Lil Louis Out of Napster
Lil Louis,like the Beatles or Metallica,is forbidding his tracks on Napster. That man is very jealousy of his music,any comments? Jose ___ Do You Yahoo!? Envía mensajes instantáneos y recibe alertas de correo con Yahoo! Messenger - http://messenger.yahoo.es
Re: [313] Lil Louis Out of Napster
From: jose bello [EMAIL PROTECTED] : Lil Louis,like the Beatles or Metallica,is forbidding : his tracks on Napster. : That man is very jealousy of his music,any comments? this is a pretty silly move it's so difficult to get his records anyway... now less people are gonna have access to his music. as i was just discussing with a friend we would by his records as soon as we saw them regardless if we had them in mp3 format or not. i do understand that it is his music and he has the right, but it seems a little weird to me. flames?? tan... -- graham [tan] wilson - MNEMIC IMAGE [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://fnord.fishwerx.org/tan
[313] Re: no subject
[EMAIL PROTECTED]: People have a right to make an income from their art. 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? - Craig
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?
Mini-Malt...
Great stuff. Thule isn't all that easy to find, either. I want more. jeff -- jeff ?/~THINK OUTSIDE OF YOUR SITCOM~\! ICQ904008 (but I'm never on) http://www.freedonation.com (costs you nothing. try it)
Emphasis Rec?
Anyone who loves the Steve Tang Emphasis record (and who doesn't? An absolute classic!), keep an eye out for an upcoming release on a label out of Perth, Western Australia, Red Ember Records. The Deep Sounds One EP features Steve Tang, co-Red Ember label owner Ewan Jansen (check his Pi Chord EP on Merrick Brown's Chalant or his track on Abstract Fusion 2 on Track Mode), as well as a couple of other dudes whose names I forget (one's a German for the record). Its getting distribution deals, maybe Ewan can help you out, find him at: http://artists.mp3s.com/artists/48/ewan_jansen.html Ciao, Matt. Hello everybody! I have this 12 of Emphasis Rec. It´s the number 002 and it´s s great! There is not many information on it, only thai it is produced by a guy called Tang and that it´s released in 1999. Does anybody know this label? What about the number 001? And are there any other records of this guy called Tang? Thanx in advance. Arne Weinberg Propaganda Rec./Groundzero Rec. °°° _ http://movies.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Movies - Now showing: Dude Where's My Car, The Wedding Planner, Traffic..
Re: [313] record shops worldwide..
Anyone in Pert, Western Australia HAS to check out Complex Records Level One, Mitchells Buildings William Street Perth Western Australia Ph.: +61 8 9322 4950 Just possibly the best record store in the world! janos wrote: Hi I'm putting together a list of worldwide record hops. There was some a few days ago, but i need more. Tell me about good record shops in your city and others that you know... Peace janos - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ http://movies.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Movies - Now showing: Dude Where's My Car, The Wedding Planner, Traffic..
Re: [313] Lil Louis Out of Napster
this is a pretty silly move it's so difficult to get his records anyway... now less people are gonna have access to his music. as i was just discussing with a friend we would by his records as soon as we saw them regardless if we had them in mp3 format or not. i do understand that it is his music and he has the right, but it seems a little weird to me. I always thought napster really came into its own with difficult to find underground stuff. I have found mp3's of tracks I sure as hell wouldnt be able to find on record... Guess I downloaded a copy of french kiss just in time. Artists dont get royalties from second hand sales, so if a track is way out of print it might as well be available in some way. Any serious music lover dislikes the quality of mp3's anyway - so its not like they wouldnt buy it if they could. Scott. http://www.mp3.com/ScottVallance
Re: [313] Lil Louis Out of Napster
I always thought napster really came into its own with difficult to find underground stuff. I have found mp3's of tracks I sure as hell wouldnt be able to find on record... Guess I downloaded a copy of french kiss just in time. Artists dont get royalties from second hand sales, so if a track is way out of print it might as well be available in some way. Any serious music lover dislikes the quality of mp3's anyway - so its not like they wouldnt buy it if they could. The second hand issue is a good (and oft forgotten) point but at least the artist has (in theory) recouped a little off that same product. Then of course there are CD burners. All my friends like Napster - DJs love them - but I am old skool and enjoy having a disk/record in my hands with the artwork and credits, etc. I think Napster is the way of the future, but it has to be more equitable - not so much for the corporates but the smaller independent artists, like techno producers. I think Chuck D's arguments are fairly sound - he is on the money that guy.
