From: owner-oppositeview-digest@smoe.org (oppositeview-digest) To: oppositeview-digest@smoe.org Subject: oppositeview-digest V2 #30 Reply-To: oppositeview@smoe.org Sender: owner-oppositeview-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-oppositeview-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk oppositeview-digest Friday, June 16 2000 Volume 02 : Number 030 Today's Subjects: ----------------- OV: High Horses [Andrew Yoward ] OV: SOLUTION for the MP3 problem! ["pbeshuk" ] Re: OV: I&P II ["Pete Smith" ] Re: OV: High Horses [Espen Kvalheim ] RE: OV: High Horses [Helen Pickering ] OV: Re: OT Springsteen/American Skin [Shevale@aol.com] OV: Yes My Horse Is Pretty D*mn High [doug brown ] OV: The Mp3 debate ["Nick Short" ] OV: RE: Yes My Horse Is Pretty D*mn High [hilary_gray@sandwich.pfizer.com] OV: RE: RE: Yes My Horse Is Pretty D*mn High [Helen Pickering ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 11:08:45 +0100 From: Andrew Yoward Subject: OV: High Horses Just reading through the digest and I felt that I had to comment on this rather condescending argument. So dearie you just go right ahead and keep trying to justify it to yourself but it's called STEALING and it's ILLEGAL. Although what is said is probably true, I think it is a rather nasty statement. Speeding on the highway is illegal, but how many of us haven't done it? Taking a pen home from the office or a pad of paper or whatever, is stealing, but how many of us have done it? Calling in sick when you want a day off is dishonest, but how many of us have done it? There are many illegal things that we do each day and think nothing of it. Please don't think that I condone any of this, but please, before you make offensive statements like this, think about your own life first. I think the phrase was "Let him who is without sin, cast the first stone." Or as Metallica said, "Judge not, lest ye be judged yourself." but I think they nicked that as well. If only there was a copyright on the bible, then they could be sued? Andrew Yoward Solicitec Support a.yoward@solicitec.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 07:46:05 -0400 From: "pbeshuk" Subject: OV: SOLUTION for the MP3 problem! I really don't see what all this fuss is over MP3's and Napster. Why don't we just have Jen W. "authorize" it and move on to other problems? pete (sorry; just couldn't resist) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 12:46:53 +0100 From: "Pete Smith" Subject: Re: OV: I&P II Unless I've missed a post, no-one else has responded to Jane's note to the list (which I guess was meant to be critical) so I'll stand up and defend I&P2. I joined at the at the start of I&P2 and have enjoyed them all, particularly as the Del's have hardly done anything apart from a handful of gigs in the last year and released no new material. Without checking, I think all the gigs were reported on, and the latest issue covers in detail the only event they've been involved with for some time - the King Tuts show with Kevin McDermott. Add to this the fact that the band are clearly supportive - current and ex members have contributed articles to every issue I believe - including a very funny two page article by Justin in the last issue, which oddly, no-one has mentioned. So personally I think the newsletter is good value especially for those that don't have access to the immediacy of information available on the internet. I&P2 may be a little thinner perhaps than the old I&P (at least in pages) but given the Dels' current lack of activity and therefore the inevitable lack of reviews that are probably submitted this isn't too surprising. Pete > Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 12:54:47 -0400 > From: "Susan & C. Reid Gardner" > Subject: Re: OV: I&P II > Jane Armstrong wrote: > > Just got the latest copy of I&P II. Come back Darren, Anna and Kelli - > > PLEASE!!!! > Uh oh. Must not be up to form as it was when Darren and crew were at the > helm! What's in it nowadays, Jane? > I remember really enjoying the articles. I've kept my issues and re-read > some of them not too long ago. It was such fun to read the stuff sent in > by Karen Nesbitt, Teresa Couch, ChrisF and some of the characters I had the > pleasure of meeting in Chicago at the DelFest 98. __________________________________________ Go Postal! Get free email from http://www.sonicnetmail.com Music + Free Email = Double Happiness ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 14:00:43 +0200 From: Espen Kvalheim Subject: Re: OV: High Horses There's a lot of emotion involved in this discussion, and I guess that's good. One important thing, though, is that this is not an open and shut case. It's not simply a question of right or wrong. IANAL, but there's something called "fair use" of a CD. Back in the old days, that meant that if Andrew and I were buddies, I could make a cassette recording of an LP he had, and