Napster Blues
Theus
"metropolis" <big_gen...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:vXls6.215$lC5....@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> Has anyone noticed that you can't get 'Heart Of The Sunrise' on Napster
> anymore. It must be getting filtered out. Does anyone know anymore about
> this?
>
If you are THAT desperate to download, there are lots of alternatives.
You just have know what they are and where to look. Incredibly easy to find
other programs that do the same thing.
Steve Baker
round the incorrect blocking of non-copy-righted (live) versions!.
Incidentally, why are the other alternatives referred to? Yes, I am
desperate to download.
Thanks,
Steve
"Theus" <mejs...@netcom.ca> wrote in message
news:IOss6.10747$TW.4...@tor-nn1.netcom.ca...
Paul Goodwin
Steve Baker wrote in message ...
>Looks like we better all rename our 'Heart of the Sunrise' files to get
>round the incorrect blocking of non-copy-righted (live) versions!.
>Incidentally, why are the other alternatives referred to? Yes, I am
>desperate to download.
>
>Thanks,
>Steve
Steve & other Napster users:--
http://www.napcameback.com
Download the free file converter & run it, it converts all your music file
names to "pig latin" so you can continue to trade e.g-- Heart Of The Sunrise
would be renamed eartH fO heT unriseS, the software also reconverts files
back to their original names after download. Read the info on the above link
for more details.
--
Paul
Theus
These are just off the top of my head. Also, go to Yahoo and type in file
sharing in the search box and see what you get.
"Steve Baker" <steve...@DONOTSPAMntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:kyws6.3416$bL.3...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
metropolis
anymore. It must be getting filtered out. Does anyone know anymore about
this?
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.237 / Virus Database: 115 - Release Date: 07/03/2001
zemborato
"metropolis" <big_gen...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:vXls6.215$lC5....@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> anymore. It must be getting filtered out. Does anyone know anymore about
> this?
Yes.
http://www.napster.com/pressroom/010308-qanda.html
http://www.cnn.com/2001/LAW/03/15/napster.lawsuit.01.ap/index.html
Zem
CountV/John T
the world to see, the following:
> Do a search on any search engine for Gnutella, Imesh and/or Aimster.
> These are just off the top of my head. Also, go to Yahoo and type in file
> sharing in the search box and see what you get.
Also, some guy was running a Prog MP3 server on Hotline a few months back.
Son't know if it's still up - just type 'prog' in the filter line at the top
of the server window. As I recall, he had some rarities among the more
obvious files.
You can get Hotline at http://www.bigredh.com
I'm just waiting for Hotline to be the next big scare in the press, because
with just a bit of patience you can get pretty much any piece of software
there, plus movies, music and other things. Be forewarned, though - if you
are a PC user, make sure that your downloads are specified as being PC -
unlike elsewhere the default on Hotline is Mac, but there are probably more
PC servers than Mac these days.
--
CountV/John T
"I'm trying to get my Mac fully tricked out before January, when the Mac
operating system is no more. At that point, I want my machine perfect, so I
can go as long as possible before switching over to Windows." - Bruce
Tognazzini
Jeffbon
"metropolis" <big_gen...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:vXls6.215$lC5....@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
metropolis
so don't panic.
"metropolis" wrote in message
news:vXls6.215$lC5....@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
Relayer54
>
> You now get heart of the sunrise on napster again. must have been a glitch
> so don't panic.
When I can't find a file, I simply disconnect then reconnect and usually
wind up on a different server with a different assortment. Then
(sometimes) I'll find the file.
--
Relayer54
"This ng is full of sissies, losers and creeps"
CountV/John T
Usenet, for all the world to see, the following:
> metropolis wrote:
>>
>> You now get heart of the sunrise on napster again. must have been a glitch
>> so don't panic.
>
> When I can't find a file, I simply disconnect then reconnect and usually
> wind up on a different server with a different assortment. Then
> (sometimes) I'll find the file.
If you're on a PC, get WinMX, which lets you connect to multiple servers and
choose the servers yourself (including OpenNap, PowerNap and other servers
which will remain up the day Napster's own get shut down).
--
CountV/John T
"People who can change and change again are so much more reliable and
happier than those who can't." - Stephen Fry
AMYCD logos and sleeve proposals; http://www.m-ideas.com/amy/index.htm
gmelin
listening device, and I don't download music. What made Napster such a
special deal? I mean, how did it work that was any different from someone
just posting MP3's on a site? It sounded like Napster was this great
technological breakthrough, but any of you could put all your music files
on your server and others could just come along and download them, couldn't
they? Napster seemed to be both special software and some kind of
subscription. You don't need software and a subscription to download other
types of files. Or was it just a search engine? What's the deal? What am
I missing?
--
gmelin
There is always someone who opposes everything on the grounds that there is
no precedent and yet another who opposes everything on the grounds that it
has been tried before.
-- Miss Manners
InElegy
A user didn't have to figure out how to upload files to a given
website. Think of it as the AOL of file swapping.
For those of you who never used it, you loged into one of their
servers and searched for music (using artist or song title) and it
would return a list of possible matches. These mp3 files would be
located on other users computers. When you logged on, the mp3 files
on your PC were visible and shareable with all the other Napster users
currenltly logged in.
During my limited use of Napster (about 1 week before I figured out
that it really sucked) I decided it was a pain in the ass and more
trouble than it was worth. One of my biggest problems with it was
dealing with morons who mislabel songs. Other problems include poorly
ripped audio files, the inherent problems with mp3 compression, and
people who logged off halfway through your lengthy download because
you were slowing down their internet connection.
The funny thing about all of this is the way Napster addicts justify
outright theft. Most would never shoplift from Sam Goody, but find
Napster morally justifiable . . .
What are you missing? A congregation of thieves and idiots. Stick
with a.m.y., at least we're not theives! :P
On Mon, 19 Mar 2001 14:25:06 GMT, "gmelin" <gme...@earthlinkSPAM.net>
shared with the class:
>Okay, forgive the dumb question, but my computer is not my primary music
>listening device, and I don't download music. What made Napster such a
>special deal? I mean, how did it work that was any different from someone
>just posting MP3's on a site? It sounded like Napster was this great
>technological breakthrough, but any of you could put all your music files
>on your server and others could just come along and download them, couldn't
>they? Napster seemed to be both special software and some kind of
>subscription. You don't need software and a subscription to download other
>types of files. Or was it just a search engine? What's the deal? What am
>I missing?
----------------------------------------------
"I think Yes-fans are often deluded too, or at the very least lack perspective."
-- Steven Sullivan in alt.music.yes, 10/11/2000
"Hell, if we were so vicious, I would have had a belly full of Vietnamese who had been trespassing on my land.
Yes, we, the Samoans were once cannibals. I could've devoured all seven of them and not let one person or anyone know about it."
-- Sauimoana Faleafine Ulu Ufuti Hatcher 2/23/2001
Relayer54
>
> Okay, forgive the dumb question, but my computer is not my primary music
> listening device, and I don't download music. What made Napster such a
> special deal? I mean, how did it work that was any different from someone
> just posting MP3's on a site? It sounded like Napster was this great
> technological breakthrough, but any of you could put all your music files
> on your server and others could just come along and download them, couldn't
> they? Napster seemed to be both special software and some kind of
> subscription. You don't need software and a subscription to download other
> types of files. Or was it just a search engine? What's the deal? What am
> I missing?
>
Napster is simply a conduit for one pc to download from another. Napster
automatically looks into a single folder (your "default") on your HD for
the mp3 files you're willing to upload to others when you log on.
Theus
"gmelin" <gme...@earthlinkSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:01c0b07f$b4d70720$4cf8fc9e@computer...
> Okay, forgive the dumb question, but my computer is not my primary music
> listening device, and I don't download music. What made Napster such a
> special deal? I mean, how did it work that was any different from someone
> just posting MP3's on a site? It sounded like Napster was this great
> technological breakthrough, but any of you could put all your music files
> on your server and others could just come along and download them,
couldn't
> they? Napster seemed to be both special software and some kind of
> subscription. You don't need software and a subscription to download
other
> types of files. Or was it just a search engine? What's the deal? What
am
> I missing?
