MP3 controversy...
Jay
your own moreso than the corporation.. don't blame the corporate
structure.. or feel sorry for them.. we ARE that cathedral shaped
structure..
you can think to the point of faceless
it's ridiculas, but not senseless
it's just Hollywood,
and the DesireMix
listen -
we can't have the cure,
until we know what to fix....................
jay
Doc Aay
> until we know what to fix....................
>
>
> jay
>
D.
Jay
Doc Aay wrote in message ...
and that's the problem ;)
universally speaking.. anointings tend to start up top, and then slide on
down...
w/ an oil that's more than slick,
and it's not fast, it's quick...
TheU2Ledgend
mars tokyo
suerte rapida! guaranteed to produce fast results!
mars
--
The largest collection of original electronic artwork inspired by the music
of U2 (and completely ignored by them) on the face of the planet! Now at two
locations.
U•2•D•E•V•O•T•I•O•N•S at
http://marstokyo.com/u2devots.html
the visual explorations of a U2 fan
U•2•D•E•V•O•T•I•O•N•S at the Mars Tokyo Visual Diary
http://www.geocities.com/marstokyo/u2devote.html
rager69
witty and/or sophisticated by using arcane references (a la
Dennis Miller)? Maybe I'm missing something, but this thread
seems to be a bunch of gobbly-gook.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Jay
> w/ an oil that's more than slick,
> and it's not fast, it's quick...
suerte rapida! guaranteed to produce fast results!
the accent changes, but the script sounds the same to me..
jay
joey
position. If the artist feels the need to curtail the distribution of these
mp3's, more power to 'em. And i don't wanna hear " but edge said bootlegging
is fine". He was referring to bootlegged concerts, not studio albums that
have yet to be released. And that's the truth, Ruth. late!news:dtjs4.13297$O43.5...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> blah blah blah>
>
>
>
>
>
Jay
with that said.. you're a muscian? what do you play.. ?
and something I was thinking about concerning the MP3 thing.. it hit me when
Jason asked for GoldenEye.. regardless if he was tounge in cheek or not, it
reminded me that I bought TinaTurner's album and then copied GoldenEye to
MP3 for personal use.. though that's not the thing.. I bought the CD USED
instead of buying it new.. effectively cutting Tina and BonoEdge and all the
middle men out of the loop.. no different than if I'd have just downloaded
it originally from the net.. you get the idea.. MP3 might be similar to the
used cd market, just highly intensified..
not one bit flippant,
jay
PS Attn MusicIndustry : Beware the Ground Beneath yOur Feet
joey wrote in message <7mos4.930$OV.1...@typhoon.austin.rr.com>...
Ted Stapleton
>
> with that said.. you're a muscian? what do you play.. ?
>
> and something I was thinking about concerning the MP3 thing.. it hit me
when
> Jason asked for GoldenEye.. regardless if he was tounge in cheek or not,
it
> reminded me that I bought TinaTurner's album and then copied GoldenEye to
> MP3 for personal use.. though that's not the thing.. I bought the CD USED
> instead of buying it new.. effectively cutting Tina and BonoEdge and all
the
> middle men out of the loop.. no different than if I'd have just downloaded
> it originally from the net.. you get the idea.. MP3 might be similar to
the
> used cd market, just highly intensified..
This analogy doesn't fit. When you buy a CD used, someone originally
bought THAT COPY new. When you download an MP3, you are downloading HIGH
QUALITY COPIES of a perhaps perchased (or, at least licenced) original. In
one case, the original is the only one that is floating around and only to
the one user, in the other, different people are getting access to the same
CD.
stigge
Plus, copies for personal use (in any form) are not the same as copies
ditributed to other people.
--
stigge
!
~ stigge at concentric dot net ~
Jay
>>MP3 might be similar to the
>> used cd market, just highly intensified..
>
> This analogy doesn't fit. When you buy a CD used, someone originally
>bought THAT COPY new. When you download an MP3, you are downloading HIGH
>QUALITY COPIES of a perhaps perchased (or, at least licenced) original. In
>one case, the original is the only one that is floating around and only to
>the one user, in the other, different people are getting access to the same
>CD.
"if the analogy doesn't fit, you mustn't admit".. you make it sound like OJ
and a glove..
first you assumed that the used CD I bought has only two owners.. me and
the original buyer...
but the truth is, it could have been owned and resold by countless others..
maybe being recorded to tape(orMP3) along the way..
turn the volume up on this and for all I know, it was the only copy ever
sold (or promoed), and it just got passed around, in and out of the used CD
shop..
and though the transaction time, and ease of transfer of MP3's are more
"intensified" with the both the ease of computer downloading(etc) and the
exclusion of the transaction fee charged by third party stores.. both
paradigm's result in the same exclusion of the record co. and hence the
same rip in the fabric of the market..
I say, let it rip.. the controversy comes from people that are too
comfortable in the role of retail consumer, and the profit dependent
industry..
that is the co-dependent relationship that is in danger.. and the thing
is.... that's just the surface of things.... tremors...
I feel the ground is giving way... I think we must be better off that way..
jay
PS.. the wheels are going 'round and 'round, but petrol is NOT cheap..
Jay
>
>Plus, copies for personal use (in any form) are not the same as copies
>ditributed to other people.
a swing on, and a miss...
Jay
throats are slit via running back computers if I don't get there first.. I
think that it's just some kinda video vertigo (w/luggage through an airport)
.. you download outside the market forces, you hold the knife.. the secret
of day get's passed around, but we still act like it's night..
I recommend the interesting juxstapostion of band and fan with
PeterHanning's mixes..
MP3's available at interference.com
one particular track is "Mothers of the Disappeared (Rainbow Mix).. it's a
version of Bono's singing that Bono hasn't even heard (unless he downloaded
Peter's version).. I asked him how he did it.. Peter told me that he got the
vocal track from a poetry reading disk, and mixed it with music.. it's
really brilliant.. I'll pass it along to anyone that wants it.. or get it,
and others, at interference.com
still looking for the real killers,
jay
joey
and 6 or 7 well. <g> late!
Jay wrote in message ...
>you're not starting with me again are you Joey..
>
>with that said.. you're a muscian? what do you play.. ?
>
>and something I was thinking about concerning the MP3 thing.. it hit me
when
>Jason asked for GoldenEye.. regardless if he was tounge in cheek or not, it
>reminded me that I bought TinaTurner's album and then copied GoldenEye to
>MP3 for personal use.. though that's not the thing.. I bought the CD USED
>instead of buying it new.. effectively cutting Tina and BonoEdge and all
the
>middle men out of the loop.. no different than if I'd have just downloaded
>used cd market, just highly intensified..
>
>
>jay
>
>PS Attn MusicIndustry : Beware the Ground Beneath yOur Feet
>
stigge
> >Plus, copies for personal use (in any form) are not the same as copies
> >ditributed to other people.
>
>
> a swing on, and a miss...
How do you figure?
Jay
>I recommend the interesting juxstapostion of band and fan with
>PeterHanning's mixes..
and I also recommend, MarsTokyo's "NewYearsDay"......
both of these thing's seems to look to the healing of the bleeding cut...
living again tonight,
jay
Gabe
Regardless of how many owners the CD has had, the retail chain has not been
cut out of the equation. The entire concept of selling a medium holding
intellectual property...
[a concept without which we wouldn't have pop recordings at all, nor
software, and I'll be quite happy to back this up if anyone disagrees]
...is that if you buy a copy (one copy), you (one person) are buying the
right to listen to it (on one record-playing machine at a time). In
essence, you are buying one license. You are NOT buying the right to turn
that one license into many licenses -- that is, to distribute it to others,
for free or at cost, while keeping it yourself.
You do, however, have the right to sell that single license to someone else,
the same as any other property... as long as you don't retain a copy for
yourself.
What you're saying is logically the same as this: "I have a dollar. You say
it's illegal to counterfeit it and distribute the copies to my friends,
since that diminishes its value. But this dollar has passed through many
hands -- isn't that the same as copying it? -- and maybe others have Xeroxed
it as well. I'm not taking money out of any particular person's hand by
Xeroxing this dollar myself. Therefore, counterfeiting is okay. The
Federal Reserve has a lot of money anyway... they don't need mine."
If you buy a used Beetle, are you cutting Volkswagen out of the equation?
Not at all. The seller is getting money in exchange for his car, for which
he exchanged money -- the upward chain reaches Volkswagen in the end. They
only need to be compensated once for one car... after that it can be sold a
million times, and Volkswagen isn't losing anything by that. But that's not
the same as not being compensated at all for their product, and MP3 trading
amounts to exactly that.
I used the analogy of a physical product for a reason -- to illustrate that
distributing MP3s of a CD is about the same as stealing it from a warehouse.
A wholesale CD, priced at $11, costs about 25c to manufacture. The rest of
its value is as intellectual property. That is, $11 is what the artists and
the distributors THEY chose decided to price a copy of their work. So if
you copy that recording, you've saved the record company a lousy 25c and
stolen $10.75 from them.
That $11 price is too high, one might say? Fine. Then don't buy a copy and
don't listen to it. Put a year or two into writing some songs, buy some
instruments and some hideously expensive studio time. Make a recording
yourself, and see how much you think it's worth. People who complain about
giving money to pop stars and record execs seem to overlap heavily with
those who can't -- or won't -- do without the products they spend lots of
time and money to create.
--
emailing me? spyboy seventy-seven at mail dot com
----------
In article <nhAs4.1551$vm5....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, "Jay"
<v...@jpopmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>MP3 might be similar to the
>>> used cd market, just highly intensified..
>>
Ted Stapleton
> "if the analogy doesn't fit, you mustn't admit".. you make it sound like
OJ
> and a glove..
This is a misquote. I never said this.
> first you assumed that the used CD I bought has only two owners.. me and
> the original buyer...
Doesn't matter how many previous owners there were, the fact remains that
you are the only own after that CD is sold to you.
> but the truth is, it could have been owned and resold by countless
others..
> maybe being recorded to tape(orMP3) along the way..
Which is, of course, illegal and has nothing to do with buying used CDs.
Your analogy was about buying used CDs being the same as making MP3 copies
and distributing them. They are not the same.
> turn the volume up on this and for all I know, it was the only copy ever
> sold (or promoed), and it just got passed around, in and out of the used
CD
> shop..
Your point being?
> and though the transaction time, and ease of transfer of MP3's are more
> "intensified" with the both the ease of computer downloading(etc) and the
> exclusion of the transaction fee charged by third party stores.. both
> paradigm's result in the same exclusion of the record co. and hence the
> same rip in the fabric of the market..
NOT the same "rip in the fabric of the market". Because a CD is sold in a
used CD store does NOT mean that it was copied by it's orignal own and that
more than one people now own a copy of that music. Ripping MP3s and
downloading of the web DOES NECESSARILY MEAN THAT MORE THAN ONE PERSON OWNS
A COPY OF THAT MUSIC. This shouldn't be too hard to understand, Jay.
> I say, let it rip.. the controversy comes from people that are too
> comfortable in the role of retail consumer, and the profit dependent
> industry..
>
> that is the co-dependent relationship that is in danger.. and the thing
> is.... that's just the surface of things.... tremors...
>
> I feel the ground is giving way... I think we must be better off that
way..
>
> jay
>
>
>
> PS.. the wheels are going 'round and 'round, but petrol is NOT cheap..
As for the rest of your argument, I wasn't even trying to touch it in my
original post nor am I dealing with it here. I was just trying to show you
that your analogy doesn't fit. Can you see that? If not....
...then the wheels are going 'round and 'round, but you ain't going no
where.
Ted.
mars tokyo
Gabe wrote:
Very well said, Gabe! and people also forget-- it's not just the rock stars and
record execs-- the entire music industry employs thousands of people who earn
modest incomes like the rest of us.
mars tokyo
Jay wrote:
why, thanks for that plug, sir!
mars
(Daddy's Gonna Pay for your Crashed Car is on the drawing board as we
speak!)
mars tokyo
Jay wrote:
> and though, the GoldmanMarket is a type like a curse, and the Heartist's
> throats are slit via running back computers if I don't get there first.. I
> think that it's just some kinda video vertigo (w/luggage through an airport)
> .. you download outside the market forces, you hold the knife.. the secret
> of day get's passed around, but we still act like it's night..
>
> I recommend the interesting juxstapostion of band and fan with
> PeterHanning's mixes..
BTW-- any relation to you?
mars :-)
mars tokyo
Jay wrote:
> so Gabe is a musician/rock star..
>
> and Ted is the record company...
>
> Gabe records an album called "Intellectual Property"
> *though he originally thought of calling it, "The Gift of Gab-e"
>
> Ted likes it and distributes it...
>
> MarsTokyo buys the record for $16; $1 goes to Gabe and the rest ($15) to the
> record company machine.. she grooves to it.. enjoyes Gabes star-light that
> helps guide her across the night time sea .. she fills up on "Intellectual
> Property".. deriving the intrinsic value from the grand orchestrations of
> Gabe..
>
> but then she's done with it.. she's heard every note.. she's got it down...
> anymore listening would just be reminiscent, spinning wheels and Mars is
> about moving on.. so she takes it down to the used CD shop.. pawns it off
> for 25% the original price..
>
> Jason swaggers in... and he gets so excited.. he found Gabe's record,
> "Intellectual Property".. and gladly pays the $8 .. 50% off buying it
> new... and off he goes to listen to see what Gabe's got..