it wouldn't be against any law. There was never drawn any clear line for how good a friend of the original owner you had to be - there was practically no need, since the quality of the copy and the possible circle of distribution more or less limited itself - and even though the technology has progressed, we're still more or less on the same set of legal rules (save for the DMCA, which I'm not intimately familiar with). Nowadays, that means that I could legally burn myself a copy of a CD my friend Andrew has - given that I had his consent. It also means that if I have a CD with a "killer" track on it (say, "Long Way Down", my favourite Del B-side, just to try to keep this related to the topic somehow), I could make an MP3 out of that track (an act which is in no way illegal) and mail it directly to Andrew - WITHOUT BREAKING THE LAW. Now, the question is, in the unlikely event that Andrew - maybe in an act of Del Amitri evangelization - forwards this track to another person (which, given his apparent stance on this subject, seems unlikely), would that be against the law? Would it be stealing? More like sneaking a ride on the bus, I'd say. To sum it up; Making an mp3 out of copyrighted music is not in itself an illegal act. Giving an individual a copy of music you've purchased is not in itself an illegal act. Exchanging files - on the Internet or elsewhere - is not in itself an illegal act. When you combine the above, like Napster has, it's still not entirely obvious that the result becomes illegal behaviour. Immoral, maybe, given the letters of the original legislation and licencing, but it is not far fetched to advocate that this is merely a refinement and a combination of processes that have been deemed lawful in the past. There's nothing black and white about this - regardless of what anyone may think. What to me appears totally clear, is that the music business is in for a great deal of change. I have a long reasoning for why this won't necessarily harm neither musicians nor the audience a fraction as much as it will hurt the recording industry, but I'll have to postpone boring you with that to some other occation... ;-) Espen Kvalheim www.repliq.net At 11:08 16.06.00 +0100, Andrew Yoward wrote: >Just reading through the digest and I felt that I had to comment on this >rather condescending argument. > >So dearie you just go right ahead and keep trying to >justify it to yourself but it's called STEALING and >it's ILLEGAL. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 14:38:24 +0100 From: Helen Pickering Subject: RE: OV: High Horses The legalities depend on what country you're in. A lot of EU countires have levies on blank tapes etc to compensate rightsholders (bands, publishers, record companies) for this sort of thing. This doesn't happen in the UK - you can't make a legal copy for your friends, but with the new EU directive/harmonisation across Europe this may be extended to allowing you to make legal copies of any legally purchased original CD/Video/whatever. Personally, I don't see the harm in Napster where the material not available from a commercial source, BUT where shops are reducing their orders for current CDs because they perceive Napster as reducing sales, or even where the material is available to buy, then all you're doing is taking money from the artist and it sucks. Big time. (And yes, there is the argument that you will buy it if you like it, and ditch the stuff you don't, and you could tape it off the radio; and I'd agree with those too, if you _do_ buy the stuff you like and ditch what you don't. But I don't equate it with taping off radio because the quailty of MP3 is much higher than a tape from the radio (and there's no DJ talking over it!) There are also distribution rights involved here. Someone has paid for the right to distribute a band's CDs, and that's how they make their living. Why should they have to pay for the right when Napster enables it to be done for free? Not fair to them I'd say. (Assuming that it's an exclusive distribution right - that's why Amazon got into so much trouble in the book trade for supplying US book editions to the UK: US editions don't have distribution rights in the UK, and were eating into the market for UK editions) As far as radio stations having to pay to play music. I assume these stations are commercial, and get their audience by playing the music. If they didn't play the music, then they wouldn't have the audience, and if they don't have the audience then they're certainly not going to get much advertising revenue. So basically they make a profit from playing music. If this is the case then why should the band etc not get a cut? The radio stations are rarely playing music simply because they want to promote the artists in question. Rights to illustrations. The artist owns the copyright of the original picture. If someone takes a photo, then by law they own