From: les@jmdl.com (onlyJMDL Digest) To: onlyjoni-digest@smoe.org Subject: onlyJMDL Digest V2000 #316 Reply-To: joni@smoe.org Sender: les@jmdl.com Errors-To: les@jmdl.com Precedence: bulk Archives: http://www.smoe.org/lists/onlyjoni Websites: http://www.jmdl.com http://www.jonimitchell.com Unsubscribe: mailto:onlyjoni-digest-request@smoe.org?body=unsubscribe onlyJMDL Digest Tuesday, August 1 2000 Volume 2000 : Number 316 The 'Official' Joni Mitchell Homepage, created by Wally Breese, can be found at http://www.jonimitchell.com. It contains the latest news, a detailed bio, Original Interviews, essays, lyrics and much much more. --- The JMDL website can be found at http://www.jmdl.com and contains interviews, articles, the member gallery, archives, and much more. --- Ashara has set up a "Wally Breese Memorial Fund" with all donations going directly towards the upkeep of the website. Wally kept the website going with his own funds. it is now up to US to help Jim continue. If you would like to donate to this fund, please make all checks payable to: Jim Johanson and send them to: Ashara Stansfield P.O. Box 215 Topsfield, MA. 01983 USA ========== TOPICS and authors in this Digest: -------- Re: Hostage smiles on presidents ["Jamie Zubairi" ] Re: Hostage smiles on presidents [michael w yarbrough ] Re: Miles of Aisles Questions [catman ] Re: Napster downloading SJC ["Brenda J. Walker" ] Lost Laura Nyro website [Hejira924@aol.com] Laura Nyro website created by Glen Stegner! [Hejira924@aol.com] Sharing [RoseMJoy@aol.com] re: Hostage smiles on presidents ["c Karma" ] Re: Napster downloading/JMDL moral dilemma SJC ["Kakki" ] Re: Napster downloading/JMDL moral dilemma SJC ["Brenda J. Walker" ] napster cont'd [Erin Stoy ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 22:47:29 +0100 From: "Jamie Zubairi" Subject: Re: Hostage smiles on presidents This must be one of the most lyrically dense of Joni's songs (and I mean layered, not dumb) and as such, has always perplexed me. We must assume Joni is talking about art and painting when she says: 'Every picture has its shadows / and it has some source of light' but I think it's more a metaphor for life, how we see things only because of light hitting the dark and it bounces back at us when it hits an object. It's a way of seeing life - the good in bad things and evil in what appear to be pure; 'The perils of benefactors, the perils of parasites'. And in that line too is double entendre. How benefactors may support us, but with clauses; or how parasites may take from us but in return we have a popularity. What the song seems to be is a list of contradictions or contrasts: Rich/poor, black on white, white on black, wrong/right, cruelty/delight. My favourite lines will always be 'Suntans in reservation dining rooms/pale miners in their lantern rays'. The rich, languid, free and tanned in plush surroundings contrasted with the pallid manual labourer hard at work in horrid conditions, hundreds of feet under the ground. The Devil, God, Man. Three subjects of her choruses (if you can call them choruses). The devil with his ever -present laws, God with his everlasting laws, Man with his ever broken laws. The devil governing blindness and sight (ignorance and clarity?); God governing Nature and Man governing prescribed standards (and she sings 'pre-scribed' as if to emphasis a pre-judgmental attitude, not one that is open to the moment. She gives each of these themes their roles as giver of both delight and cruelty. How the devil both plagues us with threats and entices us with sin. God threatens us with punishment but coaxes us with heaven. And here is where my being a Muslim starts to show... what is the mark of Cain? I know he slew Abel (or is it the other way round?) but for what reason? Someone clarify please... And yes, the president ultimately bound by his legal duties and the ironic freedom of those that are living beyond any law, too poor to count, living under the streets, a graffiti slogan promising more freedom than a president can. And why the chorus? Why not just one voice? Why a layered chorus of voices? The Persuasions in The S&L version make that the definitive version as does the plaintive way she sings 'Governing'. The contrast of one voice juxtaposed next to a wall of voices (a technique sometimes called 'Light and Shade' in the recording industry, I believe.. ;-)). Written after her critical/popular acclaim of Court and Spark, at the height of her popularity, where her record label would even produce a record sleeve with an embossed cover, she writes a song about being labelled by 'critics of all expression / judges in black and white / saying it's wrong saying it's right.' As if she is slighting her fame. The hardest thing about this song is trying to divorce