>
> (he COULD bring it back and I could buy it..)
>
> regardless...
>
> 1 record purchased per 2 listeners (with potential of more)...
>
> here's the balance sheet...
>
> Gabe + $1
> - IntellectualProperty and Time
>
> Ted + $15(minus RecordStoreMarkup)
> - $.25(manuf. cost)
>
> Mars - $16
> + $4 IntellectualValue
>
> RecordStore + (price markup)
>
> Jason - $ 8
> + IntellectualValue
>
> UsedRecordStore + $8
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
> now let's say that Mars turned it into an MP3 and Jason downloads it..
>
> Gabe + $1
> - IntellectualProperty and Time
>
> Ted + $15
> - $.25(manuf. cost)
>
> Mars - $16
> + IntellectualProperty
>
> RecordStore +(price markup)
>
> Jason + IntellectualProperty..
>
> again, 1 record purchased but 2 listeners
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
> now put Gabe and Ted and record stores on one side of the equation and the
> intended audience on the other...
>
> though, 'economically', I seperate record stores from Gabe and Ted.. and new
> from used..
>
> and the only difference between the two are that Mars looses $4 with MP3,
> while Jason 'gains' $4.. and UsedRecordStore get's cut out completely (i.e.
> MP3's taking the place of due to the similar transaction process)
>
> what get's multiplied in both transactions is intellectual property.... not
> the physical album sales or record industry cash.. in both cases, the
> multiplication factor is in direct proportion to the "actual" worth of the
> original IntellectualProperty itself.. if Gabe is good, it gets passed
> around.. that's why many recording artists appreciate MP3's.. the ones that
> aren't in it for the love of money, find the worth reflected more accurately
> without the haze of the neccessary record industry..
>
> the transactions ARE similar in end result.. but like I said.. MP3 and
> internet just intensify the effect in the practice of these transactions..
> that doesn't mean that the world doesn't need it murky, and won't continue
> to support all ends of the equation.. New records will be made and
> purchased, used CD shops will still have a place, and MP3's will continue to
> get passed around as long as hackers and programmers are as smart as the
> ones employeed by the corporationm and until the government figures out how
> to extract intellectual property out of your head if you don't pay for it,
> that dance is safe..
>
> it's certain, that times change..
>
> like a college experiment to release Mneumonic's version of TGBHF
>
> the thing we disagree about is that you imply that that intellectual
> property is not absorbed, and somehow only goes with the plastic disk or is
> accessable only when listening directly too it (and the source of this
> arguement/discussion/thread, is that with some, that may be true)
>
> which brings up my last point.. Ted, in your posts, I detect venom.. let's
> not get nasty..
>
> Gabe.. there's an interesting 'run through' of the trickle down economics of
> the record industry in the novel, TheGroundBeneathYourFeet.. it suggest that
> artist get a much lower percentage than you think.. I think U2 didn't start
> actually turning a profit until around the War Tour..
>
> jay
If you threw in a speeding train and asked me how long it would take train A to
reach point D if traveling at thirty miles per hour, except over hilly terrain
when it can only go 10 mph-- and the amount of hilly terrain between point B
and point D is 3 .3 miles but some of it is downhill when the train can
actually go 35 mph-- I still wouldn't understand your example. But see--- I'm
story problem challenged. I could never do story problems in math because i was
always thinking about WHY these people might need to get on the train-- did
someone die? were they going to a new town for a new job? were they happy? what
did they look like?
I flunked story problems.
:-)
mars (even if I'm in the story!)
Gabe
> the thing we disagree about is that you imply that that intellectual
> property is not absorbed, and somehow only goes with the plastic disk or
is
> accessable only when listening directly too it (and the source of this
> arguement/discussion/thread, is that with some, that may be true)
Gooood... I agree that we disagree about that, and I agree that your math
adds up to the above conclusion. I'm just glad that you boiled your
argument down to this paragraph so I don't have to respond to all those damn
numbers.
I'll stop leaning on the phrase "intellectual property" for a moment, and
just say this: I say, if I have a copy of the recording -- on MP3 or CD or
wax cylinder -- and am listening to it, that's a copy for which the artists
involved (and their designated intermediaries, record labels and such) have
a right to be compensated. However, once it gets into my head...
-
(and that's the permanent, non-transferable copy I'll keep no matter what)
...I don't have to pay for that copy no mo'. So if I sell that CD -- and
keep only the copy in my head -- I think no pop star or record label,
however greedy, would want me to erase that copy. Or interfere with my
right to sell the CD [my license, my choice!] while keeping said copy.
Here's another analogy: we can all agree that, in general, Salman Rushdie
should receive a royalty for any copy of The Ground Beneath Her Feet that
finds its way into a reader's hands. So: no one can take that paperback,
run it through a scanner, and sell or give copies to his friends (without
being a fraud and a bit of a criminal, that is). But a library can lend the
book out, to one person at a time, legally and morally. Of course, each
reader will remember those sentences and ideas, and can discuss them with
each other. Call that memory "intellectual property" if you like, but I say
that's where the "property" part ends. So does copyright law, and in this c
ase I agree with The Man.
In other words, I can remember a recording as long as I like without the
duty to pay for it, but I think there's a fundamental difference between
remembering the song and keeping a 44,100-sample-per-second copy of it. And
in still other words: I realize that the value and impact of an album
doesn't come and go with a long string of ones and zeros encoded on a disk.
But the obligation to pay... I say that that does indeed come and go with
the recording itself.
> Gabe.. there's an interesting 'run through' of the trickle down economics
of
> the record industry in the novel, TheGroundBeneathYourFeet.. it suggest
that
> artist get a much lower percentage than you think.. I think U2 didn't
start
> actually turning a profit until around the War Tour..
No, I realize that recording artists get relatively little of the take. For
example, I think U2 has one of the most favorable deals in the history of
the music industry, and their royalties add up to about $3.50 per album (to
be split 5 ways between the band and Paul McG). I gather that receiving
even a dollar per album is pretty generous. My point was simply that the
artist, in some way, chooses to split his money with that company -- and
since he does, I hold the record label's money just as legitimate as the
performer's. If the recording advance, career advice, industry contacts,
and career jump-start weren't worth it MajorLabelGuy X, he would record and
release records himself, like Ani DiFranco.
But U2, at least when they signed their contracts, did choose to split their
money with Island... I mean, Polygram... I mean, Universal... Seagram?
Anyway,
since U2 themselves made that choice, I hold Edgar B's right to his share to
be as legitimate as U2's.
Pete The Chop©
Gabe <throwy...@someoneelse.net> wrote in message
news:88v4eg$fu4$1...@netnews.upenn.edu...
> I used the analogy of a physical product for a reason -- to illustrate
that
> distributing MP3s of a CD is about the same as stealing it from a
warehouse.
> A wholesale CD, priced at $11, costs about 25c to manufacture. The rest
of
> its value is as intellectual property. That is, $11 is what the artists
and
> the distributors THEY chose decided to price a copy of their work. So if
> you copy that recording, you've saved the record company a lousy 25c and
> stolen $10.75 from them.
AAAAHHhhhhhh Buuuuuut.............
It doesn't cost the record companies SQUAT to sell ALL music in MP3 format,
and I'll be damned if they aren't working on a way to sell protected MP3's
that will only be playable to that buyer who payed for a download of it.
Then they are going to jack up the price far beyond $11 because of
"convenience" and milk us for all we are worth!!
Jay
regardless...
RecordStore + (price markup)
UsedRecordStore + $8
-------------------------------------------------------
RecordStore +(price markup)
Jason + IntellectualProperty..
-------------------------------------------------------------
the thing we disagree about is that you imply that that intellectual
property is not absorbed, and somehow only goes with the plastic disk or is
accessable only when listening directly too it (and the source of this
arguement/discussion/thread, is that with some, that may be true)
which brings up my last point.. Ted, in your posts, I detect venom.. let's
not get nasty..
Gabe.. there's an interesting 'run through' of the trickle down economics of
the record industry in the novel, TheGroundBeneathYourFeet.. it suggest that
artist get a much lower percentage than you think.. I think U2 didn't start
actually turning a profit until around the War Tour..
jay
Jay
Ted Stapleton wrote in message <88v6ja$jho4$1...@news.doit.wisc.edu>...
>
>> "if the analogy doesn't fit, you mustn't admit".. you make it sound like
>OJ
>> and a glove..
>
>This is a misquote. I never said this.
of course you didn't "say" that..but you're taking me out of context.. I
put qoutes on my summary of what I heard you say.. which was posted directly
above in full light of day..
>> first you assumed that the used CD I bought has only two owners.. me and
>> the original buyer...
>
>Doesn't matter how many previous owners there were, the fact remains that
>you are the only own after that CD is sold to you.
what makes me the special one that can't resell it again?
>> but the truth is, it could have been owned and resold by countless
>others..
>> maybe being recorded to tape(orMP3) along the way..
>
>Which is, of course, illegal and has nothing to do with buying used CDs.
>Your analogy was about buying used CDs being the same as making MP3 copies
>and distributing them. They are not the same.
I guess that's why I prefaced it with the tangent marker "maybe"..
>> turn the volume up on this and for all I know, it was the only copy ever
>> sold (or promoed), and it just got passed around, in and out of the used
>CD
>> shop..
>
>Your point being?
I love it when people ask me that.. with the uniformed sarcasm dripping off
it..
>> and though the transaction time, and ease of transfer of MP3's are more
>> "intensified" with the both the ease of computer downloading(etc) and the
>> exclusion of the transaction fee charged by third party stores.. both
>> paradigm's result in the same exclusion of the record co. and hence the
>> same rip in the fabric of the market..
>
>NOT the same "rip in the fabric of the market". Because a CD is sold in a
>used CD store does NOT mean that it was copied by it's orignal own and that
>more than one people now own a copy of that music. Ripping MP3s and
>downloading of the web DOES NECESSARILY MEAN THAT MORE THAN ONE PERSON OWNS
>A COPY OF THAT MUSIC. This shouldn't be too hard to understand, Jay.
when someone says "This shouldn't be too hard to understand".. it usually
means, "I'm want to be right about this, but I can't figure it out well
enough to tell you about it"
>> I say, let it rip.. the controversy comes from people that are too
>> comfortable in the role of retail consumer, and the profit dependent
>> industry..
>>
>> that is the co-dependent relationship that is in danger.. and the thing
>> is.... that's just the surface of things.... tremors...
>>
>> I feel the ground is giving way... I think we must be better off that
>way..
>>
>> jay
>>
>>
>>
>> PS.. the wheels are going 'round and 'round, but petrol is NOT cheap..
>
> As for the rest of your argument, I wasn't even trying to touch it in
my
>original post nor am I dealing with it here. I was just trying to show you
>that your analogy doesn't fit. Can you see that? If not....
if not what? like everyone that watched the trial on TV could see that the
gloves fit, but the 12 jurors faltered when the real weight was placed on
them.. did it fit or not? no officially, yes unofficially..
>...then the wheels are going 'round and 'round, but you ain't going no
>where. Ted
cheap shots Ted.. venom..
no humor, and no fun..
that's not what the 'fight club' was about..
jay
The Rev
<throwy...@someoneelse.net> wrote this thusly:
>That $11 price is too high, one might say? Fine. Then don't buy a copy and
>don't listen to it. Put a year or two into writing some songs, buy some
>instruments and some hideously expensive studio time. Make a recording
>yourself, and see how much you think it's worth. People who complain about
>giving money to pop stars and record execs seem to overlap heavily with
>those who can't -- or won't -- do without the products they spend lots of
>time and money to create.
Good post, Gabe. Lot of good points in there. I guess my only
sticking point is the way the record companies are being portrayed in
this whole shebang...
The reason this is such a big deal to the record companies is because
they're losing a VERY desirable target market, bottom line. If I felt
the record companies were fighting MP3's to protect the intellectual
property of the artists, I'd feel more strongly about whether I
download them or not. I've got a really hard time believing the
record companies are protecting anything except the investment they've
made. Which is their right, don't get me wrong; capitalism at its
finest, right there. But what does it hurt to be honest about it?
This is not a moral struggle; this is about money, which is just
another word for power.
Just like everything else.
I think I'm finally reaching Jim's level of disinterestedness in the
whole thing. We're worrying about music piracy - and I don't think
there's really been a better example of worrying about a completely
minor matter in society.
We can afford to worry about this kinda stuff because we don't really
have to worry about some other stuff in our lives (ie: food, shelter.
Yeah, we may not be rich, but we're surely tae fuck not dirt-poor; we
can afford a computer with a net connection or tuition to university,
for starters. Maslow, Heirarchy of Needs, right? (Oh, and it was
Maslow, right? Been a wee bit since I took that Child Psych
class...)).
Todd - that's MISTER Cynic to you, buddy
Todd McGillivray - Team Internet Paintball #467
http://cplhicks.tripod.com/
Mailing me? toddmc at nbnet dot nb dot ca.
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote, "The world is a
fine place and worth fighting for." I agree
with the second part." -- Detective Somerset, Seven
Jay
If you threw in a speeding train and asked me how long it would take train A
to
reach point D if traveling at thirty miles per hour, except over hilly
terrain
when it can only go 10 mph-- and the amount of hilly terrain between point B
and point D is 3 .3 miles but some of it is downhill when the train can
actually go 35 mph-- I still wouldn't understand your example. But see---
I'm
story problem challenged. I could never do story problems in math because i
was
always thinking about WHY these people might need to get on the train-- did
someone die? were they going to a new town for a new job? were they happy?
what
did they look like?