the rights to that photo. It doesn't affect the rights ownership of the original. It's like if you go into an art gallery and take a photo of a painting you like - the gallery has no rights to your photo (unless there are lots of signs up saying 'no photographs, in which case you aren't allowed to take the photo anyway.) (All this is, of course, written with a UK law slant on things, and the situation varies in different countries according to laws.) I have to admit that I find this topic is all very dull - I don't subscribe to OV because I want indepth discussions of copyright law - I can do that at work thanks very much! (And get paid for it!) So now I'm going to get back in my box and shut up :-) Helen (Dels content - ummm..... They're fab.) > ---------- > From: Espen Kvalheim[SMTP:espen@kvalheim.com] > Sent: 16 June 2000 13:00 > To: oppositeview@smoe.org > Subject: Re: OV: High Horses > > There's a lot of emotion involved in this discussion, and I guess that's > good. One important thing, though, is that this is not an open and shut > case. It's not simply a question of right or wrong. IANAL, but there's > something called "fair use" of a CD. Back in the old days, that meant that > > if Andrew and I were buddies, I could make a cassette recording of an LP > he > had, and it wouldn't be against any law. There was never drawn any clear > line for how good a friend of the original owner you had to be - there was > > practically no need, since the quality of the copy and the possible circle > > of distribution more or less limited itself - and even though the > technology has progressed, we're still more or less on the same set of > legal rules (save for the DMCA, which I'm not intimately familiar with). > > Nowadays, that means that I could legally burn myself a copy of a CD my > friend Andrew has - given that I had his consent. It also means that if I > have a CD with a "killer" track on it (say, "Long Way Down", my favourite > Del B-side, just to try to keep this related to the topic somehow), I > could > make an MP3 out of that track (an act which is in no way illegal) and mail > > it directly to Andrew - WITHOUT BREAKING THE LAW. > > Now, the question is, in the unlikely event that Andrew - maybe in an act > of Del Amitri evangelization - forwards this track to another person > (which, given his apparent stance on this subject, seems unlikely), would > that be against the law? Would it be stealing? More like sneaking a ride > on > the bus, I'd say. > > To sum it up; Making an mp3 out of copyrighted music is not in itself an > illegal act. Giving an individual a copy of music you've purchased is not > in itself an illegal act. Exchanging files - on the Internet or elsewhere > - > is not in itself an illegal act. When you combine the above, like Napster > has, it's still not entirely obvious that the result becomes illegal > behaviour. Immoral, maybe, given the letters of the original legislation > and licencing, but it is not far fetched to advocate that this is merely a > > refinement and a combination of processes that have been deemed lawful in > the past. > > There's nothing black and white about this - regardless of what anyone may > > think. What to me appears totally clear, is that the music business is in > for a great deal of change. I have a long reasoning for why this won't > necessarily harm neither musicians nor the audience a fraction as much as > it will hurt the recording industry, but I'll have to postpone boring you > with that to some other occation... ;-) > > Espen Kvalheim > www.repliq.net > > At 11:08 16.06.00 +0100, Andrew Yoward wrote: > >Just reading through the digest and I felt that I had to comment on this > >rather condescending argument. > > > >So dearie you just go right ahead and keep trying to > >justify it to yourself but it's called STEALING and > >it's ILLEGAL. > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 10:01:40 EDT From: Shevale@aol.com Subject: OV: Re: OT Springsteen/American Skin David wrote: > > Has anyone been following the controversy surrounding Springsteen's new > song, "American Skin"? First "Born In The USA" was misunderstood by > everyone because they didn't actually listen to the lyrics and then 16 > years later, it's happening all over again. Utterly ridiculous. The new > song is actually quite impressive - you can download an mp3 of an audience > recording at http://joosse.org. Just watch the size of it, it's 8Mb. > For those who don't know anything about this "controversy," Springsteen wrote a new song that is apparently about the Amadou Diallo shooting -- four white police officers fired 41 shots at a black man in a vestibule in the Bronx. The officers were acquitted of all criminal charges in the shooting. The jury's decision was based, in large part, upon the evidence that: 1) the officers were in the neighborhood looking for a serial rapist, whose description