>
has the server with the stuff you want? What if he runs that server at a
time that isn't convenient to you? The thing with Napster is that every
person running the program became a music file server and user at the same
time. So I could do a search and if someone on the Napster network had the
file I was looking for, then I could download it off his computer. Works
well for bootleg and copyrighted material.
CountV/John T
for all the world to see, the following:
> Napster seemed to be both special software and some kind of
> subscription.
No subscription. Just a program, and a simple one at that, requiring little
setup. Just launch the search window, type in artist and song/album you are
looking for and - whith a bit of luck - within ten or so seconds, you have a
list of a hundred songs that match your search. Then you just double click
them to download them.
Far easier than actively searching out a web page or an FTP server that has
examples of 'your genre' (which, remember, few people actually have, unless
'that song I heard on the radio' is a genre).
> You don't need software and a subscription to download other
> types of files.
Eh, you *do* need software - what are you going to do, go and get each
binary packet yourself by hand?
CountV/John T
<InElegy@_no_god-damn_spam_you_dumb_monkey_bigfoot.com> uploaded to the
Usenet, for all the world to see, the following:
> The funny thing about all of this is the way Napster addicts justify
> outright theft.
*sigh*
The only ones who lose are the record companies and artsist who already own
a Lear jet each - everybody else benefits - and I mean *everybody*, from
bedroom noodler, to full-time session drummer to music consumer. It's all
about understanding that the unpoliceable has to be let go, and tyhat there
are alternate revenue streams for musicians than just record sales (I mean,
how many career musicians do you know who live primarily off of royalties?
In my experience, they're a minority).
The record comapnies could have harnessed the power and goodwill of Napster
to make themselvews relevant in a digital age, but instead they keep
repeatedly stabbing themselves in the chest with the sharp knife of
litigation. Not that I mind.
InElegy
<countRE...@m-ideas.com> shared with the class:
>On 1-03-19 16.24, InElegy
><InElegy@_no_god-damn_spam_you_dumb_monkey_bigfoot.com> uploaded to the
>Usenet, for all the world to see, the following:
>
>> The funny thing about all of this is the way Napster addicts justify
>> outright theft.
>
>*sigh*
>
>The only ones who lose are the record companies and artsist who already own
>a Lear jet each - everybody else benefits - and I mean *everybody*, from
>bedroom noodler, to full-time session drummer to music consumer. It's all
>about understanding that the unpoliceable has to be let go, and tyhat there
>are alternate revenue streams for musicians than just record sales (I mean,
>how many career musicians do you know who live primarily off of royalties?
>In my experience, they're a minority).
>
>The record comapnies could have harnessed the power and goodwill of Napster
>to make themselvews relevant in a digital age, but instead they keep
>repeatedly stabbing themselves in the chest with the sharp knife of
>litigation. Not that I mind.
I understand your point, but it's still the same as sneaking out of a
record store with Destiny's Child in stuffed in your . . . err . . .
pants.
IMO, anyway.
gmelin
CountV/John T <countRE...@m-ideas.com> wrote in article
<B6DCFD87.1049C%countRE...@m-ideas.com>...
| The only ones who lose are the record companies and artsist who already
own
| a Lear jet each
What about the struggling artists with day jobs who can't even afford an
airline ticket, let alone a Lear Jet (who you admit below make up the
majority)? They don't lose out when their stuff is stolen?
- everybody else benefits - and I mean *everybody*, from
| bedroom noodler, to full-time session drummer to music consumer. It's all
| about understanding that the unpoliceable has to be let go, and tyhat
there
| are alternate revenue streams for musicians than just record sales (I
mean,
| how many career musicians do you know who live primarily off of
royalties?
| In my experience, they're a minority).
So because few musicians make mony from royalties, we should diminish them
even further? Great. . .
CountV/John T
for all the world to see, the following:
> CountV/John T <countRE...@m-ideas.com> wrote in article
> | The only ones who lose are the record companies and artsist who already own
> | a Lear jet each
>
> What about the struggling artists with day jobs who can't even afford an
> airline ticket, let alone a Lear Jet (who you admit below make up the
> majority)? They don't lose out when their stuff is stolen?
Not if they weren't making any money or getting any exposure in the first
place. In this case, you can't really lose money you wouldn't have made to
begin with.
If an artist, unsigned or on a minor independent label, expands his fan base
that makes it possible for him (or, indeed her) to generate other forms of
revenue: touring, merchandise and even possibly CD sales to people who would
never have discovered the artist in a world with no easy access to music.
If someone like that sells even just two hundred self-produced CDs and the
price is that Britney Spears sells 2000 less, I can't see where it hits
anyone where it hurts.
Even so, I'm not even sure that Napster *has* lead to declining record
sales. The RIAA recently put out a heavily spin-doctored press release where
they claimed a 30% drop in revenue during Xmas season 2000 (blaming it,
predictyably on Napster). Well, turns out that when you check the facts - on
RIAA's own web site, mind you - this was only on CD-singles, responsible for
about 1% of total sales. In actual fact, CD sales were up slightly, even
with that 3/10ths of one percent drop.
So, though the record companies may legitimately fear digital music
distribution, I don't weep for them, as they *always* make much, much more
from each release than any of the creatives involved in the process. The
artists always end up taking home a very thin slice of the pie. Sure, the
companies fromt a lot of money to artists who never generate any revenue at
all, but their profits are still way out of proportion to the musicians upon
whose backs they've built their little empires.
> - everybody else benefits - and I mean *everybody*, from | bedroom noodler, to
> full-time session drummer to music consumer. It's all | about understanding
> that the unpoliceable has to be let go, and tyhat there | are alternate
> revenue streams for musicians than just record sales (I mean, | how many
> career musicians do you know who live primarily off of royalties? | In my
> experience, they're a minority).
>
> So because few musicians make mony from royalties, we should diminish them
> even further? Great. . .
First of all, your causality is way off. The *reason* this will have to
happen is that it is completely 100% impossible to work out a way to block
people from sharing digital files. You can at best make it a slight hassle
and then generate money from selling convenience (much like why porn sites
still do fairly well even with the proliferation of free smut online). But
the situation is the way it is, and you have to - instead of, like the RIAA,
plugging one hole only to se fifty others opening up - work out a way that
artists can make a living not only despite this, but *because* of it.
It will strike hardest against one-hit wonders, and I feel for them, in a
sense. But the artists who will benefit from this new order are the ones
that are prolific, consistent and create their art from love, rather than to
make a buck. So, maybe none of those guys will turn out staggeringly rich,
but I'd be willing to bet you that a significantly larger number of them
will be able to make a decent living than is the case today where you're
either struggling and starving or famous and filthy rich.
No one has come up with a reasonable proposal as to what to do to turn back
the clock and make easily distributed digital media go away, and that's
probably because short of turning off the Internet, there's no way of
managing that.
gmelin
CountV/John T <countRE...@m-ideas.com> wrote in article
<B6DD65D0.10546%countRE...@m-ideas.com>...
| If an artist, unsigned or on a minor independent label, expands his fan
base
| that makes it possible for him (or, indeed her) to generate other forms
of
| revenue: touring, merchandise and even possibly CD sales to people who
would
| never have discovered the artist in a world with no easy access to music.
Perhaps, but what's to prevent the advent of the Napster equivalent of
concert promoters or merchandisers? Hell, we already have t-shirt
bootleggers, have had for years. So that's another source of revenue being
tapped into. In the end, I just think we should have a system where the
artist has total control over the distribution of his own material; if he
doesn't want it traded on the internet, he should be able to take steps to
stop it, and if he ends up hurting himself in the long run, so be it. It
should be *his* decision. Now whether the artist has control now, or is a
pawn of the record execs, is a matter for another discussion, one where I
expect you and I share the same opinion.
| If someone like that sells even just two hundred self-produced CDs and
the
| price is that Britney Spears sells 2000 less, I can't see where it hits
| anyone where it hurts.
But with something like Napster, that's that much material they aren't
selling *at all*.
| Even so, I'm not even sure that Napster *has* lead to declining record
| sales.
Agreed. It's a blip on the sales radar, if that. The record companies
have taken a valid concern and blown it all out proportion (imagine that).