I flunked story problems.
:-)
mars (even if I'm in the story!)
there's not story problem,
only solution..........
it's like tryin' to get the left and right brains to get along..
jay
Jim
i hate maslow. people over-analyze things too much. mp3s are advertising. just
like the radio. dammit, now i'm "in" the argument... and i'm drunk, too...
--
Jim Crane
Did I ever tell you how much I rock?
http://www.pitt.edu/~jmcst80
alternate email: Bacard...@yahoo.com
stigge
> Regardless of how many owners the CD has had, the retail chain has not been
> cut out of the equation. The entire concept of selling a medium holding
> intellectual property...
[snip well said argument]
Exactly. I agree. This is what I've been trying to say, although you said
it much better. I think people tend to focus on the record-company-profit
bit and forget that the main point is the copyright issue.
stigge
> so Gabe is a musician/rock star..
[snip]
You're focusing on profit. Try this:
Mars has created a lot of artistic works. I go and take five of them (new
ones no one else has seen yet), scan them, and put them up on my website
for people to download, crediting her but not having asked for her
permission to do so.
Have I done something wrong?
Gabe
In article <_CKs4.729$u37....@news.uswest.net>, "Pete The Chop©"
<petet...@u2tomorrow.de> wrote:
> AAAAHHhhhhhh Buuuuuut.............
>
> It doesn't cost the record companies SQUAT to sell ALL music in MP3 format,
Hmmm... I'm trying to avoid condescension here, but that's a pretty dumb
statement. You do realize that by distributing music in MP3 format, they
are saving twenty-five cents, right? (Considering that shipping is the
record store's problem, and after record contracts take MP3s into account,
that is.) The rest of their expenses remain exactly the same: recording
advances, often hundreds of thousands of dollars... marketing...
promotion... A&R... artist development... oh, and keep in mind that the
companies have to spend that money on ALL their artists, and on many of
those, they lose their investment. So the big-selling acts have to pay not
only for themselves, but maybe two or three money-losers too.
Oops... I forgot that MP3s are not free. Bandwidth costs. Servers cost.
The people who run those servers REALLY cost. So they're saving less than
25c, actually.
Also, distributing all music as MP3s is a ridiculous idea, for many reasons
I'll elaborate on if anyone really needs to hear them. Sound quality,
accessibility to those on phone lines, those outside the U.S. without free
local calls, those without computers...
> and I'll be damned if they aren't working on a way to sell protected MP3's
> that will only be playable to that buyer who payed for a download of it.
> Then they are going to jack up the price far beyond $11 because of
> "convenience" and milk us for all we are worth!!
I think you're right about protected MP3s. But when was the last time
something bought online was more expensive than its offline equivalent? I
can't think of anything. I mean, I don't think record labels are much
slimier than other businessmen.
Jay
stigge wrote in message ...
It's not that I'm 'focusing'on profit.. it's just the I'm not overlooking
it..
however, with your illustration.. "cash" is taken out completely..
and the answer to your question is as gray as the circumstances..
has Mars 'released' the art for all to see? or has she intended to keep them
private?
if Mars is truly void of any artist imposed restitution for the artwork..
and has 'released' the art.. then no
if Mars hasn't 'released' the art.. or has, and is requireing payment in the
form of downloading directly from her, for example.. then yes
transactions don't neccessarily have to be about cash.. what are the
artists terms?
in the music industry.. artist automatically come with the transaction of
cash as a term.. but would they give it away for nothing given the chance..
"I'm spoiled rotten, I'm paid too much.....ahhh..... I'd do it for nothing,
you know what I mean?..." Bono - ZooTv manufactured media transaction
notice the hesitation before the confesssion.... very crafty with the
truth that guy )
copyrights are business laws.. what's the "spiritual" equivalent? isn't
that it? ask what does the artist think about the most primal transaction
of transfer of art to audience, and that tells you something of the
artist... and the idea of MP3 tends to put artist against the wall on this
issue.. though like I said before.. it's a not a 100% switch to the MP3
medium so the water is mirky on this and artist don't have to fully 'come
clean' about what they want in return for their art... so you get whore's
dressed up like the nun-like establishment.. and you don't know what's
what.. ya know, not that I have a problem with whores or the
establishment.. just the mirky waters that collide the two in the eyes of
the children..
so what do you think.. did you do something wrong?
jay
stigge
>
> stigge wrote in message ...
> >On Wed, 23 Feb 2000 01:47:19 GMT, Jay was heard to say...
> >
> >> so Gabe is a musician/rock star..
> >
> >[snip]
> >
> >You're focusing on profit. Try this:
> >
> >Mars has created a lot of artistic works. I go and take five of them (new
> >ones no one else has seen yet), scan them, and put them up on my website
> >for people to download, crediting her but not having asked for her
> >permission to do so.
> >
> >Have I done something wrong?
>
>
> It's not that I'm 'focusing'on profit.. it's just the I'm not overlooking
> it..
>
>
> however, with your illustration.. "cash" is taken out completely..
>
> and the answer to your question is as gray as the circumstances..
Not as grey as you might think.
> has Mars 'released' the art for all to see? or has she intended to keep them
> private?
I'm thinking she sent someone an advance sample of the work, to review
before she displays it in a gallery. I got my hands on the samples, and
posted them up without asking.
Don't forget that, to me in this scenario, whether she released them or
not is irrelevant to my decision. I'm posting them if she approves or
disapproves.
> if Mars is truly void of any artist imposed restitution for the artwork..
> and has 'released' the art.. then no
>
> if Mars hasn't 'released' the art.. or has, and is requireing payment in the
> form of downloading directly from her, for example.. then yes
Define 'released'. If you mean 'shown publicly', then it's irrelevant.
Just because you are shown/hear something, does not instantly give you
the right to do with that work what you will. One could argue that your
posts to this group are 'released', as they are in public forum, so I
could archive them all on a server, call it 'Jay's Prose Corner' and open
it up for everyone. Before you say you don't mind, remember: You Have No
Choice. I'm not asking; I don't care if you mind or not. I'm just doing
it because you 'released' all the posts.
> transactions don't neccessarily have to be about cash.. what are the
> artists terms?
That's my point. To me, the cash part may or may not be important. I'm
wondering more about a creator's rights to have control over how their
work is used. Matt Groening has said he's seen bootleged versions of the
Simpsons. The greenpeace organizations using it he likes. But he's also
seen skinhead versions of Bart on t-shirts, which he disagrees with. Does
he have any right to challenge how his work shows up in public? I think
so.
> in the music industry.. artist automatically come with the transaction of
> cash as a term.. but would they give it away for nothing given the chance..
>
> "I'm spoiled rotten, I'm paid too much.....ahhh..... I'd do it for nothing,
> you know what I mean?..." Bono - ZooTv manufactured media transaction
> notice the hesitation before the confesssion.... very crafty with the
> truth that guy )
>
> copyrights are business laws
Partly. They are also created to protect artists and creators, so people
can't take their ideas and use them without their approval. In
cartooning, once you put something on paper it's protected by the
copyright laws. I'm not making any money off my sketchbooks. But legally
you can't use them for anything I don't want you to. Copyright.
> the most primal transaction
> of transfer of art to audience
[snip all but this important part]
What about that transfer; Mars wanted to tranfer her art to her audience
via a gallery. I transferred it myself first. Oops.
U2 wanted these songs to be transferred by their own plan, via radio then
CD. But someone stole a copy and posted it. So much for their plans of
transfer to the audience. Oops again.
> so what do you think.. did you do something wrong?
I do. I'd expect Mars to have her own vision on how she wants the work to
come into the world, and how it is presented. I hijacked her art. Now
I've affected her presentation.
Part of any artistic creation is how it is presented to the audience by
that artist. They're entitled to that, IMHO.
Heather
do one of 'Heather's Wisecracks'!!
--
I own all the crayons now!!
"I'm in the black, can't see or be seen."
I am happy to go blind.
Thank you and good night.
Sir Sammy
website. That would be Mar's exclusive right. Unless she gives you
permission... maybe if you're real nice to her...
stigge <sti...@we.are.the.people.our.parents.warned.us.about> wrote in
message news:MPG.131dab437...@news.alt.net...
> On Wed, 23 Feb 2000 01:47:19 GMT, Jay was heard to say...
>
> > so Gabe is a musician/rock star..
>
> [snip]
>
> You're focusing on profit. Try this:
>
> Mars has created a lot of artistic works. I go and take five of them (new
> ones no one else has seen yet), scan them, and put them up on my website
> for people to download, crediting her but not having asked for her
> permission to do so.
>
> Have I done something wrong?
>
stigge
> Yes. You don't have the right to copy em, scan em and post em on your
> website. That would be Mar's exclusive right. Unless she gives you
> permission...
I agree. Not just 'legally' i.e. copyright laws, but in my opinion,
morally as well; Respect The Artist.
> maybe if you're real nice to her...
I sent her a bagel basket. I'll let you know how the negotiations go...
stigge
> do one of 'Heather's Wisecracks'!!
I'll archive all your funny stuff.
Hmmmm...0 kb.
Heather
> On Wed, 23 Feb 2000 13:00:28 -0500, Heather was heard to say...
>
> > do one of 'Heather's Wisecracks'!!
>
> I'll archive all your funny stuff.
>
> Hmmmm...0 kb.
umm you forgot a 1 and quite a few 0's there my dear.
Jay
stigge wrote in message ...
>On Wed, 23 Feb 2000 16:51:50 GMT, Jay was heard to say...
>
>>
>> stigge wrote in message ...
>> >
>> >> so Gabe is a musician/rock star..
>> >
>> >[snip]
>> >
>> >You're focusing on profit. Try this:
>> >
>> >Mars has created a lot of artistic works. I go and take five of them
(new
>> >ones no one else has seen yet), scan them, and put them up on my website
>> >for people to download, crediting her but not having asked for her
>> >permission to do so.
>> >
>> >Have I done something wrong?
>>
>>
>> it..
>>
>>
>> however, with your illustration.. "cash" is taken out completely..
>>
>> and the answer to your question is as gray as the circumstances..
>
>Not as grey as you might think.
but not as simple either..
>> has Mars 'released' the art for all to see? or has she intended to keep
them
>> private?
>
>I'm thinking she sent someone an advance sample of the work, to review
>before she displays it in a gallery. I got my hands on the samples, and
>posted them up without asking.
>
>Don't forget that, to me in this scenario, whether she released them or
>not is irrelevant to my decision. I'm posting them if she approves or
>disapproves.
ok, so you're knowingly doing it against her wishes (then of course you are
doing something wrong).. however, the truth is.. and, of course, we're
semi-talking about U2's M$H experiance.. but the art is not independent of
the jungle that it's in.. if you stole it, redirected the presentation or
whatever.. then the artist should have compensated somehow ahead of time, or
worked that into the work/presentation/plan itself - been smarter about the
truth reality Matrix that it tries to convey... I think U2 understood that
it would happen and shrugged it..
>> if Mars is truly void of any artist imposed restitution for the artwork..
>> and has 'released' the art.. then no
>>
>> if Mars hasn't 'released' the art.. or has, and is requireing payment in
the
>> form of downloading directly from her, for example.. then yes
>
>Define 'released'. If you mean 'shown publicly', then it's irrelevant.
>Just because you are shown/hear something, does not instantly give you
>the right to do with that work what you will. One could argue that your
>posts to this group are 'released', as they are in public forum, so I
>could archive them all on a server, call it 'Jay's Prose Corner' and open
>it up for everyone. Before you say you don't mind, remember: You Have No
>Choice. I'm not asking; I don't care if you mind or not. I'm just doing
>it because you 'released' all the posts.
I meant 'released' from the POV of the artist.. were they ready for the work
to be 'out there'? U2/Bono's M$H case.. yes.. it was just working it's way
through the record co. pipeline... so the arguement of download comes back
to profits and monetary transaction..
and as for "Jay's Prose Corner".. same thing.. I make the choice when I
post.. I can't blame you for any unforseen circumstances by me.. I might
want to.. but I know that I can't... but I understand the element in this
that gives artists cause in this direction.. it's what happens between the
"worry about it to the point of stasis", or the jump (and just might fall)..
that divide is the thing .. and it's nothing but a thing..
>> transactions don't neccessarily have to be about cash.. what are the
>> artists terms?
>
>That's my point. To me, the cash part may or may not be important. I'm
>wondering more about a creator's rights to have control over how their
>work is used. Matt Groening has said he's seen bootleged versions of the
>Simpsons. The greenpeace organizations using it he likes. But he's also
>seen skinhead versions of Bart on t-shirts, which he disagrees with. Does
>he have any right to challenge how his work shows up in public? I think
>so.
well counterfeiting is a whole other animal.. sort of similar in appearance
to MP3's changing the release date of an album... but not structurally the
same.. however, the control of the artist over their art's function is
something of a mystery anyway.. it took U2 10 years to let go of the
steering wheel.. and, I think, have found some interesting roads to run
their crashed car on.. artists HAVE to have an amount of faith in this
regard..
>> in the music industry.. artist automatically come with the transaction of
>> cash as a term.. but would they give it away for nothing given the
chance..
