talk to fans of those folks about the difficulty of > >pulling off a sacrifice squeeze play, and they'll just stare at you > >blankfaced. > > So you're comparing the music industry to the 2001 Oakland Athletics? > I don't get that analogy at all.. the music industry is the opposite > of Billy Beane's Moneyball(tm) philosophy. > > Those A's had one third the payroll of the Yankees ($30M vs $100M+), > but if Jeremy Giambi slides and/or Derek Jeter doesn't make that > lucky backhanded throw, the A's are heading to the World Series, > and the sporting world is saved from that Irish tenor's ridiculously > long version of "God Bless America" during the 7th inning stretch > of *every World Series game* at Yankee Stadium. I defer to your superior knowledge of the summer pastime. It might help if you imagine that the players are sultans of swat when the opportunity to hit a homer presents itself; in all other situations of play they're as competent as a random assortment of poorly trained monkeys. I also hate "God Bless America." I'm with Tris McCall, who points out that "white with foam" is about the lamest, most hack-worthy line ever. - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 21:21:40 -0600 From: 2fs Subject: Re: [loud-fans] warnings and promises On 1/17/06, Michael Mitton wrote: > musician ever had any control over what they wrote. The problem is > that, for some reason, 50 years after an author's death wasn't long > enough, as though there are writers who think to themselves, "I'd > happily write this song if I earned royalties for 75 years after I > die, but only 50? It's not worth my time!" What's amusing about this is that, on another list, regarding economic issues and piratic behavior on the part of the economic powers-that-be, a libertarian economist on the list basically said exactly that: that since we don't know that some bazillionaire (whose bazilliions, in this ideology, ultimately redound to everyone's benefit) just won't be motivated to keep producing wealth if we increase his taxes by the teensiest bit, or make him the eensiest bit uncomfortable by regulating the behavior of his corporation. Apparently, the extremely wealthy are kinda like that Bubble Boy in the TV movie, and are incredibly allergic to absolutely *anything*, and therefore an impermeable penumbra of legal invincibility must surround their every action, lest our pesky flealike regulations interfere with the godlings' divine spark. (I'm sorry: I really tried to mix that metaphor even further but I just couldn't do it.) "Brother can you spare a dime?" "I'm taking my billion-dollar ball and going home! To the tax-free Bahamas!" (The effrontery of such plebeian scoundrels!) - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 19:26:10 -0800 (PST) From: Gil Ray Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Fwd: [paisley-pop] NC Music History - The Happy Eggs Cool Larry! Thanks for sending this! THis could be my favorite record I have ever played on! We were a bunch of band chums, dating back to high school (1972ish). We were in a band then called Rock Bottom. When the new wave/punk thing hit Charlotte (1979 or so), we decided to get back together and jump on that bandwagon. We were a bunch of smart-asses, and not very sincere, but we were really good and had a pretty big following. We played lots of covers, and many originals. 4 of those were on the ep. REM's first single came out around the same time. I was working at a record store then, and was very jealous that on their cover, they could afford a little patch of color (purple) on the sleeve! (I did the cover for the Eggs ep) It was recorded at Reflections Sound studios, with Jamey producing. Those aren't my drums on there, for some reason Jamey wanted me to use the studio's big flappy ones. Grrr! Wow. Thanks Larry! Gil - --- Larry Tucker wrote: > Hey Gil! Dig this. Check the link below. Pretty wild > stuff. > > How many shows did y'all play Gill and what's the > story of how you landed in > San Francisco and hooked up with Game Theory? > > And give us an update on your solo project! > > --Larry > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: michael slawter > Date: Jan 16, 2006 10:06 AM > Subject: [paisley-pop] NC Music History > To: paisley-pop@yahoogroups.com > > Hello All, > > I posted a Happy Eggs song today on > http://www.ncmusichistory.com/ > > This is the band that Gil Ray (Game Theory) was in > before GT. It also > features Jamie Hoover (Spongetones). I thought some > folks here might > enjoy this. > > Cheers, > Michael > > > To Post a message, send it to: > paisley-pop@eGroups.com > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: > paisley-pop-unsubscribe@eGroups.com > Yahoo! Groups Links > > <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/paisley-pop/ > > <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email > to: > paisley-pop-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com > > <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ ------------------------------ End of loud-fans-digest V6 #17 ******************************