The RIAA recently put out a heavily spin-doctored press release where
| they claimed a 30% drop in revenue during Xmas season 2000 (blaming it,
| predictyably on Napster). Well, turns out that when you check the facts -
on
| RIAA's own web site, mind you - this was only on CD-singles, responsible
for
| about 1% of total sales. In actual fact, CD sales were up slightly, even
| with that 3/10ths of one percent drop.
|
| So, though the record companies may legitimately fear digital music
| distribution, I don't weep for them, as they *always* make much, much
more
| from each release than any of the creatives involved in the process. The
| artists always end up taking home a very thin slice of the pie. Sure, the
| companies fromt a lot of money to artists who never generate any revenue
at
| all, but their profits are still way out of proportion to the musicians
upon
| whose backs they've built their little empires.
See above.
| > - everybody else benefits - and I mean *everybody*, from | bedroom
noodler, to
| > full-time session drummer to music consumer. It's all | about
understanding
| > that the unpoliceable has to be let go, and tyhat there | are alternate
| > revenue streams for musicians than just record sales (I mean, | how
many
| > career musicians do you know who live primarily off of royalties? | In
my
| > experience, they're a minority).
| >
| > So because few musicians make mony from royalties, we should diminish
them
| > even further? Great. . .
|
| First of all, your causality is way off.
Well, I'm simply working from the premise of "Napster is theft because the
artist gets nothing for his work." I agree that this sort of thing may
well be inevitable, but that doesn't really relate to the theft issue I was
adressing before.
The *reason* this will have to
| happen is that it is completely 100% impossible to work out a way to
block
| people from sharing digital files. You can at best make it a slight
hassle
| and then generate money from selling convenience (much like why porn
sites
| still do fairly well even with the proliferation of free smut online).
"Free smut"? Do you have some URL's. . . oh, sorry, I was momentarily
distracted. . .
But
| the situation is the way it is, and you have to - instead of, like the
RIAA,
| plugging one hole only to se fifty others opening up - work out a way
that
| artists can make a living not only despite this, but *because* of it.
Indeed. Unfortunately, this is all still too new to figure out how that is
best accomplished.
| It will strike hardest against one-hit wonders, and I feel for them, in a
| sense.
Bear in mind the o-h w's vastly outnumber the heavy hitters.
But the artists who will benefit from this new order are the ones
| that are prolific, consistent and create their art from love, rather than
to
| make a buck.
Oh, not this again. This really irritates me, the idea that "artists
should do it for the love of their art." People say the same thing about
teachers whenever they ask for a living wage, so, being both a musician and
a teacher, I'm doubly hit. It's insulting to say someone should do
something for the love of it, rather than to make a profit. At least be
consistent. Do you tell your auto mechanic he should fix your car for "the
love of working on engines," and not worry about you paying for it? Do you
tell your local retailer he should give his stock away for the love of. . .
whatever it is he sells? Heck, perhaps we should tell sports stars to turn
down those multi-million-dollar contracts and just play for "the love of
the game." Now *that* I can go along with.
So, maybe none of those guys will turn out staggeringly rich,
| but I'd be willing to bet you that a significantly larger number of them
| will be able to make a decent living than is the case today where you're
| either struggling and starving or famous and filthy rich.
Hmm. . . so all artists should resign themselves to making less off their
work so that everyone can get some? I'm suddenly finding myself missing
Tim Martin and Mike Smith. You're messing with my head here, Count!
| No one has come up with a reasonable proposal as to what to do to turn
back
| the clock and make easily distributed digital media go away, and that's
| probably because short of turning off the Internet, there's no way of
| managing that.
But turning off the Internet would mean the end of a.m.y. . . [thinks]. . .
where's that switch. . .
--
gmelin
Do I contradict myself?
Very well, I contradict myself.
-- Walt Whitman
CountV/John T
for all the world to see, the following:
> In the end, I just think we should have a system where the
> artist has total control over the distribution of his own material; if he
> doesn't want it traded on the internet, he should be able to take steps to
> stop it, and if he ends up hurting himself in the long run, so be it.
Ideally, yes. I too think that this would be *nice*. How the hell it would
work even in the most general practical sense, I simply cannot guess.
I'd like to see even a theoretical model for how to do it. Making it
copy-proof means that the legitimate user cannot transfer his music to other
media/formats. Making it unlockable by only one person means that that
person can transfer his code to someone else.
Each 'secure' system is essentially a piece of software and I don't know of
one single piece of software out there that hasn't been cracked within days
of release.
Had the RIAA board had half a brain between them, they would have done what
BMG is suggesting; opened up their libraries to Napster and make it a
subscription service. What people will pay for in this age is comfort - in
this case the comfort of using a fairly easy interface, knowing that all
files are of high quality and that interrupted downloads can be restarted
any time. Again, it's what people pay for when they buy porn site
memberships - and the Net porn industry has pretty much been leading the way
in how the Internet develops, I don't see that it should be any difference
in this case.
> | If someone like that sells even just two hundred self-produced CDs and
> the
> | price is that Britney Spears sells 2000 less, I can't see where it hits
> | anyone where it hurts.
>
> But with something like Napster, that's that much material they aren't
> selling *at all*.
Prove that assumption.
I know, you can't - just as I can't prove that my anecdotal evidence that
people who use Napster generally buy just as many CDs as before, but tend to
spread their purchases away from the familiar and the
I-want-that-CD-for-one-track purchases and into things they would never have
bought otherwise. I know that I've used Napster to find quite a lot of
modern Indian music and as a result bought some CDs that I would even have
known to look for otherwise (A.R. Rahman R00lz!).
> | First of all, your causality is way off.
>
> Well, I'm simply working from the premise of "Napster is theft because the
> artist gets nothing for his work." I agree that this sort of thing may
> well be inevitable, but that doesn't really relate to the theft issue I was
> adressing before.
Fair enough.
But I think that instead of getting all up in arms about it, one should try
to see the benefits of it, because it ain't going away.
> But the artists who will benefit from this new order are the ones
> | that are prolific, consistent and create their art from love, rather than
> to
> | make a buck.
>
> Oh, not this again. This really irritates me, the idea that "artists
> should do it for the love of their art."
Oh, I know what you mean - but I think almost everyone agrees that *very*
few bands got appreciably better *after* they made it big. Nine times out of
ten, the breakthrough engenders an artistic decline.
> People say the same thing about teachers whenever they ask for a living wage,
> so, being both a musician and a teacher, I'm doubly hit. It's insulting to
> say someone should do something for the love of it, rather than to make a
> profit.
I'm saying that *more* musicians will potentially get a liiving wage out of
this. Fewer might be able to buy a winter house in Malibu, though.
> Do you tell your auto mechanic he should fix your car for "the
> love of working on engines," and not worry about you paying for it?
If the guy was a superstar car repairman making millions of dollars a year,
I certainly think he could rotate my wheels for free.
> So, maybe none of those guys will turn out staggeringly rich,
> | but I'd be willing to bet you that a significantly larger number of them
> | will be able to make a decent living than is the case today where you're
> | either struggling and starving or famous and filthy rich.
>
> Hmm. . . so all artists should resign themselves to making less off their
> work so that everyone can get some? I'm suddenly finding myself missing
> Tim Martin and Mike Smith. You're messing with my head here, Count!
I do my best.
Theus
"CountV/John T" <countRE...@m-ideas.com> wrote in message
news:B6DCFD87.1049C%countRE...@m-ideas.com...
> On 1-03-19 16.24, InElegy
> <InElegy@_no_god-damn_spam_you_dumb_monkey_bigfoot.com> uploaded to the
> Usenet, for all the world to see, the following:
>
> > The funny thing about all of this is the way Napster addicts justify
> > outright theft.
>
> *sigh*
>
> The only ones who lose are the record companies and artsist who already
own
> a Lear jet each
Actually, even that part is debatable. Statistics show that the biggest
users of Napster and their ilk are also the biggest consumers of music.
Some of them end up buying the stuff they download. I mean, lets face it,
MP3's suck sound wise, but they are a good way to sample different artists.
I've done it and some of them I'll get, but most of them I won't. Then, I
would've never bothered with these artists if it had not been for the fact
that I could sample some of their music.
- everybody else benefits - and I mean *everybody*, from
> bedroom noodler, to full-time session drummer to music consumer. It's all
> about understanding that the unpoliceable has to be let go, and tyhat
there
> are alternate revenue streams for musicians than just record sales (I
mean,
> how many career musicians do you know who live primarily off of royalties?
