Doonesbury

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"John" <ssconmag1@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:BE4656BB.18C8%ssconmag1@verizon.net...
> On 2/26/05 3:05 PM, in article sE4Ud.31195$uc.15033@trnddc01, "David
> Morgan
> (MAMS)" <mams@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com> wrote:
>
>>> In my view it is not theft.
>
> You find a wallet full of cash on the sidewalk.
> Also inside is the full contact info of the owner.
> What you do next defines what you are.
>
>
>
> Let's get at something clear.
>
> Taking Something,
> that is Clearly and Knowingly Offered for Sale,
> Without Paying,
> and Without The Owner's Permission
> is THEFT.
>
> Next?


I would make a copy of the materials and give back the original.


--

-Hev
remove your opinion to find me here:
www.michaelYOURspringerOPINION.com
http/www.freeiPods.com/?r=14089013

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

What if the owner is dead?

But seriously, I'm not trying to advocate theft, I'm trying to advocate
changing or revising the law so that it's not theft. Because the
analogy between a piece of music and a wallet is not very good; it only
holds up in the case of whether something is being stolen or not. A
wallet is a unique tangible item whereas intellectual property is not.
Plus, the wallet was never offered for sale.

Cheers,
Trevor de Clercq

John wrote:
> On 2/26/05 3:05 PM, in article sE4Ud.31195$uc.15033@trnddc01, "David Morgan
> (MAMS)" <mams@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>In my view it is not theft.
>
>
> You find a wallet full of cash on the sidewalk.
> Also inside is the full contact info of the owner.
> What you do next defines what you are.
>
>
>
> Let's get at something clear.
>
> Taking Something,
> that is Clearly and Knowingly Offered for Sale,
> Without Paying,
> and Without The Owner's Permission
> is THEFT.
>
> Next?
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 17:30:22 -0500, Trevor de Clercq
<declerct@REMOVETHISnewschool.edu> wrote:

>What if the owner is dead?

Then his lawyers get the money!

Al

 

[john]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 2/26/05 3:12 PM, in article bdl1211pdsuepg41jpp3fba9n5cr3suv7h@4ax.com,
"play_on" <playonAT@comcast.net> wrote:

> How big do you think a studio has to be to record a hip-hop record?

Not the issue...

> Do you think they need a grand piano and an orchestra to do that?

Not at issue, very few pop hits of the past 4 decades used an orchestra.

> 48 tracks?

Oh you best believe that and more!

> Aside from the vocals, a lot stuff isn't even miced anymore,
> it's just plugged in direct.

Not news since, ohhhh, 1980...

> My argument is not that amateurs
> can do it, but that making a hit record no longer requires the same
> kinf of huge investment that it once did.

Investment in GEAR? Maybe not
Final Investment in $$/man-hours? ABSOLUTELY.
I hold with the simple Conservation Of Effort theory that what you don't pay
for up front in top perfromance and production talent is more than made up
for in sheer hand-work trying, with greater and lesser success, to emulate
the end result as if you HAD done so...
The Enough-monkeys-and-time-at-typewriters = Shakespeare thing.

 

[john]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 2/26/05 3:24 PM, in article hbm121po8l9f9t6qhi2g9ivlg8cmv19uh9@4ax.com,
"play_on" <playonAT@comcast.net> wrote:

> Let me clarify something -- I don't justify stealing.

You;re certainly doing a damned aggressive job of defending it,
walks like a duck, talks like a duck...


> Did you ever
> record an FM broadcast onto a cassette?

Yep. (rememebr the artist GOT PAID for that play... Not excusing MY error of
NOT buying the tune after I liked my fm recording)

> Did you consider it stealing?

Eventually I realised what I was doing, yes.


> Did you ever make a cassette or CD copy of a friend's album?

I have annoyed friends and acquaintances for decades by REFUSING to do
this...


> Is
> listening to the radio stealing?

Wha...? Artist gets paid, it's done and over...


> Is downloading a song only to check
> it out stealing?

If you keep it around after listening to it once, yep.

> It's not always so black & white.
>of yes it is, except of course when you;re just bending over So far backwards
to pretend it ISN:T...