Re: IP issues (was: no subject)
When copyright laws were created in this country, they served to protect the economic relationship between author and publisher, by preventing other publishers from ripping off the author's work without paying him or her. This was back when publishers were few, because publication equipment (the printing press) was very expensive. Anyone with education could in theory be an author, but few could be a publisher -- therefore, copyright protected the majority of potential authors from the minority of potential publishers. T he freedom of the masses was not impinged; only the freedom of publishers (to rip off authors with whom they don't have contracts) was restricted. Now, however, copyright laws protect corporate entities which are both author and publisher (like Microsoft) from _the entire public_, since any member of the public who has a computer can be a publisher. Very few can be authors of software, only those who know how to program, while literally anyone with a computer can publish software. The freedom of the masses to freely use their computers (to copy software) is gratuitously restricted in such a regime. Further, the freedom of potential authors to improve upon software is also restricted. With common-use distribution methods such as Napster and Gnutella, or digital playback technologies such as CD players or even something like Final Scratch (http://www.finalscratch.com), this author/publisher paradigm can be applied to music as well. Times are changing. Is it reasonable to thus protect the economic interests of a tiny minority at the expense of the freedom of the majority? Is it reasonable to do so if, in so doing, one also restricts progress by other authors? Is this what George Washington meant when he asked Congress in 1790 to enact copyright laws in order to further the accumulation of human knowledge? Worse yet, consider the treatment of third-world countries who do not have (or do not enforce) copyright laws, by American business. Business demands that they enact and enforce these laws, when there is _virtually no citizen of these countries_ who would gain from these laws. Only the American business interests would gain. The copyright industry has gotten so arrogant that it would ask foreign nations to sign over their citizens' freedoms for nothing in return. Remember, copyright is not and has never been, a right in the same sense that freedom of speech and the right to life are rights. It has _always_ been a government-enacted privilege, enacted for a purpose. Namely, to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries (check the Constitution; Article I, section 8, paragraph 8). When it fails to actually promote art science but instead restricts unduly their progress, favoring instead economic special interests, copyright has lost its purpose and in so doing has become unconstitutional. - Craig
Re: [313] Re: no subject
I know local DJs who get stuff earlier off Napster and play it on CD in lieu of vinyl. Sometimes they get things earlier that way - I mean in Australia it's harder to get stuff, period, but I imagine this isn't unique to us. I have heard of big name DJs e-mailing files to other DJs of their latest recordings, burn it on CD and then play it out - quicker and cheaper than going out getting a vinyl pressing. See, I'm up on this flossy stuff after all. :) Cheers Cyclone i don't understand this... DJ's who will actually BUY those singles will buy it on vinyl. ??? Mike
Re: [313] Morgan Geist
Hi There Morgan and Darshan recently played my night here in nyc. They rocked. They throw down a wide variety of stuff ranging from disco and klassics to techno and touches of house. I was trying my darnedest not to trainspot them all night. And I can get my way around the classics a fair liitle bit myself too so there you go. Hope that helps. Cheers Can anybody give me a comment about Morgan Geist as a DJ? What kind of stuff does he spin? Does he play more house or the technoid stuff? Thanx in advance.. Arne Weinberg Propaganda Rec./Groundzero Rec. °°° - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Re: [313] Re: no subject
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
Mr Louis (was 'no subject')
Cyclone wrote:
I am not against Napster but I think the artists should have a say if
they don't want their music on there.
Dj DMT wrote:
and Lil Louise .. well
has the man done anything besides being a so called dj lately ?
you might wanna check out the following release:
Kimara Lovelace - 'Misery' 12 (King Street KSS 1110) 2000
original track written, produced and mixed by Lil Louis.
the 12 itself has two Lil Louis mixes ('Extended Club' and 'Harmony').
one of the better house releases of last year, and ANOTHER great Lil Louis
record.