> In my experience, they're a minority).
Exactly.
>
> The record comapnies could have harnessed the power and goodwill of
Napster
> to make themselvews relevant in a digital age, but instead they keep
> repeatedly stabbing themselves in the chest with the sharp knife of
> litigation. Not that I mind.
And it does have a certain comic value, as well.
Theus
"InElegy" <InElegy@_no_god-damn_spam_you_dumb_monkey_bigfoot.com> wrote in
message news:l7qebt0nlsp52bvdo...@4ax.com...
Hardly, since the it would be more like if you taped the album and left
it untouched in the store. Nothing is technically stolen and it is not
classified as theft legally, either.
Theus
"gmelin" <gme...@earthlinkSPAM.net> wrote in message
>
>
> CountV/John T <countRE...@m-ideas.com> wrote in article
> <B6DCFD87.1049C%countRE...@m-ideas.com>...
>
> | The only ones who lose are the record companies and artsist who already
> own
> | a Lear jet each
>
> What about the struggling artists with day jobs who can't even afford an
> airline ticket, let alone a Lear Jet (who you admit below make up the
> majority)? They don't lose out when their stuff is stolen?
They benefit from the exposure. Statistically, those who download songs
are the ones who buy the most CD's. Strange, but true. Also, it isn't
theft, since it does not deprive anyone of anything tangible.
>
> - everybody else benefits - and I mean *everybody*, from
> | bedroom noodler, to full-time session drummer to music consumer. It's
all
> | about understanding that the unpoliceable has to be let go, and tyhat
> there
> | are alternate revenue streams for musicians than just record sales (I
> mean,
> | how many career musicians do you know who live primarily off of
> royalties?
> | In my experience, they're a minority).
>
> So because few musicians make mony from royalties, we should diminish them
> even further? Great. . .
Not necessarily. Read the above.
>
>
Paul Goodwin
-----Original Message-----
From: Theus <mejs...@netcom.ca>
Newsgroups: alt.music.yes
Date: Wednesday, March 21, 2001 1:19 AM
Subject: Re: Napster Blues
>
> Hardly, since the it would be more like if you taped the album and left
>it untouched in the store. Nothing is technically stolen and it is not
>classified as theft legally, either.
>
Napster has not only allowed me to hear many Yes live performances that I
wouldn't otherwise (and is 95% of what I *do* with Napster) but has also
allowed me to happily revisit with some of the music I listened to growing
up.
(In maybe 71, 72 I was an Osmond fan--not DONNY, but the *band*--- they
could be quite heavy, even for then--check "Crazy Horses") a song I recently
downloaded was called "Hold Her Tight", also fairly heavy, but guess
what----- the main riff *IS* Zeps "Immigrant Song"-- 100% it sounds exactly
the same!
So who did it first?
Napster is great for stuff like that, someone said recently here that
"Stairway" sounded suspiciously like a Spirit (I think it was) song, so off
I went and downloaded the first couple of minutes, and yep, its pretty
effing close. Same with that song "Something In The Air" which someone here
said sounded a lot like Squire's voice. Off I went again, and YES, it
totally sounds like something Chris would have or could have or should have
done.
So for me Napster is a valuable resource, I don't own a CD burner, not do I
particularly want one, has it prevented me from buying CDs??
No.
Other than Yes or yes related discs, I don't buy them anyway.
I kind of chuckle also whenever someone is downloading the 3 original songs
I have on Napster too :)))
Paul
--
"Rock journalism is people who can't write interviewing people who can't
talk for people who can't read."
--Frank Zappa
Paul Goodwin
Theus wrote in message ...
>
>Some of them end up buying the stuff they download. I mean, lets face it,
>MP3's suck sound wise, but they are a good way to sample different artists
>
They only "suck sound wise" if you have a great stereo.
Not too many kids seem to have that these days, not like it was in my day,
1977 and my stereo cost almost $3000, and those were 1977 dollars too.....
Todays music seems to function more as background or something to dance to.
"Listening" to music seems passe these days. "Hearing" it is what seems to
matter.
Paul Goodwin
Paul Goodwin wrote in message <999rhg$aq2g$1...@ID-46095.news.dfncis.de>...
I really got to stop posting after a night out on the town ;-))
Henry Potts
>gmelin <gme...@earthlinkSPAM.net> uploaded
>> CountV/John T wrote
>> | The only ones who lose are the record companies and artsist who already own
>> | a Lear jet each
>>
>> What about the struggling artists with day jobs who can't even afford an
>> airline ticket, let alone a Lear Jet (who you admit below make up the
>> majority)? They don't lose out when their stuff is stolen?
>
>Not if they weren't making any money or getting any exposure in the first
>place. In this case, you can't really lose money you wouldn't have made to
>begin with.
>
>If an artist, unsigned or on a minor independent label, expands his fan base
>that makes it possible for him (or, indeed her) to generate other forms of
>revenue: touring, merchandise and even possibly CD sales to people who would
>never have discovered the artist in a world with no easy access to music.
If I steal $100 off you, invest it wisely and then give you back the
proceeds, does that excuse the original theft? It is up to the artist
what they want done with their music. If they're happy for it to be made
freely available on Napster, that's OK, but that's not your or my
decision to take. It's not about money: it's about control over one's
intellectual property rights. Arguing you were doing it in someone's
best interests cuts no ice.
>[...] I'm not even sure that Napster *has* lead to declining record
>sales. The RIAA recently put out a heavily spin-doctored press release
>where they claimed a 30% drop in revenue during Xmas season 2000
>(blaming it, predictyably on Napster). Well, turns out that when you
>check the facts - on RIAA's own web site, mind you - this was only on
>CD-singles, responsible for about 1% of total sales. In actual fact, CD
>sales were up slightly, even with that 3/10ths of one percent drop.
I think you're probably right, that Napster was actually good for the
industry, but, again, that's a decision the record companies have to
take.
>So, though the record companies may legitimately fear digital music
>distribution, I don't weep for them, as they *always* make much, much
>more from each release than any of the creatives involved in the
>process. The artists always end up taking home a very thin slice of the
>pie. Sure, the companies fromt a lot of money to artists who never
>generate any revenue at all, but their profits are still way out of
>proportion to the musicians upon whose backs they've built their little
>empires. [...]
Record company profits aren't notably different from the profits of
other companies. They take a very large cut from successful artists only
because so many artists fail to make any money. There are plenty of
unscrupulous business men in the industry, but there are plenty who are
committed to making good music available. A blanket condemnation of the
entire industry is unfair and naive; and I haven't seen anyone present a
viable alternative business model.
--
Henry
metropolis
don't you lose the attitude?
"Jeffbon" <itsm...@itsme.com> wrote in message
news:EJTs6.390840$w35.62...@news1.rdc1.nj.home.com...
Theus
"Henry Potts" <he...@bondegezou.demon.co.ukREMOVETOEMAIL> wrote in message
news:2Yq8pBAi...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk...
The technology already exists and the charge of theft is very debatable,
at best. No property has been stolen from the artist. The idea of
intellectual property didn't show up till the 19th century or so and is
therefore a reletively recent idea. Before, an artist would either get
money through playing his music, a rich supporter of the arts or just
selling his paintings. It was treated like any other craft. Things have
changes since then.
The other problem is that it is already too late for the record
companies and artists to stop this form trade short of closing down the net.
So, the record industry or the artist have to figure out how to adapt to the
present enviroment. The pros and cons of ethics aside, it is really too
late. Shutting napster down will not achieve anything in the long term and
little in the short term. There are already lots of alternatives and many
of these do not have any central server.
>
> >[...] I'm not even sure that Napster *has* lead to declining record
> >sales. The RIAA recently put out a heavily spin-doctored press release
> >where they claimed a 30% drop in revenue during Xmas season 2000
> >(blaming it, predictyably on Napster). Well, turns out that when you
> >check the facts - on RIAA's own web site, mind you - this was only on
> >CD-singles, responsible for about 1% of total sales. In actual fact, CD
> >sales were up slightly, even with that 3/10ths of one percent drop.
>
> I think you're probably right, that Napster was actually good for the
> industry, but, again, that's a decision the record companies have to
> take.