Joni from it. It's a song that isn't about her, it's a poem, a piece of fiction and should be taken as such. It is useless trying to connect this song closely with a specific point in Joni's life. It's more of her philosophy at the time or a philosophy of the time that she decided to write about. In THOSL it follows hard on the heels of Sweet Bird (another philosophical song poem) which is after the disturbing 'Harry's House/Centrepiece. It is one of the most brave sequences I have ever heard. I would love to hear the title track of THOSL being done by someone like Carleen Anderson or George Clinton or Stevie Wonder. I would love to hear Edith, Shades of Scarlett, THOSL, The Boho Dance and Harry's House done by black artists, someone with an edge to them, not just Lenny Kravitz, even though he would bring his own edge to it. Fuckit, Prince should do these songs! Me'Shell NDegeocello (sp?). Lauryn Hill, I could go on. Then we'll see these songs with an audience Joni deserved 25 years ago! - ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: 31 July 2000 19:45 Subject: Hostage smiles on presidents > > > I've been thinking about "Shadows and light",and wondering about > some of the lyrics.I never knew what Joni meant when she sang "hostage smiles > on presidents",and "freedom scribbled in the subway".but now my guess is that > she is contrasting different extremes on the continuum of reality.the > presidents who feel like hostages, and subway riders who feel they have alot > of freedom.Is my interpretation wrong?Does anyone have any other ideas? > > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 17:43:57 -0500 (CDT) From: michael w yarbrough Subject: Re: Hostage smiles on presidents On Mon, 31 Jul 2000, Jamie Zubairi wrote: > I think it's > more a metaphor for life, how we see things only because of light hitting > the dark and it bounces back at us when it hits an object. It's a way of > seeing life - the good in bad things and evil in what appear to be pure; The choice of "shadows" rather than "darkness" is key here. Shadows are specifically darkness within the context of light. Shadows cannot be cast without light. They thus represent something of a necessary relationship between darkness and light, not blending the binarism so much as placing it within a structural interdependence. Much of the song follows this same thread--seeming binarisms revealed to be more complex not because they are not opposites, but because they depend upon each other. This song makes me think of one of the greatest extended uses of shadow imagery I've ever seen, Dickens' _A Tale of Two Cities_. Much of the novel's action occurs within shadows, and sometimes the shadows adopt supernatural qualities of their own. At the same time, the crucial executions toward the end of the novel happen at noon, the most shadowless time of day. I think Dickens does something a little different than Joni does, using shadows to hint towards ambiguity rather than interdependence. Nonetheless, they both complicate binarisms in really interesting ways. - --Michael NP: Prince, "Darling Nikki" ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 14:47:37 -0700 From: RandyRemote Subject: Re: Joni part of new "Artists' Coalition" Dflahm@aol.com wrote: > I'm encouraged to read your words "it looks as if this...will be repealed." > But I'd be interested in knowing what makes you believe this. If you wouldn't > mind posting some evidence that led you to your (hopefully accurate) opinion, > I'd appreciate that. > > DAVID LAHM Maybe I am being hopeful about the outcome, but the Billboard article of 7-29-00 is headed "Work-For-Hire Repeal Near?", "Steps Taken Toward Reversal Of New Law". Excerpts: "...the move came as lawyers representing the RIAA and the recording artist community met July 19 on Capital Hill to forge legislative language at the request of concerned lawmakers.." the two lawyers, in a Judiciary Committee conference "produced a draft document that would return the law to its previous status, ...." It will still need to be passed in the House, and several Representatives including Mary Bono-R have either stated their support or said they would introduce similar legislation. So keep your fingers crossed. On a side note relevant to current jmdl discussions; drummer/ songwriter Steve Jordan (Aretha Franklin, James Taylor, Billy Joel) stated, in part, "A lot of artists say they're worried about copyright theft or piracy from Napster, but they have to wake up because these copyrights they're trying to defend are gone already- the work-for-hire amendment took creative artists' ownership of them away. And if we let them get away with this now, individuals will soon have no civil rights left in terms of owning any intellectual property." RR ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 15:11:07 -0700 From: RandyRemote Subject: Re: Napster downloading SJC "Brenda J. Walker" wrote: [Kakki said] > > I think one can make a distinction between probably less than 100 people > > trading mostly live concerts for no profit and a commercial enterprise like > > Napster with its' consumer base of 20 million people. > [Brenda said] > Except that the people doing the trading [on Napster] aren't doing it > commercially. That has nothing to do with it. Let's say I am a wealthy heir, and decide to distribute bootleg albums for free. There's no commercial gain, but it's still infringement. I think the thing to keep in mind whether you're talking about taping concerts, exchanging files, trading obscure cover versions, is; does it cause a loss of revenue for the copyright holder? Thinking along these lines, there is a difference in the end result. It may be technically illegal to distribute tape trees of Joni's unreleased early work, for example, after all, we do not own those songs, she does. But it is not depriving her of income, and I am certain she knows about it and doesn't care. If we were to set up a database of her studio albums for all the world to copy, I 'm sure we would hear from her lawyers pronto. It's less about strict legality then about what's right. And I have little doubt that Napster will be found in court to be in violation of the infringement laws. RR ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 01:40:20 +0100 From: catman Subject: Re: Miles of Aisles Questions I bought mine in Quebec City. It is HDCD and has Joni Mitchell and The LA Express Miles Of Aisles hand painted on it. It also has all the talking bits(but I haven't heard the tape/vynl for many years). ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 17:54:00 -0700 From: "Brenda J. Walker" Subject: Re: Napster downloading SJC RandyRemote wrote: > > I think the thing to keep in mind whether you're talking about taping > concerts, exchanging files, trading obscure cover versions, is; > does it cause a loss of revenue for the copyright holder? Thinking > along these lines, there is a difference in the end result. It may > be technically illegal to distribute tape trees of Joni's unreleased > early work, for example, after all, we do not own those songs, > she does. But it is not depriving her of income, and I am certain > she knows about it and doesn't care. If we were to set up a database of > her studio albums for all the world to copy, I 'm sure we would > hear from her lawyers pronto. I think this is a justification. The issue is not whether the copyright holder is deprived of income or their level of concern. It's whether or not you have interfered with their rights. Devising a means of distributing the material containing the copyright is an infringement, whether it's live Joni's songs or KCRW's broadcast or TNT's Tribute show. And what about the master holders of the recordings on the Covers CD's. Do we know if they care? I'm not coming down on the tape trees. I think sharing is a good thing. I also think Napster is a good thing. I think both the recording and publishing industries went to sleep and now they are trying to villify technology instead of developing it. There's alot of talk about how to stop progress to accommodate the copyright/licensing system and very little talk about how to adjust the system to the new technology. How to make the copyrights more valuable in light of the technology and increased consumer interest. If Napster goes away, there'll be Gnutella. If not Gnutella, Freenet. It's whack-a-mole. And it's that way because the public wants a music delivery system as easy as Napster. When the "industry" addresses the consumer need (if they ever do), they'll put the other guys out of business. And I believe they'll lobby Washington for changes to the law to support their alternative. And if I were a recording artist, I'd call as many high profile artists as I could and form a lobbying group to make sure the artists are represented in the fight. And if I were a writer, I would light a fire under the asses of ASCAP, BMI and Harry Fox -- all of whom are standing by and watching. Brenda ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 19:46:27 -0400 From: B Merrill Subject: Re: RE: For the Roses/PIANO! >>> The piano! The piano! The piano! >>> Fred Simon >>Fred, >>I know! I was just listening to it last night. Very RICH & provocative >>that Joni piano. > It lifts you up while pulling you under. >>Peg >Yeah, I really miss it. Me too! Sorry to be so ignorant, but when did she quit playing the piano? And did she say why? Bruce ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 21:35:20 EDT From: Hejira924@aol.com Subject: Lost Laura Nyro website << does anyone know what has happened to www.lauranyro.net it was a fabulous web page but it's disappeared!!! matt >> << The authorized Laura Nyro home page is at www.lauranyro.COM, where it has always been. I don't thi k it ever was a .net address.