>>
>> "I'm spoiled rotten, I'm paid too much.....ahhh..... I'd do it for
nothing,
>> you know what I mean?..." Bono - ZooTv manufactured media transaction
>> notice the hesitation before the confesssion.... very crafty with the
>> truth that guy )
>>
>> copyrights are business laws
>
>Partly. They are also created to protect artists and creators, so people
>can't take their ideas and use them without their approval. In
>cartooning, once you put something on paper it's protected by the
>copyright laws. I'm not making any money off my sketchbooks. But legally
>you can't use them for anything I don't want you to. Copyright.
well especially with cartoonists, "no blood is thicker than ink" eh
CharlieBrown?... and there's no arguement from me on the sacredness of
your sketchbook.. but your finished work... how do you feel about it
(minus the $$)? what does the copyright do for you?
>> the most primal transaction
>> of transfer of art to audience
>
>[snip all but this important part]
oh.. there was more important things in that paragraph
>What about that transfer; Mars wanted to tranfer her art to her audience
>via a gallery. I transferred it myself first. Oops.
If Mars really enjoys being ignored and is upset by this... then maybe Mars
should have known the ground beneath her feet.... and unwashable shame on
you, you earthquake you....
>U2 wanted these songs to be transferred by their own plan, via radio then
>CD. But someone stole a copy and posted it. So much for their plans of
>transfer to the audience. Oops again.
I think U2 understands... and that the plan is not upset by this in the
slightest... perhaps even enhanced...
>> so what do you think.. did you do something wrong?
>
>I do. I'd expect Mars to have her own vision on how she wants the work to
>come into the world, and how it is presented. I hijacked her art. Now
>I've affected her presentation.
yep.. you do know that for the most part we agree don't you? but it's
like U2 from JT to AB.. "we've been playing to our weaknesses, it's time to
play to our strenghts..." why does Mars' art deserve to be coddled..?
>Part of any artistic creation is how it is presented to the audience by
>that artist. They're entitled to that, IMHO.
but if an artist wants to paint a rainy day.. they can't just expect the sun
not to shine... truth prevails consistantly... even if the truth is that
earthquakes happen, and MP3's get passed around...
artist's artworks are just brush strokes in a higher painting that's been
stolen from the museum..
holding on so tightly to the letting go,
jay
stigge
> stigge wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 23 Feb 2000 13:00:28 -0500, Heather was heard to say...
> >
> > > do one of 'Heather's Wisecracks'!!
> >
> > I'll archive all your funny stuff.
> >
> > Hmmmm...0 kb.
>
> umm you forgot a 1 and quite a few 0's there my dear.
ERROR: FILE NOT FOUND
Jay
mars tokyo wrote in message <38B32436...@erols.com>...
Jay wrote:
> >I recommend the interesting juxstapostion of band and fan with
> >PeterHanning's mixes..
>
> and I also recommend, MarsTokyo's "NewYearsDay"......
>
> both of these thing's seems to look to the healing of the bleeding cut...
>
> living again tonight,
>
> jay
why, thanks for that plug, sir!
no... thank you for letting me borrow your satellite... <though I didn't
ask>
just my ZooTV phase,
jay
Heather
> On Wed, 23 Feb 2000 13:40:02 -0500, Heather was heard to say...
>
> > stigge wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, 23 Feb 2000 13:00:28 -0500, Heather was heard to say...
> > >
> > > > do one of 'Heather's Wisecracks'!!
> > >
> > > I'll archive all your funny stuff.
> > >
> > > Hmmmm...0 kb.
> >
> > umm you forgot a 1 and quite a few 0's there my dear.
>
> ERROR: FILE NOT FOUND
youre looking for the wrong file name. its
heathersthecoolestoneever.doc.
stigge
>
> stigge wrote in message ...
[snip]
> >I'm thinking she sent someone an advance sample of the work, to review
> >before she displays it in a gallery. I got my hands on the samples, and
> >posted them up without asking.
> >
> >Don't forget that, to me in this scenario, whether she released them or
> >not is irrelevant to my decision. I'm posting them if she approves or
> >disapproves.
>
> ok, so you're knowingly doing it against her wishes (then of course you are
> doing something wrong)
Nope. I have no idea what her wishes are. I didn't ask, remember? My
point is should people give consideration to this? Obviously, if an
artist says, 'no' and you do it anyway, it's wrong. So is the artist's
approval important? Apparently. So should it be considered? Apparently.
> .. however, the truth is.. and, of course, we're
> semi-talking about U2's M$H experiance.. but the art is not independent of
> the jungle that it's in.. if you stole it, redirected the presentation or
> whatever.. then the artist should have compensated somehow ahead of time, or
> worked that into the work/presentation/plan itself - been smarter about the
> truth reality Matrix that it tries to convey... I think U2 understood that
> it would happen and shrugged it..
I seem to recall a statement that they were disappointed by the pirating.
Apparently they said 'no'. Unfortunately, no one asked ahead of time.
Artists try to comepensate through copyright laws. They also try by
saying 'Don't do this with my work". People do it anyway, obviously.
I don't think it's fair to expect an artist to compensate or work it into
the presentation. If you expect this of them, they no longer begin with a
blank canvas. The canvases now come with definitive borders. Limited art
is not art. Yes, it may happen anyway. But they are entitled to be angry
about it. It sucks.
> >Define 'released'. If you mean 'shown publicly', then it's irrelevant.
> >Just because you are shown/hear something, does not instantly give you
> >the right to do with that work what you will. One could argue that your
> >posts to this group are 'released', as they are in public forum, so I
> >could archive them all on a server, call it 'Jay's Prose Corner' and open
> >it up for everyone. Before you say you don't mind, remember: You Have No
> >Choice. I'm not asking; I don't care if you mind or not. I'm just doing
> >it because you 'released' all the posts.
>
> I meant 'released' from the POV of the artist.. were they ready for the work
> to be 'out there'? U2/Bono's M$H case.. yes.. it was just working it's way
> through the record co. pipeline... so the arguement of download comes back
> to profits and monetary transaction..
You said before:
> ok, so you're knowingly doing it against her wishes (then of course you are
> doing something wrong)
U2, to my understanding, said 'no' and most sites were shut down. You say
they were ready, but they seem to think they weren't. It all started with
a stolen demo CD. Stolen = taken without permission. The whole thing as
wrong from step one. If they were ready for it to turn up in that format,
it would have been 'released', not 'stolen', neh?
> and as for "Jay's Prose Corner".. same thing.. I make the choice when I
> post.. I can't blame you for any unforseen circumstances by me.. I might
> want to.. but I know that I can't... but I understand the element in this
> that gives artists cause in this direction.. it's what happens between the
> "worry about it to the point of stasis", or the jump (and just might fall)..
> that divide is the thing .. and it's nothing but a thing..
Sure you can't predict the future, and every exercise in art is also an
exercise in faith. But it's never giving up your freedom or right to
complain.
> >That's my point. To me, the cash part may or may not be important. I'm
> >wondering more about a creator's rights to have control over how their
> >work is used. Matt Groening has said he's seen bootleged versions of the
> >Simpsons. The greenpeace organizations using it he likes. But he's also
> >seen skinhead versions of Bart on t-shirts, which he disagrees with. Does
> >he have any right to challenge how his work shows up in public? I think
> >so.
>
> well counterfeiting is a whole other animal.. sort of similar in appearance
> to MP3's changing the release date of an album... but not structurally the
> same..
Copying bart is using an unoriginal version not approved/created by the
source. Copying currency is using an unoriginal version not
approved/created by the source. Copying a CD to MP3 is using an
unoriginal version not approved/created by the source.
A different animal, like Greyhounds and Dobermans.
> however, the control of the artist over their art's function is
> something of a mystery anyway.. it took U2 10 years to let go of the
> steering wheel.. and, I think, have found some interesting roads to run
> their crashed car on.. artists HAVE to have an amount of faith in this
> regard..
Sure. But if they say 'we don't want this', and someone does it anyway,
is it wrong?
> ok, so you're knowingly doing it against her wishes (then of course you are
> doing something wrong)
Apoparently so.
> >Partly. They are also created to protect artists and creators, so people
> >can't take their ideas and use them without their approval. In
> >cartooning, once you put something on paper it's protected by the
> >copyright laws. I'm not making any money off my sketchbooks. But legally
> >you can't use them for anything I don't want you to. Copyright.
>
> well especially with cartoonists, "no blood is thicker than ink" eh
> CharlieBrown?... and there's no arguement from me on the sacredness of
> your sketchbook.. but your finished work... how do you feel about it
> (minus the $$)? what does the copyright do for you?
It gives me some control over my work and where it ends up. I like to
think that while it does not give me total control over it, it allows me
to stop anything I seriously disagree with.
> >[snip all but this important part]
>
> oh.. there was more important things in that paragraph
This was, to me, the most important.
> >What about that transfer; Mars wanted to tranfer her art to her audience
> >via a gallery. I transferred it myself first. Oops.
>
> If Mars really enjoys being ignored and is upset by this... then maybe Mars
> should have known the ground beneath her feet.... and unwashable shame on
> you, you earthquake you....
People should never own anything of value. If they get robbed, it's their
own fault.
> >U2 wanted these songs to be transferred by their own plan, via radio then
> >CD. But someone stole a copy and posted it. So much for their plans of
> >transfer to the audience. Oops again.
>
> I think U2 understands... and that the plan is not upset by this in the
> slightest... perhaps even enhanced...
U2 said 'no'. The sites with the MP3's got shut down. Perhaps you should
explain it to them, 'cause I don't think they understand.
> >I do. I'd expect Mars to have her own vision on how she wants the work to
> >come into the world, and how it is presented. I hijacked her art. Now
> >I've affected her presentation.
>
> yep.. you do know that for the most part we agree don't you?
Yes. But you imply the artists takes their chances. That is true. When I
walk down the street I take chances also. That doesn't make stealing my
watch ok.
> but it's
> like U2 from JT to AB.. "we've been playing to our weaknesses, it's time to
> play to our strenghts..." why does Mars' art deserve to be coddled..?
You call it 'coddling'. I call it having respect for the artist and their
vision. TOmato. TomatO.
> >Part of any artistic creation is how it is presented to the audience by
> >that artist. They're entitled to that, IMHO.
>
> but if an artist wants to paint a rainy day.. they can't just expect the sun
> not to shine... truth prevails consistantly... even if the truth is that
> earthquakes happen, and MP3's get passed around...
Earthquakes and sunny days come from nature. MP3's come from some dork
who stole a CD. The dork may seem like nature to some, but I can assure
you any resemblance is merely coincidental; the Free Will bit is always a
dead giveaway.
stigge
> stigge wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 23 Feb 2000 13:40:02 -0500, Heather was heard to say...
> >
> > > stigge wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Wed, 23 Feb 2000 13:00:28 -0500, Heather was heard to say...
> > > >
> > > > > do one of 'Heather's Wisecracks'!!
> > > >
> > > > I'll archive all your funny stuff.
> > > >
> > > > Hmmmm...0 kb.
> > >
> > > umm you forgot a 1 and quite a few 0's there my dear.
> >
> > ERROR: FILE NOT FOUND
>
> youre looking for the wrong file name. its
> heathersthecoolestoneever.doc.
SYSTEM ERROR: BAD FILE NAME
Doc Aay
>> heathersthecoolestoneever.doc.
I.did.not.say.this.doc
Heather
but its true!!
:)
Jay
stigge wrote in message ...
>On Wed, 23 Feb 2000 19:01:23 GMT, Jay was heard to say...
>
>>
>> stigge wrote in message ...
>
>[snip]
>
>> >I'm thinking she sent someone an advance sample of the work, to review
>> >before she displays it in a gallery. I got my hands on the samples, and
>> >posted them up without asking.
>> >
>> >Don't forget that, to me in this scenario, whether she released them or
>> >not is irrelevant to my decision. I'm posting them if she approves or
>> >disapproves.
>>
>> ok, so you're knowingly doing it against her wishes (then of course you
are
>> doing something wrong)
>
>Nope. I have no idea what her wishes are. I didn't ask, remember? My
>point is should people give consideration to this? Obviously, if an
>artist says, 'no' and you do it anyway, it's wrong. So is the artist's
>approval important? Apparently. So should it be considered? Apparently.
what "should be" is amongst alot of things that if I could, I would,
rearrange... but like your logic path.. identification of what's important
comes first.. and that's the work.. loosing false opinions of what's
important to find what IS important... and you find it crawling around on
the ground of a ridiculous issue like MP3's..
>> .. however, the truth is.. and, of course, we're
>> semi-talking about U2's M$H experiance.. but the art is not independent
of
>> the jungle that it's in.. if you stole it, redirected the presentation or
>> whatever.. then the artist should have compensated somehow ahead of time,
or
>> worked that into the work/presentation/plan itself - been smarter about
the
>> truth reality Matrix that it tries to convey... I think U2 understood
that
>> it would happen and shrugged it..
>
>I seem to recall a statement that they were disappointed by the pirating.
>Apparently they said 'no'. Unfortunately, no one asked ahead of time.
was it in direct reference to the M$H/MP3's? or something about selling
pirated copies of albums in russia or china or whatever?
>Artists try to comepensate through copyright laws. They also try by
>saying 'Don't do this with my work". People do it anyway, obviously.
of course people do it anyway.. if an artist actually thinks that people are
going to do something just because they say so, the artist is a washed up,
no talent hack to begin with.. the laws protect them.. but it shouldn't be
used as a crutch by people that don't need the protection..