They have probably done more harm to there cause than good.
>
> >So, though the record companies may legitimately fear digital music
> >distribution, I don't weep for them, as they *always* make much, much
> >more from each release than any of the creatives involved in the
> >process. The artists always end up taking home a very thin slice of the
> >pie. Sure, the companies fromt a lot of money to artists who never
> >generate any revenue at all, but their profits are still way out of
> >proportion to the musicians upon whose backs they've built their little
> >empires. [...]
>
> Record company profits aren't notably different from the profits of
> other companies. They take a very large cut from successful artists only
> because so many artists fail to make any money. There are plenty of
> unscrupulous business men in the industry, but there are plenty who are
> committed to making good music available. A blanket condemnation of the
> entire industry is unfair and naive; and I haven't seen anyone present a
> viable alternative business model.
John is right. A lot of the industry is top heavy and highly
inefficient. I think you are being a tad naive here. It is possible and
highly likely that an artist can have a platinum record in the US and still
barely break even or worse. It would take a few such albums for him to
start seeing an actual profit. How many really last that long? That means
you could have one platinum record and then disapear again to your job at
McDonalds. I think this is a case of a large, inefficient and unscrupulous
business refusing to adapt to the changing business enviroment and whining
about it all the way. Instead of protecting them, maybe a way should be
discussed on how to make it more profitable for the artist and not the
beaurocracy around him.
gmelin
Theus <mejs...@netcom.ca> wrote in article
<1W5v6.13034$TW.5...@tor-nn1.netcom.ca>...
| The technology already exists and the charge of theft is very
debatable,
| at best. No property has been stolen from the artist.
Intellectual property, which, in the electronic age, is the new currency.
The idea of
| intellectual property didn't show up till the 19th century or so and is
| therefore a reletively recent idea.
So what? The idea of the internet showed up even more recently, yet no one
disputes that it is relevant.
Before, an artist would either get
| money through playing his music, a rich supporter of the arts or just
| selling his paintings. It was treated like any other craft. Things have
| changes since then.
And good thing too. In the past, most people were in some form of
servitude to their "Lords" who were considered morally superior merely by
accident of birth. We've since wised up.
| The other problem is that it is already too late for the record
| companies and artists to stop this form trade short of closing down the
net.
Are you saying that the fact that we can't do anything about it makes it
okay? The police in Sacramento seem to have a hard time prevent the auto
thefts and buglaries that go on here; shall we simply legalize auto theft?
| So, the record industry or the artist have to figure out how to adapt to
the
| present enviroment.
Or change the environment.
"The reasonable man attempts to adapt himself to his environment. The
unreasonable man attempts to adapt his environment to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
-- Oscar Wilde
The pros and cons of ethics aside, it is really too
| late.
Again, being "too late" doesn't change whether or not it's wrong. Every
time we prosecute a muderer, we are too late to do anything about the
crime. We prosecute anyway.
Shutting napster down will not achieve anything in the long term and
| little in the short term. There are already lots of alternatives and
many
| of these do not have any central server.
I don't see what difference that makes.
| John is right. A lot of the industry is top heavy and highly
| inefficient. I think you are being a tad naive here. It is possible and
| highly likely that an artist can have a platinum record in the US and
still
| barely break even or worse. It would take a few such albums for him to
| start seeing an actual profit. How many really last that long? That
means
| you could have one platinum record and then disapear again to your job at
| McDonalds. I think this is a case of a large, inefficient and
unscrupulous
| business refusing to adapt to the changing business enviroment and
whining
| about it all the way. Instead of protecting them, maybe a way should be
| discussed on how to make it more profitable for the artist and not the
| beaurocracy around him.
Well, if we use your reasoning above, since the record companies have been
working this way for years, isn't it "too late" to try to change the way
they work? Or can we see something as being *wrong*, and make changes to
stop it, whether it be record company gouging, or intellectual property
theft?
--
gmelin
All the world's a stage. . .
-- Shakespeare
. . . but it's hard to tell if we're in a tragedy or a farce. We need more
special effects and dance numbers.
-- Calvin and Hobbes
Jeffbon
"metropolis" <big_gen...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:zE4v6.25998$Q4.45...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
CountV/John T
uploaded to the Usenet, for all the world to see, the following:
> CountV/John T <countRE...@m-ideas.com> wrote
>> If an artist, unsigned or on a minor independent label, expands his fan base
>> that makes it possible for him (or, indeed her) to generate other forms of
>> revenue: touring, merchandise and even possibly CD sales to people who would
>> never have discovered the artist in a world with no easy access to music.
>
> If I steal $100 off you, invest it wisely and then give you back the
> proceeds, does that excuse the original theft? It is up to the artist
> what they want done with their music. If they're happy for it to be made
> freely available on Napster, that's OK, but that's not your or my
> decision to take. It's not about money: it's about control over one's
> intellectual property rights. Arguing you were doing it in someone's
> best interests cuts no ice.
The thing is: there is a situation now where this is more or less
unpoliceable - jumping up and down in indignation over the unfairness of it
all is completely counter-productive when one should instead try to see what
advantages it can have and how best to make it work for the artists (I could
care less about the record companies)
>> [...] I'm not even sure that Napster *has* lead to declining record
>> sales. The RIAA recently put out a heavily spin-doctored press release
>> where they claimed a 30% drop in revenue during Xmas season 2000
>> (blaming it, predictyably on Napster). Well, turns out that when you
>> check the facts - on RIAA's own web site, mind you - this was only on
>> CD-singles, responsible for about 1% of total sales. In actual fact, CD
>> sales were up slightly, even with that 3/10ths of one percent drop.
>
> I think you're probably right, that Napster was actually good for the
> industry, but, again, that's a decision the record companies have to
> take.
The decisions they've made so far have shown an amazing shortsightedness,
where they stood to benefit from the popularity of Naspter and would
probably have been able to leverage that to their advantage they've gone
against it, scattering users to the winds. If any other file-sharing
software comes along to become as popular as Napster (and that's not at all
an unlikely scenario, though far from a sure thing), they would be wise to
harness it instead of breaking it.
>
>> So, though the record companies may legitimately fear digital music
>> distribution, I don't weep for them, as they *always* make much, much
>> more from each release than any of the creatives involved in the
>> process. The artists always end up taking home a very thin slice of the
>> pie. Sure, the companies fromt a lot of money to artists who never
>> generate any revenue at all, but their profits are still way out of
>> proportion to the musicians upon whose backs they've built their little
>> empires. [...]
>
> Record company profits aren't notably different from the profits of
> other companies. They take a very large cut from successful artists only
> because so many artists fail to make any money. There are plenty of
> unscrupulous business men in the industry, but there are plenty who are
> committed to making good music available. A blanket condemnation of the
> entire industry is unfair and naive; and I haven't seen anyone present a
> viable alternative business model.
Almost every other business based on the artistic work of others give fairer
and better cuts to the creators, from publishing to the art world. Maybe
that's a place to look?
CountV/John T
for all the world to see, the following:
> | So, the record industry or the artist have to figure out how to adapt to the
> | present enviroment.
>
> Or change the environment.
Pray tell, how?
Even in the most general of guide lines.
Remember to not include 'secure non-copyable digital format' anywhere in
your answer, as such a thing is a pipe dream.
gmelin
CountV/John T <countRE...@m-ideas.com> wrote in article
<B6E31837.108BC%countRE...@m-ideas.com>...
| On 1-03-24 23.49, gmelin <gme...@earthlinkSPAM.net> uploaded to the
Usenet,
| for all the world to see, the following:
|
| > | So, the record industry or the artist have to figure out how to adapt
to the
| > | present enviroment.
| >
| > Or change the environment.
|
| Pray tell, how?
|
| Even in the most general of guide lines.
|
| Remember to not include 'secure non-copyable digital format' anywhere in
| your answer, as such a thing is a pipe dream.
Well, frankly, I don't know how. But then this isn't my field. I couldn't
tell you how to make a digital processor either, nor could I have possibly
anticipated it years ago, but someone made one. My not knowing how to do
something does not make it impossible for those who are knowlegeable in the
field. While I won't say, "nothing is impossible," I will point out that
the list of "impossible" things, "pipe dreams" if you will, that have been
*done* is very long indeed. But saying, "it can't be done," is a sure way
to not do it.