>> Nice try, but my inquiry as well as the top inquiry, were about LauraNyro.net, which was started about 5 years ago by someone at U.of Conn. I think (it had a much longer address at first that ended in Conn.edu). I forgot his name, but he had a much more extensive website than www.lauranyro.com. It was there on his website that I first learned of Joni's website (by Wally) thru a link. After Laura's death, I and many others posted our memories of her, which became a part of the website. I think what happened is that lauranyro.com was the site originally planned by Laura before her death and her heirs must have insisted that lauranyro.net be shut down, but this is only a guess. Come on now, all you JMDL'rs who posted that Laura Nyro is your number 2, doesn't anybody else remember the site we're talking about? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 21:49:41 EDT From: Hejira924@aol.com Subject: Laura Nyro website created by Glen Stegner! Sorry I didn't remember the name before sending JMDL my last posting, but I looked up my records, and Lauranyro.net was created by Glen Stegner, who is himself a big Joni Mitchell fan, as his site linked to jonimitchell.com Was his site closed down, and if so, wouldn't it be great to get a printout of all that he had had on it. Can't we gather up a cyberspace posse to hunt down this genius of a website creator? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 22:06:34 EDT From: RoseMJoy@aol.com Subject: Sharing If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of everyone, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density at any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. —Thomas Jefferson ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 02:30:16 GMT From: "c Karma" Subject: re: Hostage smiles on presidents I don't know what precipitated the line when Joni wrote it, but when to my chagrin Ronald Reagan was elected President largely on the heels of the Iran hostage crisis, I remember thinking that "Hostage smiles on Presidents" was eerily prophetic, disturbingly so. "Shadows and Light" arrived on my turntable almost five years before the Ayatollah hit the evening news. I suspect though that Joni wrote the line to sadly contrast the image of disingenuous, forced visages of elected leaders against that of simple truths expressed plaintively by the disenfranchised. I think she mourned the loss of the protest song here. She'd bring 'em back, though with "Dog Eat Dog." Oh, yeah. CC "Do you have eyes?" -- JM ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 19:23:11 -0700 From: "Kakki" Subject: Re: Napster downloading/JMDL moral dilemma SJC Brenda wrote: >The issue is not whether the copyright holder is deprived of income or their level of concern. It's >whether or not you have interfered with their rights. But to successfully prevail in a lawsuit you must show that infringement or other violation of the law caused you real, material damage. In our systems of State courts in the U.S. one cannot even file a case in certain courts unless the damages meet a certain monetary amount. Let's figure very generously the number of her live shows that have circulated around the list at 2,000 copies distributed among listmembers and their friends. Let's generously assume Joni's going royalty rate is $1.00 per recording distributed. That's $2,000 in damages so far. Then let's add some calculation of future damages for the infringement. How do we determine those future damages? How many copies of the scratchy live concert recordings are appropriated and bootlegged? How much profits can the bootlegger make from the homemade taping? After the bootlegger's expenses, probably not a huge amount of money. Let's figure the bootlegger makes a couple thousand dollars profit. Going with this hypothetical, if Joni wanted to sue us for *actual* lost profits from some of the material we trade, she could very well be limited to bringing the action in Small Claims court. The Federal courts, of course, could go after us, but again, the amount of damages is theoretically so small that I doubt the such a case would even be heard. If we want to be strict moral purists, then we should not commit even one technical infringment. But realistically, the court system would not bother with us tiny potatoes and probably Joni herself would not feel finanically threatened by us. You have to show actual damages and they have to be significant in the courts. The potential harm facilitated by Napster, on the other hand, easily