>I don't think it's fair to expect an artist to compensate or work it into
>the presentation. If you expect this of them, they no longer begin with a
>blank canvas. The canvases now come with definitive borders. Limited art
>is not art. Yes, it may happen anyway. But they are entitled to be angry
>about it. It sucks.
canvases, by definition, have borders.. four of them usually.. or one
rounded one... the artist job is to find their limits... bastard theives may
be a limit to one artist.. and a reason to build a fence to another less
limited artist..
I'm interested in that 'press release'/comment.. if you have directions to
it? I don't think U2 ever said that it was stolen.. did they? unlike going
on the record about the lyrics of October..
>> and as for "Jay's Prose Corner".. same thing.. I make the choice when I
>> post.. I can't blame you for any unforseen circumstances by me.. I might
>> want to.. but I know that I can't... but I understand the element in
this
>> that gives artists cause in this direction.. it's what happens between
the
>> "worry about it to the point of stasis", or the jump (and just might
fall)..
>> that divide is the thing .. and it's nothing but a thing..
>
>Sure you can't predict the future, and every exercise in art is also an
>exercise in faith. But it's never giving up your freedom or right to
>complain.
ya.. I used to be a good complainer.. I'm tryin' to pick it up again...
>> >That's my point. To me, the cash part may or may not be important. I'm
>> >wondering more about a creator's rights to have control over how their
>> >work is used. Matt Groening has said he's seen bootleged versions of the
>> >Simpsons. The greenpeace organizations using it he likes. But he's also
>> >seen skinhead versions of Bart on t-shirts, which he disagrees with.
Does
>> >he have any right to challenge how his work shows up in public? I think
>> >so.
>>
>> well counterfeiting is a whole other animal.. sort of similar in
appearance
>> to MP3's changing the release date of an album... but not structurally
the
>> same..
>
>Copying bart is using an unoriginal version not approved/created by the
>source. Copying currency is using an unoriginal version not
>approved/created by the source. Copying a CD to MP3 is using an
>unoriginal version not approved/created by the source.
counterfeiting falls under fake rolex catagory.. with the MP3's, you get the
real music
if Bart's image was redrawn in some other version of Simpsons.. it's very
different than just passing VHS recordings..
>A different animal, like Greyhounds and Dobermans.
fair enough
>> however, the control of the artist over their art's function is
>> something of a mystery anyway.. it took U2 10 years to let go of the
>> steering wheel.. and, I think, have found some interesting roads to run
>> their crashed car on.. artists HAVE to have an amount of faith in this
>> regard..
>
>Sure. But if they say 'we don't want this', and someone does it anyway,
>is it wrong?
>>
>> ok, so you're knowingly doing it against her wishes (then of course you
are
>> doing something wrong)
>
>Apoparently so.
of course it's wrong.. but is it one of the things that only the law can
get the artist around..?
I don't think it is..
>> >Partly. They are also created to protect artists and creators, so people
>> >can't take their ideas and use them without their approval. In
>> >cartooning, once you put something on paper it's protected by the
>> >copyright laws. I'm not making any money off my sketchbooks. But legally
>> >you can't use them for anything I don't want you to. Copyright.
>>
>> well especially with cartoonists, "no blood is thicker than ink" eh
>> CharlieBrown?... and there's no arguement from me on the sacredness of
>> your sketchbook.. but your finished work... how do you feel about it
>> (minus the $$)? what does the copyright do for you?
>
>It gives me some control over my work and where it ends up. I like to
>think that while it does not give me total control over it, it allows me
>to stop anything I seriously disagree with.
stopping what you disagree with qualifies as control.. (like a kill switch)
but what gives artists the right to play god with their art.. their own
baby... because, the truth is, it never really belonged to them anyway.
>> >[snip all but this important part]
>>
>> oh.. there was more important things in that paragraph
>
>This was, to me, the most important.
I was speaking quantitative... not qualitative..
>> >What about that transfer; Mars wanted to tranfer her art to her audience
>> >via a gallery. I transferred it myself first. Oops.
>>
>> If Mars really enjoys being ignored and is upset by this... then maybe
Mars
>> should have known the ground beneath her feet.... and unwashable shame
on
>> you, you earthquake you....
>
>People should never own anything of value. If they get robbed, it's their
>own fault.
almost... this a tricky one.. if you leave your gold bricks(or silver
shoes) out on the front porch.. they might get stolen..
>> >U2 wanted these songs to be transferred by their own plan, via radio
then
>> >CD. But someone stole a copy and posted it. So much for their plans of
>> >transfer to the audience. Oops again.
>>
>> I think U2 understands... and that the plan is not upset by this in the
>> slightest... perhaps even enhanced...
>
>U2 said 'no'. The sites with the MP3's got shut down. Perhaps you should
>explain it to them, 'cause I don't think they understand.
if they did say 'no'.. I think that was the 'artistic' U2 wearing the
'business' clothes that their MotherRecords picked out for them to go to the
opera in..
>> >I do. I'd expect Mars to have her own vision on how she wants the work
to
>> >come into the world, and how it is presented. I hijacked her art. Now
>> >I've affected her presentation.
>>
>> yep.. you do know that for the most part we agree don't you?
>
>Yes. But you imply the artists takes their chances. That is true. When I
>walk down the street I take chances also. That doesn't make stealing my
>watch ok.
you know I'm not saying that it's right.. forgiveable maybe.. and not the
best thing that could happen.. but not the worst..
>> but it's
>> like U2 from JT to AB.. "we've been playing to our weaknesses, it's time
to
>> play to our strenghts..." why does Mars' art deserve to be coddled..?
>
>You call it 'coddling'. I call it having respect for the artist and their
>vision. TOmato. TomatO.
ya.. tastes the same.. either way it takes a village to recognize art...
>> >Part of any artistic creation is how it is presented to the audience by
>> >that artist. They're entitled to that, IMHO.
>>
>> but if an artist wants to paint a rainy day.. they can't just expect the
sun
>> not to shine... truth prevails consistantly... even if the truth is that
>> earthquakes happen, and MP3's get passed around...
>
>Earthquakes and sunny days come from nature. MP3's come from some dork
>who stole a CD. The dork may seem like nature to some, but I can assure
>you any resemblance is merely coincidental; the Free Will bit is always a
>dead giveaway.
god's will may be free.. but ours are split, and nothing wrong with throwing
your arms around it... holding it whole again..
jay
stigge
>
> stigge wrote in message ...
> >Nope. I have no idea what her wishes are. I didn't ask, remember? My
> >point is should people give consideration to this? Obviously, if an
> >artist says, 'no' and you do it anyway, it's wrong. So is the artist's
> >approval important? Apparently. So should it be considered? Apparently.
>
> what "should be" is amongst alot of things that if I could, I would,
> rearrange... but like your logic path.. identification of what's important
> comes first.. and that's the work.. loosing false opinions of what's
> important to find what IS important... and you find it crawling around on
> the ground of a ridiculous issue like MP3's..
So is the artist's approval important in your opinion? Do you fell an
artist's approval should be considered before distributing their work?
What say ye?
> >I seem to recall a statement that they were disappointed by the pirating.
> >Apparently they said 'no'. Unfortunately, no one asked ahead of time.
>
> was it in direct reference to the M$H/MP3's?
Yes. I'm not working on my mind reading skills here; I'm going by what I
read. Work back up the thread. There was a link to an article, and I
don't have time to fish it out right now. It was a Very Good Article.
> the laws protect them.. but it shouldn't be
> used as a crutch by people that don't need the protection..
Like who? Who qualifies for protection?
> >I don't think it's fair to expect an artist to compensate or work it into
> >the presentation. If you expect this of them, they no longer begin with a
> >blank canvas. The canvases now come with definitive borders. Limited art
> >is not art. Yes, it may happen anyway. But they are entitled to be angry
> >about it. It sucks.
>
> canvases, by definition, have borders.. four of them usually.. or one
> rounded one... the artist job is to find their limits... bastard theives may
> be a limit to one artist.. and a reason to build a fence to another less
> limited artist..
Non-sequiteur. You know what I mean. Starting a work *having* to account
for the public steals step one and affects the results.
> >U2, to my understanding, said 'no' and most sites were shut down. You say
> >they were ready, but they seem to think they weren't. It all started with
> >a stolen demo CD. Stolen = taken without permission. The whole thing as
> >wrong from step one. If they were ready for it to turn up in that format,
> >it would have been 'released', not 'stolen', neh?
>
> I'm interested in that 'press release'/comment.. if you have directions to
> it?
Up a ways. Towards the beginning of the whole MP3 thing.
> I don't think U2 ever said that it was stolen.. did they?
Someone did. The story is that a promo copy to a radio station was
lifted.
> >Copying bart is using an unoriginal version not approved/created by the
> >source. Copying currency is using an unoriginal version not
> >approved/created by the source. Copying a CD to MP3 is using an
> >unoriginal version not approved/created by the source.
>
> counterfeiting falls under fake rolex catagory.. with the MP3's, you get the
> real music
Nope. The CD is the Real Thing. An MP3 is a copy. It sounds exactly the
same, but is no less an original than a counterfiet of a painting or
photocopy of a book. You may was well make tapes and pass them around. A
copy is a copy; it breeds multiples.
> >Apoparently so.
>
> of course it's wrong.. but is it one of the things that only the law can
> get the artist around..?
>
> I don't think it is..
Someday, hopefully.
> >It gives me some control over my work and where it ends up. I like to
> >think that while it does not give me total control over it, it allows me
> >to stop anything I seriously disagree with.
>
> stopping what you disagree with qualifies as control.. (like a kill switch)
Control is not 'total control'.
> but what gives artists the right to play god with their art.. their own
> baby... because, the truth is, it never really belonged to them anyway.
Their sweat. Their hands. Their life. God's gift. A partnership, perhaps.
A gift, maybe. However, every art has an unbreakable bond to the artist.
'The gift of muses' is all very sweet, but most artists are very tied to
their work. The relationship deserves respect.
> >People should never own anything of value. If they get robbed, it's their
> >own fault.
>
> almost... this a tricky one.. if you leave your gold bricks(or silver
> shoes) out on the front porch.. they might get stolen..
Stealing is wrong, last time I checked. In an ideal world, you can leave
a stack of bricks on your porch overnight. Of course, in such a world
people don;t swipe and copy your music either.
> >U2 said 'no'. The sites with the MP3's got shut down. Perhaps you should
> >explain it to them, 'cause I don't think they understand.
>
> if they did say 'no'.. I think that was the 'artistic' U2 wearing the
> 'business' clothes that their MotherRecords picked out for them to go to the
> opera in..
Judging rights by motive is a dangerous business.
> >Yes. But you imply the artists takes their chances. That is true. When I
> >walk down the street I take chances also. That doesn't make stealing my
> >watch ok.
>
> you know I'm not saying that it's right.. forgiveable maybe.. and not the
> best thing that could happen.. but not the worst..
It's not right. That's the point.
> >You call it 'coddling'. I call it having respect for the artist and their
> >vision. TOmato. TomatO.
>
> ya.. tastes the same.. either way it takes a village to recognize art...
And someone to make it.
Doc Aay
>> but what gives artists the right to play god with their art.. their own
>> baby... because, the truth is, it never really belonged to them anyway.
>
> Their sweat. Their hands. Their life. God's gift. A partnership, perhaps.
> A gift, maybe. However, every art has an unbreakable bond to the artist.
> 'The gift of muses' is all very sweet, but most artists are very tied to
> their work. The relationship deserves respect.
> stigge
Absolutely. Art is part of the artist as much as the words and ideas
of those who are not artists are part of who we are. It's an
expression of an inner self. Stealing that is stealing.
Admiring this part of stigge I've never seen before. :)
Doc
Jay
stigge wrote in message ...
>On Wed, 23 Feb 2000 21:15:18 GMT, Jay was heard to say...
>
>>
>> stigge wrote in message ...
>
>> >Nope. I have no idea what her wishes are. I didn't ask, remember? My
>> >point is should people give consideration to this? Obviously, if an
>> >artist says, 'no' and you do it anyway, it's wrong. So is the artist's
>> >approval important? Apparently. So should it be considered? Apparently.
>>
>> what "should be" is amongst alot of things that if I could, I would,
>> rearrange... but like your logic path.. identification of what's
important
>> comes first.. and that's the work.. loosing false opinions of what's
>> important to find what IS important... and you find it crawling around on
>> the ground of a ridiculous issue like MP3's..
>
>artist's approval should be considered before distributing their work?
>What say ye?
I'll tell you what I think.... I think that it's much more complicated..
because it's a fucked up world full of squeaky cleans and death...
"thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven" is a complex relationship
dichotomy.. much like artist and their art.. artist and the audience.. CD
and MP3.. all connected by that artist's muse (or abuse of).. when that
muse gets abused or lost or misread along the way.. all hell breaks loose
through the darkness in it's own way.. it's the heArtists job to
continuously renegotiate that living contract for clarity.. the line
between the two sides got crossed ( X ) in AchtungBaby (from pious upreach
to the wanton swagger).. U2 locked the position in of biggest band in the
world and it became "stealing from the thieves"... yet somehow wasn't
'theft'... though if you were asleep you wouldn't have known it because U2
stayed in NightTown for some disco and shopping instead of coming home to a
silent house.. but they know they can because love has constructed it in
such a way that rules aren't necessary... though it seems like we need more
rules(and more jails) because the two sides are out of whack.. almost like
gangs.. or like Yugoslavia without Tito collapses on Kosovo.. but we don't
need better rules.. just better art.. we don't need heroes.. we just need to
utilize the one we've got... so say I
with blood from the crypt,
jay
mars tokyo
> Mars has created a lot of artistic works. I go and take five of them (new
> ones no one else has seen yet), scan them, and put them up on my website
> for people to download, crediting her but not having asked for her
> permission to do so.