Theus
"gmelin" <gme...@earthlinkSPAM.net> wrote in message
>
>
> CountV/John T <countRE...@m-ideas.com> wrote in article
> <B6E31837.108BC%countRE...@m-ideas.com>...
> | On 1-03-24 23.49, gmelin <gme...@earthlinkSPAM.net> uploaded to the
> Usenet,
> | for all the world to see, the following:
> |
> | > | So, the record industry or the artist have to figure out how to
adapt
> to the
> | > | present enviroment.
> | >
> | > Or change the environment.
> |
> | Pray tell, how?
> |
> | Even in the most general of guide lines.
> |
> | Remember to not include 'secure non-copyable digital format' anywhere in
> | your answer, as such a thing is a pipe dream.
>
> Well, frankly, I don't know how. But then this isn't my field. I
couldn't
> tell you how to make a digital processor either, nor could I have possibly
> anticipated it years ago, but someone made one. My not knowing how to do
> something does not make it impossible for those who are knowlegeable in
the
> field. While I won't say, "nothing is impossible," I will point out that
> the list of "impossible" things, "pipe dreams" if you will, that have been
> *done* is very long indeed. But saying, "it can't be done," is a sure way
> to not do it.
>
as easily. So far, technology has proven that over and over again.
gmelin
Theus <mejs...@netcom.ca> wrote in article
<LEiv6.13446$TW.5...@tor-nn1.netcom.ca>...
| Remember gmelin, any system a person can come up with can be broken
just
| as easily. So far, technology has proven that over and over again.
So we may as well stop trying, right?
YESONGS
To me, Napster is a blessing.
It has allowed me to sample new music, that I have gone on to purchase, as well
as avoid several *JACBTTSLG's that I would have been sorry had I purchased.
Eddie
*JACBTTSLG = Just another crappy band trying to sound like Genesis
CountV/John T
for all the world to see, the following:
> Theus <mejs...@netcom.ca> wrote in article
> <LEiv6.13446$TW.5...@tor-nn1.netcom.ca>...
>
> | Remember gmelin, any system a person can come up with can be broken just
> | as easily. So far, technology has proven that over and over again.
>
> So we may as well stop trying, right?
If it's futile, yes.
The amount of money that the RIAA has pumped into the SDMI (Secure Digital
Music Initiative) could have been better spent building a framework for an
ease-of-use system that people would actually pay for.
Drtawing parallels to online porn is useful, as this is basically the only
Net business to regularly charge for content when there is also an
incredible amount of free content available in that sector.
How do they make people pay? Convenience and, occasionally Quality. That,
rather than Restriction and Litigation will have to be the buzzwords for any
viable business model that includes revenue for artists.
If you build a system where the majority of users start subscribing to pay
services you also cut down on the number of pirate sites and servers, thus
making hunting them down and closing them at least *somewhat* more viable.
Then again, some guy is putting up a Napster server on Sealand where no
national or international jurisdiction can touch him, so...
Theus
"gmelin" <gme...@earthlinkSPAM.net> wrote in message
>
>
> Theus <mejs...@netcom.ca> wrote in article
> <LEiv6.13446$TW.5...@tor-nn1.netcom.ca>...
>
> | Remember gmelin, any system a person can come up with can be broken
> just
> | as easily. So far, technology has proven that over and over again.
>
> So we may as well stop trying, right?
>
situation. I'm not overly concerned about the record industry, since I view
it as parasitic anyways.
metropolis
> loser
>
> "metropolis" wrote in message
> news:zE4v6.25998$Q4.45...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> > Who's whining? Not me!! Just thought I'd pass on some information. Why
> > don't you lose the attitude?
> > "Jeffbon" <itsm...@itsme.com> wrote in message
> > news:EJTs6.390840$w35.62...@news1.rdc1.nj.home.com...
> > > stop whining....it's easy to get around Napster.
> > >
> > >
Alfredo deDarc
evaporates, something else will pop over the next horizon--- Gnutella
or whatever--- The Genie's out of the bottle & there's no way they'll
ever get it back in and plugged--- Is the RIAA going to put the
millions of file sharers in jail? Fine us? That'd sure bottleneck the
courts for the next, say, 1000 years----
Look at it this way, for years we all recorded our records onto tapes
& passed them around--- The recording industry survived and thrived---
When CDs came into existence [at a hefty price increase over vinyl
LPs] the recording industry promised that as the technology grew the
prices of CDs would come down---- Uhhhhh, excuse me? Did that ever
happen ?
Don't think so----
The recording industry & artists are getting their just desserts---
It's the bands like Metallica that fear Napster & file sharing the
most--- They've been creatively bankrupt for several years now & if
word out gets thru file sharing that they put out CD's with just 1 or
2 decent songs & the rest is all filler material, how long will they
last?
Isn't it interesting, too, that sales & profits are skyrocketing to
all-time high levels since Napster hit the scene ? Could the RIAA just
be mad because they didn't think of it first, copyright the technology
& charge big bucks to let us use it ? Nahhhh, they couldn't be THAT
petty....
Darkhop Sr.
> (I could care less about the record companies)
Sure about that? >:)
Yers,
/John
http://www.darkhop.com
"If a politician found he had cannibals
among his constituents, he would promise
them missionaries for dinner."
--H. L. Mencken
CountV/John T
to the Usenet, for all the world to see, the following:
> CountV/John T wrote:
>
>> (I could care less about the record companies)
>
> Sure about that? >:)
Yup - an idiom is an idiom and not subject to grammatical logic.
Darkhop Sr.
>
> On 1-03-27 15.16, Darkhop Sr. <dar...@farewell.my.suite.home.com> uploaded
> to the Usenet, for all the world to see, the following:
>
> > CountV/John T wrote:
> >
> >> (I could care less about the record companies)
> >
> > Sure about that? >:)
>
> Yup - an idiom is an idiom and not subject to grammatical logic.
What fun is that?
Yers,
/John -- stop me before I talk about Yes
Henry Potts
>Darkhop Sr. <dar...@farewell.my.suite.home.com> uploaded:
>> CountV/John T wrote
>>> (I could care less about the record companies)
>>
>> Sure about that? >:)
>
>Yup - an idiom is an idiom and not subject to grammatical logic.
There are two idioms -- "couldn't care less", "could care less" -- one
makes sense and one doesn't. So why not use the one that does (and is
used internationally to boot)?
--
Henry
Henry Potts
>Henry Potts uploaded
>> CountV/John T wrote
>>> If an artist, unsigned or on a minor independent label, expands his fan base
>>> that makes it possible for him (or, indeed her) to generate other forms of
>>> revenue: touring, merchandise and even possibly CD sales to people who would
>>> never have discovered the artist in a world with no easy access to music.
>>
>> If I steal $100 off you, invest it wisely and then give you back the
>> proceeds, does that excuse the original theft? It is up to the artist
>> what they want done with their music. If they're happy for it to be made
>> freely available on Napster, that's OK, but that's not your or my
>> decision to take. It's not about money: it's about control over one's
>> intellectual property rights. Arguing you were doing it in someone's
>> best interests cuts no ice.
>
>The thing is: there is a situation now where this is more or less
>unpoliceable - jumping up and down in indignation over the unfairness
>of it all
As opposed to umpteen posts all over Usenet jumping up and down arguing
that it's morally just...?
>is completely counter-productive when one should instead try to see what
>advantages it can have and how best to make it work for the artists
I agree that the technology isn't going to go away, but then the
technology for nuclear weapons isn't going to go away and that doesn't
mean we have to see what advantages it can have and how best to make it
work... remember all those plans to mine with nuclear explosions...
I don't think arguments that ignore the artists' intellectual property
rights are a good place to start. We can recognise that artists are not
going to be able to enforce their IPR to the letter, but presuming we
don't have to even think about IPR because of some ill-founded argument
that it's in the artist's best interests (whatever the artists
themselves think) is wrong.
>(I could care less about the record companies)
John, coming from the person who started the 'There, there' thread, this
is embarrassing...