qualifies. > Devising a means of distributing the material containing the copyright is an infringement, whether it's >live Joni's songs or KCRW's broadcast or TNT's Tribute show. And what about the master holders of >the recordings on the Covers CD's. Do we know if they care? No we would have to ask each individual entity concerned if they care. I do wish we could obtain some sort of official blessing from Joni as to how she regards our tape trading of her live performances. That would settle at least one big issue that has loomed out there for awhile. The trend with many other artists has been to give an O.K. to trading live concert recordings. As far as the Cover CDs, in reality, I estimate about 95% of the songs included to be no longer available anywhere commercially. I've been an enthusiastic contributor to the project. Most of what I've contributed came off third generation tape recordings that are several years old or from old vinyl albums bought off eBay that have not been commercially available for years. I have also contributed some covers from obscure artists who still have recordings available for purchase in the stores. I have spent well over $100 to purchase their CDs. Most of these artists are so obscure that their CDs had to be special ordered. The real benefit of exposing their work to people who would normally have never heard of them probably outweighs a little inside list sharing. >If Napster goes away, there'll be Gnutella. If not Gnutella, Freenet. It's whack-a-mole. And it's that >way because the public wants a music delivery system as easy as Napster. That's why the Napster case is so important. What is decided in this case will, no doubt, affect the way Gnutella, Freenet and all the others will be required to do business in the future. > And if I were a recording artist, I'd call as many high profile artists as I could > and form a lobbying group to make sure the artists are represented in the fight. > And if I were a writer, I would light a fire under the asses of ASCAP, BMI and > Harry Fox -- all of whom are standing by and watching. Yes, they will all eventually be forced to spend a lot of money on legal representation to have their rights clarified. Who will profit the most in the long run? I'd guess the lawyers. Kakki ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 22:41:56 -0500 From: "Michael Bird" Subject: Hostage Smiles, Freedom Scribbled Not quite so sure about "hostage smiles on presidents", though I think your interpretation is a good one. She is certainly "contrasting different extremes," as she is throughout the song and HOSL in general. Can anyone think of a particular historical moment this line may have referenced? It certainly predated the various 70's and 80's hostage crises. But "freedom scribbled in the subway" is more likely a reference to the revolution in graffiti art around this time period, which became an extraordinary statement in and of itself. It defined the underground experience in New York City for years until its cleanup in the 90's: these "druggie downtown kids who spraypaint walls and trains" (John Cale's phrase from "Songs for Drella") represented a small victory over the hypercommercialism and excess of the Reagan years, finding the only canvas available in a cluttered city to express their own ideas. That's a gross oversimplification, but that's the essence of it as I see it. I'm a novice on the topic, having only been in NYC four years, but the history of subway art and its cultural/social ramifications amazes me ... for further reading on the topic, may I suggest Michelle Shocked's "Graffiti Limbo" and the amazing Simon & Garfunkel song "Poem on the Underground Wall." Any New Yorkers out there with other thoughts? Duke Ellington's "Take the A Train," though delightful and helpful if you wanna get to the Bronx baby in a hurry, doesn't count ... I have a hard time imagining Joni, in her post-C&S riches, spending too much time on NYC public transportation ... though we know she gets restless when "it's been too long a time since [she] was ramblin' down in the streets." Nickel Chief > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 14:45:59 EDT > From: Relayer211@aol.com > Subject: Hostage smiles on presidents > > I've been thinking about "Shadows and light",and wondering about > some of the lyrics.I never knew what Joni meant when she sang "hostage smiles > on presidents",and "freedom scribbled in the subway".but now my guess is that > she is contrasting different extremes on the continuum of reality.the > presidents who feel like hostages, and subway riders who feel they have alot > of freedom.Is my interpretation wrong?Does anyone have any other ideas? > > ------------------------------ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 19:55:27 -0700 From: "Brenda J. Walker" Subject: Re: Napster downloading/JMDL moral dilemma SJC Kakki wrote: > You have to show actual damages and they have > to be significant in the courts. The potential harm facilitated by Napster, > on the other hand, easily qualifies. That's the trouble. No one can show proof of these damages. The recording industry can't. Even in the last two quarters, record sales have gone up. As far as the potential harm, I'm talking about the individual's rights who uses Napster. Even though those individuals are not mentioned in the lawsuit, the fair use argument will be presented and that will become an influential issue. Just as it was presented (although not to successful ends) by MP3.com. > > As far as the Cover CDs, in reality, I estimate about 95% of the songs > included to be no longer available anywhere commercially. I've been an > enthusiastic contributor to the project. Most of what I've contributed came > off third generation tape recordings that are several years old or from old > vinyl albums bought off eBay that have not been commercially available for > years. I have also contributed some covers from obscure artists who still > have recordings available for purchase in the stores. I have spent well > over $100 to purchase their CDs. Most of these artists are so obscure that > their CDs had to be special ordered. The real benefit of exposing their > work to people who would normally have never heard of them probably > outweighs a little inside list sharing. The lack of availability or demand doesn't justify that point of view. > > >If Napster goes away, there'll be Gnutella. If not Gnutella, Freenet. > It's whack-a-mole. And it's that >way because the public wants a music > delivery system as easy as Napster. > > That's why the Napster case is so important. What is decided in this case > will, no doubt, affect the way Gnutella, Freenet and all the others will be > required to do business in the future. How can it stop Gnutella that is peer to peer, no central servers and open source, freeware? There is no one to sue but individual users themselves; there is no business, no company. And Gnutella is not alone. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 19:58:00 -0700 From: "Kakki" Subject: Re: Napster downloading/JMDL moral dilemma SJC > That's the trouble. No one can show proof of these >damages. The recording industry can't. Even in the last two >quarters, record sales have gone up. Brenda, please clarify - have the record sales of the copyright owners recordings available through Napster gone up or have all record sales generally gone up? This is the material question. > As far as the potential harm, I'm talking about the >individual's rights who uses Napster. Even though those >individuals are not mentioned in the lawsuit, the > fair use argument will be presented and that will become an >influential issue. Just as it was presented (although not to >successful ends) by MP3.com. I'm sure you are more well-versed in what "Fair Use" means than I am, but I'm still not getting where the users of Napster have some legal inalienable right to download any music they want without paying for it, especially if the copyright owner has not agreed to it. > The lack of availability or demand doesn't justify that point of >view. Roger McGuinn, who has been a big supporter of Napster, bases a lot of his whole argument on the fact that he has not received enough exposure or demand of his product through "normal" channels. > How can it stop Gnutella that is peer to peer, no central >servers and open source, freeware? There is no one to sue >but individual users themselves; there is no business, no >company. And Gnutella is not alone. I think we have to ask what is our bottom line belief here. You seem to indicate in some of your posts that the artists/copyright owners should work out a way of being compensated. I'm not seeing you completely advocating a total free for all. What do you suggest as a real solution? Kakki ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 23:30:52 EDT From: SCJoniGuy@aol.com Subject: Re: Napster downloading/JMDL moral dilemma SJC << I've been an enthusiastic contributor to the project. >> And I've been enthusiastic about her enthusiasm!! :~) Kakki's probably been single-handedly responsible for 2 CD's worth of stuff, at least, if not more! But the cool thing to me has been the vast number of contributors to date - and a new one today, Nickel Chief, who contributes a kickin' accapella version of Raised on Robbery that is way cool! It's already safely contained on Volume 9... Thanks Nick! Bob NP: Joan Armatrading, "Tall In The Saddle" ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 20:34:35 -0700 From: "Brenda J. Walker" Subject: Re: Napster