>
> Have I done something wrong?
>
> --
>
> stigge
How nice to be the subject of discussion! I have some pretty strange ideas
about my work, its viewing, and ownership-- not to mention money
transactions. I don't support the commonly held notion that art is a
commodity. Therefore I don't sell my work. Therefore, also, no gallery would
be interested in showing my work because they couldn't make any money off of
it. (I do, however, give a lot of it away to friends and people I think
would like it)--believe me, the act of giving away my work is far more
satisfying than getting a check from a buyer. I've done that before and
there wasn't a more hollow feeling in the course of my life.
As for showing my work-- I make two kinds of work-- the kind I show freely
via the internet, and the kind I show only on the rarest occasion and then
only under the cover of a shroud that protects the work until it is about to
be viewed. These works, I refer to as the *Secret Works*--the nature of
their secrecy insures their power over the viewer. They are not anything
like the U2 DEVOTIONS.
Which brings me to my current project-- the U2 DEVOTIONS-- and the title of
this post. My motivation for making this body of work. All I'm trying to do
is give back just a fraction of the enjoyment U2 has given me through their
music. I'm an artist--this is how I express myself--so it seemed reasonable
to take inspiration from the music I so love and make visual
interpretations. I'm not selling anything-- and believe it or not-- I'm not
angling for an album cover--my motives are about as pure as they get. I
would, however-- truly enjoy and appreciate even the slightest form of
acknowledgement from someone connected with the band. To know that they've
seen my work--to know what they think---that would be the greatest payment
of all.
mars
--
The largest collection of original electronic artwork inspired by the music
of U2 (and completely ignored by them) on the face of the planet! Now at two
locations.
U•2•D•E•V•O•T•I•O•N•S at
http://marstokyo.com/u2devots.html
the visual explorations of a U2 fan
U•2•D•E•V•O•T•I•O•N•S at the Mars Tokyo Visual Diary
http://www.geocities.com/marstokyo/u2devote.html
Pete The Chop©
Pete The Chop©
ANYMORE!!!
Jay
I recommend Revelation 12 - 13
have your achtungChild and zooropa disks on hand..
and Revelation16:15 for Stigge...
uuppp Grammy's are on..
Jay
or maybe you were watching Fox's secrets revealed...
or contemplating the copyright implications of Revelation 1:17 on ....
don't want to be lukewarm.. not IN the SKY,
jay
stigge
>
> >> but what gives artists the right to play god with their art.. their own
> >> baby... because, the truth is, it never really belonged to them anyway.
> >
> > Their sweat. Their hands. Their life. God's gift. A partnership, perhaps.
> > A gift, maybe. However, every art has an unbreakable bond to the artist.
> > 'The gift of muses' is all very sweet, but most artists are very tied to
> > their work. The relationship deserves respect.
> ---->
> > stigge
>
> Absolutely. Art is part of the artist as much as the words and ideas
> of those who are not artists are part of who we are. It's an
> expression of an inner self. Stealing that is stealing.
> Admiring this part of stigge I've never seen before. :)
Stigge knows he himself is very 'connected' to what he creates, even if
only he sees the majority of it. I think most people understand that art,
in any form, be it a song, a painting, a house, contains some part or
copy of the people who made it. They can't help but care what happens to
it; it's very personal to them. Personally, suggesting that it doesn't
belong to them in some way horrfies me.
stigge
>
> stigge wrote in message ...
> >On Wed, 23 Feb 2000 21:15:18 GMT, Jay was heard to say...
> >
> >>
> >> stigge wrote in message ...
> >
> >> >Nope. I have no idea what her wishes are. I didn't ask, remember? My
> >> >point is should people give consideration to this? Obviously, if an
> >> >artist says, 'no' and you do it anyway, it's wrong. So is the artist's
> >> >approval important? Apparently. So should it be considered? Apparently.
> >>
> >> what "should be" is amongst alot of things that if I could, I would,
> >> rearrange... but like your logic path.. identification of what's
> important
> >> comes first.. and that's the work.. loosing false opinions of what's
> >> important to find what IS important... and you find it crawling around on
> >> the ground of a ridiculous issue like MP3's..
> >
> >So is the artist's approval important in your opinion? Do you feel an
> >artist's approval should be considered before distributing their work?
> >What say ye?
>
>
> I'll tell you what I think.... I think that it's much more complicated..
> because it's a fucked up world full of squeaky cleans and death...
>
> "thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven" is a complex relationship
> dichotom[snip]
Very nice. However, while it was a very prosaic analysis of the
situation, you didn't answer the question.
So what say ye? Yes or no - is the artist's approval important in your
opinion? Do you feel an artist's approval should be considered before
distributing their work?
'It depends' is waffling. It's unfair to grant the right to some artists
and not others. They may very well give a piece entirely to the world to
do with what they will. My question still stands: do you think they have
a right to decide that?
I'm not asking about what is. I'm not asking if they can or cannot enfore
thier decisions.
What say ye?
stigge
> and Revelation16:15 for Stigge...
And may I suggest Krazy Kat 7:29:38 for the good sir.
stigge
> As for showing my work-- I make two kinds of work-- the kind I show freel=
> y
> via the internet, and the kind I show only on the rarest occasion and the=
> n
> only under the cover of a shroud that protects the work until it is about=
> to
> be viewed. These works, I refer to as the *Secret Works*--the nature of
> their secrecy insures their power over the viewer. They are not anything
> like the U2 DEVOTIONS.
So if someone go a hold of some Secret Works and passed them around
before you had a chance to unveil them, would it bother you?
Gabe
In article <Iu1t4.536$pE1....@news.uswest.net>, "Pete The Chop©"
<petet...@u2tomorrow.de> wrote:
> Maybe YOU don't realize that with MP3's artists DON'T NEED RECORD COMPANIES
> ANYMORE!!!
It sounds as if you've got a lot to learn. I hope you can read longer
sentences than you can write.
Do you know how much it costs to record a typical album? Sure, some lo-fi
bands manage to do it with as little as $5-10,000, but most bands take much
more. Recording, mixing and mastering a typical hi-fi, professional-
sounding album often costs more like $100,000, and that's not using a lot of
bells and whistles and fancy Pro Tools work (e.g., POP cost far, far more to
bring to fruition).
For a band that's not established, scraping up that sort of money is
impossible. Who comes up with it? The record companies. (Of course, this
isn't charity; if the band does make money from the album, some of it goes
toward paying back that debt.) Nevertheless, without record company cash,
most of our favorite albums would never have been recorded. Please inform
us all as to how MP3s will fill this need.
Recording advances are only a small part of what record companies do. The
main service they provide is helping the band to build a career -- using
promotional money and industry contacts to get radio airplay, arrange tours,
get records stocked in retail outlets. MP3s don't do any of that.
To make a living from their music -- and I'm not talking about private jets
here, I'm talking about paying the rent -- a performer usually needs to sell
tens of thousands of copies of a recording. Who has sold tens of thousands
of MP3s? Name one.
The only other way I can think of that a rock band can make even a modest
living doing music is to -- through free recordings, radio airplay, whatever
-- become well-known enough to tour and make money from performances.
Please name for me a band that's become well-known enough through MP3
distribution to start a real career.
It could someday happen that digital music distribution and the Web change
the way bands build careers. Maybe someday the record companies' services
can be replaced. But that hasn't happened yet. Sorry.
--emailing me? spyboy seventy-seven at mail dot com
marstokyo
Most likely it would kill me.
--
Free audio & video emails, greeting cards and forums
Talkway - http://www.talkway.com - Talk more ways (sm)
stigge
> On Thu, 24 Feb 2000 08:39:47 -0500 stigge
> <sti...@we.are.the.people.our.parents.warned.us.about> wrote:
> > On Wed, 23 Feb 2000 18:52:40 -0500, mars tokyo was heard to say...
> >
> > > As for showing my work-- I make two kinds of work-- the kind I
> show freel=
> > > y
> > > via the internet, and the kind I show only on the rarest occasion
> and the=
> > > n
> > > only under the cover of a shroud that protects the work until it
> is about=
> > > to
> > > be viewed. These works, I refer to as the *Secret Works*--the
> nature of
> > > their secrecy insures their power over the viewer. They are not
> anything
> > > like the U2 DEVOTIONS.
> >
> > So if someone go a hold of some Secret Works and passed them around
> > before you had a chance to unveil them, would it bother you?
>
> Most likely it would kill me.
I can understand that.
Jay
stigge wrote in message ...
>> >So is the artist's approval important in your opinion? Do you feel an
>> >artist's approval should be considered before distributing their work?
>> >What say ye?
>>
>>
complicated..
>> because it's a fucked up world full of squeaky cleans and death...
>>
>> "thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven" is a complex relationship
>> dichotom[snip]
>
>Very nice. However, while it was a very prosaic analysis of the
>situation, you didn't answer the question.
ya.. I know it was unimaginative, but the straight forward feels that way..
and it can make me feel like a baby.. looking for what IS
>So what say ye? Yes or no - is the artist's approval important in your
>opinion? Do you feel an artist's approval should be considered before
>distributing their work?
feelings and opinions.. I can conjure those up, but I'm reserved with
them.. not that I'm afraid of them, or afraid of you knowing what the
feelings are or whatever.. just that it takes a great deal of care for them
to not be mistaken.. because you'll have to realize that the answers come
from within a Root and Offspring of Jaye David-son.....She's imagination..
She dreams outloud.. and She's not all of a ME (see how complicated it can
be; HEart + HEaRt + heART = HEART).. so even though it seems like a simple
answer to you, I have to be as reserved as Bono talking about Ali on
matters of the HEaRt... and what your asking, is a matter of the HEART so
the equation can't add up for you until you do the math.. and effectively, I
just side stepped answering with the ol' "Ask your Mother" put off that your
Father might have used.. and it can be a struggle between what you think
and what your body feels like it should do... not to mention the the
circumstances that make waffles sound tasty..
>'It depends' is waffling. It's unfair to grant the right to some artists
>and not others. They may very well give a piece entirely to the world to
>do with what they will. My question still stands: do you think they have
>a right to decide that?
of course I think that's the assumption/understanding that artists should
work under... however, I also believe in the commandeer...though I also
believe that your own art will tell you when you should let it go.. so yes..
artists should have full control over their puppets and wooden boys..
which is the standard.. though I'm also factoring in the rarity of
Frankenstein circumstances.. afterall.. this is a U2 newsgroup..
jay
Jay
stigge wrote in message ...
>
>> and Revelation16:16 for Stigge...
>
>And may I suggest Krazy Kat 7:29:38 for the good sir.
we eat and drink, while at half past seven tomorrow they die....
with big asteroids headed for the Hebrewers...
seemingly back peddling,
jay
Ajee
You R absolutly right. Isn't the best thing for recordcompanies to do is to
embrace MP3 as ebing the future of music !!! Not clinging on to the CD but
find a way to get MP3 in their system.
Ciao,
AJee
Gabe <throwy...@someoneelse.net> schreef in berichtnieuws
88v4eg$fu4$1...@netnews.upenn.edu...
> Ted is right. You are wrong.
>
> Regardless of how many owners the CD has had, the retail chain has not
been
> cut out of the equation. The entire concept of selling a medium holding
> intellectual property...
>
> [a concept without which we wouldn't have pop recordings at all, nor
> software, and I'll be quite happy to back this up if anyone disagrees]
>
> ...is that if you buy a copy (one copy), you (one person) are buying the
> right to listen to it (on one record-playing machine at a time). In
> essence, you are buying one license. You are NOT buying the right to turn
> that one license into many licenses -- that is, to distribute it to
others,
> for free or at cost, while keeping it yourself.
>
> You do, however, have the right to sell that single license to someone
else,
> the same as any other property... as long as you don't retain a copy for
> yourself.
>
> What you're saying is logically the same as this: "I have a dollar. You
say
> it's illegal to counterfeit it and distribute the copies to my friends,
> since that diminishes its value. But this dollar has passed through many
> hands -- isn't that the same as copying it? -- and maybe others have
Xeroxed
> it as well. I'm not taking money out of any particular person's hand by
> Xeroxing this dollar myself. Therefore, counterfeiting is okay. The
> Federal Reserve has a lot of money anyway... they don't need mine."
>
> If you buy a used Beetle, are you cutting Volkswagen out of the equation?
> Not at all. The seller is getting money in exchange for his car, for
which
> he exchanged money -- the upward chain reaches Volkswagen in the end.
They
> only need to be compensated once for one car... after that it can be sold
a
> million times, and Volkswagen isn't losing anything by that. But that's
not
> the same as not being compensated at all for their product, and MP3
trading
> amounts to exactly that.
>
> I used the analogy of a physical product for a reason -- to illustrate
that
> distributing MP3s of a CD is about the same as stealing it from a
warehouse.
> A wholesale CD, priced at $11, costs about 25c to manufacture. The rest
of
> its value is as intellectual property. That is, $11 is what the artists
and
> the distributors THEY chose decided to price a copy of their work. So if
> you copy that recording, you've saved the record company a lousy 25c and
> stolen $10.75 from them.