> Yes, music is being stolen on the internet. However it is partly the
> fault of the industry

BRANGGGGGNT!!!
Wrong... STEALING is an ACTIVE effort on the part of the STEALER.
Ratrionalising changes that not a whit.

 

[john]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Finally... Something to chew on

On 2/26/05 4:03 PM, in article 5ao121hpi5o2u3psmpe83lsq12hbdlgiag@4ax.com,
"play_on" <playonAT@comcast.net> wrote:

> What people don't seem to get is that for young people today, the
> internet is just like a big radio,

No prob with that...sorta

>they really don't think of it as
> stealing.

THAT is a problem... It's wrong.


> The industry has to come to terms with this technology and
> accept the fact that things have changed.

Ummm lemme get this straight, you're RANTING at the RIAA and distributors et
al about them FIGHTING tooth and nail... spending much time and $$ on the
TOUGH tehchnological challenge that is... inventing tracking systems to
force thieves to pay for what they take... Said thieves taking it as a giddy
goofy challenge to try HARDER to hack around that effort (rather than just
pay up) then yell at them for not 'making stuff available' soon enough when
they've BEEN SOLVING THAT for the last 10 years which involves COMPLETER
revamping and of EACH and EVERY individual artist contract to somehow
manage this New Paradigm and get everybody paid WHILE all the passengers are
busy drilling holes in the hull.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Trevor de Clercq" <declerct@REMOVETHISnewschool.edu> wrote in message news:1109452070.b1f8854c9e84b388696c69e2717c7bad@teranews...
> David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:
> > "Trevor de Clercq" <declerct@REMOVETHISnewschool.edu> wrote in message
news:1109443768.a1f1b9f06b100af0b5ae6a6e973e5372@teranews...
> >
> >
> >>It seems like the days of Tin Pan Alley and people employed as staff
> >>songwriters are behind us.
> >
> >
> > You're wrong. I have a least a dozen acquaintances that are paid to
> > sit behind desks today and write songs.
> >
>
> Outside of Nashville, people get paid to write songs all day? Maybe
> that's a bad argument on my end, but the staff writer seems only
> appropriate to a narrow style of music these days. I'm not the expert
> of staff songwriting job prospects, though.

You're pretty much right - narrow market (except we all know that a
really good song can cross over nearly all markets) and in few cities
with only a modicum of writers, but it's still an active happening.

> >>Again, I'm not sure if copyrights should
> >>totally be abolished, but I think the current system is a bit restrictive.
> >
> >
> > You're starting to surprise me, too, Trevor.
> >
> > DM
>
> I'm not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing!

It's apparently a good thing.... you seem to have an open mind to the
fact that there's a problem here that needs addressed. I just wouldn't
go so far as to say something like abolishing copyrights and patents
is going to make things better. But since you didn't *really* say that.....

;-)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Well ostensibly that's one of the few things they actually teach you in
them thar college: how to think. I'm still working on it, though.

As I said, I mostly brought up the subject just to kick around my own
feelings. Thanks for helping me chew on it.

Yeah, abolishing copyrights and patents may be a bit extreme....you
never know until you try, though! Kidding! I still feel it's a crime
not to release Zeppelin IV in multi-track form on ProTools discs.
That's one of the things about working in a big studio for awhile.
After doing a couple of transfers (I did Bowie's Ziggy from the original
2" 16-track tapes to 3348 once!) your mind is blown as to the amount of
amazing music still out there by those artists, lost within the mix. We
deserve to hear it before those tapes all die!!!! The 2-track masters
are not enough!

Cheers,
Trevor de Clercq

David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:
> "Trevor de Clercq" <declerct@REMOVETHISnewschool.edu> wrote in message news:1109452070.b1f8854c9e84b388696c69e2717c7bad@teranews...

>
> It's apparently a good thing.... you seem to have an open mind to the
> fact that there's a problem here that needs addressed. I just wouldn't
> go so far as to say something like abolishing copyrights and patents
> is going to make things better. But since you didn't *really* say that.....
>
> ;-)
>
>
>

 

[john]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

>> You paid a tax on the cassette or open reel blank tape that offset the copy.
>
> Fine, then put a small tax on computer or on broadband connections.