downloading/JMDL moral dilemma SJC > I think we have to ask what is our bottom line belief here. You seem to > indicate in some of your posts that the artists/copyright owners should work > out a way of being compensated. I'm not seeing you completely advocating a > total free for all. What do you suggest as a real solution? You're right. I don't advocate a free for all. But the industry must contend with a new generation of users who are growing up with music that "feels free." I think ultimately, rightsholders have to gain access to a means of distribution that either makes the music "feel free" or is so easy and so much better than Napster by being deep, exhaustive and not dependent on the guy you're downloading from who unexpectedly logs off. So if I were the major labels I would make all recordings available on line in one big all you can eat for $19.99 a month buffet....to download or to stream. And I would support the development of technology so I can stop selling those unprotected CD's as quickly as possible. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 21:48:36 -0700 (PDT) From: Erin Stoy Subject: Re: comments on last digest SJC > Who pays for Napster? How do they stay in business? What if they paid royalties to the artists or the record companies? > > ===== > Catherine (in Toronto) > catrin_of_aragon@yahoo.ca Napster runs on its investors' money at this point and has been building its brand equity for a future IPO. It does not charge for downloads and does not feature advertisements. How it plans to earn money in the future, I just do not know. Perhaps charge for membership? As an outsider, I do not see much of a business plan, as there are other services that offer free downloads but are harder to police (like Gnutella). If Napster and artists can find a mutually beneficial way to collect royalties, then Napster is then on the up-and-up...that method of distribution becomes legal and it is an artist's prerogative to distribute his/her music in that way. Copyright is respected. Erin __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Kick off your party with Yahoo! Invites. http://invites.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 22:28:23 -0700 (PDT) From: Erin Stoy Subject: napster cont'd Consider the following... "Fair use" in music allows a person to do things like: a. make a tape of your Sgt. Pepper CD to play in your car, if you don't have a CD player in it. b. Make a mix tape from songs off CDs/LPs/CS in your collection so that you can listen to the songs you want. The only way Napster users are acting under fair use is if they own an album but download a song from it because they want it to be in MP3 form (so they can listen to it on their computers). This is not how the overwhelming majority of people, if any, use Napster. The Betamax case is not analogous to the Napster case, for many of the reasons I mentioned in my last post (time-switching, definition of fair use, the digital factor, etc.). Way too often, people cite that case incorrectly as precedent for others (like for the the Open DVD/Linux case). Someone mentioned that because the court issued a stay, Napster must have legal ground. Well anyone with a lawyer who is breathing can get an appeal. Preliminary injunctions are frequently followed by stays. Finally, believing that record companies have charged high prices doesn't give you the right to infringe on copyright. I studies the Napster message boards quite intensely this spring, and the recurring theme was "They stole from me, now I'm stealing from them." That, or "They make enough money. *I* don't make very much." Come on, this isn't Robin Hood. Record companies are out to make money. Look at their bottom line profits and they are not extraordinary. People are often short-sighted and know only that it cost them $15.99 to buy the new Britney Spears album. Well for every hit record a label has, it has spent a lot of money in production and promotion of albums that fail miserably. It evens out in the end so that the company is profitable overall. REGARDLESS, high CD prices are a very separate issue. Allegations of price fixing/artificially high prices, incidentally, continue to be investigated. If the labels have engaged in collusion, they deserve punishment. That's another day in court. I completely understand WHY people use Napster; what I don't understand are the arguments people use to support it morally. If you have some, please enlighten me. Goodnight all, Erin __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Kick off your party with Yahoo! Invites. http://invites.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ End of onlyJMDL Digest V2000 #316 ********************************* ------- Post messages to the list at ------- Siquomb, isn't she?