>
> That $11 price is too high, one might say? Fine. Then don't buy a copy
and
> don't listen to it. Put a year or two into writing some songs, buy some
> instruments and some hideously expensive studio time. Make a recording
> yourself, and see how much you think it's worth. People who complain
about
> giving money to pop stars and record execs seem to overlap heavily with
> those who can't -- or won't -- do without the products they spend lots of
> time and money to create.
>
> --
>
> emailing me? spyboy seventy-seven at mail dot com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----------
> In article <nhAs4.1551$vm5....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, "Jay"
> <v...@jpopmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> >
> >>>MP3 might be similar to the
> >>> used cd market, just highly intensified..
> >>
> >> This analogy doesn't fit. When you buy a CD used, someone
originally
> >>bought THAT COPY new. When you download an MP3, you are downloading
HIGH
> >>QUALITY COPIES of a perhaps perchased (or, at least licenced) original.
In
> >>one case, the original is the only one that is floating around and only
to
> >>the one user, in the other, different people are getting access to the
same
> >>CD.
> >
> > "if the analogy doesn't fit, you mustn't admit".. you make it sound like
OJ
> > and a glove..
> >
> > first you assumed that the used CD I bought has only two owners.. me
and
> > the original buyer...
> >
> > but the truth is, it could have been owned and resold by countless
others..
> > maybe being recorded to tape(orMP3) along the way..
> >
> > turn the volume up on this and for all I know, it was the only copy ever
> > sold (or promoed), and it just got passed around, in and out of the used
CD
> > shop..
> >
> > and though the transaction time, and ease of transfer of MP3's are more
> > "intensified" with the both the ease of computer downloading(etc) and
the
> > exclusion of the transaction fee charged by third party stores.. both
> > paradigm's result in the same exclusion of the record co. and hence the
> > same rip in the fabric of the market..
> >
> > I say, let it rip.. the controversy comes from people that are too
> > comfortable in the role of retail consumer, and the profit dependent
> > industry..
> >
> > that is the co-dependent relationship that is in danger.. and the thing
> > is.... that's just the surface of things.... tremors...
> >
> > I feel the ground is giving way... I think we must be better off that
way..
> >
> > jay
> >
> >
> >
> > PS.. the wheels are going 'round and 'round, but petrol is NOT cheap..
Gabe
In article <893tj0$5si$1...@tesla.a2000.nl>, "Ajee" <anva...@chello.nl> wrote:
> Gabe,
>
> You R absolutly right. Isn't the best thing for recordcompanies to do is to
> embrace MP3 as ebing the future of music !!! Not clinging on to the CD but
> find a way to get MP3 in their system.
>
> Ciao,
> AJee
>
..as a supplement for their record business, sure. But the MP3, under
current circumstances, can't replace the CD. It's of much lower sound
quality, and the information infrastructure is already strained with the
occasional webcast and downloading of small MP3s, much less CD-quality music
that takes up 10 times the space. Right now, it's absolutely impossible to
deliver the majority of recorded music through the Internet. It's certainly
foreseeable but it's not here yet.
Jay
(HEart + HEaRt + heART) x (psychosomatic) = (HEART + heart) x
(psychosomatics)
psychosomatic for the people, baby,
jay
stigge
>
> stigge wrote in message ...
> >Very nice. However, while it was a very prosaic analysis of the
> >situation, you didn't answer the question.
>
> ya.. I know it was unimaginative, but the straight forward feels that way..
> and it can make me feel like a baby.. looking for what IS
I didn't say it was unimaginative. It was quite imaginative.
Unfortunately, I keep asking what time it is, and you keep handing me an
oil painting of a grandfather clock.
> >So what say ye? Yes or no - is the artist's approval important in your
> >opinion? Do you feel an artist's approval should be considered before
> >distributing their work?
>
> feelings and opinions.. I can conjure those up, but I'm reserved with
> them.. not that I'm afraid of them, or afraid of you knowing what the
> feelings are or whatever.. just that it takes a great deal of care for them
> to not be mistaken..
Your opinion right now is not going to be chisled in stone. You're free
to change it whenever you like.
[snip]
> effectively, I
> just side stepped answering
I know. That's why I asked again.
> >'It depends' is waffling. It's unfair to grant the right to some artists
> >and not others. They may very well give a piece entirely to the world to
> >do with what they will. My question still stands: do you think they have
> >a right to decide that?
>
> of course I think that's the assumption/understanding that artists should
> work under... however, I also believe in the commandeer...though I also
> believe that your own art will tell you when you should let it go.. so yes..
> artists should have full control over their puppets and wooden boys..
> which is the standard.. though I'm also factoring in the rarity of
> Frankenstein circumstances..
Ok. So you agree. As far as Frank goes, that's not the question. That an
artist has the right to decide doesn't mean theirplans won't go awry.
So then, in this particular circumstance a la M$H soundtrack: if Bono has
the right to decide how it is distributed, is stealing an advance copy
and distributing the MP3s taking away his right? What say ye?
stigge
> ----------
> In article <893tj0$5si$1...@tesla.a2000.nl>, "Ajee" <anva...@chello.nl> wrote:
> > Gabe,
> >
> > You R absolutly right. Isn't the best thing for recordcompanies to do is to
> > embrace MP3 as ebing the future of music !!! Not clinging on to the CD but
> > find a way to get MP3 in their system.
> >
> > Ciao,
> > AJee
> >
>
> ..as a supplement for their record business, sure. But the MP3, under
> current circumstances, can't replace the CD. It's of much lower sound
> quality, and the information infrastructure is already strained with the
> occasional webcast and downloading of small MP3s, much less CD-quality music
> that takes up 10 times the space. Right now, it's absolutely impossible to
> deliver the majority of recorded music through the Internet. It's certainly
> foreseeable but it's not here yet.
Plus, do enough people have the equipment to use MP3s to make it
worthwhile for them?
Gabe
In article <MPG.131f51984...@news.alt.net>, stigge
> Plus, do enough people have the equipment to use MP3s to make it
> worthwhile for them?
Well, totally. I mean, everyone in my gated community and Range Rover
carpool has a computer.
Jay
stigge wrote in message ...
>
>>
>> stigge wrote in message ...
>
>> >situation, you didn't answer the question.
>>
>> ya.. I know it was unimaginative, but the straight forward feels that
way..
>> and it can make me feel like a baby.. looking for what IS
>
>I didn't say it was unimaginative. It was quite imaginative.
>Unfortunately, I keep asking what time it is, and you keep handing me an
>oil painting of a grandfather clock.
prosaic implies .. and results in subtle misunderstandings.. no prob..
imagination can be subjective.. but it's definitaly as persistant as this
conversation..
[snip]
>> effectively, I
>> just side stepped answering
>
>I know. That's why I asked again.
the persistance of surreality..
>> >'It depends' is waffling. It's unfair to grant the right to some artists
>> >and not others. They may very well give a piece entirely to the world to
>> >do with what they will. My question still stands: do you think they have
>> >a right to decide that?
>>
>> of course I think that's the assumption/understanding that artists should
>> work under... however, I also believe in the commandeer...though I also
>> believe that your own art will tell you when you should let it go.. so
yes..
>> artists should have full control over their puppets and wooden boys..
>> which is the standard.. though I'm also factoring in the rarity of
>> Frankenstein circumstances..
>
>Ok. So you agree. As far as Frank goes, that's not the question. That an
>artist has the right to decide doesn't mean theirplans won't go awry.
>
>So then, in this particular circumstance a la M$H soundtrack: if Bono has
>the right to decide how it is distributed, is stealing an advance copy
>and distributing the MP3s taking away his right? What say ye?
ok.. I'll keep trying to say it better.... but, I'll warn you.. this is all
over the place and you'll have to work at pieceing it together..
but here goes..
the exagerated/intensified circumstances of U2 suggest (regardlss of how the
"preparations[1]" appeared) that "stealing" of the music is still ultimately
misunderstood.. or at least miscommunicated...
it's sorta like.. "they say they want the kingdom, but don't want god in
it.." like an artist that says to the muse, give me the art for free, but
get lost.. but that's the right of the artist, we agree..
but back to the "crime" at hand..
like the plagerism implication of Rev 1:17 and 16:15... what direction is
the "theft" in ?
we agreed that in the specific instance of the M$H pre-release heist, that
the lone perpetrator of the 'uploading', is 'guilty' of a crime against Bono
(though moreso the Record Co.).. I amend, to that is only the case from a
distant view.. and that the 'backlash' against this 'crime'.. or labeling of
this as a 'crime' comes from the hard and fast rules that should be, and
are, the default standard by which to protect the Artist/Record Co from
flagerant theft - .i.e full reproduction and distribution within the
"guarded" marketplace (CD sales)... though this particular instance, under
closer inspection, could be construed as a "royal decree" (or happenstance
at worst).. and either case, everyone is off the hook.. if the artist (i.e.
Bono) doesn't recognize that fact, then he may feel "robbed"... I don't
think he feels robbed, or even thinks he's robbed... though some other
artist in that position might, like an October era press released, Bono....
and that is the element of perpetuating the cloud of what is illegal.. and
blindly administering smaller laws that would condem the 'uploader' despite
the divine instruction, or a pure accident that was waiting to happen...
it's the misunderstanding of this that can create a prison (paul
knows/remembers), creates division (wayne and the bat knows).. let
injustice into the house of justice.. or even explode a universe.... like
Bill Gates "stealing" from Xerox(copies) and using Paul's 'loader' program
to introduce it to the Intelligent-Business-Machine before taking a bite out
of the Apple.. and, of course, like you and your art, demanding to retain
the copyright via licensing rights... but the truth is, what you think is
freedom is just greed... you gotta give it away.. like Mars..
being a genius, which I have no doubt that you are, or strong, which you
prove to be, and,of course, as fast as your comedy.. the thing that escapes
you is the prize of the surrender..
where do you want to go today,
jay
[1] There was a comment from Bono about making music and it's similarities
to cooking or something like that.. somethings are better if you don't see
how they are prepared.. like my " George Foreman : Lean Mean Fat Reducing
Grilling Machine" that I just got delivered via UPS today.. my Christmas
present from my old man, two moons down the line..
Should we talk about artistic monopolies and U2 next?
or the techonology of the interFace...?
Jay
I just read another post that corrected me before I was even wrong.. (I feel
the comfort love)
but ya... it was Job that stole from the Copies.. effectively losing 'his
family' before getting stolen from himself.. but just look at that come
back.. i-Mac.. very nice..
I don't even want to get into RedHat...
jay
Jay
joey
$0 using my computer and various editing and recording programs. I posted
some mp3's mixed to mono, with an id tag at the end with an e-mail address
in case anyone wanted a full length stereo cd. I have sold 250+ and still
counting. I rejected 4 record deals because i can add. I would rather make
$10 on a cd instead of $1, and i don't have to have some latent piss guzzler
who used to "work" at Tower records trying to tell me how or what to play.
Record companies are just greedy life sucking pimps who force feed freeze
dried shit to the masses. The Masses have figured outt how to find the music
on their own. Mp3's are a good medium to preview new music, and it will
mutate into trhe medium that actually delivers it.news:893g2g$17p$1...@netnews.upenn.edu...
Jay
jay
joey wrote in message ...
joey
stigge <sti...@we.are.the.people.our.parents.warned.us.about> wrote in
message news:MPG.131f51984...@news.alt.net...
> On Thu, 24 Feb 2000 13:43:59 -0500, Gabe was heard to say...
>
> > ----------
> > In article <893tj0$5si$1...@tesla.a2000.nl>, "Ajee" <anva...@chello.nl>
wrote:
> > >
> > > You R absolutly right. Isn't the best thing for recordcompanies to do
is to
> > > embrace MP3 as ebing the future of music !!! Not clinging on to the CD
but
> > > find a way to get MP3 in their system.
> > >
> > > Ciao,
> > > AJee
> > >
> >
> > current circumstances, can't replace the CD. It's of much lower sound
> > quality, and the information infrastructure is already strained with the
> > occasional webcast and downloading of small MP3s, much less CD-quality
music
> > that takes up 10 times the space. Right now, it's absolutely impossible
to
> > deliver the majority of recorded music through the Internet. It's
certainly
> > foreseeable but it's not here yet.
>
> worthwhile for them?
>
Gabe
-- which might (or might not) have a little to do with the shitty recording,
[and please don't tell me it's not shittily recorded] -- or else you have a
method of distribution you couldn't hope to rely on to put food on your
table. What if you had to hire a decent drummer because a song demanded it?
Try replicating him with an 808... assuming you can find that for free too.
250 CDs wouldn't even pay for the computer and a couple of microphones.
I know exactly what it's like to record and print an album at one's own
expense. I've done it myself more than once. And most musicians can't do
it, especially the idiotic drug addicts who need labels to help them out.
Sure there are Ani DiFrancos in this world. But they're rare, and as long
as they're rare, there will be a place for record labels.
MP3s are definitely a great previewing medium, and I don't deny that
MP3-related stuff may mutate into something soon. But it hasn't yet, and if
you think you're proving me wrong, you must think 250 people are "the
masses."
--
emailing me? spyboy seventy-seven at mail dot com
----------
In article <MOit4.1747$OV.3...@typhoon.austin.rr.com>, "joey"
Gabe
"joey" <mo...@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:tJjt4.1918$OV.3...@typhoon.austin.rr.com...