NO No NO NO NO and NO
This is paying a FINE for being found Guilty of Theft without a trial and
doesn;t work. I hated the idea when it happened to cass and Cdr media and
there's no reason to extend the kludgy inept system to further make a muddle
of this issue. It tacitly says 'HEY! YOU PAID ALREADY! GO AHEAD A DOWNLOAD
EVERYTHING!"

WRONG WRONG WRONG.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

And your solution is what? Prosecute as many teenagers as possible
with hefty lawsuits?

Al

On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 22:03:56 GMT, John <ssconmag1@verizon.net> wrote:

>
>>> You paid a tax on the cassette or open reel blank tape that offset the copy.
>>
>> Fine, then put a small tax on computer or on broadband connections.
>
>NO No NO NO NO and NO
>This is paying a FINE for being found Guilty of Theft without a trial and
>doesn;t work. I hated the idea when it happened to cass and Cdr media and
>there's no reason to extend the kludgy inept system to further make a muddle
>of this issue. It tacitly says 'HEY! YOU PAID ALREADY! GO AHEAD A DOWNLOAD
>EVERYTHING!"
>
>WRONG WRONG WRONG.
>

 

[john]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 2/26/05 4:05 PM, in article
1109451940.03f20b0a72478f40361377a81215b2b5@teranews, "Trevor de Clercq"
<declerct@REMOVETHISnewschool.edu> wrote:

> See, the problem is I have trouble believing in "talent".

Ohhh there's definitely talent alright! I know, since I've spent my life
stumbling along on the Talent I was blessed with and lazily NOT bothering to
commensurately study and practice the CRAFTS... The SKILL... Always Working
at a level below what I'm really capable of by dint of getting by on Talent
at the expense of developing SKILLS, and anyone who's worked with me will
evidence the frustration that that results in. I do good work, but I should
be a WHOLE lot better considering the mismatch of Talent/vs/skill in my
case.

 

[john]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 2/26/05 4:13 PM, in article
1109452383.db7acc2fec40514f8c173a56d90de453@teranews, "Trevor de Clercq"
<declerct@REMOVETHISnewschool.edu> wrote:

> Yeah, pro sports (and the compensation levels within) seem crazy.
> Baseball is the only thing that's even tolerable to watch. At least
> those guys play more than 20 games a year.

GO CUBBIES!!!!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

play_on <playonAT@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>And it has stopped file sharing, how, exactly?

Well, that's the thing. People are saying that file sharing will destroy
the music industry. That's pretty much the case, and we're seeing the
effects pretty strongly already.

Nobody has a solution. Nobody has any way to fix the problem. I certainly
don't.

Some of the kids call it a "revolution." But a revolution that destroys an
industry but then doesn't provide any replacement is not a good revolution
by any means. An effective revolution would be one that actually improves
matters, and music theft doesn't improve anything.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 26 Feb 2005 23:06:35 -0500, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>play_on <playonAT@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>And it has stopped file sharing, how, exactly?
>
>Well, that's the thing. People are saying that file sharing will destroy
>the music industry. That's pretty much the case, and we're seeing the
>effects pretty strongly already.
>
>Nobody has a solution. Nobody has any way to fix the problem. I certainly
>don't.
>
>Some of the kids call it a "revolution." But a revolution that destroys an
>industry but then doesn't provide any replacement is not a good revolution
>by any means. An effective revolution would be one that actually improves
>matters, and music theft doesn't improve anything.

I don't know if it's a revolution, but it does portend a huge change.
There have been other revolutions that have destroyed industries --
assembly line manufacturing, the automation of farming, etc. all threw
huge numbers of people out of work for a time and caused serious
social upheaval. In comparion to these events, the file sharing thing
is small potatos. Everytime something like this happens, things are
lost as well as gained, and the world goes on. Maybe the old way will
just have to go, before any new paradigm can take shape, with some
chaos in the interim -- that certainly seems to be the direction it's
going.