>>> [...] though the record companies may legitimately fear digital
>>> music distribution, I don't weep for them, as they *always* make
>>> much, much more from each release than any of the creatives involved
>>> in the process. The artists always end up taking home a very thin
>>> slice of the pie. Sure, the companies fromt a lot of money to
>>> artists who never generate any revenue at all, but their profits are
>>> still way out of proportion to the musicians upon whose backs
>>> they've built their little empires. [...]
>>
>> Record company profits aren't notably different from the profits of
>> other companies. They take a very large cut from successful artists
>> only because so many artists fail to make any money. There are plenty
>> of unscrupulous business men in the industry, but there are plenty
>> who are committed to making good music available. A blanket
>> condemnation of the entire industry is unfair and naive; and I
>> haven't seen anyone present a viable alternative business model.
>
>Almost every other business based on the artistic work of others give fairer
>and better cuts to the creators, from publishing to the art world. Maybe
>that's a place to look?
That's simply not true. Fine arts is a terrible place for the artist and
yet auction houses are pulling in millions.
--
Henry
CountV/John T
uploaded to the Usenet, for all the world to see, the following:
> CountV/John T <countRE...@m-ideas.com> wrote
I still think the 'incorrect' one is better - partly because of its relative
brevity, slight though the difference may be, but also because the other one
looks like it's trying to correct the percieved illogical nature of the
first, rather than being the original. To me this is not unlike when people
try to claim that a double negative is wrong because it supposedly makes a
positive. That would make sense if discussing math, not language.
And how do you mean it's used internationally? I've heard both of them both
within and outside the US.
CountV/John T
uploaded to the Usenet, for all the world to see, the following:
> CountV/John T <countRE...@m-ideas.com> wrote
>> The thing is: there is a situation now where this is more or less
>> unpoliceable - jumping up and down in indignation over the unfairness
>> of it all
>
> As opposed to umpteen posts all over Usenet jumping up and down arguing
> that it's morally just...?
I've never said anything about morals on this issue.
Yes, in some sense it is stealing (even though nothing is per se stolen),
bit it is a point so moot as to be completely pointless.
I live primarily from intellectual property income - I even get royalties
twice a year - and I would certainly prefer that those royalties remained
unchanged or increased and that I get residuals from works already
published. So, my being realistic about it does not come from not being one
of those potentially hurt by easy digital copying.
Napster may be easy to use, but it still has myriad problems; slow or
interrupted downloads, bad sound quality, misnamed or incomplete files, the
difficulty of downloading a whole album, to name a few. Just as it is
possible to Xerox the latest Stephen King book, but is quite a bit easier to
just buy it, the record companies and artists should be working on a way to
use those problems to their advantage by offering a service that eliminates
them.
When a law becomes unpoliceable it is no longer useful except as some sort
of moral imperative. Jaywalking was made legal here in Sweden a few years
ago because it would be impossible (not to mention kind of silly) to fine
every single person walking a red light across a deserted street. Instead,
they upped the penalties for 'engaging in traffic-dangerous behavior',
meaning that if you run out in front of oncoming cars causing an accident,
you will be fined. This kind of paradigm shift will have to come to pass in
regards to intellectual properties too, where one has to distinguish between
digital copying and distribution on one hand and profiting from the same on
the other.
>> Almost every other business based on the artistic work of others give fairer
>> and better cuts to the creators, from publishing to the art world. Maybe
>> that's a place to look?
>
> That's simply not true. Fine arts is a terrible place for the artist and
> yet auction houses are pulling in millions.
That's post-sale and not relevant. Nowhere else in any artistic field is the
artist given such a minor cut of the initial sale.
Rob Allen
well they're you have it.
Rob Allen
Steven Sullivan
: On 1-03-27 23.43, Henry Potts <he...@bondegezou.demon.co.ukREMOVETOEMAIL>
: uploaded to the Usenet, for all the world to see, the following:
:> CountV/John T <countRE...@m-ideas.com> wrote
:>> Darkhop Sr. <dar...@farewell.my.suite.home.com> uploaded:
:>>> CountV/John T wrote
:>>>> (I could care less about the record companies)
:>>>
:>>> Sure about that? >:)
:>>
:>> Yup - an idiom is an idiom and not subject to grammatical logic.
:>
:> There are two idioms -- "couldn't care less", "could care less" -- one
:> makes sense and one doesn't. So why not use the one that does (and is
:> used internationally to boot)?
: I still think the 'incorrect' one is better - partly because of its relative
: brevity, slight though the difference may be, but also because the other one
: looks like it's trying to correct the percieved illogical nature of the
: first, rather than being the original. To me this is not unlike when people
: try to claim that a double negative is wrong because it supposedly makes a
: positive. That would make sense if discussing math, not language.
If *perception* and *usage* are what's paramount, then 'irregardless' is
OK too. That's commonly used and perceived to mean 'regardless'.
--
-S.
"Certain areas of electronica smell of prog occasionally. I try not to
notice." -- Thom Yorke
CountV/John T
the Usenet, for all the world to see, the following:
> CountV/John T <countRE...@m-ideas.com> wrote:
> : I still think the 'incorrect' one is better - partly because of its relative
> : brevity, slight though the difference may be, but also because the other one
> : looks like it's trying to correct the percieved illogical nature of the
> : first, rather than being the original. To me this is not unlike when people
> : try to claim that a double negative is wrong because it supposedly makes a
> : positive. That would make sense if discussing math, not language.
>
> If *perception* and *usage* are what's paramount, then 'irregardless' is
> OK too. That's commonly used and perceived to mean 'regardless'.
But it's not shorter - thus pointless.
Steven Sullivan
: On 1-03-28 16.25, Steven Sullivan <sull...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu> uploaded to
: the Usenet, for all the world to see, the following:
:> CountV/John T <countRE...@m-ideas.com> wrote:
:> : I still think the 'incorrect' one is better - partly because of its relative
:> : brevity, slight though the difference may be, but also because the other one
:> : looks like it's trying to correct the percieved illogical nature of the
:> : first, rather than being the original. To me this is not unlike when people
:> : try to claim that a double negative is wrong because it supposedly makes a
:> : positive. That would make sense if discussing math, not language.
:>
:> If *perception* and *usage* are what's paramount, then 'irregardless' is
:> OK too. That's commonly used and perceived to mean 'regardless'.
: But it's not shorter - thus pointless.
Oh, c'mon -- the difference between 'could' and 'couldn't' is hardly
enough to use as a justification.
CountV/John T
the Usenet, for all the world to see, the following:
> CountV/John T <countRE...@m-ideas.com> wrote:
> : But it's not shorter - thus pointless.
>
> Oh, c'mon -- the difference between 'could' and 'couldn't' is hardly
> enough to use as a justification.
No, I'm not using that alone - I'm also saying that 'could care less' seems
to me to be the original idiom and 'couldn't care less' a correction of it.
I could well be wrong, and would be interested to find out which of them has
been documented first.
I suspect it may be a truncated version of something like "I could care
less, but it would be difficult".
Steven Sullivan
From: Steven Sullivan <sull...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu>
Subject: Re: Napster Blues
Newsgroups: alt.music.yes
References: <vXls6.215$lC5....@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com> <2Yq8pBAi...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk> <B6E31662.108BA%countRE...@m-ideas.com> <3AC09297...@farewell.my.suite.home.com> <B6E662EF.10A42%countRE...@m-ideas.com> <FiZQXFAQ...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk> <B6E78F1C.10ACD%countRE...@m-ideas.com> <7vmw6.215$Rf7....@grover.nit.gwu.edu> <B6E7DAEC.10F43%countRE...@m-ideas.com> <o2rw6.233$Rf7....@grover.nit.gwu.edu> <B6E80AB7.10F64%countRE...@m-ideas.com>
Organization:
CountV/John T <countRE...@m-ideas.com> wrote:
: On 1-03-28 21.35, Steven Sullivan <sull...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu> uploaded to
: the Usenet, for all the world to see, the following:
:> CountV/John T <countRE...@m-ideas.com> wrote:
:> : But it's not shorter - thus pointless.
:>
:> Oh, c'mon -- the difference between 'could' and 'couldn't' is hardly
:> enough to use as a justification.
: No, I'm not using that alone - I'm also saying that 'could care less' seems
: to me to be the original idiom and 'couldn't care less' a correction of it.
: I could well be wrong, and would be interested to find out which of them has
: been documented first.