also matched Diallo; 2) Diallo did not respond to police orders to stop and raise his hands; 3) that when one of the officers approached the vestibule door, Diallo took a small black object from his pocket and the same time that the officer fell off the stairs; 4) the other officers believed that the first officer (the one who went to investigate and fell off the stairs) had been shot. Needless to say, the shooting and then the verdict has been yet another divisive "racial" issue in New York. The whole Springsteen thing has been a fascinating topic for me the last few days. On one of my other listserves, there has been a raging debate about this song: some feel that it's inappropriate for Springsteen, a white, wealthy man to write a song about the injustices suffered by black Americans; some feel that Springsteen, until he has stood in a cop's shoes, has no business condemning the cops for their actions; and some feel that everybody should just shut up. Not only are fans debating all this, but the president of the New York Police Benevolent Association has publicly condemned Springsteen and this song and has urged police officers and anyone who supports police officers to boycott Springsteen's 10-night stand at Madison Square Garden in NYC. It's important to note that most of the people making these judgments had never heard the song! They either read the lyrics or heard about the song after Springsteen debuted it in Atlanta on June 4th. For those of you who are interested, the lyrics to the song are: 41 Shots (aka American Skin) 41 shots 41 shots 41 shots 41 shots 41 shots 41 shots 41 shots 41 shots and we'll take that ride 41 shots 41 shots 41 shots Lena gets her son ready for school She says now on these streets Charles You got to understand the rules Promise me if an officer stops you'll always be polite Never ever run away and promise mama you'll keep your hands in sight (Chorus) Cause is it a gun? Is it a knife? Is it a wallet? This is your life It ain't no secret It ain't no secret The secret my friend You can get killed just for living in your American skin (41 shots-3 times) Across this bloody river to the other side 41 shots they cut through the night You're kneeling over his body in the vestibule Praying for his life (Chorus) (41 shots-3 times) (Repeat Lena verse) (Chorus) (41 shots-3 times) (Chorus) 41 shots and we'll take that ride Across this bloody river to the other side 41 shots my boots caked in mud We're baptized in these waters and in each other's blood It ain't no secret Is it a knife? Is it a wallet? This is your life It ain't no secret It ain't no secret The secret my friend You can get killed just for living in You can get killed just for living in You can get killed just for living in your American skin (41 shots-8 times) Well, I saw Springsteen perform the song last night at Madison Square Garden. The performance of American Skin left me with this impression: it is not an indictment of police officers; it is a statement about how this alleged melting pot (America) is really just a patchwork quilt. We're not "one people" in any real sense, we're just lots of different ethnicities and religions and cultures living side by side, without any deep understanding of one another. Now, before you all jump on me, yes I've read the lyrics. Yes, they're clearly about the Diallo shooting. But as you all know, when an artist performs a song, there's a magical communication of what, in this case, he intended - by the music underscoring the lyrics and the staging. My take on this song is based on that. Diallo, an African immigrant, might not have understood the rules that Springsteen talks about: rules that we all, as Americans, know: when a police officer says stop - you stop. As for the Diallo shooting: the bottom line is that it was a tragedy, something that the four police officers, one of whom completely broke down while testifying, have all admitted. I'll now step off my soap box and just state that the concert last night was brilliant! Springsteen was in a very frisky, playful mood throughout the three-hour performance, and that joy filled the arena. In addition to American Skin, he also played two other new songs: Code of Silence and Further On Up the Road. For one of the encores, he dusted off This Hard Land. A full set list can be found on Backstreets.com. Sorry for such a long OT post. Sherry ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 07:10:33 -0700 (PDT) From: doug brown Subject: OV: Yes My Horse Is Pretty D*mn High Yeah well I am kind of tired of these arguments too but hardly ever too tired to beat a little sense into selfish greedy ignorants with my charm and wit. Yes the copyright laws are froaked up but somehow the people that keep getting overlooked in all these arguments is the musicians. If they don't sell CDs they are not in business. Yes that IS what it comes down to. If you like an artist