I seem to be irritating people by taking the position that this is
probably what is going to happen, like it or not. I'm not advocating
the collapse of the music biz as we know it, but I can certainly see
an up side to it. However I'm not really invested in the present
system -- I mostly just play live music on a local scale these days.
People who are heavily invested in the way the music business has been
practiced for the last 70 years might want to attempt to think about
it in a new way, because Pandora's box has been opened, and it's not
going to be closed.

Al

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote in message
news:cvrh0b$9cg$1@panix3.panix.com...
> play_on <playonAT@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>And it has stopped file sharing, how, exactly?
>
> Well, that's the thing. People are saying that file sharing will destroy
> the music industry. That's pretty much the case, and we're seeing the
> effects pretty strongly already.
>
> Nobody has a solution. Nobody has any way to fix the problem. I
> certainly
> don't.
>
> Some of the kids call it a "revolution." But a revolution that destroys
> an
> industry but then doesn't provide any replacement is not a good revolution
> by any means. An effective revolution would be one that actually improves
> matters, and music theft doesn't improve anything.


The industry is killing the industry because it is not adapting to the
current technology the "kids" are using. They manage to put ads in every
corner of the globe, yet they can't write appealing file sharing software
that could integrate their ads, start a customer database, and offer
products for an ever growing online community that is exactly their target
market? The industry and a lot of people in this thread are totally missing
the point.

The REVOLUTION (no parenthesis) is happening every second. The MB's are
buzzing around all around us. It is not theft, it is an untapped resource.
It is not going away, in fact as bandwidth increases and more people are
using the internet, the revolution continues to grow in scale.

Keep your head in the sand, while the rules change.


--

-Hev
remove your opinion to find me here:
www.michaelYOURspringerOPINION.com

 

[john]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

>>>> They are using the tools of their generation just as
>>>> all generations past.
>>
>>> Bullshit... they're abusing the tools... there's a big difference.
>>
>> Hey, modern handguns are new tools, too, and those nice guys loaded on
>> crack who stick up folks on the sidewalk are merely using the tools of
>> their generation just as all generations past. What's the biggie? I'm
>> sure Hev's down with that.
>
>
> I guess I can proclaim I have prospered at this discussion when you are
> reduced to comparing file sharing online with armed robbery.

Well, yes you can.
Equally -I- can proclaim that I know more about everything than anyone else
on the planet.
Sayin' it's so don;t make it so.
Never has
Never will
But yes, you can proclaim what you like.

You donm;t like the armed robbery thing? Go back to my grocery-stealing
analogy. Same message. Same thing.

 

[john]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 2/26/05 5:30 PM, in article
1109457039.7d33210c8358ca5318cd93168ee7f321@teranews, "Trevor de Clercq"
<declerct@REMOVETHISnewschool.edu> wrote:

> What if the owner is dead?
>
> But seriously, I'm not trying to advocate theft, I'm trying to advocate
> changing or revising the law so that it's not theft. Because the
> analogy between a piece of music and a wallet is not very good; it only
> holds up in the case of whether something is being stolen or not.

And that's EXACTLY and ONLY the point it was intended to hold up for.

> A
> wallet is a unique tangible item whereas intellectual property is not.

That's not quite the case, almost EVERYTHING is, in one form or another, IP.
Even hourly-wage-earners... One worker (carpenter, machinery operator,
whatever) is worth more per hour than another because of what he KNOWS,
what he's LEARNED, what he's discovered how to do better than another
worker...


> Plus, the wallet was never offered for sale.

Exactly.. The art forms we're discussing here are the ones NOT PAID FOR and
thus are NOT sold items either when in posession of those who've picked them
up.


>
> Cheers,
> Trevor de Clercq
>
> John wrote:
>> On 2/26/05 3:05 PM, in article sE4Ud.31195$uc.15033@trnddc01, "David Morgan
>> (MAMS)" <mams@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> In my view it is not theft.
>>
>>
>> You find a wallet full of cash on the sidewalk.
>> Also inside is the full contact info of the owner.
>> What you do next defines what you are.
>>
>>
>>
>> Let's get at something clear.
>>
>> Taking Something,
>> that is Clearly and Knowingly Offered for Sale,
>> Without Paying,
>> and Without The Owner's Permission
>> is THEFT.
>>
>> Next?
>>
>>

 