cheers
~Askew
_
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: [313] Re: IP issues [LONG]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]: In what other field of art or science is work routinely stolen with so many normal consumers jumping on the bandwagon simply because they can? There is no comparison. You are correct. Never at any point in human history has there been technology available to consumers to easily copy and share so many digitizable forms of media. There _is_ no comparison. United States copyright law considers copyright a bargain between the public and authors (although in practice, usually publishers take over the authors' part of the bargain). The public trades certain freedoms in exchange for more published works to enjoy. Until quite recently, our government had never proposed that the public should trade _all_ of its freedom to use published works. Copyright involves giving up specific freedoms and retaining others. This means that there are many alternative bargains that the public could offer to publishers. So which bargain is the best one for the public? Which freedoms are worth while for the public to trade, and for what length of time? The answers depend on two things: how much additional publication the public will get for trading a given freedom, and how much the public benefits from keeping that freedom. Returning to my analogy of the printing press in my previous post, when the public traded to publishers the freedom to copy books, they were selling something which they _could not use_. Trading something you cannot use for something useful and helpful is always good deal. Therefore, copyright was uncontroversial in the age of the printing press, precisely because it did not restrict anything the reading public might commonly do. But the age of the printing press is gradually ending. The Xerox machine and the audio and video tape began the change; digital information technology brings it to fruition. These advances make it possible for ordinary people, not just publishers with specialized equipment, to copy. And they do! Once copying is a useful and practical activity for ordinary people, they are no longer so willing to give up the freedom to do it. They want to keep this freedom and exercise it instead of trading it away. The copyright bargain that we have is no longer a good deal for the public, and it is time to revise it -- time for the law to recognize the public benefit that comes from making and sharing copies. With this analysis, we see why rejection of the old copyright bargain is not based on supposing that the internet is ineffably unique. The internet is relevant because it facilitates copying and sharing of anything digitizable by ordinary people. The easier it is to copy and share, the more useful it becomes, and the more copyright as it stands now becomes a bad deal. We can also see why the abstractness of intellectual property is not the crucial factor. Other forms of abstract property represent shares of something. Copying any kind of share is intrinsically a zero-sum activity; the person who copies benefits only by taking wealth away from everyone else. Copying a dollar bill in a color copier is effectively equivalent to shaving a small fraction off of every other dollar and adding these fractions together to make one dollar. Naturally, we consider this wrong. By contrast, copying useful, enlightening or entertaining information for a friend makes the world happier and better off; it benefits the friend, and inherently hurts no one. It is a constructive activity that strengthens social bonds. Some readers may question this statement because they know artists and publishers claim that illegal copying causes them loss. This claim is mostly inaccurate and partly misleading. More importantly, it is begging the question. . The claim is mostly inaccurate because it presupposes that the friend would otherwise have bought a copy from the publisher. That is occasionally true, but more often false; and when it is false, the claimed loss does not occur. . The claim is partly misleading because the word loss suggests events of a very different nature -- events in which something they have is taken away from them. For example, if the record store's stock of vinyl were burned, or if the money in the register were torn up, that would really be a loss. We generally agree it is wrong to do these things to other people. But when your friend avoids the need to buy a copy of a record, the record store and the publisher do not lose anything they had. A more fitting description would be that the record store and publisher get less income than they might have got. The same consequence can result if your friend decides to watch TV instead of playing a record. In a free market system, no business is entitled to cry foul just because a potential customer chooses not to deal with them. . The claim is
Original v. Replica, Private v. Public - WAS [Re: [313] Re: IP issues [LONG]]
- Original Message - From: Craig Stodolenak [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2001 10:02 AM Subject: Re: [313] Re: IP issues [LONG] It is natural for a government to turn to collective responsibility for enforcing a law that many citizens do not believe in obeying. The more digital technology helps citizens share information, the more the government will need draconian methods to enforce copyright against ordinary citizens. When the United States Constitution was drafted, the idea that authors were entitled to a copyright monopoly was proposed -- and rejected. Instead, the founders of our country adopted a different idea of copyright, one which places the public first. Copyright in the United States is supposed to exist for the sake of users; benefits for publishers and even for authors are not given for the sake of those parties, but only as an inducement to change their behavior. As the Supreme Court said in Fox Film Corp. v. Doyal: The sole interest of the United States and the primary object in conferring the [copyright] monopoly lie in the general benefits derived by the public from the labors of authors. So what are the general benefits to the public of copying? It sounds to me that the benefit of copying is the unimpeded sharing of information. Conceptually, this is a great idea. In practice I don't think this leaves us any way to support an artistic community. As I read this through to its logical conclusion, it seems to me that you are endorsing the eventual elimination of all standard means of distribution and artist compensation: a) all music would be available online, and unlimited piracy is an inevitable consequence if we endorse music sharing communities. b) final scratch and its children will completely destroy most of the once-unique appeal of vinyl. That's the argument I see you making, correct me if I'm wrong. I can see that free music for everyone would seem to be in the public good. But where does this leave an artist? Unless there is state funding, artists would not receive any compensation for their work because the public interest in copying is paramount. In