you need to get them some money so they don't have to go back to digging ditches and waitressing. Writers don't give away their books. Painters don't give away their paintings. Yes the music business lets you listen to some songs as a form of promotion. They don't do this so that you will record songs and pass them around to all your friends. They do it so you will buy the CDs if you like the songs you hear. It's a very simple concept, but many people including many of you people decide that because they can get music for free thanks to the state of technology being way ahead of copyright laws that it's ok. In some cases it may not actually be illegal but that doesn't make it right. And yes I do know copyright laws pretty well, and so far better than any of you because none of you have gotten it right yet. But I don't care all that much about that crap. If you like the music, pay the musician, period. Leave live fan recordings, no longer published CDs and such out of it, that's a seperate issue. Die Napster die, so that music may live. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send instant messages with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 01:34:48 +1000 From: "Nick Short" Subject: OV: The Mp3 debate After being the worst lurker in the history of mailing lists, I have decided to wager in with my own crap-ass spin on things, I have the program Napster on my computer and 100% of what I have downloaded would be Del Amitri B-sides and Live rarities. If the record companies released the singles that these b-sides came along with, I wouldnt feel the need to have such a product. I am also listening to them (with sheer and utter enjoyment) in the privacy of my own home, while conducting no profit making schemes (sounds a little defensive), also I after a long winded RANT, I agree with others by saying if there was CD's around in Australia, where I'm from, I will snap them up in milliseconds. Have fun all, and BTW 'Angel on the Roof' has to be one hell of a song. Nicholas Short ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 16:36:24 +0100 From: hilary_gray@sandwich.pfizer.com Subject: OV: RE: Yes My Horse Is Pretty D*mn High >Yeah well I am kind of tired of these arguments too >but hardly ever too tired to beat a little sense into >selfish greedy ignorants with my charm and wit. Hello Doug, nice to see you back, but why not go easy on the newcomers until they have had chance to fully appreciate your brand of wit and charm. :o) I know it's been a bit quiet here, but even so..... >Yes the copyright laws are froaked up but somehow the >people that keep getting overlooked in all these >arguments is the musicians. If they don't sell CDs >they are not in business Which is why the music industry needs to get itself sorted so that it doesn't rely so heavily on the CD sales for income. Napster shows the demand there is for downloadable for music, and it's only going to increase. >They do it so you will buy the CDs if you like the >songs you hear. Which they would sell more of if they weren't £15 a throw when you only *know* you like one or two songs on the CD and only *suspect* you may like more. This is why the majority of my CD collection comprises 'Greatest Hits' collections. >It's a very simple concept, but many >people including many of you people decide that >because they can get music for free thanks to the >state of technology being way ahead of copyright laws >that it's ok. Whether it's OK or not, *it's going to happen*. Instead of trying to beat them, the copyright holders should be trying to join them. Leaving aside the mess of the copyright laws, what a bum deal the musicians have etc etc. So why don't you come off your high horse Doug, because you can't tell me you have never contravened copyright laws eg by making CD-Rs and giving them to friends. Same act, different technology that's all. >Die Napster die, so that music may live. Sorry Doug, but I think that is a very short sighted view. There will always be people picking up guitars and making music. The more people that hear them, the more that the music lives. Make it official - it's a quick and easy fix while the industry shakes itself out. I bet if you could download 'Roll To Me' from Alison and/or Kevin's site then you could make a steady income for the band, and perhaps a bit more from downloads of other tracks that the casual listener may take a fancy to. Who knows, they may even go out and buy Hatful of Rain..... Hilary PFIZER CENTRAL RESEARCH - ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message and any attachment has been virus checked by the Pfizer Research Sandwich Data Centre. - ---------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 16:47:36 +0100 From: Helen Pickering Subject: OV: RE: RE: Yes My Horse Is Pretty D*mn High Actually, I think that the big question now is: "What has Doug's horse been smoking to get so