[john]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 2/26/05 6:09 PM, in article ed022191h5rurnq7u2l7pju6mrfbctop62@4ax.com,
"play_on" <playonAT@comcast.net> wrote:

> On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 16:05:23 -0500, Trevor de Clercq
> <declerct@REMOVETHISnewschool.edu> wrote:
>
>> See, the problem is I have trouble believing in "talent". I believe in
>> being well-educated/trained and working hard. Some people are innately
>> smarter than others, but that just means they learn more quickly.
>> Others can learn the same things, it just takes more time. Don't they
>> say it's 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration? Maybe the 1% can't be
>> taught, but the 99% can.
>
> OK, can you teach me to be Jimi Hendrix?

Actually, yes. If you define 'being Jimi Hendrix' as being able to walk into
a bar with an average guitar and amp and be able to pull off FOXY LADY or
VOODOO CHILD (or vooDoo Chile a slight return) or Wind Cries Mary or RED
HOUSE so that EVERYBODY gets it in the first 15 seconds. I hear this
regularly in open mic nights around here from hobby players from 15 to 50
yrs old. Hell, even -I- can do a couple of those. The level of what young
players are doing by rote these days reflects the last 40 years of
distillation of the techniques. The SKILL is there. Now, how many of them
will develop their OWN unique voice after getting over that remains to be
seen. Hell, Stevie jimi Ray albert Vaughn stunningly good as HE was didin;t
manage to do that till his last couple albums.

And STILL you're runnnig in panic from the point we're making.
Why?

>>> But if what he had was a talent it might not have been teachable. Plenty
>>> of folks take cello lessons. There aren't many Yo Yo Ma's, Pablo
>>> Casal's, etc.
>>>
>>> --
>>> ha
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 00:03:16 GMT, John <ssconmag1@verizon.net> wrote:

>On 2/26/05 6:09 PM, in article ed022191h5rurnq7u2l7pju6mrfbctop62@4ax.com,
>"play_on" <playonAT@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 16:05:23 -0500, Trevor de Clercq
>> <declerct@REMOVETHISnewschool.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> See, the problem is I have trouble believing in "talent". I believe in
>>> being well-educated/trained and working hard. Some people are innately
>>> smarter than others, but that just means they learn more quickly.
>>> Others can learn the same things, it just takes more time. Don't they
>>> say it's 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration? Maybe the 1% can't be
>>> taught, but the 99% can.
>>
>> OK, can you teach me to be Jimi Hendrix?
>
>Actually, yes. If you define 'being Jimi Hendrix' as being able to walk into
>a bar with an average guitar and amp and be able to pull off FOXY LADY or
>VOODOO CHILD (or vooDoo Chile a slight return) or Wind Cries Mary or RED
>HOUSE so that EVERYBODY gets it in the first 15 seconds.

Hell no, that's not what I mean. That has nothing to do with innate
ability, also known as talent. "Being" Jimi Hendrix has nothing to do
with imitating him.

>And STILL you're runnnig in panic from the point we're making.
>Why?

Howzat?

Al

>>>> But if what he had was a talent it might not have been teachable. Plenty
>>>> of folks take cello lessons. There aren't many Yo Yo Ma's, Pablo
>>>> Casal's, etc.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> ha
>>

 

[john]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 2/26/05 7:50 PM, in article n76221l513ar4gum1lnvd91bourm2muikc@4ax.com,
"play_on" <playonAT@comcast.net> wrote:

>>> OK, can you teach me to be Jimi Hendrix?
>>
>> Actually, yes. If you define 'being Jimi Hendrix' as being able to walk into
>> a bar with an average guitar and amp and be able to pull off FOXY LADY or
>> VOODOO CHILD (or vooDoo Chile a slight return) or Wind Cries Mary or RED
>> HOUSE so that EVERYBODY gets it in the first 15 seconds.
>
> Hell no, that's not what I mean. That has nothing to do with innate
> ability, also known as talent. "Being" Jimi Hendrix has nothing to do
> with imitating him.
BINGO, and now you;ve reveresed 180 and are saying EXACTLY what Trevor said
that you took vehement issue with.
GET A CLUE and stay on point here. You;re looking silly.