> Why do i need a fucking drummer when i can play the parts myself? Don't
> place your own shortcomings upon the world. Hack. late!
Gabe
the money it cost to buy what you used (computer, software, CD burner,
mics). Of course that can be done.
Dry hump my pointy guitar fuckhead? What? Are your lyrics like this?
haha.
"joey" <mo...@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:vCjt4.1897$OV.3...@typhoon.austin.rr.com...
> No, it doesn't suck asswipe. I own 2 businesses, am about to get married,
> need to remix some of the songs, and i pulled the mp3 and e-mail address
> after 10 days. Do you like your earfuckings to be glossy? I don't. The
> Masses, go and dry-hump your pointy guitar fuckhead. late!
Gabe
It's a shame you turned out to be a self-aggrandizing, name-calling twit.
Because before, I thought you had some good points about how some aspects of
the record industry can be worked around through new technology. I happen
to think that while the record companies certainly fill a need -- it's tough
to get rich and famous without them, for example, and the fact is that many
musicians can't or won't run businesses -- it is very cool when resourceful
people can work without them to make music and distribute it to listeners by
themselves.
cheerio, old chap...
--
emailing me? spyboy dot seventy-seven at mail dot com
"joey" <mo...@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:XPkt4.1758$w81.1...@typhoon.austin.rr.com...
> You are english right? I can send you some money to fix your teeth if you
> want. Wanker. late!
> Gabe <throwy...@someoneelse.net> wrote in message
> news:894j2o$aqs$1...@netnews.upenn.edu...
> > I very clearly specified a "decent" one, Mr. 250-CD seller.
> >
> > "joey" <mo...@ev1.net> wrote in message
joey
need to remix some of the songs, and i pulled the mp3 and e-mail address
after 10 days. Do you like your earfuckings to be glossy? I don't. The
joey
not, i will post it to one of my sited tonight and give you the url so you
can download it from there. late!
Jay <v...@jpopmail.com> wrote in message
news:TTit4.2123$7c2....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> would you send me an MP3?
>
> jay
>
> joey wrote in message ...
about
> >$0 using my computer and various editing and recording programs. I posted
> >some mp3's mixed to mono, with an id tag at the end with an e-mail
address
> >in case anyone wanted a full length stereo cd. I have sold 250+ and still
> >counting. I rejected 4 record deals because i can add. I would rather
make
> >$10 on a cd instead of $1, and i don't have to have some latent piss
> guzzler
> >who used to "work" at Tower records trying to tell me how or what to
play.
> >Record companies are just greedy life sucking pimps who force feed freeze
> >dried shit to the masses. The Masses have figured outt how to find the
> music
> >on their own. Mp3's are a good medium to preview new music, and it will
> >mutate into trhe medium that actually delivers it.
> >
> >
>
>
joey
place your own shortcomings upon the world. Hack. late!
> Thanks for proving my point, tosser. 250 records? Either the album sucks
> -- which might (or might not) have a little to do with the shitty
recording,
> [and please don't tell me it's not shittily recorded] -- or else you have
a
> method of distribution you couldn't hope to rely on to put food on your
> table. What if you had to hire a decent drummer because a song demanded
it?
> Try replicating him with an 808... assuming you can find that for free
too.
> 250 CDs wouldn't even pay for the computer and a couple of microphones.
>
> I know exactly what it's like to record and print an album at one's own
> expense. I've done it myself more than once. And most musicians can't do
> it, especially the idiotic drug addicts who need labels to help them out.
> Sure there are Ani DiFrancos in this world. But they're rare, and as long
> as they're rare, there will be a place for record labels.
>
> MP3s are definitely a great previewing medium, and I don't deny that
> MP3-related stuff may mutate into something soon. But it hasn't yet, and
if
> you think you're proving me wrong, you must think 250 people are "the
> masses."
>
> --
>
>
> In article <MOit4.1747$OV.3...@typhoon.austin.rr.com>, "joey"
> <mo...@ev1.net> wrote:
>
>
Jay
what's your napster screen name?
and when are you most likely up?
jay
joey wrote in message <2Hjt4.1910$OV.3...@typhoon.austin.rr.com>...
joey
You sure have me pegged. Dumb fucking pratt.news:894jcg$kj7$1...@netnews.upenn.edu...
> Exactly. You do music as a hobby, and apparently you haven't even made
back
> the money it cost to buy what you used (computer, software, CD burner,
> mics). Of course that can be done.
>
> Dry hump my pointy guitar fuckhead? What? Are your lyrics like this?
>
> haha.
>
joey
want. Wanker. late!
> I very clearly specified a "decent" one, Mr. 250-CD seller.
>
joey
sure you do 'cause you know it all right? But just to help you, it is not
the sound that Robbie Williams makes while you are tossing his salad. cunt.
late!news:XPkt4.1758$w81.1...@typhoon.austin.rr.com...
joey
> I'm American. Excellent rebuttals though.
>
> It's a shame you turned out to be a self-aggrandizing, name-calling twit.
> Because before, I thought you had some good points about how some aspects
of
> the record industry can be worked around through new technology. I happen
> to think that while the record companies certainly fill a need -- it's
tough
> to get rich and famous without them, for example, and the fact is that
many
> musicians can't or won't run businesses -- it is very cool when
resourceful
> people can work without them to make music and distribute it to listeners
by
> themselves.
>
> cheerio, old chap...
>
> --
>
Jay
joey wrote in message ...
joey
be up all night. <g> late!news:A8lt4.2632$7c2....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
stigge
>
> stigge wrote in message ...
[snip]
> >Ok. So you agree. As far as Frank goes, that's not the question. That an
> >artist has the right to decide doesn't mean theirplans won't go awry.
> >
> >So then, in this particular circumstance a la M$H soundtrack: if Bono has
> >the right to decide how it is distributed, is stealing an advance copy
> >and distributing the MP3s taking away his right? What say ye?
>
> ok.. I'll keep trying to say it better.... but, I'll warn you.. this is all
> over the place and you'll have to work at pieceing it together..
>
> but here goes..
>
> the exagerated/intensified circumstances of U2 suggest (regardlss of how the
> "preparations[1]" appeared) that "stealing" of the music is still ultimately
> misunderstood.. or at least miscommunicated...
>
> it's sorta like.. "they say they want the kingdom, but don't want god in
> it.." like an artist that says to the muse, give me the art for free, but
> get lost.. but that's the right of the artist, we agree..
Actually this is our place of dissent: we agree the artists has a right,
but we see the right differently. I'll come back to this in a bit.
> but back to the "crime" at hand..
>
> like the plagerism implication of Rev 1:17 and 16:15... what direction is
> the "theft" in ?
I don't see the plagarism implication. (1)(2)
> we agreed that in the specific instance of the M$H pre-release heist, that
> the lone perpetrator of the 'uploading', is 'guilty' of a crime against Bono
Ok. With the understanding that it's not the most evil thing aperson can
do, would taking the MP3s from that person, in your opinion, be
supporting or encouraging such a crime?
> (though moreso the Record Co.).. I amend[snip]
Not what I'm asking. Give to Cesar what is Cesar's and all that. I'm not
arguing for or against the record company's case here; I'm interested in
the artist right now.
> though this particular instance, under
> closer inspection, could be construed as a "royal decree" (or happenstance
> at worst).. and either case, everyone is off the hook.. if the artist (i.e.
> Bono) doesn't recognize that fact, then he may feel "robbed"... I don't
> think he feels robbed, or even thinks he's robbed...
http://www.atu2.com/news/archives/00/mdhmp3s_2.html
http://www.atu2.com/news/archives/00/mdhmp3s_1.html
> though some other
> artist in that position might, like an October era press released, Bono....
> and that is the element of perpetuating the cloud of what is illegal.. and
> blindly administering smaller laws that would condem the 'uploader' despite
> the divine instruction, or a pure accident that was waiting to happen...
>
> it's the misunderstanding of this that can create a prison (paul
> knows/remembers), creates division (wayne and the bat knows).. let
> injustice into the house of justice.. or even explode a universe.... like
> Bill Gates "stealing" from Xerox(copies) and using Paul's 'loader' program
> to introduce it to the Intelligent-Business-Machine before taking a bite out
> of the Apple.. and, of course, like you and your art, demanding to retain
> the copyright via licensing rights... but the truth is, what you think is
> freedom is just greed... you gotta give it away.. like Mars..
And herein lies our difference; in how we view the relation between art
and artist and audience.
Art is communication. That is the simplest way to put it. If one thinks
that does not account for the spritual aspects of art, one needs to
broaden their definition of 'communication'. Any art - painting, poetry,
writing, music, building houses, even some sciences - is about
communicating something; and idea, an emotion, a concept. A way to speak
to people when you can't adequately describe the Thing any other way. The
Thing may be something as simple as a story. Or it may be your whole life
on one canvas. Everyone qualifies to do it. Some have a farther reach
than others, but everyone can try.
The audience varies. Some art is given to the world, like the Statue of
Liberty. Other times, someone makes a card for valentines day; they have
an audience of one. Maybe you speak to the one you love; maybe you speak
to the world.
Now here is where my take is Very Different.
I believe in the muse. But I see them/Him in a different role. The muse
gives the gift of being able to explress the idea the way you want, to
whatever degree. They also can give the motivation to create. After that,
I think the artists in in full control. Sure, occasionally Someone may
give a push; who am I to say that never happens? But in the end the
artists is telling you something in Thier Words. Michelangelo is not
describing who David was to God. He's telling you how he sees David.
Their work. Their sweat. Their hands. Their Voice.
The work is eternally connected to the creator(s), for better or for
worse. In it they have revealed some part of themselves; in effect,
they've donated some part of their souls to the work.
How can they *not* care about where the work goes?
Naturally, the work must be shared with at least one other person to
truly come alive; otherwise it just sits in the dark. Speaking to
yourself in locked room communicates nothing, except possibly to
yourself.
You can paint a picture and give it to the world for 16,000,000,000
people to share. One may say the work now belongs to the world. I say
15,999,999,999 people can only react to the work; only you are intimately
connected to it. No matter how hard you try, no one will ever be as close
to it as you are.
You imply that trying to exercise a right to a say in the course of a
work's life is 'playing god' and 'greedy'. To me, copying someone's work
and distributing it when they don't want that is not 'sharing'; that's
'taking'. I'm not saying art shouldn't be freely distributed if that's
what the artist wants; I'm saying they should have a choice. It is their
voice, after all.
Yes, MP3s are in many ways a minor issue. My point is that an artist -
every artist - has a right to have a say in how their voice comes into
the world and where/how it is heard.
If that's defying the Grand Artistic Plan of the Universe, then baby the
revolution starts here. The Grand Artistic Plan can have my soul when it
prys it from my dead, cold fingers.
****
(1) Rev 1:17 "And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid
his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the
last"
(2) Rev 16:15 "Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth,
and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame."
stigge
> MP3s are definitely a great previewing medium, and I don't deny that
> MP3-related stuff may mutate into something soon. But it hasn't yet, and if
> you think you're proving me wrong, you must think 250 people are "the
> masses."
The human race seems to have a real knack for tehcnology being ten steps
ahead of us agreeing on how it should be used. I think MP3s could be
great. But we have along way to go yet.
stigge
> All you need is a $150 cd buner and winamp to make your own cd's. late!
Makes me wish I had $150 to spend on one.
Unless I'm the only one without...?
--
Doc Aay
> The human race seems to have a real knack for tehcnology being ten steps
> ahead of us agreeing on how it should be used. I think MP3s could be
> great. But we have along way to go yet.
>
> --
>
> stigge
Love them techno nerds. Gives the philosophers something to talk
about.
Doc
stigge
> This one goes into my archive, dear stigge. When the newsgroup gets
> to this level it reaffirms my faith in the power of the net to
> communicate and enlighten. Makes it worth suffering all the inanities
> of trolls and salesmen. Thank you, stigge and jay.
Rock on.
stigge
Key?@WooHoo.com> was heard to say...
>
> Jay <v...@jpopmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Ioht4.1661$7c2....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > I don't even want to get into RedHat...
>
> Oh the joys of configuring hardware under *nixes!
Occasionally I get Linux ideas, but then apathy looms and I just buy
Quake instead.
stigge
> In article <MPG.1320568b8...@news.alt.net>, stigge
> <sti...@we.are.the.people.our.parents.warned.us.about> wrote:
> > The human race seems to have a real knack for tehcnology being ten steps
> > ahead of us agreeing on how it should be used. I think MP3s could be
> > great. But we have along way to go yet.
>
> Love them techno nerds. Gives the philosophers something to talk
> about.
If I recall correctly, the first invention to make use of electricity
(widespead) was the lightbulb. The second was the electric chair.
This supports Sitgges Eleventh Theory of Science: "Given any discovery,
someone, within three generations of aplication, will either find a way
to use it for pronography or, failing that, to kill someone more
efficiently."
--
stigge; not really a cynic, just a smartass
marstokyo
Communication*-- that's what I've been saying for years--
Art is communication not commodity. The internet has done an amazing
job of emphasizing that point as more people have now seen my work,
than I ever --in a million years-- dreamed possible.
If all you're interested in is selling it, however, you've got a real
problem--because anything can and will be taken freely off the
internet. At this point in time, how to curb that hasn't been figured
out.
--
Free audio & video emails, greeting cards and forums
Talkway - http://www.talkway.com - Talk more ways (sm)