high?!" :-) Answers on a postcard.. (preferably one of those nice promo ones which the Del's record company used to send out to let you know there was a new single on the way - I always liked the one for 'Tell Her...." JC sitting on the bed in the rather scary tartan trousers) Helen > ---------- > From: > hilary_gray@sandwich.pfizer.com[SMTP:hilary_gray@sandwich.pfizer.com] > Sent: 16 June 2000 16:36 > To: oppositeview@smoe.org > Subject: OV: RE: Yes My Horse Is Pretty D*mn High > > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 07:55:05 -0700 From: Darren Holmquist Subject: OV: Admin: Last day for Napster discussion I've let this go on for awhile now, and I think it's time to stop. Today, Friday, is the last day to make your feelings known on the subject of Napster and their legal troubles. If you want to continue ranting, please take it to the Napster message board. I'm not saying that the information given has not been useful, but we've had 4 people unsubscribe in the last two days. Which means interest in the subject is dead but for a few people. So, get it out of your system today... Thanks, Darren Owner/Administrator "The Opposite View: The Del Amitri Mailing List" http://www.angelfire.com/de/oppositeview/index.html ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 09:11:44 -0700 (PDT) From: Alison Bellach Subject: Re: OV: Admin: Last day for Napster discussion My only thought: When did Doug get so bitter? I bet someone distributed "Be My Downfall Rap" on Napster and he's mad he didn't see any $$ from it. On Fri, 16 Jun 2000, Darren Holmquist wrote: > I've let this go on for awhile now, and I think it's time to stop. Today, > Friday, is the last day to make your feelings known on the subject of > Napster and their legal troubles. If you want to continue ranting, please > take it to the Napster message board. I'm not saying that the information > given has not been useful, but we've had 4 people unsubscribe in the last two > days. Which means interest in the subject is dead but for a few people. > > So, get it out of your system today... > > Thanks, > Darren > Owner/Administrator "The Opposite View: The Del Amitri Mailing List" > http://www.angelfire.com/de/oppositeview/index.html > > - ------------------------------------------------------------------- Alison Bellach: alibee@delamitri.com http://alibee.linex.com http://www.delamitri.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 11:16:00 -0700 (PDT) From: doug brown Subject: OV: You forgot to mention my 7 liters of smuggled French wine! Hilary! Missed you at Libby's BBQ last week so now you have to come visit the US. :) > Hello Doug, nice to see you back, but why not go > easy on the newcomers until > they have had chance to fully appreciate your brand > of wit and charm. :o) What wit and charm? Oh THAT wit and charm, now where did I leave it? ;) > Which is why the music industry needs to get itself > sorted so that it > doesn't rely so heavily on the CD sales for income. Hmm. If only it was that simple. The "music industry" is conglomerates within conglomerates of everchanging faces spread out over multiple international copyright domains. No I didn't understand that either but I thought it sounded pretty cool! > Napster shows the > demand there is for downloadable for music, and it's > only going to increase. So? That doesn't excuse blatant pirating, and IMO is beside the point. Yes Napster is used for many legitimate purposes but it also being used, in my view, as a vehicle that is knowingly transporting stolen goods. To the point where it is seriously affecting music revenues. Believe me, something is going to be done about that, and that something is that very likely Napster is going to get shut down. > Which they would sell more of if they weren't £15 a > throw when you only > *know* you like one or two songs on the CD and only > *suspect* you may like > more. This is why the majority of my CD collection > comprises 'Greatest > Hits' collections. Again this is beside the point, if you don't like the product don't buy it, and just as importantly don't steal it. > Whether it's OK or not, *it's going to happen*. > Instead of trying to beat > them, the copyright holders should be trying to join > them. Leaving aside the > mess of the copyright laws, what a bum deal the > musicians have etc etc. That sure is a crappy attitude. At least I'm trying to do something about it. I like musicians, I respect what they do (hehe some of them), and I respect that they should be paid for their work. If you don't like that you will get the uncivilized New York wine instead of the smuggled French vin rouge when you come to visit. > So why don't you come off your high horse Doug, > because you can't tell me > you have never contravened copyright laws eg by > making CD-Rs and giving them > to friends. Same act, different technology that's > all. Nay! Nay! Whinny! Paw the