mmm I think we're a little bit off here First :the artist that got ript off like talking heads were ****** by their own management etc etc records company bla bla and not by there fans !! metallica and the corrs are crying about some bucks, **** them they can not even proof they are loosing money ! when Alanis Morisette says something about the copyright laws being outdated we're on the right track and Lil Louise .. well
has the man done anything besides being a so called dj lately ? and digital encrypting mmm I'll say this : The only way the napster server knows it's a lil louie track is based on the name of the 'file', if I'm correct but then again how would you then find it ;-) same as hyperreal's 'elzem' or something DJ DMT develop research develop research so who is ******* who now?won ohw gniggod ohw os ----- Original Message ----- From: "Cyclone Wehner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "313 Detroit" <313@hyperreal.org> Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2001 2:42 AM Subject: Re: [313] Re: <no subject> > I think this industry - and the public - tends to occasionally assume that > creative work has less fiscal value than 'real' work. I see this every day > and cop it myself. So think about it. > > Would you work in your job and forfeit your wage? > > Here are some industry case scenarios not unlike Napster: > > (1) Photographers often don't get credited - and I know magazines that > freely lift images from other magazines without approval of the > photographer, let alone paying them. This is only OK if it's a promo image - > in which case the photographer has been paid by a record company/promoter > and there is an understanding or arrangement that it can be freely used for > media purposes. > > (2) I know some publishers balk when I ask them about rates - several glossy > mags in Australia have a policy of not paying their writers or pay them so > little it's not worth it - most freelance writers get paid way, way less > than a minimal wage. This is crazy, as the publishers would not consider not > paying the accountants, for example, or the printer. There is still labour > involved and an outlay. I'm not mercenary, I do a lot of work for free but I > need to pay my bills. > > (3) Same with artists, DJs - esp up and coming or smaller names. > > The number of even big name artists who never get paid is ridiculous! I am > sure Louis is fighting for a principle. > > It is not a privilege, it's a basic human right. Just because it is a > 'creative' form of work does not mean there isn't time and labour involved - > so go for it Louis. Also artists/photographers/writers are self-emplyed > often - freelance, so they have no emplyer to pay their > insurance/superannuation/sick pay/holiday pay/etc. They need an income, > right? Sometimes the pay recording artists/photographers/writers get is > barely enough to cover the outlay let alone plan a future!! Remember Talking > Heads got just a couple of dollars in royalties foir their seminal albums! > It was only when Mariah Carey sampled a Tom Tom Club track for Fantasy that > at least a couple of members got some money in via publishing to invest in > another recording project. > > The market obviously determines the value - if no one likes it, no one buys > it. Simple but why should people have to give their stuff away for free? > > I am not against Napster but I think the artists should have a say if they > don't want their music on there. It's a pity that Metallica were so > bullheaded and attacked users but fundamentally I can see the argument. > > > >Privilege, not right. Art, like most other forms of intellectual > >property, has subjective quality and value. What right does someone > >have to receive compensation for something of no value? > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