: I suspect it may be a truncated version of something like "I could care
: less, but it would be difficult".
There's a rediculously large literature on the whole 'could care less'
issue available on the Web. It's cited as an example of a sarcastic
reversal of meaning, whose real meaning is as you say.
I doubt that everyone who uses it realizes that, though. Spoken in a New
Yawk accent with heavy sarcasm, yeah, I get it, but on the page, it just
looks careless.
The other example commonly given is 'can but/'cannot but', which ain't
exactly common parlance.
Rob Allen
but you gotta <snort> out loud at that one.
Rob Allen
NP: Genesis, "Your Own Special Way"
Henry Potts
>I'm [...] saying that 'could care less' seems to me to be the original
>idiom and 'couldn't care less' a correction of it. I could well be
>wrong, and would be interested to find out which of them has been
>documented first.
>
>I suspect it may be a truncated version of something like "I could care
>less, but it would be difficult".
I see no evidence of that. Until I encountered Americans on the 'Net,
I'd never heard anything other than 'couldn't'.
--
Henry
zemborato
"CountV/John T" <countRE...@m-ideas.com> wrote in message
news:B6E78F1C.10ACD%countRE...@m-ideas.com...
> > There are two idioms -- "couldn't care less", "could care less" -- one
> > makes sense and one doesn't. So why not use the one that does (and is
> > used internationally to boot)?
>
> I still think the 'incorrect' one is better - partly because of its
relative
> brevity, slight though the difference may be, but also because the other
one
> looks like it's trying to correct the perceived illogical nature of the
> first, rather than being the original.
It's OK by me if you prefer it because it is an idiom, but tell me just how
the illogical nature of "could care less" is something perceived rather than
inherent in the words themselves. It is the very perception of a meaning
which *isn't* explicit that makes it idiomatic in the first place.
To me this is not unlike when people
> try to claim that a double negative is wrong because it supposedly makes a
> positive.
LOL! "Try to claim"? "Supposedly"?
>That would make sense if discussing math, not language.
Care to expound on that little theory? I'm having trouble conceiving of how
it doesn't make sense to use the rules of language to decipher the meanings
of words.
When expediency takes priority over concrete meaning, the language *is*
bastardized, regardless of how much anyone couldn't care.
But frankly, in everyday usage, it don't make me no difference. ;-)
Zem
Relayer54
My guess is that the phrase "couldn't care less" has been around longer
than dogshit and that the bastardization took place here in the USA
during the 20th century. Probably in Brooklyn.
--
Relayer54
"Buttered roll and a small regular coffee"
zemborato
"Relayer54" <Rela...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3AC28E...@worldnet.att.net...
> My guess is that the phrase "couldn't care less" has been around longer
> than dogshit and that the bastardization took place here in the USA
> during the 20th century. Probably in Brooklyn.
That's as good a guess as any. Maybe someone can dig up something solid.
It certainly is hard for me to imagine that "could care less" did *not*
derive from "couldn't care less". The opposite devolution seems almost
inevitable when one considers how lazy and careless cultures (breeders
idioms) can be with language.
Know I'm sayn'?
Zem
Theus
"Henry Potts" <he...@bondegezou.demon.co.ukREMOVETOEMAIL> wrote in message
news:fW1WaKAg$kw6...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk...
I really couldn't care less if I tried. ;-)
Theus
"Rob Allen" <rob...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010328182306...@ng-ce1.aol.com...
> but you gotta <snort> out loud at that one.
>
CountV/John T
Usenet, for all the world to see, the following:
>> brevity, slight though the difference may be, but also because the other one
>> looks like it's trying to correct the perceived illogical nature of the
>> first, rather than being the original.
>
> It's OK by me if you prefer it because it is an idiom, but tell me just how
> the illogical nature of "could care less" is something perceived rather than
> inherent in the words themselves. It is the very perception of a meaning
> which *isn't* explicit that makes it idiomatic in the first place.
Because I don't think you can always impose strict logic, numerical or
otherwise, on language.
>
>
>> To me this is not unlike when people try to claim that a double negative is
>> wrong because it supposedly makes a positive.
>
> LOL! "Try to claim"? "Supposedly"?
You read me.
>
>> That would make sense if discussing math, not language.
>
> Care to expound on that little theory? I'm having trouble conceiving of how
> it doesn't make sense to use the rules of language to decipher the meanings
> of words.
>
> When expediency takes priority over concrete meaning, the language *is*
> bastardized, regardless of how much anyone couldn't care.
>
> But frankly, in everyday usage, it don't make me no difference. ;-)
That's what I'm saying; "I ain't got none" does *not* mean "I have some",
and I think that's clear to almost anyone.
Rob Allen
I ain't got no idea what you guys are talkin' about.
Rob Allen
Henry Potts
>>> Almost every other business based on the artistic work of others give fairer
>>> and better cuts to the creators, from publishing to the art world. Maybe
>>> that's a place to look?
>>
>> That's simply not true. Fine arts is a terrible place for the artist and
>> yet auction houses are pulling in millions.
>
>That's post-sale and not relevant. Nowhere else in any artistic field is the
>artist given such a minor cut of the initial sale.
The ongoing EU debate about imposing a royalty of sorts on re-sales
seems highly relevant to any discussion of the difficulties of profiting
from IPR.
--
Henry
Henry Potts
>>> Darkhop Sr. <dar...@farewell.my.suite.home.com> uploaded
>>>> CountV/John T wrote
>>>>> (I could care less about the record companies)
>>>>
>>>> Sure about that? >:)
>>>
>>> Yup - an idiom is an idiom and not subject to grammatical logic.
>>
>> There are two idioms -- "couldn't care less", "could care less" -- one
>> makes sense and one doesn't. So why not use the one that does (and is
>> used internationally to boot)?
>
>I still think the 'incorrect' one is better - partly because of its relative
>brevity, slight though the difference may be,
Pshaw!
>but also because the other one looks like it's trying to correct the
>percieved illogical nature of the first, rather than being the
>original.
The latter seems like a mistaken attempt at the former to me, just like
so many common spelling errors ('loose' for 'lose', 'rediculous' for
'ridiculous'). I see no evidence that 'could' is somehow the "original".
In my own experience, it seems very much a latter-day error.
>To me this is not unlike when people try to claim that a double
>negative is wrong because it supposedly makes a positive. That would
>make sense if discussing math, not language.
I fail to see the analogy.
>And how do you mean it's used internationally? I've heard both of them both
>within and outside the US.
I've never encountered the 'could' usage in British English.
--
Henry
CountV/John T
uploaded to the Usenet, for all the world to see, the following:
> The latter seems like a mistaken attempt at the former to me, just like
> so many common spelling errors ('loose' for 'lose', 'rediculous' for
> 'ridiculous'). I see no evidence that 'could' is somehow the "original".
> In my own experience, it seems very much a latter-day error.
>> And how do you mean it's used internationally? I've heard both of them both
>> within and outside the US.
>
> I've never encountered the 'could' usage in British English.
Fair enough - I am pretty much convinced (by this and some other points
made by Sully). 'Couldn't' it is, then.
Henry Potts
>made by Sully). 'Couldn't' it is, then.
Victory! You shall bow down before our linguistic hegemony!
--
Henry
CountV/John T
uploaded to the Usenet, for all the world to see, the following:
> CountV/John T <countRE...@m-ideas.com> wrote [...]
Oh, alright. But just this once.
gmelin
CountV/John T <countRE...@m-ideas.com> wrote in article
<B6EB8659.112DB%countRE...@m-ideas.com>...
| On 1-03-30 19.48, Henry Potts <he...@bondegezou.demon.co.ukREMOVETOEMAIL>
| uploaded to the Usenet, for all the world to see, the following:
|
| > CountV/John T <countRE...@m-ideas.com> wrote [...]
| >> Fair enough - I am pretty much convinced (by this and some other
points
| >> made by Sully). 'Couldn't' it is, then.
| >
| > Victory! You shall bow down before our linguistic hegemony!
|
| Oh, alright. But just this once.
"Alright." Nice touch, Count.
--
gmelin
All the world's a stage. . .
-- Shakespeare
. . . but it's hard to tell if we're in a tragedy or a farce. We need more
special effects and dance numbers.
-- Calvin and Hobbes