ground, charge! I am talking about mainstream music here as I keep saying! > Sorry Doug, but I think that is a very short sighted > view. There will > always be people picking up guitars and making > music. The more people that > hear them, the more that the music lives. Make it > official - it's a quick > and easy fix while the industry shakes itself out. DOH! Do you really think the bands out there with music contracts just want to make music for people? It is their livelihood. They want and deserve to be PAID for it. > I bet if you could download 'Roll To Me' from Alison > and/or Kevin's site > then you could make a steady income for the band, > and perhaps a bit more > from downloads of other tracks that the casual > listener may take a fancy to. > Who knows, they may even go out and buy Hatful of > Rain..... Ahem. Who is being shortsighted? I know you wear glasses I saw them muhaha!!! One person downloads, puts in on Napster, then a million people get it for free. I'm sorry but there IS a problem here. And I would know, I am great at problems. I cause more problems than most anyone I know. Darren, please send me the email addresses of the people that unsubscribed and I will write to them all with pedantically diluted only slightly condescending prose a faux apology that subtly places all the blame on their unsophisticated upbringing and poor education and they will be crawling back to you within days. Gives himself a good swift kick in the pants, Doug __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send instant messages with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 11:17:52 -0700 (PDT) From: doug brown Subject: Re: OV: RE: RE: Yes My Horse Is Pretty D*mn High Hehe, I don't know it could be anything. Ya see my view is pretty limited from way down here under his back hoofs. :) - --- Helen Pickering wrote: > Actually, I think that the big question now is: > "What has Doug's horse been smoking to get so > high?!" :-) > > Answers on a postcard.. (preferably one of those > nice promo ones which the > Del's record company used to send out to let you > know there was a new single > on the way - I always liked the one for 'Tell > Her...." JC sitting on the bed > in the rather scary tartan trousers) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send instant messages with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 11:18:58 -0700 (PDT) From: doug brown Subject: Re: OV: Admin: Last day for Napster discussion B*stards! All of you! That was Meatware didn't I tell you? You are supposed to send me a piece of meat if you liked it. I guess no one liked it sigh. Meatless In Rochester, Doug - --- Alison Bellach wrote: > > My only thought: > When did Doug get so bitter? I bet someone > distributed "Be My Downfall > Rap" on Napster and he's mad he didn't see any $$ > from it. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send instant messages with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 14:03:23 -0500 From: "Jen Woyan" Subject: OV: Re: Admin: Last day for Napster discussion I know I didn't exactly start this, but I didn't help matters either I'm sure (however, it was almost worth it to hear from Dougie again...>sigh<). I am off right now to pretend to do some work, but there have been so many strange (& not-so-strange) opinions & comments made on this, I WILL post before midnight today (Chicago time, of course) in reply and then drop it for off-list discussion only. But I will say now in defense of myself, that the only reason I wanted to bring this subject up in the first place was to offer a bit of background on what "our boys" are now up against in their chosen industry. It's damn scary out there and clear & informed heads are especially needed. Hmmm, show of hands now, - who thinks JPR has the, um, well, I was gonna use another word, but, 'guts' for the rocky & twisted road ahead??.....anyone?...... Cheers, Jen in Chicago Jennifer Woyan jenwoyan@xsite.net 773.271.7660 - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Darren Holmquist" To: Sent: Friday, June 16, 2000 9:55 AM Subject: OV: Admin: Last day for Napster discussion > I've let this go on for awhile now, and I think it's time to stop. Today, > Friday, is the last day to make your feelings known on the subject of > Napster and their legal troubles. If you want to continue ranting, please > take it to the Napster message board. I'm not saying that the information > given has not been useful, but we've had 4 people unsubscribe in the last two > days. Which means interest in the subject is dead but for a few people. > > So, get it out of your system today... > > Thanks, > Darren > Owner/Administrator "The Opposite View: The Del Amitri Mailing List" > http://www.angelfire.com/de/oppositeview/index.html > > > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 20:29:57 +0100 From: "Hilary Gray" Subject: OV: Re: Admin: Last day for Napster