the unlikely event the U.S. government endorses such a socialistic ideology, how do we foster new art? Will there also be a complimentary increase in state funding for artistic projects? I think this is extremely unlikely. It sounds like you're advocating socialistic high-ground without providing for an infrastructure to support the world of artists. At this point, can artists only expect to make a living by performing? Or do they all need to find a day job? If established artists are less able to focus on their creations full time, does this proposal really act in the public good? If there is state-funded support for artists, we open a huge can of worms about what artists will receive that funding. I think the public interests dictating the allocation of that funding would not work in favor of underground musicians. SNIP Ever since the constitutional decision was made, publishers have tried to reverse it by misinforming the public. They do this by repeating arguments which presuppose that copyright is a natural right of authors (not mentioning that authors almost always cede it to publishers). If we turn to these arguments too much and too often, the danger is that we may allow the publishers to replace the Constitution uncontested. SNIP Resisting the pressure for additional power for publishers depends on widespread awareness that the listening and viewing are paramount; that copyright exists for users and not vice versa. If the public is unwilling to accept certain copyright powers, that is ipso facto justification for not offering them. Only by reminding the public and the legislature of the purpose of copyright and the opportunity for the open flow of information can we ensure that the public prevails. So this is an issue of private vs. public rights and determing what if any value an original work has relative to a replica. With new technology, the original and the replica are virtually indistinguishable. So how does the right to copy find it's place within our current legal framework - or are you suggesting this will spur a socialistic revolution in the U.S.? I think you make some great arguments - I'd love to join in the socialistic revolution if it had any chance of success. Unfortunately, it doesn't. This is not what the public wants at large - and I don't see how we can advocate one public v. private rights policy so strongly in favor of the public without complimentary changes in the rest of our laws, which have no chance of taking hold. Your post exposes one of our primary social flaws. American capitalism and the U.S. constitution are essentially incompatible. The rights ensured attempt to mediate socialistic and capitalistic ideals - but the founders all envisioned a capitalistic society in which slavery was a given. Capitalism
Drum Rhythm festival
this will be in amsterdam, the netherlands .. PRELIMINARY program Drum Rhythm Festival fri. 8 june: Basement Jaxx, Da Lata, Mark de Clive-Lowe, Nathan Haines, P'taah, Phil Asher, Red Snapper, Speeka, Tom Middleton sat. 9 june: Badmarsh Shri met UK Apache, Breakestra, Eric Benet, Kenny Dope, Outkast, The Proov, Rahzel, Roni Size/Reprazent, Stanton Warriors, Ty sun. 10 june: Amon Tobin, Azymuth, Bilal, Hefner, Ian Simmonds, Jazzanova met Vikter Duplaix, King Britt Presents Sylk 130, Modaji, Nubian Mindz, Seiji, Spacek
groovetech
Does anyone know how long it usually takes an order to arrive from Groovetech.com (in the U.K.)? I've ordered a record and hope it turns up in time for a party... thanks, Aaron
glasgow 313ers
Hey all, I am going to be the trekking the Highlands of Scotland (mainly Glasgow) from April 21-28 and wanted to know if anyone knew of any events going on over there. Also any recommendations on good nites/places to go out? Any help will be greatly appreciated! Towi.
Re: [313] Re: no subject
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 !! I never said that !! The whole point of my post was to show how people in this industry - even successful ones - are denied an *income*, not necessarily by whom. It's a glamour industry but not every one is raking it in.
Re: [313] Re: no subject
I think that people who are good enough will make money. That's all there is to it. If they have what it takes and love what they do enough, they can figure out how to earn a living doing just that. We all know that we have to earn a living in this lifetime (atleast most of us do) and figuring out a way to make what doing what you love and earning a living doing it. I know this is probably not having anything to do with what y'all are talking, but those are my thoughts when I hear people discussing napster-type things. People like metallica should quit crying about it. I'm sure they have enough cash as it is. Just my two cents... =)
Re: [313] Re: no subject
I think that people who are good enough will make money. That's all there is to it. If they have what it takes and love what they do enough, they can figure out how to earn a living doing just that. We all know that we have to earn a living in this lifetime (atleast most of us do) and figuring out a way to make what doing what you love and earning a living doing it. Tell that to all the great old Black artists who got ripped off or walked away with nothing. If only it were that easy or simple! Someone made that point the other day about Jimi Hendrix's estate. And in America if you wanna get paid you have to have a lawyer - or team of them - and you have to have good, honest lawyers. And that don't come for free. The music business is very, very shady. I think you can be good and clever and still get ripped off on the regular.
Re: [313] Re: no subject
Tell that to all the great old Black artists who got ripped off or walked away with nothing. If only it were that easy or simple! Someone made that point the other day about Jimi Hendrix's estate. And in America if you wanna get paid you have to have a lawyer - or team of them - and you have to have good, honest lawyers. And that don't come for free. The music business is very, very shady. I think you can be good and clever and still get ripped off on the regular. LOL you think and worry too much friend.
Re: [313] Re: no subject
That seems hopelessly naive - sorry. Thanks alot dude. don't think so much. worry about yourself. if you want to you can waste your time judging me when you should be making tracks... =) peace
Re: [313] Re: no subject
Maybe you should think some. I judged what you said - and maybe you shouldn't have done so on a public list if you don't like the consequences. Should everyone be making tracks? I think not. I'm not worried at all, btw. I'm used to seeing silly banter on email lists. I usually just delete it, but your remarks seemed especially 'young'. I'll go back to deleting. Have a nice day. jeff Tim Johnson wrote: That seems hopelessly naive - sorry. Thanks alot dude. don't think so much. worry about yourself. if you want to you can waste your time judging me when you should be making tracks... =) peace -- jeff ?/~THINK OUTSIDE OF YOUR SITCOM~\! ICQ904008 (but I'm never on) http://www.freedonation.com (costs you nothing. try it)