discussion Will we now get a flurry of posts from people desperate to have the last word? :o) Knowing that you can *never* have the last word in an argument with Doug, I'm taking this one off list as requested. Hilary PS The sooner we get our grubby mitts on some new Del Amitri material the better, then we won't keep having to invent discussions, and we can get back to arguing over whether Kris looks better with bleached hair or au natural. - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Darren Holmquist" To: Sent: 16 June 2000 15:55 Subject: OV: Admin: Last day for Napster discussion I've let this go on for awhile now, and I think it's time to stop. Today, Friday, is the last day to make your feelings known on the subject of Napster and their legal troubles ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 16:07:14 -0400 From: "Susan & C. Reid Gardner" Subject: OV: Re: Doug's Smoking Horse Helen Pickering wrote: > Actually, I think that the big question now is: > "What has Doug's horse been smoking to get so high?!" :-) LOL! Doug may have been quiet lately but when he delurks the whole world knows it! Wonder how many newbies he scared off... (Nice to read your pleasantries again, Doug. Really.) > Answers on a postcard.. (preferably one of those nice promo ones which the > Del's record company used to send out to let you know there was a new single > on the way - I always liked the one for 'Tell Her...." JC sitting on the bed > in the rather scary tartan trousers) Mmmm, 'scary' isn't the word that came to my mind the first time I saw it. TTFN Blushing Susan oh yeah ~ I've converted a dear friend to Del Amitri! We've been buddies for nearly 8 years and unfortunately she moved first to N. Carolina then to Arizona about 5 years ago so now we keep in touch only by email & snail mail. I had been talking about DA forever and she said recently that she couldn't seem to find their music in stores near her, so brilliant me sent her 'Hatful'. So last night she calls me and the first words out of her mouth are "I LOVE THIS BAND!" Yeah! Interesting, she says her favorite so far is 'Jimmy Blue' and for the same reasons that I do: its proof that a small town is the same on either side of the pond. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 16:14:53 -0400 From: "Susan & C. Reid Gardner" Subject: Re: OV: Re: Admin: Last day for Napster discussion Jen Woyan wrote: > But I will say now in defense of myself, that the only reason I wanted to > bring this subject up in the first place was to offer a bit of background on > what "our boys" are now up against in their chosen industry. It's damn > scary out there and clear & informed heads are especially needed. Hmmm, > show of hands now, - who thinks JPR has the, um, well, I was gonna use > another word, but, 'guts' for the rocky & twisted road > ahead??.....anyone?...... Don't suppose they do, judging by the way SOSP was handled. Or 'Hatful' especially here in the states. Depressing thought you've touched on, Jen... But I'll never give up hope that Justin gets that Number One he's always hoped for. TTFN Susan I also loved Sherry's take on the Springsteen lyrics: "The performance of American Skin left me with this impression: it is not an indictment of police officers; it is a statement about how this alleged melting pot (America) is really just a patchwork quilt. We're not "one people" in any real sense, we're just lots of different ethnicities and religions and cultures living side by side, without any deep understanding of one another. " Well said, my dear. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 14:37:45 -0700 (PDT) From: doug brown Subject: OV: Oh no you have the last word Hilary, I insist :) Seriously though its Friday and work's done and I'm sure not going to be reading this so have at it hehe. Say what you will this is still a lot more interesting than talking about Bruce Springsteen. And Del content at last hmm let me think. If I had to pick one color to describe The Dels what would it be. Black is so obvious but I might have to go with blue. It opens up so many more possibilities. Aubergine isn't too bad either, kind of gloomy but with depth. OK Aubergine it is. Happy Friday Delamities! __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send instant messages with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 19:09:52 -0500 From: "Phil Denson" Subject: OV: Gypsies Tramps and Thieves I've read all the post concerning the Napster debate and have truly enjoyed the discussion! On several occasions I almost bit...but alas common sense prevailed. (not very often) Being the last day, I can only feel obligated to post something...Gypsies Tramps and Thieves...I am amongst them...you decide. Phil Riding a Shetland pony...that way I don't get hurt when I fall off! ------------------------------ End of oppositeview-digest V2 #30 *********************************